AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

This is for rules development, house rules and the like

Moderator: Keepers of the Peace

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:06 pm

Of all of the perennial issues that one runs into when trying to tweak Mordheim, one issue stands alone as a particularly unique challenge. That issue is the relative inequity of three equipment options: additional hand weapons, great weapons, and shields.

Outside of certain corner cases, additional hand weapons are always more effective (and often cheaper) than any other close combat option. Naturally, this is something that needs changed, but any potential change runs into a number of pitfalls. For one, the change can't swing the pendulum too far in the direction of another weapon choice; it must instead make each one equally valuable. Secondly, the system needs to remain balanced even when different skills and advancements are factored in. Lastly, there has to be a tactically meaningful difference between the three options; you can't simply strip away the differences for the sake of balance. With all those in mind, I'd propose the following mechanic to address all of these concerns.


Imagine all models divided into three different categories based on their equipment: strong, fierce, and tough. Strong models would be armed with a great weapon, fierce models would have additional hand weapons, while tough models would have a shield. Further imagine that any model not falling into these three groups would essentially be in their own fourth group (this would include any models that are unarmed or have only a single weapon).

With these three groups, they would no longer get the traditional advantage afforded by their equipment. In other words, they would not grant additional armor, attacks, or strength. Instead, the equipment would allow the model to fight better against those in other categories. Imagine the system working like Rock, Scissors, Paper; strong counters tough, tough counters fierce, and fierce counters strong. Naturally, all three categories would counter the fourth unnamed group. When fighting against someone that a model counters, they would gain some sort of bonus (I'd likely implement a +2 to weapon skill along with a tweak to the relevant table to make it more useful.


As it is, I feel this change would make each melee loadout equally effective and balanced. Likewise, it would open up a whole host of list-building and in-game tactical options. Finally, the system remains stable even when advancements are factored into the equation.

What do y'all think?

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:19 pm

As an aside, here is the tweaked WS chart I'd use with this system. Note that under it, +2 to weapon skill almost always means +1 to hit and -1 to be hit.

Image

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:43 pm

I have extensive thoughts and run lots of numbers concerning Mordheim balance, specifically approaching the "extra dagger problem," as I like to call it. I haven't thought about this particular system you suggest, but I have a few simple tweaks that change the balance into a way that introduces 'tactical meaningfulness', but I don't want to post a bunch of stuff if it would be distracting from your suggest solution here. However, it does highlight the problems and show some solutions.

Interested in that?
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:50 pm

Haha yeah, I think all of us have taken the pen to the various rules for equipment in order to make the different weapon options balanced. I've thought up a hundred different tweaks before I stumbled upon this particular solution earlier today.

I like simple tweaks. What have you thought up?

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:43 am

I can get some more numbers from my other forums and my files if wanted, but I'll give the short rundown and summary.

There are dozens of suggestions online to fix things. Most of the solutions fail in one of three ways

1) the solution isn't easy
2) the solution isn't in theme
3) the solution isn't a solution (that is, it fails by not solving the original problem or introducing serious new problems)

Failing #1 doesn't mean the solution doesn't make the game more 'balanced,' but if the game becomes many times more difficult, it isn't worth it. #2 involves things like extra graphs, charts, or systems that get away from the Warhammer feel (introducing, say, a d10 for some attack rolls. This might fix the game perfectly, but now is neither easy nor like a normal game of Warhammer). #3 is the easiest one to understand - the solution just doesn't work.

The extremely-short-summary of the problem is that +1 attack is a HUGE benefit for a model. Even using a crappy dagger. It's not just because +1 Attack is awesome, but because it combines up with so many other benefits. Charging gives you First Strike. Wounding takes models out of action and reduces the threat of incoming attacks (so, increasing your Offense directly increases your Defense. In WHFB, units stepping up means that unless you totally wipe out a unit, they'll still get some swings on you. In Mordheim, you don't even have to take the model OOA to reduce the attacks incoming). Once you start to include other benefits, the offhand weapon is superior in every way.

Even without adding in all of these extra bonuses, +1 Attack is infinitely superior in every situation to every other option. A +1S or even +2S weapon is inferior to +1 Attack until you get to a guy who is literally too tough or too armoured to injure; the ease of +Str advances means this rarely occurs. Offense increases faster than defense in Mordheim. Parries and shields for increased armor saves are ALWAYS a worse choice compared to a terrible off-hand dagger attack, which is somehow better than parrying or a shield.

The off-mentioned "-1 to hit if you have an off-hand weapon" doesn't actually work. Like with double-tapping, so long as you're not hitting on 7s or impossible to hit, an extra attack is ALWAYS worth the penalty. Furthermore, if you have a person with, say, 7 Attacks on his profile, giving him an off-hand weapon is actually a huge detriment, as now ALL of his attacks are nerfed because he happens to have that off-hand weapon. So, this solution doesn't fix dual-wielding, injures more attack'y characters more than it should, and doesn't fix the original problem.

SOLUTION
It's actually a combination of factors

Change the Parry Rules
Off-hand Weapon (and only off-hand weapon) suffers -2 To Hit
Use ADVANCED critical hit chart
Generic buff to shields, bucklers, Parry Rule, and nerf to armor costs.

I'll go into more details in another post.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:47 am

COPIED FROM ANOTHER FORUM


This is an example of one of those things that is a serious transgression that has what seems like an obvious fix but is actually quite subversive.

The problem with applying a -1 TO HIT penalty on dual-wielding is that it is short-sighted. If you are balancing between 1) ONE attack at normal value or 2) TWO attacks with a -1 penalty to each, then you're forcing your players to make what seem like meaningful decisions. Making meaningful decisions is what a good game forces players to do. Specifically, a big two-hander with damaging benefits, a smaller weapon combined with a defensive option (shield, buckler, etc.), or dual-wielding.

Unfortunately, the -1 TO HIT starts to become excessively punishing as the character starts to accumulate additional attacks on their profile. The -1 applies to all primary attacks, despite only benefiting the wielder with a single additional attack. Speaking mathematically, this means you want to switch your characters away from dual-wielding once they start getting extra attacks (at what point exactly depends on your STR, your weapon choices, what you're up against, your feelings on WYSIWYG, advanced spreadsheets talking about Mordheim math, etc.), but it creates some weird in-game fiction (i.e. "why does my professional fencer hero suddenly want to become a two-handed axe wielder because of multiple ATTACK profile advances?") as well as punishing stats that are already sub par (specifically, Weapon Skill).


To summarize, you have your three kinds of loadouts - BIG weapon, small weapon and defense option, or dual-wield. The problem with base Mordheim is that, with very few and occasional exceptions that only occur when you're playing in either a Tournament-style game or a Mordheim campaign with multiple pro players, defaulting to dual-wielding is the best option period. If your goal is to make a better system that makes all three valid choices and to encourage a variety of styles, strategies, and options, what you want to do is give only offhand weapons a -2 TO HIT penalty.

This complies with the general way Weapon Skill as a core concept of Warhammer works. If you're a dual-wielder with more skill, you get an extra hit on 5s; equally skilled nets you an extra hit on 6s (it's like snapshooting!); and if you're flailing away with two sticks at an opponent who is a maestro in comparison to your feeble swings, you just can't hit them. That's perfect.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:48 am

Code: Select all

Weapons with the Parry rule allow you to do the following:
-You may perform one parry in a round. You may choose the attack you wish to parry.
-Once an attack hits but before rolls for wound, you may attempt to PARRY the attack. To parry the attack, roll a d6, comparing your WS to the opponent's WS as if you were making an attack on them. If your roll would succeed in hitting the opponent, you have parried the attack, preventing them from being able to roll to wound.
-If you have the option to re-roll a parry, you may either re-roll a failed PARRY attempt or you may attempt to parry a separate attack.
-Having two weapons that allow you to parry provides you with no additional benefit.
-You may not parry attacks made at a Strength value two points or higher than your own.

This makes parry a much better rule. The rule-as-written currently encourages low WS models to want to be master swordsmen, who will be able to perform more parries than higher WS people (because they are able to be hit on 3s, which have a 50% chance of being parried; while a high WS model that is sufficiently skilled compared to crappy henchmen will be hit only on 5s, but that hit can only be parried 1/6 of the time... which is silly.) High skilled people will parry on 3+ or 4+, while terrible WS people parry on 4+ at best and sometimes 5+.

I like shields having the extra Armor Save point (for a total of 2 points to your AC), while the buckler provides a point of AC as well as the additional parry attempt. It encourages different builds. Guys who really need to be "tanks" will focus on the armor, trying to focus their Armor Save to a good point and stop all sorts of attacks. Parries have a limited value, as you only get one, maybe two, in a round of attacks, so it is incredible if you're in a challenge against the enemy's general but much less so when swarmed by a ton of punks. And even without focusing on the special rules, it encourages people to stop dual-wielding and consider some alternative options. Again, this promotes different builds for different tactics.

Combine that with armor (and just armor, not combined with anything else) being good for a single Armor Save during the after-game phase to avoid a single injury (but not death) means people will actually want to buy armor and justifies a higher price!
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:14 am

The Nick wrote: If your goal is to make a better system that makes all three valid choices and to encourage a variety of styles, strategies, and options, what you want to do is give only offhand weapons a -2 TO HIT penalty.


There are a couple things to consider here.

For one, when considering models with baseline stats (3's) and a pip of armor save, this would make a pair of axes have the same damage output as a halberd. That does well to balance the two options, but it still suffers from a pair of problems.

One problem is that, in this specific scenario, it strips away any meaningful difference between the two equipment choices. While they look different on the model and use a different rolling procedure, they have the exact same mathematical outcome. We end up with differing mechanics that have the same result, creating unnecessary complexity and meaningless choices.

The second problem is that it falls prey to the same issue you mentioned in your post: it does not account for boosts to the attack stat. Here, the disparity between the extra hand weapon and the two-handed weapon becomes even greater with multiple attacks.

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:09 pm

One last thing: Strength bonuses: 4Str really shouldn't start knocking off armor in Mordheim at these prices. Str5 is when it should happen. That should be included.


Remember that weapons are also balanced around pricing. I'd say halberds are a bit of a bad choice because they're so 'blah'. They should be about as expensive as an axe, maybe a little more but not MUCH more. So the two weapons thing is more expensive.

However, remember that the -2 penalty To Hit is a much more severe penalty than a -2 WS. In the case you're talking about with equivalent WS at 3, I'm hitting you on 4 in the normal case. With the -2 offhand penalty, I'm now hitting you on 4s in one case and 6s in the other.

The benefit of 2-weapon fighting with a -2 To Hit penalty is that it rewards certain kinds of fighters - specifically, those with a HIGH WS (which, in Mordheim, is a bad stat. It barely helps you out. More attacks with terrible WS are better than getting an AWESOME WS... although I'd say 3 is the minimum you'd want to be at for a damage-dealer. But you don't really need much more than that). However, look at the case when your WS is significantly lower than your opponent's - you're hitting him on 5s with your main weapon and you CANNOT hit him with your offhand weapon.

This is actually a great penalty! Terrible foot troops hired for crap pay flailing away with two sticks they found can't actually make one of their attacks connect EVER! This is a great reward for dual-wielding highly skilled heroes. They don't get hit by terrible fighters, whereas they hit on 3s and 5s (as opposed to 4s and 6s as normal). In addition, look at this in comparison with the few other changes.

If I'm a swordsman with dual-swords, I can hit you on 3s and off-hand 5s. Additionally, I get a parry that'll work on a 3 against any attack. This makes me an excellent swordsman. You hit me when dual-wielding on 4s and 6s, but I actually have a better chance of parrying your hits than you have at hitting me.

This system rewards different kinds of play. If somebody needs to get through some Toughness and Armor, that's when +1S/+2S weapons come into play. Remember, in Mordheim, it's actually possible to be so TOUGH or so ARMORED that you can't hit them. So weapons that increase your strength actually come into play. If somebody rushes a Toughness/high armor model into the game, you can literally get into situations where this guy just wanders down the street, impervious to all damage, scaring everybody away. Some of the balance comes from people trying alternate strategies and utilizing all the rules - ALL ALONE TESTS and remembering that it's possible to have a shot or an attack that is impossible to hit or impossible to miss.


That's the awesome thing about the system there. Dual-wielding benefits SOME models, but not ALL models.

With the revised Parry idea, high WS models with a sword and buckler can make two parries a round or re-roll one parry, but they sacrifice one likely-to-hit attack for extra defense. By differentiating the offhand attack from the main-hand one, you get a variety of circumstances where specifically choosing a different item for that hand makes you into a different role.

Does that help to demonstrate things a bit better? There is more to the situation than just one lone attack roll.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:25 pm

two hand-weapons:
main weapon: hit on 4, 5, 6, wound on 4, 5, 6. 25% of a wound going through, 1/6 of those wounds are saved. ~20.8% of wound going through. Don't axes beat through a point of armor save? So it's still 25%?
offhand weapon: hit on 6, wound on 4, 5, 6. 8.3% of a wound going through, 1/6 of that is saved unless it's removed by axes -1 penalty.

Halberd - hit on 4, 5, 6, wound on 3, 4, 5, 6. 33% chance of wound going through, no armor save allowed.

There is a lot more math I can bring out, but... two weapons have a small chance of a double-wounding, while the halberd has the opportunity to increase Str. Also, axes have relatively bad critical effects compared to halberds.

The strength-increasing option is an important one to consider. If somebody's toughness is 5, for example, those axes can't actually perform criticals. And if the Toughness is 7, they're impervious to my flailings (i.e. anytime you're "hitting on 8s"). I think it's worth knocking that down a point in Mordheim, since Strength goes up so fast. However, it's important to remember there are a few T-increasing items and a skill that actually REDUCES your Str in close combat when making attacks, meaning it's possible to get a little juggernaught out there.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:32 pm

The Nick wrote:two hand-weapons:
main weapon: hit on 4, 5, 6, wound on 4, 5, 6. 25% of a wound going through, 1/6 of those wounds are saved. ~20.8% of wound going through. Don't axes beat through a point of armor save? So it's still 25%?
offhand weapon: hit on 6, wound on 4, 5, 6. 8.3% of a wound going through, 1/6 of that is saved unless it's removed by axes -1 penalty.

Halberd - hit on 4, 5, 6, wound on 3, 4, 5, 6. 33% chance of wound going through, no armor save allowed.


Yeah, that's the exact same math I did.
25% + 8.3% is the same as 33.3%.

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:00 pm

Oh no, not it's not.

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE here. Remember, when you're multiplying percentages, the odds get lower. If I have a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that's 1/2 or one in two or halfsies. If I have a 50% chance of flipping a heads and do it twice, the odds of me getting two heads is not 100% but it's 25%.

There is another important distinction between two attacks and one attack: two attacks gives you a (low) possibility of inflicting two wounds. On the contrary, one attack maxes out at one. Let me throw out some CRAZY numbers here, lots and lots of work I did before...

Basically, once you start comparing these values, you have to do ALL the math. There's actually a few different possibilities - it's no longer just HIT or MISS. It's now HIT WITH ALL, HIT WITH ONE, MISS, and another variable that's worth comparing, "AT LEAST 1 HIT" which includes multiple hits but not zero hits. You need to compare all of these against each other. OF SPECIAL NOTE: you must compare the increased odds of special events like "double hits" and "at least one hit" as well as the *varying* percentage increase that is given to not missing completely.

This is why I like the Parry rule changes I mentioned above, a few armor tweaks, and using the ADVANCED crit chart - it makes different kinds of characters and henchmen actually consider different loadouts.



With this math below, I intentionally do NOT reduce fractions and try to put percentages out. What is supremely important to consider are the implications of an extra weapon - Conclusions below. If any of this is confusing, please tell me... a lot of this is taken from a discussion comparing rules and I had to cut out half the math. It SHOULD be self-explanatory, but it's certainly not prettied up.

(Boring Math incoming)
--------------------------------
1 weapon
==============================
=== 1 weapon, 1 attack ===
==============================

On 3s [4/6] 66%
On 4s [3/6] 50%
On 5s [2/6] 33%

=========================
=== -2 to Offhand, 1 A ===
==========================

1 attack on profile, 2 weapons (-2 to hit on offhand)

On 3s (opponent has LOWER WS)
1st attack = 4/6 (66.6)
Offhand = 2/6 (33.3)

0 hits = (22.2) 2/6x4/6 = 8/36
1 hit = (55.5) = 20/36
"At least one hit" = [~%77.77] 28/36
2 hits = (22.2) 4/6 x 2/6 = 8/36


on 4s
1st attack = 3/6
offhand = 1/6
1s 1 hit
2s 1 hit
3s 1 hit
4s 5 hits, 1 double
5s 5 hits, 1 double
6s 5 hits, 1 double

on 5s
1st attack = 2/6
offhand = x

0 hits= 4/6 = 2/3
1 hit = 2/6 or 1/3
"At least one hit" = 1/3 or %33
2 hits = IMPOSSIBLE


==========================
==========================
=== CONCLUSION ===
==========================
==========================

1 weapon
Chances of one hit
3s - 66%
4s - 50%
5s - 33%

2 weapons, 1 attack (using "-2 to offhand" rule)
---------------------------------------
On 3s (hitting on 3s and offhand 5s)
"At least one hit" = ~%77.77 28/36
1 hit ~%55.5 20/36
2 hits ~%22.2 8/36
0 hits ~%22.2 8/36

On 4s (hitting on 4s and offhand 6s)
"At least 1 hit" ~%58.33 21/36
0 hits ~%41.66 15/36
1 hit %50 18/36
2 hits ~%8.33 3/36

On 5s (hitting on 5s and NEVER WITH OFFHAND)
0 hits ~%66.6 2/3
1 hit ~%33.3 1/3
2 hits IMPOSSIBLE

==========================================

To conclude (with 1A on profile)...
* The "-2 offhand rule" increases the chance of AT LEAST one hit by ~11%/~8.3%/0% (on 3s/5s, 4s/6s, and 5s/-). With a low WS, you're no better off with two weapons than with one using this rule. Your chances of totally WHIFFING on your attack go down by ~-10%/-8.3%/0% (on 3s/5s, 4s/6s, and 5s/-). To put it another way, you increase your chances of hitting by 10% PROVIDED you have good WS. Your chance of double-hits is ~%22.2/~%8.33/~%0 (on 3s/5s, 4s/6s, and 5s/-) is reliant on high WS.

There is NO benefit to a second weapon for low WS models.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:02 pm

PS - in the last post, I use the phrase 'no benefit for low WS models.'

In these posts, read that phrase to mean lower WS in comparison to the model it is fighting, such that it is now hitting on 5s. Or, to put it another way, WS 4 is pretty respectable normally... unless you're paired off against a WS 9 Vampire Lord.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

Ganymede
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 4:16 am

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby Ganymede » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:03 pm

The Nick wrote:Oh no, not it's not.

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE here. Remember, when you're multiplying percentages, the odds get lower. If I have a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that's 1/2 or one in two or halfsies. If I have a 50% chance of flipping a heads and do it twice, the odds of me getting two heads is not 100% but it's 25%.



I don't think you quite got what I was saying.

The 25% + 8.3% = 33.3% equation was not a situation in which you multiply the probabilities. The only result you get when you multiply them together is about 2%, the probability of both events happening at once (getting two unsaved wounds). While adding the two probabilities together will not, strictly speaking, get us the probability of inflicting one or more unsaved wound in an attack round (31.2%), it will give us the ratio of wounds inflicted to rounds of combat, which is 33.3/100 or 1/3. This is the value we really care about as it is what gives us an apples to apples comparison.

In other words, both a middlin halberd wielder and a middlin dual axe wielder will inflict an average of 333 unsaved wounds in 1,000 combat rounds. They may reach the result in slightly different ways, but the two weapon options are equally killy in the long run.

There is a slight difference in the weapons at this level. The probability of inflicting one or more wounds is actually slightly lower for the dual axes by about 2%, but is perfectly offset over time by the chance to inflict two wounds in a single combat round. I'm not sure these miniscule differences are enough to create the type of tactical options that are prized in a game like Mordheim.


Good job on the numbers, though. They all look correct to me.

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:02 pm

"Good job on the numbers, though. They all look correct to me."

Thank you very much. I have an even bigger matrix in an Excel file that is color coded up to something like 5 attacks that compares "X wounds (where X is a value from 0 to 5)", and "at least 1 wound," as well as "0 wounds." It also compares another optional rule with 're-roll a miss' as the rule used for 0 off-hand weapons.

And I made a mistake and had to do the whole thing over. :(


I'm not sure these miniscule differences are enough to create the type of tactical options that are prized in a game like Mordheim.

Somebody else actually said this to me and what you're saying is technically correct. However, there is a small difference and a different payoff matrix depending on how you equip either of these two hypothetically identical models, meaning there is some SMALL difference.

However, the important thing to remember is that each individual army varies. Some armies are more expensive. Some are less. Some don't have access to halberds. Some have different weapon restrictions. Some have different statistics. Some have different Skills they can get. Some can use better armor. Some rely on henchmen more than heroes.

Additionally, this doesn't even take into consideration the different starting builds or tactics you might want to use. For Skaven, there are three good starting builds I switch between - "sling-spam," which is repped to be OP, but can be countered, "Assassination-style," which is a build focused on killing the enemy and threatening their characters early to pay off in the mid-game of a campaign, and, "Warp-stone hunting," which is a safe, defensive style built around abusing your Warpstone generating values that start out higher on average than other people's and trying to advance faster to win in the mid- to late-campaigns. There's also the less popular "RAT OGRE RAAAAA" which is risky but hilarious.

You can have varying campaigns - 'infinite campaign' which is just casual playing with warbands that persist forever. Here in Delaware (the state, not the city in Ohio) we have a one-month campaign that actually judges you on 5 different values at the end (highest rating, highest warpstone token count, most territories in a map with special rules we use, most wins, sportsmanship, and a related painting competition). Then, there's "tournament style Mordheim," where you pay gold into increasing your values for one-off tournaments or survivor-style tournaments or other kinds of tournaments, where different advantages will have different values depending on the metagame.

Additionally, the moment a character gets an Attack++ or a Strength++ increase, the kind of weapon a person uses may may immediately change.

While I agree that the standard example set puts these two options on very similar grounds, I personally will attest that these rules changes (specifically PARRY, -2 Offhand, using ADVANCED Critical Chart, and Better Armor Rules/Costs, plus some more optional some gun tweaking and little other things here or there) decrease the value of dual-wield spam and make alternatives a better option. Different armies will value different loadouts.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP

matt.adlard

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby matt.adlard » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:05 pm

Interesting debate and had to read several times to follow, but the end result shows through with the new idea 'The Nick' Proposes.

A couple of things, though, duel weapon holders really should have a minimum 'I' Initiative, as using two weapons effectively requires a type of fast thinking and dance skill. Normal style of fighting with sword or shield or both causes you to opt towards the attack, defend, attack/defend style of combat, two weapons is more a dance strategy.

Weapons like a halberd really need a 'reach stat' so reach 1,2 or 3. So if Halberd is reach 2 then it allows an attacker to attack anyone who charges or comes within 2" of the defender. This in effect allows a defender to attack at a distance which is what the weapon is for, makes it great for defensive work like when higher up as can hold people at bay. The spears would be say reach 1 and lances as extreme 3.

Lastly the whole you cannot hit me if you WS1 and I'm WS8 is crap as in a fight there is always a chance even a tiny one of a weapon getting through. so the chart at the top really should have after WS6, - 8,9,10,11 as the chance to hit, with this being made by rolling a 'six' followed by a die roll of 2-5

Just a thought.

The Nick
Posts: 1457
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: AHW v. GW v. Shields in Mordheim: An alternative approach

Postby The Nick » Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:51 am

Thanks for the read-through and support. To be fair, it was a result of lots of effort, reading, and seeing what other people did wrong (and then thinking about WHY it was wrong) on lots of other threads, this one, others here, and other forums, before I came up with these solutions.

I got some more interesting ideas, too, that I might post up here if people are interested.

However, I disagree with the minimum Initiative requirement. Canonically and historically, there are lots of ways of fighting with two weapons that don't require exceptional speed. Game-wise, it's an extra step away from the core of the Warhammer system, which is a big goal I try to keep all extra rules aiming towards.

In regards to Weapon Skill, you always can hit in the normal case, even with vastly different Weapon Skill differences. I THINK there might be some weird bonuses that can push it off (like a few stacked -1 To Hit penalties to your roll, although off the top of my head I can't remember if the 6s always hit rule applies in Mordheim or not, but I'm pretty sure it does).

Finally, I don't necessarily like adding melee weapon reach attacks, although having melee weapons resolved like a weird shooting attack (like the chain whip thing in the Sisters warband) is one alternative. Additionally, the Skirmish rules (that are pretty much just Mordheim with more models, army books, and none of the campaign stuff) have a thing with 'supporting attacks' back before 8th edition had supporting attacks. Basically, spears allowed you to perform a charge or walk up against an ally in combat, and you could throw a single spear attack on anybody your ally was in combat with even if you weren't in base-to-base contact.

That might be a nice thing to play with that you might like.
Sleboda wrote:POOPOOPOOP


Return to “The Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest