Mordheim Musings: In Defense of Handguns
Now and again I get fixated on a game, and do an inordinate amount of thinking about it in my spare time. I theorycraft while I walk to work, daydream about mechanics, and fill my phone with notes about gameplay and lore. Recently, that game has been Mordheim, and one topic in particular that’s been occupying me is handguns.
The Crossbow Comparison
Judging by most of what I’ve seen online, handguns are the red-headed step-child of Mordheim ranged weapons. The most common comparison I see is between them and crossbows, since outwardly, they fill similar niches, and in WHFB they were the two “default” Empire ranged options. Understandably, if the two weapons are equated like this, the crossbow consistently comes out on top, with longer range and lower cost. The handgun is armour-piercing, but the generally-accepted meta doesn’t seem to favour armour, so that’s a less valuable quality than it otherwise could be. The damning feature of the handgun, however, is the fact that it takes a full turn to reload after firing. Like many other much-lamented aspects of the Mordheim system, given everything that’s stacked against handguns, it’s unsurprising that people don’t generally favour them.
So what is the purpose of handguns? Are the high price and poor performance a private joke by the designers, or meant to represent historical accuracy to the less effective Imperial handguns of 2000 IC? No doubt this has something to do with it; we see similar issues with armour, which is often cited as being overpriced for the little benefit it gives. Can that really be the only reason they’re included, though? I don’t think so. Crossbows have a clearly-defined role as a powerful, long range weapon, with the tradeoff of not being able to move and fire without skills. If handguns don’t measure up to this standard, I believe it’s because they aren’t meant to. I think that the assumed use of handguns is fundamentally incorrect, and that if we look at them in a different light, they become much more appealing.
Prepare Shot
My argument hinges on the “Prepare shot” rule, which reads (in the LRB) “A handgun takes a complete turn to reload, so you may only fire it every other turn.” As mentioned above, compared directly to a crossbow, this is a hindrance. If you have a dedicated ranged fighter, you want them to be firing as often as possible while you keep them safe with cover or melee fighters. Having to stop after each shot and reload disrupts the flow, and essentially halves the effectiveness of that fighter in the long run. The rule is clear enough on the surface, but one important detail is included by omission: movement is not restricted during this reload. If the firer had to be stationary for the following turn while they reloaded, I would agree with the criticism completely. But they don’t.
How is this an advantage? Is movement more valuable than shooting? Not necessarily, but the ability to move, and the knowledge of when you should and should not, arguably are. If we return to the crossbow comparison, a crossbow-armed warrior can fire every turn, provided they do not move. This means that every move is a shot sacrificed (barring skills, but I’ll touch on those below). Or, to look at it from another perspective, each turn the player must decide whether the warrior will move, or fire, and moving is the less appealing option.
Compare this to a handgun: a player knows that, after firing, they will have a turn in which they cannot fire, and so are free to move. Movement during this turn doesn’t “throw away” an opportunity to fire the weapon, so the warrior is free to take cover, find a better shot, or even move into combat without wondering what might have happened if they had stayed stationary. This move can even be a run, which is very liberating for any ranged fighter: even throwing knives can’t be thrown after running, so unless a shooter absolutely has nothing to fire at, running is always a sacrifice. The handgun user has nothing to lose by running on a reload turn, effectively doubling their ability to seek out new targets and position themselves for greatest threat. Once a firing turn does come around, careful planning and skilled play could remove the need to move before attacking.
The Niche
So maybe “Prepare shot” isn’t so bad, but I haven’t directly touched on the niche I believe the handgun fills. For strong, long-range shooting, the crossbow is a superior option. The handgun, however, straddles a gap between the mobility of lighter weapons and the power of heavier ones. I think it would shine in the hands of a fighter who isn’t fully committed to sniping, or more broadly, in a warband that wants to be mobile without sacrificing ranged power. For a single warrior, a handgun could work well combined with an effective melee weapon. During firing turns, the S4 and armour piercing can deal a lot of damage to enemies while bypassing two points of armour save, nothing to sniff at if the opponent does happen to run armour. During movement turns, the warrior can find better shots or cover, or charge the enemy if they’re too close for comfort (which is where the melee weapon comes in). When using a warrior like this, it would be productive to plan one turn ahead: where do I want them to be, who do I want them to shoot, when do I think they are likely to come within charge range? In a broader warband concept, handguns might work well to support other warriors and heroes that like to get up close and personal. Middenheimers and close combat-oriented Dwarfs are both prime candidates for a handgun-centric build.
The mercenaries, with the high strength of their heroes, excel in close quarters; this style of play doesn’t lend itself to sitting back and shooting at the enemy. Immobile Marksmen with crossbows, in this case, are less appealing than more lightly-armed shooters with pistols or bows, who can easily keep up with the other fighters and pop off shots here and there. A handgun would provide more consistent firepower in this sort of warband: the only other S4 option is a pistol or duelling pistol, but their measly range means an enemy just has to stand at arm’s reach for protection. There aren’t too many places to hide from a 24 inch threat in close quarters. Furthermore, since the shooter must move or fire, shots will be easier to land. After firing, a Marksman with a handgun then has an easy time of joining the fight, lending a valuable helping hand in a scrum where another Marksman might hesitate to attack.
Handguns can serve a similar function in a Dwarf warband, and Thunderers, being as effective in a fight as most Dwarf heroes, are better suited to this hybrid melee/ranged role than Marksmen. With fewer numbers, Dwarfs can definitely use the help in combat, and their base M3 means that a lost move is much more devastating to a warband that wants to claim objectives or assault a position. Thunderers also have the option to take heavy armour, shields, and a good selection of weapons, making it even easier to slot them into a melee role. As an added bonus, the Engineer boosts the handgun’s range to a hefty 30 inches, generally increasing their effectiveness and versatility.
Skills
Of course, there are skills that mitigate the drawbacks of handguns and crossbows, particularly Nimble and Hunter. In a nutshell, Nimble negates the “Move-or-fire” rule, and Hunter negates “Prepare shot”. Of the two, Nimble has the greater impact on both crossbows and handguns, but I don’t think it shifts the balance at all. A Nimble crossbow-user will be able to fill the same niche as a bow-user, effectively transforming the weapon into a S4 longbow. This allows for small repositioning without much loss in effect, definitely not a bad thing for a shooter who would otherwise be tied down, but not totally game-changing either. A Nimble handgunner, on the other hand, only gets better at the playstyle described above. High BS can mitigate the loss in accuracy, and that bit of extra mobility means the handgunner can make small moves to stay closer or further from the front line as required, to better keep up with the others or keep safe from charges.
On the other hand, I don’t think Hunter improves handguns enough to merit taking it (unless you have a skill to choose and no better options). Playing as above, Hunter removes the flexibility added by the reload turn, and brings back the pressure to be firing every turn. Now the handgun falls back into its pigeonhole as a worse crossbow. This isn’t to say that Hunter is a bad skill though: I think it would be very useful for a warrior armed with pistols, since their mobility is already built in, or with a Long Rifle, since it’s a dedicated sniping weapon. In the case of handguns, however, I think that the weapon’s effectiveness isn’t improved enough to justify spending a precious skill advance on Hunter.
Last Notes
Two other brief considerations to take into account are superior blackpowder, and the optional rule for blackpowder misfires. If you’re considering a handgun-heavy warband, superior blackpowder is a great way to add some “oomph” to these weapons, as S5 turns them from strong to lethal. The misfire chart doesn’t seem to add too heavy of a drawback, especially if you implement the recommended 20% discount on blackpowder weapons.
As a bit of a post-script, It’s worth mentioning the Nuln Gunnery School warband from Nemesis Crown, which I see as an attempt to diversify black powder weapons and remove some of their characteristic limitations (in particular with multiple-shot weapons). It’s interesting and innovative, though I’ve read several posts calling them overpowered or imbalanced. Since I don’t have any firsthand experience, I’ll just say that given what I’ve read, the limitations on handguns are there for a good reason.
I didn’t start this expecting to write three pages, but here it is. I hope my Mordheim thought experiments helped make more sense of handguns’ place in the game, and maybe even serve as encouragement to give them a second chance.
The Crossbow Comparison
Judging by most of what I’ve seen online, handguns are the red-headed step-child of Mordheim ranged weapons. The most common comparison I see is between them and crossbows, since outwardly, they fill similar niches, and in WHFB they were the two “default” Empire ranged options. Understandably, if the two weapons are equated like this, the crossbow consistently comes out on top, with longer range and lower cost. The handgun is armour-piercing, but the generally-accepted meta doesn’t seem to favour armour, so that’s a less valuable quality than it otherwise could be. The damning feature of the handgun, however, is the fact that it takes a full turn to reload after firing. Like many other much-lamented aspects of the Mordheim system, given everything that’s stacked against handguns, it’s unsurprising that people don’t generally favour them.
So what is the purpose of handguns? Are the high price and poor performance a private joke by the designers, or meant to represent historical accuracy to the less effective Imperial handguns of 2000 IC? No doubt this has something to do with it; we see similar issues with armour, which is often cited as being overpriced for the little benefit it gives. Can that really be the only reason they’re included, though? I don’t think so. Crossbows have a clearly-defined role as a powerful, long range weapon, with the tradeoff of not being able to move and fire without skills. If handguns don’t measure up to this standard, I believe it’s because they aren’t meant to. I think that the assumed use of handguns is fundamentally incorrect, and that if we look at them in a different light, they become much more appealing.
Prepare Shot
My argument hinges on the “Prepare shot” rule, which reads (in the LRB) “A handgun takes a complete turn to reload, so you may only fire it every other turn.” As mentioned above, compared directly to a crossbow, this is a hindrance. If you have a dedicated ranged fighter, you want them to be firing as often as possible while you keep them safe with cover or melee fighters. Having to stop after each shot and reload disrupts the flow, and essentially halves the effectiveness of that fighter in the long run. The rule is clear enough on the surface, but one important detail is included by omission: movement is not restricted during this reload. If the firer had to be stationary for the following turn while they reloaded, I would agree with the criticism completely. But they don’t.
How is this an advantage? Is movement more valuable than shooting? Not necessarily, but the ability to move, and the knowledge of when you should and should not, arguably are. If we return to the crossbow comparison, a crossbow-armed warrior can fire every turn, provided they do not move. This means that every move is a shot sacrificed (barring skills, but I’ll touch on those below). Or, to look at it from another perspective, each turn the player must decide whether the warrior will move, or fire, and moving is the less appealing option.
Compare this to a handgun: a player knows that, after firing, they will have a turn in which they cannot fire, and so are free to move. Movement during this turn doesn’t “throw away” an opportunity to fire the weapon, so the warrior is free to take cover, find a better shot, or even move into combat without wondering what might have happened if they had stayed stationary. This move can even be a run, which is very liberating for any ranged fighter: even throwing knives can’t be thrown after running, so unless a shooter absolutely has nothing to fire at, running is always a sacrifice. The handgun user has nothing to lose by running on a reload turn, effectively doubling their ability to seek out new targets and position themselves for greatest threat. Once a firing turn does come around, careful planning and skilled play could remove the need to move before attacking.
The Niche
So maybe “Prepare shot” isn’t so bad, but I haven’t directly touched on the niche I believe the handgun fills. For strong, long-range shooting, the crossbow is a superior option. The handgun, however, straddles a gap between the mobility of lighter weapons and the power of heavier ones. I think it would shine in the hands of a fighter who isn’t fully committed to sniping, or more broadly, in a warband that wants to be mobile without sacrificing ranged power. For a single warrior, a handgun could work well combined with an effective melee weapon. During firing turns, the S4 and armour piercing can deal a lot of damage to enemies while bypassing two points of armour save, nothing to sniff at if the opponent does happen to run armour. During movement turns, the warrior can find better shots or cover, or charge the enemy if they’re too close for comfort (which is where the melee weapon comes in). When using a warrior like this, it would be productive to plan one turn ahead: where do I want them to be, who do I want them to shoot, when do I think they are likely to come within charge range? In a broader warband concept, handguns might work well to support other warriors and heroes that like to get up close and personal. Middenheimers and close combat-oriented Dwarfs are both prime candidates for a handgun-centric build.
The mercenaries, with the high strength of their heroes, excel in close quarters; this style of play doesn’t lend itself to sitting back and shooting at the enemy. Immobile Marksmen with crossbows, in this case, are less appealing than more lightly-armed shooters with pistols or bows, who can easily keep up with the other fighters and pop off shots here and there. A handgun would provide more consistent firepower in this sort of warband: the only other S4 option is a pistol or duelling pistol, but their measly range means an enemy just has to stand at arm’s reach for protection. There aren’t too many places to hide from a 24 inch threat in close quarters. Furthermore, since the shooter must move or fire, shots will be easier to land. After firing, a Marksman with a handgun then has an easy time of joining the fight, lending a valuable helping hand in a scrum where another Marksman might hesitate to attack.
Handguns can serve a similar function in a Dwarf warband, and Thunderers, being as effective in a fight as most Dwarf heroes, are better suited to this hybrid melee/ranged role than Marksmen. With fewer numbers, Dwarfs can definitely use the help in combat, and their base M3 means that a lost move is much more devastating to a warband that wants to claim objectives or assault a position. Thunderers also have the option to take heavy armour, shields, and a good selection of weapons, making it even easier to slot them into a melee role. As an added bonus, the Engineer boosts the handgun’s range to a hefty 30 inches, generally increasing their effectiveness and versatility.
Skills
Of course, there are skills that mitigate the drawbacks of handguns and crossbows, particularly Nimble and Hunter. In a nutshell, Nimble negates the “Move-or-fire” rule, and Hunter negates “Prepare shot”. Of the two, Nimble has the greater impact on both crossbows and handguns, but I don’t think it shifts the balance at all. A Nimble crossbow-user will be able to fill the same niche as a bow-user, effectively transforming the weapon into a S4 longbow. This allows for small repositioning without much loss in effect, definitely not a bad thing for a shooter who would otherwise be tied down, but not totally game-changing either. A Nimble handgunner, on the other hand, only gets better at the playstyle described above. High BS can mitigate the loss in accuracy, and that bit of extra mobility means the handgunner can make small moves to stay closer or further from the front line as required, to better keep up with the others or keep safe from charges.
On the other hand, I don’t think Hunter improves handguns enough to merit taking it (unless you have a skill to choose and no better options). Playing as above, Hunter removes the flexibility added by the reload turn, and brings back the pressure to be firing every turn. Now the handgun falls back into its pigeonhole as a worse crossbow. This isn’t to say that Hunter is a bad skill though: I think it would be very useful for a warrior armed with pistols, since their mobility is already built in, or with a Long Rifle, since it’s a dedicated sniping weapon. In the case of handguns, however, I think that the weapon’s effectiveness isn’t improved enough to justify spending a precious skill advance on Hunter.
Last Notes
Two other brief considerations to take into account are superior blackpowder, and the optional rule for blackpowder misfires. If you’re considering a handgun-heavy warband, superior blackpowder is a great way to add some “oomph” to these weapons, as S5 turns them from strong to lethal. The misfire chart doesn’t seem to add too heavy of a drawback, especially if you implement the recommended 20% discount on blackpowder weapons.
As a bit of a post-script, It’s worth mentioning the Nuln Gunnery School warband from Nemesis Crown, which I see as an attempt to diversify black powder weapons and remove some of their characteristic limitations (in particular with multiple-shot weapons). It’s interesting and innovative, though I’ve read several posts calling them overpowered or imbalanced. Since I don’t have any firsthand experience, I’ll just say that given what I’ve read, the limitations on handguns are there for a good reason.
I didn’t start this expecting to write three pages, but here it is. I hope my Mordheim thought experiments helped make more sense of handguns’ place in the game, and maybe even serve as encouragement to give them a second chance.
Comments
Post a Comment