Mordheim Musings: “Fixing" Shields

The Problem with Shields

Shields are a perennially unpopular choice in Mordheim, which seems strange considering what they do. For the low price of 5 gold crowns, a warrior can improve their armour save by 1, which admittedly doesn’t sound like much. Consider, however, what one would normally pay for this benefit. Toughened leathers offer a 6+ save for 5 gold crowns, but inexplicably prevent the use of a shield to improve this save. Following those, the next cheapest option for an armour save of any kind is light armour, which comes in at 20 gold crowns, four times the price of a shield. If you want to improve your save from there, you’ll need to fork over an extra 30 gold crowns for heavy armour (with a total cost of 50 gc), and from there it’s another 100 gc to get to a 4+ save with gromril. Compared to these increments, a shield seems downright economical. So what’s the catch?

It takes one hand to use.

To someone unfamiliar with Mordheim, that may not sound like a huge sacrifice. After all, what’s one hand? Most warriors have two of them, some three or more! Of course, it’s not about the hand so much as what a warrior can do with it. You see, that hand could just as easily be used to hold a weapon, which means attacking with said weapon, which means one extra chance each round of combat to take an enemy out. What’s more, this extra attack is extremely accessible: every warrior begins play with a dagger, completely free of charge, and provided they carry one other weapon, they have an easy second attack available from the moment they’re hired. And you’re expected to give that up for a measly 6+ armour save? Fat chance.

***

Mathheim, Part 1: The Numbers

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Exactly how good is that extra attack? Well, it’s difficult to say in absolute terms, but here’s an abstraction to illustrate: we can say the average warrior has WS 3, S3, T3, and one attack. Considering two average warriors facing off, that means that each round they will hit each other on a 4+, wound on a 4+, and put the opponent out of action on a 5-6 (the enemy might, of course, be knocked down or stunned, but let’s not kid ourselves, you want the kill). That means a 50% chance to hit, 50% to wound, and 33% to kill, or a roughly 8.25% chance of killing an enemy outright with a single attack. By adding in a single extra attack, the chance of killing an enemy outright in a single round of combat increases to roughly 14.44%, or almost double! (I won’t go into the math here, but I’ll give some sidebar calculations at the end for those interested.) 

What about armour saves though? How effective are they at preventing this? It would be time-consuming and frankly unnecessary to calculate the odds of killing an enemy with every armour save available, so instead I’ll look at how a 6+ save from a shield would factor into the above situation, and whether or not it’s mathematically worth it to give up an entire attack in favour of this save. Factoring in the shield means that each wound has a 1/6 chance of failing, assuming the attacker is using any weapon other than an axe. With a single incoming attack, a shield reduces the chance of a kill to roughly 6.875%, or about a 1.375% drop. Not betting odds, if you ask me. With two attacks, the chance of being taken out in a single round drops to about 12.03%, or a 2.41% drop. A little better, I suppose, but by giving up that extra attack, you also sacrifice over 6% of the chance of killing the other warrior in one round! This means that, while you now have about a 1/7 better chance of surviving, you also have about 4/7 of the chance you otherwise would to kill the opponent in one round, which is arguably more important to your long-term survival. Remember too, this isn’t even considering the case where either side’s WS, S, or T exceeds the other’s; if you have the advantage in any of these departments, you’re hampering yourself even more with that shield.

***

House Rules and Why I Don't Like Them

It seems clear, looking at the numbers, why taking a shield isn’t worth it, but they haven’t told us anything that gut instinct wouldn’t have otherwise. Put simply, it feels bad to lose an attack you might otherwise have, in favour of a save you can very easily lose. All it takes is a Strength 4 attack or an axe to make that shield useless. It seems like the problem with shields is that they’re just too weak. Sure, 5 gold crowns for +1 save seems nice on paper, but shields will need more than that to be a viable option.

Some expansions and house rules have proposed solutions to the shield problem. Some examples include shields being used to “deflect” arrows like a parry, being able to parry themselves, granting an extra armour save bonus in close combat, and being used as a second weapon for a smash attack. I’m sure there are more, but these are what I found at a glance. Many sources also suggest halving armour costs, but that’s a subject I’d rather save for a future post when I’ve thought more about it. The common factor in these house rules seems to be additional benefits for holding a shield, but that strikes me as overcomplicating things. Although Warhammer Fantasy is becoming a thing of the past, shields in that system did one thing for most of its history: grant +1 to your armour save. In later additions, a “parry save” was added in certain circumstances, but I’m going to choose to ignore that as a viable option, since parry already exists and has a clearly defined niche in Mordheim. I also don’t see giving shields a parry or similar ability as viable, since this not only encroaches on the buckler (which, if we’re honest, suffers in much the same way as the shield for having to give up a hand to use it), but also on certain warband special skills like the Norse Explorers’ “Shield Master” (which allows shields to parry). Situational benefits like an additional +1 save in close combat, on foot, armed with a hand weapon, also strike me as unsuitable because they add a host of conditions a player now has to remember, which don’t seem to have a lot of grounding in reality. How exactly is the shield “more effective” on foot, and in close combat, while armed with a certain weapon? I don’t get it.

***

The Real Problem with Shields (and how I would “fix" it)

I think the real reason the shield is overlooked isn’t anything to do with the item itself. Rather, it’s the same reason one might hesitate to take a buckler, spear, morning star, or two-handed weapon of any variety: the extra attack. I discussed ways of getting an armour save earlier, which are by and large expensive investments that may not pay out. But what about an extra attack (which, as we now know, nearly doubles the chances of killing an enemy in a single round, on equal footing)? Well, there are a handful of options for this one: first, gain an attack advance, which has about a 4.17% chance of occurring with each advance (and has a nominal value of 25 gold crowns for the second attack, 35 for each subsequent one, according to the section in the LRB on upgrading heroes in one-off battles); second, use magic of some sort (Lesser Magic has Sword of Rezhebel, the Horned Rat has Black Fury, etc.); third, have frenzy or another special rule (such as a Skaven’s Black Hunger); or fourth, own a free dagger (or other hand weapon, none of which costs more than 15 gold crowns). One of these things is not like the others, clearly. Considering the fact that a second attack is apparently worth 25 gc, owning and using a second hand weapon is extremely economical for increasing a warrior’s killing potential.

This second attack isn’t targeted in a lot of the house rules I’ve read, but one suggestion I’ve seen is applying a -1 penalty to the extra attack and making it easier to parry, and adding an extra “Ambidextrous” skill to eliminate this. That’s one idea, but as you may have guessed I’m not satisfied. This adds more cumbersome rules, as well as a skill that is, in my opinion, pretty dubious. It’s also a very D&D-style ruling which, while not a bad thing, adds a bit too much RPG-level bookkeeping for my liking. My preferred solution would involve remembering fewer rules, not more, and leveling the playing field for other off-hand options at the same time. 

For my solution, I thought back to a couple of years ago, when I occupied myself by devouring Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edition rules. WFRP is very thematically similar to Mordheim: it’s deadly, gritty, and characters from one can be fairly easily translated to the other. WFRP also handles two-weapon fighting in an interesting way: “A character [wielding two weapons] may use either hand to make an attack. This does not give any extra attacks.” This seems reflective of other sources I’ve consulted on historical combat. Some warriors might have carried an off-hand weapon, but this would normally be for some express purpose other than attacking, such as a parrying dagger. It also seems to make sense that attacking with two weapons wouldn’t be any more efficient than one: a warrior’s options would either be making alternating swings with each arm, which isn’t any faster than consecutive swings with one arm, or making a weak, clumsy, two-handed attack, as neither arm can properly wind up or follow through. All this to say that, in order to make shields a more viable choice, perhaps the solution is to house rule that a character with two weapons doesn’t get an extra attack. Instead, they have the option of fighting with one weapon or the other, or splitting their attacks between the two. 

***

“I thought you didn't like house rules!"

With this amendment, a shield suddenly doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. Sacrificing an attack option is more palatable than an entire attack, especially for a warrior who only has a dagger as a secondary weapon. Two-handed weapons and bucklers, likewise, become more appealing, as do difficult-to-use weapons. It is possible, though, that those used to two-weapon fighting will cry foul. Maybe the extra attack seems like too much to give up. For me, it’s a satisfying solution in and of itself, but there are a few extra rules I’d like to propose to those who might not want to do away with the extra attack entirely.

First, WFRP does give additional points on two-weapon fighting. Acceptable primary weapons are “Dagger, Foil, Hand Weapon, Morning Star, or Rapier”, and acceptable off-hand weapons are “Buckler, Dagger, Hand Weapon, Main Gauche, Shield, or Sword-breaker.” Attacks with the off-hand weapon “suffer a -20% Weapon Skill penalty”, and a character with two weapons may make a parry as a free action, once per round. Since I proposed “solving” this issue using WFRP, I would be remiss to not follow through with the comparison fully. The weapon restrictions translate easily enough, and seem to make some sense: a heavier weapon in the primary hand, a lighter one in the off-hand. Importantly, this means no dual-wielding with spears, but otherwise the options for each hand don’t change much. The WS penalty for the off-hand is interesting to me, and reflective of the “Ambidextrous” house rules above. Change that “-20%” to “-2” and we have Mordheim terms; alternately, change it to a -1 “to hit” penalty, since WFRP works on a d100 system, and that -1 roughly equals a 20% penalty. Last, having two weapons could grant the ability to parry if neither weapon is capable of doing so, or perhaps allow a warrior to parry a second attack. 

I don’t like any of these rulings, but they could, in theory, be used. Restricting weapon options seems nitpicky and limits space for conversions, so that’s off the table for me. The extra parry, again, encroaches too much on the buckler’s territory, and also reduces the usefulness of swords. The WS/”to hit” penalty for off-hand attacks is the only one I might realistically use, but like I said before, it’s nitpicky and bloats the rules a bit.

If you’re really hanging onto that extra attack from a second weapon, though, I will make one house rule suggestion to keep it in: the bonus attack always strikes last. It’s a simple solution, which I like, it uses existing mechanics without treading on the toes of other equipment, and it makes a bit of sense in that an extra attack would be opportunistic, needing to wait for the right opening. It’s also easy enough to remember, rather than adding on situational or complex rules.

***

Final Considerations

There are just a couple of other considerations to make, however, before laying this topic to rest. First, what about braces of pistols? Where do they fit into the mix? There are a few options I can see, the first being to leave them unchanged. The rules already explicitly state that you get 2 attacks with a brace of pistols in the first round, and personally I would probably just consider that to be the bonus of wielding them. Following that, you fight with your normal quota of attacks and whatever other weapon you’re carrying. A second option is to allow them to be used like any other weapon, i.e. you get to attack with them as many times as you have attacks, up to once per pistol. This means that a warrior with one attack could fire one pistol in the first round, and the other in the second. A warrior with two or more attacks could fire both pistols in the first round, but then would have to find a new weapon for subsequent rounds. A third option is to change the ruling so that pistols work like crossbow pistols, fired off in the Shooting phase with a “to hit” penalty when in close combat. Whether that means both are shot off in the first round, or one is fired per round, is a matter for discussion with one’s own gaming group.

A second consideration is paired weapons, such as fighting claws. These are explicitly designed with two-weapon fighting in mind, and a claw-armed warrior could be considered to be at a disadvantage with this ruling. I would likely reduce the cost of fighting claws, since the benefit they give over, say, a sword, is now fairly marginal. With this change, they are effectively a sword and buckler with a climbing bonus, which I would value at 20 gc (possibly slightly over-valued, but it’s hard to say what the climb bonus is worth, and they are specialized equipment). I would encourage a similar evaluation of other paired weapons, though I’m not familiar with any, if they exist.

A third special case also comes from Skaven in the form of the “Tail Fighting” and “Art of Silent Death” skills. I would argue for leaving these alone, since they represent specialized training that the warrior has undergone to be able to use these techniques effectively, and the +1 attack reward is merited.

Fourth, three Mutations from the Cult of the Possessed spring to mind, namely the “Great Claw”, “Scorpion Tail”, and “Extra Arm”. I would take a different approach with each of these: a great claw, I think, should be treated as a one-handed weapon, and therefore not grant a bonus attack (which I believe is superseded by the “no two-weapon fighting” ruling). A scorpion tail, however, is an extra, prehensile limb like the Skaven’s tail, and it can be assumed that learning to use it effectively in combat is both tricky and represented by the gold cost. I would rule that it does grant an extra attack. Finally, the extra arm probably doesn’t merit a bonus attack, since it’s just an extra limb, though it would allow splitting attacks between a two-handed and one-handed weapon. The 40 gc price tag might be a little steep with that considered; I might reduce it to 35 or 30, but then all the Mutations are pretty pricy, so it might be fine as is.

***

Conclusion

It’s hard to see on the blog, but this entire article worked out to about five pages of writing, which I never set out to do. Like the handguns article, though, it was fun to dig a bit deeper into what I see as being an underused piece of equipment, dissect the “why” of it, and come up with solutions. To be clear, I don’t think shields are worthwhile in baseline Mordheim, and house rules are necessary if one wants them to be. The object of this article was to propose a simple house rule that makes shields more relevant, and while there turned out to be a few exceptions, by and large they’re common sense. As usual, hopefully some people who had the patience to read this do find it interesting, and I hope to keep up this series down the line.

***

Mathheim, Part 2: Long-Winded Calculations

And now, the math section, for those who were wondering. Feel free to skip this part, it’s mostly numbers.

With the situation described above (two warriors with WS3, S3, T3, A1), if both are making a single attack with an indeterminate hand weapon, calculations go as follows:

Chance to hit = 50%

Chance to wound = 50%

Chance to put out of action (I said “kill” a lot) on a wound = ~33%

Therefore in one round of combat, the chance to kill an enemy in one round is 0.5*0.5*0.33 = 0.0825 or 8.25%

With an extra attack, we now have a probability tree consisting of the following:

Attack 1 Hits (50%) -- Attack 1 Wounds (50%) -- Attack 1 Kills (33%) = 8.25%

Attack 1 Hits (50%) -- Attack 1 Wounds (50%) -- Attack 1 does not kill (67%) -- I ignored this branch, since the second attack cannot be used to confirm the kill

Attack 1 Hits (50%) -- Attack 1 does not wound (50%) -- Attack 2 Hits (50%) -- Attack 2 Wounds (50%) -- Attack 2 Kills (33%) = 2.0625%

Attack 1 Hits (50%) -- Attack 1 does not wound (50%) -- Attack 2 Hits (50%) -- Attack 2 Wounds (50%) -- Attack 2 does not kill (67%) -- I ignored this branch, since the second attack did not kill.

Attack 1 Hits (50%) -- Attack 1 does not wound (50%) -- Attack 2 Misses (50%) -- I ignored this branch, since the second attack missed.

Attack 1 Misses (50%) -- Attack 2 Hits (50%) -- Attack 2 Wounds (50%) -- Attack 2 Kills (33%) = 4.125%

Attack 1 Misses (50%) -- Attack 2 Misses (50%) -- I ignored this branch, since the second attack missed.

Now, I sum the probabilities of the branches where the opponent is killed in one round, getting a result of 14.4375%, which I rounded off.

Last, to consider the 6+ save, I simply multiplied these results by 5/6. Since I'm only concerned with the instances where the attack wounds, the save reduces those chances by 1/6. The results ended up being 6.875% for one attack to kill outright, and 12.03125% for two attacks to kill in one round.