Hey Reader!
So, to start off, I want to reaffirm that I love the ruleset for the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game. I think on the whole this game is both easy to understand while also giving a lot of options and depth for list building (albeit to greater degrees with some factions over others) so that strategy/math-minded people have a lot to keep them engaged in the game. The hobby aspect of the game is also excellent, with a vibrant and positive community that supports the game and make works of art.
But every now and then you come across some rules and profiles where you think to yourself, "...are we sure that this is the best way to do this," and today's post is one of those questions. The aim here is to make the game better, and I hope that the love and passion for the game is what comes through in this post. I've been playing this game for over ten years, have loved this game even during the "dark times" when we were getting hardly anything new, and I've only grown in my love and appreciation for the game as the years pass.
But two-handed weapons get a bad rap in this game, and that shouldn't be the case. We will start off with a "high concept" look at two-handed weapons across history, and then look at a small change that could be made to the game to fix these issues without "breaking the game" in favor of two-handed weapons.
I. History and Use of Two-Handed Weapons
For most of history, warriors were predominately armed with one of two weapon choices: a ranged weapon and a side arm, or a hand weapon and a shield, mostly to protect persons from said ranged weapons and when the enemy closes to melee combat.
Alongside these, there was another weapon choice: a melee weapon that required two hands to use. Whether this was a long pike, a two-handed axe or halberd, or a large sword, they came into use in the Middle Ages thanks to increases in metallurgy and dominated the battlefield by the end of the Middle Ages because of their increased killing power and effectiveness.
I think the game gets the +1 bonus to wound correct: it really captures the added power and strength behind a weapon being used with two hands. The issue is the penalty that's inflicted to the model: a -1 to the roll to win a duel.
Putting two hands on a weapon gives you far greater control and versatility with it. Whether in the hands of a veteran or an untrained levyman, a spear or long axe will be far easier to wield when used with two hands. So a -1 to the duel roll really doesn't make sense; the weapon is easier to wield and very capable at both preventing and making strikes.
Two-handed weapons give greater control over the weapon by turning the forward hand into a lever, allowing you to quickly move the weapon to a new location and quickly strike by using the back hand nearer to the base of the weapon. These quick strikes aren't as devastating as a powerful swing or a deep thrust, but they will hurt someone if positioned correctly.
So how do we incorporate this, simply (because that's the beauty of the MESBG weapon system: it's very simple, so it's easy to keep the rules straight), into the game? I recommend one small change.
II. The Fix for Two-Handed Weapons
Instead of the weapon granting a -1 penalty to the duel roll and a +1 to the damage roll, a person may opt to do one of the following: half the weapon (grabbing it roughly halfway up for greater leverage) which increases the Fight Value of the person by 1 but adds no bonus to the wounding roll, or perform a power attack, reducing their Fight Value by 1 but adding a +1 to the wound roll(s).And of course, while performing this action, the target may not benefit from the effects of an equipped shield if they have one, as per normal.
This does a few things for two-handed weapon fighters. First, it adequately reflects the added versatility and quickness of the weapon's leverage when making quick strikes. But second, and perhaps more importantly, if you really want to "wind up" for an attack, you can do so to enhance your damage but at the expense of telegraphing to your opponent when the strike is coming (reducing your Fight Value).
Your ability to defend yourself, even when "winding up" for a blow, is not severely reduced, nor is your ability to reach the target and land a hit. So a penalty to the duel roll doesn't seem accurate. But a penalty to your Fight Value is good: experienced fighters who are roughly on the level are taking a risk in a fair fight when they wind up, and that is best seen through a reduction of Fight Value.
By using this mechanic, you are really giving three options to a model: a chance to use a shield (which increases their Defense), two-weapon fighting (which adds a dice to win the fight), or using a two-handed weapon (which could be a boost to Fight Value or your wounding rolls). And this seems about right to me: each is doing what they should be doing conceptually.
And if this change were to happen, we could remove the Burly special rule from certain profiles: let Abrakhan Guard drop to F3 if they want that sweet S4 with +1 to wound. If you really want that +1 to wound on top of your Strength, take the Fight Value reduction. And if your Goblin Prowlers are up against the wall against a group of orcs? Half the weapon and jump up to F4. Tricky little blighters.
It also makes those who get special rules that make them better (Hearthguard for Khazad Dum, trolls, weapon masters, etc.) feel more special, getting a +1 to wound without the penalty to their Fight Value.
Conclusion
A person using a two-handed weapon is opening themselves up to wounds from archery in ways that a person with a shield is not (generally). To tack on the penalty to the duel roll makes them very vulnerable to danger, and it begs the question of why people would even use two-handed weapons if they are not "burly," which dramatically reduces the utility of this weapon choice. So I recommend a simple fix that makes it more usable in game that I don't think will break the meta.
Let us know what you think! Is this too strong? Too weak? A non-issue? Let us know in the comments below!
Watching the stars,
Centaur
"I know that you have learned the names of the planets and their moons in Astronomy...and that you have mapped the stars' progress through the heavens. Centaurs have unraveled the mysteries of these movements over centuries. Our findings teach us that the future may be glimpsed in the sky above us." ~ Firenze, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I totally agree with this I mean think of aragorn with Anduril. and him being worse at fighting because he had a 2 handed sword, it just doesn't make sense. I really like the idea of well you have 3 options to do, kinda thing I think it would allow beginners to do more things with 2 handed weapons as well because instead of being a risky thing to do it is 1 / 3 options you can choose from. I think there should also be another option, and that would be Shield bash. Shield bash could be a special thing that someone with a shield can do instead of attack. It would take away the shield defense (because you are swinging it away from you). But if you win the fight the enemy is knocked prone and you deal a s1 attack against them. This could be really good if you know you are likely to win but won't wound ( like the elves against dwarves) because then if you have priority next turn they count as being trapped so it is a way to in a few turns possibly buckle a line. But if you lose the fight then you are 1 less defense.
ReplyDeleteI confess, as someone who LOVES shields (and wants to see them get more love in all of the games I play, be those roleplay games or tabletop war games), I'm still working on a shield bash mechanic, so when it's finally ready you'll see it here, :) Trying to make a simple yet useful mechanic is the trick, though, and that's the rub.
DeleteReally love this idea - even if it just had the ability to perform the Bash special strike (much like a mace or hammer), that would be a good start. I mean, it's in the name, and knocking people prone is not a bad ability, though I also don't want to turn uruks with shields into _too_ good of a unit choice, so we'll see, :P
Quick - easy
DeleteA warrior who has a shield can use 2 different methods to fight with it:
Shield block [...] 2 dices, no strikes are done.
Shield bash, lower your fv by 1, throw 2 dices. If u win, your oponent gets thrown down, if mounted on a non monster mount, the rider is thrown, and gets a s3 hit.
Tbh I'm fine with it as it is. I play a lot of games. A real lot. And even I find it tricky enough keeping track. Get some hunter orcs, whack on two handers, and just go for it.
ReplyDeleteThe posts I did on computing probabilities of winning fights made me not mind the 2H penalty that much if you have a banner nearby - the main thing is the psychological impact of not being able to get a 6, I think . . .
DeleteI think the current rules are fine. As with many things in wargaming the rules are the way they are for balance reasons. Representing weapons as they were historically used wouldn't make for the most balanced game I think.
ReplyDeleteThe +1 to wound is very powerful in a game where wounding is usually on a 5+ or 6, but it comes with a steep trade-off of -1 to win the fight. It adds a lot to the game by forcing you to use most 2-handed weapons as a 'finisher', rather than a frontline weapon. Peeling models off from a fight, and setting up traps becomes much more important if you're using one or more models with a 2-handed weapon. I'm a big fan of having a few orcs in my hoard with 2-handed picks to make a trapped model sad-face.
If you're a 2-handed fanatic there's still plenty of exceptions with burly and special rules like Broadsword, which can function as regular frontline fighters.
The only thing I'd change with regard to 2-handers is to give more 'basic' troops access to them. Morannon Orcs, Warriors/Riders of Rohan, Uruk-Hai Warriors/Scouts would all be interesting with the option. You'd never equip 10+ with them, but having a few 2-handed guys would be very useful.
1/2 It may be quicker for me to just start a counter-blog for my long-winded critiques. 😉
ReplyDeleteI think my rebuttal falls into two overarching categories: gaming context, and historical context. Since you mentioned you wanted “simple” fixes, in short: I’d advise to leave it alone. Even the change you proposed would have bigger consequences I think, not just to burly but master forged, weapon master, and weapons with unique special rules. All of those would be losers and require some additional change or buff if two-handed weapons were buffed overall IMO. I will concede that I, too, would enjoy seeing two-handed weapons given a different *kind* of choice, but I would take a very different route I’ll explain later.
To the meat of the argument though. From a historical perspective, the first and most obvious thing is this isn’t historical. I understand wanting to take a historical perspective in looking at LOTR, however many, MANY scenes do not work if one was to consider “real life.” But then again let’s assume a more realistic historical portrayal of LOTR. When taking weapons into consideration for effectiveness, one has to look at the weapon, the skill of the weapon user, AND the type of target. For instance, while a massive (and proper) two-handed sword (think claymore or ōdachi) may be fantastic in the hands of a skilled warrior against an infantryman, it is entirely lackluster in the arms of an average Joe against a mounted foe. Thus, simply lumping all two-handed weapons into something as unnuanced as “giving greater control over a weapon” is, I would argue, less accurate than the current rules would suggest. For *some* weapons that is true, but not to others. To wit, I offer the following charts and rules – expressly created to be as historically accurate as possible – over the course of 40+ years of rules testing by a group of gamers consisting of a PhD in history, a DA, a cop, and multiple dedicated wargamers (and many of these having served time in the military to boot). The cheatsheet can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_852gqEapDZ_6SaNmJOQ2echuG4eHAoR/view A full list of the (free to use while keeping coversheet) rules and explanations of weapons can be found starting on page 73 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGE9d7zEOwUPUktckjKZ1i13UUeMheE4/view What does this have to do with LOTR? Basically that EVERY weapon *should* have different rules governing how it works. A pike is, after all, essentially useless against an enemy who has closed the distance or taken a flank (as the Greek Successor States discovered quite quickly against Roman legions).
2/2 “But Kirk,” you say, “We can’t have ‘flanks’ on rounded bases!” Of course you can’t. Which is why I really like the rules they gave to the Clansmen Broadswords: it nuances a weapon based on personal skill/context. In LOTR gaming terms, this can be difficult to juggle since, I believe, the Fight value is intended to incorporate overall combat skill while having a separate “consideration” for weapon differences. Were I to change the rules, I would actually incorporate the special strikes as part of the weapon rules under each profile. This gives the opportunity to not only make special strikes easier to learn for new players, but also to enable rule writers to give individual weapon users differences based on “historical” quirks. For instance, I can easily see an axe being wielded with sufficient skill by a Rider of Rohan to ignore a defense penalty when using it. Not so with a random Goblin or Hobbit.
ReplyDeleteThe other gaming drawback, which also leans on fantasy thinking, is the “same weapon” can be totally different with special rules in different armies. Great example is the Easterling Phalanx. Despite being considerably less “skilled” in fighting versus say, an elf, Easterlings are skilled enough with *their* pikes to ignore penalties of using shields and backing away, but somehow the 3,000+ year old elves have not. That’s a big reason why I think GW lumped all the two-handed weapons together to create balance and simplicity. And I’m okay with that. Ultimately, two-handed weapons need to be used tactically and creatively just the same as all the other weapons in the game. Yes, some are favored more than others, that is part of the charm of different army lists. And yes, I think some armies need significant buffs in wargear, rules, or faction abilities to be competitively effective in the current rules *coughEasterlingscough*, but I don’t think that means we need a fairly substantial rebalance of all two-handed weapons and rules in the game to even things out.
So wouldn't FV address how well each model uses the weapon it has (not a rule for the army)? I get that rules like Broadsword are great for showcasing special weapons, but do we really want each army having it's own weapon bestiary? Seems like that would be a big deterrent for new players.
DeleteI'm also curious what would seem like a balanced incentive to actually use 2H weapons if something like this doesn't cut it - right now, everyone agrees you basically never use 2H weapons (unless they have a rule that ignores the penalty). That's indicative of a problem.
Speaking of those rules, I don't think models with Burly, Master Forged, etc. suffer much - they can get +1 To Wound without penalty (just like now) or +1 FV without penalty (something they don't get now). The only penalty they may suffer is that other models might actually 2H against them . . . which means the 2H mechanic is actually working.
Yes, as I said I think a different penalty is desirable and fight value is the most logical and balanced choice, but I wouldn't make it a special rule. Just swap the -1 to duel for a -1 to fight. Many 2H models are armed with a second weapon (or hand-and-a-half), and that would be the choice they can make. The point about a complex rewrite was from the perspective of "historical wargaming" (which is also why I generally oppose introducing new special rules in LOTR).
DeleteI actually don't agree you "basically never use" 2H in the game, I think you basically never use them in individual combats (which many games *can* be), especially from non-hero models. I think you actually see them more now than the last edition since you can now support a model using a 2H weapon. GW even said in the original rules "To take full advantage of these weapons, it is a good idea to use warriors armed in this way together with others carrying ordinary weapons."
My point with the other 2H weapon rules is that GW has put a premium on offsetting that penalty (2 points for Hearthguard, 20 points for Durin's Axe in the last edition) whereas increasing fight value is typically 1 point (King's Guard). I haven't done the math for heroes with those abilities, nor for what the average cost of -1 penalty removers are, but surely the points would need to be rebalanced to reflect a less-severe penalty.
I really, really enjoyed this article, and the more I think about it the more I agree with it.
ReplyDeleteMost fundamentally, I think you're totally right that the current rules need to change. You don't go into it too much here (and fair enough, this was more of a suggestions article than a critiquing one), but they are so rarely worth including in any context, let alone actually using. I genuinely think you could make a rule of thumb to never include them, ever, and wouldn't really suffer much from it.
I was pretty immediately on board with the '-1 Fight, +1 to Wound' change, and I think that that would be easily the simplest and most elegant change. Even if you didn't want to add the +1 Fight when not adding +1 to Wound, this change alone would make the situation vastly better. It does raise the small issue that there would be no downside to two-handing when you've got another model in the fight, but I think that'd be a small price to pay for making two-handers viable.
I was initially unconvinced by the 'halving' special rule. It sounded like a fun idea, but just kind of unnecessary if the other fix was being implemented. It would also add a decent bit more complexity, which I'm always hesitant about. Choosing which way you'd use your two-hander every turn, and whether or not to use a special strike as well seems like it could lead to decision paralysis.
However, the more I thought about it, the more appealing it became. From a balance perspective, we always have to compare two-handers to shields. Shields allow you to use a very powerful special way of fighting with a big downside, just like two-handers with this change. But shields also provide you with a noticeable benefit (+1 Defence) even when you're not using their special stance, so why shouldn't two-handers get a similar benefit? It would also give two-handers something that they do better than hand-and-a-half weapons, which are currently just Two-Handers Plus. I'm sure that there'd be some balance issues that would need to be sorted (F4 Angmar Orcs or F5 Grimhammers and Berserkers seem like terrifying things to face in particular), but I'm growing more convinced that it would be a good idea. It would also open up design space to differentiate Burly/Weapon Master/Masterforged Weapon a little more, which would be nice. Maybe Burly lets you get the +1 to Wound without the Fight debuff, while Weapon Master gives you +2 Fight when halving the weapon or something.
Overall, I think these changes are really good, and I'd be really excited to see them implemented. There'd be heaps of balance flow-on issues, but I think they'd be worthwhile dealing with
YOu know what, ill try them!;)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the current rules are kinda dumbly representing the historical reality, this is worst for the hand-and-a-half weapons, that these weapons with same weight would be more easy to maneouvre with one hand than with two hands is just really dumb.
ReplyDeleteI also find the current rules kinda annoying, it means I generally never run two-handed warriors unless they are hand-and-a-half (like elves, with whom I only rarely use it) or with burly dwarves. Even on khazad guard who come with the two-handed weapons for free I basically never use it.
I would love for the fantasy of the classic scene of elf line windmilling the orcs running against them to make flavour sense, giving me a reason to actually use those last alliance minis as they are in the box.
Pretty much - though if you have a reroll from a banner (and the higher FV), you can actually get pretty good odds of winning while two-handing with Elves. Check out one of our "epic movie moments" formation posts for how to do that: https://tellmeatalegreatorsmall.blogspot.com/2021/08/unexpected-military-formations-epic.html.
DeleteAs you said, there are special rules for some units, such as Burly, Master-forged, and Broadsword, that counter the current problems with two-handed weapons, and this allows some units to use them more effectively. I like your idea, but I do not think it really works with this game. For example, I do not imagine that a mere Orc would have the skill to fight better with a two-handed weapon. However, I do think that there could be a few more special rules for some models that allows two-handed weapons to be more useful for them.
ReplyDeleteA perhaps simpler solution would be to consider the model wielding the two-handed sword as having +1 Strength. They're giving up the option of wielding a shield, which would have given them a +1 to Defense, it'd be rather easy to remember intuitively; You've decided to use your other hand for offense rather than defense!
ReplyDeleteThat said, doing this would also remove the choice of one-handing or two-handing one-and-a-half weapons, which would be a bit of a shame.
A different line of thinking would be that by giving up a +1 to Defense by opting not to buy a shield (often costing you 1 point - same as upgrading to a 2-handed weapon), you are essentially giving any potential attackers +1 to wound against you roughly half the time (excepting cases where the attacker already has enough Strength to wound you on a 3+, and the shield leaves that unchanged).
Perhaps there is a way then to keep the hand-and-a-half swords interesting: rather than a +1 Strength bonus, you could keep the +1 to wound (going from a +0.5 bonus to wound to a +1 bonus to wound, effectively, meaning we increase this bonus by 0.5), but somehow only applying a 0.5 penalty to the Fight roll? (effectively countering the extra 0.5 bonus we just gave them)
One way that comes to mind would be to consider 3 out of the 6 different results on the d6 to be 1 lower, perhaps the 3 higher ones? (so the possible results would then be: 1,2,3,3,4,5, when using a two-handed wepon, as opposed to the current 1,1,2,3,4,5). It might be a bit more difficult to remember than a simple -1 penalty, but it would certainly help you win a few more duels when both sides roll poorly. It would mostly leave the high attack models the same as well (since 4+ is significantly more like when you add more attacks), so there's not much risk that any of them would go out of control from this two-handed weapon buff.
Another option would be to affect only the middling rolls (2,3,4), though that might be easier to express by saying that a roll of 5 or 6 does not get a -1 penalty (similar to the current wording of two-handed broadswords, I believe). The possible results would then be 1,1,2,3,5,6. It'd be the largest possible buff you could give to two-handed weapon users while still only affecting half of the dice rolls.
The third option would be to do a half-and-half, picking the rolls 3,4,5 to reduce by 1. Remembering this would be a bit unintuitive to the uninitiated though.. A result of 2 does not win the fight very often, especially once you get to higher attacks.. So.. Perhaps you could just have only a result of 6 ignore the -1 penalty and call it a day? The two-handed broadsword users had it right all along!?
Anyways, that's a lot of words, I suppose a quick tldr would be: keep the +1 to wound, but lower the penalty to the duel roll from –1 to about –0.5 somehow, and it will be a lot more balanced when comparing it to taking a shield instead.
Delete