Hey,

I'm not quite sure how to handle the soak of a group of henchmen.

Let's assume a Swordmaster is hitting a group of 5 Goblins (Toughness 3) with 10 Damage.

Does the soak only get subtracted once?

In that case, the Goblins would eat 7 damage (10 Damage minus 3 Soak), so 2 of them get killed and one additional suffers 1 wound.

Or does the soak get treated individually?

In that case, the first Gobiln would soak 3 damage and take 3 damage to get killed (4 Damage remaining from the attack).

The next Goblin would soak 3 damage and remain living with 1 wound.

Last case: A maximum of one henchman can be hit with a single attack?!

A henchman group is treated as one creature with health = toughness * number in group.

So in your example you group starts with 15 health.

You did 10 damage. You reduce this by toughness + armour soak if any. Since you only mention toughness of 3 and no other soak.

They take 7 wounds.

So you kill 2 goblins for 6 wounds and one loses 1 wound. You now have 3 henchmen with one at 2 health. To have a total of 8 health left.

Cool, thanks for clearing this up.

Sounds like -by using this rule- players can really kill a few dozen easy enemies in a fight.
I guess my players will really like the feel of that.

No problem. You just have to remember once damage is reduced by soak and toughness it becomes wounds.

Makes it easier to understand then.

Yeah, the henchmen rules are a bit weird. Remeber that if you use those rules players will easily get the wrong impression about enemies. I would reccomend making clear that it is a group of inferior versions of the creatures. Also, never use henchmen for any powerfull creatures.

Indeed, and I made up my own rule for this:

An enemy who is below the power level of the players may be a henchman of a group.

All enemies of equal or greater power cannot spawn in groups.

So once my players reach rank 4 or 5, orcs may start to engage as groups of henchmen.

For rank 1, it will most likely be snotlings, skaven slaves, farmers or similarly squishy enemies.

I may be in the minority here but I don't like the henchman rules at all, and thus have pretty much ditched them from my game.

I find it hard to reconcile the dangerously grim and dark setting and yet have my players able to wade through whole swathes of minions like it's DnD. And I agree with Ralzar in that it's then necessary to make distinction between which enemies are easily killed hench and which are bona fide creatures. So I don't bother. A creature is a creature with similar stats throughout the game and you best be prepared before you go wading into a bunch of them thinking you're Conan. And even then I think Conan would get his ass handed to him in Warhammer (no shirt and no armour? Ok two crits and you lose an arm and get an infection from the rusty blade - hard luck Conan lol)

With me I usually think what is the purpose of such a rule? If it's actually to make the combat easier and enemies more of a pushover then (meh) I don't want it in my game. If it's to speed up combat and or afford a few classic moments where your combat tank feels like a fighting god then there are other ways to do it. Either through the narrative. Your comet you rolled means your hammer blow explodes the head of the goblin in front of you and sinks satisfyingly into the jaw of a suprised second gobbo behind you. Or maybe most of the enemies the PC is facing are already wounded and just returning home battle scarred and beaten. Make it clear they're already bloodied and broken and that you got lucky and can get a few cheap kills but it won't always be like that. Again just handled with the narrative which again the dice affords.

Just my 2 brass pennies worth.

I think my players will just love the fact to be able to feel quite powerful. Having a bunch of normal NPCs along with 2-3 groups of Henchmen might feel like an overpowered enemy, but in the end beating up 20 individuals might be more of an accomplishment to my players.

I think it's really just a matter of preference in the end.

But as I told my players that there is a rule for slaying groups of enemies, they were all like "cool, I like that". So there is no reason for me not to use this rule.

And how dark, grim or perilous this world really is, depends on the consensus of the players.

I do believe the henchmen rule comes from the Warhammer Fantasy Battles game. Lord and Hero characters have multiple attacks often killing more than one per round. I believe the henchmen rule is in place to simulate that heroic feel. That said, I don't use the henchmen much, as Noelyuk put it doesn't feel grim and dangerous as Warhammer should. The few times I use henchmen I've also made it clear to my players that these are inferior foes who have numbers but no skill.

One of my playgroups charged a group of 10 beastmen (non henchmen) after winning a fight with several henchmen groups included earlier in the game. Needles to say, the beastmen easily won and some player characters even died. They charged even though I warned them that these beastmen looked a lot tougher than the ones encountered earlier. Granted I could have changed the tougher beastmen into henchmen as well, but then I'd probably have to keep doing that for all larger groups of enemies. Since then I've been very clear on when they are facing henchmen, which is very seldom.

So if you use henchmen a lot you have to factor in the risk of players getting overconfident that they can kill 20 individuals if you let them fight henchmen groups all the time. They might want to do it when it's not appropriate and could get surprised/angry if they loose or die to "only" 10 enemies (or eve fewer). And be clear when they are facing henchmen and when they are not, so the players know.

Of course I won't let them kill henchmen all the time.

It also doesn't make sense to have it like this. At rank 1, the only enemies being eligible to spawn as henchmen (if you ask me) will be snotlings, smaller animals, skaven slaves or a mob of peasants.

Since those enemies will not be there all the time, quite many fights will happen without any henchmen at all!

They actually changed up this rule in the Star Wars rules. In this game, the "hit points" of a henchman group are equal to the number of henchmen times the toughness of one of them. In Star Wars, it's equal to the number of henchmen times the hit points of one of them. This makes henchmen much tougher in Star Wars, and leads to players mowing through enemies less frequently.

I may be in the minority here but I don't like the henchman rules at all, and thus have pretty much ditched them from my game.

I find it hard to reconcile the dangerously grim and dark setting and yet have my players able to wade through whole swathes of minions like it's DnD. And I agree with Ralzar in that it's then necessary to make distinction between which enemies are easily killed hench and which are bona fide creatures. So I don't bother. A creature is a creature with similar stats throughout the game and you best be prepared before you go wading into a bunch of them thinking you're Conan. And even then I think Conan would get his ass handed to him in Warhammer (no shirt and no armour? Ok two crits and you lose an arm and get an infection from the rusty blade - hard luck Conan lol)

With me I usually think what is the purpose of such a rule? If it's actually to make the combat easier and enemies more of a pushover then (meh) I don't want it in my game. If it's to speed up combat and or afford a few classic moments where your combat tank feels like a fighting god then there are other ways to do it. Either through the narrative. Your comet you rolled means your hammer blow explodes the head of the goblin in front of you and sinks satisfyingly into the jaw of a suprised second gobbo behind you. Or maybe most of the enemies the PC is facing are already wounded and just returning home battle scarred and beaten. Make it clear they're already bloodied and broken and that you got lucky and can get a few cheap kills but it won't always be like that. Again just handled with the narrative which again the dice affords.

Just my 2 brass pennies worth.

I can understand this point of view, but I like having the rule because it DOES speed up combat, makes managing enemies easier on the GM (keep in mind that mob of henchmen shares an A/C/E pool), acts as a great way to have players face a horde of enemies but focus damage on the tank character (because there are less attacks), gives hordes of enemies a way to potentially land massive hits rather than a bunch of piddling ones, helps players to sense that the setting is dangerous both for them AND for the monsters, and does give them a chance to feel like big **** heroes in a combat, even if they're not combat monsters. The big thing about the henchmen group rule is that it acts a sort of balancing mechanic for the GM to use against parties that have a mix between combat monsters and other careers. Mobs of henchmen can focus damage on a single target, act as a credible threat, and be an easy target for less skilled characters.

I think the rulebooks in v3 often refer to the adventurers as 'heroes' much like the antagonists of many of the GW novels. If that is your players expectations or the mood that suits a particular adventure then the henchmen rules help deliver that. But if the adventurers are 'investigstors' or in an urban intrigue scenario then bullet time carnage is probably out of place. Either way the players need to know which mode they are facing so they can respond to the appropriate conceit.

I think that characters in wfrp 3rd have a higher level of baseline competence, but this is tempered by the fact that their successes will likely be accompanied with disadvantage. I think this leads to more interesting situations than older wfrp where you just had a high chance of failing and nothing else happening. It's a different kind of flavor, where you have a group of losers who suck at almost everything versus a group of competent people who bad things keep happening to. I personally like the latter better, but it's up to preference. The other thing I like about 3rd is that it offers you SO MANY bad things to inflict on players: stress/fatigue, conditions, diseases, corruption, party stress, critical wounds, mutations, and narrative consequences are all mechanically represented.

Also, I think "bullet time carnage" is a bit of hyperbole. Your average peasant using a sword will deal 8 damage (3 strength plus 5 for hand weapon) to a horde of ungor. The ungor soak 5 of that damage (4 toughness and 1 soak), taking 3 damage. That's not even enough to kill 1 ungor in the horde. A lucky hit will kill off one ungor, and a really lucky hit will kill two. A trained fighter will kill off one ungor per hit, two of lucky, and three if really lucky. Keep in mind this is an ungor, one of the weakest enemies in the game short of a goblin. Also keep in mind that doing henchmen groups will make them hit much harder against their chosen target, allow the GM to more fairly focus on the tank of the group, and speeds up combat with hordes of enemies.

When Im playing, its totes bullet time carnage. In my head. When I roll four hammers. Against snotlings.

How do you handle ranged characters shooting a group of henchmen regarding their ammo?

Example:
An archer is shooting into a group of snotlings. Considering his damage dealt, he will kill off four snotlings at once.

However, in terms of rules, he just shot a single arrow.

How would a single arrow kill four snotlings? This might happen once in a million times (they are perfectly standing in a row), but with EVERY successful hit?

I am inclined to just force to player to lose 1 ammo per enemy killed, telling him that he shot multiple projectiles in quick succession.

Yet again, this will not work well for players with blackpowder weapons.

I feel a little lost here. Help!

As the GM if you dont like it, make up your own rule. Do not overthink it, they are just there to be cannon fodder to slow the pc's down while the boss does his stuff.

Options

Roll a D4 and that is how many died.

I don't know if there is an Action called Hail of arrows. Use 4 arrows is always another option like you mentioned.

Time of a round is not fixed, it is more fluid, dependant of action and manoeuvres. Melee attack is a series of thrusts, swings, pivots etc. Same goes for ranged attacks, several arrows, or one well aimed arrow, or for spells. Its all happening at the same time, your attacks and your enemy's defences. Turn system is in place not to resemble real world fight scene, it is in place to make it possible to play it.

As for the number of arrows used, its one arrow for one ranged action, even if it seems like one arrow killed 4 goblins. Keep it simple for game mechanics.

Agree absolutely with most of above, an attack is not one swing it's series etc.

Although on arrows, if more than one target struck I require the archer to strike of multiple arrows. For pistols/crossbow bolts that's tougher, if it's henchmen that would be taken out I have the "added targets" instead run off.

I have an adventurer in my group. He is a Human Mercenary with ST=4, "Berzerker Rage!" and "Reckless Cleave" and "Thunderous Blow" actions. He used to have 4 tiles of Reckless (now he only has 3 with the new Career). And he wields Great Sword. With that combination he was easily having attacks with damage above 20:

Basic DR = 7, Strength bonus = +4, Reckless bonus for the rage = +4, Reckless Cleave three successes line bonus = +3, Boon line bonus = +4. To the total of 22.

It is a pain for me to launch henchmen against him, and is the same pain for other players to watch that while they are struggling to deal a hit. So my henchmen actually get total health of twice their Toughness each. But then both the Soak and Toughness is applied once only. I need yet to try if that works...

Anyway, for ranged attacks it makes sense to ask players to spend more ammunition to be able to hit several henchmen, and additional maneuvers for weapons that need them. Otherwise the excess damage is lost.

I'm not sure I'll every use henchmen, except for maybe really scrawny goblins, beastmen or skaven. However, if I was using the rules and wanted to fix them a bit I'd do one of the following:

Either: You can only kill one henchman with an attack. Extra damage caused is wasted.

Or: The henchman group starts with standard Wounds for the monster type and then add Th for each additional henchman. You have to work through the "normal" wounds to kill the first one.

Or: The henchman group is one monster. It adds as many Fortune Dice as there are players. It has the same amount of Wounds as a normal monster. When you cause that many wounds they all "die".

Or some combination of them. I think I'll just wing it so it fits the situation if I ever need to do some kind of mass combat.

Henchmen are for more dramatical effect having PCs to hack through many adversaries to feel the epic (although the grim and perilous one). These are very nice rules indeed.
Personally, I like the idea of D&D 4ed minions the most, where each has only 1 hp (wound) and deals fixed amount of damage on a successful hit. (Perhaps the only idea I do like there). But D&D 4ed doesn't have soak and attacks there are just simple as "Roll d20, add the bonus, compare against known DC value". Fixed damage will not work well with WHRP3e where there are Toughness and Soak. And each attack results in gathering the dice pool, separating symbols and subtracting one from another, and so on. So I like that henchmen act and perform checks as a group, otherwise players will get bored.

A single attack roll does not represent only a single blow of a sword. It is actually a series of movement, slashes, blocks and tricks. So it's fine having one attack deal damage to several foes. I just complain about having single warrior in my group that can easily take down 3-4 henchmen while others have problems with hitting them.

Here is an idea that just came to my mind - I need to test it. Each henchman has only 1 would + his toughness + his soak. In Melee Attack, if PC deals at least that much damage, one henchman is slain. (No minimal 1 wound damage here). if PC deals at least twice that much damage - the second is slain as well. And so on. Otherwise the damage is not cumulative, and GM doesn't need to record it.
With Ranged attack, the PC must spend more ammunition and reload maneuvers when necessary to benefit from high damage. I suppose PC may use Sigmar's Comet result to have one arrow go thrugh a foe and strike the next one, but that seems to be too cartoonish. The group shares common initiative, pool of A/C/E, makes attacks and checks as a group and so on - as per rules.

Personally I don't want the epic combat feel to my games unless my players actually can survive that without henchmen rules. However, henchmen can work if you define them as cowardly, weak enemies that don't die when you wound them, but flee instead. Or whatever is appropriate for the scene. So the amount of damage you inflict isn't really important as they will flee when they meet any serious resistance.

So a version of what you suggested above:

Henchmen have as many wounds as there are henchmen. So each henchman=1 wound. You can only "kill" one with a single normal hit. If you cause critical injuries, you "kill" one additional henchman per critical.

Henchmen are great for snotlings, goblins at a certain point, mobs of easily discouraged peasants, zombies, skeletons etc.

When I ran the game at 5th+ rank, expanding that to mercenaries and others was logical.

I use henchman at mid-rank+ really as additional soak for primary foes. The 'bodyguards' that block direct line of sight, use Guarded Position to improve main target's survivability etc.