A player fires a bow and kills 2 henchmen with a single arrow. How to narrate this?

Saying that the arrow went through one enemy and hit another is ok I guess, but it can only work once. Maybe twice.

Perhaps I am using the henchmen rules wrong?

Nope, you are using them right and I remember a post from one of the first play sessions of the demo mentioning this phenomenon

As I recall, the first time it happened everyone thought it was "cool" but the second time it happened in the same session, there were a few groans at the table.

It is a difficult concept to narate in new and interesting ways if it happens a lot.

If it happens with lower level greenskin style henchmen (snotlings or Goblins) you could go for the comedic arrow hits and kills gobbo one who drops his weapon, neatly slicing off the head of gobbo 2, but even that will only work occasionally.

Remember though, that an action need not be a single attack, and so if your PCs are not overly precious you could rule that the attack represents the ability of the PC to get off several shots, taken out more than one enemy at a time. The downside of this is that you then need to use "extra" arrows, which some players might not be too happy about (but if they moan just stop using henchmen rules and see how they like that!) and it doesn't work that well with weapons with the reload quality. It is back to the idea that an action doesn't neccessarily mean a single attack and so using a crossbow to kill 2 henchmen in a single attack could be narrated as the henchmen being so slow and dis-organised that they give the PC the time to shoot, carefully load and shoot again (cross off those bolts) before the henchmen get organised enough to try an attack of their own...

I think in my game I will occasionally say that the PC has the time and opportunity to shoot at multiple targets, and if the PC doesn't want to cross off the additional ammo, then those extra attacks will be lost.....cruel but fair! Allowing archers to scavenge the battle field afterwards for lose arrows might be a neccesary compromise....

I was under the impression that a use of a basic attack was just one attack. Otherwise, what you are saying about using two arrows definately makes more sense.

I would rule that normally each henchman required an additional round of ammunition - you were extra fast and fired more arrows, you double loaded your pistol etc.

At times, Player may be able to narrate something explaining one shot taking down an extra foe and avoid this (e.g., they were near the edge of a cliff or other "take out" obstacle and the 2nd one was pushed over by the first one's fall from lethal shot).

Rob

Or optionally you could rule that the attack only kills one henchmen and extra damage is lost. This would nerf ranged attacks though, which may or may not be desirable for some people.

plutonick said:

Certainly the example dice pool narrations in ToA p 23 talk about multiple thrusts and parries from a single attack action, so there is no reason to think this couldn't also be applied to ranged attacks.

You might describe it as one arrow killing one henchman and another panics. The panicked henchman just plays dead or otherwise loses all will to fight and goes into battlefield shock, effectively becoming a casualty (the party easily dispatches the poor, sniveling clod while searching the pile of bodies after the fight ends).

Another way to play it is that henchmen are just so weak-willed that even being grazed by an arrow is enough to put them out of the fight. The arrow grazes one henchman's weapon arm on its way into the stomach of the second henchman.

pumpkin said:

What about not taking account of ammunition instead. I don't. I hate bookkeeping and I never had fun accounting ammunitions, food and other trivial things. Even the poorest of characters can always afford food and ammo. If you want to make a scene about food/ammo shortage as part of your story, just do so (warning your players at one point : you're starting to run very low on ammo/food/whatnot then tell them they're compeletly out after some time if they don't do something about it).

Silverwave said:

Yep, a very similar system to this is offered up in Trail of Cthulhu and I think a lot of the concepts of that game work well or have similarities with the WFRP V3 rule set; both being much more narrative based than simulationist based.

jeffeoff said:

The problem with this is that unless you have a play group that appreciates that style the party won't 'dispatch' him at the end of the encounter, but instead capture/interrogate/etc the NPC, treating him as a plot advancer (which isn't always a bad thing) rather than a combat speed bump.

I usually rule that another henchman flees. If another henchman takes damage I usually rule that his companion going down causes him to stumble and fall (henchmen being inherently in fairly tightly packed groups), or else it represents his moral taking a hit when he sees his mate dying.

How do you prevent someone of the party from 'chasing after' that dead henchman?

I agree with the statement that you aren't just making a singular attack but each card represents multiple 'swings' of the blade or shots from a bow.

That was a staple from the previous versions of Warhammer as well. It was more expressly mentioned there but I feel it applies here as well.

Maybe the ammo could be expended for each kill, but each shot fired this way is automatically recovered at the end of the fight.

just don't put all of your henchman together into one engagement until they can melee. really, kryyst was right. the easiest thing is just to rule that with ranged attacks involving discrete arrows, crossbow bolts, throwing knives, the max kill for henchman is one. if you lose a few damage that would have carried over if following RAW then so what. ranged combat is already at an advantage. i dont think anything would be nerfed. it might even level things a little.

the multiple shot business in one round just doesn't make sense to me when you start talking about guns and crossbows instead of bows. i think multiple shots/round is covered by various action cards instead like the infamous rapid fire, etc. on the other hand one musket ball flying through multiple minions every shot sounds fun and reasonable.

I think I would tend to limit the number of kills to one, unless there are additional circumstances that would make multiple kills make sense.

Though it does limit the potential for ranged attacks against multiple opponents, it does tend to keep with the spirit of the setting.

Now that I've seen the Horde rules for Deathwatch I'm wondering how to incorporate them into the Henchman mechanic smoothly so that the 'kill 3 with one arrow' situation doesn't feel so artificial.

keltheos said:

You don't. If the PC catches up with him he can just cut him down, or you could have them fight if you really want to. It usually isn't worth the effort, however. Chasing after fleeing henchmen is time consuming and draining for the PCs (to catch up they'll probably have to burn fatigue) and could easily lead them into danger (the henchman hooks up with some of his mates). It usually isn't a problem.

Guess it depends on the party. I think most are of the Got a runner, catch him so that (he can't get help/we can interrogate him/he might lead us back to the hideout/etc). Rather than a 'he's a 'stat' not an interactive plot item' the posts here seem to allude to him being. Sure, that might play with a snotling henchman, but what about a human bandit henchman?