Has anyone tried the Horde rules from Deathwatch in a Dark Heresy game? Any thoughts on how well it adapts?

I set my players against a 40 magnitude giant rat horde to try out the rules. I thought it all worked pretty well except the rules for damage from hordes. The horde only managed to hit one acolyte once before it broke. The problem I have is that the one hit it dealt out 18 damage (3d10+2), I think that’s too much for one lucky shot.

I am thinking about changing the extra damage die for magnitude to extra attacks based on magnitude. More chances to hit and each hit deals out a reasonable amount of damage. I was also thinking about adding a "dumb luck" rule that lets the attack either bypass armor on a damage roll of 10 or that duplicates righteous fury so that there is still a real threat from the horde.

The thing to remember about hordes is that when they hit that attack is representing multiple attacks. So when your Rat horde hits and does damage you are looking at dozens of rats crawling over a player, scratching and biting them. Hordes can get very mean as far as damage output goes since they are designed to be a threat to space marines. You might have, as you suggested, better luck with adding attacks based on magnitude not damage. This might be the best way to handle hordes in DH.

Hordes already get bonus attacks for their magnitude though, it's the first digit of their size (so 25 magnitude would get 2 ranged attacks, and 30 would get 3). For hth I don't see any rules about multiple attacks save for the melee talents like swift attack. For close combat, I would consider giving multiple attacks rather than increased damage output.

I also wouldn't give them a 'dumb luck' rule- 3d10+x damage is probably pretty horrific for an acolyte anyhow- the hordes escalate in destructive power very quickly. An axe wielding mob of peasants will do what, 3d10+3 for an average of 18 damage? Many acolytes have toughness 3, armor 3, so they take 12 damage? Most acolytes in my games (aside form the arbite and the guardsman) would be at critical wounds at that point. That's only one attack though, and probably only with a 25-35% chance to hit. But then take a rebellious PDF unit (like the ones in final sanction) and ranged attacks- a mag 30 horde of cultists does 3 shots at semi auto from a rifle or lasgun, giving their bs a +10 bonus to hit your guys. Say one or two hits, maybe one of them hits by two degrees or more. So now you're doing 3d10+4 x 2 or 3, hitting your acolyte for 19, 19, and maybe another 19. Even for a guardsman in carapace who soaks 10 or 11 damage per shot you're looking at 16 damage, maybe 24 in one round. That seems pretty friggin deadly for a side enemy that's not your main threat.

Charmander said:

True that. It's the equivalent of being hit by a Multi-Laser.

So ... what about adding 1d5 damage per 10's digit of their magnitude? Or, alternatively, a fixed number of damage points, say 2 or 3 per 10's digit of their magnitude?

It seems to me that if you don't add some damage, many hordes might not even be able to hurt acolytes.

I think the static damage proposal is good in that it makes it very predictable, and less work and worry for the GM who is using them. That way you'd have a solid estimate on how much damage the group would be taking each turn. Additional attacks or +d5s to damage I think work well also, and they keep the suspence of the random chance dice rolling entails.

I agree that not adding something, specifically in hand to hand, would be needed to avoid making the horde a glorified individual with a ton of wounds. I do wonder though what your acolytes are wearing and equipped with where a simple lasgun or mono-axe can't do something to them, even if it's a low chance.

A trick to remember is that hordes, as implemented, are designed to be supplemental enemies- to highlight the heroic nature of the PCs and keep combat flowing quickly when dealing with large groups of lesser enemies. The commanders and NPCs that 'matter' are still going to be individuals armed with chainswords and plasma pistols and all the good gear. I guess what 'm saying is that's not always the 'typical' themes used In Dark Heresy (I'm NOT saying it's wrong or you shouldn't do it). I would advise that you be mindful of the theme that you're trying to convey to the group. What type of creatures comprise your hordes, and what is it about the enemies and the acolytes that makes the use of hordes an effective device? Are they engaging enemy rebels and are defending a base with heavy weapon emplacements? Are they fleeing from a huge group of genestealers (I hope not, for ther sake!)? Are they somehow embroiled in the midst of a war and are simply trying to escape with their lives, or punch through to hit some sort of key objective? What about the situation requires the Acolytes to be able to kill swaths of enemies? What enemies in your setting are so beneath the acolyte's skills, talents, and equipment that they have been 'reduced' to horde status?

Once you figure out what you want the horde to represent, and how well armed and armored your group will be, I think that can really help determine what system you want to go with. Lightly armored and standard weapon load out (i.e. no heavy bolters rocket launchers) I'd probably go with added attacks. Heavily armored with a heavier load out, I'd go with increased damage, and probably go with the d5.

Charmander said:

I'll grant you that. But DH Cultists don't carry Lasguns and Mono-axes. They carry clubs, knives, chains, pipes, and the occassional stub revolver. All except the revolver are Primitive. Even so, I feel like they should have some small chance to hurt even well-equipped acolytes just by dint of their sheer numbers. I'm not talking outright TPK here ... just some chance to cause them harm, so that they still have to fear for their lives and the tension is still there. Otherwise, what's the point?

Sister Cat said:

Ehm, cultists have varied equipment, funding, motivation etc. Not all of them are fanatics either, some are simply... heretics.

In official modules cultists have been seen armed with lasguns, autoguns, mono-weaponry, flak armor etc. and of course some only have daggers.

I haven't read up on these rules, but they seem very interesting. When my acolytes encounterered primitive orks on a planet, I discovered that thanks to their armor they were essentially immune, regardless of the numbers involved. The Party's scum was shot at by 30 orks with bows, and despite my ad-hoc "dumb luck" rule, he was barely hurt even while becoming a lynchpuncheon.

Even now basic guardsmen are practically no challenge for my acolytes, and even a lasgun blast at max damage will barely damage them.

So these rules might at least mean that hordes of enemies can be dangerous, even if they have inferior weapons. 10,000 musketmen can take on 100 Imperial Guardsmen and expect to win. Maybe even just 1000. Armor is not foolproof, not even Space Marine Power Armor (fluff indicates even basic Lasguns can damage them).

However we should expect these rules to be balanced for Astartes, not acolytes of the inquisition. For instance, 18 damage is barely a nick to an average Space Marine, but a potential lethal attack against inexperienced or ill-equipped acolytes. But instead of nerfing the damage, I would rather nerf the numbers. If your acolytes can't handle it, then you might not want to send hundreds of giant rats against them, or a platoon of Imperial Guardsmen, because frankly a handful of normal men are not likely to survive it. Or use them only as a dramatic event, meant to make the PCs flee or fight a desperate retreat. If they are foolish enough to stand and fight when obviously outnumbered they are either metagaming or stupid, and deserve the consequences.

Friend of the Dork said:

My apologies. I wasn't clear. I was using the standard Cultists from the back of the Core Rulebook. They were meant as an inconvenience, a minor obstacle to get through. But I still expected them to cause a little damage ... maybe enough to make the acolytes hole up for a little while, so the medic could do his thing. Nope. Not a scratch. They were meant to be a horde-like encounter ... sheer numbers of individually weak enemies. Of course, at the time, we didn't have Horde rules, 'cause Deathwatch wasn't out yet. So ... it didn't work out that well. My players just waded through them, never really slowing down much. No fear, no tension.

But now with Horde rules, and a little bit of judicious modification of the rules to account for the fact that acolytes are NOT Space Marines, I think I could do something similar, but keep the tension (and keep the acolytes in fear for their lives).

Well, I had another opportunity to playtest this last night and I introduced a few rule changes to the Hordes Attacking, basically as follows;
1) Removed the additional damage caused by magnitude
2) Added 1 attack for each 10 points of magnitude for both melee and shooting
3) Added a “Dumb Luck” rule - any attack from a Horde that rolls 01 to 05 bypasses armor
All other rules stayed the same. The scenario was that my 5 acolytes were blamed for releasing a giant spider into the underhive and were surrounded and attacked by am angry lynch mob of 50 townspeople armed with stub pistols and primitive hand weapons. The Acolytes are all Rank 5 with an average armor of 4 and they are tooled up for dishing out damage. I am only going to outline the Horde attacks to keep it brief. (BTW, I am sitting at my desk, typing this from memory so my numbers may be a bit off)

Round one – “there they are” Shooting attack by a 50 Magnitude Horde
1 attack + 5 for Magnitude = 6 attacks to each Acolyte for a total of 30 attacks
20 WS +10 for short range, average was 2 hits per acolyte and 3 of the five received 1-2 wounds after reductions for armor and toughness. I had one “dumb luck” hit that rolled a 7 damage bypassing armor for 4 wounds. Two of the Acolytes retured fire, one with a Flamer and the other with twin bolt pistols, the remaining three prepared for melee. The two that fired ranged weapons caused an 11 point reduction in Magnitude.

Round two – “Get Stuck in” Melee attacks by a 39 Magnitude Horde
1 attack + 3 for Magnitude = 4 attacks to each Acolyte for a total of 20 attacks
20 WS / BS +10 for charging, ½ are using pistols and ½ are attacking with melee weapons. 4 attacks with the pistols hit with only 1 hit causing 2 points of damage past armor and Toughness to one Acolyte. 3 of the melee weapon’s hit, 2 for no damage and 1 rolled “dumb luck” bypassing the armor for a total of 5 wounds. The acolytes fought back causing a staggering 19 point reduction in the magnitude. The mob decides it has had enough and breaks, fleeing, loosing another 12 points to the acolytes in the process.

In the end every acolyte had received at least one wound but no one was more that lightly wounded. All in all a much more satisfying encounter than the original rules would have provided. Just to compare, the original rules would be; three attacks to each acolyte in the first round with any hits causing 3D10 damage. One attack each in the melee round with any that hit causing 3d10 damage (FYI with a 20 WS that averages to one hit every 5 rounds). This makes shooting attacks by hordes DEADLY and leaves melee underpowered and really inconsistent.

A few other changes that I was thinking about are putting a cap in of +5 or +4 attacks for magnitude bonuses and adding the outnumbered modifiers back in to increase the threat of melee attacks from creatures.

For my next trial I think I will throw a 100 Magnitude (individually very weak) spider horde controlled by a rogue psyker at them and see how it goes.

For the ranged weapons, what were they firing at the acolytes with? As per RAW they'd get ONE shot per 10 worth of magnitude TOTAL, so in the case of the mag 50 horde, 5 shots (quote is "A horde may make a number of ranged attacks equal to the first digit of its magnitude"). However, each of those shots could be done as autofire, etc (so a horde with lasguns get's to roll BS + 10 for range (most likely), +10 for semi-auto fire, giving them a 40, maybe 50 BS, then deal ne hit per 2 DoS as per semi auto rules).

And in HTH the RAW indicates that each player would've been attacked just once, with the potential to do 3d10+weapon damage/strength bonus. They only get one attack per person touching the horde, but the horde gets to hit everyone they're 'near.' They also get no dodges or parries against attacks from the horde.

I like how you described the melee, something feels better about the seething mass getting more than one super powerful attack. The one worry I have with the extra attacks, is when you get the massive melee horde (as with the 100 magnitude spider horde) it's not really going to help with speeding combat up as you'll still have too many dice to roll...

So, if you don't mind me asking, what is the group doing where they need to face a horde of dangerous foes?

worldeater888 said:

Hmm, that sounds a bit weird. Rank 5 acolytes are tough, but should not be able to take on 50 gun-toting men and win hands down, with only minor injuries. Ok, maybe if they had heavy weapons, but not with normal guns. Hmm, ok a flamer will definitely help alot... but still only minor damage seems strange.

This rule about no dodge/parry seems harsh though - dodging and parrying is a major strength of my acolytes. Maybe it is to represent that the dodges/parries are spent after the first few normal attacks, but I think it will make the players feel they have no defense - especially if they are running away from the mob (even though then -20 and Hard Target comes into play). Wait you said the mob had only 20 WS? (im guessing you meant 20 BS as well). That would make it only 10% chance of hit at short range, and impossible to hit at medium range (unless the mob can aim). People with Hard Target will be impregnable as they flee (which makes me think James Bond has Hard Target).

Gah I guess this means I have to buy Deathwatch

Charmander said:

I agree. I also like the feel of this fight. But that would make larger hordes require crazy amounts of dice-rolling, which kind of defeats the purpose of having horde rules, don't ya think? Hmm ... time to ponder some more.

Sister Cat said:

It might be just my legacy from D&D, but I have no problems with one massive horde attack, as it represents many small attacks that pretty much ignores armor (resulting in a high damage roll).

Friend of the Dork said:

While on some level I agree with this, it's my understanding that hordes are meant (normally) to represent individually weak opponents who only become dangerous in large numbers. That implies to me that they shouldn't necessarily become MORE dangerous than one big bad monster. As the rules are for DW, translating them to DH without any changes could easily result in a TPK in turn one of a horde attack. That's not what I, at least, am looking for in hordes. On the other hand, if my players were stupid enough to get caught in a Genestealer Horde, then yes, I would expect them all to die ... and quickly at that. But I think most of us are talking more along the lines of mobs of humans, gangers, cultists, or small critters ... not enemies that are already very dangerous individually. As always, though, JMHO.

Sister Cat said:

Hmm maybe I just want a slightly more realistic game. I don't really see my acolytes taking on hundreds of enemies and winning easily. I would think than 60 men armed with Autoguns may well be more dangerous to a party of 4-5 than a single dangerous monster (an incarnate demon would be something else). And AFAIK mobs/hordes are not immune to suppression, are they? One autogun and the whole mass could be pinned down. Now if those 60 men are Fearless fanatics that would change things alot, and would be VERY dangerous.

If the horde is armed with primitive melee weapons, or maybe with nothing with bare fists, they become less dangerous, but if fanatical they should be able to take down a group of acolytes eventually unless they are all killed.

Friend of the Dork said:

Now this I agree with completely. But a Magnitude 60 horde by RAW, IIRC, would be getting 6 ranged attacks per turn at (assume they only have Stub Revolvers, so no SA or FA) 7d10+3 Damage (that's 41-42 damage on average) per hit. That is more than enough to vaporize an entire party of very experienced, very well equipped acolytes in the first round, assuming lucky rolls to hit (remember they can't be dodged). If even only half hit, that is half of an average party of acolytes dead in round one. Even If the remaining members can get to cover before the horde's 2nd round of attacks, that kind of damage will chew through most cover in no time.

So yes, I believe such a horde should be able to take down a well-equipped team in time. But I don't believe they should be doing more damage than a Melta-Bomb to each player in a single round, when they are relatively harmless (to the players) on their own. That's all.

Sister Cat said:

7d10+3? That sounds a tad too much, yes. 3d10+3 would be adequate IMO for such attacks. 60 people should be dangerous, but not so much more than a Lascannon battery. Wait how do even Space Marines surivive that? AFAIK they have something like 16-20 damage reduction, so a hit will seriously damage a SM and possibly cause critical damage (not sure how many wounds they have). 7d10+3 might be appropriate for a horde of Inquisitorial Stormtroopers with Hot-Shot Hellguns...

Friend of the Dork said:

If I am understanding the rule correctly, hordes get their base weapon damage, plus 1d10 per the 10's digit of their Magnitude, and that is for each attack. They get one ranged attack per the 10's digit of their Magnitude per round. Now, I'm not sure that Magnitude 60 equals, necessarily, 60 individuals that make up the horde. But, I hope you can see my point. Hordes should be dangerous yes, but not one round TPK'ers ... at least not unless they are made up of very dangerous individuals, or they are very large indeed. At least in the case of very large, it's not likely they will be able to sneak up on the acolytes.

Just a note, but the mag of the horde does not necessarily represent the number of individuals in the horde. Thirty guys with clubs and daggers might be mag 10 and four guys dug in with a couplel of heavy stubbers might be mag 15...for example.

Even in DW it is important for the party to fight with some idea of tactics. They need to use cover, grenades, etc., to win against hordes. At least they should have to. It is not a sound tactical decision to charge into 30 guys with a sword, even a power sword. I think that if one acolyte charged into 10, 20 or 30 guys in my game said acolyte would be knocked to the ground and swarmed in no time. Even a lone SM shouldn't be able to charge all willy-nilly into a large number of people.

Unless, of course, he was being covered by his party with ranged fire, flanking attacks, etc. How the horde responds will depend on what it is comprised of. A horde of civilians that are angry because the acolytes stomped through their garden will not fight effectively, while a squad of PDF troopers will also use cover, suppression fire, explosvies, etc., and this also has to do with what I was saying about magnitude sizes.

DW marines not only have superior weapons and armor, they have their special "talents" to help them combat hordes. **** SM twinks!

Sister Cat said:

You are right about the extra attacks. However the extra damage caps at +2d10, meaning a magnitude 60 horde will do the same damage per hit that a magnitude 20 horde does. However the magnitude 60 horde gets more ranged attacks.

At least they should have to. It is not a sound tactical decision to charge into 30 guys with a sword, even a power sword.

Thing is, a horde only gets 1 melee attack per enemy in melee range, regardless of its size. So charging into melee is a good way to negate the hordes extra attacks. Especially if your 'allies' have already done so, leaving you as the only valid target for the hordes ranged attacks.

Friend of the Dork said:

Friend of the Dork said:

BTW, the RAW in Deathwatch have a cap of +2d10 for Magnitude; hordes over 29 don't get the additional dice. I suspect that the goal is to have damage in the 20-30 point range for basic opponents fighting space marines. In contrast most basic opponents in DH will dish out in the range of 5-15 points per attack.

What I really see in the Horde Rules is a way to represent large groups of weak opponents attacking in mass so that A) it plays fast and B) they present a potential threat but not an overwhelming one. Right now with the RAW one lone trooper with Guard Issue Flack (Armor 4 All) and a 4 Toughness could fight off 10,000 cultists armed with improvised weapons. They would be no threat because they COULD NOT DAMAGE HIM AT ALL. Same for creatures with natural weapons and Strength in the 20's, the max damage is 12 primitive and it would take 13 to cause a wound.

Also I would probability not use the horde rules for opponents that would be a real threat if fought one at a time. The only thing I could see using hordes of tough opponents for would be to do something that is secondary to the main plot. Like a running fight for just a few rounds to get through an group of armed guards or trying to get the players to change tactics from a frontal attack to an enemy strongpoint and look for a sneaker way to get things done.

worldeater888 said:

Oh, and the RAW in Deathwatch those same 10,000 cultists would get one attack roll per turn with no modifiers and when they hit it would dish out 3d10+2 damage.

Hordes are great, you do have to be fairly careful with them in regards to acolytes as all they need is a little roll of luck and someone's getting spanked to the point of fate-point expenditure. From a mechanical point of view, there is nothing to say that your firebrand preacher or other charismatic individual, cant raise their own horde of loyalists to hide behind when needed.

All said and done, they do add to a GM's options of resolving mass combat without rolling dozens and dozens of dice.

OK thanks for clarification, a cap of 2d10 sounds reasonable. BTW is the damage always considered non-Primitive? Or is there a difference between Mono-axe wielding opponents and sword-wielding ones. Well apart from the 2 Pen to the attack etc...

Oh and 10k cultists only having one 3d10+2 attack per turn against the lone Guardsman seems fine to me, after all only a very few of those will attack the guardsman every turn... It's much easier for alot of people to shoot someone than to stab him.

Friend of the Dork said:

If the horde is armed with primitive weapons, then their damage will be primitive.