I'm working on implementing Hordes in Maptools and currently have the question what the actual size (in terms of m2) is of a horde, cause it's not in the rules.

My assumption is to take the magnitude as the number of elements in the horde, which makes e.g.: massive == 30 == number of tokens == 5x6 squares on a grid map. However taking into account the fact that 30 entities acting as a horde will very likely NOT limit their covered area to 30m2, brings up the matter of formations. I can think of three types: compact, checkered and scattered.

A size 32 horde in checkered formation would cover an area of 9 x 7 m2 (== squares), simplified this would be 8x8 square grid or a radius 5 circle.
A more disorganized horde with the same numbers would likely have at least 1m radius unoccupied space per token (scattered formation) in which case 30 tokens would cover an area of 11x9 (or again simplified 10x10) iow 100m2 or a radius 6 circle.

For the increased size hordes this number would double, triple or quadruple. So
30- Massive x1
60- Immense x2
90- Monumental x3
120-Titanic x4

This would make a Titanic horde cover a ground of either 121 (11x11) in compact formation, 256 (16x16) in checkered formation or 400 (20x20) in scattered formation. If I look at the biggest (400) option in maptools then I still think its quite 'modest' considering what it represents, so I'll go for the scattered formation.

Put that in a formula for both squares and circles and you get (for scattered formation):
Squares: size (covered cells) = SQRT(Magnitude*3,333)
Circles: size (covered cells) = SQRT(Magnitude*3,333/Pi)

The formula can be used to generate a simple table where the different magnitudes can be translated in area covered.

Any thoughts?

Err...yeah.

I don't think it's that simple, or even needs doing. A horde -like a gas- will often expand to fill the area!

If my players are going to fight a horde of guard in an urban area, then those guard are not all hunkered down behind one truck. They'll be spread across the place: Some in that window there, some behind that car, a couple dashing across the street, fire-teams on the rooftops...

I can see the scope for -say- termagaunt or giant rat hordes being a single rolling mass of claws, but not much else is going to stay that close together. After all: How many more levels of horde damage would a grenade with a blast radius of 5m do to a horde that was so tightly clustered?

If you want to go into that level of detail, more dispersed hordes could gain some resistance to blast weapons for a cost to their attacks (harder to coordinate "ganging up", especially for melee).

Decessor said:

Certainly. I advise rule of thumb though instead of fixed mechanics. Faster, less burdensome, more fun for the GM, less mechanics trickery possibilities for the players.

Alex

An additional Problem is, that magnitude is a measure for quantity AND quality. So a PDF-Horde compared to lets say a Horde composed of Cadian Shocktroops of the same magnitude has a lot more Individuals.

ok, lets forget my initial suggestion, it was after all a first suggestion.

Deathwatch is a game that lends itself perfectly to be presented in battlemaps, this way both gm and player can deploy tactics, manouvres without much room for misinterpretation.

This mean that you have to present the 'Horde' somehow on a map and if you're going to do that, you will need to set some rules to keep things consistent.

With rules you have the two extremes Simple and Complex.

-Simple will be far away from reality will give little space for diverse tactics and will often end up in a 'if you do it that way you gain the most advantage' but will also result in swift games.

-Complex will be closer to reality, will give much space for tactics, hard to deduce optimal advantage and will slow a game down to a drag.

There are exceptions, but that's exactly what they are: exceptions.

My personal favourite is in the middle. Now if we look at the current rules for the horde we have on one hand:

Simple: 1 single token, same size always. Very doable, but the fact that the size remains the same even though you have halved their numbers will not be appreciated by your players in terms of reach and not be appreciated by the GM in terms of cover (need the same amount of cover)

Complex: formula which takes into account: damage output, damage soak, tactical intelligence and numbers which results in a 'magnitude' represented by said number of individual tokens on a map that together form the horde. These individual tokens can then act as individual tokens (like take position behind wall, windows etc.) giving them any spread you like. The formula sounds doable but arduous, managing the amount of tokens however sounds monstrous.

I think my ruleset is more or less in the middle, but I'm curious how you would represent a horde on a (virutal table top) battle map?

by the way what does PDF (in military terms) stand for? Permanent Defence Force?

wolph42 said:

Planetary Defence Force.

Anyway I'd represent it with a bunch of minis, each mini probably not representing one but several other minis. And about simple vs. complex, I'd go for medium too but I'd guesstimate a lot of factors based on how I see the scene unfolding before my inner eye.

Alex

I have to say that I couldn't disagree more as regards maps! Far from aiding play in heroic games, I find that they are a millstone for both the players and the GM, slowing down the game and tying down actions. DW action is supposed to be ultra-heroic and fast paced, and that is somewhat spoiled by use of grid-maps to painstakingly move across, square by square. Whereas without battlemaps the GM and players have much more narrative freedom.

Feng Shui said it best. It's worth getting hold of a copy just to read their half-page on 'why maps are your enemy'.

The situation is even worse given the concept of hordes. Infantry do not huddle together - they disperse tactically. Now seeing as the entire point of the horde system is to abstract the combat and allow the GM to use narrative and to drastically speed up combat, it seems counter-intuative to then try to put a bunch of figures on a map with only one pool of hit-points, or have some kind of blobby 'cloud' of bad guys. Far better to describe a desolate street scene, with muzzle-flash in darkened windows, figures crouched behind cars, and all that kind of thing.

I'm not adverse to the GM drawing out a map on a bit of paper, but if a game is supposed to be fast-paced, then maps just slow things down.

ak-73 said:

This ^^

I don't tend to like miniaturizing the battle field except as a visual aid to help make sure the GM and the players are on the same page. I think this is true especially of the horde mechanic in DW. I'd toss the minis in some cover, and use either mental notes or some mark on the board to represent if each figure or set of figures represented 'a lot' of guys, 'a few' guys, or 'just a couple' of guys.

If you try to miniatureize combat too much, and don't keep it narrative, my experience says players will have a tendancy to start arguing hard rules as Siranui suggests; when you start measuring, checking angles and shouting "but 30m at a 30 degree arc would totally engulf that whole corner of the building, why wouldn't all of the guys in there be hit?!" will turn your RPG battle into a Table Top Skirmish.

My group tends to use a white board with a basic diagram of the encounter area and throw in some distance measurements for some grounding (with movement and weapons ranges being finite, etc.), and then narrate the rest. Then as players start asking questions they can help me set the scene- when I describe a field with some bits of cover here and there. My players know the board isn't an exact replica, and so ask questions about details as they go, planning their tactics as the board develops.

I generally only use minis once in a while. Once in a while I run an encounter as if it was a skirmish game which can be fun. Normally I only use quick sketches if my players don't get the situation based on my descriptions and the rest is all verbal description.

Alex

Even your first extreme example, the "Simple" one, is more realistic and restrictive than what I use in other games. And when I run Deathwatch, with its idea of Hordes being deliberately abstracted to the point of them not being comprised of specific numbers of enemies...

Well, I'm not super sure I'm even going to use maps for everything that happens in Squad Mode.

Ok, most replies up to now is why you shouldn't use maps... great duly noted and I see that "abstract entities" together with "concrete map" don't mix very well (or maybe at all). But still, this is for a virtual table top game, where people playing over the interweb have maps as their only visual grounding. Granted a GM could refer to sketches in this specific case, to give some visualization. But I do like to investigate the possibilities of doing it anyway.

So upto now I've got plenty of answers: 'why I should not do this'

Is there anyone out there who can continue on: 'well, given the fact that you're very thickheaded in still trying to attempt this, and I first wish to express my sincerest opinion that your REALLY shouldn't, if you really want to do this, I would suggest that you:..."

finish this line please.

wolph42 said:

just use one to two minis or counters for each ten points of magnitude of the horde.This is still abstract, but it gives you something to lay out in front of the players so they can see the slowly reducing mass of the enemy.

what kind of scale of battle map do you use? how big is a square? You might want to use a hex based map rather than square, it could allow more options. personally I would say it is extremely adaptive. like a gas someone said very rightly.

for example if you kick down the door to an imperial guard barracks you might find a size 30 horde in a relatively small room, but on the other hand the same horde might hold down an entire building in a street fighting combat. Personally I just draw blobs of size that I deem appropriate based on the circumstances

ItsUncertainWho said:

thnx, finally an answer with which I can actually do something!

@Narkasis: for the main part: see OP

but in short:

- a cell is 1m^2

- its a virtual table top so square, hex and vex are all optional, whatever a gm wants

- and since its a virtual table top, the map size is virtually limitless

What you're basically saying is that I should detach the fysical size from the magnitude of the horde.

I hadn't thought of the fact that two similar hordes can both keep a room and a building and this would obviously influence size (and shape).

by the way, I don't see the relation between hex or square cells in regards to my question. RAW a horde does damage if its in proximity, it doesn't really matter what type of grid you use for that.