Well, hopefully they will drop that stupid idea in the errata, because it is absurd. Looking at Storm Bolters with special ammunition you can get about 40 horde damage a turn. I can only hope that they didn't phrase it correctly when they replied to the question that revealed that suggested change to the errata.

Speaking of Hordes, I still think that GMs need to take dispersion into account. There needn't be any hard and fast rules but a mag 50 traitor guard horde that occupies a huge hangar is probably not + 40 to hit. More like like + 10 or +20.

The thing is this: you get the horde size modifier on ideal conditions. If the same guards company/batallion was parading on open street, sure they'd be close together and easier to inflict injury upon. If they are entrenched around an embattled city plaza, it'd be much easier to hurt them.

As a GM I always ask myself if the to-hit is too easy when I hold the scene in mind. If it seems to easy I check the scene in mind for circumstances that make it harder for the players to do damage.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Very good point there, I think I'm gonna try that and see how it goes.

Its a real RPGy Idea, I approve.

ak-73 said:

Here, here. Not always, but sometimes you would think that the smarter hordes could at least try maintain some kind of Combat spacing. Especially if you want a smaller half decent horde (and am one of these people that doesn't like assigning more than 1 magnitude to a dude).

I was thinking of adding some horde traits, like 'Combat Spacing', which they can adopt with a move action and halves the magnitude damage but also halves the amount of extra damage they do in melee.

And their leader must pass a command test if he wants them to fire at the same target more than once per turn.

Alex

Face Eater said:

I think it was No-1's Eldar stats that invented the Skirmishers trait, in which the Horde provides no size bonus to hit, and gave them Dodge and Parry reactions that would eliminate one attack per DoS.

Yeah but the whole thing is less a trait thing but rather a situational modifier anyway. I have been arguing before about horde combat requiring special modifiers for flanking, encirclement, fighting with the back to the wall or even artillery suppresion.

Then the GM could make hordes slightly too powerful and require of them use of clever tactics to get past a horde with relative ease. And it would become a game of wits and outmaneuvering again between the players and the GM, just as in individual combat (ideally). Without that it gets too much number-crunching only.

Alex

I'm personally pretty fast and loose with my hordes and apply, as you suggest, situational modifiers. To be honest though I try to also keep things as fresh as possible to avoid making something dull out of it, so a list of static bonuses would only be so useful, and as you say a little crunchy.

I've given temporary WP bonuses to the horde for defending what they considered 'their home' and similarly penalties to those units that were essentially poorly paid mercenaries. For artillery I'd simply have it operate it the same as suppressing fire, but I've not really crossed that bridge yet.

I think artillery would temporarily (while lit lasts) decrease magnitude for a number of purposes (attacking, morale). Entrenchment would have the effect of artillery not affecting morale (and protecting from losses).

PCs versus hordes needs to be more a deadly dance.

Alex

ak-73 said:

That's definitely a more complete way of looking at it; I just picked pinning as it causes the inability to move, a penalty to your to-hit for ranged combat (which most hordes won't be able to deal well with), and makes it so you can only take half actions (eliminating things like autofire). I do like the morale additon a bit.

As for the deadly dance, I think it depends on how you're using the hordes. Maybe I've just not gotten to the point where my players have figured out full-proof methods to beat my hordes. Provided they're being clever (using cover, using the traits they've been given, not hesitating to use autofire, packing some anti-vehicle weapons from time to time) my players don't just storm on by. They either have to be smart, or they come away with some wounds, spent specialty ammo and the like, leaving it to the Elites and Masters to really mess with them.

@FaceEater- check out Tactical Formation in RoB. That and other horde traits might be what you're looking for, or at least provide you with some starting points to make modifications.

Yeah that's what I mean. Let's assume your kill-team comes by an entrenched horde of rebel PDF in Final Sanction. Now if they can straight overwhelm them, it becomes easily a number-crunching bore.

The trick is to provide hordes that cannot be reliably overcome head-on. Not without 2+ Fate Points in total getting burned. So when the player's arrive on the scene, describe them what they see and feed them the information that it's not going to be easy. Ideally they will then make an Tactics test and learn that a head-on assault is bad.

Now they'll start investigating details about the enemy entrenchment and need to form a plan (for example by discovering that a flank is a bit exposed, which they either have to do based on description or for less military-inclined gamers through a(nother) tactics test). If all goes well, the players can drive into the flank without receiving as much flak, fewer enemy troops can rush into melee and more enemy troops will be inclined to rout due to being attack from the side while still receiving fire from the front.

Of course to make it less simplistic you need to throw in a complication or two while trying to flank. Enemy infantry might need to get suppressed and so the PCs might need to organize loyalist artillery from somewhere in the city and pass them proper coordinates. And so on.

But this presumes some military knowledge on the background of the authors which I don't assume all have. If a prefab mission is written well, it doesn't need to assume military knowledge by the GM or players. They GM just needs to know what needs to be done (or can be done) and players can be explained based on tactics rolls.

It's a military RPG after all and with the horde mechanics you invariably introduce platoon-level or company-level tactics. If not batallion-level.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I don't disagree- without putting in tactics and manuevers it is absolutely a simple die-rolling festival. But how far is too far with extra rules and a ton of crunch added to it? I'm just saying a lot of it might be good to do on the fly.

I do think though that it would've been nice to put in some samples, ideas, or basics on tactics for players/GMs that aren't educated in that regard. Even some very simple concepts like hammer/anvil, encirclement would've been nice, but from an author's perspective I guess that's what the internet is for

Charmander said:

Absolutely. However prefab missions are an excellent way to introduce the finer side to gamers. As I said, if done properly gamers don't need to understand the finer details of warfare. The mission author needs to and present it in a way that people who have no clue and not too much interested in military-fighting can play it. As a rough illustration, if you will.

On a non-commercial level this goes for GMs with some knowledge to.

Charmander said:

Sometimes it's just WW2 eye-witness acounts that one can research for an idea. Or Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, Nam, etc. - if you don't want to read. Without it horde mechanics cannot be more then pen/paper Dynasty Warriors. There is no accounting for taste.

Alex