First (and second!) game of Thud & Blunder

[Hobgoblin]

My son and I played a quick game of Thud & Blunder this week, just to get to grips with the basic rules.

We used the profiles from the books, with five uruks, including an archer, and an orc chief on one side, and an identical orc chief plus an uruk archer, two goblin raiders (archers) and six goblin ravagers on the other side.

We have no experience of the game's close cousins, although we have played and enjoyed FUBAR. So our comparisons are with the likes of Song of Blades and Heroes, Dragon Rampant, Frostgrave, Battlesworn, The Dolorous Stroke and myriad RPG systems.

Our first impressions were very positive. The main thing I noticed from the start is that there's loads of decision-making. Unlike Song of Blades or Dragon Rampant, you know that you'll be able to activate all of your troops. So the focus switches from prioritising the order of (attempted) activation to prioritising actions. That means that you have lots of choices to make in each phase (moving, shooting and combat). In using your actions, you've got to think about how your opponents are going to use theirs. So you have to decide, for example, whether to use your first move to engage the enemy's heavy hitter with a minion before it can reach your leader, or to move your leader to its intended target before that model is moved out of range.

The same applies in shooting and combat. Deciding what to do first is a big part of the game, and the constant switching between players means that tactics have to evolve on the hoof. Initiative will often change from turn to turn too, so that adds a further layer of uncertainty.

I also liked the fact that moving out of combat is easier than in most skirmish games. This, I think, is as it should be - a fighting retreat is hardly as dangerous as most games make it.

Our game played out nicely: a close-fought affair with a lot of crucial decision-making to the last. In the end, the smaller goblins prevailed – just. They were helped by having more archers and by being spread out around the battlefield. This tempted their uruk opponents into making unsupported forays in many directions, rather than keeping together to crush their foes en masse.

Outnumbering is important in the game. There’s a similar mechanism to Song of Blades in the default outnumbering, although it’s less decisive (modifiers to a d10 roll than a d6 roll). But you can also ‘mob’ an opponent, which makes the combat like concentrated fire in Song of Blades on top of the modifiers for outnumbering. That is, you sacrifice your extra attacks for one big one. Volley fire achieves the same effect at range. All this is great. It gives you more decisions to make in each phase, so combats rarely proceed by rote.

We enjoyed the RPGish fumble rules. Three of the goblins broke their weapons in combat, which led to some frantic scavenging of the slain. Weapons are distinguished through various modifiers in the rules, so being unarmed is a big deal. I like the extra narrative layer that this provided.

Although we played with just two, the game looks to cater very well for multiple players. Because activation moves from player to player after each figure, no one is going to be out of the game for long. That means that you can have multiple players with large warbands. In Song of Blades, multiple-player games work best if all warbands are small (three to five figures), as cautious (single-die) activations allow players to get through their entire warbands in one turn. So, Thud & Blunder fills a niche nicely here, in that you could have ten- or even twenty-man affairs with four or more players without anyone missing out on the action for long.

I’d say that characters in Thud & Blunder are chiefly differentiated by their armour; it’s what makes them easy or hard to kill. Fighting, shooting and speed bonuses modify the profile too, but the difference between a heavily armoured orc and an unarmoured orc will be greater than that between a heavily armoured orc and a heavily armoured man. There are traits (Berserk, Night Eyes, etc.) to add more flavour to the troops, but this isn’t a game in which, say, a big orc in a mail shirt with an axe and shield will be markedly – or maybe even slightly – different from a big barbarian in a mail shirt with an axe and shield.

I’m fine with that: I like games in which troop type is more important than troop species. But it’s certainly harder to achieve the effects you can get in Song of Blades, in which your Q4, C3 orcs are tough but reliant on their leader and easily dispersed if he falls whereas your Q3, C2 humans are less formidable in combat but braver and better disciplined.

A related aspect is that there are no morale rules: battles are to the death (or, more likely, to the achievement of objectives).  There is, though, the Terrifying trait, so you can certainly create awesome monsters or dreadful champions to scatter your foes. But killing the leader to scatter his minions isn’t really an aspect of this game.

That’s interesting, because one of the many scenarios in the book is The Tomb of the Dwarven King – i.e. The Chamber of Mazarbul. It looks a lot of fun – but if you actually wanted the possibility of recreating the Chamber of Mazarbul fight, I think Song of Blades would be a better tool. Why? Because the huge orc-chieftain who spears Frodo is much easier to replicate in Song of Blades (Q3, C4, Dashing, Free Disengage, Hero, Leader – and, in the advanced version, probably Shield Rush, Long Reach and Heavily Armoured too). You can chart how the combat plays out in Song of Blades: the orc gets three activations, knocks Boromir down on his second and leaves the combat. The Fellowship player then fails his activation with Aragorn, allowing the orc to retake the initiative and spear Frodo (who’s now out of action). But the orc is now out of leadership range for his followers, who fail their activation. And then Aragorn activates and gruesomely kills the chieftain with a Power Blow. That leaves the other orcs with two rounds of morale checks to take: “his followers fled howling”.

I don’t think you could achieve those results in Thud & Blunder. But on the other hand, you get greater control over your miniatures. So it’s perhaps more a game of tactical decision-making against Song of Blades’ game of tactical gambles. Both good, I reckon.

On the other hand, what you won’t get in Thud & Blunder is the scenario where part of a warband stands back and does nothing. That’s not a fatal flaw in Song of Blades (experienced players will activate their non-essential troops first, using one die per model to prevent turnovers), but it is something to which less experienced players often succumb.

Any other criticisms of Thud & Blunder? I wonder if combat is a little static. There’s no pushback/follow-up effect in the standard combat rules. So, while leaving a fight is relatively easy, you don’t get the effect of one fighter pushing the other back over successive rounds – or pushing them over the edge of a pit or ledge. For a game that’s very RPGish, that’s a bit of a shame, as it reduced the potential interactions with scenery. One easy tweak would be to allow an attacker who achieves a ‘knocked down’ result to opt for a ‘pushed back’ outcome where that would allow some added drama.

I also wondered about the ‘shooting in combat’ rules. As I read them, a character armed with a javelin or throwing axe can continue to act in the shooting phase while in melee, even several rounds into the combat. That seems a little video-gamey to me, especially if that character is fighting with a sword and shield at the same time. I’d probably restrict the shooting to the initial round of combat – i.e. axes and javelins may be thrown in the shooting phase immediately after the engagement (to simulate weapons being thrown as the combatants close) but not thereafter.

The only other thing I’d say is that Thud & Blunder’s ‘time to table’ is a little slower than some comparable games. Creating a Song of Blades warband takes minutes and can be done immediately before a game without imperilling its completion. I think Thud & Blunder falls more into the ‘create the profiles during the week for a weekend game’ category.

In part, that’s an inevitable outcome of having such detailed weapon and armour categories. The warband-generating spreadsheet is good, but it lacks that ace up the sleeve of the Song of Blades equivalent – the ‘printable roster’ feature that gives you a ready-to-go roster sheet at the touch of a button.

What I imagine we’ll often do is forget about points for weapons and just work out warbands for a few basic profiles, then note down armour and traits. I’m not too bothered about balance in skirmish games, as almost all of the best sessions we’ve had have been with lopsided forces.

So, for example, the next time my old Citadel Goblin Raiders take the field, I’ll give them +1 FV and AR 11 (mail shirt and small shield), then just check the weapons that each is carrying when they’re used (one has a two-handed warhammer, another a flail, another a short sword and a warhammer, still another a sling, and so on).

The bestiary section is great. I wonder if a useful addition would be a similar table of various humanoid monsters with the most typical weapons available on miniatures (e.g. orcs with scimitar and shield, lizardmen with spear and shield, kobolds with short sword and small shield). That might reduce the time to table a fair bit. The sample warbands are great, though the weaponry strays a bit from the generic: we had a fair old hunt to find two potential orc chiefs with both sword and shield and throwing axes, although we managed in the end.

All in all, this is a great game. The PDF was well worth the £12, and I may well end up picking up the print book at some stage. The scenario-generating stuff looks superb, though I’ve yet to investigate that or the magic system. The game fills a nice ecological niche between ‘small warband’ games like Song of Blades and ‘large skirmish’ efforts like Dragon Rampant (Havoc, the pretender to this throne, is – I think – a great game too, but hampered by an impenetrable rulebook). And the level of detail in weaponry and armour is a further selling point. I’ve been eyeing my old Aly Morrison preslotta half-orcs, which are bristling with all manner of weaponry. They’ll be statted up as soon as they’re off the painting table. Characterful miniatures like those or Citadel’s AD&D adventurers, or the modern equivalents from Otherworld, are ideal for this game. And with the chance of losing or breaking weapons in games a real threat (as my goblins found out thrice), it’s nice to see a game in which a character’s secondary or tertiary weapon might really matter. 

We’ll be playing it again this afternoon …

[fred]

Thanks for the really detailed write-up

As a group we don't really play skirmish games - I think as we only get together once a week, we feel we want a bigger game. But I do like reading about all of the new rule sets - and shining it would be nice to get some of the old school figures on the table.

[D. Brownie]

Hi,
Deep analysis! I've played 2 games, and I'm going to play a third one today. I like the game and agree with your thoughts. For example I'll use my Relicblade vertical table and I'd like the possibility to push my opponents down the cliffs...
My bigger complaint Is about the point system that Is a Little bit confused. I try to explain: in my second game I played undead knowing I would have Lost... Antivenom + night eyes 10 useless points for every model. On the other side there are powerful traits ( my Brother made an Archer shooting 4 cannonballs every round snipering in combat too for relatively Little points). I think that for balanced games a strong revaluation of the point costs Is necessary.
But as I said I like very much the game system in itself....

[D. Brownie]

The Vikings have been destroyed by orcs and goblins...

[Hobgoblin]

That's a great-looking set-up!

We played our second game this afternoon - a three-sider this time. My son played a band of dwarfs, I played the uruks from last time (bolstered by a couple of extras) and my daughter was in charge of the inhabitants of the Temple of the Beast - an underground complex populated by kobolds, gnolls and fishmen.

This 'dungeon' was being raided independently by the dwarfs and orcs, with the beast-people trying to protect its treasures. I set the table up to give the beast-people three entrance points (from their subterranean lairs) while the orcs and dwarfs each used a set of stairs. The fish-people lurked in an underground pool. We used wooden counters for the monsters that the raiders hadn't yet encountered, which gave a nice Space-Hulkey feel to proceedings.

After various skirmishes in the corridors of the temple, things came to a climax in the inner sanctum. Dinner time brought the battle to a premature end, but the beast-folk appear to be winning. Although all but two of the 14 kobolds have perished, along with the giant fishmen, four of the five gnolls are still standing, with just one dwarf and three orcs remaining. Both dwarf and orc leaders are dead, but the gnoll queen and her champion are poised to complete their defence of the temple.

This was a fun session: both kids got stuck in nicely. The dwarf clan chief took an awful lot of killing, even after being surrounded by gnolls and repeatedly knocked down. But they got him eventually. The orc chief, in contrast, was unexpecteldy spitted by a kobold dart.

We ran this as I suggested we might in the original post: without bothering about points and just using "what you see is what you get" with regard to the miniatures. So, those kobolds that had throwing axes or javelins on the figures had those weapons, and those that didn't, didn't. And in combat, we simply checked to see how the figure was armed and referred to the weapons table.

I did wonder whether unlimited ammunition (barring successive 1s on d10s) was quite right for javelins and throwing axes; one of the surviving kobolds must have hurled about seven or eight axes by the end of the game. I'm tempted to rule that a 1 for thrown weapons is an "out of ammo" result (rather than needing a second 1 on another die, as for arrows).

We allowed shooting in combat only in the initial round - and I also allowed a dwarf with a loaded crossbow to get a shot in at his attacker; it just felt right. So I think our first lasting tweak of the rules is going to be just that: any missile weapon may be fired in the shooting phase of a turn in which the shooter has been attacked (or is attacking in the case of thrown weapons). That makes charging crossbowmen and archers a riskier business, which I think is fine.

[D. Brownie]

Thank you very much!
I agree with your modifications about shooting.
I like very much dungeon setting: my next terrain project Will be a polistirene modular dungeon.

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, the shooting thing is odd as it stands. I like the implicit notion that weapons are hurled as the antagonists close for battle - but it's odd that a fellow with a loaded crossbow can't discharge it at the chap charging him.

In a related point, the free switching of weapons is perhaps too easy in a game in which being disarmed is a real threat (one of my orcs lost his axe yesterday, so that's four times in two games that figure has been disarmed). I'm not convinced that a fighter would draw a javelin mid-combat, throw it, then switch back to his axe or whatever. And I wonder whether being disarmed should cost you a round of fighting while you draw your sword or dagger.

One other thing I noticed yesterday is that being knocked down is a bit less of a death sentence than in Song of Blades, etc. Yes, there's a +2 bonus to your foes, and standing up is more difficult if there are many foes around you. But as far as I can see, your destiny roll (i.e. your save) isn't affected by being knocked down. So heroic characters can last much longer, even if they can't stand up. And that's before we get to hero points.

That made me think that Thud & Blunder might work really well as a straight rules-lite RPG. If you have a character with (say) 3 hero points, you're going to be able to survive a fair while on average - although that survival will never be guaranteed (one well-placed kobold dart could still kill you). Because equipment has so much of an effect on fighting (armour especially, but also weapons), there's a nice 'tooling up' aspect that would make the acquisition of gear a good objective in its own right. And there's plenty of room for incremental creep in character improvement. Perhaps starting characters could get +4 to spread between FV, SV and speed and the choice of one or two traits. And the fumble rules already give you a Black Hack-style 'usage die' for arrows, etc. You could then either  add one hero point per starting character or take a Dungeon Crawl Classics approach and allow each player to start with three or so characters, with any survivors gaining a hero point or two. Worth a go, I reckon!

[fred]

One other thing I noticed yesterday is that being knocked down is a bit less of a death sentence than in Song of Blades, etc. Yes, there's a +2 bonus to your foes, and standing up is more difficult if there are many foes around you. But as far as I can see, your destiny roll (i.e. your save) isn't affected by being knocked down. So heroic characters can last much longer, even if they can't stand up. And that's before we get to hero points.

This might be part of its IHMN heritage - I remember a few games where characters were knocked down, but survived for a long time crawling along the floor due to their good stats!

[blacksmith]

...That made me think that Thud & Blunder might work really well as a straight rules-lite RPG. If you have a character with (say) 3 hero points, you're going to be able to survive a fair while on average - although that survival will never be guaranteed (one well-placed kobold dart could still kill you). Because equipment has so much of an effect on fighting (armour especially, but also weapons), there's a nice 'tooling up' aspect that would make the acquisition of gear a good objective in its own right. And there's plenty of room for incremental creep in character improvement. Perhaps starting characters could get +4 to spread between FV, SV and speed and the choice of one or two traits. And the fumble rules already give you a Black Hack-style 'usage die' for arrows, etc. You could then either  add one hero point per starting character or take a Dungeon Crawl Classics approach and allow each player to start with three or so characters, with any survivors gaining a hero point or two. Worth a go, I reckon!

That's how I intend to use T&B, like a light RPG as in the PC game Diablo. So what I experimentally did was making that figure's Fate would be rising at the rate of the difference between the failed roll to save and its current Fate; and when it reaches Fate 10 he is definitely out of combat. For example, if my hero has Fate 4+ and is hurt by a spear, he would need a 6+ to save the hit. Let's say he scored 4, then instead of getting out of combat he would result wounded and with a new Fate of 6+.

I tried it and it worked for me. There's a AAR in my blog about this: http://javieratwar.blogspot.com/2018/08/blood-eagle-high-adventure.html

[D. Brownie]

Hi,
As suggested by Hobgoblin the melee is a Little bit static, so imo instead of a solution like that of Blacksmith I would go for One other way. His idea could work for medium/weak models, but the stronger are enough hard to kill. In the last game a 6handed melee lasted 4/5 turns... My 4 strong men were wiped out by his 2 stronger, which didn't suffer neither a Knocked down result....
So I made my house rules (haven't played yet). I'd like to know what do you think about thanks
Continue...

[D. Brownie]

- 1 Is Always a failure and 10 a success, even if you normally can't do It, but in this case of the opponent has to react with a dice roll has a +1 bonus.
Normally a weak goblin couldn't hit a dragon, but Is Attack Is 10. On the subsequent Destiny roll the dragon Will have a bonus of +1

-3.2.4: If you fail disengaging, the opponents in base contact gain the Lightining Reflexes trait against you for 1 fighting phase.

-3.2.8: if you want to climb with medium or heavy encumber you have to check your DR with respectively -1/-2. A failure means the end of the figure turn.

-3.2.9: a gap between 1&2'' reduces your movement of 2'' more.

-3.3.1: -1 penalty if you shoot over half range (not magical Powers), but not with the Uncanny Accuracy trait.
With throwing weapons (javelins, throwing axes....) if you roll 1 to hit you have only 1 more weapon left, unless you make fumble with the subsequent roll. In this case no more left. It's impossible to go in Battle with 20 or more axes or javelins...
Continue...

[D. Brownie]

- 3.3.3: you can have both, but you can't use Manyshots and Uncanny Accuracy trait in combo.

-3.3.4 1handed shooting weapons and shooting spells can used in melee only before the 1st fighting phase.

-3.3.6 e 3.4.2: if you make both shooting either fighting multiple attacks ( unless with Second Strike trait but not Whirlwind in fighting) your opponents have+1 on theirs DR.
Continue...

[D. Brownie]

3.4.5 BIS - Pushing back Attack.
Instead of attacking to Kill you can try to push back your opponent of 1". Opposite d10 + FV + dimension modifier (+2 the larger, +4 the much larger) and +1 if have the Strong Trait. +1 if the attacker have either Sunder trait or a Sundering weapon, +2 if both. +1 if the Defender have Acrobat either Lighting reflexes and he ads his Speed bonus too. If the attacker Rolls more can push back. He can choose to stay or to follow. But if he's engaged yet, he must disengage. If he' s able to pursue he gains the Lighting Reflexes trait next fighting phase against the pushed back opponent.

3.5.1: unless the roll Is 10, if the DR to save from a hit Is only 1 point more than the needed result, you are pushed back and this works as described above.
Continue...

[D. Brownie]

3.5.3: if you recover from KD in a melee, the opponents in base contact have the Lightining Reflexes trait next fighting phase against you.

5.2.1: you can switch weapons as you Wish only between different phases and when a fight has begun you have to spend a phase if you want to change.

5.2.3: a magic weapon Is also blessed so costs 7pt + the different DR.

7.0: amphibious, antivenom, Born of Fire/ice/thunder, fearless, miasma, nighteyes cost only 3 points, and only 1 if they have a racial/thematic value (50%+1 of the models).
For example an undead warband with zombies and skeletons as core Is unplayable with normal rules, since they are weak but cost much

8.0: I think it's too Easy casting spells. So if you roll a 1 for casting, no more spells that turn (potentially are up to 6...). Then you roll Normally for the fumble.
Other ideas? Do you think magic Is too powerful here? Or maybe di you think Is a good thing a powerful magic?

-Heal spell works like Healer trait, but you can recover instantly.

[Craig]

Gentlemen,

This is all marvellous stuff and exactly what we hoped for 

I love how you are playing around with the rules, trying your own ideas out. We actively encourage players to do this, after all no set of rules is perfect and no set of rules meets everyone's needs.

I do like the idea that for missile weapons a natural roll of one is 'out of ammo'. As for choosing to knock someone back rather than down is good idea too. I may well experiment with these with my local group.

As for the warband lists, these are suggestions only. If you want to drop the Antivenom and Nighteyes on some undead then do it. The only rule is that your opponent has to agree. Which, if you are playing friendly games, should be no problem.