Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Mr. White on October 06, 2020, 05:20:33 PM
-
The game looks great, and it seems there's an expansion book out. I don't see much chatter or many images out in the wild. I can imagine COVID has struck a blow, but is anyone building up forces? playing? have thoughts?
-
I'm not playing, but planning to, with some reservations. I've read the rule book and like the mechanics. I don't care for the lack of differentiation in troop quality, e.g. all human spearmen units are identical, though this should not be difficult to amend. I'd assumed that the first supplement, Battlesworn, did this, but it's limited to allowing a specific unit to develop to elite status over a campaign. This is a step forward, but I really think a provision for troop quality should be standard, as it is in most battle rules.
Another gripe I have about the supplement is that it recycles a lot of the illustrations from the main rule book. These are mostly full page, and take up a lot of the book. The amount of new content scarcely warrants an entire book in my view, and I hope future supplements are far more substantial.
As I don't care for the human infantry produced by North Star for the game, I will be using historical miniatures from several sources and periods, so that I am not limited by the game's provision of a single human faction. Fortunately a big part of the game is the creation of one's own kingdoms, so this is not problematic.
-
Yes indeed. Oathmark was the sole face-to-face game I’ve played in the past few months and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Since then most of the figures I’ve painted have been for Oathmark forces. I’m planning to play it a lot more once Covid risks drop (my usual opponent is very careful about exposure).
I found that it plays smoothly and interactions between unit types make sense. The alternating moves during each turn go a long way toward staying engaged. I like the kingdom-building too.
The only real limitation is that the forces are limited to the four main human/ demihuman types (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs/goblins) and a small selection of monsters, and points values are fixed, so it isn’t quite an open ‘sandbox’ system where you can create any army you own. Some of that may change in future supplements (undead are apparently in the pipeline). That said, with a little thought players can probably make do with the existing army lists by changing some names. Want a chaos beastmen force, just use the orc list and change the names on the troop types and kingdom areas... Skaven, do the same with the goblin list. Some folks may complain that reskinning the forces loses some of the flavor from an army, but I think often the ‘flavor’ rules in fantasy games are just changed names anyway, and when they are substantial changes it tends to contribute to weird rule interactions.
Anyway, those are my impressions so far!
-
I love the rules and the feel to the game.
It’s feels very traditional fantasy, plus I like the lack of gunpowder or late medieval weapons. It’s more Dark Ages, if that makes sense?
The figures are superb.
I’ve sadly not yet played a game, due to the virus.
So I can’t comment on game play, but it reads well.
I’ve still managed to build a complete Human force and Dwarf force, all 2000pts and more.
I’m sure some official ‘events’ will be planned as soon as we get past this mess we’re in.
I hope so, I’m desperate to capture some of that old fashioned weekend gaming.
-
Played a bunch of games over the summer and it does indeed play well. Campaign system seems decent. I haven't read a lot in the new book yet as my work schedule is more allowing of skirmish games at the moment.
Eagerly awaiting more plastic releases, the elf light infantry were great.
-
Very tempted as I like the Tolkienesque vibe of them. Managed to resist so far due to other projects but I believe there are orc/goblin heavy infantry coming in the New Year which could push me into the abyss of mass fantasy megalomania.
-
How many figures a side gives a good game?
-
I've been very tempted by it but can't find anyone in London (UK) to get a game with. Not that it's the best time for pick-up games, but still. My 'main' games are Kings of War and Vanguard, so something like Oathmark would seem to make sense as a 'midway' game bridging the gap between real mass battle and skirmish.
-
I have to admit I do like the Oathmark Human infantry, and the Fireforge Northmen Warriors (and the Fireforge historical figures) and they will be supplying the man power for the various human factions
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search?q=Oathmark&updated-max=2020-08-22T16:53:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=9&by-date=false (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search?q=Oathmark&updated-max=2020-08-22T16:53:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=9&by-date=false)
I am building armies at the moment.
I have not quite got two armies of any side painted yet (I have one Elf mini army assembled and working my way up to a Gnoll mini army).
I have seen rumours of plastic skeletons for Oathmark.
-
How many figures a side gives a good game?
Depends. I'd say 50+, less if you have elves or a lot of cavalry. More if you play Goblins. We have played 1000 pts, 1500 pts and 2000 pts and I definitly think the bigger games run better but it works just fine at 1000.
Skeletons were just previewed on North Stars facebook page:
(https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120997278_3889670961061777_1475154916256375693_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=3POrPcOlI8sAX8RaXDn&_nc_ht=scontent-cph2-1.xx&oh=c079921dabcc12c7973a4a94ba00ad88&oe=5FA243FE)
-
A couple of lads at the club have it so I'm about to buy it, I'll probably pick up the expansion as well.
-
Does the game have rules for gnolls? It would seem the plastic gnoll box for Frostgrave could be a cool unit. What about ogres or trolls?
And it sounds like you can easily mix and match units to make forces. So like humans, elves and dwarves vs Orcs, goblins, and skeletons?
-
Does the game have rules for gnolls? It would seem the plastic gnoll box for Frostgrave could be a cool unit. What about ogres or trolls?
No, but I am using the Orc stats.
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Gnolls (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Gnolls)
I am hoping to post some work in progress shots of the Gnoll Linebreakers this weekend.
What I would like is some plastic hyenas to replace wolves.
Ogres and Trolls are in there, plus giants.
And it sounds like you can easily mix and match units to make forces. So like humans, elves and dwarves vs Orcs, goblins, and skeletons?
You could have humans, elves, dwarves, Orcs, goblins, and skeletons Vs humans, elves, dwarves, Orcs, goblins, and skeletons if you can get eligible terrain in your kingdom (and have the next supplement).
-
Depends. I'd say 50+, less if you have elves or a lot of cavalry. More if you play Goblins. We have played 1000 pts, 1500 pts and 2000 pts and I definitly think the bigger games run better but it works just fine at 1000.
Skeletons were just previewed on North Stars facebook page:
(https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120997278_3889670961061777_1475154916256375693_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=3POrPcOlI8sAX8RaXDn&_nc_ht=scontent-cph2-1.xx&oh=c079921dabcc12c7973a4a94ba00ad88&oe=5FA243FE)
Thanks for the reply. Most of my stuff is multibased. Can you play it without figures being on individual bases?
-
Thanks for the reply. Most of my stuff is multibased. Can you play it without figures being on individual bases?
By design it uses figure (and most important row) removal to track casualties and effects. If you can manage the tracking process you can use your figures.
-
How many Figures are in an average unit?
-
5 is the smallest optimal starting number for infantry.
I would say a regular unit of infantry is 10.
The biggest possible block of infantry is 20.
-
Seems like a box of 30models can go pretty far then.
-
Absolutely.
The rulebook says that a box of 30 is all you need for the first games. In fact the game was designed so that you can play it with just one box. The scale of the game is something between 30 and 300+ figures. I bet you could play it with fewer and even way more than 300 but my table is too small for really extreme experiments :D
Personally I got myself a box of Elf Light Infantry, a box of Human Infantry and the standard Dwarf Infantry plus two metal models and I think I won't be upgrading to more troops soon.
-
5 is the smallest optimal starting number for infantry.
I would say a regular unit of infantry is 10.
The biggest possible block of infantry is 20.
That’s good to know, it might tip me over the edge in buying a set, thanks
-
You're welcome!
By "minimum optimal" I meant that, as far as I understand the rules, a unit with a front rank of 5 (in the minimum one rank) gets 5 Attack Dice. The ranks after the first full rank are providing bonuses on the stats.
With my box of Human Infantry I am planning to build 15 hand weapon & shield guys and 15 Archers. Whether this is strategically a good choice I don't know but I do know that I could use these numbers as a starter army.
-
Seems like a box of 30models can go pretty far then.
Yes.
I have some armies based on the minimum point value for learning to play here:
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/oathmark-forces.html (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/oathmark-forces.html)
My starter Elf army can be built from just one box of Elf Light Infantry.
For the shootiest version, four ranks of Elf Rangers eats most of the points (they are very points hungry).
This does leave (almost) two sprues left over (there are a few figures needed from the sprues to reach the minimum point value)
As an alternative, you can swap one rank of Rangers for Pathguard and buy a level one Spell Caster.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JTuTaeYiP8s/X0zjN-5ULdI/AAAAAAAAG8U/u9PhDS7KPJI_ZqIPOp43DG4QM_Z9KfsywCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/lightelf-7.png)
I am looking at the movement buff spell to get the elves into position (and out of trouble).
-
I have pointed up a dwarf Army that used one box plus the sprue I bought at Salute 2017 - I need to buy the box though...
-
Is the base size critical?
My stuff is on 30mm lipped bases :?
-
Just took the plunge and ordered the rulebook from Amazon - it's almost a tenner off there now. We've been playing through various individually based rank-and-flank games (Warhammer, Chainmail, Chaos Wars, etc.), so it seems rude not to give the newest addition to those ranks a go!
-
Is the base size critical?
My stuff is on 30mm lipped bases :?
This might be something you are looking for:
https://productsforwargamers.com/product/oathmark-movement-trays-2/
The footprint is a little too big when compared to the footprint in the rulebook but I don't think you should worry too much about that when playing with friends.
I will mostly play Oathmark with a smaller footprint and don't expect any complaints 8)
-
This might be something you are looking for:
https://productsforwargamers.com/product/oathmark-movement-trays-2/
The footprint is a little too big when compared to the footprint in the rulebook but I don't think you should worry too much about that when playing with friends.
I will mostly play Oathmark with a smaller footprint and don't expect any complaints 8)
Nice, thanks for that :D
-
Oathmark is pretty forgiving about moderate differences in unit footprints because only two opposing units at a time engage in combat and at the end of a round one or the other is moved back from contact. When units move into combat one or the other is moved to face the other edge to edge and they are placed centre to centre on the sides in contact, so having different unit widths doesn’t matter much.
Unit width differences would give figs on larger bases a slightly wider zone (and units with smaller bases a narrower one) for shooting, but that’s unlikely to have much impact on game play.
Possibly the greatest impact would be on movement- specifically units on larger bases having a harder time moving through friendly units ( the unit needs to be able to clear the friendly unit to move through). Units with smaller bases would find it easier to move through friends. A few minor rule tweaks would remove those effects, though.
The same applies to bases for large creatures- a bit of difference from the “official” base sizes is unlikely to break the game!
Overall, you probably wouldn’t have problems using 30mm or 20 mm bases as long as you and your opponent are willing to be reasonable about it!
-
If I never get to take advantage of the kingdom campaign rules... how good are casual/pick up games?
-
Thanks Pattus Magnus :D
-
If I never get to take advantage of the kingdom campaign rules... how good are casual/pick up games?
Just fine, and you can happily construct a Kingdom just to have to make army lists from without playing a campaign.
-
If I never get to take advantage of the kingdom campaign rules... how good are casual/pick up games?
Not quite sure what you are asking?
You can use the kingdom system to design your army list(s), or just assemble your forces based on what you have got.
-
Oh, and Northstar have sprue shots of the plastic Oathmark skeletons on their Twitter feed (have a look at the website soon).
Look better than the Mantic ones,
Not sure about the shields though.
-
Skeletons next. That's a real disappointment. I was hoping that the human cavalry would be next, as every other race has two boxes, logic would have thought that would have been the case before embarking on another race...
-
Have they shown orcs yet or only goblins available?
EDIT: painted skeletons
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/121538897_3907981695897370_1491775276403913087_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=3lj8Mteh5HcAX8Led-g&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=73f09b716290edb64af810c7560f6a22&oe=5FAAE58E)
-
No orcs previewed yet, but I'm expecting them to be pretty soon. I believe human cavalry come next, and after that it might be orcs.
-
When I first heard about the skeletons I intended to get some, but now I am fully committed to the classic Tolkien style again and have now use for undead. Should I ever arrive at a project status which calls for the Dead Men of Dunharrow I will have a look at them.
Really looking forward to the orcs however and wondering what design direction they will take! Honestly I was quite surprised when I read that they would produce distinct orcs along with the goblins.
If the orcs are a bit bigger and more straight in posture than the goblins I will probably get some of them. Also wondering about the design of the weapons on the orcs as I expect that they won't just replicate the goblin scimitar look.
Oathmark is slowly but surely shaping up to be the plastic range I was waiting for.
-
Right after I wrote this I thought of how I would build the LotR Oathbreakers by combining the Human Infantry and the heads from the skeleton sprue. Could use more flowing garbs however. Maybe we will get some non-fantasy wraith-warriors from Northstar one day.
-
The skeletons look grand - I really like the Bronze Age details like the horned helmet and that socket-fitted axe.
I've been having a flick through the rules: admirably clear so far. I'm also pleased to find that my Nick Lund orcs will slot nicely into the various orc troop types: I've got 12 archers, 5 warriors, 10 linebreakers and 10 soldiers ready to go, plus a variety of foot and mounted commanders. It's a shame that there aren't orc wolfriders (other than commanders), but my Chronicle wolfriders can act as goblins in Oathmark terms (bigger riders but smaller mounts than the official models).
To oppose them, I can field a mix of chaos warriors (human warriors), goblins and dwarves for the time being, perhaps with some beastmen rabble thrown in as goblin slaves or something, and gnolls as orcs.
I like the 25mm-for-all approach to infantry basing, which avoids the Warhammer-style oddness of having identically sized half-orcs and hobgoblins on differently sized bases. I'm now debating whether my trolls and ogres, etc., should go on 50s for this game or 40s for others. Decisions, decisions - I'll see how the first game or two goes before deciding, but the uniformity of 50s and 25s is appealing!
-
Reading through the rules, I was struck by the presence of a 'tacit figure scale'. This is an interesting Warhammerism. Rick Priestley mentioned in an interview that Warhammer essentially worked on 1:10 or 1:20 or something, but there was a deliberate distortion to include powerful character figures as 1:1.
Oathmark does the same, I think. The book explicitly states that one figure represents one man (goblin, whatever) - yet that doesn't really make any sense with a rank-and-flank approach. You couldn't realistically flank a group of 10 men and expect them to maintain a 5 X 2 formation if otherwise engaged. The Saga-style or Rampant-style "everyone fights" approach clearly makes more sense if small groups of fighters are charging each other.
This isn't a criticism of the rules, though; it won't have any effect on how the game plays, and I'm looking forward to playing it. But I wonder what the reluctance to state a more figure scale stems from. Warhammerish tradition? Or is the concept of figure scale inherently off-putting to younger players, perhaps? I think I might have found it a bit strange when I was a kid. Or is it just that it's easier to assume that a hero figure is just the one guy, not a leader plus an elite bodyguard?
Anyway, just an observation!
-
Reading through the rules, I was struck by the presence of a 'tacit figure scale'. This is an interesting Warhammerism. Rick Priestley mentioned in an interview that Warhammer essentially worked on 1:10 or 1:20 or something, but there was a deliberate distortion to include powerful character figures as 1:1.
Oathmark does the same, I think.
So, Oathmark does 1:10 or 1:20 infantry and 1:1 for heroes or am I misunderstanding?
-
No, Oathmark is ostensibly 1:1. The rules explicitly state that one miniature = one man. But the whole structure of the game (rank and flank) is predicated on much larger groups of men.
Try to envisage a formation of 10 men holding a strict 5 x 2 formation when another 10 charged into their flank! It wouldn't happen!
So my point is that Oathmark - like Warhammer - uses an unstated figure scale. For the game to have any claim to realism, those 10 men must 'really' be 100 or 200 or whatever - numbers that would require care to maintain formation and manoeuvre.
There's nothing wrong with this, and it's not a criticism of the rules. It's an interesting design decision. I just find it odd that the underlying assumption is unstated - as if announcing a figure scale (as pre-Warhammer games generally did - Chainmail, for instance) would put people off. Perhaps it would!
I've been glancing over the rules again during work breaks, and I reckon I can get another force on the table to combat my orcs by tomorrow. It might have to be a motley crew of goblins, humans and dwarves, but it'll do until I expand the dwarvish and human ranks!
-
Got it.
Like you said though, whether each mini = one person or each mini = 10 people, the game will play the same. It's a small thing to just say they models are 1:10 or 1:20 at our home tables.
Looking forward to your AAR.
-
I'm also going for a Tolkienesque feel to my (largely notional) armies, which is why I've removed the horns from the goblins' helmets and don't use the scimitars. However, in Middle Earth terms, the goblins are the size of orcs, meaning that the forthcoming orc models won't fit in if they're any bigger, which they presumably will be.
I've also been wondering whether halflings will be included. As figures are obviously going to be produced for every race included in the game, and there is already an excellent set from Wargames Atlantic, I suspect that pure business Realpolitik may play a role here, meaning that the little chaps may end up being excluded.
Neither of these issues is unsuperable to anyone intent on fielding Middle Earth armies, or something resembling them, but it is perhaps something to ponder.
-
What would exclude halfling models from being produced?
Are there halfling units in the rulebook?
-
@Andrew: You're of course correct about the orc-size in regards to middle earth!
Maybe I am just waiting for the bigger orcs because the orcs belonged to my failed attempt at getting into Oathmark the first time before the game was even released. This ended in be basing, painting and assembling the goblins horribly. There simply was no passion in it, which is completely different this time. I might have a small small-goblin-trauma ;D! Might still get myself some Wolfriders though.
Hobbits would of course be a nice addition (and I do remember a Halfling-Army on the Oathmark FB page) but as far as I recall the first chapters of the Lord of the Rings the historical occurrence of Hobbit armies was pretty limited to their lands. I might therefore only build the occasional Hobbit and sneak him into the other armies.
-
@Jack: No halflings in the rules as of now. In terms of producing miniatures they also would be way down the line because there are still a lot of the core-boxes to be produced (Human and Elf cavalry :-*).
The production schedule however may yet surprise people, as we for example now saw with the Undead. Quite interested to see whether skellies will be the only undead in plastic or whether we will see more diverse stuff.
-
@Andrew: You're of course correct about the orc-size in regards to middle earth!
Maybe I am just waiting for the bigger orcs because the orcs belonged to my failed attempt at getting into Oathmark the first time before the game was even released. This ended in be basing, painting and assembling the goblins horribly. There simply was no passion in it, which is completely different this time. I might have a small small-goblin-trauma ;D! Might still get myself some Wolfriders though.
Hobbits would of course be a nice addition (and I do remember a Halfling-Army on the Oathmark FB page) but as far as I recall the first chapters of the Lord of the Rings the historical occurrence of Hobbit armies was pretty limited to their lands. I might therefore only build the occasional Hobbit and sneak him into the other armies.
We seem to be alike when it comes to both our perception of and experience with goblins (at least of the plastic kind - I endeavour to avoid real ones, difficult though this can be, at least in my area). On the release of the Oathmark figures I merely bought a single sprue, assembled the figures more or less at random (not even matching the mail of the left and right arms) and thoughtlessy used double-bitted axes and scimitars because they were there. Other than the metal dwarves, I didn't buy any more of the range until the book was released much later, when I finally bought the original goblin infantry box. This time, prompted by John Treadaway's articles in Miniature Wargames on building his Oathmark armies, and various LAF posts on the correct appearance of Middle Earth orcs / goblins, I took it a lot more seriously. I now have about 32 correctly armed and accoutred orcs (some of the advance force having gone missing, while I don't have all the right parts to complete other figures) and, better still, an idea of what I intend to do with them. The fact that the rules made sense as I read them,and made me want to play the game, had a lot to do with this.
With regard to Hobbits, I want an excuse to get the WA set, which appears to be excellent, as well as the metal ones by Mark Copplestone I have somewhere. I'm not too concerned about following the strict history of Middle Earth, I just want to have the option of using my armies in that setting. I also intend to create my own setting in parallel, which will still have a Tolkienesque aesthetic, particularly as far as the non-human races are concerned. I have no interest at all in using over-sized, over-muscled, mushy pea-coloured orcs (with or without tusks), bazooka-toting dwarves (with or without mohawks and piercings), and the like. (This is not to denigrate people who do; it's just that there are already plenty of games for them, which I trust serves to reduce strain on the already over-stretched NHS).
-
I'm not looking for strict Tolkien-fealty, as I'm certainly going to put some of my own spin on some of these models too.
What's 'WA' btw? as in the "WA hobbit set"
-
I'm also going for a Tolkienesque feel to my (largely notional) armies, which is why I've removed the horns form the goblins' helmets and don't use the scimitars. However, in Middle Earth terms, the goblins are the size of orcs, meaning that the forthcoming orc models won't fit in if they're any bigger, which they presumably will be.
I've been wondering about the Oathmark orcs too - though, happily, my decidedly non-Tolkien Lund orcs fit right in!
Curious about the scimitars, though: they're very Middle Earth (apart from for the Isengarders, that is)!
-
I'm not looking for strict Tolkien-fealty, as I'm certainly going to put some of my own spin on some of these models too.
What's 'WA' btw? as in the "WA hobbit set"
Wargames Atlantic
https://wargamesatlantic.com/collections/classic-fantasy/products/halfling-militia?variant=31045178490978
-
I'm not looking for strict Tolkien-fealty, as I'm certainly going to put some of my own spin on some of these models too.
What's 'WA' btw? as in the "WA hobbit set"
Wargames Atlantic. They call them halflings, no doubt for copyright reasons.
https://wargamesatlantic.com/products/halfling-militia?variant=31045178490978
P.S. I see I was beaten to it. I hate to delete a post, though, particularly after correcting countless typsos.
-
I've been wondering about the Oathmark orcs too - though, happily, my decidedly non-Tolkien Lund orcs fit right in!
Curious about the scimitars, though: they're very Middle Earth (apart from for the Isengarders, that is)!
It's been a very long time since I read LotR. I'm pretty sure it was John Treadaway who commented that scimitars don't cut it, so to speak. One of the MW articles stated that Tolkien describes the orcs as having straight swords, though this may have been a specific reference to Saruman's soldiers, who are also said to be somewhat larger than orcs of Mordor, if I recall correctly.
-
Undead heroes:
(https://i.ibb.co/pfWMf65/121388292-3911252862236920-1439936339977685212-o.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bJNNYXf/121500552-3911257615569778-7599799426284064289-o.jpg)
-
It's been a very long time since I read LotR. I'm pretty sure it was John Treadaway who commented that scimitars don't cut it, so to speak. One of the MW articles stated that Tolkien describes the orcs as having straight swords, though this may have been a specific reference to Saruman's soldiers, who are also said to be somewhat larger than orcs of Mordor, if I recall correctly.
I'm always up for a bit of orcish pedantry! ;)
Tolkien specifically uses the word scimitars to describe orcish swords on at least three occasions (he refers to them as "bent swords" too). Here's an instance from The Hobbit:
"The Wargs came ravening and down came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel."
("The Clouds Burst")
And here are a couple from LotR:
"By both the doors they could now see that many bones were lying, and among them were broken swords and axe-heads, and cloven shields and helms. Some of the swords were crooked; Orc-Scimitars with blackened blades".
("The Bridge of Khazad-Dum")
"There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands. They were armed with short broad-bladed swords, not with the curved scimitars usual with Orcs: and they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men."
("The Departure of Boromir")
That last quote's the first clear description of the Isengard Uruk-hai, but the point it's making is that these goblins have gear that's atypical for their kind. Aragorn says that their equipment is more like that of Men.
The Isengarders do seem to be bigger and stronger than the other orcs (going principally on Eomer's statement: "Great Orcs, who also bore the White Hand of Isengard: that kind is stronger and more fell than all others."), although perhaps not much bigger than the soldiers of Mordor; Grishnakh and Ugluk are together contrasted with the smaller Northerners, and the big chieftain in Moria (one of the "black Uruks of Mordor", clearly) seems to be the biggest individual orc in the whole book. And Tolkien is ambiguous on whether the Isengarders pull ahead of Grishnakh's troops (Uruks of Mordor, we can safely presume) because they're hardier or because Grishnakh has some scheme in mind.
There is also at least one orc in Cirith Ungol with a short stabbing-sword, so scimitars aren't the only orcish swords in Mordor, but they do seem to have been the norm.
Those undead heroes look good!
-
Thanks for the quotes. Clearly I over-generalised. Now I know who my orcs are fighting for, anyway.
-
Interesting photographs, though I am trying to stick to plastics.
I can understand releasing one or more boxes per supplement (surprised there was nothing for Oathsworn).
However I do wonder about how the Oathmark book in-fill boxes will go (I was hoping for some human and elf cavalry).
Not bothered about the orcs really...
Oathmark and Frostgrave would seem to have a great deal of synergy, but there seems to be minimal interaction (almost as if they were released by separate companies). There may well be legal reasons (but as the lead author is the same...).
I would almost expect demons in Oathbreaker.
-
the synergy is interesting. it feels like Frostgrave and Rangers of Shadow Deep have more synergy between the two...and those are published by different entities.
Oathmark and Frostgrave are both from osprey and northstar.
But perhaps they just wanted a different feel for Oathmark. I dunno.
I do know that I'm not really interested in Frostgrave besides using a few of its models for Oathmark.
-
It's really interesting for me too. I first stumbled over Northstar Miniatures because of the Frostgrave range and soon found out about the Northstar / Osprey CoOp.
For a few years I had then tried to establish Frostgrave as my system of choice but somehow the real passion was not there. I think I wanted to like the system because on paper it was perfect for me and for a long time I had only minimal gaming space.
Now that I have more space I have realized that I actually like Oathmark way more and will probably focus entirely on that project with only interludes of painting something else. With that in mind I am absolutely fine with these two products being very different in style. I have to admit though that I do like the Rangers of Shadow Deep Miniatures as Commanders for Humans and maybe even elves.
-
Well after following this thread, I jumped in and ordered the rules & have received them.
So far I’m impressed with them. :D
-
Congratulations!
I have not yet read the book back to back, only the basic rules, but I do like them as well.
Can't wait to test them with a gaming buddy once I have at least two minimum armies assembled. Gotta get some movement trays first though. Otherwise troop movement might take a while lol
-
Yes I know what you mean about movement, I used to have loads from my Warhammer days last century 8) but got rid of them many moons ago :-[
-
I haven't played yet (plague and all that...) but I've read the rules and hope to get some games in at some point. Warhammer is going to continue to be a point of comparison for all 'mass battle' fantasy rules for a while yet, and Oathmark seems to do a good job incorporating the bits I like about Warhammer and avoiding the other stuff. For me, units of 5-20 figures (arranged 5-wide), realistic or not, somehow looks right. I also like the differentiation of the various races and units through the profiles. Games like HOTT, Dragon Rampant and Saga: Age of Magic leave me a little cold when a goblin is equal to an elf in game terms.
One thing I've found interesting in observing conversation online is that people seem to want Oathmark to be an all-purpose blank slate fantasy ruleset. I've seen people write things like "please tell me when there will be profiles for evil elves riding dinosaurs, I will not play this game until they are available" while others grumble because the North Star models don't exactly match their vision of Middle Earth. Maybe Oathmark can be its own thing? The setting seems to be deliberately vague to allow players to create their own kingdoms, but it has its own vibe which is conveyed in the miniatures, artwork and the little bit of background text in the rulebook. I haven't looked at the expansions so maybe there's more background there.
-
My only minor quibble with the figures are the elves heads, the elf faces in the artwork are distinctive - slightly"other", whereas the bare heads in the light infantry set (to me) are indistinguishable from Great Womble elves.
I do like the "vagueness" of the background, it allows you to roll your own kingdoms, and the whole elf, dwarf, human, goblin, orc alliance versus the orc, goblin, human, dwarf, elf axis is cool.
It will be interesting to see how the introduction of the undead is handled.
-
One thing I've found interesting in observing conversation online is that people seem to want Oathmark to be an all-purpose blank slate fantasy ruleset. I've seen people write things like "please tell me when there will be profiles for evil elves riding dinosaurs, I will not play this game until they are available" while others grumble because the North Star models don't exactly match their vision of Middle Earth. Maybe Oathmark can be its own thing? The setting seems to be deliberately vague to allow players to create their own kingdoms, but it has its own vibe which is conveyed in the miniatures, artwork and the little bit of background text in the rulebook. I haven't looked at the expansions so maybe there's more background there.
Agreed. I very much like the vibe of the setting and hope they keep going with their vision. Always annoying when people on Facebook ask for the umpeenth time about their Warhammer whatevers getting rules. Halflings I can understand, dwarves with gunpowder not so much in this game.
Not a lot more background in the first expansion, kind of like Frostgrave where it is left deliberately vague.
-
One surprising weapon omission was the crossbow, a pity as there are crossbows on the Deus Vult infantry sprues.
-
I would also second North Star keeping their unique Oathmark style. In my view it is the perfect marriage of "You can play generic fantasy with this" and "This is as close as Middle Earth as we can get without copyright infringement". The lovely old-school style of the art and miniature were what attracted me in the first place. I mean, look at that Oathmark logo!
The omission of crossbows I can live with as "the setting" as vague as it is seems to be more dark age-y. But then again we might see a lot of stuff in further expansions. For the time being you could use crossbow-men for other units like rangers.
The elves could use some little "extra-elvishness" in the faces but I guess this is hard to pull off in plastics. But as said: I really like the style they are going for in general.
For all people wanting to play Warhammer Fantasy: Just use the ruleset to tide you over until Warhammer: The Old World releases (and then maybe come back to Oathmark lol).
-
I haven't played yet (plague and all that...) but I've read the rules and hope to get some games in at some point. Warhammer is going to continue to be a point of comparison for all 'mass battle' fantasy rules for a while yet, and Oathmark seems to do a good job incorporating the bits I like about Warhammer and avoiding the other stuff. For me, units of 5-20 figures (arranged 5-wide), realistic or not, somehow looks right.
Yes, the aesthetics are bang on. And the fixed formation will be, I think, a massive convenience. I did a sort of pre-play review here (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2020/10/first-thoughts-on-oathmark.html?showComment=1602922115326#c8829776532987155051) (hope it's OK to post the link again: not sure of the forum rules on this), and one of the points I made was that the regular frontage sizes are a great idea: for convenience, for aesthetics and for the accommodation of the odd irregularly based monster. If you have one troll or giant on a round base, it won't make any real difference, as you know how it "should" contact other units.
I also like the differentiation of the various races and units through the profiles. Games like HOTT, Dragon Rampant and Saga: Age of Magic leave me a little cold when a goblin is equal to an elf in game terms.
Now, I really do like those rules (haven't played Age of Magic, but we've had lots of beastmen vs orc fun using the Dark Age Saga rules, so I don't see any need for the fantasy supplement!). But I do like the look of the profile differentiations. We'll be playing our first game this week with chaos creatures and chaos warriors, and with almost 40 regularly infantry and cavalry profiles to choose from, there won't be any difficulty in finding suitable statlines for them. So it works both ways, which is a good thing.
One thing I've found interesting in observing conversation online is that people seem to want Oathmark to be an all-purpose blank slate fantasy ruleset. I've seen people write things like "please tell me when there will be profiles for evil elves riding dinosaurs, I will not play this game until they are available" while others grumble because the North Star models don't exactly match their vision of Middle Earth. Maybe Oathmark can be its own thing? The setting seems to be deliberately vague to allow players to create their own kingdoms, but it has its own vibe which is conveyed in the miniatures, artwork and the little bit of background text in the rulebook. I haven't looked at the expansions so maybe there's more background there.
Yes, the implied setting's great. I said in the review that it evoked Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword for me: warring kingdoms of supernatural beings in Dark Age Britain with ally and vassal races and no clear-cut 'good' or 'evil'.
Oddly enough, though, I was looking at all the old Citadel dark elves I've based up on 25mm frontages and thinking: "Hmm - I'd get a bunch of Oathmark elf warriors from these - and the cold-one riders could use the profile for either elf cavalry or human heavy cavalry".
That's a nice thing about the game. On the one hand, it deftly creates an implied setting with a few strokes. But on the other, if you're a HotT-minded player, Oathmark offers a wealth of profiles, so that there's bound to be something that provides a comfortable fit for any given troop type. For example, I'll just treat crossbowmen as archers, reasoning that greater power is balanced by a slower rate of fire. And my rag-tag chaos beastmen - who're at the more wretched and Moorcockian end of the scale - will serve as human militia (or maybe undead, once that supplement's out).
And yes, as you and Historiker say, Northstar should definitely keep on doing what they're doing. It's great stuff.
-
I see that the next issue of Miniature Wargames is to include an adaptation (or adaption as they sometimes prefer to call it) of Oathmark for historical games. That may be interesting. Then again, it may not.
I've just received an order from Footsore's Barons' War range, which, in addition to more or less historical use, e.g. mid-Crusades, I intend to put to use in Oathmark as one of the human factions. (Officially there is only one, of course, with rather lacklustre figures, but thanks to the openness of the setting, this is readily amended and a variety of historical figures can see service).
-
Yes, the aesthetics are bang on. And the fixed formation will be, I think, a massive convenience. I did a sort of pre-play review here (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2020/10/first-thoughts-on-oathmark.html?showComment=1602922115326#c8829776532987155051) (hope it's OK to post the link again: not sure of the forum rules on this), and one of the points I made was that the regular frontage sizes are a great idea: for convenience, for aesthetics and for the accommodation of the odd irregularly based monster. If you have one troll or giant on a round base, it won't make any real difference, as you know how it "should" contact other units.
haven't an opinion on the rules, although they sound much more interesting than I'd given them credit for - but I do love the figures and painting at the top of that blogpost !
-
I know this is going to sound picky, but the thing that has put me off Oathmark is the units in 5s and 10s rather than 6s and 12s. Would the rules work just as well with slightly larger units?
-
I know this is going to sound picky, but the thing that has put me off Oathmark is the units in 5s and 10s rather than 6s and 12s. Would the rules work just as well with slightly larger units?
The rules don't constrain you to multiples of 5 in units, so you can field units of 6 and 12 without tweaking anything. A unit of 6 would have a frontage of 5 and a single figure in the rear rank. A 12-strong unit would have two ranks and two in the rear. Units can be any size between 1 and 20, so you don't need to alter Dragon Rampant or Chaos Wars units to fit.
There would be some minor problems if you were to change the frontage to 6, as that the central officer figure has an important role in manoeuvre, and combat is based on rolling five dice per unit with modifiers for additional ranks. But units of 6, 12 and 18 are all fine.
-
@Andrew:
Where did you find the info on Oathmark historical? I would definitely be up for that but as a German wargamer I am not that well informed on the English Wargaming publications. A pity really, as those are the best!
@all Oathmark players:
Where do you get your trays and in what size / what number of ranks? I have based and will base all my Oathmark stuff on 20x20 square and am just now ordering some stuff from Sarissa Precision. If only I could decide how many ranks are worth getting fro which unit for the first games. I will probably order for what I have built so far and then some different spare trays on top. MDF luckily is not that expensive.
-
I like Warbases. As far as I'm concerned unless you play elves the only relevant tray sizes are 10 infantry or 20 infantry. Elves may want some 5-size trays.
-
Thank you very much! Will then get some 10s and 20s plus some 15 sizes (for that's what I built so far for the humans).
What makes the Warbases stand out when compared to Sarissa?
-
I bought once from Sarissa, they needed to be glued together while Warbases came pre-glued. I also found the Sarissa trays to be a really tight fit for the plastic bases I use, they are 125mm on the dot while Warbases adds a mil or two so that bases are easier to fit in the tray.
-
@all Oathmark players:
Where do you get your trays and in what size / what number of ranks? I have based and will base all my Oathmark stuff on 20x20 square and am just now ordering some stuff from Sarissa Precision. If only I could decide how many ranks are worth getting fro which unit for the first games. I will probably order for what I have built so far and then some different spare trays on top. MDF luckily is not that expensive.
I won't be using trays for the most part because most of my D&D stuff is now based on 25mm squares. But I have been thinking a little bit about movement trays and their size, because I have a lot of these guys (old and very small Chronicle orcs):
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ItL9gvO49ck/W-BD336MgBI/AAAAAAAAAm0/vcE5bxbyHWgeN4qR1CUOI3-9n2xPVm-UQCEwYBhgL/s400/FUBAR%2Bprimitives.jpg)
They're based on UK pennies and I have various movement trays that fit them, including square and rectangular ones that give them a frontage of 25mm each, which is handy. You can see them in the distance here.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F-yYdNXQE0I/Xm59w4ho4FI/AAAAAAAABeM/ycJ45BdL68cTh8Nye7455Vv6CE0557SkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BoW%2B3.JPG)
I realised the other day that my largest trays - 4 x 3 slots - provide the basis of an Oathmark unit when turned the other way round (3 x 4) and paired with a couple of smaller 2 x 2 bases, for 20 slots in 5 x 4 in total. That's fine for the biggest units, but I thought I might order a few more penny trays from Warbases (where mine came from), but in formations of 5 x 1, 5 x 2, 5 x 3 and 5 x 4. That way, units of various sizes could be fielded easily, and units could also be readily reduced or divided.
Besides the Chronicle orcs, I've got quite a few more smallish creatures based on pennies, including kobolds (goblin slaves?) and largeish 20mm orcs (goblin soldiers, perhaps?). So I reckon a small investment in a few more bases would get me more multi-scale and multi-game use out of those - and help us build up to some very big battles very quickly.
-
I am using Renedra sabot bases.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spTQBIGfkRg/X0n0XGZp2pI/AAAAAAAAG4o/Fi1cQFUByhcOMZJkVJgWiHVYQ5An2NjugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sabot1.png)
I have two rank ones at the moment, though there are four rank ones (when I get enough built/painted).
-
I bought once from Sarissa, they needed to be glued together while Warbases came pre-glued. I also found the Sarissa trays to be a really tight fit for the plastic bases I use, they are 125mm on the dot while Warbases adds a mil or two so that bases are easier to fit in the tray.
Many thanks for the info! The bit about the tight fit is particularly informative. Thanks!
I am a bit confused by the 20mm section on Warbases concerning the option "Depth Top Layer" which exists in parallel to the info "2mm or 3mm top layer required"... does that mean you could "stack" top players?
-
I am using Renedra sabot bases.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spTQBIGfkRg/X0n0XGZp2pI/AAAAAAAAG4o/Fi1cQFUByhcOMZJkVJgWiHVYQ5An2NjugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sabot1.png)
I have two rank ones at the moment, though there are four rank ones (when I get enough built/painted).
Yes those are great for round bases. I chose to use the "old school" WHFB 20x20 square basing style and unfortunately Renedra has only full blocks of 100x80 for that. Love Renedra though. Great Company.
-
I won't be using trays for the most part because most of my D&D stuff is now based on 25mm squares. But I have been thinking a little bit about movement trays and their size, because I have a lot of these guys (old and very small Chronicle orcs):
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ItL9gvO49ck/W-BD336MgBI/AAAAAAAAAm0/vcE5bxbyHWgeN4qR1CUOI3-9n2xPVm-UQCEwYBhgL/s400/FUBAR%2Bprimitives.jpg)
They're based on UK pennies and I have various movement trays that fit them, including square and rectangular ones that give them a frontage of 25mm each, which is handy. You can see them in the distance here.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F-yYdNXQE0I/Xm59w4ho4FI/AAAAAAAABeM/ycJ45BdL68cTh8Nye7455Vv6CE0557SkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BoW%2B3.JPG)
I realised the other day that my largest trays - 4 x 3 slots - provide the basis of an Oathmark unit when turned the other way round (3 x 4) and paired with a couple of smaller 2 x 2 bases, for 20 slots in 5 x 4 in total. That's fine for the biggest units, but I thought I might order a few more penny trays from Warbases (where mine came from), but in formations of 5 x 1, 5 x 2, 5 x 3 and 5 x 4. That way, units of various sizes could be fielded easily, and units could also be readily reduced or divided.
Besides the Chronicle orcs, I've got quite a few more smallish creatures based on pennies, including kobolds (goblin slaves?) and largeish 20mm orcs (goblin soldiers, perhaps?). So I reckon a small investment in a few more bases would get me more multi-scale and multi-game use out of those - and help us build up to some very big battles very quickly.
I will definitely follow your approach in getting a few more bases to allow for flexibility and options of scaling games! Many thanks!
-
I have tended to use 5x1 trays and 5x2 trays. My thinking is that those sizes give a lot of flexibility in representing Oathmark units as a 15 figure unit can have a 5x2 with a 5x1 behind it, or two 5x2s for a 20 figure unit. Then when the back tray is empty I can remove it so there is less of a ‘tail’ dragging behind big units that have suffered attrition. A 15 slot or 20 slot tray can’t really be used for much else.
-
@Pattus: Great thinking. Thank you!
I will probably still get the 15 for display purposes but will definitely get some more variations! As Ogrob said above, a 5 unit tray might even be practical on itself for elves!
-
@all:
I have now ordered from Sarissa Precision and chosen:
4 each of the 5x1, 5x2, 5x3 and 5x4. This should allow for a lot of flexibility in setting up the first games. I imagine we will be starting our first games with a few tiny units.
Thank you all for the input. I will definitely share my impression of the movement trays here.
-
I'm considering getting into it...probably not with adding the plastics to the list until I've played it more since I've kind of found out I like the style of Reaper's Anhurians. Unfortunately, I've now got to figure out how to work out a tray for my cavalry since they're based on 2"/50mm bases...and it would be more of expanding the force I've got for Song of Blades and Heroes, and I'm not rebasing the force for it.
-
Many thanks for the info! The bit about the tight fit is particularly informative. Thanks!
I am a bit confused by the 20mm section on Warbases concerning the option "Depth Top Layer" which exists in parallel to the info "2mm or 3mm top layer required"... does that mean you could "stack" top players?
It's the thickness of the mdf in the top layer, so it matches 2mm or 3mm tall bases.
-
It's the thickness of the mdf in the top layer, so it matches 2mm or 3mm tall bases.
Many thanks! Please forget what I wrote - I was temporarily mentally not quite there after a too long day at the office. I applied the caption "Depth Top Layer" to the field below and not to the field next to it... it is astonishing how being tired affects even basic thinking lol
-
@Andrew:
Where did you find the info on Oathmark historical? I would definitely be up for that but as a German wargamer I am not that well informed on the English Wargaming publications. A pity really, as those are the best!
It's mentioned in the preview section of the current issue (451) as one of the articles due in next month's issue, which should be released, I think, on the second Friday in November. There's no detail on which period(s) will be covered, but i would assume it will be primarily aimed at the dark ages and medieval eras.
By the way, the cover priced has increased by £1, but the current issue, at least - which comes with a free plastic miniature for Carnevale - can be bought at the old price.
https://www.warnersgroup.co.uk/gaming/miniature-wargames/
-
@Andrew:
Many thanks! Might check that out. Dark Age / Medieval would be kinda boring though. You could just play regular Oathmark with Humans vs Humans. Still, I expect this to be the case.
Any other period however would be REALLY interesting!
I will still be focussing on my Middle Earth-ish Fantasy version of Oathmark - gotta be somewhat consistent or there will never be a group of local players :)
-
I've looked at the preview again, and noticed that the accompanying pic shows Romans, so perhaps the focus is a little different from my assumption. The issue is indeed published th esecond Friday in November, which happens to fall on the 13th, I'm afraid.
BTW there was a two-part article by the editor a few issues back about building an Oathmark goblin army, using the official plastic figures, with a Tolkien flavour, on which I based some of my own previously mentioned concepts. While John Treadaway - the editor, in case you don't know - finds the goblins suitable for Saruman's Uruks - other than the scimitars, which I slightly misinterpreted as applicable to all orcs, leading me to deprive my own figures of any kind of sword - they are too tall, in his view, for orcs of Mordor. He gets around this by using dwarf bodies with goblin heads and arms.
-
BTW there was a two-part article by the editor a few issues back about building an Oathmark goblin army, using the official plastic figures, with a Tolkien flavour, on which I based some of my own previously mentioned concepts. While John Treadaway - the editor, in case you don't know - finds the goblins suitable for Saruman's Uruks - other than the scimitars, which I slightly misinterpreted as applicable to all orcs, leading me to deprive my own figures of any kind of sword - they are too tall, in his view, for orcs of Mordor. He gets around this by using dwarf bodies with goblin heads and arms.
It's worth noting that the Uruks of Isengard and Mordor are together contrasted with smaller types on at least a couple of occasions in the books: in "The Uruk-hai" and in the appendices ("the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard"). So, while Eomer says that the Isengard are the strongest and worst sort, there can't be much between Isengard and Mordor Uruks - or at least not much that would really register in 28mm scale! Also, by far the majority of the orcs encountered in The Lord of the Rings seem to be Uruks; only the small northerners from Moria (alongside Uruks there) and the tracker and reserves that Sam and Frodo meet appear to be smaller breeds. But gamers are often resistant to the idea, because decades of games have established the idea of an intermediate sort of non-Uruk soldier that makes up the bulk of the armies of Mordor - even though that's not supported by the text.
We got our first game of Oathmark in this afternoon. Very impressed: we got to grips with it much more quickly than with Warhammer or Chainmail, and even on an entirely open field, there was lots of interesting decision-making all the way through, which elevates it above both of those games. It's a clear, intuitive and evocative game, and I think it's got all the hallmarks of a tabletop classic in the HotT and Song of Blades class: where you've got lots of important decisions to make, logical results on the field and - best of all - little or no need to consult the rulebook once the game's underway.
One thing's clear, though: it's definitely a game with a hidden figure scale. The way the game played out made complete sense if you assume 1:20 pr similar, but not much at all if you assume 1:1 (which is what the rulebook states). It doesn't matter, of course, but I'm just curious about why the 1:1 assumption is stated at all.
Anyway, we loved it - and I'll try to get a proper review up on my blog shortly.
As for negatives, the only real quibble I'd have initially is with the points values. My son's unit of four ogres seemed tremendous value for 160 points. They destroyed a couple of tough units (orc linebreakers and wolfriders) for the loss of only a single ogre. The kingdom system may help here, of course, and points systems are always 'breakable'. I thought the ogre profiles were great, though: their impact matched their appearance.
Meanwhile, my Chronicle wolfriders were suitably vicious despite their enforced relegation to 'goblin' status (only orc personalities are allowed to ride wolves, which is odd as they can't lead orc foot units or goblin units under the rules as written).
I did intitially wonder whether cavalry were a little slow relative to infantry, but their superior move did make a big difference, allowing them to stay out of reach of charges and then slam back in again on their own turn to exploit their Charge (2) rule.
As I'm on holiday at the moment, we'll probably play again tomorrow - we're certainly both keen. I might try to get some more goblins finished off tonight so that we can field some beefier units; our biggest unit today was 12 strong.
-
What would exclude halfling models from being produced?
Are there halfling units in the rulebook?
Sorry, I missed this earlier. There are no halfling / hobbity types in the main book or the first supplement, but that doesn't mean they won't appear at some point, particularly if there is a demand. I was simply speculating as to whether North Star would consider it worthwhile producing such figures given that many players may be perfectly happy with the existing WA Halfling Militia. This is what I meant by 'business Realpolitik', which must be a factor in decision making. I doubt, for example, that a fantasy mass battle set would have been given the green light by North Star and Osprey had there not been a perceived gap in the market, and its possible that this thinking may also be applied to the potential release of figure sets. This, to repeat, is pure speculation on my part; perhaps halflings will be viewed as a race, like goblins, that simply can't be omitted.
-
Sorry, I missed this earlier. There are no halfling / hobbbity types in the main book or the first supplement, but that doesn't mean they won't appear at some point, particularly if there is a demand. I was simply speculating as to whether North Star would consider it worthwhile producing such figures given that many players may be perfectly happy with the existing WA halfling militia. This is what I meant by 'business Realpolitik', which must be a factor in decision making. I doubt, for example, that a fantasy mass battle set would have been given the green light by North Star and Osprey had there not been a perceived gap in the market.
As to the perceived gap: It is most definitely there. I know quite a lot of people who miss this style of game (most of them WHFB players) but never really warmed with what's on offer (KoW and the like). I am looking forward to showing them Oathmark and maybe getting them back into the fun of fantasy mass battle games - which is something I, as already said, unfortunately had not participated in in the past.
-
I had a quick look through the rulebook yesterday, noting the box art double page spreads.
Besides the boxes that are out, I noted Human Cavalry, Orcs and Dwarf Militia(!). Has anyone spotted any more?
Not that it guarantees there are matching boxes.
The Undead are on the North Star site (but currently out of stock - I assume not released yet).
I assume Nick will let us know when they are available.
-
I had a quick look through the rulebook yesterday, noting the box art double page spreads.
Besides the boxes that are out, I noted Human Cavalry, Orcs and Dwarf Militia(!). Has anyone spotted any more?
Goblin slaves and slave slingers towards the back!
-
The Undead are on the North Star site (but currently out of stock - I assume not released yet).
I assume Nick will let us know when they are available.
IIRC, I think there was a mention of a 'Nickstarter' on Oct 31st?
-
I'd love to see more militia type kits as those are best for making dungeon crawl characters and the like. I only own a box of Oathmark goblins, but I'm pretty interested in the skeleton box.
-
IIRC, I think there was a mention of a 'Nickstarter' on Oct 31st?
I wondered about it, and Nick said they had never run one for Oathmark.
-
New undead and Oathbreakers preorders on the 31st October. No mention of a nickstarter though!
Speaking of which, I do love the art for Oathmark
-
The general art design (and miniature design) for Oathmark is fantastic. Currently my favorite when it comes to fantasy miniature games.
Let us hope that this and the future books do not re-use art published before as was the case in the first supplement.
After the asbolutely glorious Core Rulebook the first supplement was a bit lackluster in production quality (reused art, print & paper quality) but I have high hopes that future supplements will be much better!
-
I love oathmark. It was announced just as I was switching out from playing AoS and back into collecting armies for WFB and it very quickly hooked me and I ditched the WFB collection for oathmark instead.
I've sadly not had a chance to play, I've been painting as much as I can for it, but between a sci-fi project that had to take priority due to a deadline and with multi lockdowns messing up my final year at college- I've had to pack my table etc away to make room for my thesis hardware and working from home.
I love the artwork, I didn't realise just how much I missed the classic style until I started seeing the oathmark previews.
I've eager to get my hands on the new book, as the undead were on the the projects I had always wanted but never found time for when I was younger, so I've splashed out on an insane amount of undead and been painting them up.
Someone was asking about the halflings, we've been told that we won't see a halfling army list but we will see a halfling character in the future. But their enough flexibility in the army lists to use halfling models anyway.
Dwarf militia and Orc linebreakers were mentioned at the start of the year, but like most things, the pandemic has probably messed the release schedule up. The Ogre kit was the last kit I heard that was close to release (Not counting skeletons) so hopefully we will see them early next year.
There is another new book due out around march next year called bane of kings. If there are no chariot rules in the new skeleton book, it's probably safe to assume that chariots are coming in that one instead, as they've been mentioned as coming a number of times now.
I'd not be surprised if things like daemons & halflings to find army lists appearing in a magazine style supplement, much like the frostgrave one, though I'd expect the earliest we might see that is this time next year, due to Frostgrave 2 having more due out and then stargrave due out in April.
-
Great to read that someone is as happy about this product and its good old times-vibe as I am 8)
Though I have bought and downloaded all Oathmark PDF and though I really did like the "Towncryer" when it came out for Mortheim, these days I rather like to collect my rulesets, especially something as classy as Oathmark, in physical form.
I therefore would rather like them to keep publishing more collected physical rules (plus of course a PDF / ePub versions) than having them produce lots of tiny bits to be downloaded and printed out.
There is nothing wrong with a few of these, but there is everything right with an impressive bookshelf! ;)
-
So, maybe not a Nickstarter, but a pre-order deal on October 31st? Something or other seemed to be alluded to here, but don't take anything to the bank:
https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127569.msg1612281#msg1612281
There is a buy any 5 Oathmark units get one free deal going at Northstar atm. maybe that's it?
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=14844
-
There is a buy any 5 Oathmark units get one free deal going at Northstar atm. maybe that's it?
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=14844
There goes this month's order...
Does that include the Skeletons? Still useful if it did not.
-
oh bugger it, too-Tolkien-y or not, think I'm going to get into this ...
-
There goes this month's order...
Does that include the Skeletons? Still useful if it did not.
I imagine it will once pre-orders come up on the website on Saturday. They ran the same promotion when the last kit was released, the light elven infantry.
-
This quote from the sale site says the Skeletons are included:
You can have any combination you want. You might want five boxes of the new Skeleton Infantry. You might want one of the new Skeleton Infantry, then a box of the Elf Infantry & three boxes of Goblins to fight them. No problem. Just let us know. If you forget to say, don't worry, we'll email you.
Looks like shipping to the US is going to negate the savings from the free box. I guess I can consider 5 boxes with free shipping then?
-
Let us hope that this and the future books do not re-use art published before as was the case in the first supplement.
After the asbolutely glorious Core Rulebook the first supplement was a bit lackluster in production quality (reused art, print & paper quality) but I have high hopes that future supplements will be much better!
To borrow one of Lily Allen's less expurgatable bons mots, my thoughts exactly. The new content in the first supplement didn't warrant a book at all, and amounted to taking the piss. The joint publishers are really going to have to do better if they're not to sacrifice a lot of the goodwill they've earned with the quality of the core book (proof-reading aside).
-
After the asbolutely glorious Core Rulebook the first supplement was a bit lackluster in production quality (reused art, print & paper quality) but I have high hopes that future supplements will be much better!
A bit of a habit with Osprey. They had the same issues with IHMN and Dracula's America. The content was good but the quality of the books fell off.
-
To borrow one of Lily Allen's less expurgatable bons mots, my thoughts exactly. The new content in the first supplement didn't warrant a book at all, and amounted to taking the piss. The joint publishers rally going to have to do better if they're not to sacrifice a lot of the goodwill they've earned with the quality of the core book (proof-reading aside).
That is perhaps the realities of the business model. Expansions often don't sell as well as the original rules so they try to limit the size of them to decrease costs.
At least the first expansion was thematic with its focus on water themes.
-
A bit of a habit with Osprey. They had the same issues with IHMN and Dracula's America. The content was good but the quality of the books fell off.
I have all three of the Dracula's America books. The core is hardback and the two expansions are softback. I'm ok with that. The two expansions do have unique art though relevant to the new posses and settings contained within their covers. I don't recall the whole page images being repeats as I hear about in the Oathmark expansion.
-
As surprised as I was about the production choices in regards to the first expansion I do have huge stores of good will towards the Oathmark product and am therefore assuming that the next supplements will be getting more care.
It is very possible that this is just Osprey and Northstar getting into their groove with something they have not done before (longterm-plan mass battle game with extensive miniature line). As said, I am optimistic in this case!
Plus: Although I don't want to defend the product too much, the reuse of artworks could have been due to the whole Corona chaos going on right at the release of the product. The new products do seem to have new and original artwork.
I can't as yet say much about the textual contents of Battlesworn bun in this regard I think it is not unreasonable to hope that Oathbreakers will pack more punch content-wise. We are getting a whole new playable faction after all. Again: I am optimistic :)
-
Agreed. I currently have tons of goodwill towards all the parties involved with this project.
With Rangers of Shadow Deep and Frostgrave's solo book, McCullough seems keen on solo gaming. I never thought I would land there, but the times being what they are, I wonder if Oathmark will have some solo rules/scenarios as well?
-
I wonder if Oathmark will have some solo rules/scenarios as well?
Oathmark plays fine solo without any changes. You roll to activate units and the activation alternates between sides so its pretty easy to play both sides without any additional rules
-
Goblin slaves and slave slingers towards the back!
Page 184, well spotted that man!
-
Agreed. I currently have tons of goodwill towards all the parties involved with this project.
With Rangers of Shadow Deep and Frostgrave's solo book, McCullough seems keen on solo gaming. I never thought I would land there, but the times being what they are, I wonder if Oathmark will have some solo rules/scenarios as well?
Solo scenarios could be a possibility, but with these I would guess that they would be published as PDF / somewhere online. And of course there is the possibility of the community around the game building some of these.
As for myself I will use the probably soon to be happening Lockdown 2.0 in Germany to actually get something done in regards to my Oathmark armies. Hit a bit of a plateau there and need to power through!
-
I'm struggling a bit on if I want to go squares or rounds for the model bases. The models I use for Oathmark will also be used for Rangers of Shadow Deep to a large degree. Rounds seem to make the most sense for skirmish games, and I could use the trays to rank them up, but to be honest I don't like the trays having those gaps when models are removed. It's a visual thing that's all, but bugs me a little. Plus, proper old school rank-n-flank is on square bases touching one another.
I played tons of Mordheim back in the day on squares. Maybe I do squares?
I dunno...
-
I ordered / used these and never looked back:
https://www.radaddel.de/tabletop-depot/20mm-x-20mm-bases-eckbases?number=112243
Some trimming of the molded on bases is necessary but it works just fine (for the models released so far. It works because these 20mms are a little bit more angular than the GW ones).
In case you want the official unit block frontage, try these:
https://sarissa-precision.com/collections/oathmark/products/125x50mm-movement-tray-for-20x20mm-bases-skirmish-style
I use these because I like the smaller footprint:
https://sarissa-precision.com/collections/for-20x20mm-bases/products/5x2-movement-tray-for-20x20mm-bases
I absolutely adore the square base look (after basing lots of stuff on rounds for countless skirmish games). In case you would want to be more flexible, maybe base on rounds and try these:
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-recessed-movement-tray-10-spaces-per-tray-plus-40-x-25mm-diameter-bases/
Ah, ist just re-read your post again and you know all of this. So all I can say is: I share our aesthetic sentiments regarding square bases in close contact and chose 20x20 squares 8)
-
I'm struggling a bit on if I want to go squares or rounds for the model bases. The models I use for Oathmark will also be used for Rangers of Shadow Deep to a large degree. Rounds seem to make the most sense for skirmish games, and I could use the trays to rank them up, but to be honest I don't like the trays having those gaps when models are removed. It's a visual thing that's all, but bugs me a little. Plus, proper old school rank-n-flank is on square bases touching one another.
When I played War of the Rings I found that just putting the models (with round bases) on a textured tray was good enough to keep the models in place.
I sanded and painted the trays so that when I removed models there wasn't a jarring visual but the added bonus was that the sand made the models stay in place quite nicely.
I did the same for all my square based models as you can see on my blog
https://zacgaming.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/oathmark-2000pt-elf-force/
-
Rounds seem to make the most sense for skirmish games, and I could use the trays to rank them up, but to be honest I don't like the trays having those gaps when models are removed. It's a visual thing that's all, but bugs me a little.
You could always fill the gaps with some empty bases with grass and some spare shields and weapons. It would mark casualties.
-
You could always fill the gaps with some empty bases with grass and some spare shields and weapons. It would mark casualties.
That's a really nice idea! I'll have a think about doing that for my penny-based orcs and their sabots.
-
I am reading the rules just now and hope to maybe play a test game soon(ish).
I have a lot of old school dwarfs based on 20mm x 30mm card bases (old Wargames Research Group Ancient LMI/LHI sizes). I'm trying to decide whether to attempt to rebase(*) some of them or just go with what's there. I have test 3d printed a movement tray for them, so I guess I'll see how it looks during the game.
(*) a lot are pre-slotta, which is fine. However, I removed all the slotta tabs on the newer ones and pushed the figure into a lump of milliput to form a base. I am concerned that removing some of those figures from their existing bases will also remove them from their milliput bases. I painted these in the 80s using enamels, so the chances of being able to colour match to fix any damage is pretty tiny :(
-
I wouldn't worry about rebasing - and certainly not until you've played a fair few games.
As the frontages are much more standardised (25 or multiples) than in games like Warhammer (20, 25, 40, etc.), you've actually got much more leeway to use non-standard bases. That's because you know what the frontage is supposed to be, and you also know that one unit engaging another head on with a full front rank rolls five dice. So whether your unit has a frontage of 100 or 125 mm doesn't really matter. It's not like Warhammer, in which certain combats might see dwarfs take advantage of their smaller 'footprint' to get more attacks than their orcish opponents.
-
What Hobgoblin said!
I would urge you not attempting rebasing and thereby risking damage to your minis. Oathmark is very flexible in that regard and I would make full use of it!
-
It wasn't something I was looking forward to, so good to know I should be able to avoid it :D It was more the depth of the base than the frontage that had me concerned, but that's probably less important.
There's more than enough to do without making more work for myself lol
-
You might want to make a mark on your movement trays where the unit is supposed to end, that way you can have correct line of sight arcs and such.
-
Several more thoughts this morning as I'm heading deep into Joseph A. McCullough's games. I have RoSD and ordering Oathmark today
1) How large of a role do heroes/leaders play in Oathmark? are they single models, separate from the unit like Warmaster or something? About how strong is a hero? equivalent to half a unit? a quarter?
2) I see people use Frostgrave's Gnolls, but has anyone considered the snake-men or tribal boxes from Ghost Archipelago for some exotic looking units? Too far removed from the Dark Ages/Tolkien look of Oathmark?
3) With Oathmark being army battles and RoSD being hereo-party level co-op, I feel like I should get Frostgrave for warband skirmishing in between the two. Not super into the new look of that game though. Particularly the font on the title, looks like a Disney movie. An odd thing to object to for sure, but it is what it is...
4) This is me buying a lot of titles from Joseph A. McCullough...a game designer I've not played a game from before. With Frostgrave 2nd newly released, RosD seeing new scenarios, Oathmark on the march, and all the development being done for the upcoming Stargrave...how can one man keep up with all of this? How can all of this be tested well? I'm not into the competitive scene for any of these titles, so perfect balance isn't anything I'm expecting, but this seems a lot for one person to take on at one time. Can anyone speak to how deep his playtest/assistant pool is? I'm still likely in for these games, but this does seem quite the workload...
-
Several more thoughts this morning as I'm heading deep into Joseph A. McCullough's games. I have RoSD and ordering Oathmark today
1) How large of a role do heroes/leaders play in Oathmark? are they single models, separate from the unit like Warmaster or something? About how strong is a hero? equivalent to half a unit? a quarter?
It is not hero-hammer. Most heroes exept spell casters will be deployed in a unit and have to stay with the unit for the game. The command ability is the big one I think, allowing you to activate two units in one go.
3) With Oathmark being army battles and RoSD being hereo-party level co-op, I feel like I should get Frostgrave for warband skirmishing in between the two. Not super into the new look of that game though. Particularly the font on the title, looks like a Disney movie. An odd thing to object to for sure, but it is what it is...
Give it a go, it's a great game.
4) This is me buying a lot of titles from Joseph A. McCullough...a game designer I've not played a game from before. With Frostgrave 2nd newly released, RosD seeing new scenarios, Oathmark on the march, and all the development being done for the upcoming Stargrave...how can one man keep up with all of this? How can all of this be tested well? I'm not into the competitive scene for any of these titles, so perfect balance isn't anything I'm expecting, but this seems a lot for one person to take on at one time. Can anyone speak to how deep his playtest/assistant pool is? I'm still likely in for these games, but this does seem quite the workload...
It seems like Frostgrave: Ghost Archipelago is getting put on ice for a bit. No new titles announced that we know of. Balance in the games is generally decent, if not perfect. I have a lot of faith in Joe's game design, the vast majority of my gaming is with systems he has made.
-
A few thoughts not as a direct answer to one of your questions but more about the general idea of getting into a lot of games at the same time:
Frostgrave and Oathmark are very, very different games. The fact that they have been written by the same gentleman is only indirectly visible via same shared traits like
a) being more of less figure agnostic
b) being very easy to learn
c) being very open to house-ruling and modification
d) requiring no huge buy in to get a full game going
e) being light on fluff but strongly emphasizing narrative play
f) being actively supported by Osprey / Northstar with lots of new stuff coming out
If I were you I would just leave it at Oathmark and Rangers of Shadow Deep as the miniatures complement each other very well and you would effectively be working towards completing two gaming projects whilst assembling a standard army.
Getting into another Frostgrave-bases ruleset next to Rangers is of course an option but it is a path that could lead to what I call "wargaming-burnout" with too many projects going on.
Frostgrave does look miniatures-light at first glance but there are for example the monsters and the ruins of the city which can really escalate the scope of the project... you have been warned!
The questions leading my decision (if I were you) would be:
1. What game am I really interested in getting into if I could choose only one?
2. Is this a game for which I have or would find players (or does this not even matter)?
Hope that helped in some way!
-
PS: I totally get what you mean in regards to the Frostgrave art design. I am also very particulate about such things and I find the more grounded design of Oathmark (and the general artstyle of RoSD) much more pleasing to the eye and aesthetic sense.
-
sound advice, Historiker.
It just seemed to make sense that if I had the models for Oathmark and RoSD....I must also have the models for something that sits in the middle like Frostgrave
-
In case the decision is very difficult I would just build the first box you like. You could easily use the models for any of the rulesets mentioned.
And as to the rulesets, the core rulebooks are not that expensive. It is getting all the expansions that might be. A danger for every completionist lol
-
1) How large of a role do heroes/leaders play in Oathmark? are they single models, separate from the unit like Warmaster or something? About how strong is a hero? equivalent to half a unit? a quarter?
They can be either free-ranging or embedded, but will probably be the latter in bigger games (for protection). But lone heroes, especially if mounted, could be quite useful for flanking, etc. Their power varies a fair bit by 'rank'.
2) I see people use Frostgrave's Gnolls, but has anyone considered the snake-men or tribal boxes from Ghost Archipelago for some exotic looking units? Too far removed from the Dark Ages/Tolkien look of Oathmark?
I've got quite a few square-based snakemen and was planning to use them in Oathmark. I don't really care about the 'look' of a ruleset; if the rules are good, I'm more than happy to use them with whatever figures I've got based appropriately. Chaos warriors (as human warriors) and gnolls (as human rangers) have featured in our games so far!
Skimming the rulebook again during a coffee break, I was struck by one possible weakness in the rules: too little difference between unit types. For example, it seems to me that heavy human cavalry are no better against goblin soldiers than regular human cavalry; both have the same Fight score, both have Charge (3), and both have Defence sufficiently high that the goblins will be hitting only on 10s. That seems a bit odd, as you'd expect heavy cavalry to be at their most deadly against small and lightly armoured foes.
Another point that occurred to me was the absence of heavy spearmen among the infantry options. It's easy to see what the profile should be - same as 'warrior' but with Brace - and presumably, it's just a point more (or maybe two, if equipment costs scale), in line with the soldier/spearman profile.
I wonder, therefore, if the game could do with an open points system, to facilitate fielding heavy spearmen or lightly armoured but aggressive units with two-handed weapons (again, easily extrapolated from the existing profiles).
-
@Hobgoblin:
Funny that you should mention unit differentiation. I had been thinking about the very same thing while on my walk around the block on lunch break.
To me it also seems to be the case that some units have very little differentiation. I wasn't even thinking about human heavy cavalry vs human light cavalry but also for example about let's say a unit of Rangers between the factions. The stats on elves are higher and the units more expensive but the special rules seem to be the same.
This probably is the case because there was the need to support every faction with the "standard" troops every player would expect. It also could be just a matter of perception because I have yet to read the rules completely in a quiet setting.
Right now this is perceived lack of differentiation is not a problem for me as I am only starting out and these "simpler" mechanics will make it easy to teach new players (which I hopefully will find).
As to the future: I think that the game will be developed in such a way that almost every supplement will bring new rules to further differentiate units. Whether these differentiations would be faction based or meta-rules (as they have been so far in Battlesworn) I could not possibly say.
-
The absence of unit differentiation had also occurred to me as a rather serious omission, not only in armour and weapon type, but in training and experience. As things stand, an infantry unit of a given race is identical to every other infantry unit of that race, whether we consider them to be levies, militia, professionals, or household troops. The Battlesworn supplement has rules or an individual unit to progress over a campaign, but otherwise fails to address the issue.
It shouldn't be too difficult to fix with house rules, but for an otherwise impressive and reasonably comprehensive set of rules, this really should be built in, in my opinion.
-
Here is my 0.625p worth.
1) How large of a role do heroes/leaders play in Oathmark? are they single models, separate from the unit like Warmaster or something? About how strong is a hero? equivalent to half a unit? a quarter?
Command and Champion characters are generally best as part of a bodyguard unit. As noted by Hobgoblin, mounted individual Champion characters would be quite useful.
Command characters allow you to activate two or more units at a time so you can synchronise attacks. Champion characters can kill unit officers (which may or may not be characters) damaging the units ability to act and their morale.
Spellcasters (oddly enough) cast spells. They might be better off with a bodyguard unit, or individual (depends on the opponent's forces - if your opponent's archers can choose their targets your spell caster is going to be vulnerable even if there are ranks of goblins between them and the archers).
2) I see people use Frostgrave's Gnolls, but has anyone considered the snake-men or tribal boxes from Ghost Archipelago for some exotic looking units? Too far removed from the Dark Ages/Tolkien look of Oathmark?
My inspiration (barring my Gnoll fixation) is Game of Thrones, so most of my projected forces are human (built from Frostgrave, Oathmark, Fireforge - Northmen and Medievals, Gripping Beast plastics, Mantic Northern Alliance), I am recycling Frostgrave scenery so everyone will be wearing their wooly mammoth underwear.
That being said, I see no reason why you could not use any suitable figures (I have concerns about Snakemen as they were originally on 30mm bases so might be a bit large). Tribals would be fun, as would Bronze Age or Roman armies. If you can match them to an existing unit type all the better. You might want to build a "Counts As" Kingdom Terrain chart so you can build "legal" Kingdom based lists:
So for a Human - Snakeman Alliance there is a Terrain Type of "Snakeman City", it is Rarity 2 and gives access to one Snakeman Champion, Snakeman Warriors and Snakeman Linebreakers (this is a direct map to the Human Terrain type Iron Mines).
3) With Oathmark being army battles and RoSD being hereo-party level co-op, I feel like I should get Frostgrave for warband skirmishing in between the two. Not super into the new look of that game though. Particularly the font on the title, looks like a Disney movie. An odd thing to object to for sure, but it is what it is...
It really depends on what you (or the people you play with) want to do. There are a number of war band level games out there (and Crooked Dice will be adding to the number soon), so whether you buy Frostgrave is up to you. I have both (but not RotSD, and I need to get FG2). Frostgrave does have a high figure count (the max eleven "man" squad - I think there is a set up which takes your figure count up to that - is not where the figures are), especially if you have lots of different wandering monsters. Now if you have an Oathmark Undead army, there is your skeleton crew, Gnolls etc...
4) This is me buying a lot of titles from Joseph A. McCullough...a game designer I've not played a game from before. With Frostgrave 2nd newly released, RosD seeing new scenarios, Oathmark on the march, and all the development being done for the upcoming Stargrave...how can one man keep up with all of this? How can all of this be tested well? I'm not into the competitive scene for any of these titles, so perfect balance isn't anything I'm expecting, but this seems a lot for one person to take on at one time. Can anyone speak to how deep his playtest/assistant pool is? I'm still likely in for these games, but this does seem quite the workload...
[/quote]
The Oathmark credits list 26 play testers (there are probably a number of additional players involved).
-
I'm not expecting these unit non-differentiatons to be too big of an issue. I'm looking for some fantasy wargaming here on the lighter side of the spectrum. I'm a more 'rule of cool' gamer anyway.
That said...besides ordering the Oathmark book, I just ordered a copy of Warhammer 3rd edition. I think between these two...I'll be good.
-
The absence of unit differentiation had also occurred to me as a rather serious omission, not only in armour and weapon type, but in training and experience. As things stand, an infantry unit of a given race is identical to every other infantry unit of that race, whether we consider them to be levies, militia, professionals, or household troops. The Battlesworn supplement has rules or an individual unit to progress over a campaign, but otherwise fails to address the issue.
It shouldn't be too difficult to fix with house rules, but for an otherwise impressive and reasonably comprehensive set of rules, this really should be built in, in my opinion.
I see what you mean - Humans are 5 6 2 2 in general. Militia are less easy to control (6), Warriors and Linebreakers in their Heavy armour are slower (5).
For Humans, my only missing load out was Militia with ranged weapons (slings/bows) and sticks (sorry Spears), but then if they are not trained, would they be able to Brace?
The Species names really only name the skins the figures wear, so if you wanted to do a Human army using Spartans (well disciplined, Accurate, hard, expensive) you could use Elves.
If you wanted Roman Heavy Infantry you might decide that they are Dwarf Spear (this bakes in the close order training).
As forces can be multi-species, as long as you clearly document and identify your forces, there should be no problem.
Jack Hooligan asked about the testing, I can see that covering five races with a selection of force types involves a lot of testing, adding modifiers for this weapon or that armour or a particular type of training multiplies the testing required.
-
2) I see people use Frostgrave's Gnolls, but has anyone considered the snake-men or tribal boxes from Ghost Archipelago for some exotic looking units? Too far removed from the Dark Ages/Tolkien look of Oathmark?
These guys are a bit of a faff to mount on 25mm bases (they come with 30mm) and future ones will have legs bent somewhat to ensure they stay within, nothing I hate more in a miniature then overhang.
-
My inspiration (barring my Gnoll fixation) is Game of Thrones, so most of my projected forces are human
Exciting! Looking forward to seing pictures of well differentiated human armies!
Just came back from glueing together a few of the elves. What I really like about these boxes is that with all the head and weapon variations you can easily cover more troop types.
As I don't really like the wriggly iconography on the regular elven infantry armor some of my Light Elven Infantry now wear helmets and these are the warriors with the others being soldiers. They will get a different colourscheme as well and those are two troop types sorted. Doing the same with the hoods on the archers and voila Elven Rangers 8)
-
1) How large of a role do heroes/leaders play in Oathmark? are they single models, separate from the unit like Warmaster or something? About how strong is a hero? equivalent to half a unit? a quarter?
They can be single models but there is no point in having single combat characters on their own. Spellcasters are much better on their own as they will hinder, or be hindered by, any unit they are attached to.
Heroes can have quite an impact but it is not the norm. The champions can be very useful in eliminating officers in enemy units and reducing their efficiency but they only do that on rolls of 10 so it doesn't come up often.
Heroes with Command are very useful in everything other than Elven forces as they add dice to activation and rally attempts. They can also activate large blocks of troops.
They are useful but nothing like characters in Warhammer
-
Exciting! Looking forward to seing pictures of well differentiated human armies!
Well, the Anvil heads with Brodie helmets arrived today so that is the third Northern army started (okay I have assembled five Oathmark HumanInfantry as Spearmen for this new force).
For Humans, my only missing load out was Militia with ranged weapons (slings/bows) and sticks (sorry Spears), but then if they are not trained, would they be able to Brace?
I also forgot Pikes (Crossbows I can live without).
-
@ Ultravanillasmurf:
In case of pikes I would use the Linebreaker rules. Too far off?
I have been glueing together units like crazy, so hopefully will be able to update my project thread soon. So far very little painted though ;)
-
I have been glueing together units like crazy, so hopefully will be able to update my project thread soon. So far very little painted though ;)
This is a dangerous practice. I find that if I assemble a lot, but paint little, the painting task feels monumental and discouraging. Or, by time I get around to painting another project or unit jumps ahead.
For my sanity, and to stay ahead of this hobby, I can only assemble as my painting goes. Finish one unit/team/warband before buying or assembling another.
But this is just my experience. Good luck!
-
In case of pikes I would use the Linebreaker rules. Too far off?
I'd be inclined to invent a Brace (2) rule for spearmen (maybe for a couple of points more).
-
Wise words! I have just recently switched to not buying stuff as long as I have projects to assemble and paint (plus some yet unreleased projects in the pipeline). In fact Oathmark was the last purchase and therefore is a bit of an Oathmark :D
I will still assemble all the units as I am going to demo the ruleset to fellow other players who do not own old WHFB armies or such. In general I always keep at least a second army or warband around to let complete beginners who don't even know whether they like wargames give it a try.
Of course demo-ing games right now is absolutely out of the question as we just entered another mini-lockdown. I will use this lockdown however to get some stuff done as to be ready once we are eventually again allowed to meet people and have a friendly game without using Skype or whathaveyou.
-
This is a dangerous practice. I find that if I assemble a lot, but paint little, the painting task feels monumental and discouraging. Or, by time I get around to painting another project or unit jumps ahead.
For my sanity, and to stay ahead of this hobby, I can only assemble as my painting goes. Finish one unit/team/warband before buying or assembling another.
But this is just my experience. Good luck!
That’s probably the best way to do it. I wish I had your control, I tend to feel that I’m going to miss out if I don’t buy the miniature. That’s why I’ve got a whole shelf of unfinished things next to my shelf of unbuilt things.
-
What's so far helped me immensely with my Oathmark project is putting all the other unfinished projects out of sight. As I now only have the Oathmark related stuff in full view I often find myself sitting down just to glue together one dwarf and then assembling ten. This practice will become even easier once my Sarissa trays arrive and I can easily move around whole units.
-
Hello to Everybody here! This is my first comment here, I just registered because this thread.
I play Oathmark with my kids, sometimws my wife also joins us. I think that the game is easy to play with a very fluent gameplay. After the first party, the rulebook us very rarely needed. I dont know how many playtests were made, but I think that (after a dozen small, 1000-1200 point battles) except some small problems, the balance is pretty good (and we have units from all races). And I like the overall concept of mixed armies with kingdom building, and the old school art concept also. Im so amazed about this, that I started my first blog because of it (and of Frostgrave):
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com
The only problem I see, that its not very wide spread, too few people play it...
-
I'd be inclined to invent a Brace (2) rule for spearmen (maybe for a couple of points more).
And how about pikes with Brace (2), and two handed (no shields) for the balance? Or halberds: 2 handed, brace (1) and +1 attack strength?
-
For Pikes, I wondered about an additional rank bonus at three ranks (three counts as four, four counts as five). As BZ points out no shields.
Greetings BZ, welcome to the forum. Please tell us about your battles.
have been glueing together units like crazy, so hopefully will be able to update my project thread soon. So far very little painted though ;)
For my sanity, and to stay ahead of this hobby, I can only assemble as my painting goes. Finish one unit/team/warband before buying or assembling another.
I am rather random - my table has Oathmark and Frostgrave, Empress WW2, Rubicon WW", Malifaux, Empress and UnderFire Retro-Ultramoderns, Empress Moderns, Zona Alfa stuff, Empress Vietnam (Anzac, NVA and USMC), Space Opera (Crooked Dice, Anvil, Hasslefree, Frostgrave Gnoll!). There are others that I have not spotted (just spotted the WWX figures).
I was working on the Fireforge Northmen Infantry and some Oathmark Human Infantry (to use Anvil Brodie helmets to differentiate them from the out of the box ones). And then lat night I found the Northern Alliance box from Mantic, and wondered if they were compatible with the Frostgrave Barbarians (they are) and so built two Barbarian Linebreakers (Frostgrave two handled axe and hammer) and two archers (one of which uses a Frostgrave soldiers arms and a Gnoll quiver). They have a mixture of Mantic, Barbarian and Anvil heads
-
For Pikes, I wondered about an additional rank bonus at three ranks (three counts as four, four counts as five). As BZ points out no shields.
Greetings BZ, welcome to the forum. Please tell us about your battles.
I am rather random - my table has Oathmark and Frostgrave, Empress WW2, Rubicon WW", Malifaux, Empress and UnderFire Retro-Ultramoderns, Empress Moderns, Zona Alfa stuff, Empress Vietnam (Anzac, NVA and USMC), Space Opera (Crooked Dice, Anvil, Hasslefree, Frostgrave Gnoll!). There are others that I have not spotted (just spotted the WWX figures).
I was working on the Fireforge Northmen Infantry and some Oathmark Human Infantry (to use Anvil Brodie helmets to differentiate them from the out of the box ones). And then lat night I found the Northern Alliance box from Mantic, and wondered if they were compatible with the Frostgrave Barbarians (they are) and so built two Barbarian Linebreakers (Frostgrave two handled axe and hammer) and two archers (one of which uses a Frostgrave soldiers arms and a Gnoll quiver). They have a mixture of Mantic, Barbarian and Anvil heads
The additional rank bouns for pikes is a great idea!
About our battles? Well, Im not a big story teller, I would really suck in making battle reports. But in general, all the battles were really fun. In the first approx. 4-5 turns, there was no clear winner, so they were also very exciting. I have only 2 complains:
- Maybe there should be a turn limit, because after that 4-5 turns, the battles can be pretty frustrating. There you see the obvious winner, but you still roll dices, and move troops, to totally annihilate the enemy. But maybe its just our fault, playing without a real objective...
- There was one battle, which was absolutely unbalanced: elven archers and dwarf infantry on the one side (so pretty defensive setup), goblin light, and human heavy cavalry on the other (so clearly offensive). With winning the initiative (there is a human spell which can push this), the cavalry totally destroyed the other army in 4 turns. They had no real chance... Since then there is a house rule, to spend at least 50% of the points on infantry (spearmen, archers, soldiers, warriors, linebreakers, rangers, militia, slaves). It works.
There are approx 300 unpainted miniatures on my desk, and with my speed (I could make 20 human linebreakers in a month or so...), it will last forever... But Im still buying new ones, because... Because Im addicted?
-
And thanks for the welcome!
-
And how about pikes with Brace (2), and two handed (no shields) for the balance? Or halberds: 2 handed, brace (1) and +1 attack strength?
Yes, balancing the doubled Brace with no Shielding and keeping the points the same would work well, I think. And yes, for halberds - or you could treat them as two-handed weapons only when attacking (+1 Fight) and give them Brace when defending - for the same cost as linebreakers.
Ultravanillasmurf's extra rank bonus is a nice idea too.
On the models front, has anyone noticed how good the Victrix vikings (https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/vikings) are for Oathmark? You get 60 for £38 (or a sprue of 8 for £5 from eBay sellers). In Oathmark terms, they can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, warriors, soldiers or militia.
-
On the models front, has anyone noticed how good the Victrix vikings (https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/vikings) are for Oathmark? You get 60 for £38 (or a sprue of 8 for £5 from eBay sellers). In Oathmark terms, they can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, warriors, soldiers or militia.
I have a number of them and kitbashes of them in one of my Oathmark projects. Here's a unit done up as Human Warriors:
(https://i.imgur.com/8FDuURM.jpg)
More photos in my Fantasy log. Second link in my signature.
-
Yes, balancing the doubled Brace with no Shielding and keeping the points the same would work well, I think. And yes, for halberds - or you could treat them as two-handed weapons only when attacking (+1 Fight) and give them Brace when defending - for the same cost as linebreakers.
Ultravanillasmurf's extra rank bonus is a nice idea too.
On the models front, has anyone noticed how good the Victrix vikings (https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/vikings) are for Oathmark? You get 60 for £38 (or a sprue of 8 for £5 from eBay sellers). In Oathmark terms, they can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, warriors, soldiers or militia.
You have to look at the balance so, that you also see the mathematics behind. 1 point difference on the fight-defense roll changes the chance of a hit by 10% (untill its not bigger then 10, and if you dont count with double/triple hits), and taking away a dice while attacking means a -20% chance, but for both sides. So what would Brace (2) against Brace (1) with a shield mean?
- Brace (2) is -20% to get hit while defending, without lowering the hit chance of the counterstrike
- Brace (1) with a shield is -30% to get hit, but also -20% for the counterstrike
So the gap between stirke-counterstrike is 20% vs. 10%, so Brace (2) would be better, but what if, the enemy has no Charge (x) ability? Brace does nothing, shiled makes -20%/-20%, the gap closes. And what happens with ranged attacks? Brace does nothing, while shield boosts the defense by 20%. And what is the opponent has high armour, so you would need 10+ against? Lowering your very low hit chance by 20% because of the shield would mean nothing... And against orcs and goblins, who have only Charge (1)? Brace (2) would be equal to Brace (1). So Brace (2) is better against charging of a relatively weak opponents (like Wolf riders), but in every other case, Brace (1) with shielding is at least not worse. The extra rank bonus (from for example more than 2 ranks) would boost everything towards Brace (2), with +10% while close combat, and that would be a really good balance in my opinion!
But halberds would definitely need +10% point value, because linebreaker vs. halberdier would be the same difference as soldier vs. spearman: gap is Brace (1).
To the models: I really love the look of these Victrix Vikings! But... There are 2 buts for me:
- I started my human army based on Perry Agincourt range, so vikings wouldn't really fit in there, at least not for heavy armor.
- How would You differentiate the 3 armour levels (no armor D8, light armor D9, heavy armor D10) with these miniatures?
-
Anyone thought about using dwarf soldier rules for elite human warriors (for example for kings guard)? Because the difference is only -1 activation. And then maybe the dwarf spearman rules for human heavy elite spearman (-1 activation with the -1 move and +1 defense of the heavy armor)?
-
On the models front, has anyone noticed how good the Victrix vikings (https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/vikings) are for Oathmark? You get 60 for £38 (or a sprue of 8 for £5 from eBay sellers). In Oathmark terms, they can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, warriors, soldiers or militia.
I'm thinking about buying some Dacians:
https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/dacians
There are some archers, some light armored guys and some in heavy armor in one box.
-
I have a number of them and kitbashes of them in one of my Oathmark projects. Here's a unit done up as Human Warriors:
(https://i.imgur.com/8FDuURM.jpg)
More photos in my Fantasy log. Second link in my signature.
Those are brilliant!
You have to look at the balance so, that you also see the mathematics behind. 1 point difference on the fight-defense roll changes the chance of a hit by 10% (untill its not bigger then 10, and if you dont count with double/triple hits), and taking away a dice while attacking means a -20% chance, but for both sides. So what would Brace (2) against Brace (1) with a shield mean?
- Brace (2) is -20% to get hit while defending, without lowering the hit chance of the counterstrike
- Brace (1) with a shield is -30% to get hit, but also -20% for the counterstrike
So the gap between stirke-counterstrike is 20% vs. 10%, so Brace (2) would be better, but what if, the enemy has no Charge (x) ability? Brace does nothing, shiled makes -20%/-20%, the gap closes. And what happens with ranged attacks? Brace does nothing, while shield boosts the defense by 20%. And what is the opponent has high armour, so you would need 10+ against? Lowering your very low hit chance by 20% because of the shield would mean nothing...
Not sure on that last point - rolling 5 dice, each with a 1 in 10 chance to hit, is surely better than rolling 4. You'd have a 50% chance of a kill without Shielding versus 40%. And if you've got a dense formation, with plenty of ranks, you're probably going to want to maximise your chance of killing the opposing cavalry while you're still at full strength.
And against orcs and goblins, who have only Charge (1)? Brace (2) would be equal to Brace (1). So Brace (2) is better against charging of a relatively weak opponents (like Wolf riders), but in every other case, Brace (1) with shielding is at least not worse. The extra rank bonus (from for example more than 2 ranks) would boost everything towards Brace (2), with +10% while close combat, and that would be a really good balance in my opinion!
Yes, the extra rank bonus is a good idea. Now I think about it, I wonder whether pikes might be Brace (3) - meaning that they'd entirely nullify the charge bonus of even the heaviest cavalry. They would be more specialised than spearmen (as a counter to cavalry), but that might provide a welcome rock/paper/scissors element.
But halberds would definitely need +10% point value, because linebreaker vs. halberdier would be the same difference as soldier vs. spearman: gap is Brace (1).
My idea was that halberdiers would be F3 when attacking but only F2 (plus Brace) when defending. So they'd typically cause fewer casualties when defending than would linebreakers, but would be less vulnerable to cavalry and orcs/goblins. That keeps linebreakers as the optimal offensive infantry unit but makes halberdiers offensive when attacking but defensive when being charged. That seems more or less balanced to me. Of course, lighter-armoured halberdiers could have a lower D.
To the models: I really love the look of these Victrix Vikings! But... There are 2 buts for me:
- I started my human army based on Perry Agincourt range, so vikings wouldn't really fit in there, at least not for heavy armor.
- How would You differentiate the 3 armour levels (no armor D8, light armor D9, heavy armor D10) with these miniatures?
I'm also going to use some Perry Agincourt knights, though probably with dwarf linebreaker stats to reflect ultra-heavy armour. But yes, if they're your heavies, the vikings won't quite fit.
I think the sprue does the differentiation quite nicely. There are full mail hauberks for warriors and linebreakers. Although there's only one body with cloth/leather armour for soldiers and spearmen, there are also helmeted and unhelmeted heads. So I'm giving soldiers at least a helmet and militia just bare heads or hats and no armour. I'm also having some back-rank linebreakers with only helmets, just to make full use of the available Dane axes (one or two of which only fit on unarmoured bodies). They'll be removed first, of course, so the fully armoured core will last longer. And I'm mixing in some Fireforge Russians too.
-
I'm thinking about buying some Dacians:
https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/dacians
There are some archers, some light armored guys and some in heavy armor in one box.
Yes, that looks a good option. The two-handed falx is surely a linebreaking weapon par excellence!.
-
Not sure on that last point - rolling 5 dice, each with a 1 in 10 chance to hit, is surely better than rolling 4. You'd have a 50% chance of a kill without Shielding versus 40%. And if you've got a dense formation, with plenty of ranks, you're probably going to want to maximise your chance of killing the opposing cavalry while you're still at full strength.
Yes, the extra rank bonus is a good idea. Now I think about it, I wonder whether pikes might be Brace (3) - meaning that they'd entirely nullify the charge bonus of even the heaviest cavalry. They would be more specialised than spearmen (as a counter to cavalry), but that might provide a welcome rock/paper/scissors element.
My idea was that halberdiers would be F3 when attacking but only F2 (plus Brace) when defending. So they'd typically cause fewer casualties when defending than would linebreakers, but would be less vulnerable to cavalry and orcs/goblins. That keeps linebreakers as the optimal offensive infantry unit but makes halberdiers offensive when attacking but defensive when being charged. That seems more or less balanced to me. Of course, lighter-armoured halberdiers could have a lower D.
Thats why I wrote relatively. For example, 2 lines oh human heavy cavalry is chargeing into 3 lines of goblin soldiers. So one (front) human cavalry has a hit chance of 80%, while one (front) goblin only 10%. Lets translate this into avarage wounds caused. Cavalry would cause 0.8 wounds, but there is rule for multiple wounds with overkill its actually 1.1. While the goblins cause 0.1 average/dice. So the combat without shield would be 5.5/0.5, and with shield 4.4/0.4. So the goblins would save more than 1 wound in exchange of lowering their damage chances by 0.1. So there, a shild is way better. And and more: target number above 10 has only 3% chance/dice to hit. But if the quality difference between the two sides is smaller, or inverted, shields are worse.
A brace (3) would be too specialized for my taste, but its certanly an option.
F3/F2+brace is worse, but F3/F3+brace is better then a simply F3/F3. I still would choose F3/F3+brace, because the simplicity. Maybe an F2/F3+brace would be also an option for pikes?
-
I think the sprue does the differentiation quite nicely. There are full mail hauberks for warriors and linebreakers. Although there's only one body with cloth/leather armour for soldiers and spearmen, there are also helmeted and unhelmeted heads. So I'm giving soldiers at least a helmet and militia just bare heads or hats and no armour. I'm also having some back-rank linebreakers with only helmets, just to make full use of the available Dane axes (one or two of which only fit on unarmoured bodies). They'll be removed first, of course, so the fully armoured core will last longer. And I'm mixing in some Fireforge Russians too.
I really like the look of these vikings, and mybe its possible to clearly differentiate the 3 different armor levels. But because of the more dynamic poses, I dont know, how easy is to mix and match the body parts... I have only experience with Perry and Northstar sets, and there is practically everything possible, but I never holt a Victrix sprue in my hand.
-
Finally got my book in last night and read through it. It reads clean and the system looks easy. I hope it's got the nuance to have legs. I think it will through battlefield arrangements, but this is my first foray into this style of game, so I'm not sure.
It does look like it's going to be really difficult for me to select units from the model kits. There are so many options and combinations. Particularly since I'll be doing two small armies.
-
Finally got my book in last night and read through it. It reads clean and the system looks easy. I hope it's got the nuance to have legs. I think it will through battlefield arrangements, but this is my first foray into this style of game, so I'm not sure.
It does look like it's going to be really difficult for me to select units from the model kits. There are so many options and combinations. Particularly since I'll be doing two small armies.
Dont worry, it was also my first mass battle game, but the rules are really easy to learn and follow!
Just make 10 soldiers, 10 archers and 10 spearman from one box. We did it also, and when for example 15 spearman were needed, we made the first ranks of spearman, and the remaining rank were filled up with soldiers. For the beginning its absolutely enough.
-
I really like the look of these vikings, and mybe its possible to clearly differentiate the 3 different armor levels. But because of the more dynamic poses, I dont know, how easy is to mix and match the body parts... I have only experience with Perry and Northstar sets, and there is practically everything possible, but I never holt a Victrix sprue in my hand.
I've been very impressed with the vikings (all 16 from the two sprues I bought are now assembled). I'd say they're the easiest kits of the lot and among the best designed. But the parts aren't universally compatible with each other in the way that the Northstar and Perry ones are. While any body can be made into a spearman, swordsman, axeman, seax-wielder or Dane-axe-wielder, not all of the arms are compatible with every body. Most arms join at the elbows, but others are full arms. And each of the Dane axes only fits certain bodies. Even so, you get a huge amount of variety, and they're very easy to assemble. They're also very natural looking, despite the dynamism, and the two-handed weapons are easier to get right than the Northstar varieties.
It does look like it's going to be really difficult for me to select units from the model kits. There are so many options and combinations. Particularly since I'll be doing two small armies.
I'd second BZ on just making groups of 10. His point on the front ranks is a very good one too. As you take casualties from the back, you only need the front rank to be by the book.
-
Some very good practical advice here for starting out! I did not strictly adhere to the 10 / 10 / 10 guide but since I got elves, dwarves and humans at the same time there will be loads of possibilities to set up an even game.
This brings me to another nice feature of the system: Since all armies could potentially be combined, building a second small army, as you do, never feels as a mere task you have to do just to get another player to the table.
Every troops you get can be part of one giant army or can be used to assemble small warbands. Although I will probably structure my armies along the traditional alliances this makes assembling and collecting different miniatures more fun. It gives enough wiggle room to indulge into a little project (when you see a particularly nice miniature) without starting another game / project / army.
On a side note: Oathmark is my first mass battle game as well. I have played countless skirmish games and even a few months ago would not have considered painting hundreds of dudes (in fact I even told a friend I would not) but now I am giddy with excitement for my movement trays to arrive.
-
This brings me to another nice feature of the system: Since all armies could potentially be combined, building a second small army, as you do, never feels as a mere task you have to do just to get another player to the table.
Every troops you get can be part of one giant army or can be used to assemble small warbands. Although I will probably structure my armies along the traditional alliances this makes assembling and collecting different miniatures more fun. It gives enough wiggle room to indulge into a little project (when you see a particularly nice miniature) without starting another game / project / army.
That's a really good point. It's refreshing to have a fantasy game that doesn't prescribe a tired good vs evil dynamic. And it's actually truer, I think, to legends, folklore and fantasy literature. Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword has trolls and elves both using dwarf and goblin servants (if memory serves), as well as a host of other supernatural allies, and the division between "elf", "dwarf" and "goblin" is never so clear in folklore as Tolkien made it in Middle Earth. And even Tolkien describes alliances between orcs and dwarves.
And, as you say, it does allow much more freedom in army building. It also means that (when lockdowns allow), someone hosting a game can stick a whole load of units with roughly equivalent points costs on the table and have guest players assemble idiosyncratic armies very quickly. That's certainly what we'll be doing for games with friends (when/if lockdown's lifted!).
On another point, has anyone else noticed how powerful armoured orcs are? For most races, warriors gain an advantage in D for their extra armour. But orcs also gain a point of F. So orc warriors are F3 and orc linebreakers are F4 - with Charge (1) on top of that. That means that they hit as hard as heavy human cavalry!
-
have received the two rulebooks currently available.
from a design and layout point of view I continue to be disappointed by Osprey's use of the colour photos of figures / dioramas.
The figures are so small in most of them as sized on the page that you can hardly tell what they are.
And yet there are numerous double-page spreads of fine-art work (some of which are rather average - not of the standard of the husband and wife team used in the original frostgrave, and Ghost archipelago, books for example) ...
why not use the fig photos as double-page spreads for goodness sake - that would be get my interest 'up' a great deal more...
and there's even a line of rules covered by one of the photos ironically! Absolute shocker of a proofing mistake!!
And then in battlesworn, as some have commented, much of the fine-art is re-used for goodness sake - with the fig photos continuing to languish in incongruous postage-stamp size. An ideal opportunity to have used them to better effect.
I know it doesn't affect the quality of the rules - but I finally stumped up for these books tempted by the presentation applauded in threads such as this one. And Osprey continue to miss an open-goal in this respect.
-
And then in battlesworn, as some have commented, much of the fine-art is re-used for goodness sake - with the fig photos continuing to languish in incongruous postage-stamp size. An ideal opportunity to have used them to better effect.
I know it doesn't affect the quality of the rules - but I finally stumped up for these books tempted by the presentation applauded in threads such as this one. And Osprey continue to miss an open-goal in this respect.
The re-usage of art in Battlesworn disturbs me also. I heard that it was planned to release as the second supplement, but Covid hit in. Maybe thats why turned it out so. Lets hope, that the Oathbreakers will be fulll of new art!
-
That's a really good point. It's refreshing to have a fantasy game that doesn't prescribe a tired good vs evil dynamic. And it's actually truer, I think, to legends, folklore and fantasy literature. Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword has trolls and elves both using dwarf and goblin servants (if memory serves), as well as a host of other supernatural allies, and the division between "elf", "dwarf" and "goblin" is never so clear in folklore as Tolkien made it in Middle Earth. And even Tolkien describes alliances between orcs and dwarves.
And, as you say, it does allow much more freedom in army building. It also means that (when lockdowns allow), someone hosting a game can stick a whole load of units with roughly equivalent points costs on the table and have guest players assemble idiosyncratic armies very quickly. That's certainly what we'll be doing for games with friends (when/if lockdown's lifted!).
We have all the four races in our family (kid.1: goblins, kid.2: dwarves, wife: elves, me: humans), and we constantly play mixed battles (mostly 2 vs. 2, but sometimes 2 vs. 1, and 3 vs. 1 also). And its great! I love that freedom too!
-
On 'missing' profiles: one sort of unit that I'm tempted to dabble with is something like the dwarf militia but for other races - so, the same F as linebreakers, but with no armour or shield. This would allow for something like the Bellicose Foot troop type in Dragon Rampant: "eggshells armed with sledgehammers".
For orcs, this would give a hard-hitting unit (F4, Charge 1, Wild Charge) that is highly vulnerable to attrition (D8). Points would be 12 (on analogy with dwarf militia vs dwarf linebreakers: 14 to 20), although this might be a bit low. On the other hand, they'd drop like flies.
I think these could be a lot of fun - especially as the Wild Charge rule would be a real gamble. And it's easy to find lots of unarmoured orcs with two-handed weapons.
-
On another point, has anyone else noticed how powerful armoured orcs are? For most races, warriors gain an advantage in D for their extra armour. But orcs also gain a point of F. So orc warriors are F3 and orc linebreakers are F4 - with Charge (1) on top of that. That means that they hit as hard as heavy human cavalry!
You are right! I didnt notice it utill now (dont have orcs). There are some bugs in the army lists (at least I think that its a bug), for example: elf mounted rangers have only CD1 but every other mounted unit has CD2 (and I think they are way too expensive), giant is not Enormous. Altough the orcs stats seem to be intended, but maybe they are a bit too cheap: difference between Human Warrior and Linebreaker is 3 points for F+1/-Shielding, but between Orc Linebreaker and the human one is only 1 point for A-1/F+1/+Charge/+Wild Charge.
-
On 'missing' profiles: one sort of unit that I'm tempted to dabble with is something like the dwarf militia but for other races - so, the same F as linebreakers, but with no armour or shield. This would allow for something like the Bellicose Foot troop type in Dragon Rampant: "eggshells armed with sledgehammers".
For orcs, this would give a hard-hitting unit (F4, Charge 1, Wild Charge) that is highly vulnerable to attrition (D8). Points would be 12 (on analogy with dwarf militia vs dwarf linebreakers: 14 to 20), although this might be a bit low. On the other hand, they'd drop like flies.
I think these could be a lot of fun - especially as the Wild Charge rule would be a real gamble. And it's easy to find lots of unarmoured orcs with two-handed weapons.
Savage Orcs!
-
Savage Orcs!
Maybe I would add them D9 (because D8 is really low, archers would eat them for breakfast, and they could have some animal furs as armor) and F3/Charge(2) instead of F4/Charge(1) to represent, that they shine really in attack.
-
Savage Orcs!
Yup - I always like how hard-hitting-but-fragile units play out in games (warband in HotT and Bellicose/Fierce Foot in Dragon/Lion Rampant). I can imagine using Frostgrave gnolls with two-handed weapons in this role too.
You are right! I didnt notice it utill now (dont have orcs). There are some bugs in the army lists (at least I think that its a bug), for example: elf mounted rangers have only CD1 but every other mounted unit has CD2 (and I think they are way too expensive), giant is not Enormous. Altough the orcs stats seem to be intended, but maybe they are a bit too cheap: difference between Human Warrior and Linebreaker is 3 points for F+1/-Shielding, but between Orc Linebreaker and the human one is only 1 point for A-1/F+1/+Charge/+Wild Charge.
I suppose that it might not be a bug given the notes on the great size of the armoured orcs in the text. Perhaps, if and when Northstar releases an armoured-orc kit, those orcs will be significantly bigger than the others. In the meantime, I've got plenty of very big and nasty-looking orcs to do the job. But as you say, they do look to be a bit of a bargain next to human and dwarf linebreakers.
That does look like a mistake on the elf rangers. Otherwise, they're paying 30 points a man more for a couple of points of D and movement, and a point of F.
-
Maybe I would add them D9 (because D8 is really low, archers would eat them for breakfast, and they could have some animal furs as armor) and F3/Charge(2) instead of F4/Charge(1) to represent, that they shine really in attack.
That's a nice set-up - although there's maybe a place for completely unarmoured types (savage orcs, naked Gallic-style warriors, 'berserkers', etc.). I quite like extremely specialised profiles (as with your Charge 2) because they really amp up the lock/key or rock/paper/scissors aspect of games.
-
That's a nice set-up - although there's maybe a place for completely unarmoured types (savage orcs, naked Gallic-style warriors, 'berserkers', etc.). I quite like extremely specialised profiles (as with your Charge 2) because they really amp up the lock/key or rock/paper/scissors aspect of games.
I do like the idea also, but i would use D9 for practical reasons: in almost every game I played with Oathmark, if the archers (D9, no shields) were attacked somehow, they were slaughtered pretty quick. Thats not a problem, because they shouldnt be in the front line. But close combat units has to be in front, and there with D8, i think they would be too vulnerable, and so too limited to use. The only other close combat unit in Oathmark with D8 (Pathguards) can at least hide easily in forests. Of course, that could be balanced with a proper point value.
-
On a side note: Oathmark is my first mass battle game as well. I have played countless skirmish games and even a few months ago would not have considered painting hundreds of dudes (in fact I even told a friend I would not) but now I am giddy with excitement for my movement trays to arrive.
heh, yeah. Odd how several months ago my hobby projects was consisting of smaller and smaller sized warbands. Now suddenly...large army game. ha!
Great points everyone about the mix and match nature of the game and its forces. As I'm going to be doing two armies (with models sharing duty with RoSD) I was thinking one army would be a kingdom on the edge of a frontier made up of living creatures (so goblins, dwarves, elves, men, gnolls, orcs, etc) and the other army be raised by a necromancer, so an army of units from the new book.
I do sorta like clear army distinctions and goblins and orcs mixed in with elves and dwarves would be a new combination for me. But, again, I'm into what I'm reading about building up some generic forces and just splitting units up for even games. Each 30 model box could be two 15model units.
Here's two questions though for those with experience in play.
1) What would you say is the 'defining' unit for each of the available races?
2) As I'm leaning toward thin bases now, any idea how to put magnets on them so a case like this could be made? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKg8oPF4xfk&app=desktop
-
I just received my set of the core rules, and I was browsing around and I have some questions. What does armour do. It seems that units with heavy armour have a higher D than those with light armour. But Elf rangers, have no armour and the same amount of D as elf archers, who have light armour. Can somebody help me out with this problem?
-
Pick up games seem even easier than I initially thought with Oathmarks all races play together feature. For example:
I pick 10 models of dwarf linebreakers, so the opponent gets 10models if linebreakers. Then the opponent picks 10 goblin cavalry, so I get 10 goblin cavalry. Go back and forth like that til you exhaust the model supply or armies are the desired size.
Wouldn’t that work?
-
I just received my set of the core rules, and I was browsing around and I have some questions. What does armour do. It seems that units with heavy armour have a higher D than those with light armour. But Elf rangers, have no armour and the same amount of D as elf archers, who have light armour. Can somebody help me out with this problem?
I have only hastily browsed through the complete rules, but as far as I understand it "heavy armor" is just a description of how the unit type looks (what makes the unit easily identifiable on the battlefield) and the armor value is an abstracted value in regards to the defensive abilities of the unit type (see page 13).
It could also further serve as a "tag" for future rules ("troops in heavy armor can or cannot do this or that / are effected by this or that").
-
1) What would you say is the 'defining' unit for each of the available races?
2) As I'm leaning toward thin bases now, any idea how to put magnets on them so a case like this could be made? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKg8oPF4xfk&app=desktop
1) What do you mean by defining? Must have units? Then I would say:
- dwarf heavy infantry (warriors or linebreakers) because they incredible tough to beat
- elf archers because they are by far the best archers of the game (S3, Aimed fire and 22 inch range)
- human heavy cavalry, because of their armor and Charge(3) (and they are a lot cheaper then elven cavalry)
- goblin wolf riders, because they are cheap, quick, reasonable tough, and can hit relatively hard
2) You can find pretty thin neodym magnets on Amazon, for example I bought D5x1mm ones, but I would buy the same thickness as the bases have. Then drill a hole in the middle of the base, glue the mini on it (the sole of it should cover the hole from the top) and then glue the magnet inside with superglue. The magnet should be flash with the bottom surface to avoid an air-gap, which weakens the magnetic force.
Honestly, I didn't used this method, because I choose chamfered bases (GW), but it should work too.
Just be cautious about the polarity! All of them should be the same, if not, they will stick together.
Im planning to write a longer post on my blog about bases and storage/transport solutions.
-
I just received my set of the core rules, and I was browsing around and I have some questions. What does armour do. It seems that units with heavy armour have a higher D than those with light armour. But Elf rangers, have no armour and the same amount of D as elf archers, who have light armour. Can somebody help me out with this problem?
No, light armored elf archers have D9, and rangers without armor D8. General armor values:
no armor: D8
light armor: D9
Heavy armor: D10
dwarfs have +1 everywhere and a mount means generally +3
-
Pick up games seem even easier than I initially thought with Oathmarks all races play together feature. For example:
I pick 10 models of dwarf linebreakers, so the opponent gets 10models if linebreakers. Then the opponent picks 10 goblin cavalry, so I get 10 goblin cavalry. Go back and forth like that til you exhaust the model supply or armies are the desired size.
Wouldn’t that work?
It would work, but you have to take care of the point values too, which would make this a bit difficult. Or you simply want to halve all the units? Wouldn't be that boring after some battles?
-
Yeah, probably, but you can demo/teach the game easily by simply splitting your collection.
I much prefer distinct armies myself, this was just an idea.
-
1) What do you mean by defining? Must have units? Then I would say:
- dwarf heavy infantry (warriors or linebreakers) because they incredible tough to beat
- elf archers because they are by far the best archers of the game (S3, Aimed fire and 22 inch range)
- human heavy cavalry, because of their armor and Charge(3) (and they are a lot cheaper then elven cavalry)
- goblin wolf riders, because they are cheap, quick, reasonable tough, and can hit relatively hard
2) You can find pretty thin neodym magnets on Amazon, for example I bought D5x1mm ones, but I would buy the same thickness as the bases have. Then drill a hole in the middle of the base, glue the mini on it (the sole of it should cover the hole from the top) and then glue the magnet inside with superglue. The magnet should be flash with the bottom surface to avoid an air-gap, which weakens the magnetic force.
Honestly, I didn't used this method, because I choose chamfered bases (GW), but it should work too.
Just be cautious about the polarity! All of them should be the same, if not, they will stick together.
Im planning to write a longer post on my blog about bases and storage/transport solutions.
Cheers for this response. Looking forward to that post!
-
Yeah, probably, but you can demo/teach the game easily by simply splitting your collection.
I much prefer distinct armies myself, this was just an idea.
For a demo/teach game, I would prefer to pre-make army lists.
-
2) As I'm leaning toward thin bases now, any idea how to put magnets on them so a case like this could be made? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKg8oPF4xfk&app=desktop
I'm using 25mm wide magnetic tape on my bases. I ordered some 125x50mm metal plates to use as movement trays for my figures. And I can easily store my miniatures in metal boxes.
(https://i.ibb.co/bPVPnhn/20201013-185413.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mGKG7s7)
-
Pick up games seem even easier than I initially thought with Oathmarks all races play together feature. For example:
I pick 10 models of dwarf linebreakers, so the opponent gets 10models if linebreakers. Then the opponent picks 10 goblin cavalry, so I get 10 goblin cavalry. Go back and forth like that til you exhaust the model supply or armies are the desired size.
Wouldn’t that work?
It would work fine. For more variety, you could just put a points 'price tag' on the units and alternate choosing them until you've both reached the required points value. So you might pick 10 dwarf linebreakers and your opponent might pick 20 goblin soldiers, and so on.
I wouldn't worry about being too precise with the points values either. So 10 dwarf linebreakers might balance 10 orc linebreakers, even though there's a small difference in the points cost.
Or you could just ignore points altogether and alternate choosing units without reference to points. As long as there aren't dragons and 20-strong units of elf warriors, you can probably balance things well enough that way.
-
No, light armored elf archers have D9, and rangers without armor D8. General armor values:
no armor: D8
light armor: D9
Heavy armor: D10
dwarfs have +1 everywhere and a mount means generally +3
Yes you are completely right, I geuss I misread it. Sorry for the Hassle.
-
Lets hope, that the Oathbreakers will be full of new art!
Seconded, but I have to say the name 'Oathbreakers' is not the best portent...
-
Yeah, probably, but you can demo/teach the game easily by simply splitting your collection.
I much prefer distinct armies myself, this was just an idea.
I am building up my armies as block units, for example:
Oathmark Human Army
Type Ranks
Soldier 3
Spearman 2
Archer 4
Fireforge Northmen
Type Ranks
Spear 3
Archer 2
Cavalry 1
Others here: https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/oathmark-forces.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/oathmark-forces.html)
The joy of Oathmark is that you can build up small forces, useful for pick up games or introductory games, and then combine them into bigger armies
-
On the models front, has anyone noticed how good the Victrix vikings (https://www.victrixlimited.com/products/vikings) are for Oathmark? You get 60 for £38 (or a sprue of 8 for £5 from eBay sellers). In Oathmark terms, they can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, warriors, soldiers or militia.
The Fireforge Medievals are also good value.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-23ss2sPC7U8/X4rl9yYQRFI/AAAAAAAAHKY/r7xulmXuw-cRMCnwpI4AgtxIi_qBWgAswCLcBGAsYHQ/s687/deusvultboxes-1.png)
Archers, Soldiers and Spearmen.
The two boxes have common bodies, which means you can make more common kit for your forces.
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/deus-vult-foot-sergeants-and-medieval.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/deus-vult-foot-sergeants-and-medieval.html)
Two kinds of Knights (Warriors and possibly Linebreakers using Frostgrave Two handed Weapons).
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/deus-vult-templar-and-teutonic-infantry.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/deus-vult-templar-and-teutonic-infantry.html)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R1WkKwzeMrY/X0DnaaWi9zI/AAAAAAAAG2w/fHMRIAvy0XYEK7GMO6vRU4QwOfGdaZSCQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/deusvult-compare1.png)
Fireforge Foot Sergeant, Fireforge Northman, Fireforge Medieval Archer and Oathmark Human Infantry.
The continuing story: https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Fireforge (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Fireforge)
-
:o
I'm using 25mm wide magnetic tape on my bases. I ordered some 125x50mm metal plates to use as movement trays for my figures. And I can easily store my miniatures in metal boxes.
(https://i.ibb.co/bPVPnhn/20201013-185413.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mGKG7s7)
Another good option. Cheers! I’ll have to figure out which approach to take.
As I’ll be building up my first proper fantasy table from scratch, I’m gonna be looking at fitting terrain. I admire the Midgard range from tabletop world. They not only look really cool, with a lived in look, but they open up which works for RoSD. They are pricey though.
https://tabletop-world.com/product-category/midgard-28mm-scale/
A runner up option is the stone huts from Fogou Models. These would be a lot cheaper, much easier to paint, and would give the table a more dark ages setting.
https://www.fogoumodels.co.uk/dark-age
Anyone have experience with either?
-
I have also admired the Tabletop World stuff from afar. Fantastic looking but so expensive! definitely a rare treat for me, if even!
I think Oathmark will need more "classical" WHFB terrain like hills, swamps, rivers and woods.
-
:o
Another good option. Cheers! I’ll have to figure out which approach to take.
As I’ll be building up my first proper fantasy table from scratch, I’m gonna be looking at fitting terrain. I admire the Midgard range from tabletop world. They not only look really cool, with a lived in look, but they open up which works for RoSD. They are pricey though.
https://tabletop-world.com/product-category/midgard-28mm-scale/
A runner up option is the stone huts from Fogou Models. These would be a lot cheaper, much easier to paint, and would give the table a more dark ages setting.
https://www.fogoumodels.co.uk/dark-age
Anyone have experience with either?
The Fogou huts are great, I have a whole bunch of them. Quality is outstanding.
That said, like Historiker says, Oathmark benefits a bit more from area terrain like woods and hills than it does from large building.
-
2) As I'm leaning toward thin bases now, any idea how to put magnets on them so a case like this could be made? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKg8oPF4xfk&app=desktop
While Duncan's case works, there's the option to do the reverse. Buy magnetic sheeting rather than the metallic part and either base on washers or attach washers to your bases.
-
I think Oathmark will need more "classical" WHFB terrain like hills, swamps, rivers and woods.
Yes. Area terrain needs to be able to take a unit (swamps can act as wide linear terrain - at least until I get Battlesworn).
I am going to use the Renedra Stone and Thatch outbuilding as farm houses for Oathmark.
-
I'm using 25mm wide magnetic tape on my bases. I ordered some 125x50mm metal plates to use as movement trays for my figures. And I can easily store my miniatures in metal boxes.
(https://i.ibb.co/bPVPnhn/20201013-185413.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mGKG7s7)
I tried magnetic tape also, but it was not strong enough. With neodym magnets its easily holds the miniatures up side down also, with the tape it felt like its on its limit. Also it was too slick, the minis slided in the metal box. And of course, no chance of holding bigger or metal minis. But maybe i bought a bad tape.
-
As I’ll be building up my first proper fantasy table from scratch, I’m gonna be looking at fitting terrain. I admire the Midgard range from tabletop world. They not only look really cool, with a lived in look, but they open up which works for RoSD. They are pricey though.
https://tabletop-world.com/product-category/midgard-28mm-scale/
A runner up option is the stone huts from Fogou Models. These would be a lot cheaper, much easier to paint, and would give the table a more dark ages setting.
https://www.fogoumodels.co.uk/dark-age
Anyone have experience with either?
Tabletop-world has beautiful terrain pieces, here is what you can make out of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGt0NEngAis&ab_channel=RealTerrainHobbies
But its freaking expensive... And to have a uniform look on the table, everything else should be also this high quality. In my opinion, its a bit overkill for a mass battle game.
Im making my own terrain pieces. Its fun for me, but it takes a lot of time...
-
Here is a first preview for all of us waiting for Oathbreakers:
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/oathbreakers-first-impression-oathmark-battles-of-the-lost-age/
-
Here is a first preview for all of us waiting for Oathbreakers:
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/oathbreakers-first-impression-oathmark-battles-of-the-lost-age/
Sounds cool to me and the art looks new ;)
-
Here is a first preview for all of us waiting for Oathbreakers:
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/oathbreakers-first-impression-oathmark-battles-of-the-lost-age/
Sounds really promising! I had mixed feelings about Battlesworn, but here I really like what I see and read now. Thanks for the info!
-
Here is a first preview for all of us waiting for Oathbreakers:
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/oathbreakers-first-impression-oathmark-battles-of-the-lost-age/
That sounds good (and answers the question about the artwork).
Cool, glad I ordered it.
-
Another smart design of allowing all races together in an army...every release can be of interest to all players.
This isn’t like “I run a dwarf army, so no interest in an undead release.”
I just hope all factions piling into all armies is able to be somewhat on the level for balance as the game and expansions roll out.
-
I tried magnetic tape also, but it was not strong enough. With neodym magnets its easily holds the miniatures up side down also, with the tape it felt like its on its limit. Also it was too slick, the minis slided in the metal box. And of course, no chance of holding bigger or metal minis. But maybe i bought a bad tape.
Wow, you had some bad luck with your tape. Mine is holding figures firmly. I keep them on the sides and up side down on the lid of metal box.
Here is a first preview for all of us waiting for Oathbreakers:
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/oathbreakers-first-impression-oathmark-battles-of-the-lost-age/
if i'm not mistaken there are also rules for chariots. Cool!
-
Wow, you had some bad luck with your tape. Mine is holding figures firmly. I keep them on the sides and up side down on the lid of metal box.
if i'm not mistaken there are also rules for chariots. Cool!
I bought one of the stronger ones, still... But they serve perfect as magnetic movement trays.
Yes, there will be chariots. It can be seen on the picture of page 10, as Option 2 for the Revenant King.
-
I was re-reading the combat rules today and was struck by this line:
"For units that are facing each other, simply take the Combat Dice stat for one figure in the unit and multiply it by the number of figures in the front rank, to a maximum of 5."
In our first game, we were rolling 10 dice for units of cavalry with full front ranks (CD2 x 5). That must be correct, surely - but one reading of the rules would be that no unit can roll more than 5 Combat Dice. And the introductory section prescribes 5 dice for each player.
What's odd about the "to a maximum of 5" phrase is that units aren't allowed to have more than 5 in the front rank (p. 15: "The figures must be organized into rows (ranks) of five, with any leftover figures forming the back rank." So that phrase seems redundant. Also, in the shooting example (p. 48) we get this: "The front rank is full, so the result is 5 - this means they get to roll the maximum of 5 dice".
So one could certainly assume that no unit ever rolls more than 5 dice. But that would mean that three cavalrymen are as effective in combat as five - though you would need multiples of five to get rank bonuses.
Thoughts? Which reading is right? It also has implications for monsters. In our first game, our four-strong ogre unit was rolling 12 dice (CD 3 x 4). Were we doing it wrong?
-
As far as I understood the rules through watching battle reports and YouTube clips, you indeed can only roll a maximum of 5 combat dice per unit block.
Joe say this right after the 5min mark here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bYWL7I6Lw
The CD value of cavalry for example comes into play when you, for example, have only two front rank units in a block left. These two would still roll 4 combat dice. This would also mean that a single troop of cavalry would roll two combat dice.
-
Those who have played Oathmark, or other rank-n-flank games, what would you say is the appeal over skirmish games? Skirmish games tend to play faster, allow for more varied terrain, more unique models and individual character creation.
So, I know rank-n-flank is a different beast, so what would one says it’s gameplay strength is? It looks to take more time to prep and be a it more complicated in general, so share some upsides! Does it _feel_ like a high stakes battle?
-
Thanks. Hmm ... that has some interesting implications for how units of large creatures and cavalry 'degrade' as they fight. So, for example, a unit of 5 ogres rolls 5 dice. If they lose one ogre after the first round, they still roll 5 dice. But if they lose a second ogre, they're still on 5 dice (CD 3 x 3). And the same if they lose a third ogre (CD 3 x 2). So the unit's combat effectiveness only declines after it's been 80% destroyed.
Similarly, a three-strong unit of cavalry is just as strong in combat as a nine-strong unit (CD 2 x 3, so 5 CD in both cases).
That does seem a bit odd. I rather liked how the wolfriders played out last time with 10 CD for a full rank, but we'll try it properly next time and see how it goes.
-
Those who have played Oathmark, or other rank-n-flank games, what would you say is the appeal over skirmish games? Skirmish games tend to play faster, allow for more varied terrain, more unique models and individual character creation.
So, I know rank-n-flank is a different beast, so what would one says it’s gameplay strength is? It looks to take more time to prep and be a it more complicated in general, so share some upsides! Does it _feel_ like a high stakes battle?
Rank'n'flank generally offers more tactical scope. I always find that games of Hordes of the Things (for example) are tenser than skirmish games, because you can achieve more through decision-making, and so each decision matters more. Skirmish games, on the other hand, tend to offer more unpredictable outcomes and comedy (inadvertent or otherwise).
-
I would also add that at least in regards to terrain a rank and flank game is easier to set up. Roll out a gaming mat, put two hills or houses or some trees on it and you are ready to go.
Furthermore: Surprisingly I find the assembly line painting highly meditative and relaxing :)
-
I would also add that at least in regards to terrain a rank and flank game is easier to set up. Roll out a gaming mat, put two hills or houses or some trees on it and you are ready to go.
Furthermore: Surprisingly I find the assembly line painting highly meditative and relaxing :)
Two good points! You can certainly have a good game of a good rank'n'flank system without any terrain whatsoever, though it does add interest and tactical complexity. There's a degree to which units, both friendly and hostile, can be the main 'terrain' features in a rank'n'flank game.
-
Thanks. Hmm ... that has some interesting implications for how units of large creatures and cavalry 'degrade' as they fight. So, for example, a unit of 5 ogres rolls 5 dice. If they lose one ogre after the first round, they still roll 5 dice. But if they lose a second ogre, they're still on 5 dice (CD 3 x 3). And the same if they lose a third ogre (CD 3 x 2). So the unit's combat effectiveness only declines after it's been 80% destroyed.
Similarly, a three-strong unit of cavalry is just as strong in combat as a nine-strong unit (CD 2 x 3, so 5 CD in both cases).
That does seem a bit odd. I rather liked how the wolfriders played out last time with 10 CD for a full rank, but we'll try it properly next time and see how it goes.
I think, that the goal of the maximal 5 dice system is, to have an easier gameplay, without buckets of dice (like elswhere...). I would think of that so, that a full attacking potential of fighter cant be used in closed ranks. And anyway, it is allowed to use more smaller units, or singel miniatures also. But then the rank bonus (after the second full rank) and morale bonus (full ranks) is lost...
And I think, that with more dice, the balance of the game would be destroyed: monsters and cavalry units would be too strong.
-
Those who have played Oathmark, or other rank-n-flank games, what would you say is the appeal over skirmish games? Skirmish games tend to play faster, allow for more varied terrain, more unique models and individual character creation.
So, I know rank-n-flank is a different beast, so what would one says it’s gameplay strength is? It looks to take more time to prep and be a it more complicated in general, so share some upsides! Does it _feel_ like a high stakes battle?
I think skirmish games are much more about terrain usage (cover and movement paths) and rank-n-flank is more about placement and movement (and blocking movement). There can be a feeling of individualism in both (individual character or individual unit), and composition of the warband/army is important for both.
And especially Oathmark is (I think, because I never played other rank-n-flank games, but I read a lot about them) a pretty easy to use and fast ruleset with a feeling of a big battle.
-
I was re-reading the combat rules today and was struck by this line:
"For units that are facing each other, simply take the Combat Dice stat for one figure in the unit and multiply it by the number of figures in the front rank, to a maximum of 5."
they get to roll the maximum of 5 dice".
...
So one could certainly assume that no unit ever rolls more than 5 dice. But that would mean that three cavalrymen are as effective in combat as five - though you would need multiples of five to get rank bonuses.
The rules are based on the concept of a maximum of five (or four plus champion) dice.
Three cavalry are as effective as five, but not as resilient.
As you say, you need multiples of five (for 25mm based figures) to gain the rank bonus.
-
The rules are based on the concept of a maximum of five (or four plus champion) dice.
Three cavalry are as effective as five, but not as resilient.
As you say, you need multiples of five (for 25mm based figures) to gain the rank bonus.
Yes, I realise now that I did get it wrong. It makes quite a difference - not least in encouraging the deployment of monsters and cavalry in very small units. We're going to play a couple more games over the weekend, and we'll do it properly this time.
I do wonder whether certain units will seem drastically underpowered now - wolfrider scouts in particular, which I think now hit only as hard as ordinary goblin infantry (unless in units of three or fewer models). That seems a bit underwhelming given the size of the Oathmark wolves.
-
Yes, I realise now that I did get it wrong. It makes quite a difference - not least in encouraging the deployment of monsters and cavalry in very small units. We're going to play a couple more games over the weekend, and we'll do it properly this time.
I do wonder whether certain units will seem drastically underpowered now - wolfrider scouts in particular, which I think now hit only as hard as ordinary goblin infantry (unless in units of three or fewer models). That seems a bit underwhelming given the size of the Oathmark wolves.
4x5 goblin soldiers have a fight value of 1+3/1+1+3 (defending/charging), 2x5 goblin wolf riders 2+1/2+2+1, but they are quicker (8 vs. 6), have better armor (11 vs. 9) but less health (10 vs. 20). And the two units cost the same. Why would they be underpowered?
Ranged cavalry generally seems a bit too expensive, but maybe I cant use them properly (or the my battlefield was too small). Cavalry is ok in my opinion.
-
4x5 goblin soldiers have a fight value of 1+3/1+1+3 (defending/charging), 2x5 goblin wolf riders 2+1/2+2+1, but they are quicker (8 vs. 6), have better armor (11 vs. 9) but less health (10 vs. 20). And the two units cost the same. Why would they be underpowered?
Ranged cavalry generally seems a bit too expensive, but maybe I cant use them properly (or the my battlefield was too small). Cavalry is ok in my opinion.
I was talking about wolfrider scouts specifically: they're F1 and only Charge (1). Given the size of the official wolves and assuming that the wolf, rather than the goblin, is the main danger (those wolves are massive!), I think they look a bit underpowered. Yes, they can shoot and yes, they're faster, but they don't hit any harder than regular goblins unless they're in units of three or fewer (when they do).
-
In fact, looking again at the wolfrider scout profile, I wonder if the downgrading of Charge is an error; the scouts replace Shielding with Aimed Fire, swap out one point of F for one point of S, and cost four points more than ordinary wolfriders (which would account for the ranged attack, I think). With Charge (2), they'd be a fair bit more fearsome.
-
I think one of my two armies is just gonna be mainly skeletons. Perhaps supplement them with some higher point creatures like a dragon, but use a skeletal dragon mini, so I'm not painting hundreds of minis...
We. Are. Legion.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LSIlUCixAQ0/SgmtfWkqtlI/AAAAAAAAARI/F1ynZ4dmhUc/s1600/john_blanche_skeleton_horde.jpg)
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/HyDUkhfRzzXcycdaj95CNA__imagepage/img/05PazOKeoAwYGLfM2wB1QZAG7lg=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic1410596.jpg)
Anyone have tips on painting good looking skeletons quickly?
-
I am sorry to say the obvious, but in this case it works:
Contrast Paints from GW.
Undercoat in Grey Seer or Wraithbone and then one or two coats of Contrast Paint Skeleton Horde.
There's your Horde!
-
I am sorry to say the obvious, but in this case it works:
Contrast Paints from GW.
Undercoat in Grey Seer or Wraithbone and then one or two coats of Contrast Paint Skeleton Horde.
There's your Horde!
ha! perfect! I've not really done too much with the contrast paints, and I'm sure i'll wanna add a drybrush or highlight here and there, but this looks to do the trick. cheers!
-
I am already envying your army progress lol!
-
Ha! i still have three other steps prior to this:
1) complete Blood Bowl project
2) sort what the Oathmark storage solution and basings will be
3) buy Oathmark models
-
I think one of my two armies is just gonna be mainly skeletons. Perhaps supplement them with some higher point creatures like a dragon, but use a skeletal dragon mini, so I'm not painting hundreds of minis...
We. Are. Legion.
Anyone have tips on painting good looking skeletons quickly?
I had pretty quick and good enough results with:
1. Spray priming with Skeleton Bone, or similar
2. Heavy drybrushing with ivory
3. Zenital drybrushing with pure white
4. Washing with a brown wash
You can see the results here:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/10/10-painting-skeletons-and-rusty-iron.html?m=1
-
I was talking about wolfrider scouts specifically: they're F1 and only Charge (1). Given the size of the official wolves and assuming that the wolf, rather than the goblin, is the main danger (those wolves are massive!), I think they look a bit underpowered. Yes, they can shoot and yes, they're faster, but they don't hit any harder than regular goblins unless they're in units of three or fewer (when they do).
Yes, you wrote about the scouts, but before also about the other cavalry and monsters. And I agreed with you about the ranged cavalry, they seem to be too expensive. But I still can imagine, that when properly used (large table with a lot of space to manouver), they can be better.
A wolf, without rider has charge (1), so charge (2) with a rider should be right.
-
In fact, looking again at the wolfrider scout profile, I wonder if the downgrading of Charge is an error; the scouts replace Shielding with Aimed Fire, swap out one point of F for one point of S, and cost four points more than ordinary wolfriders (which would account for the ranged attack, I think). With Charge (2), they'd be a fair bit more fearsome.
The scouts are mounted archers, not shock troops. Their value is in getting into
Position to inflict damage while being out of range of a retaliatory charge.
Aimed fire is extremely useful where your opponent is using meat shields for spell casters, expensive units and artillery.
-
Do we know that more northstar unit boxes and minis are coming for units out of the main book or have they moved in to expansions material and consider their ‘main’ offerings done?
-
Do we know that more northstar unit boxes and minis are coming for units out of the main book or have they moved in to expansions material and consider their ‘main’ offerings done?
According to this interview, yes:
https://johnwombat.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/north-star-military-figures-more-a-talk-with-nick-eyre-part-3/
"Nick Eyre: The Oathmark range is ongoing. We have finished the plastic Human Cavalry and the Dwarf Light Infantry box sets, they are in the queue to be moulded in plastic. Michael Anderson is putting the final touches to the skeleton infantry box set, and that is off to the plastic manufacturer next week. That set is actually going to leap-frog the Cavalry and Dwarves so they can be released at the same time as the Undead supplement in November. Next in line are the Revenants, another Undead type, then Elf Cavalry then the Orc Infantry. Loads and loads to come."
-
Awesome news! Thanks for the confirmation.
It looks like Joseph has _another_ came coming out...Silver Bayonet. Again, I’m concerned about the quality of all this content. I hope my concerns are invalid, but this is now like, 5-6 titles he’s currently working on.
-
Happy to hear that many more types of units are not only vaguely planned but actually in the production pipeline!
As to the point in regards to "The Silver Bayonet" I also worry that there might be a bit of an overstretch, but not on the general writing and game-design side of the author (can't keep a guy from being creative, right?) but in terms of game-testing and game-support on the side of the publisher.
Osprey seems to be very happy with his work (and they have every reason to be!) but I do hope that they do not turn their "big game releases" into a slightly larger version of the blue books where there might be good ones among them which might find a very small community but really no game getting real traction.
To have real staying power a game has to grow a community and this takes time and a measure of dedication to a ruleset. Regarding Oathmark I am quite optimistic as there is the connection to the miniatures-line and the cooperation with Northstar.
In any case, some of these games are very far off in the future and we only got to know them via online listings (The Silver Bayonet) and others which should have been published already were caught up and slowed down in the chaos of the current pandemic (Bolt Action : Raiders, a cooperation with Warlord Games).
We will have to see whether Osprey´s publishing strategy will be sustainable but as said I am quite optimistic in regards to Oathmark (the other issue is whether the game will garner enough attention from players but I think it got off to a nice start, especially given when it was entering the market).
-
PS: Would have liked to see the Orcs sooner lol
-
PS: Would have liked to see the Orcs sooner lol
The Current Oathmark goblins models look like orcs to me, they’re great. Im very interested to see what an orc box will look like.
-
To have real staying power a game has to grow a community and this takes time and a measure of dedication to a ruleset. Regarding Oathmark I am quite optimistic as there is the connection to the miniatures-line and the cooperation with Northstar.
I think that Mr. McCullough can manage his work, and keep the quality. And I dont know other Osprey games then Frostgrave, Oathmark and Gaslands, and I never felt the lack of gametesting.
But, as You say, the community... It is the key for the long term remanence of a game system. Frostgrave managed it and Gaslands (I think) did it also. Oathmark is on the way, and I really-really hope, that it reaches the critical mass too! Because its absolutely deserves it. But at the moment (sorry to say) Im not sure, that it will... Not because of the game itself, but because a some other points:
- It was released in a bad moment. Because of the pandemic, there were no conventions, where it could have been promoted. And lot of gamers cant play together now.
- Mass battle systems has it harder. There are a lot of living skirmish games on the market, every flower has the chance bloom. Because to buy and paint 10 minis requires a lot less effort, than the same with 100. So how many fantasy mass battle systems are really alive? Age of Sigmar, Kings of war, maybe SAGA (with Age of Magic), and... And that was it? GWs Middle earth, got nothing released in the last times, Songs of Ice and Fire and Conquest are too new, WarmaHordes is practically dead and 9th is a free game.
- Lack of marketing. Okay, no conventions, but where do you see, read, hear anything about Oathmark? I think a lot of games get much more attention. For example, in the last months, everything was full with Conquest, while there were only some news about Oathmark.
What do you think?
-
- Mass battle systems has it harder. There are a lot of living skirmish games on the market, every flower has the chance bloom. Because to buy and paint 10 minis requires a lot less effort, than the same with 100. So how many fantasy mass battle systems are really alive? Age of Sigmar, Kings of war, maybe SAGA (with Age of Magic), and... And that was it? GWs Middle earth, got nothing released in the last times, Songs of Ice and Fire and Conquest are too new, WarmaHordes is practically dead and 9th is a free game.
It may be a more difficult sell, but there is also more a gap in the market. As you say, there are dozens of games requiring a (few) dozen figures, some of which stick around and others are easily forgotten in favour of another new game of the same type. Oathmark isn't just about larger-scale battles, it's specifically about ranked units too, something only found in some of the games you mentioned, of which Kings of War is probably the biggest. Song of Ice and Fire appears fairly popular, but lacks the fantasy races associated with the genre - basically, there is no real successor to Warhammer Fantasy in that sense, even if some systems clearly tried to be just that. Oathmark has a chance there, although I feel the typical Osprey supplement model may be hampering interest a bit. For skirmish games, one can just collect a dozen figures and give it a go, while here people may be waiting for their fantasy race of choice to be added to the game, and won't just start a new 100-figure army from scratch just to try it out.
(Oh, and GW's Middle-earth got a new release just some weeks ago, although in this list the long-dead "War of the Ring" mass battle ruleset is the more logical comparison, in which case, yes, it's very dead.)
-
It may be a more difficult sell, but there is also more a gap in the market. As you say, there are dozens of games requiring a (few) dozen figures, some of which stick around and others are easily forgotten in favour of another new game of the same type. Oathmark isn't just about larger-scale battles, it's specifically about ranked units too, something only found in some of the games you mentioned, of which Kings of War is probably the biggest. Song of Ice and Fire appears fairly popular, but lacks the fantasy races associated with the genre - basically, there is no real successor to Warhammer Fantasy in that sense, even if some systems clearly tried to be just that.
Yes you're right, there is a vacuum on the market, caused by slaying the Old World. Other games tried to filled it:
- KOW, but the multi base without casualty removal may be a bit strange (for me it is), and the mini design its not everybodys taste (I find leg-day skipping trolls and rectangular formed dwarves terrible)
- SOIF, but as you wrote, there are no fantasy races
- 9th Age, but as its a community based system, without professional support, its not the same league
So there should be thousands of square based armies around the world, waiting for a new, living ruleset. But are there really? Is it not too much time elapsed since the 8th edition (10 years ago...), that it is to deep buried, and the former players changed their interest?
And the other point is: in long term, the game also needs to attract new players, not just to build on an existing base. If not, there will be not enough sales to make it interesting for a profit oriented company.
-
(Oh, and GW's Middle-earth got a new release just some weeks ago, although in this list the long-dead "War of the Ring" mass battle ruleset is the more logical comparison, in which case, yes, it's very dead.)
Sorry, you must be right, Im not really familiar with all the newer GW games.
-
Thanks BZ for the interview link.
A plastic dragon! Wow.
Good to know.
-
There is a thread in the General Wargaming sub forum about whether big game gaming is dead:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127853.0 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127853.0)
Oathmark does fall into the big game area, and it is a bit difficult to arrange at the moment - unless you have a dedicated room and in-house players (I get the feeling that playing remotely might be more difficult with the bigger games).
Oathmark does require a lot larger board than a skirmish game (my working theory is the board needs to be at least twice as wide as your frontage - easy for my Elf Ranger force, that would fit on my DBA board - and at least deployment zones plus max bow range for depth).
Larger boards allow cavalry to live up to their points cost.
At the moment I am enjoying designing the armies, looking at what is available and how it can be used. Looking through the Fireforge, Mantic and Gripping Beast sites keeps finding something of use (hmm, Byzantine Spearmen - exotic looking Spearmen but wearing sufficient clothes not to freeze in the northern climes, great "mercenary" or slave forces for one of the Southern kingdoms).
I am building non human forces (my Oathbreaker order includes Oathmark Dwarfs and Goblins).
I want Oathmark to succeed, I like the rules and the official figures, I like the ability to use any figures that catch my eye (combining Mantic Northern Alliance with Frostgrave Barbarians). I like the creativity shown by people on this forum.
I do wonder what the criterion is to get a sub sub forum, like Frostgrave, and whether that is an advantage or just hides threads from the average Fantasy thread visitor. There was a poll on a Vietnam sub forum over in Conflicts that came in from the cold. Rogue Stars has a sub forum, but it is full of tumbleweed.
-
I think one of my two armies is just gonna be mainly skeletons. Perhaps supplement them with some higher point creatures like a dragon, but use a skeletal dragon mini, so I'm not painting hundreds of minis...
We. Are. Legion.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LSIlUCixAQ0/SgmtfWkqtlI/AAAAAAAAARI/F1ynZ4dmhUc/s1600/john_blanche_skeleton_horde.jpg)
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/HyDUkhfRzzXcycdaj95CNA__imagepage/img/05PazOKeoAwYGLfM2wB1QZAG7lg=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic1410596.jpg)
Anyone have tips on painting good looking skeletons quickly?
Love that picture with the tree, one of the sources of inspiration for my (much smaller!) unit filler for my own skeletons.
My skeletons are in the my painting thread: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=117916.30
I don't like the cost of contrast paints so I did mine like this:
White Spray
base coat wood areas brown
weapons + shields with metallics to taste
Agrax earthshade all over
Very, very light off-white drybrush (I use Citadels palid wych flesh)
Add weathering to taste (I use some splashes of flesh wash on weapons for rust and some the citadel tech paint for oxide on the shields)
Stupidly quick to paint and I find that the wash goes a lot further than contrast.
-
There is a thread in the General Wargaming sub forum about whether big game gaming is dead:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127853.0 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127853.0)
Oathmark does fall into the big game area, and it is a bit difficult to arrange at the moment - unless you have a dedicated room and in-house players (I get the feeling that playing remotely might be more difficult with the bigger games).
Oathmark does require a lot larger board than a skirmish game (my working theory is the board needs to be at least twice as wide as your frontage - easy for my Elf Ranger force, that would fit on my DBA board - and at least deployment zones plus max bow range for depth).
Larger boards allow cavalry to live up to their points cost.
At the moment I am enjoying designing the armies, looking at what is available and how it can be used. Looking through the Fireforge, Mantic and Gripping Beast sites keeps finding something of use (hmm, Byzantine Spearmen - exotic looking Spearmen but wearing sufficient clothes not to freeze in the northern climes, great "mercenary" or slave forces for one of the Southern kingdoms).
I am building non human forces (my Oathbreaker order includes Oathmark Dwarfs and Goblins).
I want Oathmark to succeed, I like the rules and the official figures, I like the ability to use any figures that catch my eye (combining Mantic Northern Alliance with Frostgrave Barbarians). I like the creativity shown by people on this forum.
I do wonder what the criterion is to get a sub sub forum, like Frostgrave, and whether that is an advantage or just hides threads from the average Fantasy thread visitor. There was a poll on a Vietnam sub forum over in Conflicts that came in from the cold. Rogue Stars has a sub forum, but it is full of tumbleweed.
Interesting topic, thanks for the link! It is certain, that big battle games have harder times now. The life is getting faster, and there is less time and energy, to dive deep in a hobby. And big battle games need a lot deeper dive, then skirmish games (however the terrrain-accented gameplay of skirmish games need more terrain pieceses and board preparation time). It is more expensive to get, needs more effort to paint, and more time and space to play. And honestly, Oathmark is my first big battle game (I loved WHFB in my childhood, but I never had the opportunity to play it), Im just started on the road, I love it, and have fun with it, but... But to start something similar again? I cant really imagine at the moment...
But regarding Oathmark, I think we can be a little more optimistic, because:
- the rules are really easy learn and play, so doesn't need so much effort to get in it
- the gameplay is pretty fast, no need for so much time (my experience is, that a turn in a 1200 point battle is about the same length as a Frostgrave turn)
- it is good scaleable, life doesn't start at 4000 points, a 800 point battle can also bee fun
- because of the scaleability, it doesnt need as much place and figures (we have a 3x3 board, 4x6 is under construction, and its is perfect for max 1300 points, what means around 2 plastic boxes each side)
But my status is a bit special, because I only play with my wife and kids (8 and 9, I hope I will have at least 4-5 years of wargaming fun with them). I can go on without any interaction apart of my family, so the pandemic doesn't concern me so much (regarding that).
-
My hope with path mark is that the simplicity of the game and being able to play with three 10 model units per side (two boxes of plastics) will allow me to get into games fast and grow the collection from there. Requiring 50+ models to joist get started would kill the game for me.
I too have always admired the old Warhammer, but never really played. I don’t see myself getting into GWs new Old World Warhammer game because of the large model count I’m sure it’ll required, the high cost, and tbh their mini have become too detailed for me to want to paint large numbers of.
End to end, Oathmark looks to be exactly what I want from this sort of game.
-
I too have always admired the old Warhammer, but never really played. I don’t see myself getting into GWs new Old World Warhammer game because of the large model count I’m sure it’ll required, the high cost, and tbh their mini have become too detailed for me to want to paint large numbers of.
End to end, Oathmark looks to be exactly what I want from this sort of game.
Same here! I have lot of general problems with GW, and Oathmark is the streamlined and cheap version of WHFB (for me).
-
Lack of marketing. Okay, no conventions, but where do you see, read, hear anything about Oathmark? I think a lot of games get much more attention. For example, in the last months, everything was full with Conquest, while there were only some news about Oathmark.
What do you think?
I think Oathmark is still am indie-game. An ambitious one for sure, but in terms of marketing budget etc it can't really be put in the same category as - say - a GW game. Very few games can. GW, for better or worse, is the mammoth in the room of tabletop wargaming. Sadly I don't really like their game systems anymore. This of course is nothing written in stone (more on that later).
I would have liked Warhammer Fantasy a lot but back in the day did not participate there, which is one explanation of why I am now enjoying building a square based fantasy mass battle army. It is a first!
Personally I would not feel discouraged building fantasy armies by the potential risk of Oathmark failing to establish itself on the market. Any Oathmark army can be used for a ton of other games, including Warhammer Fantasy. And should Warhammer Fantasy eventually return in whatever format - as GW has teased - I would have no problem in using my square based Oathmark armies for giving the rules a spin.
On top of that I am simply enjoying the miniatures for what they are. Whilst I am certainly rushing the painting bit to get some first troops done (for me there is a difference between a skirmish game and a mass battle game - you can't take 6 hours for every single archer), the process so far has been very relaxing and fun. And that is what I like about the crafts side of our hobby.
-
I do wonder what the criterion is to get a sub sub forum, like Frostgrave, and whether that is an advantage or just hides threads from the average Fantasy thread visitor. There was a poll on a Vietnam sub forum over in Conflicts that came in from the cold. Rogue Stars has a sub forum, but it is full of tumbleweed.
I have also wondered about this and have arrived at the conclusion that it probably is the number of threads concerning one topic / game over time as they most accurately present how many people are actively playing this game or building for this game in this forum. Though I would very much like to see a subforum for Oathmark I am not sure it is already necessary at this point.
-
I think Oathmark is still am indie-game. An ambitious one for sure, but in terms of marketing budget etc it can't really be put in the same category as - say - a GW game. Very few games can. GW, for better or worse, is the mammoth in the room of tabletop wargaming. Sadly I don't really like their game systems anymore. This of course is nothing written in stone (more on that later).
I would have liked Warhammer Fantasy a lot but back in the day did not participate there, which is one explanation of why I am now enjoying building a square based fantasy mass battle army. It is a first!
Personally I would not feel discouraged building fantasy armies by the potential risk of Oathmark failing to establish itself on the market. Any Oathmark army can be used for a ton of other games, including Warhammer Fantasy. And should Warhammer Fantasy eventually return in whatever format - as GW has teased - I would have no problem in using my square based Oathmark armies for giving the rules a spin.
On top of that I am simply enjoying the miniatures for what they are. Whilst I am certainly rushing the painting bit to get some first troops done (for me there is a difference between a skirmish game and a mass battle game - you can't take 6 hours for every single archer), the process so far has been very relaxing and fun. And that is what I like about the crafts side of our hobby.
I wouldn't call that indie game with the lots of different plastic boxed sets, because all the design, tooling and manufacturing costs for them must be really high. And nobody has a chance against the marketing steamroller of GW. That cant be the goal, but a little more wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. Maybe on the after-pandemic gaming conventions.
Im not concerned about making armies for it: I play with my family, we can play according to any ruleset, old or new, supported or unsupported. But the game deserves to be renowned! And maybe our united family armies would like to march in a battle against somebody someday...
-
I absolutely agree that the game should be better known and I applaud every effort to help with that. For me this will mean painting my small armies and then inviting unsuspecting guests for a well prepared demo game ;)
One aspect to consider though is that we do not know the nature of the cooperation between Osprey and Northstar. The, as you correctly say, very high costs of tooling and designing probably are on the side of Northstar (if they don't have a policy of sharing all gains and costs) but I think that the miniatures sell very well independently from the game.
The Northstar / Oathmark miniatures are now quite well known to be perfect kit bashing material for all sorts of projects, so I think that there could be an independent success of the miniatures even if the ruleset does not catch on.
I would however prefer both to be successful as the combined success will probably lead to more varied units for mass fantasy battles being produced by Northstar in the future. And that makes more exciting projects for us 8). Hopefully there will be more attention for the game once the world crisis subsides.
-
I absolutely agree that the game should be better known and I applaud every effort to help with that. For me this will mean painting my small armies and then inviting unsuspecting guests for a well prepared demo game ;)
Yeah, that is one little reason, why I started my blog.
Making demo games is a good idea! Would also do it, but:
- I had to paint my armies first, because gray plastic is not that tempting...
- Im a bad presenter, maybe I would scare away the people...
The Northstar / Oathmark miniatures are now quite well known to be perfect kit bashing material for all sorts of projects, so I think that there could be an independent success of the miniatures even if the ruleset does not catch on.
I have the same feeling, there are a lot of unboxing and conversion videos with the plastic boxed sets, and often not for Oathmark.
(But there are army buliding videos without Northstar miniatures, but for Oathmark)
I would however prefer both to be successful as the combined success will probably lead to more varied units for mass fantasy battles being produced by Northstar in the future. And that makes more exciting projects for us 8). Hopefully there will be more attention for the game once the world crisis subsides.
Me too! I love the rules, and I love the miniatures, and their collective succsess could lead to wider spread, more known system.
-
So how many fantasy mass battle systems are really alive? Age of Sigmar, Kings of war, maybe SAGA (with Age of Magic), and... And that was it? GWs Middle earth, got nothing released in the last times, Songs of Ice and Fire and Conquest are too new, WarmaHordes is practically dead and 9th is a free game.
But none of those (expect possibly KOW and Conquest, I'm not too sure about those, but I suspect they are not) are mass battle games. A battle with around 50 - 100 participants on each side is not a mass battle, it's a skirmish. A mass battle has thousands of participants per side (like the big battles in LOTR or GOT).
-
But none of those (expect possibly KOW and Conquest, I'm not too sure about those, but I suspect they are not) are mass battle games. A battle with around 50 - 100 participants on each side is not a mass battle, it's a skirmish. A mass battle has thousands of participants per side (like the big battles in LOTR or GOT).
I wouldnt call a 50-100 man battle a skirmish (on the tabletop). Skirmish means for me individual figures on the field. Whan there are units, I call it battle game. Maybe not a mass battle game in terms of real mass battles (for example in 6mm size), but still a battle, not a skirmish.
But are there any definded limits?
-
These definitions are always an issue and one can expect go get differrent takes on the subject. Saga for example is marketed as a skirmish game, although a large skirmish game.
In any case Oathmark would be a rank & flank game with blocks of units fighting instead of individual models. These blocks, at least for me, define an „army“ game instead of a skirmish game.
-
I wouldnt call a 50-100 man battle a skirmish (on the tabletop). Skirmish means for me individual figures on the field. Whan there are units, I call it battle game. Maybe not a mass battle game in terms of real mass battles (for example in 6mm size), but still a battle, not a skirmish.
But are there any definded limits?
Quite a lot of this comes down to figure scale (explicitly stated or not). So, Hordes of the Things might often have armies with only 20-odd figures on each side (six 2AP elements with three figures each and three heroes, magicians or monsters), but it's definitely a massed-battle game because those figures represent hundreds or thousands of individuals.
I think that's important when working out what a skirmish is. Dragon/Lion Rampant, for example, has units but is clearly a skirmish game - it has a 1:1 figure scale, and there's no rank'n'flank. The same is true for Saga.
But Oathmark is clearly different. Although it claims to be 1:1, the game makes no sense whatsoever on that basis. A unit of five men doesn't need to wheel or otherwise spend time manoeuvring. A unit of 100 might, though. So there's definitely a tacit figure scale there - and that also makes sense with the background and campaign system: is a city, even in Dark Age terms, really just raising a few tens of men to defend it?
That, I think, puts Oathmark clearly in the massed-battle camp, even if the rules are very coy about it.
We played another quick game yesterday, using the correct dice rules this time. Limiting the cavalry and monsters to five dice seemed to work fine, though we deployed our ogres in smaller units. We tried out using an unattached champion to see how he fared; he made the mistake of attacking a unit of orc archers frontally rather than from the flank and was killed in his first engagement.
-
Another thought on Oathmark. Most battle games like this have players select units from a sublist, a list based on army race or something. This forces the players to work within the constraints of their selected army and all players and armies have this restriction.
With Oathmark's 'everything plays together' it seems it won't take too long until an optimal army list is found. This will be found by the more competitive style gamers. i'm not one, so it won't be me. I won't even be looking for it.
However, once it's found I wonder if word will get out that Oathmark is 'solved' or what not. Again, not really a concern for me, but I fear it could damage the game's reputation if there's this idea that there is one best build.
But maybe somehow the Kingdom Campaign nature of the game prevents this? I'm not sure. Haven't played games yet.
-
A valid concern.
Glad that I only play friendly games with the chaps and most of us are not only too lazy to „do the math“ but more interested in a fun evening than winning the game.
I would hazard a guess that Oathmark does not attract the „MinMaxingMunchkin& Mathhammer“ crowd, but I could be wrong.
In that case, yes, that could be a problem when playing other people than friends.
I distinctly remember my bafflement when I briefly considered the game Infinity. That community was very... particular. My idea of a good game night is a cordial, relaxed and gentlemanly affair. I don‘t foresee Oathmark having a problem there.
-
yeah, I'm a 'Rule of Cool' player myself and care little for the math. In fact, if I end up with something suboptimal, it could make the game a more interesting challenge. but really I don't care. Oathmark looks to be exactly what I want for this sort of game.
My concern is more for the larger gaming community. There are lots of options out there and COVID has already stunted Oathmark. A game's initial release is when hype is the highest. Oathmark fell victim to unfortunate world-wide events. if it also gets out that its an easily solved game, then the modern butterfly gamer might just flutter to something else. :(
But I'd love to be wrong.
-
I suspect the Oathmark story of allowing mixed forces is also driven by an opportunity to sell more figures. If you can have a human/dwarf/elf army people can buy all three figure types!
-
I suspect the Oathmark story of allowing mixed forces is also driven by an opportunity to sell more figures. If you can have a human/dwarf/elf army people can buy all three figure types!
That strategy certainly worked with me then. But it also worked FOR me because I can now paint "three" armies with which I can have demo games and still only have one Oathmark force combined of all the units I like visually / narratively.
-
But I'd love to be wrong.
You will be, I reckon. ;)
The problem with optimisation only comes in when games have prescriptive army lists, I think. As a counter-example, take Hordes of the Things. It's a game that works really well in tournament format, and any army can use any troop type. Almost 30 years after its first publication, it's had only one (or is it two?) minor rule changes (swapping the movement rate of two troop types) and is still going strong. And there's no 'killer' army list - not least because of the strong rock/paper/scissors aspect to the game. Your knight-heavy army is all very well against hordes, but when your opponent turns up with a hefty contingent of spearmen, things don't look so rosy.
By contrast, games that have prescribed army lists - especially where those army lists are updated to accommodate new miniatures - tend to succumb to optimisation problems. Warhammer started to suffer from this when it brought in official army lists. Before that, the rules even included a points formula for statting up your own creations.
So, I think Oathmark's 'open' approach is a strength in this regard. You can't optimise if you don't know what your opponent is going to be fielding, and even if you have a rough idea, you won't know whether or not his elves will pitch up with some orc linebreakers and a surma in tow.
Also, there's no standard army size (as there is in Dragon Rampant, HotT or DBA), so there are just too many variables for the game to be 'cracked', I reckon.
-
good post.
so, for an initial purchase, I'm thinking two boxes of skeletons. i can do three 20model units (sword and shield/spears/bows). I can also do that trick where the front five are the unit type and the models behind are 'counts as', so in that regard doing the two boxes this way will give me a lot of flexibility.
Those in the know, what's a good counter purchase to two boxes of skeletons? Two boxes of human infantry? a box of dwarves or a single box of elves?
-
I'd get some cavalry to add an extra dimension. Among the official figures, that limits you to the wolfriders at the moment. You can get plenty of historical human cavalry, though.
If you want to get some very cheap and cheerful orcs and dwarves, have a look at EM4. Their 48 orcs or dwarves for a tenner is hard to beat, and you'd get spearmen, soldiers and archers for the orcs.
I'd also look at historical ranges for humans. The Victrix vikings are amazing (8 for a fiver on ebay) and can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, soldiers or warriors.
Among the official figures, the armoured dwarves are spectacularly good - and quick to paint.
-
I suspect the Oathmark story of allowing mixed forces is also driven by an opportunity to sell more figures. If you can have a human/dwarf/elf army people can buy all three figure types!
I think the opposite could also be true though. If you can have a human army, a dwarf army or an elf army and they all have their own playing style with advantages and disadvantages, some people will buy whole armies of each, to give them the variety of armies that play differently. If you can mix and match, why not just have the best units of each type in your army.
-
Lots of good points (some of which I may inadvertently repeat ^__^).
The mixed armies mean you can build a Human, an Elf and a Dwarf army and then combine them into a bigger army (or in my case a whole set of mini armies).
Cavalry does need a larger area to be effective (and larger points values).
Jack Hooligan:
Elf Rangers are a quick mini army:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VHOqvDy4peI/X4rjlNg3ymI/AAAAAAAAHJ8/2w1hwe2YRGAV8iiXXK-o2JqqZ5kQAUOnQCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/elf-mini-army-1.png)
That is a full minimum size army with another eight elves left from the box.
The number of permutations should prevent optimisation.
-
Cool. Maybe i'll do two boxes of skeletons vs one box of elves as my first foray into games. they should all be relatively easier to paint too to get them to the table faster. skeletons are dead simple. elves are covered in cloaks and such
.
-
The Wargames Atlantic box looks perfect for Oathmark.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0078/4764/1186/products/GiantSpidersBoxLarge_1800x1800.jpg?v=1595018334)
-
Yes, I've been eyeing those spiders with interest.
For wulvers, the Reaper Bones werewolf is an obvious candidate, and Mantic do some strange, steroidal werewolves that would fill the bases well enough.
You can get great ogres and trolls (including some that make good eachies) from Reaper's Bones line.
-
I’ve been reading this thread as it develops, or evolves!
I’m an old WFB player, and I admit to missing the tournament scene a little bit.
(Although COVID could be responsible for that too!)
I would be reluctant to see Oathmark gone down the GW route, with power armies.
Nowadays I prefer a narrative and reasonable easy going game play.
I must admit to wondering about someone creating the ‘perfect’ army list myself,
Ogre line breakers, elven archers etc etc.
Again I too am not worried about this.
The only good thing about not yet playing any games, is that my armies are purely filled with units I like the look of!
MY QUESTION, is, what type of events are we all going to attend in the not too distant future?
I like wargame get together events (note I’ve not used the dreaded tournament word)
So how do you organise an Oathmark event?
One day or a full weekend?
Army restrictions, eg, no dragons?
Point values?
How would a campaign style event work in a single day?
Discuss please.
-
Cool. Maybe i'll do two boxes of skeletons vs one box of elves as my first foray into games. they should all be relatively easier to paint too to get them to the table faster. skeletons are dead simple. elves are covered in cloaks and such
.
Yup.
Can of Humbrol dark green, Vallejo old wood for the bows and arrow shafts, your choice of flesh tones. Citadel Steel Legion Drab for gloves and boots. Vallejo Black and black - grey for metals Army Painter Golem Stone for fletching and metal highlights.
-
I think the opposite could also be true though. If you can have a human army, a dwarf army or an elf army and they all have their own playing style with advantages and disadvantages, some people will buy whole armies of each, to give them the variety of armies that play differently. If you can mix and match, why not just have the best units of each type in your army.
Oathmark is not a competitive ruleset. The rules are loose written (as i know intentionally), not every possibility is covered, so there is place and need for discussion. And so the problem is optimization is not really a problem, because if you play for fun, you wont do it, if you want to content, you probably wont do it in Oathmark. Moreover, the possibility of mixed armies would make an optimization really hard...
Cool. Maybe i'll do two boxes of skeletons vs one box of elves as my first foray into games. they should all be relatively easier to paint too to get them to the table faster. skeletons are dead simple. elves are covered in cloaks and such
.
Get the boxes what you like at best! All the armies is fun to play, Im right now writing a post on my blog about the races of Oathmark.
The Wargames Atlantic box looks perfect for Oathmark.
They look cool, but honestly, the half of them would be enough for Oathmark. Maybe some single sprues on e-bay.
I'd get some cavalry to add an extra dimension. Among the official figures, that limits you to the wolfriders at the moment. You can get plenty of historical human cavalry, though.
If you want to get some very cheap and cheerful orcs and dwarves, have a look at EM4. Their 48 orcs or dwarves for a tenner is hard to beat, and you'd get spearmen, soldiers and archers for the orcs.
I'd also look at historical ranges for humans. The Victrix vikings are amazing (8 for a fiver on ebay) and can be built as linebreakers, spearmen, soldiers or warriors.
Among the official figures, the armoured dwarves are spectacularly good - and quick to paint.
Human cavalry can be purchased from any historical range. I have mine from Perry Agincourt range.
EM4 is probably the cheapest option. But only if you bear their look... The mildest world, what I can say abot them is: oldschool.
I suspect the Oathmark story of allowing mixed forces is also driven by an opportunity to sell more figures. If you can have a human/dwarf/elf army people can buy all three figure types!
And Im happy about it!
Yes, I've been eyeing those spiders with interest.
For wulvers, the Reaper Bones werewolf is an obvious candidate, and Mantic do some strange, steroidal werewolves that would fill the bases well enough.
You can get great ogres and trolls (including some that make good eachies) from Reaper's Bones line.
I couldnt find any cheap and okay looking werewolves untill now... Im thinking about using Frostgrave Rangifers, I think, they fit better to the elves.
-
I’ve been reading this thread as it develops, or evolves!
I’m an old WFB player, and I admit to missing the tournament scene a little bit.
(Although COVID could be responsible for that too!)
I would be reluctant to see Oathmark gone down the GW route, with power armies.
Nowadays I prefer a narrative and reasonable easy going game play.
I must admit to wondering about someone creating the ‘perfect’ army list myself,
Ogre line breakers, elven archers etc etc.
Again I too am not worried about this.
The only good thing about not yet playing any games, is that my armies are purely filled with units I like the look of!
MY QUESTION, is, what type of events are we all going to attend in the not too distant future?
I like wargame get together events (note I’ve not used the dreaded tournament word)
So how do you organise an Oathmark event?
One day or a full weekend?
Army restrictions, eg, no dragons?
Point values?
How would a campaign style event work in a single day?
Discuss please.
All I can say to that with my Oathmark experiences, that:
- A turn of a 1200 point battle is as long, as in Frostgrave, so around half hour / turn.
- 3x3 table is maximum enough for around 1200 points. We have only such a small table (Im building a 4x6 now), and with more its too dense, no place to maneuver.
- Turn limit, or a clear goal should be set. We often had problems after 5-6 rounds, because the result was already clear, but hunting down the remaining units was no fun anymore.
- We have a house rule, that half of the point value must be spent on regular (more or less available for all races) infantry: spearman, archer, soldier, warrior, linebreaker, ranger. We had a battle with a full cavalry army, and it was pretty unbalanced, and I can imagine, that too many monsters and characters could have the same effect.
-
EM4 is probably the cheapest option. But only if you bear their look... The mildest world, what I can say abot them is: oldschool.
I think they scrub up OK - and they're very easy to paint and convert. I also reckon they're a little under-rated. They are by Mark Copplestone, after all - and at about 20p a figure, you can't really argue with the price!
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1khR_zli0e0/W-A3HVFmvhI/AAAAAAAAAmM/i6gu9TrEN9k4eKMT6qPm33NDtYeGaEvFQCEwYBhgL/s1600/EM4%2Borcs%2B1.JPG)
And Im happy about it!I couldnt find any cheap and okay looking werewolves untill now... Im thinking about using Frostgrave Rangifers, I think, they fit better to the elves.
That's a good call - but will they fit the 50mm bases? This is the Reaper guy I have:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gLSHcTPgL._AC_SY355_.jpg)
-
What about the The Accursed from Northstar's Dracula's America line?
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=11549
(https://www.northstarfigures.com/images/9/img11549.jpg)
I think I'm splitting a box of those Wargames Atlantic spiders. I need 8 for Rangers of Shadow Deep which is what I'm going to be working on in tandem with Oathmark.
-
I think they scrub up OK - and they're very easy to paint and convert. I also reckon they're a little under-rated. They are by Mark Copplestone, after all - and at about 20p a figure, you can't really argue with the price!
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1khR_zli0e0/W-A3HVFmvhI/AAAAAAAAAmM/i6gu9TrEN9k4eKMT6qPm33NDtYeGaEvFQCEwYBhgL/s1600/EM4%2Borcs%2B1.JPG)
These look great! How do 20 of them in a unit look though? have you converted a lot of these to provide for different poses?
-
I couldnt find any cheap and okay looking werewolves untill now... Im thinking about using Frostgrave Rangifers, I think, they fit better to the elves.
Not extremely cheap, but how about these:
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=11549
Or this one:
http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/shop/wilderness-encounters-2/we7c-werewolf/
PS: Forgive my lack of attention. Jack had already posted the Northstar variety!
-
These look great! How do 20 of them in a unit look though? have you converted a lot of these to provide for different poses?
Thanks! I've converted a few, but I also use them as is mixed in with the accompanying Grenadier metal orcs (they were designed to go together):
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vJrbrD0f9gM/W-A3HdiGz-I/AAAAAAAAAmg/wTrkSd6iubosWnMsrxJro-3hminLvFtPQCEwYBhgL/s1600/Fantasy%2BWarrrios%2Borcs.JPG)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HtB-_9dyb-4/X4MPeLNJ_XI/AAAAAAAABxc/ZA-MCoYcgY88hTmTniC0ymlG-EhYOLRPgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1024/Orc%2Barchers-2.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BmLu0p7ffXg/X5VZjnE1D_I/AAAAAAAABy0/40RlX5ucLSMK668qaiSKBfyax2KGMTlWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1632/Orcs.JPG)
Those werewolves are nice. I'd like to see how they fill a 50mm base.
-
MY QUESTION, is, what type of events are we all going to attend in the not too distant future?
I like wargame get together events (note I’ve not used the dreaded tournament word)
So how do you organise an Oathmark event?
One day or a full weekend?
Army restrictions, eg, no dragons?
Point values?
How would a campaign style event work in a single day?
I would love to be able to answer this but having even missed out on WHFB I don´t know where to begin!
Why am I writing this? Well, I would like to see some ideas as well. My circle of wargaming buddies is only in its infancy, not really established, so right now I am focussing on building armies to lure them all into this game. Hopefully I will be able to create a little bit of Oathmark interest among my friends and maybe even locally once we are out of this crappy global situation.
It will certainly not be an easy task, establishing a new game in town, but I do demo games quite often (or rather did) and it is possible. I once even had a thread here on the LAF in which I asked the opinion of the esteemed members whether they would start a GW game to get the foot in the door with the local wargamers (Result: No, play the games you like...so...Oathmark!).
We are blessed to have the annual Tactica here in Hamburg but unfortunately the next one had to be cancelled because, well you know why.
PS: I just sighed and wondered why I didn´t move to Nottingham in the past... London was great but Nottingham is where it's at.
-
What about the The Accursed from Northstar's Dracula's America line?
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=11549
I think I'm splitting a box of those Wargames Atlantic spiders. I need 8 for Rangers of Shadow Deep which is what I'm going to be working on in tandem with Oathmark.
Not extremely cheap, but how about these:
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=11549
Or this one:
http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/shop/wilderness-encounters-2/we7c-werewolf/
PS: Forgive my lack of attention. Jack had already posted the Northstar variety!
The one from Otherworld is too expensive for me, but those from Northstars Dracula range look very good for a reasonable price. Thanks!
Still I think, that giant spiders an werewolves are a bit too evil looking for an elf army (unless you want evil looking elves).
-
Thanks! I've converted a few, but I also use them as is mixed in with the accompanying Grenadier metal orcs (they were designed to go together):
Those werewolves are nice. I'd like to see how they fill a 50mm base.
Wow, these are very nice! It seems with a decent paintjob and some mixing with metal minis the EM4 minis can look good.
-
Interesting idea of using the Rangerfers.
Nice work on the orcs.
-
I had a quick playthrough last night just to see how the rules hang together. (Solo)
I didn't bother with points just put 3 units of Melnibonians (plus sorcerer) up against 5 units of Pan Tang* troops
Surprisingly easy to pick up. Got a result after about 6 turns. Very nice mechanics. Nothing felt wrong except cavalry with 2 combat dice only get 5 maximum, but I felt that was balanced out that even when reduced to 3 figures as they still had a decent fighting chance.
Really liked the firing and combat, felt just right (realising just how rubbish fight 2 infantry are against defence 12 cavalry was a learning experience)
I would say the rules suffer from a lack of examples of play and a decent starter scenario. Even a few pages to run through a couple of turns of a starter scenario with diagrams would make a difference, leaving it hanging for the players to pick up.
I also think the 'closing to combat' rules are the ones where you may get disagreements. Unless I missed it, you can't have multiple combats (2 against 1) so weaker units can't gang up on a more powerful one. I guess that is offset by positioning of your forces so that if one weak unit gets charged hopefully a neighbouring unit can then take the charging unit in the flank (thereby potentially setting themselves up to also get charged in the flank!)
Solid set of rules though
*(proxy figures all but I'm reading a lot of Elric currently)
-
I would say the rules suffer from a lack of examples of play and a decent starter scenario. Even a few pages to run through a couple of turns of a starter scenario with diagrams would make a difference, leaving it hanging for the players to pick up.
I also think the 'closing to combat' rules are the ones where you may get disagreements. Unless I missed it, you can't have multiple combats (2 against 1) so weaker units can't gang up on a more powerful one. I guess that is offset by positioning of your forces so that if one weak unit gets charged hopefully a neighbouring unit can then take the charging unit in the flank (thereby potentially setting themselves up to also get charged in the flank!)
Ther are some examples (for combat, shooting). Maybe an example battle would be useful, but I think it would be enough as a pdf supplement. It would take a lot of place in a book, and would be read only once anyway.
Youre right, there is no multiple combat. Maybe its a more unrealistic so, but it makes a gameplay very easy. With multiple combat a lot of discussion, misunderstanding and problematic unit placement would come... And there is a combet modifier for already activated units, which compensates this a bit. That flank charge example of you is still valid, no need for multiple combat.
-
I would say the rules suffer from a lack of examples of play and a decent starter scenario. Even a few pages to run through a couple of turns of a starter scenario with diagrams would make a difference, leaving it hanging for the players to pick up.
I agree with you on this one. Maybe it is just the way I learn new information but it certainly would have helped me. Currently waiting for my Sarissa trays to arrive so that I might try a solo demo game to learn the rules.
-
I agree with you on this one. Maybe it is just the way I learn new information but it certainly would have helped me. Currently waiting for my Sarissa trays to arrive so that I might try a solo demo game to learn the rules.
For me its easier to learn from videos. JP has some good ones for Oathmark:
https://youtu.be/o1_skGFzp2o
https://youtu.be/hV5nIr27Mis
-
I agree that some more examples would have been useful, either in the book or on the Osprey or Renaissance Troll blogs.
I do find videos less than useful, partly because of environment (I can read without disturbing others), and second because with text/diagrams I can "flip" back and forward as required.
-
Re: Grenadier orcs and werewolves I did these a while ago.
Played the game once with a few mates and we like it. New semi lockdown is preventing us meeting up but definately in program.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o6Pyo527fEk/WpKeLH8JbvI/AAAAAAAAAyA/f4oNEvcwCCs6ZxPESHIjax7OFRr2QIhVACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20180225_104902.jpg)
-
Great stuff! And many thanks for the scale shot with the werewolf. I wonder if they might work two to a 50mm base.
Your orcs remind me that the metal Oathmark orcs and the EM4 plastics are - I think - by the same designer (Mark Copplestone).
-
Yes they are and so are the Grenadier Half-Orcs. I'm using the plastics as goblins and the half orcs as Orcs in Oathmark.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zk6JFcdd_sM/WqfkzkgeDtI/AAAAAAAAAys/aMVi2mN7Xg8_3XBgI47bZvRN79lf9Yp9ACLcBGAs/s1600/drums.jpg)
-
The recently retired Forge World Skin Wolves were pretty big. They'd do the trick, if you can find, and afford, them. :/
(http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics16/img4f8478db969c8.jpg)
-
Your orcs remind me that the metal Oathmark orcs and the EM4 plastics are - I think - by the same designer (Mark Copplestone).
Mark Copplestone is doing the Oathmark line?
-
Copplestone only did the Goblin and Dwarf characters. Plus the Elf huntmaster and sorceror.
-
What is the Oathmark sorceror? I don't recall seeing this character in any of the kingdom lists.
Also, I don't see an Elf Huntmaster on North Star's website. There was a model for it?
-
Both were limited releases. The huntmaster was a freebie in the last pre-order for the Light Elves.
-
The huntmaster will return as a regular release though, as far as I am informed. It‘s not like the case of the super exclusive prototype captain figure of the goblins.
Really can‘t wait to see how all the different units will be realized as miniatures. In the interview recently posted in this thread Nick told us that they aim to do them all sometime. Loving the dedication from Northstar and in this thread.
-
@Jack: You can find pictures of the huntmaster on this (German) website:
https://www.brueckenkopf-online.com/2020/oathmark-erweiterung/
-
Re: Grenadier orcs and werewolves I did these a while ago.
Played the game once with a few mates and we like it. New semi lockdown is preventing us meeting up but definately in program.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o6Pyo527fEk/WpKeLH8JbvI/AAAAAAAAAyA/f4oNEvcwCCs6ZxPESHIjax7OFRr2QIhVACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20180225_104902.jpg)
Area23, I just realized what you’re using for a movement tray...just a simple, flat piece. Any base shape can work on it. Genius!
I can make many of these cheap. Some for 5 models, some for 10, etc.
Cheers!!
-
The one from Otherworld is too expensive for me, but those from Northstars Dracula range look very good for a reasonable price. Thanks!
Still I think, that giant spiders an werewolves are a bit too evil looking for an elf army (unless you want evil looking elves).
A great werewolf option is Old Glory's Loup Garou.
-
@Jack: You can find pictures of the huntmaster on this (German) website:
https://www.brueckenkopf-online.com/2020/oathmark-erweiterung/
The sculpt is very nice, but the hunt master is the only unit, what doesnt fit in the game for me... A humanoid miniature with M8? Normal sized dogs with F2, while the horse sized giant wolves have F1? And with them a unit of 4 rows can be made (bonus +3), while form the wolves only 2 (bonus +1). With the same D8 for both? Okay, they are more expensive, and all this could be reasoned with magic. But still, the fluff doesnt fit me...
-
A great werewolf option is Old Glory's Loup Garou.
Thanks for the hint! Its nice too, but expensive.
But, they have mounted dwarves, and not on ponies!
https://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=GD-20
I could very well imagine them in a dwarf army, used according human (heavy) cavalry rules (A5 can be explaind with the temper of the boars, every othe stat fits in my opinion).
-
What is the Oathmark sorceror? I don't recall seeing this character in any of the kingdom lists.
Also, I don't see an Elf Huntmaster on North Star's website. There was a model for it?
The sorcerer is still available:
https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=14835
-
Thanks, but is the sorcerer in the book? I must be missing it.
-
I think he just counts an an elven spellcaster.
-
I think he just counts an an elven spellcaster.
Me too.
-
What's the thin, round bases people use for these minis? I'm used to the thick citadel style, but I plan on also using my Oathmark models for skirmish games so am thinking rounds, but on a square movement tray for oathmark. The oathmark models come with square bases and not round, correct?
-
What's the thin, round bases people use for these minis? I'm used to the thick citadel style, but I plan on also using my Oathmark models for skirmish games so am thinking rounds, but on a square movement tray for oathmark. The oathmark models come with square bases and not round, correct?
I think those are Rendra round bases, as provided with the Frostgrave plastic boxes. But I use slotted GW style bases, its better for metal minis, more space for magnets and a more stable stand on uneven surfaces.
-
They are indeed Renedra 25mm round bases. Northstar usually packages Renedra bases with their product. If you like that style of base they are hard to beat. Renedra is a top company!
Renedra even offers trays in which you may slot the bases to bring the unit block to the official Oathmark block frontage. You can buy both products separately but also in a pack.
Here is the 10 men block:
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-recessed-movement-tray-10-spaces-per-tray-plus-40-x-25mm-diameter-bases/
And here the 20 men block:
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-recessed-movement-tray-20-spaces-per-tray-plus-80-x-25mm-diameter-bases/
-
thanks for the company name and links, fellas!
I'll definitely get some rounds. I'm not sure about the movement trays with the base slots. do the base sides rub too much? I sorta like the idea of a simple flat tray as posted earlier in this thread. seems easier to prep as well as not having 'empty' spots when casualties are taken. heck, I'll probably try a few different ideas.
-
I have to admit to not having used the sabot bases that much yet (okay and there is a lot that have not received any paint ^__^).
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spTQBIGfkRg/X0n0XGZp2pI/AAAAAAAAG4o/Fi1cQFUByhcOMZJkVJgWiHVYQ5An2NjugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sabot1.png)
I will highlight the Warlord Games lipped 25mm bases, these have the advantage of allowing you to bury a small amount of the figures integral base.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YGdpunUWB_Q/XG2QANwbaNI/AAAAAAAAE4c/qsreF_hD7cYVP0kAFzG95aZqTOKak0ZeQCLcBGAs/s1600/sfo4-1.png)
For figures with tabs, you have a few options.
Some figures can have the tabs removed and you can easily pin the future to the base (Milliput/greenstuff can assist the grip).
Alternatively you can cut a slot in the base itself and trim the figures tab.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YpYPghl-SkA/W5OCct-zwnI/AAAAAAAAEF4/hGrrUyDKJvYqq0FTmjHNcltkubO6EO6fQCLcBGAs/s1600/rasp1-1.png)
In place:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J_JFEE4NOdo/W5OCdOOqM3I/AAAAAAAAEGI/yUsGIVl_NWQid3U2M9v3nH6cC5aI_D2agCLcBGAs/s1600/rasp1-5.png)
-
thanks for examples. It looks like the line of models from North Star those small bases sculpted to their model's feet. I'd prefer they didn't have that and just pin to a base or something, but it is what it is. I wonder why they do that though? I don't think anyone would use the models with just that small, attached base.
-
thanks for examples. It looks like the line of models from North Star those small bases sculpted to their model's feet. I'd prefer they didn't have that and just pin to a base or something, but it is what it is. I wonder why they do that though? I don't think anyone would use the models with just that small, attached base.
I believe it is a stylistic choice. Also very common in historical gaming, it can make life easier when you are multi-basing.
-
Get the boxes what you like at best! All the armies is fun to play, Im right now writing a post on my blog about the races of Oathmark.
I just finished the short summary about the Oathmark races:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/11/13-races-in-oathmark.html?m=1
-
Great read!
i didn't realize the elf dogs are more powerful than the werewolf creatures. How about those spiders? have you guys had a chance to play with them yet?
I also wonder about the neutral creatures.
anyway, this was a great primer on the races that I'll probably be re-reading in the future.
-
Thanks a lot!
-
Alternatively you can cut a slot in the base itself and trim the figures tab.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YpYPghl-SkA/W5OCct-zwnI/AAAAAAAAEF4/hGrrUyDKJvYqq0FTmjHNcltkubO6EO6fQCLcBGAs/s1600/rasp1-1.png)
In place:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J_JFEE4NOdo/W5OCdOOqM3I/AAAAAAAAEGI/yUsGIVl_NWQid3U2M9v3nH6cC5aI_D2agCLcBGAs/s1600/rasp1-5.png)
That is some dedication right there. I would have just clipped off the tab and superglued the hell out of it! lol
-
Thanks, but is the sorcerer in the book? I must be missing it.
Just a spellcaster. It's all up to you whatever background you create if it's a good or an evil elf.
That said, North Star said Copplestone made it with the brief to sculpt a first age Sauron, when he used the name Gorthaur as the servant of Morgoth.
-
That is some dedication right there. I would have just clipped off the tab and superglued the hell out of it! lol
Some of them could be pinned, but not the Personal Protection Officer, her feet and pose made it difficult to get a good bond.
-
Oathbreakers flipthrough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypPB_ihv4Kk
List of undead units:
revenant king, revenant prince, revenant general, revenant captain, revenant champion, revenant warriors, revenant line breakers, revenant cavalry, revenant chariots, skeleton champion, skeleton soldiers, skeleton spearmen, skeleton archers, necromancer, ghouls, skeletal catapult, skeletal balista, wraith, vampire, corpse fire, barrow worm
-
Many thanks!
Expecting to see lots of Dead Men of Dunharrow in this thread.
Well, at least once we get some info on the Revenant miniatures lol
-
Thanks! Looking good!
-
No undead models in the book is sort of a disconnect. I understand the Oathmark skeletons weren't ready, but maybe just do a few close-ups of RoSD or Frostgrave skeletons and necromancers from page to page just to get a few undead in the book?
Or at least not have the same model images that are in the other two books?
-
Without having seen it: Are these really the same images or just images of the same models?
That would even be somewhat funny as last time there was the same art and this time maybe the same miniature images.
Third time's the charm - maybe there will be all new content next time! lol
-
No undead models in the book is sort of a disconnect. I understand the Oathmark skeletons weren't ready, but maybe just do a few close-ups of RoSD or Frostgrave skeletons and necromancers from page to page just to get a few undead in the book?
Much better then reused art. And if you think yourself in their situation. Skeletons from partner (Northstar) is not ready. Would you use miniatures from another company? Pretty bad marketing. Yeah, you could use some Northstar undead, but there is simple too few, for a battle game. Pretty unlucky situtation, but maybe the best solution was not to show any undead miniatures...
-
Much better then reused art. And if you think yourself in their situation. Skeletons from partner (Northstar) is not ready. Would you use miniatures from another company? Pretty bad marketing. Yeah, you could use some Northstar undead, but there is simple too few, for a battle game. Pretty unlucky situtation, but maybe the best solution was not to show any undead miniatures...
I hear you, which is why i suggested Frostgrave models, even RoSD, both from North Star.
But yeah, tough bind.
Or maybe wait for the models to be ready for photography before going to print? With COVID going on, it's not like legions of gamers are getting this to the table at the moment anyway. Give the development and production of the product the time it needs.
-
You know what? With that amazing art and content, I dont care about the photos! Just get my copy as soon as possible!
-
ha! Fair point
-
I hear you, which is why i suggested Frostgrave models, even RoSD, both from North Star.
But yeah, tough bind.
Or maybe wait for the models to be ready for photography before going to print? With COVID going on, it's not like legions of gamers are getting this to the table at the moment anyway. Give the development and production of the product the time it needs.
I suppose, that was the plan, but maybe Covid changed it.
-
Interesting.
Skeleton infantry are only slightly cheaper than humans so it will not require vast numbers.
The art looks good, I could not see the model photographs to comment.
I was reading Kev Dalimore's article on the Oathmark Elves - for Frostgrave Version one they used Fireforge Medievals.
I would be interested to see what the plans are for figures than using stand ins.
-
Some interesting things:
- Renevant warriors and linebreakers have a move of 6, so they are faster then any other heavy infantry.
- Necromancer has a 3. option (other then a mount and the chariot), it can turn into a lich.
- Undeads have a light catapult and a ballista (new combination).
- Corpse fire is really interesting, a regenerating undead flamethrower.
- Burrow worm seems really tough, but with an activation value of 8, it will be really risky to use.
- Undead units suffer half damage from bows (thats tough).
Im really interested in the chariots and the hero traits (and combinations with the battle honors). And I have to get a vampire!
-
I just finished the short summary about the Oathmark races:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/11/13-races-in-oathmark.html?m=1
Thank you so much for your blog and the analysis of the different races.
Just a little remark if you don't mind: dwarf spellcaster points value have been amended by the author and it's the same that the human wizard, the low point value was an errata.
Regards.
-
Thank you so much for your blog and the analysis of the different races.
Just a little remark if you don't mind: dwarf spellcaster points value have been amended by the author and it's the same that the human wizard, the low point value was an errata.
Regards.
Where is official errata posted?
-
Unfortunately I don't know either, but while searching for the Errata, I found that Osprey Games is having a sweet offer on the Oathmark core rules as well as the Battlesworn expansion:
https://ospreypublishing.com/store/osprey-games/oathmark
They really should be more active in places like this!
Or maybe it is just me being a grumpy analogue hobby guy without a Facebook account...
-
I also don't do facebook, so thanks for the sale tip!
I like to do three books when Osprey does these sales because they usually do free shipping with 3+ books. However, I wonder if the sale will still be going when Oathbreakers releases?
-
It’s even cheaper on https://www.booksetc.co.uk/books/search?q=Oathmark. Hardback anyway.
-
Thank you so much for your blog and the analysis of the different races.
Just a little remark if you don't mind: dwarf spellcaster points value have been amended by the author and it's the same that the human wizard, the low point value was an errata.
Regards.
Im very glad, that You found it useful!
Where can I find the errata?
-
They really should be more active in places like this!
Or maybe it is just me being a grumpy analogue hobby guy without a Facebook account...
Yeah, thats what I meant, Oathmark would need more marketing.
I dont know whats going on on facebook (i dont have an account neither), but a social media only campaign is maybe cheap, but shouldnt be the only way.
-
Im very glad, that You found it useful!
Where can I find the errata?
I'm sorry bit I'm afraid it"s on Oathmark Facebook Page. :(
Regards.
-
I'm sorry bit I'm afraid it"s on Oathmark Facebook Page. :(
Retarda.
That is unfortunate.
I would have hoped it would be here:
https://ospreypublishing.com/gaming-resources-other-wargames#oathmark (https://ospreypublishing.com/gaming-resources-other-wargames#oathmark)
-
Can someone post the errata here or somewhere else accessible?
-
I would also highly appreciate this PDF (if it is a PDF)!
Is the FB page very active and is the Joe involved there? With Frostgrave we have quite the active community here and Joe is a moderator of that board.
Would be very cool if we could also achieve more buzz for Oathmark here :)
-
I think Joe also runs a blog. I wonder if he can post it there? Maybe it’s copyright by Osprey and that won’t allow him?
How much terrain are you guys putting in your oathmark tables?
-
So far Oathmark has not been a focus of his blog. And the blog seems to be more of a passion project / hobby journal which is why I can totally understand that it is not a platform for a particular game whiche he wrote for a company. My impression is it‘s more the private hobby room than the office :)
I think it would be better to focus either on the FB group or have an active community here.
-
As to the terrain: I think there are guidelines in the book which propose the number of terrain items for games of various point values (hope I remembered that right).
In my case in general: very little terrain apart from decorative stuff.
-
I would also highly appreciate this PDF (if it is a PDF)!
Is the FB page very active and is the Joe involved there? With Frostgrave we have quite the active community here and Joe is a moderator of that board.
Would be very cool if we could also achieve more buzz for Oathmark here :)
Me too, pdf and buzz also!
-
I'm sorry bit I'm afraid it"s on Oathmark Facebook Page. :(
Retarda.
Is it possible, that this errata is not official? Because an official one should definitely be on Ospreys website.
-
So far Oathmark has not been a focus of his blog. And the blog seems to be more of a passion project / hobby journal which is why I can totally understand that it is not a platform for a particular game whiche he wrote for a company. My impression is it‘s more the private hobby room than the office :)
I think it would be better to focus either on the FB group or have an active community here.
Yes, its a personal, not a merketing blog. And as I know, he wrote/designed Oathmark because a request of Osprey, not from passion (however do not feel it on the quality).
-
How much terrain are you guys putting in your oathmark tables?
We use 4 small pieces on a 3x3 table, and I wouldnt use more.
-
There is unofficial Oathmark errata on facebook players page compiled from Joe's comments I assume:
P44 - The covered sentence should read as follow: 'You must also move any other units that are in the way, just as with regular combat.'
P?? – The cost for Dwarf Spellcasters should be the same as those for humans.
P95 - Barghest have "Wild Charge (1)". It should be just "Wild Charge" without the "(1)".
P112 - Giants should have the "Enormous" special ability. Add it to the special abilities listed for them.
P116 - Elf Champions should have the "Shielding (1)" special ability. Add it to the special abilities listed for them.
P126 - Wulver should have "Regenerate (1)" and not just "Regenerate". Add the "(1)" after the word "Regenerate" in their special abilities.
P138 - Orc Soldier have "Wild Charge (1)". It should be just "Wild Charge" without the "(1)".
-
Is it possible, that this errata is not official? Because an official one should definitely be on Ospreys website.
Yes, it was a compilación with Joe's answers about the erratas detected by the players and fixing them. (i.e: dwarf spellcaster points or giant with enormous)
Regards.
-
There is unofficial Oathmark errata on facebook players page compiled from Joe's comments I assume:
P44 - The covered sentence should read as follow: 'You must also move any other units that are in the way, just as with regular combat.'
P?? – The cost for Dwarf Spellcasters should be the same as those for humans.
P95 - Barghest have "Wild Charge (1)". It should be just "Wild Charge" without the "(1)".
P112 - Giants should have the "Enormous" special ability. Add it to the special abilities listed for them.
P116 - Elf Champions should have the "Shielding (1)" special ability. Add it to the special abilities listed for them.
P126 - Wulver should have "Regenerate (1)" and not just "Regenerate". Add the "(1)" after the word "Regenerate" in their special abilities.
P138 - Orc Soldier have "Wild Charge (1)". It should be just "Wild Charge" without the "(1)".
Many thanks! I dont really understand, why this is not on Osprey homepage...
Another detection:
P123 - Elf Mounted Rangers should have CD2 instead of CD1.
-
Many thanks! I dont really understand, why this is not on Osprey homepage...
Another detection:
P123 - Elf Mounted Rangers should have CD2 instead of CD1.
No, it's been confirmed correct unfortunately. An error in judgement in my opinion, but apparently intentional.
-
Thats wierd... All other mounted units have CD2 (also the human mounted rangers and the goblin wolfrider scouts). Moreover, the elf mounted rangers are pretty darn expensive. Is there any explanation to this?
-
Thats wierd... All other mounted units have CD2 (also the human mounted rangers and the goblin wolfrider scouts). Moreover, the elf mounted rangers are pretty darn expensive. Is there any explanation to this?
I couldn't find one. A good friend of mine got the answer from Joe, but I can't locate the post now unfortunately.
-
I think Joe also runs a blog. I
http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/ (http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/)
-
Does anyone has any idea, where to get chariots for Oathmark (not only undead)?
-
I saw elf chariots here recently. MDF chariots with Oathmark crew.
Now to find them.
-
I saw elf chariots here recently. MDF chariots with Oathmark crew.
Now to find them.
Yes, you are right! I also commented that post... (getting old?):
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=121945.150
Any other ideas?
-
Yes, you are right! I also commented that post... (getting old?):
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=121945.150
Any other ideas?
As are we all.
-
Mantic do some elf and orc ones - https://www.manticgames.com/?s=Chariot
-
Victrix Gaul chariots should be pretty good for humans.
-
Mantic do some elf and orc ones - https://www.manticgames.com/?s=Chariot
Im not a big fan of Mantic, their miniatures are too comic-like for me. But many thanks anyway!
-
Victrix Gaul chariots should be pretty good for humans.
Those are looking really good! With a bit of conversion, they could be good for every race.
-
Based on the elf chariots before, I found out, that 4 ground has some real cheap chariot options, which would be a perfect base for conversions:
https://www.4groundpublishing.co.uk/28mm-model-kits/carts-and-wagons
-
Yeah the 4ground mdf chariots seem like a good choice, I grabbed one a while back but not had the time to build it but seeing others do the same I've ordered a bunch more. Their is the celt ones from warlord games, they are quite nice but the one I have looks like it will be a bit of a chore to put together, I like metal but it's going to take more work than the plastics.
The victrix ones are class, I've picked up a pack of three for my Albion project but I will probably grab their multipack deal next month for a stash of them, as they are really good kits and with a little tweaking suitable for most races. Will look great for some Wild Elf ones!
Not sure what I will do for Goblins, I've a bunch of old GW ones for my warhammer like goblin force, but not found anything that suits my oathmark goblin army. I might end up using the Victrix ones for them too, for the basic shape and wheels and doing a lot of scratch building.
I'm hoping that oathmark have a undead one on the way, I've the corpse cart from GW but I'd like something a bit more skeletal too and don't own any of their old ones. Hoping the oathmark ones are a nice mix of 'real' looking and undead- not fully made of bones, that way I can use them for other evil races too.
-
Victrix and 4Ground seem to be the two finalists. Both are nice base for conversions, and the prices seem to be reasonable.
We just finished a 2500 point battle between elf-goblin and dwarf-human alliances. Just a short summary of the lessons:
- Enormous monsters are really-really hard to beat (we had one knucker, and it got 2 hits in 6 turns, and killed a lot of enemies). Another comparable monster or charging (and only charging...) cavalry is the only chance to inflict real damage.
- Champion dice for the artillery is very nasty. A heavy catapult killed a prince, and almost decided the battle with one shot...
- The elven spell glamour is overpowered. Sure, its hard to cast, but teleporting a strong monster in the middle of the enemy lines is a battle deciding combo.
What we messed up:
- Some characters have more then 1 health-point...
- Missed activation is only allows to make maneuver, move or a shoot (with penalty), and using an ability is not shooting, not even if its shooting like (poison breath, fire breath, stone gaze)
I try to make a quick post about it with some pictures.
-
Victrix and 4Ground seem to be the two finalists. Both are nice base for conversions, and the prices seem to be reasonable.
We just finished a 2500 point battle between elf-goblin and dwarf-human alliances. Just a short summary of the lessons:
- Enormous monsters are really-really hard to beat (we had one knucker, and it got 2 hits in 6 turns, and killed a lot of enemies). Another comparable monster or charging (and only charging...) cavalry is the only chance to inflict real damage.
- Champion dice for the artillery is very nasty. A heavy catapult killed a prince, and almost decided the battle with one shot...
- The elven spell glamour is overpowered. Sure, its hard to cast, but teleporting a strong monster in the middle of the enemy lines is a battle deciding combo.
What we messed up:
- Some characters have more then 1 health-point...
- Missed activation is only allows to make maneuver, move or a shoot (with penalty), and using an ability is not shooting, not even if its shooting like (poison breath, fire breath, stone gaze)
I try to make a quick post about it with some pictures.
As I read it, the natural 10 of the Champion Die and its effect over the unit's officer just applies in (hand to hand) combat with a Champion on it, not shooting or casting spells. (page 61)
Anyway, I've just asked Joe about it on the Oathmark FB.
Regards.
-
As I read it, the natural 10 of the Champion Die and its effect over the unit's officer just applies in (hand to hand) combat with a Champion on it, not shooting or casting spells. (page 61)
Anyway, I've just asked Joe about it on the Oathmark FB.
Regards.
I dont know... Im not a native English speaker, but for me its not completely clear. On one side, the champion rules (p61) are only about combat, and only hand-to hand fight is called combat in the rulebook. There is also a magic item (Golden String Bow, p183), which says uses a champion die at shooting, as exception to the rules. However, there is artillery (p69), fire breath (p167) and lightning bolt (p175), which use the champion dice while not being a hand-to-hand combat attack. Its a bit confusing... I would appreciate, if You could share the answer of Joe here!
Another rule,where Im not sure: If a shooting unit has CD more then 1, can it really shoot with more then 1 combat dice? For example, a unit with 2 human mounted rangers, will have a combat dice number of 4? I dont find anything against that, but its a bit illogical for me.
-
You are correct, page 69 says "Artillery always rolls a Champion dice".
-
You are correct, page 69 says "Artillery always rolls a Champion dice".
I remembered the magic item that gave you a Champion die, and it is logical that offensive spells have one as well.
-
Anyone have an idea how thick these Renedra round bases are? 1.5mm?
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-wargaming-bases-40-base-pack/
What about the square bases that come in the Oathmark unit boxes? how thick are those?
I'm trying to determine what size magnets to get if I want to magnetize the army for storage.
Thanks!
-
Anyone have an idea how thick these Renedra round bases are? 1.5mm?
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-wargaming-bases-40-base-pack/
What about the square bases that come in the Oathmark unit boxes? how thick are those?
I'm trying to determine what size magnets to get if I want to magnetize the army for storage.
Thanks!
I think those are the same, which is in the Frostgrave boxes, its around 1-1,5mm thick. I cant measure them right now, I store them somewhere deep... If you need the exact measurement, I can search them tomorrow. But you should be okay with 1mm thick magnets (I use 5x1mm neodyms in GW style bases, they hold very good in a metal storage box).
-
I think those are the same, which is in the Frostgrave boxes, its around 1-1,5mm thick. I cant measure them right now, I store them somewhere deep... If you need the exact measurement, I can search them tomorrow. But you should be okay with 1mm thick magnets (I use 5x1mm neodyms in GW style bases, they hold very good in a metal storage box).
Can one of these 5x1mm magnets keep a model in place? I mean, with a GW base I assume the magnet is glued underneath so with the depth of the standard GW bases, a 1mm magnet probably isn't actually touching the box, correct? Still the magnetic pull is strong enough?
Or do you need to stack a few magnets together or something? Thanks!
-
Can one of these 5x1mm magnets keep a model in place? I mean, with a GW base I assume the magnet is glued underneath so with the depth of the standard GW bases, a 1mm magnet probably isn't actually touching the box, correct? Still the magnetic pull is strong enough?
Or do you need to stack a few magnets together or something? Thanks!
For sure it can! Air gap weakens the magnetic force a lot, so the magnet has to be flush with the other surface. I take a small ball of Milliput, put it in the hollow bottom of the GW base, put the magnet on it, and then press it in on an even surface. And after the Milliput is hard, I put superglue around it, and also around the magnet, to secure it (without the glue, the magnet can break loose). I use the magnetized bases in a metal toolbox for storage, and on magnetic rubber plates as movement trays. So all in all, an 5x1 neodym magnet is more then enough, to hold a human sized plastic figure (for metals, and bigger pieces I use 2 or at the biggest ones 3).
-
I use these:
https://www.amazon.de/HHOOMY-Neodym-Magnete-Aufbewahrungs-Permanentmagnet/dp/B07T13H3R5/ref=sr_1_5?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=27O9TT9A3M01U&dchild=1&keywords=5x1+neodym+magnet&qid=1605471945&sprefix=5x1+neody%2Caps%2C257&sr=8-5
I have it on around 300 miniatures, and Im very satisfied with it.
-
Recently, I came across Self-adhesive foil magnets for bases:
https://safeandsound.pl/en_GB/p/Self-adhesive-magnetic-foil-stickers-for-25mm-bases-10/460
But I I haven't tried them yet so I'm not sure how strong they are. Definately easier to use though.
Anyone have an idea how thick these Renedra round bases are? 1.5mm?
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-wargaming-bases-40-base-pack/
What about the square bases that come in the Oathmark unit boxes? how thick are those?
I'm trying to determine what size magnets to get if I want to magnetize the army for storage.
Thanks!
-
Recently, I came across Self-adhesive foil magnets for bases:
https://safeandsound.pl/en_GB/p/Self-adhesive-magnetic-foil-stickers-for-25mm-bases-10/460
But I I haven't tried them yet so I'm not sure how strong they are. Definately easier to use though.
I tried something similar: it wasnt strong enough, and the surface was also very slick, the miniatures could slide on it. But maybe I bought the wrong stuff.
-
Anyone have an idea how thick these Renedra round bases are? 1.5mm?
https://www.renedra.co.uk/product/25mm-diameter-wargaming-bases-40-base-pack/
What about the square bases that come in the Oathmark unit boxes? how thick are those?
I'm trying to determine what size magnets to get if I want to magnetize the army for storage.
Thanks!
I controlled the Frostgrave bases, which are probably the same ones, and they are 1,5mm thick.
-
So, Revenants...what are they in Oathmark? ghosts? wights? super zombies?
-
So, Revenants...what are they in Oathmark? ghosts? wights? super zombies?
Did you recive Oathbreakers already? As I know, it should be released today.
-
I have not. Haven't ordered it yet. I'm hoping to get more info on these from someone in the know. plan some potential model candidates.
-
I have not. Haven't ordered it yet. I'm hoping to get more info on these from someone in the know. plan some potential model candidates.
I can write about it, as soon as i get mine.
-
Mine is in the post, expected to be here next wednesday.
-
Mine is in the post, expected to be here next wednesday.
Mine is sitting on my chair, just not opened the box yet!
-
My preferred vendor does not yet carry it but I am looking forward to your impressions / reviews!
-
Quick run through.
First part are the Undead units.
Your top level command can be either a revenant king/prince OR a Necromancer level four or five - not both.
Revenants are former living beings and their undeath is self powered.
Revenants are very expensive - there are no soldier level figures, warriors are the cheapest.
Skeletons require one or more Spellcasters to keep them running, once you are out of Spellcasters, you have a pile of bones.
Revenants get chariots.
Next bit is the legendary heroes who develop over games..
There are three mini campaigns and the rules for the new figures.
-
So revenants are more like liches and less like ghosts?
-
So revenants are more like liches and less like ghosts?
Yes. Necromancers have a Liche upgrade option as well.
Now to work up some armies.
-
I've long been a fan of the half-folk and the Wargames Atlantic Halfings look pretty good for the Oathmark aesthetic. Question though...would the goblin troop stat make the most sense to use them as? But then they'd be part of the orc and goblin kingdom list with trolls and such?
-
I've long been a fan of the half-folk and the Wargames Atlantic Halfings look pretty good for the Oathmark aesthetic. Question though...would the goblin troop stat make the most sense to use them as? But then they'd be part of the orc and goblin kingdom list with trolls and such?
They are definitely the nearest to them, regarding the stats. If you are worried about the kingdom building part, why dont you make a halfling city terrain type? If that is still not what you like, I think the next best is the Human Militia, but with F2, they are not very halfling-like for me...
-
Agree, play them like Goblins and build your own Kingdom to get the troop types and allies you want.
-
Agree, play them like Goblins and build your own Kingdom to get the troop types and allies you want.
You can build your kingdom based on goblin only - though you could have Ents instead of Trolls (Ents get nimble).
-
You can build your kingdom based on goblin only - though you could have Ents instead of Trolls (Ents get nimble).
Ohh...good call on the Ents as Trolls
https://store.warlordgames.com/products/halfling-treemen
-
Ohh...good call on the Ents as Trolls
https://store.warlordgames.com/products/halfling-treemen
How big could these be? Im searching for an ent for the elven army of my wife, but I want to use it as a giant, so I would need something big. Until now, the only one I found for a reasonable price is this:
https://www.sirengames.at/de/D&D-MARVELOUS-MINIS:-Treant_1_19971
-
Agree, play them like Goblins and build your own Kingdom to get the troop types and allies you want.
One of the sad things is the narrowing of the English language, as people become more distant from certain parts of its usage, and the environment changes.
In certain parts of the English speaking worldthere may still be two types of "sheep dog", the familiar shepherd dog and the sheep dog. That latter guards the sheep (for those of a certain vintage they used to do more than advertise paint).
So you can map wolves for goblins to sheep dogs for Halflings. Now Dags is the local expert on dogs. He might be able to point you in the right direction (different countries have different "sheep dogs", so there are a lot of options).
-
Warlord games has a lot of different halfling riders, on pigs or goats, with bow, spears or hand weapons. I have a plan to convert their heavy pig riders into dwarven cavalry (just swap of heads and hands).
-
My Oathbreakers order turned up a lot quicker than expected. The artwork in the book is spectacular, a little darker all around which gives the whole book a great evocative look suiting the theme of breaking Oaths and cursed undead.
-
Interesting read.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fCwsXG0DdH4/X7k5XIKM14I/AAAAAAAAHRk/q4W2UbDn3fEaOfR1sv4VY3DxsyZu1n2bACLcBGAsYHQ/s587/oathbreakers.png)
Just started assembling the first skeleton.
More on "Not Warfare 2020" here:
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/11/not-warfare-2020.html (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/11/not-warfare-2020.html)
-
So, i've moved my minis storage over to Really Useful Boxes, per the recent Duncan video. I've magnetized my existing collection, but it's my minis that I use metal washers as the bases for which stick the best. I think i want to do my oathmark armies on metal washers too, but will need to see if I can find round washers about the same size as the renedra rounds so I can use those rank n flank bases to set them in.
-
Oathmark goblins and orcs...do we know, visually, the difference between the two? so far we only have goblin models, but are there even orc illustrations in the book so we'll have an idea what their distinction might be?
-
Oathmark goblins and orcs...do we know, visually, the difference between the two? so far we only have goblin models, but are there even orc illustrations in the book so we'll have an idea what their distinction might be?
I'm pretty sure the spread on pp 136-137 is the cover illustration for a future orc box. They don't look much different from the goblins - just fiercer.
-
I'm pretty sure the spread on pp 136-137 is the cover illustration for a future orc box. They don't look much different from the goblins - just fiercer.
Me too, and there is significantly more armor on them.
-
So, i've moved my minis storage over to Really Useful Boxes, per the recent Duncan video. I've magnetized my existing collection, but it's my minis that I use metal washers as the bases for which stick the best. I think i want to do my oathmark armies on metal washers too, but will need to see if I can find round washers about the same size as the renedra rounds so I can use those rank n flank bases to set them in.
A German company, and the German publisher of Saga, sells 25mm round magnetized metal bases. Maybe you can find a UK (is this where you live?) equivalent?
https://stronghold-terrain.de/shop/25mm-magnetisierte-rundbases-40/
-
Me too, and there is significantly more armor on them.
Those would be excellent Orcs I would be keen to get. I would mix and match them with the goblins and the wolves to cover all orcish types in any way related to Tolkien. I know that size and style wise the goblins are great as is, but I would like more variety in an Orc army.
-
They're probably a long way off, but I wonder if there are plans for armoured orcs - e.g. linebreakers and warriors. From the striking F stats and the rulebook description, you'd expect them to be a lot bigger than the standard orcs (however big those are).
-
They're probably a long way off, but I wonder if there are plans for armoured orcs - e.g. linebreakers and warriors. From the striking F stats and the rulebook description, you'd expect them to be a lot bigger than the standard orcs (however big those are).
Hope so...
-
So, would the painted piece on pages 184-185, be for a unit of goblin slaves? What about the dwarves on 170-171?
-
So, would the painted piece on pages 184-185, be for a unit of goblin slaves? What about the dwarves on 170-171?
The dwarves could be a box art for dwarf light infantry (militia, border guards, engineers), and with the goblins, You should be right, because no other units has slings.
-
And there is 108-109 with human cavalry (mounted rangers, normal and heavy cavalry), and 11-12 (Battlesworn) with elf heavy infantry (warriors and linbreakers).
-
Looking through Oathbreakers, I recalled an old idea of mine: gnolls are ghouls (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2018/02/gnolls-and-ghouls.html). The Frostgrave gnolls would fit in nicely as ghouls in Oathmark, i think.
-
Looking through Oathbreakers, I recalled an old idea of mine: gnolls are ghouls (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2018/02/gnolls-and-ghouls.html). The Frostgrave gnolls would fit in nicely as ghouls in Oathmark, i think.
I like the idea of using gnoll miniatures as ghouls, because they could look really scary with pale fell and glowing eyes, and also because why not!?
I took another look in the book (I mean the Wargames Illustrated video about it, because Amazon will only deliver it at 7.12...), and there is one interesteing thing, that I realized only now: None of the undead units (except the Necromancer, but it isnt undead technically) have Shielding ability. Its ok, because they get halved hits from archers, but makes one little phenomen. The general difference between Warriors and Linebreakers is F+1 and -Shielding (1), but as Renevants (as undead) has no shielding, there is the only difference the F+1. Which is again ok, but the difference in point values doesnt represent that: 17 vs 20, which is exactly the same, as by the dwarves, where in this 3 points difference is the Shielding (1) also included. So is the Revenant Linebreaker too cheap in comparison with the Revenant Warrior. Or am I wrong?
-
So is the Revenant Linebreaker too cheap in comparison with the Revenant Warrior. Or am I wrong?
Good spot BZ.
Just looking at the Fight and Shielding values it does look odd.
It might be that Shielding is of less use to Revenants - in Combat it is used when either you are under-powered compared with your opponent or you are functioning as a speed bump (where being in combat - and surviving - rather than winning is the objective), and when the target of Shooting to protect your unit.
The latter is covered by the Undead's ability to be a pincushion.
Revenant Warriors are pretty hard, so Shielding in Combat is possibly not as useful.
This might explain the relative numbers.
Of course it might just be a spreadsheet error ^__^.
-
My venture into Oathmark is nearing...
I realized last night that the 1" (I'm in the US) washers that work wonderfully in my magnetic cases are about 25mm. I'm wondering if these washers will work in the Renedra sabot movement trays for 25mm rounds. That would be prefect!
@BZ - Great set of related posts on your blog recently. I have a heck of a time trying to get a comment to post though.
I just got my copy of Battlesworn in the mail and Oathbreakers should be here soon. I do wish this line of books had a consistent artist for all the covers with new unique art. It would give the game a little more modern polish. My Osprey Dracula's America books are like this and they're a beautiful set. Still, the rules are good and we're living in a Covid world atm, so eh.
-
My venture into Oathmark is nearing...
I realized last night that the 1" (I'm in the US) washers that work wonderfully in my magnetic cases are about 25mm. I'm wondering if these washers will work in the Renedra sabot movement trays for 25mm rounds. That would be prefect!
@BZ - Great set of related posts on your blog recently. I have a heck of a time trying to get a comment to post though.
I think I might finally be succumbing to Oathmark as well. I use washers for bases also. Do take care with sabots. I tried to use some old GW LotR sabots (I think these are the same as the Renedra ones) with my figures only to find they are just ever so slightly too small for the bases. If you get wooden sabots you might be able to sand the holes a little bigger.
-
Yes, 1" is approximately 25.4mm, so slightly too big for plastic sabot bases. A few of the MDF companies, like WarBases, sometimes make bases to order - send them a sample of the washer size you are using and they will make sabot bases to your request. Maybe that is worth a try? MDF bases are relatively cheap, so this may be a reasonable option even when international postage is taken into consideration? Good luck with your search for a solution.
-
Hmmm...what if i just painted a magnetic sheet green and stuck the washer based minis on that. no slots for bases. seems super easy and cheap. I 'might do some tufts and such around so it doesn't look too flat. I wonder if the corners would dig into my citadel grass mat?
-
@BZ - Great set of related posts on your blog recently. I have a heck of a time trying to get a comment to post though.
Thanks!
Yes, 1" is approximately 25.4mm, so slightly too big for plastic sabot bases. A few of the MDF companies, like WarBases, sometimes make bases to order - send them a sample of the washer size you are using and they will make sabot bases to your request. Maybe that is worth a try? MDF bases are relatively cheap, so this may be a reasonable option even when international postage is taken into consideration? Good luck with your search for a solution.
I would try the Renedra trays. As I saw on pictures, the 25mm bases sit a bit loose in it, maybe 25,4 mm fits in.
Hmmm...what if i just painted a magnetic sheet green and stuck the washer based minis on that. no slots for bases. seems super easy and cheap. I 'might do some tufts and such around so it doesn't look too flat. I wonder if the corners would dig into my citadel grass mat?
I wouldn't bother it painting and basing. I use magnetic sheets as movement trays, and their blackish grey is not disturbing. For me, at least.
-
Thanks!
I would try the Renedra trays. As I saw on pictures, the 25mm bases sit a bit loose in it, maybe 25,4 mm fits in.
I wouldn't bother it painting and basing. I use magnetic sheets as movement trays, and their blackish grey is not disturbing. For me, at least.
is it the Renedra Tray photo in this post? Because this looks pretty tight: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127430.msg1613919#msg1613919
Have any photos of what your armies look like on the magnetic sheets?
-
is it the Renedra Tray photo in this post? Because this looks pretty tight: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127430.msg1613919#msg1613919
Have any photos of what your armies look like on the magnetic sheets?
I saw some where a video and it seemed, like the trays are shaking a bit in the tray. Is there (here) anyone, who could measure the inner diameter with a caliper?
Not yet, but I will make some. I have to it anyway for my next blog posts.
-
is it the Renedra Tray photo in this post? Because this looks pretty tight: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127430.msg1613919#msg161391
Yup.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BCFseD4nBvs/X8Pc_PtX4EI/AAAAAAAAHVA/XA5i7bG18s8S7A5JEmWQcKrcr3x5UyfawCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/skeleton-11.png)
They are reasonably tight, not sure how it would cope with a one inch washer.
-
is it the Renedra Tray photo in this post? Because this looks pretty tight: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127430.msg1613919#msg1613919
Have any photos of what your armies look like on the magnetic sheets?
Here is a quick one (with half painted goblins):
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/16223-101220081542.jpeg)
The size is a bit big, because I use neodym magnets, and the dont stick everywhere on the sheet. Hard to describe, but its like the sheet would have magnetic lines in it, and the magnets stick on every 5mm. So they have to be approx. 5mm bigger in both directions. I guess, this wouldnt be a problem with steel washers.
But I definitely should round up the edges...
Its not the most beautiful solution, but it s cheap, quick and it works.
-
I posted a quick picture of my home sculpted treeman here:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127478.45
But maybe its better off in this topic. Anyway, usually Im much-much slower then this, but I was so inspired, that I made it almost ready:
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/16223-101220080727.jpeg)
I didnt like the surface texture, so I tried to carve bark texture in it, and painted it dark brown (with a little grey), and drybrushed in more steps. I made some mushrooms (and a hornet nest) from Milliput. I gave him a rock, because the right hand was a bit silly, and the overall look wasnt battle-ready enough. I made also two small Milliput balls, and painted them amber color for the eyes. And beside the mandatory foliage (moss), he became a beard (another type of moss). I have to fix some small things on it, but its not far away from varnishing...
Its not perfect, but Im pretty happy with it.
-
Looking through Oathbreakers, I recalled an old idea of mine: gnolls are ghouls (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2018/02/gnolls-and-ghouls.html). The Frostgrave gnolls would fit in nicely as ghouls in Oathmark, i think.
Ooh! Now that's a good idea!!
-
I posted a quick picture of my home sculpted treeman here:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127478.45
But maybe its better off in this topic. Anyway, usually Im much-much slower then this, but I was so inspired, that I made it almost ready:
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/16223-101220080727.jpeg)
Ooops, did you ask yourself, why I moved it here? I forgot to explain... So I moved it, because I want to use it in Oathmark, of course!
But how? The easy way is to grab the rules of the nearest monster: the giant.
The harder way is to create homebrew rules. I tried it:
Treeman A5 / M5 / F5 / S0 / D13 / CD5 / H12 / Points 400; Special: Monster, Shielding (1), Enormous, Nimble, Courage (3), Flammable*, Bark Skin**
The new special abilities:
*Flammable: suffers 1.5x damage (rounded up) from fiery attacks (Fireball, Fire Breath), so if original damage would be 3, it will be 5 (1.5 x 3 = 4.5, rounded up to 5)
**Bark Skin: damage suffered from bows is halved (rounded down), so if original damage would be 3, it will be 1 (0.5 x 3 = 1.5, rounded down to 1), like in the Undead rule in Oathbreakers
What do you think about it? The point value is a very rough approximation...
-
I wrote a blogpost about my new, home-brew Oathmark units:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/12/18-home-made-oathmark-units.html
I would be happy, if You would give me some feedback about it!
-
Interesting set of units.
I do not have my Oathmark book to hand to do comparisons.
Pavaises possibly should behave like built cover (Battlesworn) rather than Shielding, not sure about their mobility.
I wondered if Centaurs should be human cavalry/heavy cavalry (one of the theories behind their origin - first encounters with mounted humans).
-
Interesting set of units.
I do not have my Oathmark book to hand to do comparisons.
Pavaises possibly should behave like built cover (Battlesworn) rather than Shielding, not sure about their mobility.
I wondered if Centaurs should be human cavalry/heavy cavalry (one of the theories behind their origin - first encounters with mounted humans).
Thanks for the feedback!
Pavaise should become an own rule (something like: -1 Move, Shield (2), but only, if the unit didnt move in that turn), but I only wanted to use existing abilites.
The reason, why I would use centaurs as goblin wolfriders is the following: There is a large difference in the stats between every other ranged and melee cavalry unit. But the goblins are close to each other, like they would be the same rider, only with different weapons. I imagine the centaurs and centaur archers the same way. And not less important is, that there are perfectly fitting miniatures for the job: the RGD Gaming centaurs. Maybe there could be an elite, heavly armored centaur unit too, but not in the first line for me.
-
I like your concepts for new unit types. I’ve been thinking about some similar types and came up with pretty close points values and stats. I think your idea of making some types dependent on having two territories, each presumably providing part of the unit’s requirements, is an excellent one! I’ll be showing your blog page to my usual opponents to see if they agree with using the new units in games.
-
I like your concepts for new unit types. I’ve been thinking about some similar types and came up with pretty close points values and stats. I think your idea of making some types dependent on having two territories, each presumably providing part of the unit’s requirements, is an excellent one! I’ll be showing your blog page to my usual opponents to see if they agree with using the new units in games.
Thanks!
My concept with the territories was to use a combination of the existing ones, if they fit. If not, then make a new one, but use it fore more unit types. I tried to avoid using one new territory for only one new type, but sometimes, I had no better idea... In those cases (which is not that bad with more elite unit types I think), I would make a plus champion available with the territory. What I completely left out, was the rarity, but I dont feel it so important.
-
Miniature Wargames (JANUARY 2021 [453]) has a Wargames Atlantic Halfling sprue on the cover and a couple of Oathmark articles (one historical, the other Halflings vs Spiders).
-
Miniature Wargames (JANUARY 2021 [453]) has a Wargames Atlantic Halfling sprue on the cover and a couple of Oathmark articles (one historical, the other Halflings vs Spiders).
Thanks for the hint! I looked into the magazine, and it took a slightly other approach to the halflings. There the halfings are practically goblin archers or goblin slave slingers (with a bit better shooting). My idea was, that they are so small and slick, that they become -1 move and +1 defense, they always have something to throw at the enemy (sling) but they cant carry a shield with spear.
-
Miniature Wargames (JANUARY 2021 [453]) has a Wargames Atlantic Halfling sprue on the cover and a couple of Oathmark articles (one historical, the other Halflings vs Spiders).
Is this magazine sold in the US?
EDIT: nvm found it. That halfling article... is it these five halflings or a larger unit?
-
Just five figures.
Unlike the Oathmark sets, the sprue does not allow you to arm all of them the same.
The sprue has five bodies, two bow and arrow arm sets, two halberd arm sets, two spears (one and two handed), two slings, one knife, fifteen heads, one targe, and a poached egg pan (!).
I will see if I can get a photograph of the sprue tomorrow.
-
Hmmm...I wonder then is this set worth picking up if it's not five the same? I was thinking in was a complete mini oathmark unit of 5.
Eh, I might pick it up anyway. I'm not familiar with this magazine, so this is as good a reason as any to check it out.
-
There is a picture of the sprue on Wargames Atlantic website:
https://wargamesatlantic.com/products/halfling-militia?variant=31045178523746
Its not as good for making homogene units, as the Oathmark sets, but You can make pretty fun miniatures from it. I have 5 from them, and made for example a halfling Robin Hood, a Kinight of the Rooster, a cook...
-
I picked up the Wargames Atlantic box recently. It's definitely short of swords, but Warlord Games were having a halfling sale (it may still be on), so I grabbed some sword armed folks (resin) along with some goat cavalry.
The full box is reasonably priced and you get 40 figures with it :D
-
I picked up the Wargames Atlantic box recently. It's definitely short of swords, but Warlord Games were having a halfling sale (it may still be on), so I grabbed some sword armed folks (resin) along with some goat cavalry.
The full box is reasonably priced and you get 40 figures with it :D
Good to know. I think an easy trick to do with games like oathmark is for the unit to be whatever the first row of five represents. So, if there's five swordsmen in the front row...it's a swordsmen unit. it's ok if there's an occasional bow, hammer, spear, whatnot in the back rows.
Well...maybe I play a little more fast and loose than some.
-
So, people who base on rounds, but are using sabot style trays or some sort of movement tray for ranked units...what are you doing for standalone champions? just leaving them on rounds? what about creatures like ogres or trolls? rounds, but still on some sort of square for ranking?
-
Sorry I dont know what a sabot style base is...
But standalone monsters or champions are on round bases, but I marked a spot on them, to know where the front is. As I play with my kids, thats never a problem, but I can imagine, that with competitive players it could cause negotiations...
Big creatuers, who can form a unit (ogres) are on the same round, front-marked bases, and I use magnetic tray for them: 130x55 magnetic sheet. Because its magnetic, its not a big problem, that its a bit narrower then 150 (3 large creature next to each other).
-
Sorry, I corrected my post to say "sabot style trays". I think that's the name for those trays that have slots to rank up minis on rounds?
the ones that Ultravanillasmurf used here: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=127430.msg1613919#msg1613919
-
What about mounted units like goblin wolf riders? How do they rank up after being on rounds? Small rounds?
Anyone have any tips for kingdom building? I was playing with a kingdom this evening and ended up with 3 characters (general and two champions), 5 units, and 2 monster types. Without any games in it's hard to figure out what my character-to-unit-to-monster ratio should be. Planning out purchases...
-
What about mounted units like goblin wolf riders? How do they rank up after being on rounds? Small rounds?
Anyone have any tips for kingdom building? I was playing with a kingdom this evening and ended up with 3 characters (general and two champions), 5 units, and 2 monster types. Without any games in it's hard to figure out what my character-to-unit-to-monster ratio should be. Planning out purchases...
I use 25x50 squares for cavalry units. They are magnetized, as every other miniature of mine, so I can use the same magnetic sheets as movement trays.
Honestly, I never built a kingdom... We just use the minis what we have/like. For the ratios I would say two comments though:
1. We have a house rule, that min. 50% of the points must be spent on normal infantry units (soldier, spearman, archer, warrior, linebreaker, ranger). We had otherwise balance problems (full cavalry army).
2. Big monsters are really tough to beat. Another big monster or at least a charging cavalry is need to have a chance against them.
-
Comparison photograph:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ijCe6DrAM44/X9qNNfDaoKI/AAAAAAAAHYI/swLPQ3t9owI_f9CwrAnQ0wZ0NnIoNQxrgCLcBGAsYHQ/s515/halfling-4.png)
Oathmark Human for scale.
Front and back photographs here:
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/wargames-atlantic-halflings.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/wargames-atlantic-halflings.html)
-
What about mounted units like goblin wolf riders? How do they rank up after being on rounds? Small rounds?
I will be using 25x50 rectangular bases (I would use the "capsule" bases - 25x50 with 25mm diameter ends except only Warlord do them in plastic).
Anyone have any tips for kingdom building? I was playing with a kingdom this evening and ended up with 3 characters (general and two champions), 5 units, and 2 monster types. Without any games in it's hard to figure out what my character-to-unit-to-monster ratio should be. Planning out purchases...
I am still trying to work out a balance between narrative - army lists. Most of my armies are still too small for major character usage.
-
Comparison photograph:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ijCe6DrAM44/X9qNNfDaoKI/AAAAAAAAHYI/swLPQ3t9owI_f9CwrAnQ0wZ0NnIoNQxrgCLcBGAsYHQ/s515/halfling-4.png)
Oathmark Human for scale.
Front and back photographs here:
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/wargames-atlantic-halflings.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/wargames-atlantic-halflings.html)
This image is perfect, but it looks like your blog has broken img tags atm.
I bought the magazine. I figure 5 halflings will be fun to just sorta sprinkle around within a human unit or two...as if a few brave 'flings have enlisted to help defend the kingdom.
Regarding the kingdom building, i don't plan to field all of the available units at max strength or anything, but it was a fun exercise to help me think about what to buy. Even if I only play a ~500pt match, I'll pull models from within the units available within the kingdom.
As soon as my Oathbreaker book arrives, I'll build an undead kingdom.
-
I now have all three books but not played yet due to the obvious reason. I hope to get a game in sometime in the New Year with any luck.
Like Dragon Rampant, this gives us all the opportunity to dig out any appropriate models and throw them onto the table.
Due to the different base sizes of my collection, I have made some movement trays to accommodate various models.
(https://coronasan.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/oathmark-40rnd.jpg)
All of the infantry and cavalry bases are the same frontal area so a front facing of five models willline up regardless of individual base size.
(https://coronasan.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/oathmark-trays-4.jpg)
Above are very old skeletons on 20mm square bases facing off against Lannisters on 30mm round bases.
(https://coronasan.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/oathmark-trays-1.jpg)
...and 25mm square based Orcs against cavalry.
And there is a 100mm x 50mm base with various options for monster bases.
I just need to have a game
-
Due to the different base sizes of my collection, I have made some movement trays to accommodate various models.
How did you make the trays? Are those from MDF? You have a laser cutter, or somet other method?
-
How did you make the trays? Are those from MDF? You have a laser cutter, or somet other method?
I do not have my own laser cutter, but Jim from Products For Wargamers cuts my designs for me and then he sells them if he likes them.
These trays are on his website:
https://productsforwargamers.com/?s=oathmark&post_type=product&title=1&excerpt=1&content=1&categories=1&attributes=1&tags=1&sku=1&orderby=title-DESC&ixwps=1
-
I do not have my own laser cutter, but Jim from Products For Wargamers cuts my designs for me and then he sells them if he likes them.
These trays are on his website:
https://productsforwargamers.com/?s=oathmark&post_type=product&title=1&excerpt=1&content=1&categories=1&attributes=1&tags=1&sku=1&orderby=title-DESC&ixwps=1
I think thats a very good hint for a lot of people here!
-
Looking at Ultravanillasmurf's interesting photo has made me wonder how many halflings a sword-armed human can decapitate and dismember in one action. So far there are no official rules for the littl'uns, so I suppose we can theorise as we wish, unless someone has either literary or, dare I say, first-hand experience.
-
I do not have my own laser cutter, but Jim from Products For Wargamers cuts my designs for me and then he sells them if he likes them.
These trays are on his website:
https://productsforwargamers.com/?s=oathmark&post_type=product&title=1&excerpt=1&content=1&categories=1&attributes=1&tags=1&sku=1&orderby=title-DESC&ixwps=1
This is great! Those 2p trays might be just what I need for my 1inch washers. 1inch = 25.4mm and 2p = 25.9mm?
-
So, after making a dummy kingdom I have a better understanding of what's going on in the campaign rules...and Joseph A. McCullough did a fantastic job of bringing in the sort change a skirmish unit takes in campaign play to Rank n Flank games. True, you can mix and match units, but depending on your Capitol will depend at which ring of your kingdom the different terrain types lay, and the outer ring is the first to degrade when losses happen. So, if I have a human kingdom, I can still have some trolls, but they would live so far away from the capitol that when foreign invader starts occupying kingdom lands, their units will be the first to suffer.
It's really genius, IMO.
-
This is great! Those 2p trays might be just what I need for my 1inch washers. 1inch = 25.4mm and 2p = 25.9mm?
Asked Jim, and the 2p bases are 27mm
-
Asked Jim, and the 2p bases are 27mm
Thanks for checking on that! It does seem to be a decent enough solution. That would mean these slots are only about 1.6mm larger? So, about .75mm on each side. Doesn't seem to bad.
@BZ, great blog post on the elf army. It was inspiring to see how much of an army can be built from one elf unit box and handful of other models. I think a small elf force and a small undead force will be the first two I build after the Holidays.
-
@BZ, great blog post on the elf army. It was inspiring to see how much of an army can be built from one elf unit box and handful of other models. I think a small elf force and a small undead force will be the first two I build after the Holidays.
Thanks, I very much appreciate it! It will be a series, next time goblins, then dwarves and a double post of humans. Unfortunately mostly in monochrome yet...
Today we started a 2500 points battle between dwarf-goblin and human-elf alliances. I had to reconsider our 50% normal infantry house rule. We used 40% because we simply dont have enough units... But one of our best battle until now, because we use a scenario and not a kill-them-all setting. And its an even better experience! I strongly recommend it, If anybody also didn't try it yet.
-
Just read the Elf Army post (I have some technology issues).
I look forward to the next one.
It might be worth scaling the regular unit percentage dependent on the overall size of the force, the larger the force, the more you can spend on monsters and war machines.
I look forward to hearing the report on the battle.
-
@BZ, great blog post on the elf army. It was inspiring to see how much of an army can be built from one elf unit box and handful of other models.
A minimum size Elf army is easy to build from one light infantry box, certainly I would recommend one (useful as allies*).
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/10/oathmark-mini-armies-work-in-progress.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/10/oathmark-mini-armies-work-in-progress.html)
Undead does require a few more figures.
I think a small elf force and a small undead force will be the first two I build after the Holidays.
*Brings back memories of the Wraith - Pixie Alliance of Middle Sea.
-
yeah, that box of light elves is awesome. I also like the elf metal characters...well two of the four blisters.
BZ, what scenario did you guys play? I don't recall it mentioned in the blog post, but maybe I missed it.
-
I was thinking (and apologies if this has been asked and answered earlier), for miniatures on 20mm bases would it be possible just to field 6 of them per rank (thus having an almost perfect frontage match) ?
Obviously one would only still roll 5 dices, and perhaps remove one extra figure every time a rank is affected by losses.
-
Just read the Elf Army post (I have some technology issues).
I look forward to the next one.
It might be worth scaling the regular unit percentage dependent on the overall size of the force, the larger the force, the more you can spend on monsters and war machines.
I look forward to hearing the report on the battle.
Thanks for reading!
40% (so 1000 points by the 2500 point battle) seem to work fine, but the goblins struggle a bit, because they are too cheap...
I wasnt planning a battle report. With 2 little kids its hard enough to play the battle, I have no power left to document it... But next time I will try to make some notes and pictures
yeah, that box of light elves is awesome. I also like the elf metal characters...well two of the four blisters.
BZ, what scenario did you guys play? I don't recall it mentioned in the blog post, but maybe I missed it.
We played Oathmarks, it seemed the most interesting. I would be happy to try some scenarios from Battlesworn, but first I need to build river tiles. And bridges. And boats....
I was thinking (and apologies if this has been asked and answered earlier), for miniatures on 20mm bases would it be possible just to field 6 of them per rank (thus having an almost perfect frontage match) ?
Obviously one would only still roll 5 dices, and perhaps remove one extra figure every time a rank is affected by losses.
I would use a 125mm wide movement tray with 5 miniatures per rank. 6 in a rank were to deceptive for me, mostly because of the rank bonuses.
-
BZ - do you have the sprue images with the wrong unit box in your Elf Army post? it looks like the Infantry box has all the hoods and masked heads and the Light Infantry has the spears.
-
Has anyone given it much thought as to what models they'll use for Revenant units?
I sorta like the Mantic Ghouls for...ghouls. They come in a box of 20 too.
https://www.manticgames.com/games/kings-of-war/undead/undead-ghoul-regiment/
-
BZ - do you have the sprue images with the wrong unit box in your Elf Army post? it looks like the Infantry box has all the hoods and masked heads and the Light Infantry has the spears.
Thanks for the hint, I will fix it!
-
Has anyone given it much thought as to what models they'll use for Revenant units?
I sorta like the Mantic Ghouls for...ghouls. They come in a box of 20 too.
https://www.manticgames.com/games/kings-of-war/undead/undead-ghoul-regiment/
For the Revenants I am probably going to use the Fireforge Living Dead Warriors.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-49CZcOVNy4M/X9vg0X4fnlI/AAAAAAAAHY4/LoTDrszvzrQVeNJtKwhteBc_B8ojU1GpgCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/revenentinfantry-1-5.png)
Unfortunately they come in boxes of twelve (or six for mounted Warriors).
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/fireforge-living-dead-warriors.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/12/fireforge-living-dead-warriors.html)
I agree about the ghouls - I was lucky to pick up the "Undead" bag from the Osprey stand at Salute when Frostgrave was released which contained the Mantic Ghouls (plus a Halloween offer of Zombie Germans from Warlord which used the Mantic Ghoul sprue). I will probably want some more.
-
Cool photo comparison, thanks!
Have you taken a similar photo with mantic ghouls and oathmark models?
-
Cool photo comparison, thanks!
Have you taken a similar photo with mantic ghouls and oathmark models?
Not yet.
Maybe tomorrow.
-
Do we know what the planned releases are for Oathmark in 2021? I’m intending to put together a couple of small armies, and have made a few small purchases, but there’s so many unit options without a model (officially, at least).
I understand that all plans would only be Covid permitting, of course.
-
Do we know what the planned releases are for Oathmark in 2021? I’m intending to put together a couple of small armies, and have made a few small purchases, but there’s so many unit options without a model (officially, at least).
I understand that all plans would only be Covid permitting, of course.
"Nick Eyre: The Oathmark range is ongoing. We have finished the plastic Human Cavalry and the Dwarf Light Infantry box sets, they are in the queue to be moulded in plastic. Michael Anderson is putting the final touches to the skeleton infantry box set, and that is off to the plastic manufacturer next week. That set is actually going to leap-frog the Cavalry and Dwarves so they can be released at the same time as the Undead supplement in November. Next in line are the Revenants, another Undead type, then Elf Cavalry then the Orc Infantry. Loads and loads to come."
https://johnwombat.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/north-star-military-figures-more-a-talk-with-nick-eyre-part-3/
-
Have you taken a similar photo with mantic ghouls and oathmark models?
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1ylMXsZp5CU/X-LvgaFUbFI/AAAAAAAAHdQ/A7wAeFsnwDsRMrSE2vpoP3nOXsQyo0OzQCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/comparetheghoul.png)
Oathmark Elf Light Infantry; Mantic Ghoul; Oathmark Human Infantry; Mantic Ghoul; Oathmark Skeleton Infantry
I do not have a sprue photograph, but there is one on the Mantic site (definitely for the single sprue option, maybe on the box option).
There are two bodies per sprue, each body is a torso and legs and I think they are interchangeable. There is at least one spare head.
-
"Nick Eyre: The Oathmark range is ongoing. We have finished the plastic Human Cavalry and the Dwarf Light Infantry box sets, they are in the queue to be moulded in plastic. Michael Anderson is putting the final touches to the skeleton infantry box set, and that is off to the plastic manufacturer next week. That set is actually going to leap-frog the Cavalry and Dwarves so they can be released at the same time as the Undead supplement in November. Next in line are the Revenants, another Undead type, then Elf Cavalry then the Orc Infantry. Loads and loads to come."
https://johnwombat.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/north-star-military-figures-more-a-talk-with-nick-eyre-part-3/
I had forgotten about the revenants in that post.
Somewhere we have a list of the box art that appears in Oathmark and the supplements - which is also a hint.
-
I had forgotten about the revenants in that post.
Somewhere we have a list of the box art that appears in Oathmark and the supplements - which is also a hint.
Here is the list of box-art like pictures from the books
Oathmark:
22-23 / Dwarf Infantry / available
32-33 / Elf Infantry / available
38-39 / Human Infantry / available
54-55 / Goblin Infantry / available
108-109 / Human Cavalry (Cavalry + Mounter Ranger) / speculation
120-121 / Elf Light Infantry / available
136-137 / Orc Infantry / speculation
144-145 / Goblin Wolf Riders / available
159-160 / Dwarf Heavy Infantry / available
170-171 / Dwarf Light Infantry (Militia + Border Guard + Engineer) / speculation
184-185 / Goblin Slaves (Slave + Slave Slinger) / speculation
Battlesworn:
12-14 / Elf Heavy Infantry (Linebreaker + Warrior) / speculation
28-29 / Human Light Infantry (Ranger + Militia) / speculation
62-63 and 72-73 reused from Oathmark
Oathbreakers:
Surprisingly nothing, not even the box art of the already available Skeleton Infantry...
-
"Nick Eyre: The Oathmark range is ongoing. We have finished the plastic Human Cavalry and the Dwarf Light Infantry box sets, they are in the queue to be moulded in plastic. Michael Anderson is putting the final touches to the skeleton infantry box set, and that is off to the plastic manufacturer next week. That set is actually going to leap-frog the Cavalry and Dwarves so they can be released at the same time as the Undead supplement in November. Next in line are the Revenants, another Undead type, then Elf Cavalry then the Orc Infantry. Loads and loads to come."
https://johnwombat.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/north-star-military-figures-more-a-talk-with-nick-eyre-part-3/
Awesome- thanks mate! But I assume some units will only be released in metal- trolls, ogres, etc. we haven’t had any news on those yet, have we?
-
I recall seeing an off hand comment by Nick on Facebook about future plastic Ogres....
-
I recall seeing an off hand comment by Nick on Facebook about future plastic Ogres....
I wish it were about trolls... I already have 5 reaper ogres.
-
Correct!
It was my fault, I was looking at the two ogres available in the Frostgrave range.
Which incidentally, are superb.
Nick said if I could wait a plastic ogre set will be available.
No idea when?
-
You mean the Rangers of Shadow Deep ogres? They are lovely, too lovely for my taste. A bit looking like Shrek to me. I have them from Reaper (mostly Bobby Jackson sculpts), but the ones from Black Scorpion are also very good.
-
Any suggestions for Vampires?
-
Any suggestions for Vampires?
My absolut favorite:
https://tabletop-art.de/Heart-Blood-Sucking-Vampire
Reaper has also some nice metal ones.
-
Have you taken a similar photo with mantic ghouls and oathmark models?
I do not have a sprue photograph, but there is one on the Mantic site (definitely for the single sprue option, maybe on the box option).
There are two bodies per sprue, each body is a torso and legs and I think they are interchangeable. There is at least one spare head.
Subsequent to an archaeological expedition, I found the original Frostgrave Undead Encounters zip lock bag with the Zombie and one remaining Ghoul sprue.
Ghoul sprue
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZABZi_xH0Vk/X-nVh4d75TI/AAAAAAAAHeM/IFsoBLRITwwrERpkS3cn2b4wEEBVaVaWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/manticghouls-2.png)
Zombie sprue
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yR5kP_j7GDQ/X-nVhyqqsWI/AAAAAAAAHeQ/wBIcTSM6LQ8uo6MO99fI9ozYXuq9SbULgCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/manticzombies-1.png)
The figures look like they can be mix and matched for additional variation.
-
Does anyone has Wargames Atlantic spiders? I recived my sprues today, and they are awesome! The legs have ball-joints, and so they are very adjustable, but also pretty hard to build.
-
Does anyone has Wargames Atlantic spiders? I recived my sprues today, and they are awesome! The legs have ball-joints, and so they are very adjustable, but also pretty hard to build.
I've been considering grabbing some...most reviews of them, however, seem to point to them being fiddly to put together.
-
I've been considering grabbing some...most reviews of them, however, seem to point to them being fiddly to put together.
Its true, but the result are excellent! And considering they usability in different games (even sci-fi parts are on the sprue) and the price/piece, they absolutely worth it. The only problem is, the you rarely need so much spiders... But buying single sprues solves this.
-
I just got a kit, but haven't done anything with them yet. Seeing that the sprues included webbed up victims sold me on it.
-
Seeing that the sprues included webbed up victims sold me on it.
Same here. I just waited for a source of single sprues (I mean with reasonable shipping costs).
-
They’re on the list of models to get as I want them for my Oathmark elves as well as for RoSD scenarios.
@BZ, fantastic blog posts on your armies. I originally planned on starting my armies with one unit box, but your posts has me considering two per army to start with. Keep the good work coming.
-
They’re on the list of models to get as I want them for my Oathmark elves as well as for RoSD scenarios.
@BZ, fantastic blog posts on your armies. I originally planned on starting my armies with one unit box, but your posts has me considering two per army to start with. Keep the good work coming.
For me, they dont really fit to elves, but the more for the goblins!
Thanks! I think, that one box is nice, to try out the game, but with 2 boxes you can really combine forces, and have interesting battles. But it also depends on the race, because two boxes of elves are at least 1200 points, but two boxes of goblins are maximum 660...
-
I think there’s a few instances in popular fantasy IPs that seem to make sense for spiders and elves together.
In Dungeons and Dragons, there are the Drow and their Spider Queen goddess, Lolth.
In Tolkien, one can imagine the elves of Mirkwood making a peace treaty or alliance with the Spiders of Mirkwood to defend the forest.
But yeah, it’s not an association I make at first either.
-
In Tolkien, one can imagine the elves of Mirkwood making a peace treaty or alliance with the Spiders of Mirkwood to defend the forest.
Mirkwood spiders are the children on Ungoliath and I can't see elves making deals with them.
-
I could very well imagine an elf force with giant spiders (evil dark elves, separated wood elves, etc.), but I cant imagine them for my wives elf army (more of a classic, fairy kind of elves).
-
Breaking news! 😀
Planned Oathmark realeases by Nothstar for 2021: Human Cavalry, Dwarf Light Infantry, Revenants, Orcs, Goblin Light Infantry.
http://wargameterrain.blogspot.com/?m=1
-
Very much looking forward to those, especially Human Cavalry and the Orcs.
-
I already thought the dwarf light infantry were released? Isn't there a unit of dwarves with hoods and bows or something? That seems pretty light to me...
I'm undecided on which direction i want to go for my humans. I have the wonderful Fogou beehive huts and was thinking I'd use the barbarians from Frostgrave. I also really like the Victrix Saxons.
Of course, we're all waiting to see what the actual Oathmark orcs look like...
-
Breaking news! 😀
Planned Oathmark realeases by Nothstar for 2021: Human Cavalry, Dwarf Light Infantry, Revenants, Orcs, Goblin Light Infantry.
http://wargameterrain.blogspot.com/?m=1
Cool.
I already thought the dwarf light infantry were released? Isn't there a unit of dwarves with hoods and bows or something? That seems pretty light to me...
The existing boxes are mail armoured (soldiers, spear and archers) and plate armoured troops (Warrior and Linebreaker).
Nice post by BZ here: https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/22-oathmark-dwarven-army.html (https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/22-oathmark-dwarven-army.html)
-
Do the unit boxes list what units can be built out of them? I haven't seen a box in person, so is this somewhere on the back? Or do people just build what they think the models can represent?
EDIT: I can't seem to figure out how to get my posts to go through on BZs blog, unless they don't show up unless he approves them or something, so I'll post my comment here:
Another great post! It's not clear to me though on these Oathmark boxes what can be made from what. I mean, this dwarf infantry box with its hoods and bows, look to me like they could be used for various light infantry type positions in the army list. But I understand there are dwarf light infantry models coming out. Likewise, could one make linebreaker models from the infantry box (I'm not such a fan of the heavy infantry models)? Does the unit box have suggestions on what to make with its contents?
-
Thanks! I dont know why You cant write on the blog, I will take a look on it! Normally it should be free to comment for everybody.
On the Oathmark boxes, there is no recommendation for specific Oathmark units, just a short description about the weapon options. So basically You can build what you want. I think most of the time its pretty obvious, what the purpose was: for example Elf Light Infatry has bows, swords and shields, what excludes spearman, as there is no light spearman in the rulebook. But we build from this set elven soldiers and elven archers, because my wife liked their design more, then the one from the Elf Infantry box. Just take the rulebook, search for sprue-pictures, and plan what units you would like to see!
-
On the Oathmark boxes, there is no recommendation for specific Oathmark units, just a short description about the weapon options.
Like this:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rTd2xBwElvc/X8PaQECAdqI/AAAAAAAAHUI/uxu_MlcUv2cjIfIhYREk9uyVntPpfQCQACLcBGAsYHQ/s500/skeleton-5.png)
I have sprue pictures on my blog.
-
Thanks!
Here's an interesting Lindwurm model. Sounds like the Oathgrave one is more wyvern-like though.
https://www.wargamerus.com/product/anno-domini-1666-horrors-of-vienna-plastic-miniatures/347
-
I do struggle with the dwarf creatures. That is I have a hard time wrapping my head around the narrative of these creatures in the dwarven forces. They don't seem too much like dwarven allies to me. Yeti's and spirit dogs? but maybe I've been brought up with too much GW and not enough real world mythology...
-
Thanks!
Here's an interesting Lindwurm model. Sounds like the Oathgrave one is more wyvern-like though.
https://www.wargamerus.com/product/anno-domini-1666-horrors-of-vienna-plastic-miniatures/347
Very nice sculpt, but the Lindwurm is a flying creature, so I rather would take something with wings. We use for my wives elven army a griffon from Reaper, as it a bit more girly, then a wyvern: https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/12/19-oathmark-elven-army.html
But this could be a nice knucker!
I do struggle with the dwarf creatures. That is I have a hard time wrapping my head around the narrative of these creatures in the dwarven forces. They don't seem too much like dwarven allies to me. Yeti's and spirit dogs? but maybe I've been brought up with too much GA and not enough real world mythology...
I always struggle with dwarven monsters, in every game... (unless its a golem or some mechanical being) The common trait of the dwarf creatures in Oahmark is for me, that theye are all a wooly-hairy thing, so I would imagine all of them living in cold conditions. That binds them together to a more homogeneous origin. But I was thinking about using a gorgon, like a mechanized bull (again Reaper) instead of the indriks, and some sort of golems instead of the eachies (but I had no idea what to use instead of the barghest). However, I ended up using yetis and a bloodwolf (and again Reaper), which are more true to the originals (still searching for affordable indriks...).
What is GA? Sorry, Im pretty new in this hobby, and I dont know all the abbrevations.
-
What is GA? Sorry, Im pretty new in this hobby, and I dont know all the abbrevations.
He corrected himself. He meant GW
-
I have Reapers Shadow Hound for my dwarf force:
(https://i.ibb.co/QF1TKLM/20201120-233223.jpg) (https://ibb.co/svMNVnq)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lg1Pj1y/20201120-233139.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PWgYXgy)
I also bought Pygmy Mammoth but he's a bit big for 50 mm base. I have to put him on some rocks or something like that ;)
-
^ That is awesome!
How'd you get paint to adhere to part of the model? It doesn't look like you spray primed it. Applied with a brush?
It still feels like a weird creature to be running with dwarves, to me, but this is fantastic for what it is. Thanks for sharing!
-
He corrected himself. He meant GW
Now I absolutely understand... I also grown up on WFHB fluff.
I have Reapers Shadow Hound for my dwarf force:
(https://i.ibb.co/QF1TKLM/20201120-233223.jpg) (https://ibb.co/svMNVnq)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lg1Pj1y/20201120-233139.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PWgYXgy)
I also bought Pygmy Mammoth but he's a bit big for 50 mm base. I have to put him on some rocks or something like that ;)
My god, thats so cool! The photos on Reaper website very-very... unimpressive.
How big is the mammoth? Im also thinking about it.
-
Are there sabot style movement trays for 50mm squares? What I mean is, if I get something like this shadow hound, or ogres, or what not and put them on round bases, is there a square 50mm base I can set the round based creature into, or is a trio like this the only option?
https://productsforwargamers.com/product/oathmark-movement-trays-50mm-round/
I'd love to have these larger creatures on individual squares as I might not run a full three.
-
@mruk, what are you basing your shadow hound on? Do you have other pictures of your Oathmark armies?
-
@Jack Hooligan, @BZ wow, Thank you!
I found the idea for paint scheme online:
(https://forum.reapermini.com/uploads/monthly_08_2016/post-4115-0-07383300-1472339631.jpg)
I applied the paint with a brush. I started with purple base color/underpainting without any primer. I hope it will stick to the model ;)
As for pygmy mammoth its the only photo I have for now:
(https://i.ibb.co/jgNym34/20201012-125625.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LnFxm9p)
When i get back from my vacation on monday I can take some more photos of it.
I'm basing my models on some old fiberboard. It's a bit thick but I had it lying around so... ;)
I just started building my dwarf army. I have a box of north star dwarf infantry, plus some em4 dwarves I convert with spare parts. My plan is to have two small 500 points amies to start playing when situation gets a bit better.
(https://i.ibb.co/Z2VVd5F/20201109-153628.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PDNNxKP)
(https://i.ibb.co/7zCkNBb/20201109-153659.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sPRWJct)
-
Very cool, thanks for sharing!
Oh, what is the other force you're building up?
This reminds me...didn't someone share some other translucent models sometime back? blue ghosts or revenants or something.
-
Reaper has more translucent stuff in their Bones range. I have this in my Frostgrave collection:
(https://i.imgur.com/bFvdRNa.jpg)
-
I also had two of them:
(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/49/16223-231120065406.jpeg)
-
@Ogrob, @BZ, thanks!
What are the names of these models?
-
@Ogrob, @BZ, thanks!
What are the names of these models?
Wraith lord an bodyguard: https://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/bones+plastic+undead/price/77642
There are also some other translucent wraiths.
-
@Jack Hooligan oh, I forgot I have some Avatars of War doomcrushers too. I want to make dwarf linebreakers from them. Second force I'll be making are orcs and goblins. I want them to be Tolkienesque, not GW style. I wonder how north star orcs
and Wargames Atlantic goblins will look like. I hope to make some kitbashing.
-
Dont the AoW dwarfs look next to the Northstar ones very different? I have only 3 AoW dwarf minis, but they have the GW style look, while the others are more realistic, tolkienesque.
-
Probably you're right BZ, but I want to make side-by-side comparison to be sure.
-
Those translucent figure look very good.
-
@BZ Here's pygmy mammoth on 50 mm base:
(https://i.ibb.co/DwJQLNQ/mammoth.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tYGD3SD)
(https://pl.imgbb.com/)
But actually Reaper has wooly rhino model:
https://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/wooly/rhino
-
Many thanks!
Yeah, its definietly too big... But I would simply use it on a longer base. Base sizes are fixed in Oathmark, however, their importance is in my opinion not that high. The unit width gives the number of dices (mainly 5), but what happens, when its not 25mm, but 20mm, or 32mm? The unit will not be 125mm, but 100mm or 160mm, but it has still 5 dices. The unit width is only real important in some rare situations: can it be charged or not, is it a flank attack, or not. More wide or narrow can be good or bad, depending on the situation. But if You dont play competitively, all this can be discussed... The length is even less important: can it be flank attacked or not? But here is clear: the longer, the worse (unless You want to block something). So I would say, using longer bases should be no problem.
-
That mammoth looks cute.
I agree with BZ, certainly frontage is more important than depth.
-
It looks like the mammoth might work if you faced it to the corner rather than straight on...at least for fitting on the base
-
Just to let You know, the showcase of all our Oathmark armies is finished:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/12/19-oathmark-elven-army.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2020/12/20-oathmark-goblin-army.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/22-oathmark-dwarven-army.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/23-oathmark-human-army-i.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/24-oathmark-human-army-ii.html
-
Interesting read.
Nice catapult by the way.
-
Thanks!
-
Getting a little silent here... Want to have a conversation about the future of Oathmark? What we miss and wish?
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/25-future-of-oathmark.html (https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/25-future-of-oathmark.html)
-
Interesting post.
I go back and forth on incorporating the Warhammer races. On one hand, they are classics and there are lots of players out there with those models. It seems there would be more gamer buy-in if more of their armies could be used. On the other, I like that Oathmark isn't staying in the shadow of WFB. It has it's own flavor which is good. Variety is nice, but also GW is rebooting their old world and presumably some form of army game to go with it, so Oathmark might be better served in the long run staying detached from GWs brand of fantasy.
-
I think every fantasy rank and flank game will be in the shadow of WHFB. I dont know, how other players feel about it, but for me, Oathmark is a more modern, streamlined, easy to use version of it. And thats a big compliment, not a disadvantage. So I would really like to see it, as its successor, to see it spread widely. But for that to happen, more players has to be attracted, and I think a good way would be to include more races. Even better, if these are some alternative versions of the WHFB races, to get the old feeling. Of course using old armies would be good for the spreading but bad for Northstar Miniatures...
How GW will reboot the Old World, is another question. They wont make a direct competition to AoS, so maybe a game to sell exclusive Forgeworld Miniatures (as 30k, and i think the news maybe show at that version at most), maybe a small scalle mass battle, a new Mordheim, or something completely new. But if it wont be a competitor of AoS, it wont be a competitor of Oathmark either.
-
I'm of the opposite opinion generally. Absolutely the rules feel like a good take on the classic Warhammer engine, but it is so refreshing to see a mass battle game that isn't just Warhammer again. If we are to add another race to the game my vote would be for Halflings as I think they fit nicely into the more Tolkien/Early Medieval fantasy feel.
-
GW in their run up to releasing news that the Old World was returning let it be known that the old type square base was making a come back so I would imagine that the game will use 28mm figures?
Its good to see new games systems on the market even if they are not something I would have a go at myself...though some of the Oathmark figures are starting to look very nice. I do hope that their world expands as one never knows what figures may turn up and how they could be used in existing collections.
-
I'm of the opposite opinion generally. Absolutely the rules feel like a good take on the classic Warhammer engine, but it is so refreshing to see a mass battle game that isn't just Warhammer again. If we are to add another race to the game my vote would be for Halflings as I think they fit nicely into the more Tolkien/Early Medieval fantasy feel.
I think that the world of Oathmark (the Marches) is a pretty big world, with a very free-to-imagine history, which is able to integrate a lot of stories, races and different places. It isnt as closed as the Old World with its official fluff. I can imagine here colorful lizardmen with aztek/inka feeling and floating pyramides, and tolkienesque, dark age, low(er) fantasy kingdoms as well. Because why not? And the good thing in this free world (did I mentioned how much I love the mixed armies?), that you can use, what you like, and ignore, what you dont like. As long, as balanced rules support it... That is, why I think that official rules for more races would be needed. It could attract a lot of people, but most not scare off anybody. Would you stop playing Oathmark, if there would be a new lizardmen faction in the next supplement?
I good example is another great game from the author/designer: Frostgrave. Do I like that demons are coming to Felstad in the last supplement? Not really. Do I have to use it? Absolutely not. Does it limit me in anything, does it change the games I play? Clearly not. So do I like the supplement? Yes, because it widens the world of Frostgrave, attracts new players, lets my beloved system grow bigger and live longer!
I also like the idea of halflings in Oathmark, but to be honest, Im not fully convinced, if they could fill an independent army list... I would love to take them as auxiliary troops, but not sure if they are interesting enough to make a whole army of them. BUT! As I wrote before, its a free universe, so, may I like them or not, may I find them interesting enough or not, there is for sure place for them! There is a figure of speech in my native language: Let every flower bloom!
GW in their run up to releasing news that the Old World was returning let it be known that the old type square base was making a come back so I would imagine that the game will use 28mm figures?
Its good to see new games systems on the market even if they are not something I would have a go at myself...though some of the Oathmark figures are starting to look very nice. I do hope that their world expands as one never knows what figures may turn up and how they could be used in existing collections.
I could not imagine, that GW would make an in-house cannibalization of players with another 28mm fantasy battle game... If it still would be something like that, I think it would be like the Horus Heresy for 40k: a very similar ruleset but with more exclusive (and even more expensive) miniatures. And that would be not a real successor of WHFB, neither a competitor for Oathmark.
-
I am not so sure that Oathmark needs loads of additional figure types, what is probably more useful are some (un)official mappings of other game's various figures.
Each new figure/unit type needs to be tested in battle against a representative selection of opponents. What we do not want is the apparent arms race that has blighted various games where the most recent releases are better than their predecessors. This takes time and reduces the time available to create new stuff.
Not having my second edition WHFB books to hand (and there being plenty added afterwards), I am really unaware of the USPs of the various WHFB races and I would not want to offend anyone who thinks I am slighting their chosen faction.
Skinks - Mapped to Goblins
I am not saying that there are no gaps in the available figure stats.
Beyond the absence of figure portable crossbows (even though the technology is available at artillery scale), I would like to see berserker types (high Charge, Wild Charge but low Defence) for Humans, Elves, Dwarfs and orcs (there is a box of GW Witch Elves in the loft somewhere) plus for my Northmen army. I would also like to see Pike (I have an Empire Regiment box with ten archers and twenty two handed spear), with lower activation (well drilled) and improved Brace (remove two levels of Charge).
My (current) armies are oriented towards colder climes (with the GOT influence toward Human vs Human with some additions and the official Oathmark ranges).
However, after looking at the boat rules in Battlesworn (plus reading GRRM's pre-GOT book and the thread on here), I have been thinking of a Ghost Archipelago campaign with various factions having to protect their scattered islands. That has a slightly different set of figure types, but I would map lizard men (skinks) to Goblins, Snake Men to Orcs etc.
-
One possible way to add crazy barbarian types to a human army is to take an orc city (for garden-variety barbarian fighters or spearmen), or an orc smithy (for tougher warriors and linebreakers), during the kingdom building. All you need to do then is make up new names for the terrain and unit types, entirely game-legal and it won’t change the game balance... Might work for witch-elves, too, I don’t really know much about them.
A theme I’m noticing in some posts in this thread is suggestions for changing unit profiles to get closer to unit types in other games. Just my opinion, but that’s not the direction I want to go, because it brings back in the problems I had with the other games in the first place. For now, at least, I’m happy to mostly just look for ways to ‘re-skin’ existing terrain and their unit types to get close to representing forces from other backgrounds. The kingdom creation system in Oathmark gives a lot of freedom for customizing armies to fit a vision, while also forcing some trade-offs that keep super-armies in check.
(Disclaimer: a few pages back in the thread, I stated that I liked some suggestions about new unit types derived from having two complementary terrain types in a kingdom- I still like that notion and admire the creativity, i’m just saying I think re-skins and small adjustments can do most of the work for fitting Oathmark to different settings.)
-
GW in their run up to releasing news that the Old World was returning let it be known that the old type square base was making a come back so I would imagine that the game will use 28mm figures?
Its good to see new games systems on the market even if they are not something I would have a go at myself...though some of the Oathmark figures are starting to look very nice. I do hope that their world expands as one never knows what figures may turn up and how they could be used in existing collections.
Hopefully they'll bring back their customizable movement trays
-
Sure, you can use the actual rules with other races, like a skink as a goblin and a saurus as an orc (just to stay by lizardmen). It will work, its a valid solution. But what Im missing in this, is just a little flavor, which could make these races unique. Lizardmen could have the same stats as goblins and and orcs, but with other specials: cold blood (no modifiers for morale rolls), poisoned weapon (+1 damage at winning the combat), waterwalk, something like that instead of charge and wild charge (with adjusting the point values if needed). Sure, it had to be game tested, but these dont have to be such enormous power creeps as by the new, newer and newest GW editions.
Would You stop playing Oathmark, if a new faction would be released? I dont think so, if its balanced (did anyone stop playing because of Oathbrakers?).
Could somebody start playing Oathmark, if a new faction would be released? I very much can imagine that!
Dont forget, Oathmark is admittedly an open ruleset which welcomes house rules, and its not competitive. Not like GW. That is why, it must not make the same mistakes.
-
So just (finally) bought a copy of the rules to try out this weekend
And first impressions - the book is shiny!!
Quick observations/questions... there’s no skirmish function - is that right ?? seems a bit of an omission, or a misread on my part
No direct fire bow options- seems an odd choice to restrict tactical choices, same with lack of “long” pointy sticks and “berserkers”
Combat mechanic looks sound, but definitely “transactional” rather than “heroic”- I’m sure it works fine but not a skirmish/1:1 game is it??
Quite enthusiastic about running it though...
-
While there isn’t a skirmishers unit type in Oathmark, I found that it is possible to achieve a screen by taking few 5-man units of archers and deploying them in front of the main line. They soak up some enemy missile fire and then can retreat behind the follow up line, or let the main line pass through them (as long as the troops have enough movement).
There is the risk that the archers will be disordered, and then rout, causing morale tests by the main line units, but it isn’t very likely to be catastrophic, especially if there are some leaders with the command ability nearby to give the extra die on the morale test.
Can also get a approximation of pavisiers by pairing a small spear unit with a unit of archers. They don’t activate together on a single roll, so maneuvers can be slow, but it does give the archers a screen (and most archers can still shoot using the “fire over” rule).
-
The next expansion will have rules for unit types like skirmishers, pike blocks etc
-
No direct fire bow options- seems an odd choice to restrict tactical choices, same with lack of “long” pointy sticks and “berserkers”
I don't think that Joe intends for it to be that type of game.
-
Makes sense, just intrigued - strongest bit of these rules seems to be the enabling of tactical options with fairly “light” structure,
How do people run champions? Do they add value?
-
I like champions and find them pretty useful, but your champion die luck can be a big impact on if you feel like they add value. My regular opponent has sworn of champions as useless, while mine seem to murder officers every game.
-
While there isn’t a skirmishers unit type in Oathmark, I found that it is possible to achieve a screen by taking few 5-man units of archers and deploying them in front of the main line. They soak up some enemy missile fire and then can retreat behind the follow up line, or let the main line pass through them (as long as the troops have enough movement).
There is the risk that the archers will be disordered, and then rout, causing morale tests by the main line units, but it isn’t very likely to be catastrophic, especially if there are some leaders with the command ability nearby to give the extra die on the morale test.
Can also get a approximation of pavisiers by pairing a small spear unit with a unit of archers. They don’t activate together on a single roll, so maneuvers can be slow, but it does give the archers a screen (and most archers can still shoot using the “fire over” rule).
These are great ideas! If the spear+archer unit has a leader, they can activate together (however, they will be a bit pricey).
Makes sense, just intrigued - strongest bit of these rules seems to be the enabling of tactical options with fairly “light” structure,
How do people run champions? Do they add value?
They definitely add value! Champion dice can be great for adding more damage, and/or killing the enemy officer. And for example by mounted units, the champions dont cost much more, then a simple unit member...
-
Having just got into Oathmark, how many more expansions do people think are in the pipeline? I ask as I see Joseph McCullough left Osprey, so am unsure what the plans for Oathmark are. I saw he said there were a few more expansions written but just curious if people think it's going to keep being updated beyond that. Not that it necessarily needs it - just interested :)
-
Having just got into Oathmark, how many more expansions do people think are in the pipeline? I ask as I see Joseph McCullough left Osprey, so am unsure what the plans for Oathmark are. I saw he said there were a few more expansions written but just curious if people think it's going to keep being updated beyond that. Not that it necessarily needs it - just interested :)
One for sure. But as a lot of plastic sets are on the way, I think there will be more supplements (because why wouldnt Joe write more?). But if not, the game still feels whole to me...
Recently I wrote a post about the future of Oathmark, where I collected news, rumors (and my wishes :)): https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/25-future-of-oathmark.html
-
He said he will continue to support Frostgrave and Oathmark, probably just doing so freelance. Ghost Archipelago seems to be dropping off in favour of Stargrave, but I'd imagine we'll see one or two Oathmark books this year. In fact I think I have seen the title of the next one, but I can't seem to find it now.
-
That's a good point, I suppose freelance is a good option for him - I imagine Osprey are a good deal easier to go freelance with than a certain other large company in the biz.
I also saw the next supplement title, but can't remember it either. lol
-
Bane of Kings
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oathmark-Bane-Kings-Joseph-McCullough/dp/1472847695
-
Bane of Kings
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oathmark-Bane-Kings-Joseph-McCullough/dp/1472847695
Nice, good spot! If that's in June I'd expect another one at the end of the year some time.
-
The next expansion will have rules for unit types like skirmishers, pike blocks etc
This does put me off looking into the game a bit to be honest.
I was happy with Osprey's supplement format for Frostgrave (the first of their games I've really delved into that required multiple separate books), as the core book had everything required, and the supplements just added new scenarios, items and creatures that were meant to be used together - while many things could be combined, it was often fine or indeed logical to just use one supplement at a time, as the tunnel-fighting soldiers would mainly make sense using the tunnel-fighting rules of the Breeding Pits, and the anti-undead weapons were mainly useful when fighting the many undead of the Lich Lord. So most of the time, you only needed 2 books for any game, and they could be freely combined or omitted as desired.
Oathmark, however, just feels a bit more like an incomplete game from the start - perhaps enough is included for a good game, but some parts that you'd like and expect to see aren't there yet, and instead planned for a future supplement. Perhaps it's also the fact that those aren't as "narrative" additions as those in Frostgrave supplements that annoys me a bit. I like the concept of the game and reviews look good overall, but having basic gameplay elements missing and split over several supplements makes me more inclined to waiting for a compendium or new edition in the future.
-
So after a quick try out managed to get a bigger game started with the kids today
Simple mechanics really make it attractive for them, and game flows pretty well once adapted to the basics
Feels a lot like warhammer shieldwall- which for me is a good thing
Attritional battles so far- but good for concepts of counter charging blown cavalry, bowmen causing disorder prior to charges
Lack of a few options (long pointy sticks, flat bows, crazy dudes) will be house ruled before next game
Great way to empty the shelves for a weekend, will need a litre of superglue though for repairs 🤪
-
The next expansion will have rules for unit types like skirmishers, pike blocks etc
Excellent, as I am just beginning an odyssey.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wLTNxiLQNHk/YBbWecZyrsI/AAAAAAAAHmw/iHQ5OkqHrx0fVPMwKJW9nBWBnrRlW1r4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/ancient-greek-17.png)
-
Great way to empty the shelves for a weekend, will need a litre of superglue though for repairs 🤪
Welcome, and glad you enjoyed the game
No direct fire bow options- seems an odd choice to restrict tactical choices
Not completely sure what you mean, archers have direct fire but also have Fire Over a close friendly unit (Rangers also get Aimed Fire that allows the unit to choose the target rather than the nearest enemy).
-
This does put me off looking into the game a bit to be honest.
I was happy with Osprey's supplement format for Frostgrave (the first of their games I've really delved into that required multiple separate books), as the core book had everything required, and the supplements just added new scenarios, items and creatures that were meant to be used together - while many things could be combined, it was often fine or indeed logical to just use one supplement at a time, as the tunnel-fighting soldiers would mainly make sense using the tunnel-fighting rules of the Breeding Pits, and the anti-undead weapons were mainly useful when fighting the many undead of the Lich Lord. So most of the time, you only needed 2 books for any game, and they could be freely combined or omitted as desired.
Oathmark, however, just feels a bit more like an incomplete game from the start - perhaps enough is included for a good game, but some parts that you'd like and expect to see aren't there yet, and instead planned for a future supplement. Perhaps it's also the fact that those aren't as "narrative" additions as those in Frostgrave supplements that annoys me a bit. I like the concept of the game and reviews look good overall, but having basic gameplay elements missing and split over several supplements makes me more inclined to waiting for a compendium or new edition in the future.
I have to agree. I've ordered the core book, expect to receive it later this week, but I'm concerned that the core rules aren't really complete and will require a collection of these smaller paperback supplements that won't lie open flat on a table if needed.
-
I have to agree. I've ordered the core book, expect to receive it later this week, but I'm concerned that the core rules aren't really complete and will require a collection of these smaller paperback supplements that won't lie open flat on a table if needed.
I don't know, I guess people have different tastes, but having actually played the game a whole bunch of times with just core book it does not feel incomplete at all. I did not feel like skirmishers or pikes are missing, they are just not core parts of the game.
From the expansions we have played the new scenarios but not made any great use of new troop types. Still, this is a different type of game than Frostgrave, and it makes sense to me that some new units would be added in new expansions.
-
Oathmark, however, just feels a bit more like an incomplete game from the start - perhaps enough is included for a good game, but some parts that you'd like and expect to see aren't there yet, and instead planned for a future supplement. Perhaps it's also the fact that those aren't as "narrative" additions as those in Frostgrave supplements that annoys me a bit. I like the concept of the game and reviews look good overall, but having basic gameplay elements missing and split over several supplements makes me more inclined to waiting for a compendium or new edition in the future.
I think it has been very complete. The books just add new features. The second expansion is mostly narrative and the third adds the Undead as well as more narrative scenarios.
I would have liked if the rules for skirmishers etc were in the core book but it also makes the core book simpler and also means that if you don't want those aspects in the rules then you are good with just the core book.
I have been having a lot of fun with the core rules and am looking forward to the new expansion just because it will add some new options.
-
I played at least a dozen Oathmark battles in various sizes, but I never felt, that the basic rules were incomplete... I have both supplements, but didnt feel the urge to try anything of them till now.
Whats in the supplements?
- Scenarios: a narrative addition.
- Engineers, who can build and destroy covers and bridges: nice, like them, built a group of them, will try them, but not indispensable.
- Evolving heroes and units: can be used in simple battles, but its more for a campaign.
- Undeads: well, if you want to play them, then you need the supplement. Yes, it could have been in the basic book.
So everything, except the undead faction, are options to the game, but are not necessary (and its also only then, if you want to play them).
-
I played at least a dozen Oathmark battles in various sizes, but I never felt, that the basic rules were incomplete... I have both supplements, but didnt feel the urge to try anything of them till now.
Whats in the supplements?
- Scenarios: a narrative addition.
- Engineers, who can build and destroy covers and bridges: nice, like them, built a group of them, will try them, but not indispensable.
- Evolving heroes and units: can be used in simple battles, but its more for a campaign.
- Undeads: well, if you want to play them, then you need the supplement. Yes, it could have been in the basic book.
So everything, except the undead faction, are options to the game, but are not necessary (and its also only then, if you want to play them).
Thanks BZ, that doesn't sound like anything critical was left out of the core book. I look forward to reading the rules once my order arrives.
-
Thanks BZ, that doesn't sound like anything critical was left out of the core book. I look forward to reading the rules once my order arrives.
Sorry I forgot to mention: rules for using ships is also in a supplement, but I wouldnt label it as necessary either.
-
Joe posted a neat ‘expendable’ attribute for Oathmark over on his blog.
http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2021/02/random-musings-on-my-games.html?m=1
-
Osprey posted the FAQ and errata recently. It's basically the same one as the fan compilation. Download here:
https://ospreypublishing.com/gaming-resources-other-wargames
-
Osprey posted the FAQ and errata recently. It's basically the same one as the fan compilation. Download here:
https://ospreypublishing.com/gaming-resources-other-wargames
Better late than never :)! Thanks for posting!
Joe posted a neat ‘expendable’ attribute for Oathmark over on his blog.
http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2021/02/random-musings-on-my-games.html?m=1
Thanks! Would be great for Ratmen.
-
Thats interesting:
"Q: In combat, if the attacking unit makes contact with the corner of the defending unit, how do you
determine which facing to place the unit flush against?
A: If the attacking unit is charging, and would impact (or overlap) a corner, check which facing of the
target unit the officer of the charging unit is in before the charge. This is the side where the charge
lands. Then centre the officer of the charging unit in the centre of that side. Basically, this means that to
hit a unit in the flank or rear, the officer must be in the unit’s flank or rear before the charge."
As I remember, the rulebook describes it in another way (charged side is, where the charging units officer would hit the charged unit).
-
Thats interesting:
"Q: In combat, if the attacking unit makes contact with the corner of the defending unit, how do you
determine which facing to place the unit flush against?
A: If the attacking unit is charging, and would impact (or overlap) a corner, check which facing of the
target unit the officer of the charging unit is in before the charge. This is the side where the charge
lands. Then centre the officer of the charging unit in the centre of that side. Basically, this means that to
hit a unit in the flank or rear, the officer must be in the unit’s flank or rear before the charge."
As I remember, the rulebook describes it in another way (charged side is, where the charging units officer would hit the charged unit).
Yes, I believe this is a change that came about after some facebook discussion. We tested it out last game and I think it's a good change.
-
Yes, I believe this is a change that came about after some facebook discussion. We tested it out last game and I think it's a good change.
I also think so. With the other method was too easy to attack the flank or the rear. It was just an angle adjustment, but now the charge has really come from the direction.
-
I also think so. With the other method it was too easy to attack the flank or the rear. It was just an angle adjustment, but now the charge has really come from the direction.
I agree, especially with cavalry it was ridiculously easy to do a flank-attack. I have to say I'm not too fond of the wording in the FAQ. If I remember correctly, the term "charge" is never used in that way in the rulebook. Instead it says "move into combat". This may seem a bit nit-picky but the rule are otherwise very consistent in their use of game mechanic terms, so it would be nice if the FAQ did that as well.
If I understand the FAQ correctly, I check the officer's position before I make my move into combat, not before I activate the unit, right?
This means I can manoeuvre into a flanking position as a first action, then declare my intention for a move into combat, check officer's position and then move the unit.
Sounds good to me.
-
I agree, especially with cavalry it was ridiculously easy to do a flank-attack. I have to say I'm not to fond of the wording in the FAQ. If I remember correctly, the term "charge" is never used in that way in the rulebook. Instead it says "move into combat". This may seem a bit nit-picky but the rule are otherwise very consistent in their use of game mechanic terms, so it would be nice if the FAQ did that as well.
If I understand the FAQ correctly, I check the officers position before I make my move into combat, not before I activate the unit, right?
This means I can manoeuvre into a flanking position as a first action, the declare my intention for a move into combat, check officers position ant then move the unit.
Sounds good to me.
I woukd say yes. But this way its still harder to charge into flank or rear, as with the iriginal method.
-
I agree, especially with cavalry it was ridiculously easy to do a flank-attack. I have to say I'm not too fond of the wording in the FAQ. If I remember correctly, the term "charge" is never used in that way in the rulebook. Instead it says "move into combat". This may seem a bit nit-picky but the rule are otherwise very consistent in their use of game mechanic terms, so it would be nice if the FAQ did that as well.
If I understand the FAQ correctly, I check the officer's position before I make my move into combat, not before I activate the unit, right?
This means I can manoeuvre into a flanking position as a first action, then declare my intention for a move into combat, check officer's position and then move the unit.
Sounds good to me.
Agree, this is how I read it too.
-
Hi everyone, really new here :)
Just received my 3 box of oathmark skeletons and now i need to take some serious decisions : what base size ? I'm planning to try saga age of magic at some point but i'm not so sure when...just want to leave open the possibility (like with kings of war for example)
I have a LOAD of old whfb square bases (20x20,25x25,25x50), did a test with some skeletons and i'm not so satisfied...you need to trim the bases, no space for decorating it etc etc .Of course the "mass" look is there.
Two other options i'm considering are :
- the official 25x25mm square and plane ones : really like how they look on movement trays, without gaps...sadly really too big for a skirmish game i think
- 25x25mm round and plane bases : perfect of course for skirmish games, not a fan of them on movement trays and you have a problem with mounted troops...people is basing them on 25x50 squares anyway..not a good sight imho
Attached a couple of shots of my trials.
Long story short...i'm torn :(
-
I've played SAGA Age of Magic with my 25x25 based Game of Thrones minis, it works just fine. So if you like the look of it, I would go with the square bases. As you say, it feels more consistent when you have 25x50 mounted and 25x25 infantry.
-
I like round bases because of their versatility, but if you are into square bases, go for it.
-
So funny. I’m torn over this exact subject and have decided to go for square 25x50mm square for skeleton cavalry as per attached and when Oathmark skeletons come I’ll use round 25mm and get the warbase sabot trays. Or I’ll make last minute decision to use 25mm square and assume there’s no issue for Age of Sigmar too...or if there’s a slight advantage nobody will care in my FLGS. So still torn :)
-
Pill-shaped (i.e. rounded corners) 25x50mm bases are always an option for the cav - Warlord Games do them in plastic but they seem very expensive, and the lipped edges aren't great for movement trays anyway, but Warbases have them in MDF and can supply fitting trays too: https://warbases.co.uk/product/pill-bases/
Although the inter-base barriers in the movement tray mean it won't be as close a formation as the square bases would give. Advantage is that it looks great in skirmish games and mixes nicely with round bases for infantry...
That said, 25mm square is fine for most skirmish games - they can feel a bit big for some models, but an advantage is that some of e.g. GW's modern sculpts supplied with 32mm round bases will fit on those too. Swings and roundabouts!
-
I don't understand why square bases are inappropriate for skirmish gaming. Surely you need to know, still, from which angle an attack is coming and surely square bases help with that?
Is it an esthetics thing?
-
I'm also in the same boat on struggling on the basing. I think I too prefer rounds so I can use the models in Warlords of Erehwon, Dragon Rampant, Rangers of Shadow Deep, and maybe even Frostgrave. It seems a shut case to just go rounds, but then there's the cav being in rectangles. Unless...maybe I never use cav...
-
I have infantry on rounds and cavalry on squares, but it doesnt bother me. I think its more important to base them similar, and to use the same base on the same unit type (for example some infantry on flat rounds, others on square GW style would look awefull to me).
I think you can use square based figures for skirmish games, but rounds are just a bit better (directions/angles, limited places).
-
I've got a bunch of cavalry on full round bases...each time I consider rebasing them for Oathmark, I end up having second thoughts about it.
-
I think it's also important to keep in mind if the bases have bevelled edges or not (regardless of the round vs square arguments)
If they're bevelled, you lose about 3mm for "space" to mount the figures on; this makes it a bit of a squeeze when you putting figures which are nominally 28mm scale on a 20mm x 20mm (essentially 17mm x 17mm) bases. If you use square-edge bases, this is less of an issue as the top face and bottom face are the same, and you so get the full 20mm x 20mm to mount the figure on.
Bevelled bases are generally easier to fit into a tray than square-edged ones (unless the bases are very thin), but you then see the base edges more.
In the end, it really does depend on personal preference, and I would say that as long as the models fit nicely and look reasonable on their bases, then that should be the main consideration (IMO). If you do use the models for another game, having the the same base size/shape also helps.
I went with the classic GW square bases with bevelled edges style, although my base edges and trays are all matte black. The trays are just the regular ones from Renedra, and I put magnets in both the tray and bases to keep them from moving during play. I attached a photo of them, although I don't know if anybody will be able to see them...
-
I'm also in the same boat on struggling on the basing. I think I too prefer rounds so I can use the models in Warlords of Erehwon, Dragon Rampant, Rangers of Shadow Deep, and maybe even Frostgrave. It seems a shut case to just go rounds, but then there's the cav being in rectangles. Unless...maybe I never use cav...
But what about Oathmark, Vanguard, Kings of War. They absolutely need squares whereas the rules you mention could have rounds. Oh the mental anguish...
-
If I really wanted cav on rounds I would probably do movement trays and some wound counters. 6 cav on 40 mm rounds would fit nicely on a 125x100 mm tray and could represent 10 cavalry in the game.
-
A sneak peek at human cav.
-
I’m assuming those are for the light cavalry/mounted rangers set. They look pretty good to me anyway.
-
They look good! Where did you find the Picture?
-
North Star posted a bunch of previews and new releases on their Facebook yesterday. This was the Oathmark preview.
There are some nice new hooded heads there, and I think the horses look pretty good. Good movement.
-
Thanks!
-
I don't do FB, so see new Northstar releases either thru friends or the official twitter account, where I see some new Rangers of ShadowDeep models as well.
https://twitter.com/northstarfigs?lang=en
-
I dont do any social media, but saw it later today on https://www.brueckenkopf-online.com/
I like every new miniature, but that zombi camel! I didnt knew, that I needed a zombi camel untill now lol!
-
I attached a photo of them, although I don't know if anybody will be able to see them...
Beautiful paintjob, by the way!
-
Nice cavalry. Now I need to learn to paint horses...
-
For the social media refusers, they also just announced that there will be a free download release of a Halfling army list for Oathmark soon.
-
For the social media refusers, they also just announced that there will be a free download release of a Halfling army list for Oathmark soon.
Thanks for sharing! Interesting news though. Does Northstar plan on doing halflings or is this to celebrate the Wargames Atlantic unit?
-
North Star will use their existing Copplestone Halflings.
Plus a few new sculpts, I believe by Mr Copplestone???
Although don’t quote me on that.
Love the new WA plastic halflings but double love the Copplestone ones!
-
For the social media refusers, they also just announced that there will be a free download release of a Halfling army list for Oathmark soon.
Awesome news, thanks for sharing!
-
More looks at the cav and a new halfling for oathmark.
-
So many insider information in one day :). Thanks a lot for sharing!
-
I’m curious what units and creatures will be part of the halfling army. Northstar only has a couple, but great, halflings on foot, iirc.
-
Additional critters will be good.
-
Don’t they have the Copplestone casting halflings?
-
Don’t they have the Copplestone casting halflings?
They are to buy there:
https://www.northstarfigures.com/search.php?query=Hf+halfling&page=1
-
Great news!
https://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2021/03/oathmark-halflings.html?showComment=1615812555500&m=1#c2303815090326194416
-
This looks great. I actually pretty excited for these little units. ;)
-
I’m a little concerned that this is one of the author’s final contributions to Osprey (and possibly oathmark). Does this mean the game is effectively dead in terms of further rules development?
-
There is another expansion slated for release, already written I believe. It will be out in June.
Joe has said on FB that he is unsure if he will write more, but Osprey owns Oathmark and may also chose to have someone else write for it. Either way, I think we have a lot of miniatures still waiting to be released for the game. All I really want is more Military Expeditions to keep me happy.
-
There is the possibility, that he will leave Oathmark, but:
- Probably not as long Northstar Miniatures has a lot of plastic boxed sets in the release-line (and they have).
- He is the game designer, and as long as the sales are good, why should Osprey change that? And if the sales turn that bad, the releases would be discontinued, independent of, who owns the trademark.
-
I’m a little concerned that this is one of the author’s final contributions to Osprey (and possibly oathmark). Does this mean the game is effectively dead in terms of further rules development?
I would imagine that they'll just contract the work out to Joseph. He's also the author behind, what appears to be, their biggest selling skirmish game, Frostgrave, and 2nd ed recently launched. I can bet they want to keep selling expansions for that too.
Joseph said, "As one of my last tasks as an Osprey employee...", so as a salaried employee, not as a contractor or any other form of paid freelancer.
I wouldn't worry about him leaving Oathmark, Frostgrave, or the upcoming Stargrave and Silver Spears (from Osprey) anytime soon...
-
I hope to stoke up a scene in my area. I'm working on the first of my armies, Dwarf-dominated. Kind of suck at photography, but here's the first half of a Dwarf Border Guard unit.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/806055348057669642/824061346407907348/image0.jpg?width=894&height=670)
-
Nice! What other units are You planning to make?
-
Nice! What other units are You planning to make?
5 more Border Guard, a King, a Spellcaster, Linebreakers, Soliders, and some Warriors. And that's just the Dwarf half of the equation. I plan to pick up Oathbreakers at some point and run them against Undead in demo games.
-
5 more Border Guard, a King, a Spellcaster, Linebreakers, Soliders, and some Warriors. And that's just the Dwarf half of the equation. I plan to pick up Oathbreakers at some point and run them against Undead in demo games.
Seems like a long and exciting way to go (calculation based on my painting speed :) )! Unfortunately for the undead Northstar only made a Skeleton box yet, or YOu want to use some other miniatures?
-
Keep it up Sven, looking good
-
Great start to the army. Looking forward to seeing the rest as they get finished.
-
I've read folks not be too impressed with these hooded Oathmark dwarves...but I love them! Maybe my favorite dwarves...though I have yet to actually work with them.
-
More looks at the cav and a new halfling for oathmark.
I have tons of human cav from a variety of fantasy games or historicals tarted up to be fantastic at one level or another. And I don't even love the Oathmark humans. And yet I must have them...
-
While I wait for gaming to begin again, I've started painting up a goblin/human kingdom, mainly using the Oathmark goblins and some plastic Vikings. Going for a scrappy underdog feel, with the people deemed uncivilised by the elder races teaming up to fight for their freedom.
-
Getting a bit still here... I just wanted to share, that Im prepared for the chariots, that should come with Bane of Kings:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/04/40-chariots-for-oathmark.html?m=1
-
So human light cavalry coming out this month, and then undead revenants already next month! And they look spectacular:
(https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/181783997_4608688549160556_1095670246140362733_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SwzWgXgB7UsAX8w-ffa&_nc_ht=scontent-cph2-1.xx&oh=aa3e9b744c080ab0db1981b0d038d1cf&oe=60B4A19C)
-
Holy balls those look amazing. I had to double check to see if they weren't someone's advanced kitbashes, they look that good.
-
They look great, thanks for sharing!
-
They do look good.
-
ouh. definitely nice. well, you can never have too many undead, i suppose.
-
Dwarf light infantry box art:
(https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/039/821/196/large/ralph-horsley-asset.jpg?1627032323)
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/AqdxrN
-
Thanks for sharing! He has some beautiful artwork! And if You take a look in the Oathmark books, You can find some other clues for future releases too: Elf Heavy Infantry, Orc Infantry, Goblin Light Infantry.
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/01/25-future-of-oathmark.html?m=1
-
Dwarf light infantry box art:
(https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/039/821/196/large/ralph-horsley-asset.jpg?1627032323)
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/AqdxrN
Also mentioned in the North Star newsletter as the next plastic set.
http://downloads.northstarfigures.com/newsletter/newsletter242.htm (http://downloads.northstarfigures.com/newsletter/newsletter242.htm)
I do hope there are separate picks etc, for the other armies engineers.
I am surprised no one on the future sub-forum has mentioned the female crew and mercenaries plus scavengers in plastic.
The latter might be of use here as well.
-
It’s in their DNA, and never far away….the war cry of the angry dwarf…..HI HO!
-
If somebody is interested, I just finished a short series about the Oathmark supplements:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/07/oathmark-battlesworn.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/08/52-oathmark-oathbreakers.html
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/08/53-oathmark-bane-of-kings.html
-
I played my first game yesterday, basic units to start just to get a feel for the rules. The five combat dice cap has me scratching my head. What is the point of taking more than three in a cavalry unit?
-
I played my first game yesterday, basic units to start just to get a feel for the rules. The five combat dice cap has me scratching my head. What is the point of taking more than three in a cavalry unit?
The cap of five is good to avoid buckets of dice, and its compensated with the rank bonus.
More than 3 is good becouse of bonuses (rank and morale), and durability.
-
The morale hit for having a partial rank is very noticeable. I'm always torn between playing with 5 strong or 10 strong cavalry units myself, but that +1 for a second rank very rarely lasts long. I wonder if perhaps six or seven might be a good number to preserve the front rank just that little bit longer.
On a light dwarf note, really excited for these. Haven't started painting my halfling/dwarf force yet, need some dwarf rangers to join the ranks. Hope we get to see some previews soon.
-
Nice to see more Dwarves coming with mining tools. Always struck me as the most appropriate weapons for Dwarven militia, and they'll be handy for RPG and Frostgrave use too.
Also for chasing evil queens with a sideline in apple peddling, of course. :)
I am surprised no one on the future sub-forum has mentioned the female crew and mercenaries plus scavengers in plastic.
The latter might be of use here as well.
More grist for the scifi board than this thread, but yes, good to know they're coming. Stargrave's existing kits have been fun to work with and more variety will only make that better. The metal characters look pretty good too.
That tease of the Crusader fantasy characters is intriguing too.
-
Getting the extra point of morale for a full rank is a good thing yeah, but spending so many points to achieve it ? Think two units of three cavalry would outgun one unit of five or six pretty much every game. Convince me otherwise 😁
-
If You want to min-max it, then You're probably right. But Oathmark is not a compeptitive game, its not really made for that. Its more a fun, narrative ruleset.
-
Try it and let us know! I think morale penalty will be killer, but my record in this game is abysmal, so what do I know? :D
-
Don’t forget that an army can only take a maximum of 4 units of the same type per game. There is also the issue of command and control- each of the 3-figure units will have to make its own activation test and getting them to act cohesively will be a problem.
Most important, I suspect the 3-figure units will also get shot down in a hurry by archers... cavalry in Oathmark hit hard but they don’t soak up casualties any better than infantry (some advantage in Def, but still 1-wound each). To me, the extra figures in an Oathmark unit are there to make sure the unit is still throwing 5 dice by the time it makes contact.
And the other thing to consider is that the friendly units near the 3-figure cavalry units will have to make a morale check each time one gets wiped out, so you’re increasing the risk of cascading panic. You could probably get away with that for a mainly elf army (the soul-less brutes have great activation numbers), but human or goblin units nearby are likely to head for the hills!
-
All valid points! I play Oathmark without the kingdom building part, so I forgot that limitation. And yes, cavalry is pretty well protected with 12/13 defense, but a lucky shot is enough, to make a 3 health unit crippled. I still think that more small cavalry units can have a bigger impact, than one bigger, but only with luck, and only on the beginning of thr battle.
-
Oops, just re-read the morale section and I’m wrong- units don’t automatically make a test if a nearby friendly unit is wiped out (unless the lost unit contains a character with the command ability). The nearby units do make a test if the small cavalry unit fails a morale test, though, which could still pose problems...
-
And humans can fail relatively easily...
-
More grist for the scifi board than this thread, but yes, good to know they're coming.
I was just surprised that the North Star newsletter does not seem to be being read/noted here and on the other sub forum.
Saying that, I am hoping the Scavengers might provide some additional bodies for my Squirrels (the Frostgrave Soldiers sprue can provide some bodies with spare Elf light infantry heads and bows).
-
Interesting discussion on the cavalry strengths.
Have you tried the larger and smaller units?
The Oathmark four unit (or 80 25mm based figure) limit does prevent some of the odder armies. It is not just cavalry, Elf Rangers (though requiring a full rank) would be scary if you deployed multiple one rank units.
-
I was just thinking around... Why the most games dont have rules to simulate daytime and weather? So I started to make houserules for it in Oathmark:
https://oathgrave.blogspot.com/2021/10/59-weather-and-daytime-effects-in.html
Would be happy about Your comments on it!
-
Interesting ideas for bringing in season, weather and time of day to wargames. I’m going to try to convince my usual opponent to to try the rules in our next game.
One point about Oathmark - in the basic game there is a 20% chance of rolling the “wind and rain” scenario for each battle. It makes weather an important factor in at least some games.
-
Some good ideas BZ, especially about how it changes during play. :)
I would say that quite a few games have modelled weather effects and seasonal conditions over the years, including a lot of the old GW games - in fact, dawn/dusk and night-fighting conditions had whole sets of scenarios for them in 40k 3E-7E, and I know both Blood Bowl and Necromunda also has both weather effects and ongoing/changeable conditions during games, and I'm pretty sure older games like Man-O-War did too. I also have a recollection that Frostgrave models unusual weather that changes during play as well... To name a few games, anyway. ;)
How useful/fun it is to model some of these things in games is hard to say. If it's only ever negatives, and if most negative effects only affect shooting or movement, then having the rules becomes a chore for any players whose armies rely on shooting/manoeuvre more than others. However, if you can be more creative about the types of effects, and the penalties are not too harsh, then they can be very interesting. Personally, I have always felt that such conditions were best linked to set scenarios, where there can be a degree of control over how strongly they affect the game, and where there can be other ways of offsetting certain events.
-
Thanks for reading it! I would be happy if I got some, how it worked!
I didnt remembered, that so many games had weather effects.
The most effects of weather are negative, and most are regarding sight (so also bad for shooting), and movement... Its hard get every unit/army type equallyeffected by them. Maybe it would be better to compensate them with some kind of magic (re-roll or change effect, or compensate the negative effects, withsome kind of light-footed, infra sight or something).
-
Hello people, sorry for the threadomancy, but I got the Oathmark rulebook for Christmas after a colleague recommended it, so I'm popping in to say (18 months after everyone else) that it looks cool and fun, and I hope I can find someone to play with (sadly my colleague lives more than 2 hours' drive away and as a result I'm unlikely to be pooping down to have a quick game on any regular basis).
Are people still playing? Or did I miss the boat?
-
Not so much playing as still building my armies (I have some RTB-01s to finish as well).
If you have fantasy figures based up and painted, build up some armies from them.
If not, then select a few of the Oathmark plastics and build up some mini-armies. one of the key things about the army lists is that they are multi-species, so you can build elf and undead mini-armies for your fellow gamers to learn the rules - then when someone else has an army you need to fight, you can use your mini-armies combined for the Wraith-Pixie Alliance.
One box of Elf Light Infantry will build you a full mini-army:
Four ranks of Elf Rangers, one rank of Elf Pathfinders and an Elf Spellcaster.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uJCstHlW6Pk/YAxL_3r6QDI/AAAAAAAAHlU/PXIM-bCKAZIi-8VeyfTvOv50P1VRLt-9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/army-wip-elves-20210123.png)
Or
Four ranks of Rangers
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VHOqvDy4peI/X4rjlNg3ymI/AAAAAAAAHJ8/2w1hwe2YRGAV8iiXXK-o2JqqZ5kQAUOnQCLcBGAsYHQ/s500/elf-mini-army-1.png)
Necromancer army - from one Oathmark Skeleton box and a Frostgrave Cultist box
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6pCtpSsQc5U/YAxL_7QzziI/AAAAAAAAHlM/VaxuIowTXpYVR9ni8NMtkSrbkdvnHjhqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1000/army-wip-necromancer-20210123.png)
Five ranks of Skeleton Soldiers, one rank of human archers, nearly two ranks of human soldiers and a necromancer.
Gnolls (counts as Orcs) - using a box and a half of Frostgrave Gnolls (and some Anvil Industries shoulder pads).
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K0DuK7U_6RU/YAxL_zXScOI/AAAAAAAAHlQ/Nd7--tMG7mkY5RLfk2-P24X1qRTo7LKnwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/army-wip-gnolls-20210123.png)
Four ranks of Gnoll Soldiers, one rank of archers and one rank of Linebreakers.
-
I’ll second Ultravanillasmurf’s suggestion to use whatever fantasy figures you already have, at least to get started. Oathmark is actually quite adaptable in terms of what figures to use, as long as the players are open to ‘counts as’ substitutions. It’s currently my set of favorite fantasy rules.
-
Oh, yeah, I've been up in the loft doing a quick audit to try and make up units.
But it was bloody cold so I came down and had a cup of tea instead.
I've certainly got plenty of Orcs and Goblins (I built a KoW Orc and Goblin army some years ago, mostly with GW minis and that will be the basis of any Oathmark O&G army). And then I've got some LotR O&G as well, and see no reason not to fold them in to the mix too.
And quite a few Elves, and some Dwarves, and a lot of various Humans... so I'm sure I can cobble some armies together!
I don't have any of the supplements mind, so it's Dwarves, Elves, Humans and O&G only (I've downloaded the Halfling list but I think I only have maybe a dozen Halfling minis so they're not going to become a real force).
-
I still play it with my kids (unfortunately still with mostly grey miniatures...), its a great game with some unique aspects!
I just cant find enough time, so I had tocut my writing about playing to favour of playing himself...
-
Haven't played in a while as we defaulted back to SAGA and slightly smaller armies. Hoping to come back to it, and hoping to play some more military expeditions. We played the wizard tower one which was quite fun.