*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 01:46:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686487
  • Total Topics: 118102
  • Online Today: 857
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Oathmark - Who's Playing?  (Read 63985 times)

Offline Historiker

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 329
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #60 on: October 16, 2020, 08:51:58 PM »
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
"The philosopher Didactylos has summed up an alternative hypothesis as: Things just happen. What the hell."

Offline aircav

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • *
  • Posts: 3654
    • the aircav saga
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #61 on: October 16, 2020, 09:08:59 PM »
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  :-[

Online Byrthnoth

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 76
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2020, 04:05:36 AM »
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.


Offline Ultravanillasmurf

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9302
    • Ultravanillasmurf
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2020, 07:32:15 AM »
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.

Offline Ogrob

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2020, 07:38:53 AM »
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.

Offline Ultravanillasmurf

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9302
    • Ultravanillasmurf
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2020, 07:50:16 AM »
One surprising weapon omission was the crossbow, a pity as there are crossbows on the Deus Vult infantry sprues.

Offline Historiker

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 329
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2020, 11:51:56 AM »
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).


Online Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4911
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2020, 12:20:17 PM »
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 (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.

Andrew_McGuire

  • Guest
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2020, 05:28:46 PM »
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).

« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 05:50:23 PM by Andrew_McGuire »

Offline Bloggard

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3458
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2020, 11:10:21 AM »

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 (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 !

Offline vodkafan

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3510
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2020, 11:17:27 PM »
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 am going to build a wargames army, a big beautiful wargames army, and Mexico is going to pay for it.

2019 Painting Challenge :
figures bought: 500+
figures painted: 57
9 vehicles painted
4 terrain pieces scratchbuilt

Online Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4911
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2020, 09:46:04 AM »
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.

Offline Historiker

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 329
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2020, 06:50:26 PM »
@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.


Offline Ogrob

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2020, 07:15:04 PM »
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.

Offline Historiker

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 329
Re: Oathmark - Who's Playing?
« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2020, 07:26:25 PM »
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?

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1395 Views
Last post June 23, 2020, 06:45:55 AM
by Hobgoblin
0 Replies
1069 Views
Last post July 18, 2020, 03:52:34 PM
by MustContainMinis
245 Replies
39135 Views
Last post January 08, 2022, 06:14:15 PM
by Softie
7 Replies
2879 Views
Last post August 12, 2020, 08:36:11 PM
by killshot
18 Replies
3442 Views
Last post November 03, 2020, 08:36:10 AM
by BZ