Oathmark. Anyone into it?

[M.O.T.N]

Honestly, I am more interested in Frostgrave 2.0 and just recently received Dragon Rampant: Fantasy Wargaming Rules and someone I game with just gave me Ragnorak so I will be reading those rule sets this week.

Same here, I like Dragon Rampant.

I might be wrong but Oathmark is going for a regiment frontage of 5 troops with on average 20 minis in a regiment. Dragon Rampant has only 12 of less per 'regiment'.

It's still easy and very appealing to put 3 or 4 10mm minis on a 25mm square base. 12 of them rank up nicely and works for Dragon Rampant. 20 would seem a bit excessive for me.

[guitarheroandy]

Same here, I like Dragon Rampant.

I might be wrong but Oathmark is going for a regiment frontage of 5 troops with on average 20 minis in a regiment. Dragon Rampant has only 12 of less per 'regiment'.

It's still easy and very appealing to put 3 or 4 10mm minis on a 25mm square base. 12 of them rank up nicely and works for Dragon Rampant. 20 would seem a bit excessive for me.

From what little I know, Oathmark is going for a slightly more 'big battle' feel, which is a bit at odds with the current 'trend' for 'large scale skirmish' rules like Dragon Rampant. Units of 20 or more are pretty standard in your WFB, KOW, etc which are also supposed to be more 'big battle'.
Of course, Oathmark, while it has its own world and its own minis, is very much 'if you've already got a fantasy army, (especially the typical dwarf, elf, human or orc armies), you'll be able to play the game with what you already have.'

The question with Oathmark is whether or not you want a bigger battle feel for your gaming or whether you want the 'large scale skirmish' feel, I guess...

[Grumpy Gnome]

I am a big fan of the Oathmark minis and I am keen to see how the game develops.

https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/designer_blog_oathmark_goals/?fbclid=IwAR3OYScM6CMXlxbrQMLrm9Ji4O03wJsE3BFblZsvjty_4lOh7sKtbwYwfJ4

[Mallo]

Yes, I'm really looking forward to it as a game. I brought some of the models to use as part of my WFB old world project I've been working on (I want to run a small but jammed packed Albion campaign) but after seeing what Oathmark has planned, I'm very tempted to pivot the project completely and run it exclusively as an oathmark project.

Oathmarks rules started appealing to me when they said that the rules work well with a single box of minis (about 30 minis) and onwards to a couple of hundred per side. I have a huge collection of minis that I've brought over the past 30 years that I just haven't gotten around to playing, as I felt WFB/AoS have never really allowed for the addition of smaller, more manageable additions of newly painted models, which is one of the main things that put me off from playing games over the years (I'm a very slow painter and won't use unpainted minis) so I'm hoping the rules help push for more regular games here. Only needed to paint 5/10 new minis in-between games gives me a workable target to hit, which shouldn't burn me out as quickly on a project as some WFB ones have done in the past.

It also sounds like there are a ton of new models in the works for 2020 and the I adore the kits I've put together so far, they are some of the best kits I've used in a long time.

I'm a little unsure about the use of D10s, but then I've only ever been into games that run D6s, so it being a D10 system feels a little foreign to me, but I'm sure its something that will become 2nd nature incredibly quickly.

With the rumour of a space frostgrave in the works too, I can see me sticking with the frostgrave/oathmark lines for the foreseeable future.

[Sir Barnaby Hammond-Rye]

IIRC Dragon Rampant has a couple of nonsense rules, like the groups have to be separated by a certain amount (3" is it?) Arbitrary rules like that just put me off the game.

Plus the fact that you could fail your rolls and not move for turn after turn. I think that is a failing of all the "Rampant" series.

[Splod]

I'll be giving it a try. Unlikely I'll use the miniatures however, I'm sculpting up some 18mm scale fantasy ranges to use instead.

Ooh, I could stand to hear more?

[James Morris]

IIRC Dragon Rampant has a couple of nonsense rules, like the groups have to be separated by a certain amount (3" is it?) Arbitrary rules like that just put me off the game.

Plus the fact that you could fail your rolls and not move for turn after turn. I think that is a failing of all the "Rampant" series.

I’ve always seen the 3” rule to allow units to support each other by shooting: if you have two units with a 3” gap in between, then you can place another missile unit behind them and shoot through the gap.  So I’ve learned to play with the 3” gap and tolerate it, though it is definitely annoying sometimes, especially when trying to line up friendly troops at the start of the game.

Completely agree about the failed activation mechanism, especially in larger multiplayer games.  The Rampant variant The Men Who Would Be Kings allows you to attempt to order all your units, which I prefer.

[guitarheroandy]

With Dragon Rampant, we cut the 3" down to 2" (makes a surprising difference) and have a tweak to activation thus: You only end your turn on a failed unit activation if you have:
a) already failed two activations (i.e. this is your third fail) or
b) already activated 3 units successfully and fail an activation roll

This works very well in our experience, as it still forces you to think about which order you want to activate units in but means that a few crappy dice rolls don't mess up your whole game. We also play with 36 points on a 6 x 4 table as we find 24 too limiting when using magic and fantastical rules...

[Hobgoblin]

I used to have no problem at all with the Dragon Rampant activation system; it always seemed to balance out. Recently, though, a few of us played a four-player game using the "Xenos Rampant" sci-fi hack. That uses the free activations from The Men Who Would Be Kings, except for straight DR units (primitive infantry, warbeasts, etc.). One player was playing an army entirely composed of such troops and failed three activations in a row. So we gave him three automatic successes to use. In retrospect, we should have given all his troops a free Move activation. I'd agree with James Morris that it's a much bigger problem in multiplayer games than in one-on-one games, where failed activations just add a bit of unpredictability.

Having played a few games of TMWWBK over the holidays, I do think it's probably a better system overall. I like how it puts the emphasis on the qualities of unit leaders, and the one-die-one-man system is more elegant than the simpler DR half-strength rule, as it allows for variable unit strengths. Also, the rallying rules are a bit more heroic - and so just as well suited for fantasy games: more last stands and heroic actions in the face of overwhelming odds.

[General Lee]

Hi guys no offence but this thread is about Oathmark, not Dragon Rampant

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Thing is - we don't know squat about the rules yet, right? That makes it really hard being 'into it'.
And the figures range has pretty much nothing to do with the rules except for a logo on the box. I really dig the minis, but that's about it so far. Hoping for a nice game as well. I'll wait and see. So far all we know (as far as I read at least) is some ads for future releases in 2020.

[Harry von Fleischmann]

Frankly, I was very excited by the idea of Oathmark. The relative lack of information means that for me at least, the impetus and interest has gone and my Oathmark figures based up for a home brew fantasy version of “Mortal Gods”......

[seldon]

Personally I’m looking forward  to it .. eagerly  !

[jetengine]

I'll give it a go. I've got several model agnostic fantasy rule sets so anothers not a stretch

[M.O.T.N]

I'll give it a go. I've got several model agnostic fantasy rule sets so anothers not a stretch

I'm in the same boat.