|
Forum > Fantasy Adventures
Four questions for Oathmark players
<< < (3/3)
fred:
--- Quote from: Ogrob on September 14, 2020, 08:38:39 PM ---If you want to tinker with ranges, of course you can tinker with figure size. Oathmark uses invididual casualty removal as each rank of five makes the unit stronger in a fight, but it should play exactly the same with the same proportion of range to frontage.
--- End quote ---
Thanks - it sounds like you want to at least be able to remove ranks - you could track losses within a rank with a wound dice. Which while doable in a smaller scale, starts to sound a bit fiddly. Its always good to know which games are element based, therefore very adaptable to different scales, vs ones that are figure based.
Historiker:
--- Quote from: Elbows on September 14, 2020, 08:47:25 PM ---Also, if you're into smaller games, maybe Dragon Rampant would be worth a look as well. Much looser rules, not quite as technical - but can be played at any number of scales/sizes, etc. I'd imagine it's not as deep as Oathmark in some respects (particularly campaigns, etc.)
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the tip! A fellow player indeed has been mentioning Lion Rampant at times and I guess Dragon Rampant is the same... with magic. I will probably end up playing a round at some point but in regards to it being an alternative to Oathmark I would rather prefer the latter. Some reasons for this being entirely irrational, for example me having missed the heyday of Warhammer Fantasy Battles (had too many other hobbies at the time and only returned to tabletop gaming the last couple of years) and now wanting to participate in a ruleset just starting out!
On top of that I think that Osprey and Northstar are very committed to excellent production quality with the Oathmark line and I jus till looking at the illustrations and miniature design.
@fred:
Due to the aforementioned small table I briefly considered scaling it down to a different miniature size but in the end the current official designs and the prospect of having more great stuff down the line made me decide to instead "shrink" the game slightly by using the 20mm bases.
andresf:
--- Quote from: Ultravanillasmurf on September 14, 2020, 06:50:05 PM ---I think "30 figures" is a points value (but do not start from Elves, that can be equivalent to 75 goblin infantry)!
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "" ---Yes the "30 figures per side" was probably more of a description of the game at warband level with the actual figure count for a given points value is vastly different from faction to faction.
--- End quote ---
Sorry for the reply to a REALLY old thread, but I found this while asking myself these very same questions from the first post.
If the above quotes are correct, then Osprey was misleading. They actually mean number of models, without scaling for effectiveness or anything. They literally mention "the number that comes in one box of plastic Oathmark Dwarf, Goblin, Elf, or Human Infantry"! So no points, but actual models. They do mention players will want to graduate to larger armies, but they truly imply the game is playable with 30 models to a side of those particular factions.
Is this not accurate?
Major_Gilbear:
--- Quote from: andresf on June 21, 2022, 06:02:51 PM ---Sorry for the reply to a REALLY old thread, but I found this while asking myself these very same questions from the first post.
If the above quotes are correct, then Osprey was misleading. They actually mean number of models, without scaling for effectiveness or anything. They literally mention "the number that comes in one box of plastic Oathmark Dwarf, Goblin, Elf, or Human Infantry"! So no points, but actual models. They do mention players will want to graduate to larger armies, but they truly imply the game is playable with 30 models to a side of those particular factions.
Is this not accurate?
--- End quote ---
I mean, it's playable if you buy one box of Troops models... But not necessarily very representative of what more typical games would be like.
I think as mentioned above, it depends on the points values of the two sides as well. Dwarfs vs Elves is okay as they are both quite expensive in terms of points, and having small units on each side can be workable in a pinch. Humans vs Undead is generally okay-ish too, if a bit stilted. But Goblins do have rather low stats and points for anything like a fun matchup against any other 30 models, although you could have two Goblin armies fight each other? Also, if you keep in mind minimum unit sizes, 30 models may not mean many units per side, which makes any tactical manoeuvring efforts pretty dull.
So yeah. Not really misleading as such, but also probably a bit too optimistic in terms of producing anything that have much longevity game-wise.
My own rule of thumb is 3 boxes of Troops and 1 of Cav is a minimum for most races, but Goblins will need more like 4-5 Troops + 3 Cav (or 4 Troops + 2 Cav if you add in Orcs or similar heavier units). I would also point out that if you use the kingdom builder to mix units (like you're supposed to), then what you could end up buying at the start could vary a lot, and the 30 models a side might just about work out!
jauntyharrison:
At the moment I'm liking 1500 pt games more than the reportedly "average" 2000 pts according to the rulebook. 1500 puts enough on the table to feel tactically satisfying, but cuts the playtime down a bit, because I've noticed Oathmark runs longer than sorts of games I'm usually into. At 1500 points, the smallest figure count warband that I run is 60, so that'd be two boxes. More often, 1500 points is going to mean about 80 figures from me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
|