Oathmark - Who's Playing?

[Ogrob]

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.

[SotF]

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?

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.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

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.

[BZ]

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.

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.

[BZ]

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:

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...

[Historiker]

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/

[Mr. White]

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

[BZ]

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!

[Ultravanillasmurf]

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.

[Mr. White]

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.

[mruk]

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!

[BZ]

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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?

[Historiker]

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:



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.

[Mr. White]

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?