Oathmark - Who's Playing?

[BZ]

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.

[BZ]

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).

[Ogrob]

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.

[BZ]

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.

[Neunfinger]

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.

[BZ]

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.

[Ogrob]

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.

[zirconi]

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

[Ogrob]

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.

[BZ]

I like round bases because of their versatility, but if you are into square bases, go for it.

[sir_shvantselot]

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

[Coenus Scaldingus]

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!

[Macunaima]

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?

[Mr. White]

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...

[BZ]

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).