Oathmark in 10mm?

[TheGamingArtisan]

Trying to dig a bit into whether or not I can use 10mm miniatures that are based for games like Warmaster (20mmx40mm) for this system.

Am guessing it would just be a case of obvious scaling down and am guessing just a case of keeping track of wounds rather than removing models?

If any Oathmark fans and players could give me some advice before I go off and buy the rulebooks, I'd be very thankful

[Hobgoblin]

It shouldn't be hard at all. The easiest way to do it would be to treat each base as five full figures. So a 20-strong unit would be four bases deep. You'd need to track casualties 'between' and 'below' the fives, but that's simple enough (five-bar gates on the roster sheet).

[BZ]

I join to Hobgoblin. If you treat a 40x20mm unit as a 5x4 strong unit (maximum size for human sized footsoldiers), scale down everything (theoretically 1/3, but maybe I would go with 1/2), and track the soldiers number in the unit somehow (sheet, or a D20), it shoudnt be a big problem. The unit width and depth are only really important in rare cases (for example charge distance), but that should be handeld in non-competitive circumstances without problem.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

I can see no reason why not.

Are you choosing 10mm to make your armies smaller, or because you like 10mm?

You could use 25mm square bases for each Oathmark "figure" and put a comfortable number of 10mm figures on each.

Rescaling frontage/movement/depth for 10mm scale might work.

[fred]

I’ve used WM based figures for a number of rules - keeping the relative unit base size equivalent seems to be key

From what is said above, it sounds like an Oathmark unit is 5x4 figures, so I assume 100mm by 80mm, so nearly square.

As such I’d probably make a unit from two WM bases, giving a unit footprint of 40x40mm, and use half distances. You would also get very similiar numbers of figures to an Oathmark unit. The only pain is you would have to track up to 9 wounds before removing a base.  The other advantage of this is you get 50% more units from your Warmaster army!

[Hobgoblin]

Oathmark infantry units can be any size up to 20 but always have a frontage of five (assuming five or more troops). So I think one Warmaster base per five troops is the way to go. Or, if you've got plenty of bases, you could use two units to make up the full frontage.

Either way, if you have the rear ranks represented by additional bases, you'll still get the visual sense of attrition, even if you're only removing a base for every five casualties.

It's worth noting, too, that although the Oathmark rules claim a 1:1 figure scale, they play as if there's a 1:20 (or similar) ratio involved. So using a few Warmaster bases per unit will fit perfectly well, as would a two-base frontage (which would give you the central division to act as the 'officer' for measurement and manoeuvre purposes).

[Coenus Scaldingus]

One wide and four bases deep doesn't seem very aesthetically attractive, that would make the unit twice as deep as it is wide. 1x2 or 2x4 would give nice neat squares though. (2x3 would also look good, but doesn't seem as practical based on the provided info).

How many individual units would make for a good game in Oathmark? Is it interesting with just a few moving elements, or is it better to have dozen or more? Currently planning a new 10mm project myself too, hoping to cover a reasonable range of game systems...

[Ogrob]

Our last game of 2500 points me and my opponent had 10-12 activations at the start of the game. Two-three of those were war machines or individual spellcasters, and the rest in units. I think anything less than 5-6 units would be quite dull.

[Hobgoblin]

One wide and four bases deep doesn't seem very aesthetically attractive, that would make the unit twice as deep as it is wide. 1x2 or 2x4 would give nice neat squares though. (2x3 would also look good, but doesn't seem as practical based on the provided info).

It's worth remembering that 'true' (i.e. 28mm) Oathmark units come in various sizes (typically 5 to 20 - so one to four ranks). I think a frontage of two bases would work best aesthetically. All manoeuvring in the game is done around the 'officer' (the central figure in the front rank), so having a 'seam' between the two front-rank bases would provide a useful centre point.

So that would give you units of 2 bases (five 'troops'), 2 x 2 (10), 2 x 3 (15) and 2 x 4 (a full unit of 20 - so an 80mm square).

[pieface paul]

Here is a thread about a bloke doing Warhammer Fantasy in 10mm. It might give you some ideas.https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/jumping-on-the-10mm-wfb-bandwagon/
He is using individual bases on movement trays.
Looks great.

[fred]

It's worth remembering that 'true' (i.e. 28mm) Oathmark units come in various sizes (typically 5 to 20 - so one to four ranks). I think a frontage of two bases would work best aesthetically. All manoeuvring in the game is done around the 'officer' (the central figure in the front rank), so having a 'seam' between the two front-rank bases would provide a useful centre point.

So that would give you units of 2 bases (five 'troops'), 2 x 2 (10), 2 x 3 (15) and 2 x 4 (a full unit of 20 - so an 80mm square).

We did Kings of War with 2 x Warmaster units equaling a regiment. Which was 2 wide and 3 deep, this look good, but you did need a lot of figures. But if you have the figures go for it!

[pieface paul]

I found another bloke doing fantasy battles in 10mm.
https://www.the-ninth-age.com/community/index.php?thread/23978-minihammer-10mm-portable-adventures-in-the-ninth-age/&pageNo=1
I could fancy doing this myself.

[TheGamingArtisan]

Thanks everyone, safe to say I've ordered the core rules to give it a try. Thanks again! 

[Ogrob]

If nothing else the core rules are worth it for the kingdom building and campaign structure I think.

[TheGamingArtisan]

If nothing else the core rules are worth it for the kingdom building and campaign structure I think.

Yeah, am really interested to see how that all works. I loved building a base in Frostgrave