Oathmark: is it any good?

[Antonio J Carrasco]

Hi

While my main interest are historicals I am of the mind to collect some Fantasy armies. I am curious about Oathmark, as its mix of fantasy and historical look is most appealing to me. Can anyone tell me more about how it plays, how many models make a playable army, ecc? Would it be possible to adapt models from other manufacturers? -I still have a few odds and ends from the times when I played Warhammer and I would like to use them, if possible-. Finally, are the rules available for purchase in digital form? (I try to avoid printed rulesets).

[Ogrob]

It plays quite nice and quick for a rank and flank game. Players take turns activating units, so no long stretches of waiting. Combat and shooting is resolved in a single dice roll (no armour saves for example), so fairly quick.

You can use a lot of different models sure, but not everything. There are no rules for gunpowder or big machines for example.

I think you can buy the rules on Osprey's page, but not sure. Should be easy to find.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

It plays quite nice and quick for a rank and flank game. Players take turns activating units, so no long stretches of waiting. Combat and shooting is resolved in a single dice roll (no armour saves for example), so fairly quick.

You can use a lot of different models sure, but not everything. There are no rules for gunpowder or big machines for example.

I think you can buy the rules on Osprey's page, but not sure. Should be easy to find.

Thanks! Will check Osprey's website. Didn't realize it was published by Osprey!

[Pijlie]

I have some thoughts about it. Most of the very positive.

You can read them here:

https://pijlieblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/oathmark-review.html

[zemjw]

It's available on Amazon in Kindle format. I think Osprey offer pdf and epub, so you should have plenty of choice.

[Tim Haslam]

Yup, and an easy convert to historical gaming too.
So just as WAB sprang from WFB, it’s possible to it with Oathmark.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

My thoughts: https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2020/08/oathmark-review.html

As stated above, human size figures are five figures per rank with a maximum of four ranks (20 figures). Maximum of five dice per unit (additional ranks increase the chance that an individual die scores one or more hits).

Probably minimum number of figures is about forty, saying that, this is a "minimum points" Elf Ranger army.

Yup, and an easy convert to historical gaming too.

Definitely, there are a few missing unit types (pikes, human slingers, skirmishers in general).

Historical (well at least until I have stated up some Greek critters...), though the above are Elite Warriors (ie Elf Warrior stats)

It is keeping me busy: https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Oathmark

[BZ]

It feels like a streamlined, fast to play WFHB. We done 500-2500 battles (30-100 units per side), it works fine for these sizes. The others posted already very good reviews about it.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I have some thoughts about it. Most of the very positive.

You can read them here:

https://pijlieblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/oathmark-review.html

Great review! It has convinced me! I was looking for something like what you describe. Thanks!!

[Pijlie]

Great review! It has convinced me! I was looking for something like what you describe. Thanks!!

 

[Pijlie]

I amended my blog by the way with some thoughts on artillery. Something especially interesting for people who would want to use Oathmark for historical gaming, but also for Fantasy players who perhaps are a bit overly stuck in de medieval mold.

"EDIT March 16th 2021
Some words about artillery. Having played a number of games I have noticed, as have others, the effectiveness of artillery. And not only catapults and such but long-range magic as well. When playing a slow moving army on an open plain (a really classic setup after all) against an Artillery- and Magic rich army your army will be severely held up and weakened along the way, only to be massacred when finally in contact. Artillery is very effective, especially in combination with artillery-enhancing or -replacing spells.

This not a fault IMO. Rather it forces you to play accordingly and choose your tactics and battlefield better. You will need screening units and cover against long-range fire. Gaming tables will need -and feature- surprising amounts of terrain after a while.

Playing Oathmark is in that respect actually more like late 19th century warfare than Ancient or Medieval.

In a world of magically enhanced artillery, no general worth his salt would consider advancing slowly over an open plain. The results would be predictably disastrous. And in Oathmark, they are. So take note. This is Fantasy wargaming after all! "

[BZ]

I can agree partially. In Oathmark there are more unit typed, that can be overwhelming, but they have disadvantages, which balance them:
- Artillery can be damage-dealer on open plains, but its very vulnerable to every attack.
-Heavy cavalry has a dreadful charge, and very high armor, but its very expensive.
- Monsters can be almost unstoppable, but theyre also very expensive.
Interestingly, I didnt feel magic that strong, which I like!
Yes, a general has to be prepared against every possibility, but we still use a house rule, that minimum 40% of the armys point value must be spent on footoldiers (50% was too much for goblins, but maybe we will allow them wolfriders as base choice next time). I would recommend such rule for everybody, because playing with a balanced army against a bunch of enormous monsters is not that fun...