Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Johanxp wrote:
Removal doesn't sound stupid to me. It is exactly what happens in a battle.

Exactly, one of the reasons I do not play KoW is that there is no removal. I am happy that both Oathmark and Conquest have that mechanic.

 Easy E wrote:

Soulless wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
A solid review. I personally can't get too excited by Oathmark as it just seems like there is nothing interesting or new in it.

I feel like WHFB (insert preferred edition) would do the exact same job and this is essentially a re-skin. There is nothing wrong with that, and indeed in this current world that makes a lot of sense financially.

What do I know. I am pretty convinced that I have no idea what people want to play anyway.

Ive not played WHFB so cant comment on that but from what I know about it, Oathmark seems to deliver some newish concepts I dont think was ever a part of Warhammer fantasy.
Alternating activations, the uncertainity of activation, how activating a unit can affect its performance for the rest of the round, how combat from one side forces the defending unit to become activated. Lots of cool little things tied to the activation system!
Also, no random movement or charges makes activation even more important.
Hard to tell this early but it doesnt seem as if any units or characters are overly powerful but then again the lists arent as diverse and varied as WHFB. Same goes for magic.

I dunno, as mentioned previously I almost find Oathmark to be more similar to Warmaster than any other game.

Of course there are some new additions to the rules, but just not enough for me to get excited about. I just can't shake the feeling that there is not a strong enough "hook" for this game to help it last the test of time in a crowded field. If feels like mashing WHFB and Dragon Rampant together from what I have seen. Perhaps sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of Osprey and Northstar will prove me wrong.

Plus, in my old age I really think model removal is stupid. It took me years to paint the damn things, let me use them for the whole flipping game!

I dont think it will make much stirr in the community, Ospray games dont seem to do that outside of Bolt Action. So its never gonna be a new Warhammer or replace KoW etc.
But it looks like it might be popular enough to stay around and the dedicated model line will expand at least somewhat so thats good!

Good game or not is all subjective, personally though this game is far more interesting than warhammer, ice and fire or kings of war and even just by reading the rules I know I would enjoy it far more than any of those other games. But still Im not sure I wanna invest too much time into a game ill likely be alone about where I live.

Model removal makes perfect sense and means less clutter on the board so I much prefer it

But still Im not sure I wanna invest too much time into a game ill likely be alone about where I live.

Understandable. And also why 40k and AOS will always dominate. People may hate the rules but they know they can get a game in. The good games can't catch on because its hard to get people to move away from what everyone else is playing.

Its like a nuclear reactor. It feeds itself.

Around Frostgrave a great community was born. And a great number of supplements where made. Oathmark can meet the same success. They do not need to compete with GW's games to be great and successful.

That is true. However if you live in an area where people refuse to play anything but GW games, it becomes a problem for you because you have no one to play against.

How about turning the fantasy timeline back before the domestication of the horse?

Thus, I am curious how Oathmark plays without cavalry as I would like my fantasy to be about infantry, spellcasters, and monsters.

Any such insight about or experience from Oathmark games without cavalry?

 auticus wrote:
That is true. However if you live in an area where people refuse to play anything but GW games, it becomes a problem for you because you have no one to play against.

Damn, you must live in such a sad place... I'm sorry


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Humanoid wrote:
How about turning the fantasy timeline back before the domestication of the horse?

Thus, I am curious how Oathmark plays without cavalry as I would like my fantasy to be about infantry, spellcasters, and monsters.

Any such insight about or experience from Oathmark games without cavalry?

In FB's Oathmark players page I remember I read some BR where only infantry was on the battlefield. It was a link to a blog, Google may help.

Thanks for your nice review.

Honestly, I'm surprised how much Oathmark looks like the custom system I was slowly homebrewing. And that's an excellent news to me, I can't wait to try it out.
It checks so many of my boxes :

Simple and clean

Races are not factions

Commanders are not champions and vice versa

Alternate activation

After reading the book, I love every part of it so far. Except maybe some strange tings in the units profile, but they are simple enough so anyone can make his own homebrew and play with wathever he has.
And I love the "dark age fantasy" vibe it has.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Removal doesn't sound stupid to me. It is exactly what happens in a battle.

Exactly, one of the reasons I do not play KoW is that there is no removal. I am happy that both Oathmark and Conquest have that mechanic.

I honestly, truly, do not understand the whole “because I don’t remove models, I won’t play KoW” mindset. But, if nothing else, you do realize that you can track hits to units in KoW by removing models, as long as you keep the base the unit is on the same, right? Two hits on a regiment? Remove two models from the regiment vice putting down two pips on a die or using a wound tracker, etc? Simple and lets you remove models if that’s the dealbreaker.

I mean I certainly understand if someone doesn’t like KoW. There’s no set of rules that\’ll make everyone happy, but to say one won’t play it because model removal isn’t written into the rules simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Valete,

JohnS

It took me a while to get used to not removing models. And I don't think I could stomach it in Sci-fi or any skirmishing game in 28mm. Although it is of course completely normal at 6mm and even 15mm to just remove full stands of dudes.

But in a regiment game I absolutely love it. For one, a regiment's killing power is concentrated in the front rank, so dudes in the back are only wound counters anyway and contribue nothing to gameplay, unlike in Sci-fi where everybody has their own gun.

Secondly... it's just soooooooooo much easier to transport and deploy. You only have like 10 discrete models to take out of your case and plop down. If you magnetize them, you can carry 2000 pts in like two shoeboxes worth of space and you don't lose space on, well, spacing between individual models.

Anyway I don't hate Oathmark or anything, I'd try it if all my stuff weren't multibased already. I am only a bit disappointed by the limited scope of units based on a meager and slowly growing model line.

 cygnnus wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Removal doesn't sound stupid to me. It is exactly what happens in a battle.

Exactly, one of the reasons I do not play KoW is that there is no removal. I am happy that both Oathmark and Conquest have that mechanic.

I honestly, truly, do not understand the whole “because I don’t remove models, I won’t play KoW” mindset. But, if nothing else, you do realize that you can track hits to units in KoW by removing models, as long as you keep the base the unit is on the same, right? Two hits on a regiment? Remove two models from the regiment vice putting down two pips on a die or using a wound tracker, etc? Simple and lets you remove models if that’s the dealbreaker.

I mean I certainly understand if someone doesn’t like KoW. There’s no set of rules that\’ll make everyone happy, but to say one won’t play it because model removal isn’t written into the rules simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Valete,

JohnS

I wrote ''one of the reasons'' not a sole reason. IGOUGO is a big one too. Also its fluff is so bad it is almost AOS level.

I gotta say, the not removing models is not *the* dealbreaker for me, but is symptomatic of one - to me it speaks to a level and degree of design streamlining, simplification, and abstraction that I don't really enjoy in my wargames. Thats not to say I don't enjoy or value streamlining, simplification, or abstraction, just that I think Kings of War goes too far in that regards. At 28mm scale I prefer games where each mini is a discrete entity (which may or may not function as part of an organized unit) - if I'm going to treat an entire base as a unit then I'd rather play 15mm or smaller.

Thanks for the review, I am keen to try out Oathmark, as it does seem to have a few interesting rules.

My current go to games for fantasy are Kings of War, and Age of Fantasy Regiments. While Kings of War is a solid rule set, the lack of alternative activations does keep the game stuck in an old tradition of game design. Age of Fantasy Regiments does have alternative activations, and also is streamlined enough to be a very quick system.

If I wasn't already enjoying KoW so much I would be all over Oathmark. Would play it if there was a group near me though.
What is the base size per model? My lose models are on 20mm squares.

Testing to activate puts me off though. Counting models for combat and removing them isn't appealing either.

Johanxp wrote:
Removal doesn't sound stupid to me. It is exactly what happens in a battle. This is not Aos or wh40h where entire units are whipped out in a turn.

Not quite. Soldiers do not actually fight to the last man, they break and get out long before that. A dichotomous combat effective or not is not unreasonable

cygnnus wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Removal doesn't sound stupid to me. It is exactly what happens in a battle.

Exactly, one of the reasons I do not play KoW is that there is no removal. I am happy that both Oathmark and Conquest have that mechanic.

I honestly, truly, do not understand the whole “because I don’t remove models, I won’t play KoW” mindset. But, if nothing else, you do realize that you can track hits to units in KoW by removing models, as long as you keep the base the unit is on the same, right? Two hits on a regiment? Remove two models from the regiment vice putting down two pips on a die or using a wound tracker, etc? Simple and lets you remove models if that’s the dealbreaker.

I mean I certainly understand if someone doesn’t like KoW. There’s no set of rules that\’ll make everyone happy, but to say one won’t play it because model removal isn’t written into the rules simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Valete,

JohnS

Agreed. In my experience, it's probably more than that though. People often cite just one thing about a game like that to be polite or just efficient. Instead of bashing your game they just give a single excise.
For example: I usually just say that the regicide autowin mechanic in Warmahordes puts me off, but there are a bunch of other reasons I don't want to play too.

auticus wrote:That is true. However if you live in an area where people refuse to play anything but GW games, it becomes a problem for you because you have no one to play against

That is sad. I have beenern surprised by gaming groups near me that I have not idea existed though. It's very possible that there are other games, the players just don't hang around GW, or don't bring up not GW around the GW fans.
Alternatively, it's also likely that there is a community's worth of players who all think that noone else will play a certain game so don't try.

 DarkBlack wrote:
What is the base size per model? My lose models are on 20mm squares.

Infantry 25mm, cavalry etc. 25x50mm, ogres etc. 50x50, giants etc. 50x100mm, artillery 50x100mm (although ballista is on 50x50mm) but the crew are on their separate infantry bases.

 DarkBlack wrote:
If I wasn't already enjoying KoW so much I would be all over Oathmark. Would play it if there was a group near me though.
What is the base size per model? My lose models are on 20mm squares.

Testing to activate puts me off though. Counting models for combat and removing them isn't appealing either.

25mm but since most units will use movement trays you could just make /buy trays the correct size, (125x25,50,75,100).

Testing to activate can be harsh but most of the times youll succeed and even when you dont you still get to activate but with restrictions. If you fail you can still make a single move (but not into contact/charge), maneuver or shooting attack (with tohit penalty).

Not being able to initiate melee is a huge deal though! But i love this mechanic! And makes captains and champions so important.

Counting models isnt really a thing, your front rank width decides your number of dice to a maximum of 5, which means you will almost always roll 5 dice for attacks.

Command & Control is such a very rare element in wargames these days, though was a crucial part of all battles.

 auticus wrote:
Command & Control is such a very rare element in wargames these days, though was a crucial part of all battles.

I agree with this 100%.

Many players prefer that their tiny men do exactly what they want them to do every time. As a game, i understand the impulse. However, I prefer a game to exhibit some of that Clausewitzian "Friction" that I have to overcome as a commander. I know this is not a "popular" idea.

Like I said, I am pretty sure I have no idea what other people actually want to play in a game.

heh you and I are on the same wavelength.

Thats why I loved warmaster yet a lot of people I know hate it. Because they raged when they'd fail a command roll and couldn't move their unit because their orders failed to get to their men.

For me I want the battle in a wargame to simulate what it would feel like to actually be on the battlefield.

 auticus wrote:
heh you and I are on the same wavelength.

Thats why I loved warmaster yet a lot of people I know hate it. Because they raged when they'd fail a command roll and couldn't move their unit because their orders failed to get to their men.

it is a negative play experience, so if your aim is making a game that is meant o be fun and popular (that gives at least a sense of the outcome being down to skill) then it's not good design.

For me I want the battle in a wargame to simulate what it would feel like to actually be on the battlefield.

Then I recommend that you play historical wargames, realism has a much higher priority in historical games.

Command and control is a great aspect to add to games. It can be a way to highlight that not all characters are beat sticks, some have their strength in being able to command.

I used to really enjoy Warmaster back in the late 90's. Sadly it didn't take off with GW's customers. The way Oathmark treats a failed command check seems like a very good compromise. I've played a lot of Dragon Rampant and that can have a big issue where players don't do anything for a period of time. If handled well, a command and control element adds a lot to a system.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 auticus wrote:
heh you and I are on the same wavelength.

Thats why I loved warmaster yet a lot of people I know hate it. Because they raged when they'd fail a command roll and couldn't move their unit because their orders failed to get to their men.

it is a negative play experience, so if your aim is making a game that is meant o be fun and popular (that gives at least a sense of the outcome being down to skill) then it's not good design.

For me I want the battle in a wargame to simulate what it would feel like to actually be on the battlefield.

Then I recommend that you play historical wargames, realism has a much higher priority in historical games.

'

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - no I pretty much strongly disagree with that. Any game can accomplish this. There is nothing written that says historical wargames are the only place for this type of thing. And we have fantasy versions that use command and control. Warmaster. And now Oathmark uses it as well. Which for me is a good thing. There is finally more games out that cater to someone like me. I consider almost every modern fantasy game out today as a negative play experience for me. Horrible balance. Wombo combo list building. Oathmark I think nails it pretty well for what I'm after whcih doesn't surprise me because reading Joe's blogs and hearing his thoughts, he approaches wargames almost identically to me and that shows in his game design.

Saying its not good design is not really fair. Its not good design - for you. It won't be fun and popular - for people like you. And thats fair enough. AOS is fun and popular. And I consider it the worst wargame ever written in the history of wargames. Because its bad design for people like me. (as an example)

As a longtime collector and player of wargames I can say that psychology, morale, command and control, leadership, etc. are major factors in a majority of wargames, including those outside of the historical arena. GWs games traditionally under-represent these aspects, as do a couple of the other "popular" games out there that most people are familiar with, but these games are literally just a minority tip-of-the-iceberg within the industry. For every game you've heard of, there are hundreds more that you haven't (which is unfortunate because some of them are really damned good, though quite a lot of them are nothing special/obvious ripoffs of the GW "engine", and others are only really fascinating from the standpoint of a mechanical/systems design study but otherwise crap games).

Dragon Rampant also features some command and control. However, if I really want to get crazy, an "activation" roll is not my favorite Command and Control mechanic.

I prefer some sort of resource pool that diminishes as you use it. Warmaster is closer with their push your luck system, but resource pools are even better in my mind. That way, you know a few critical things can happen, BUT at the cost of other things; and you have to decided then what is "critical".

Now I am rambling about design. The essential thing as a designer is that you need to know what you are trying to achieve and pick the best tool for the job.

I think I will try to pick this up eventually and see how it goes.

auticus wrote:There is nothing written that says historical wargames are the only place for this type of thing.

Not what I was saying. My point was that it is common in historical wargames, therefore a player like you might want to check out some historical wargaming.

Saying its not good design is not really fair. Its not good design - for you. It won't be fun and popular - for people like you.

The point is that it is not good design if you are trying to achieve what I described; i.e. make a popular game.

Easy E wrote:Dragon Rampant also features some command and control. However, if I really want to get crazy, an "activation" roll is not my favorite Command and Control mechanic.

I prefer some sort of resource pool that diminishes as you use it. Warmaster is closer with their push your luck system, but resource pools are even better in my mind. That way, you know a few critical things can happen, BUT at the cost of other things; and you have to decided then what is "critical".

Activation rolls can feel bad very quickly. DBx games (a major brand of historical rules) and derivatives have a PIP system, where you have a limited number of order to give. Which is much more engaging IMO, it give a hard decision rather than "nope not that move".
Infinity and Kings of War Vanguard have resource control mechanics too, but those are skirmish games.

The essential thing as a designer is that you need to know what you are trying to achieve and pick the best tool for the job.

Exactly

Cool. I play hail caesar and warmaster ancients, so have a good grasp on historicals. I prefer fantasy games though over historicals, and would like some of those mechanics in fantasy games because my preference are those type of games.

The point is that it is not good design if you are trying to achieve what I described; i.e. make a popular game.

That presumes that what interests you and what you like are what make a popular game though. I don't see oathmark's command system as being overly oppressive that its bad game design.

One could argue warmaster's was because it was all or nothing, and I'd partially agree with that statement. Oathmark makes it so you can at least do something if you fail.

Feel bads are going to be different for different people right?

For me, setting up an army and having it annihilated in one turn because of horrifying balance is a feel-bad, but that comes straight out of the playbook of both of GW's flagship games that are very popular.

 auticus wrote:

There is nothing written that says historical wargames are the only place for this type of thing. And we have fantasy versions that use command and control. Warmaster. And now Oathmark uses it as well.

Could you please explain to me what is the "command and control" part of Oathmark. Thus, with "command and control" being a compound term, what is the "command" and what is the "control" in Oathmark?

Humanoid wrote:

 auticus wrote:

There is nothing written that says historical wargames are the only place for this type of thing. And we have fantasy versions that use command and control. Warmaster. And now Oathmark uses it as well.

Could you please explain to me what is the "command and control" part of Oathmark. Thus, with "command and control" being a compound term, what is the "command" and what is the "control" in Oathmark?

I know nothing about historical games but I guess "C&C" just refers to the uncertainty of a unit doing exactly what you want it to.
In oathmark, for example, when you activate a unit you make an "activation roll" which usually succeeds but if failed will limit what that unit can do that turn.

It offers another layer of strategy to the game to try and mitigate the uncertainty of control. If you dont know exactly what your units will be able to do, you have to play them with that in mind.

Yeah. command and Control is a term for the part of battle where you have to successfully command your units and have control over what is happening.

In most modern games, you have 100% command and control. You issue orders that are always followed 100%. You have godlike knowledge of the battlefield at all times, and everything does exactly what you want at all times.

Games that employ C&C elements make it so you don't have godlike knowledge over the battlefield and that your commands may not be followed to the letter, or at all. And you have to plan for that.

Just got my book yesterday and have been enjoying it. This morning I’ve been in my hobby closet looking for all those cool fantasy kits I’ve bought that I just thought looked cool. Never enough to make a whole army but now, with oathmark faction rules...I might be onto something. Reaper, Fireforge, GW, nolzur’s, everything is fair game!

Rules seem to feel right. Would have liked undead to be in the core book races but meh. Just seems lke it’s going to be a fun playground. I don’t really care about official background so the generic fantasy approach I can dig.