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.

Got my oath mark ruleset in the mail today! I've been waiting for this one for a long long while and I got to read it tonight in some depth. I have to say, Joe (the author) seems very very close to me in game design theory and what he wants and this book basically illustrates that point by point.

Oathmark is Osprey's version of WHFB and Warmaster. Pointblank. Its WHFB and Warmaster only with a D10 instead of a D6.

So here are some highlights of the system. Kevin Nash has been playing this so if I screw something up Kevin please correct me.

+ d10 based - awesome. Gives better range of values

+ charts that give +1 and -1 modifiers. Taking advantage of those d10 values. The downside is people who don't like math or having to remember values will hate this (this was a barrier of entry listed by games workshop for why they created age of sigmar and the simplified 40k)

+ pure alt activation system. I activate a unit, then you activate a unit.

+ when activating a unit you must roll a command roll to do something with the unit, just like warmaster. Unlike warmaster, if you fail you can still do simple actions so you aren't totally boned. Command and control are big things in this.

+terrain matters. it can hinder you and slow you down. you can't just fire and target units through forests. If you move over broken ground you will be slower.

+ combat has pushback just like warmaster. So the more you beat down a unit, the further you drive it backward.

+ square based with standard base sizes. One model is the "officer" (leader).

+ shooting ranges are smaller. Joe's attempt at making fantasy napoleonics not something that was big in whfb.

+ Must target the closest unit to shoot at barring special rules or huge units like giants.

+ morale for shooting as you would expect (unlike conquest)

+ only one character per unit and you assign that at beginning of game. You cannot leave that unit. If you start a character solo they stay solo all game. No bs deathstars with units crammed with characters mega blob belly slapping in the middle of the table.

+ basic and advanced rules, so you can go as detailed or not as you like.

+ can split units into two, or merge two identical units into one unit (so if you have a damaged unit you can absorb it into an identical unit)

+ narrative rules that add narrative effects and events to battles. Similar to mighty empires or some of my old campaigns like Azyr Empires.

+ rules to build a kingdom that affect what you can choose.

CONS
Build the world now Joe. Its generic, give us some more detailed lists and get us some flavor, and get into those campaign rules. I expect that since he did great with Frostgrave.

How I rank it to other fantasy games I've played over the last 25 years or so.

I give Oathmark a 7 out of 10.

Games rated 1 - 3 are games I consider bad and require heavy modification for me to enjoy.
Games rated 4-6 are games that I feel have a solid core but need house or event rules to tweak bad balance or rules wonkiness.
Games rated 7+ are games that I felt stood awesome on their own and retained player attention over the years.

Yes your mileage may vary but I play wargames for the maneuver and command and control aspect, and my review numbers reflect that desire:

Warmaster - 9 / 10 (very strict rolling for activation left a bad taste for some people)

WHFB 6th - 8 / 10 (later edition imbalances)

Conquest - 8 / 10 (shooting into combat w no penalty, initial release balance)

Oathmark - 7 / 10 (build a world now, and build on campaign rules and get us some flavor!)

Kings of War - 7 / 10 (gamist elements like the corkscrew, not removing models can be jarring)

Frostgrave - 6 / 10 (great campaign rules, some bad balance and houserules needed)

Warlords of Erehwon - 6 / 10 (generic setting, solid core, needs flavor)

Middle Earth - 6 / 10 (best modern GW fantasy ruleset, balance issues)

WHFB 7th - 6 / 10 (the army balance starting with demons tore this edition up, death stars, prevalence of most to all cav due to imbalances and core rules favoring charging first)

SAGA Age of Magic - 6 / 10 (good core, needs flavor)

War of the Ring - 6 / 10 (some wonky rules interactions, this was an expansion on the lotr (middle earth) game that could have used a better refined ruleset for mass battles)

Ragnarok - 5 / 10 - balance in the campaign - items that were always taken / never taken - great art - great campaign ideas

WHFB 8th - 5/ 10 (death stars, over crippling magic with no risk, steadfast having no counter ignored maneuver and favored mega blobs)

WHFB 5th - 4 / 10 (death stars, over powered D&D god like heroes, tiny armies based around super heroes made this nothing like advertised as an army battles game)

Dragon Rampant - 3 / 10 (too generic, too simplified, no flavor, too abstract)

Age of Sigmar 2 / 10 (horrific balance, pay to win free summoning, lack of a need for in depth maneuver, focus on wombo comboing, double turn letting players do two whole turns with no response, alpha striking point and click, terrain having little impact on the game, too abstract, highly board gamey feel

Yeah, modifier tables can be a problem to some but they are rather simple, and easy to remember after few games. As to no/almost no background, I think it was the intention from the start given that there is a ''create your own kingdom'' aspect of the rules, and to allow people to use all kind of miniatures, despite having their own range. I also like that, unlike Conquest, shooting matters for morale.
One of things that I really really like is that you never roll more than 5 dice, so no buckets of dice, which in some games could get to really absurd quantities.
There should also be mentioned how cheaply it is to start playing (assuming that a player do not have a collection of fantasy models already). Game is said to scale from 30 to 300 miniatures, and every box of infantry gives you 30 models that can be armed with variety of weapons, plus options for officers/characters. Infantry squad has maximum of 1-20 models (maximum for 1 rank is 5 = 4 ranks for a full squad of 20), which means that a single box can give you for example 3 squads of 10 (either with the same weapons or each squad armed differently). In short you can buy just 1 box and already enjoy the game.
One other interesting thing is that you are not limited to a single race. You can either have a mono race army or mix them under certein conditions.
Anyway the more I read the rulebook the more I like it, and cannot wait for the supplement called Oathbreakers that will introduce forces of the undead. That is already said that for the start there wil be 2 boxes for the undead, which I hope will be skellies and zombies.

I'm surprised you rate Dragon Rampant so low. I as reading it just yesterday and I thought it accomplished everything Erehwon does but at 1/4 the page count.

Those are my personal opinion. Dragon Rampant is wayyyy too simplified for me. I don't find it tactically or strategically engaging at all, on top of it being very vanilla and bland.

Warlords is equally vanilla and bland (which is why I rate it as low as I do) but the mechanics lead to a lot more stimulating games (to me).

For goof off time with toy soldiers, I think Dragon Rampant can be fine. However, I rarely engage with the hobby for that, so thats why it doesn't excite me or engage me.

Same with AOS, some people consider AOS to be the pinnacle of all fantasy gaming.

 auticus wrote:


Same with AOS, some people consider AOS to be the pinnacle of all fantasy gaming.

Really? What are their arguments?

WHFB and Warmaster are two different games that have rank and file in common, which is this more like? and whats the intended scale of Oathmark?

chaos0xomega wrote:
WHFB and Warmaster are two different games that have rank and file in common, which is this more like? and whats the intended scale of Oathmark?

It is supposed to scale well from 30 to 300 minis per side.

chaos0xomega wrote:
WHFB and Warmaster are two different games that have rank and file in common, which is this more like? and whats the intended scale of Oathmark?

It combines rules from both. If you had to say what its more like i'd say WHFB since its the same scale as whfb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Same with AOS, some people consider AOS to be the pinnacle of all fantasy gaming.

Really? What are their arguments?

They like abstraction. They like wombo combos. They like list building to take priority over everything else.

Nice to read a new review about Oathmark. I haven't had a chance to play it at the moment but I'm scanning the rules and I like how simple but effective and smooth they are. It seems the author managed to achieve a good balance between simplicity and tactical depth.
My rate is nearer to 8 than to 7.
I love Oathmark models too!

Ps but hey, Middle-Earth SBG really deserves more, It has a great ruleset nowadays and I can't see real balance problems (it was true in his previous incarnation).

Johanxp wrote:
Nice to read a new review about Oathmark. I haven't had a chance to play it at the moment but I'm scanning the rules and I like how simple but effective and smooth they are. It seems the author managed to achieve a good balance between simplicity and tactical depth.
My rate is nearer to 8 than to 7.
I love Oathmark models too!

Ps but hey, Middle-Earth SBG really deserves more, It has a great ruleset nowadays and I can't see real balance problems (it was true in his previous incarnation).

agreed, MIddle Earth SBG is pretty tight and we love it.

We played it (middle earth) all last summer. It was fun. But had some issues that I really didn't like.

The balance was not tight, I was forced into a certain build to have good games. The harder I'm forced into certain builds the less I tend to like a game. It was not as bad as AOS which forces certain factions and certain builds within that faction, but it was annoying that the force I wanted to use was relatively useless and I had to resort to net-listing a core.

Additionally movement has fiddly things about it that I am not a fan of. Like setting up shield walls, but then having infantry models just move around them and charge the sides to avoid the shield and support. The only way shield walls were useful was to set them up while the opponent's force was far off.

Also its very hero reliant / gets into combo reliance. Hero combos make up a lot of the strategy and tactics. Not as potently as AOS, but enough it makes a big difference.

Those things aren't enough for me to say its a bad game (its the best current fantasy game GW has to date) but thats why I give it the score I do because my score ratings are based off of prioritizing manuever, movement, positioning, and battlefield command and control (and everyone's scoring system will be different, if you head into the AOS forums here several will give AOS 10 / 10 and warhammer and warmaster 1 / 10)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I remember we had similar opinions about the rule set for Conquest and it looks like we have similar thoughts on Oathmark as well. I especially like that failing an activation check doesn’t prevent the unit form doing anything at all. BTW I also disliked Lion/Dragon Rampant.

Yeah - the one thing that nailed warmaster to the wall for a lot of people was that failing the activation in warmaster ended your turn and if you had bad dice you could just sit there doing nothing.

While I personally liked that because it represented command and control pretty well and represented the confusion of war, I can see how it is a bit oppressive - so Oathmark being a little gentler with that is not a bad thing to me.

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.

Close yeah > this takes some good points out of warmaster's playbook and integrates them. WHFB did not have a command and control function, nor does it have things like push back.

WHFB never knows what it wants to be it seems.

5th edition was basically D&D in the warhammer world with its hero hammer.

6th edition was a focus on armies and core troops.

7th edition was a focus on cavalry armies and then breaking the game via demons, VC, and dark elves.

8th was about stupid powerful magic,low risk high reward, and mega blob infantry units.

Each edition of WHFB had its own unique appearance and appeal.

This could definitely qualify as a WHFB 9th edition though!

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

I feel the same way. Or rather often I think I know what they want to play and am dismayed that I am an oddity with the games I enjoy compared to what is commercially successful haha.

Oathmark brings something quite weird to the table, which is the notion of open factions. The implied setting isn’t divided, as with most Tolkien-derived fantasy, along the usual race-stands-in-for-politics lines. In campaign mode, you literally map out your realm and populate it with regions occupied by whatever units you might want to field. So you have an Elf king ruling in the capital but he levies wolf riding Goblins from nearby.

 Manchu wrote:
Oathmark brings something quite weird to the table, which is the notion of open factions. The implied setting isn’t divided, as with most Tolkien-derived fantasy, along the usual race-stands-in-for-politics lines. In campaign mode, you literally map out your realm and populate it with regions occupied by whatever units you might want to field. So you have an Elf king ruling in the capital but he levies wolf riding Goblins from nearby.

I'm sold.

Not sure Oathmark is "simply" a WHFB reskin. Crearly they are both rank'n'file wargames. But I see a certain effort with Oathmark to bring on the table a new and fresh experience, something that is more modern and smooth (even if minis would bring you to think differently but again, I love them!).
The "create your kingdom" rules are really nice and give a certain narrative dept to the game using simple rules that can be used even in a competitive event in my opinion without any problem. And that is a great thing (WHFB big had nothing to do with the competitive scene of that game honestly)...

Got the rulebook and really liking it after reading!

Renedra, who makes the bases for the official minis, also makes correct sized trays for circular bases which wouldbe perfect to use lotr minis

Check the cover for Oathbreakers. Skellies are coming!

I like Oathmark, and I'm itching to give it a try soon. The rules seem basically decent, although movement is a bit too simple - I like the WHFB feel of big units wheeling slowly. Some of the stats feel a little wonky, but I do like the kingdom-building campaign rules.

Overall Warhammer 6th feels richer for me, but Oathmark is a good solid ruleset.

I do love Middle Earth, but the rules in the latest edition have become too "GW" for me. Aura buffs, rerolls and combos make certain heroes must-take.

The game always was about heroes and their retinues, so no complaints from me there, but now it's less about going into glorious, doomed battle with Theoden leading the charge, and more about a package of bonuses.

As for shield walls - outflanking them was a perfectly valid real-world tactic. The question is, how are you going to protect your flanks or anchor your line?

Yes - out flanking them is a valid real-world tactic. However out flanking them in such a trivially easy manner is not enjoyable or satisfying.

It does not represent the flow of battle well at all.

 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.

I'm not super excited about a 4th concurrently available plastic skeleton kit, gonna be honest, and with reasonable expectations that this one will look like it came out 20 years ago.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm not super excited about a 4th concurrently available plastic skeleton kit, gonna be honest, and with reasonable expectations that this one will look like it came out 20 years ago.

From the four skellies kits I like only old Warlord and GW ones (including Sepulchre Guard). As to the Oathmark kit, I want it to be as good as their best Oathmark/Frostgrave kits (Dwarf heavy/Elf Light/Wizards II), and give me as much options as other boxes for that game have. And that's it - easy to build, cheap way to make a skellies horde that every undead player loves.

Are these the four plastic skellie sets you were thinking of?

- GW
- Mantic
- Erewhon (WGF/WLG)
- Wargames Atlantic

 Manchu wrote:
Are these the four plastic skellie sets you were thinking of?

- GW
- Mantic
- Erewhon (WGF/WLG)
- Wargames Atlantic

I think that these are the only hard plastic skeletons out there.

 Manchu wrote:
Are these the four plastic skellie sets you were thinking of?

- GW
- Mantic
- Erewhon (WGF/WLG)
- Wargames Atlantic

Yeah

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!

This game has a strange appeal to me. I played and play a lot of wargames, from sci-fi to high fantasy, lot of them offer a very detailed background and multi part plastic kits, "modern rules" with d6/d20/d10 systems, cards to play and so on.
This has nothing to this. Rules are simple but polished, I would say the same for the miniatures, artwork is nothing special but very nice to see. Oathmark seems to aim to the essence of wargame with no frills and it do it very well.
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.