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.

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.

^It sounds like you're viewing Oathmark as a mass battle rank n file version of Saga: Age of Magic, do you think thats an accurate assessment? I have one Saga warband thats my Age of Vikings Skraeling (native americans) force plus a wendigo from Arena Rex, a pair of owl bears and a pair of giant eagles from Wizkids, and a pair of Spirit beasts from Reaper.

I have another warband that is made up of Dread Rots from Warmachine/Hordes, plus a bunch of other similar jack-o-lantern/pumpking themed minis from Reaper and other random manufacturers.

And then I have a third warband thats basically just Easterlings from the Lord of the Rings game (which I will happily look for an excuse to buy more of).

If i'm able to repurpose these minis for Oathmark too that would be awesome.

The author did some battle reports with a handful of units of 5-10 minis, and states that you can start playing with a single box of Oathmark figures - that's 30 models. Give it a go!

The game gives bonuses to figures ranked in 5s, so a couple of boxes of Easterlings will go a long way. Watch out for the 40mm cavalry bases though - you have a choice of basing them for LotR or on 25mmx50mm rectangular for Oathmark. Base size is maybe less important than other games though.

If you keep them on 40mm round bases, you can make each rank of cavalry 200mm wide, which may have implications for who can fight you, or just use 3 models to get 120mm wide (in Oathmark basing, 5 models would be 125mm wide) and a dice to keep track of casualties. Don't sweat it when you're learning or gaming with friends.

Maybe the Skraelings act as missile troops and rangers for their city brethren? And they brought their "tame" wendigo - use stats for one of the monsters in the book.

The pumpkin fellas are cursed and have come ravaging from the croplands. They're strong and hard to kill, like orcs and trolls stat-wise. They must be stopped - or recruited for their savagery!

Impressions after some more actual play? I'm building my elves/dwarfs army and I am longing for my first match!

My impressions after some TTS games with it is that it is a great foundation. Joe did a good job. A little bland but the gameplay was fairly solid.

Thanks. In which way is this game bland in your opinion?

Unit variety, faction variety, the cap on attack dice.

 auticus wrote:
Unit variety, faction variety, the cap on attack dice.

Unit variety can be low at the first glance but the activation/morale stat is what really makes a difference between various races. Elf Spearman is significantly different from the Goblin one when called to act. Also there are some skils that some races have and others lack.
Faction variety seems to be low but the undead are coming, and maybe more importantly the ability of creating your kingdom, and therefore mixing all races can offset it a little. There are also additional units like Ogres, Wolves etc. plus non affiliated monsters that can bring more flavor to your army.
Cap on the attack dice is one thing I really like but I can understand that people may enjoy rolling dozens of dice.

I see. But keeping in mind the "tone" of the game I do not completely agree.

 auticus wrote:
Unit variety, faction variety, the cap on attack dice.

Snap. I was really looking forward to the rules as we heard more and more about them, but these things put me off as the book was released.

Cav with two attacks, but a limit of 5 dice seems a little crazy to me. The infantry cap of 20 models, 5 dice, 5 wide seems really restrictive and makes me question whether the game can get close to 300 troops and still be enjoyable.

Having to wait for Undead in an expansion is a bit of a killer too, especially since it bumps the 'cost of entry' into the game. The other expansion with elite units also seems like it should have been in the core rules.

I also hate lazy proof reading in my wargames - it's what makes me struggle with mantic, who need 4 pages of errata to correct typos at release! The Oathmark book has a crazy mistake where an image covers up a line of text.

I've played loads of Frostgrave, and that was an easy sell. Oathmark seems to have a lot of the same ideas which means I'll probably give it a go, but doesn't seem as easy to convince others to play as Frostgrave was.

I can't help feel it could have some simple improvements. Removing the 5 dice cap and having a cap of one dice per model in base contact. Models with multiple attacks could then have rerolls. Getting rid of the 20 model unit limit also seems like a good idea.

Joe had said the limits were so whole units didn't end up being removed in one combat, but it feels like he went too far, with units staying in the first combat they hit for the whole game. The videos I've watched didn't quite go this way, but they were all small forces with small units. I would want to field blocks of 20 everywhere, but maybe this game is a smaller scale than I want it to be.

Also, @OP, how would you rank the 9th age - with your WHFB scores I would probably need to put it at 11 or 12! It would be interesting to see separate 'rules' and 'complete system' scores. It's clear you heavily feature fluff in your scores, which I think makes it harder to compare to new games.

I played 9th age for a month or so. I did not like it. If I had to rank it it would be parallel to 7th edition whfb - which got to be very stale for me and is why i got out of wargaming for a few years. I don't have it in my list because it is a house ruled system.

Fluff isn't really a part of my score in a major way. But Conquest, for example, has very good fluff and is a new game. So I don't think new games suffer from fluff because they are new. They suffer from fluff because their game creators did not care to put any in there:

reference: kings of war (had none, has a little now, nothing to write home about, i still rank high), warlords of nowhere (i like the system a lot, no fluff), oathmark (i ranked high, but no fluff), dragon rampant ( i ranked low mostly because it is way too abstract and simple for my tastes) and AOS (i think the background and fluff are pretty good, but i rank it as the worst game I have ever played)

I know no wargames with no mistakes in rules. At them moment unofficial faqs consist in less than a page.
Cap on dices sounded strange to me too at the beginning. But when you dive into the game you understand that it is made to keep it smooth. And it is easy to get broken a unit.
It a game with his own style of play which is a good think. Then it is clearly a question of taste.

I still rank oathmark pretty high. I said I thought it was a bit bland in some areas. Its still a solid system that could use some spice here and there.

The 5 dice cap is the biggest ?? Ive had with the rules so far.
The way the game is set up, it seems as almost all units will roll 5 dice in combat at all times, the times that wont happen is few and rare.
Just make 5 dice combat a hard rule instead, it already is in practice so make it so in theory as well.

Buut, ive only READ the rules, not played it so take my thoughts with several grains.

Yeah thats where I feel its a bit bland since all units are basically doing the same thing.

They are not. Units will use max 5 dices most of time but it is the target number that changes according to situations: numbers of ranks, attacking flank or rear ecc.

The input is going to basically be the same thing every time. The modifier may change, but the input is going to be the same. Which is a bit bland.

Any Battlesworn supplement first impression?

Still on preorder for me.

Johanxp wrote:
Any Battlesworn supplement first impression?

Here you have a video about the contents. Looks like there are many new things - Engineers, new spells, boat rules, monsters etc. I am little dissapointed though because most of the art is reused from the rulebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFY9MRnlm2g

I hope you can help with this important question:

Is it playable with Warmaster based miniatures? I mean, fixed bases with 10mm miniatures, no individual models so it is impossible to remove casualties (just whole stands of 10 infantry/4 cavalry).

Many thanks.

I would think the scale and the stand size is not to scale. Is it possible? Yes. If you write some houserule conversions for it.

SU-152 wrote:
I hope you can help with this important question:

Is it playable with Warmaster based miniatures? I mean, fixed bases with 10mm miniatures, no individual models so it is impossible to remove casualties (just whole stands of 10 infantry/4 cavalry).

Many thanks.

Removing casualties is no problem because you can simply use markers/small die to know how many died. When it comes to minis on the base it is also not a problem as long as you and your opponent are aware how many models are actually represented on the particular base. Oathmark requires you to have 5 minis to count as 1 full rank, and if you want you can abstract it = your 4 cavalry could count as 5 but remember to note it so there is no confusion when counting full (5 models) ranks, and removing casualties.

I finally received my skeletons and undead heroes and I love them. I'm also starting to scan Oathbrakers and finally I can say we have an army who really plays differently than the others. Book's illustrations are great!

Johanxp wrote:
Book's illustrations are great!

Yeah, this one is a real improvement over the Battlesworn.

Had a flick through the book recently. I think this is a game I have been waiting for, for quite some time.

As people are comparing to other games I think this one is more toned down, less 'Hollywood action film' fantasy gaming.

The 5 dice bothered me at first, but upon reflection it speeds up the game. Even with the few modifiers to the rolls, looking at 5 dice results is a lot quicker than some other games. It also removes the game away from brute force, that large numbers of dice produce.

Alternative activations, command rolls, and a D10 system really help this to stand out.

That being said there are a few issues, namely being able to manoeuvre over 90 degrees and charge a unit that was previously in your rear arc. That will be house ruled to be just a 90 degree maximum manoeuvre is allowed.

I just ordered this from Osprey along with the first 2 expansions. Looking forward to giving it a read.

Studio is finally moving to a final location in October so I'm looking forward to setting up a campaign with this and putting some youtube content up.

 auticus wrote:
Studio is finally moving to a final location in October so I'm looking forward to setting up a campaign with this and putting some youtube content up.

Definitely post here when you do. Interested in the game and your take on it.

 Theophony wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Studio is finally moving to a final location in October so I'm looking forward to setting up a campaign with this and putting some youtube content up.

Definitely post here when you do. Interested in the game and your take on it.

I shall do so

The main rule book, Oathbreakers, and Bane of Kings arrived today. Still reading through them, once I have managed to get a good read through I'll be doing a video review/deep dive into the system... might also do a 'How to play video'.

So far, really liking what I have read. Artillery seems a bit weak, but not so weak that it won't have an impact upon the game.

I was pleased to see the Undead have Ghouls, and there is a rule that means some Undead units die if there are no friendly spell casters around. That helps add to the theme.

Itching to get this game played.

Discovered the Dwarf sculpts a few weeks ago and I'm in love with them. When I actually get some time and my Song backlog cleared will definitely at least be picking up a box of the heavy infantry.

Not sure how much of an appetite there will be for this locally outside of the tiny number of Kings of War players, but we'll see.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Discovered the Dwarf sculpts a few weeks ago and I'm in love with them. When I actually get some time and my Song backlog cleared will definitely at least be picking up a box of the heavy infantry.

Not sure how much of an appetite there will be for this locally outside of the tiny number of Kings of War players, but we'll see.

I know in Louisville (I'm no longer there but I still admin the facebook groups) that this is actually blowing up quite big. It rivals Conquest now in players, and Kings of War doesn't exist in Louisville (you have to drive an hour south for some of that).

Not sure how things are where I am now with Oathmark. Covid keeps me inside mostly. There is a 9th age presence here but no Kings of War and Conquest has some rumblings but not actually being played that I can tell.

How's the game now that several supplements have come out? Me and a couple of players are thinking about jumping in.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
How's the game now that several supplements have come out? Me and a couple of players are thinking about jumping in.

Best narrative mass battle game out there.

I've finally decided to build small Oathmark army, using Northstar Goblin Infantry box as mainstay troops and adding up Reaper's aberrations to act as monsters and elite. I was unimpressed by the models at first, but after painting them I think they're solid plastic build. Definitely will recommend them to anyone willing to build generic orc/goblin based army.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
I've finally decided to build small Oathmark army, using Northstar Goblin Infantry box as mainstay troops and adding up Reaper's aberrations to act as monsters and elite. I was unimpressed by the models at first, but after painting them I think they're solid plastic build. Definitely will recommend them to anyone willing to build generic orc/goblin based army.

Spoiler:

For some reason I cannot see any of the images unless I select ''open in another page''.

Tried to fix it, does it work now?

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
Tried to fix it, does it work now?

Yes, thanks!

i hope they keep the fluff light, i can of like something generic where it lets put any story you want into it

that said im very irritated at myself for missing the recent sale on the rules!

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
I've finally decided to build small Oathmark army, using Northstar Goblin Infantry box as mainstay troops and adding up Reaper's aberrations to act as monsters and elite. I was unimpressed by the models at first, but after painting them I think they're solid plastic build. Definitely will recommend them to anyone willing to build generic orc/goblin based army.

Spoiler:

Those look fantastic, really like the skin tone, how did you achieve it? I may have to do my Goblins with the same skin tone as it really works.

 stonehorse wrote:

Those look fantastic, really like the skin tone, how did you achieve it? I may have to do my Goblins with the same skin tone as it really works.

Thanks! Skin tone is very simple - black primer, Citadel's Ushabti Bone as base, then small amount of black wash and highlighting with Vallejo's Off White.

Has anybody already tried conducting Oathmark campaign? So far I've had only one game and quite liked the rules themselves, but I'm not impressed by the campaign system. It looks way too simple, even with added flavour of random events. I also find it a bit surprising that occupied territories do pretty much nothing (only granting +1 to activation roll of enemy units from that territory) and serve only as stepping stone in attacking enemy capital.

Depends on what you are after. The campaign gives us a stage to play on. It is probably the best campaign system that is currently out there commercially as far as I'm concerned.

That said if you want more depth and crunch, you can tailor it how you see fit. I'm fond of doing that myself.

 auticus wrote:

That said if you want more depth and crunch, you can tailor it how you see fit.

If my group finally gets around to fielding armies big enough for Oathmark we most likely will. It's still better than the only one other "commercial" campaign I've played (Saga - Age of Wolves, which was, in my opinion, completely barebones), but there's strange feeling of something missing, like not enough on the global map happening to justify it.

I am finally getting around to planning out how to demo Oathmark to friends and decided to make two small forces so I can illustraate the various mechanics. I chose to make Dwarf and Undead armies that will each be gradually expanded to include Human and Goblin elements respectively. Here are the basis starter lists I came up with:

Dwarf Prince 165
Dwarf Soldiers (9) 135
Dwarf Champion 62
Dwarf Militia (9) 126
Dwarf Border Guard (5) 85

Revenant Prince 156
Revenant Warriors (4) 68
Necromancer (Lvl 2) w/Ring of Spellcasting 130
Skeletal Warriors (10) 110
Skeletal Warriors (10) 110

While working out the Undead list and how to expand it, it occurred to me that Skeletal Archers are incredibly bad — not because they are S0, but because they are S0 at 14pts. In other games, I would just suck it up. The principal ranged unit of this faction is bad, so be it. But in Oathmark, where you can pull in units from other lists, the result here practically eliminating an entry in the Undead List. Kind of a bummer especially considering there’s not much point building any Skeletal Archers from the excellent North Star sprue. Or am I getting this wrong? Is 14pts appropriate considering A3 and Undead special rule?

Don't have any experience with the Undead (my opponent is only starting to collect his), but yes, on paper they seem to be mechanically useless in comparison to other, more cheap, archer options. A3 is counterweighted by the fact they only roll one die to activate. In general I have a feeling pricing is not tight; trolls are barely more expensive than heavy cavalry, but difference in power and amount of special rules is absurd.

Stuff like Trolls and even Heavy Cavalry are pretty peripheral. The core tactical elements are infantry supported by archers. And the Undead have to look to other lists for half of that basic premise, seemingly.

Watching batreps with units of 10-20 Skeletal Archers, they really seem to do very little. I keep wondering what I am missing.

 Manchu wrote:
Stuff like Trolls and even Heavy Cavalry are pretty peripheral.

In my experience - only until they start smashing one box after another. For our campaign in the future I personally want to limit monster infantry to 1 base for every 500 points of battle size.

I keep wondering what I am missing.

Nothing? They can very well be just outright bad, and author didn't think about it.

It’s possible that the points cost is a typo and that they should be 12 or 13 points. At 12 pts, I think they are acceptable and in line with the other lists. That said, I read somewhere that Joe confirmed that all army list values are what they are supposed to be — I just haven’t seen this directly written by him. But there are no corrections to this (or the CD of Elf Mounted Rangers, for example) in the current Errata & FAQ doc.

I would personally drop their cost to 12 points, maybe 11 or even 10, because they are by far the worst archers in the entire game.

I think anybody can freely tweak the ruleset however they want; it's not competitive and not popular to receive pressure from the gaming crowd, there aren't multiple tournament-centric Oathmark-exclusive clubs to force their "no homerules allowed" attitude.

IIRC even Goblin Archers are S1 and they are 10 pts each. But I will stick to the entries as published, certainly until I have actually played lots of games.

I don't think you're missing anything. I've seen players in other social media tear the bow arms off to make them melee after using them.

Unfortunately there are a some units whose point cost is too much or little. And skelly archers are one of them.

Does anybody know of any medium-sized (100x50 mm base) monster fit for mounting small catapult on its back (good if it already has one or visible "natural" breathing weapon)? Something like Tyranid Pyrovore, but I hesitate to use Tyranids because they're way too familiar and will look off personally for me. I want to field it as mobile living artillery instead of catapults for my Horde army. I did think about GW's Lizardmen dinosaurs, but they seem to be somewhat bigger.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
Does anybody know of any medium-sized (100x50 mm base) monster fit for mounting small catapult on its back (good if it already has one or visible "natural" breathing weapon)? Something like Tyranid Pyrovore, but I hesitate to use Tyranids because they're way too familiar and will look off personally for me. I want to field it as mobile living artillery instead of catapults for my Horde army. I did think about GW's Lizardmen dinosaurs, but they seem to be somewhat bigger.

I wanted to suggest the catapult troll from ridgeback miniatures to you but it seems they've gone out of service unfortunately.
What about GW's Ogre thundertusk? You have an Ogre throwing bear traps on top, you have the thing itself doing some Ice breathing. Or just take the beast and put a catapult on top. Or their Rhino that comes with a catapult.

Or look at some elephants in historical ranges, they should fit on 50x100mm bases.

Just throwing out some ideas here since, as you said, Tyranids seem like a stretch for a fantasy game, depending on paint scheme it could work, though.

I was thinking about contrasting white and black/dark purple colours, think Leviathan Tyranids or Dark Elves. An army of otherwordly invaders with different warbred beasts and forcefully recruited locals. I'll check Ogres, but Thundertusk looks to be on the bigger scale, too.

For example, that's how my "trolls" look like.

I also would like to hear opinions and probably examples of custom made lists for the game. Has anybody implemented new factions with any luck, what rules have you come up with and how does it fit?

I was tinkering with a warriors of chaos styled list, just never finished it.

What characteristics did you intend to give them? Or special rules?

Also, what do you think about Oathmark now that there have been several expansions?

... When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come." I looked, and behold, a pale horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hell was following with him...

Poor infantry man...That monster is awesome. what company it is from?

It's 3D printed miniature, original made by Lord of the Print.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
It's 3D printed miniature, original made by Lord of the Print.

Thanks!

I really like the sounds of Oathmark, though I have to admit I do like strong faction identity in my fantasy games. The mixing units is really cool but I'm somehow against it at the same time, because I'm gonna be using my own minis, and my forces are all visually cohesive within faction, and will look weird mixed together.

But if I see the book in my FLGS I'll definitely pick it up.

5th season (out of 12 total) of our small 1vs1 map campaign (Blue Undead VS Red Orcs&Goblins + Auxillaries from both sides) has come to an end. 6th will finally most likely result in direct confrontation, hopefully will get a game in relatively soon.

Two first battles of the campaign have been played, both times ended in decisive Horde victory, The Undead had to withdraw and lose one province.



After initial clashes both me and my opponent are under impression that the undead are severely underpowered. Having good activation stat and immunity to low accuracy missiles is nice, but additional casualties scored in close combat, bad stats, necessity of spellcaster control and inability to use shielding are way too punishing, both skeletons and revenants get deleted basically every time they come into contact with any of my melee units (especially knucker that looks to be almost unkillable and did like 2x its cost in damage with only one wound inflicted by the enemy). Skeletal archers are just absurdly useless for the price, and resurrection ability is also usually ineffective since I can reliably outkill the amount of raised corpses almost every single activation. I think we will buff the Undead by severely reducing prices and damage from additional casualties.

Skeleton Archers are obviously overcosted.

Oathmark is a very nice rules set, in terms of it’s mechanics.

But Joe’s admission that he does not actually playtest his rules is very apparent in the army lists for this game.

He doesn't? That actually explains a lot, including often questionable statblocks and unit prices.

I like Oathmark as ruleset, it's fast, simple and still deep enough to actually think where you want to position your troops and how to attack the enemy. Usually I'm against rolling both accuracy, weapon damage and resistance into a single characteristic because it always leads to illogical gamey situations like unhittable plate mail knights from En Garde, but I think this game does it in a clever way that suits its mass battle theme: I don't care about the precise step by step resolve of enemy shooting, all I want to know as a commander is how many of my orcs died and if the squad can actually fulfill its role.

My biggest gripes are army lists. They are mostly bland and poorly balanced - worse units can cost more, better units can cost less, entire classes of units are just absurdly overpriced for what they do (heavy cavalry unit costs the same as knucker, and one knucker from my experience can delete two full squads of heavy cavalry without much issue), half of magic abilities do such a small impact they can as well not exist. I'm going to definitely play it in the future, but I think at least some rewrites are in order.

would love your take on Dark Heaven Apocalypse from reaper.

Never heard of it. By the looks of it it's an old system from Reaper? Didn't know they had a ruleset in addition to their Dark Heaven line.

I think you guys need to play more and pay major attention to listing and how to play.
In the beginning I was very worried about my elven army as I was unable to win. Then I managed to adjust my list and I won my last four games in a row.
I am quite sure Oathmark isn't ideal for tournaments or competitive games but I can warrant I have seen games less balanced than this (and GW produces a lot of them).

Changing some units for the others doesn't really fix bad units' performance. Some entries are clearly better than the others, some rules also have a bigger impact than the others. Overall I came to conclusion that cavalry seems to be the most lacking, followed by the Oathbreakers' ranged options.

Last game has finally brought in first victory for the Undead; dropping price for the skeletal archers seems to be a good idea, now they can be taken in properly big numbers to become dangerous.

What is that bug guy? He’s super cool.

It's one of Reaper Miniatures' Bones series models, can't remember the actual name, likely some creature from D&D. I use the likes of it to represent Trolls and call them "Nightmares" to suit the visuals better.

Another battle of the campaign finished, the biggest so far. The Horde emerged victorious at the very last moment by killing all the Undead wizards, which forced the rest of the army to turn into dust (we have actually played this a bit wrong since Ghouls have no such rule and shouldn't have been destroyed together with skeletons, but we found out only after the game), scoring a victory for the dark alliance of humans and monstrocities on turn 8.



I have to say I'm not thrilled with objective control rules, they seem to be way too punishing for the attacker. You have to clear the objective, make sure there are no enemies both 5" away from the objective and your unit closest to the objective, maneuver in a way that makes you 1" close and then wait a turn before you can activate 1" from it. Other games usually either suggest counting the number of models/units in an area to determine who can control what or allow you to take actions to burn things down, having so many limitations when the objective is also impassable terrain that the opponents can dance around feels awkward.

Also, burrow worm is just a weird unit design that we will probably houserule in the future in some way. Incredibly powerful and nearly unkillable unit with insanely high HP, great offensive capabilities, good defense and maneuverability that has 30% chance of actually doing anything and will just stand there most of the time, like a living wall.

Another battle, another unit tested. Despite crushing through enemy infantry, surviving (and killing 1/4 of the squad in return) the ghoul ambush and killing ballista, knights still couldn't resist the onslaught of barrow worm and were killed to the last man.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
It's one of Reaper Miniatures' Bones series models, can't remember the actual name, likely some creature from D&D. I use the likes of it to represent Trolls and call them "Nightmares" to suit the visuals better.

It's a Burrowing Behemoth from Reaper.
https://www.reapermini.com/search/insect/latest/44058


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
Another battle, another unit tested. Despite crushing through enemy infantry, surviving (and killing 1/4 of the squad in return) the ghoul ambush and killing ballista, knights still couldn't resist the onslaught of barrow worm and were killed to the last man.

Awesome looking game, as usual. Thanks for posting.

Me and my opponent are planning on playing 3000 points armies next time to draw our mini campaign to a conclusion and also take a look at how the game behaves at upper points limit. So far we've been playing smaller sized battles (up to 2000), and monsters, artillery and heavy brick assault units have been by far the most dominating forces in comparison to normal infantry, light cavalry and archers. We're no experts on this system but it really feels like it's heavily skewed towards single big entities with huge defence and attack values, or those things that essentially ignore command&control portions of the game (dragons, undead...) due to their better A statistics and unshakable morale. Everything else is not useless, but it feels really subpar, and we couldn't help but notice that in every single game it's brutes and monsters always doing and standing up to the most damage.