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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It looks to me like a Celt with salvaged Roman gear.

Since that's how many Celts got their gear, this works for me alongside more typically Celtic models.

Actually, a lot of Roman equipment was of Celtic origin...

Fair point. The Romans took military equipment from everywhere and made it their own.

But I'm pretty certain that helmet with the reinforced brow was a strictly Roman invention after fighting the Macedonians and their falcatta.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It looks to me like a Celt with salvaged Roman gear.

Since that's how many Celts got their gear, this works for me alongside more typically Celtic models.

Actually, a lot of Roman equipment was of Celtic origin...

Fair point. The Romans took military equipment from everywhere and made it their own.

But I'm pretty certain that helmet with the reinforced brow was a strictly Roman invention after fighting the Macedonians and their falcatta.

Yes and no. The helmets with the reinforced brows are referred to as 'imperial-type helmets' (of which there are several sub-types). They too originate with the Celtic peoples of Gaul and not with the Romans (the ancient Gauls were much better smiths than the Romans were, up to the point that we can determine whether a Roman legionary helmet was a true Gaulish-made one or a cheap Roman copy-cat version, though the Roman work does improve over time). The brows themselves are a Roman invention though, resulting from field modifications made during the Dacian Wars when the Romans faced the Dacians and their falx weapons (not the Macedonians. The Romans defeated the Macedonians much earlier in their history, long before the imperial-type helmet was developed. Also, the Macedonians used the kopis, which was very similar to but not the same as the Iberian falcatta). The falx must have been an extremely nasty weapon, because encountering it is the only thing that ever made the Roman army change its equipment while on campaign. Apart from adding the supporting bars to their helmets, they also switched back to using chainmail and scale mail instead of the segmented plate armour that had become standard and added shoulder and arm guards to their equipment. Those weapons must have really scared them... So while the helmet is of Celtic origin, the brow is of Roman origin.
Thus concludes the history lesson

My mistake. I got my 'weapons that start with an F' mixed up...

The elf sprue has been revealed (from Oathmark's) facebook page:

The feathers are separate, and they have enough swords, spears and bows for everyone, so the kit has already beaten my expectations. How do they stack up, size wise?

I really like these - they remind me of (ahem) *classic* High Elves, but with better proportions and pose-ability. Plastic cavalry and warmachines in the same style would be awesome!

I am in. 5 bodies, 10 heads and enough weapons for everyone.

These are gonna look great next to my 90's Elves.

They do look pretty decent. Not sure they will scale with WHFB figures, the scale is more akin to the Lord of the Rings range. So more like 25-28mm rather than 30-32mm. At least, that's how the goblins were scaled.

When they said that the feathers would be removable I took it to mean that only some helmets would have feathers, which would be sculpted to be easy to cut off. That you get five separate feather accessories is a nice little step up from the previous sets.

I'm still disappointed that bits for a musician still aren't included. I'd happily swap the champion weapon arm for a horn.

 Huginn wrote:
They do look pretty decent. Not sure they will scale with WHFB figures, the scale is more akin to the Lord of the Rings range. So more like 25-28mm rather than 30-32mm. At least, that's how the goblins were scaled.

The goblins match nicely with the LotR orcs but have chunkier weapons. LotR dwarfs only come up to about the shoulders of Oathmark dwarfs. But yes, 25-28mm rather than 30-32mm is accurate. They're heroic miniatures but not to the same degree as current GW. Oathmark goblins would work fine as WHFB goblins despite being much bigger because they still fit the whole S3 T3 size profile, at slightly shorter than a 28mm human.

Older GW plastics are mostly going to be chunkier. The ape-armed HE spearmen would look quite off next to these but they were always a bit odd.

I know these sets come with 25mm bases, but would they fit on 20mm?

NuhJuhKuh wrote:
I know these sets come with 25mm bases, but would they fit on 20mm?

If the dwarfs and goblins are any indication, yes. The elves seem to be a little bit wider in their stances and have bigger shields but I don't think they would be cramped given how roomy their 25mm bases look.

Okay, the final version has grown on me. This kit is just begging for a conversion kit with bladed pauldrons and more wicked looking helmets/heads. Maybe some crueler swords and speartips. Because I haven't seen a good, affordable plastic Dark Elf kit in a long time.

Hands attached to weapons is always a plus for me.

Awesome! Did they give any indication of a timeframe for that? Generally I'm happy not to have Facebook, but for little things like this it would be handy :p

They did a few mail order add-ons for Frostgrave, so I could see them adding things like standards and musician arms via those over time, though those specialists tend to be metal if the dwarf and goblin ranges are anything to go by

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It looks to me like a Celt with salvaged Roman gear.

Since that's how many Celts got their gear, this works for me alongside more typically Celtic models.

Actually, a lot of Roman equipment was of Celtic origin...

Fair point. The Romans took military equipment from everywhere and made it their own.

But I'm pretty certain that helmet with the reinforced brow was a strictly Roman invention after fighting the Macedonians and their falcatta.

Yes and no. The helmets with the reinforced brows are referred to as 'imperial-type helmets' (of which there are several sub-types). They too originate with the Celtic peoples of Gaul and not with the Romans (the ancient Gauls were much better smiths than the Romans were, up to the point that we can determine whether a Roman legionary helmet was a true Gaulish-made one or a cheap Roman copy-cat version, though the Roman work does improve over time). The brows themselves are a Roman invention though, resulting from field modifications made during the Dacian Wars when the Romans faced the Dacians and their falx weapons (not the Macedonians. The Romans defeated the Macedonians much earlier in their history, long before the imperial-type helmet was developed. Also, the Macedonians used the kopis, which was very similar to but not the same as the Iberian falcatta). The falx must have been an extremely nasty weapon, because encountering it is the only thing that ever made the Roman army change its equipment while on campaign. Apart from adding the supporting bars to their helmets, they also switched back to using chainmail and scale mail instead of the segmented plate armour that had become standard and added shoulder and arm guards to their equipment. Those weapons must have really scared them... So while the helmet is of Celtic origin, the brow is of Roman origin.
Thus concludes the history lesson

The funny thing about all of that is it seems mostly unsubstantiated. Indeed, given that the best steels would eventually be coming out of the old Eastern provinces of the Empire, it kind of calls into question that entire working theory.

Likewise the names of Helmet styles dont correlate with place of origin, but rather thebplace where examples of the type were first found.

Celtic smiths being “better” is often repreated but Ive never seen any academic evidence for it, and like wise the Roman Imperial and the Celtic style helmets might both in fact be off shoots of Greek exports (or colonist smiths from the Greek cities in Italy and Southern France).

Carlovonsexron wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It looks to me like a Celt with salvaged Roman gear.

Since that's how many Celts got their gear, this works for me alongside more typically Celtic models.

Actually, a lot of Roman equipment was of Celtic origin...

Fair point. The Romans took military equipment from everywhere and made it their own.

But I'm pretty certain that helmet with the reinforced brow was a strictly Roman invention after fighting the Macedonians and their falcatta.

Yes and no. The helmets with the reinforced brows are referred to as 'imperial-type helmets' (of which there are several sub-types). They too originate with the Celtic peoples of Gaul and not with the Romans (the ancient Gauls were much better smiths than the Romans were, up to the point that we can determine whether a Roman legionary helmet was a true Gaulish-made one or a cheap Roman copy-cat version, though the Roman work does improve over time). The brows themselves are a Roman invention though, resulting from field modifications made during the Dacian Wars when the Romans faced the Dacians and their falx weapons (not the Macedonians. The Romans defeated the Macedonians much earlier in their history, long before the imperial-type helmet was developed. Also, the Macedonians used the kopis, which was very similar to but not the same as the Iberian falcatta). The falx must have been an extremely nasty weapon, because encountering it is the only thing that ever made the Roman army change its equipment while on campaign. Apart from adding the supporting bars to their helmets, they also switched back to using chainmail and scale mail instead of the segmented plate armour that had become standard and added shoulder and arm guards to their equipment. Those weapons must have really scared them... So while the helmet is of Celtic origin, the brow is of Roman origin.
Thus concludes the history lesson

The funny thing about all of that is it seems mostly unsubstantiated. Indeed, given that the best steels would eventually be coming out of the old Eastern provinces of the Empire, it kind of calls into question that entire working theory.

Likewise the names of Helmet styles dont correlate with place of origin, but rather thebplace where examples of the type were first found.

Celtic smiths being “better” is often repreated but Ive never seen any academic evidence for it, and like wise the Roman Imperial and the Celtic style helmets might both in fact be off shoots of Greek exports (or colonist smiths from the Greek cities in Italy and Southern France).

Celtic helmet styles are not derived from the Greeks. Greek helmets are very different from Celtic ones. While the Gauls had marginal contact with the Greeks through their colony at Massalia, and we do have evidence they imported some goods, there is no evidence for the import of Greek helmet styles at any point in the history of Gaul. Celtic helmet types show a clear line of development that stretches back into the bronze age, and there are no Greek parallels that could have served as the 'precursors' of Celtic helmet styles. That is not to say there wasn't any influencing going on at all. Gaulish smiths did at times adopt Etruscan and Greek motifs for decoration, just like Etruscan or Greek smiths sometimes adopted Celtic motifs, and there is also evidence Celtic smiths adopted metalworking techniques from Italian peoples. Despite this, Etruscans, Greeks and Celts all maintained clearly separable styles. The skills of Gaulish metalworkers are also beyond any doubt. Hallstatt and La Tène culture sites often yield very spectacular finds.
Just look at the Agris helmet for example:

Beyond that, the consistent adoption by the Roman army of Celtic styles of helmets and other equipment clearly indicates the Romans thought highly of Celtic metalworks. The Romans also adopted helmet styles from the Greeks. But the fact that those Greek-inspired helmets were replaced by Celtic-inspired helmets says a lot. Of course, 'better' is a relative concept. Roman smiths were better in other things than their Celtic counterparts. Roman smiths used more advanced technologies and could produce on an almost industrial-level scale in vast factory-like workshops, while Celtic smiths were much smaller operations that produced unique, single items rather than the mass production the Romans favoured.
Also, it is not true the best steel came from the East. The Romans themselves in written sources laud Noricum as one the best sources for steel (which not coincidentally is an important center of the Celtic Hallstat and La Tène cultures). The metalworking skills that were present in Noricum are amply evidenced in the archaeological record.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
That can obviously be rectified by introducing a reptile faction.

How many plastic reptilian infantry kits are on the market these days that aren't made by GW?

...exactly.

mantic salamanders?

Salamanders are amphibians.

I clearly stated reptiles!

We do have Northstar's snakemen to look forward to at some future point at least...

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Salamanders are amphibians.

I clearly stated reptiles!

We do have Northstar's snakemen to look forward to at some future point at least...

Apparently next month.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It looks to me like a Celt with salvaged Roman gear.

Since that's how many Celts got their gear, this works for me alongside more typically Celtic models.

Actually, a lot of Roman equipment was of Celtic origin...

Fair point. The Romans took military equipment from everywhere and made it their own.

But I'm pretty certain that helmet with the reinforced brow was a strictly Roman invention after fighting the Macedonians and their falcatta.

Yes and no. The helmets with the reinforced brows are referred to as 'imperial-type helmets' (of which there are several sub-types). They too originate with the Celtic peoples of Gaul and not with the Romans (the ancient Gauls were much better smiths than the Romans were, up to the point that we can determine whether a Roman legionary helmet was a true Gaulish-made one or a cheap Roman copy-cat version, though the Roman work does improve over time). The brows themselves are a Roman invention though, resulting from field modifications made during the Dacian Wars when the Romans faced the Dacians and their falx weapons (not the Macedonians. The Romans defeated the Macedonians much earlier in their history, long before the imperial-type helmet was developed. Also, the Macedonians used the kopis, which was very similar to but not the same as the Iberian falcatta). The falx must have been an extremely nasty weapon, because encountering it is the only thing that ever made the Roman army change its equipment while on campaign. Apart from adding the supporting bars to their helmets, they also switched back to using chainmail and scale mail instead of the segmented plate armour that had become standard and added shoulder and arm guards to their equipment. Those weapons must have really scared them... So while the helmet is of Celtic origin, the brow is of Roman origin.
Thus concludes the history lesson

The funny thing about all of that is it seems mostly unsubstantiated. Indeed, given that the best steels would eventually be coming out of the old Eastern provinces of the Empire, it kind of calls into question that entire working theory.

Likewise the names of Helmet styles dont correlate with place of origin, but rather thebplace where examples of the type were first found.

Celtic smiths being “better” is often repreated but Ive never seen any academic evidence for it, and like wise the Roman Imperial and the Celtic style helmets might both in fact be off shoots of Greek exports (or colonist smiths from the Greek cities in Italy and Southern France).

Celtic helmet styles are not derived from the Greeks. Greek helmets are very different from Celtic ones. While the Gauls had marginal contact with the Greeks through their colony at Massalia, and we do have evidence they imported some goods, there is no evidence for the import of Greek helmet styles at any point in the history of Gaul. Celtic helmet types show a clear line of development that stretches back into the bronze age, and there are no Greek parallels that could have served as the 'precursors' of Celtic helmet styles. That is not to say there wasn't any influencing going on at all. Gaulish smiths did at times adopt Etruscan and Greek motifs for decoration, just like Etruscan or Greek smiths sometimes adopted Celtic motifs, and there is also evidence Celtic smiths adopted metalworking techniques from Italian peoples. Despite this, Etruscans, Greeks and Celts all maintained clearly separable styles. The skills of Gaulish metalworkers are also beyond any doubt. Hallstatt and La Tène culture sites often yield very spectacular finds.
Just look at the Agris helmet for example:

Spoiler:

Beyond that, the consistent adoption by the Roman army of Celtic styles of helmets and other equipment clearly indicates the Romans thought highly of Celtic metalworks. The Romans also adopted helmet styles from the Greeks. But the fact that those Greek-inspired helmets were replaced by Celtic-inspired helmets says a lot. Of course, 'better' is a relative concept. Roman smiths were better in other things than their Celtic counterparts. Roman smiths used more advanced technologies and could produce on an almost industrial-level scale in vast factory-like workshops, while Celtic smiths were much smaller operations that produced unique, single items rather than the mass production the Romans favoured.
Also, it is not true the best steel came from the East. The Romans themselves in written sources laud Noricum as one the best sources for steel (which not coincidentally is an important center of the Celtic Hallstat and La Tène cultures). The metalworking skills that were present in Noricum are amply evidenced in the archaeological record.

This conversation so perfectly encapsulates why the oathmark range is a waste I almost can't believe it. I love history. I love Roman history, I find this conversation very interesting. But consider: Here we have two studious historians talking about the historicity of the armament of an Oathmark fantasy human guy...

Again, I mean no disrespect to the two historians here, I hope their conversation continues, but surely I'm not the only one to see the delicious irony?

Maybe someone else sees it too. Not me though. I'm enjoying g the conversation and I'm looking forward to the Oathmark minis.

I'm not sure what's ironic about the conversation either, tbh.

I think what’s he’s getting at is that if Oathmark humans look so close to certain historical miniatures, then why not just use historical miniatures?

Personally, I love what I’ve seen so far. I’ve been turned off fantasy as a genre for a couple of decades as everything has gone very Warhammer/Warcraft in style. Oathmark looks like the kind of Dark Ages inspired fantasy that I grew up loving. The elves are great and I just love the goblins. As for humans though, I think a good range of Viking, Saxon or Norman historicals would be brilliantly in keeping with the style.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I think what’s he’s getting at is that if Oathmark humans look so close to certain historical miniatures, then why not just use historical miniatures?

Personally, I love what I’ve seen so far. I’ve been turned off fantasy as a genre for a couple of decades as everything has gone very Warhammer/Warcraft in style. Oathmark looks like the kind of Dark Ages inspired fantasy that I grew up loving. The elves are great and I just love the goblins. As for humans though, I think a good range of Viking, Saxon or Norman historicals would be brilliantly in keeping with the style.

I was being a little sarcastic...

I agree with you on all points. I think that the whole "you could just use historicals for these" goes for pretty much every single fantasy human line anyway (esp. GW ones), so I'm happy enough with the direction they took here. It's just a mash-up of a few mismatched historical armour styles, which is good enough for me.

If you're a fantasy designer/artist (of minis, or TV show armour, or book covers), your options are kind of:

a) to make something that's pretty much just historical armour

b) to do some kind of mashup of historical armour styles

c) to go completely fantasy

If a, some people will complain that it's not fantastic enough. If b, some people will complain that it's a mashup. If c, some people will complain that it's too fantastic.

My working hypothesis *right now* is that different people have individual tastes, and that most of them are pretty good at just buying the stuff that they like, but that a few of them get the best fun from the hobby by telling other people why they're having the wrong kind of fun.

* FWIW I'm also enjoying the historical chat. And there is kind of an option (d), when I'm not being facetious, which is to know *so much* about armour, from several different perspectives (historian, armour wearer, HEMA practitioner, armoursmith) that you can create fantasy armour that looks like it might be real. But we're talking master-level work, here. Some of the Lord of the Rings designs managed it. Most of the Game of Thrones ones didn't. Most miniatures sculptors don't get even close.

 Gallahad wrote:
Again, I mean no disrespect to the two historians here, I hope their conversation continues, but surely I'm not the only one to see the delicious irony?

Maybe some people actually like their fantasy more grounded, so that they can engage in conversations like the one above?

I mean, horses for courses and current fantasy is, in general, more slanted towards high fantasy nowadays. So maybe having the option of having "historical-ish stuff, but not quite" is appealing to some people.

I ordered a box of dwarfs and a box of goblins as the package deal that included a metal hero of each as well and received them several weeks ago. I've put a fair few together over the last couple of weekends and I like the kits.

The goblins are a better kit than the dwarfs in my opinion because they fit in with other orcs and goblins easier. Maybe it's because I read Tolkien as a kid but I've always thought of orcs and goblins as being interchangeable terms so I'm glad the "goblins" are the same size as "orcs" in GW's LotR range and are the size of the humans made by Fireforge and Gripping Beast. It was easy to kitbash the goblins with the leftovers from the Frostgrave Cultist box and I would assume that other Frostgrave kits would also work well with them which increases their utility. GW ork bits were too large (at least the old leftovers in my bitz box were) but the Empire Flagellant arm with the scourge/whip fit in nicely and looks cool. The weapon variety is nice but I wish there were more spear arms in an attacking position.

The dwarfs are well made but way too big, they're practically human sized. I kitbashed some of the dwarf bodies with Fireforge sargeants and Gripping Beast Vikings to make more people. The dwarf bodies are barely smaller than the Gripping Beast Viking Hirdmen, the bodies are very similar, the dwarf ones are just designed to accommodate giant heads with ZZ Top beards. I was able to trim down the dwarf archer arms and make some nice looking Viking archers using the GP bodies and heads and adding Bretonnian pavises from the M@A box made some neat looking LotR Iron Hills dwarfs although they're in chainmail instead of plate armor.

The Oathmark elves are here!!

They’re available for order now rather than pre-order, and there’s a complement of 6 metal characters to add to your orders.

http://northstarfigures.com/list.php?man=257&cat=176&page=1

Elf King:



Elf sorceress:



Painted elf infantry: