Thoughts After my First Game of Oathmark.

In this video I talk about my first game of Oathmark, and give my thoughts on the system.

[@philportway5988]

Well thought out and explained. My first game of Oathmark tomorrow!

[@miniaturesandstuff7376]

totally agree, i think this game would be huge if it had released 10 years ago. nice looking armies btw.

[@stonehorsegaming]

Cheers, every since GW killed off WFB there has been a bit of a race to be the game to fill that gap. Think Kings of War has taken that at the moment. Hopefully in time Oathmark gains more traction, I personally think it is a much better game.

[@miniaturesandstuff7376]

@@stonehorsegaming yeah man I think KOW has filled that void. But I think oathmark is better too.

[@stonehorsegaming]

KoW is too tournament/competitive orientated for my tastes, that and the lack of player interaction. Oathmark's Kingdom building really helsp it stand out as a more relaxed casual game... even in a tournament, I doubt there will be power gaming.

[@Sybok51288]

i like it a lot, kind of interesting how it visually with models they sell has a more 'grounded feel' like tolkienesque to it than warhammer et al. your templars didnt look out of place at all. rather like it

[@stonehorsegaming]

The Undead are mine, the Templars are a stunning force that my regular opponent uses a lot. I think the tech level also helps to keep I grounded, no crossbows, or black powder weapons. Agree on the Tolkienesque look of the official models.

[@deepred6041]

How does it compare to One Page Rules? And given the choice which of the 2 do you think you'd prefer to play

[@stonehorsegaming]

It is quite similar to Age of Fantasy Regiments, but with enough differences to make it more tactical. That said it has enough differences to make it stand out. The use of a D10 allows the game to have more flexibility with unit stat lines, the limit at 5 dice maximum, and commanders there to help form battle lines/activate multiple units, and the more grounded fantasy all cement this as a firm favourite, and one that I'd prefer to play... only just mind. If Oathmark is a 9, Age of Fantasy Regiments is a 8.5. Now that all said, I think Age of Fantasy Regiments does quicker play, and allows for more tinkering due to the unit creation rules, I think it is the perfect introduction game system.

[@JonnyWatsonGaming]

Yes you got a game in! Totally agree with your thoughts it sits between Kings of War and WHFB. Great game

[@stonehorsegaming]

Cheers! Yeah about time I got a game of it under my belt, only taken 2 years! Can really see this becoming my go to game system.

[@opressoronline9150]

Hey guys, I have a huge doubt: can somebody tell me if the minis are modular or can be assembled once?

[@saeklas]

Common misconception with oathmark is units after combat counting as having activated. If you read the rules carefully it only applies to the active unit, which specifically is the unit that rolled activation dice last, which does not apply to the unit that was charged. This is intended to stop a unit from charging twice as without this you could do two move actions and hence two combats

[@stonehorsegaming]

Not sure about that, reading the last part on page 24 it says: 'Finally, any unit engaged in combat during a turn is considered activated. Thus if a unit is attacked by another unit before it has a chance to activate, it does not get the chance to activate in that turn.'

[@markwatson8714]

As Stonehorsegaming points out, that's not the case - not only is a unit which engaged in combat considered to have activated that turn, but a unit which moves into combat finishes it's turn as soon as the combat is over (P34 - "Once the round of combat concludes, the active unit is considered to have finished it's activation, even if it has actions remaining"). It's one of the reasons the winner of a round of combat needs to think through their pushback options carefully ...

[@stonehorsegaming]

The Pushback mechanic is a thing that on the surface may not seem like much, but it has a lot of utility and consideration.

[@rangda_prime]

Apart from the movement system this game has one major design flaw which is symptomatic to games of this author - its stats are extremely flat. This is exaggerated by the fact that extra ranks decrease the opponent's Defence, meaning that a cheap unit will be more numerous than an expensive one but will still be able to reliably hurt it. This means that elite units can't really act as elites, since the maximum of five combat dice will limit the amount of damage output. The fact that you can inflict extra hits by beating the opponent's Defence with 5+ or 10+ in excess of their Defence does little to mitigate this since the flat curve of units stats make such results very rare unless you have a truly monstrous unit. This sadly mirrors the mechanics of Frostgrave, where stats are flat and poor and good units both need to roll really high to inflict decisive results. All of these factors exacerbates the swinginess of the D10, meaning that like in Frostgrave, combat is to a large extent luck based rather than tactical and based on maneuvering good units to strike poor ones.

[@jeffruss8769]

How does it compare to Saga or Dragon Rampant?

[@stonehorsegaming]

I haven't played Saga, so can't comment about that. It plays nothing like Dragon Rampant, the two games have a different aim. Dragon Rampant is a warband level, where as Oathmark is mass combat level. The only thing ide they have in common is activation rolls, however they approach thise in very different ways.

[@richardbradley2802]

Never played Saga either, but I don't like Dragon Rampant much. Having only reading Oathmark, I am madly painting Dwarves...!