"Black Powder versus Oathmark" Topic

I'm currently playing one & reading the other. They don't have much in common & that's OK. However, I was wondering if OM could provide an improvement in BP.

I like BP & yesterday, for example, used the rules for a moderately large SYW game. The "problem" is that as it's IGOUGO, one side stands around waiting for their opponents to finish their turn.In a big game with 4-5 brigades a side, this can be a while.

OM has an interesting activation system – alternate units, so one player commands a unit, then his opponents activate theirs etc.
So both sides have relatively little "down time".

Would this work for BP? Obviously, not for single units, but how about alternating activating brigades? I've been thinking about this & I can't see any problems – would this work or am I missing something?

One of the beauties of Oathmark is when you try and activate a unit…and fail, you still get to do something useful (shoot, move or manoeuvre).

I agree with Herkybird. Oathmark has some good stuff, meld it to BP and tell us what went right.

As BP has brigade activations anyway, would be a small step to make these alternate between the sides. We are currently trying out " Soldiers of Napoleon" in which brigade activation (generally) switches between players and that gives a nice ‘friction" to the play.

The problem with Oathmark's activation is that it feels more like a skirmish game, not a mass battle game. My unit pushes forward and attacks, then you push a unit forward and attack my first unit's flank, etc.. On the upside major leaders like Kings have Command(2) or (1) ability, which allows and extra 1 or 2 activations before the opponent activates. So I can push a unit forward to attack and then bring 1 or 2 other units up to cover the flanks of the first unit. You might say "well, just move up a few inches each turn so as to not outpace your support" – that would lengthen the game and you'd have to modify the scenarios as most of them are only 8 turns long.

Another point is that it's a "low fantasy" game – only a couple of races and no "out there" units like GW's goblin fanatics, general's riding Hippogriffs, steam tanks, gyrocopters, and trolls don't regenerate. The point system is 'way off. The couple of monsters in the game are way too powerful for their points and some units are way better htan others. This part can be solved by a new "mathematically correct" point list posted by a fan boy on the Oathmark Facebook group. Finally, my understanding is that the game is "done" – meaning no new rule supplements.

The best thing I like about Oathmark is that you create your own kingdom and you can have different races in your kingdom, so your human army could also have elf archers, orc linebreakers, and goblin wolfriders in it.

I may still go with Oathmark but if I do I will probably make a LOT of house rules/modifications…

This part can be solved by a new "mathematically correct" point list posted by a fan boy on the Oathmark Facebook group.

Thank you, that is the first time I have been called a 'Fan Boy', I am honoured!

I'm not looking to play "Oath Powder" or "Blackmark".
Simply, would an alternate brigade activation work for a large scale historical game. I am, BTW, OK with the BP system where you throw high on an Activation roll & that brigade loses its turn. Friction of war & all that stuff.

So the advice of "suck it & see", given above, is the best so far given. I will try it out in a game in the future.

Ochoin

Sorry! I saw "Oathmark" and it set me off!

Yes, I think alternate activation would work for BP – it would be a slightly different game but not by that much.

You could also use a card system where each side gets 1 card per brigade (you get hearts, I get spades). Shuffle them and draw the top card – hearts comes up you get to move a brigade, spades then I get to move a brigade. Gives the possibility of one side moving a couple brigades before the other side. Games like Bolt Action use this system (although they draw tokens from a bag rather than use cards).

Herkeybird – if you went to all that trouble to recalculate the point system then I guess that qualifies you as a fan of the game (but I guess really not technically a "fan boy" as that has negative connotations..)

DG,
TSATF uses that type of card system. Personally, I found it a bit too random. On occasion, the Zulus, for example, would get a run of 4-7 cards & it'd be game over.
I will give the OM activation system a go.

FYI I am not a Fantasy gamer…..yet. We do Lion Rampant.
It was decided to give Fantasy a go & I looked at Dragon Rampant. I was not entirely sold so I'm looking at OM. I think I'm impressed by it.

The Games Workshop big battle War of the Rings games had a great mechanic that went as follows:
While it was IGOUGO for each phase (Side A moves, then Side B, next Side A shoots, then Side B, etc) your leaders had Might Points that they could use in a varity of things. It could be used to change a dice roll (with certain restrictions), but mostly it was used to interupt your opponent's action (ie, counter-charge, shoot first). It's been years since I last played so I don't remember the details. I loved this mechanic.

To answer your question, yes it will "work". It will also change the way the game is experienced but you and your friends are free to play how you wish. I find the major issue with Black Powder is the relationship for foot print of the "unit" to movement to range to table size. It's an excellent club ruleset (it can handle differently based units without too much issue) and I really like it using 15mm troops on WRG base sizes switching from inches to centimeters.

Oh, and a big thumbs up for Dragon Rampant. Same core rules as Lion Rampant with a a few more units and some additional options added on.