Oathmark vs Kings of War: Two Different Approaches to Fantasy Mass Battles
Oathmark vs Kings of War: Two Different Approaches to Fantasy Mass Battles
If you want ranks of infantry, cavalry crashing into flanks, wizards supporting battle lines, monsters towering over soldiers, and hundreds of fantasy miniatures fighting across the table, Oathmark and Kings of War belong on the shortlist. At first glance the two games look remarkably similar — both are fantasy mass-battle wargames using ranked units that support familiar fantasy armies and work well with existing collections. But once you start playing, the difference becomes much clearer.
Oathmark is primarily interested in the kingdom your army comes from. Kings of War is primarily interested in how efficiently that army functions on the battlefield. Oathmark leans harder into world building, campaigns, mixed kingdoms, individual casualties, and a traditional fantasy-wargame atmosphere. Kings of War emphasizes streamlined large-scale battles, standardized unit footprints, multibasing, fast resolution, and a rules system capable of handling very large armies without becoming bogged down. Neither approach is inherently better — they are trying to solve the fantasy mass-battle problem in different ways.
Browse miniatures, rulebooks, and army-building options in our Oathmark collection at Tistaminis.
The Short Answer
Choose Oathmark if you want to create your own fantasy kingdom, mix races naturally, play campaigns, track individual casualties, and have the narrative identity of your realm influence army building.
Choose Kings of War if you want streamlined competitive mass battles, large armies that play relatively quickly, multibasing, clearly defined factions, and a mature tournament-oriented rules ecosystem.
If you already own a large collection of fantasy miniatures, both games are excellent ways to put them back onto the table.
Oathmark vs Kings of War at a Glance
| Category | Oathmark | Kings of War |
|---|---|---|
| Current Edition | Second Edition | Third Edition |
| Core Focus | Kingdom building + fantasy warfare | Streamlined mass-battle warfare |
| Army Identity | Build your own kingdom | Defined army lists |
| Mixed-Race Armies | Core part of the game | Possible through specific lists/allies, but more faction-oriented |
| Unit Basing | Individual models ranked together | Standardized unit footprints / multibasing encouraged |
| Casualty Removal | Yes — models removed during play | No — damage tracked, unit removed when routed |
| Campaign Focus | Very Strong — central to Second Edition | Available but less central to core identity |
| Tournament Focus | Moderate | Strong — large established tournament scene |
| Rules Style | Traditional / characterful | Streamlined / highly standardized |
| Very Large Battles | Good | Excellent |
| World Building | Excellent — you create the kingdom | Established Pannithor setting |
| Existing Miniature Friendly | Excellent | Excellent |
| Best For | Narrative and campaign players | Players wanting fast, tactical mass battles |
The Biggest Difference: Oathmark Builds Kingdoms, Kings of War Builds Armies
In Kings of War you choose an army — Kingdoms of Men, Elves, Dwarfs, Goblins, Ogres, Undead, Basileans, Northern Alliance, Nightstalkers, Forces of the Abyss, and many more — each with its own identity, units, strengths, weaknesses, and list-building possibilities. Oathmark starts one level higher. You create the kingdom that produces your army, deciding which races control which territories and what military forces those territories unlock.
This Changes the Fantasy Completely
In Kings of War, you are commanding an army belonging to a faction. In Oathmark, you are commanding the military forces of a realm you created yourself. The army composition tells you something about the kingdom — and that relationship between rules and world building is one of Oathmark’s most distinctive features.
OATHMARK Best for World Building and Narrative
If creating your own fantasy setting is part of the fun, Oathmark has a major advantage. The kingdom system encourages you to answer questions that connect directly to army construction: who rules this land, which peoples live there, why do Humans and Dwarves fight together, where do your elite troops come from, which settlements were conquered, which territories are strategically important? A Human kingdom whose northern mountains contain an allied Dwarf settlement produces a very specific army — primarily Human infantry supported by Dwarf heavy troops — and that army immediately tells you something about the realm it comes from.
Kings of War has a large established fantasy setting called Pannithor with its own factions and lore, which gives each army clear identity and is more familiar to players coming from Warhammer Fantasy or The Old World. But the world is Mantic’s, not yours. You spend less time designing the political structure behind your army and more time deciding which units belong in the list.
The Second Major Difference: Individual Models vs Unit Footprints
This is the biggest mechanical difference players notice on the tabletop. Oathmark still cares about the individual miniatures inside a regiment. As units suffer casualties, miniatures are removed — formations shrink, battle lines become depleted, regiments are visibly worn down. For players who grew up with classic fantasy mass-battle games, this feels immediately familiar.
Kings of War takes a very different approach. The regiment itself is the game piece. When a unit suffers damage, you record it rather than removing models. The unit retains its footprint until routed. Because the game cares primarily about the overall footprint, models can be permanently arranged together on a larger scenic base rather than sitting on twenty individual bases — adding ruins, trees, dead enemies, rocks, unit fillers, and dynamic placement that no individual-casualty system can support.
The Basing Trade-Off
Oathmark’s individually based models can be moved between units, reorganized, used in other compatible game systems, and removed as casualties — maximum flexibility. Kings of War’s multibased scenic regiments are extraordinary hobby pieces but are permanently committed to that unit. Choose based on how you prefer to hobby, not just how you prefer to play.
KINGS OF WAR Best for Speed and Large-Scale Play
Kings of War is deliberately designed to handle large fantasy armies without becoming bogged down. It speeds up play by not removing individual casualties, using standardized unit profiles, keeping units at full effectiveness until routed, streamlining movement, integrating magic into existing phases, and using relatively concise special rules. Mantic describes typical games as playable in roughly 60–90 minutes depending on size and experience, and very large games can still be completed within a practical gaming session.
Oathmark Feels More Like a Traditional Wargame
Oathmark has more in common with classic fantasy mass-battle games in its mechanical texture. Activation decisions, formation management, individual model positioning, and casualty removal create a more granular battlefield experience. Games take longer — not excessively so, but you are making more tactical decisions per unit per turn. That additional depth is exactly what some players want. For others it is unnecessary friction. Know which camp you are in before choosing.
OATHMARK Best for Campaign Play
Oathmark Second Edition is specifically designed around its kingdom campaign. Legendary Heroes accumulate experience and heroic traits, territories are contested between kingdoms, battles have narrative consequences, and the realm you start with is not the one you will have at the end of the campaign. Kings of War does have campaign and narrative play options, but the campaign system is less central to what Kings of War is fundamentally trying to do. If ongoing narrative play is your primary goal, Oathmark is the stronger choice.
KINGS OF WAR Best for Competitive Play
Kings of War has a large and well-established competitive scene with regular tournaments, published scenarios, and a mature FAQ and points system maintained by Mantic. If playing in organized events is part of your plan, Kings of War has a substantially larger established infrastructure. Oathmark can absolutely be played competitively but its design priorities are clearly narrative and campaign-oriented, and its tournament scene is smaller.
Which Is Better for Existing Miniature Collections?
Both games handle existing collections extremely well, which is one of their shared strongest selling points. Oathmark works naturally with individually based fantasy regiments. Kings of War can use individually based models on movement trays — multibasing is a hobby advantage, not a requirement — and Mantic has specifically promoted Kings of War as a way to reuse old square-based fantasy armies. If you have a large Warhammer Fantasy collection in storage, both games are genuinely excellent ways to put it back on the table without investing in an entirely new range.
Can You Play Both?
Yes — and many players do. The same fantasy miniature collection can serve both games with minimal or no rebasing, and the two games scratch different itches. Kings of War for fast tactical games and occasional tournaments; Oathmark for the ongoing narrative campaign with the same group. They are more complementary than competitive, and players who enjoy fantasy mass-battle gaming would be well served exploring both rather than treating the comparison as a forced choice.
Head-to-Head: Which Game Wins Each Category?
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| World building freedom | Oathmark | Kingdom creation is the game’s defining feature |
| Campaign depth | Oathmark | Second Edition puts kingdom campaign at the centre |
| Battle speed | Kings of War | Designed to play large armies quickly |
| Competitive scene | Kings of War | Much larger tournament infrastructure |
| Scenic regiments | Kings of War | Multibasing system is purpose-built for it |
| Individual model flexibility | Oathmark | Individual basing preserves cross-game usability |
| Mixed-race armies | Oathmark | Core to the kingdom system, not an exception |
| Traditional wargame feel | Oathmark | Casualty removal and formation management |
| New player accessibility | Kings of War | Faster to learn, quicker games, clear faction structure |
| Very large battle support | Kings of War | Streamlined rules handle high model counts better |
Our Verdict
These are genuinely different games that happen to occupy the same genre. The comparison is not really about which is better — it is about which is better for you.
If you want to build a fantasy realm, mix races that make narrative sense, track your kingdom’s growth through a campaign, and have battles feel like the military history of a world you created — Oathmark is the more distinctive and rewarding choice.
If you want streamlined competitive mass battles, large armies that resolve quickly, scenic multibase regiment display, clear faction identity, and a large tournament community — Kings of War is the stronger system for those goals.
Both games deserve to be on your shelf if you love fantasy mass-battle gaming. Browse our Oathmark collection at Tistaminis to start building your kingdom.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use the same miniatures for both Oathmark and Kings of War?
Yes, in most cases. Both games support individually based fantasy miniatures. Kings of War can use individually based models on movement trays rather than requiring permanent multibasing. Oathmark uses individually based models natively. A collection of square-based fantasy infantry, cavalry, and characters can serve both systems without rebasing, making the two games genuinely complementary for players who want to explore both.
Is Oathmark or Kings of War easier for beginners?
Kings of War is generally easier to learn and produces faster first games. The streamlined rules, clear unit profiles, and absence of individual casualty removal mean new players can focus on tactical decisions rather than bookkeeping. Oathmark is not a difficult game, but the traditional wargame texture — formation management, activation decisions, individual positioning — adds layers that take slightly longer to become comfortable with. Either game is accessible, but Kings of War has a flatter initial learning curve.
Do I need to buy Mantic or North Star miniatures to play these games?
No — both games are miniature-agnostic. Oathmark has no official miniature exclusivity requirement and works with any fantasy infantry and cavalry that fits the appropriate base sizes. Kings of War similarly has no requirement to use Mantic miniatures. Historical plastics, other fantasy manufacturers, and existing collections from other game systems are all regularly used in both games.
Which game has better campaign rules?
Oathmark, by a significant margin if campaign and narrative play is your primary goal. Oathmark Second Edition is specifically designed around the kingdom campaign — territory control, Legendary Heroes accumulating experience, the narrative consequences of individual battles for your realm. Kings of War has campaign options and narrative play supplements, but they are additions to a game primarily designed around competitive mass-battle play rather than the core of the system.
Can I play Oathmark competitively?
Yes, Oathmark can be played as a competitive game and one-off battles work well. However, its design clearly prioritizes narrative and campaign play, and its competitive community is smaller than Kings of War’s established tournament scene. If competitive organized play is your main goal, Kings of War is the better-supported choice for that context.
Where can I find Oathmark miniatures in Canada?
We stock Oathmark miniatures at Tistaminis including infantry, cavalry, heroes, creatures, and support models for all major races. Everything ships from Canada. Browse the full Oathmark collection for what we currently have in stock.
Shop Oathmark at Tistaminis
We stock Oathmark miniatures including infantry, cavalry, heroes, creatures, and support models for all major races. Ships from Canada.