PDA

View Full Version : Dragon base change.



dala_karn
14-12-2011, 18:50
hey all,

a couple months back i bought the new dark elf dragon with the purpose to make it a chaos dragon. i changed it's pose so it was doing a swooping attack, with one head breathing mutating flame on the foes below. only porblem is the chariot base supplied is way too small for such a conversion.

i was thinking of sticking on the arachnarok spider base (the 100mm by 150mm according to internet chatter) from the 100mm x 50mm chariot base.

would any of you think anyone would have a problem with it?

Urgat
14-12-2011, 18:54
Nah. GW already put their dragons on whatever base can accommodate them already (see the zombie dragon?), so why not you? Besides it's bigger, so on the whole it's more a disadvantage top you than anything else. One could argue that you got more range for terror, but terror isn't exactly what it used to be anymore, so who cares.

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 19:13
Nah. GW already put their dragons on whatever base can accommodate them already (see the zombie dragon?), so why not you? Besides it's bigger, so on the whole it's more a disadvantage top you than anything else.

Yep, this. GW has no consistency with bases, especially for monsters and dragons. Generally it's simply whatever base might fit the model. It's indeed a disadvantage to yourself rather than an advantage, as more models (nearly twice as many) can hit you, and cannons and template have a bigger target.


One could argue that you got more range for terror, but terror isn't exactly what it used to be anymore, so who cares.

Terror has no range anymore, its now a bit like fear.

popisdead
14-12-2011, 19:36
If you aren't benefiting from a tactical standpoint it shouldn't be an issue. In fact you are doing the opposite. Unless there is a DE weapon with "as many models in B2B" I cannot imagine it's an issue.

Harwammer
14-12-2011, 19:55
a wider base gives you a better charge arc FILTHY CHEATER!

Kidding.

Zywus
14-12-2011, 20:06
Certain magic items get a slight benefit from a bigger base as well, such as Sword of Anti-heroes. Although anyone having a problem with a larger base probably have some kind of personal problems.

I'd never seen the point in GW never including base-sizes in the units entry, especially now that they now include unit types.

Urgat
14-12-2011, 20:50
Yep, this. GW has no consistency with bases, especially for monsters and dragons. Generally it's simply whatever base might fit the model. It's indeed a disadvantage to yourself rather than an advantage, as more models (nearly twice as many) can hit you, and cannons and template have a bigger target.



Terror has no range anymore, its now a bit like fear.

Ah, yeah, forgot. Even more a reason then.

SanDiegoSurrealist
14-12-2011, 21:01
You could build a defined area on the new base that is roughly the equivalent to the actual base. Just make your opponent aware that while the base is larger and that you will actually be measuring from and taking hits on the smaller footprint.

I have played a few people who have done this with something like a Dwarf cannon on a scenic base and it has never been an issue.

The bearded one
14-12-2011, 21:42
You could build a defined area on the new base that is roughly the equivalent to the actual base. Just make your opponent aware that while the base is larger and that you will actually be measuring from and taking hits on the smaller footprint.

I have played a few people who have done this with something like a Dwarf cannon on a scenic base and it has never been an issue.

Warmachines are only measured from the actual warmachine base though, making it less of an issue than having to draw imaginary lines across a large dragon base.

Spiney Norman
15-12-2011, 10:36
Certain magic items get a slight benefit from a bigger base as well, such as Sword of Anti-heroes. Although anyone having a problem with a larger base probably have some kind of personal problems.

I'd never seen the point in GW never including base-sizes in the units entry, especially now that they now include unit types.

Because there is no hard and fast rule for what unit type should be on which base size. Monsters, particularly dragons are a case in point, any dragon bought before the HE plastic is on a 50mm square base, the two plastic dragons are on chariot bases and Zombie dragons are on the massive 100x150 base. Even Cavalry don't have a standard across-the-board base size now that squig hoppers on their 20mm square are counted as cavalry.

I think its enough to say the correct base size for a model is the one it is supplied with.

Urgat
15-12-2011, 11:36
Spiney, actually, I think the older dragons came on 40mm bases, I can be wrong, but I'm pretty sure my Baudros is on a 40mm base. That's a pretty massive model for a 40mm base, yup :)

Zywus
15-12-2011, 14:08
Because there is no hard and fast rule for what unit type should be on which base size. Monsters, particularly dragons are a case in point, any dragon bought before the HE plastic is on a 50mm square base, the two plastic dragons are on chariot bases and Zombie dragons are on the massive 100x150 base. Even Cavalry don't have a standard across-the-board base size now that squig hoppers on their 20mm square are counted as cavalry.

I think its enough to say the correct base size for a model is the one it is supplied with.I don't mean there should be a standard saying that all 'cavalry' have there bases and all 'monstrous infantry' have those bases.

Rather that the base size should be included in the unit's bestiary alongside with all the other stats.

I agree that there could be a bit of fuss for people who have already based their monsters. I still think it would be a better alternative than leaving the base-sizes in a "legal-limbo". Plus the problem is basically the same even now as models are supposed to be based "on the base included in the package" so there will still be fuss at tournaments and such, just that it's more unclear which base-size is really required.

Wishing
16-12-2011, 10:25
I don't mean there should be a standard saying that all 'cavalry' have there bases and all 'monstrous infantry' have those bases.

Rather that the base size should be included in the unit's bestiary alongside with all the other stats.

While this makes sense, one issue with that is that GW has a tendency to make rules for a model, but not make the actual model until a lot later. See the new beastmen monsters for an example of this. If the beastman army book had stated that those monsters go on 50mm square bases, then GW would have a problem by the time they make the models and they end up with chariot bases.

In other words, it is hard to consider the base size to be an important game stat when GW don't show any consistency in how they base their models, it all being down to whatever style is in vogue when the models happen to be released.

Zywus
16-12-2011, 11:15
While this makes sense, one issue with that is that GW has a tendency to make rules for a model, but not make the actual model until a lot later. See the new beastmen monsters for an example of this. If the beastman army book had stated that those monsters go on 50mm square bases, then GW would have a problem by the time they make the models and they end up with chariot bases.

In other words, it is hard to consider the base size to be an important game stat when GW don't show any consistency in how they base their models, it all being down to whatever style is in vogue when the models happen to be released.Surely it would be no problem for the sculptor to take the basesize in consideration when he/she designs the model? Especially seeing as they already have to consider other aspects of the rules for the model when designing it. Or vice-versa, if the sculptor has already started work on the model, the rules developer taking the size of the model in consideration when establishing it's basesize.

dala_karn
16-12-2011, 12:12
thanks for the input gentlemen, (and ladies if there are any).

Wishing
16-12-2011, 12:46
Surely it would be no problem for the sculptor to take the basesize in consideration when he/she designs the model? Especially seeing as they already have to consider other aspects of the rules for the model when designing it. Or vice-versa, if the sculptor has already started work on the model, the rules developer taking the size of the model in consideration when establishing it's basesize.

You might think that, but I think models not being subordinate to what the army books say is fairly fundamental at GW. For example, if the Vampire book said that the base for a zombie dragon is 50x50mm, because that was what the zombie dragon at the time was on, then they wouldn't have been able to make a new zombie dragon model that is much bigger and cooler on a larger base, but intended to represent the same army entry. With the current system, they can have two different models with two different base sizes that represent the same army list entry, without this conflicting with the rules.

Urgat
16-12-2011, 16:05
They could, really, that zombie dragon isn't any more impressive than Azhag's wyvern. If they decided that all dragons in 8th would go on charriot bases, they'd have made the zombie dragon's pose a tad different, that's all, really.

Wishing
16-12-2011, 23:26
They could, really, that zombie dragon isn't any more impressive than Azhag's wyvern. If they decided that all dragons in 8th would go on charriot bases, they'd have made the zombie dragon's pose a tad different, that's all, really.

They could have, sure, but my point was that I don't think they'd want to. I think they want to be able to give new models any damn base size they want, without being constrained by what has at some point been written into the rules.

Urgat
16-12-2011, 23:33
I know, but that leads to absurdities like ungors. Maybe one little restriction wouldn't kill them.