Wyvern Base Size

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Wyvern Base Size

    Although a quick question I figured I might as well make a new thread about it...

    Are there any plans on re-sizing the wyvern?

    I think most of us struggle with the 50x50 base for modeling purposes. At least I am having a hard time finding a decent model that fits the bill. I figure the reason is to keep the wyvern as a monstrous beast rather than full monster. Is that the only reason?
    I think it would make our lives a little easier making it a 50x100 base. For such a center piece that the wyvern could be it needs the space to really look good. Currently it's simply packing too much awsome on too little space (I mean. just compare it with the giant)!

    Are there any rule-wise reasons limiting it to a 50x50 base, other than being the beast thing? Because that seems like an easy enough of an exeption to implement. Or do the community feel like the 100cm flank would be too much?
    A smart gobbo convinces others to die for him
  • The main reason for base size is legacy. We don't want to make people rebase their models, unless we have absolutely no choice. So cost and rules will be changed to attempt to do something with this base size rather than the inverse reasoning. It might be a monstrous beast because it's 50x50 and not the opposite! ;)
    That said, what could be thought of is an option for bigger base! That has been done for other models for reasons linked to miniature collections and could be something to create new exciting content (provided that the 50x50 wyvern still has an interest on its own).
  • Indeed, I am aware that we don't want unneccesary re-bazing but in regards to the wyvern I think it is somewhat justified. The 50x50 base was an issue even in the old system. Since, in this case, going from a smaller to a larger baze one could "simply" add to any existing model rather than trimming it down which requires ALOT more work.

    Whether 50x50 or 50x100 I will make do. I was mostly curious ^^
    A smart gobbo convinces others to die for him
  • Shlagrabak wrote:

    The main reason for base size is legacy. We don't want to make people rebase their models, unless we have absolutely no choice. So cost and rules will be changed to attempt to do something with this base size rather than the inverse reasoning. It might be a monstrous beast because it's 50x50 and not the opposite! ;)
    That said, what could be thought of is an option for bigger base! That has been done for other models for reasons linked to miniature collections and could be something to create new exciting content (provided that the 50x50 wyvern still has an interest on its own).
    This is a noble endavour. Unfortunatly those stuck with Azagh the Slaughterer and Skullmuncha model (or its convertion) actually should rebase. So this is true only for those who posses old Wyvern models. If you indeed wanto to fulfill that goal it would be prudent to give players option for bigger base Wyvern. There were several ideas to that effect if memory serves. For example upgrade to ancient wyvern that would have diferent stats and bigger base. Do you plan anything to that effect?

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Just to clarify, the principle is not "as sold per Games Workshop" (or any other company) nowadays, it is "as it has been in T9A rules lately". Whether you buy Azagh, the enormous Mierce model or the much smaller Archidon from Hordes, T9A has nothing to say about it, for or against. We told people that they should base their model on 50x50mm so far, and we must be aware that it will cost all these people some efforts before their model is legal again if we change it (unless it's an option - but the space for these isn't infinite). This is not about my opinion by the way, just trying to inform you guys of the constraints - there are some weights associated with collections.

    Personally, I think an option for bigger wyverns would be interesting. I assume this will have to wait for our book overhaul, but that could be really cool and epic!
  • This is a general problem. I keep writing about this but there is no change in sight.
    Greater demons, dwarf throne, beasts of pestilence, black coach... the list goes on an on. Lots of miniatures are not fitting well or not at all on the base size in their army list.
    Even some of the miniatures recommended in the forum won't fit.
    But with templates out of use the impact of base size in the game has been limited- would be good to reduce it further and get some flexibility so people can (within reason) use the miniatures they want to.
    Snowflake? Yes I’ve heard this word. I think sociopaths use it in an attempt to discredit the notion of empathy
    — John Cleese
  • Ulricpriest wrote:

    This is a general problem. I keep writing about this but there is no change in sight.
    Greater demons, dwarf throne, beasts of pestilence, black coach... the list goes on an on. Lots of miniatures are not fitting well or not at all on the base size in their army list.
    Even some of the miniatures recommended in the forum won't fit.
    But with templates out of use the impact of base size in the game has been limited- would be good to reduce it further and get some flexibility so people can (within reason) use the miniatures they want to.
    Well there is something to be said about blocking lines of fire and problems with fitting during charge, but lack of templates is also important.
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Perhaps the easiest way to tackle this for monsterous creatures is to have a wider allowance on base size?

    I started out with Juggers on 50mm bases and quite frankly they can fit it reasonably well. I don't mind the 50x75mm but I also understand that this has some disadvantages for the rider when flanked...

    It's certainly a difficult thing to tackle. The allowance for use of proxy bases could be a very usefull outcome. This way players can base single X or Y models on whatever they want but have the practicle option to use a proxy base for tournaments?

    It's a bit of a shaky fix but I don't think there are much better solutions. I apply the same for my Warmachine and Hordes armies when needed (was much more the case in Mk2), Malifaux and for Kings of War I also have cut up some squares in plasticard to ensure this all works out well.

    So I think proxy base allowance might be the easiest solution for this @Ulricpriest.

    However that doesn't thake away that I feel cool (AoS) models also can recieve a real use. This way T9A will become its own game much more, as WFB didnt have it and a larger door opens to the wonderful monsters by Mierce Miniatures. Seems like a win/win that should be implemented for some factions. For others the line is more open. For example that insanely huge beast for End Time Archaon can easily be a Dragon proxy aswell.

    I think it's fair to say that Orc mounts are just a bit limited in 1.3.4.
  • Shlagrabak wrote:

    The main reason for base size is legacy. We don't want to make people rebase their models, unless we have absolutely no choice

    Shlagrabak wrote:

    Just to clarify, the principle is not "as sold per Games Workshop" (or any other company) nowadays, it is "as it has been in T9A rules lately". Whether you buy Azagh, the enormous Mierce model or the much smaller Archidon from Hordes, T9A has nothing to say about it, for or against.

    Well, in practice you inevitably do get a say, i.e. conform to this given standard. And this standard IS a GW legacy. If other companies do not follow this standard you are effectively prohibiting them.

    The value of existing models is certainly of importance but the value of new models should be considered as well. Even more so if we are to break free from the habit of buying GW models. T9A is obviously aware of this so the deciders of such matters should have provided appropriate model suggestions, or at the least checked whether there exists models that do conform to this standard. When taking a look at the suggested miniatures I immediately see problems with 3 in regards to their pose. Anything other than a "standing on its tale in an upright position" will have a problem with the 50x50 base. A simple google image search for wyvern/dragon/lizard miniatures provides further such immidiate problems. Even GW, from where this legacy stems, has abandoned this standard since long ago (and they weren't that successfull when they did either).
    Even if just 50x75 the options becomes much more accessable for different manufacturers. And isn't that the entire point?

    And as for the existing models a complete re-baze isn't needed as you could "simply add" to the model (obviously in quation since whether simple or not depends on each own's standard of quality but the least that is required is to glue the old base on a bigger one, BOOM! done).

    So if the suggested models section could accurately provide plausible models I would not have an issue with the current base size. This is currently not really the case given the abundance of models that go beyond the 50x50 baze. Certainly we cannot adhere to every possible model available but it should be able to adhere to the majority.
    A smart gobbo convinces others to die for him
  • Rebasing is not actually that much hassle.

    Having your wyvern fall over because the base is ridiculously small is actually more hassle IMO.

    I would say that the wyvern base needs to be 75mm wide by 100mm long to provide a stable foundation. Some points cost decrease could compensate for the larger footprint and greater incoming damage that this represents.

    Also, it has trouble fitting into combats because the model overhangs the base by such a large amount.

    Shlagrabak wrote:

    The main reason for base size is legacy. We don't want to make people rebase their models, unless we have absolutely no choice.
    I think this is a good general principle, but the wyvern is such an extreme case that I would make an exception.

    We did this for the Great Green Idol. Has anyone complained about the 100x100 base for that?
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    Rebasing is not actually that much hassle.
    Perhaps you could enlighten me but I still wonder, what does the design team think about proxy bases?

    The more I think about how effectively it has been to my Mk 2 games the more I miss it in T9A. It's very practicle and while it doesn't sound that elegant an acrylic marker in the right size allows you to base everything on anything but for game purposes have the proxy to ensure it works out for the game (and your hobby) :) .
  • IceKing wrote:

    As I own the old Azhag model it would be nice if there were two options for the wyvern like there are some other monsters with different base sizes. An ancient wyvern or something
    There is the Maw-Krusha model too which would be cool to get into the game, as a bloated flightless wyvern monstrosity.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    acrylic marker in the right size allows you to base everything on anything
    Sure, in a friendly game or small tournament that sounds fine. For something super serious like ETC I have no idea what the policy is.

    I should add that I am not a Ninth Age Official Person!
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    JDAntoine wrote:

    acrylic marker in the right size allows you to base everything on anything
    Sure, in a friendly game or small tournament that sounds fine. For something super serious like ETC I have no idea what the policy is.
    I should add that I am not a Ninth Age Official Person!
    I think it could really help the community :) For example with the Wyvern issue but many more things for the future, such as using huge Dragons because you like the model and such.

    Its things like this that could be benificial for everybody because it allows the rules design team to go for standardisation of bases for 'monsters' which I think would make the game work out more logical. For example the fact that a Wyvern needs to be squished on a 50x50 base but a Crusher is on a 50x75 is just a bit odd.

    Likewise if the bigger AoS Wyvern will be implemented on a 100x50 or 50x75 base it would still also allow AoS players to play with their models, provided they bring the right proxy bases.

    Cheers,
  • I'm very new to 9th Age, having recently discovered that it existed, but I find the Wyvern to be in an odd place with the 50x50mm base size as well.

    A quick perusal of 4 other army books shows that EoS,WoDG, and DE have Monstrous Beast mounts of approximately similar stats (Great Griffon Wasteland Manticore, and Manticore, respectively) that have bases listed at 50x100mm. Hippogriff of the KoE, however, are listed at 50x50mm, like the Wyvern. Is there a balance issue I'm not seeing that necessitates these discrepancies between similar units?
  • I use a non standard model for the Wyvern, a Dark Elf Dragon with the arms removed. I put four washers under the base--he now won't fall over during a 7.0 quake. Makes a manly sound when I plop him onto the table as well.

    I'd like to see someone make a list of all the base sizes in T9A and how they are used, and why. Maybe we could create a BRT - Base Rationalization Team.

    Oh, and as an aside, I dropped in to GW Edinburgh while on vacation yesterday and was talking to the fellow who works there. I was telling him about T9A, which he said the company was totally aware of. He told me he could sell me square bases for the models I bought if I needed them. I did not know they were doing that.

    O&G Community Support


    "I see you are a man who likes to talk. That is good, for I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk." - Caspar Gutman
  • beerbeard wrote:

    I use a non standard model for the Wyvern, a Dark Elf Dragon with the arms removed. I put four washers under the base--he now won't fall over during a 7.0 quake. Makes a manly sound when I plop him onto the table as well.

    I'd like to see someone make a list of all the base sizes in T9A and how they are used, and why. Maybe we could create a BRT - Base Rationalization Team.

    Oh, and as an aside, I dropped in to GW Edinburgh while on vacation yesterday and was talking to the fellow who works there. I was telling him about T9A, which he said the company was totally aware of. He told me he could sell me square bases for the models I bought if I needed them. I did not know they were doing that.
    I have Skullmuncha and Azahhs model on big base. it is 100x150 if I remeber correctly. I am pondering rebasing him. He would have to be in flight or something, but wings are in walking mode so it will be awkward. Maby I put him on some tall rock?
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • I have the wyvern from atlantis miniatures and I experimented with making it in a flying position but the small base makes it a bit too easy to flip over and not really worth the effort. I ended up mounting it on the big rock it came with and am planning to put it on a 50x75 base (which it barely fits) and mark out the 50mm mark if anyone wants to try to charge me from behind.
    A smart gobbo convinces others to die for him