VS new Dictator and it's base size

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

  • fireballmj wrote:

    Is it really worth forcing people to rebase stuff for such a minor change between various bases not designed for being put inside units.
    There's a couple of good reasons, some major, some minor. I'll divide them into categoties.


    Gameplay

    Consistency: being consistent helps players familiarize themselves with the game and is a good way to avoid confusion.
    Protection: A powerful, gigantic model should have larger flanks than front facings (like everyone else) to help the enemy flank charge it.

    Modeling

    Easy to build: Fitting a large model on a base that's broader than longer is difficult. Like I said in my first post, it only really fits one particular model. Cavalry and large monsters tend to either be quadrupedal or have tails or other appendixes that make it fit a longer base. This is probably the case for 9/10 monsters from any given manufacturer. It should be easy for a player to find models to fit the base size.

    Model agnosticism: Given that T9A is model agnostic, we should try to make the design work with a decent range of models from a decent range of manufacturers, not just "that one model from GW".


    Now, here's the important part: There are different player bases that need appealing to. For this kind of discussion, I feel that there are two groups with conflicting interests. As you can tell, many of the points I just raised would greatly benefit new players, moreso than veteran players who already have this army. And for veteran players, of course consistency isn't as important because they've already familiarized themselves with it. They don't need an easy to build model because they already have one. I would know, because I'm one of them.

    However, when you're making a game, you have to look at the user experience from start to finish. Just because existing players have learned to make and play units that have suboptimal designs - doesn't mean those designs shouldn't be improved on - especially if the payoff means it's easier for new players.


    Finally, I'd like to flip the question on its head: Is rebasing one model really that big of a deal? I've rebased plenty. Not too big of a deal and especially if I get a better base in the end. Unless, of course, you've made a really awesome and elaborate base but I'd wager that's a small minority of players.

    I would encourage people to think about the unit, army and the game as a whole, about what would be good in a theoretical sense and beyond the particular model that's on your shelf. This is the very purpose of the LAB, to go beyond and improve on what we already have.
  • Elguigui wrote:

    Except that it is the central piece of the army, and that obviously, many players, including myself, had customized the base and did not want to break it.
    Sometimes rebasing can be a hassle, yes. And I agree that we should try to keep these kinds of things to a minimum and only change a base size for good reasons. That being said, we're not having a discussion about what kind of unit would be the best for the army here.

    "Please don't change this thing because I have/don't have a model" is only ever going to be an argument to keep everything the same:

    We can't increase a unit size, because you'd need to buy more models.
    We can't decrease a unit size, because you'd have to shelve your models.

    We can't make new units because you'd need to buy more models.
    We can't remove existing units because you'd have to shelve your models.

    We can't change the base size of a unit because you'd have to change the base of your model.



    So at the end of the day, what can we change other than points, stats and rules? And is that really what the LAB should aim to do?
  • Hombre de Mundo wrote:

    "Please don't change this thing because I have/don't have a model" is only ever going to be an argument to keep everything the same:
    But the problem is context. And in this instance you are taking the model which is most likely to be on a more fancy extravagant base, is the most expensive single model in their army and telling them to break it. It's disrespectful to the work people have put into it.

    New units always come with "don't want to buy more models", and changing base size is always going to be annoying someone. But every situation needs to be looked at and analysed. For example, one of ID's new units is on the same base size as another unit and is similar in rough design (big machine). This was partly picked on purpose so people could use an existing model for it. And as for changing base sizes; again looking at it from a unit-to-unit basis should have been done, and the fact that this model is a centrepiece and pricy should be a red flag.


    And while you might go with something along the lines of "we shouldn't stick to what GW did"; this unit has been on this base size since the start of 9th. Some units had the bullet bitten at the start (Cadavar Wagon is on a 60x100, but the model came with a 50x100). But this has been in the system long enough for people to have bought it specifically for 9th age.

    Lord of the Hobby

    The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
  • It's not bad re basing as that base can now be used for the other models in your army and you get a chance to create more artwork. However the gw model would not fit on a smaller width, it is already pushing it on the 75. On the other hand I still have cav bases next to my treeman, and I still move them sideways to minimise attacks on them. Base changes really only serve to promote more cav bases next to models.
  • Tyranno wrote:

    in this instance you are taking the model which is most likely to be on a more fancy extravagant base, is the most expensive single model in their army and telling them to break it. It's disrespectful to the work people have put into it.
    At the same time, it is only one model. If a unit had its base changed, then you'd deal with multiple models that people would have to "break", which is arguably just as bad. If that's the absolute terms we're going by, T9A can never, ever change a base size for any unit, because that would force people to "break" their models. First of all, I think using the term "breaking" for rebasing is quite an exaggeration. Not many bases are so intricately intertwined with the model that you cannot separate the two without breaking any of the parts, to later be re-assembled or remade on a new base.

    But that aside, if your outlook on it is that re-basing should be completely off the table at all times, that's okay. I just don't agree. Good design should be able to stand against rebasing in a cost-benefit analysis.


    Tyranno wrote:

    But every situation needs to be looked at and analysed.
    That's kind of what this thread is for, isn't it? I mean, from a public, opinion-gathering POV, at least :)

    I have given multiple reasons as to why changing the base would be beneficial to the game as a whole and it's my opinion that those outweigh the cost for individual players having to re-base. Am I opposed to a compromise where - for example - a model can have different base sizes depending on unit upgrades or items? Of course not. While that's not ideal for gameplay reasons, that's what a compromise is, and it'd be better for modeling reasons. But so far nobody has suggested any such option and I'm not sure that's on the table.


    Tyranno wrote:

    And while you might go with something along the lines of "we shouldn't stick to what GW did"; this unit has been on this base size since the start of 9th. Some units had the bullet bitten at the start (Cadavar Wagon is on a 60x100, but the model came with a 50x100). But this has been in the system long enough for people to have bought it specifically for 9th age.
    It's not about "sticking to what GW did" or not, it's about a base size that's not well designed. And I'd like to see that changed because T9A is a well-designed game. The only thing I said about GW is that I don't think that T9A - as a model agnostic game - should let a single model from a single manufacturer dictate absolutely the design of a unit.

    "We've always done it this way" is not a good reason to keep doing it. You highlighted a good example of a unit that had it's base changed for a good reason. If the Cadaver Wagon was still 50x100 in 2021, would you oppose a base change to 60x100, despite the obvious benefits of such a change?
  • I wonder why 75x100 is not on the list directly to vote for (I am not voting as I am not affected). But imho making a base straight bigger, should be a good compromise. Players that don't want to rebase at all costs, can just use a conversion base/movement tray.

    75x75 could also do the job, of course (which seems not to be a popular vote)... as would 100x100.
    :HE: :BH: :DL:

    Discord: daemonik#9250

    The post was edited 1 time, last by teclis2000 ().

  • To be honest?

    With this codex you already changed so many things I'd rather not add "rebase another centerpice model" to the list of conversion and painting I'm gonna have to do.

    We have greatly increased unit sizes on everything, including elite models (which will probably require shopping by those that want to have most option available to them), new units (with different base sizes, so no proxying them), and so on.

    so, let it stay at it is.
  • Well since the poll is currently tied it would seem either option is going to upset a large portion of the community.

    So, what if the entry included an option for both? It could be as simple as making the base size “50x75 or 75x50” or linking it to an optional upgrade. Ignoring the rules themselves but something like this:

    “Must choose one:
    Scheming Underseer - Universal Rule
    The model gains +1Discipline and its base size is set to 50x75.

    Verminous Avatar - Universal Rule
    The model gains +1 Attack, +1S, +1AP, and Lightning Reflexes, and its base size is set to 75x50.”

    You get the idea. At the expense of a little extra design space it would provide a way to accommodate both sides of the issue, and since this base issue is pretty much limited to VS and SE I don’t see the precedent being problematic for the game.
  • dan wrote:

    So, what if the entry included an option for both? It could be as simple as making the base size “50x75 or 75x50” or linking it to an optional upgrade.
    From my POV and the gameplay concerns I have, that would be twice as bad as keeping the 75x50 because now you not only have to remind yourself that out of all the bases in T9A, this one is the other way around - you also have to check every single game whether it actually is the right way or not xD

    I believe that 50x75 is the most popular "change" option, because it's the most simple. "Turn the base around". But I don't think many people have thought carefully about which of the "change" options would be best, so if it was to become - say 75x75 that would require minimal rebasing, nobody who voted 50x75 would mind an awful lot.
  • Yeah I really don’t think it would cause that much confusion. I doubt many people will run their model sideways, but if there’s concern about choosing one rule over the other just strip the rule away and force the choice at list writing.

    This is a paradoxical problem because most people agree that:
    • 75x50 doesn’t look right
    • Changing it would be irritating
    And as implied earlier from the poll standings, choosing to change it or not is going to make half the VS community upset, so there’s really no avoiding it. Even if providing a way to accommodate both is a little clunky I think it’s the lesser of three evils.
  • Out of all the possible changes happening in the LAB process, changing this model’s base to fit standards in the rest of T9A should be the least of people’s concerns. I would have 2 bases to change and 1 model/base is done very ornately but I would much rather change to the standard than dig my heels in over such a silly complaint. I’ll leave it up to the LAB team to decide what base configuration is best for the model and it’s new rules. I’ll save my effort requesting changes to other things ;)
  • dan wrote:

    And as implied earlier from the poll standings, choosing to change it or not is going to make half the VS community upset, so there’s really no avoiding it. Even if providing a way to accommodate both is a little clunky I think it’s the lesser of three evils.
    Not to be pedantic... but ;)

    While the poll has a 50/50 split between 75x50 and 50x75, there's still a >60% majority in favour of some kind of change*. Not that the poll is legally binding, but still good to acknowledge.

    Also, while I believe some players will be upset by having to re-base, I don't believe most players who want a change would be "upset", as it's just keeping the status quo. I mean, I'd be a bit disappointed, I guess. Because to me this base is an obvious design flaw that should be remedied. But that's just my personal opinion.

    *EDIT: Wait. My numbers are wrong. Why does this poll go above 100% ??? So without counting Other votes (because who knows what craziness goes on in there), it's a >70% majority for changing the current size.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Hombre de Mundo ().

  • Hombre de Mundo wrote:

    Protection: A powerful, gigantic model should have larger flanks than front facings (like everyone else) to help the enemy flank charge it.
    given this statement it would be likely that this will change the alignment of the existing gw model that is being talked about here (of which I also own by the way)

    Perhaps then if good reason allows the new base size to be large enough we can keep the existing base that has been created and physically fit that to the new base. Perhaps it might need to be at a angle and using Adobe green stuff.

    However my main point is that those skilled enough to create an elaborate base and spend hours making it so are going to be easily skilled enough to change a base size.

    I intend to make a 'plateau' of rock that will suit upon the new base size and keep the original model position.
  • Seeing the rules would help for context though if you are trying to balance the 'dictator' (daemon) using base sizes because you don't want to create a hard to flank blending machine then, I'd suggest that the problem isn't the base size but that your trying to turn make the model a front line fighter when most agree it should probably get a little weaker on that front.

    Also its worth pointing out that a large increase in base size could impact the models Commanding presence range which might sque character choice for the army. 18" bubble on a 100x150mm base wld be that much of a wider Disc. bubble.