Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EDIT - I changed this to a general poll of modeller preference, the original post is at the end of this edited section (in green) if you're interested.
What I'm wondering now is - What bases do/would you prefer for your figures:

Urban rubble

Rocky

Industrial

Original Black with/out a bit of flock/sand

Hi, I recently got back in to 40k and am starting with a Ravenwing Command Squad. I am mainly back for the joy of painting, because I can't see an easy way to fit gaming in to my life - too many commitments. That said I'm trying to draw a balance between "just doing what I want" and "legal/acceptable" in a gaming situation should I miraculously manage to start playing at any point. Therefore I am building models with appropriate wargear and now I come to basing them. I have done ok basing in the past, I'll glue stones etc on to the bases and dry brush and have been happy with the result, but the style doesn't quite work for me any more and I need to be lazy for time reasons and therefore am going to invest in resin bases. I've only ever finished a handful of models so rebasing to be "legal" is not an issue and I can match with the new bases I buy.

So, I wonder whether I could opinions from the Dakka community on two elements that will help me decide where to go:
1 - Does it really matter what style base you have from a battle perspective?
I see battle reports with figures matching the game table perfectly, but don't for a second believe that they use that particular gaming table all the time. That said, don't want to be banished from a game because my army are on Tarmac and not grass, especially as I'd be pretty nervous being in my 30s and going for the first time if I did ever go!!

2 - Which style base would suit a Ravenwing/Deathwing/Dark Angels army?
I have quite a bit of each so elements would be included in any/all fielded army lists
The options I have found are as follows and would be grateful if you could fill out the poll above to help me garner a view.

Urban rubble

Rocky

Industrial

I'm favouring urban rubble, because I think it will fit my Ravenwing really well, however the rocky bases are safe, so thought I would seek more experienced views.

Thanks for your time everyone

There's no way in hell anyone of sound mind would stop you playing based on your basing! Anything from simple gravel and drybrush to fully modelled lava bases with OSL on the models is absolutely fine, so long as the size is right or close enough! I find urban bases are the easiest to do and least likely to upstage the model, and fit on pretty much anything- grey isn't really that distracting on a grass board, whereas something like lava or piles of skulls might be!

In the end, most people will be too happy to be facing a painted/based army to complain about the style!

 Paradigm wrote:
There's no way in hell anyone of sound mind would stop you playing based on your basing!

Thanks for that Paradigm, it's good to know that's the case. It just seemed that some people were a bit intense about this sort of stuff - base sizes, base style, speeder heights and WYSYWIG wargear when I was reading web posts years ago. I think I got so muddled that I just figured it was easier to give up than try and meet all of my perceived targets.

 Paradigm wrote:
In the end, most people will be too happy to be facing a painted/based army to complain about the style!

I started off as a model maker so this is what I was always mainly focused on but felt constrained. Glad to know this is more the attitude. It's the mindset I've taken returning to the hobby, but just wanted to ensure I would be able to play if I ever went down the playing battles route.

I'm starting to be swayed towards the urban rubble bases mainly because of colour (I'd probably go for the black as in the picture), and as you say they won't upstage the model. Interestingly the voting so far is more to the rocky bases.

Just a quick update - so 145 views, 10 votes.
1st - Rocky (50%)
2nd - Urban Rubble (30%)
3rd - Industrial (20%)

After Paradigm's very helpful comments above My initial gut feeling about urban rubble is increasing.

Would be fascinated to hear the reasons why people are voting the way they are.
EDIT - If the answer is "just because", that's cool, I just find it very interesting.

I think the DA could pull off either the urban rubble or the rocky bases, I'm just not a fan of the industrial ones.

psychosheep22 wrote:
I think the DA could pull off either the urban rubble or the rocky bases, I'm just not a fan of the industrial ones.

Thanks for the feedback, I agree. The industrial were not my favourite, but liked that they were a bit different from the rocky ones.

I think I've worked out why I'm even going down this route, I know Space Marines will fight anywhere they have to, but why do they predominantly fight in hills/grass (suggested by the way models are predominantly based)? I wonder if it's because 40K was spawned from fighting with toy soldiers from world wars etc.?

Sorry, mind wandering. Must stop. Back to painting

I like the rubble the best. Im all for unique basing and as others have said no one you want to play with anyways is going to give you a hard time for not perfectly matching the table. The focus should be on the mini anyways.

That said, if it's something you're concerned about, the industrial may be a bit "loud" if its something your worried about already.

The thing to remember about bike bases is that at the end of the day, the bike takes up a ton of space.
So while looking at bases with no models on them might be nice, you're not going to see most of them in the final product.
I vote for the rubble. It's grimdark and makes a model more dynamic when uneven.

As for base style and play, it was already addressed: no "style" choices on a base will cause gaming issues; if it does, it just means your opponent is a jerk. HOWEVER, base sizes are important because size can influence assault ranges, templates, etc...

Im a massive fan of the industrial one as i play imp fists and i like to think they like urban combat a bit more

That said, best way to figure it out is to create a back story of wtf is going on. then base em on that.

the safest is the rocky outcrop as it fits nearly on any table.

I lean toward generic "rocky" since it would fit in city, blasted landscape, pretty much anywhere in a battlezone would have rock/cement debris.

If time is spent on a good base it fits the "rule of cool" where when obvious work and just plain good looking stuff is fielded no-one who likes the hobby would say anything other than "nice work!".

It is rather telling to be this concerned with just the base of the models... I am almost afraid to ask about the models going on the bases.

Carry on, I it is nice your concern but you need to look to your fun as well.

FearPeteySodes wrote:Im all for unique basing and as others have said no one you want to play with anyways is going to give you a hard time for not perfectly matching the table. The focus should be on the mini anyways.

House Griffith wrote:The thing to remember about bike bases is that at the end of the day, the bike takes up a ton of space.
So while looking at bases with no models on them might be nice, you're not going to see most of them in the final product.

Good point, does make em look nice though

House Griffith wrote:I vote for the rubble. It's grimdark and makes a model more dynamic when uneven.

Yep! You're on the same page

Desubot wrote:best way to figure it out is to create a back story of wtf is going on. then base em on that.

Great idea, I'm not good at that sort of thing, but why not!

Desubot wrote:the safest is the rocky outcrop as it fits nearly on any table

I think "safe" made me tired and bored of painting wargaming miniatures - I wasn't exploring the hobby or my abilities and was just trying to "photocopy" what everyone else did. I'm back now and I'm doing it my way . . . I don't do safe or easy!

Talizvar wrote:It is rather telling to be this concerned with just the base of the models... I am almost afraid to ask about the models going on the bases.

I have a high standard I set myself, I hope it meets some of the standard on here

Talizvar wrote:Carry on, I it is nice your concern but you need to look to your fun as well.

40K has never been "fun" for me, I felt a push to conform and ended up getting pushed out. My brother didn't let me get involved when he played with friends and then Incouldn't find anyone interested, so the uneasy teen turned 20 and I got the sense it was too late for me to start whenever I went to the local GW store - One conversation went along the lines of "well you could come along tomorrow evening and learn with the under -12 group". I was 21 and decided I had no chance of playing the game any more. At 32 I feel a regret about not painting the models, so I'm back because I don't believe in living a life of regret. I'll paint up some Tau too and then I'll fight myself, it'll be like a session with a psychologist

Thank you all for your encouragement and opinions, I wish I'd known you and everyone else on Dakka a long time ago.

The few really good things about 40k is it changes so fast the old timers are no further ahead.
Read the rules and play.
I am surprised there was a 12 year old section, I tend to get anyone from 50 to 10.
Each represent a different play challenge: everyone has something to bring to the table literally.
I find people can get sensitive fielding their chrome or grey legion and the opponent not being suitably impressed
Yes they are still "chess pieces" but we are not playing chess so a little color for our warfare is in order.
Guess I am trying to say the bar is far lower than I think you are shooting for so, worry less, game more.

Thanks Talizvar, haven't even got he new rule book yet Will definitely get it sorted. I think it's that thing about teaching old dog, new tricks. I'll try taking the plunge.

An a side matter, as I'm buying bases I'm ignoring that whole 32mm size thing for infantry that happened last year. I can't see that anyone has come up with an answer as to what to do. I hope you're impressed that I'm not losing too much fun over that I'm going to mount my terminators on 40mm bases though (I've got some sold with 25mm bases), because it just makes sense.

No new tricks with these rules, just new details.
Core mechanics other than psychic phase are pretty much the same.
The insane mixing of armies however (sometimes considered unholy alliances) can raise an eyebrow.
Lords of War and Imperial Knights are making Apocalypse level giant machines/critters part of the game (albeit, limited in quantity thank goodness).

Ah, the old school terminators.
I have a bunch.
I do admit the bigger new terminators are appropriate compared to a normal marine, 40mm bases are the way to go... almost a mini-diorama with those guys.

I cannot remember where, but some company was selling "rings" you could put around the bases to convert a 25mm to a 32mm (3.5mm thick ring). Not that I would suggest converting to that yet... for the amount of models I have, that path leads to madness.

The suggestion earlier was not as crazy as it sounds: If you have two armies, match them up, play them against each other and see how it flows. Make sure you try different scenarios in the book, "Maelstrom" is getting attention for better or worse, so look at that too.

Special rules are the things to focus on memorizing since they are what would trip you up the most. Look at "jink" for skimmers, impact hits by jump troops and dreadnaughts, those are some of the little additions that ARE interesting for those units.

Makes me feel a "so you are new to 7th edition 40k" primer needs to be posted (if not already). Many would say these rules play like a tabletop war-game role playing game. You can pretty much simulate whatever scenario you want from the reading material. The points system is somewhat broken however since many points to capability ratios are broken with some units getting "deals".

For interest, some fellow has dusted off the design "rules" program for trying to assign fair points values for custom vehicles. I think it is a handy reference if you want to make something strange:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634211.page

Good luck

Another quick update - so 418 views, 31 votes.
1st - Rocky (42%)
2nd - Urban Rubble (35%)
3rd - Industrial (23%)

Urban rubble was winning for a long while, but there was a run of rocky votes.

I think the posts in this thread have helped me decide more than the votes - need to just follow my gut and do what I want for my models, not be a sheep and follow others blindly.

That said, I think the vote has been really interesting, so thank you for participating if you did. I thought it was going to be a white-wash win for the rocky bases and I would be a loner being urban rubble. Looks like there's more variety out there than I realised! That'll teach me. I'll keep the vote open for a while and check back, it will instead become an interesting query as to the attitudes of modellers on the topic, rather than me just seeking advice.

Thanks again. Now let's go buy me some Tarmac

Closing this thread in 1 day, have added an end point to poll.

Thanks everyone for your input. The Tiny Worlds Urban Rubble bases are awesome. I'm going to go back to them to get their lava bases for my Farsight Enclaves army when I get started. Great company, check them out if you're in the UK.

Officially closed.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Remember, Tiny Worlds are producing awesome bases, check them out!