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.

Well, I'm going to have to go with what's been said:

 notprop wrote:
Models that haven't been based don't look finished, simple as really.

Really unfinished.

But if you have so much trouble with suspending disbelief, try out some of those clear bases that I've seen (I don't remember if Litko or someone else was making them). Then they won't show a different terrain type than your table.

Personally, I've never thought this was a problem, but I guess someone does.


I don't really understand people's problems with some of the more scenic base options. I mean, I don't imagine that these characters are moving from spot to spot in the same pose either, so it is just a snapshot of a character on a battlefield.

 Pete Melvin wrote:
But surely then a big black disk on your desert theme boards is just as "bad" as having a non-desert themed base?
You can get clear plastic bases you know, if you really have a problem with it.

If I were a player, and expected to be playing on different terrains, I'd use clear bases. But I'm not, so I don't.

For me, basing is an extension of the character of the miniature. A dwarf on a jungle base doesn't look right, neither does a Chaos Space Marine on a fresh green, grassy rural base.

I quite often make up bases for future use, as well. It's another aspect of model making.

Why do models not look finished without basing? Is it because that's just how it's always been done, or it helps to place a model into an environment? Basing won't improve a bad paintjob, but it might pull the eye from it.

I just find a lot of basing makes a model look too busy to me. A layer of sand or snow is fine, but when you start throwing in pipes, grass, rocks, and such it becomes too distracting from the paint job.

 Ugavine wrote:
I base my Orks 'cuz Gork sed 'eed stomp me if I didn't.

Makes 'em look prettier.

I hate to mention this, but Mork told you too. It wasn't Gork.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Why do models not look finished without basing? Is it because that's just how it's always been done, or it helps to place a model into an environment? Basing won't improve a bad paintjob, but it might pull the eye from it.

I just find a lot of basing makes a model look too busy to me. A layer of sand or snow is fine, but when you start throwing in pipes, grass, rocks, and such it becomes too distracting from the paint job.

From my experience, no one is going to be able to answer this with anything other than "It's just what we've always done" or "it makes the paint job better/finished."

For me there's two options when basing. Take forever and get it to look decent while adding hours to a paint job or PVC it dip it and call it an afternoon. Neither of which I care to do for models I'm gonna game with regularly. Now for a display piece then yeah go to town.

I really don't think black bases should be treated as unfinished when it comes to models not trying to win a painting competition. Just like I've always hated the opinion that unless a guy paints rocks or skulls glued to his bases he's a bad painter with no talent and all his models are "Unfinished".

For me the matter comes two fold with gaming models. For one I always picture that marine picking up his rubble and carrying it all along with his gear, I can't not do it its just a thought that's always there when I game and it really breaks the immersion. For second I don't have the time I used to to paint and would have to resort to the "glue, rock, flock" technique we used when I worked for GW, sure, for example models it got the job done but I never really liked it. I'd much rather spend time detailing a fantastic model than a rock or sand from Woodland Scenics.

And for that matter what counts as based? One rock, two rocks, sand, grass, full on rubble? You know when a model is fully painted is a rock and some brown paint around it based? I've been in this hobby for 9 years now, please don't make me glue a single rock to all my space marines to play in your tuornament anymore, at least the models are painted I'm not some dude tryin to throw down grey plastic or metal.

I don't get the argument that having rubble, stones etc would imply that the model carry it with him. (I mean, if that's the feeling someone get, then that's nobody's fault as such, but it's just wierd to me).

In that case, isn't it equally immersion breaking that all the marines move around striking the exact same pose all the time?

Zywus wrote:
I don't get the argument that having rubble, stones etc would imply that the model carry it with him. (I mean, if that's the feeling someone get, then that's nobody's fault as such, but it's just wierd to me).

In that case, isn't it equally immersion breaking that all the marines move around striking the exact same pose all the time?

I think it's just a case of the way a very few folks view their minis. Not really a point of view worth arguing with since it's entirely subjective.

How is my army of slowly growing naked catgirls supposed to look complete standing on a bare plastic black base?
Maybe if I painted it to look like a floor or something but still, doesn't look as good as a cityfight or something

I paint all of my bases a flat Goblin Green because I am an original gangster. I've been painting my bases the same way for close to twenty years now, and by God I am not stopping now!

Scenic bases are just a fad, anyway.

The base is an extension of the model to me.
I like to add little brass "shell casings" and stuff like that which would not normally be on the terrain.
I must admit, the clear bases look boss to me and the lipped bases do justify a black for separation.
So aside from the above exceptions, texturing and painting bases really give a better look.
I find also the same bases (different from terrain or not!) also help tie-in allied models that may be of a different race/army.

My two cents.

If it aint based, it aint finished.

I would find a black base very garish on terrain, to me it seems odd not to do it, but ii wont use a model till its finished.

A base should be a mini diorama for your overgrown counter and add to the final piece... simple or OTT both can add to the end result.

I'd prefer no base over black base. But basing adds to the model, the extra effort put in painting gives me the feeling the other person gives a poo. If i played someone with a grey army i'd go away thinking, "moron, go play video games". Nothing wrong with video games btw, just tabletop is a very involving hobby imo.

I like basing ... it is as fun as fixing and painting the miniature.. But there are those that dont like the "pet rock" jada jada.. I say those that dont base are just lazy gits.. Or dont have the skill for it and its easier to just say I want it black to not clash with the table... A pure black base clashes more with the table if you ask me... it looks unfinishded...

 zlayer77 wrote:
I like basing ... it is as fun as fixing and painting the miniature.. But there are those that dont like the "pet rock" jada jada.. I say those that dont base are just lazy gits.. Or dont have the skill for it and its easier to just say I want it black to not clash with the table... A pure black base clashes more with the table if you ask me... it looks unfinishded...

We are not lazy nor do we lack the skill so you say we just perfer a different style of model than you do it's no less finished than any other model. I mean I could say that any person who puts "pet rocks" on bases are TFGs, but that would be rude, right?

Just different strokes for different folks. Base. Don't base. I could care less, just paint the models folks no barren metal/plastic/resin.

I dunno, black bases just look out of place on any table for me (unless you're playing on a flat black table, I guess). Same with the pet rock thing: why is your miniature carrying a piece of void on his/her/its feet? If it's really bothersome, I guess clear bases would be the natural solution.

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
I like basing ... it is as fun as fixing and painting the miniature.. But there are those that dont like the "pet rock" jada jada.. I say those that dont base are just lazy gits.. Or dont have the skill for it and its easier to just say I want it black to not clash with the table... A pure black base clashes more with the table if you ask me... it looks unfinishded...

We are not lazy nor do we lack the skill so you say we just perfer a different style of model than you do it's no less finished than any other model. I mean I could say that any person who puts "pet rocks" on bases are TFGs, but that would be rude, right?

Just different strokes for different folks. Base. Don't base. I could care less, just paint the models folks no barren metal/plastic/resin.

Well I do claim that I have mobile cover behind my Moving Base"pet rock"
Its totaly OK that you do not base your Minis but if you lived here in sweden with us Vikings a few of us would wrestle you to the ground and the rest would start basing your Minis wheter you liked it or not .. No Unfinished Models on our TABLES!!!

I'm just kidding and I'm sorry if I stept on your toes with the "lazy word" its just that I think miniatures looks so much cooler on a finished base...

I base my models because i feel it doesn't look right unless it has at least some sand on it. Now i like using raw umber pigment powder as it seems to fit on most any table (besides super themed desert or full on urban bases.

I am however having difficulties figuring out what to do with my infinity bases. Should my Aleph bases be clean and blend together with the models or should they be dirty/rusty to contrast them (im thinking urban china rooftops/gutters like in GitS)

 zlayer77 wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
I like basing ... it is as fun as fixing and painting the miniature.. But there are those that dont like the "pet rock" jada jada.. I say those that dont base are just lazy gits.. Or dont have the skill for it and its easier to just say I want it black to not clash with the table... A pure black base clashes more with the table if you ask me... it looks unfinishded...

We are not lazy nor do we lack the skill so you say we just perfer a different style of model than you do it's no less finished than any other model. I mean I could say that any person who puts "pet rocks" on bases are TFGs, but that would be rude, right?

Just different strokes for different folks. Base. Don't base. I could care less, just paint the models folks no barren metal/plastic/resin.

Well I do claim that I have mobile cover behind my Moving Base"pet rock"
Its totaly OK that you do not base your Minis but if you lived here in sweden with us Vikings a few of us would wrestle you to the ground and the rest would start basing your Minis wheter you liked it or not .. No Unfinished Models on our TABLES!!!

I'm just kidding and I'm sorry if I stept on your toes with the "lazy word" its just that I think miniatures looks so much cooler on a finished base...

It's cool I just have a hard time when it comes to the basing issue. It used to be a really divisive issue in my gaming groups of old.

 Desubot wrote:
I base my models because i feel it doesn't look right unless it has at least some sand on it. Now i like using raw umber pigment powder as it seems to fit on most any table (besides super themed desert or full on urban bases.

I am however having difficulties figuring out what to do with my infinity bases. Should my Aleph bases be clean and blend together with the models or should they be dirty/rusty to contrast them (im thinking urban china rooftops/gutters like in GitS)

Personally I think bases always look best contrasting the model and aleph always look best playing up the GitS themes.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
How is my army of slowly growing naked catgirls supposed to look complete standing on a bare plastic black base?
Maybe if I painted it to look like a floor or something but still, doesn't look as good as a cityfight or something

I assume you mean slowly growing army of naked catgirls... if not I really want to see how you represent a slowly growing naked catgirl in miniature form, I have some weird images in my head

I think of the base as part of the model. I wouldn't leave any other part flat black, and so I don't leave the base plain either.

Originally, I did consider painting the bases as a shadow of the model, so that it would fit on any terrain. I also didn't want to buy anything specific for the base, but then I discovered a free source of material for my bases; crushed up, dried up paint (Gives a good mixture of shapes and sizes and infinitely modifiable).

A good example of what it looks like unpainted is this wip shot:

Paint brown for mud, and pick out anything that looks like a rock, and that's the basics for all my bases.

Another thing I've not seen anyone mention is that what you add to the base can help with getting more interesting poses from the models.
For example:

That pose wouldn't work on a flat base. Or would require significantly more work on the model to get it to work.

Then there are poses where the model has it's foot up on something. Just having the single item for them to rest their foot on, wouldn't work on a plain base.


And one last one, as others have said, a base can help tell a story and set the scene for the model in question. A mini diorama.
Extreme example (it was for a competition):


That's why I base my models.

What do the "paint it black" crowd do when the model comes with a piece of terrain moulded on?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Why do models not look finished without basing? Is it because that's just how it's always been done

I think that's most of it to be honest. For most of us the first painted miniatures we've seen were based and 99% of completed painted miniatures we've seen since are based and it's just the community expectation that it will be based.

I wouldn't call a sculpture incomplete because they haven't sculpted scenery around it, I wouldn't call a painting incomplete because it doesn't have a scenic background, when it comes to historic model planes/boats/tanks, rarely are they placed on scenic bases (unless it's part of a larger diorama) and I wouldn't call them incomplete just because they aren't based.

It's just wargaming we have created the expectation that models should have a scenic base to be considered complete. Not that I think there's something wrong with doing a scenic base, but to me it's hardly a stamp of "this is a completed model".

It's always puzzled me why the Painting & Modeling Showcase forum requires models to be based. I wonder if I simply put a model on a clean black base up if it would get removed as unfinished.

I personally would never give anyone any guff for doing the flat black thing. Its your army after all, and as long as the rest of the model is painted, I say whatever floats your pink lil sailboat cupcake... I have tons of old marines where I did the goblin green top, or bestial brown, cause i was a rebel in the mid/late 90s -_- , but now I definitely appreciate the look of a well done base. Is it my favorite thing to do? Well, no, but neither is painting... I personally only enjoy the modeling aspect of the hobby outside games. But I do it all because 1) I dont have anywhere even close to approaching the funds I would need to commission 5 armies and 2) They are mine, and that includes painting and basing just as much as it does sculpting and posing in cool/neat ways.

I base my models to match my crazy autumn terrain.

I guess I like basing because I like terrain more than the models.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
why do you base or not base models?

I base them, because I don't want them to capsize.

Something I just thought of today. Some folks say they don't base because they don't want it to clash with non-matching battlefields and mess with the suspension of disbelief of gaming.

However, aren't there many cases where the figures themselves do this? Consider the Catachans fighting on a desert world, or the Tau in tan fighting on a winter planet, the Valhallans in their parkas on a jungle planet, etc, etc... It's just as much of a clash, but no one complains about it.

It annoys me when people insist that a model is not done until it is based. I put a lot of work into my models, often trying to give every individual soldier a unique pose or feature making each distinguishable from the next. I then spend the time to give the figurines a good paint job, applying primer, paints and washes. The model is then complete for me, highly detailed and on a clean base. I don't spend hours painting figurines for people to be staring at the ground they are standing on.

This does not mean however that I am against basing. Well done bases look excellent, and as mentioned by many other previously they can be multipurpose, contributing to the model's pose of back story. I however simply prefer not to.

In other words... please don't call my models unfinished just because the base is black plastic. The model is finished, it is the base that remains blank. It's kind of like a new car on the showroom floor, fancy shiny car with the rest of the room blacked out as to not distract from it.

Also I saw one or two comments talking about those who show up with grey plastic or bare metal miniatures, I totally agree that the models should at least have some sort of paint job applied to them. Even a very basic paint job over primer is better than nothing. Frankly it would take a little away from the game if my opponent's army was composed of unpainted grey plastic.

or the Tau in tan fighting on a winter planet,

Getting a little off topic... a buddy of mine is building and painting up his Tau for winter fighting. It's actually really cool, Tau units seem to match up with the whit-grey-blue color schemes associated with arctic fighting oddly enough. (Also I do get your point in regards to some models blatantly not matching the boards they are on, I just wanted to put an interesting thought in hehe.)

 Eilif wrote:
It's just as much of a clash, but no one complains about it.

Well firstly, yeah, I have heard people complain about it.

Secondly, it is less of a clash. It's less visually jarring to start with, then beyond that you can often explain it away if you want. We're talking about fighting on alien planets, it's not hard to think of reasons why troops may appear wrongly equipped when based on Earth assumptions. It's much harder to explain why that catachan is dragging a pile of brown dirt with a few tufts of grass across a desert.

 oadie wrote:
Why do I create scenic basing? Simple - my miniatures are primarily display pieces that can also serve as gaming counters, not the other way around. I use basing as a unifying visual element,. Solid black could do that, but scenic basing can also serve to convey army fluff/theme.

I do, however, understand where the "black base" camp is coming from. We're trained to abstract black, beyond it simply being the color of nothingness - if we weren't, the blacklining in cartoons/comics wouldn't work. That's why I prefer black base rims, even on scenically based models.

When the situation is reversed - models are gaming pieces that can also be displayed - I base black. My Project Pandora and Dwarf King's Hold minis will only ever be used for those self-enclosed board games. They're receiving a quick (by my standards, at least) and dirty paintjob and will only have their small, round, integral bases to stand on. I could attempt to sculpt/paint space corridor/dungeon floor patterns on the bases, but solid black just seems cleaner and less intrusive, especially considering the impossibility of matching all the varieties of colors and textures on the map tiles.

What Oadie said. I agree with all of this. I view my minis as miniature figurines as well as counters, so a dash of scenery just seems natural. Not to mention pretty stunning and inspiring in some examples. The black base reasoning gives me food for thought - and I admit I used to base my 40K models with a bit of grey-brown for largely the same effect - but I'm still gettin' a flockbox anyways.

Although... just going by the first page (apols if it's been brought up already) I have a vague feeling the discussion is skewed towards 40K, and platoon and skirmish games. Individually based fellers oscillating about the place. I think it might be a slightly different situation (YMMV) with rank'n'file blocks, or - especially - multi- and unit-based games (not to mention war machines, elephants, monsters, tanks etc.) where a scattering of big black rectangles might just stand out a bit more.

Also, it's one thing when you've got Space Marines inserting from an orbital plane into the Single Biome Planet du jour, but it might be a different story with historicals and maybe even fantasy, to a degree. Vikings go home when it turns snowy; Monty tries to wrest control of the desert from Rommel; Napoleon squares up over some wide grassy field; Rohan and the Pelennor tend to match that latter description too, along with large swathes of the Old World and the Iron Kingdoms. Unless you're regularly using your big-battle minis to play a skirmish through Stalingrad, Mordheim or the like, 'grass' seems to be a pretty safe bet for bases, closely followed by 'sand'.

Also also, I can understand the opposition to a mini dragging a circle of earth around with it, especially the pet rock/skull/whatever so the mini can do a Captain Morgan, and especially those ridiculous teetering towers of cork that no painting competition is without, these days. But I can't help but wonder that if the former ruins their suspension of disbelief, then what about the soldiers with enormous heads and hands, perched on scale-six-inch-tall plinths, making up armies crammed into and desperately fighting over a football pitch, wielding small arms and guns and sometimes artillery with a range measured in feet; and with none of this able to move and operate according to what it represents, but subject to having a hand descend from above to move them around, and relying on the arbitrary, abstract result of a dice roll to determine what effect a 'shot' has?
I don't mean that as a high-handed criticism of black bases. You can do as you like, and I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow at it. (Well, I might nod, say 'nice', and admire your aesthetic conviction) But in tabletop imagery, as with complaints about other, non-GW rules, I think people tend to forget that it's all very abstract and unrealistic anyway. I know I said that they're not just gaming counters, but... yeah, from another POV that is all they are.

They're your models, do what you want. Having played against Grey Legion more than I care to admit, I'm fine with whatever gets you to the game table. So long as I can tell what's what, anyway...

Having said that, I always base, and my basing has gotten more sophisticated over time. My first two armies were simple flock jobs with black edges. After that I started sanding, rocks, patches of flock, and other such things. Just the way I prefer to do things, that's all.