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.

Ah yes.. The plain black base in which you will glue and display your finely painted miniature upon.

Do you decorate it, or do you leave it plain and neutral?


It would seem that a great deal of serious hobbyist will find some way to decorate the bases they use.
Now, while I do enjoy some of the decorations and creativity that goes into these displays, I cannot help but wonder....

What if the miniatures you are using have been decorated with a sandy base, but you find yourself some months later in a scenario or tabletop environment that utilizes a jungle-like atmosphere?
What if the base you have decorated is rocky with cracks of burning magma flowing between the legs of your beautiful mini's - but you are later playing those same models in the steel recesses of a space hulk?


And so, I ask the citizens of Dakka Dakka - Do you decorate your bases or not? If so, does it ever conflict or bother you when you are not using them in the appropriate environment for a tabletop game?

Always. I edge my models bases black which gives a nice border and separation from the table.

My minis battle over my own table for the most part so matching it is more important than away games (and the black edges help in that event)

I don't consider a model finished unless something has been done with the base, even if it's just a little texture paint or sand. Best not to go overboard with decorating bases though- you want the focus of the miniature to be the figure rather than the base.

One more for yes... Minimum is texture, paint, drybrush, wash, and a contrasting ring. High profile models might get rocks, logs, rusting wreckage, mud, and grass tufts. Everyone gets dried leaves to tie them all together. All of this is in service of the matching table and terrain components I've built on the same scheme.

 MacPhail wrote:
All of this is in service of the matching table and terrain components I've built on the same scheme.

But what if you aren't playing on your own tabletop?

Also, what if you became tired of the same atmosphere and created.. say.. an industrial environment? And it contrasted against the bases of your units?

Also a yes for me. I have an Imperial Guard regiment that is mixed up from desert and jungle tribes in the lore, so I try to give one half desert/badland bases and the other jungle/wood bases. Special characters get special bases, like lava, skulls etc. While it will of course not match the battlefield (unless it is also mixed) I like the variation.

Yeah I do standard textured bases too. But to your point of playing on different surfaces I am seeing an increasing number of people now using clear plastic bases so maybe that could be an option for you?

despite being a somewhat lazy fat hobbit of a painter a quick lick of pva and basing mix is a must

although I dont worry about the clear bases for my assorted Eldar hover wotsits

 FragTheCommissar wrote:

 MacPhail wrote:
All of this is in service of the matching table and terrain components I've built on the same scheme.

But what if you aren't playing on your own tabletop?

Also, what if you became tired of the same atmosphere and created.. say.. an industrial environment? And it contrasted against the bases of your units?

Well why paint them at all? What if you paint your marines as Blood Angels and you end up playing someone else who also has Blood Angels? Or you decide you prefer the Ultramarines rules?

Of course I base everything, because miniatures look a thousand times better based. Unbased miniatures always look unfinished to me, and lack a sense of connection to a physical world. The problem of "oh no I've done snow bases and I'm playing on a desert table" isn't exactly fixed by having them unbased - "brilliant, I'm playing on a desert table, and each of my miniatures is standing on their own individual disk of black plastic so therefore they blend in seamlessly."

For years I just kept them simple black. Tidy, but plain. Part was being lazy. But part of it was the worry of not matching the table.

These days I base everything. It looks better. I black the rims to form a border/frame the base. Which helps with the disconnect against the table.

But I reconize the thought process behind simple black bases, and would not doc someone points for using them.

You can get a lifetime supply of stuff to do some basic schemes for under $20.

Bases that clash with the game environment bother me a lot. It creates what I call "narrative conflict" -- conflicting visual stories about where these models are. Let the models be the models and the terrain be the terrain, I say.

I tried plain black bases for a while, puttied and sanded and painted to be as black and plain as possible. I like how black bases are clearly separate from game world, and more like the selection circle in a video game. Part of the tabletop UI, perhaps. Or a little display base for the game pieces. It's easy to see past them, narratively. I like it when models look like they could step right off their bases into the terrain.

What I don't like about plain black bases -- enough that I've stopped using them -- is how they disrupt model silhouettes. From a player's point of view, the silhouette of any model that's not brightly colored will be dominated by its solid black base. And since silhouettes are a giant part of communicating what game unit a model represents, that's a deal-breaker. Plain black bases are less problematic at eye level.

Clear bases won't work for me because I pin models to their bases then weight them with a steel washer and putty so they're sturdier, better balanced, and feel better to play with. The shine of clear plastic is an issue, too.

So now I'm moving to modelled bases that are intentionally as vague as possible. Mottled neutral grey-brown. Something passable as dirt or stone or a metal surface strewn with debris. Something you wouldn't even notice during a game. I still putty and sand and paint base edges as plain black as possible. It reinforces that these are game pieces, not dioramas. And it makes clear to players what the model's exact position is on the game board.

The base is part of the model for me, so if I'm going to take the time to paint the model (and I do, I enjoy that side of the hobby) the base goes with it. Same with scheme. Bases match the theme/scheme for me. I do understand your points so no judgement.
Not everyone has the luxury, but playing/having multiple forces helps the "What if I get bored" side.
I run multiple armies and each gets a different base style. Guard get green grassy plains interspersed with rocks, White Scars dead grass and dirt, Eldar alien blues and purple grasses, Slaanesh and EC lava, etc etc.

For whatever reason matching the terrain or NOT matching does not bother me at all (I also host and have 4 different sets of terrain my armies match) but for away games, never an issue. I don't even notice it while playing. I do notice unpainted models...

Bases are a must. With the texture paints that GW puts out though, its dead easy. I used to do sand, pva, flock, static grass, etc. on all my bases. Now I use the texture paint, a little dryrbush, and maybe some static grass and job's a good 'un.

Black bases don't look right next to a painted model. And its amazing how finishing the base and the rim really brings a model together.

I decorate the bases, because it looks good and is somewhat fun.

However, I try to keep it simple and not too prominent, so the bases don't clash too much with different boards. Snow bases, plants, lava might clash more easily with the board than simple rubble like broken stuff which might be concrete, rocks, material of ruins. I also like industrial bases lately. When weathered they can be part of a jungle, a space station, an underhive, tech ruins or space debris in different types of terrain. Have been thinking about using clear bases, too.

For better or worse, too much time and effort has been put into the design, posing, detailing - even the rules and background - for these little plastic men to be simple gaming chits rather than an army of heroes on display. And that's before they get into the hands of the gamer. It's up to those gamers to do what they like with their own minis, of course, but basing is as much a part of the modelling side of the hobby as painting, or gluing on accessories. It's about making the mini look good in itself, rather than strictly game-oriented considerations.

I admit I use flat renedra bases myself, because at some point the standard slottabases started looking too much like artificial raised plinths. Even then, only because I figured plastic models would let me get past the practicalities of slotta tabs or deep pinning or the like. At the end of the day, I'm still looking at pretty much the same blank surface area on top, and it starts taunting me to do something about it.

The only models I own that I didn't base were my Rogue Trader Kill Team box minis (both sides). Because I just couldn't decide what I wanted to do with them. So I just decided to leave them generic black.

Yes, I will paint the edges of the base either green or brown, depending on what type of basing material i will be using. Then mix a bit of glue with the paint and when you paint the top and drop on the material and stuff, it blends in and just stays on the top and off the edges.

It does not bother me so much if my army has grass bases and they are on a brown rock play field. i just don't see the minis as finished unless there is some sort of basing done.

I spend majority of my hobby time starting at the minis rather than playing them and I want my minis to look good, therefore I decorate the bases too. If I have a gaming table, I may try to match the theme at least in colour, but not necessarily the theme.

If the models are for board game purposes only, then I could consider plain or transparent bases, but never for tabletop miniatures.

To varying degrees.

My epic is essentially basic, so just sanded and painted.
Only bigger epic models get rubble etc as it distracts far too much from the tiny models.

Normal models usually get sand, a few rocks/some rubble and some static grass depending on the nature of it.
Some also get lead scatter depending on the army.


Colour wise I paint the base so it does not blend in with the model too much.
My tyranids are mainly grey and white, so an urban base would blend in with them too much.
Because of this, they got a more arid desert style.

My militia are typical green uniforms, so got grey urban bases as again, it stops it all blending together.

I understand that often (with camouflage) this is actually something desired, but I dislike the base bleeding into the model.



For playing on different tables I’m really not too bothered.
While having it all match does look great, you’ll never match every table you play on.
Clear bases are an option, but they stand out even worse and on any table.

For Warhammer, all my miniatures are based, usually with multiple textures and various details. For something like a Knight or plane, there's a huge canvas to work with.

I do leave my bases plain black on miniatures I'm painting for D&D though, to match the pre-painted ones since they'll all be on the battle mat together.

 FragTheCommissar wrote:

 MacPhail wrote:
All of this is in service of the matching table and terrain components I've built on the same scheme.

But what if you aren't playing on your own tabletop?

Also, what if you became tired of the same atmosphere and created.. say.. an industrial environment? And it contrasted against the bases of your units?

Funny, but I rarely play on my own table... it's mostly just for aesthetics. But my scheme fits most tables. The solid-color ring (raw umber) ties in with most desert, wasteland, and swamp tables. The gray stone and gravel on top ties in pretty well with urban ruins (which is a lot of boards), and not-too-bad with industrial/spaceport type boards and not-ruined urban cityscapes. The only ones where it kind of fails is the red sands of Mars and the bright green golf courses of 90s-era 40k. I'll probably do a different base when I do a different army...

Here's a representative pic:

I decorate the bases of my soldiers generally with a red grassy red desert theme, as I have made terrain matching this. This reflects the fluff of my units that are operating in such a region.
I also have other units (such as a specialised urban warfare commando unit) whose bases reflect their theatre of conflict(the hives of Ardus itself).

I'd just like to say I'm a fan of camo, so I try to make the uniform's colours useful for the environment it's being used in and decorated bases is a little snapshot of the environment they're 'set' in. Also matches my vehicles which are sometimes a little dusty, and painted in a scrubby desert theme.

 NephMakes wrote:
I like how black bases are clearly separate from game world, and more like the selection circle in a video game. Part of the tabletop UI, perhaps. Or a little display base for the game pieces. It's easy to see past them, narratively. I like it when models look like they could step right off their bases into the terrain.

This!
A perfect description of how I myself feel about bases.

I can appreciate every posters opinion on base decor, but I heavily disagree that a model will feel incomplete because of an untouched base.

I wasn't sure how to articulate my own feelings on this, but the expression that the blank base is a sort of selection circle in a video game is perfect. I completely relate here.
They feel so much more neutral and proper in my opinion. In absolutely no way am I knocking those who choose or feel otherwise. Its cool that most of you prefer to decorate your bases.

Clearly this is an unpopular opinion. I live with a fairly neurotic brain and it results in pragmatic taste when dealing with aesthetics.

I just want to emphasize that I occasionally see base decor and find it very charming. Most of the time though.. I just wish blank bases were more widely appreciated for their universal neutrality.
Just because a base is not decorated should not give off the idea that it was left unfinished.

As Neph puts it: Its as though they are about to walk off their base and onto the battlefield - whether it be soot, snow, swamp or steel.

I think it might be very interesting to truly steer into that direction and decorate them in that style. Selection circles or nameplates etc.

 Eldarain wrote:
I think it might be very interesting to truly steer into that direction and decorate them in that style.

What, like a colored ring or outline around the miniatures feet?
I could see that being a very interesting and cool approach for sure.

Depending on the concept, the technique could vary from simple to advanced and challenging. I'm sure some pro-painters could do some really neat stuff if they tried to execute something along these lines.

I think a plain or symbolic base (color-coded units, maybe?) is a totally reasonable way to go, but I think paint is important, even if it's just a single-color solid base. Somehow having the same texture and finish as the model seems appealing. But I get what you're going after with the selection visual.

I think the "player selection circle" approach works better for games with fixed positions such as BloodBowl or Warhammer Underworlds but undecorated base looks wrong in free movement tabletop game in my opinion. That being said, I don't mind a dark base rim because it highlights the miniature on tabletop but also looks good on display. Personally I use dark brown base rim but I can see why some people prefer black.

I don't mind if my ash waste bases look different than jungle table once in five years. For me the most important thing is that miniature looks good within its own world that is the 32mm circle below it.

 FragTheCommissar wrote:

 NephMakes wrote:
I like how black bases are clearly separate from game world, and more like the selection circle in a video game. Part of the tabletop UI, perhaps. Or a little display base for the game pieces. It's easy to see past them, narratively. I like it when models look like they could step right off their bases into the terrain.

This!
A perfect description of how I myself feel about bases.

I can appreciate every posters opinion on base decor, but I heavily disagree that a model will feel incomplete because of an untouched base.

I wasn't sure how to articulate my own feelings on this, but the expression that the blank base is a sort of selection circle in a video game is perfect. I completely relate here.
They feel so much more neutral and proper in my opinion. In absolutely no way am I knocking those who choose or feel otherwise. Its cool that most of you prefer to decorate your bases.

Clearly this is an unpopular opinion. I live with a fairly neurotic brain and it results in pragmatic taste when dealing with aesthetics.

I just want to emphasize that I occasionally see base decor and find it very charming. Most of the time though.. I just wish blank bases were more widely appreciated for their universal neutrality.
Just because a base is not decorated should not give off the idea that it was left unfinished.

As Neph puts it: Its as though they are about to walk off their base and onto the battlefield - whether it be soot, snow, swamp or steel.

Personally I find bases can provide more detail that would be impractical for terrain such as vegitation etc, that would otherwise get in the way, nd to tell the story of my army and the campaign they are embroiled in.
I have considered doing otherwise, and decided the most suitable alternative to make the figure suitable for most battlefields would be very thin clear bases. But you know, that's the other extreme, and it raises problems of it's own.

Mostly yes, evident in the picture I posted earlier that required me going all the way to 1st Ed Necromunda to get pics of raw bases.

Because I'm a 2nd Ed fan my go-to was Goblin Green. Some got old school flocking, some got electrostatic grass. Others got sand and grass. One or two got some extra like a severed head or in one case even a Grot.

My current IG army has been themed on Anglo Zulu/Anglo Boer war so Goblin Green is wrong. I've started painting them in a more Coyote colour to represent the Veld. I haven't decided which tan-brown to use, some are just edged in it still with green flock/grass or tops.

I don't want my bases conflicting with my models but I don't mind them conflicting with the tabletop. My bases are meant to build the narrative of my armies, not necessarily reflect the tabletop.

I paint mainly to enjoy painting and to display models, so I base according to what I want the army as a whole to look like.

If I am painting an army for gaming, I'll tend towards very neutral bases - normally something that looks like churned mud for AoS and something that looks like rough gravel for 40K. However, sometimes I might go away from that purely because I want something a bit different.

I'm really not bothered by the battlefield-bases discrepancy. When they're on the tabletop, they're gaming pieces, not display pieces. The chances of getting all three sets to agree (the battlefield itself and the two armies) is low unless they're built and painted deliberately to match, so why spend too much time fussing over it?

I don't personally like solid black bases. As NephMakes said earlier, I find a black base to overwhelm the silhouette , while I find it easier to 'tune out' a painted base to focus on the model.

The rim of the base is another matter entirely. I like having a neutral colour rim no matter what (black, grey, muted brown etc).