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.

 Arbitrator wrote:
My Guard/WHFB/Warmahordes/ASoI&F are all sand/flock/static grass, albeit having added some tufts here and there as time has gone on. My GSC are all sand painted to look like gravel.

I quite like the basing pastes for things like crackled earth, but not for a typical dirt ground. I tried Astrogranite once but I just did not like it. That said I'm planning on investing in one of those giant tubs of Vallejo basing paste for a muddy-field look to my Flames of War Normandy models.

 malfred wrote:
I don't understand the problem with flock.

It's not the official Games Workshop(tm) way of doing things anymore, therefore it's wrong/bad.

IMHO it just looks dated.

By flock do you just mean flock by itself?

Or does that include other basing elements?

I use painted sand with peel and stick static grass clumps on my newer bases (especially on post-apoc and Wild West figures), but I have flocked my fantasy stuff the same way, for decades. It's tradition, at this point, over hundreds of figures.

I still use flock for my bases but only as a base for static grass. My Stonehorn Beastraiders are painted as if they are wandering the grassy plains rather than snowy wastelands and as such I use a lot of static grass as well as a off bit of flowers combined with stirland mud to give the impression of tracks / countryside paths. By itself, static grass looks quite thin so I flock the area first then re-do the glue with static grass (blend of colours). The glue dries clear, the grass as a textured undertone and the static grass adds a fuller texture.

Which sized static grass should I use? It seems like 6mm and 2mm are popular lengths. Should I mix these together for a more varies look?

I still put flock on my Epic bases for that retro 90's look:

 infinite_array wrote:
Which sized static grass should I use? It seems like 6mm and 2mm are popular lengths. Should I mix these together for a more varies look?

Correct. If the grass it all the same length it looks odd. 2mm is generally used as your 'basing' layer, whilst the larger ones go atop it.

Flock is viable at the 6-10 mm small scale and still used in non-GW often and in historicals

A mixture of multiple basing ingredients is great and flock still has a use

Still don't see why people look down on this.

 Just Tony wrote:
Still don't see why people look down on this.

In that example, because of the camera angle.

 infinite_array wrote:
Which sized static grass should I use? It seems like 6mm and 2mm are popular lengths. Should I mix these together for a more varies look?

I keep them separate and glue separate. 6mm is good for near rocks or areas you would expect it to grow in shade, otherwise 2mm everywhere else.

Kewl. I'm working on a new project 28mm project (Early War Germans for the 1939 invasion of Poland) so I'll try some static grass.

Also, here's some of my recent stuff using flock. 10mm ACW and 28mm WW2. I've been using tufts to break up the 28mm stuff, but it'll be interesting to see how it compares to static grass.

Am I the only one who dislikes basing (Flock, static grass, kitty litter, what have you)?

I prefer either the black bases for single, skirmish minis or just painting the base brownish and sponging on some green shades.

 Easy E wrote:
Am I the only one who dislikes basing (Flock, static grass, kitty litter, what have you)?

I prefer either the black bases for single, skirmish minis or just painting the base brownish and sponging on some green shades.

You're the extreme minority

Basing is my favorite part of the process. I fething hate painting minis mostly and look forward to basing them.

Try out working on terrain or some dioramas!

Frankly I somewhat miss the simplicity of just flock and Goblin Green bases. Basing a whole army is pretty straight forward this way, not the dumb thing I did like getting a Greenstuff world roller and having to greenstuff each base to make the stone floor I want for my armies.

So much work...

 Easy E wrote:
Am I the only one who dislikes basing (Flock, static grass, kitty litter, what have you)?

I prefer either the black bases for single, skirmish minis or just painting the base brownish and sponging on some green shades.

Quite possibly.

But hey, it's your minis. Do it your way. So long as you like the results that's all that matters.

Any pics you care to share?

For decades I just kept most of my minis on plain black bases. Tidied up, so no paint slop, but plain. Didn’t want to clash with the battlefield. My Undead I did base in the Goblin Green and flock of the time.

There are some solid arguments for keeping it plain. Don’t clash from the table, don’t distract from the mini, don’t drag the same rock around the battlefield. Less work. I was happy with it for years.

But I am glad I started baseing.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Still don't see why people look down on this.

In that example, because of the camera angle.

This thread deserves a lock just for this.

 malfred wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Still don't see why people look down on this.

In that example, because of the camera angle.

This thread deserves a lock just for this.

Dad gonna dad joke. Can’t help it.

To add some pics to my previous point, The classic Goblin Green flock to match the tables of the day:

The table is a 4x8 rescue from when a FLGS went out of business in the late 90s.

These days I black rim, as I think it sets them off nicely, and frames the bases. So when you are not playing on a vintage table, there is a line of demarkation between the mini and the table. Makes it a little less jarring IMHO.


And on larger bases, I use tufts and rocks, not just pure flock.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Still don't see why people look down on this.

In that example, because of the camera angle.

Moderators, please ban this man.

Anyway, I can see the appeal of plain black bases but I find most people play on green fields enough to justify giving most of mine a grasslands base. Of course with more/most(?) 40k boards now taking on urban settings, particularly in GW stores, I could see an argument away from it, but for fantasy games it's common enough that black would always 'stand out' versus grass, which only contrasts some of the time.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Am I the only one who dislikes basing (Flock, static grass, kitty litter, what have you)?

I prefer either the black bases for single, skirmish minis or just painting the base brownish and sponging on some green shades.

Quite possibly.

But hey, it's your minis. Do it your way. So long as you like the results that's all that matters.

Any pics you care to share?

These aren't 40K, but.....



Bases just painted up with no flock/moss/static grass, etc.



Just black bases on very old 40K models.

I just flock bases for smaller scales, especially 6mm. I might add a rock or something for 15mm.

For 28mm I use a little flock here and there, along with other stuff, as appropriate.

Way way back, flock was all you could get so I have a lot of minis that are based that way. Miniatures that I based in the late 80s' still have all the flock on them(it refuses to budge!), my only gripe with it is that it tends to fade; I based all my necrons with black flock which over time turned into light grey, and I ended up covering it with black dust.
Recently I've been using rubber flock for my WW2 figures and I've been impressed with it, it gives good coverage and sticks really well.

I remember flocking bases, and then I stopped in favor of plain bases, cleaned up and marked with whatever the game system needs (front arc markings, colored ring for unit designation, model name, etc.). Just enough work on the base to cover up the tabs or whatever if it's a metal model.

I'm solidly in the "You're using the model as a game piece. The purpose of the base is to facilitate the use of the use of the model in the game" camp. Sure, dioramas are nice, but if you're building a diorama your model would look even better without that base.

Interesting, before reading this thread I considered flock to be the usual way of doing bases. Of course there are sculpted Bases if you have a lot of money or there are technical colors if you want to go cheap, but flock is what most people usually do imo.

Yep. Started the hobby around '95 and in the 3 years I collected I didn't even consider using anything on bases except 2 coats of goblin green and flock. Because as far as I could see, that was how it was done. Even most of the studio models were based like this until '98 iirc?

I think the most adventurous thing I did with bases was putting a skull, or a rock on them, ha...it'd look pretty dull by today's standards.

I started with sand+paint method, now I just go for texture paste+ rocks+self adhesive tufts(or pigments for urban/other textures) I cannot imagine switching to flock, just like I can't imagine going back to 90's fashion style in clothing, as amusing as it was at the time.

I have to admit that my Dwarf army is flocked. That is one of those "never again" moments for me. Different story on terrain, but on a base, it just does not look right in my eye.

Actually, I do it for everything, using that exact procedure, but I've never read that book.

My current fantasy army is flocked with some nice autumn woodland stuff I picked up from a model rail shop for dead cheap. There's nout wrong with flock. Does the job well for me.

I guess for 40k people want to do bases that are a bit more grubby and alien.