PDA

View Full Version : Problem with the 32mm bases



Silent Surrender
08-04-2015, 15:45
Hello all.

I recently bought some 32mm round bases to try out on some chosen chaos marines. To my horror i find an aesthetic flaw with these.

The 25mm, 40mm and 60mm (havent seen the 50mm yet) has a certain geometrical grace with its low profile. The 32mm is tall and clumsy, and when a model is placed upon it, it looks more like a toy from privateer press.

My question is this. If i file down my 32mm bases (filing the top side so the space the base takes up is still the same) will it have any implications with oponents? My first thought was line of sight, the models placed on these filed down bases will be a millimeter or so shorter,. But then again, i thought, i could just have put them on a 25mm base to begin with and gain even more benefits, so my oponent should be happy they still take up more space on the table. I could only see this would be an issue if the 25mm bases where completely phased out.

What do you think about this?

Marshal
08-04-2015, 15:55
Hello all.

I recently bought some 32mm round bases to try out on some chosen chaos marines. To my horror i find an aesthetic flaw with these.

The 25mm, 40mm and 60mm (havent seen the 50mm yet) has a certain geometrical grace with its low profile. The 32mm is tall and clumsy, and when a model is placed upon it, it looks more like a toy from privateer press.

My question is this. If i file down my 32mm bases (filing the top side so the space the base takes up is still the same) will it have any implications with oponents? My first thought was line of sight, the models placed on these filed down bases will be a millimeter or so shorter,. But then again, i thought, i could just have put them on a 25mm base to begin with and gain even more benefits, so my oponent should be happy they still take up more space on the table. I could only see this would be an issue if the 25mm bases where completely phased out.

What do you think about this?

Not sure what you're talking about. My 32mm bases are the exact same height as my 25mm, 40mm and 50mm bases are. The 60mm base seems slightly taller though to me, though I'd have to compare them all together to really know for sure.

The 25mm base isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of models which fit nicely on the 25mm base, such as Tau infantry, Eldar infantry and Imperial Guard infantry. Besides, Harlequins were released after the addition of the 32mm base and they were put on 25mm ones. Anyways, I'm going to have to go into the basement now and compare the various base heights...

EDIT: I can now confirm that the GW produced 25mm base, the 32mm base, the 40mm base, the 50mm base, the large monstrous creature base/flying base, the Imperial Knight base and the bike/cavalry base are all the same height, and that the 60mm base is slightly taller.

superdupermatt
08-04-2015, 16:00
Yeah my 32mm bases are the same height as the other bases.

dugaal
08-04-2015, 16:02
I doubt the height is really bothering you so much as with 25mm IMO even with swords jutting out and arms and leg poses taken into consideration, models (at least starter box models) are designed around original 25mm size considerations. Ok, marines feet are straddling the edges of 25mm... but short rifles and 2 handed bolter grip compacts the marines profile width-wise. How do you feel about the lightning claw model or guy with power maul extended? or using it for squad leaders only?

Silent Surrender
08-04-2015, 17:42
211042211043

Yes actually the heigth bothers me greatly. I Think it has something to do with the golden ratio, the 32 mm base is simply to tall for its width. I also included some images that prove they are taller. My 32mm bases where created in 2013, maybe its an early failed batch? Please those who claim they are the same height check under yoru bases and see what year they where created. Thank you.

Denny
08-04-2015, 18:34
My question is this. If i file down my 32mm bases (filing the top side so the space the base takes up is still the same) will it have any implications with oponents?

. . . They might look at you a little funny . . .;)

Inquisitor Kallus
08-04-2015, 18:42
211042211043

Yes actually the heigth bothers me greatly. I Think it has something to do with the golden ratio, the 32 mm base is simply to tall for its width. I also included some images that prove they are taller. My 32mm bases where created in 2013, maybe its an early failed batch? Please those who claim they are the same height check under yoru bases and see what year they where created. Thank you.

Well those photos certainly put the whole 'theyre the exact same height' comments right out the window. Thanks for the pics Silent. I thought that they looked a bit taller when I saw the new tac squad on them. I dont think they look horrendous, but it is noticable.

Thirdeye
08-04-2015, 18:47
Personally, if the hight brothers me, I'd sand them from the bottom. I wouldn't be too conserned about the space they take up on the table-top.

Marshal
08-04-2015, 19:11
I doubt the height is really bothering you so much as with 25mm IMO even with swords jutting out and arms and leg poses taken into consideration, models (at least starter box models) are designed around original 25mm size considerations. Ok, marines feet are straddling the edges of 25mm... but short rifles and 2 handed bolter grip compacts the marines profile width-wise. How do you feel about the lightning claw model or guy with power maul extended? or using it for squad leaders only?

I've got one squad built on the 32mm bases (converted honour guard squad), and compared to the rest of my marines which are on the original 25mm bases, I can say that I like the profile of the 32mm base better for marines, even with just bolters. They look too squished on the 25mm base and when compared to other models on 25mm bases (Firewarriors, Kabalite Warriors, Guardians...) they compare much better to their relevant stat differences on the 32mm base. It seems that 25mm bases were made more for models with S3/T3 where the 32mm base suits models more with S4/T4 as they generally are bigger (if even slightly) models and generally have a larger profile than those on the 25mm bases (scouts excluded as they don't have much larger a profile than guard infantry).

Silent Surrender
08-04-2015, 19:27
Personally, if the hight brothers me, I'd sand them from the bottom. I wouldn't be too conserned about the space they take up on the table-top.

But if you sand them from the bottom it will have 2 side effects instead of one, not only will they be shorter, but they will also no longer be 32mm wide, since the bases size is measured from the slightly wider bottom of the base.

Vulgarsty
08-04-2015, 19:38
We'll all be playing 1:1 scale eventually if those idiots at GW carry on with their evermore heroic scales. It doesnt make them incompatible with competitors cos they just scale up aswell.


I want and need minis to stay at a certain scale both for space and backwards compatibility. Now I get that GW care so little about their customers they couldn't give a rats **** about whether my GW's of 20 years ago work with my minis of today, but I guess it will matter in small measure if enough people like me reciprocate their "loyalty" by just stopping buying. I am not moving to 32 and that's just final.

theunwantedbeing
08-04-2015, 19:51
But if you sand them from the bottom it will have 2 side effects instead of one, not only will they be shorter, but they will also no longer be 32mm wide, since the bases size is measured from the slightly wider bottom of the base.

Two counter points.
1. The width lost is effectively negligible
2. It's 40k where base size doesn't matter

Personally I'de mark the material I want removing then cut it off with a knife first, then sand the edge smooth afterwards.

Marshal
08-04-2015, 21:42
211046
Ok, from left to right we have the slotta base, then the older 25mm base, the newer 25mm base, the 32mm base, the 40mm base and the 60mm base. I will concede that the 32mm base is slightly higher than the 25mm bases, but the 40mm base is slightly higher than the 32mm base, and the 60mm base is slightly higher still. As the base size increases, so does the height of the base. If you're going through the trouble with the 32mm base to make it the same height as the 25mm base, are you going to be doing that with all bases larger than that? If not, then why bother on the 32mm base?

The Black Shield
08-04-2015, 23:01
Personally I don't give a rat's patoot. I think it is an inconsequential change. I personally like the larger bases. I have gotten rather tired of most of my marines barely fitting on their bases.

Lord Inquisitor
08-04-2015, 23:12
Likely there's some variability as well. The square bases are pretty variable. I have some cavalry bases that are 23mm wide and some that are actually 25mm. There's some variation in height too, but I don't have any measurements.

Since the 32mms are new I would expect less variation however.

Beppo1234
09-04-2015, 00:51
Personally, if the hight brothers me, I'd sand them from the bottom. I wouldn't be too conserned about the space they take up on the table-top.

yep, this is a better solution. Just run them over some sand paper or a file until you get them to the right height. That way you don't mess with your surface, you just lower the base from underneath.

Bloodknight
09-04-2015, 01:04
I have some cavalry bases that are 23mm wide and some that are actually 25mm

Wow, you got cavalry bases that are actually 25mm? I've got like 100 cavalry models for WFB and not one of them has a 25x50 base, they're all too narrow :D.

Dominoris
09-04-2015, 03:54
Once the model gets "based" I don't think that little bit of difference will be noticeable. How much glue is under the cork would make a bigger difference. Or how much sand, flock, snow, plasticard etc. Really, I think you are looking at putting more effort into normalizing the heights than it is worth. If it bugs you, do whatever you think you need to do. But once the models are finished they will all be different heights again.

superdupermatt
09-04-2015, 11:36
Yeah I actually checked and there is a height difference (my 32mm bases have 2013 on them also) but it looks like an incremental increase from 25 through to 40mm (I only have the "scenic" 60mm so I couldn't compare).

Either way it isn't that big of a deal to me, we're talking 1-2 millimetres at most.

Col.Gravis
09-04-2015, 11:58
Uh.... the mind boggles.

Silent Surrender
09-04-2015, 16:37
211046
Ok, from left to right we have the slotta base, then the older 25mm base, the newer 25mm base, the 32mm base, the 40mm base and the 60mm base. I will concede that the 32mm base is slightly higher than the 25mm bases, but the 40mm base is slightly higher than the 32mm base, and the 60mm base is slightly higher still. As the base size increases, so does the height of the base. If you're going through the trouble with the 32mm base to make it the same height as the 25mm base, are you going to be doing that with all bases larger than that? If not, then why bother on the 32mm base?

If it only was that simple. You see the 40mm and 60mm still abides the golden ratio (or whatever it might be) and looks sleek and gracefull even though they are taller then the 25 mm. This is because they have the same proportions as the 25mm, they are just upscaled. The 32mm is not upscaled proportionately and thusly look out of place in the precense of the others.

On your provided picture you can clearly see the discrepancy of the 32mm. It sticks out like a missmeasured step in an otherwise good loocking stair.

Dominoris
09-04-2015, 17:34
I have found over the years that any time someone says "it's not that simple," that yeah, it really is.

Silent Surrender
09-04-2015, 17:56
But in this case it wasnt because i proved him wrong.

Theocracity
09-04-2015, 18:22
But in this case it wasnt because i proved him wrong.

Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

This is definitely the kind of thing that I would never notice if it hadn't been pointed out to me, and even after it was my reaction is "that is way too small of a difference to get bothered about."

Avian
09-04-2015, 18:39
If it only was that simple. You see the 40mm and 60mm still abides the golden ratio (or whatever it might be) and looks sleek and gracefull even though they are taller then the 25 mm. This is because they have the same proportions as the 25mm, they are just upscaled.
I'm pretty certain the 60 mm base isn't more than twice as high as the 25 mm base... :p

Marshal
09-04-2015, 19:58
If it only was that simple. You see the 40mm and 60mm still abides the golden ratio (or whatever it might be) and looks sleek and gracefull even though they are taller then the 25 mm. This is because they have the same proportions as the 25mm, they are just upscaled. The 32mm is not upscaled proportionately and thusly look out of place in the precense of the others.

On your provided picture you can clearly see the discrepancy of the 32mm. It sticks out like a missmeasured step in an otherwise good loocking stair.

Instead of worrying about it, why not just base everything you have on the 32mm bases? That way everything would be the same height... It really is that simple though, by the time you base it properly and don't play with black bases, everything will look nice and neat and normal.

Silent Surrender
09-04-2015, 21:48
But its such an eye sore, do you remember when monstrous creatures had square Bases? Or when they had the flat epic 60mm Bases. Its that kind of atrocity. It just look ugly and halfassed.

I cant be the only one who thinks this? The base is such an importen part of the miniatures, its their display. It should be consistent.

Theocracity
09-04-2015, 21:59
But its such an eye sore, do you remember when monstrous creatures had square Bases? Or when they had the flat epic 60mm Bases. Its that kind of atrocity. It just look ugly and halfassed.

I cant be the only one who thinks this? The base is such an importen part of the miniatures, its their display. It should be consistent.

I think you might be one of the few it bothers. I certainly don't think it's anywhere near as bad as those past examples - it's barely visible even when you're looking for it.

Konovalev
09-04-2015, 22:26
If it only was that simple. You see the 40mm and 60mm still abides the golden ratio (or whatever it might be) and looks sleek and gracefull even though they are taller then the 25 mm. This is because they have the same proportions as the 25mm, they are just upscaled. The 32mm is not upscaled proportionately and thusly look out of place in the precense of the others.

On your provided picture you can clearly see the discrepancy of the 32mm. It sticks out like a missmeasured step in an otherwise good loocking stair.

That's just a personal neurosis, not some critical mathematical flaw in the 32mm's design. If something that trivial bothers you this much, how on earth do you cope with flash, mold lines, and miscasts? If you regularly correct those, "correcting" a 32mm base is nothing by comparison.

DYoung
09-04-2015, 23:55
This thread is why it's called whineseer.

Silent Surrender
10-04-2015, 07:46
No its not personal neurosis, its aesthetics that has been developed for hundreds of years. Some shapes are more desirable then others. And I just cant understand how a big Company can miss this. The only reason can be lazyness, they simply dont care, like many people in this thread. Ofcourse we should complain. Its not about being whiny, its about getting it right.

Why its so noticable is because a base has a very simple form. It was a botch job.

Still Standing
10-04-2015, 08:40
Surely you're going to put basing material on them anyway?

T10
10-04-2015, 10:18
The 25mm, 40mm and 60mm (havent seen the 50mm yet) has a certain geometrical grace with its low profile. The 32mm is tall and clumsy, and when a model is placed upon it, it looks more like a toy from privateer press.
...
My question is this. If i file down my 32mm bases (filing the top side so the space the base takes up is still the same) will it have any implications with oponents?
...
What do you think about this?

I think this is the sort of issue that most players would be fine with. The thing that makes a Space Marine look like a "toy" on his 32 mm base has more to do with the observer being familiar with seeing him filling out a 25 mm base, so he looks smaller perhaps on a larger base.

Also, the Space Marine is, in fact, a toy.

If you start filing down your bases you are perhaps going about the problem the wrong way: If you are unwilling to use the GW bases as provided, why not make your own bases from scratch with the exact shape you prefer? I am sure that takes about the same skill as shaving a smooth millimeter off the top of a GW base, and you avoid compromising the strength of the base. As far as I can tell, the base surface thickness is about 1 mm, which leaves you no margin of error.

You might find this link interesting: http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/Products/silicone-mould-resin-casting-starter-kit.aspx

-T10

Marshal
10-04-2015, 11:52
If you're that concerned about it, I purchased a bunch of these a while ago before GW made 32mm bases to use instead of their small flying stands because I didn't like the clear plastic as it's hard to get anything to stick to it. They're smaller in height than the 25mm bases though, so you would have to build it up, which is much easier than trying to file something down.

http://www.tinyworlds.co.uk/bases/plastic-bases/round-bases-plastic/plastic-bases-30mm-20 (http://www.tinyworlds.co.uk/bases/plastic-bases/round-bases-plastic/plastic-bases-30mm-20)

Silent Surrender
10-04-2015, 12:29
I think this is the sort of issue that most players would be fine with. The thing that makes a Space Marine look like a "toy" on his 32 mm base has more to do with the observer being familiar with seeing him filling out a 25 mm base, so he looks smaller perhaps on a larger base.

Also, the Space Marine is, in fact, a toy.

If you start filing down your bases you are perhaps going about the problem the wrong way: If you are unwilling to use the GW bases as provided, why not make your own bases from scratch with the exact shape you prefer? I am sure that takes about the same skill as shaving a smooth millimeter off the top of a GW base, and you avoid compromising the strength of the base. As far as I can tell, the base surface thickness is about 1 mm, which leaves you no margin of error.

You might find this link interesting: http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/Products/silicone-mould-resin-casting-starter-kit.aspx

-T10

Thank you for your effort. This highlight my anger. If it had been something about a miniature i didnt like its fine with me, I just sculpt my own. My only weakness is the bases. I do not have the proper Tools to create a perfect circle with a perfect slanted side, so im forced to modify the gw bases.

About weakening the base by filing it, no worries, I just fill the underside with resin. The problem is making a perfect cut with only hand Tools at hand.

Denny
10-04-2015, 12:37
The only reason can be lazyness, they simply dont care, like many people in this thread. Ofcourse we should complain. Its not about being whiny, its about getting it right.

My wife is pregnant with our first child.

Given this, I find it hard to care about the aesthetics of bases. You might describe this as 'lazy'. :(
I might describe this as having a sense of 'priorities'. ;)

Its impossible to say who is right . . .

. . . though of course its actually me. :)

superdupermatt
10-04-2015, 12:41
Not caring =/= laziness.

The difference is so marginal, only you seem to be kicking up a stink about it.

theunwantedbeing
10-04-2015, 13:09
I do not have the proper Tools to create a perfect circle with a perfect slanted side, so im forced to modify the gw bases.

About weakening the base by filing it, no worries, I just fill the underside with resin. The problem is making a perfect cut with only hand Tools at hand.

Three potential methods to making 32mm bases.

If you can find a 32mm tube you can cut it to the correct height (3.5mm) and use modelling putty to create the edge by running a 25mm base around the edge like you would if you were doing a spirograph doodle. Then just fill the thing with resin, wait for it to set and done.

Or use 30mm discs 3.5mm deep and make the edge on them with modelling putty using the same sort of method but pressing on the outside, this method is probably the easiest and last fiddly.

You can always clamp a couple of 25mm bases above and below the disc you're attempting to cut to the right angle and use those as a guide if you're set on cutting/sanding your bases that you're making.

Dkoz
10-04-2015, 13:15
I like the new 32mm bases, I just finished up a batch of Necron warriors and I wish I had bought 32mm bases for them because their feet hang off the 25mm base. I think if this is such a disturbing issue for someone that it is ruining their enjoyment of this hobby they may need a little more help then a internet thread can provide.

T10
10-04-2015, 13:20
Thank you for your effort. This highlight my anger. If it had been something about a miniature i didnt like its fine with me, I just sculpt my own. My only weakness is the bases. I do not have the proper Tools to create a perfect circle with a perfect slanted side, so im forced to modify the gw bases.

About weakening the base by filing it, no worries, I just fill the underside with resin. The problem is making a perfect cut with only hand Tools at hand.

If you already have resin available, then you should look into making your own casts.

1. Make a mold based on the standard 32 mm base provided by GW.
2. Cast your own base in plaster.
3. Modify the plaster base to fit your desired shape.
4. Make a mold based on your second-generation base.
5. Cast your perfect bases in unlimited numbers.

Does it sound like a lot of work? Sure. But being lazy means that you don't really care. At least that's what I've heard.

-T10

Still Standing
10-04-2015, 13:23
This thread amazes me.

T10
10-04-2015, 13:30
I am sure many players have had a desire for or interest in custom bases. Though the OP's reasons seem... quaint, I propose that the solution to his problem is the same as for many others.

Make your own bases! There's a lot of cool stuff you can use to texture the final molds, and the potential for both variation and reuse is staggering!

-T10

Still Standing
10-04-2015, 13:31
Once he's put his basing material on the bases he wont be able to tell the difference anyway. It just seems odd.

T10
10-04-2015, 13:44
He never said he was going to do that. Perhaps he normally leaves his bases basically base to better show off their perfect aesthetics?

-T10

Spiney Norman
10-04-2015, 14:16
My wife is pregnant with our first child.

Given this, I find it hard to care about the aesthetics of bases. You might describe this as 'lazy'. :(
I might describe this as having a sense of 'priorities'. ;)

Its impossible to say who is right . . .

. . . though of course its actually me. :)

In fairness having half my army on bases that were slightly higher than the rest of the army is something that would bug me a lot, For a while I actually experimented with making bases for vehicles because I disliked the lack of consistency, but that is just me. I totally accept that the majority of people aren't going to view it as important.

I'm fairly sure there are other ways to do this? I struggle to see sanding down the top of the base being a particularly successful solution, you won't get a consistent finish unless you have some kind of belt-sander and then the risk of over-sanding or going completely through the top layer of the base would be pretty high. Aren't there ebay sellers marketing conversion rings to fit over 25mm bases that bulk them out to 32mm? Wouldn't it be simple to buy a load of them, glue them around the outside of your 25mms and then cover the tops in basing material so the join can't be seen?

Still Standing
10-04-2015, 14:17
Mount my vehicles on 50mm bases, then not let you charge them because you can't reach base to base? Ok! :)

chuxfm
10-04-2015, 14:18
All your base belong to....

Nevermind..

Chux.

Spiney Norman
10-04-2015, 14:20
Mount my vehicles on 50mm bases, then not let you charge them because you can't reach base to base? Ok! :)

I used 5mm foam core cut to the approximate shape of the hull, it just felt a little odd that my space marines were walking on this beautifully painted sand and the tanks were somehow sunk about a foot into the ground of the battlefield and yet still managed to drive.

Knifeparty
10-04-2015, 14:46
I think this might be the ultimate example of "first world problems" I've ever seen in my life. If this is the kind of thing that makes you angry, then I seriously suggest broadening your horizons.

Seriously, they're just bases. Cut them down to the height you want them at or don't use them.

Still Standing
10-04-2015, 15:39
I used 5mm foam core cut to the approximate shape of the hull, it just felt a little odd that my space marines were walking on this beautifully painted sand and the tanks were somehow sunk about a foot into the ground of the battlefield and yet still managed to drive.

I've seen it before and it looks nice. Same principle as putting WFB War Machines on bases.

AndrewGPaul
10-04-2015, 17:12
In fairness having half my army on bases that were slightly higher than the rest of the army is something that would bug me a lot

I play Infinity, and if it bothered me, I'd've had to quit. :) (the 40mm bases they use a re a smidgeon thinner than the 25mm ones).

Silent Surrender
10-04-2015, 18:38
Oh yes, I can see if you have a wife and Child etz these things would seem unimportant. Im fortunate enough to not have to worry about such things so i can pour all my care into the miniatures. But i cant be the only one without a family right?

Casting the base in plaster could be good, but plaster is brittle and chip easily. And i just really dont trust myself to be able to recreate a good base without any kind of marks or scratches in any way with my current Tools.

And ofcourse i base my miniatures, and basing actually makes the base even taller.

Ssilmath
10-04-2015, 18:47
I think you may well be the only one who is really bothered. I've bought 20 of them to put new Space Marines on, and IC's are going on 40mm bases. The additional height really is pretty superfluous in my opinion, and I like having a larger canvas space for their display surface.

T10
10-04-2015, 20:03
Casting the base in plaster could be good, but plaster is brittle and chip easily. And i just really dont trust myself to be able to recreate a good base without any kind of marks or scratches in any way with my current Tools.

Look into it. You'd make a plaster cast for the intermediate base, but you'd use resin for the final ones.

theunwantedbeing
10-04-2015, 21:19
Casting the base in plaster could be good, but plaster is brittle and chip easily. And i just really dont trust myself to be able to recreate a good base without any kind of marks or scratches in any way with my current Tools.

Do it the way I suggested.
Plaster
1. | O <-- |\______/
2. |\\______/
3. |\ \______/

Et voila! perfectly bevelled edge.
I'de draw a better diagram but I cba, I guess the general attitude in this thread has rubbed off on me.

Silent Surrender
10-04-2015, 21:34
Do it the way I suggested.
Plaster
1. | O <-- |\______/
2. |\\______/
3. |\ \______/

Et voila! perfectly bevelled edge.
I'de draw a better diagram but I cba, I guess the general attitude in this thread has rubbed off on me.

Thanks, I understand what you mean. I just highly doubt I would be able to get a perfect edge.

gitburna
10-04-2015, 22:51
I'm amazed that from 2 or 3 feet higher up and arms length or more away on a nicely modelled gaming table and without studio-style perfect lighting and lining up the bases next to others in the range that anyone would even notice, or in fact, have the time to care during a game.

Maxxi
11-04-2015, 00:53
This thread amazes me.

Who would have thought that there would be a 3 page thread on a forum about less than half a milimetre difference in height.

Konovalev
11-04-2015, 01:39
No its not personal neurosis, its aesthetics that has been developed for hundreds of years. Some shapes are more desirable then others. And I just cant understand how a big Company can miss this. The only reason can be lazyness, they simply dont care, like many people in this thread. Ofcourse we should complain. Its not about being whiny, its about getting it right.

Why its so noticable is because a base has a very simple form. It was a botch job.

If you're going to troll at least post it to GW General and not here. You would have found better traction there, and many people would have agreed with you.

Spiney Norman
11-04-2015, 08:36
Who would have thought that there would be a 3 page thread on a forum about less than half a milimetre difference in height.

Because the difference is obviously more than half a millimetre if you bothered to look at the picture on P1, neither feigned ignorance nor blatant exaggeration will really help your case here.

If it were me I'd want all my models on the same height bases, but you're free to disagree, I just think we're straying into antagonistic territory when we accuse people of trolling purely for expressing their aesthetic preferences.

hangnail
11-04-2015, 08:47
And people tell me that caring about spelling and grammar lets me in for a life time of disappointment - I'm glad I'm not alone...

zoggin-eck
11-04-2015, 09:35
My question is this. If i file down my 32mm bases (filing the top side so the space the base takes up is still the same) will it have any implications with oponents?

What person on the planet would have an issue with this? Does this imaginary person worry about the height difference whether you texture a base first and place the model on top, or if you texture around the feet? :)

Painted up, I really doubt anybody would notice, or care if they did. I find it much more off-putting when people base whole armies standing on rocks in the middle of a lava flow, adding ten mm or so!


But its such an eye sore, do you remember when monstrous creatures had square Bases? Or when they had the flat epic 60mm Bases. Its that kind of atrocity. It just look ugly and halfassed.

I cant be the only one who thinks this? The base is such an importen part of the miniatures, its their display. It should be consistent.

I used to worry about this, but it's something I've completely given up on at some stage, and I can't even pinpoint when! Actually, I used to hate it in WD photographs, particularly square-based daemons in 40k and the 60mm Epic bases for war machines and walkers. Now I can't bring myself to care, providing it's painted. A single unpainted model annoys me more than an entire army on mismatched bases :)

These days I have Epic armies with a mix of square, round and rectangle bases. The odd square in 40k and the odd round base in fantasy. My fantasy models are a mix of GW, "das-schwarze auge" and Mantic (both a bit squarer than GW) and now mostly Renedra (flat, low profile, a mm or two?). Pretty much any non-slotta and pre-slotta model I own gets a flat Renedra base

Silent Surrender
11-04-2015, 10:00
No I agree it should probably be seen as trolling concidering all bad things thats going on in the World. Lets say a Syrian came in here he would probably laugh his ass of.

Art is something that mostly flourish in times of Peace, as its entirely excessive. But even if my worries about the bases vanes i now worry that noone can see it.

DYoung
11-04-2015, 10:14
To be honest mate, until this thread, I never even realised that the bases were all different heights. It never even occurred to me that they might vary.

With regards to your initial question as to whether it would bother anybody if you shaved off a millimeter - from a gameplay perspective, the only thing that could be affected is line of sight and as the pupil of your eyeball is bigger than a Space Marine's entire head, you're already several meters off of true line of sight (and this is assuming you close one eye; you could fit an entire squad of infantry between both of your eyes). i.e. 1mm will not make even a jot of difference.

T10
11-04-2015, 10:51
But even if my worries about the bases vanes i now worry that noone can see it.

Rest assured that I, for one, can see the height difference. But I cannot bring myself to care. Life is too good to go looking for flaws.

-T10

Killgore
11-04-2015, 11:05
Height of the new base does not bother me, I've got my Skittari Alpha Warlord on one where everyone else is on the smaller bases.

Maxxi
11-04-2015, 13:22
Because the difference is obviously more than half a millimetre if you bothered to look at the picture on P1, neither feigned ignorance nor blatant exaggeration will really help your case here.

If it were me I'd want all my models on the same height bases, but you're free to disagree, I just think we're straying into antagonistic territory when we accuse people of trolling purely for expressing their aesthetic preferences.

Its barely noticeable.

I have some 32's and some 25's in front of me.. unless I get really close and zoom in on my digicam do i notice the very unnoticeable 1/2mm. It really isnt obvious unless you know its there.

Now I know its there; Nope still doesnt bother me. Atm I run my army unbased as I slowly paint the army up and plan to use the technicals to make a muddy/snowy base. The extra 1/2-1mm isn't a problem unless you make a thread about it and kick up a fuss.

totgeboren
11-04-2015, 13:45
But its such an eye sore, do you remember when monstrous creatures had square Bases? Or when they had the flat epic 60mm Bases. Its that kind of atrocity. It just look ugly and halfassed.

I cant be the only one who thinks this? The base is such an importen part of the miniatures, its their display. It should be consistent.

I got some of those 32 mm bases who are too high. They look horrible I agree, but at least they are fixable..

Beppo1234
11-04-2015, 14:30
it's not the height IMO, it's the too much extra base around the feet. I understand the argument that marines leg stance is slightly wider than the surface area of a 25mm base... but it's never more than 2 or 3 millimeters. I feel that the jump from 25 to 32 is too much. A 28mm slotta would do the job IMO, and could have served GW as a scale defining base.

I'm not down with 32mm mostly because I like movement trays, and the movement tray industry hasn't caught up to the new bases, and I'm about 1/2 done doing trays for my armies.

Still Standing
11-04-2015, 16:29
The only unit of mine that I am happy to move to 32mm is my Mechanicum Scyllax Guardian Automata as they are quite large. Marines look daft on there, if I am honest. The increase from your average human to your average Astartes is around 16-18% (based on average human soldier of the future height being 6" and average Astartes height being 7"). That doesn't require a significantly larger base. But that's just my view, and why my Marines will continue to be based on 25mm bases.

Inquisitor Kallus
12-04-2015, 03:31
I got some of the bases off a friend today who gave them to me. I have to say I ******* love them, was building some possesed the previous night


211204


Yes...., that's right, you DID see a Khornate Pirate. Your eyes do not deceive you, Tzeentch...has no part to play in this little daliance :D

You can see its a touch taller but I think it seems to fit with the other bases personally, it isnt too jarring to my eye. They are also the same height as the 40mm which is nice. They help give more of a presence to marines as well, I dont know, they just look amazing next to my cultists

T10
13-04-2015, 11:37
I'm not down with 32mm mostly because I like movement trays, and the movement tray industry hasn't caught up to the new bases, and I'm about 1/2 done doing trays for my armies.

Movement trays for WH40k? This I got to see.

-T10

Spiney Norman
13-04-2015, 11:46
Movement trays for WH40k? This I got to see.

-T10

Umm, GW did used to make movement trays that take 25mm rounds for their Lord of the rings game, they've been around for years, a friend of mine has a pile of them to help with his IG infantry-heavy army.

zoggin-eck
13-04-2015, 12:13
Movement trays for WH40k? This I got to see.

-T10

Uh, type 40k movement tray into a search engine? I've seen hundreds over the years, even had my own laser-cut. Trays for 25mm round are pretty common in historical games for skirmishing units.

Beppo1234
13-04-2015, 13:23
Movement trays for WH40k? This I got to see.

-T10

I kind of don't understand why you are at all surprised by this... these have been around since '95/96 Here are my trays:

211275 211276

Voss
13-04-2015, 13:40
I used to worry about this, but it's something I've completely given up on at some stage, and I can't even pinpoint when! Actually, I used to hate it in WD photographs, particularly square-based daemons in 40k and the 60mm Epic bases for war machines and walkers.
Maybe it is just me, but I pinpoint my indifference to basing to two things: the Second Great Rebasing of Beastmen, and the Year of Constantly Different Base Sizes for Monsters for No Good Reason.
The latter just confused me, as GW threw anything resembling a rules standard out the window, and the first simply broke my spirit.

T10
13-04-2015, 15:39
I kind of don't understand why you are at all surprised by this... these have been around since '95/96 Here are my trays:

211275 211276

They look nice, but I guess I'm too used to uneven terrain for it to be any point to use anything like this. They seem likely to be in the way more than to help.

-T10

Beppo1234
13-04-2015, 17:10
They look nice, but I guess I'm too used to uneven terrain for it to be any point to use anything like this. They seem likely to be in the way more than to help.

-T10

see that I don't understand. If your tables are too uneven for a tervigon or flying base to sit flat on the table, then there's a problem with the table layout/design... IMO. Ie. a table full of craters looks really cool, no doubt, but when not even a 25mm based model can't stand up straight, it's problematic (that's an extreme example, but you get my point I hope). The old GW Assault at Fort Wrath battle report was a perfect example of this. Beautiful beautiful table, but not 40k friendly at all.

T10
14-04-2015, 08:53
see that I don't understand. If your tables are too uneven for a tervigon or flying base to sit flat on the table, then there's a problem with the table layout/design... IMO. Ie. a table full of craters looks really cool, no doubt, but when not even a 25mm based model can't stand up straight, it's problematic (that's an extreme example, but you get my point I hope). The old GW Assault at Fort Wrath battle report was a perfect example of this. Beautiful beautiful table, but not 40k friendly at all.

Sure, but there's a huge gap between where a 25mm model and where a movement tray can be used comfortably.

-T10

Nkari
14-04-2015, 09:45
I dont own a 32 mm base, but if OP finds the extra hight annoying, wich I do belive he does, so no hes not trying to troll, its just that you other guys cant be bothered making things as perfect as possible (acording to you!!! noone can really tell you what is wrong or not wrong when it comes to taste in art wich miniatures are imho) They may stick out from the golden mean, especially if you go by OP's first attached picture, they do look a bit fat.

And to the question about sanding them down a mm or two.. go for it man, just dont tell your oponents and you will have no problems, since 90% of them cant see the diffrerance or dont care about the differance enough to look for it, you will be safe in 99% of the cases. And if that 1% case bitches about it, hes a WAAC and you should really not play vs him unless your one to.. ;)

AndrewGPaul
15-04-2015, 09:11
"just that you other guys cant be bothered making things as perfect as possible"

No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood their argument, which is that it doesn't matter to them. It's got nothing to do with "laziness". If the OP wants to ensure all his bases are identical heights, fair play to him. It's not something which has ever concerned me, since various base sizes have always been at assorted different heights and different bevel angles (including 25mm bases from different moulds). It's never been a huge concern in WFB either, where movement trays add a millimetre or two to the height of a unit, compared to individual models.

Beppo1234
15-04-2015, 12:44
didn't want to start a new thread... why 32mm? If it was to deal with marine scale creep, then why not make a 28mm base? A marine has never overlapped the edge of a 25mm more than a millimeter or two. The 32 seems like too much of a jump, and why I don't like the look of the new bases.

AndrewGPaul
15-04-2015, 13:38
Probably because it's 1.25", near enough. Base sizes seem to be multiples, halves or quarters of an inch, or multiples of 20mm.

Avian
15-04-2015, 13:47
It's right in the middle between 25 mm and 40 mm. That's the reason.

Beppo1234
15-04-2015, 14:41
that makes sense... I just think GW should produce a 28mm base as the scale defining base.

Maxxi
15-04-2015, 20:57
and a 35? 45? 65 too?

why not go all out and get 10mm round bases.