Square base all the way if your system actually uses rectangular formations in its rules. Round bases if every model is independant of all others and only has to vaguely exist in a blob around itself. WHFB had many problems in its final editions but the aesthetic of the unit blocks was very soothing to my monkey brain.
From my experience, systems for square bases rely on models to be on square bases of specific size while systems for round bases are less affected by the base size or shape. I've seen people play, for example, 40k with square bases to get their guardsmen to rank up. Plenty of old 40k units, like dreadnoughts, came on square bases.
>circles are featured in all the most successful model lines >squares are used by literal who's and the most infamous corpse in the industry
Squarebros... not like this
that sounds like a pretty decent way to have a command section base, or champion base
BRB gotta go come up with some ultra cheesy strat that requires the player to move their models like a giant swastika and force every tourney gay to use it
>The year of our Lord MMXXIII >moron seething about children and nogaems suspiciously yet to learn about sabot bases and movement trays
really makes you think
The enlightened and transcended path is to take the warband-pill and realise basing doesn't really matter beyond aesthetics (an army just looks better if it's consistently based) and that the GW base-warring monkey slaves are morons. In a good ruleset, how exactly your units are based should not really matter or only to the most waac autists which should be booted towards 40k tournaments where they belong anyways.
>I just play RPGs so whatever is cheapest atm >usually just 100 1 inch round bases meant for model train shit for like $12
Why do you need so many bases for RPGS? do you have like 20 party members?
I find it funny that literally without fail everyone who wants square bases is some Empiregay with half of his army composed of cheap minis they pulled out of their ass just because they were cheaper.
Nothing wrong with it, I just find it hilarious every single person who seems to try and say they like them is the boring Empiregays who LARP like they owned the army for more than 3 years.
> models aren't even based > most just blocks of hastily applied color > only fully painted armies in the shot are fricking AoS FEC at the bottom (on CIRCLES)
You just look moronic.
Round for skirmish, multibase/tray size for ranks. Every fricking game has different base size and rank requirements anyway. Might as well just say the requirements for the unit as a whole and cut out the middleman.
Rank and flank is also way better as 20mm or smaller. 28 or higher is bloated and lead to half the problem we had with base sizes changing because nothing fits on a 20mm base now anyway.
I personally feel like every mini I build and paint is its own character. Not a hero, but a character nontheless. I want them to each be able to have existed as an individual outside of a mass battle. I spend enough time painting and decorating their bases afterall.
I feel wargaming's greatest potential is in having armies of individual characters, not batch-painted plastic duplicate guys to fill a shape. It's also why I don't like super dynamic poses. They feel gimmicky and frame the mini usually only in the action of charging.
Because of this I like round bases. They make a character look and feel like they could be taken and used on their own in an RPG or something.
I am 100% convinced the reason The Old World is increasing base sizes is to line up with movement trays so people can use round based for models for this very reason.
Like some of the new Lizardmen models are pure kino and I will be using them in The Old World round bases and all.
I plan on doing the same (even though lizards are only barely supported)
I want to have fun decorating lush jungle bases, and those always look better on rounds imo. Being able to play AoS and enjoy them better alongside other RPG models is a bonus too.
Round bases for skirmish games
Square bases for larger games where soldiers need to be ranked up into tight formations
It aint rocket science. Although ranked up circular bases don't look too bad, I think you loose some clarity in the exact frontage / flanks of the unit. Not sure how the Lord of the Rings wargame does it, or if they care too much about flanking.
The original game didn't have units; each model was moved individually. They had another game that used the same models but had movement trays. Not sure what the system is now.
The original game didn't have units; each model was moved individually. They had another game that used the same models but had movement trays. Not sure what the system is now.
LOTR doesn't have flanks, but forming formation and keeping it is vital to victory and being outflanked makes your formation easy to tear apart, disperse, trap, and eliminate.
War of the Ring was a mass battle supplement that's not well balanced and lives up to being mass battle when one stand of 8 guys is at most 50 points but usually it's 30 and the scenarios call for 5k+. The Battle of Pelennor Fields is 10k evil vs 7k good so it's fricking ridiculous.
Round bases by default with movement trays if I need ramk and file. A unit of 12 guys is as good as a unit of 20 guys and I don't need to rank them up where elbows will hit each other. And I'm not playing any stupid game (see warhammer) that expects me to buy 40 models as wound counters so my 5 actual models can fight the front 5 of another unit with 40 wound counters.
Only thing that I mind is that with square bases the units have to rotate all together or youll get some funky distancing due to the edges
With round bases its easier to rotate them all without changing their position
Round always. better for skirmish. In rank and file I'm going to use a movement tray anyways so the only real value of square is lost. Being round also means its easier to angle hard to fit models that otherwise run into one another.
Square base all the way if your system actually uses rectangular formations in its rules. Round bases if every model is independant of all others and only has to vaguely exist in a blob around itself. WHFB had many problems in its final editions but the aesthetic of the unit blocks was very soothing to my monkey brain.
Ok but what if I want to use miniatures for multiple systems?
Magnets and conversation bases.
Round bases and pic related
>$12-$18 shipping from the UK for that which only costs $8
I'm sticking with squares.
Can't anyone make a 3d print model for this? I cant imagine it would be particularly hard
Or better yet just use fricking cardboard.
I can and I have.
octogone?
From my experience, systems for square bases rely on models to be on square bases of specific size while systems for round bases are less affected by the base size or shape. I've seen people play, for example, 40k with square bases to get their guardsmen to rank up. Plenty of old 40k units, like dreadnoughts, came on square bases.
Square bases are easier to rank up and easier to tell facing when independent. I don't see any particular advantage in round bases.
Individual skirmish combat is definitely better round, otherwise positional play can be totally broke
>otherwise positional play can be totally broke
What?
Square plays exactly the same as round in skirmish. Round bases are pointless.
hex bases
or octagonal bases
Octagons does nothing that rounds can't do. Hexagons is the perfect middle ground between round and square. Fight me.
Why not both? Have removable bases
The square base is the base of TWM.
Round bases have the sharp corners removed so they dont injure low IQ PoCs
Triangular bases
Pythagoras detected
Nuclear waste hazard symbol base
>circles are featured in all the most successful model lines
>squares are used by literal who's and the most infamous corpse in the industry
Squarebros... not like this
Round base is objectively better. It takes up less space,and its more aesthetically pleasing
Swastika base with enough space to fit 8 square bases in the open areas.
that sounds like a pretty decent way to have a command section base, or champion base
BRB gotta go come up with some ultra cheesy strat that requires the player to move their models like a giant swastika and force every tourney gay to use it
Personally I just like circular bases. Makes each miniature feel like a mini diorama.
Also modern base sizes like 32mm if they're appropriate for older miniatures
Square base for rank and file games, round otherwise.
Duh?
Got my 28mm historicals on 20mm steel disks from Aliexpress in sabot bases I got for peanuts from Warbases
Individual basing is for children and nogames collectors
>The year of our Lord MMXXIII
>moron seething about children and nogaems suspiciously yet to learn about sabot bases and movement trays
really makes you think
The enlightened and transcended path is to take the warband-pill and realise basing doesn't really matter beyond aesthetics (an army just looks better if it's consistently based) and that the GW base-warring monkey slaves are morons. In a good ruleset, how exactly your units are based should not really matter or only to the most waac autists which should be booted towards 40k tournaments where they belong anyways.
Having clearly defined directions for where your model is is facing can be quite important though.
>an army just looks better if it's consistently based
well that just goes without saying. a based army is better.
I just play RPGs so whatever is cheapest atm
usually just 100 1 inch round bases meant for model train shit for like $12
>I just play RPGs so whatever is cheapest atm
>usually just 100 1 inch round bases meant for model train shit for like $12
Why do you need so many bases for RPGS? do you have like 20 party members?
Circles because I play mordheim and squares ONLY look good when you are rank and flank
I prefer square bases myself. Just think they're neat.
I find it funny that literally without fail everyone who wants square bases is some Empiregay with half of his army composed of cheap minis they pulled out of their ass just because they were cheaper.
Like what's the point homie?
I like them is why.
What a bizarre question.
Nothing wrong with it, I just find it hilarious every single person who seems to try and say they like them is the boring Empiregays who LARP like they owned the army for more than 3 years.
That's quite arbitrary.
imagine simping gw so hard you pretend to like the 7th Ed state troops
Disagree, and if you push me I've got another 6 armies on sqaures, none of them are empire.
Based, but don't you get a lot of dust on those minis on a shelf?
> models aren't even based
> most just blocks of hastily applied color
> only fully painted armies in the shot are fricking AoS FEC at the bottom (on CIRCLES)
You just look moronic.
Because you could get 30 plastic landsknechts for the price of 10 gw state troops. Better proportions too. My landsknechts are on rounds though.
Because they are poor.
Immersive Stirland gaming.
Round bases, but rules for formation fighting so you can do cool shit like curved shieldwalls and wedge formations.
Round for skirmish, multibase/tray size for ranks. Every fricking game has different base size and rank requirements anyway. Might as well just say the requirements for the unit as a whole and cut out the middleman.
Rank and flank is also way better as 20mm or smaller. 28 or higher is bloated and lead to half the problem we had with base sizes changing because nothing fits on a 20mm base now anyway.
I personally feel like every mini I build and paint is its own character. Not a hero, but a character nontheless. I want them to each be able to have existed as an individual outside of a mass battle. I spend enough time painting and decorating their bases afterall.
I feel wargaming's greatest potential is in having armies of individual characters, not batch-painted plastic duplicate guys to fill a shape. It's also why I don't like super dynamic poses. They feel gimmicky and frame the mini usually only in the action of charging.
Because of this I like round bases. They make a character look and feel like they could be taken and used on their own in an RPG or something.
I am 100% convinced the reason The Old World is increasing base sizes is to line up with movement trays so people can use round based for models for this very reason.
Like some of the new Lizardmen models are pure kino and I will be using them in The Old World round bases and all.
I plan on doing the same (even though lizards are only barely supported)
I want to have fun decorating lush jungle bases, and those always look better on rounds imo. Being able to play AoS and enjoy them better alongside other RPG models is a bonus too.
That doesn't make any sense.
>I personally feel like every mini I build and paint is its own character.
This is it for me, I buy miniatures from this approach too.
I don't like multibasing too, I know massed ranks can look good and is functional but it almost reduces miniatures down to simple playing pieces.
triangle base
Round bases for skirmish games
Square bases for larger games where soldiers need to be ranked up into tight formations
It aint rocket science. Although ranked up circular bases don't look too bad, I think you loose some clarity in the exact frontage / flanks of the unit. Not sure how the Lord of the Rings wargame does it, or if they care too much about flanking.
The original game didn't have units; each model was moved individually. They had another game that used the same models but had movement trays. Not sure what the system is now.
LOTR doesn't have flanks, but forming formation and keeping it is vital to victory and being outflanked makes your formation easy to tear apart, disperse, trap, and eliminate.
War of the Ring was a mass battle supplement that's not well balanced and lives up to being mass battle when one stand of 8 guys is at most 50 points but usually it's 30 and the scenarios call for 5k+. The Battle of Pelennor Fields is 10k evil vs 7k good so it's fricking ridiculous.
Round base, 28mm is too large for anything but skirmish games.
Round bases by default with movement trays if I need ramk and file. A unit of 12 guys is as good as a unit of 20 guys and I don't need to rank them up where elbows will hit each other. And I'm not playing any stupid game (see warhammer) that expects me to buy 40 models as wound counters so my 5 actual models can fight the front 5 of another unit with 40 wound counters.
>no resseract option
NGMI
Rounded square bases for the win.
Okay Victrix.
Only thing that I mind is that with square bases the units have to rotate all together or youll get some funky distancing due to the edges
With round bases its easier to rotate them all without changing their position
square bases if models are in formation up or playing on a strict grid, round if models are loose or independent
no base if you are an unhinged maniac
Round always. better for skirmish. In rank and file I'm going to use a movement tray anyways so the only real value of square is lost. Being round also means its easier to angle hard to fit models that otherwise run into one another.