"1.6mm vs 3mm base thickness for 25-28mm?" Topic

I'm currently in the process of getting ready to base a Warlord ECW army and was wondering what base thickness you prefer? I am doing 4 infantry per base on a 40mm square. I ordered a pack of 1.6mm and 3mm bases from Litko and am having a hard time deciding which thickness I like better. I have used 3mm in the past but think I prefer the more streamline 1.6mm bases. The only downside I see is they might not be as durable because they are thinner. Thoughts?

If you want people picking up the stands by the base, go with the 3mm. If by the figures, the 1.6mm. I personally don't think the thicker bases look bad with 28mm figures.

I have long since moved to 3mm bases – especially as my fat fingers have trouble with narrow bases. Those beveled edged ones I struggle with as well. My 15mm WWII stuff I find almost impossible to pick up by anything other than the miniatures.

Thicker for multi-figure stands and thinner for single figure stands (though not for the same game).

Rick

3mm all the way for me.You can pick them up by their bases, and generally look the part. Personally, I don't like those GW style slated base edges too. They draw attention to themselves.

0.8 mmm (steel), I find thick bases horrible. A base should be as invisible as possible.

I agree with BelgianRay. I also use 0.8mm steel.

I'm with BelgianRay on this, the thinner the better. Thin bases are the cutting edge of table top wargaming. Bleed baby bleed. :-)

I agree with BelgianRay and Timmo about 0.8mm, except that I use 0.8mm plywood instead of steel.

If you want people picking up the stands by the base, go with the 3mm.

Thick or thin; I haven't found this make much difference. In the heat of a game when everyone is having fun, no one seems to care much about picking up figures by their bases. I know some gamers care a great deal about this and I completely respect that, but in my gaming group we just accept that figures get handled. Yes, they are handled with some care, but they are meant to be played with.

To answer the OP's original question, my preference is for thinner bases. They just look better to me, especially for 15mm. I've never had any issues with durability when using thinner bases.

I'm with BelgianRay on this, the thinner the better. Thin bases are the cutting edge of table top wargaming. Bleed baby bleed. :-)

Unles you want everyone touching the figures instead of the base. No thanks.

Thin bases all the time.

When I see 6mm stuff on those thick 3mm bases it really ruins the illusion for me.

I am about to base my first unit after a long absence from 28mm Napoleonics (which in my day were 25, and seem to have grown 1mm per decade), and went through this basing thickness dilemma too. I can see the attraction in both, and initially was swayed by the elegance of thin bases over 3mm.

I then saw some truly superb thicker basing (eg Bandolier's Wurttemberg army TMP link where you can see a range of base thicknesses) and ended up thinking both sizes could be made to look good.

What moved me to 3mm MDF over 1.6 metal with magentic underlay was the rigidity of MDF bases. No flex at all meant they were going to be more robust – I could just see a limber flexing and bad things happening, and didn't want different base thicknesses for different base sizes – but this still left me with non-magnetised bases, which seemed a bit of a disadvantage if I wanted to travel.

After monkeying about trying to attach magnetic underlay to 3mm MDF (to my horror creating something of a 70's platform sole look) I ended up drilling 3mm holes and gluing Rare Earth magnets in. The first were far too powerful and I eventually settled on the right size and number per base. With a drill press I could get through multiple bases quickly. I plan to use smaller magnets for the individually based skrimishers.

After all that I hope I am able to make the bases look half way decent!