Thantos's Sculpting Log

[knightkrawler]

Here's my verdict:

1x1 squares/inches.
1x2 squares/inches.
Ogre size can be neglected. It's not the style and not even the size of the originals and not what I want.
Instead, I would like 1.5x1.5 squares/inches.
Also, 2x2 squares/inches or better yet (for me, planning to play 3x3cm squares) 5.5x5.5 cm.

But the more I think about it, the more I actually like round bases. The minis are just more variable in positioning during play.
I actually like the sight of figures on round bases looking where they would look in real life, not in 90° angles.

So, for me personally, there's the ideal base...
Wait for it...
ROUND HQ BEVELLED STYLE BASES, WITH A VERY SLIGHTLY DOWNWARD CURVED RIM, BEGINNING AT THE FEET OF YOUR TYPICAL MINIATURE.
Oh the possibilities for marking, painting, sculpting...!
(Goblin-King already pointed out that there's a difference in thickness between the rim and the center of the original HQ base).

[Thantos]

Hmm, certainly some base fetish going on here
Seriously though, thanks for the feedback. Ill get the vanilla style base fixed, then move onto some other sizes and styles.

What was your biggest expense for bases Seb? If you buy resin in bulk, you can get the price down quite a lot. 5L here and there and you do tend to pay through the nose :/

[Goblin-King]

Hmm, certainly some base fetish going on here

What did you expect?

[Reveal] Spoiler: language - viewer discretion

I'm a little torn about the ogre bases. I'm annoyed to no end that their style is a little different.
But I DO like that there is official precedence for a way to put larger monsters on the table without resorting to a double size base.
Like the Talisman/WHQ minotaur. It would fit snugly on an ogre base.
Maybe Ogre size but in the standard style? I dunno man!

[chaoticprime]

I have every miniature with a Euro base, and basically no two of them look exactly alike. The most accurate example, I believe, would be from the Men-at-Arms, because they were clearly not sculpted to have them, but had them attached to Warhammer Fantasy miniatures.

There is nothing wrong with those two rendered samples. Having exact replicas is not important if the exact replicas share the same flaws. Goblin-King is not the voice for all of us. I feel that I would prefer functionality to accuracy to an aesthetic that isn't. The Euro bases were changed for their American release for a reason--that reason very probably being that they were crappy. They didn't have flush sides, and not two were quite the same. The vastly superior American versions of the Euro bases released on the vastly inferior Barbarian and Elf expansion miniatures, are still the best example of what to do.

I understand that the more variants you have to make of this means the less profitable each one will be. You are here to make a profit, not to appease a bunch of forum trolls. The last time that I catered strictly to the members of a fan community I wound up losing hundreds of dollars when only about half of the members involved with the design purchased the product they'd designed, because there was minor irritation that I would not go with their specific wants while going with the specific wants of others.

We've been hacking into our HQ bases for twenty years. I disagree that we need slotted anything. It takes all of a minute to clip off a tag and file down the bottoms of the feet. I am more than willing to continue doing that.

[Goblin-King]

I actually agree with chaoticprime?!?

I don't think slottas are a must at this point. If it's no trouble to make them in addition, by all means... but it's not a must.

And yeah, be sure not to invest too heavily into the needs of nerds. Listen to the suggestions, but be critical.
I'm not sure where the big costs lie in making bases like these though; if it's mostly the casting materials or it's big costs in starting a new mold up?

I don't agree about the design though. If they don't resemble the original bases I can't really see the point.
Lots of companies already make very very nice bases, square, round, slotta or plain and with beautiful textures. The opportunity here is filling in a niche which is HQ bases.
Also all my HQ minis have pretty uniform bases. Only between their feet and where they were attached to the sprues some of them have little varieties.
But I could easily make measures for what I would consider a standard HQ base.

[knightkrawler]

The cost factor is the most important one here for me.
I can preach my personal taste all I want, but I WILL probably NOT pay more than 1 € for 4 bases however beautiful they are.
If they are more expensive because we want 7 shades of different designs (I have not a freakin' clue of the business, so this might be completely beside the point), then it's not the way to go.
You da bizniz man, as G-K says.

On HQ base uniformity: What G-K says.
On slottas: What cp says. If you go slotta, I'm not interested. Takes variability. What about my bridgeless minis?

[Seb]

Conversation has exploded haha

@Thantos
I suspect being in Australia with more expensive materials was a limiting factor, I had access to a full resin casting producer. I seriously looked at plastic extrusion but tooling again was a big initial outlay.

Having designed a replica base from the ground up to be a close match to originals - convincing enough, that folks haven't noticed base swaps on original HQ minis I've done, couple of issues I soldiered through:

(Goblin-King already pointed out that there's a difference in thickness between the rim and the center of the original HQ base).

Completely true, and a reality in the production of the models through their production. When you have a 'corrected base' next to an original, the only true give away is the sprue point scar.

The bases have to be flat for flush fitting with the feet (hooves,claws, talons..) of the HQ additions - even then, going the extent of merging them completely using putty is made easier.

That bevel on the edge is a git, I think I got down to 0.?mm measurements in the end haha. Then you have the nature of casting in resin where the bases can sallow into the mould slightly under pressure, causing the lower rim to be thin edged. Even with all the precautions I expected 2 out of a dozen in a pull to have below grade quality I personally would not use.

Anyhoooo.. look forward to your efforts, been enjoying the other pieces of HQ gear you've been modelling up!

[ampersand]

you people love the HQ base way too much. i chopped mine up and threw them in the bin
sacrilege!!! lol

but those bases were bigger than the squares on the board. i reckon they were only made due to the board having to be made smaller so to keep the original box size down.
but who am i to judge.

[chaoticprime]

you people love the HQ base way too much. i chopped mine up and threw them in the bin
sacrilege!!! lol

but those bases were bigger than the squares on the board. i reckon they were only made due to the board having to be made smaller so to keep the original box size down.
but who am i to judge.

Precisely why my boards have 1.25" squares.

[Goblin-King]

Even the back of the freaking quest book had pictures of painted miniatures on round bases - they even put the gargoyle on a square monster base!

But for me this isn't a discussion of what is most functional. It's a question of what is most HQ.
I'll quickly admit that while the look is quite stylish the size and shape is quite unpractical indeed.

But these were the bases I grew up playing with. I associate them so strongly with the joy of playing HQ.
These are the RIGHT bases for this game.
It would be like having George Clooney play Indiana Jones - Sure he is a good actor, but it just doesn't feel right (actually I'd kinda like to see that! But that's beside the point!)
That is why I haven't put the minis on standard small square GW goblin bases.
This is why (I assume) a guy like tasoe buys a particular generation of minis and puts them on those same bases.

It's part nostalgia and part neurosis!