Don’t start a jihad…

[Hobgoblin]

If there's any chance at all they'll be ranked up, of go with square.

I'd agree with that.

I use both. Citadel-style round slottabases are great for small-scale skirmish games with hefty, 'heroic' miniatures (easy to pick up, etc.), but once it gets to much more than 10 figures a side, I'm more inclined to go with squares. And within that, once there are 10 or more troops of the same type, I generally prefer to base them on squares so that they can be used in rank'n'flank games.

When it comes to square bases, I hugely prefer those with vertical edges (whether MDF or plastic) so that the figures can be easily moved as a unit. My experience has been that old metal figures on square MDF bases are easy to move en masse because the unit 'pinches together' if held by the sides or corners. By contrast, Citadel-style chamfered square bases lead to a nightmare of popping up and falling over. On top of that, when the figures are ranked up, you don't get that 'multibase' look that you do with vertical edges.

I don't mind using both in the same game. I have a lot of smaller, 'true 25mm' figures based on pennies. Those can be dropped into sabots for rank'n'flank to give perfect 25mm frontages (useful when pitting 25mm orcs, etc., against 1/72 humans):



And for RPGs, I'm basing my adventurers on pennies (using 'true 25s' from Ral Partha, Grenadier (including the Julie Guthrie classics) and Tin Soldier). Some of their foes are on pennies; some are on 20mm or 25mm squares. I find that it matters not a jot if the basing is different - indeed, it can actually help if adventurers are on rounds and the orcs or whatever are on squares, as you can see who's who at the merest glance.

[Chimpfoot]

Nice one Hobgoblin 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[Spooktalker]

I have been sleeping like a baby since my decision to go with 20mm wide x 25mm deep rectangles for infantry and 20mm x 50mm for cavalry. No matter whether intended more for skirmish or battle. I make my own magnetic bases from 1/16" ABS affixed to magnetic sheet with contact cement. The extra depth makes such a difference it's hard to explain how much better for most figures than 20mm deep, and the the individual bases allow me to be completely system agnostic, equally good for Hail Caesar, Lion Rampant, Field of Glory or whatever 60mm base element successor game, or literally any game that comes along in the future. In fact, I take it as a given that by the time I finish an army all the rules in print when I started will be out of print and the community will have moved on. 

I can use steel flat plates for elements or unit trays (both from Shogun Miniatures). The 20mm cavalry frontage allows me to do the 3 figures/60mm element that those 60mm elements call for, by staggering half the figures back 10mm from the front edge of the unit and using little empty 10 x 20mm filler bases on the metal plates to keep things looking tidy. Or for light cavalry, the 20mm frontage is still an advantage as it lets me more creatively place those two figures on a 60mm base.

Older 25mm figures I use 20mm square as I still use slottas for Oldhammer figures and the extra depth doesn't offer as much benefit. But for non-Citadel adventurers I think I will start going with 16 x 20 and 16 x 22mm for many figures to better allow the standard 3-abreast party corridor formation and better tavern scenes, etc. Much of my 25mm old school collection is based on rounds (19 and 20mm for humans) and ellipses (16 x 21 for humans), and I'm fine with that but going forward it's less to worry about. And I'll still use round and ellipse bases for some large monsters, but may go with rectangles for more of those as well.

A key point for me is that the square/rectangle shape is more stable for any given frontage. You have to increase the frontage (for example from 20mm to 25mm, or 25mm to 30mm) to get the the same stability. For a given frontage the circle is entirely inscribed within the square, and the square has those extra little feet.

Another is that for units, the round has proven unsatisfactory. My club has a portion of players than base on 25mm round as for many the Lion Rampant family of games is what they have in mind. But it's a pain if I want to organize a game that uses 60mm elements. They can only place two figures per element. And even with the Lion Rampant the 25mm rounds are more unwieldy and frankly don't look as good negotiating hedges, fenced fields, roads between buildings, bridges, etc. There has even been grumbling under the breath from one player of us having an advantage. Thankfully, we are about equally well-represented and the answer is, well if you think so, join us, nothing is stopping you save for the time to rebase. And again, this is for skirmish.

[ulverston]

This thread made me glance at my cabinet which has older fantasy figures in there with square bases and more recent ones with round.... I cant decide and when I paint a unit of older figures that I sometimes acquire they go on squares. Damn GW for changing its all their fault.

Only a fellow wargamer would know the frustration this incurs on a fellow. Whatever your choice (for now) good luck.

[Hobgoblin]

A key point for me is that the square/rectangle shape is more stable for any given frontage. You have to increase the frontage (for example from 20mm to 25mm, or 25mm to 30mm) to get the the same stability. For a given frontage the circle is entirely inscribed within the square, and the square has those extra little feet.

Another is that for units, the round has proven unsatisfactory. My club has a portion of players than base on 25mm round as for many the Lion Rampant family of games is what they have in mind. But it's a pain if I want to organize a game that uses 60mm elements. They can only place two figures per element. And even with the Lion Rampant the 25mm rounds are more unwieldy and frankly don't look as good negotiating hedges, fenced fields, roads between buildings, bridges, etc. There has even been grumbling under the breath from one player of us having an advantage. Thankfully, we are about equally well-represented and the answer is, well if you think so, join us, nothing is stopping you save for the time to rebase. And again, this is for skirmish.

Good points there - and a lot of thought!

When it comes to skirmish games, I'd argue that squares can be helpful for the "who's in contact with whom?" question (for games where that matters). The Song of Blades family is an example: you can have up to six figures in contact with a single foe. Square bases make this very clear: two overlapping foes on opposing faces and one each on the other face - a solid block of combatants. With round bases, the lack of face-to-face contact can make things less obvious - and more fiddly - especially when there are lots of fights in close proximity to each other.

It's not a problem with your Sagas and Rampants, of course. But it's a little ironic that most small-scale skirmish rules recommend round bases.

With square bases, the great 20/25mm divide that Citadel introduced in the early 80s can be annoying. Kings of War inherited those base sizes, which is a shame in some ways. We've been playing it a lot in 1/72 but on a sliding scale to 28mm (i.e. humans are 1/72 but other things may not be). I have found, though, that old Citadel and Grenadier orcs, hobgoblins, etc., are about the same size relative to 1/72 humans as GW 21st-century orcs are to 28mm humans. So the old metals can go on 25mm squares, which they were designed for, and look suitably hulking next to 1/72 humans and elves. I did agonise over how to base the Caesar 1/72 orcs, which are large for that scale. But eventually, the goblin 'luggit' (goblin fanatic/berserker) profile gave me a way out: 20mm frontages, which allow slightly bigger metals to occupy the 25mm slot.

[FramFramson]

TBH, I figure thin round smaller bases - magnetized if possible - with a sabot tray is the best of both worlds, by far.

[Pattus Magnus]

I’ll echo Fram, I shifted to circular bases for most 28mm models. The deciding point for me was making some units armed with muskets based on 20mm squares - no matter what I did, some bastards always had their weapons lined up with the backs of guys in front of them, or had to be glued in on a diagonal and looked odd (speculation on my part, but I think GW invented diagonal slots on square bases because the WFB rules painted them into a corner for base sizes, but by the early 1990s their larger 28mm figures which sold well didn’t fit in those unless they were at an angle…) With circles, I can pivot a few degrees any figure with a long weapon to get everything to fit and still have the unit look natural. I haven’t found any major drawbacks using them in games that are designed for square basing, but I have been fortunate to have a very reasonable set of opponents.

[Pattus Magnus]

Hobgoblin’s point is valid about 6 figures being the maximum able to make contact around a single enemy, but I just realized that if the circles are all the same diameter, six is also the maximum that can make contact with a single figure in the centre (all will have a tangential point of contact with the central figure, and the figures to their left and right).

The takeaway for me is that if the players are reasonable, circles and rectangles/squares are both feasible for most rules systems.

[Chimpfoot]

Thanks for all the great feedback👍🏼
Just made this solves all the problems
Not claiming it, someone must have thought of it before me 🤷‍♂️

[Pattus Magnus]

Nice! That sort of tray will fill most of your gaming needs for rank-and-flank games. If you paint the inside with a “pattern breaker” scheme using the same palette as your bases then the tray won’t stand out much on the table even when figures have been removed.

[Chimpfoot]

Thanks Magnus
And yes you’re right
All problems solved
Life is easy 😆😆

[tikitang]

While I remember: here's a quote about round bases found in the second edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle (1984):

ROUND BASES

Some people like to use round bases made from coins or washers. With these a movement tray is essential to enable models to be moved reasonably quickly. The big disadvantage of round bases is that they make it difficult to see exactly who is fighting who, which models can fight and which cannot. Assume models on round bases have a standard frontage of 20mm for infantry and 25mm for cavalry as normal. Changing formation can also get confusing with the round base, but on the whole, gamers who prefer them usually muddle through combats and movement without much difficulty.

Keep on muddling through!

[Chimpfoot]

Muddling through is standard practice 👍🏼😆🤷‍♂️

[Cacique Caribe]

Chimpfoot

That’s exactly how I’m doing mine.  Round bases on quadrangle movement trays.

Dan

[Chimpfoot]

Hey Dan
🤷‍♂️
I made a mock up and it worked so well I thought ffs that’s so glaringly simple if I’d thought of it twenty years ago there would have been a much bigger dent in the lead pile by now😳
Spent the rest of the day shaking me head 🤣🤣🤣🤣duuuhhh