Am I being oversensitive? Probably. But my post was in response to both you and Verdande, and now both of you have used charged words like "crappy" and "silly" rather than simply, "I don't care for how WotC bases 'long' creatures".
Did ya miss the part about "long" creatures in my post? I focused on cavalry, but snakeys and crocs certainly fit the bill. And to bemoan their "squareness" is simply wrong. The WotC D&D minis line certainly does place these types of creatures on round bases (that fit within perfect squares), but if you don't care for the base you can remove it and replace it with a rectangular cavalry base. The creatures themselves are not "square" their bases are. And bases are easy to change. And again, don't forget the WotC Heroscape line, which actually does use cavalry bases for larger creatures, both humanoids and "long" dragons and such.
Of course, WotC and other companies offer "long" creatures posed in a "square" way (like a coiled up snake or a rearing dragon), but they don't do this with all (or even most) "long" creatures by any means. And the monsters that could be posed either "square" or "rectangular" are legit either way, and if you have a preference for one or the other, that's fine too. But it's not silly nor crappy if a company poses creatures in a way you personally don't care for.
Nobody said it was.
Read the sentence again. "Everybody's favorite company to take potshots at . . ." not "Everybody's favorite company". And with how the "squareness" complaints are put forth, that's how I see the relevant posts, as taking unfair potshots.
However, I do think we're both wrong on how "most" companies do things. Companies that make miniatures for rpg and wargaming play are in a rather small, niche industry. Outside of WotC, Games Workshop, and perhaps Reaper . . . who are "most" companies? Niche companies within a niche business that don't produce miniatures on the same scale as WotC and GW. After some thought, I disagree that most companies put their "long" creatures on "long" bases . . . but I also disagree that most companies put their "long" creatures on "square" bases. Some do it one way, some do it another. Pick your preference and don't waste time slamming companies who make legitimate decisions that you simply don't agree with.
And always remember bases are easy to change, even molded bases on plastic, resin, or metal sculpts.
I am going to continue to 'slam' what I see as a silly decision. If you don't like it then feel free to ignore it. The whole freakin point of this thread was somebody thought that
most figures were on square bases, whether they should be or not.
This is a board dedicated, in the majority, to a game published by WotC.
One of the relatively few companies that base their miniatures around the square (or circle that fits into a square) for long creatures is also WotC.
It is fair to assume that the miniatures he was described were also manufactured by, you guessed it, WotC.
Assuming that WotC was the manufacturer who's bases the OP was commenting on was remaining on topic, so your complaint is out of place. This is a thread talking about the fact that WotC uses round or square bases. So why are you complaining that folks are posting on topic?
If this were a board dedicated to WARMACHINE I would be complaining about things germane to Privateer Press. (Like their inane 'cylinder' targeting rule) because it would be germane to that board. This site is dedicated to D&D, this topic is dedicated to the premise that folks use the same type bases that WotC uses, and which has been demonstrated to be false.
And maybe, just maybe, there is a reason people are complaining about the basing and spacing that WotC uses, eh?
If you don't want to read people complaining about something that WotC did, then why the heck are you reading a topic that is specific to complaining about something that WotC does, very few others do, and that some people disagree with? Go read posts that laud WotC for what they have done right, if that takes your fancy. You'll feel better, and I won't have an urge to throw a pie at you.
The square critters rule annoys me, and I really wish that Pathfinder hadn't followed suit. And while, yes, I can rebase the minis, the fact that I have to is a big chunk of why I own so few (a dozen or so) WotC miniatures, out of a collection of thousands of figures. (The other big chunk is that their man sized figures look like crap.)
Had I
really wanted to take potshots at WotC that is where I would have pointed my gun. I will admit that some of their larger figures are okay, and some of the big ones, like the Remorhaz, look nice enough to be worth rebasing.
Most companies does include GW - which mounts horses on long bases, and both manufactures and sells a Hell of a lot more miniatures than WotC.
It also includes Reaper, which mounts horses on long bases, and probably manufactures as many miniatures, or more, than WotC.
Other miniature manufacturers are a long way behind GW, Reaper, and, yes, WotC. Maybe, Privateer as well, but only maybe. WotC does not have a plurality in the miniatures market.
WotC is a majority in RPGs, not in miniatures. They are a minority in miniatures, and miniatures are a sideline for them. (And one that they are cutting back on.)
And if you are complaining about this hobby being a niche, should I be worried about how the miniatures that other companies, in other industries,
aren't manufacturing might be based? Pick an industry or hobby and stick to it.
The majority in the wargaming/miniatures gaming hobby
don't use square or circular bases for everything. There
is a majority, and WotC isn't it.
If I think that something is 'silly' or 'crappy' then I am going to say that it is silly or crappy. Many (but not all) of WotC's miniatures and miniature conventions are both.
The Auld Grump, rambling because he is tired. If he were awake this thread would be half its current length.... He is not beating a dead horse, his eyes are shut and he can't
see the darned thing.
