Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5282301" data-attributes="member: 6957">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification