Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As per a tangent I started in the Warmachine Mk3 news thread, I'm curious what people here think is the difference between a miniature game and a board game. The line is largely arbitrary, with some games comfortably straddling both sides of it, but there is a line. For instance, Cool Stuff Inc doesn't sell Warmachine/Malifaux/Infinity, but it does sell HeroClix and X-Wing Miniatures. There are a lot of miniature gamers here who don't seem to know much about the board game scene, and vice versa. They are two completely different worlds, despite a rather huge overlap in gameplay and use of miniatures.

So where do you guys draw the line? Does HeroClix count as a miniature game? What about Imperial Assault? Monsterpocalypse? Blood Bowl? Betrayal at Calth? At what point does a board game become a miniature game, or does a miniature game become a board game? Could a miniature game benefit from edging closer to board games in accessibility and visibility?

Not being facetious, but surely the main difference is, a board game uses a board?

 filbert wrote:
Not being facetious, but surely the main difference is, a board game uses a board?

Does that mean that when you add a gaming mat to a miniature game, it becomes a board game? What if it is included with the game, like the Warmachine Mk3 starters? Do the Realms of Battle tiles count as boards? DeadZone and Dust Tactics include a board and movement is grid based. Miniature games or board games? Games like Magic the Gathering, Elder Sign, and Rattle, Battle, Grab the Loot (which also measures movement in inches) are a part of the board game sphere, yet they don't have boards? Even if you think a board makes the difference, there's still a wide variety of ways it is used in both miniature and board games that keeps the line fuzzy.

Is a mat a board?

Does a game that relies entirely on cards and has no need of mats or boards a board game?

Why is it important that we make a distinction?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does that mean that when you add a gaming mat to a miniature game, it becomes a board game?

Does the game require the gaming mat to be able to play? If someone didn't bring the mat with them, just had the miniatures and rules, can they lay down some boxes or other terrain or use no terrain and play the game?

No having a gaming mat does not make a miniatures game a board game.

The line is so fuzzy as to be inconsequential to the majority of gamers.

Retail likes the distinction, but even there the lines are converging.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Is a mat a board?

Does a game that relies entirely on cards and has no need of mats or boards a board game?

Those are good questions. What do you think? I think a mat becomes a board when it contains gameplay features (depicts terrain features), but that would make DeadZone a board game. I think boardless board games are quite common. I could list a dozen off the top of my head. I think Rattle, Battle, Grab the Loot represents something that is obviously a board game, and yet has much in common with miniature games - just without the miniatures.

Why is it important that we make a distinction?

I'm saying there is already a distinction. But what exactly is that distinction?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does that mean that when you add a gaming mat to a miniature game, it becomes a board game?

Does the game require the gaming mat to be able to play? If someone didn't bring the mat with them, just had the miniatures and rules, can they lay down some boxes or other terrain or use no terrain and play the game?

No having a gaming mat does not make a miniatures game a board game.

But where do you draw the line in what is necessary? For instance, to play Warmachine, you need not only miniatures but tokens, cards, measuring devices, deviation markers, and dice. If you didn't, for example, bring dice, you couldn't play Warmachine. Does that make Warmachine a dice game?

Deadzone and Dust Tactics can be played easily enough without their boards (the grid movement isn't hard to replicate with a measuring device), but Deadzone can't be played without its terrain. And yet I think a lot of people here consider Deadzone a miniature game. What about Blood Bowl? Needs a board. Is it miniature or board? What about Car Wars? Doesn't need a board (not sure if you need to move up to Car Wars Deluxe or not for that to be true).

I'd say a board game was originally something that self contained single purchace (a really important bit) and played on a surface included in the box

compared to a miniatures game that is much more freeform in what you need, ofen bought piecemeal over time, and is typically played with terrain on some sort of table surface,

the two are now blurring together

with boardgames coming with high quality miniatures, and often getting expansions, and miniature games getting 2 player starters containing everything you need to play and tiles/mats to play on

Does it require a specific board to play? If so, it's a board game.

I think saying "board or miniature" is a bit over-simplistic though, as I wouldn't define DnD as either yet it is a game that uses visual representation for battles.

Board games feature boards, miniature games feature miniatures, some games are both.

For these purposes, "boards" are integral to the rules of the game in that gameplay makes no sense without them such as cases where movement is measured in 'spaces' or certain game actions only occur at specific locations on the board, and "miniatures" are detailed representational sculptures, normally to a consistent scale.

Normally what a "miniature" is, is the hardest to quantify because it's more subjective; how detailed is detailed enough, how representational is representational enough etc.
Really, the biggest clue is going to be consistent scale, always: for example most standard chess sets are usually below what I would consider either detailed or representational enough to qualify as miniatures and I doubt many people would consider it anything other than a boardgame, even if some sets really go nuts on the detailing; however I haven't yet seen one that's in a consistent scale without changing the complement of pieces.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The line is so fuzzy as to be inconsequential to the majority of gamers.

Retail likes the distinction, but even there the lines are converging.

I realize that I haven't said where I put the line yet. I think the distinction between miniature games and board games is the hobby aspect - the pageantry. The expectation that you are supposed to assemble and paint your miniatures, and that you are expected to benefit from a certain artistic license in how you, personally, create your experience. Something like HeroClix, with prepainted, standardized models largely being played on premade playing mats, has no personal expression in it. But where something like Magic the Gathering may have options for personal expression, those are gameplay options. Miniature games make personal expression part of the spectacle - and I think it's one of the things that makes them special.

I think of the terms more as a Venn diagram - and the circles overlap.

There are board games with miniatures, and miniatures games with boards.

Deadzone is both, and there are others.

Heck, there are some very old miniatures game that use grids. (Joe Morschauser coming to mind.)

So, they are not mutually exclusive terms.

The Auld Grump

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'd say a board game was originally something that self contained single purchace (a really important bit) and played on a surface included in the box.

I'd agree with this. To be considered a board game, all the parts need to be included in the box including an actual board to play the game itself.

Deathwatch: Overkill in my view is a board game because it has everything included in the box to play, especially an actual board layout.

 troa wrote:
Does it require a specific board to play? If so, it's a board game.

Check out FFG's Warhammer Diskwars. It is played on an open table with cardboard terrain pieces. It uses freeform, measured movements and combat is entirely spatially based. It even has a few expansions allowing for the customization of armies. No board. Has just about everything but miniatures in common with miniature games. Still considered a board game.

I think saying "board or miniature" is a bit over-simplistic though, as I wouldn't define DnD as either yet it is a game that uses visual representation for battles.

I'm largely talking about communities. I don't think miniature and board gamers interact that much. They buy their games from separate places, they hang out in separate communities, they have separate news sites. There is some overlap, but for the most part, they may as well be dark matter - existing simultaneously in the same place but never interacting.

And I would say that pen and paper role playing games are a third group that fits that definition, but I think there is far, far less overlap between them than between board and miniature gamers.

Similarly, when CCGs were popular, they were a separate entity as well, but as the genre dwindled in breadth and popularity, CCGs just sort of got swallowed into the board gaming community, to the point where reprints of old CCGs like Doomtown and Netrunner are now board games. Magic is still pretty much its own thing though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'd say a board game was originally something that self contained single purchace (a really important bit) and played on a surface included in the box.

I'd agree with this. To be considered a board game, all the parts need to be included in the box including an actual board to play the game itself.

Deathwatch: Overkill in my view is a board game because it has everything included in the box to play, especially an actual board layout.

Does that make the Warmachine two player starter kit a board game? What about Infinity Icestorm? Deadzone and Mars Attacks are largely self contained with expansions offering options rather than completing the experience. Meanwhile, Imperial Assault doesn't include miniatures for Han Solo or other major characters, and features a rather paltry number of skirmish maps (2) and side missions (0 non-character ones). It is incomplete out of the box. Similarly, many players don't consider Race For the Galaxy to be complete without the first expansion that makes military a viable strategy (and indeed was designed alongside the core box). What about collectible miniature games? How many boxes of HeroClix do you need to buy to have a complete game?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does that make the Warmachine two player starter kit a board game? What about Infinity Icestorm?

I think you are focusing on one or two things are there are multiple things that separate them. The board and being an all encompassing game is one thing. Infinity and Warmachine are miniatures games because they are not one piece miniatures or simple assembly, they require glue, clipping, sanding (in some cases) to be assembled to play. There are board games, there are board games with miniatures and there are miniatures games.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Meanwhile, Imperial Assault doesn't include miniatures for Han Solo or other major characters, and features a rather paltry number of skirmish maps (2) and side missions (0 non-character ones). It is incomplete out of the box.

It doesn't have the miniatures but it does have the tokens. You can play everything with what is in the box without the need for the miniatures.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does that make the Warmachine two player starter kit a board game? What about Infinity Icestorm?

I think you are focusing on one or two things are there are multiple things that separate them. The board and being an all encompassing game is one thing. Infinity and Warmachine are miniatures games because they are not one piece miniatures or simple assembly, they require glue, clipping, sanding (in some cases) to be assembled to play. There are board games, there are board games with miniatures and there are miniatures games.

So, the hobby then? That's what separates a miniature game from a board game?

I mean, it's not just the assembly aspect because Super Dungeon Explore originally came unassembled (and was a nightmare to put together) and Battles of Westeros forces players to glue together about 50 models before you could play (not to mention having boil many of them). Dust Tactics has heavy vehicles that have multiple different assembly options. Hell, I've got these sweet LEGO Boardgames that require extensive assembly (even assembling the dice!) because, you know, LEGO. Deadzone's figures require extensive assembly, while Mars Attacks doesn't (unless gluing helmets on counts). So Deadzone is a miniatures game while Mars Attacks is a board game, despite the fact that they both use versions of the same rules?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Meanwhile, Imperial Assault doesn't include miniatures for Han Solo or other major characters, and features a rather paltry number of skirmish maps (2) and side missions (0 non-character ones). It is incomplete out of the box.

It doesn't have the miniatures but it does have the tokens. You can play everything with what is in the box without the need for the miniatures.

Except the figures come with skirmish maps and side missions. Imperial Assault, despite having a significant (and popular) skirmish mode, is not a complete skirmish game out of the box. As for the token thing, did you see what happened when the released Twin Shadows (the one with Boba Fett on the cover) without it having a Boba Fett figure in the box? People complained that the box was incomplete as is. Though really, after X million Descent expansions, they should know FFG better than that.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The line is so fuzzy as to be inconsequential to the majority of gamers.

Retail likes the distinction, but even there the lines are converging.

They are converging in the extent to which cheap plastic CAD and production has allowed more and more board games to add pretty nice toy soldier like miniature figures to their contents. Any game that uses miniature figurines can be described as a miniatures game.

In general, though, if a game needs a board to work, it's a board game. War games can be played on boards, on decorative mats or within defined spaces (e.g. Phil Sabin's Strategos) using war game figures.

There are also reconfigurable boards, like the Space Hulk tiles, and board game style games that don't use boards, such as Carcassone, in which you use tiles to build a map.

The real distinction is who is the intended audience. I introduced the children of a friend to Caracassone, and it was so successful they actually asked to play it again the next time they visited. This was a group of girl, 8, boy, 10 and girl, 14. I would not have bothered to try them out on Space Hulk, due to various reasons.

When I hear someone say board game, I assume they are talking about a game and focusing mostly on the game system . When someone mentions miniature game. I assume they are talking about a game with an heavy emphasis on the miniatures used.

I usually try to distinguish types of games as card games (Magic / Dominion), board games (Monopoly), miniature board games (HeroQuest, Zombicide), miniature table top games (Infinity, Warmachine, and table top games (DnD). As others mentioned, it is rather arbitrary the categories.

Kilkrazy wrote:Any game that uses miniature figurines can be described as a miniatures game.

I think I'd have to go further than that, personally. For instance, FFG's collected reprint of Blue Moon City includes three miniature dragons (that they cribbed from BattleLore), but it is most definitely not a miniature game. I would consider Car Wars and Heroes of Normandie to be miniature games, despite not having miniatures. And I'm still not entirely sure whether Meeples count as miniatures or not. Meeples are sort of the gaming everyman/thing.

The real distinction is who is the intended audience. I introduced the children of a friend to Caracassone, and it was so successful they actually asked to play it again the next time they visited. This was a group of girl, 8, boy, 10 and girl, 14. I would not have bothered to try them out on Space Hulk, due to various reasons.

I have two girls, aged 7 and 10, and they love Mice and Mystics and Super Dungeon Explore, which are kind of in the HeroQuest/Space Hulk genre, and they do well. But I have to moderate the game and keep the rules straight for them. I think they could probably play Age of Sigmar just fine without me, though model assembling and painting would require supervision.

akai wrote:When I hear someone say board game, I assume they are talking about a game and focusing mostly on the game system . When someone mentions miniature game. I assume they are talking about a game with an heavy emphasis on the miniatures used.

So, the pageantry? One is built around the game while one is built around the spectacle. But then, Warmachine is built around the game and not the spectacle, which is kind of where this whole conversation originated in the first place

I'd go one further and say that, generally speaking, miniature games are 3D. When you draw movement or lines of sight, it is done in three dimensions (which is why we get to play with laser pointers), while a board game does it in two dimensions. So while Imperial Assault has a lot of spectacle, line of sight is still drawn on a 2D plane. But again... Warmachine is kind of 2D. It has volumes for LOS but it rarely comes up because the rules for base sizes usually suffices. In Warmachine, we use a laser line, not a laser pointer. We're also partially blind because we shouldn't be trusted with lasers.

The better question to ask... why does it matter what the difference between a board game and miniatures game? What is the purpose to determining the difference?

 Sqorgar wrote:
So, the hobby then? That's what separates a miniature game from a board game?

It is one aspect yes.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I mean, it's not just the assembly aspect because Super Dungeon Explore originally came unassembled (and was a nightmare to put together)

Which they changed to suit the target audience (ie: Board Gamers).

 Sqorgar wrote:
I've got these sweet LEGO Boardgames that require extensive assembly (even assembling the dice!)

Not everything will fit into a category. LEGO Boardgames is a hybrid, targeting board gamers and people who like to build with Legos. Building with legos is different than assembling miniatures. I like Legos but believe that Lego Boardgames doesn't deliver a full unique board game experience. There is nothing needed in the box, if you have legos, to actually play the game once you know the rules. I can build an identical game board with existing lego set without purchasing these boxes.

What makes the final determination of what is a board game vs miniatures game is subjective and will change from person to person. There is a dinstinct description except one is centered around gameplay of the board, while the other is centered around miniatures. The other determinations will vary. You will find some things that fit perfect within their categories given a set of parameters. Then you'll find many things that in the middle, trying to serve as a bridge between the two categories.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Except the figures come with skirmish maps and side missions. Imperial Assault, despite having a significant (and popular) skirmish mode, is not a complete skirmish game out of the box.

Imperial Assault was attempting to target two different target audiences, miniature gamers and board gamers. The skirmish game is focused around it being a miniatures game. It wouldn't be complete out of the box just like most miniatures games that require extra building. You could play with what you had, but it isn't a full experience. Imperial Assault as a board game was complete out of the box. Yes it didn't have miniature representations for each person but as a target audience for board gamers it was complete. The majority of the people who complained about it not being completed were typically miniatures gamers.

 Sqorgar wrote:
As for the token thing, did you see what happened when the released Twin Shadows (the one with Boba Fett on the cover) without it having a Boba Fett figure in the box? People complained that the box was incomplete as is. Though really, after X million Descent expansions, they should know FFG better than that.

People will always complain, it is a huge IP so at least 15-20% of the peoeple will never be satisified with any solution at any given time, thus the Rule of 80/20 or 15/70/15. Keep in mind there are contract obligations that may or may not exist which limit what can be released with what, and how many. Even though FFG may know better, they might not had full control of those decisions and thus can only do the best given the options.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'd say a board game was originally something that self contained single purchace (a really important bit) and played on a surface included in the box

compared to a miniatures game that is much more freeform in what you need, ofen bought piecemeal over time, and is typically played with terrain on some sort of table surface,

the two are now blurring together

with boardgames coming with high quality miniatures, and often getting expansions, and miniature games getting 2 player starters containing everything you need to play and tiles/mats to play on

I'm with the brightly coloured one on this.

Brand awareness' (not sure thats the correct term) is also worth considering, bigger name products, ie Star Wars or Marvel products can penetrate the 'normalsphere' and therfore end up in Target and such-like whereas more complex niche products, ie Warmahordes etc won't and don't

To me, a board game would be sold as an all-in-one product. You can buy add-ons, but they are generally complete games in of themselves.

For me, to qualify as a miniatures game, you can buy free-standing miniature packs to add to the game. Likewise, gameplay is normally structured to be player vs. player, instead of players vs. the scenario/board. Also, one-off promo figures available for a game don't transform board games to a miniature game.

Thus, I would consider Heroclix, D&D minis, Warmachine/Hordes, 40K, Dust, Bolt Action, X-Wing and a host of others to be miniatures games. Oddly enough, the way Zombicide is sold by my definition it would be a miniatures game, though I personally consider it to be somewhat abberation and tend to think of it as a board game (at least for now) - mainly because the primary play is players vs. the scenario instead of vs. each other. Same goes for Imperial Assault, as the default is player vs. a GM, instead of each other.

I would consider D&D's board games, Descent, Space Hulk, Betrayal at Calth, Overkill and others to be board games either for the lack of minis-only expansions (or are self-contained) or the payers vs. scenario/map sort of gameplay.

I BELIEVE.........that it could be one or the other or BOTH

You can have a "miniature board game"

-Maybe someone said this already but I didn't read all the posts.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'd say a board game was originally something that self contained single purchace (a really important bit) and played on a surface included in the box

compared to a miniatures game that is much more freeform in what you need, ofen bought piecemeal over time, and is typically played with terrain on some sort of table surface

That's how I see it. A boardgame you can do a buy & play in an evening from point of purchase, a wargame/miniature game is generally more of an investment of both time and money.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I think of the terms more as a Venn diagram - and the circles overlap.

There are board games with miniatures, and miniatures games with boards.

Deadzone is both, and there are others.

Heck, there are some very old miniatures game that use grids. (Joe Morschauser coming to mind.)

So, they are not mutually exclusive terms.

The Auld Grump

This is pretty much my approach, though I do have terms I use for both. Other folks may use different conventions, but I'd call something like Deadzone or spacehulk a "Miniatures Boardgame" and something that doesn't have a board a "Miniatures Wargame".

For me personally a Minaitures Wargame also implies 3D modeled terrain, but there are alot of Warmachine players who would disagree.

Another thing that influences people's views is the rise of the concept of the game package by which I mean rules, fluff and figures all from one publisher, probably in one box.

In historical wargaming traditionally you buy a set of rules, figures from whichever manufacturer you prefer, and do research in history books for background material. Background books also are sometimes available from the rules publisher, for instance WRG did a very well regarded series of "Armies and Enemies" books, or from other publishers like Osprey, to make research easier.

Then along came RPGs and the concept that the rules and background would come from the same publisher. It was Empire of the Petal Throne and Glorantha that embodied this first. (Chaosium also published some board wargames based in Glorantha.) RPG rules don't stop you from inventing your own world, but it's certainly easier to use scenario packs and so on.

GW became a licensed publisher of games like RuneQuest (Glorantha) and Traveller, then started to produce character figures to suit them.

This led to GW publishing the WHFB rules, with an increasingly detailed background, and war game figures to use with the rules. The starter set for such a game now becomes a boxed miniature wargame, containing everything you need to play a small battle, even including some simple terrain pieces.

To me, though, the proper meaning of a miniatures game is one in which the figures have a genuine role. For example, in WRG Ancients the figures tell you:

The nationality and period of the army.
The troop type, formation, and density.
The size of the unit.
The weapons and armour carried.
The morale status of the unit.
The direction in which it is moving and facing.
Its position on the battlefield.
Once you've seen the unit's figures, you don't need to refer to a unit war scroll for more information, because everything you need to know is already embodied on the tabletop.

In Monopoly, the miniatures are only pawns, markers for position, have no further bearing on the game and can be replaced with any kind of substitute without changing the game play at all. The same is true of Meeples in Carcassone.

That's what I mean by the difference between a pure miniatures war game and a board game. However these days that is one end of a spectrum, or perhaps an area of a Venn diagram.

 Dark Severance wrote:
The better question to ask... why does it matter what the difference between a board game and miniatures game? What is the purpose to determining the difference?

Because I have nothing better to do right now.

But really, it is by challenging our assumptions about what makes a miniature game that we are able to better understand our own beliefs in this matter. I mean, in the AoS forum someone insinuated that because AoS wasn't a deep game, it wasn't a game at all. To challenge that is to disassemble the concept of game depth and to decide what that means, both personally and objectively, and to make a qualitative judgment on the nature of miniature gaming. In other words, because people sometimes make assumptions and it's good to test those assumptions rather than making an ass out of u, mption.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I mean, it's not just the assembly aspect because Super Dungeon Explore originally came unassembled (and was a nightmare to put together)

Which they changed to suit the target audience (ie: Board Gamers).

People also complained, at length, at the preparation necessary to play Battles of Westeros as well. So one thing we can say is that the expectations of board gamers and miniature gamers are different in at least one crucial way - the time and difficulty from box to table.

What makes the final determination of what is a board game vs miniatures game is subjective and will change from person to person. There is a dinstinct description except one is centered around gameplay of the board, while the other is centered around miniatures. The other determinations will vary. You will find some things that fit perfect within their categories given a set of parameters. Then you'll find many things that in the middle, trying to serve as a bridge between the two categories.

I don't know how subjective it is though. I mean, if I listed a dozen different miniature/board games and asked you guys to classify them as board or miniature, dollars to donuts, everybody here will have the exact same answer - even for the gateway games. I bet I could pick a bunch of uncommonly known games and have people make the same assessments based on nothing more than a picture of the game. Just because the line is difficult to quantify doesn't mean it moves around.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Except the figures come with skirmish maps and side missions. Imperial Assault, despite having a significant (and popular) skirmish mode, is not a complete skirmish game out of the box.

Imperial Assault was attempting to target two different target audiences, miniature gamers and board gamers. The skirmish game is focused around it being a miniatures game. It wouldn't be complete out of the box just like most miniatures games that require extra building. You could play with what you had, but it isn't a full experience. Imperial Assault as a board game was complete out of the box. Yes it didn't have miniature representations for each person but as a target audience for board gamers it was complete. The majority of the people who complained about it not being completed were typically miniatures gamers.

Actually, from what I understand, what happened is that Hasbro has the rights to Star Wars board games (the reason why the LEGO Star Wars board game never came out in the US), while FFG has the rights to Star Wars miniature games. In an effort to claim Imperial Assault was a miniature game, they included the skirmish game. Early on, Imperial Assault was described as a miniatures game by FFG and was listed as such on their website. And, again from hearsay, Hasbro disagreed and initially blocked the sale of Imperial Assault until FFG did some back room negotiation with them. Now, Imperial Assault is a board game.

The thing to take away from that story is that perhaps the distinction between board game and miniature game is VERY important where licensees are concerned.

 Sqorgar wrote:
As for the token thing, did you see what happened when the released Twin Shadows (the one with Boba Fett on the cover) without it having a Boba Fett figure in the box? People complained that the box was incomplete as is. Though really, after X million Descent expansions, they should know FFG better than that.

People will always complain, it is a huge IP so at least 15-20% of the peoeple will never be satisified with any solution at any given time, thus the Rule of 80/20 or 15/70/15. Keep in mind there are contract obligations that may or may not exist which limit what can be released with what, and how many. Even though FFG may know better, they might not had full control of those decisions and thus can only do the best given the options.

Imperial Assault uses the same release scheme as Descent 2nd edition, which also had lieutenants sold separately and tokens in the box. It just so happened that they chose to make the famous Star Wars characters sold separately, which is a bit frustrating for a game which is built on the Star Wars license. Nobody wants to buy a Star Wars game and play without Star Wars characters (see also: Star Wars Galaxies). People felt cheated that they were sold on Boba Fett being in the game (*Boba Fett sold separately).

 Sqorgar wrote:

akai wrote:When I hear someone say board game, I assume they are talking about a game and focusing mostly on the game system . When someone mentions miniature game. I assume they are talking about a game with an heavy emphasis on the miniatures used.

So, the pageantry? One is built around the game while one is built around the spectacle. But then, Warmachine is built around the game and not the spectacle, which is kind of where this whole conversation originated in the first place

Since it is not mutually exclusive and very much subjective - lets just say miniatures versus table top game. If you are willing to play Warmachine with cut-out paper.tokens instead of the miniatures, you are absolutely playing it for the table top game. If you will only play the game with miniatures you are playing a miniature game

 Stormonu wrote:
To me, a board game would be sold as an all-in-one product. You can buy add-ons, but they are generally complete games in of themselves.

I think that definition breaks down when you factor in collectible games, like DiskWarz, Netrunner, or HeroClix. I'd also argue that what you get in the box with Ninja All-Stars is the complete game's rules, but the shrine ninja miniatures are glorified proxies at best.

For me, to qualify as a miniatures game, you can buy free-standing miniature packs to add to the game.

Descent 2nd edition, Imperial Assault, Super Dungeon Explore, Ninja All-Stars, Dust Tactics, HeroClix, Star Wars Miniature Game, Dungeons and Dragons Miniature Game, Attack Wing, Wings of War, Deadzone, Mars Attacks, Memoir '44, Summoner Wars, Blood Bowl, Heroes of Normandie, X-Wing Miniatures, Star Wars Armada, etc. (I recognize that some of those are generally considered miniature games, like XWM, but is it anything that it is doing differently from the others, or is it simply the existence of a competitive scene and meta? Do you have to have a meta to be a miniatures game?)

Likewise, gameplay is normally structured to be player vs. player, instead of players vs. the scenario/board.

That's just the difference between eurogames and Ameritrash. Lots of competitive board games out there. BattleLore/Memoir '44 are games that use miniatures, have miniature expansions, are competitive, and are obviously not miniature games.

Thus, I would consider Heroclix, D&D minis, Warmachine/Hordes, 40K, Dust, Bolt Action, X-Wing and a host of others to be miniatures games. Oddly enough, the way Zombicide is sold by my definition it would be a miniatures game, though I personally consider it to be somewhat abberation and tend to think of it as a board game (at least for now) - mainly because the primary play is players vs. the scenario instead of vs. each other. Same goes for Imperial Assault, as the default is player vs. a GM, instead of each other.

Didn't Zombicide's 3rd season add PvP to the game? And Imperial Assault does have a skirmish mode.

But besides that, would it be possible for a company like PP or GW to come out with a cooperative game and it still be considered a miniature game by the general public? Like I believe that Mantic's upcoming Walking Dead game has automated zombies similar to the Contaigon expansion of Deadzone. It is competitive though, but would it have to be? Like, what if there was a horde mode to Walking Dead. Would it still be a miniature game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 akai wrote:

Since it is not mutually exclusive and very much subjective - lets just say miniatures versus table top game. If you are willing to play Warmachine with cut-out paper.tokens instead of the miniatures, you are absolutely playing it for the table top game. If you will only play the game with miniatures you are playing a miniature game

I'm okay with that distinction... except I'm not really sure what makes a game a table top game? Is it just the lack of a board? Is Car Wars a table top game? What about Carcassonne?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 akai wrote:

Since it is not mutually exclusive and very much subjective - lets just say miniatures versus table top game. If you are willing to play Warmachine with cut-out paper.tokens instead of the miniatures, you are absolutely playing it for the table top game. If you will only play the game with miniatures you are playing a miniature game

I'm okay with that distinction... except I'm not really sure what makes a game a table top game? Is it just the lack of a board? Is Car Wars a table top game? What about Carcassonne?

Nowadays it seem that table top games is all inclusive to most games (not video games) that you can play on a table with a group of friends. Board games would be considered a table top game, but not all table top games are board games.

Edit: table top games are a games with a defined set of rules / system to play with tokens, game pieces, miniatures, etc imo,