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.

What is the definition of a "skirmish" game? How is that different from other miniature games? Does that just mean a game that is faster to play? What would be some examples of "skirmish" type games as opposed to other games? Battletech? 40k? Warmachine?

A skirmish game is typically small in size, say a couple of squads, maybe a bit more.

Inifinity is a good example of a skirmish game.

40K started as one but over the years has increased in size to the point where it's now more akin to a full-scale war than a skirmish.

Faster is more a consequence of it being a skirmish game, rather than a defining characteristic.

There's no real hard and fast rules, but a skirmish game will have a low model count (typically 10 or less I'd say) and will treat each model as an individual.

Infinity is probably the best example of a skirmish game right now, Warmachine is probably more squad level, 40K has aspirations of being platoon level, but is hamstrung by still being a skirmish/squad level game at heart.

If I was looking for a defining line I'd say that a skirmish game was one where you 'moved' (and fired and took actions for) each model independently as opposed to as a member of a squad/ regiment/ mass of troops.

I'd go with that definition as well; Skirmish you control individual characters independently with their own stats/status tracking.

So Infinity/Necromunda/Malifaux are skirmish games.

Whereas in 40K/Warmachine you control them in squads, so they'd be a squad level game.

As a side effect of being a skirmish game, they tend to have low model counts (generally down to about 4 and up to about 20) and tend to play fairly quickly.

Yep. Games can generally be broken down into Skirmish, Platoon and Company level.

Skirmish is each trooper activates (moves, shoots, draws LoS, etc) on their own.

Platoon you activate your guys per squad.

Company you activate multiple squads at ones (although the only examples of this I can think of are 15mm like Epic 40k or Historicals stuff, usually the 'squads' are several stands of models all bunched up).

Generally the larger you get the less each individual model matters too. In skirmish a model is exactly where that model is standing for purposes of LoS and terrain/cover.
In Platoon it can be a little more vague, some games will play as individuals some will say either the squad has LoS/is in cover/etc or they squad is not.
Once you get to company level you usually have entire squads of models standing on the same base so it really doesn't matter if 1 guy is out of cover.

Then of course you have 40k, which as Azreal pointed out, is trying to work with one foot in Skirmish and one in Platoon. Which is... odd to say the least and counter intuitive. Activating a squad but having to measure and move each model then draw LoS individually is just wasting time. (And frankly I'd say it's a downright stupid to worry about that in a game that also has artillery as on board pieces as well as flyers.)

You all are close, but not quite.

The technical wargaming definition of a skirmish game is any wargame game where one miniature equals one soldier, also referred to as "man to man". The term has been used by historical gamers to differentiate games representing a "skirmish" (brief and unplanned engagement) or a very small part of a larger battle at a 1:1 (miniature:soldier) scale from games that attempted to recreate entire battles, usually resulting in one miniature representing multiple soldiers.

Today the term has become used -often by sci-fi and fantasy games where proportional representation is not an issue or priority- to describe games that are very small in scope (usually less than 20 miniatures a side) or specifically for games where each miniature activates and acts individually. Unfortunately this variety of uses sometimes renders the term as vague as the "mass battle" term that get's bandied about by companies who want their games to sound impressive. Still, by the original definition 40k, WHFB, WM, KoW, etc are all "skirmish" games. Also, many platoon level (around 50 soldiers, give-or-take, depending on nationality) games would be "skirmish" games.

Complicating the issue is the fact that for most wars post-vietnam and into the sci-fi setting, the actual numbers of soldiers/units involved is often quite low. Thus recreating an actual engagement in the Afghanistan conflict, might only use the same number (or fewer) miniatures as a Medieval "skirmish". Is the engagement a "skirmish" or a "battle"? Would you call it a Platoon Skirmish? etc... Additionally, 6mm and other small scales make 1:1 representation possible for large historical battles, but the term "skirmish" is not used for these type of games.

I personally use the term "Warband Skirmish" for games where each mini is independent and the scope is very small. That's not an official term by any means, just something that seems to get the point across. A few other examples of such a "warband skirmish" game would be Mercs, Deadzone, Song of Blades and Heroes, In the Emperor's Name and Wreck Age. Supersystem and other goalsystem games have squads, but only for "henchmen" all other characters are individuals and activate independently and the scope is fairly limited, so it might also qualify.