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.

 Sqorgar wrote:
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.

Not really, no.

3rd edition 40K came with regular models. From 4th edition onwards, GW switched back to push-fit models that are much quicker to assemble... because people hated the fact that after buying the starter set you had to spend a week assembling models before you could actually play the game.

And, of course, any game with pre-painted or pre-assembled models requires no time or difficulty at all to get from box to table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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 pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. It's not as simple as 'this is a board game' and 'that is a miniatures game. A lot of games are both.

IIRC X-Wing got a lot of "where's the board" comments upon release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
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.

Not really, no.

I dunno, I think he has a point. IME people who tend to be more on the board gamer side of things are intimidated and mystified by the skill/effort/money that goes into miniatures gaming. The absence of this element was a big talking point among board gamers when X-Wing came out (although they still said it was too expensive ho ho ho). Meanwhile, as someone who thinks of himself as more of a miniatures gamer, I find myself often disappointed with the limited scope of board games. So for me, X-Wing is one of my favorite games ... but it doesn't quite scratch the hobby itch (I never had the MajorTom compulsion to do custom repaints). As a miniatures gamer, I really relish obsessively planning and "sinking into" (and never really finishing) my "projects."

 Manchu wrote:
So for me, X-Wing is one of my favorite games ... but it doesn't quite scratch the hobby itch (I never had the MajorTom compulsion to do custom repaints). As a miniatures gamer, I really relish obsessively planning and "sinking into" (and never really finishing) my "projects."

The thing is, those two things aren't dependent on each other.

I went through a period where I was pretty exclusively playing Star Wars Miniatures, which had pre-painted miniatures and used maps, so no painting or modelling required (although I did wind up making some custom models). While that was going on, I was still painting and building models.

I don't see 'miniature gaming' as a single entity that encompasses both playing the game and modelling. I see those as two separate hobbies that can overlap. Gaming doesn't intrinsically involve painting and modelling... and painting and modelling doesn't require you to also play a game. Some people just happen to do both.

 insaniak wrote:

3rd edition 40K came with regular models. From 4th edition onwards, GW switched back to push-fit models that are much quicker to assemble... because people hated the fact that after buying the starter set you had to spend a week assembling models before you could actually play the game.

The starter sets only, right? Perhaps those were created or purchased with the intent of it being a gateway from board games, so board gamers were frustrated because they hadn't yet become acclimated to the hobbyist way of doing things?

This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. It's not as simple as 'this is a board game' and 'that is a miniatures game. A lot of games are both.

If this is true, why are the communities around these game so segregated? Miniature games have absolutely no community on Board Game Geek, while board games have virtually no community on sites like Dakka. Even the ones that tend to bridge the gap usually end up the domain of one or the other. X-Wing Miniatures is really the only one that seems to have a big community in both. Could it be the exception that proves the rule? And I know HeroClix is popular somewhere, but I have no idea where those players hang out. They are their own dark matter, I guess.

For me the distinction between a board game and a miniatures game is:

*Board games come in a single box, usually where one person OWNS the game and 2-6 people play it.

*Miniature games usually require each player to 'bring their own miniatures' to the game for it to work and may require each player to also own a copy of the core game to function.

Many games are a hybrid of the two (Bloodbowl can be played OOTB with the 2 teams provided as a complete experience, but most times, everyone owns their own pitch and custom team. )

When I go to a board game meetup, someone brings a game, and we play. When I go to a Miniature gaming session, I need to bring my own models based upon what is being played.

So there you go.

I would consider anything miniature based a miniatures game. Zombicide, Kingdom Death, Arcadia Quest, Mage Knight, Dust, 40k, Infinity, Arena Rex, Shadows of Brimstone, etc were all based on detailed minis... and miniatures sell the games.

Board games had sculpted tokens, but they are not the major selling point of the game. For example, Monopoly, Firefly the game, Risk, Axis and Allies, etc may have miniature tokens, but they are not the major selling point and could easily be replaced by meeples. *before someone argues that... yes you could play 40k, zombicide, etc, with meeples, but no one would probably play with you*

Some board games are boarderline miniature games, such as descent. Descent has really increased the quality of the minis, but the game is the major selling focus, not the minis (although I love the minis). Shadows of brimstone is also boarderline, except that they used the minis as a focus for selling their game.

The focus of the game/selling point is what differentiates these two types. A miniature game is played as a game, collected, painted, etc. There is a larger hobby than just playing a game. You can do this with zombicide, 40k, infinity, etc. You can't do this with monopoly, risk, etc.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't see 'miniature gaming' as a single entity that encompasses both playing the game and modelling.

Yeah I see it the opposite way, I tend to think folks whose hobby comprises both tend to be doing a different thing, approaching it in a different way than folks who have one or both as separate hobbies. All anecdotal of course.

nkelsch wrote:
*Board games come in a single box, usually where one person OWNS the game and 2-6 people play it.

*Miniature games usually require each player to 'bring their own miniatures' to the game for it to work and may require each player to also own a copy of the core game to function.

That's a good distinction, but it does break down a little bit, especially with collectible games. For instance, Summoner Wars can be played out of the box, but with all the different factions and expansions, more than likely each player is expected to supply their own. FFG's LCGs, however, do sell the entire game to one player rather than just factions, but even then, both players are expected to provide their own copies (but don't have to, I guess - the owner will have a major advantage though). I think BattleLore 2nd edition kind of blurs the line a little bit, since it does have factional expansions and one player can provide for his own pieces (models, model rules, lore cards)- but contains a shared board, tokens, and dice (and really, there's only one extra faction outside the box). Ninja All Stars has factional expansions and I believe that there are expectations that players will provide their own teams.

But it is a good distinction. I like it. If the difference is a culmination of multiple factors, then these are the ones that I've found most convincing in this thread:

* Miniatures - kind of a given.

* The pageantry/hobby aspects - pimping your game, requires effort from purchase to table

* Player ownership - miniature games are owned by their respective players rather than just one owner. (see also: CCGs)

* Free Form and Three Dee - there's no board, the terrain is more free form, and models operate in 3D space.

* Expandable and Growing - the game is continually supported by expansions, giving players options for play.


Some additional thoughts?

* Target audience? - Maybe board games target a broader audience in general? More mainstream?

* Competitive meta? - The community is engaged in the ongoing changing experience of the game?

* Star Wars? - If it involves Star Wars, it is what you want it to be, and I want it to be a unicorn.

 Sqorgar wrote:
[. Ninja All Stars has factional expansions and I believe that there are expectations that players will provide their own teams.

If I want to play NAS with 'Boardgamers', I would provide the game, and all the minis. This would probably be at someone's house or a meetup. We would probably play it once and next week someone else brings a different game. If people like it, it becomes part of the rotation.

If I want to play NAS with 'Miniature Gamers', everyone would own their own clan and a copy of the game. This would probably be at a FLGS. There would probably be a full league for a few weeks so everyone gets their moneys worth out of their minis.

That is how a game which appeals to both camps will probably break down. It is different mindsets out of what people want from a game.

 Eilif wrote:

 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 Miniatures Wargame also implies 3D modeled terrain, but there are alot of Warmachine players who would disagree.

Dark Future.
Space Hulk.
HeroQuest/Advanced HeroQuest/Warhammer Quest.
Dwarf Kings Hold.
Dungeon Saga.
Battletech.
Ogre.

Yeah... the more I think of it... the sillier the question seems.

Venn diagram it is!

The Auld Grump

 Sqorgar wrote:
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.

It will depend on the games. Discussions like this tend to happen when games come out, even Imperial Assault went through the "Is it a board game or Is it a miniatures game?". Just because people here would have the same answer, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't subjective. It just means most of us here are on the same wavelength as this tends to be primarily a miniatures gaming forum.

It would however be a better exercise to create your list, have people classify them. Then identify the differences and ask why. If you are going to make an assumption then you should put it to the actual test to validate it.

 Sqorgar wrote:
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.

Yes and no. There was a definite disagreement between what made the distinction. FFG wanted a full game experience out of the box, hence the tokens. They included miniatures and have skirmish rules but the tokens worked against them along with the board. Had they removed the tokens and required additional purchases to be able play or included all miniatures then it would have been a blurrier line. There is a bit more than that but I don't know what is considered public knowledge so I can't talk about Convention discussions.

 Sqorgar wrote:
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).

Honestly that is their own fault. Yes a person could feel cheated but if someone buys something just by looking at the front of a box, not looking at what comes with it... then that is their fault. I can agree that can be seen as a shady move but box art tends to have things or picture things that don't always happen within a game. Anyone not at least looking or asking what is in a box and blindly making a purchase shouldn't have room to complain about something missing that they expected to be in it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

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?

You're ignoring the post above that he agreed to. Self contained purchase and board is integral to playing the game.

Deathwatch Overkill requires the board in the box to play otherwise the rules don't make sense. You can just play it on a bare table with coffee mugs and containers if you forget the board. This can be done with Icestorm or the Warmachine 2 player boxes. While you can play with just the miniatures in the box, any mats or terrain they come with are inconsequential, and the game makes sense without them. Won't be a particularly fun game, but again, coffee mugs and containers.

Imperial Assault is a board game. It has board sections that are required for play, and makes no sense without them as all missions tell you a layout to create with them. The box also encompasses everything required - while some characters only include tokens, that's all the miniatures are anyway, 3D tokens. While they have miniatures avalable to replace them, none of them are required. It plays out of the box entirely, with no future purchases necessary, with a board that is integral to playing the game. Additional missions, additional miniatures, more skirmish maps, etc are nice to have, but not having them does not detract from the game at all. They are expansion packs rather than required to make the game work.

It is a question we touched a few times on the game design subforum.

The names on your question really are "tabletop miniature wargames" and "wargame boardgames" that have miniatures.

For me the distinction for a boardgame versus a tabletop, miniature wargame are some artificial and some from a design back-end that the user may or may not see or understand.

Mind you there are a lot of hybrids out there as there are many hybrids of euro and Ameri(trash/thrash).

There artificial limitations are shaped by the target audience, which suprisingly enouph are the retailers not the gamers.

A boardgame is expected to be playable out of the box.

The components need to have minimal assembly, preferably none, there are retailers who refuse to stock boardgames that have unassembled miniatures.

(some form of) plastic is the material the boardgamers expect to have their miniatures because that is what the industry chose for endurance and transportation reasons.

From a design perspective a boardgame offers the most control to the designer, a boardgame is an enclosed system were the players cannot "deviate" from the rule set the grid makes things predictable and calculable.

The tabletop wargame is another beast, players set up the play area and the measurements are imprecise the designer has to take into account the chaotic conditions the rule set will be in and the questions a more "undisciplined" system will bring in.

To put into perspective an RPG rules system is even more chaotic and at best it can only be regarded as guidelines since the players have unlimited resources at their disposal to break the system.

The biggest element of boardgame miniature warames is indeed the board that has distinctive measurement positions (squares, hexes, irregular shaped zones) because it makes the game system containable, in contrast the use of a tape measure in tabletop wargames makes the game system more unpredictable.

The other big differentiation is the expectation of been self contained versus not been self contained, this created an interesting challenge for the tabletop wargames were the designer has to figure out what the play area will actually look like.

For me fuzzy lined is defined by:

Miniatures games:

More focus on collecting and customisation
Individual purchases, that let you build a unique game
possibilities for painting/construction
Lots of freedom in playing options
Heavy emphasis on story + setting + lore

Board games
The game is complete and playable right out of the box
Very minimal construction required (no painting)
Expansions possible, but they add to a full game, rather then being required
Story/lore is optional
Restricted freedoms, only a limmited number of ways to play.
Cheap
More accessable + simple rules.

Each of those could be put on its own spectrum, with different games falling in different places on each. But for me, a game that fits more inline with the second list is a board game, and a game that fits in more with the first, is a minatures game.

Ofcourse there will be many that break the rules, but they will be in the minority.

Miniature games are very small. Board games are usually full sized.

Story and lore have become quite essential in many boardgames and companies move towards investing more into this.

I think though you chunk all boardgames in the same category, while, it is unfair since the original question came from the discussion if the new warmashine starters were a boardgame or not.

You cannot lump KDM and risk in the same category and there are many miniature boardgames that have the purchase model of tabletop wargames.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


Dark Future.
Space Hulk.
HeroQuest/Advanced HeroQuest/Warhammer Quest.
Dwarf Kings Hold.
Dungeon Saga.
Battletech.
Ogre.

Yeah... the more I think of it... the sillier the question seems.

Venn diagram it is!

The Auld Grump

After reading over this thread I guess I'm moving away from the Venn Diagram and towards slightly more descriptive titles.
I'd call everything you listed, plus Zombicide and similar games "Miniature Boardgames" which differentiaties them suitably from "Miniatures Wargames" or the more wordy "Tabletop Miniature Wargame"

The only games I can think of that truly seems to blur the line between "Miniatures Boardgame" and "Miniatures Wargame" are Deadzone and maybe Dust both of which can employ extensive terrain even while being placed over a grid.

Isn't the main difference that you typically have to assemble miniatures, while a board game's miniatures are usually pre-assembled (and/or prepainted)? Like Zombicide for instance is a board game, but has miniatures. X-Wing is kinda a hybrid.

I would assume the deciding factor between the two is that if it involves buying unassembled/unpainted things (more assembly) that you have to use glue and a knife and files to put together before playing, it's a miniatures game. If it's just take these figures, lay out this board and start playing, it's a board game. Again, X-wing and Heroclix are these weird hybrids where they are collectable, but don't require a lot of effort beyond buying the pieces you want.

A good way at look at this would be make lists of the key attributes of a boardgame and a miniatures game, and see where there are overlaps and not.

 snurl wrote:
Miniature games are very small. Board games are usually full sized.

You good sir win this thread, unless of course the game wasn't miniature and merely far away...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A good way at look at this would be make lists of the key attributes of a boardgame and a miniatures game, and see where there are overlaps and not.

Volunteering?

I think it needs input from a lot of people, but to start us off, here are some key characteristics of a board game.

Complete in one box. (Though this does not rule out the possibility of expansions and supplements.)
Uses a board (duh!) that is the playing space, and can't be played off this board without major changes.
If using miniature figures, they are essentially pawns, not integral to game play functions.
Simple rules with a wide age range.
Multi-player, e.g 2-6.

I started out in what would be considered "miniature games." I switched to "board games" a few years ago and now I play both. Honestly I think they are both the same now and we need to redefine what they are. here is my proposed definitions but obviously YMMV.

We should probably call them all tabletop games and they have subsets where some are miniature games and some are board games.

A miniature game being one where you buy, assemble and paint miniatures often sold in separate kits. Often you create scenery on a table for the game.

Subsets of this would be collectible miniature games where you buy random miniatures in a pack such as Heroclix. Prepainted miniature games where you buy miniatures pre-assembled and pre-painted.

A board game is a complete game, often coming with it's own board that may or may not have miniatures. If it has miniatures like Decent or Super Dungeon Explorer then it should be called a miniatures board game.

Just some ideas.

Like i said in the MK3 thread

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Please, there are plenty of other windmills to tilt at than this one.

I can tilt at more than one windmill at a time.

And please yourslef. Look at this:

Spoiler:

Brightly colored plastic figures, a flat paper mat with pre-printed terrain, folded paper cardboard wall, a bunch of tokens, they aren't shown but there's cards too - That's a board game. It's the Undercity/Widower's Woods version of Warmachine. When you remove the pageantry from a miniatures game, what's left is Ameritrash.

Come again? If anything, its Warmahordes that is the Eurogame, with it's tightly balanced rules, and AOS that is Ameritrash, with its herpaderp roll a hat full of dice, +5 dice if you fart, no point values, forge your narrative "gameplay".

Its non of these, it is a wargame, it can be a boardgame or a miniature game, the main thing with board games is that the plastic figure is just a game token while in a wargame it is an active play piece. The eurogame/Ameritrash point is completely irrelevant.
I guess this also just a board game

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
...the main thing with board games is that the plastic figure is just a game token...

I think that's as concise at it gets.

It comes down to degrees of abstraction. In a board game what is represented by a game piece doesn't change if the game piece is modified. In a miniature game altering a miniature carries an altered interpretation.

I think going any broader than that and you're dealing sub-categories and things that aren't pertinent to the distinction. There are board games that border on being miniature games and vice versa but that's where I put the line.

Not really, take for example Infinity and warmahordes the miniature is just a game piece, one could play both with cylinder tokens.

For me if the model is actively affecting the game rules (it can be modeled for advantage) then the rules are poorly written.

On the other hand the play surface been separated with squares, hexes or some other fashion makes the game more tight and more like a boardgame.

Don't Infinity represent the faction, weapon and armour equipped, facing and so on? IDK about WMH.

I suppose you could make cylinder tokens and print these stats on them, but what's the point? People play miniature games because the figures look nice.

The information could be on the cylinder or a'pawn'-- term for a little cardboard standee-- either as an illustration or text. One could substitute some other sort of game piece for miniatures in any miniatures game. I like the visual appeal Infinity, and tabletop miniatures games in general, but they could be played with 'game pieces' instead of miniatures, and with simple objects like boxes, books, what have you for terrain. Why someone would do that, except for budgetary reasons, eludes me.

A Board game is a complete game in a box, including the playing surface-- this is the important part, the 'board' part, no? It may include miniatures. (as has been stated many times already.)

Warmachine is most definitely "Ameritrash" because it is (1) heavily themed, (2) uses dice, and (3) pits player directly against one another. Don't confuse quality of a rule set with the 'kind' of the game. However, wargames in general get a pass from the ridiculous labels Eurostyle (German style, really) and Ameritrash.

The more I think about it, the key points are the board and the miniatures

Board games can't be played off their board without a lot of adaptation, and don't need miniatures. (I don't count pawns or Meeples as miniatures.)
Miniature games can't be played without their miniatures without a lot of adaptation, and don't need a board.

There are some games that lie in both camps. Space Hulk, for instance, needs its board and its miniatures, so does Twlight Imperium III. If we want to classify these games specifically, we can call them board games because they come complete on one box, and require minimal assembly, or we can call them miniature board games as opposed to tabletop games.

Hence a Venn diagram, as various people have already proposed, is a possible solution.

Sorry I had to drop out of my own discussion for a bit, but with any luck, I'm back now.

I think the board is a common distinction, possibly even the biggest one, but I can still think of board games which don't require boards. Warhammer DiskWars, for example. Also, Rattle, Battle, Grab the Loot has you rolling dice in the box and then tactically moving them around like miniatures, so there's not really a board per se, so much as there is a play area (but then the same can be said for miniature games).

Interestingly enough, there are numerous card games that have boards (like Star Wars CCG, Star Trek CCG, Doomtown, even Carcassonne), which I guess represent a hybrid between board game and card game. They are still card games because they have more points of connection with card games than board games though.

And then you have miniature games which have boards, like HeroClix, Tannhauser, Dust Tactics, or Monsterpocalypse - games which I consider miniature games (not board games) that are played by the board game community (not the miniature game community).

All this makes me think that it isn't just one thing, but it is a connection of multiple things. I once offered a definition of the "roguelike" genre as having ASCII graphics, procedural content, punishing difficulty/permadeath, and single avatar one-action/one-turn turn based game flow - it's a roguelike as long as you have more of these signifiers than not. So pick any three and it is a roguelike. Discussing this with others, we came to the conclusion that some of these signifiers are stronger than others. That is, procedural content is so important to the genre that you'd basically have to have everything else - in essence, it would be a roguelike without procedural content. You could lack that signifier only as an exception, never as a rule. So that became a prime signifier of the genre.

I'll offer the same suggestion for this discussion. What makes something a board, card, or miniature game is not one thing, but a significant collection of signifiers from a larger pool. I think that for miniature games, one prime signifier would have to be the miniatures - or rather, that they are 3D. They have a width, height, and depth. Sure, you could play Warmachine/Infinity with cylinders, but you couldn't play them with circles. You can play Imperial Assault with circles. You can also play HeroClix, Tannhauser, Dust Tactics, and Monsterpocalypse with circles as well, which might be why most people consider them more board games than miniature games (although Dust Tactics added 3D buildings eventually, so the miniatures aren't 3D, but the game world is). The miniatures are irrelevant. Maybe this alone doesn't make a miniatures game, but lacking it must have enough miniature game signifiers in abundance to make up for its absence.

And perhaps having a board is a prime signifier for board games. It isn't the sole purview of board games, and not all board games have them, but it is such a fundamental part of board games that its existence or lack thereof functionally controls whether it is seen as a board game or not. So something like HeroClix, which lacks the prime signifier of miniature games and contains the prime signifier of board games, ends up being treated as a board game.

(I would also say that the hobby aspects of miniature games is a prime signifier, though I'm not sure everyone here would agree. X-Wing Miniatures lacks the hobby aspect, but makes up for in other areas... wait a second. Can X-Wing Miniatures be played with circles? Does the 3D-ness of the ships matter to the game at all?)