In discussion with a coworker today we stumbled upon the subject of Wargaming versus miniature systems like Warhammer Fantasy Battles. I have played a few of both types in my day while he has primarily played miniature based games.

I went over some of the points that I think may separate the two genres, but I found that he could apply the same concepts to a miniatures game. For example, the effects of differing terrain upon combat, varying strength of units, bonuses for superior leadership and so on. All of which can be found in both types of games as he was quick to point out. In the end, I desperately grabbed at Combat Resolution Tables as a difference. While he had no reply, I didn't really feel like I had scored any points.

So I turn to my fellow BGGeeks for assistance. In your opinion, what truly separates the two types of games?

Erm...one has miniatures and the other one doesn't? In all seriousness, I would classify them as two different ways to execute the same idea - some kind of simulation of a battle. Now, the different methods allow for different scales of play, but they're basically the same thing in my book. (I'm neither a wargamer nor a miniatures player, though.) There are things you can do in chit-based wargames that you just can't do with miniatures. I mean, imagine simulating the D-Day invasion with miniatures. But, when it comes to tactical level, small squad types of things, miniatures work really well, and give a much more immersive game experience, I would think.

For me it is the tape measure.

By my definition, a miniatures game has no map or grid of hexes or squares to aid in the assessment of LOS or distance. A wargame has a map with a grid of some sort on it, a minis game requires a tape measure.

I suppose you could put something in about chits and counters versus stand up minis.

However, in my opinion, a lot of recent games (A&A minis, Battlelore, Mem'44, the resurgence of Battletech) have begun to blur the line between traditional Kriegspiel-type wargames and miniatures. A game like Battletech always stood on the border for me.

That's my short, pat, semi-flippant answer.

MJ

oh PS. The other major separator is that a wargame will run you about $40.00 - $100.00 and a minis game moves that decimal point two places to the right (kinda like a percentage...)

I would define the main difference to be analog vs. digital styles of positioning. In a wargame every unit occupies a hex or zone of some sort, in a miniatures game there are no such bounds.

I think the mechanical differences evolve out of those distinctions. How do you trace supply lines? In an analog game you don't have simple zones of control, so you're forced to either simplify or eliminate supply, or end up with gamey rules. However, in a digital game you have to have abstract rules for flanking, whereas in a analog game it's obvious when someone is flanked.

The major reason miniatures games tend to be smaller-scale is because if you raise the scale of a miniatures game enough, it's basically a wargame with breakable counters.

Board wargames and miniature wargames are both wargames. There is some real overlap as well. Especially at the tactical level, there are board wargames that could just as well be miniature games, and the reverse.

To the extent that there's any difference, it has to do with the lack of discrete zones for units in miniature games. That said, there's a lot of overlap, especially these days. There is hardly any other aspect of the two that is exclusive, so it realy comes down to the tape.

I would say that a miniature system is one that you buy piecemeal to get the armies/forces/units/whatever that you want to field. A wargame would be something that primarily comes in a single box, or could have some expansions, but the expansion would contain a "complete" setup.

To break it down, if you have to buy boosters for it, its a miniature game.

i was asking in another thread "what defines a 'miniatures game'" and got really good answers: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/788690

I'd say cardboard counters and a cigar.

Mostly physical differences, I think:

Miniatures vs. pieces/chits
Tape measure vs. hexes
Miniature terrain (that physically blocks LOS) vs. illustrated terrain (on a board/map)

plus, a miniature game requires you to buy the guys you want. A wargame already comes with all of them.

I would consider miniatures a subset of wargames.

Categorized by Physical Game Board and Components

Wargaming
- BoardGames
>---- Counters
------- Hex and counters
------- Area and counters

>---- Miniatures
------- Hex and minis (Memoir 44)
------- Area and minis (Axis & Allies, Samurai Swords)

>---- Other
------- Hex & Abstract pieces (?)
------- Area & Abstract Pieces (Risk)

- Table Top Games
>---- Miniatures (WH)
>---- Cards (Wings of War)

We have used Board games to generate table top games, it give you the campaign feel and battles can be broken down into games managable with the miniatures you have. Short of having someone umpire a campaign for you it may be the best of both worlds.

Replying to my own post... ohhh... bad form eh?

Why i categorized them like I did is the difference is only in the components.

Games like Flying Colours and close Action can be played with either mini's or chits. Games like Tobruk can be converted to Microarmour and played on terrain instead of a board with little or no rules changes.

About $500.

Steve

Miniature games are a subset of wargames.

All miniature games are wargames.

Not all wargames are miniatures games.

The key is threefold (crass generalization alert!!!!)

1) Use of a ruler to measure distances.
2) The use of miniatures instead of counters. (duh!)
3) A focus not just on historicity, but on aesthetics. (The game can't just be historical, it has to look and 'feel' historical.)

The first two are pretty easy (even though Canvas Eagles uses hexes, and the Battleground system uses cards instead of lead- as did Napoleon's Last Battles or B5 A Call to Arms, if you were cheap). Its the THIRD point that makes the difference.

While other wargames try to be both good games AND historically accurate, miniature gamers are really about a) how the game looks and b)how the game plays. The first is obvious- a pretty game is an awesome game (AWESOME!!!) even if the rules are so so. The second one is harder to describe....

Miniaturists like their games to look like battles, to have the same decisions as generals, and to be more immersive than a regular wargame. Its hard to put a finger on, except to say that Aesthetics (which changes from gamer to gamer, making it even harder to pin down) is a MAJOR factor. Everything from rating a game on 'fiddlyness' (how many markers on the table, how many die rolls) to the historicality of the lists, to how the game models various elements of combat; a lot of time is spent contemplating a lot of factors that wargamers have a tendency to 'abstract out'. Miniaturists will abstract (Look at Flames of War, or Fire and Fury), but we do so love our details....

Details...mmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!

So here you go- a long(ish) answer to your question. Make of it what you will- cuz if you play miniatures, you're AWESOME!

Darilian
We're AWESOME!

These are all really good points, thanks to everyone for contributing.

Personaly I would class a game like Warhammer as a fantasy wargame, I have been to lots of wargaming shows where historical wargames run along side fantasy wargames, there really is no difference, if you were being pedantic then you could say that historical wargaming is trying to recreate the events (or what if scenarios) of a certain period, where fantasy wargaming is based upon myth.

wait so your telling me that heroquest is a wargame?

Barely. I think that Hero Quest is first and foremost a fantasy game with a healthy helping of both theme and chrome: the chrome being the great miniatures that come with it that aid in tactical simulations of sword-and-sorcery combat.

For me, a miniatures game is game where the physical shape of the miniature matters from a game play stand point.

In a Hex and Counter war game, the size of the chit doesn't matter as long as it can fit in the space and display the information properly. In miniatures games if your unit goes behind an obstacle you have to get down at table level to see if it sticks up above the obstacle. Larger minis are harder to hide. The shape of the bases also determine how units engage and what kind of frontage they are fighting on.

Games like Memoir '44 have miniatures in them, but aren't really miniatures games because the game loses nothing from a game play standpoint if the minis were replaced by chits, stones, pawns, pennies or what ever.

My definition is: if the pieces can be replaced with chits of arbitrary size, it's not a miniatures game.

Completely agree

Ditto.

Well by Rayito's definition, Heroquest is NOT a miniatures game. So it is not being classified as a wargame.

ummm.... thats just rayitos definition, i got this from the wilki


A miniature figure (also known as a miniature or just a mini) is a small figurine commonly used in miniature wargames such as Heroclix, Mage Knight, and Warhammer. Some role-playing games can be played with them, as miniatures can help players to visualize factors that affect combat, such as which way each character is facing, who's fighting whom, line of sight issues, and so on.

so to me a roleplaying game should be a miniature game aswell.

i do get your point though and i dont REALLY care because iam not the game god who chooses which games belong to which categorys...

For me there is no formal border between them, but rather a difference in focus. I'd say that miniature wargames try to give a material insight into the war/period (how did the soldiers fight, what did their life look like) i.e. the physical war, while board wargames tend to discuss the feelings of the commanders and the decisions they took, i.e. the psychological, personal aspect of warfare. I find both interesting for different reasons, and I think they can combine very well.