"Why No Love on TMP For Miniature Boardgames?" Topic

Just wondering, rarely see any discussion on TMP for the large number of miniature boardgames that have been released in recent years. We seem to be in a "golden age" thanks to recent Kickstarter campaigns, and the number of games that include nicely sculpted 28mm miniatures in multiple genres has exploded as a result.

Just speaking for myself I own the following Kickstarter mini games: Blood Rage, The Others, MERCS Recon, Conan, Sword & Sorcery and Space Cadets Away Missions. Not to mention Reaper Bones (which at least gets some discussion around here, though not a lot). Then there are even more popular games (even though I have no interest personally) like Zombicide.

Was just wondering why. Thought it might be that they are plastic, though many other plastic figures are discussed (and by and large the figure quality of most of these games is as good or better than many of the plastic 28mm figures already on the market).

Is it the genre's? There are already a fair number of fantasy and SF discussions on TMP. Figures themselves can be used for a wide variety of games as well, so the fact they are technically "boardgames" should not limit interest IMO.

Just curious is all…….

Because Boardgamegeek.com is the number one place to talk sbout them? I own Imperial Assault and X-Wing. Not into the games you mention. Our family owns about 400 board and card games. Btw I easily can find board game groups to play with, unlike historical miniature groups.

Anyways, I think it's a cultural divide thing between the two hobbies.

We don't discuss stamp collecting much either.

From my experiences very few of the people who play games such as Imperial Assault,, X-Wing, etc., consider themselves to be miniatures gamers. Not only that, they usually have very little interest in acquiring, painting, and playing armies for any type of period.

News for you, Cold Warrior: that little tiny race care and the shoe too small for any human foot do not make Monopoly a miniatures game.

Model Railroad trains anyone?

And yet, Robert, CW wasn't talking about Monopoly. The games he listed are valid miniature based games with some figures that are better detailed and priced than many miniature war game lines.

There are a list of mini games that do get discussed here, though not at length. The "Attack Wing" kind of games (Star Trek, Star Wars, Wings of Glory/War, Sails of Glory) each get discussed here but there are other forums that do them more justice. The CMON games originally mentioned get referenced rarely, mostly as a source for minis and not as a game unto itself.

Aegis may have it right. There is a mentality to each type of gaming and it tends to draw different gamers. Most of the mini-based board games are just different from war games. They don't lend themselves to large forces being moved around a beautifully designed and built table with terrain and figures that recreate the feel, if not the look, of a dramatic battle. You don't see the boardgames, even with cool looking figures, often played at conventions for the same reason. Look at the pictures that came out of Historicon recently. Those kinds of games seem to appeal to the TMP more.

Considering how many people backed Conan I'd have thought it would have generated some more chat. Is it just gathering dust or is it getting played ?

Discuss.

First of all, would really not consider X-Wing and other examples mentioned to be "miniature games" in the strictest sense either when related to this discussion.

The games I brought up, I did so because:

1) They are in a common miniature scale, i.e: 28mm, meaning they can be used alongside many other miniatures of their genre.

2) They are unpainted, and (for me at least) they are just like any other unpainted Fantasy or SF miniatures (like Reaper), lending themselves to that part of our hobby.

3) As all of these games are "skirmish" level (minus Blood Rage), they easily lend themselves to 3-D tabletop terrain rather than cardboard terrain tiles, lending themselves to that part of our hobby.

4) BGG is not the "number one place" to talk about them. Discussion on places like boardgamegeek or other strictly board game sites is minimal because they exist in a relatively new "middle ground", not widely appealing to traditional "board gamers".

5) The only place I have seen where there is any significant discussion is on their particular FB groups, where people share examples of their painted miniatures, home-made 3-D terrain, etc. (again lending themselves strongly to our hobby).

6) Honestly, some of the above responses are absolutely asinine and juvenile IMHO ("stamp collecting" "Monopoly"…really?). Whether that comes down to simple elitism, or ignorance of these games in general I don't know. Will certainly avoid the subject in the future as a result.

Model Railroad trains anyone?

Yes. Trains came first, then miniature gaming. I was interested in trains starting about age three, and then my interest in miniature gaming was peaked when I was about 5 and saw a bunch of civil war solders on my uncle's little train table, and a year or so later when we moved to a new house and one night I peeked into the next-door neighbor's cellar window and saw a huge HO train layout bescattered with Roco tanks and vehicles.

Its a family thing. Now 50 years later my oldest daughter writes and takes pictures for Trains magazine.

BTW, someone should really work on a memo to send out to all the paper terrain manufacturers that advertise and post on TMP that they are "not part of the hobby" since it is essentially the same damn thing.

Cold Warrior, I'm with you. Miniature/board game hybrids are more a part of MY hobby than say… Napoleonics, which seems to revolve more around bitter argument over button colors than playing with toy soldiers.

Seems to me the much-discussed "graying of the hobby" has more to do with grumpy older gamers not embracing new trends in the hobby than it does the hobby dying out.

Just to share a few examples for those that have little knowledge of the games mentioned…..

Conan…

MERCS Recon/2.0…..

Sword & Sorcery….

link

…though not part of "our hobby"…..

Speak for yourself, Aegis. I play all the games mentioned by the OP and I'd happily compare my historical collections to yours any day. I just don't discuss those games here as there isn't as much interest in them as well as the 'we're above all that' attitude you can see in the responses thus far.

Ironically, while cons that focus on the games mentioned by the OP and also include historical games thrive and grow year on year, historical focused shows wither away little by little.

I think places like Dakka Dakka and CMON are where those games get discussed more often.

Also, while I personally really liked Conan, my gaming group played once and judged the game with a resounding, 'meh' so it is currently gathering dust for me.

I do see Attack Wing, Armada, Wings of Glory and Sails of Glory get loving around here, and very occasionally Zombicide, but I'd consider that last one a board game that just happens to use miniatures than a real miniatures game simply by how it works mechanically (though Conan plays more like a minis game). I also see various Richard Berg games get loving here as well.

Honestly, with all the angst ridden hand wringing I see in the historicon threads about allowing the unwashed non-historicals in, and despite my support over many years of historically focused cons by both playing and running games, I'm seriously considering blowing off historical cons and just playing at the less focused cons. At shows like Adepticon, Gameholecon, GenCon, Gary Con, Nexus, Rockcon, TempleCon, TotalCon and the like I see throngs of excited and engaged gamers who love the hobby and are laughing and cheering (and not to mention younger and more energetic, and more likely to include female gamers) and I can still get my historical games fix. At most historical cons I've been to over the last few years, it's been like playing at a wake, with grumpy, jaded gamers who act like they are there only because someone is making them, or tradition that they can't let go.

TGerritsen,

Strongly agree here. While I do a lot of traditional "historical board wargaming", I certainly don't bring it up on TMP (and have seen plenty of Command & Colors minis games mentioned here over the years among other conversions). That is simply because I do not consider that part of the miniature gaming "hobby" (though in many ways it can be).

Regarding historical miniatures and eras, would also not hesitate to compare collections, or knowledge with any grizzled old-timer.

However I also enjoy Fantasy (and to a lesser extent) SF games as well (it was fantasy that got me into this hobby some 35 years ago). Simple fact is there does seem to exist a troublesome form of elitism on display from far too many for my liking. Have always wanted to attend H-Con, but the attitude I see from so many makes me think I would be far more comfortable among a less elitist crowd.

While in my mid-40's, I don't balk at the various new trends that arise in the hobby, it is those very trends that keep people interested and bring in new blood. I may dislike GW for example, but cannot deny that they have served as a gateway into the more general hobby for decades. The recent success of board-miniature wargames crossovers is now doing the same thing IMHO.

Anything that gets people to start collecting and painting miniatures, building terrain, etc. is a good thing. Like many middle-aged gamers, I started in D&D and historical board wargames before moving into historical miniatures. Now days it is the many successful new fantasy and SF hybrids coming out serving the same purpose.

Honestly I believe carrying a myopic attitude towards anything "new and unpure" only turns people away from the hobby at large. However, as always, YMMV.

TGerritsen, no need to get defensive about it and it's not a personal attack. While there are a few guys in my group who do play miniatures based board games as well as historical miniatures, in my experience more often than not they're not interested in painting and collecting miniatures armies. On top of that, many of the people who I have seen that do both are dedicated (some might say committed) gamers who buy anything and everything, hang around the game store every day, and spend most of their lives gaming. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but most of us usually only have enough time for one aspect of the hobby!

I'm also surprised that when these kinds of topics get brought up on TMP everyone seems to get immediately offended for one reason or the other. I could care less if you play boardgames, sci-fi, historicals, etc., as the hobby is certainly a big tent. It's just that when I see a group of gamers playing X-Wing, Eclipse, Blood Bowl, etc., I don't expect them to be interested in painting a 350 fig Parthian army for a Hail Caesar or To The Strongest campaign. If they want to, I'll certainly provide any help they need, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to be interested.

Crossover. Miniature games used to be pamphlets that gave you a way of doing something with your miniatures. Now it has been realized that a package deal (rules, minis, terrain, is a allowing people to join in the enjoyment of miniatures gaming. Board games used to mean counters on a cardboard picture. Now you can get more. In the past I have purchased board games strictly for the toys. (So did some of the rest of you.) There is no need to add another argument to the world. Let's enjoy the diversity!

We "rarely see any discussion" because nobody is starting threads. Elementary?
Step up to the plate and start a few.

Ain't that the truth.

If you want to see it – write it.

Different people have different interests. For some it's more about recreating history, others it's about building diaromas, and for others it's about playing a game, etc, etc. I like each to various degrees with more of an emphasis on strategy and tactics myself, but my regular opponent doesn't care at all for history or even miniatures. His focus is on analyzing the rules and winning without a thought or care if he is pushing sculpts of napoleonics, ww2 soldiers, or orcs. He analyzes it like a chess game. Each to his own.

Make some posts, and those interested will join in. Cheers.

Cold Warrior, I will indeed plead ignorance. Those are nicely painted miniatures and terrain.
But having said that, where would I go? Discuss the realism or historicity of the rules? Talk about the accuracy of the paint job? For most of what you list, I couldn't even compare the game with the book. (Conan-related things sometimes tempt me, but about the time I get interested, the license changes hands. Again. It's worse than GW's new rules every hour on the hour.)

As for "snobbery," give it a rest. Yes, the Historical Miniatures Gaming Society was set up to promote historical miniatures gaming, and sometimes even does so. I never bring my green Martians. The Seven Years War Association stops gaming prior to the French Revolution. I never bring my WWII microarmor. Would you like to go over to a model railroading site, and call them all snobs for not having any slot car racing? Yell at the folk music people for not having electric guitars?

HMGS-East provides those of us who have an interest in historical miniatures gaming with a place three times a year where we can find suitable games and vendors, unload our surplus stuff and attend lectures on historical topics--none of which would last long if three-quarters of the games were fantasy and science fiction. If the presence of persons interested in historical miniatures gaming offends you, for crying out loud, stay home or go to Gencon. Historicon is not mandatory.

BTW, someone should really work on a memo to send out to all the paper terrain manufacturers that advertise and post on TMP that they are "not part of the hobby" since it is essentially the same damn thing.

That is a …strange…thing to say.
I can pile all kinds of logical fallacies on top of that, ("begging the question" comes to mind) but I'll just say that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Don't make things worse because not everyone is agreeing with you.

As I said above, YOU should start threads about this. Tell us what kind of plastic, say the Conan miniatures, are made of and how best to prime them.
Are the multi part minis not made from polystyrene and do they need special glue?
Do the sculpts look like the way they're described in canon?

The ball is in your court kemo sabe.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, Marquess of Queensberry Rules please.

Cold Warrior, I'm glad you brought up this topic. I started with boardgames and gradually transitioned to miniatures almost (classified) years ago. I still like boardgames for many reasons, not the least of which are the graphics, maps and the complete package approach. I find the boardgame/miniatures approach interesting for the above reasons and more so now that a good gaming friend has mobility problems making miniature games difficult.

Many, but not all of course, of the games you used as examples are in the SF or Fantasy genre which are not my areas of interest – great and popular games, just not my field.

However, there are many "historical" themed types available that I would like to try with my friend. I'm aware of the Battle Cry/Memoir 44 series along with the Ancient and Napoleonic versions. Would you mind listing some of the games you are familiar with that we might try?

Thanks again for starting this discussion.

Robert: I think it has more to do with attitude than anything. It's not that anybody is forced to go to Historicon. It is that many historical miniatures gamers say sci-fi, fantasy, board game hybrids, etc. are not a part of the hobby and then decry the shrinking of their conventions. While sci-fi and fantasy gamers often are very accepting of historical games.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but sci-fi, fantasy, and hybrid board games ARE the hobby, and historical miniatures games are the minority. I happen to like historical games, but I also think it's ridiculous for their "purists" to declare what is or is not acceptable. It's all in presentation.

I beg to differ, Sir, but I am not aware of any Commissions that were set up to define THE HOBBY.
The Hobby is what any one person likes.
Harrumph.

One cannot say that historical is NOT.
You just look silly saying that.
Ditto fantasy, sci fi, "hybrid" games (and again I am not aware of any Commission that defined that term), boxed prepsinted etc.

Everyone, please knock the chip off your own shoulder.

STORM WARNING………there appears to be a tempest brewing in my teacup. Batten down the hatches and prepare to ride it out.

It's a boardgame!
It's a Miniatures game!

hulu.com/watch/61320

Gents,

Wish to apologize on my own behalf for perhaps being a bit defensive as well.

When it comes to Historical gaming, I can understand the argument a bit about "encroachment". It's not just historical miniatures gamers, I see the same thing coming from many historical board wargamers as well (and many times it is even worse).

For some gamers their love of historical gaming trumps all else and the do not want to see their "playgrounds" turned into another Gen-Con, etc. It does make sense, sometimes I even feel the same way.

Meanwhile there has been a recent explosion in hybrid games due to Kickstarter successes (not to mention massive Kickstarter interest in more traditional board games like the recent Scythe for example). Shows like that Wil Wheaton one (which I don't watch) have also contributed to a growing general board game hobby.

A lot of fresh blood is being introduced to gaming the past few years, and it has certainly become far more "mainstream" as a result. As an example, have never seen as many females interested in gaming as I do now. Companies like CMON and others have caught onto a major formula for success due to KS.

However it feels historical gaming (board and miniature) has gained very little from this "new wave". While a few companies like Battlefront have had success sparking interest in the historical side of things the last several years by adopting the "GW approach", I feel it still pales in comparison to all the massive interest being generated in the more general hobby itself.

I suppose it has always been that way, at one time RPG's were king of the mountain hobby wise, now it's "Eurotrash" or "Ameritrash" board gaming.

Still, if we can even capture a small fraction of that audience on the historical side of things……

Box, as far as I'm concerned, fantasy and science fiction gaming are another--albeit closely related--hobby. It may be a jazz thing. If you don't understand what makes historical miniatures different, there's probably no way to explain it to you. And we in historical miniatures all know we're outnumbered--about three or four to one, is my guess, and getting worse.

But if orks and space marines were what I wanted, I wouldn't need HMGS. I've got a local con which gave up historical gaming ten or fifteen years ago, and Gencon is a day trip. For that matter, a snare trap in the local game shop would work nicely. You can't throw a rock around here without hitting a game with a Star Wars copyright.

So, back to question: given that the fantasy and science fiction gamers have won for all real purposes, why do some of them go completely nuts that historical miniatures gaming still has a few small venues left? Wouldn't their time be better spent asking the Corvair Society of America why it doesn't exhibit Ford Falcons?

link

Amazing and beautiful sculpting and painting marred only by putting the two female adventurers in high heels!

Sorry, Aegis, didn't mean to come me across as defensive or attacked.

I play historicals- love historicals. I also play fantasy and sci-if. I don't want to have to choose between them. I don't want to exclude either from any show. The point is that when I see historical games at a general convention, they are met with interest and open arms. When I see general games at a historical convention I see harrumphing. I'm a bit tired if it, frankly.

To be clear, my issue is not that HMGS has historical-only conventions. It is comments such as:

"We don't discuss stamp collecting much either."
"News for you, Cold Warrior: that little tiny race care and the shoe too small for any human foot do not make Monopoly a miniatures game."
"Model Railroad trains anyone?"

By all means, have your historical venues. But it amazes me that the tiny minority of the hobby (historicals) often treats the vast majority (everything else) as though it is a different hobby. It is not. And I find many of the arguments for the separation to be wanting.

Not heard of any of those games, but they do have miniatures in them .. Thus they should be discussed here.

My experience is that BGs with minis do get discussed here. But, in the end, there isn't a lot to say.

The rules are contained and generally designed to run you through a set group of scenarios. The figures come with it, so there is little/no need for part hunting or building a force with after market minis. The time period/theme is defined and generally fantastic, meaning there is no need for historical research or development. Other than painted figs and AARs.

For most of the games discussed on TMP, the same cannot be said. The scenarios are being written and played by individuals or clubs; they did not come in the box. The gather of forces is a feat in itself and can be done through many manufactures lines. There are often questions about what equipment, uniforms, or stand of arms is appropriate. The AARs still exist but now you see people playing the same figures and battles through different rule sets.

…tiny minority of the hobby (historicals)

I seem to remember TMP Polls suggesting something quite different.

Quite a bit of selection bias there, OFM. I'd argue TMP members are not representative of the broader miniatures gamer population.

You know, I'm pretty sure most of our British members would recognize League and Union rugby as distinct, and concede that neither one is Association Football (AKA soccer.) The North American members have worked out that American and Canadian football are not (quite) the same game. The outrage starts whenever anyone suggests that games which have a historical reality to be measured against are not the same genre as games which do not. And I say again, "why, exactly?"

Box, saying historical miniatures are not a different hobby is only an assertion. It is not evidence, let alone proof. The fact that the actual players for the most part disagree with you ought to at least give you pause.

TGerritsen, study majority-minority situations. The assimilationist majority is usually unthreatened and hence welcoming. It's the minority which has to stay distinct in order to survive. No one on the historical side was much bothered by fantasy and science fiction games when they were rare. Now we know that if Historicon becomes a "general convention" we'll be wiped out. The vendors will stock for the F&SF majority, the guest speakers will be chosen to appeal to the wider audience. You look at a 40K game at Historicon and see kids having fun. I look at them and see the lead elements of a Games Workshop tournament.

John, I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But I suspect TMP and the Great Wargaming Survey have skewed samples. All the evidence so far is that a "general gaming" convention is one without historical gaming after a few years. I spoke this year to one of the last historical game masters pulling out of Gencon. There was nothing for him to do or buy, and he was picking up no recruits. I see no reason why Cold Wars and Historicon should be exempt from this process.

I'm grateful to the OP for bringing this topic up as I've recently been thinking the same thing.

I've found myself playing way more miniature board games in the last couple of years mainly due to the limitiations imposed
by the age of my kids and the limited amount of time I have.

In certain instances I've found a lot of modern mini board games have very little difference in the methodology of mechanics in comparison to certain fantasy or Pulp games that are popular here.

Not meaning to offend the community at Boardganegeeks but discussions on many of the mini board games would benefit more from the creative talents of the folks of TMP primarily because of their background.

Quite a bit of selection bias there, OFM. I'd argue TMP members are not representative of the broader miniatures gamer population.

The topic here is why there are no/few threads about boardgames with Miniatures on TMP.

I count myself as someone who plays all sorts of games, including miniatures, board, card, and so on. Likes and dislikes, of course, but clever enough designs all around.

a "general gaming" convention is one without historical gaming after a few years. I spoke this year to one of the last historical game masters pulling out of Gencon. There was nothing for him to do or buy, and he was picking up no recruits. I see no reason why Cold Wars and Historicon should be exempt from this process.

I have a feeling that's true. I took MagWeb to Origins from the late 90s to the early 00s. In addition to being an exhibitor, one year I co-sponsored and emceed the War College seminars. Paid for my PR agency to perform extra work -- got MagWeb mentioned in newspapers, magazines, websites, and even landed me on a couple of morning TV news shows. The War College drew about 200 to 250 unique people for at least one lecture. Out of about 10,000 attendees.

During the seven shows, the historical area of the exhibitor hall shrunk. I'm not sure about the number of historical games (mini, board, etc) put on, but historicals were not the main draw for that convention. I eventually stopped going -- no market at general game conventions like Origins and GenCon if your market is historicals.

Robert, for the record, I am a historical gamer, so I think I can comment. Not just "Oh, I dabble" either. Roughly half of my collection is historical.

OFM/Winston, you are correct about the OP's question. But my broader comments were not specific to TMP. The majority of gamers are not historical gamers, and certainly not exclusively historical gamers.

There are always going to be categorical issues between games as to what they belong to.

Examples: Is Flames of War really a WWII miniatures game? It has all of the special contradiction rules of collectible games and isn't really a strictly historical game compared to, say, Look Sarge No Charts, or Command Decision. Miniature games with boardgame elements.

Doom/Descent/Imperial Assault/X-Wing: these have maps and areas and the board just represents a regulated depiction of the area being fought over without needing tape measures. Miniature games for the most part, but largely influenced by board games.

Blood Rage/Cthulhu Wars/Red Sun Rising: these are definitely boardgames with nice pieces.

Cosmic Encounter/Twilight Imperium/Eclipse: board game with not great pieces. Highly themed, not scaled.

FOW isn't high on my list, but I'll accept as a historical miniatures game anything which has a historical template. If you start excluding rules for not reflecting that template well, I don't see an obvious stopping point.

Historical template. If my FOW Crusader III's pass through the killing zone of German anti-tank guns and take little or no damage, there's something wrong with the rules. If in a fantasy game my red dragons are easily slain by crossbow-armed Dwarves, or my vampires trump harpies--well, it's merely an observation: the most you can say is something is over-or under-pointed. (There are, of course, gamers with historical armies who treat them as fantasy or science fiction, caring about play balance and points, but nit historical reality.)

But I have the same problem with abstract painting. If there's no way to do something wrong, there's also no way to do it right. It's all a matter of taste.

Box, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But "it's all one hobby" is a statement of fact with which many historical gamers would deeply disagree.

I've bought several games just for the minis/other components to use in other games – Conan, Cthulhu Mythos, Folklore the Affliction, The Others-7 Sins, Mars Attacks, Incursion, Dungeon Saga – no plans to play any of them as written – using the minis and scenery for 'real' minis games

dsfrank, I have too--two iterations of Risk and one of Battle Cry. But sometimes with luck you can buy the sprues from the manufacturer without having to buy the game.

And I'd be happy to buy the rules for some recent hex-based games if I didn't have to buy the components to get them.

What is this Fantasy/Historical debate to do with the topic, really?

Here are some board games that use plastic miniatures:

Sure, the OP quoted some fantasy titles – but that is not the be all and end all of Boardgames played with plastic wargame miniatures.

Oh – and model railways really set the trend for modern wargame layouts to be super detailed "moving dioramas". Just saying.

This is what came before :

(and yes…that is Pauls Bods recreation of a "classic" table. It has a beaurty all its own, to my eyes anyway).

You're going to interupt a perfectly good argument just because it's wandered 'way off topic?

Probably right.

My rule is that if you paint the pieces and have terrain, it counts as a miniatures game, otherwise not. But when you're done admiring the paint job, sometimes there isn't much to say on TMP.

And I'm old enough--and my game-play was front-loaded enough--that I'll probably die having fought most of my games on "classic" tables. I would agree--a beauty all their own. But I've been trying for a more naturalistic style for decades now.

OK, get ready to throw rocks at me. Yes, the bias of miniature gamer factions (historic, fantasy, sci fi, etc.) are almost as bad as the racial biases in this country. (BTW this remark will probably get me thrown in the dog house for the second time in two weeks.)

1. Outside conventions I see few gaming tables so detailed.
2. Historical? Most miniatures games use figures that may or may not be historically correct and the scenarios presented generally only pay lip service to the actual battle.
3. Historical board games with miniatures present scenarios which are no more historical than miniatures games.
4. Historical boardgames with a truly historic view of the war/battle they represent are at a level not reasonably portrayable with miniatures.

For me the hobby is about playing with miniatures. If your thing is building accurate historic armies go for it.

To all of you, miniature gamers and boardgamers, shut up and play the game. Nothing you do below operational level boardgames, if even them, comes close to emulating history.

The Ragnar Brothers History of the World is a pretty reasonable simulation of the History of the World.

"OK, get ready to throw rocks at me. Yes, the bias of miniature gamer factions (historic, fantasy, sci fi, etc.) are almost as bad as the racial biases in this country. (BTW this remark will probably get me thrown in the dog house for the second time in two weeks.)"

Yet you still felt the need to insert a politically charged comment into a thread when it was not necessary to do so…..really don't get the thought process of some people.