Agreed, Cold Warrior. Allen's comment also commits the logical fallacy of "begging the question" by asserting a premise (more than one, actually) as fact when such fact has not been established as valid.
As for this thread, board games which function as miniatures games are often discussed here, and many of the games dismissed above are quite clearly miniatures games, as X-Wing, Wings of War/Glory, Sails of Glory, Ogre, GEV, Space Hulk, Dungeon Saga, Heroquest, and more. I note that the primary complaint is not about the function of the game, which logically is the only true distinguishing factor of what is a "miniatures game," but rather the question of whether or not the miniatures are painted by the player, a distinction which therefore rules out miniatures painted by professional painting services, or painted by a friend, or for players who due to disability can't paint their own miniatures themselves. Further comments have also ruled out games based on whether or not the terrain is made by the player, which therefore logically rules out the same set of circumstances, as well as manufactured terrain sold here on TMP, playmats, all those WWI & WWII air combat games played on the old BattleMasters hex map, sea games played on blue cloth, and the little felt circles that act as hills, swamps, woods, and rough terrain I see used in DBA tournaments at conventions.
Since clearly that is not what the commenters actually mean to say, one must therefore note that their comments are not based on either logic or reason, but rather emotional arguments based solely on their own preferences and arbitrary distinctions of class which attempt to establish that whatever "group" they define as their own is "better" than whatever groups they define as not their own. Sorry, but I cannot respect such arguments as valid, however ardently felt or expressed by the individual.
The only logical distinction for a miniatures game, therefore, is representational. In short, does the miniature for all intents and purposes represent what it physically resembles, and does it function more or less in the game as the represented object or individual would function within the game's tactical level? Thus, if a tank miniature behaves as the tank it is, distinct from how a soldier or artillery or whatever behaves, it is a miniatures game. So if a miniature of a plane behaves as the plane it is, or if a ship behaves as the ship it is, or if a starship behaves as the starship it is, then the game is clearly a miniatures game. If, however, the miniature is just a marker for arbitrary values without regard to its actual physical representation, as a figure in a Risk game represents merely a number of unspecified military forces, then the game is not a miniatures game, as such.
But I will also say that the actual nature of the games as described above is, in my mind, still rather irrelevant. If someone shows me Risk forces that have been elaborately painted, I certainly would not consider that this individual is not part of "the miniatures hobby" because the game itself is technically not a miniatures game. As I see it, there are many connecting routes to the hobby, and it is quite a large tent that covers a broad and varied array of activities, interests, and personal fascinations, and trying to shut others out simply because their own set of fascinations is not the same as one's own is not only illogical, but diminishes both oneself and the hobby. I submit to you, gentlemen and gentle ladies, that we should be better than that.
