"Chess is not a miniatures game" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

In your opinion, does chess count as a tabletop miniatures wargame?

77% said "no, chess is not a miniatures game"
23% said "yes, chess is a miniatures game"

Is too

Not only is Chess a miniatures game, it's a better simulation than Flames of War.

<dives into bunker>

The rules may not be a miniatures game, but you can play with themed miniatures, such as The Simpsons, Star Trek, ad nauseum Marvel characters, any of the multi Franklin Mint sets, etc… ;-)

Buy a chess set? Not make one? Phththththfthth!

The question is more specific than the title.

Yellow Admiral +1

Unless you've drawn blood whilst cleaning flash off the miniatures, stuck your fingers together with superglue whilst glueing the miniatures, sprayed your hand black whist priming the miniatures and spent half your life painting the miniatures, then CHESS IS NOT A MINIATURES GAME.

What was that old Avalon Hill bookcase format game that was like chess but with medieval miniature pieces? Feudal? That was similar to chess. But also not a "miniatures" game.

Archon64 What you describe is not a minatuers game it's modelling. No flash on 3D prints, 2 pice models at most and no glueing required and NEVER Superglue. Always spray on a board. Painting minatures is not a game, it's a punishamant for wanting to play a game. ERGO chess had minatures and is a game. Plus has the bonus of being a minatures game without wasting lots of time painting (in most cases).

A miniature really has to be, by definition, a miniature version of something.

I have never seen a human size pawn trundling down the road.

They are playing pieces in a board game.

forrester Come on! When has a game that can't even represent the real world properly stopped it being called a minature game. Exponential range settings literally indicates a space time distortion round each element and that is representing something real? You can get chess sets with figures so there goes that on. Unrealistic yes but I have seen commecial war games that have an even more tenious connection to reality.

How do you explain fantasy wargamning. where no humans are present.

And what about gridded wargams they are played on a board with minatures.

I have many unpainted chess figures, so it must be a miniatures game.

Of course chess can be an miniatures wargame.

Units will fight together in minibattles and victory is not guaranteed.

A game with miniatures is not necessarily a miniatures game, but a miniatures game is always a game with miniatures.

Parzival Err?!? Nope! No dicationary definintion of your implied definition.

How would you define a gridded wargame on a flat bit of terrain, played with one set or rules to another identical set up played with diffrent rules, neithet is teribly realistic: no battlefield I have been round has squares marked on them now and no achelogical eveidence of such in the past.

While I don't necessarily agree with Parzival's definition, it is perfectly sensible. In fact, it is the basic concept of set theory and the simplest Venn Diagram:

I'm not sure what the bit about grids has to do with what he wrote.

It's another Venn diagram: Wargamers & People Who Understand Humor, which are not always overlapping categories.

Ush Cha:
I said nothing about "wargames." Try reading my statement again.

Parzival Read it again still seems to lack any definition other than the reversal of two related words which has no meaningfull diffrence.

House red or Red House meas the same, one order is considered more correct but the meaning is not changed by revesing the order. QED.

UshCha, why don't you actually read other's posts yourself? If you're going to critique what someone said, then critique what they actually said.

Read the post. Find the word "with". So his post is not just a reversal of words, but a fundamental change contrasting the concept of inclusion against totality. Basic logic.

Does "red house" equal "house with red"?

Also, in English, "House Red" would indicate a family or clan group, rather than a domicile. A completely different thing.

etotheipi using words to bambooze and not come out with a straight answer I guess is your stock in trade.

"A game with miniatures is not necessarily a miniatures game, but a miniatures game is always a game with miniatures."

Assume I am as daft as you and spell it out in detail why this statement is not just a reversal of words in a way that relates specifically to wargames in effect

How does a Game with Miniatures differ with a Miniature wargame. Note this is a wargames and minatures board so referring to a stamp game using miniature stamps is an inadmissible. If that is your approach then clearly you have posed on the wrong board, go to the Stamp collecting boards.

1.) it was, to some extent, meant to be humorous.

2.) However, it is not the tautology you misunderstand it to be.

I am operating on the general understanding here that miniatures in the sorts of games discussed on TMP (and this thread) are based on the idea that the miniatures' general and even exact appearances are directly related to their function and interaction in the game: a figure of a British Grenadier in 1776 attire and equipment functions in the game, to as great a degree as the rules allow, in the manner of an actual British Grenadier of 1776 (or a significant body of the same). The game itself generally thus requires this appearance to be a factor of the miniatures which are part of the game, and, excusing proxies for unavailable figures, that expectation is fixed. That is the nature of a miniatures game— the miniatures themselves are a significant point of the game, if not the point.

However, there are plenty of games where a miniature might be used, but what the miniature might represent in the real world is irrelevant to the use and function of the miniature in the game. A Staunton horse-head "knight" figure in chess is not representational of how either itself, or a full bodied horse, or a medieval knight or 19th Century cavalryman behaves in real life. The appearance is largely irrelevant— all that matters is that a piece with its appearance in the game is known to move in an L-shaped fashion, and can move "over" any number of pieces to arrive at its target location. Thus, though miniatures can be used for a chess game, the fact that they are miniatures has nothing to do with the game, and is neither the point or even a point of the game, except as a vanity by the owner.

Chess, of course, is an obvious example. But other examples could be Risk (various sets often use miniatures as "armies" but the actual appearance of the miniatures has nothing to do with play), Diplomacy, or even Monopoly.

So, again, "A game with miniatures is not necessarily a miniatures game, but a miniatures game is always a game with miniatures."

spell it out in detail

I literally provided a picture. What else do you want?