"Toys vs Precious artifacts" Topic

How does your approach to the Toys vs Artifacts approach to your miniatures impact your gaming on a broader front?

I was reading a thread on basing and the thought struck me that how you see your miniatures may fundamentally impact your gaming preferences.

Me I see my miniatures as markers, closured (not painted) so that touching them is not an issue. This has impact on how you present them and game with them, I think.

My figures are on as thin a base as is practical to cover a reasonable looking spacing and ground coverage. This makes them look credible in height relative to there surroundings but does necessitate in many cases touching the actual miniature but that is an acceptable to me as they are in the end markers and of no intrinsic artistic value to me. Similarly with vehicles, bases are undesirable (wrong height) for no game advantage, so picking the the vehicle up and even turning the turret, which makes for faster more credible games if the vehicle has turret(s). It helps by indicating formations as well. Art is not a key issue for me.

As a devout paining hater, I have few armies and spend no significant part of my overall gaming time on the art work. So I am happy to play a single period and study it's history i9n depth.

Some folk I have read pick a new period based on a particularly inspired set of models they have seen either painted or unpainted, as it gives then something else different to paint, painting being a major part of their hobby. Does this have an impact on how many periods you play?

Does the number of periods you play contribute to the subtlety of the rules you prefer to play? A set or rules that is comprehensive will take much more time to learn as you engage with the complexity of the tactics impacted by the troops and their weapons. Our own rules are simple but like Chess there is a big learning curve to use them effectively. You can learn the moves in chess in a few minutes but mastery takes long hours of study and play.

So how do you consider your miniatures and how does that impact your gaming? There is no right or wrong but I am interested if my preconceptions outlined here are at least in part valid.

Goibinu +1
Much cheaper I would guess too.

I thought this was going to be about the existential dilemma of all/most/some miniature wargamers.
"How will archaeologists describe your/my basement when they discover my/your collection? Are they ‘grave goods'? What do they say about my religion? What is the significance of the different color collars, cuffs and lapels? What are these strange manuscripts written in obscure languages? Why are there lined off areas containing words and numbers?"

Mine are in my basement, lining a wall to shield me from a nuclear blast on the Chamberlain artillery shell plant in Scranton. One reason I prefer lead to plastic or resin.

"Why are there so many colored cubes, tetrahedra, icosahedra etc with …numbers(?) on their faces? Why are they all different colours?"

I'm with the John the OFM.

They're tokens, nowhere near art. They just happen to also fall into a hobby of mine, models. The minis are secondary to my interest in the period or rules.

I'd have to join the consensus. The period and the tactics have to interest me, but if I didn't care about the appearance, I'd stick with cardboard counters. They're much cheaper and easier to store.

As for the imaginary problems with miniatures, in no case is base thickness a difficulty. I don't often play skirmish games, and when I do, some character being 6" too tall is of no consequence--especially since this is true of all the other characters. As for handling, this is why everyone gets two clear coats--a gloss or satin followed by a matte. It IS helpful that using the right miniature can prevent book-keeping and markers. I can look at a marker-free board and know that Unit X is elite formed infantry, just above half strength, and Unit Y is militia light infantry full strength and deployed as skirmishers.

As for "subtle" and "comprehensive" rules, I tend to stick with Clausewitz. Everything is simple in war, but the simplest thing is very difficult. Miniatures rules tend to give our commanders more control and more information than they have in real life. I lean toward short simple rules where this is less true.

All rules have been "easy to learn but hard to master" for about as long as they've been professionally printed and sold instead of mimeographed or photocopied. Doubtless it's true of one set somewhere--but which one?

Board games are not on a 3D board, For me a 3D board is much easier to understand.

It's interesting that the UK WW2 St Nazaire Raid was planned/briefed using a 1/2000 scale model, not a simple map of the same scale. I got to see it on display as a kid in the IWM when it was better curated than my last trip recently, it stuck in my mind more than half a century later.

link

So using a 3D board has a credible basis.

Painting is required, though it is not a great pastime for me. The painted figures add to the visual enjoyment even though I paint to a GEtGW standard. I will not play a war game with unpainted figures, other than Army Men games.

My collections of figures will be disposed of by my sons after I am gone. I don't care what they do with them. My enjoyment of them will continue until I am gone. Life is short -- make it sweet! Cheers!

robert piepenbrink – certainly our high level games have enough hidden detail to make life complicated enough for us. However we are happy to trust our opponents, who are regulars, so and take figures off in some cases and move them on maps. That makes it far harder to see all.

Some more miniature oriented players find this unsatisfactory as their model cannot be seen. It can lead to analysis paralysis in less experienced players. It's how much you are into visuals vs simulation and how much thought and effort you are prepared to put into a game.

In regard to your rules question; my gaming buddy and I started with very simple 'beer and pretzels' type rules where we could keep remember while hammering a couple beers/cocktails. Then went to increasing more difficult rules to now all the way back to simple.

Gaming is fun, relaxing and a social event and I do not want to be distracted from that by the myriad of difficult rulesets out there.

It is the period/theatre/campaign which interests me. I paint stuff as required for that. But I do quite like painting and organising figures, vehicles etc. I wouldn't pick a period just because a manufacturer had produced some figures,Im.more interested in "bringing history to life" as AHGC used to say. Couple that with some modelling and painting and I'm a happy boy.

I do play boardgames and RPGs too though.

huron725 There are many ways wargaming is viewed. Even by the same individual. I play some games that are close to your definition a relaxing and a social event. But at other times I want something that challenges me interlectually as I need something to keep the old grey matter actuive. Its' about how you personally view your hobby.

I was thinking about this thread and comments I have seen elsewhere that wargamers have too much information.

The more I thought about this comment, the less it seemed to make sense to me.

From the English Civil war to modern times troops concealed their presence. With a modern day camera you can take panoramic photos of the empty ,table/battlefield, so you have an instant map. That makes hiding troops on the map a trivial task, mark them on a photo and you have precise positioning. Some folk say such mechanics are "Unsatisfactory", now is that because such folk need to see all their figures on table as they considerer them works of art, rather than simply markers. Me I don't mind my markers not being on table and it makes for a way better game. Is that an instance where Art vs Toy becomes a significant factor on how a game is played?

Similarly there are complaints about players having too much control, but that was fixed as a problem decades ago in the UK by Phil Barker. How is it still moaned about so much and rules still often have no control limitations. Is is a difference of opinion on what a game should and should not have and is in some way associated with how you see your minatures?

I had imagined this thread was about whether one viewed one's miniatures – or toy soldiers as I call them – as toys to be played with, accepting the risk of loss, damage et cetera, or as precious collector's pieces; the issue raised in one of the Toy Story films, IIRC.
You have probably guessed I'm in the former camp; my toy soldiers are just that, little figures that I can use to portray real, or imaginary, armies in battle games. I'm not bothered whether their uniforms are accurate for any particular formation or historical battle; it suffices that I can distinguish the opposing sides; guards from line; heavy cavalry from light, and horse artillery from foot. I like them to be in identical poses, and to be painted to look reasonably smart, not in ragged, campaign-worn/improvised/captured uniforms.
I like the individual figures to be sufficiently large to look like human beings to my old eyes, so 10mm is the smallest size I use. I don't mind if, after a few tabletop battles, the veterans have some 'silver badges of courage' where paint has worn off, exposing bare metal, just like some of early Britain's 54mm figures I display on my shelves.
I confess to feeling a sentimental attachment to toy soldiers; I once darted into a road whist the traffic lights were red to rescue some 54mm plastic Airfix figures – not mine – that had somehow fallen there and would otherwise have been squashed. I took them home and my young son and I played a sort of Little Wars with them; when he was older, I gave them to a friend's youngsters. I hope they are still fighting bravely for someone, somewhere.

Well…
I simply do not understand the OP's continual distaste for well painted figures. 🤷
Heck. Even a German Sid Kafizz miniature can be well painted.
But, what do I know?

At home we call the miniatures "dollies".

We had a friend at chruch who had a friend whose boyfriend didn't like her playing wargames. Hopefully, she eventually dumped him. However, before that happened (if it did), she gifted me a set of excellently painted WH Empire (? red and yellow, like McDonald's) infantry. Best painted in my set. (So obviously, I screwed them up by modifying the paint jobs!)

The box had the words "WAR DOLLS" written on it, presumably a derrogatory stab from the woman's other half.

While this thread is interesting its definitely drifting off the intended track.

The intended track was not just toys vs artifacts but how (if) that influences your preferences in rules.

As an example there may be many other issues, does hiding not seen on tablefigures become unsatisfactory as it reduces the number of figures on te table, spoiling perhaps the overall artistic perspective, whereas is that of a lesser concern if they are just un-artistic markers. OR indeed is hiding or not hideing figuers on table unrelated to how you see your minatures.

In my intro to wargaming rules for Army Men, which I self-published in 1998, I made up pages of counters to represent "hidden" troops on the tabletop. I still use them, today, in my Army Men games. In my upcoming updated version of my intro game, I plan to re-use the same markers when I publish it in the next several months.

I like the markers: they do, indeed, lead to some limited "analysis paralysis" for the players who have no idea what they represent. I like that, both as a player, and as the game designer. It adds tension in the game: does that marker represent infantry, a mortar team, a Tank, or ______? It does lead to fear, exasperation, and even relief (when a counter is just a dummy, representing nothing).

I like the use of dummy counters for the same reasons. It brings edgy unknown's into the game, and the players tend to be a bit more cautious than when they see all of the figures on the tabletop. The mystery of the unknown is a great addition to many scenarios. Cheers!