| UshCha | 05 Oct 2025 6:25 a.m. PST |
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 | 05 Oct 2025 6:50 a.m. PST |
Then why not play board games? SPI's Red Star: White Star would fill, or exceed, your need for 'realistic simulation'. So would Advanced Squad Leader. |
Perris0707  | 05 Oct 2025 7:59 a.m. PST |
Goibinu +1
Much cheaper I would guess too. |
 John the OFM | 05 Oct 2025 8:15 a.m. PST |
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?" |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 05 Oct 2025 10:27 a.m. PST |
I'm with the John the OFM. |
| Striker | 05 Oct 2025 11:39 a.m. PST |
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. |
| robert piepenbrink | 05 Oct 2025 11:58 a.m. PST |
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? |
| UshCha | 05 Oct 2025 12:26 p.m. PST |
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. |
 Sgt Slag | 05 Oct 2025 1:13 p.m. PST |
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! |
| UshCha | 05 Oct 2025 2:36 p.m. PST |
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. |
| huron725 | 05 Oct 2025 5:33 p.m. PST |
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. |
| Martin Rapier | 06 Oct 2025 1:42 a.m. PST |
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. |
| UshCha | 09 Oct 2025 7:49 a.m. PST |
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. |
| UshCha | 09 Oct 2025 12:21 p.m. PST |
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? |
experiments with using recessed bases for figures with cast-on bases.