There's a big hullaballoo about what makes a model elite. It was said that eliteness is a purely relative measure (which I agree with) and therefore nothing is actually ever elite (which I do not agree with).
To be elite, something has to be better than what it's being compared to, in general. It doesn't have to be superior in every way (for instance, a Deathshroud Terminator is more elite than a Dark Eldar Kabalite Warrior, despite the Warrior having significantly better movement) but it should be, taken as the whole, better than its less-elite counterpart.
This does mean normally elite models or units can be considered not so impressive relative to others-a Custodian Guard is, generally, an elite model. But it's not so much compared to a full-blown Knight.
I also believe that, for most players, the baseline for what would generally be considered elite is "Better than a regular Space Marine." Since Marines are the most common army in the game.
So, Gravis Marines, virtually any Custode, Imperial or Chaos Knights... All elite, in general.
Tau Fire Warriors, Dark Eldar Warriors or Wyches, Guardsmen... Not elite, in general.
Obviously the exact line will vary-is a Harlequin Troupe Player elite?-but I think that the baselines here are pretty reasonable.
There's a big hullaballoo about what makes a model elite. It was said that eliteness is a purely relative measure (which I agree with) and therefore nothing is actually ever elite (which I do not agree with).
You're missing the point for point context.
500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
I suppose we should also throw out a sans-list-tailoring caveat too. 34 gretchin vs 3 Eradicators are pretty elite even though they're the same points - but that's mostly the unabalanced list-building there. Swap the Eradicators for Aggressors and it turns into a LOL-fest the other way.
Something being "Elite" should be clear from the datasheet and from the physical model design.
He's specifying on the tabletop - in which case points (or Power Level as we're being nudged ever closer to - It'll stay points because 10PL for 5, and 20PL for 6, or 20PL for each count up to 10 is a little too wild of a swing but the points will work like PL) and being elite are related. because points are how you pay to put in on the tabletop. You don't pay X points to put an Aggresor on the table, you pay 5X points to put 5 Aggressors on the table, just like you pay 5X points to put 40ish Gretchin on the table. Similarly, 1 Aggressor for X points might be elite, but 1 Aggressor for 5X points is most certainly not. Likewise 45 grots are elite compared to one tactical marine because they cost about 10 times as many points. Part and parcel of the Elite vs Not Elite is their cost/per/value. And barring uneven points or uneven list building/tailoring X points = X Points (in theory) are relatively even.
There's a big hullaballoo about what makes a model elite. It was said that eliteness is a purely relative measure (which I agree with) and therefore nothing is actually ever elite (which I do not agree with).
You're missing the point for point context.
500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
I suppose we should also throw out a sans-list-tailoring caveat too. 34 gretchin vs 3 Eradicators are pretty elite even though they're the same points - but that's mostly the unabalanced list-building there. Swap the Eradicators for Aggressors and it turns into a LOL-fest the other way.
I don't think anybody will agree with you on this notion of "elite".
"Elite" here means how capable an individual trooper is vs. a different one.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think anybody will agree with you on this notion of "elite".
"Elite" here means how capable an individual trooper is vs. a different one.
A few did. A few more did until they realized it. But you are right, quite a few just want to put Movie Marines on the table top for some personal reason. That other thread was inspired by someone wanting "Marines to play as an elite army" or something similar. Yet so many people then want to isolate the entire army to one little dude vs another little dude with laughable points cost disparities - and never mind that one little dude isn't the army, that it ignores free sergeants, hidden powerfists, army wide strengths and weaknesses, and on and on of the things you get at 2,000 points of mutliple blobs on the table.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think anybody will agree with you on this notion of "elite".
"Elite" here means how capable an individual trooper is vs. a different one.
A few did. A few more did until they realized it. But you are right, quite a few just want to put Movie Marines on the table top for some personal reason. That other thread was inspired by someone wanting "Marines to play as an elite army" or something similar. Yet so many people then want to isolate the entire army to one little dude vs another little dude with laughable points cost disparities - and never mind that one little dude isn't the army, that it ignores free sergeants, hidden powerfists, army wide strengths and weaknesses, and on and on of the things you get at 2,000 points of mutliple blobs on the table.
I give that post 8 facepalms.
How individual troopers feel on the tabletop isn't some nonsensical endeavor "for some personal reason". It's literally about how to most accurately represent the broad understanding of how capable individual troopers shape up against each other using the games mechanics. If a game is intended to map on to a representation of anything, it's a pretty important question.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think anybody will agree with you on this notion of "elite".
"Elite" here means how capable an individual trooper is vs. a different one.
A few did. A few more did until they realized it. But you are right, quite a few just want to put Movie Marines on the table top for some personal reason. That other thread was inspired by someone wanting "Marines to play as an elite army" or something similar. Yet so many people then want to isolate the entire army to one little dude vs another little dude with laughable points cost disparities - and never mind that one little dude isn't the army, that it ignores free sergeants, hidden powerfists, army wide strengths and weaknesses, and on and on of the things you get at 2,000 points of mutliple blobs on the table.
Let's abstract this outside of 40k. I think we can all agree that Bill Gates is in the financial elite of the world. Imagine if he lived in a compound with several hundred thousand median earners. Does that mean the rest of the group are just as elite as Bill Gates because they have a cumulative purchasing power? That's your current argument. To the vast majority of people as an individual I haven't got the tiniest fraction of Bill Gates wealth and the house 7 doors down getting a new Mercedes doesn't somehow make me any more or less financially empowered vs Bill Gates.
To bring that back. A grot will never be a marine, it will never compete fairly 1v1, on an individual status, hence a marine is more elite. To suggest otherwise in your eyes would reduce it down to an elite force being one that has a points advantage.
Something being "Elite" should be clear from the datasheet and from the physical model design.
He's specifying on the tabletop - in which case points (or Power Level as we're being nudged ever closer to - It'll stay points because 10PL for 5, and 20PL for 6, or 20PL for each count up to 10 is a little too wild of a swing but the points will work like PL) and being elite are related. because points are how you pay to put in on the tabletop. You don't pay X points to put an Aggresor on the table, you pay 5X points to put 5 Aggressors on the table, just like you pay 5X points to put 40ish Gretchin on the table. Similarly, 1 Aggressor for X points might be elite, but 1 Aggressor for 5X points is most certainly not. Likewise 45 grots are elite compared to one tactical marine because they cost about 10 times as many points. Part and parcel of the Elite vs Not Elite is their cost/per/value. And barring uneven points or uneven list building/tailoring X points = X Points (in theory) are relatively even.
I’m trying to get the gist of your argument here, but I am a little bit confused, so I hope you can help me out with understanding it. Are you saying that models that are costed lower than their value on the tabletop are elite or that no armies can be elite because (generally) all armies have the same points worth of models at the start of the game?
I was reading that conversation and I think a lot of it is less on what an elite is, and more a failure to manage expectations and power fantasy.
Both in the narrative of the game, and the rules of the game.
Players who don’t want to play an all elite army don’t want there units to be valueless cannon fodder. They want to have the narrative of the many units working together as a whole to achieve a victory, even if it’s swarming to protect powerful assets. Broadly speaking.
The issue becomes where with marines and the narrative vs game really I think starts to push away from each other.
Marines in the media are often near unstoppable, able to walk into incoming fire with little thought or punishment for reckless actions.
But game wise, a marine being punched by a dreadnaught is just more expensive paste to the guardsmen who met a similar fate.
The more expensive and “Elite” they become means the value lost to things much bigger and powerful makes the elite troops worse.
As it becomes harder to balance, and worse in 40k under the stress of mismanagement of the system.
A unit like Eldar guardians would be elite, by reasonable standards. They have high tech gear and there weapons are supposed to be quality infantry weapons, in quality if light armour and have access to support that is advanced.
How far should a standard marine be from that, since Eldar should be more on the scale of elite well organised than IG by a margins, and much further than Orks, Tyranids or cults faction.
And by that standard how much should all the Imperial Elite units be more elite than a marine, it’s a long list of super elites up.
And then you have to factor in players that want to play effectively hyper elite army’s, al dreadnaughts or I.Knights.
That GW supports more as a money box than a real effort for the feel of the game.
Just my thoughts on it, it’s a big how things feel vs narrative discussion, and where things fit.
For a little extra, one thing that makes the marine media often quite avg, is marines are stupid and unpunished for mistakes.
So much plot armor surrounds the faction, that the game narrative gets push aside, and some factions are left as cannon fodder for marine players. Rather than as cool for players who want the feel of those factions from a perspective.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think anybody will agree with you on this notion of "elite".
"Elite" here means how capable an individual trooper is vs. a different one.
A few did. A few more did until they realized it. But you are right, quite a few just want to put Movie Marines on the table top for some personal reason. That other thread was inspired by someone wanting "Marines to play as an elite army" or something similar. Yet so many people then want to isolate the entire army to one little dude vs another little dude with laughable points cost disparities - and never mind that one little dude isn't the army, that it ignores free sergeants, hidden powerfists, army wide strengths and weaknesses, and on and on of the things you get at 2,000 points of mutliple blobs on the table.
No. Not even close. What people want is for armies to feel like they do in the fluff. Asking for elite armies to feel that way is no different to wanting Dark Eldar to be fast or Tau to be shooty. These terms are relative. For example, in 7th edition Dark Eldar were considered fast. They had decent jetbikes, all their vehicles were Fast Skimmers and they had Fleet as an army wide rule. That same army with those movement rates in 9th edition would be slow because movement works completely differently now. That doesn't mean DE were slow in 7th edition because these things are relative to everyone else.
The points per model are important because they apply across the entire army to arrive at a final force that feels elite, if done right. If I'm playing Marines and I have 50 guys in a 2000 point army against 200 enemy models I want my 50 to feel more elite, even though the costs are the same. I don't want Move Marines. I just want Marines to feel like they should, whether I'm playing with them or against them. That means they should generally feel more elite than most other armies.
I realize when I first read the question I kind of misunderstood it.
Nonetheless my 2 cents:
WITHIN my army I would define elite units as units who are significantly better then the average and most often intended for specific purposes like killing a specific set of targets, handing out buffs or performing a specific role that the "bread and butter" units can't. And in my image they usually come in lower numbers. To illustrate it a bit more with the example of an infantry heavy IG army: Infantry squads are not elite but what I refered to as "bread and butter".
- they are numerous
- they don't have a specific special task
- Loosing a squad usually won't upset the strategy completly
Contrary to that I might have things like a Command squad handing out buffs (a specific function), a veteran squad with melters (geared for a specific target) and some Psykers (a specific role, in this case: acting in the psychic face). All three groups have in common:
- they are not numerous
- they have specific tasks
- loosing them will have a significant impact on strategy (for example not being able to do psychic stuff anymore).
This personal definition gets a bit wonky when looking at "pure elite" armies like custodes and at least some flavors of Marine armies. Because within a pure Marine army a standard Marine is kind of a "bread and butter" unit und might get rather numerous. One could say though that an Aggressor feels (within the army) more elite than a standard marine because as above:
- there are likely fewer of them
- they have a specific task
- etc.
So "zooming out" of this intra-army view and more to a inter-army view. I personally would ask the question: if I was to put together say a mixed army out of all Imperial Armies, who would fit the bill for elite according to the above definition and it would be relatively clear that those would be Marines, Grey Knights, with Custodes and Imperial Knights on the super elite spectrum. Almost the whole IG spectrum outside of Superheavies would fall into "not elite" as compared with the other guys they are much more "bread and butter". Admech and Sisters might be somewhere in between depending on what you bring (100 Skitarii Rangers feel like "bread and butter", 10 Kastelan Robots definitly not).
With that I mean: in this potential mixed army the IG dudes would most certainly not take up the role of "specific task" etc. because there are more elite units that can do that better. On the other hand I would hardly use SM just to "occupy space" when Guardsmen or Skitarii can do that much cheaper.
I assume this could be expanded on the Xenos factions, but I know to little about them to give an example.
But again: that's just my personal opinion on the topic. Feel free to ignore or challenge it.
Your personal opinion with zero point outside of being insulting will be given all the weight it deserves.
How individual troopers feel on the tabletop isn't some nonsensical endeavor "for some personal reason".
You said nonsensical not me.
It's literally about how to most accurately represent the broad understanding of how capable individual troopers shape up against each other using the games mechanics. If a game is intended to map on to a representation of anything, it's a pretty important question.
Word salad aside: Why is that? How is an entire army playing as "elite" about how one of many to a unit troop model plays vs one of many to a unit differently costed troop models? Are the Poxwalkers supported by loads of Deathguard Terminators an elite army? Poxwalkers aren't very "elite", but Death Guard as an army sure feel like they would be what people are calling "elite". PPM and the overall matters far more than one model from one squad vs one model from another squad.
No. Not even close. What people want is for armies to feel like they do in the fluff.
Yeah, that's movie marines in ablative plot armor with a few Red Shirted Marines for tension. That's Uriel Ventris, his named command squad with a couple Red Shirts vs the entire Tyranid planetary force followed by the Tyranid mother ship.
Asking for elite armies to feel that way is no different to wanting Dark Eldar to be fast or Tau to be shooty. These terms are relative. For example, in 7th edition Dark Eldar were considered fast. They had decent jetbikes, all their vehicles were Fast Skimmers and they had Fleet as an army wide rule. That same army with those movement rates in 9th edition would be slow because movement works completely differently now. That doesn't mean DE were slow in 7th edition because these things are relative to everyone else.
We already agreed on the relative thing
It was said that eliteness is a purely relative measure (which I agree with)
The points per model are important because they apply across the entire army to arrive at a final force that feels elite, if done right. If I'm playing Marines and I have 50 guys in a 2000 point army against 200 enemy models I want my 50 to feel more elite, even though the costs are the same. I don't want Move Marines. I just want Marines to feel like they should, whether I'm playing with them or against them. That means they should generally feel more elite than most other armies.
You're kind of making my point for me. If you want 50 super bases to do better than 200 equally priced but more spread out bases that's potentially Movie Marines. If you want them to be balanced because they're costed the same, then neither force is elite, they're just packaged differently. 200 point buckets are generally equal 200 point buckets whether its 1 base, 5 bases, 10, or even 20 bases per bucket, its just packaging the units themselves are pretty equivalent. 20 Guardian Defenders vs 10 Tactical Marines aren't all that different. a S/T and 1 armor save here vs 2W vs 1W vs more shorter range shots... it takes 20 wounds of fairly similar damage to wipe out either squad. One gets to shoot sooner, the other gets to shoot faster. They both lose about 10% of their power per 2 wounds. Its window dressing, packaging, whatever you want to call it. Cutodes squad? Just another notch out on the tradeoff scale. Another +1S/T,W/AS, and a built in power weapon. But now you only get 4 instead of 10 so you have to take shooting and melee advantage, and every 3W costs you 25% But it takes 3W to cost you anything. Its all tradeoffs orbiting around or through itself. Get far enough out and it'll be hard to see the tradeoffs - especially on a big jump - but they're there. I'm not sure yet if the vehicles have a different center to orbit, or if it uses the same one. Or if it even makes a difference.
You can do the 1 mismatched troop against another, but it's probably not an accurate measure of one army's "eliteness" against another. As the Poxwalker (and for different reasons the Custodian Guard Squad) example shows even taking one full unit vs another may not be. Another thing to bear in mind is that at extremes it's going to break down or even flip. Imagine 500 points of Grots vs 500 points of Knight. Most people would say the Knight is "elite" - but I'd say the Grots are. There's 5+ units of the things, the Knight is only going to get to shoot 5 times, and probably can't ace a Grot squad per turn that way. Quantity has a quality all its own, and in this extreme the quantity of grots is greater than the quality of the Knight because the Knight just can't do enough per turn meanwhile the grots can ignore the knight and score the pants off of him just through the quality of their quantity. Wow that would not be a fun game to play.
Something being "Elite" should be clear from the datasheet and from the physical model design.
He's specifying on the tabletop - in which case points (or Power Level as we're being nudged ever closer to - It'll stay points because 10PL for 5, and 20PL for 6, or 20PL for each count up to 10 is a little too wild of a swing but the points will work like PL) and being elite are related. because points are how you pay to put in on the tabletop. You don't pay X points to put an Aggresor on the table, you pay 5X points to put 5 Aggressors on the table, just like you pay 5X points to put 40ish Gretchin on the table. Similarly, 1 Aggressor for X points might be elite, but 1 Aggressor for 5X points is most certainly not. Likewise 45 grots are elite compared to one tactical marine because they cost about 10 times as many points. Part and parcel of the Elite vs Not Elite is their cost/per/value. And barring uneven points or uneven list building/tailoring X points = X Points (in theory) are relatively even.
So? Those grots still aren't elite. They might be equal win chance but more grunts vs fewer elites is a thing.
As I said in the other thread:
Marines are elite, but it sometimes doesn't feel like it because in the scale of 40K many factions have elite line troops:
- Eldar aspects (Dire Avengers are troops, right?), Kabalites, Harlequins
- Necron Immortals
- Sisters of Battle (have the same equipment as the elite marines, so aren't far off)
- CSM (the unit and Cult troops)
- Squats (similar armour, better guns)
- Genestealers (the unit)
- Firewarriors (superior guns)
All of these would be incredible units in any setting not 40K, and inside 40K if any of these hit a common imperial world without Space Marines (Necromunda, for example) would make short work of most PDF troops.
But in 40K, on the tabletop, they're rather "medium infantry". You have light infantry (Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz, Neophytes, Gaunts, Skitarii(?), Daemon troops) and heavy/ rare infantry (Custodes, Wraith Constructs, terminators, meganobz, Kastellan robots, Lychguard, possessed etc.).
And that's just the infantry. Not touching any tanks, walkers, planes with weapons of mass destruction, and giant stompy robots that reasonably should make short work of most infantry, no matter how elite it is.
In the end, a Marine can only feel Elite compared to the light infantry with the scale 40K has nowadays. And I think 9th actually did a good job reflecting this, in 6th to 8th I repeatedly faced 60+ Space Wolve Marines who got slaughtered by the handful due to 1 wound and/or an Ap-system that ignored their armor most of the time. If 9th toned down the lethality the defense values could shine more.
Last thought:
I think some people (Marine fans maybe, or people that write Marine books for Black Library ) are ignorant of the fact that in 40K terms a Marine is just not that awesome. If a (not-hero) Marine kills two armed nobz with his bare hands that's bad writing. If a Marine mows down 10 Banshees with his Bolter that's bad writing. If a frag grenade makes 10 Necron Warriors explode that's bad writing.
Spoletta wrote: Can your 30 models fight against 300?
Good, they are elite.
Yeah.
I mean an army of 30 Terminators+3 Land Raiders or a Tervigon and 250 Termagants may be good, may be bad, depending on current balance, missions, meta etc.
But if the former isn't "more elite" than the second, then I think this is just an exercise in refusing to accept what "elite" means.
So? Those grots still aren't elite. They might be equal win chance but more grunts vs fewer elites is a thing.
I'm pretty sure I just made the case that they are.
Imagine 500 points of Grots vs 500 points of Knight. Most people would say the Knight is "elite" - but I'd say the Grots are.
That's a warboss and 100 Grots vs what... a Knight Crusader? We'll even give him 10 points for a carapace weapon. 490 vs 510 points. How much chance does the knight have to win? Even if you're playing on planet bowling ball and the knight can shoot all five turns, there are six units, and he can't average/get enough shots to clear a full unit per turn. He's getting about 27 shots on average per turn, and hits with 2/3 or 18. Wound with 84%, that's still about 5 Grots left before any ridiculously difficult armor/cover saves - but mathematically should happen once or twice. 5 Grots roll attrition, 2-3 fail, still 2-3 left scoring a point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: then I think this is just an exercise in refusing to accept what "elite" means.
I assume that was the point of this thread - to define "elite", though it may have gotten lost in trying to bake the premised answer into the question.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
as I noted in that thread, to me "Elite" means a mix of better equipped and better trained than the standard part of that army.
an entire army can be "elite" when compared against a totally different army, but within it some will be better trained and equipped than others.
on the tabletop to me an "elite" unit/model should have more flexibility in what it can do to a good standard.
e.g. say a basic "soldier" and an "elite" soldier from the same faction are considered, I'd expect the "elite" one to be better able to utilise cover, perhaps be skilled with a wider range of weapons, have more versatility in the way they can move (e.g. maybe "elite" are better at firing on the move)
you could do quite a bit with it in 40k either by having some units able to use certain strategy rules for free where as others pay in command points, or where elite units can modify rules (maybe allow an elite unit to assault after rapid fire weapons use if over a certain charge distance or something)
basically make the Elite option more versatile. they are the same basic soldiers, not really tougher, not really stronger, maybe higher morale, maybe a wider range of equipment options but basically similar
So? Those grots still aren't elite. They might be equal win chance but more grunts vs fewer elites is a thing.
I'm pretty sure I just made the case that they are.
I'm entirely sure you didn't.
Not that it really matters. This thread seems to be one person arguing for a definition of elite that differs from everyone else's (both in game terms and real world terms) while everyone else agrees with each other.
They just need to be Elite within their own ranks.
Space Marines of course are in theory all elite (note the lower case e). But Terminators are their Elite (note the capital E).
Right now? Terminators just aren’t earning that capital E. At all.
To me, an Elite unit should take a disproportionate amount of your opponents resources to deal with. And the loss of them should be felt across your army.
Whether that’s from loss of unique abilities or a buff bubble, or sheer hitting power. I should be choosing them because they’re hard, and somewhat points efficient.
Perks they should enjoy include (but not necessarily manifest all) being tougher and hitting harder.
If we turn to 2nd Editon Terminators? They had the second best Infantry Small Arm, one of the best Infantry HTH weapons, incredible armour, and their upgrades were Even Better Weapons. Downside was they were slow moving, and their high points. But when you deployed them, your opponent had to react. Either by playing Keep Away, or taking them out somehow.
Right now they’re a shadow of their former selves. They just don’t feel special.
So? Those grots still aren't elite. They might be equal win chance but more grunts vs fewer elites is a thing.
I'm pretty sure I just made the case that they are.
I'm entirely sure you didn't.
Well if you think a model that has no chance of winning is "elite", despite that being one of the definitions floated, it's your credibility not mine.
Not that it really matters. This thread seems to be one person arguing for a definition of elite that differs from everyone else's (both in game terms and real world terms) while everyone else agrees with each other.
Right after you posted this, someone came up with yet another definition. Awkward.
They just need to be Elite within their own ranks.
Space Marines of course are in theory all elite (note the lower case e). But Terminators are their Elite (note the capital E).
Right now? Terminators just aren’t earning that capital E. At all.
I'm not sure that's true anymore. The new MFM has opened some doors for them. Especially when compared to Troops - Custodian Guard that are roughly 50% more expensive and somewhat less impressive. Of course, that's not where Custodes impresses anyway.
To me, an Elite unit should take a disproportionate amount of your opponents resources to deal with. And the loss of them should be felt across your army.
Whether that’s from loss of unique abilities or a buff bubble, or sheer hitting power. I should be choosing them because they’re hard, and somewhat points efficient.
Perks they should enjoy include (but not necessarily manifest all) being tougher and hitting harder.
Generally speaking I think there are four basic "jobs" for the models. Move it, Dish it (Shooting), Dish it (Melee) and Take it. Elite Slot (I assume you mean by Big E) should probably do at least 3 out of the 4 or 2 of the four if you're playing an army that has one of them as an inherent weakness (Fight for Tau for example)
If we turn to 2nd Editon Terminators? They had the second best Infantry Small Arm, one of the best Infantry HTH weapons, incredible armour, and their upgrades were Even Better Weapons. Downside was they were slow moving, and their high points. But when you deployed them, your opponent had to react. Either by playing Keep Away, or taking them out somehow.
Right now they’re a shadow of their former selves. They just don’t feel special.
They're one of the few places that did get free Thunderhammers. I think one of the main drawbacks they still have is the game is working very hard to avoid the Drop and Chop move - be it from a transport, deep strike or what have you. If you could drop within 2" and then charge would they remind you a lot more of the fear and power you remember from 2nd? The Shootinators can do a poorman's Sternguard Pod-bomb for 5 fewer points, but that's not really a selling point. A Sternguard bomb gets you "better" shooting at close range and a non-movable vehicle on a potential chokepoint/objective. Plus, you still want to get the Shootinators into melee after they shoot, and that's impossible to unlikely. So I'd say they're better, but one of their main restrictions is a design choice from the BRB more than anything they do or don't do. Compared to Aggressors they're in pretty good shape. Roughly similar shooting, power fist, movement etc. Trade +1T vs a 5++ I think. Most of the difference comes down to taste/flavor/firstborn vs Primaris for the rest of your army/which shenanigan you want to lean into. Terminators get the Teleport Homer rapid relocation to Home Base, Aggressors get Assault bolters instead of Rapid Fire opening up Advance potential to offset their slow movement.
That said there are some real duds in the Elites list. Centurion Assault Squads, Reivers, Scouts are better but still something of a TACList dud, and Veteran Intercessors the biggest dud of them all but I'd say Terminators aren't in a bad spot right now when it comes to earning their Big E.
Ah yes, grots are very elite, physical weaker than even a base human, even more cowardly, armed with the ork equivalent of a glock at best, wearing a loin cloth and largely at best average at actually landing a hit, be it at range or melee and childlike in stature.
How can any of the universes mightiest warriors possibly stand against them.
Dudeface wrote: Ah yes, grots are very elite, physical weaker than even a base human, even more cowardly, armed with the ork equivalent of a glock at best, wearing a loin cloth and largely at best average at actually landing a hit, be it at range or melee and childlike in stature.
How can any of the universes mightiest warriors possibly stand against them.
Feel free to replace the snark with a plan for winning as the Knight player. If you can. They don't even need to shoot the Knight, they can ignore it. Even Space Marines can't do that.
They just need to be Elite within their own ranks.
Space Marines of course are in theory all elite (note the lower case e). But Terminators are their Elite (note the capital E).
Right now? Terminators just aren’t earning that capital E. At all.
To me, an Elite unit should take a disproportionate amount of your opponents resources to deal with. And the loss of them should be felt across your army.
Whether that’s from loss of unique abilities or a buff bubble, or sheer hitting power. I should be choosing them because they’re hard, and somewhat points efficient.
Perks they should enjoy include (but not necessarily manifest all) being tougher and hitting harder.
If we turn to 2nd Editon Terminators? They had the second best Infantry Small Arm, one of the best Infantry HTH weapons, incredible armour, and their upgrades were Even Better Weapons. Downside was they were slow moving, and their high points. But when you deployed them, your opponent had to react. Either by playing Keep Away, or taking them out somehow.
Right now they’re a shadow of their former selves. They just don’t feel special.
Because they aren't. A terminator shouldn't be better than a Lychguard, wraith construct, Custodian, kastellan robot, Crisis suit or meganob. The game has moved on from terminators. That being said since 8th edition terminators actually aren't that bad anymore due to their additional wounds and improved CC rules.
Terminators should be interesting in a Boarding Actions game where they can't easily be shot off the board and where walkers to stomp them are rare.
Dudeface wrote: Ah yes, grots are very elite, physical weaker than even a base human, even more cowardly, armed with the ork equivalent of a glock at best, wearing a loin cloth and largely at best average at actually landing a hit, be it at range or melee and childlike in stature.
How can any of the universes mightiest warriors possibly stand against them.
Feel free to replace the snark with a plan for winning as the Knight player. If you can. They don't even need to shoot the Knight, they can ignore it. Even Space Marines can't do that.
It's not about winning, which is exactly the problem you have.
A Knight is elite compared to a Grot. On the tabletop and in the actual background. If you think otherwise, you should read up on some definitions of "elite".
Talking about marines being elite is silly when marines (and spiky marines) are 75% of the game. However you measure eliteness a faction will never feel elite when it is by definition average. No matter how much you stat creep marines the fact that everyone else's marine army gets the same buffs as yours means you're all still in the same relative position, while anything that can't compete with marines just isn't played.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Talking about marines being elite is silly when marines (and spiky marines) are 75% of the game. However you measure eliteness a faction will never feel elite when it is by definition average. No matter how much you stat creep marines the fact that everyone else's marine army gets the same buffs as yours means you're all still in the same relative position, while anything that can't compete with marines just isn't played.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
Dudeface wrote: Ah yes, grots are very elite, physical weaker than even a base human, even more cowardly, armed with the ork equivalent of a glock at best, wearing a loin cloth and largely at best average at actually landing a hit, be it at range or melee and childlike in stature.
How can any of the universes mightiest warriors possibly stand against them.
Feel free to replace the snark with a plan for winning as the Knight player. If you can. They don't even need to shoot the Knight, they can ignore it. Even Space Marines can't do that.
It's not about winning, which is exactly the problem you have.
Genuinely, for the sake of the discussion it's probably best to just ignore Breton at this point.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Talking about marines being elite is silly when marines (and spiky marines) are 75% of the game. However you measure eliteness a faction will never feel elite when it is by definition average. No matter how much you stat creep marines the fact that everyone else's marine army gets the same buffs as yours means you're all still in the same relative position, while anything that can't compete with marines just isn't played.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
Yep. Although I don't know that it can be done with mechanics alone, GW also needs to stop making marines the focus of everything. Even when marines don't have the best competitive win rate they're still the most common army because they're the face of the IP. They're the focus of all of GW's marketing, they get the most novels, they get the most model releases, they're at least one side of every starter set, etc. As long as GW treats non-marines as NPC factions it's going to show in their on-table popularity.
Because they aren't. A terminator shouldn't be better than a Lychguard, wraith construct, Custodian, kastellan robot, Crisis suit or meganob.
That sounds familiar.
I think folk have misinterpreted my post.
First, I’m arguing Elites need to feel elite compared to their standard troops.
The example I gave was when Terminators felt like that. It wasn’t a claim Terminators should be the pinnacle of all choices from all Elite FOC Slots.
Hmm, don’t they? I mean aside from the Primaris debacle that muddled the identity of many Marine units, overall Terminators are superior to other Marines in CC and durability, and their base shooting weapon also is literally two of shooting guns normal Marines have.
Which elites within factions are you thinking of that don’t feel superior to base troops? (Death Guard in 8th had that problem when all their higher ups, possessed and spawn lost their Mark of Nurgle and were downgraded from Plague Marines, but other than that?)
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Because they aren't. A terminator shouldn't be better than a Lychguard, wraith construct, Custodian, kastellan robot, Crisis suit or meganob.
That sounds familiar.
I think folk have misinterpreted my post.
First, I’m arguing Elites need to feel elite compared to their standard troops.
The example I gave was when Terminators felt like that. It wasn’t a claim Terminators should be the pinnacle of all choices from all Elite FOC Slots.
Hmm, don’t they? I mean aside from the Primaris debacle that muddled the identity of many Marine units, overall Terminators are superior to other Marines in CC and durability, and their base shooting weapon also is literally two of shooting guns normal Marines have.
Which elites within factions are you thinking of that don’t feel superior to base troops? (Death Guard in 8th had that problem when all their higher ups, possessed and spawn lost their Mark of Nurgle and were downgraded from Plague Marines, but other than that?)
It’s more a general thing. Brace yourself for curmudgeonly grumps.
See, bAcK iN mY dAy Elite Units were terrors of the battlefield. Yes I do mean 2nd Ed. Yes my wonky text is tongue in cheek about this very post.
For instance, Wraithguard. The Wraithcannon was horrible against everything - and the Wraithguard themselves were, theoretically, invincible. They had an armour value, and provided your opponent rolled poorly for damage, they just got back up again.
Carnifex were similarly nasty. Genestealers too.
2nd Ed Howling Banshees I still have nightmares about. Warp Spiders too.
Basically ever army had worthy Elite Units - when compared to their baseline units. And it’s that comparison I feel is lacking these days.
I’d argue that, from my limited perspective? 3.5 Chaos Chosen were the last, great, elite unit. Each one customisable. They could be a massive points sink, but you had the opportunity for a Proper Swiss Army Knife Unit. Not every model would be effective against every foe. But if you took your time, thought it out? There was basically nothing they couldn’t pose not just a credible but immediate threat to.
I freely admit this is my newfound Sad Grumpy Old Man coming through. And I’m far from familiar with the modern game. But it’s still something I sorely miss
I think elite infantry can still be very nasty particularly with all the buffs handed out but its just less noticeable now. Deleting units in one round of attack is expected so when they do something like that it isnt so game defining. They also tend to die fast if focussed on (as is modern 40k) so often don't have time to do anything. At least thats my reading of the current edition based on a handful of games and many battle reports in the background as I do other stuff
Because they aren't. A terminator shouldn't be better than a Lychguard, wraith construct, Custodian, kastellan robot, Crisis suit or meganob.
That sounds familiar.
I think folk have misinterpreted my post.
First, I’m arguing Elites need to feel elite compared to their standard troops.
The example I gave was when Terminators felt like that. It wasn’t a claim Terminators should be the pinnacle of all choices from all Elite FOC Slots.
Hmm, don’t they? I mean aside from the Primaris debacle that muddled the identity of many Marine units, overall Terminators are superior to other Marines in CC and durability, and their base shooting weapon also is literally two of shooting guns normal Marines have.
Which elites within factions are you thinking of that don’t feel superior to base troops? (Death Guard in 8th had that problem when all their higher ups, possessed and spawn lost their Mark of Nurgle and were downgraded from Plague Marines, but other than that?)
It’s more a general thing. Brace yourself for curmudgeonly grumps.
See, bAcK iN mY dAy Elite Units were terrors of the battlefield. Yes I do mean 2nd Ed. Yes my wonky text is tongue in cheek about this very post.
For instance, Wraithguard. The Wraithcannon was horrible against everything - and the Wraithguard themselves were, theoretically, invincible. They had an armour value, and provided your opponent rolled poorly for damage, they just got back up again.
Carnifex were similarly nasty. Genestealers too.
2nd Ed Howling Banshees I still have nightmares about. Warp Spiders too.
Basically ever army had worthy Elite Units - when compared to their baseline units. And it’s that comparison I feel is lacking these days.
I’d argue that, from my limited perspective? 3.5 Chaos Chosen were the last, great, elite unit. Each one customisable. They could be a massive points sink, but you had the opportunity for a Proper Swiss Army Knife Unit. Not every model would be effective against every foe. But if you took your time, thought it out? There was basically nothing they couldn’t pose not just a credible but immediate threat to.
I freely admit this is my newfound Sad Grumpy Old Man coming through. And I’m far from familiar with the modern game. But it’s still something I sorely miss
I feel if you do a friendly 9th edition game and say "nothing bigger than a dread or carnifex, please", elite units still can shine. Blightlord terminators are really tough to get rid of, especially during Aoc times Orks had a hard time breaking most Marine armours.
I think the problem here doesn't lie within bad elites but with the high lethality overall. Most things die pretty fast which doesn't make for great memories.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I feel if you do a friendly 9th edition game and say "nothing bigger than a dread or carnifex, please", elite units still can shine.
Except when both players bring equivalent "elites" and now it's a game between average units.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
To an extent I think that's a problem that will always exist in some way. Space Marines are just popular. That said, there have been times in the game when Space Marines weren't as common, and other times when literally all I saw at the local club was Space Marines. So there is at least some precedent of conditions which saw more faction diversity.
Hordes need help. Some amount of rebalancing will help that, and probably some encouragement on the presentation can help as well. And probably some good army deals would help as well, honestly. I can't tell you how many times I thought about playing Guard, and then the price tag put me off.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I feel if you do a friendly 9th edition game and say "nothing bigger than a dread or carnifex, please", elite units still can shine.
Except when both players bring equivalent "elites" and now it's a game between average units.
If the elites are at least expressed in different ways, that goes a long way in itself. Marines fearing for their lives against the onslaught of Genestealers is at least a different experience than MEQ vs. MEQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aecus Decimus wrote: GW also needs to stop making marines the focus of everything.
Apple fox wrote:I was reading that conversation and I think a lot of it is less on what an elite is, and more a failure to manage expectations and power fantasy.
Both in the narrative of the game, and the rules of the game.
Insectum7 wrote:Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
IMO there are a bunch of things going on that converge to make elite infantry and Marines in particular feel underwhelming to those players invested in their fluff as 'elites'.
1. The fiction around Marines often centers on two things: Marines beating the crap out of random Guardsmen, Orks, and other cannon fodder, and Marines doing heroic protagonist deeds because that's what heroic protagonists do in heroic fiction. Then you play tabletop 40K, and suddenly you're on a level playing field with an enemy that for the sake of fairness is just as capable of kicking your ass as you are theirs. Bolter porn is power fantasy, wargames are not. Marines in fiction are often conducting lightning raids where they have speed, surprise, violence of action, and raw plot armor against an often unprepared or outmatched foe; Marines on the tabletop are fighting a meat grinder against a peer adversary that is just as coordinated as them.
2. Related to the above, this is not a game of four squads and a vehicle anymore. Elite infantry die nearly as quickly when hit by anti-tank weapons, stepped on by Titans, or vaporized by Volcano Guns as anyone else. You are not facing down hordes of Guardsmen coming at you in small groups to heroically beat up. You are facing an entire army of Leman Russes with air support, and the level of raw firepower getting thrown around tends to devalue the elites, even if they can stomp all over light infantry. Plus, real-world factors like cost and painting time incentivize taking the heavy stuff over hordes of light infantry to begin with. Marines don't feel as special when they're fighting Tyranid Warriors rather than Termagants, and the pool of players willing to paint 200 Termagants is small.
3. Because Marines are so overwhelmingly common (both as a % of factions, and in terms of actual real-world popularity) they tend to go up against other Marines and more-elite-than-Marines factions (Knights, Custodes, etc) more often than they do against green tide lists. That means your chapter of Ultimate Badasses is showing up to an Ultimate Badasses Competition and you know what, even Arnold Schwarzenegger can look a lot less intimidating when he's surrounded by peers.
4. Again because Marines and Marine-adjacent are so common, they're the common targets for take-all-comers lists. They're the reason plasma spam has always been a thing, and why for five editions of the game AP3 was the magic breakpoint that elevated a weapon from meh to lethal. So any time you show up with Marines for a random pickup game, chances are the enemy has tailored to kill you.
5. And making that worse, the inherent skew of a T4/W2/3+ statline means that weapons with high AP and multiple damage kill Marines very efficiently, so there are obvious weapons to spam. I know you've harped on this before, Insectum; the move to W2 at higher points cost means that high-volume, mid-AP, mid-S, D2 weapons return even more points against Marines than they did previously. With basic small arms being comparatively less effective, there's more incentive than ever to spam specialized anti-Marine weapons, and skew is more rewarding.
It's like getting into 28mm moderns and choosing to play as Delta Force because you thought Black Hawk Down was awesome, and then finding that instead of facing untrained Somalis with little more than AKs, your opponents are mostly other Delta Force operators, Navy SEALs (even more elite than you), Spetsnaz, and tank battalions. Also, every scenario is pitched battle on open ground rather than commando raids, and everyone's loaded up with as much .50cal and armor-piercing ammo as possible because defeating your fancy body armor is everyone's goal. Even the one guy playing a Russian conscript horde has a gakload of artillery and air support tailored specifically to kill Deltas because half the shop plays Deltas because Deltas are in every starter set and Deltas are on every piece of Warhammer 2000 marketing because Deltas are the face of the franchise.
Your Delta Force troops are never, ever going to feel 'elite' in this context, and it has nothing to do with how they stack up against other troops in the real world, or whether they're balanced in game terms. It's just not possible to make the most common, de facto baseline faction, the one marketed to newbies and representing a majority of armies on the tabletop, feel above-average. They define the average.
There are a lot of little things GW could tweak to improve the five points above, but considering how Marine-centric the game is you'd have to really shake things up to make MEQs a minority and then actually feel special. And even then, the scale of the game is such that basic power armor can't really feel tough when a superheavy tank still reduces it to smoking boots. If I wanted to capture the feel of the Astartes animation I'd look to a smaller-scale game like Kill Team, but even then you need more mooks and fewer specialists with plasma guns (or Tyranid Warriors, or Custodes, et cetera) to get an asymmetric feel, plus a tacit acknowledgment that those mooks have to have an equal shot at winning or they're not going to show up.
The thing that needs to be remembered about the Astartes animation is that a squad of Marines basically cuts up a large number of GEQs mostly a piece at a time. Like five Marines shoot at 10 ish GEQs, and the GEQs take casualties and fall back. Then the same 5 Marines fight a guy or two at a time, eliminating them, in a quickly moving battle. All of that has been totally do-able in the tabletop game, particularly back when the game had more meaningful morale mechanics. The "Astartes Bolter Porn Fantasy" has been totally achievable in 40k, and it wasn't like some totally unbalanced affair.
But one of the ingredients to making it happen is ensuring that there's actually light troops around too. You have to make sure they have value. Not just winning value either (like holding objectives), but actual FUN value. If 20 GEQs all Rapid Fire into SMs from a good position, and the result is a single wound on the SMs. . . That's not fun.
Also, yes, on the tabletop the Space Marines have to contend with the fact that there are also tanks with tank firepower around. And the idea that Marines should be tanking AT fire needs to get knocked out of certain players heads.
I don't think SMs have to be in the minority to feel elite necessarily, though. But you do need ways to differentiate them from other troops. Back in the day, Frag+Krak Grenades, and ATSKSF meant more, and made some good headway into making them feel elite without just pumping Attack and Defense stats. It meant that even among other "Elites", such as Aspect Warriors, SMs had some meaningful differences.
There's a whole combination of things to improve for it, imo.
Being elite is, in my opinion, being something +1.
For example, terminators are traditionally tactical marines +1, while the various veteran marine units are tactical / assault marines +1. Both examples are very little examples of +1 in that they have literally that bonus to several of their stats, and also have increased options allowing them to fulfill their chosen niche more effectively.
While some armies don’t have quite so direct a comparison, I feel this holds true pretty much across the board for most armies. Elites take something another unit in the codex does (often - but not always - from the troop section), and then just do it better. Often times with a narrowing of scope in comparison, making them more “elite” at that thing but less flexible in the process. Then, in terms of points, elites will pay a premium for this enhanced ability.
It’s also worth noting that elites tend to focus on what it is their army is known for, to some extent. So elites tend to focus and enhance roles which are “core” to the armies identity, such as orks and melee, but often times don’t encompass every role that can be fulfilled.
a_typical_hero wrote: A Knight is elite compared to a Grot. On the tabletop and in the actual background. If you think otherwise, you should read up on some definitions of "elite".
Except it's not a Grot, its a knight vs 100 grots. What's more elite a quarter, or 5 nickels?
a_typical_hero wrote: A Knight is elite compared to a Grot. On the tabletop and in the actual background. If you think otherwise, you should read up on some definitions of "elite".
Except it's not a Grot, its a knight vs 100 grots. What's more elite a quarter, or 5 nickels?
How does that even make sense as a comparison? Obviously if you compare 2000 points of each faction then no army or unit is ever going to be elite because the goal is that the game is balanced. It's a comparison that tells us absolutely nothing, except that you're really desperate to prove some kind of incomprehensible point.
a_typical_hero wrote: A Knight is elite compared to a Grot. On the tabletop and in the actual background. If you think otherwise, you should read up on some definitions of "elite".
Except it's not a Grot, its a knight vs 100 grots. What's more elite a quarter, or 5 nickels?
How does that even make sense as a comparison? Obviously if you compare 2000 points of each faction then no army or unit is ever going to be elite because the goal is that the game is balanced. It's a comparison that tells us absolutely nothing, except that you're really desperate to prove some kind of incomprehensible point.
You play a lot of 510 vs 4 point games do you? You think when people said they want Space Marines to play as elites/like the fluff they're talking about one guy giving the finger to 400 Gants and Gaunts?
Not one Marine vs 400. That’s silly and I suspect exaggeration for effect. But I feel a squad of Marines should feel more threatening and capable than a squad of Guardsmen - or even two squads.
That’s not to say 10 Marines vs 20/30 Other should ever feel like a foregone conclusion - but it should feel like an occasional triumph when you get lucky and take out the Marines with small arms fire. More that the Marines should be confident that they’ll suffer no more than acceptable casualties, than should walk out entirely unscathed.
The same for stuff like Tyranid Warriors, Aspect Warriors, Chaos Marines and so on and so forth, in case people confused the example given with cheerleading for Marines specifically.
Maybe the scale and scope of your average 40K battle has grown beyond that. As again, bAcK iN mY dAy a 2,000 point army was quite dinky. Yes a 2nd Ed Battlecannon May ruin a squad of Marines quite handily, but Leman Russ etc just weren’t as numerous, so provided I was careful I could mitigate the worst of it and prioritise taking those Battle Cannon out of the equation.
I guess I just want it to feel like anything which takes out Elite Stuff had to sing for its supper. Whilst it is of course amusing on occasion, nobody likes losing an expensive, prized unit to desultory fire.
Not one Marine vs 400. That’s silly and I suspect exaggeration for effect. But I feel a squad of Marines should feel more threatening and capable than a squad of Guardsmen - or even two squads.
Point for Point its closer to 3. One Marine squad should take 2 Guard squads with only a few red shirt losses (Bolter Marines, but keeping Pasanius, Learchus, Uriel, etc) 3 squads should be MAD.
That’s not to say 10 Marines vs 20/30 Other should ever feel like a foregone conclusion - but it should feel like an occasional triumph when you get lucky and take out the Marines with small arms fire. More that the Marines should be confident that they’ll suffer no more than acceptable casualties, than should walk out entirely unscathed.
The same for stuff like Tyranid Warriors, Aspect Warriors, Chaos Marines and so on and so forth, in case people confused the example given with cheerleading for Marines specifically.
Maybe the scale and scope of your average 40K battle has grown beyond that. As again, bAcK iN mY dAy a 2,000 point army was quite dinky. Yes a 2nd Ed Battlecannon May ruin a squad of Marines quite handily, but Leman Russ etc just weren’t as numerous, so provided I was careful I could mitigate the worst of it and prioritise taking those Battle Cannon out of the equation.
I guess I just want it to feel like anything which takes out Elite Stuff had to sing for its supper. Whilst it is of course amusing on occasion, nobody likes losing an expensive, prized unit to desultory fire.
Nobody likes losing an expensive prized unit, period - though desultory fire has long and often been the hard counter to the expensive prized units. One of the best ways to kill Terminators in 3rd was a mountain of flashlights.
And you do bring up a point that hasn't been brought up very much. Because the various armies (usually) have so many more units, its much easier to focus-fire specific units no matter the range etc. We've got more units, and no longer have to target the closest Infantry/Monster That rule probably has more to do with "elite" units going down faster than before - there's no rule and little reason not to shoot a unit until it stops moving because everyone can shoot everyone for the most part. How much less dangerous is that desultory fire from a half dozen units if it also has to be spread out TO a half dozen units?
Let me get more a more comfy chair first...okay do go on.
See, bAcK iN mY dAy Elite Units were terrors of the battlefield. Yes I do mean 2nd Ed. Yes my wonky text is tongue in cheek about this very post.
For instance, Wraithguard. The Wraithcannon was horrible against everything - and the Wraithguard themselves were, theoretically, invincible. They had an armour value, and provided your opponent rolled poorly for damage, they just got back up again.
Your point is inarguable. Back in the day, there were fewer factions and all of them felt very different. There were both internal and external hierarchies of elite units. Space Marines back then were an elite army and often difficult to play for that reason. Against most opponents, you would be outnumbered, sometimes badly outnumbered. However, your troops were extremely capable.
The Eldar were also elite - more fragile than Marines but also faster and more deadly (they had best small arm in the game, for example).
Your non-elite armies were the Orks and IG and the Chaos guys kind of hovered in between because of their composite nature (three, three, three lists for the price of one!). Both the Orks and IG did have elite units within their ranks, however.
Tyranids were the hordiest of hordes, but had elite fighters who made greater demons think twice about getting involved.
I think a combination of faction bloat and the explosion of the model range/unit types has diluted that. GW loves to hype every new unit as super elite, which makes the designation more of a participation trophy than anything else. Someone mentioned "gold paint" for everything, and that's exactly the case.
Another factor is that the desire on GW's part to simplify things so that everything has some sort of niche means you don't get anyone like the old Marines who were not the best, but were generally better all 'round than just about everyone else.
What that meant was that one didn't need to create ludicrous stories about Marine competence because you saw it on the tabletop. I'm not just talking about hitting well or whatnot, you could do stuff that's simply impossible now, like firing into your own troops to prevent them from being overrun (against Tyranids, terminator squads kept the heavy flamers in the rear, to clean the guys in front off if things got too intense). The short-range firepower of Marines was particularly intense and many a game turned on a tactical squad dumping mags from their bolt pistols almost in the faces of the genestealers.
So yeah, points are a measure (if they're calculated correctly, a big "if"), but ultimately it's a question of tabletop performance.
Not one Marine vs 400. That’s silly and I suspect exaggeration for effect. But I feel a squad of Marines should feel more threatening and capable than a squad of Guardsmen - or even two squads.
Point for Point its closer to 3. One Marine squad should take 2 Guard squads with only a few red shirt losses (Bolter Marines, but keeping Pasanius, Learchus, Uriel, etc) 3 squads should be MAD.
That’s not to say 10 Marines vs 20/30 Other should ever feel like a foregone conclusion - but it should feel like an occasional triumph when you get lucky and take out the Marines with small arms fire. More that the Marines should be confident that they’ll suffer no more than acceptable casualties, than should walk out entirely unscathed.
The same for stuff like Tyranid Warriors, Aspect Warriors, Chaos Marines and so on and so forth, in case people confused the example given with cheerleading for Marines specifically.
Maybe the scale and scope of your average 40K battle has grown beyond that. As again, bAcK iN mY dAy a 2,000 point army was quite dinky. Yes a 2nd Ed Battlecannon May ruin a squad of Marines quite handily, but Leman Russ etc just weren’t as numerous, so provided I was careful I could mitigate the worst of it and prioritise taking those Battle Cannon out of the equation.
I guess I just want it to feel like anything which takes out Elite Stuff had to sing for its supper. Whilst it is of course amusing on occasion, nobody likes losing an expensive, prized unit to desultory fire.
Nobody likes losing an expensive prized unit, period - though desultory fire has long and often been the hard counter to the expensive prized units. One of the best ways to kill Terminators in 3rd was a mountain of flashlights.
And you do bring up a point that hasn't been brought up very much. Because the various armies (usually) have so many more units, its much easier to focus-fire specific units no matter the range etc. We've got more units, and no longer have to target the closest Infantry/Monster That rule probably has more to do with "elite" units going down faster than before - there's no rule and little reason not to shoot a unit until it stops moving because everyone can shoot everyone for the most part. How much less dangerous is that desultory fire from a half dozen units if it also has to be spread out TO a half dozen units?
The old Target Priority rules didn't just lower lethality, but were another of the old rules that helped differentiate "elite" units from "less elite" units. High Leadership "elite" units like Astartes, Aspect Warriors, Necrons, etc had a much higher probability of passing the required Leadership Test to target a unit besides the closest than those with lower Leadership. It was one of the rules that actually made a unit's Leadership stat important. Same for the old Morale rules.
Being able to "play around" the Core Rules also helped. Good luck trying to lock 3.5 era Raptors in Combat, for example. Or force Loyalist Scum to run off the board.
Now, the only way gw has to show that a unit is "elite" is how killy/tough it is. It's what happens when the Core Rules are reduced to such a degree in the quest for "simplicity", which is then subsequently lost when more complexity is added (usually poorly) in the codexes, instead of being in the Core Rules, where it belonged in the first place.
Breton wrote: Except it's not a Grot, its a knight vs 100 grots. What's more elite a quarter, or 5 nickels?
You do not grasp the concept of elite, that's why your comparisons and arguments don't make sense. To the point where it is either trolling or embarassing. If it is the former, hats off to you, Sir. I fell for it.
Breton wrote: You play a lot of 510 vs 4 point games do you? You think when people said they want Space Marines to play as elites/like the fluff they're talking about one guy giving the finger to 400 Gants and Gaunts?
Not to such a trollish extreme obviously but yes, what people want out of elite armies is a low model count where each model is expensive but as capable as several lesser models. I have no idea why you think that "elite" means "my 2000 points has a 100% win rate against your 2000 points".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I guess I just want it to feel like anything which takes out Elite Stuff had to sing for its supper. Whilst it is of course amusing on occasion, nobody likes losing an expensive, prized unit to desultory fire.
The problem is once again marine dominance. You make marines durable to represent their elite status, and now marine vs. marine games (which are the majority of the game) are tedious slap fights where neither side can kill much and the game is won 51-50 by standing on objectives with minimal interaction. So now you have to solve the stalemate by ensuring that everyone has access to effective anti-elite weapons, at which point the fact that marines are 75% of the game means that every army is spamming those anti-elite weapons as hard as possible and you're right back to elites dying quickly. The only way you can make this design concept work is to make marines a minority. If marines are 5-10% of the game and non-marine armies are mostly non-elite units all those flamers/frag missiles/etc come back into the game and when a marine army or elite unit in a non-marine army does show up it isn't promptly deleted by a wall of mass plasma.
Kind of remember Eldar and Tyranids eating Marines for breakfast in 2nd edition, but I guess I was only 10 or something, so experiences may be skewed.
The problem with saying "eliteness should be in functionality" is that it leads you to "if I make the correct decisions (from the bigger list of options than my opponent) I should win". But who wants to play the NPC faction, where if your opponent plays correctly, you lose (or are significantly more likely to lose, dice will be dice after all)?
Tyel wrote: Kind of remember Eldar and Tyranids eating Marines for breakfast in 2nd edition, but I guess I was only 10 or something, so experiences may be skewed.
The problem with saying "eliteness should be in functionality" is that it leads you to "if I make the correct decisions (from the bigger list of options than my opponent) I should win". But who wants to play the NPC faction, where if your opponent plays correctly, you lose (or are significantly more likely to lose, dice will be dice after all)?
A big issue elite army in a lot of game genres is that they are often hard to play.
Make them to durable and they are bullet sponges, they struggle with good objective gameplay, Space marines where this I think focused on. They Are also supposed to be the introductory army.
I think GW has spent so much removing the luck from a lot of elite that a major factor in making them feel right is that luck.
A terminator could wade though lots of attacks, but one gets though and dead.
Now, it can be roll those 60 dice, and enjoy that one dead marine if your lucky.
Since wounds take away a major part of luck that I think is important to elite army, that durable nature can be taken away with a little bad luck. Why horde army are supposed to just pick up units, with little luck involved.
Of corse this depends a lot on how elite you think a basic space marine should be. As well as the escalating damage the game endures with now.
I'm actually really, really glad to see a thread on this. I was just having a discussion about this with a friend the other day.
To really have a meaningful discussion about "being elite"? You need to define the metric you're using to decide. For myself?
An "elite" army would meet the following metrics:
-Cannot fill out a Brigade or Battalion without breaking lore or utilizing multiple small units, even at high point value games.
-Better than average statline in 2 or more of the following characteristics on a unit: Ballistic Skill, Weapon Skill, Armor Save, and Leadership.
-Special rules that let a smaller number of models/units feel like more. Combat Squads immediately jumps to mind here.
With that said, the Marine Issue is always omnipresent in this discussion. Their representation tabletop v lore will always be an issue that is basically unsolvable without reshuffling how the main starter boxes are done...and a drastic, hard change to the army.
The problem is once again marine dominance. You make marines durable to represent their elite status, and now marine vs. marine games (which are the majority of the game) are tedious slap fights where neither side can kill much and the game is won 51-50 by standing on objectives with minimal interaction. So now you have to solve the stalemate by ensuring that everyone has access to effective anti-elite weapons, at which point the fact that marines are 75% of the game means that every army is spamming those anti-elite weapons as hard as possible and you're right back to elites dying quickly. The only way you can make this design concept work is to make marines a minority. If marines are 5-10% of the game and non-marine armies are mostly non-elite units all those flamers/frag missiles/etc come back into the game and when a marine army or elite unit in a non-marine army does show up it isn't promptly deleted by a wall of mass plasma.
Why should "slap fests" happen though? GW has absolutly no problems with giving armies both super resiliance and extrem fire power or melee abilities or both at the same time. The only change, that would happen is that if both marine players played in to each other with no tactics, no differences from playing various marines factions, would just be a very fast game. ending with the player rolling better or getting off the first charge or shoting first winning.
Anti-elite weapons in w40k, or at least those that actualy get taken, and not those that are anti elite in the lore, are always good vs everything. Plasma kills marines of various types, put wounds on vehicles, hurts characters, it even can put some last few wound on bigger stuff if the rolls are totaly skewed.
Marines on the other hand get this odd specialisations with deadly weapons in lore, that don't really do much to either horde or elite in game. Which then ends with marines taking minimal basic units and concentrating on the elite. And then the decision what ever an army is good or bad is mostly out of the hands of the player, because either the elite marine unit is undercosted for the core rules and the meta or it is not and then it is bad. Any marine army that can't run at least half of their army as those undercosted units will end up being bad, because of hyper efficient the good armies are at killing marines.
Plus I think the job of GW designers should be to make the marine army feel to the players as if they were playing an marine army. And they can do it, the custodes players, including the ones that don't play dread and FW spam, can attest to that. Marines should be a resilient and deadly force, with variety coming from the different factions and playstyles coming out of those rules sets. Right now lore or not lore, a squad of 5 GK termintors doesn't feel more elite, then 5 strikes,and something like paladins makes no sense as a unit under the point cost and meta that exists right now. What the GK player does get is the power armour interceptor spam with NDKS, the army that has been played since start of 8th ed. who knows maybe it would be better to just remove the strikes and GK terminators. Change the interceptors and paladins in to GK troops, with or without renaming, and let the GK players use the army that way. It would be a bit like playing a jump pack army without the WS or BA traits, but psychic powers on each unit.
Karol wrote: GW has absolutly no problems with giving armies both super resiliance and extrem fire power or melee abilities or both at the same time.
That's not how it works. If you have extreme defense and extreme offense on both sides then the two cancel out and what you have is average offense and average defense with bigger numbers. The suggestion was to have extreme defense, which means it has to be extreme relative to offense and you get slap fights.
The only change, that would happen is that if both marine players played in to each other with no tactics, no differences from playing various marines factions, would just be a very fast game. ending with the player rolling better or getting off the first charge or shoting first winning.
No, that would be a scenario where you have extreme offense and minimal defense. If you have extreme defense then you have units that can tank the incoming firepower and stay alive.
Anti-elite weapons in w40k, or at least those that actualy get taken, and not those that are anti elite in the lore, are always good vs everything. Plasma kills marines of various types, put wounds on vehicles, hurts characters, it even can put some last few wound on bigger stuff if the rolls are totaly skewed.
Yes, that is the problem with a marine-dominated game. If 90% of games were against horde guard with no vehicles you'd see flamers and grenade launchers instead. Plasma is only "good against everything" because in the current marine-dominated game the good targets for plasma are everywhere and the targets where plasma sucks barely exist.
And they can do it, the custodes players, including the ones that don't play dread and FW spam, can attest to that.
That's because gold marines are not 75% of the game like marines of other colors. If gold marines dominated the meta then they wouldn't feel elite at all because their reference point would be gold marines and the most common opponent would be a mirror match against other gold marines. They'd be the new average and every other army would feel like useless cannon fodder.
I personally think modelcount is a big factor in this. At least from my image I wouldn't have a problem with a 5 man Marine squad wiping the floor with 20-30 Guardsmen (as in some publications) IF the Guardsmen would outnumber them 10:1 or more (as they should from a lore perspective.)
But as nobody wants to build, paint or play against 1000 Guardsmen this would mean SM armies of 10-30 models Edit: to keep the Guardsmen in a handy range of lower 3 digits. At that point the "NPC factions" ready for being slaughtered would at least have the advantage of having the bodies to play for objectives while the Marines have to decide where they want to be as they can't be everywhere.
And that is kind of what Elite means to me. A Space Marine is Elite and a great fighter, but there are too few to be everywhere.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Perhaps the problem, then, is that every SM has been made into an elite?
There used to be Scouts, which were cheap but only had BS4+ and 4+ armour saves (albeit with Camo Cloaks, IIRC). Even Tactical Marines, while still elite in many respects, didn't feel too far above the troop choices in other armies.
Then, of course, you had the actual elites like terminators and various flavours of veterans.
Now, though, even the most basic SM has to be tougher than a Necron and generally packing AP even on basic weapons. It makes it very awkward to balance around - both internally and externally. Externally, you have the issue that the most common army in the game doesn't have any light units at all.. so anti-horde weapons are out the window entirely. Moreover, the elites in other armies need to be ridiculous in order to actually feel elite against armies with elites as basic troops. Similarly, from an internal standpoint, marines have more units than any other army, and yet they're starting with basic troops as elite. So then their elite troops need to be more elite. And their veterans need to be even more elite than that. And their terminators need to be even more elite than the elites who are more elite than the other elites. And their HQs... elite elite elite elite elite! IOW, it starts to get a little silly because you quickly run out of design space.
Elite does not mean overpowered.
If a good 2,000 point army consists of five squads of three to five models, it is very elite compared to a good 2,000 point army that’s made of ten squads of ten to twenty each.
Tyel wrote: Kind of remember Eldar and Tyranids eating Marines for breakfast in 2nd edition, but I guess I was only 10 or something, so experiences may be skewed.
The problem with saying "eliteness should be in functionality" is that it leads you to "if I make the correct decisions (from the bigger list of options than my opponent) I should win". But who wants to play the NPC faction, where if your opponent plays correctly, you lose (or are significantly more likely to lose, dice will be dice after all)?
Question your premise: What makes you say the Elite list have a bigger list of options? Custodes are generally referred to as Elite. They have so few models they almost definitely have fewer options both strategically and tactically than a generally not-called-elite list like Orks. It gets even more unlikely when comparing Knights to Nid Small Bugs etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyroalchi wrote: I personally think modelcount is a big factor in this.
This keeps coming up - Let me ask you... why does model count matter? For the sake of argument, lets say every army is razor's edge balanced point for point against any other army. They're not, we know, but it also changes from era to era in edition to edition which ones are top dogs and which ones are nerfed into oblivion - so which is which at any given point doesn't matter either for the philosophical argument. And as bad as GW is at balance, they're also not THAT bad. Most armies are pretty close most of the time. Their failures usually come at the cost of not maintaining the balance they had when they try to fix the balance they didn't have.
Anyway - given that frame of reference - Why does model count matter? A blob is a blob. Unit X worth 200 points is just as elite as Unit Y worth 200 points. 5 nickels buy 25 cents worth of candy. A quarter buys 25 cents worth of candy. Its only psychology that makes us think a quarter is bigger than 5 nickels. A guy with 25 million in one savings account is rich. A guy with 5 million in 5 savings accounts is weird. Aside from a few usually balanced tradeoffs 5 of one or 10 1/2's of another are the same, its only an internal bias that says one is elite and one is not. My point is - as each army is 2,000 points the one guy doesn't matter in the elite discussion because you need to reduce them to buckets and blobs - faceless baseless abstracts. That said, even with the faceless baseless buckets of blobs, you can assign elite characteristics I suppose but not the These Guys are better point for point or model for model than those guys because one isn't correct (in theory again) and the other doesn't matter because at 2,000 points all the buckets of blobs even out.
An elite unit in the army, against a superior number of foes, is still elite. Even if they're outnumbered, let's say 100 to 1, the elite are still elite. They're superior individually. Why are you using a definition of elite that only you use?
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Perhaps the problem, then, is that every SM has been made into an elite?
There used to be Scouts, which were cheap but only had BS4+ and 4+ armour saves (albeit with Camo Cloaks, IIRC). Even Tactical Marines, while still elite in many respects, didn't feel too far above the troop choices in other armies.
For most of their life Scouts were BS3+ (or its equivalent) they were moved to Elites because too many players were taking two 5 man squads to fulfill a Troop "tax" and then loading up on the toys. AOO changes the paradigm, but I'm not too confident that will last. They added Sticky Capping as a trial baloon to improve troops, while removing the Troop Requirement entirely and Sticky Capping is both hope for the future and, sadly, the likely demise of the experiment. The solution is to make troops not a "tax", but the players are faster at warping a balance/paradigm change than GW is at keeping up with it. And if/when Sticky Capping is extended from the SM Only Alpha test to every faction on a Beta Test it'll just get worse. Rangers are only 1PPM more than scouts right now. Both are little over half an Infiltrator or Incursor. Make them Troops with sticky capping, infiltrate, and redeploy shenanigans etc and it becomes a war of infiltration/infiltration-denial/who-goes-first. Assuming they don't make other BRB changes though - maybe that's the catalyst that allows Assaulting out of Transports for a Drop and Chop.
Then, of course, you had the actual elites like terminators and various flavours of veterans.
Now, though, even the most basic SM has to be tougher than a Necron and generally packing AP even on basic weapons.
Again, for most of it's life the Bolter was AP -1 ish or its equivalent. It only really went to AP- when the Bolt Rifle was created. Necrons were reduced long before SM were buffed. They were reduced, I assume, in part to get them off the MEQ stat band, and in part as a first round nerfbat to reanimation protocols. Necrons are/were Tomb Kings in space, but GW forgot Tomb King basic troops that could be resurrected by a Tomb Priest were lower stat banded units more on par with Goblins or Men At Arms than Empire State Troops etc.
It makes it very awkward to balance around - both internally and externally. Externally, you have the issue that the most common army in the game doesn't have any light units at all.. so anti-horde weapons are out the window entirely. Moreover, the elites in other armies need to be ridiculous in order to actually feel elite against armies with elites as basic troops. Similarly, from an internal standpoint, marines have more units than any other army, and yet they're starting with basic troops as elite. So then their elite troops need to be more elite. And their veterans need to be even more elite than that. And their terminators need to be even more elite than the elites who are more elite than the other elites. And their HQs... elite elite elite elite elite! IOW, it starts to get a little silly because you quickly run out of design space.
Not only that, the "light" units are too "expensive". Upgrade an Intercessor to a Heavy Intercessor for what is it, about 25%? Sure, all kinds of bonus, few downsides. Heavy Intercessors probably took too much of a drop, or the Power Armor guys didn't take enough - probably the second. After that, there's also no reason to go more than 5 on most units. Better to go 5 and 5 than 10. Another unit is the biggest reason, free Sergeants are a close second. Blast is a somewhat distant third. Going 5 on the 3-6 units is one of the MANY reasons Power Level is generally a failure and we're seeing "free" wargear setting up Points to Work like Power level. You're losing me when you get to Terminators need to be more expensive and more elite than the other elite. Terminators vs Vanguard Vets, Terminators vs Aggressors, Terminators vs Bladeguard - I think they all kind of wash and it comes down to which sets of Elites (capital E) you're taking and what they synergize with. Aggresors/Shootinators/Hammernators synergize with Bladeguard, but not necessarily each other as a Moving Castle Reintue. 5 Shootinators and 5 Bladeguard are probably the best options if you ignore Primaris/Firstborn, but it's really 6:5 and pick 'em. And they're priced accordingly so I'm OK with that - My personal preference is the Aggressors - strangely enough because they have Heavy Support shoulder pads. Now that shoulder pads don't always match the Datasheet slot, I try and get both the FOC slot, and the Shoulder Pad balance. Its easy to get 10 Close Assault shoulder pads from Assault Intercessors and/or incursors, but the Primaris Heavy Support is generally Aggresors, Hellblasters or Eradicators in the theme that every company "donates" a 5 man squad to Guilliman's "Victrix Guard" retinue (that for convenience I name Indomitus Guard when it's Guilliman, Victrix when it's Calgar) of normal units in the Victrix Guard as a whole vs the Victrix Guard units in the Victrix Guard as a specialized unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: An elite unit in the army, against a superior number of foes, is still elite. Even if they're outnumbered, let's say 100 to 1, the elite are still elite. They're superior individually. Why are you using a definition of elite that only you use?
There have been people in here saying the same thing I am - why are you using a definition of "only you" that only you use?
JNAProductions wrote: Can you name another poster who uses "Elite" to mean "Overpowered in a gameplay sense"?
Can you name the first one? I mean I've made the point that in the right situation an army of Grots are "elite", so are you lying by implying me? Or- Unless that's how you're using it?
You are the only person who has said that elite means having a higher win rate over another. Most, though this is admittedly an assumption, probably mean compared between individual models. A Space Marine is more elite than a Grot, and a Custodian is more elite than a Space Marine. Better training, better abilities, better whatever.
Is an elite body guard unit following a general into battle no longer elite just because the enemy has more people on their side? I don't even think model count has anything to do with it, but in a game, it is often related.
JNAProductions wrote: Can you name another poster who uses "Elite" to mean "Overpowered in a gameplay sense"?
Can you name the first one? I mean I've made the point that in the right situation an army of Grots are "elite", so are you lying by implying me? Or- Unless that's how you're using it?
But you haven’t made that point.
A single Custodian Guard versus 1,000 Grots will lose. But the one Custode is still more elite, by common parlance.
You and you alone, as far as I can see, are using elite to mean “better for the points.”
JNAProductions wrote: Can you name another poster who uses "Elite" to mean "Overpowered in a gameplay sense"?
Can you name the first one? I mean I've made the point that in the right situation an army of Grots are "elite", so are you lying by implying me? Or- Unless that's how you're using it?
But you haven’t made that point.
A single Custodian Guard versus 1,000 Grots will lose. But the one Custode is still more elite, by common parlance.
You and you alone, as far as I can see, are using elite to mean “better for the points.”
Scroll up, there's been a couple of others.
And I have made that point for the Grots. You even made it part of the premise - Elite is a sliding scale. Same points Grots vs Same Points Knight is elite in an ironical case of the knight being "too elite" to deal with the quantity. Sure the Grots can't kill the knight, but they can ignore it. Heck the thing that started this itself bakes the army as a whole not a single model as the premise. They wanted Space Marines to play as elite. Not That-Dude-Over-There. Lets slide over to Warhammer Fantasy for a bit - that tarpit of Vampire Counts skeleton warriors grows faster than you can kill it - is it Elite? Individually they're weak, you kill 10 of them at a time, but 15 stand up in their place, meanwhile you keep losing a couple guys a turn. Collectively they're elite because you're stuck.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: You are the only person who has said that elite means having a higher win rate over another.
Who said that? Where did they say it? Nobody on either side has said that except when they're lying about what someone else has said to create a straw man. I have said that if you want to talk about Space Marines or any other faction being elite, you should consider an entire unit vs equal points other units, or even better a fluff-representative balanced 2K point army vs a fluff-representative balanced 2K army. Many people have tried to define elite as "play like in the fluff". The fluff rarely has one Marine vs one Grot. The fluff is usually a couple characters, and the bridge crew mixed amongst a bunch of squads (Sergeants/Veterans) made of Red Shirts.
Most, though this is admittedly an assumption, probably mean compared between individual models. A Space Marine is more elite than a Grot, and a Custodian is more elite than a Space Marine. Better training, better abilities, better whatever.
And that's my point about units/armies instead of the Last-Man-Standing Marine vs the Last-Man-Standing Grot. In the first place that's pretty rare. In the second, lets go tour some of the threads about Reroll bubbles. Unless that Last Man Standing Marine is a captain, Lieutenant, etc. he doesn't have his reroll bubble(s) anymore. He doesn't have a lot of the things you get from an entire faction layering their strengths over their weaknesses
Is an elite body guard unit following a general into battle no longer elite just because the enemy has more people on their side? I don't even think model count has anything to do with it, but in a game, it is often related.
Was the "elite body guard unit following a general into battle" elite before you counted people on each side? (Assuming you mean BODYGUARD/Look-Out-Sir) It does something special, but that doesn't necessarily mean elite It just means hard counter to the other guy's potential strength over your weakness. My Victrix Guard are not especially elite. BGV are only slightly more and generally better - but I take the Victrix Guard anyway, because one of my weaknesses is significant sniper fire taking a shortcut and eating the core out of my layered castle from within by ignoring Look Out Sir.
Finally, and to bring both of those together - one of the main reasons Space Mariness don't feel elite has nothing to do with Space Marines and was just touched on then apparently moved on from: Targeting rules. When only one or two units can shoot at your unit, or you can pick the only unit in the big blob of little blobs, tough units show up tougher. Glass Canons feel punchier because you've got a screening unit in front. If you've ever played Starcrat, Gladius, Total War: Warhammer etc you know how it works. You get much better performance out of an Alpha strike on the big stuff then some mop up on the little stuff than you do putting you big stuff against his big stuff, and your little stuff against his little stuff. If you can do that without exposing your Big Stuff to a counter attack, so much the better. Its the same concept for Tanks (Warriors, paladins, etc. not Leman Russes) and Taunt in PVP in WoW, etc.
No, collectively they're not elite, collectively they're *effective*. What difference does your definition of elite have from the term "effective"?
Well, I'd define "effective" as close, tight, slight edge, could go either way. The Grots can literally ignore the Knight all game long. There's nothing the Knight can do to change the end result if the Grots do. That's Elite.
Honestly if we could get a mod in here to shut down your stupidity that'd be great.
Nothing says Mods Look here! Like demanding censorship of someone who doesn't agree with you and personal attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's go to Meriam Webster's:
1
a
singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM
the elite of the entertainment world
OK... so Terminators are the Elite of the Space Marine World. I'm not sure this applies to making Space Marines "play like elites.". But have a go if you think so. You can try Space Marines are the Elite of the Tabletop world, but then you've still got the Space Marines problem
b
singular or plural in construction : the best of a class
superachievers who dominate the computer elite
—Marilyn Chase
Space Marines who dominate the Table top. Now we're talking - this definition fits, but most of us would agree it's not literally what we're trying to mean.
c
singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society
how the French-speaking elite … was changing
—Economist
40K is a social game, but the cultured stylings of afternnoon tea featuring Ghazghkull Thraka and Angron doesn't quite sound what we're looking for.
d
: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
members of the ruling elite
100 grots that can ignore a Knight for 5 turns and win sounds like a group of persons who by virtue of 100 positions exercises almost total power and influence over that game.
e
: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural
the elites …, pursuing their studies in Europe
—Robert Wernick
Circular Definition - A Space Marine is elite because Space Marines are elite. No Help.
But we do have two, two and a half definitions that could work for some common ground.
For the assistance of everyone, could you give your definition of elite? I'm fond of:
often : superior in quality, rank, skill, etc.
ex.
an elite performer
an elite athlete
an athlete with elite skills
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind, it seems I was late.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why did you use Elite as a noun? That's more for The Elite, not if something is elite. As in, it's an adjective, or describing the noun. I'm not complaining that Necrons aren't part of The Elite as a class, I'm wishing that necrons were more elite.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Perhaps the problem, then, is that every SM has been made into an elite?
It is basically their schtick. Fundamental to the army identity. But many of the units of other factions have dropped in comparisson to Marines over the years. Lesser Daemons are a standout, for example. Those used to be priced at Marine levels, with the statline appropriately better than they have now.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Perhaps the problem, then, is that every SM has been made into an elite?
It is basically their schtick. Fundamental to the army identity. But many of the units of other factions have dropped in comparisson to Marines over the years. Lesser Daemons are a standout, for example. Those used to be priced at Marine levels, with the statline appropriately better than they have now.
I get that being elite is their shtick but it doesn't work when Marines are so ubiquitous.
Even moving them to 2 wounds just makes 2 wounds the norm, rather than a mark of eliteness.
I have not encountered 40K players using the term "elite" to refer to a tier of armies that will defeat other armies when the points and player skill are the same. I could see "elite" being used in sports that way (ie "the 2000's Tom Brady Patriots were an elite team...", but not 40K. In my experience, when 40K players talk about an army being "elite" they are referring to its archetype. An army might be "elite" or "hordes" or "gun-line" or "Nidzilla" etc etc. We might talk about "elite" players who have multiple tourney wins regardless of army. but I think we use the term "OP" or "Broken" to describe armies that are too powerful as an army. I don't think that Space Marine players are asking for their armies to be broken.
To me, an elite army is one with a low-model count and highly-capable infantry models. They might lose to a more numerous/less individually powerful unit/army that was built to the same points level, but they are still elite. I am not sure where the line is, but 30 points per model is certainly Elite and 10 points per model is not. Are Tactical Marines Elite? I think so, if only as entry-level Elite. If losing a model hurts then its an elite army. If you happily pull models then its probably not an elite army/unit?
When Space Marine players are saying that they want their army to feel "Elite" they are not saying it should be overpowered as an army. They are saying that the individual models should be powerful. They are not saying that they should defeat an equivalent points-level force simply by virtue of their characteristics (that would be broken and doesn't last). I don't think it matters that there are other Elite armies or that they are common. We don't and shouldn't control what other people want to bring. Two players can each have "elite" armies (say my Deathwing against my friends Custodes) and still feel that their armies/dudes are elite.
I think, when you curate lists down to more infantry focus. Marines do shine as fairly powerful.
It also gives a chance for transports to function better.
There is just not much design space left at the infantry side without expanding the basic game.
Too much of the game has been flatten i think, with so much of its unique rules being bloated mess that often struggle for players to understand.
Which is why the solution is to mechanically encourage lesser-than-marine units to get more exposure on the table, because Marines feel elite when pitted against greater numbers of GEQs, Orks, Gaunts etc.
agreed, but the problem is that space marine players don't have these options in their codex, and space marines are the most popular army.
so even if every non-marine army (for argument's sake) is now a horde army, you're still gonna be facing 30-40% (stats out of my ass) space marines
Perhaps the problem, then, is that every SM has been made into an elite?
It is basically their schtick. Fundamental to the army identity. But many of the units of other factions have dropped in comparisson to Marines over the years. Lesser Daemons are a standout, for example. Those used to be priced at Marine levels, with the statline appropriately better than they have now.
I get that being elite is their shtick but it doesn't work when Marines are so ubiquitous.
Yah, but since it's legitimately the army identity we just have to work around it.
Even moving them to 2 wounds just makes 2 wounds the norm, rather than a mark of eliteness.
I wouldn't say it made 2w the norm, but it's definitely common enough to shift the ideal meta-weapons to 2+ damage, which also just happens to shift focus away from the typical non-elite infantry since most infantry only have D1 weapons. My argument is that 2W Marines actually make them feel less elite in the long run because there's less incentive to bring those traditional non-elite "foil-infantry" against the Marines.
Universal 2W Astartes was a mistake. It's fine for "elite" Astartes, like Terminators and Veterans. But baseline TACs and CSM should have stuck to 1W. And yes, that includes intercessors.
Apple fox wrote: I think, when you curate lists down to more infantry focus. Marines do shine as fairly powerful.
It also gives a chance for transports to function better. There is just not much design space left at the infantry side without expanding the basic game. Too much of the game has been flatten i think, with so much of its unique rules being bloated mess that often struggle for players to understand.
No. Too much of the game has been flattened by players not wanting to understand how things work. It's easier for them to just copy/paste a tourney list and call it a day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Universal 2W Astartes was a mistake. It's fine for "elite" Astartes, like Terminators and Veterans. But baseline TACs and CSM should have stuck to 1W. And yes, that includes intercessors.
Hard disagree.
The mistake was making it so that the PA factions don't have some kind of "lock" on their numbers. Chapters are, by and large, hard-capped with their numbers in the lore. It would have been an absolute joke to easily situate Astartes of all stripes into something akin to the way Drukhari got their bonus patrol detachments and the like.
Could you imagine how different playing Loyalist Marines would feel if you were locked into max sized squads and forced to use Combat Squads? Where Combat Squads was across the entirety of the infantry range, including things like Eliminators? Where Chapter Masters are Lords of War, Captains are one per army?
That alone would, IMO, contribute significantly towards making a more "elite" feeling army.
The Chaos side of things presents an interesting foil to the Loyalist side of things though, in that they aren't hardcapped in numbers for the most part. I genuinely don't have much to say on them outside of the handling has been resoundingly "meh". It keeps feeling like setting up for a new edition and new armies or a new set of allying rules or something of that nature.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Universal 2W Astartes was a mistake. It's fine for "elite" Astartes, like Terminators and Veterans. But baseline TACs and CSM should have stuck to 1W. And yes, that includes intercessors.
100% agree. Wouldn't have even given it to Veterans. Terminators would be fine. D2 is very prevalent though, so that's a related balance negotiation.
Could you imagine how different playing Loyalist Marines would feel if you were locked into max sized squads and forced to use Combat Squads? Where Combat Squads was across the entirety of the infantry range, including things like Eliminators? Where Chapter Masters are Lords of War, Captains are one per army?
I basically play like that already, most of the time. Not sure how that changes anything.
Breton, you're twisting the definition of "Elite" you're claiming to use, and ignoring the fact thst literally everyone else in the wargaming community uses a different one. If younhad any maturity you'd take the L and we can sll move on.
Your own definition doesn't even work; 400 grots by definition individually have a small impact on the game compared to a single knight. The fact that 400 grots together can do a lot is meaningless for the purposes of that definition.
Hecaton wrote: Breton, you're twisting the definition of "Elite" you're claiming to use, and ignoring the fact thst literally everyone else in the wargaming community uses a different one. If younhad any maturity you'd take the L and we can sll move on.
Your own definition doesn't even work; 400 grots by definition individually have a small impact on the game compared to a single knight. The fact that 400 grots together can do a lot is meaningless for the purposes of that definition.
What does Singularly or Collectively mean to you? A grot vs a Knight isn't elite sure, but 500 points of grots vs a knight IS elite. The earilier invitation is open to you as well. Make the plan where the Knight wins. Or can do anything but lower the rate at which the grots win by ignoring him.
Even by JNAProductions's definition - To be elite, something has to be better than what it's being compared to, in general. - the Grots are elite. I've laid out a rationale and support for why they are. You've laid out... a round about version of "because I said so" and some insults. I get it, you go with the best argument you've got and apparently yours is "Nah Uh" and insults. Oh and lying about "literally everyone" when there are some even in this thread who had said similar to what I have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Grots, no matter the number, are not an elite fighting force.
Take the Knight's position and do anything more than slowing down how fast the Grots get the VP. In an edition where it was all kill points, you'd be right. In an edition that doesn't value model count instead of points value of the unit you might be right. But this example takes advantage of two quirks of the game to flip the script. The knight is TOO elite, and the model count thing. But that's the environment where things are rated in.
Deep down you acknowledge what everyone is saying.
Deep Down you picked half the quote because you're lying and don't actually have a logical counter? Deep down the reason you ignore the difference between grots and grot is the same reason you ignore the difference between Space Marine and Space Marine(s).
Deep Down I wonder why you're this worked up about someone who doesn't think the way you do.
Deep down you acknowledge what everyone is saying.
Deep Down you picked half the quote because you're lying and don't actually have a logical counter? Deep down the reason you ignore the difference between grots and grot is the same reason you ignore the difference between Space Marine and Space Marine(s).
Deep Down I wonder why you're this worked up about someone who doesn't think the way you do.
Worked up isn't the right term, more intrigued why you're battering your head against a wall for an obscure concept you yourself are able to see the holes in.
You yourself admit a knight is elite compared to a grot on an individual level which is what 99.9% of the population are on board with.
You're just slowly yelling into the void about how equal points of something in a game of 40k is theoretically either balanced or is able to counter in some skew lists or builds. Which if we're honest, has nothing to do with how elite a model or unit is in isolation, or in comparison to its peers.
Deep down you acknowledge what everyone is saying.
Deep Down you picked half the quote because you're lying and don't actually have a logical counter? Deep down the reason you ignore the difference between grots and grot is the same reason you ignore the difference between Space Marine and Space Marine(s).
Deep Down I wonder why you're this worked up about someone who doesn't think the way you do.
Worked up isn't the right term,
Right. People always resort to insults when they're not worked up.
more intrigued why you're battering your head against a wall for an obscure concept you yourself are able to see the holes in.
You yourself admit a knight is elite compared to a grot on an individual level which is what 99.9% of the population are on board with.
Repeating the Cherry Picking doesn't mean it wasn't cherry picking. Nor does it hide the Grot/Grots gymnastics you're engaged in.
Deep down you acknowledge what everyone is saying.
Deep Down you picked half the quote because you're lying and don't actually have a logical counter? Deep down the reason you ignore the difference between grots and grot is the same reason you ignore the difference between Space Marine and Space Marine(s).
Deep Down I wonder why you're this worked up about someone who doesn't think the way you do.
Worked up isn't the right term,
Right. People always resort to insults when they're not worked up.
more intrigued why you're battering your head against a wall for an obscure concept you yourself are able to see the holes in.
You yourself admit a knight is elite compared to a grot on an individual level which is what 99.9% of the population are on board with.
Repeating the Cherry Picking doesn't mean it wasn't cherry picking. Nor does it hide the Grot/Grots gymnastics you're engaged in.
I've not made any insults and I have no gymnastics on going, all clear as day for me, but please continue as you were.
Maybe more saliently, Bretons crazy attempted definition is completely off base in regards to the subject of the thread. It's basically just off topic.
The earilier invitation is open to you as well. Make the plan where the Knight wins. Or can do anything but lower the rate at which the grots win by ignoring him.
Absolutely irrelevant to my and everyone else's point. Elite doesn't have to do with win rate.
Even by JNAProductions's definition - To be elite, something has to be better than what it's being compared to, in general. - the Grots are elite.
No. Individually, the grots aren't better than anything, ergo they're not elite. Collectively outmatching anything doesn't make them elite, that's not the definition of elite.
I've laid out a rationale and support for why they are. You've laid out... a round about version of "because I said so" and some insults. I get it, you go with the best argument you've got and apparently yours is "Nah Uh" and insults. Oh and lying about "literally everyone" when there are some even in this thread who had said similar to what I have.
Nobody has opinions about this concept that match yours, because you're specifically very wrong about both the English language and 40k.
Take the Knight's position and do anything more than slowing down how fast the Grots get the VP. In an edition where it was all kill points, you'd be right. In an edition that doesn't value model count instead of points value of the unit you might be right. But this example takes advantage of two quirks of the game to flip the script. The knight is TOO elite, and the model count thing. But that's the environment where things are rated in.
Oh, so you admit the knight is more elite than the grots?
In baseball, there's a concept called a 5-tool player. It means they overperform in multiple areas of the game. Not only can they hit the ball, they can hit it for power. Not only can they field the ball, they have enough speed to get close outs. They don't have to be the best in every area, it's the combination of factors that makes them special.
I'd say an elite unit is one that excels in some combination of the following characteristics:
- Shooting
- Melee
- Saves
- Psychic
- "Auras" and other buffs / debuffs. This can include performance with a Stratagem.
The term does not have a precise meaning, and units can be considered more or less elite compared to other ones. It's not important for there to be widespread agreement on what unit is or isn't elite, it will necessarily be a personal perspective for some units.
But there are no elite units who only excel in only one of these five areas. Those units are merely capable of being 'good.'
Examples of elite that come to mind: Discolords, Daemon Princes, Abaddon.
Examples of good that come to mind: Legionaires, Cultists, Bikers, Predators.
I have the feeling that by Bretons definition anything that wins is elite.
So the Red Army in WW2 was elite because it made the largest contribution to winning that war. The north- vietnamese army because it successfully defended against the US invasion. The Persians at the Thermopylae because unlike what 300 says they won and destroyed the opposition.
All these examples are also cases of superiority in numbers and victories with far higher losses than the other side, so... they're not really examples usually seen as "elite" armies...
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I have the feeling that by Bretons definition anything that wins is elite.
So the Red Army in WW2 was elite because it made the largest contribution to winning that war. The north- vietnamese army because it successfully defended against the US invasion. The Persians at the Thermopylae because unlike what 300 says they won and destroyed the opposition.
All these examples are also cases of superiority in numbers and victories with far higher losses than the other side, so... they're not really examples usually seen as "elite" armies...
I agree for the most part (technically the NVA invaded South Vietnam, but the overall point holds) and I think the oft-cited example of grots swarming a knight is a textbook definition of something that is not elite.
The knight is elite because it can stand off so many foes. The grots may - with sufficient numbers - defeat the knight, but that merely makes them successful, not elite.
I suppose "elite grots" would be the ones who only need 450 points rather than the full 500 to take down a knight, but they'd still be viewed as cannon fodder.
Indeed, if we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, squig or tyranid swarms also could be "elite" because enough of them might give actual elite troops fits. I don't think anyone would think of them that way, just as no one would ever speak of an "elite" locust swarm that depleted African granaries.
A swarm list might be unbeatable, but the words to describe it would likely be "spam" or "beardy" or even "cheaty," but never, ever "elite."
I think the vast majority of us can agree, in WH40K context, that elite means:
A unit superior to its peers
An army made up of relatively fewer Infantry models due to those models being of higher than average quality
Proper: One of the Battlefield Roles
If you can't agree to this, you are outside the norm on what "being elite" is considered to be in game context.
For example, 500 Grots, no matter how well they can win a game, will never be elite by any definition common game parlance.
On the other hand, Tactical Marines can be considered to be an elite unit in the broader context of the game. They might not be good, but they have a better stat block than most Infantry units in the game. However, they do have the issue of that stat block being the most targeted one in list building. If your list can kill lost of Tactical Marines, it has passed one of the test of a good list.
Guardians, whilst one of the games’ better Troops choices, are Bog Standard for their Codex.
Corsairs are Elite compared to Guardians, as they have a greater variety of equipment and options. You can spec them into a specific role, or hedge your bets and make them a bit of a Swiss Army Knife unit.
You then have Voidscarred Corsairs, who are a somewhat superior version of regular Corsairs
Does that mean any version of Corsair can walk up to a Custard, call him a big shiny knob and walk away from it? No. But within their list and own background, they are elite light-medium infantry.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I have the feeling that by Bretons definition anything that wins is elite.
Actually no - My definition is that in the theoretical world of 40K tabletop nothing is necessarily elite. Anything that is "elite" is likely a transitory problem with the game/unit/etc design - I'm assuming you're talking about the Grots vs Knight example. Grots are elite there, and it's a mostly design flaw with the Knights- they're not really designed for a 500 point Patrol game. at 2K things change because 4-6 knights can contest more than 1 Objective at a time - the Knight being stuck with 1 objective at a time and unable to shoot the grots off the board in 5 turns is what made it possible for them to ignore the knight.
I think a lot of people get caught up in a cosmetic difference like number of bases per unit/army/etc. but my point is exactly that - those differences are cosmetic. 20 wounds on 10 bases for 200 points isn't that far afield from 20 wounds on 20 bases for 200 points when all the tradeoffs balance out. Take the cosmetics out - Put a literal bucket on the table. The bucket has approximately 30 medium range medium strength shots and 20 wounds with the number of shots degrading in relation to the number of wounds for 200 points. Is the bucket elite? Is the bucket Space Marines or Guardians? Does it make a difference?
My definition says the whole force (not just one arbitrary model vs 1 arbitrary model needs to be considered too: Say there's an IMPERIUM unit of zealots they get 2 shots, cost about 2 ppm, but only hit on 7's (meaning they never hit without a bonus to hit which they don't have). Their special rule is any 1 to hit that gets rerolled causes a mortal wound on their target and that attack sequence ends. They have no native access to reroll 1's. Are they elite? When there's 100 of them standing next to Guilliman who gives all Imperium Re-roll ones? They're probably extremely broken as that's about 30 Mortal Wounds per shooting phase. I've tried to make this point before with Poxwalker/Terminator lists that were real and tournament winning but it went unacknowledged - perhaps this more extreme but ficticious example will help.
So the Red Army in WW2 was elite because it made the largest contribution to winning that war. The north- vietnamese army because it successfully defended against the US invasion. The Persians at the Thermopylae because unlike what 300 says they won and destroyed the opposition.
All these examples are also cases of superiority in numbers and victories with far higher losses than the other side, so... they're not really examples usually seen as "elite" armies...
I don't know, we don't have points costs for Tigers, T-34s, or M4 Shermans. Those conflicts weren't scenarios played on a tabletop with equal points - where point-for-point units/forces are then relatively equalized on a side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Breton, for the benefit of all, can you quote the posters who use your definition?
Dudeface and I, at a minimum, can't find any.
They just need to be Elite within their own ranks.
Space Marines of course are in theory all elite (note the lower case e). But Terminators are their Elite (note the capital E).
Right now? Terminators just aren’t earning that capital E. At all.
To me, an Elite unit should take a disproportionate amount of your opponents resources to deal with. And the loss of them should be felt across your army.
Whether that’s from loss of unique abilities or a buff bubble, or sheer hitting power. I should be choosing them because they’re hard, and somewhat points efficient.
Perks they should enjoy include (but not necessarily manifest all) being tougher and hitting harder.
If we turn to 2nd Editon Terminators? They had the second best Infantry Small Arm, one of the best Infantry HTH weapons, incredible armour, and their upgrades were Even Better Weapons. Downside was they were slow moving, and their high points. But when you deployed them, your opponent had to react. Either by playing Keep Away, or taking them out somehow.
Right now they’re a shadow of their former selves. They just don’t feel special.
Because they aren't. A terminator shouldn't be better than a Lychguard, wraith construct, Custodian, kastellan robot, Crisis suit or meganob. The game has moved on from terminators. That being said since 8th edition terminators actually aren't that bad anymore due to their additional wounds and improved CC rules.
Terminators should be interesting in a Boarding Actions game where they can't easily be shot off the board and where walkers to stomp them are rare.
To be elite, something has to be better than what it's being compared to, in general. It doesn't have to be superior in every way (for instance, a Deathshroud Terminator is more elite than a Dark Eldar Kabalite Warrior, despite the Warrior having significantly better movement) but it should be, taken as the whole, better than its less-elite counterpart.
This does mean normally elite models or units can be considered not so impressive relative to others-a Custodian Guard is, generally, an elite model. But it's not so much compared to a full-blown Knight.
This does mean normally elite models or units can be considered not so impressive relative to others - like when they can flat out ignore the not currently impressive model.
The earilier invitation is open to you as well. Make the plan where the Knight wins. Or can do anything but lower the rate at which the grots win by ignoring him.
Absolutely irrelevant to my and everyone else's point. Elite doesn't have to do with win rate.
While I'm looking forward to you explaining how Better Than doesn't result in Win Rate - once again you're being dishonest. I didn't mention "win rate". I suggested you try and win the one scenario or slow down the speed at which the Grots scored compared to the knight such that the grots even had to pay attention to the knight.
Even by JNAProductions's definition - To be elite, something has to be better than what it's being compared to, in general. - the Grots are elite.
No. Individually, the grots aren't better than anything, ergo they're not elite. Collectively outmatching anything doesn't make them elite, that's not the definition of elite.
How many times are you going to argue with the Dictionary?
The Dictionary Again wrote:
a
singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM
the elite of the entertainment world
b
singular or plural in construction : the best of a class
d
: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
I've laid out a rationale and support for why they are. You've laid out... a round about version of "because I said so" and some insults. I get it, you go with the best argument you've got and apparently yours is "Nah Uh" and insults. Oh and lying about "literally everyone" when there are some even in this thread who had said similar to what I have.
Nobody has opinions about this concept that match yours, because you're specifically very wrong about both the English language and 40k.
You've been wrong about the definition of elite how many times so far this post?
Take the Knight's position and do anything more than slowing down how fast the Grots get the VP. In an edition where it was all kill points, you'd be right. In an edition that doesn't value model count instead of points value of the unit you might be right. But this example takes advantage of two quirks of the game to flip the script. The knight is TOO elite, and the model count thing. But that's the environment where things are rated in.
Oh, so you admit the knight is more elite than the grots?
No- as I've pointed out SEVERAL times a Knight is more "elite" than A grot, but a 500 point 100 grots army is more elite than the 1 knight 500 point army.
Secondly, did you just admit the grots were Elite? I mean if the Knight is MORE elite, the grots are then at least SOME elite, right? Man first the dictionary, and now the English language. Bad day for you.
alextroy wrote: I think the vast majority of us can agree, in WH40K context, that elite means:
A unit superior to its peers
You may not realize it, but you're getting awfully close to my point. If a two hundred point Tactical Squad and a two hundred point Guardian squad are balanced and a 2000 point SM army vs a 2,000 point Aeldari army is balanced: Which is superior?
An army made up of relatively fewer Infantry models due to those models being of higher than average quality
Proper: One of the Battlefield Roles
If you can't agree to this, you are outside the norm on what "being elite" is considered to be in game context.
Bandwagon appeal aside - What makes having fewer models elite? Do you still have 2,000 points? If I put a small but appropriate footprint and height coffee cup on the table instead of based models, but otherwise follow the exact same rules as my unit (losing shots as I lose wounds, etc), is my cup elite because there's only one of them? What if I give it window dressing and put some counters on the cup to represent the wounds it has left but it's still just the one "base"? What if I call this coffee cup an Apocalypse "movement tray" and the "counters" are "models" that only leave the base during the game acting as wound counters? Units are locked in. One Grot or one Terminator can't decide to leave his unit and go off on his own. Abstracts, Forest For the Trees, amorphous representational buckets on the table - pic your reasoning/analogy. Model Count in point-for-point is - until you get to extremes - window dressing.
For example, 500 Grots, no matter how well they can win a game, will never be elite by any definition common game parlance.
On the other hand, Tactical Marines can be considered to be an elite unit in the broader context of the game. They might not be good, but they have a better stat block than most Infantry units in the game. However, they do have the issue of that stat block being the most targeted one in list building. If your list can kill lost of Tactical Marines, it has passed one of the test of a good list.
You never answered my question, Breton. Why are you using the noun version of elite, and not the adjective? When people describe things as elite, they're not complaining about The Elite as a class. They're saying that something is individually better than the average, or if they're more elite, individually better than another unit.
For our benefit, can you tell us what you'd define as an elite army in any wargame? I'd go with a lower model count and more individually powerful models.
Though, I am genuinely convinced that you're screwing with us.
I don’t think folk are taking Ubiquity into account.
Grots are Grots are Grots. Unless they’re stuffed in a Kan, or manning (Grotting?) Mek Guns.
But the ‘Orrid Little Blighters, as a squad choice, are Just Grots. They have cack stats, cack guns, and can barely fight. Yes you get enough of them and they can make a mess, but the odds are firmly against you.
A Space Marine Tactical Squad however? Well, that unit has options for ubiquity. A 10 strong squad with Lascannon, Meltagun, Plasma Pistol and Powerfist on a Vet Sarge? Now that’s a unit which is a credible threat to anything in the game - and quite capable of punching above its weight with just a bit of luck. And thanks to T4, W2 and 3+ Save, whilst far from indestructible, they’re a good deal more resilient than equal points in Grots.
How they’re pointed for the game itself takes into account that ubiquity, and how they slot into the rest of their army.
Equal points of Grots against an Imperial Knight? My money is on the Knight every single time. Yes statistically the Grots can tip the Knight (thanks, 8th and 9th Ed!), but maths remain firmly in the Knight’s favour.
The very fact that you are saying you would need 500 points of grots to beat the knight (and not even beating it, just scoring points), is evidence enough that the grots are not, and never will be, elite.
Grots are, on paper, one of the worst units in the game and deliberately so. The only reason they get taken is because they are small, cheap models and thus are better suited to camping on objectives in cover than anything physically larger that doesn't have a defensive profile that allows them to ignore the fire they're taking.
"Good at sitting on an objective" isn't a measure of making something elite in this game. Otherwise your squads of naked guardsmen and ripper swarms are also elite. Which is nonsense.
Even then, their role as Objective Campers makes more sense in the context of your wider army, as your Boyz want to be closing the range and giving the enemy some boot levver, not holding back and lurking.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: You never answered my question, Breton. Why are you using the noun version of elite, and not the adjective?
Sorry, I didn't see your question - the answer is: They're not really any different. Another Circular Logic defintion of Elite because Elite - and They're Better.
of, relating to, serving, or being part of an elite
seeking to attain elite status
an elite group
an elite institution/school
often : superior in quality, rank, skill, etc.
an elite performer
an elite athlete
an athlete with elite skills
The elite chess players of today are of no school. They hail from all over the world …
—Garry Kasparov
When people describe things as elite, they're not complaining about The Elite as a class. They're saying that something is individually better than the average, or if they're more elite, individually better than another unit.
For our benefit, can you tell us what you'd define as an elite army in any wargame? I'd go with a lower model count and more individually powerful models.
I assume you mean one structured like 40K with balanced overall forces in a semi-competitive+ entertainment setting? Same answer. None. It it's balanced A isn't better than B - outside of extremes or specialization mismatch which is another version of extremes.
Though, I am genuinely convinced that you're screwing with us.
Not at all. I'm not telling other people what to believe. Others are telling me. I keep in mind that the models are abstracts, that a bad unit can be made good when paired with another one, or another bad unit just can't be made good no matter what (which is a balance/design issue not an eliteness issue) that model count is window dressing in this abstraction, and 200 points is 200 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Afrodactyl wrote: The very fact that you are saying you would need 500 points of grots to beat the knight (and not even beating it, just scoring points), is evidence enough that the grots are not, and never will be, elite.
That's not really what I said though. I said that a 500 point army with 100 grots and a warboss could flat out ignore a 500 point One Knight army. That the Knight couldn't do anything to alter their game plan, nor could the knight table their opponent in 5 turns so they had no chance - which fulfills most definitions of elite that have been bandied about. Until people realized that meant Grots became elite. Then there was a flurry of moving goal posts.
Grots are, on paper, one of the worst units in the game and deliberately so.
That was kind of the point of the example. And Knights are one of the "elite-est" units on paper. One of the biggest beefiest units. And Deliberately so. Yet the 100 grot army is better than the 1 Knight army at 500 points. So in the sliding scale of elite - is everything elite, or is nothing elite? I've been saying nothing, but I suppose if you flip the view the right way you could be equally correct and say everything is.
The only reason they get taken is because they are small, cheap models and thus are better suited to camping on objectives in cover than anything physically larger that doesn't have a defensive profile that allows them to ignore the fire they're taking.
"Good at sitting on an objective" isn't a measure of making something elite in this game. Otherwise your squads of naked guardsmen and ripper swarms are also elite. Which is nonsense.
I haven't done the math. Its entirely possible basic guardsmen can make the same play but I can't say for sure. I suspect they may be JUST a little too many PPM though.
With a little help from Battleshock, the Knight should be able to deal with the Grots quite messily over the course of a game. Whereas yes the Grots could go Knight Tipping, the odds are super, super long by direct comparison.
I’ll again make my appeal to ubiquity here.
100 Grots can camp objectives. Yes. But they’re barely capable of much more.
The Knight can camp one objective. If we stop there, yes the Grots can achieve more, as assuming 5 mobs of 20, they can camp multiple objectives. But the Knight has far superior offensive and defensive capabilities. It can start knocking holes in the Horde O’Grots from turn one. If the Grots are obliging enough to neatly line up for a good kicking, the Knight has a pretty decent chance of wiping out all 100 over the course of a 6 turn games, with precious little risk to itself.
I'm not sure what you mean by ubiquity here and below.
Grots are Grots are Grots. Unless they’re stuffed in a Kan, or manning (Grotting?) Mek Guns.
But the ‘Orrid Little Blighters, as a squad choice, are Just Grots. They have cack stats, cack guns, and can barely fight. Yes you get enough of them and they can make a mess, but the odds are firmly against you.
A Space Marine Tactical Squad however? Well, that unit has options for ubiquity. A 10 strong squad with Lascannon, Meltagun, Plasma Pistol and Powerfist on a Vet Sarge? Now that’s a unit which is a credible threat to anything in the game - and quite capable of punching above its weight with just a bit of luck. And thanks to T4, W2 and 3+ Save, whilst far from indestructible, they’re a good deal more resilient than equal points in Grots.
That's one reason why I switch it up in the sliding scale to Guardians. Your 200 point Tactical Squad vs 2 100 point Guardian/Storm Guardian Squads even out fairly well. Probably extremely well when the Marine Wargear Upgrade/Points Drop beta test is over one way or the other.
How they’re pointed for the game itself takes into account that ubiquity, and how they slot into the rest of their army.
Equal points of Grots against an Imperial Knight? My money is on the Knight every single time. Yes statistically the Grots can tip the Knight (thanks, 8th and 9th Ed!), but maths remain firmly in the Knight’s favour.
I'm not sure that's true. I didn't math hammer the whole thing out - as soon as I figured out it wouldn't average enough hits, let alone wounds, per turn in a five turn game I stopped - but even before cover and what few armor saves they'd get - One Knight can't sit on more than one Objective, and can't shoot the Grot army off the board.
The main adjective definition you focused on was "part of the elite class," so you just doubled down on elite as a class. Someone being elite, not as a class, is what we're talking about. Something, as the only non elite as a class adjective says, that means:
often : superior in quality, rank, skill, etc.
Tell me, how is a grot superior in any way relating to quality, rank, or skill? None of the examples include the fact that there's a lot of them. An elite swordsman (real life, here) is still an elite swordsman if he's surrounded and attacked by many less elite swordsmen. The group are not now more elite than the singular swordsman.
Breton wrote: That's one reason why I switch it up in the sliding scale to Guardians. Your 200 point Tactical Squad vs 2 100 point Guardian/Storm Guardian Squads even out fairly well. Probably extremely well when the Marine Wargear Upgrade/Points Drop beta test is over one way or the other.
Ah. But look at the numbers of troops there.
In the same hypothetical, the Marines are, head for head, superior infantry to Guardians.
Point limits are there to keep armies roughly even - not the individual models.
When I say 'Grots' I actually mean Ghazghkull because I like making up my own definitions for words that nobody else shares, and then passionately arguing according to my own definitions no matter how irrelevant it has become to the thread.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The main adjective definition you focused on was "part of the elite class," so you just doubled down on elite as a class. Someone being elite, not as a class, is what we're talking about. Something, as the only
No, I wouldn't have focused on a circular defintition like that. Its circular - and points to the nouns you objected to. Something is considered elite because it's part of THE elite.
non elite as a class adjective says, that means:
often : superior in quality, rank, skill, etc.
Tell me, how is a grot superior in any way relating to quality, rank, or skill? None of the examples include the fact that there's a lot of them. An elite swordsman (real life, here) is still an elite swordsman if he's surrounded and attacked by many less elite swordsmen. The group are not now more elite than the singular swordsman.
Again, The Grot is not. The Grots are. At least at 500 points.
Breton wrote: That's one reason why I switch it up in the sliding scale to Guardians. Your 200 point Tactical Squad vs 2 100 point Guardian/Storm Guardian Squads even out fairly well. Probably extremely well when the Marine Wargear Upgrade/Points Drop beta test is over one way or the other.
Ah. But look at the numbers of troops there.
In the same hypothetical, the Marines are, head for head, superior infantry to Guardians.
Point limits are there to keep armies roughly even - not the individual models.
We don't buy models by the head on the tabletop, we buy models by the point. In the fluff, sure a Marine is elite compared to a guardian. Ironically the difference in the fluff between one marine and one guardian is less than on the tabletop, and I think the fluff is where most people are locked into the 1v1 thing - but the OP was specific about it being on the tabletop.
Breton wrote: That's one reason why I switch it up in the sliding scale to Guardians. Your 200 point Tactical Squad vs 2 100 point Guardian/Storm Guardian Squads even out fairly well. Probably extremely well when the Marine Wargear Upgrade/Points Drop beta test is over one way or the other.
Ah. But look at the numbers of troops there.
In the same hypothetical, the Marines are, head for head, superior infantry to Guardians.
Point limits are there to keep armies roughly even - not the individual models.
We don't buy models by the head on the tabletop, we buy models by the point. In the fluff, sure a Marine is elite compared to a guardian. Ironically the difference in the fluff between one marine and one guardian is less than on the tabletop, and I think the fluff is where most people are locked into the 1v1 thing - but the OP was specific about it being on the tabletop.
Ermm, you do buy them by the head. How many marines do I get for 63 points?
100 swordsmen are not elite, just because they can beat Muhammad Ali. I'm not going to continue with this discussion. I don't even understand the point in arguing for a definition that no one will use, unless you are explicitly trolling. Even if you use that definition, definitions require context. None of yours match the context. The context is wargaming, with armies that are equivalently matched, as per the army building system. Your definition makes no sense, and is useless in this context. An elite model or unit is not suddenly less elite just because a horde of lesser models attack it. A lesser model does not become elite by being in a horde.
Grots are good at objective camping. They’re woefully inefficient at everything else (short ranged, poor fighting potential).
Knights are a bit crap at objective camping. But they can shoot or fight a great many things straight off the field. They’re resistant to every weapon, thanks to high Toughness, plentiful Wounds, Good Armour and an Invulnerable save.
The Knignt has ubiquity, as I can rely on it to achieve more tasks than I can rely on Grots to do the same. And not just in terms of general battle plan. It can be targets of opportunity, such as a tank left in a poor position, an enemy Commander I can go jump and down on etc etc.
I think the entire discussion of what makes something elite is fairly moot, and serves very little point over interesting game discussion here.
Since even if you try and narrow the definition it’s still fairly arbitrary what fits and what isn’t.
Guardians are for the most part elite, in that Craftworlds wouldn’t be sending untrained Eldar into battle without good support and technology.
It’s really just the weirdness of 40k and rules that make it even come up I feel.
I don’t really think I ever encounter a conversation like this in any other game.
I mean, in Infinity, I'd consider Heavy Infantry elite, but they have their own term. Heavy Infantry. If someone asked what made something elite in Infinity, it depends. An elite hacker is something like the Nomads Interventors and Mary Problems. An elite TAG is the Avatar. Discussing whether or not something is elite is useless at the tabletop, unless you're looking to run an elite army, but it does matter to some people. I like running an elite PanO army, Military Orders, and using just knights.
I suppose I was too subtle. It depends on the Marine - but you're still buying them with points as is made obvious by the "for 63 points" part.
I'm buying a number of heads with points. The two are not completely seperable.
Model headcount is the resource, points are the currency. If it is low headcount and higher points, you may ascertain there is a scarcity combined with an increase in raw ability. You might suggest it makes them more elite.
I think some of my comments as a Grumpy Old Git in another thread may have set off this debacle.
If I’m right (I’m probably not. That’s increasingly common these days. Damn kids 🤣🤣) it’s my Curmudgeonly Memory of when Space Marine Terminators and Dreadnoughts were a popular, if cash and points intensive, choice to shore up your battle line. And how since the demise of 2nd Ed, no Space Marine Elite unit has particularly distinguished itself in quite the same way.
2nd Ed Terminators could, depending on loadout, out shoot, out fight or plain old out endure pretty much anything.
Whilst never invincible, it took an actual plan to deal with them.
Then it went all Wibbly. Both the thread and Terminators.
Breton wrote: I think a lot of people get caught up in a cosmetic difference like number of bases per unit/army/etc. but my point is exactly that - those differences are cosmetic. 20 wounds on 10 bases for 200 points isn't that far afield from 20 wounds on 20 bases for 200 points when all the tradeoffs balance out. Take the cosmetics out - Put a literal bucket on the table. The bucket has approximately 30 medium range medium strength shots and 20 wounds with the number of shots degrading in relation to the number of wounds for 200 points. Is the bucket elite? Is the bucket Space Marines or Guardians? Does it make a difference?
Those differences are not cosmetic, because we're talking about how armies "feel" and so on. I guess that's a bit much for you.
Breton wrote: No you're just misrepresenting why they're capitalized to avoid the definition.
I don't have to avoid the definition.
You are doing both of those things.
Breton wrote: Singularly the Grot is not elite compared to the Knight Collectively (Plural) a bucket of 100 grots is elite compared to a knight.
That's not what it means when it says "plural" in construction. It means you can use it in a plural context grammatically, it says nothing about its meaning.
Breton wrote: The definition you're about to trip over again a little further down.
That's cool, that's not the definition the OP of this thread used, so you're in the wrong. The fact that the board culture on dakka encourages your kind of bad-faith argumentation and inane disrespect is on the mods, more than anything else.
Breton wrote: This does mean normally elite models or units can be considered not so impressive relative to others - like when they can flat out ignore the not currently impressive model.
Irrelevant. Numbers count. If it takes 500 grots to beat a Knight, those Grots are not elite, they are drowning the Knight in weight of numbers.
Breton wrote: No- as I've pointed out SEVERAL times a Knight is more "elite" than A grot, but a 500 point 100 grots army is more elite than the 1 knight 500 point army.
That's not how elite is used, and it's not how OP used elite. For the grots to be elite over the Knight individual grots would have to have greater capabilities or abilities than the knight.
I will say my definition is not meant as the be-all end-all definition.
I've seen other definitions in this thread that are different from the one I gave, but fit with general usage of the term. The definitions shared similarities to mine, but did have key differences. (Too lazy to find the posts right now, but they're in this thread.)
Breton's definition is the only one I've seen that doesn't work with common usage.
2nd Ed Terminators could, depending on loadout, out shoot, out fight or plain old out endure pretty much anything.
Ehh . . . Those Banshees and Genestealers would do a pretty good number on them in combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: I think the entire discussion of what makes something elite is fairly moot, and serves very little point over interesting game discussion here.
Since even if you try and narrow the definition it’s still fairly arbitrary what fits and what isn’t.
Guardians are for the most part elite, in that Craftworlds wouldn’t be sending untrained Eldar into battle without good support and technology.
It’s really just the weirdness of 40k and rules that make it even come up I feel.
I don’t really think I ever encounter a conversation like this in any other game.
There's focus on it because of Space Marines, which are "sold" as "elite" but often don't feel elite. . . namely because they're intended to be elite against Guardsmen, Guardians and Orks, and what they fight against on the table is a tank company's worth of often-anti-MEQ firepower.
Yes certain units could handily dispatch my Terminators in 2nd Ed.
But the two examples given (Bumshees and Genesquealers) couldn’t out shoot or our endure Terminators.
Both were solid counters - and all three are Elite within their army.
From hence 2nd Ed’s curious balance was derived.
I honestly have difficulty deriving that from your post. But if the idea is that they were top-if-the-line generalists, yes that's true. But I'd also argue that carried into 3rd-4th at least.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehh . . . Those Banshees and Genestealers would do a pretty good number on them in combat.
Not necessarily. As the Doc pointed out, it depended on the loadout. It also depended on the tactical situation - if the Banshees get charged, they're chutney. A terminator with a cyclone or assault cannon could mulch a whole squad of either and then take a smoke break.
Which is why they were elite.
There's a weird dynamic going on which reminds me of Stratego. The Field Marshal is the most powerful figure in the game. He defeats every other rank other than his peer. He is elite.
The Spy beats the Field Marshal. Super-elite! Well, other than the fact that it loses to every single model that attacks it, and only beats the Field Marshal if it strikes first.
So basically the grots can win this one weird mission type against a knight at a points value no one would ever run. Not sure what words I'd used to describe that scenario ("contrived" comes to mind) but it wouldn't be "elite."
Insectum7 wrote: Ehh . . . Those Banshees and Genestealers would do a pretty good number on them in combat.
Not necessarily. As the Doc pointed out, it depended on the loadout. It also depended on the tactical situation - if the Banshees get charged, they're chutney. A terminator with a cyclone or assault cannon could mulch a whole squad of either and then take a smoke break.
Which is why they were elite.
It would be a rare event indeed if Genestealers or Banshees got charged by Terminators.
I'm not disputing the fact that they were elite. I'm just saying there were also units that could eat their lunch. But yes, the rule is punch the shooty and shoot the punchy. It's the traditional Marine position in terms of balance.
But if "depending on loadout" is referring to Thunder Hammer and Lightning Claws squads, those guys aren't outshooting anything.
Tyran wrote: Genestealers are the 6th cheapest model in a codex with around 40 units. They aren't really elites if we are using the numbers argument.
Yeah. Its sort of building on Insectums idea that people don't run the sub-Marine units. Which I don't think is quite right - but true in numbers. People don't bring whole armies of them - they just bring a few units and bulk out onf the rest.
Unless you are avoiding bringing your own characters, vehicles, monsters, Terminator equivalents, bikers etc - then you are probably going to have a lot of stuff that's bigger and nastier than a tactical marine.
Which is also the meta issue. "Everyone always tailors into Marines" - well, maybe, but at this point, because most people aren't running 150 Boyz, or 200 Termagants etc, they are kind of tailoring into most things.
alextroy wrote: I think the vast majority of us can agree, in WH40K context, that elite means:
A unit superior to its peers
You may not realize it, but you're getting awfully close to my point. If a two hundred point Tactical Squad and a two hundred point Guardian squad are balanced and a 2000 point SM army vs a 2,000 point Aeldari army is balanced: Which is superior?
You got me on that one. I should have said "A unit is superior in quality to units of the same size". 20 Guardians with 2 Platforms may be better than 10 Tactical Marines, but they are not elite in comparison.
An army made up of relatively fewer Infantry models due to those models being of higher than average quality
Proper: One of the Battlefield Roles
If you can't agree to this, you are outside the norm on what "being elite" is considered to be in game context.
Bandwagon appeal aside - What makes having fewer models elite?
You mean beyond the fact that elite means of better quality and generally speaking have a model of less models means those models are highly likely to be of better quality?
Do you still have 2,000 points?
Yes and completely irrelevant. You don't have a more elite army by having much more points. You have a more elite army by having better quality of models in that army. As a general rule, if you have less models than me, yours should be of better quality if we have the same number of points in our armies.
If I put a small but appropriate footprint and height coffee cup on the table instead of based models, but otherwise follow the exact same rules as my unit (losing shots as I lose wounds, etc), is my cup elite because there's only one of them? What if I give it window dressing and put some counters on the cup to represent the wounds it has left but it's still just the one "base"? What if I call this coffee cup an Apocalypse "movement tray" and the "counters" are "models" that only leave the base during the game acting as wound counters? Units are locked in. One Grot or one Terminator can't decide to leave his unit and go off on his own. Abstracts, Forest For the Trees, amorphous representational buckets on the table - pic your reasoning/analogy. Model Count in point-for-point is - until you get to extremes - window dressing.
In a non-game context, you can go to the grocery store and buy $5 of dairy (your army). You end up with a lot more volume of dairy of you buy milk, as compared to cream, as compared to butter. The butter is more elite than the milk
) are ignorant of the fact that in 
- though desultory fire has long and often been the hard counter to the expensive prized units. One of the best ways to kill Terminators in 3rd was a mountain of flashlights.
Both the Orks and 
