Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GEQ-Guard Equivalent
T3 W1 5+

MEQ-Marine Equivalent
T4 W2 3+

TEQ-Terminator Equivalent
T5 W3 2+/4++

Arguably, you could add a Gravis Equivalent, at T6 W3 3+, but that would ALSO be GEQ, unless made into GrEQ, which just feels weird.

But, there's reasonable discussion to be had about how far from a profile you can drift before it stops being appropriate to use the term.

A Daemonette (T3 W1 5++) feels pretty reasonable to call a GEQ. Against anything AP0, they're the same. It would behoove someone referring to them as GEQ to state that they've invulns instead of armor, but I don't think it'd be unreasonable.

I feel like you have to stay a little closer to MEQ, due to their ubiquity. Despite T4 W3 3+ being a somewhat common profile, I wouldn't consider that something to call MEQ without caveats-in no small part because the usual suspects for taking out MEQ (Plasma, Heavy Bolters, really anything that's D2) become much less effective into a W3 MEQ.

TEQ, I think, can reasonably include baseline Custodes (T6 W3 2+/4++) unless you're talking about Guard or other factions with a lot of S3. T5->T6 often doesn't matter much, like with S4, but when you're S3 and going to T6 halves your wound rate, it matters.

Also, I remember people bandying about a REQ (Rhino Equivalent) back in 8th and 9th. Would that be common enough to be worth naming?

Personally, I'd say the barrier would be a ~1 point difference across 1-2 stats. Honorable mention for the presence/absence of a Key Feature (eg, TEQs should probably have an invuln or similar non-armor-based save). Given the historical ranges for stats, going over a point or two of difference seems like it would end up pulling too many nonequivalent units, negating the whole point of making an _EQ categorization.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Personally, I'd say the barrier would be a ~1 point difference across 1-2 stats. Honorable mention for the presence/absence of a Key Feature (eg, TEQs should probably have an invuln or similar non-armor-based save). Given the historical ranges for stats, going over a point or two of difference seems like it would end up pulling too many nonequivalent units, negating the whole point of making an _EQ categorization.

I did do some more thinking, and I think part of the EQ classification should be based on how different the weapons you want to use are.

A W3 MEQ is literally twice as durable into the D2 weapons used to best kill ordinary MEQ. So, while you can still use the shorthand to indicate T4 and 3+, you should always clarify that they've got an extra wound.
Whereas, if you're dealing with Bolters and other S4 weapons specifically, there's not actually any durability difference between a TEQ and a Death Guard Blightlord Terminator, despite the latter having +2 Toughness.

Personally:

I use "meq" pretty frequently, and generally use it to refer to something that's T4 with a 3+ save and probably W2. It's a common profile and one which interacts pretty differently with various weapons if you change it much (like the W3 vs D2 example). It's a common enough statline to be a useful term.

I sometimes use "geq," but the specifics of the armor save vary enough from one unit in this category to the next that I'm more likely to say something like "horde units" or "light infantry" or "squishy infantry." Pretty sure cultists have worse saves than guardsmen these days, for instance.

I don't really use the term "teq" very often these days because while there are lots of different kinds of heavily armored infantry out there, their statlines tend to be less uniform than when I say "meq" or "geq", and those differences can significantly impact how you handle them efficiently. And terminators specifically tend to have some kind of special rule that manipulates the wound roll or AP or whatever in a way that makes talking about how to handle them even harder to do with general terms. The ways I handle gravis marines, death wing terminators, grey knight terminators, custodes, and hearthkin can vary a fair bit even though they're all, broadly, heavily armored infantry.

When I do want to refer to that general type of unit, I usually say something like "chonky boys" or "heavy infantry."

"FEQ" (fire warrior equivalent) is a term that I should probably use more often, but T3 "elite" infantry tends to vary in terms of saves a fair bit. Like, striking scorpions and sisters of battle are similar enough to put in the same bucket, and dire avengers/fire warriors can go in the same bucket, but I probably wouldn't put avengers and scorpions in the same bucket despite how similar their stats are because 4+/5++ vs 3+/5++ is a heck of a difference in terms of how much punishment they can take.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Personally, I'd say the barrier would be a ~1 point difference across 1-2 stats. Honorable mention for the presence/absence of a Key Feature (eg, TEQs should probably have an invuln or similar non-armor-based save). Given the historical ranges for stats, going over a point or two of difference seems like it would end up pulling too many nonequivalent units, negating the whole point of making an _EQ categorization.

I think this sums it up. Addressing the elephant in the room there is no equivalency between a chaos spawn and a terminator.

Surely it has to depend upon the prevalence of armour modifiers worth a damn?

2+/4++ isn’t as tasty if -2 safe mods are commonplace.

2+/4++ is much nastier to deal with if most small armours have 0 save modifier.

Likewise damage ratings.

If most of the infantry weapons you’ll ever face hover around S4, Sv0 D1? Terminators are going to stick around much longer than if they’re regularly facing S4, Sv-1, D1 and so on and so forth.

Then there’s your own offensive capability. Storm Bolters and Powerfists are your classic loadout. Against the more basic units in the game? Even point for point it’s going to be a pretty one sided fight in favour of the Terminators, because shooting or punching? They’ve got the edge in sheer power.

The Powerfists also make them a universal threat. Granted, they’re less likely to walk away hale and healthy from a fight against a Character or Dreadnought etc. But they’ve a solid chance all the same, even if they don’t necessarily survive in turn.

They’re just kinda anti-everything. Not an outright Delete Bothersome Unit button, sure. But still a unit which serves a lynchpin role. They require special attention to deal with, which in itself is a massive boon, as it in some way allows you to better control the flow of the battle.

Warning, long post. TL;DR is defensive profiles aren't as easily categorized as they were in the past. Selecting the right target is a skill you need to learn in order to succeed, comparing everything to marines doesn't cut it anymore.

 JNAProductions wrote:
GEQ-Guard Equivalent
T3 W1 5+

MEQ-Marine Equivalent
T4 W2 3+

TEQ-Terminator Equivalent
T5 W3 2+/4++

Arguably, you could add a Gravis Equivalent, at T6 W3 3+, but that would ALSO be GEQ, unless made into GrEQ, which just feels weird.

Tyranid Warrior Equivalent

In general gravis isn't the poster child for heavy infantry with 3 wounds that many armies have gotten access to in recent years which sits between MEQ and TEQ. Quite a few tactical channels use eightbounds as example, because everyone is fething terrified of those hitting their ranks. EEQ?

In general, these terms are quite dated as they don't really fit the multitude of defensive and offensive profiles of modern 40k.

But, there's reasonable discussion to be had about how far from a profile you can drift before it stops being appropriate to use the term.

A Daemonette (T3 W1 5++) feels pretty reasonable to call a GEQ. Against anything AP0, they're the same. It would behoove someone referring to them as GEQ to state that they've invulns instead of armor, but I don't think it'd be unreasonable.

I feel like you have to stay a little closer to MEQ, due to their ubiquity. Despite T4 W3 3+ being a somewhat common profile, I wouldn't consider that something to call MEQ without caveats-in no small part because the usual suspects for taking out MEQ (Plasma, Heavy Bolters, really anything that's D2) become much less effective into a W3 MEQ.

TEQ, I think, can reasonably include baseline Custodes (T6 W3 2+/4++) unless you're talking about Guard or other factions with a lot of S3. T5->T6 often doesn't matter much, like with S4, but when you're S3 and going to T6 halves your wound rate, it matters.

It think the most defining thing about those defensive profiles is what weapons are efficient at killing them.
Guardsmen, daemonettes, poxwalkers, gretchin, gaunts all die reasonably well to simple bolter fire and chainswords, despite having vastly different profiles. Cheap/secondary weapons or low strength blasts without AP just massacre these guys.

They are different from aspect warriors, immortals, beastsnagga boyz or sisters, as they will take casualties from such weapons, but not get wiped out without some effort.

Marines, nobz, tank bustas, thunderkyn, stealth suits all fall into the MEQ category. As you've correctly said, the most important things to wipe them out is AP-1 or better and two damage. Adding an extra wound definitely kicks you out of this category, every thing else doesn't really matter.
Ironically, once a unit goes up to four to six wounds, all those guns great for killing MEQ also become efficient at killing those models as well, dropping off sharply with the seventh wound.

The main difference between terminators and gravis/eightborn/wraiths is the save. 2+/4++ on three (or four!) wounds means that weight of attacks is not an option to handle that unit, and neither d6 damage anti-tank nor overcharged plasma will easily kill this unit. If you did not bring terminator-killing weaponry, you will seriously struggle to bring them down. Meanwhile gravis equivalent units are fairly durable but can be wittled down even if you didn't bring any weapons 3 damage and decent AP.
Your 3W T4 3+ unit definitely falls in the gravis category, weapons like rokkits or battlecannons would still splat them, but single damage weapons struggle to shifte the unit.
Note that most mounted units also fall in this category, due to dying to the same weapons.

While writing I noticed that I actually don't pay much mind to toughness when shooting infantry. I can't tell you precisely why that is the case, but unless I'm wounding on sixes, the choices I described above aren't impacted by the to wound roll. On the flip side, lethal hits rarely change whether a weapon is good at shooting a target, so there is that.

Also, I remember people bandying about a REQ (Rhino Equivalent) back in 8th and 9th. Would that be common enough to be worth naming?

Well, the rhino is more or less unusable outside of chaos legions, so it's not a good name that said, the defining parts of vehicles and monster is whether their toughness is 10 or higher (missiles and meltas wound on 5s), 12+ (most one shot-weapons are S12) and whether it has an invul or not to shrug off high AP shots (melta). Similar as with terminators, 2+ armor decides whether they shrug off small arms and horde melee or can be ground down with weight of attacks. You could split these into different classes of vehicles and tow sizeses walkers/monsters, but you are better off checking each of these qualities against the weapons your army is equipped with.

Last, but not least, there are a few units which fit none of these categories. They regularly trip up people when they encounter them because they don't understand how to kill them.