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.

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.

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.

Breton wrote:

What does Singularly or Collectively mean to you?

I know they're not proper nouns. I'm not capitalizing them and misunderstanding their definition.

Breton wrote:
A grot vs a Knight isn't elite sure, but 500 points of grots vs a knight IS elite.

No it's not. By what definition? Not the definitoon everyone else in the wargaming community uses.

Breton wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:

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?

Alternative explanation of elite:

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.

Indeed. If we consider CWE?

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.

 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.

Still waiting for this as apparently I'm lying about the state of this thread elsewhere with my weak arguments.

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.

Here's one:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Possibly trite?]

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:

What does Singularly or Collectively mean to you?

I know they're not proper nouns. I'm not capitalizing them and misunderstanding their definition.

No you're just misrepresenting why they're capitalized to avoid the definition.

The Dictionary wrote:singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM

Singularly the Grot is not elite compared to the Knight
Collectively (Plural) a bucket of 100 grots is elite compared to a knight.

Breton wrote:
A grot vs a Knight isn't elite sure, but 500 points of grots vs a knight IS elite.

No it's not. By what definition? Not the definitoon everyone else in the wargaming community uses.

The definition you're about to trip over again a little further down.

 JNAProductions wrote:


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.

Breton wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:

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

Breton wrote:

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?

Breton wrote:

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.

Make it stop.

Please. Make it stop.

 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.

I don’t agree 100 Grots are better than a Knight.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t think folk are taking Ubiquity into account.

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.

Grots are actually just as elite as Knights.

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.

The White Death wasn't an elite sniper, because the USSR throwing everything they could at him did eventually stop him.

 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.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

I'm not sure about the INFANTRY requirement, as that would mean Knights aren't elite and that IMHO seems weird.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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.

Breton, I’m really sorry but you’re just not making sense here.

Dudeface wrote:


Ermm, you do buy them by the head. How many marines do I get for 63 points?

for 63 points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Breton, I’m really sorry but you’re just not making sense here.

Yeah, we may have lost each other, I'm not sure what you meant by ubiquity either.