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.

So I've recently produced a blog post regarding the supposed weight of infantry in 40k.

In the modern context, 'Light, medium and heavy' don't really exist; The closest we come is the armament of squads, with things such as scouts and SAS being light infantry and things such as Anti-tank and Artillery being Heavy.

In 40k, however, weight of infantry is much more definable.
This can be seen in the way units not only take saves, but in the very way they work.

In my blog post I look at this particular issue, giving a rating system from "Ultralight" all the way to "Superheavy".

While this is a shameless plug for my own work, I'm curious to see what people have to say about weight definitions in 40k. Do you agree with my systems? Or should Lightly armoured guardsmen simply be light because we say they're light?

I'll go with a very simple definition:

Light infantry has little or no durability. For example, an IG vet squad is 10 T3/no save models and dies instantly if you attempt to kill it (outside of its transport). Light infantry may be able to hit hard, but it's a glass cannon.

Medium infantry has reasonable durability. You can't expect it to survive heavy fire, but you don't just pull the unit off as casualties the moment your opponent declares a shot against it. This covers anything with 4+ or 3+ armor saves (a tactical squad is obviously more durable than a fire warrior squad, but neither is really going to have much chance of surviving a determined attempt to kill it).

Heavy infantry has good durability. It still dies if your opponent really wants it dead, but you can expect it to survive anything less than a determined effort to kill it. For this a 2+ save is required, or at least a 3+ with FNP or some other defensive bonus.

Superheavy infantry doesn't exist in 40k, since all infantry is squishy if you hit it hard enough.

This really belongs in 40k discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'll go with a very simple definition:

Light infantry has little or no durability. For example, an IG vet squad is 10 T3/no save models and dies instantly if you attempt to kill it (outside of its transport). Light infantry may be able to hit hard, but it's a glass cannon.

Medium infantry has reasonable durability. You can't expect it to survive heavy fire, but you don't just pull the unit off as casualties the moment your opponent declares a shot against it. This covers anything with 4+ or 3+ armor saves (a tactical squad is obviously more durable than a fire warrior squad, but neither is really going to have much chance of surviving a determined attempt to kill it).

Heavy infantry has good durability. It still dies if your opponent really wants it dead, but you can expect it to survive anything less than a determined effort to kill it. For this a 2+ save is required, or at least a 3+ with FNP or some other defensive bonus.

Superheavy infantry doesn't exist in 40k, since all infantry is squishy if you hit it hard enough.

I don't agree with that, and I find it patronising.

You're leaving yourself with a very closed minded attitude that I don't think fits in the spirit of the game. Weight isn't simply limited to their armour; it can be their duties as well. A slow moving unit is as heavy as one that can take a hit.

I can't see how you can think that "a unit is squishy if you hit it hard enough". means 'no superheavy.' It takes more damage potentially to remove a "Superheavy" to make it "Squishy". It's not like "Superheavy" infantry in the real world wouldn't simply take more serious firepower to knock out.

That may stand as your point of view, but I don't think you can throw a blanket over it and say "this is the one and only way of definition." I think that's very wrong.

Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't agree with that, and I find it patronising.

So your response to anyone who posts categories that don't agree with yours is "patronizing"? Why did you post this on a forum if you aren't willing to accept disagreement?

You're leaving yourself with a very closed minded attitude that I don't think fits in the spirit of the game. Weight isn't simply limited to their armour; it can be their duties as well. A slow moving unit is as heavy as one that can take a hit.

Except in 40k there is no difference in movement speed. Everything moves 6" per turn unless it's in a vehicle, in which case it moves 0-18" depending on how it wants to use that vehicle (and it's the same across all vehicles). The only slight differences are in average charge range, with every unit having 2-12" charge range but some of them having an average result skewed to the higher or lower end of that range.

The only meaningful difference in unit "weight" is in how durable it is.

I can't see how you can think that "a unit is squishy if you hit it hard enough". means 'no superheavy.' It takes more damage potentially to remove a "Superheavy" to make it "Squishy". It's not like "Superheavy" infantry in the real world wouldn't simply take more serious firepower to knock out.

Because "superheavy" suggests some kind of invulnerable walking tank, while even TH/SS terminators go down fairly quickly. Some specific characters might push the limits of "heavy", but then you're not talking about units anymore.

That may stand as your point of view, but I don't think you can throw a blanket over it and say "this is the one and only way of definition." I think that's very wrong.

Sure I can. It's a common sense definition that covers the most useful differences between 40k infantry units in terms of "weight".

And of course I could say the same to you. What justification do YOU have for posting your categories? Why should we consider a complex set of arbitrary categories that don't seem to add anything that the unit rules themselves don't explain?

 Peregrine wrote:

So your response to anyone who posts categories that don't agree with yours is "patronizing"? Why did you post this on a forum if you aren't willing to accept disagreement?

Except in 40k there is no difference in movement speed. Everything moves 6" per turn unless it's in a vehicle, in which case it moves 0-18" depending on how it wants to use that vehicle (and it's the same across all vehicles). The only slight differences are in average charge range, with every unit having 2-12" charge range but some of them having an average result skewed to the higher or lower end of that range.

The only meaningful difference in unit "weight" is in how durable it is.

Because "superheavy" suggests some kind of invulnerable walking tank, while even TH/SS terminators go down fairly quickly. Some specific characters might push the limits of "heavy", but then you're not talking about units anymore.

Sure I can. It's a common sense definition that covers the most useful differences between 40k infantry units in terms of "weight".

And of course I could say the same to you. What justification do YOU have for posting your categories? Why should we consider a complex set of arbitrary categories that don't seem to add anything that the unit rules themselves don't explain?

Not to anyone who challenges a post, I'm trying to produce a refined (yes, more complex) system by which we can define these terms.

I find your taking this down to "Simple" patronising, like my efforts are stupid. (which, I suppose you may feel they are.)

Except in 40k there are huge differences between how units move. Sure this unit of guard with HWT can move as fast as those Assault terminators, but they probably won't, will they? I think that that has to be considered in deciding their value as troops. In the system I have, guard with HWT can't really get much above a very low medium score, which works for me. I view static guard as Medium infantry, since they don't have any light roles to fulfil.

Fast moving scout marine bikers on the other hand, are most definitely light - even though they're potentially much more survivable than your run of the mill scout marine or guardsman.

Because "Superheavy does" doesn't define what "superheavy infantry" does. "Super heavy vehicle" is not the same category as "superheavy infantry", is it?

That's true. Sure you can. But by the very nature of what you're making a case for, you're ignoring what I'm trying to suggest (Yes, that's how an argument should work, I suppose.) I'm not talking about just the amount of damage they can take. Assault terminators can take a horrendous amount of firepower (if armoured towards survival.) before they can go down - certainly more than much other infantry.

In my system there, I agree with you. Assault terminators make it only into Heavy infantry. But something with a potentially static and huge statline will probably make it all the way into superheavy. (Remember that in infantry I'm including everything with a wound characteristic. In this way, even monsters come to be "infantry" since I group them together as such. If you prefer, models with no AV may be a better descriptor.)

I have given reasons for my definitions. That's all in the blog post that I've already given. (I'm not going to repost it here, don't ask me to.)

Why do you wish to redefine the infantry categories? Is there some benefit you think this can provide?

Scipio Africanus wrote:
Not to anyone who challenges a post, I'm trying to produce a refined (yes, more complex) system by which we can define these terms.

But WHY are you trying to increase the complexity? Your system seems very much like a solution in need of a problem.

I find your taking this down to "Simple" patronising, like my efforts are stupid. (which, I suppose you may feel they are.)

You asked what systems of classification other people use. I use a simple system and I said so. If you want to consider that patronizing and complain about it, well, that's your problem.

Except in 40k there are huge differences between how units move. Sure this unit of guard with HWT can move as fast as those Assault terminators, but they probably won't, will they? I think that that has to be considered in deciding their value as troops. In the system I have, guard with HWT can't really get much above a very low medium score, which works for me. I view static guard as Medium infantry, since they don't have any light roles to fulfil.

Except it's still a binary answer though, you either move 0" because you're carrying a heavy weapon and don't have relentless, or you move 6". Unlike in other games there's no middle ground where some infantry move 4", some move 5", and some move 6".

Fast moving scout marine bikers on the other hand, are most definitely light - even though they're potentially much more survivable than your run of the mill scout marine or guardsman.

Ok, so we're including things that aren't infantry?

Because "Superheavy does" doesn't define what "superheavy infantry" does. "Super heavy vehicle" is not the same category as "superheavy infantry", is it?

Superheavy implies "beyond the normal limits", just like how superheavy tanks have vastly improved durability, powerful weapons that far outgun any non-superheavy tank, etc. There just isn't any infantry unit in 40k that has the same relationship to "normal" infantry as a superheavy tank has to a normal tank. You might have been able to apply the term to GK paladins at the height of wound allocation abuse, but that's (thankfully) no longer part of the game.

In this way, even monsters come to be "infantry" since I group them together as such. If you prefer, models with no AV may be a better descriptor.)

That's kind of a silly grouping since a MC has a lot more in common with a tank than with a tactical squad.

I have given reasons for my definitions. That's all in the blog post that I've already given. (I'm not going to repost it here, don't ask me to.)

And my question is why should we use your definitions? What exactly do they add to our understanding of the units in question that merely reading their rules can't tell us?


Of course then there's the fact that your definitions are bad. For example if we put a squad of terminators in a Land Raider suddenly it becomes a "lighter" unit because it can move faster? That's exactly the opposite of what you'd normally say about the unit.

I have to agree. While you might find it interesting on an academic level, you might find the attitude of many, many people is simply "who cares?" I personally can't see the benefit.

Nevermind.

Perigrine is right.

/thread

Any more complicating the system is just semantics.

"IG Vets are light infantry, Regular IG squads are ultralight infantry" etc. is just splitting hairs.

Light: Dies to a mean glare, 5-6+

Medium: Can hang, hold objectives, take some fire. 3-4+

Heavy: Will take plenty of punishment. 2+, 3+ and FNP, 3++

That's it, man.

I don't see that as right. For the record, I never suggested that there was any use to this. I wrote it with the simple intention of making weight classes that weren't as bland as armour save coupled with a few rules.

I'm not suggesting a system that has any relevance in gameplay terms or one that necessarily has any potential benefits in terms of tactics and thinking. (Otherwise, I'd have written something more in tune with tactics.)

What I've written in my system can provide a more refined view of what a unit actually is. While a unit doesn't necessarily fit the grand value of toughness of heavy for example, it still provides a role that would be considered heavy and thus at the least may be medium.

I guess the difference in thinking comes from the way we look at this game as players as opposed to as thinkers. As (heh) Scipio said, it can have an "Academic" value without having any game value.

I'm writing in rambles, but I'm sure someone will understand that I'm just making a system that to me, works to define units based on more of their characteristics than simply their toughness.

Remember, in modern war, 2 men in ghillie suits with a sniper rifles are light infantry whereas 7 men with a SAW are fighting (nee) medium infantry, yet in reality the 2 in ghillie suits have as much armour.

Oh, and just on the record, I don't see why men in a land raider must be considered more heavy than men in a trukk. They both want to get into combat as soon as possible. Really, the landraider is a means of movement and not a means of defence.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Remember, in modern war, 2 men in ghillie suits with a sniper rifles are light infantry whereas 7 men with a SAW are fighting (nee) medium infantry, yet in reality the 2 in ghillie suits have as much armour.

>MFW you're comparing 40k infantry to the infantry classifications of 2012

Infantry of 40k follows more closely to a fusion of Medieval, Colonial, and WW1 classifications, bud.

Heavy infantry has the armor.

Heavy gunners have the dakka.

Fusing the two into some arbitrary, contrived description just because Modern war has phased out armor-differences is kindof silly.

In Medieval times, whether a Plate-armoured knight had a crossbow, a broadsword, or a rock, he was heavy infantry. A skirmisher armed with whatever he chose was still light infantry if he was in a tunic, and Men in leather-armours were somewhere in between. Terminators, guardsmen, and SM/Scouts, respectively. Considering SM are basically knights in space, this idea makes more sense, especially seeing as, aside from a scholastic/subjective point of view, the idea of "heavy v. light" infantry is kindof phased out in the gunpowder era. It's pretty much shifted to "Mechanized V. Unmechanized." No one is going to call a squad of Marines light infantry, and refer to a squad of Marines with a couple M249's as heavy. They're just infantry.

If you wish to use modern classifications to describe 40k infantry, no one will stop you.

It just doesn't really fit.

Tyranid Infantry and Food Infantry.

OP, sounds like a lot of pointless clutter so I have to agree with others. Classifications work well in real life when everything doesn't have hard, irrefutable numbers to represent everything. Who cares what you wanna call a unit when you know it's T and Sv?

." No one is going to call a squad of Marines light infantry, and refer to a squad of Marines with a couple Heavy Bolters as heavy. They're just infantry.

Fixed that for you.

I agree exactly with your post,

its just unneeded.