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.

Offshoot from this thread.

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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Offshoot from this thread.

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.

Points and being elite are not related.

Something being "Elite" should be clear from the datasheet and from the physical model design.

Spoletta wrote:
Points and being elite are not related.

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.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Offshoot from this thread.

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.

Breton wrote:

 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.

Breton wrote:

 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.

Breton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Points and being elite are not related.

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.

Breton wrote:

 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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I give that post 8 facepalms.

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.

Can your 30 models fight against 300?
Good, they are elite.

Slipspace wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Points and being elite are not related.

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.

tneva82 wrote:


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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.

GW wants everyone to be elite, Orks are elite, bugs are elite, Guardsmen are elite.

What is the measure of elite?

Because it seems to me, as long as Marines as the most common faction, their baseline will never be elite. Since they're the norm.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


What would you define "elite" to mean, Breton?

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

Breton wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


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.

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.

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.

 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.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:


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.

Breton wrote:

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.