For minions, only 2 out of 39 in the MM have the word Minion in the name. Some have names like Grunt that sound like minions, but many others do not.
Even so, it's going to be very helpful to the players in most cases. That is what matters. The roll is for that purpose, to learn what your character knows and how to use it to his advantage.
Silly? What is silly is giving players game mechanics info and pretending it is something they should know.
We can't seem to go beyond a fundamental difference of understanding how monster races have been drastically redesigned in 4e and its effect on the world. In your way of thinking its more like we never left 3e. All Kobolds are kobolds are kobolds and thus weak, and indistinguishable from each other. But in 4e they are no longer similar or homogeneous in role or ability.
Kobolds (or other creeps) in the 4e world that have minions, are listed as unique monsters with separate names for a reason. The MM stipulates that a hobgoblin archer is a separate monster from a hobgoblin soldier. They are related monsters, but nonetheless different. They are no longer like in 3e, just the same stat package, but one with a bow one with a sword.
In such a world where some Kobolds are vastly more powerful, the equal of low level players practically, and others are just common grunts or cannon fodder (kind of like all kobolds previously) I believe adventurers would naturally come to be able to point out and differentiate these foes on the battlefield. Indeed, their very lives might depend on it!
Very likely, the monsters themselves would differentiate these ranks by giving the minion's or weakest among them, worse weapons, worse clothing, trophies, etc. And this is exactly what is suggested for them. It does not take one being a special monster like Irontooth to be different from another.
I would rate a DM pretty poorly on creativity if I asked him to describe three monsters in front of me and one was a Orge Thug, one a Ogre Savage, and one a Ogre Warhulk, and he said simply, "Eh, they all look the same." Nevermind that the MM has one with Hide armor, one with a Flail and whatnot. A DM with enough reason can always change that stuff, but even apart from it, I would think these creatures would not look 'the same' just like a level 10 Paladin is noticeably less impressive looking than a level 1 in most all cases.
Minion is PURELY a game mechanic term. As such, it should never be given in a monster description. Just like Brute should not be. It's a Minotaur with a Battle Axe. Is that a Brute, or is that a Minion.
Yes, yes. This is not the meat of the discussion. It's meta-gaming to go this one is a minion and this one is a brute (unless those are their names or the DM simply prefers to do away with the rolls), but it is not meta-gaming for the DM to explain via descriptions or behaviors as to why these creatures might be different from each other.
So I have to ask the question, what is wrong with tricking the players? How boring life would be if the DM gave the players all of the answers and there were no mystery in the game.
It is not about 'giving' players the answers. It is about making the answers available in some form or fashion so minion identifying does not become a complete crapshoot. That might be indeed fun in certain prepared encounters, but not 50% of the battles or however many have minions.
The difference here is in the past all kobolds (& most races with minions) were roughly the same because they all had the same hit dice, similar hp, abilities, etc. Players roughly knew how to fight them and what threat they were. In 4e, the introduction of minions allows many of these monsters to vastly stratify in their power levels.
You feel this would be entirely lost on 4e heroes who would still be seeing "a kobold is a kobold is a kobold." I don't think this stratification would go by unnoticed physically (weight, height, muscles, quickness, etc) appearance wise (richer accoutrements, better gear, etc) or even in observable bearing (skill handling their weapons, confidence, etc).
Would a DM describe a 12th level Fighter to the players the same as a 4th level Fighter? Would he describe a Kobold with 10 levels in the previous editions the same as a common kobold? I think not in all cases. Well in 4e, these critters have ranging power levels nearly equal to those differences, it just doesn't make sense to me none of this would be apparent. That is a 3e mindset that does not reflect that many of these races have both newfound power and weakness alike.
Heck, you could be running an all human world campaign and have players run into enemies like Vikings or Indians and if your DM was any good, still pick out the more impressive threatening warriors in a group, apart from the young or inexperienced ones bearing no scars, less menacing war paint, shoddier weapons, etc. This is the nuts and bolts of creative combat.
If you ran into centurions none would be minions! Because centurions must pass levels of fitness, endurance and skill such that they would not fall in one hit. The 'minions' would be the hired mercenaries in mismatched armor tagging along side them looking raggy in assorted arms. Such is similar to what the distinction might become between minions and the more powerful creature roles in 4e (i.e. Ogre Warhulk vs Thug).
I hope that did not wander off to confuse the issue, I am really trying to explain best I can why I don't see minions meant to be just doubles or dupes of these other creature roles, same race or not, who are much more powerful than them. These differences bring great implications for combat in 4e. Excepting special circumstances, I find it just disingenuous and lazy for the game or a DM and his players to treat all these monsters the same. It no longer fits with the mechanics of the game to do that. Neither logically or tactically. Which is why I believe the game expects, and probably Mearls suggested, for Minions to be obvious.
