Captain Caudronus Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I started writing this in repsonse to someones army list but realised it was probably better suited here. In their army they had: commander w/jump pack and relic blade, 10 assault marines w/power weapon: 365 (U1) Now consider instead: chaplain w/jump pack, 10 assault marines w/power weapon: 340 (U2) Number of kills against a MEQ on the charge: (U1): 27*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/3)+4*(1/2)*(1/2)+4*(2/3)*(5/6) = 5.472 (U2): 27*(3/4)*(1/2)*(1/3)+4*(8/9)*(1/2)+4*(3/4)*(1/2) = 6.653 As an aside quickly and as way of introduction (if one is needed) to points per kill (ppk) note that for 10 points extra it really is worth getting a power fist for your sergeant as asides from the versatility it gives to the unit it can be justified purely on an MEQ basis. Taking the squad lead by the chaplain as an example but replacing the power weapon with a power fist (U3) we have: (U3): 27*(3/4)*(1/2)*(1/3)+3*(3/4)*(5/6)+4*(8/9)*(1/2) = 7 Now for (U2) you are spending (225+115)/6.653 = 51 points per kill (ppk) in close combat whilst upgrading the power weapon to the power fist is giving you 10/(7-6.653) = 28.8 ppk which is roughly half the number of points you have to spend for one kill in (U2). Comparing (U1) and (U3), two units of similar costs (365 and 350 respectively) you are getting 66.7 ppk and 50 ppk respectively so (U3) as a choice is giving "better value" whilst also giving more versatility. Of course for such analysis between two units to be comprehensive one should compare the ppk for non MEQ also but it acts as a good basis. Additionally when deciding between two units for a similar role other things may have to be taken into example that did not arise in this case such as the survivabilty of the two units or their manouverability however, I believe this method could give a definitive choice for some decisions. I guess however even in this relatively simple example I have not taken the commanders universal leadership into consideration so who knows? Perhaps this idea would be better suited as an aid rather than the dominating factor. Perhaps this is why Fantasy and 40k remain interesting i.e. because there is no way of determining how good an army is other than playing with it. Just food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryjak Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The advantage of using the Captain over the Chaplain is apparent once the unit takes casualties and isn't launching an assault. For example, lets say the same units are still in HtH, and have each lost 4 Assault Marines... (U1): 10*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/3)+3*(1/2)*(1/2)+4*(2/3)*(5/6) = 3.806 (U2): 10*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/3)+3*(1/2)*(1/2)+4*(2/3)*(1/2) = 2.917 (U3): 10*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/3)+2*(1/2)*(5/6)+4*(2/3)*(1/2) = 3.00 In this case, the Captain with Relic Blade is definately on top, because he didn't loose much kill potential. The longer combat drags on (for various reasons) the more potent he'll be. Further, because he has 3 Wounds, he may still be around when the 2-wound Chaplain is dead. So if you seem to be stuck in HtH more than you're launching assaults, maybe the Captain is a better option for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giga Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Don't forget, the captain can easily solo entire units on his own. His 3 wounds and added survivability wargear (such as artificer armor and/or storm shield) means he'll be quite capable of taking out entire MEQ squads on his own (provided they don't have a fist, and even then he'll probably be very effective if you give him a storm shield). The price difference is big, but then again so is the damage output. A chaplain, with his ws5 and wounding on 4+ against T4 is just much less killy on his own, not to mention his two wounds make him much less survivable. Captain's I5 not only makes him much more dangerous since he gets to swing first, but it also means your entire assault squad will live longer because the captain will kill enemy units before they get to swing, thus lessening the overall number of wounds inflicted against your assault marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caudronus Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 The advantage of using the Captain over the Chaplain is apparent once the unit takes casualties and isn't launching an assault Good point. I guess your choice of character will therefore depend on the role for your assault squad. For example, if you had a unit of assault marines suporting a unit of assault terminators then they would be used to support charge. For this role they would want maximum casulties on the charge in order to break the opponent in which case I would argue the chaplain would be the best character to lead the unit. If however, you wanted to use them as a combat squad in there own right then I can see the benefits of a commander - more on this later. A chaplain, with his ws5 Thought it was WS4! Will edit this now - makes the figures even better for the chaplain. Captain's I5 not only makes him much more dangerous since he gets to swing first, but it also means your entire assault squad will live longer because the captain will kill enemy units before they get to swing, thus lessening the overall number of wounds inflicted against your assault marines. If they are support charging then the emphasis isn't on survivability so again I would go with the chaplain but if you are using them as a combat squad in there own right then yes this another good point as to why the commander would be better than the chaplain. More to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giga Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The thing is, a chaplain is better as a support HQ. You put him with one unit, and he stays there for the duration of the game. A killer HQ (captain, chapter master, or one of the special chars such as lysander, vulkan, khan, etc.) can be used as support, but is often much better when he goes slaughtering stuff on his own (something a captain with relic blade is more then capable of doing effectively). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caudronus Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 The thing is, a chaplain is better as a support HQ. You put him with one unit, and he stays there for the duration of the game. A killer HQ (captain, chapter master, or one of the special chars such as lysander, vulkan, khan, etc.) can be used as support, but is often much better when he goes slaughtering stuff on his own (something a captain with relic blade is more then capable of doing effectively). Sorry, I understand what you are saying but not how it relates to my previous comments. I have been using probability to analyse which HQ unit would be better suited to leading assault marines. That is the issue I am really looking at here as I think it could help many lists that field the classic 10 assault marines + HQ w/jump pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Idaho Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Another advantage of using a Captain is he has 3 wounds. Seems obvious, but I often save my squads members by putting wounds on him 1st, especially lascannon and plasma shots (but then I have a Storm Shield too). Another way to protect the squad is the higher initiative of the Captain. Fighting against I4 you can reduce the amount of attacks coming back at your unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternguard sergeant McColl Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 You didn't factor in the prolonged strength of U1 or U2, or the amount of return causualties. For example if you gave chappy a Pfist what are the chances he's going to make 2 3+ saves before he attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giga Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The thing is, a chaplain is better as a support HQ. You put him with one unit, and he stays there for the duration of the game. A killer HQ (captain, chapter master, or one of the special chars such as lysander, vulkan, khan, etc.) can be used as support, but is often much better when he goes slaughtering stuff on his own (something a captain with relic blade is more then capable of doing effectively). Sorry, I understand what you are saying but not how it relates to my previous comments. I have been using probability to analyse which HQ unit would be better suited to leading assault marines. That is the issue I am really looking at here as I think it could help many lists that field the classic 10 assault marines + HQ w/jump pack. I'm mentioning it because I think anyone who's considering an assault marines+jumppack HQ unit should be aware of the fundamental difference between the two choices. Simple statistics don't really help there. Hence, I felt it needed to be stressed. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caudronus Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Another advantage of using a Captain is he has 3 wounds. Seems obvious, but I often save my squads members by putting wounds on him 1st, especially lascannon and plasma shots (but then I have a Storm Shield too). Another way to protect the squad is the higher initiative of the Captain. Fighting against I4 you can reduce the amount of attacks coming back at your unit. Yes, as mentioned already - those are advantages of a captain. You didn't factor in the prolonged strength of U1 or U2, or the amount of return causualties. Yes, this has also been mentioned already. To which I responded: Good point. I guess your choice of character will therefore depend on the role for your assault squad. For example, if you had a unit of assault marines suporting a unit of assault terminators then they would be used to support charge. For this role they would want maximum casulties on the charge in order to break the opponent in which case I would argue the chaplain would be the best character to lead the unit. If however, you wanted to use them as a combat squad in there own right then I can see the benefits of a commander... if you gave chappy a Pfist what are the chances he's going to make 2 3+ saves before he attacks. I didn't, nor would I suggest this. A killer HQ (captain, chapter master, or one of the special chars such as lysander, vulkan, khan, etc.) can be used as support, but is often much better when he goes slaughtering stuff on his own Yes, accepted, but I was trying to analyse the optimum HQ to lead a unit of assault marines. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't run an HQ choice with the assault marines put rather field a captain by himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giga Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes, accepted, but I was trying to analyse the optimum HQ to lead a unit of assault marines. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't run an HQ choice with the assault marines put rather field a captain by himself? Nah. It's just that, later on in the game, a properly killy captain can go off on his own to kill stuff. Let's say your assault marines + captain are in 15" of an enemy devastator squad and a tactical squad. They aren't close enough to perform multiple assault against. However, the dev squad doesn't have a powerfist in it. What do you do? You send your jumppack captain to assault the dev squad, and you send your assault marines to pwn the tac squad. It's very likely that the captain will decimate the dev squad on his own, even if it's on full 10 men. It's this kind of stuff I'm thinking off when I say you can send off a killy HQ to solo entire units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Josef Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I like the concept of the ppk - a kind of variation of math hammer that helps to try and rationalise chioces when faced with a decision. I think what people are trying to get to is that taking one thing like math hammer in isolation is not enough and you need to interpret the numbers it gives you. That's where the skill of math hammer comes in, anyone can plug numbers into an equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannus Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Plugging numbers into an equasion is one thing, but it only goes so far. More often than not, deployment and tactics will get you a lot farhter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caudronus Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 I think what people are trying to get to is that taking one thing like math hammer in isolation is not enough and you need to interpret the numbers it gives you. Plugging numbers into an equasion is one thing, but it only goes so far. More often than not, deployment and tactics will get you a lot farhter. I agree completely with both of these points. I was not trying to suggest that army lists could be made on this idea alone - a point I hoped that I made at the start of this thread. Of course for such analysis between two units to be comprehensive one should compare the ppk for non MEQ also but it acts as a good basis. I think Brother Captain Josef has worded what I was trying to get at quite nicely. I like the concept of the ppk - a kind of variation of math hammer that helps to try and rationalise chioces when faced with a decision. Perhaps people would be more willing to see its use when it comes to upgrades for units. I have given one example already in this thread by showing the justifications with ppk of upgrading an assault marine sergent with a power fist if the unit is being lead by a chaplain. I know intuitively this seems the "right" thing to do anyway but I feel I have justified it from a firmer basis. Running with the assault marines theme, lets take a look at the flamer upgrade option. Take a standard unit of 10 assault marines costing 190 points charging against an MEQ. In the shooting phase they let off 10 bolt pistol shots at the unit they are charging against. They will cause on average 10*(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = 1.11 casulties from shooting. meaning n the shooting phase you are paying roughly 171 ppk. Now suppose the unit is upgraded with flamers so that they cost a total of 210 points. Assuming each flamer hits 6 marines the flamers will cause on average 12*(1/2)*(1/3) = 2 casulties from shooting meaning that with the flamers you are paying 10 ppk in the shooting phase and for the unit you are now paying 67.5 ppk in the shooting phase. Note that for enemies easier to kill than MEQ the numbers would be even better. Anyway I hope this illustrates what I've been trying to get at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.