Sanguinary Guard versus Assault Squad

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Well, I was interested in trying out some Sanguinary Guard an even perhaps running Dante to make them scoring. Running them this way however, means Sanguinary Guard (SG) are in competition against Regular Assault Squads (RAS).

 

The more I mulled over this thought, I got curious and decided to run some numbers. To begin, 5-man SG will run in the same ballpark points-cost as a 10-man RAS. The only upgrade I will present is a Lightning Claw on the RAS Sarge. I feel of all the items to changeup a RAS' performance, this would be the most 'fair.' Please feel free to bring counter-arguments in your replies with regard to loadouts (SG taking pistols or PFs, RAS taking specials or dffering Sarge weapons, etc).

 

First up, many would consider the SG as a shoe-in to win higher survivability over the RAS. However:

30 regular wounds will kill all 10 RAS, and 30 regular wounds will kill all 5 SG. So when AP2 weapons are factored in, the RAS come out ahead due to having more wounds. While great dice can easily tilt the observed outcome to favor SG, poor dice can also easily influence a terrible observed outcome for SG when measured against the probable odds. RAS suffers less from 'luck' (ugh terrible word but you understand my meaning) and will generally provide more consistent results. Also, damage will be more 'gradual' as combat power is distributed among more models. As Stalin said: "Quantity has a Quality all of its own." (lol ;) )

 

The only time SG will win a Survivability argument is against AP3. Mass missile launchers in 5th edition (to handle mechanized lists) meant Dante-wing style armies had an edge-- but with mechanized armies on a general down-trend in 6th edition, AP3 from shooting may become less prevalent. Not to make light of the AP3 situation, AP3 in melee is still a great danger-- but with the internet abuzz with anti-2+ tactics and list-advice (due to how effective 2+ performs in melee now), I doubt 2+ Sv meta-dominance will last for long as Armies find ways to handle it through shooting or through their own melee options.

 

 

On to Offensive Output! The other side of why SG are favored over RAS. I will be examining this with Glaives being AP3 due to 'special nature' (as written to JamesI from his letter from GW). If you have local-ruling that Axe-Glaives are Axes and Sword-Glaives are Swords, well then you are lucky and you can stop reading: SG win the offensive output argument.

 

For everyone who must abide by All Glaives=AP3, the SG will kill 4.38 MEQ on the charge, RAS will kill 3.50 MEQ on the charge. No surprises. Lets add Prescience-- SG kill 5.63 MEQ, RAS kill 5.06 MEQ. Interesting. How about Furious Charge? SG kill 5.83 MEQ, RAS kill 5.00 MEQ. Both Prescience and Furious Charge? SG kill 7.50, RAS kill 6.50 MEQ.

 

Now versus 3+ Saves is where SG truly beat RAS, no doubts. But versus TEQ? And to answer "why are you charging TEQ with RAS or SG??", well because sometimes you have to-- I've had DC and RAS double-team a TEQ unit and kill it off, so this matters. So versus TEQ, SG kill 0.83 and RAS kill 1.31--- Add Prescience and Furious Charge means SG kill 1.25 and RAS kill 2.58 TEQ.

 

Versus WS4 T4 4+ Sv? (Nid and Necron Warriors): Without multipliers, SG kill 4.38 wounds, RAS kill 4.50 wounds. With Prescience and Furious Charge, SG kill 7.50 wounds and RAS kill 8.75 wounds. And the lighter the Armor Saves you go, the RAS win by larger and larger margins.

 

 

 

Final Thoughts: So basically Regular Assault Squads win in survivability. For offensive output, RAS must receive force multiplication to attempt keeping up with SG against MEQ. But versus any other target, the RAS are better. Now the obvious factor left remains with challenges--- SG have no Characters, and so are tricky places to attach ICs (following the 'Tag Team' principle that 2 [or more] or None are the best # for characters in a Unit). However SG have access to 'hidden' Power Fists. Look Out Sir! means those hidden PF probably won't ID any ICs, but at least they're swinging at all. A RAS Sarge can take a Storm Shield, which makes RAS a much more hospitable place to attach ICs--- but much of RAS killing-power lies in the Sarge who can be challenged-out.

 

I'd say after all this deliberation, Sanguinary Guard are 'usable' but I don't think they bring answers to any problem that RAS cannot already solve. In my opinion, I'd say Sanguinary Guard are best when taken as a 'one of' in most lists-- and that's because you almost have to take that Banner, and you can only take one. I didn't provide any statistics for a Banner-SG unit, because they win on all offensive accounts except versus the lightest of infantry :)

[Drunken Angel]

Hi CAG nice piece now can you do an analysis of Death Company because I have been doing exactly what you have but comparing SG to DC

5 jump pack DC with a power fist and a power weapon are 215 points how do they stack up against SG?

Did you factor in the Hammer of Wrath attacks in the RAS SG equation? RAS will get 10 assuming all RAS are in B2B, SG get 5 B2B.

[SamaNagol]

I would always run a SG unit with a banner and a fist. Always. Otherwise they can get tarpitted by a lot of things.

 

Same way though I would always run a RAS with 2 Meltaguns and a sergeant with a Claw.

 

The other thing to note is, the attached Priest with a SG unit is the only one who can accept a challenge, the SG have no Sergeant. This makes a difference

[Captain Idaho]

I am experienced in these sorts of comparisons when discussing my Honour Guard so I can give a little bit of advice.

 

It is actually untrue that 40K is a game where you can crunch the numbers to determine the absolute best choice available. The points value of something may seem to provide direct comparison, but in actual fact the points value is based upon the balance of the choice and it's use in comparison to the rest of the list.

 

Essentially, Sanguinary Guard work in a niche rather differently to Assault Marines, regardless of any similarities between them. They use overwhelming force to flatten the opponent. In a situation where your opponent can pick and choose his targets freely, then yes Sanguinary Guard (like Honour Guard) can be eliminated for relatively cheaper than Assault squads. However, if you can use them in a one on one situation your opponent will be hard pressed to deal with their superiority.

 

If you can reduce the amount of concentrated attention put on the Sanguinary Guard, then you will see them cutting through opposing units taking less casualities. Math-hammer tells us you charge 3 Tactical squads over 3 consecutive turns, the Sanguinary Guard will suffer xx amount of losses. Reality tells us that the odds don't care what you rolled earlier in the game, only the particular odds that turn matter.

 

Oh always take the Chapter Banner! It's an excellent force multiplier, especially with an independent character.

[IK Viper]

I always use the banner for the same reason... for 30 more points you are getting 5 more attackes, basically buying yourself 1 and a half sanguinary guard worth of attacks on the charge.

 

think about it this way. would you pay 30 points to buy another SG member to add to the squad? sure you would, thats 10 points cheaper then the other 5 guys would be... get the banner lol

 

adding more attacks to an attached IC is just icing, plus if you get charged its like having leadership test less counter-charge

 

On the whole comparing RAS to SG idea. I am looking at running a Dantewing force soon and taking 2 ten man RAS and 2 SG and an JP Honnor Guard kitted with 4 plasma with a JP SanPriest mixed in there and Com. D leading things from the front.

 

My thought is to lead/screen with the RAS giving me a cover save and FnP to my SG against plasma like stuff. spear head things with Dante and a RAS Sgt. with a SS and you have a pretty nice wall of troops that are hard to kill. and fast as crap.

 

What I am saying is that it might be best to mix the 2 instead of a pure Dante Wing, besides thats what I happen to have and I don't feel like buying more guys :-(

[Sviox]

I think your numbers very well prove the old truth: elite units are there to SUPPORT you troops. SG alone might be worse than RAS, but you might need to think this from perspective of support for your core troops.

 

As an example, if you have a core army with 2 RAS units and attatched priest(s), adding an SG (with banner) supports that main element better than adding another RAS. But if your core army consists of tacticals instead, a lonely SG might be a waste.

 

Also, consider which is better in a list where you have Dante (making SG troops), and only terminators. Using 2xSG instead of 2xRAS in this list's troops completely denies the opponent from any optimal use of AP3 weaponry. And the banner would boost the terminators.

 

Personally, I would only ever field SG in an army consisting mostly of jumpers with Dante leading it.

[Xenith]

What you also need to factor in is application.

 

Throwing both units against the same target will, indeed, show you what is best at killing that target, but it is fairly poor evidence of how good a unit is.

 

As with anything BA, the SG are a scalpel. They have a masive damage output, but every casualty inflicted on them dramatically reduces the unit's effectiveness. The RAS will do ok vs most things, but the SG will excel against specific targets. Deepstrike them into cover on a flank, and watch them roll through your opponent's scoring units, especially as more and more people are advocating naked sergeants, now.

 

As with everything, neither unit should be going in unsupported. Combine a SG charge with that of an RAS, use the RAS to soak up the fist/axe attacks, the SG swing combat res in your favour.

[JamesI]

Right now I'm adopting a tag team approach of 1RAS-1 SG (so my Dantewing army will likely end up with 2 RAS-2SG). They are good at different things.

 

I've been extremely impressed with SG in 6th, even with the Ap3 ruling (my SG are built so 4 of them have axes and 5 swords, so it will be interesting to see what happens if the next FAQ changes that).

[CitadelArmyGuy]

What you also need to factor in is application.

 

Throwing both units against the same target will, indeed, show you what is best at killing that target, but it is fairly poor evidence of how good a unit is.

 

As with anything BA, the SG are a scalpel. They have a masive damage output, but every casualty inflicted on them dramatically reduces the unit's effectiveness. The RAS will do ok vs most things, but the SG will excel against specific targets. Deepstrike them into cover on a flank, and watch them roll through your opponent's scoring units, especially as more and more people are advocating naked sergeants, now.

 

As with everything, neither unit should be going in unsupported. Combine a SG charge with that of an RAS, use the RAS to soak up the fist/axe attacks, the SG swing combat res in your favour.

Application is important, I agree. However, measuring both units against constants is the basis behind all scientific experimentation. The variable is the Unit, and so you must keep as many controls constant as possible in order to derive meaningful comparison. So we are holding points-cost constant, maneuverability constant, method of employment constant (Both favor charging Light and Medium Infantry), and the opposing unit's stats as constant as controls, and varying the attacks AP and quantity (as tied to the Points-cost). Ability to kill MEQ, TEQ, GEQ or whatever other "EQ" you choose is a convention that is years old and a proven method.

 

As far as SG inflicting massive damage, well.... a Banner-SG I have no argument. In my original post I even acknowledge that Banner-SG come out ahead in offensive output. I'm just not sure 'massive damage' is the right term for it, but perhaps I'm just jaded because Death Company gives me a new definition for 'massive damage' :huh: But for the points-cost, SG are excellent MEQ killers I will certainly grant you that.

 

While you make a fundamental point about support, you cannot choose to take Axe and PF attacks on the RAS unless you are careful about model-placement. Because the opponent still decides which Unit he is swinging against in a multiple-combat (BRB page 28). The idea is not without merit, especially if executed correctly-- but then it becomes a question of Tactics and Execution rather than X vs Y comparison. And no one will ever argue the fact that a Two-Against-One charge is a great idea (unless you're trying to get stuck-in and protected from shooting).

 

It is actually untrue that 40K is a game where you can crunch the numbers to determine the absolute best choice available. The points value of something may seem to provide direct comparison, but in actual fact the points value is based upon the balance of the choice and it's use in comparison to the rest of the list.

Actually you can use math to determine optimum choices. Argument against relative value is only applicable when the two units suffer from too many differences (ie comparing a Sanguinary Priest versus an Attackbike). However, SG and RAS have equivalent cost, equivalent employment, equivalent target selection, and equal mobility. I would not have started the thread if they were not ideal for a mathematical comparison.

 

Essentially, Sanguinary Guard work in a niche rather differently to Assault Marines, regardless of any similarities between them. They use overwhelming force to flatten the opponent. In a situation where your opponent can pick and choose his targets freely, then yes Sanguinary Guard (like Honour Guard) can be eliminated for relatively cheaper than Assault squads. However, if you can use them in a one on one situation your opponent will be hard pressed to deal with their superiority.

The only niche SG occupy which RAS cannot duplicate is ability to assault an unit with entirely AP3 melee attacks. So that means they're worth their weight in gold versus Grey Knights of course. But with only 5 models with 3 attacks each, even with AP3 they aren't flattening anything without support. Also, the math in my original post shows that in a 'one on one' situation, the SG don't really hold any strong superiority than the RAS do (again, unless Banner-SG).

 

If you can reduce the amount of concentrated attention put on the Sanguinary Guard, then you will see them cutting through opposing units taking less casualities. Math-hammer tells us you charge 3 Tactical squads over 3 consecutive turns, the Sanguinary Guard will suffer xx amount of losses. Reality tells us that the odds don't care what you rolled earlier in the game, only the particular odds that turn matter.

You absolutely correct! Odds don't care what you rolled earlier in the game. Which is what my comment about 'observed outcome' versus 'expected outcome' was all about. In some games your SG might literally never die. And in the same number of other games you'll roll triple 1s the first time you take wounds. But given enough time and enough games, their performance will approximate calculated expectations. My contention is that you say "If you can reduce the amount of concentrated attention put on the SG".... well when your opponent sees SG, and he sees RAS, which one is he more likely to concentrate on? The answer is complex, and highly situational.

 

 

 

So I am unmoved from my original opinion. One unit of SG paired with a JP-and-Biker list can be advantageous, because you can only take One Banner. I don't think I'd ever bother with a non-Banner SG. Lack of attacks, lack of a Sarge, and lower survivability in most metas.

[SnorriSnorrison]

It is actually untrue that 40K is a game where you can crunch the numbers to determine the absolute best choice available. The points value of something may seem to provide direct comparison, but in actual fact the points value is based upon the balance of the choice and it's use in comparison to the rest of the list.

Actually you can use math to determine optimum choices. Argument against relative value is only applicable when the two units suffer from too many differences (ie comparing a Sanguinary Priest versus an Attackbike). However, SG and RAS have equivalent cost, equivalent employment, equivalent target selection, and equal mobility. I would not have started the thread if they were not ideal for a mathematical comparison.

 

What a lot of people forget is that the mathematical comparison shows you the most likely damage output, wounds taken in shooting on average and in close combat. Idaho said that the value of one unit comes down to what it does for the rest of the list, and that is where the mathematical approach fails for personal value(= for the list) can be of much higher value than the point costs.

 

Essentially, Sanguinary Guard work in a niche rather differently to Assault Marines, regardless of any similarities between them. They use overwhelming force to flatten the opponent. In a situation where your opponent can pick and choose his targets freely, then yes Sanguinary Guard (like Honour Guard) can be eliminated for relatively cheaper than Assault squads. However, if you can use them in a one on one situation your opponent will be hard pressed to deal with their superiority.

The only niche SG occupy which RAS cannot duplicate is ability to assault an unit with entirely AP3 melee attacks. So that means they're worth their weight in gold versus Grey Knights of course. But with only 5 models with 3 attacks each, even with AP3 they aren't flattening anything without support. Also, the math in my original post shows that in a 'one on one' situation, the SG don't really hold any strong superiority than the RAS do (again, unless Banner-SG).

Nah. SG have much more possibilities. They can actually be fearsome in short-ranged shooting and in assault as well! Of course the points will rise insanely, but you have the option of going all infernus- or plasmapistols. And now don't tell me these are useless. :)

 

Then, as you already noticed, don't go without Banner.

 

 

If you can reduce the amount of concentrated attention put on the Sanguinary Guard, then you will see them cutting through opposing units taking less casualities. Math-hammer tells us you charge 3 Tactical squads over 3 consecutive turns, the Sanguinary Guard will suffer xx amount of losses. Reality tells us that the odds don't care what you rolled earlier in the game, only the particular odds that turn matter.

You absolutely correct! Odds don't care what you rolled earlier in the game. Which is what my comment about 'observed outcome' versus 'expected outcome' was all about. In some games your SG might literally never die. And in the same number of other games you'll roll triple 1s the first time you take wounds. But given enough time and enough games, their performance will approximate calculated expectations. My contention is that you say "If you can reduce the amount of concentrated attention put on the SG".... well when your opponent sees SG, and he sees RAS, which one is he more likely to concentrate on? The answer is complex, and highly situational.

 

Use the RAS. They are excellent shields for the SG if you face a lot of plasma or other AP2 weaponry. What always should be in your plan is that there's a Sanguinary Priest present. Both squads benefit from the aura. Two 5+ rolls to ignore plasma wounds is better than only one of those and it will drive your opponent crazy. :D

 

So I am unmoved from my original opinion. One unit of SG paired with a JP-and-Biker list can be advantageous, because you can only take One Banner. I don't think I'd ever bother with a non-Banner SG. Lack of attacks, lack of a Sarge, and lower survivability in most metas.

 

Banner is the way to go with SG. But why is the lack of a Sarge a problem? No one can challenge you and no wound-tricking like soaking up precious attacks that would otherwise be directed at the squad sounds fine to me. You have quite some options to go either Terminator hunting or tank hunting and one squad can do both very easily. Heart of your assault and point-intense? It sure is. That's the original role they played, and they still do, better than ever!

Lower survivability in most metas means that these metas pack up insane amounts of plasma weapons to the point of list tailoring. It furthermore means that your SG are exposed without cover and a Sanguinary Priest which probably is the worst case scenario and would also imply that the RAS get shot as well.

 

 

Your comparison, as it seems to me, lacks the big picture of a list but rather focuses on the direct comparison of two units that fill different roles and therefore should be compared with a lot of caution. The only thing you can compare are point costs and estimated dice rolls, none of which matter in the actual game. That's what all this is about, though. We discuss here to make units useful on the table, not on paper. Having a rough idea of what a squad of SG can manage is better taught by experience rather than your calculator. :)

 

 

SG are not the Terminator hunters they were in 5th anymore, but Terminators and equivalents are the only things they should avoid in CC - well, besides dreadnoughts, but we're talking about infantry here.

They also have an edge over lightly armoured troops in shooting due to AP4, which people tend to ignore. FnP makes them flying terminators, and if you wish, you could give all of them powerfists.

A squad of SG has a lot of survivability but of course you have to support them. The RAS wouldn't survive either without cover and a Sanguinary Priest.

 

 

 

Good night.

 

Snorri

[CitadelArmyGuy]

What a lot of people forget is that the mathematical comparison shows you the most likely damage output, wounds taken in shooting on average and in close combat. Idaho said that the value of one unit comes down to what it does for the rest of the list, and that is where the mathematical approach fails for personal value(= for the list) can be of much higher value than the point costs.

See, that is my contention exactly. Unless your opponent has large amounts of AP3 weaponry, a SG contributes the same thing as a RAS contributes, no matter what your list is. If you disagree please provide a list of targets that SG would like to fight, that RAS would not also include on their 'to-charge' list. I doubt you can sway me on this point, because RAS and SG have nearly identical targeting priorities. 'One SG and One RAS' is stronger than 2x RAS (usually) but mostly because of that Banner. 2x SG and 2x RAS is < 1xSG and 3xRAS, In my opinion and In general.

But why is the lack of a Sarge a problem? No one can challenge you and no wound-tricking like soaking up precious attacks that would otherwise be directed at the squad sounds fine to me.... Lower survivability in most metas means that these metas pack up insane amounts of plasma weapons to the point of list tailoring. It furthermore means that your SG are exposed without cover and a Sanguinary Priest which probably is the worst case scenario and would also imply that the RAS get shot as well.

Lack of a Sarge can be problematic for attaching weak-ICs (which BA have more weak-ICs than anyone else). For the 'survivability tailored-metas' comment, you don't have to load up on more than average AP2. You just have to load up on more than average AP3. A list that has average AP2 means RAS will still be more or equally survivable. Remember 30 normal wounds will wipe either squad. So only lists with more than average AP3 will cause SG to 'win' the survivability argument.

Your comparison, as it seems to me, lacks the big picture of a list but rather focuses on the direct comparison of two units that fill different roles and therefore should be compared with a lot of caution.

You are accusing me of an Association Fallacy (link), but I don't think RAS and SG have different roles at all. I really don't, when you examine the two Units from a dispassionate viewpoint.

The only thing you can compare are point costs and estimated dice rolls, none of which matter in the actual game. That's what all this is about, though. We discuss here to make units useful on the table, not on paper. Having a rough idea of what a squad of SG can manage is better taught by experience rather than your calculator. :(

Well Sir, we are just going to have to straight-up disagree about this. No hard feelings, but if I had to support a Scientific finding then I better be able to support it through quantifiable data rather than my 'experience' as a Scientist. Now it doesn't mean you're completely wrong either! --- there is a Science of Control and an Art of Command. Together they form the basis of a maneuver warfare commander-- so military science isn't as 'pure' a discipline as a hard-science like Chemistry or Physics.

 

People who argue against well-supported, well-defined Math-hammer discussion usually craft arguments based on Ludic Fallacy (link: Ludic Fallacy) Note Ludic Fallacy is not the same as a Gambler's Fallacy.

[Captain Idaho]

Well the role of a unit of Sanguinary Guard is to wipe out units quickly and decisively. Assault Marines generally struggle to wipe out opponents that quickly, apart from very lightly armoured and weak troops. Just because they attack the same target doesn't mean they are used for the same purposes, for example Sanguinary Guard can quickly eliminate their opponent and move on to the next before the opponent has the time to isolate other elements of your list. Essentially, in this regard at least, the Sanguinary Guard actually save you points because they do in 1 turn what the Assault Marines do in 3 turns, so can launch another attack etc.

 

As an example and to answer the request for information (off the top of my head); attacking Incubi, Bloodletters, Assault Marines, Grey Hunters, Chaos Marines, Berzerkers, Plague Marines, Sternguard, etc will be an unpleasant experience even for Furious Charge Assault Marines. Sanguinary Guard on the other hand will laugh as they chew through those units.

 

Remember the more models in those unit you kill, the less damage they will do in the opponent's assault phaseif you are mopping them up.

 

In reference to why Math-hammer isn't necessarily useful in dertermining the best choices in an army, it's because of the amount of variables in the system which warp a particular choice's use and effectiveness, and a player's ability to win the game, are not statistically related. As an example, movement speed, army support, distance, night fighting, cover, unit placement, etc...

[DominicJ]

"It is actually untrue that 40K is a game where you can crunch the numbers to determine the absolute best choice available. The points value of something may seem to provide direct comparison, but in actual fact the points value is based upon the balance of the choice and it's use in comparison to the rest of the list."

 

Sort of.

 

"Whats best, autocannon or lascannon" is a silly question

 

"Whats the best weapon to wreck a raider" is not, that can be answered scientificaly

[Captain Idaho]

That doesn't really have any bearing on what I was saying or it's context.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Well the role of a unit of Sanguinary Guard is to wipe out units quickly and decisively. Assault Marines generally struggle to wipe out opponents that quickly, apart from very lightly armoured and weak troops. Just because they attack the same target doesn't mean they are used for the same purposes, for example Sanguinary Guard can quickly eliminate their opponent and move on to the next before the opponent has the time to isolate other elements of your list. Essentially, in this regard at least, the Sanguinary Guard actually save you points because they do in 1 turn what the Assault Marines do in 3 turns, so can launch another attack etc.

SG will kill 4.38 MEQ on the charge, RAS will kill 3.50 MEQ. Not charging, SG kill 2.92 and RAS kill 2.25 MEQ. I'm not sure how that's killing at twice or three times the speed... Now if we are talking a Banner-SG, then spot on! I have been agreeing all along that Banner-SG are great. But the math just does not agree with you-- Regular SG are easily better than RAS versus 3+ Sv, but not at double-efficiency.

As an example and to answer the request for information (off the top of my head); attacking Incubi, Bloodletters, Assault Marines, Grey Hunters, Chaos Marines, Berzerkers, Plague Marines, Sternguard, etc will be an unpleasant experience even for Furious Charge Assault Marines. Sanguinary Guard on the other hand will laugh as they chew through those units.

Some solid Units pointed out there. Now I'm suprised you didn't put Grey Knights up there, GK are a solid reason I am even thinking of running a Banner-SG into my list in the first place :P However I disagree with the following: Assault Marines, Chaos Marines, Berzerkers, Plague Marines, Sternguard (ie any MEQ whose only AP3 can be 'challenged out'). The challenge system means most of their killing power (and most of your killing power) will not kill more than 1 wound. Now the fact that SG have no characters means that yes, you will chew through those units faster than RAS, no matter how you look at it.......unless you start looking at attached Libbys or Priests with Axes. Please don't get angry! lol :) because I understand that I'm altering the comparison under discussion (SG vs RAS, no additionals). But if we want to start talking Characters, I can gladly post up comparison of a Priest or Libby with RAS versus either character with SG. Since you don't have any characters in SG, any Force-Multiplier ICs will be refusing challenges 8/10 times. Which means with RAS you get to 'keep' their killing power, while with SG they won't get to swing.

In reference to why Math-hammer isn't necessarily useful in dertermining the best choices in an army, it's because of the amount of variables in the system which warp a particular choice's use and effectiveness, and a player's ability to win the game, are not statistically related. As an example, movement speed, army support, distance, night fighting, cover, unit placement, etc...

Again, you are accusing me of committing a Ludic Fallacy.

 

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account 'unknown unknowns' in determining the probability of an event's taking place.

 

Now, using math-hammer doesn't make someone a good player. Math-hammer often does need reality checks, and math-hammer won't help you with your tactical decision-making. Math-hammer won't win games for you. But Math-hammer is a great tool.

 

What statistical evaluation (the proper term for 'mathhammer' lol) does as a tool is that it optimizes your Unit selections, when making 'apples to apples' comparisons. Statistical evaluation gives you a general understanding of a Unit's capabilities and limitations. It provides frame of reference so that when mentally drawing up your battleplan, you can appropriately allocate resources so that you achieve Economy of Force for each Objective (not in-game objective-markers but Problem sets).

 

Game Theory is all about strategic decision making. And I'm an adherent to game theory. Link: Wikipedia (for starters)

[Captain Juan Juarez]

What have I told you people about mathematics and logic?! No good can come of it!

 

I may be stating the obvious but it seems to me that "MathHammer" is just a really short way of coming to conclusions that, say, ten years of playing might get you.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

I may be stating the obvious but it seems to me that "MathHammer" is just a really short way of coming to conclusions that, say, ten years of playing might get you.

AH! Yes excellent--- but statistics are completely devoid of emotion, they are cold and objective. Statistics can help break you out of incorrect conclusions that your experiences might tell you. When I first started playing 40k, I was younger and hadn't studied probability statistics yet. So I used to think Marines should never miss at shooting, that Orks never hit with shooting, that Terminators were invincible, and other things like that. As I got game-time, I realized my errors-- and I also began to draw conclusions, heavily swayed by my opponent's lists and tactics, and heavily swayed by 'heroic performances' by given units within my own lists.

 

In a fun game like 40k, emotions can distort what your experience might tell you-- but experience is invaluable please don't get me wrong. The goal is to achieve balance -- to use both your experience and hard-numbers.

[Captain Idaho]

Again, you are accusing me of committing a Ludic Fallacy.

 

I'm not accusing you, I said the following:

 

In reference to why Math-hammer isn't necessarily useful in dertermining the best choices in an army

 

In addition to that I would like to point out you said the following in the opening reply:

 

SG will kill 4.38 MEQ on the charge, RAS will kill 3.50 MEQ. Not charging, SG kill 2.92 and RAS kill 2.25 MEQ. I'm not sure how that's killing at twice or three times the speed... Now if we are talking a Banner-SG, then spot on! I have been agreeing all along that Banner-SG are great. But the math just does not agree with you-- Regular SG are easily better than RAS versus 3+ Sv, but not at double-efficiency

 

...which does kind of suggest you are basing much of the discussion about Math-Hammer! :D

 

Anyway, yes the Chapter Banner is crucial to everything I said and why the Sanguinary Guard are so powerful. I believe the kill rate goes up to 7.50 on the charge for them, which is certainly decisive! The following player turn should see a unit starting out as 10 strong destroyed with less chance of casualities due to the lack of models from the initial charge the turn before.

 

unless you start looking at attached Libbys or Priests with Axes. Please don't get angry! lol because I understand that I'm altering the comparison under discussion (SG vs RAS, no additionals). But if we want to start talking Characters, I can gladly post up comparison of a Priest or Libby with RAS versus either character with SG. Since you don't have any characters in SG, any Force-Multiplier ICs will be refusing challenges 8/10 times. Which means with RAS you get to 'keep' their killing power, while with SG they won't get to swing

 

Yes the lack of a character does have a limiting factor on the SG, however, I think the use of two independent characters will be more beneficial. On a personal note, a powerful independent character and Sanguinary Priest (oblitagory I'm sure you'll agree) make the Sanguinary Guard even more powerful.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I may be stating the obvious but it seems to me that "MathHammer" is just a really short way of coming to conclusions that, say, ten years of playing might get you.

...are completely devoid of emotion, they are cold and objective.

 

Statisitics and every woman I've ever dated... :)

 

Statistics can help break you out of incorrect conclusions that your experiences might tell you. When I first started playing 40k, I was younger and hadn't studied probability statistics yet. So I used to think Marines should never miss at shooting, that Orks never hit with shooting, that Terminators were invincible, and other things like that. As I got game-time, I realized my errors-- and I also began to draw conclusions, heavily swayed by my opponent's lists and tactics, and heavily swayed by 'heroic performances' by given units within my own lists.

 

To me working with statistics or "MathHammer" is akin to saying "this is the best army on paper" but to belabour the counterpoint to that; battles are not fought on paper.

 

I totally understand what you're saying, it even makes sense but to me I can't see a time where I'd back the guy who knows that his RAS will kill 1.38 (for example) MEQ a turn in CC, over the guy who knows from twenty plus years of playing that it'll take too long for his RAS to achieve the objective of knocking out unit X.

 

If you don't understand my point, well I'm not sure I did either :D

[CitadelArmyGuy]

@Captain Idaho, I see what you mean. I feel we're starting to meet in the middle on what we both mean haha. And no doubt, you are correct I am using mathammer as basis of argument--- wasn't trying to say I wasn't, I was trying to say that using mathhammer in this instance isn't even a fallacy at all. But regardless, I can see what you mean about Priests receiving 'protection' through attaching another strong IC into the SG. A minor concern would be the fact that with so few bodies, it's harder to 'hide' ICs from shooting attacks, even with 2+ Look Out Sir! the risk is still there. But again, minor concern.

 

@Captain Juan, I agree with you too. Experience is quite a valuable asset-- and experience helps you subconsciously know whenever you 'got lucky' on an assault or when 'your dice betrayed you' when lasguns kill 5 marines, etc etc. Both mathhammer and experience expectations can differ from what the observed outcome actually becomes.

 

 

 

So today I realized there was a principle I hadn't considered yet, which certainly promotes SG offensive output. We've already covered statistical expectation, and how observed outcome can differ radically from the expected.

 

Well when you have all power-weapons like the SG do, that is an entire 'filter' of dice removed from the variability which might alter the outcome. Yes, RAS might nearly tie SG when fighting 3+ if they have force multiplication--- but it doesn't change the fact that SG will deal more damage reliably because every wound has no chance to save.

 

Rolling to-hit is a probability filter, rolling to-wound is a filter, and rolling to save is a filter. The less filters you have, the less chance you have to completely "whiff" (technical term right there :D )

 

So what that means is RAS are better scoring units due to survivability (unless in an AP3-rich environment), but SG will produce more reliable offensive output versus 3+ and 4+ Saves (but RAS are better versus any other armor-save level).

[Leksington]

We've already covered statistical expectation, and how observed outcome can differ radically from the expected.

The observed outcomes differ is because the average alone is a weak measure of statistical performance.

 

Lets look at a very common roll: The average 2D6 roll is 7. But should we be making decisions based only on that? Don't you think it is important to note that you are going to roll less than 7 ~42% of the time? Should I really be banking on getting a 7 (or better) when I'm only going to hit the average (or better) ~58% of the time? Of course not.

 

I recommend taking your mathhammer much deeper into statistical analysis.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

And 42% of the time you're getting higher than 7. I'm not 'banking' on anything. I'm judging what is better more of the time. I've already said math-hammer won't win you games. I am fully wide-aware of the limitations involved with purely mathematical judgements of a Unit's ability. It is what it is. Sometimes you eat the dice, and sometimes the dice eat you. But give enough time and enough games, I can tell you what is the best bet.

[Leksington]

And 42% of the time you're getting higher than 7. I'm not 'banking' on anything. I'm judging what is better more of the time. I've already said math-hammer won't win you games. I am fully wide-aware of the limitations involved with purely mathematical judgements of a Unit's ability. It is what it is. Sometimes you eat the dice, and sometimes the dice eat you. But give enough time and enough games, I can tell you what is the best bet.

And I'm suggesting that your statistical analysis is far too limited to make those judgements.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

So I'm making a hasty generalization, in your opinion. (link: Wikipedia: Hasty Generalization) It's ok, I'm alright with that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

(edit: please don't take my tone as combative-- I'm an extremely agreeable dude, I just don't think I'm wrong here is all.)

[Remtek]

I dont understand why Mathhammer is getting so much hate in this thread. Yeah it won't win you games, but it is a very useful tool when comparing units. Of course its not a clearcut which unit is better, it all depends. But knowing how effective both units do vs various opposing units is golden information.