Spearmen are by far worse than swordsmen...
*Swordsmen take fewer losses.
*Swordsmen have a better combat resolution ratio against all WS3, 4, and 6 opponents and opponents with strength 6 and above (parry save).
*Spears will begin to loose their advantage once they take losses and have less than three ranks, Swordsmen wont.
*Spears loose their second rank when they charge.
Swordsmen is a much better tactical and defensive unit than spears. Spears might do slightly more damage against some units, but swordsmen take much fewer casualties and will thus stay on the field longer. This make the swordsmen a much more solid and dynamic unit to use in almost all situation.
I know it's been a while for a response on this topic, but I was so surprised that no one responded to this post I just couldn't resist. That's because I think the arguments above are deeply flawed.
1)
The Claim that Swordsmen take (Much) Fewer Losses: This is a borderline lie, quite frankly, or at least a statement made without any close look at the facts. This only is true when facing strength 5 or better attacks and even then we are talking about just having a 17% chance of making your saving throw. That's what a 1-in-6 ward save is, a mere 17%. That's so small as to not be very useful, certainly not something one would normally consider causing "much fewer" loses.
For example, when attacked by your typical 5 man front unit depending on the abilities of your enemy the chances of making even
ONE 6+ Ward Save roughly range from 40%-80%. That is, you can't even be guaranteed of saving even
one extra over spearmen. What's more, in many cases those 5+ strength attacks will come only in the first round (via weapons like lances or flails) meaning that you have just that one chance to roll well and really get your money's worth out of that ward save. Sure, you could get lucky and save more than one, but you'd be even more likely to save none. So, just one bad round of rolling and that vaunted 6+ ward save turns out to be a big fat goose egg. At the very least it means making your "plan" for the successful use of swordsmen versus strength 5 or better attacks little more than, "...and then I get lucky." That doesn't sound like a dependable means for success to me!
Yes, all things being equal you will lose fewer swordsmen to high strength attacks than spearmen, but for strength 4 or less (which are far more common H-to-H strengths) the two unit types are identical when it comes to sucking up damage. So, the question then becomes...
2)
The Claim that Any Advantages of Spearmen Aren't There or Will Quickly Disappear: Again, this seems to be a very glib and unsupported assertion. First of all, any Empire general with half-a-brain is going to take a large main infantry unit of at least 25 if not 30+. That means that at standard 5 across formations spearmen need to lose 15-20 men before losing their extra attacks when compared to swordsmen. I submit that's a hell of a lot -- and if you've already lost that many without winning the combat that unit it doomed without outside help (which renders any unit vs. unit comparison moot).
By comparison, as the original poster in this threat showed, in most cases the extra attacks from spearmen get you more than the better skill of swordsmen. Note that better skill
ONLY applies versus WS 3 enemies -- enemies of any other skill level treat spearmen and swordsmen the same. Yet, even then the two types are about as effective assuming the spearmen don't charge. So, yes, swordsmen do have an advantage there, but how often as you going to get the charge with your infantry blocks? Again, are you going to build your army around the principle of not just
always getting the charge with your swordsmen, but in
always winning the combat (since any lingering combats shift back in favor of spearmen when they regain their full three ranks)?
And, of course, the whole basis of this claim is, again, the notion that somehow swordsmen will take "far fewer" casualties than spearmen which, unless you consider a 17% chance of success (and then only against strength 5 or better) to constitute "far fewer", is otherwise pretty weak.
3)
The (Implied) Claim that "Math Hammer" is Somehow Frivolous or Doesn't Really Matter for Real Games: This just makes no sense to me, but it is clear from the tone of dismissal used in a number of the replies here that somehow many people think that applying accurate probability studies to Warhammer is either pointless or doesn't matter beyond the strictly theoretically. Well, in fact those probabilities are the only sure thing about figuring out the usefulness of units. They can't just be ignored or casually dismissed with a wave of the hand. They are real and immutable -- if the equations say that spearmen are going to be more effective in situation X over swordsmen then no amount of "Well, that doesn't happen in my games" can change that. Sure, you won't get straight probabilities in any single instance, but they will even out over time. And, more importantly, we human beings are well known for something called "confirmation bias" where we only see what we want to see -- which, in this case, seems to be being able to ignore probabilities in favor of what we wish to be true.
Mind you, I am not suggesting that we should only ever use "Math Hammer" to determine what units we play as there are other factors -- personal taste, the sorts of enemies we frequently fight, the models we prefer to paint and collect, etc. -- that go into what units we play. Those are all valid reasons. My point isn't that you shouldn't ever play any unit that doesn't max out your probabilities of success, only that we can't delude ourselves into ignoring such facts and replace our best wishes with reality.
Point is, there is no valid reason to dismiss what the probabilities say, only valid reasons to ignore them in favor of personal taste. So, one cannot look at "Math Hammer" results and honestly wave them away with claims of "that's not what I see" or glib responses that (grossly) overestimate the usefulness of a meager 6+ save.
4)
One Final Note: The only reason why swordsmen are still good choices compared to halberdiers or spearmen is that they effectively receive better characteristics (WS and I) for free. Take that away -- that is, strictly compare weapon vs. weapon -- are swords are
clearly inferior to any other choice. I bring this up because while swordsmen have those artificial advantages in the
current (technically out-of-date) army list can we be sure they will when we finally get a new Empire book? I sure hope so as I have a painted block of swordsmen as well, but the danger of insisting
now that swordsmen are "clearly" superior (despite evidence to the contrary) is that it would take very little for swordsmen to become near worthless when the new army book arrives. Just drop that extra point of WS and you just have an entire painted unit(s) that is just standing in the way of bringing something -- anything -- better.