Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: horizon on May 20, 2009, 12:01:18 PM
-
Hello everyone,
Now! Nine years later! Eldar MMS v2.0!!!
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yEexPKyPepgavxcFxKXyiezBKUjv-Tl2/view?usp=sharing
Log:
Movement clarified: thx Catgut
Supernova range differences on Pulsar, dropped points, thx warpman
Hemlock weapon battery removed
Supernova image updated, thx Italianmoose
Wyrm image updated, thx Italianmoose
Iyanden specifics changed, thx Eca|iber
Gallery pages added
Updated spacefleet model rules
have fun! Feedback is appreciated as always.
-
Edit:
The Corsair Eldar fleet appears to be a working version. The light cruisers have no restrictions.
-
Eldar MMS Comments
Looks good.
I’m still not a fan of the holofields and ordnance stealth. I prefer the re-roll successful hits mechanic (with holofields ignored when in base contact). For the fragile rule, I prefer a re-roll to cause a crit. I love re-rolls!
I think the cruisers need more range
I hate that the Void Dragon has broadsides! Make them Keel! (same for the Wyrm) Also shouldn’t the Void Dragon have 10 hits (2 more than a normal cruiser)?
Shadowhunters: Drop the ordnance special rule, give them 3 turrets! And 180* turn?
Cheers,
RayB
-
Heya,
thanks.
On the Void Dragon and 8 hits. Doesn't a ship which has 10 hits or 3 shields need to have a large base?
-
Having 10 hits doesn't mean you have to have a large base (Ork Kroozers don't).
3 shields or more or being a BB would require a Large base. Unless the ship had in its notes: use a small base! ;)
Cheers,
RayB
-
Hey Guys,
Would it be allright to use your MMS v1.9 document as a template to make my own version of MMS Eldar? I won't use pics as it'll only be a word doc. I'll also note each change I've made and why.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Hi Ray,
go ahead, but only if it is fulfilling as a tool to create an official mms version ;)
the FAQ says greater then 10 hits needs a large base, so 10 hits is small?
-
Excellent I'll get onto writting up a Ray's preffered version. Thank you.
Greater than 10 being 11 or more (OR being a BB). Ork Kroozers have a small base, The Voidstalker has a Large base (because its a BB). The Repulsive has a small base the Vengeance has a large base (because it has 3 shields).
But I would consider this a guide rather than set in stone as there is nothing to stop you from having exceptions. Like an Ork escort or Kroozer with a large base for ramming. Maybe even a ship dedicated to ECCM having a huge sensor presence.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
This MMS project looks like interesting and I might well give it a serious try.
However, I'd like to know a bit more how all the point costs etc. have been adjusted like they are now. I mean is this Eldar fleet balanced vs. other fleets which is the most important question after all. This forum seems to be a new one and probably most of the design discussion is somewhere else. Is it possible to find it somewhere?
Also can I interpret the previous post so that there might be some kind of semi-official Eldar MMS version in the (near?) future? Or does Ray have anything to do with Specialist Games?
-
Hello ten,
I'm part of the BFG Rules committee (or High Admiralty/HA), we write or review new official rules.
MMS Eldar has been well received in the HA, I'll put up my version when I get another project out of the way.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Hi ten,
development is a bit sleepy now, the main discussions took place on the previous specialist games forum. So, pity, enough all discussion is lost as they closed it down.
These MMS v1.9 eldar rules are pretty well tested. Point costs are pretty balanced.
Thank you Ray. :)
-
Thanks for answers! I'll test the rules and look forward to seeing the version by Ray.
-
Hi all,
I had a couple of games with ten yesterday using MMS v1.9, IN vs. Corsair Eldar. I have to say using MMS rules does feel a lot more like playing BFG. Terrain does not play such a huge role for them anymore, which is good, and rather frustrating (to both players) 2+ save is gone.
In both games I (IN) was totally overrun by the new Eldar. First game admittedly was a surprise attack scenario in a very hostile environment, so probably not a good example. In the second game, the new Eldar felt horribly resilient, considering their speed and firepower. Only parts of my weaponry which felt even remotely useful were the few lances I had, and possibly nova cannon.
I can not say much of play balance after just one "proper" game, but currently I'm at a loss as to where Eldar weaknesses lie and what IN can do to fight them effectively.
Niilo
-
Hi Niilo,
thanks for trying these rules and giving feedback. Could you expand a little on all 10 games and which ships were used for both Eldar and Imperial Navy ?
-
I think Niilo meant he had two games with "ten" and not "10" games in all.
-
Yes Admiral_d_Artagnan is right. I played the MMS Eldar against Niilo a couple of games yesterday.
First game was "the Raiders" Corsairs attacking. My fleet was
Ecpilse
Shadow
2 Nightshade + Hellebore
2 Hemlock
IN had Emperor, a couple of cruisers and a couple of escort fleets so double the number of points. The scenario meant that IN had to deploy ships 20cm apart each other which lessens their retaliation strenght. Also IN had -1 LD for 4 turns.
I was able to attack during first turn and the reduced LD from scenario did deny my opponent for bracing before cripling a cruiser and one escort fleet. Radiation Bursts played a major role taking away the already low IN LD a few times. At the end I had only lost a couple of escorts and Eclipse had 2 damage. Whole IN fleet (twice the size) was either destroyed or disengaged.
Second game was just normal 1000 point clash without any specific scenario. I did add one more Nightshade and Hellebore along with Pirate Prince. IN did drop one escort fleet and the Emperor.
Nova Cannon managed to get first hit by destroying one Hellebore at range, but then Eldar used 50-60 cm movement to strike. Attack cripled escort fleet and forced two cruisers to brace. Still other 3 cruisers were fully functional and get to shoot Eldar at pretty close range. However, shooting abeam Eldar ships with weapons batteries didn't prove very successful, especially if not withing 15 cm. Almost all my Eldar ships got shot, but because of the shields actually the only damage was done to Nightshade/Hellebore escort fleet caught between two IN cruisers.
Later in the game Eldar were not able to deal very much damage fast, but practically IN weapons were totally unable to get past shields. I braced my Eclipse several times only to notice it would've took 0 or 1 damage. Eventually IN was forced to disengage. Even though my total losses were just those 3 escorts and minor dmg on Eclipse, victory points were not drasticly in my favor as all IN ships managed to get away before being destroyed. Still Eldar did claim the battlefleet.
I have to say that the MMS Eldar fleet was a lot more enjoyable to play with and it relies less on luck than the official version (I for some reason tend to fail all holofield saves and bracing doesn't do much good for me either). It is totally different ships being able to withstand damage as previously practically every single shot had a decent change taking out every Eldar ship. Now taking out Eldar needs concentrated firepower which probably isn't that easy to archieve due to good Eldar mobility. Just shooting here and there doesn't do any good that's for sure.
And btw it is not gaming experience that did bring the games in my favor. We played first a game where heavy wpns battery IN fleet did totally defeat my slightly modified first Eldar fleet above using normal MSM rules. Crappy rolling yeah =)
We'll probably need to test these MMS a bit more by reversing sides. So more feedback to follow perhaps...
-
Hi,
thanks two...I mean ten ;)
Game 1
alas it happens. The Imperial leadership plus radation burst making them not able to brace was indeed very harsh. Given the nature of speed and deployment the Eldar thus had an advantage never to be lost. Hard to comment thus.
Game 2
So Eldar fleet like this :
prince
shadow
eclipse
3 nightshades
2 hellebores
2 hemlock
did the Imperial player have a carrier around? I'm glad you liked MMS more. But a resilient eldar shouldn't be it. Reversing roles is certainly interesting.
Were there some serious issues with the rules?
-
I think Niilo meant he had two games with "ten" and not "10" games in all.
That's right, two games with "ten" :)
First game: Raiders, IN defending, ca.750 points Eldar (Shadow, Eclipse, some escorts) vs ca.1500 points IN (Emperor, Overlord, Dominator, Dictator, 5 Swords, 4 Firestorms). Flare region with solar flares and radiation bursts. This game is probably not very interesting from rules testing point of view. I quickly lost almost 600 points worth of vessels (Dominator, Swords and Firestorms) closest to eldar edge of arrival. Radiation bursts (-5 or -6 to Ld, in addition to -1 from scenario) kept me from bracing, reloading ordnance or disengaging crippled ships or squadrons for several turns. Instead of disengaging at that point ten decided to try and cripple the Emperor, which he promptly did. I think I managed to kill couple of escorts and maybe inflict a point of damage on one of the cruisers.
Second game: "deploy in the corner and kill the enemy"- scenario, 1000 points. Eldar had Shadow, Eclipse, some more escorts and I had Overlord, Dominator, Dictator, Dauntless (lances) and 5 swords. Dominator managed to take out a single Hellebore early on with its NC and Eldars early torpedo salvo got neutralized by fighters from Dictator. After that the battle turned to close range shootout, with eldar eventually crippling Dominator, Dictator, Dauntless and Sword squadron. I managed to get some shots in crippling an escort squadron (Hellebores and Nightshades) and two hits to Eclipse. Eventually, with all but one of my ships crippled and facing away from the eldar, I disengaged.
I found the eldar cruisers very hard to damage. Table was cluttered with blast markers so thanks totwo column shifts my broadsides generally ended up rolling one two dices. This of course is no different from original rules, but then even occasional dice had a change of doing something. Now those same dice are stopped by shields. Thanks to two moves, Eldar players still chooses which ships get to shoot back.
Well, I'm sure I can work out something in the end. More escort could be the way to go, maybe Cobras. I'm just a bit disappointed if yet another fleet turns out to be practically immune to weapon batteries.
Whining,
Niilo
-
did the Imperial player have a carrier around? I'm glad you liked MMS more. But a resilient eldar shouldn't be it. Reversing roles is certainly interesting.
Were there some serious issues with the rules?
I had Dictator, which was quite helpful defensively, intercepting some torpedoes and also meaning that some of the Eldar attack craft were fighters.
At more difficult target orientations (other than closing), which Eldar can easily present, extra column shift cuts 30-50% off the battery power. This combined with two shields makes them very hard to damage compared to imperial cruisers. And of course they have higher leadership, so they brace more efficiently as well.
Rules itself felt fairly good. All situations we came across were clearly spelled out in rules. More so than the original rulebook, I feel.
Niilo
-
On weapon batteries, under 15cm no shift from holofields. This and a 15cm left shift on the gunnery table (per normal rules) make batteries quite potential up close and personal.
I'm also no fan of the Overlord as it is generally seen as a weak ship anyway. And I think the Firestorms would be better replaced with another cruiser. A single Dauntless isn't great as well.
-
At short range batteries are rather good, although getting that close would usually require a serious mistake from Eldar player. That is of course something I have to try, since I can't get rid of the batteries anyway.
Overlord and Dauntless were the only ones to actually do something in the second game , due to having lances. I'm not a huge fan of Dauntless anyway, but then I used about two minutes to grab ca. 1000 points off the shelf. The firestorms and other ships used in the first game didn't matter anyway, as they were destroyed before having a change to return fire.
Anyway, we need to try them again at some stage, before we decide which rules to use in our campaign. As it is, MMS-rules do remove some unattractive parts of the original rules.
Niilo
-
-Why is dragonship better than Eclipse(2 more hits, 1 more lance or as GW better armour and 1 more lance) at just 10pts. As the fleets can be allies it can't have anything to do with respective fleet composition.
-Maybe a clarification about necrons and ignoring holofields.
-Lock on is powerful when launching a broadside against enemy ships, but eldar ships dont have broadsides. Maybe a thought of allowing it to turn in one of its movement phases?
-
1) Iffy, but the Eclipse is a 10pts overcosted on purpose. The Corsairs should focus on escorts. Plus you can take a fleet of Eclipses but not a fleet of Dragonships because of restrictions.
2) Same as normal. In the official Eldar rules there is no mention about Necrons as well. But the Necrons mention that they ignore holofields. They still do in MMS that way.
3) In the past (before version 1.5) they where able to do that but it was massively overpowered.
-
-Okay, dont like the fact that a captial ship is more expensive for one of different fractions. Rather se a limit of one capital ship for every five escorts or something.
-Does the restrictions follow the reseve rules, ie;you have to take two wraith to get a dragon as reserves. The Reserves rules only states that fleet maximums cannot be ecceded...
-Having tried out the MMS in two small (750) engagement vs chaos i see the eldar beeing capable of taking lot of more damage, (except from ordinace), making it a far more intresting fleet. Would almost say the eldar ordinance itself is a bit over the top, but then again, you get half the number the other fleets get.
-There is one thing though that isn't perfectley clear, does each of the eldar moves conferes a minimum move to a capital ship (half to full) at respective speed, or can the eldar stay on the spot (thus counting as defences if moved below 5cm total). This makes big difference when manuevering past the gunlines of the enemies...
-Is there any plan of incoporating these new rules as GW-offical (words from GW?), as the current ones is not much of gothic playing, but a lottery of survival...
-
- wella
- they do
- okay
- they may stay on spot
- I know the rules commitee is cool about the mms rules and likes them. But making them official....?
-
We tried the MMS rules a bit more and this time the Eldar were not as superior as last time. Because the rules themselves produce more enjoyable game for both sides we decided to use them in our campaign. I can give some more feedback as the campaign progresses, but some quick remarks now:
-Eldar torpedoes seem to be (still) by far the most efficient way to deal damage. Pulsars do well if you get lucky, but torpedoes pretty much guarantee a large number of hits bypassing shields. All Nightshade fleet FTW or...? Should the price of torpedoes go up sligthly?
-Nova cannon gives Eldar maybe even too much trouble when multiple guns are present. Low number of shields/hits and easy criticals mean that capital ships are easily cripled even with a single direct hit. Also large number of escorts in fleet means that many times also the scattered Nova Cannon hits somewhere. I wonder why there isn't holofield save vs. Nova Cannon as is would perfectly make sense and 6+/5+ save wouldn't be that powerful either I think.
-
How did the Your Fleet survive any Weapon Battery attacks with no holosaves? Mine gets destroyed so easy that way, unless this was changed in the 1.9? I can't get to that file from work. :-\
-
...?
Wella, holofields work above 15cm (right shift vs batteries), under 15cm no holofield. But a single shield will hold a bit though.
Cool to hear you are using MMS in the campaign, feedback is very highly appreciated.
Eldar torps are indeed evil always have been. Nightshades are 50pts, 10pts above official rules.
-
Well considering the about of WB brought to bare they dont hold out long, esp is he gets me with Lock On.
-
Hi,
considering armour. Currently we have the large escorts and capital ships at 5+ armour. This due Wraithbone being strong. But we cannot say sails are that though.
What about reducing armour to 4+ overall? Or a mixed value? Or a random value (if hit roll d6: 1-3 is hull on 5+, 4-6 - sail on 4+)?
-
Hello BH, I'm back. *necron*
What I'm not exactly happy with is the resilience of MMS Eldar against certain weapons. Contrary to MSM WBs aren't much good against MMS but Lances work very well. They are also quite vulnerable to ordnance.
All three points aren't good for the meta-game IMO. Mind you, I don't want to return to the near invulnerability they had under MSM but a little shift would be good IMO.
My suggestions:
- Holofields and BMs don't add up against WBs
- Holofield provides 4+ save against direct fire weapons (Lances etc.)
- Holofield has generally no effect under 15cm
- turrets may reroll hits or increase number of turrets for most ships
@random armour
No, better not. Randomness on something so important is too much like the old MSM rules.
5/4/4 armour or 5/5/4 would be something to consider though. Esp. 5/4/4 would probably make a lot of sense for many ships.
PS: How's your version going Ray? I'm eager to see it.
-
Hi Kal,
I've seen Ray's version and it has some neatness, yet I don't think it will be a popular variant for some reasons.
I've played with 4+ armour allround. Raid against a Tau fleet. Report should be on TacCom. So against ordnance fleet and with lower armour. I won. In the end of the battle I started losing attrition and disengaged. Regarding vps a convenient win but one or two more turns it could have changed a lot. Felt good.
-
A lot of comments mention that MMS Eldar are not vulnerable to weapons batteries. It's true that they have reasonable armor and shields, like a more conventional ship, AND the holofield right-shift typical of the Eldar. This is pretty significant. But I'm wondering if players are taking into account the fact that Eldar weapons are on the front of the ship?
If a ship's weapons are on the front, it must face its target to fire. If Eldar do all their movement before firing, they end their turn facing their targets. This means that a typical Imperial/Chaos line of battle will be firing on attacking Eldar ships at Closing orientation - even if the Eldar admiral cleverly places his target at the extreme edge of his fire arc so that the 10cm minimum will bring the ships into an abeam orientation in the human captain's turn, the ship behind the target in line will get a bow rake.
When playing as human fleets against MMS Eldar, are testers getting a significant number of Closing shots? If they are, are they effective? If they are not, why not? Would a change in formation help this?
-
IIRC even a closing shot at an escort will be modified to the rightmost column as soon as a BM is involved.
So closing doesn't make much difference.
-
Squadroning, spread battery fire over various escort (squadrons).
-
Heya hoya,
well somehow mms regained some renewed online attention. An issue that has been come back (once again) is that eldar mms are too resilient. And that a lotsa players will never ever accept mms if they have conventional shields.
So I got back and forth, made a cool excel file, check attachment.
In the end this is a ruling idea I want to propose:
1)
shields => wraithbone regeneration
wraithbone = eldar take damage
following ideas:
i) roll a D6 : If the roll equals or exceeds the remaining damage points it regains 1 hit.
ii) roll a D6: on a 5+ the ship regains one point of damage
iii) roll a D6 per remaining damage point, on a 6 one point of damage is restored.
A ship can be regenerated up to its starting maximum
note: a crippled ship can uncripple itself this way.
this with current mms to hit modifiers for eldar:
holofield = right shift vs batteries (not under 15cm?)
holofield = save throw vs lances: 6+ 15-30cm / 5+ >30cm. <15cm none.
no conventional shields
thanks to Warmaster Ancaris for the wraithbone generator idea.
2)
Another idea is the Leadership idea.
An enemy ship has to take a Leadership test to fire at Eldar:
(Holofields distort radar).
These are in fact rules as present in the Rogue Trader RPG from Fantasy Flight Games.
modifiers
Above 30cm : Leadership -2
Between 15-30cm : Leadership -1
Under 15cm : Leadership 0
No conventional shields, no other holofield effect.
-
With the ability to Move twice though, MMS eldar could move from a fire zone to well out of range of 60cm weapons. if they had wriathbone regen, they could just continue to run, drawing out those big engagments even more, allowing a good admiral to suffer virtually zero damage.
MMS eldar gets a double A+ in my book, they are much more what I expected Eldar to act like when I first began this game.
a link to Ray's version anyone?
-
Thanks for the thumbs up.
True on regeneration.
I am on the verge of dropping shields in favour of the Ld variant.
Just because I like that.
However, I am contemplating what to do with the current holo effect (save/shift). I do not like double adding and see the leadership effect as a good distance effect of holofields with normal gunnery modifiers (right shift above 30 and left under 15) as a good effect.
However this means Eldar should do precision movement to avoid retaliation. I think just like Eldar should.
-
All...right-y/
Eldar MMS v2.0 premises:
all armour: 5+ prow / 4+ other
turrets: re-roll missed shots (like Tau on Tracking Systems = established rule).
all v1.9 shield/holofield rules dropped, replaced by:
Holofield 'Leadership Test'.
Before enemy can shoot at Eldar ship it must make a Leadership test using the following range ingnited modifiers:
< 15 cm = Ld +/- 0
15-30cm = Ld -1
> 30 cm = Ld -2
An enemy can only attempt this once per shooting phase, if Ld test is failed no other ship may be targetted. This is in addition to any Leadership test for targetting targets further away.
-
The problem i see about this rule is that its better for some fleets then for others. Orks for example with their bad Leadership will have real difficulties while others can almost shoot as they want. And its completly "luck" dependent so when an enemy has back luck he cant attack at all and the game is more or less lost and the other way around.
-
Nah, vs Orks will be playtested, my opponents do like the rule a lot.
With the Rogue Trader RPG using the rule as well (ld based holofield) I see some testing before....
Luck Dependent? Probably, but that was the other holofield as well!!! Saving throw is just a roll afterwards to avoid damage. The Ld test is just shoot yes/no.
Same amount of dice rolling. Same amount of luck.
More chance of damage with no shields.
Look, there are people who HATE Eldar with shields, I just want to go around it... and this is a way I see possible,
-
The main problem with doing a LD yes/no system is that there's no forgiveness or opportunity for the Eldar player. It's simply "phew, my ship can't get shot at by his 16 gun Carnage" or "Oh my god, my Void Stalker is dead because that stupid Locked on Carnage scored 10 hits" There's no parity in a system like that. And it means that players who rolled well on their LD or players who have built a lot of LD over a campaign will wipe Eldar MMS players.
I completely understand that some people would hate shields on Eldar, but it's really the same story with MMS or MSM. You keep your fleet together, putting your long range shooters in the middle. You deny them sunwards movement as best you can, and you shoot the "holy and esteemed lord christ" out of them as soon as they come to shoot at you (or sooner, if you've moved properly).
Look, WB's suck one way or another. The total damage you can inflict with them is piddly compared to lances, torps, AC. They were only good for fighting MSM eldar. So for the sake of a campaign, there's no reason why players should be complaining when their lances, torps, and ord (most likely their main weapons of choice) are so much more effective.
I would much rather have my lances hit well against all my enemies than have to spend a bunch of points on crappy guns just to fight MSM eldar.
The folks who hate Eldar shields most likely long for the days when eldar ships would get destroyed by blast markers. The fact that you can even shoot at Eldar with MMS balances the game so much that people should be dancing naked in the streets. MMS Eldar have to engage at 30 cm, which leaves opposing fleets tons of room to work with. It practically guarantees that you're going to be able to pull off a counterattack provided you're a good admiral. In order to be fair to Eldar MMS players, it's almost a necessity that their ships get shields. They're significantly more expensive to field, which means less total hits on the board than any other fleet. They no longer get to turn 360 at the start of their movement (so their capital ships will almost always be privy to taking a few shots).
You shouldn't debuff shields for two reasons. The days when a squadron of escorts could be destroyed by blast markers should forever be behind us. And if you lower the amount of shields capital ships have, it'll just encourage escort spamming, (which will aggravate slow turning players even more).
One thing you might play test is having no right shift for shooting at Eldar. Your holofields rules on lances should then apply to all DF weapons, (I feel it should also apply to NC, as not incorporating this gives IN a big, juicy boost.)
Or, give Eldar players something like "weak shields" on top of holofields. Mostly normal shields that fail and let the hit count on a 5+ (or something, find a number that works for you) This would give you a 2-shield average for a Void Stalker or Wyrm.
All I can really say is that if people would rather go back to the days when Eldar fly in, waste your fleet, and then fly behind you where you can't shoot them, then be my guest and go back to MSM Eldar. But I've fought that navy and I never want to again. So you can't have it both ways. It's up to you, as a player to develop the best ways to deal with the fastest moving fleet in the game. And really, it's so much better for you that now they have shields instead of you being completely unable to shoot at them. Nerfing them won't change the fact that you're not a good enough Admiral. The GW BFG champion 2 years in a row fights with Tau, not Eldar. I'm sure you can manage just fine.
-
Hi Maddog,
thanks for commenting :
The main problem with doing a LD yes/no system is that there's no forgiveness or opportunity for the Eldar player. It's simply "phew, my ship can't get shot at by his 16 gun Carnage" or "Oh my god, my Void Stalker is dead because that stupid Locked on Carnage scored 10 hits" There's no parity in a system like that. And it means that players who rolled well on their LD or players who have built a lot of LD over a campaign will wipe Eldar MMS players.
True on the campaign. However a saving throw like the 2+ in msm is in essence the same. Shields are a form of 'flexible hits' Heck.... wait.... lol...later this post...
I completely understand that some people would hate shields on Eldar, but it's really the same story with MMS or MSM. You keep your fleet together, putting your long range shooters in the middle. You deny them sunwards movement as best you can, and you shoot the "holy and esteemed lord christ" out of them as soon as they come to shoot at you (or sooner, if you've moved properly).
Look, WB's suck one way or another. The total damage you can inflict with them is piddly compared to lances, torps, AC. They were only good for fighting MSM eldar. So for the sake of a campaign, there's no reason why players should be complaining when their lances, torps, and ord (most likely their main weapons of choice) are so much more effective.
What? Are you saying batteries are always bad? Against all opponents? That would be a completely false statement.
I would much rather have my lances hit well against all my enemies than have to spend a bunch of points on crappy guns just to fight MSM eldar.
Yes, you are saying batteries are bad.... Oh frell, you are so wrong. Weapon Batteries are an awesome weapon system, they just require tactics to be more effective.
The folks who hate Eldar shields most likely long for the days when eldar ships would get destroyed by blast markers.
MSM Eldar do get destroyed by blastmarkers on a '6'.
The fact that you can even shoot at Eldar with MMS balances the game so much that people should be dancing naked in the streets. MMS Eldar have to engage at 30 cm, which leaves opposing fleets tons of room to work with. It practically guarantees that you're going to be able to pull off a counterattack provided you're a good admiral. In order to be fair to Eldar MMS players, it's almost a necessity that their ships get shields. They're significantly more expensive to field, which means less total hits on the board than any other fleet. They no longer get to turn 360 at the start of their movement (so their capital ships will almost always be privy to taking a few shots).
You shouldn't debuff shields for two reasons. The days when a squadron of escorts could be destroyed by blast markers should forever be behind us. And if you lower the amount of shields capital ships have, it'll just encourage escort spamming, (which will aggravate slow turning players even more).
It isn;t the balance which opposes players to shields it is the background...
One thing you might play test is having no right shift for shooting at Eldar. Your holofields rules on lances should then apply to all DF weapons, (I feel it should also apply to NC, as not incorporating this gives IN a big, juicy boost.)
The Imperial Navy needs every help they can get against Eldar...
Or, give Eldar players something like "weak shields" on top of holofields. Mostly normal shields that fail and let the hit count on a 5+ (or something, find a number that works for you) This would give you a 2-shield average for a Void Stalker or Wyrm.
Another dice roll on top of a saving throw vs lances = blech. Sorry.
Hmmm, remember the regeneration idea.... what if we called shields on Eldar just regeneration? That ships have a regeneration value instead of shields? Abstraction to the max!
Thus an escort has a regen. value of 1. It just works like a shield in every aspect.
-
Hey Horizon, points well made.
Why not just throw out holofields all together and keep shields?
Holofields just make Eldar a bit harder to hit. Throwing it out would solve a lot of the issues with Eldar being too survivable. Shields should stick around in some fashion because now that you can shoot at Eldar without them avoiding retribution, they need to be able to survive the shooting that they wouldn't take under MSM.
Eldar ships are expensive and they don't have a lot of hits. Their defensibility has always been in positioning them to minimize counter attack. They will still play this way, but shields should give them a balanced amount of help.
Taking away shields throws a lot of the game out of balance. LD to shoot throws off campaigns. Regeneration throws off escorts. V 1.9 holofield rules throw off WB's. Lack of shields dooms Eldar when fighting players with long range shooting, I.E. Chaos.
Have you tried a playtest without holofields? Might give it a shot. Glad you're working this fleet out.
-
Holofields are characterful I think and many people want to see it on Eldar. Above shield. What do you mean with the fact that Weapon Batteries under v1.9 are 'thrown off'? Extra shifts, yeah, but under 15cm nothing.
-
the holofields in v1.9 work exactly the same way vs WB's as MSM rules. the resilience vs. WB comes from the shields in 1.9 - not the holo's.
oh, and horiz, was talking with a buddy and we thought we'd run this by you:
holofields:
>60cm =3+ save
45>target>60 = 4+ save
30>target>45=5+ save
15>target>20=6+ save
<15cm holo's don't work.
no additional shifts for wb, just a basic saving throw - havn't playtested it yet, but it may be simpiler than the LD based tests for holos you suggested; the main issue i have is that if you take LD to shoot at eldar, do you test PER TARGET or just once per ship attempting to fire? - or do you test seperately per firing arc?
-
Hi,
that's a lot of ranges. In a previous MMS edition the saving throw vs lances had more bands and most disliked it.
My intention with the 'Ld-holo' was that the firing ship could make one test. If failed that ship cannot shoot anymore. A next ship may try to do better.
Problem with adding another dice roll per your suggestion is that more luck comes into play. More dice roll = more luck dependant.
-
If people prefer holofields, what's wrong with using the original rules for them? I'm sure you've already playtested these rules for an earlier version.
Many of the options getting thrown out into the 'series of tubes' called the internet are arguably worse than the original Holofield rules for the Eldar player. But Holofields alone aren't enough to stand up to increased fire taken. So then my question to you would be, how do you create some survivability, adjusting for the fact that Eldar MMS fleets take so much more fire? That was the point of shields in the first place.
-
Well, the original holofield rules are completely unbalanced in the fact that batteries are much better then lances. Under
MMS the difference would even be increased as batteries profit from close range fire.
Now, with a ruleset like this, we can balance the weapon options. Thus enemies are not tempted to tailor since it won't have an effect.
I'm mind melting on the subject.
-
I'm conflicted on the quality of guns vs. Eldar players. You're most likely firing on Eldar closing in MMS, vs. in MSM if you can even hit them, you're firing away or abeam. However, increased movement means Eldar fleets will trail their enemies, and if the Admiral is good he can keep his enemies out of range. Scratch that, I'm not conflicted at all. Eldar players can always stay just out of range, MMS or MSM doesn't matter. So using Holofield rules (given the fact that Eldar are most likely on the closing table) means that guns will actually get a huge boost vs. Eldar players using MMS. This would unbalance guns even more vs. Eldar.
-
Depends on which holofield rules you use.
-
That's why I like your Holofield rules much better. Because any way you look at it WB's only get stronger vs. Eldar in the original rules. But your Holofield rules are not survivable enough to be the only line of defense vs. an Eldar player.
One thing you might do is just use your Holofield rules and no shields, but make Eldar ships either waaaaay tougher (I'm talking 2 hit escorts and 16 hit BBs) or significantly cheaper (like 100 point Auroras, or cheaper)
If you're unsatisfied with the system, that's why I'm throwing these ideas out there. Personally I see no problems with V 1.9. The ships are so expensive that you don't really have a lot of hits on the board, and the WB column shift is only really to make it so you're not getting owned under a hail of fire from their guns as you're closing on them.
If shields+holofields are too good, I think you should tweak small (holofields), before you go big (shields). Or find a way to lower the quality of shields by a smaller amount, rather than throw them out altogether.
-
hi there
I just singed up and i do not know anyone around, but i played with your MMS rules and reaally enjoyed them, to the point i customized one of my Eclipse cruiser to transform it in the Supernova battlecruiser
I've readed your posts, and i'm very happy to see that people still plays and develops this great game, cause the GW never really put any effort to debug it. Before downloading the MMS rules, people simply refused to play versus my eldars any game and scenario, thanks to the overwhelming power of the original MSM; (Not mentionig the craftworld and their armor 5+ wraithships).
I would like to suggest an idea to your holofields (but still i do not complain about having shields on eldar ships, expecially mine)
remove the shileds (sigh)
keep the turrets, holofields will not affect bombers and torpedo (but increase turrets performances can be good)
keep the catastrofic damage roll on 5+
give back to all vessels an armour of 4+
make holofields give a negative shift on WB (any range)
add this rule to the damage of lances and batteries for holofields:
15 cm or less - with armour 4+, both batteries and lances hits on a 4+
from 15 to 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 5+
over 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 6+
of course this "hardness" is not related to the actual armour of the ship, but to the difficults to aim at it
This rule will mantain the balance between lances and batteries, cause modify the same way both weapon systems, and fasten the play, cause no more dice rolls are added. I do know many players likes to roll many dices, but other players like me dont like to spend a whole hour waiting for his dumb opponent to count and roll tons of dices (it happened to me, i swear)
As for imperial nova gun i could suggest this: roll 1d6-1 (minimum 1) instead of 1d6 for the number of hits taken by the ship when is hit by the nova. i do know imperial players could complain, but remember that eldar ships have 2 hit less compared to theirs.
On the other hand, since imperials have ships too expensive compared to their performances, we "Eldars" could skip this rule, since we are destined to win anyway.
Finally let me say this too: you could use any rule you want for holofields, give Eldars mms and no shields, but the final balance is given by the cost of the ship
your past rules balanced pirates and craftword's fleets using the supernova "trick"
compared to the cost of craftword vessels, no pirate capital ship was worth its point, but the Supernova was a true monster, his strenght was superior to many special ships of the craftword, and his cost was low. This way, by adding a single supernova in a pirate fleet, its firepower became balanced if compared to a craftworld fleet.
i'm sorry to say that i do not like this, is the only thing of your 1.9 rules i disliked.
I do know that this was done to make pirates use more escorts and craftworld more capital ships, but as mentioned before, this can be done by applying restriction on the fleet list, like 1 cruiser every 3 escorts
Forgive me if my grammar is poor, as you can guess english is not my main language
-
Hi Carloghr,
thanks for feedback & participation. Grammar is good enough.
armour will be 5+ prow /4+ rest
Your holofield idea :
I do know some people dislike the fact if lances didn't hit on a 4+ (rule mechanic).
Balance wise ain't bad.
supernova: you suggest?
Nova Cannon: FAQ 2010 / holofield has no effect
-
I'm just tossing this out without knowing if it has been addressed already as I do not have any eldar players around (thou one DE fleet exists but don't play).
Are holofields in space that much different from the ground based eldar technology?
I seem to recall that in the good old days of Titan Legion, the eldar titan holofield were in direct effect of how fast it moved (not distance to target), ie a stationary titan did not benefit from the holofield or had only a minimum protection if any. And vs a fast moving titan you would just be happy if your fire was in the general direction of the titan at all :)
-
All shield/holofield (rules) removed, replaced by new holofield system : no shields
Ideas
eldar mms without shields:
turrets take care of ordnance, nova cannon per faq 2010.
Holofield Ideas
i) Leadership test
Enemy must make a Leadership test before it can shoot at an Eldar ship. Apply the following modifiers:
> 30cm = - 2 Leadership
15-30cm = - 1 Leadership
<15cm = 0 Leadership
This applies vs all gunnery / direct fire attacks.
(this being a Rogue Trader RPG adaption)
ii) Regeneration
roll a D6 per remaining damage point, on a 6 one point of damage is restored.
A ship can be regenerated up to its starting maximum. Only 1 hit per turn can be restored this way.
note: a crippled ship can uncripple itself this way.
this with current mms to hit modifiers for eldar:
holofield = right shift vs batteries
holofield = save throw vs lances: 6+ 15-30cm / 5+ >30cm. <15cm none.
Warmaster Ancaris (port maw)
iii) Adjusting Hit rolls :
right shift gunnery
add this rule to the damage of lances and batteries for holofields:
15 cm or less - with armour 4+, both batteries and lances hits on a 4+
from 15 to 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 5+
over 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 6+
carlogh (sg forum)
iv) re-roll hits
when a ship succesfully hits the eldar ship it must re-roll the dice. Second roll stands. Lock on negates.
Ray Bell
-
After further consideration, that last idea should have the re-roll after lock-on.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Hi again, and sorry if i answer to your mail so late.
About your question on how to balance the craftworls and the pirates,
Balance wise ain't bad.
supernova: you suggest?
for now i can't say details, cause i dont know clearly what will be your new rules.
So, i've separated my ideas into the main elements a fleet is created:
- Story & Background
- Single Ship Concept
- Fleet formations Concept
Speaking of the background:
Pirates should have faster hit and run ships, not like before, when Wraithsips were more agile and costed much less than their pirate counterparts.
Eldar Pirates are what says their name: Raiders, they rarely have a place to defend, they assault transports to survive, and escape when larger fleets come to hunt them. So their ships should be designed for speed and agility to survive.
Craftworld Eldars are different, they are a regular army, a fleet builded to defend their artificals homeworlds, so a fleet that many times can't retreat.
They should have ships heavier and with better armaments.
Speaking of Ship Classes
Don't "retouch" the ships cost if possible, make craftworld pay for his firepower and pirates pay for their agility.
Pirates: Make the pirates cruisers turn 90°, so can act in formation with its escorts (the heavy cruiser and the battleship should still have less manouverability).
You could also give the Eldar heavy escort 2 hull points, after all is huge, and costs so much.
Craftworld: Make Wraithships turn 45°, mantain its firepower and the weapons selection, if compared to the pirate cruisers will have less power & agility, but will cost much less too.
Give to the Dragonship a weapon range of 45, that compensate for its lack* of manouverability and speed (*compared to other eldars ships)
Don't forget that craftworld ships should have access to boarding crafts & torpedoes, and this alone, make their capitals ships "heavier" than the pirates, even without adjusting their cost.
Fleet Lists Ideas:
Till now i've spoken about single ships balance, but we have to consider the fleet formations too.
Usually the battles are done with fleets of 750 or 1500 points, and many fleet lists are done so you cannot have a Battleship with only 750 points.
Imperial and Chaos, at best, can use a grandcruiser like the Vengeance into battles of 750 points as well.
You could arrange the eldar fleets so, with 750 points the pirates cannot use their supernova grandcruiser, and must play with 2 cruisers and 4 to 6 escorts, or 1 cruiser, 2 light cruiser, and 4 to 6 escorts.
You coul also limit the pirate list so you must have 2 escorts (or 1 heavy escort) for every cruiser, and 1 escort for every Light cruiser.
For larger formation, you could put a limit of 1 supernova for every 1000 points (and 3 escorts).
An Eldar craftworld fleet of 750 points, should be able to play with 2 Wraith and one Dragonship.
A fleet with 1000+ points could use the Flame of Azurian special Dragonship.
I hope i wrote it well enought to be understood.
Now, about my idea of the holofields, i'm sorry you didn't liked it, but still i dont agree with a thing you said:
Your holofield idea :
I do know some people dislike the fact if lances didn't hit on a 4+ (rule mechanic).
You should dont care too much of what people like or dislike, of course you must consider different opinions, but you are the one who's writing the rules now, so you are the leader.
As a leader you priorize game balance and game fun (fast and easy rules that reflects the racial traits) right?
Every time a rule is changed, of course some formations can loose strenght and some can gain it, but still, as long the overall game is balanced, peoples should not complain.
Let me explain it with mathematics:
I dont understand how people dislike if can't hit with lances on a 4+, but don't complain when after that, the eldars have a save roll.
In the past you gave a save roll of 5+ on lance's hits, and a lance scored an hit on a 4+.
That means that you hit succeful 4 times on 6 multiplied for 3 times on 6.
The result is 2/6, that is equal of a roll of 5 or 6.
Statistically speaking you already made the lance hit on a roll of 5+ in your mms 1.9 rule mechanics (that was alot better than the 1 on 12 of the original ones).
I hope i've been helpful.
-
Quick: yes I write them, but if I install a rule to win x people and drive away x people there is no gain. So I rather have sometjing to gain x+ people and only drive away x- people.
later more, not time :)
Thanks!
-
ok... well the auto translator had a bad time and me too with your message, but in the end i was able to read it (i hope)
Quick: yes I write them, but if I install a rule to win x people and drive away x people there is no gain. So I rather have sometjing to gain x+ people and only drive away x- people.
i never said to write a rule to make some people win, or i would play the craftworld with the orginal rules of GW
my ideal game should be that any fleet, in even battle conditions, should win 50% of the times versus any other fleet of the game
that's also why i don't like necron have a special rule that ignore holofields
-
I never said I write a rule to make people win...
What I did say:
some people do dislike the fact a lance could hit on a 5+ or 6+ since the 4+ is a core rule game mechanic.
When I break that 'core' they will not agree with the rules.
-
Hi again, and sorry if i answer to your mail so late.
About your question on how to balance the craftworls and the pirates,
Balance wise ain't bad.
supernova: you suggest?
for now i can't say details, cause i dont know clearly what will be your new rules.
Go by v19 I say.
Speaking of the background:
Pirates should have faster hit and run ships, not like before, when Wraithsips were more agile and costed much less than their pirate counterparts.
Eldar Pirates are what says their name: Raiders, they rarely have a place to defend, they assault transports to survive, and escape when larger fleets come to hunt them. So their ships should be designed for speed and agility to survive.
Craftworld Eldars are different, they are a regular army, a fleet builded to defend their artificals homeworlds, so a fleet that many times can't retreat.
They should have ships heavier and with better armaments.
Corsairs focus on small, easy to hide, ships, Craftworld on cruisers. But both are Eldar and both use the same 'substance' (Wraithbone) to build their ships. Both use sails, both have same weaponry. The difference in design is rather aesthatic without a good base in background.
Speaking of Ship Classes
Don't "retouch" the ships cost if possible, make craftworld pay for his firepower and pirates pay for their agility.
Pirates: Make the pirates cruisers turn 90°, so can act in formation with its escorts (the heavy cruiser and the battleship should still have less manouverability).
You could also give the Eldar heavy escort 2 hull points, after all is huge, and costs so much.
Craftworld: Make Wraithships turn 45°, mantain its firepower and the weapons selection, if compared to the pirate cruisers will have less power & agility, but will cost much less too.
Give to the Dragonship a weapon range of 45, that compensate for its lack* of manouverability and speed (*compared to other eldars ships)
Don't forget that craftworld ships should have access to boarding crafts & torpedoes, and this alone, make their capitals ships "heavier" than the pirates, even without adjusting their cost.
Costs, that is always tricky as 45cm weaponry is a lot on a fast moving Eldar ship. A 90* turn on a Corsair cruiser heavy, in the past MMS did have 90* Eclipses & Shadows. This led to cruiser heavy fleets, a thing I was wanting to avoid. 90* means the ship can do a complete backturn in one phase. That is so hard to play against. Almost reckless play suggesting; and Eldar should never be reckless. So I understand your point but a lot of playtest has seen the turn rate for a balance issue.
Heavy escorts: aha, well... that is already a debate on its own within the BFG universe. As long as there is no official 2 hits escort I will never take one aboard in MMS. Core rule breaking as msm does, ya know ;)
On weapon range. The WS / DS will make it possible to do a 25cm + 25cm + 45cm strike range = 95cm !! That is the longest strike range in the game apart of Nova Cannon which is unreliable. On a Dragonship that would be 3 Pulsars or 12 Batteries doing a 95cm strike range! And staying at a distance of 45cm!
See, the Eldar would do a setup for his fleet, then lockon and blast away with his long range gunnery from Wraithships & Dragonships. The finesse would be gone. It would be too easy. They would not miss the 90* turn.
Yeah, CWE has aspect warriors & vampire raiders.
Fleet Lists Ideas:
Till now i've spoken about single ships balance, but we have to consider the fleet formations too.
Usually the battles are done with fleets of 750 or 1500 points, and many fleet lists are done so you cannot have a Battleship with only 750 points.
Imperial and Chaos, at best, can use a grandcruiser like the Vengeance into battles of 750 points as well.
You could arrange the eldar fleets so, with 750 points the pirates cannot use their supernova grandcruiser, and must play with 2 cruisers and 4 to 6 escorts, or 1 cruiser, 2 light cruiser, and 4 to 6 escorts.
You coul also limit the pirate list so you must have 2 escorts (or 1 heavy escort) for every cruiser, and 1 escort for every Light cruiser.
For larger formation, you could put a limit of 1 supernova for every 1000 points (and 3 escorts).
An Eldar craftworld fleet of 750 points, should be able to play with 2 Wraith and one Dragonship.
A fleet with 1000+ points could use the Flame of Azurian special Dragonship.
Tau, Tyranids, Imperial Navy, Adeptus Mechanicus, Space Marines can all have a Battleship under 750 points... What's left ;)
Limiting the Supernova? As it is a rare ship I can do a limit on it. What do other people say on this?
2 escorts for every cruiser will make a pretty heavy cruiser list.
I think the current lists (apart of the light cruiser note!!) is okay.
I hope i wrote it well enought to be understood.
No worries, all good! Thanks.
Now, about my idea of the holofields, i'm sorry you didn't liked it, but still i dont agree with a thing you said:
Your holofield idea :
I do know some people dislike the fact if lances didn't hit on a 4+ (rule mechanic).
You should dont care too much of what people like or dislike, of course you must consider different opinions, but you are the one who's writing the rules now, so you are the leader.
As a leader you priorize game balance and game fun (fast and easy rules that reflects the racial traits) right?
Every time a rule is changed, of course some formations can loose strenght and some can gain it, but still, as long the overall game is balanced, peoples should not complain.
At this point in MMS, after a lot of versions and improvements I take care a lot of what people think before I ammend a change. The v19 list is pretty well used by the groups who dislike official rules. I cannot do a 'bulldozer' on it ;)
[uqote]Let me explain it with mathematics:
I dont understand how people dislike if can't hit with lances on a 4+, but don't complain when after that, the eldars have a save roll.
In the past you gave a save roll of 5+ on lance's hits, and a lance scored an hit on a 4+.
That means that you hit succeful 4 times on 6 multiplied for 3 times on 6.
The result is 2/6, that is equal of a roll of 5 or 6.
Statistically speaking you already made the lance hit on a roll of 5+ in your mms 1.9 rule mechanics (that was alot better than the 1 on 12 of the original ones).[/quote]
Because the save roll, is an effect that the Imperial Navy or Chaos can aqcuire in a campaign setting. Yes, they can get an upgrade on the shields to have a saving throw (campaign section). So a saving roll exists and it does not break the core rule.
Yes, math is the same, but I should also follow my set doctrine.
Math wise the Leadership test (with mods) can do the same as a saving throw or adjusted dice roll.
hope i've been helpful.
Certainly, I just convinced myself why 45cm weaponry is not cool with the current weapon systems.
cheers!
-
First: Thanks for mentioning me and my input in the Eldar MMS rules 1.9. (Textmarked my name in my printout ;D)
Aug. 3rd was my first game with Eldar vs. a Chaos fleet with MMS 1.9.
The rules worked fine, but:
My opponent made some very big mistakes.
Seems like other admirals in my gaming group find the rules o.k., too.
We´ll give the rules another try in the future. An imperial admiral wants to be next^^
-
Hi MM,
did you try some of the new rule changes I am talking about in this thread?
-
Hi horizon
We used the MMS 1.9 rules as written.
-
Hey,
would you try out the ideas for 2.0?
getting feedback would be cool.
cheers,
-
Hey Horizon. Trying to use the link in the first post but it says 'Forbidden'?
Is there anything more recent than that link? Did you ever figure out a mechanic for holofields that is balanced or are shields here to stay?
-
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
-
Horizon, where are the ideas for 2.0 listed?
Also, I was trying to compare your ships using smotherman's formula, which may not be a viable tactic considering how different their rules are.
The point being, there used to be a small program you could punch in a ship's stats and get the point cost.
Does anyone know where this may be nowadays?
-
Fleet Master I think.
Fleet Master used the Smotherman values. ;)
Smotherman is basic guideline. It should be used cautiously, even when determing point values for standard vessels like Imperial Navy and Chaos. It gives a rough idea from where to start.
You won't get an exact fix on point values for the mms vessels. The base value were the ones as given in the official rules. Some theorizing did first values (like upping Nightshade/Hemlock), playtesting ( a lot) gave further information and tweaks.
-
I notice it has an option to use the core rules, on Fleet Master, and the Smotherman version. What is the difference, does one give higher point cost over the other or something?
Also, if you got links to 2.0 ideas id be happy to test them on vassal.
-
I wouldn't know. Never used fleetmaster. Perhaps the core option is the official point cost and the smotherman value the calculated value?
MMS 2.0
* No restriction on Corsair Light Cruisers (that was daft,...).
Ideas:
* All Eldar vessels: 5+ prow armour / 4+ for port, starboard and rear
* The holofield-shield thing...
take one of the following...
i) Leadership test
Enemy must make a Leadership test before it can shoot at an Eldar ship. Apply the following modifiers:
> 30cm = - 2 Leadership
15-30cm = - 1 Leadership
<15cm = 0 Leadership
This applies vs all gunnery / direct fire attacks.
(this being a Rogue Trader RPG adaption)
ii) Regeneration
roll a D6 per remaining damage point, on a 6 one point of damage is restored.
A ship can be regenerated up to its starting maximum. Only 1 hit per turn can be restored this way.
note: a crippled ship can uncripple itself this way.
this with current mms to hit modifiers for eldar:
holofield = right shift vs batteries
holofield = save throw vs lances: 6+ 15-30cm / 5+ >30cm. <15cm none.
Warmaster Ancaris (port maw)
iii) Adjusting Hit rolls :
right shift gunnery
add this rule to the damage of lances and batteries for holofields:
15 cm or less - with armour 4+, both batteries and lances hits on a 4+
from 15 to 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 5+
over 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 6+
carlogh (sg forum)
iv) re-roll hits
when a ship succesfully hits the eldar ship it must re-roll the dice. Second roll stands. Re-roll after Lock-On shots.
Ray Bell
That's about it.
I'm not sure if people would want the Eldar torps to be weakened.
-
what is this 'holofield-shield' thing?
-
The i to iv options. ;)
-
And said option would in theory completely replace current shields and holofields?
-
Yes, they replace every note/rule about holofields/shields in the mms v19 ruleset.
Thus: No shields.
That's the aim.
-
Thats a good goal. I'll practice on vassal with it.
-
Suddenly had a spark:
Holofields (no shields on vessels)
i) Leadership test
Enemy must make a Leadership test before it can shoot at an Eldar ship. Apply the following modifiers:
> 30cm = - 2 Leadership
15-30cm = - 1 Leadership
<15cm = 0 Leadership
This applies vs all gunnery / direct fire attacks.
* Brace for Impact is declared before this leadership test.
* If leadership test fails place a blastmarker on the Eldar ship (to create movement penalty and negative leadership). However Eldar ships do not take damage from blastmarkers in contact. If due a critical hit the holofields go offline Eldar take damage from blastmarkers per usual.
-
Its interesting, but I personally feel it doesn't convey the holofields, and if we are going for gameplay over fluff then we might as well stick with shields.
These were actually the two I found most interesting. I'm assuming the ships would be recosted accordingly, whatever the changes.
iii) Adjusting Hit rolls :
right shift gunnery
add this rule to the damage of lances and batteries for holofields:
15 cm or less - with armour 4+, both batteries and lances hits on a 4+
from 15 to 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 5+
over 45 cm - batteries AND lances hits on a 6+
I thought about the effective 6+ armor thing myself, as Necrons also utilize stealth to effectively gain armor.
I don't know if the suggested flows the best though.
Here is my idea, with more flowing wording needed.
'Eldar ships go back to standard 4+ armor.
Eldar ships always benefit from a right gunnery shift when targeted.
The armor value of an Eldar ship, when fired upon, depends on the enemy ship's range. Beyond 30cm 6+ armor, 15-30 5+ armor, 15> 4+ armor.
Lance shots at Eldar are subject to a saving throw to avoid. over 45 is 4+, 15-30 is 5+, 15> is 6+'
(can go to 3+, 4+, 5+ if it is felt that this makes Eldar too lance vulnerable)
This is my favorite, as it brings Eldar to 4+ armor fragility while not being at all fragile, especially at range. And of course keep crits at 5+ most likely.
Edit: After thinking about it, also how about 'Holofields prevent left column shift under 15cm' because they are still very vulnerable to close range weapon batteries.
iv) re-roll hits
when a ship succesfully hits the eldar ship it must re-roll the dice. Second roll stands. Re-roll after Lock-On shots.
This is interesting. Thats all I can say about it. I don't know how it would statistically differ from shields in avoiding damage, someone should do the maths on both these points.
Edit: Edited cuz what I first wrote didnt make sense.
-
Hi,
played an introduction battle yesterday. Using v1.9 as is to avoid confusion. I played along a brand new player who uses Corsairs. Against a Chaos flotilla.
Small battle 500pts
2x Carnage
3x Infidel
vs
Shadow
2x Aconite + 1 Hemlock
2x Nightshade
Was a fun little game to introduce someone. No attack craft yet.
In the end it was 2 crippled Carnages and 2 Infidels left.
And a crippled Nightshade squadron (failed BFI in last turn).
destroyed hemlock-aconite squadron (we did not disengage a single Aconite just because. We would have normally).
Crippled Shadow.
On table left: Shadow and a Nightshade, Chaos disengaged. Call it a Chaos Minor drawing victory.
On shields:
I called it 'outer hull quick wraithbone regeneration' in my head. Thus the outer hull having the least vital components is easy to build again by the bonesinger. Blastmarkers take that 'hull' down and when away it is reformed :)
Works exactly like shields. lol it works.
-
Decide to stick with shields for good? Or was the battle just for fun?
-
No decision I just liked the idea. I call it regeneration for now and no one can accuse Eldar having shields. lol lol lol.
The battle was as an introduction so no new tryouts.
-
Eldar Weapon Batteries
Per original rules it these count as Closing on the gunnery table regardless of facing. Tactical no-brainer.
In MMS it has always been a left shift. But to be honest that is wank a special rule to have a special rule. Since adding 2 batteries or so to the ship will have the same strength without a special rule.
So, ideas?
Negate blastmarkers? Hit on a +1?
-
I like the left shift. Its more characterfully representative than scads of batteries.
Also, its more beneficial to certain things than a couple more batteries. Like hitting Ordnance.
-
Okay then. :)
-
For the record, though, not a fan of the shields. Dunno where you are at on them.
-
Eldar have superior shield technology to the Imperium, so why wouldn't they have shields? I personally favour regenerative shields. Absorbs hits like normal shields, but after each ship/squadron completes its fire at an Eldar ship roll 1D6 for each shield the Eldar vessel has. For each 5+ rolled, remove a blast marker from base contact.
-
I know you would. But it is also overpowered in terms of game balance and we would need to whop an extra 5-10pts per shield on a ship.
-
Two things: For very slow/stationary things, such as Eldar defenses, I would like to see them gain shields instead of holofields.
Secondly, where in the entire background of the Eldar does it indicate that they use any form combat shielding on their vessels?
-
The old Eldar and shields debate. Well, Eldar shield technology is supposed to be much better than that of the Imperium. According to fluff they look down on the crudity of Imperial shields, much like the Imperium would with Orks. Wave Serpents are supposed to have shielding for example (though it is poorly represented in 40k). Eldar have shields on their Titans and massive vehicles (I'm pretty sure this is reflected to some degree in Epic rules). In 40k rules this is often reflected as a flat save, rather than absorbed hits (much like Necrons get in BFG). For a BFG example of Eldar shielding, the resilience of Eldar fighters is due in part to their shields.
The biggest problem is that those that made the rules for Eldar ships in the first place took on board 2 things about Eldar. 1) Their propensity to try to avoid fire rather than resist it. 2) The fact that most often Eldar shield, though putatively better, have been represented as saves rather than absorbed hits in GW game systems.
There are a couple of things wrong with this. Firstly, it would be utterly essential to have shields in space. You can't "fool" a swarm of micrometeoroids into not hitting you. Or a good deal of other celestial phenomena for that matter. This is particularly salient for the Eldar who spend a tremendous amount of time hiding in just that sort of terrain.
Secondly, shields in BFG are the best defence in the game. What they do very very well is protect you from incidental fire. A couple of hits against an IN cruiser is worthless. Not so an Eldar or Necron cruiser. They require that the enemy focus his fire or risk wasting a good deal of it. This then makes brace decisions easy as well as meaning that further fire will likely be reduced by BM interference. A Necron player will take less overall damage from a lot of focussed fire due to his save, but against incidental fire it is much worse than shields, so the opponent can split his fire. The Necron player will take the same number of hits as if they were focused, but since it's spread out the Necron player won't get the same benefit for bracing, unless he braces all ships, in which case he loses a lot more than a player with shields would. Not to mention the fact that BMs don't get placed to screw with gunnery.
So shields > other defences. Which makes me wonder why the Eldar are so disdainful of such an effective defence. Also, when you read the description of imperial void shields they get overloaded. Eldar shields aren't supposed to (hence in most systems they're represented by a save rather than absorbed hits). I think that normal BFG shields should have had a chance of coming back up when out of BM contact, rather than automatically coming up (if that test is failed, place a BM in contact for each shield that failed). Eldar shields on the other hand should be like shields are currently. Automatically come back.
But since that's not how it is, I put forward regenerative shielding.
Note (horizon): the regenerative shields I just put forward are somewhat different to my original proposal. Originally they were supposed to get a regenerate test against each point of incoming fire (much like a brace save for shields) which if continued to be passed would result in the hit being completely ignored. It would take a number of fails equal to the number of shields to drop them all. So a BB with 3 shields at 4+ save would roll 3 dice against incoming hits. Any that came up 4+ would absorb a hit and keep rolling to absorb more hits. Only when you'd failed all 3 shields saves at least once would all the shields be down (failed saves absorb a hit too). So this rule was a little fiddly in that you kept having to roll dice and also powerful in that it could end up giving quite a lot of shields in the end.
In the proposal I mention above you would take hits exactly as a normally shielded ship except that when the enemy ship/squadron has finished shooting you roll 1d6 per point of shield strength. For each 5+ you remove a BM from base contact (essentially getting back 1 shield). Then the attacking player chooses his next ship/squadron to fire with and continues his turn. So if a BB had 3 shields it would like get back 1 for successive firing. This process would be repeated each time an Eldar ship is the target of fire, possibly getting back more shields. Overall this would amount to more protection when looking at multiple squadrons focussing fire on the one Eldar ship (much like Necrons flat save would do), keep incidental protection up (1 or 2 hits won't cut it!) while making the Eldar ship slightly weaker than its IN counterpart as far as a single squadron is concerned (they'd only need to get through 3 shields, not 4).
Besides, it's Harlequins that depend most on holotech, not CE or CWE! For DE a clear demonstration of their shield tech is the 40 shadowfield, which has been bastardised in BFG.
-
Epic:A has no shields on Eldar.
With the absorbing shield tech...hmmm... I mean my opponents are not so adaptive on it as they still think that Eldar are very resilient with the v1.9 rules.
Also: when all shields are downed, the roll is still made?
Look, on escorts and cruisers they have the same number of shields as a regular IN class vessel.
Then we add holofield rules:
right shift vs batteries not under 15cm.
saving throw vs lances : 5+ above 30cm, 6+ 16-30cm, none under 15cm.
With absorbing shields you add another layer to protection.
So we then would have two layerers above a standard vessel. Your example is a Battleship which indeed has one shield less. But cruisers, escorts, not.
Yes, overwhelming firepower is needed in this case, thus large squadrons. But, then it comes, large squadrons have a problem in doing adhoc movement to interecept the fast Eldar. Also, I am no such fan of large squadrons.
In smaller battles it will be a problem to as you do not have enough to squadron.
To keep it clear & balanced it is either absorbing or holofield. Not both.
-
Eldar should definitly be more fragile than imperial stuff, etc.
As to 'looking down', I take that to mean they see the concept of such shielding to be primitive. Why take a hit if you can dodge it, in other words.
If anything, I would be ok with all Eldar vessels having some sort of shielding from phenomena or blast markers, even if it wasnt strong enough to count as a proper shield. More a passive thing.
-
That can be accounted for having holofields saving vs such phenomena. Or holofields advanced enough to negate such things.
-
As a raiding fleet Eldar should be able to take incidental fire. A single lance or single WB dice should be completely unable to hurt them (just like with IN, etc). They should only really suffer to focused fire, being unable to withstand a battle of attrition.
Eldar look down on Imperial shield tech because it's inferior to their own, crude and inelegant.
As for how it could work, escorts 1 shield & 6+ regen (bare bones stuff), cruisers 1 shield, 4+ regen and BBs 2 shields @ 4+ regen. If shield regenerates, remove a BM in contact. Test to regenerate after each successive ship/squadron has completed its fire at the ship. So you could have both shields of a BB fail to regen after a salvo, take some more incoming fire (shields down) and then regen afterwards.
This gives Eldar shields (necessary for space and the best type of defence in the game), makes them immune to incidental (1 shot) fire, makes them weak to massive focused fire and represents both their superior technology and their disdain for merely throwing more shields on (quality over quantity).
Specific values could be tweaked.
-
Thats interesting, at least.
-
Sig,
interesting.
Vs lances, lets say above 30cm that means Eldar do:
holo save 4+
if failed blastmarker is placed.
regeneration/hull/shield 4+ blastmarker is removed.
So vs Eldar Cruiser I would need:
a 4+ to hit (0,5)
a 4+ holo (0,5 ---> 0,25)
a 4+ regen (0,25 ---> 0,125)
So the opponent with 1 lance has 12,5 % chance to see a blastmarker placed.
So regeneration always applies, after every shooting issue. 2 shields means 2 dice thrown if markers are placed?
In terms of balance I do not see it as overpowered. On the contrary. This rule might ask for a refined approach to the holofield to have less fiddlyness with dice rolling, especially vs lances. Batteries right shift can stay as is.
1 shield is easy to overwhelm on capital ships...
-
For the very reason of quality over quantity, I vote simply to have a graduating scale from escorts to battleships, keeping the single shield.
Having it regen everytime you are shot at though feels wrong though, as in some cases it will actually punish the opponent for shooting with more than one thing, and enemy fire also should have nothing to do with if the shield regenerates or not. So I advise handling it on a ship/squadron basis until the shield fails to regen.
say 6+ for escorts, 6+ or 5+ for light cruisers, 5+ for cruisers, 4+ for grand cruisers, and 3+ for battleships, single shield.
-
Yep, you got it Horizon. Means to do anything much they need to put some guns into it.
LS, I don't mind scaling quality, but I would only implement 1 of your 2 suggestions, either/or. This is because with a 4+ save (say) on my grand cruiser (other races have 3 shields, 2 more hits and generally cost less) every second turn I'd have 1 shield. Half of the remaining turns (every 4th turn) I'd have 2 shields. Then 3, blah, blah.
Let's illustrate: 1st turn, enemy shoots 1 salvo at my 1 shield ship. Damage is taken, shield absorbs 1 hit, BM is place, brace saves made, crits for hull damage rolled, all as per normal. Now I get to do my 4+ regen; fails. Only had 1 shield this turn, subsequent fire resolved as normal.
2nd turn rocks around, same thing, but this time after the shooting resolves I regenerate (yay!). Now, if he fires again then I'll have gained a 2nd shield this time (possibly 3 if it regenerates and he fires again). However, he may not even shoot at that ship again (since the shield has regenerated he might fire elsewhere, or he may have fired all that he could or he may be depending on ordnance to finish the job, etc).
3rd turn, there's a lot of squads shooting at the ship and they manage to regen a lot so shields absorb 3 hits this time (same as a normal CG). Etc. So this would be considerably weaker than just giving the ship 3 shields.
When we're talking BB levels I don't think that 1 shield is enough. So, how about a flat 4+ save, allow multiple shields on larger craft, but only allow a shield to regen once per turn. So if it's successful it can't then regen again later.
Ugh, nevermind, ditch the whole idea and just give them normal shields.
-
lol
-
Maybe I didn't word it right. I was saying that instead of worrying about regenerating shields, simply give one shield to all eldar ships, with a graduating save on them to prevent the placement of a BM, thus representing rapidly regenerating/advanced light shielding.
-
You know, I think I may have misunderstood you, Sig. I thought you were suggesting that the regeneration was attempted when other fire was declared. If you mean after the ship/squadron fires, you then roll to regenerate a shield, I actually really like that.
Don't complicate it by adding multiple shields though, Eldar think that is primitive to simply stack on layers.
Give all Eldar ships one shield, with the increased ability to regenerate, the larger more advanced ships having an easier time with it.
I feel happy. I feel the whole fluff/play issue has been solved :)
Edit: Once a ship fails to regen shield, that should be it for the turn.
-
what would be the effect, then, on weapons that ignore holofields? they just ignore the one shield? no regen throw is made?
__
side suggustion - and roy you probably already tried this... but:
no shields.
holofields as per MSM CE. *but* drop the save to a 3+, and 4+ when within a specific range (either 15 or 30 cm).
might be fun, i'll playtest it after finals.
__________
-
wouldnt ignore shield.
-
Hi Valhallan,
didn't even try.... ;)
-
I've been thinking. I think this is the perfect defensive layout for Eldar.
4+, 5+ prow armor on the capital ships, for sure on the craftworld varieties. Possibly 4+ armor all around on the escorts, 5+ prow armor on perhaps the pricier ones.
keep 5+ criticals.
Holofields cause right shift on gunnery chart. Lances saved depending on range bands as per v1.9, but I think the saves could stand to be better.
say, 3+ past 30, 4+ in normal range, and 5+ or 6+ when within 15.
Extreme close proximity to the EM flux of the holofields causes great conflict to the machine spirits of attack craft and torpedos.
Ordance markers treat Eldar vessels with active holofields as if they were in contact with a blast marker.
All eldar ships have one shield. If a blast marker is placed as a result of fire from a ship/squadron, immediately after a roll is made. If passed, that ship removes a blast marker from base contact. 2+ for battleships, 3+ for grand cruisers, 4+ for cruisers, 5+ for light cruisers, 6+ for escorts.
Eldar turrets reroll misses against ordnance.
-
not naysaying. i like the ideas, but that seems overly complicated for a game system based off of abstraction and similpicity
-
Is it complicated? Man, I can't tell anymore. I've played so many board games it requires no thought from me nowadays to remember such things.
I can't remember, is it more complicated than MSM defences?
Its essentially these things to remember:
Roll a dice when a shield goes out.
Right shift and lance saves
Blast marker for ordnance
Crits hurt more often.
I like it, I can deal with that :p
Waiting on the creators to give their two cents.
-
Actually, you are a bit right, it is alot of dice rolling. I'd like to make it so that instead of rolling a save against lances, they simply suffer a penalty.
-2 to hit outside 30cm and -1 to hit outside 15cm, or -2 to hit outside 15cm and -1 to hit while within 15cm. I think I prefer the latter.
-
I've been thinking on the mms, mainly due to other's arguments that anything with 90* equals Eldar. :P
I think there should be a minimum movement to the Eldar. Its the great dynamic and originality of BFG, and was one of the coolest things I thought when I first started, that everything was always moving and you had to plan for it.
-
If you stand still, you're a defence. Something you don't want to be under MMS...
-
Fair, fair. I was thinking more 'carrier parking behind asteroid field' kind of situation, ya know?
Also, a big part of the game is the old 'I move into point blank range, fire, and your minimum move forces you to turn to fire. Granted, its doubtful ships would let the broadside oppurtunity roll on by, but thats how the game works currently :) Eldar can also negate this part if they want to.
Passing such things as BR for free a possibility?
Take any talk of nerfs with the full knowledge that MMS Eldar/DE will be my next fleet once im done with CPF :)
-
Still feel there should be at least some kind of movement requirement for Eldar, even if they burn retros and such for free.
On holofields, there is currently no negative to boarding or ramming, that I can tell. Is this deliberate? I think boarding should probably allowed normally, but perhaps something to make ramming more difficult, like an extra d6 or so.
-
Hi,
So with a spark I decided to keep current holofield - shield system.
I will only change the name of shields into : Wraithbone Regeneration. This to please the shield haters and at the same time keep the same functionality as shields for balance.
Agreed?
Though I still like my Ld based system. :)
-
Personally I would just add a rule 'repulsors' to all eldar ships. Which makes it so that they ignore blast markers unless they suffer a 'shields collapsed' critical.
-
Personally I'd just keep calling them shields, and tell anyone that doesn't like it to shove it.
-
That is also an option.
Sig, iirc you where allright with 5+ prow armour / 4+ rest for all vessels?
-
definately 5+/4+ for most vessels. I'd say escorts at 4+ except maybe the big one.
Still like the single regen shield idea, felt very eldar.
some kind of minimum movement.
what about the idea of holofields effecting ordnance as a blast marker? any change to rammin/boarding?
Other than that, near perfect fleet. well done!
-
Ramming: allowed on a Ld test of 5 D6....
;)
No minimum movement for Eldar.
No holofield effect on ordnance, it affects long range sensors, not area.
-
is it really or are you just being sarcastic? :P
Like i said, i understand why they wouldnt, but the inability confuses me in the rare situations it would be useful.
As the whole reason I love BFG is the fact that everything is always moving, key part of the game, and the stated goal of mms is to make Eldar more of a 'real' fleet, Id consider some kind of minimum movement.
-
Eldar have such an elegant ships & technology they can stand still. Dark Eldar can do it as well (official rulings). MSM could it. I don't think this makes them "odd".
The Ram remark was sarcastic, yes, in a way. Eldar would only do it in the most dire circumstances, eg to rescue their Craftworld. Thus rare, not usual, this high Ld required. ;)
-
That is also an option.
Sig, iirc you where allright with 5+ prow armour / 4+ rest for all vessels?
In exchange for what? I wouldn't be in favour of further nerfs. They're already extremely fragile. Given that they've got ships made out of Wraithbone(!) and the look of the actual models and how they play I could actually see a 6+/4+/5+ armour, particularly for CWE. As was pointed out to me by Barras, the Eldar look very well armoured from the front, moderately so from the rear, and due to the sails look the weakest from the side.
It actually makes sense given the way Eldar attack. Head on alpha strike exposing your prow, brace return fire, blow past the enemy battle line, showing your aft. Least often exposed is abeam. This armour layout I would see as a combination of configuring their ships to the their tactics and their tactics to their ships. I see the sails as being weak points, so low armour. Therefore the Eldar alter their tactics to expose them as little as possible, making for head on attacks. Therefore they have the prow weaponry and the speed to get out to avoid broadside duels. Then, given this established doctrine they armour up their prows. Makes sense.
-
Ramming: allowed on a Ld test of 5 D6....
;)
Is this really a high leadership roll though? Average D6 roll of 3-4, versus average eldar leadership of 8-9... ;)
Anyway, I sort of like Sig's idea of 6+/4+/5+ armour, it does make sense given that criticals do not correspond to the arc of fire that the shots that caused the critical came from.
-
Eldar MSM was too one trick pony. If you are suggesting fixing eldar with shields, full hull points, and armored prows, well, I've lost the will to debate :p
-
Eldar MSM was too one trick pony. If you are suggesting fixing eldar with shields, full hull points, and armored prows, well, I've lost the will to debate :p
Why not? Eldar have better materials and methods for constructing ships (Wraithbone), better shield tech and the ships themselves suggest the 6+/4+/5+ profile. Also, while Eldar may not like to fight battles of attrition I see no reason why they shouldn't have the same crippled threshhold as IN and the same boarding and repair capabilities too.
The fact is that the people at GW wrote the background and character of the Eldar differently to how they've been represented in both 40k and BFG. Eldar should have reasonable armour. 5+ is reasonable, 4+ is suicidal. Eldar are not suicidal. In 40k the basic trooper should have 4+ armour. The aspect warriors should have 3+. The advanced tech allowing them to run while in such "heavy" armour.
Also, Eldar condemn the Imperiums doctrine of just throwing more armour on at the expense of mobility. They don't disdain the protection that armour provides (else their skimmers would be armour 10, not 12), merely that the IGs tanks are slowed to a crawl because of their armour. Also, they have weapons that ignore that bonus armour.
How holofields have been used as the Eldars mainline defence in BFG is ridiculous. They have superior shield tech to the Imperium. Shields are the best defence in space battles AND extremely necessary if you spend any amount of time in asteroid fields, which is where the Eldar tend to hang out. Since Holofields provide little (comparitive) protection against WBs and WBs are armour based and the prow facing is the most susceptible to WB fire and the extra armour would do little to slow the Eldar ships then the Eldar would of course up armour the prow. To suggest that they wouldn't do that because of their philosophy would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. To suggest that they couldn't do that is ludicrous.
Mind you, the CE don't look as armoured in the prow as the CWE. Maybe they suck at building warships.
The designers went for a "feel" rather than basing the fleet on what the Eldar, as described in the 40k universe, would do. However, even with shields and full hits (albeit forced to bug out when reduced to 2) the Eldar still feel a fragile compared to Chaos and still feel "Eldary". With the suggested profile (6+/4+/5+) when combined with HFs fleets with long ranged focused fire like Chaos will have a hard time against Eldar. On the other hand, the IN would do well in passing at close range being able to fire both broadsides at close range into 4+ armour. Even a braced Lunar would get 3 dice hitting on 4+, critting on 5+.
-
Horizon/Sigoroth;
I don't suppose there is any chance that I could get a hold of older versions of MMS, I'm actually quite curious about the history of your changes.
-
Sig,
for the armour: well it is an increase for the destroyers. 5+ prow/4+ I mean.
4+ rear would be illogical as it is pretty small areas to hit. The sails from the sides are most vulnerable. Also: the sails aren't hull thick wraithbone. Plus they make up the largest area.
From that pov it would be 5+/4+/5+.
6+ is something no one would buy. People in general would just call us : losers. ;)
-
Bone does not equal adamantine :)
-
Adamantine does not equal bone?
They are right LS, wraithbone in the fluff is stronger than ceramite and plasteel. So they are justified in saying that their armor should be at least 5+.
However my take on why the escorts had lower armor was not for the fact that their armor was less, but that they had less crew (and were smaller) so that it would take relatively less firepower to destroy them.
However I could see 5+ prow/4+ sides and rear.
-
Adamantine does not equal bone?
They are right LS, wraithbone in the fluff is stronger than ceramite and plasteel. So they are justified in saying that their armor should be at least 5+.
However my take on why the escorts had lower armor was not for the fact that their armor was less, but that they had less crew (and were smaller) so that it would take relatively less firepower to destroy them.
However I could see 5+ prow/4+ sides and rear.
Indeed. And if you look at the models in the CWE fleet, which is a warfleet, the prow of those ships looks far more armoured than those of the Imperium. Armoured with stronger stuff than what the Imperium could possibly make. On the most vulnerable facing of the Eldar ships. In a system where armour matters. Where it wouldn't slow them down. Aaaand they're not going to do it because ... they don't like the idea of surviving?
As for the escorts and size and whatnot, well, seen the new Tau escorts? Warden is tiny tiny tiny. The ship is about as thick as an Eldar solar sail. That ship has 5+ armour. The Castellan really isn't that much bigger. It's still flimsy.
-
Which is why I agree with the idea that the castellan should be dropped in cost to 20-25 and have 4+ armor.
In escorts you can't really represent their size in hits, so usually I think it's better to do this with changing their armor value.
Like the Cobra, I don't think the IN would make it out of different stuff than swords and falchions but it has lower armor. It makes sense that this is just because it is smaller and therefore easier to kill.
-
Bah, racial propoganda. My ass their pretty little bone structures are harder than the hardest known metal in the galaxy. I rebuke it :P
-
Your problem, not mine. ;)
-
I have a very strong opinion when it comes to the eldar. They are not represented as a superior race and they should be. They are a dying race. They save themselves in soul stones when in battle. What happens to the souls that are blown to smithereens by being on a lightly armoured ship? To me it just not make sense. Light armour on a pirate fleet I can understand. Speed and armament must come first. On a battle fleet however, armour should be available. Should they be as heavily armed or as fast as a pirate fleet? Hell no. This is not their raiding fleet but their defense fleet for their craftworlds.
Besides "These are Eldar", give me another reason for them not to have better defenses than any imperial vessel IF they are so technologically advanced. I recognise the need for game balance, but this is where points come in and limit the eldar from fielding a large sized navy.
In short Eldar should be limited in number, but almost unlimited in every other regard. This is what technology gives your forces.
The armour 6+ on the front is demanded by the range of their guns and turns. They must face the front. Have a good look at the model and tell me if it looks like it couldn't take more damage than a SM strike cruiser. I'm not asking for them to be impossible to kill, but they should be harder to kill than they currently are but that being said, they should also pay for it in points. The 6/4/5 would suit their playing style.
I'm not asking you to agree to this proposal but to think about the changes to the Eldar from MSM. The MMS Eldar are no longer the terrain huggers their forebearers were. They need new thoughts and insights to allow them to evolve into an enjoyable and challenging fleet for both player and opponent.
-
So, you say the CWE should turn into a highly elite fleet?
By all this: what keeps this mind set from giving longer ranged weapons to Eldar?
Because: the farther away you are from the enemy the better for a Dying Race.
Right?
-
I always thought of the Eldar as advanced, I mean their fluff clearly states that they put their technology into evasion and generally see heavy armor as crude and unsophisticated. But they are the way they are, I assume for some reason they don't have long range weapons, perhaps because they put all their power systems towards other things, and favor 'dense' fields of combat.
It is interesting that the Eldar, and the even more advanced Necrons utilize neither long range or shield tech. One would think that either could manage firing at 90cm with loads of shields. I can only assume that millenia of combat has caused them to see some unknown benefit to putting power towards the things they do excel in.
-
So, you say the CWE should turn into a highly elite fleet?
By all this: what keeps this mind set from giving longer ranged weapons to Eldar?
Because: the farther away you are from the enemy the better for a Dying Race.
Right?
I ask the question, why shouldn't they?
Points to consider
-Eldar are limited in numbers and excell in technology. They should specialise in whatever they choose.
-Eldar are specialists according to the fluff.
-Cosair Eldar are specialist raiders (so good they can end a game in one turn).
-Why limit CW Eldar to a pirates role?
-Why should they be tin foil? Aren't Eldar meant to be hard to kill? I'm not suggesting 6+ all round or even the equivalent of the IN.
When it comes to long range weaponary I am not closed to it. I would resist it due to the fact that it would negate the need for armour 6 on the front, it would completely change the feel of the CW eldar, eldar already have the initiative due to speed and so most importantly they don't need the extra range.
Possible rules additions I would include are things like...
-Armour 6/4/5 at a speed of 10/15/20
-Their shields and holofields combine and require a 6+ to be rolled in order to place a blast marker regardless of the armour of that facing. This could be an Eldar brace rule but I think their shields should be better than Imperial. This would affect lances however the power of the lance would be that it places 2 blast markers if a 6 is rolled. Roll dice equal to the current shields until they drop. Ordinance ignores shields.
Ie. A Slaughter class chaos cruiser attacks a moving away Dragonship CWE BC at close range. 6 wb shots come in on rear. It's an armour 5 facing with 2 shields intact. Roll these WB's in groups of 2. All 6 WBs fail to roll a 6. Now 2 lances come in from the slaughter. Roll each separately as they will drop the shields if one of them hits. The first rolls a 6 and hits dropping both shields and allowing the second to roll for damage on a 4+.
-Give them decoys. A type of ordinance that gets a unit of torps to attack it. Armour 2,3 or 4+. Ideas for these are they may be deployed during the ordinance phase or fire them whenever enemy torps come within 10cm. Cap ships only.
-Craftworld attack craft. Counts as a fighter with resilience with 30cm movement. May attack enemy vessels, remove as normal. For every full three that get through to attack the ship, the attack craft fire 1 pulsar lance shot and like all ordinance. No shields. 1-2 fighters, no shots, 3-5 one pulsar lance shot, 6-8 two shots etc. They do not get assault boats or bombers. Turrets re-roll successful hits (Taus' ability would just cancel each other out. roll as normal) or the current, you need 6's to hit them.
-Craftworld attack craft. Any squadrons that did not engage the enemy in this ordinance phase may move to join another squad that has not engaged the enemy. No further movement of either of these squadrons is possible until the next ordinance phase.
-Drop weapon arrays to take extra shielding.
-Sensor Probe. A type of torpedo for Eldar. Each sensor probe counts as a salvo of 3 torps. They may each move 20cm in any direction during the ordinance phase. Any Eldar ship firing at an enemy vessel with a sensor probe within 10 cm will receive the close range column shift for shooting purposes (another idea for this is +1 to all dice rolled against enemy vessels within 10 of a sensor probe). When firing these torpedoes you divide the salvo into 3. Each full number you get is the number of sensor probes fired.
Ie. A Wraithship fires its 4 torps as a sensor probe salvo it would only get one. If 3 Wraithships fire their 12 torps as sensor probes, they would get 4 sensor probes. These four could move away in opposite directions in the ordinance phase.
-Defenders. If CWE ships disengage, opponent gets 20% VP's for the fleet rather than the usual 10%.
-Dying race. Reroll any failed disengage check. In addition to the optional rules in the MMS 1.9
In short I would evolve them to be a completely separate fleet from any other with their own nifty little rules. I would not build them to resemble an existing fleet, else whats the point in building them?
This is what I have come up with in about an hour of tinkering. What can you come up with?
-
lol, that you also should factor in the fact a hefty lot of people do not like a hefty lot of special rules for a single fleet/race.
Not that I am delving deeply into your ideas or dismissing them right out of hand. But the approach of less rules and keeping character is what has made v1.9 a really well accepted document around the globe for people who do not like the official rules.
Look at v1.0 in Warp Rift 11. Perhaps more characterfull then v1.9 and more representative to the Eldar. But no one (like 99% I feel) liked them as it had to many special rules (and it made Eldar pretty really resilient as well).
Now in the development I must admit that while Sigoroth and I fiddled around points we never really made large changes. Lets say more deviates then 20pts on a vessel.
Hard to say why but I guess that was "gut" driven. People still like to recognize old things even if presented in a new way.
One could take v1.9 and add on extra and ditch the low pts deviations. I am not opposed to it. But I wonder how it plays out.
-
MMS 1.9 had a lot of special Eldar rules. The only difference is most of these were taken from the MSM Eldar. Torps, WB, movement, lances etc. These are still not standard rules. They are race specified. Changing the rules and changing the fleet type requires out of the box thinking or it's going to be a recycled fleet with no flavour of its own.
I ask again why shouldn't CW Eldar be more resilient than their pirating cousins?
I ask the question (I know its 40k) Why do Eldar Wraithlords have such high toughness in 40K if resilience is not part of the Eldar ethos? Equal to the Ctan gods and its toughness kicks the crap out of the toughness of avatars like the greater daemons.
It's not that the Eldar can not have armour or resilience. It is that they use armour to the betterment of their races natural abilities and don't allow the maximization of armour to have a detriment to their abilities.
Old mistakes should not become new ones.
People prefer change when it is not an option.
Bottom line is that the CW Eldar need to gain resilience at the cost of fire power. Do this without any special rules if you have to. This is the change they absolutely need to differentiate them from their pillaging cousins. Without this they are just Eldar that I have a chance of choosing a scenario against.
-
MSM based rules are not standard, but they are officially recognized. Therefore using them to create the groundwork for an MMS ruleset is quite a good idea as at least the rule set may gain a modicum of official recognition from the community at large, although it won't from GW obviously. Going too far away from the original official rules, flawed though they are, will only help create a very niche fleet, used by few and recongnised as valid by a handful. Its a shame but I think thats the big issue here.
-
When I downloaded the Eldar MMS, I also saw Dark Eldar MMS, except they're not MMS..... why is it called Dark Eldar MMS?
-
Very well I have been thinking on this. Eldar ships are fragile. That's a given I believe? They are kept intact by their technology. Any disagreements here?
What about the following proposal.
Their armours range from 5/4/4 for cruisers and heavier to 4/3/3 or 4/4/4 for escorts.
Holofields are simplified to reroll any hits against eldar ships. Ships on lock on negate this but receive no bonus rolls. Holofields are at 8 of the crit hit table. (I dont know where they currently are)
Eldar have shields equal to standard ships. (2 per cruiser)
Eldar have -2 hits from standard on their ships. (6 per cruiser)
This is about the fluffiest way I can come up with that would give the Eldar a bit more resilience and be very simply in its application.
These changes would give Eldar good survivabilty until their holofields fail, some of the best shield per hits ratios representing their tech and the simplest version of holofields I have seen.
What so you think?
-
@ Xyson,
I only did layout on those DE. The author decided to add MMS to make it recognizable I guess.
Dated ruleset with cool pictures. :)
-
Very well I have been thinking on this. Eldar ships are fragile. That's a given I believe? They are kept intact by their technology. Any disagreements here?
What about the following proposal.
Their armours range from 5/4/4 for cruisers and heavier to 4/3/3 or 4/4/4 for escorts.
Holofields are simplified to reroll any hits against eldar ships. Ships on lock on negate this but receive no bonus rolls. Holofields are at 8 of the crit hit table. (I dont know where they currently are)
Eldar have shields equal to standard ships. (2 per cruiser)
Eldar have -2 hits from standard on their ships. (6 per cruiser)
This is about the fluffiest way I can come up with that would give the Eldar a bit more resilience and be very simply in its application.
These changes would give Eldar good survivabilty until their holofields fail, some of the best shield per hits ratios representing their tech and the simplest version of holofields I have seen.
What so you think?
Hi Barras,
Currently MMS has:
5+ armour on everything except the destroyers (NS, HL, SH) which have 4+.
I have playtested 5+/4+ on all and this worked fine.
(Ah main complaint about MMS in the past has been that resilience is too high.
They suffer critical hits on a 5+.
Holofield does offer no protection under 15cm.
Right shift above 15cm
And saving throw vs lances depending on range.
Eldar ships have shields:
Battleships 3
Cruisers 2
Light Cruisers 1
Also, under MMS v1.9 Eldar Corsair & Craftworld behave and feel differently.
Now for the CWE I could understand a lowering of speed in return of the gain of longer ranged weaponry (~45cm on all).
But if the speedbands are 10/15/20 for cruisers they'll be operating at speeds per movement phase of:
20cm (slowest)
25cm
30cm
35cm
40cm (fastest)
Is this enough to represent a fast & manoeuvrable fleet which the CWE still should be in my opinion. The ships have two 45* turns in general.
-
Wow 3+ armor. Thats scary.
-
3+ armour? Why would anyone make their ship out of paper? Its not origami is it?
-
No worries, I won't go there in MMS. ;)
-
Reading over mms, im confused about some things.
1. The vast points difference between corsair and craftworld cruisers, though craftworld cruisers actually are more manouverable.
2. Why the massively exhorbitant cost on the character ships?
3. Why the ordnance killing on the shadowhunters? Eldar already get a left shift against it. Would it drop the points down?
4. Finally, why the phantom lance option on shadowhunters? Why not make it a pulsar and keep away from the DE tech? :)
(Not like DE wouldnt have pulsar tech, always confused me why it was seperate. One or the other I say.
-
Hi,
1) Because CE is escort fleet, CWE cruiser fleet.
2) Because admirals + special rules included
3) Because that is the original neat rule
4) Because it does not have a Pulsar Lance
-
Fair enough. So the corsairs simply pay a points premium for their cruisers to encourage escort use?
-
Exactly!
-
Hi Barras,
Currently MMS has:
5+ armour on everything except the destroyers (NS, HL, SH) which have 4+.
I have playtested 5+/4+ on all and this worked fine.
(Ah main complaint about MMS in the past has been that resilience is too high.
They suffer critical hits on a 5+.
Holofield does offer no protection under 15cm.
Right shift above 15cm
And saving throw vs lances depending on range.
Eldar ships have shields:
Battleships 3
Cruisers 2
Light Cruisers 1
Also, under MMS v1.9 Eldar Corsair & Craftworld behave and feel differently.
Now for the CWE I could understand a lowering of speed in return of the gain of longer ranged weaponry (~45cm on all).
But if the speedbands are 10/15/20 for cruisers they'll be operating at speeds per movement phase of:
20cm (slowest)
25cm
30cm
35cm
40cm (fastest)
Is this enough to represent a fast & manoeuvrable fleet which the CWE still should be in my opinion. The ships have two 45* turns in general.
Firstly. No matter how light you make your ships. If the enemy cannot shoot you, you are invulnerable. These MSM and terrain game mechanics were critically flawed since there conception. That being said. If you are going to remove this mechanic from the fleet, then you can no longer have a tin foil fleet representing Eldar. The new MMS rules are a good start when it comes to CE. The CWE should be a vastly different fleet as CE and CWE have conflicting roles within their creators purposes. I am not saying that fleets cannot not be adapted, but they are built with a purpose.
To what you have said. I Understand where you are coming from on this and I actually agree with you to a point. I am looking for balanced, logical and acceptable changes within the rules that people with agree to. I am looking for a way of giving survivability to the CW Eldar ships. Space is not like a battlefield where you can retrieve the soul stones of the fallen after the battle. When an Eldar ship is destroyed, they lose those souls. Eldar cannot afford these loses.
Eldar ships should not be lightly armoured unless they have an alternate method of keeping themselves alive. They have speed and terrain to keep themselves alive in the old rules. 5+ armour just does not cut it in MMS, even with the holofields. Giving them 6+ armour will not be accepted by the majority of the community. So the main change I was presenting was the holofields and shields changes. These would represent the Eldar being able to get far more out of their armour than any other race due to their technological efficiency. The movement reduction was to try to placet people.
For those of you who did not read and understand the holofields/shields or cannot do the maths, here is the simplifaction.
For each hit you roll against CWE, re roll it.
Armour of 3+ when rolling to hit it twice means you miss 20 out of 36 shots. This means it is better than 4+ armour which is 18/36
5+ on the front is actually better than 6+ armour. This is where I was expecting the complaints. lol. 30/36 vrs 32/36 misses.
I also mentioned that these rules would require more points and or less firepower then the CE.
It's not just speed the Eldar have but the manoeuvrability (as you mentioned). They can out maneuver escorts! The slower movement Eldar with full firepower would still be quite quick under these rules compared with other races. A 0-40cm move with 30cm range guns will still give you the initiative in a lot scenarios. Being a defensive navy, why would CWE need as much speed as CE? The CWE are the ones being attacked. They can not afford to run away while the Craft World is in danger. What is the purpose of all that speed?
Maybe, if your looking to speed them up a bit, they could have all ahead full and it would give them a 5cm bonus to all movement bands (no turn restrictions) and half weapons.
Ack more rules.... I guess that ones out! ;D Besides I don't really like it myself!
@ Sig. I agree with you that Eldar should have 6+ armour on their ships. This is logical based upon a dying yet technically advanced race. They must preserve numbers. However the mainstream do not agree with this line of thought. So the only other way of getting the Eldar to be tougher is to look for alternatives. I have tried hardening them up but they wont eat their concrete!
-
I'm just reading through 1.9 at the moment, and I'm baffled as to why the Wrym class BB has 2x S4 Keel Launchers F and can replace them with 2x S2 Pulsars F.
Why not 1xS8 replaced by 1xS4?
-
Hi RcG,
well, since Sigoroth liked the vessel to launch two torpedp volleys.
-
But even with two launchers, they form into one volley anyway, like firing dorsal and prow WBs at once? And even with a S8 one, you can get 2 by passing a leadership check to split fire?
-
Before FAQ2010 a str8 torp means always str8 or less.
We decided to make it two str4 waves to have two templates. The Eldar might add into a single wave if desired.
Per FAQ2010 all players can opt to split waves above str6.
So perhaps the stats can be adjusted.
-
@Barras
Re-rolled 5+ armour = 1/9 hits or 4 in 36 hits. This is 33% better protection than 6+ armour, which gives 6 in 36. However, compared to 6+ armour and a right-shift it's pretty much the same, at least for high WB numbers. Mind you, the enemy using lock on would completely negate the re-roll method (re-rolling hits and re-rolling misses means irrelevant roll, so they cancel). So, for example, 8WB locked-on would give an average of 2 hits in that system. With a right shift, 6+ armour and re-roll for LO it would average 1.22 hits.
No particular point here, just saying.
I'm just reading through 1.9 at the moment, and I'm baffled as to why the Wrym class BB has 2x S4 Keel Launchers F and can replace them with 2x S2 Pulsars F.
Why not 1xS8 replaced by 1xS4?
It is 2 x S4 torps, meaning they can be fired separately or together. Also, it is 1 x S2 lances, not 2 x S2 lances.
-
@sig It's is the point though. If you want to be effective against the Eldar lock on to them or your firing at dust clouds and scan glitches. It would keep the Eldar light while giving them some of the best protection in the game through their holofields. If you can drop their holofields the Eldar fragility which a lot of people want is shown.
This was the only way I could represent the two sides of this argument coming to a convergence while keeping it very simple. The tough (Sig) and fragile (Horizon) Eldar. Lock on an Eldar ship without holofields under this system and it will become star dust.
You want them to have a natural 6+ armour save and I don't disagree. However most of the others on the forum would have an objection to this because them Eldar were built light under the MSM system. They were also almost impossible to kill under MSM. You could win games against them (rarely) but you would kill very few of them.
Eldar vrs Chaos. Hmm space with no terrain, ok I'll disengage you win. Oh I have terrain, well like I will ever have to take an armour roll!
Eldar under MSM didn't need armour. Under MSM they should be shown as technologically advanced in armour. If they take lighter armour than other races there should be a logical reason for them to do this. If SM strike cruisers at 6+ all sides can run around at 30cm and have 90' turns what is the Eldar equivalent?
CWE just wanting to go faster and so dropping the armour on a defensive fleet just does not cut it for me. Giving up so much protection for this extra speed, why? This logic is truly flawed. It belies the purpose of the fleet.
-
I'm just reading through 1.9 at the moment, and I'm baffled as to why the Wrym class BB has 2x S4 Keel Launchers F and can replace them with 2x S2 Pulsars F.
Why not 1xS8 replaced by 1xS4?
It is 2 x S4 torps, meaning they can be fired separately or together. Also, it is 1 x S2 lances, not 2 x S2 lances.
Well the S of the lances is besides the point really. Wouldn't S4 torps normally have to be combined anyway, with a ld check to split?
S8 torps can still be split at different targets after a Ld check too.
The double profile entry is inelegant.
-
Hi RcG,
before FAQ2010 torps could not be split ever. Even after a Ld test.
MMS 1.9 predates FAQ2010 by a large margin.
With FAQ2010 the profile can be ammended, before it could not to fulfill the designer's intention.
-
I just have one question regarding CW Eldar. Why do people have the mind set they should not be tough?
-
Well the S of the lances is besides the point really. Wouldn't S4 torps normally have to be combined anyway, with a ld check to split?
S8 torps can still be split at different targets after a Ld check too.
The double profile entry is inelegant.
Let's just forget FAQ2010 for the moment. It's largely rubbish and it was not around when these rules were made. So think of the profile sans FAQ2010. One str 8 torp salvo must be launched as a single salvo. 2 salvos do not have to be combined, though they can be combined. So this duel launcher system allowed the Wyrmship to either fire one large salvo at a single target or 2 smaller salvoes at separate targets.
-
@ the discussion about torpedoes: Indeed, you could fire one salvo, and then wait until next turn to fire the second salvo.
@ the discussion about eldar armor: It would be interesting to playtest eldar MMS armor as it is, 5+, with holofields giving a right shift against WB, and replacing the holofield save vs lances and such with a 'reroll to hit' instead. I might be able to do that this weekend.
-
Well the S of the lances is besides the point really. Wouldn't S4 torps normally have to be combined anyway, with a ld check to split?
S8 torps can still be split at different targets after a Ld check too.
The double profile entry is inelegant.
Let's just forget FAQ2010 for the moment. It's largely rubbish and it was not around when these rules were made. So think of the profile sans FAQ2010. One str 8 torp salvo must be launched as a single salvo. 2 salvos do not have to be combined, though they can be combined. So this duel launcher system allowed the Wyrmship to either fire one large salvo at a single target or 2 smaller salvoes at separate targets.
F&Q2010 is largely rubbish? Thats quite a statement to make?
-
F&Q2010 is largely rubbish? Thats quite a statement to make?
Of all people Sigoroth probably is the most qualified to say such.
-
Only because he was an answer-mod in the past. ;)
Largely rubbish? Dunno. Somethings I like, some I don't, just like FAQ2007,2003 and original rules. Can't have it all!
-
Its probably been pointed out, but there is a difference in pts for the Hellebore escort.
Hellebore is listed as 75 pts and 80 pts, and really, its all ready the most expensive escort in the game, I like the mine option, but is it worth 5 pts? Maybe it could be a free swap? Or I dunno... upgrade to 3 wb maybe and then the mines could stay 5 pts.
-
yep. looking at some initial math, that could be rad: that is, holofield works over 15cm. holofield requires enemies to reroll successful hits. no shield. 5+ prow, 4+ else. it makes them a little more resilient than now, but without shields, thus they'd be worried about BM damage etc. worthy of a playtest or 5.
-
Eldar should have shields.
-
I'm starting to wonder if sigoroth is getting tired. His arguments are getting shorter.
Eventually it will be Eldar+shields=yes.
-
I'm starting to wonder if sigoroth is getting tired. His arguments are getting shorter.
Eventually it will be Eldar+shields=yes.
Heh, or "is Eldar, is shield", "shieldum goooood" or "how come asteroid knew which ship to hit? me brain hurt" :P
-
I think that Holofields should just do a re-roll successful hits. No dependence on distance. LO negates this. This is only for direct fire weapons (including nova cannon).
Other targeting abilities grant Eldar a 4+ save against, such as teleport attacks, boarding actions, ramming, etc.
-
So you are giving a bonus to long range fleets (eg Chaos)?
-
How so? Holofields would work the same at any distance. Chaos has always had an advantage to eldar due to range, and honestly it isn't that big a deal... Eldar can close the distance quite quickly.
The only difference from what was proposed before is that holofields would still work within 15cm.
-
Horizon, I need a Gryphon Knight equivalent for CWE/DE any ideas?
I don't know if you caught on, but all 'secondary' characters will have the Gryphon Knight rule in BFGrev.
-
Why?
Craftmaster is a nice name.
-
Hmmm... I was thinking Boneweaver. Perhaps increasing the cost of the farseers and allowing them to do the same?
The reasons are to make larger battles less harsh on command checks for one thing, secondarily, the only real fleet with secondary commanders (Chaos) aren't as worthwhile as CSMs. Unless you want a re-roll, or just really need that 10 points.
In FS every fleet will have access to some kind of 'secondary' commander, like the Gryphon Knight, chaos lords, ork warlords etc.
DE will probably just get Drachon.
-
Farseers should be kept as is.
Only very capable Farseers would take command (eg Eriel on the Cerysheal).
Wayfarer is an Eldar name, but that is more of a helmsman. Boneweaver sounds crap.
-
K Craftsman it is then. Hmmm... let me check my into the expanse...
Damn.... FFG still calls them 'Captains' boring.
-
Cápì'tain?
-
Cápì'tain?
Needs more umlauts.
-
It just occurred to me, for justification as to Eldar having shields. The shield losses could be near misses for the holofields, the close proximity creating the blast marker, helping pinpoint the vessels location. The first hit to the ship past shields would be the opposing ship finally zeroing in on a closer area where the ship might be.
-
Another justification could be that shields are great protection and Eldar have very good shield tech. Holofields are useless against an asteroid field.
-
For that I was thinking the justification would be specialized environmental shielding for flares and roids.
Also, was there any interest in pursuing that idea...i can't even remember the specifics, something about eldar shield tech being more limited but advanced, and having a save to remove blast markers after a salvo.
-
Eh, fading memory, when did the Dragonship with 8 hits got introduced?
Found it.
Version 1.6
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98720
-
For that I was thinking the justification would be specialized environmental shielding for flares and roids.
Also, was there any interest in pursuing that idea...i can't even remember the specifics, something about eldar shield tech being more limited but advanced, and having a save to remove blast markers after a salvo.
Asteroids cause damage, environmental shields won't work against them like they would blast markers. As for shield saves and whatnot, it just ends up too complicated. The original shield save idea I came up with someone else also came up (apparently independently) later and also, unbeknownst to either of us, happened to be a refit in the campaign rules. It's just convoluted.
To simplify it a little, instead of getting a save for as long as your shields remain up, you could simply combine normal (ie, Imperial) shields with a normal (ie, Necron) save. So, for example, say a cruiser has 2 shields and a 6+ save and takes 4 hits. Roll 4 dice, discounting 1 hit for each 6 rolled. Then treat the remaining hits as you would any other ship. Let's say you roll 1 six. So you take 3 hits, the first 2 of which drop shields and the last one goes through to the hull (take brace saves if applicable). You keep your save even though shields are down. You could combine this save with holofields too, where appropriate.
But I think that the most elegant system is simply shields as we have them now.
Anyway, ignoring all that shield business, I think that the Dragonship from MMS 1.9 should come back down to 6 hits standard. Even at 6 hits the DS is better choice than the corsair cruisers and getting those 2 hits for free seems a bit odd to me. Particularly as 8 hits would put it at CG size. When using the Dying Race rule (which I heartily recommend) it puts it at 10 hits. Of course, this is no great advantage over the non-DR rule but I don't think it should be possible. The point behind the Dying Race rule is that I think Eldar ships should be just as sturdy as their Imperial analogue, but they simply play as more fragile because the Eldar are far more wary of losses and less able to absorb casualties. So what would normally be an 8 hit cruiser plays as a 6 hit cruiser, etc. With this view then playing a Dragonship as 8 hits without the DR rule would make it a 10 hit ship with it, meaning that its closest IN analogue would be a CG. I don't think it's worthy of this moniker.
As for pros and cons of the DR rule, the only real con is that it adds a little complexity. However I think that it fits Eldar perfectly, and that this complexity is actually good for the game. I'll give you an example of the differences. Let's look at an Aurora both with and without DR.
Without:
1st hit - no effect
2nd hit - crippled (25%)
3rd hit - no effect
4th hit - destroyed (100%)
This is just a weak ship, nothing more or less, it's like any other race's 4 hit ship, such as an un-upgraded Merchant.
With DR:
1st hit - no effect
2nd hit - no effect
3rd hit - crippled (25%)
4th hit - disabled (100% - must disengage)
5th hit - no effect
6th hit - destroyed (150%)
In this scenario the crippled threshold is lowered, meaning that this ship is stronger at the start. However, the very next shot is enough to disable it; the equivalent of being destroyed for all intents and purposes except that it does not explode or get left behind for the enemy to capture/study. This in itself means that the Eldar ship goes from fully functioning to "destroyed" very very quickly, rather than being able to limp through a fight for a long while. This gives a feeling of being unable to withstand attrition, a characteristic often ascribed to Eldar. It also means less Eldar hulks lying around for mon keigh races to plunder (which is again quite Eldarish) and more Eldar lives and, more importantly, souls saved. All of this fits the Eldar MO. In essence, they run when things get too tough, like mercenaries do (Demiurg for example).
So why the 100% VPs for reducing Eldar to 2 hits? Well apart from being balanced around having 2 hits less than other races this fits with the cost to the Eldar of having their ships so heavily damaged. A lot of crew will have died from that much damage, and lives lost cost Eldar more than other races. So heavily damaging an Eldar ship is a greater victory than heavily damaging, say, an Ork ship. If the Eldar were as plentiful as the Orks then I would simply recommend that all Eldar ships have +2 hits with no downsides. Meaning they could fight battles of attrition.
Of course, the DR rules so far only benefit the Eldar. Better crippled threshold, less Eldar ships exploding in own lines, less hulks on table to worry about for disengagement, etc. That's where the 150% VPs comes in if you do destroy an Eldar ship. If it's simply left a drifting hulk then disengaging your fleet and leaving the field to the opponent really hurts (200% ship's value to the opponent). It's something for the opponent to shoot for. Or, if he's low on firepower he can just let it disengage and focus his efforts elsewhere. If it's in the middle of his lines he doesn't need to worry about it exploding and can safely disable it. The logic behind it is of course that the Eldar have lost a great many souls to Slaanesh. So on the whole I think it represents the Eldar as a raiding fleet much better and as well it also represents the Eldar character much better.
-
The cripple tresshold + the fact they see Eldar cruisers like the Eclipse with eight hits is something that scares a lot of people ... who don't read on. And that happens.
The Dragonship back to six is good with me. I was never able to fully convince everyone the difference with the Eclipse. ;)
Also: More then 52% of the posts on the sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum are in the BFG subforums. :)
-
What, people post in other ones? :p
-
Other ones? As in other forums? Other people?
Do know that the Ghosts of past MMS development still haunt me in my dreams.
<boo>
-
Other ones? As in other forums? Other people?
Other forums. He was trying to be clever. I would say that it's the effort that counts ... but the evidence seems to contradict that notion.
Do know that the Ghosts of past MMS development still haunt me in my dreams.
<boo>
Oh really? I thought we got the Ghostships down pat fairly early. ;)
^ Yet more contradictory evidence. ::)
-
Ghostships in MMS are pretty rad. :)
-
I was only half joking. I was surprised people post in the other subforums at all. I was under the impression this was the only one that wasn't mostly dead was BFG.
-
ah.. 'kay.
Warmaster is second place. Modelling & Painting is filled with it.
-
Version v1.9b:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
Dragonship 6 hits
Ghostship (WS) corrected.
Corsair fleet list light cruisers daftness removed
-
Whats WS? :)
Out of curiosity, why was the dragon ship reduced? I assume the logic of it is it is simply the 'heavy cruiser' version of the wraith ship,
and leaving the void dragon in the role of 'grand cruiser'.
Maybe the next commission can be a supernova :)
-
Wraithship (WS).
Because Sigoroth said so, and I forgot why it had 8 hits in the first place (Dragonship).
Sure. :)
-
Link to Eldar MMS v1.9b
Eldar MMS v1.9b (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8T0pOTmliYmIxR0U)
-
Now! Nine years later! Eldar MMS v2.0!!!
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yEexPKyPepgavxcFxKXyiezBKUjv-Tl2/view?usp=sharing
Log:
Movement clarified: thx Catgut
Supernova range differences on Pulsar, dropped points, thx warpman
Hemlock weapon battery removed
Supernova image updated, thx Italianmoose
Wyrm image updated, thx Italianmoose
Iyanden specifics changed, thx Eca|iber
Gallery pages added
Updated spacefleet model rules
have fun! Feedback is appreciated as always.