Eldar - ReDesign / Rules Development

[horizon]

That brinks on the edge of being no longer K.I.S.S.
Too many rulings.
People dislike that.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Well, Item 5 isn't really a special rule.

Item 6 can be dispensed with.

Items 1-4 should be good.

[horizon]

No re-roll on weapon batteries?
Only right shift?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yup. Thinking if they can Lock On at ranges beyond 30 cm applies to them compared to lances. What do you think?

[horizon]

That would be fiddly. All or nothing. (regarding lock on).

I am also considering re-rolling for batteries. Otherwise they (Eldar) die like flies under 30cm.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

No Lock On for all ranges and all weapons is going to be a major change. Eldar prolly need it though.

[lastspartacus]

Exactly. No shields means they will die easily if no measure of protection is given them. What's so bad about not being to lock on at ranges more than 30 cm? Stealth Fighters and Bombers are harder to lock on these days at closer ranges. Again, it is quite fluffy that one cannot Lock On on them.

My proposed holofield rules protect much better than standard shields at range, without needing added rules of gimping the enemy fleet.

But they're not supposed to be protected much better than standard shields. They should be protected about the same. That's for game balance. That was the problem with MSM. They were protected waaaaaay better than they should have been.

I'm definitly not trying to make something better than shields in general, but here are what I consider to be some definites.

1.  Eldar ships, shields or no, are much more fragile, point for point, to their counterparts.
2.  Eldar ships, point for point, hit much harder than their counterparts.
3.  Eldar have almost absolute power to choose where and how they engage an enemy fleet, with their superior speed and agility.  Eldar should usually be able to achieve a decisive alpha strike.
4.  Holofields, in game-mechanic and fluff, should function increasingly well at further ranges.  Thus, at long range, it should average less damage to the Eldar than comparable shields at long range, and equal or more damage at short range.
5.  Given the agility of the Eldar, positioning to avoid a lockon order should not be terribly difficult, if there is a ship left that you have not yet pwned.  But give the poor sap a chance, so he doesn't hate playing you.
6.  Given the playstyle of the Eldar, your goal is to do as much damage as possible to minimize return fire, while being balanced enough that the enemy fleet still has a chance to wreck you.

I think my rules perfectly represent my idea of holofields along with game balance, but I still need to figure out the maths, and then compare to shields.

Of course, they are my ideas, so im biased   and would readily admit I'm wrong for the sake of balance

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Being hard to hit at long ranges already works with the present WB table setup where one rolls lesser dice the farther out the target is. The issue right now then are lances. My proposal is simple enough to represent the HF effect on lances.

[lastspartacus]

Being hard to hit at long ranges already works with the present WB table setup where one rolls lesser dice the farther out the target is. The issue right now then are lances. My proposal is simple enough to represent the HF effect on lances.

Do you realize my proposed rules have the same effect on lances as they do on batteries?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yes and I don't want it to change into a WB. It's a lance. It shouldn't have the same result as WBs as it deviates drastically on how a lance works against other races.

[lastspartacus]

Yes and I don't want it to change into a WB. It's a lance. It shouldn't have the same result as WBs as it deviates drastically on how a lance works against other races.

Thats confusing to me.  It simply accomplishes the target of allowing WBs to be more effective against Eldar, as they should.  Not even that much more effective, depending on range and orientation.  Having lances gaurantees you will get to shoot that many shots, regardless.
And its Eldar, its going to work differently against it.

Didn't you suggest yourself having lances hit on higher dice?  Maybe that was someone else.  
Also, it keeps it as simple as possible, no special rules denying or rerolling required.  I'm going for a passionate but effective KISS here, as it were.  Lances are effected as WBs for simplicity, to keep one system for holofields throwing off enemy shots in place.  If wanting a different mechanic for lances is the only complaint, then I'd say we hit our target ruleset.  If we are going for something easy of course.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Lances hit at 4+ no matter what the range. Changing that into something like a WB table changes the flavor too much. I'd rather do a straight reduction in the to hit requirements rather than have to go through a WB-like procedure. It's closer to the lance mechanic.

[lastspartacus]

Hmm.  Ok.  How do my rules make lances something like the WB table?

What do you mean in a straight reduction to 'to hit' requirements?

I think maybe I have failed to word my rules properly.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Basically if I understnad correctly, your rules make the lance roll different "to hits" at different bands. Similar to a WB table where it would roll less dice at farther ranges.

I just prefer one reduction or "penalty" due to the holofields. So that the flavor of one "to hit" roll per lance is maintained.

I can also go with lances hit on straight 6+ to hit against holofields but without re-rolling hits and Lock On is allowed. Someone do the math though. 

[horizon]

lances vs holo ideas

4+ = 0,5
forced re-roll = 0,25

5+ = 0,33
forced re-roll = 0,11

6+ = 0,16
forced re-roll = 0,03

with lock on, no re-roll
6+ = 0,16 = no lock on
6+ = 0,33 = lock on

If I am not off.

So 6+ for lances with lock on option is slightly better then 5+ with forced re-roll and no lock on.

---
5+ for lances with lock on and forced re-roll after comes out at about 0,22.