October 28, 2024, 01:12:22 PM

Author Topic: Eldar MMS v2.0  (Read 66102 times)

Offline barras1511

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »
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?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2011, 07:05:39 PM »
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.

Offline barras1511

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #137 on: January 12, 2011, 03:04:29 PM »
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.
 
                                                 

Offline Dark Depths

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #138 on: January 12, 2011, 05:45:41 PM »
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.

Offline Xyon

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #139 on: January 12, 2011, 09:45:08 PM »
When I downloaded the Eldar MMS, I also saw Dark Eldar MMS,  except they're not MMS..... why is it called Dark Eldar MMS?

Offline barras1511

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2011, 01:02:43 AM »
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?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #141 on: January 13, 2011, 06:39:50 AM »
@ 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. :)


Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #142 on: January 13, 2011, 07:27:38 AM »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 08:34:52 AM by horizon »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #143 on: January 14, 2011, 01:42:20 AM »
Wow 3+ armor.  Thats scary.

Offline Dark Depths

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #144 on: January 14, 2011, 02:34:51 PM »
3+ armour?  Why would anyone make their ship out of paper? Its not origami is it?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #145 on: January 14, 2011, 08:32:31 PM »
No worries, I won't go there in MMS. ;)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #146 on: January 15, 2011, 08:03:30 PM »
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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #147 on: January 16, 2011, 09:16:30 AM »
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


Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #148 on: January 16, 2011, 03:16:28 PM »
Fair enough.  So the corsairs simply pay a points premium for their cruisers to encourage escort use?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Eldar MMS v1.9
« Reply #149 on: January 16, 2011, 05:10:51 PM »
Exactly!