Eldar MMS v2.0

[barras1511]

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! 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!

[RCgothic]

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?

[horizon]

Hi RcG,
well, since Sigoroth liked the vessel to launch two torpedp volleys.

[RCgothic]

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?

[horizon]

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.

[Sigoroth]

@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.

[barras1511]

@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.

[RCgothic]

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.

[horizon]

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.

[barras1511]

I just have one question regarding CW Eldar. Why do people have the mind set they should not be tough?

[Sigoroth]

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.

[Xyon]

@ 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.

[Dark Depths]

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?

[Plaxor]

F&Q2010 is largely rubbish?  Thats quite a statement to make?

Of all people Sigoroth probably is the most qualified to say such.

[horizon]

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!