my simpler math for the lunar has it having 2 WB dice and 2 lance dice against a sword moving away. this on average is .66 hits from batteries and 1 hit from lance for a total of 1.66 hits. on average. given that it takes 2 hits to kill this means 0.83 chance of a sword kill from an lunar.
against an eldar escort it is 1 WB die and 2 lances for an average of 0.5 hit from the battery and 1 hit from lance, reduced to 0.166 hits after holofield saves for a total of .666 hits on average. given that it only take 1 hit to kill this remain 0.66 eldar kill from a lunar.
versus closing escorts it comes to 0.99 hits from batteries and 1 from lance for a total of 1.99 hits vs the sword (0.99 chance of a kill from a lunar) versus 1 hit from the batteries and 0.166 damage point from the lance on the eldar escort (1.16 chance of a kill). so here the lunar is more effective against the eldar, but this situation should rarely if ever happens with MSM.
my argument is not that the holofield is too powerful, just that the combination of MSM and holofield make the eldar quite formidable. as played with MSM, holofield is better than shields, but yes, in some situation shield is better (more in metagame analysis than actual play imo).
my argument is also that MSM is characterful. the reference mechanic for the game is a human one with IN, Chaos, and AM. All the other races deviate from this some. Orks with free pass for AAF and 10HP cruisers, Tau with their ordnance, necron with hull saves. these are all in character with their 40k fluff (speedy orks, shooty tau, resilient necrons). for eldar the current rules as is make them fast but fragile as in 40k.
yes i recognize that MSM is a radical departure from the core mechanics but i am fine with it for fluffly, hence character, reasons. i am fine with the rules as they are, but if i were to change them i would give them shields and armor 5 rather than holofield because holofield is not representative of 40k eldar.