Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[lastspartacus]

Playing with VP help out with those suicidal ships.

One thing I dont understand is, although its not a good idea, why are Eldar unable to ram?

For the record, I thought the regenerating single shield was perfect for MMS Eldar, and I'm not a fan of multishields on Eldar ships.  Just my 2 cents.

[Dark Depths]

If you were a dying race, and you had limited resources, and your ships were designed for elegance rather than slogging matches (like the IN), would you ram?  I think the Eldar would run away, killing themselves in a ramming attack does seem a little unlike them.  Even the shape of their vessels suggests ramming is not on th agenda, unlike with the IN and Chaos fleets were the prows are obviously designed to be able to ram (especially in the IN's case).

As for suicidal ships, I think in fleets such as the IN, suicidal ships are characterful.  Its part of the human mentality of never backing down, stubborness in the face of adversity, etc, when in fact you'd be better off just escaping.  Look at the German light cruisers at Jutland, they turned to ram the British dreadnoughts (before being ordered to turn away) to allow the German fleet to escape.  It made little sense tactically (as it just left the light cruisers burning long before they could have reached the Brits), but thats the sort of crazy-brave thing people do.  So yes, suicide ships should be rare in BFG, but they should be allowed for the 'human' races.

[Sigoroth]

The eldar is not fragile. It only appear so if you do not consider the holofield. Even batteries aren't that good. In a game of movements and position MSM is characterful.

No, MSM is NOT characterful, it is moronic. Also, even with Holofields the Eldar are very fragile. A Carnage against a closing IN cap ship at normal range with no BM will get roughly 2 hits, another 1 or 2 on LO. This equates to 0-2 hull hits, depending on orders. Against a moving away Eldar cap ship at long range that same Carnage will get 1-2 hits, maybe 3 on LO. These are all hull hits. This is against a ship that has only 75% of the hits of the IN target and costs +15% of the points. Then you get 4+ crits on top. Way too fragile.

So you say "ah, but that's a Carnage, Eldar are weak to batteries, what about lances and bombers. Well, a Gothic with their armour ignoring lances should be much better against an IN prow on ship than against Eldar with their great holofields right? Well, a Gothic will score 2-3 hits against an IN ship, depending on LO, which is 0-1 hull hits. Against an Eldar cruiser it scores between 0.5 and 0.67 hits on average, depending on LO. These are hull hits. So it's actually better when not locked on against Eldar ships and even when locked on it's on par, when you consider the reduced hits and increased crits. Not that anyone takes lances against Eldar.

As for bombers, well a single bomber has a 19.63% chance of successfully destroying a braced Eldar escort, whereas it has only a 16.74% chance of doing the same against a normal 5+ armour, one turret, braced escort. OK, you could send a wave of 2 bombers against the normal escort, increasing the chance of success to 44.62%, those same 2 bombers against Eldar escorts have a 35.41% chance of killing at least 1 escort and 3.85% chance of destroying 2 escorts. This makes bombers slightly (5.36% less casualties overall) worse against Eldar, however, most escorts are either considerably cheaper than Eldar and/or have +1 turret. The Infidel vs NS/Hemlock is the closest comparison here, and the Infidel is overpriced for what you get. It should have another turret. This doesn't even account for massed turrets. No, bombers are every bit as good against Eldar as they are against other races. Lances are only slightly less effective. Like Necrons, Eldar are susceptible to incidental damage, other race require focus.

Problem with eldar is that they have too many schticks in addition to MSM
Holofield
Super lances
Super ordnances
Compared to weakness

Of the 4 listed I would change holofield saves ( just like I would change necron reactive hull save)
No bonus against batteries and MSM only for corsairs not craftworld
(necron would not get hull saves against torpedoes)

The special rules for their weaponry is more than made up for by their reduced strength and increased cost. If you were going to drop holofield saves then Eldar would become bomber bait. They'd need an increase in armour and crits to make up for the loss. If you think that Eldar are sufficiently protected by HFs then try playing a game with them with no terrain. If you're right then they should do fine. If, however, the HFs are mediocre at best and the greatest defence for Eldar is in their ability to hide from direct fire then they should get creamed.

[Sigoroth]

I especially like the rule saying that when they reach 2hp they have to disengage, its a very nifty way of stopping suicidal Eldar.

Sigoroth will be very pleased to read this.

Indeed. I think that they should be standard rules, rather than optional, to be honest. What it really does is increase the BV and repair dice as well as lower the crippled threshold (and reduces the number of hulked ships left behind for the opponent to salvage), all of which is how I think it should be anyway. In return the opponent can get a heap of VPs if they decide to throw in the extra firepower, or if no VPs for that scenario they can get bragging rights. I suppose people just freak when they see Eldar with normal number of hits.

[horizon]

At that time there was a 50/50 view on the rules. Normally enough to not add/change something but I liked the dying race rule a lot so an Optional Rule option was the best thing to do.


(Keep in mind, as the caretaker, continuing the creation of Sigoroth I am not 100% aiming on what I think is perfect but am going for a ruleset that will be accepted by a lot of people, is balanced and reflects Eldar better then msm).

[fracas]

@Sig

you confound together MSM and Holofield. regarding MSM its a matter of opinion right now for both of us regarding character of the rule, whether you apply it against the standard rules of the game, the fluff background, or its impact on the game itself. as have i. differing opinions.
having both MSM and holofield is too much for many. some recommend eliminating MSM. others think it could have gone the other way  and weaken holofield. Since MSM is much more different than holofield from the standard rules fixing this seems to be the way to go, but it is not the only way to go.

regarding the holofield itself, no it is not impervious to attacks. eldar will die behind holofield just as necron will die despite reactive hulls. this proves nothing. holofield and 4+ criticals gives them a weakness that is necessary.
but holofield is better than standard shields and 6+ criticals because especially for CE, primarily an escort fleet, criticals mean nothing.

[lastspartacus]

Well you make the sensible document Horizon, Ill let you know how the 'radical' shield ideas go

[horizon]

@Sig

you confound together MSM and Holofield. regarding MSM its a matter of opinion right now for both of us regarding character of the rule, whether you apply it against the standard rules of the game, the fluff background, or its impact on the game itself. as have i. differing opinions.
having both MSM and holofield is too much for many. some recommend eliminating MSM. others think it could have gone the other way  and weaken holofield. Since MSM is much more different than holofield from the standard rules fixing this seems to be the way to go, but it is not the only way to go.

regarding the holofield itself, no it is not impervious to attacks. eldar will die behind holofield just as necron will die despite reactive hulls. this proves nothing. holofield and 4+ criticals gives them a weakness that is necessary.
but holofield is better than standard shields and 6+ criticals because especially for CE, primarily an escort fleet, criticals mean nothing.

But then the Craftworld is skewed right?

Under MSM, the movement system & holofield system is an inter-locking set of rules. Holofields are worse then a shield because 1 dice can kill an escort (or do direct hull damage on a capital ship), 1 dice cannot do that versus an Imperial Navy ship.

[fracas]

How many starting dice does it take to kill a CE escort vs a sword escort?
Let's say moving away from a Lunar

[horizon]

Hi Fracas,

(correct me if I am off...)

Rounded %

at 30cm:
The Lunar will have from 6 weapon batteries:
* 2 dice vs 5+ armour on the Sword (66% to inflict 1 hit on the shield, 11% chance to do 2 hits = death escort).
* 1 dice vs 4+ armour on the Hemlock (50% to inflict 1 hit = dead escort).

The Lunar will have from 2 lances:
versus the Sword: 100% chance to do 1 hit, 25% chance to do 2 hits.
Versus the Hemlock (if Lunar scored 1 hit): 16% chance to pass the holofield. Followed by a 16% chance from the resulting blastmarker.
Versus the Hemlock (if Lunar scored 2 hits) : 4%.


edit:
For the Corsair Escort the dice will be the same at all ranges above 15cm. Thus be it 16cm or 60cm away it'll be the same number of dice when moving away or abeam.
The Sword will gain survivability above 30cm, eg the amount of wb dice from the lunar will drop from 2 to 1.

[Plaxor]

hmmm... lets see...

so a lunar has 2 dice with its wbs against the sword. it needs to hit with both to murder, so this is an 11.1% chance.

However the chance of it hitting with at least 1 is.... about 55%

The lances have a 25% chance of killing the sword outright (so the lances are much better against the escort than the wbs) but a 62% chance of causing at least 1 hit.

Which means that the lunar has about an 83% chance overall of killing the Sword.


However against the Hemlock....

1 dice from wbs = 50% chance of murder.

Lances have an 8% chance of killing it each, so total 16% from the direct fire effect but since 62% chance of at least 1 hit will mean that 46% of the time it will end up with a BM in contact so +16% of that.

So 2 lances should kill the hemlock about 23% of the time.

Anyways the total between the two means that a hemlock will die ~62% of the time


So comparatively a hemlock will die 3/4 of the time that the sword will. In case anyone was wondering.

[horizon]

What?
50% from wbs + 23% from Lance = 73%.


Plus there is always the luck factor. 1 dice (especially a battery! 50%!!) can kill an Eldar ship, 1 dice can never kill a Sword.

[Plaxor]

What?
50% from wbs + 23% from Lance = 73%.


Plus there is always the luck factor. 1 dice (especially a battery! 50%!!) can kill an Eldar ship, 1 dice can never kill a Sword.

The fact is that 50% of the time the lance kill wouldn't matter. that's why the value is lower. A better comparison would be a squadron of Hemlocks vrs a squadron of swords, as against the hemlock sometimes firepower is wasted (the sword it isn't wasted as much)

Luck factor is a bit a part of it, but eh. You can balance vessels out on that basis. That actually is the point of statistics, one would be getting just as lucky to get the 2 hits necessary on the sword.

The point is that so long as a person is just as likely to lose just as many escorts against the same firepower in either 'system' then they may as well be equal.

The point here is that although 1 dice can kill a Hemlock, the IN only gets 1 dice vs the hemlock. Whereas it gets 2 against the sword, and 2 can kill a sword.


Believe it or not, when I was looking into the math behind the game GW does do their homework when it comes to these things. It's actually quite intriguing.

2 lances will never do anything against an IN cruiser, but they will put a hit on an ork ship 1/4 of the time. So long as you balance it correctly there shouldn't be issues. Which is why when I was exploring the Ork fleet i took into account both how much firepower it takes to do 1 hit on the vessel, compared to destroy it outright.

[Navarion]

MMS is nothing but a mon-keigh plot to make us stay in their weapon range!

With that being out of the way:

I like the idea of giving Eldar shields and increasing their armour and I adore the dying race rules... I can understand that MSM frustrates people, because it allows Eldar to go into firing range unload their weapons and either get out or at least at the outer edge of their enemies range. However, most Eldar ships have a rather short weapon range (mostly 30 cm) and now the effectiveness of the holofield depends partly on the distance from the attacker. As far as I can see only the weapon range of the Solaris has been increased so almost all of the ships have to sacrifice some holofield-protection just to get into firing range. Furthermore I don't get why the speed of the void stalker was nerfed. Just my two cents.

[Sigoroth]

@Sig

you confound together MSM and Holofield. regarding MSM its a matter of opinion right now for both of us regarding character of the rule, whether you apply it against the standard rules of the game, the fluff background, or its impact on the game itself. as have i. differing opinions.
having both MSM and holofield is too much for many. some recommend eliminating MSM. others think it could have gone the other way  and weaken holofield. Since MSM is much more different than holofield from the standard rules fixing this seems to be the way to go, but it is not the only way to go.

regarding the holofield itself, no it is not impervious to attacks. eldar will die behind holofield just as necron will die despite reactive hulls. this proves nothing. holofield and 4+ criticals gives them a weakness that is necessary.
but holofield is better than standard shields and 6+ criticals because especially for CE, primarily an escort fleet, criticals mean nothing.

The MSM issue is one of game mechanics. In BFG we take turns. This isn't the most elegant method of representing the flow of combat, but it's simple. It is meant to be equal. Your turn, his turn, your turn, his turn, etc. So if you took it in turns to move 1 ship or squadron each at a time and then take turns firing them then this would be equally fair, though less simple. Now try taking the MSM system into that. Now Eldar can't get away without being hit in return. So the fact that they can do it in this system is merely a byproduct of a game mechanic. It is not characterful, nor is it even sensible. It is merely mechanical. This is stupid.

The Holofield is a very weak system of defence when taken in conjunction with the other Eldar fragilities. The Eldar are just as susceptible to bombers, moreso given reduced overall hits, and only marginally better against lances while worse against WBs. Less hits, 4+ crits. The way the Eldar currently sit is low or no terrain = auto-loss, high terrain = auto-win. If you nerf the HF to try to make them weaker in high terrain circumstances then you need to give the Eldar something to compensate for this. You would need to guarantee that they get high terrain in every battle. This wouldn't fix anything, since it'd still be shit being unable to shoot at them and having to win by taking carrier fleets.

Now, you said the HF and 4+ crits (and presumably 4+ armour and reduced hits) is better defence than shields and 6+ crits (and presumably 5+ or 6+ armour and normal hits). This isn't true. Let's have a look at the Lunar vs escorts scenario previously posted.

So against a squadron of normal escorts, Swords, say the Lunar will get 2 lances and 2 WB dice. The chances of destroying 1 escort is equal to the probability of scoring at least 2 hits. So let's construct a sample space:

   L1   L2   WB1   WB2
0 hits
   M(1/2)   M(1/2)   M(2/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/9
1 hit
   M(1/2)   M(1/2)   M(2/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/18
   M(1/2)   M(1/2)   H(1/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/18
   M(1/2)   H(1/2)   M(2/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/9
   H(1/2)   M(1/2)   M(2/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/9
2 hits
   M(1/2)   M(1/2)   H(1/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/36
   M(1/2)   H(1/2)   M(2/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/18
   H(1/2)   M(1/2)   M(2/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/18
   M(1/2)   H(1/2)   H(1/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/18
   H(1/2)   M(1/2)   H(1/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/18
   H(1/2)   H(1/2)   M(2/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/9
3 hits
   M(1/2)   H(1/2)   H(1/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/36
   H(1/2)   M(1/2)   H(1/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/36
   H(1/2)   H(1/2)   M(2/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/18
   H(1/2)   H(1/2)   H(1/3)   M(2/3)   = 1/18
4 hits
   H(1/2)   H(1/2)   H(1/3)   H(1/3)   = 1/36

So the chance of destroying at least 1 normal escort is P(2 hits) + P(3 hits) + P(4 hits) = 13/36 + 6/36 + 1/36 = 20/36 = 5/9 = 55.55%.

The chance of destroying 2 normal escorts is P(4 hits) = 1/36 = 2.78%

Now against a squadron of Eldar escorts the 6WB is only worth 1 dice. However, if there is another squadron within range and the Lunar passes it's leadership test to be able to split fire it can gain another dice against the other squadron. Since Eldar don't have shields this 1 dice is just as deadly against the other squadron and it will force the Eldar player into a brace decision with another squadron. However, let's just run the 2L + 1WB dice for this scenario. Note, this sample space is a little more complex because of holofields and blast markers, however, it is a complete sample space, and the resultant probabilities are accurate.

   L1      L2      WB      BM
0 hits (641/1728)
   M(1/2)      M(1/2)      M(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/8
   HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      M(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/288
   M(1/2)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/288
   HF(5/12)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 125/1728
1 hit (848/1728)
   M(1/2)      M(1/2)      H(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/8
   M(1/2)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/288
   HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/288
   HF(5/12)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 125/1728
   M(1/2)      H(1/12)      M(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/48
   H(1/12)      M(1/2)      M(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/48
   HF(5/12)      H(1/12)      M(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/1728
   H(1/12)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/1728
   HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      M(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/288
   M(1/2)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/288
   M(5/12)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 25/1728
2 hits (223/1728)
   M(1/2)      H(1/12)      H(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/48
   H(1/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/48
   HF(5/12)      H(1/12)      H(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/1728
   H(1/12)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      M(5/6)   = 25/1728
   M(1/2)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/288
   HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/288
   HF(5/12)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 25/1728
   H(1/12)      H(1/12)      M(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/288
   H(1/12)      HF(5/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/1728
   HF(5/12)      H(1/12)      M(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/1728
3 hits (16/1728)
   H(1/12)      H(1/12)      H(1/2)      M(1)   = 1/288
   HF(5/12)      H(1/12)      H(1/2)      H(1/6)   = 5/1728
   H(1/12)      HF(5/12)      H(1/2)      H(1/6)

Note: for some reason the pre-format text didn't work so well on this one, so it's a little harder to follow. As in the first table M = miss, H = hit and HF = lance hit + holofield save successful (therefore BM placed). Also note I included the probability of each result (1 hit, 2 hits, etc) in bold rather than adding it up at the end. You can check it if you wish, but the total of all 4 hit possibilities is 1728/1728, as it should be.

So the chance of getting at least 1 kill against an Eldar escort is equal to P(1 hit) + P(2 hits) + P(3 hits) = 848/1728 + 223/1728 + 16/1728 = 1087/1728 = 62.91%. This is 7.35% more likely than against a normal escort. The chance of getting at least 2 kills is 13.83%. This is nearly 5 times more likely than against normal escorts. There is also a 0.93% chance of the Lunar getting 3 kills, which is impossible against normal escorts.


So from this one scenario we can see that the Eldar escorts are worse than normal escorts against an all-rounder ship like a Lunar, and therefore worse against an all-rounder fleet. Factor into the above the facts that a normal escort could gain extra protection from WBs by going abeam, or being at long range, or having intervening BMs and that the Lunar could gain even more firepower by splitting the batteries. A Sword would also have much greater protection against ordnance while costing 12.5% less.

Now, on top of all that you have to factor in that escorts in normal fleets are considered fragile, therefore those fleets are usually even more resilient by virtue of taking tougher ships (cruisers, battleships, etc), whereas Corsair Eldar cap ships are less resilient. Therefore the toughest Eldar ships (ie, their escorts) are more fragile than the INs weakest ships.

Holofields are not more powerful than shields.