Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[Plaxor]

Count on Sig to do the math 


Still, I could see holofields working the way that they are with a few minor tweaks. Probably an additional right shift for wbs, and elimination of MSM. I do think that GW got it about right when they did Dark Eldar. Ideally they would've done Eldar similarly.


*Braces for chastisement of sigoroth*

[lastspartacus]

So rather than MMS, an Eldar that are more like DE in movement.  Interesting.

[fracas]

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.

[Plaxor]

Fracas, I do kind of agree with you. However things that make sense for 40k don't necessarily make sense for gothic. In 40k some units move in the assault phase without having to assault. This is fine as every unit could move in the assault phase if they had something to assault.


The problem with MSM is that it makes the fleet use a playstyle where there aren't consequences of their actions. If a fleet can basically attack and pretend it didn't happen in the same turn then the game is pointless. And like horizon said, "terrain is supposed to help you, not make you win or lose"

The movement in the ordinance phase needs to go, but I don't think that it means that Eldar should get shields and turrets (or even limited turns..)

[fracas]

its not about how a unit works in 40k then exported to BFG
imo it is the feel of the army

i think there is a huge consequence to your movement with MSM, and this is characterful for a game where movement is king. i think iti s actually quite hard to play MSM well and against eldar, not that hard to counter.
clearly eldar are easier to beat than necron, and necron can be had with boarding.

[Plaxor]

Necrons? Hard to beat? What?

Only the Scythe (and maybe 1 tombship) list works in Crons. Even then it's rather luck based, as if you kill one ship, you win!

[lastspartacus]

Yeah, necrons have this kneejerk reaction that took years for even 40k crons to lose.  People have trouble killing something and scream broken, and when they see more of their ships burning than the crons it makes it not feel like a victory.  But the truth is that crons are sadly nowhere near overpowered.

[Sigoroth]

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.

There is no need for you to do this sort of napkin maths, I've done it for you. The Holofield is less protection than shields. By the way, you don't use average hits to work out probability of kills.

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).

Actually, the shield is better in play, not just analysis. You say that taking these two factors together (HFs and MSM) is what makes Eldar powerful, well you've forgotten the third pillar of the triumvirate of Eldar defences. Terrain. This is essential. Without it Eldar fall over. If the Eldar can be shot at then they lose. So MSM + HF is still worse defence than shields. However MSM + HF + Terrain is much stronger than shields.

So if we nerf the HF such  that MSM + HF + Terrain is no longer stronger than shields then that means that Eldar with terrain might win, Eldar without terrain won't win. So they're still terrain dependent, just that they depend on it just to have a fair shot of winning. Also, carrier fleets will annihilate Eldar even with Terrain. They're already better against HFs than turrets, but if you reduce HFs effectiveness then the Eldar will start dying in droves. This will encourage AC fleets against them and Eldar AC fleets in turn to compensate. This will mean that the enemy can sit back a long way and hope to overwhelm the Eldar player with AC. Meaning it would either devolve into a battle of bombers or force the Eldar player out of terrain, into the open, where he has no chance.

The problem with Eldar does not lie in the HF. Sure, you can nerf that, right into the ground even, if they're given enough to compensate for the nerf (armour, crits, hits, shields, turrets) but until you remove their total dependency on terrain they'll always have problems. Your "fix" increases their dependency on terrain. This means increasing their resilience (in the aforementioned fields) so that they can survive outside of terrain. Terrain dependency gone. Now having done that you'd have a massive balance problem, since without terrain they'd have a fair shot at winning and with terrain they'd be unbeatable. So, you'd have to balance this by removing their ability to retreat into cover before the enemy can fire. Thus no ordnance movement.

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.

This is not a matter of "departing from a core mechanic". Moving twice is a departure from core mechanics, but that's fine. Space battles are meant to be simultaneous. They wouldn't really sit and wait for their enemy to act and then take their turn. Ship movement and shooting would be more or less simultaneous. However, because that's hard to do we have a turn based system. As an abstraction it's fine. However, the MSM rules for Eldar make this abstraction not fine. In reality the enemy would act at the same time as the Eldar, and so be able to shoot at them regardless of the amount or density of terrain. Since they can't do this then the abstraction is broken. It is a poor mechanic. It is unfluffy too. Eldar has nothing to suggest that they're invulnerable to enemy fire! Also, there is nothing to suggest that Eldar ships should be as fragile as they're represented in BFG. Eldar in 40k aren't that fragile. With triple wound toughness 8 Wraithlords, medium armour, fast skimmer vehicles, holofields and force shields they were reasonably tough (back in 3rd ed at least, don't know about how they play now).

Either way, they weren't properly represented in 40k. Eldar should have been even tougher to kill, given their tech and the fact that they'd do all they could to limit loss of life. They should also have had higher WS and BS on their Guardians (as per High Elves in Warhammer Fantasy).


So, we have a situation where we need to:

• remove Eldar terrain dependence by increasing resilience of ships (as they should have)
• remove Eldar invulnerability in terrain by dropping MSM
• keep fluffy and characterful rules

MMS ruleset addresses all of the above.

[fracas]

using statistics for kills should look at probability, therefore using the mean, rather than the range and sum of all possibility
probability rather than possibility
especially looking at a random distribution


i am not advocating changing the holofield,
i am not advocating changing the eldar at all actually,
 just that between choosing MSM vs holofield i would choose to keep MSM.

as i see it MSM in essence allows eldar to shoot in their movement, and their actual movement is up to twice what is listed.
in fact, i think MSM should be available to all fleets for similar reasons to what you posted regarding more realistic space combat.
you don't move, shoot, then stop to be shot at. you move, shoot, and move again so you won't be shot at. isn't this the essence of combat in general?
characterful, and imo should not be eliminated. it should be made more common!

terrain is not something that can be factored in with consistency
i do agree that Eldar should not need terrain to win, and should not make them unbeatable
i just don't see that MSM is the primary factor for this phenomena i guess
but if it is, i am fine with that because as above, i think others should have this option as well

[Dark Depths]

using statistics for kills should look at probability, therefore using the mean, rather than the range and sum of all possibility
probability rather than possibility
especially looking at a random distribution


i am not advocating changing the holofield,
i am not advocating changing the eldar at all actually,
 just that between choosing MSM vs holofield i would choose to keep MSM.

as i see it MSM in essence allows eldar to shoot in their movement, and their actual movement is up to twice what is listed.
in fact, i think MSM should be available to all fleets for similar reasons to what you posted regarding more realistic space combat.
you don't move, shoot, then stop to be shot at. you move, shoot, and move again so you won't be shot at. isn't this the essence of combat in general?
characterful, and imo should not be eliminated. it should be made more common!

terrain is not something that can be factored in with consistency
i do agree that Eldar should not need terrain to win, and should not make them unbeatable
i just don't see that MSM is the primary factor for this phenomena i guess
but if it is, i am fine with that because as above, i think others should have this option as well

But doing it the way you suggest means that Eldar can charge towards you, shoot, and turn away again.  Whilst their enemy just sit there.  So msm doesn't work.  What you say that everyone is moving all the time is completely true, but thats already factored into the standard bfg game by using an abstract rule.  If nobody moves during the shooting phase it can 'appear' as though everyone is moving all the time.  Its just a simple mechanic for achieving the same thing, short of actually having everyone moving at the same time!  MSm breaks this.  If someone moves towards you, no matter their speed, you will have the opportunity to shoot back, which is not represented using the msm rules, but is using the mms rules.  The mms rules also represtn the eldars great speed too.

[lastspartacus]

Would one shield and holofields equal 2 shields?

[Lex]

Silly question probably......   but why not have everyone shoot in the same turn ......

[fracas]

i think LotR rules has it right.
you move i move, which can change based on who wins initiative
then you shoot i shoot, also on based on who won initiative that turn
then we all fight


BFG should move that way

[Sigoroth]

using statistics for kills should look at probability, therefore using the mean, rather than the range and sum of all possibility
probability rather than possibility
especially looking at a random distribution

Averages are useful when you want to know the expected outcome of a turns fire. It's a good measure of how well you actually did (compared to the average) and what you could realistically expect to achieve over a few turns. However, this is different from the probability of a kill. For example, if you look at the average hits of a Gothic from its lances (2) and then applied that figure you would conclude that it will never get past the shields of the target and so there's no point in firing at another cruiser unsupported. However, this is erroneous thinking as on average you may only score 2 hits, the possibility of scoring more remains. You have better than 1 in 4 chance of doing 1 or 2 hull hits. Therefore you should do it. This means that for every 16 times you do you'll score 6 points of hull damage, giving you an average of 0.375 damage past shields for a Gothic. See, averages are worked out from probabilities, not the other way around.

So the average kills a Lunar could expect from a broadside at anything but closing Eldar escorts is P(1) x 1 + P(2) x 2 + P(3) x 3 = 0.78 kills. If he splits his WB fire to another escort squadron this goes up by another 0.5 hits.

i think LotR rules has it right.
you move i move, which can change based on who wins initiative
then you shoot i shoot, also on based on who won initiative that turn
then we all fight 


BFG should move that way

That's plausible. I don't think it really matters that much, because it's always going to be an abstraction unless you can develop a realtime method of decision making, like in an RTS or something. But as LS pointed out, in the current abstraction it is like people are always moving, as the "shooting phase" just represents a 'snapshot' of their movement (synchronised shooting heh). The turn based system (player 1 has his turn, then player 2) is a little more abstract of course. The method you describe is a little less abstract. The thing of it is that in that slightly less abstract system the Eldar wouldn't be able to get away without suffering return fire as they can in the current system. They can only do that in the current system because of the level of abstraction, which is very very bad. You can fix this by changing the level of abstraction or by making the Eldar properly conform to the games level of abstraction. The MMS ruleset does the latter.

[fracas]

Averages represents the references from which the game mechanics resolve
as a gamer as well, you know as i do that we roll dice expecting to beat the average
this doesn't mean if enough data point is collected, that the result is significantly different from the average

yes, i acknowledge there is a role for ranges and confidence interval in addition to averages, but averages should remain the reference point because with any random distributed bell curve, ranges and confidence interval are mirror over the average


with the current mechanics of my turn your turn, everybody is indeed moving and turns represent snap shots. and that is why i don't have a problem with eldar MSM because it is multitasking in action rather than sequential move shoot. the snap shot comes a little later, that is all. would it been better if MSM isn't accompanied by eldar ability to turn on a dime?

 the LotR system of i move you move i shoot you shoot we fight is less abstract.