Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[Sigoroth]

Statistical analysis either look for differences within the studied population by looking at distribution of the observed data (analysis of variance) and/or difference between the observed population vs the supposed true population (power and significance)
With dice there is only one population
With gaming rolls there will be no difference between the observed rolls and the possible rolls if enough rolls are made. But since each set of roll is it's own true population once rolled the analysis resets. It is a predictive analysis applying to that roll alone. Variance doesn't really matter.

Your suggestion that variance is useful is off
We know what the distribution will be: a bell curve
We know what the average will be as well thus this value is useful
Knowing how tight the bell curve is gives you probability which is then the confidence interval but still not as useful as average but more useful than variance

The chance of a lunar killing a sword moving away is X and for killing a hemlock is Y
Doesn't change regardless of how many matches

Le sigh. Since we're dealing with probabilities, we're not dealing with statistics. Statistics is the study of sample frequencies to make inferences about population attributes (ie, probabilities). Probability is a tool of statistics. We have the all probabilities we need in this case. Therefore we don't need to know anything about bell curves or averages or anything. We have the probabilities already.

However, if you didn't know the population attributes and wanted to find them out then you could do so from the average and the variance, assuming a standard distribution. The variance is used to determine the standard deviation (from the mean) and this will give you the "spread" of the distribution. Then you find the point you want to know (in this case 1 hit) and calculate the area under the curve from this point and beyond (so it is at least 1 hit). This will give you your probability, based upon your sample.

Note: the variance is very important. Without it we don't know what a standard deviation is. We may "know" (or guess) that the distribution is standard but it is the variance that tells us what the upper and lower bounds are, and therefore determines the probability of getting "at least X amount" or "no more than Y amount", etc. For example, two different distributions, both with a standard Bell curve, might have an average of, say, 5 hits. However, one of those distributions might vary significantly, giving a range of 0 to 10 hits, while the other might give a range of 3 to 7 hits. When asking "what is the probability of getting at least 6 hits" these distributions cough of up different probabilities, despite having the same means and both having the standard distribution.

Also note, there are not many standard distributions in BFG. Certainly the dice themselves are supposed to give standard distributions over sufficient rolls (30+), however this is assumed in the first place. We assume no bias. It is a different matter altogether when you consider shields, holofields, brace saves, etc, on the matter of hull hits, or, in this case, escort kills. Consider the case of that Lunar with 3 dice (2 lance + 1 WB) at that Eldar escort squadron. When looking at the question "how many hits?" a standard distribution should see 1 or 2 hits as equally likely and both more likely than 0 or 3 hits which are again, equally likely. However we know that the chance of 0 hits is ~37%, 1 hit is ~49%, 2 hits is ~13% and the chance of 3 hits is ~1%. This is a right skewed distribution, not standard.

However, this is not as accurate as what we already have. I have a 100% confidence that the probability of destroying at least 1 (non-braced) moving away/abeam Eldar escort at normal range with a (non-locked, non-weapon split) Lunar is 63%. There is no need for means, CIs, or anything.


On the case of MSM being "characterful" I fail to see how a failure of the game mechanics could possibly be considered "characterful". Why do you think that the Eldar should be unshootable after flying some 50,000 kms in space when a tiny fraction of that time is spent in an asteroid field. On the other hand, they're completely shootable, and indeed exceptionally fragile, when they don't spend that fraction of a their movement in an asteroid field. In fact, and Eldar vessel could fly from one end of an asteroid field to the other and back again, spending the vast majority of time inside the field, but end their movement just outside it and can therefore be annihilated. Conversely they could spend only the last fraction of a fraction (a few millimetres of their last centimetre of movement) of their 50,000 km trek inside the asteroid field and be invulnerable. It makes no sense at all. It isn't characterful, it's insipid.

[fracas]

I think we are talking the same thing regarding probability and stats
If we are talking more probability than stats then clearly variance doesn't have a role


MSM
Characterful because it a) complements the fluff of eldar being advanced, fast, but fragile as well as b) adds both variety and challenges to game play

@horizon
Yes change the scenario that is neither characterful or realistic rather than msm

[Sigoroth]

I think we are talking the same thing regarding probability and stats
If we are talking more probability than stats then clearly variance doesn't have a role

No, variance is not important when we're crunching the probabilities. But you were talking stats, for which it is important.

MSM
Characterful because it a) complements the fluff of eldar being advanced, fast, but fragile as well as b) adds both variety and challenges to game play

@horizon
Yes change the scenario that is neither characterful or realistic rather than msm

a) Eldar are not characterised as fragile, except as they're represented in the rules of 40k, so this representation is very bad. Particularly in that it relies for its success on poor game mechanics. If players swapped to a single game turn where each player moves in the movement phase, then fires in the shooting phase then the MSM Eldar will fall down, as they'll be unable to escape before suffering return fire.

Secondly, this does not represent Eldar as being fast. They can still only move upto 30cm on their fastest ships before firing and are unable to AAF. A Chaos Slaughter can easily out reach the fastest Eldar ship. The fact is that the second movement is not a representation of their speed, merely their only real form of defence.

MMS rules actually represent the Eldar as being fast. I also see no point to MSM thematically. What does it represent? That Eldar shoot "during" their movement rather than "after" their movement? No! It does not! All races shoot during their movement. Their movement from turn to turn is not a stop start movement, but rather representative of one long continual process of movement, punctuated by gunfire! In this system the idea of MSM just does not make sense. So they're moving before and after firing, but wait, everyone's doing that anyway, so what are they really doing? They're firing and then moving before the enemy can respond! Stupid.

b) There is no "challenge" and the MSM system actually reduces variety. It's a fait accompli. Either there is sufficient terrain and Eldar win, or there isn't and Eldar lose. Therefore no challenge. There is less variety because where there should have been a game of possibilities and tactics there's not. It's just an extremely predictable and boring game.

And what the hell are you talking about with the scenario not being realistic!? You launch a surprise attack or raid, hit the enemy and then fade away before they can regroup. That's realistic. It's the epitome or characteristic. What's NOT realistic is that a ship can fly up to 30,000 km, shoot, turn around and fly another 30,000 km away without the enemy shooting back. What's even MORE unrealistic about this situation is that you can do this only by spending a very specific 1/60 of your journey "hiding" in asteroid fields but not when you don't have such terrain and not even when you spend all bar that very specific portion of your journey in such terrain.

I find it hard to credit that you think that coming on, destroying a couple of ships and then flying off the table in one turn would be unfair/boring/uncharacteristic whereas you think that doing the exact same thing with asteroid fields is "fluffy" and "characteristic".

[Xyon]

I cant believe this debate is still going on.

I think, moving twice is characterful of eldar, whether its MMS or MSM. MSM does open up to more abuse however. Limiting the turn to before the move instead of after or during the move for MMS leaves it open to no movement abuse.

[horizon]

Moving twice in MMS is fine as it does not break core rule mechanics of BFG. Plus it does not ask for all kind of additional oddities in the rules.

[fracas]

limiting to second move to no turn for lock on and 90 degree otherwise should be sufficient


sig, i will get back to you later

[Xyon]

I may have just been ignoring most of the posts about the discussion (because who wants to watch internet nerds (i'm one too, sheesh)  argue about how space elfs should get to fly a ship) , but thats the first time I noticed you suggesting limits to the second move in some way in MSM.   It would not  completely get rid of popping in and out of say an asteroid field depending on how clever you are, but would make it more difficult.   Limiting it to 45 degrees would still allow for some maneuvering but would only allow for terrain hopping if there just happens to be another asteroid field in front of you as well as behind you.

[fracas]

we got onto the stat tangent when you did not think we should use averages in analyzing lunar attacks. for die roll enough rolls will make probability of rolls and average of rolls same.

BFG is step child to 40k. the fluff of 40k will be the fluff of BFG. how eldar appears will be how eldar will presents in BFG. fast and agile are the eldar in 40k. fast vehicles, fleet of foot, toughness 3.
MSM gives them double move, up to 60cm. that is fast compared to the standard fleets. maybe not super fast but fast enough. slaughters are blunt. you blow ahead with them and shoot. eldar fly up shoot and fly away. i am fine with that.

scenario:
yup, blow in, blow shit up, blow away with victory. i have no problem with that realism wise. it may not be fun for the player who got hit. since it is a game, it should be fun for all. but if the scenario is not fun, how is that a problem with game mechanics? especially when all fleets have the options to do it, perhaps not equally well. realistic but not fun. that is a problem with the scenario, not it's realism. in real life some armies are better on the open field. you face them in the open you lose. fait accompli. so you fight them in terrain and win. you cannot always choose your field of battle. this is realism. again that some scenario favor some faction for a game is more a problem of the scenario than the game.
my comment regarding realism is that scenarios do not take into account the strategic consideration of the tremendous resources each ship represent beyond victory points. ot is not realistic is the idea that any fleet commander would be suicidal with his ship. and it is not realistic that all faction would fight on any battlefield. it would be better for terrain selection is included in scenario selection based on fleets in play.
these are all scenario issues, not mechanic issues.

asymmetrical warfare. (they were raised to fight a technologically superior race, the necron. head on they cannot win. they adapted by applying asymmetrical tactics of hit and run. fluffly. characterful)
use terrain to maximize your strength, minimize your weakness. complements above. characterful.


it is late and if i am repeating myself i apologize. i think msm is characterful for all the reasons i have listed. i haven't seen anything here otherwise.
is it different from core mechanics? yes. to me this make it characterful.
does it force playing with and playing against eldar differently than other factions? yes. this is characterful.
does it give a different feel to the eldar faction? yes. characterful.
is it broken and create an unbeatable faction? no. it does not.

btw, i have never commented on the merits of MMS.

[fracas]

@xyon,

i would be fine with some turning limit on the second move of msm. it might be a nice tweak.
needs play testing i guess.

[horizon]

Fracas,
All fleets stay on the table after turn 1. Only a few (DE/Necrons) can actually fly of the table in turn 2 if they get lucky. But Only Eldar can fly away in turn 1.
Normally the defender can have 1 round of payback, against Eldar none.

That is a game mechanic problem of the Eldar, not the scenario.

You did not answer the 2nd question: why do raiders (Corsair Eldar) excel in fleet engagements/escalating engagements?

Eldar MSM is dependant on celestial phenomena. Win or lose decided by terrain. Is that good.

You say they are not broken yet want to weaken a weak defence (holofield) and/or limit the turn of the second move.
So you do agree they need a change to begin with.

The MSM rules are even more crap when fighting Necrons. The best anti Necron tactic for them is to board. That is not really Eldar like, is it?

[Sigoroth]

we got onto the stat tangent when you did not think we should use averages in analyzing lunar attacks. for die roll enough rolls will make probability of rolls and average of rolls same.

No, we got into the stats tangent when you insisted that you could use the average hits to determine the probability of a kill. We know the probability of a hit with a lance and a WB, we know the probability of holofield saves, we know the probability of brace saves and the probability of blast markers being placed and doing damage. Therefore we can work out the probability of a kill. Which is what we did. The actual results showed that holofields offer less protection against a mixed weaponry ship such as a Lunar than shields, even in a situation favourable to the holofield protected ship (Lunar has no other targets or fails Ld test to split WB fire, shielded target is not abeam, at long range or has BMs intervening).

BFG is step child to 40k. the fluff of 40k will be the fluff of BFG. how eldar appears will be how eldar will presents in BFG. fast and agile are the eldar in 40k. fast vehicles, fleet of foot, toughness 3.

How they are represented in the game of 40k is not how they're represented in the background of 40k. I see no reason to replicate the mistakes of 40k, let alone take them to the Nth degree as has been done. Even in the 40k game Eldar are not fragile. They have medium armour on their vehicles and other protections. Their Wraithlords are far more resilient than a Dreadnought. The Ulthwe Seer Council was once the most resilient unit in the game. Their basic man was terribly represented, being gyped on WS, BS and armour save and still this was equivalent to a typical guardsman. So Eldar were faster than Imperial troops, but not more fragile.

MSM gives them double move, up to 60cm. that is fast compared to the standard fleets. maybe not super fast but fast enough. slaughters are blunt. you blow ahead with them and shoot. eldar fly up shoot and fly away. i am fine with that.

No, they're not fast. The second move is only used to put them back into cover, so they are basically given a mechanic that allows them to shoot at 55-60cm from cover. Great.

scenario:
yup, blow in, blow shit up, blow away with victory. i have no problem with that realism wise. it may not be fun for the player who got hit. since it is a game, it should be fun for all. but if the scenario is not fun, how is that a problem with game mechanics?

It is a problem because the defending player didn't get a turn! If you can successfully disengage your fleet and pull off a win with such a hit and run attack having suffered one turns reprisal from your opponent then this is fun, fluffy and fine. Your opponent should have the right of reply though. They don't have that against Eldar. This is not a problem of the scenario, it is a problem of the Eldar.

especially when all fleets have the options to do it, perhaps not equally well. realistic but not fun. that is a problem with the scenario, not it's realism. in real life some armies are better on the open field. you face them in the open you lose. fait accompli. so you fight them in terrain and win. you cannot always choose your field of battle. this is realism. again that some scenario favor some faction for a game is more a problem of the scenario than the game.

Scenarios favouring specific fleets is fine. Not only fine, but necessary. How can you call yourself a raiding fleet if raiding type scenarios don't favour you? Why shouldn't SMs perform better in planetary assault and blockade run than other scenarios? If all fleets performed equally in all scenarios then that would definitely be not fun.

my comment regarding realism is that scenarios do not take into account the strategic consideration of the tremendous resources each ship represent beyond victory points. ot is not realistic is the idea that any fleet commander would be suicidal with his ship. and it is not realistic that all faction would fight on any battlefield. it would be better for terrain selection is included in scenario selection based on fleets in play.
these are all scenario issues, not mechanic issues.

I think the VPs takes account of the strategic considerations of the resources that go into a fleet quite well. I don't get what you mean about the suicidal part. Where did this come from?

As for terrain selection, you know that there is an Attack Rating method for scenario and battlezone selection right? And that battlezone determines terrain density? Also, it isn't too hard to imagine cases where fleets could be moved out of their comfort zone to fight a battle they would prefer not to.

However, even if there are some minor issues regarding realism they are nothing compared to the logical absurdity of the MSM system.

asymmetrical warfare. (they were raised to fight a technologically superior race, the necron. head on they cannot win. they adapted by applying asymmetrical tactics of hit and run. fluffly. characterful)
use terrain to maximize your strength, minimize your weakness. complements above. characterful.

Well, for a start, the one race that can actually beat the Eldar in terrain are Necrons, so this supposedly "characterful" style that putatively developed against the Necrons doesn't work against the Necrons. Right. Further, they did not develop hit and run style attacks against the Necrons. When the Necrons were first around the Eldar were infantile in their space technology. They relied upon their gods to construct engines of war, and their gods were usually up for a straight up brawl rather than cat and mouse games. The old ones sent in entire armadas of the younger races ships to knock out Necron ships.

is it different from core mechanics? yes. to me this make it characterful.

No, this makes it broken. It isn't a matter of them not behaving like other fleets. It is a matter of them not behaving in accordance with the abstraction! BROKEN!

does it force playing with and playing against eldar differently than other factions? yes. this is characterful.

No, it doesn't force people to play differently. If they can shoot at them they shoot (and win). If they can't they don't (and lose). This is the same as with any other fleet, except for the parts in the brackets. You play the same. Of course, when the amount of terrain makes it uncertain that the Eldar will be able to successfully hide then it becomes closer, but still not enjoyable. When the specifics of the scenario dictate that the Eldar cannot just sit in terrain, well, they're pretty much stuffed. Still not enjoyable.

does it give a different feel to the eldar faction? yes. characterful.

Giving them ships with 30 hits each that could only move 5cm would also have been different, but not characterful. MSM is "different", but it is not characterful!

is it broken and create an unbeatable faction? no. it does not.

Er, yes it does make it broken. With sufficient terrain they are unbeatable. Without terrain they're useless. How is this not broken?

btw, i have never commented on the merits of MMS.

Probably haven't looked at it. It provides a characterful, fluffy, ruleset for the Eldar that works within the abstraction level of the game.

[horizon]

Effective Striking Range is a key thing.
Speed is fine but if it means less striking range you gained nothing.

Eg.

A Murder cruiser has a striking range of 25cm + 60cm = 85cm for the lances and 25cm+45cm (70cm) for the Batteries.

A Lunar cruiser has a striking range of 20cm + 30cm = 50cm for its weapnonry.

A Shadow cruiser has a striking range of (maxed) 25cm + 30cm = 55cm from its weaponry. That is best case. If it needs to take another route (sun away) it will be 20cm + 30cm = 50cm.
Thus the same as a Lunar. And in a bad case the striking range will only be 10+30=40cm.

So speed? Not really, not enough to do a proper raid attack!

[Plaxor]

The MSM is in itself broken... as it breaks the terrain system of BFG.

I actually had a discussion about it with Bluedagger the other day.

The fact of asteroid fields, you can't shoot in them, and you can't shoot out of them. This works fine for any race which can't attack whilst in them, as you trade off being invulnerable for never doing any damage.

However Eldar are able to maintain an 'invulnerable' state because they are able to attack and be in/behind asteroid fields on nearly any turn.

His comment was that asteroid fields should be changed so that they just give a 4+ save. I called him too much of a 40k gamer , but the thing is that if something works for every other race, then it shouldn't be changed, instead that race should be changed.

Which is why MMS is a perfectly viable system that fixes the Eldar. It isn't how I would've done it exactly, and I think that the current holofield system/something similar could be applied, but it is the lesser of two evils.

[Xyon]

What do you think of MSM with 45 degrees on the turn before the second move?

I've just reread the MMS 1.9 pdf,   I like the changes.  I think the fleet from that list with either MMS or MSM limited to 45 degrees on second move would be a good replacement for the current eldar.

[horizon]

Hi Xyon,
In MMS the Eldar ships already have a restricted turn:
two times 90* for escorts/light cruisers
two times 45* for capital ships
One turn at start of each move.

Glad you liked the changes.