Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[Xyon]

Woops, yeah,  but thats why I didnt mention adding restrictions to MMS.    But taking the MMS turning restrictions and adding them to MSM would work too, I think.  As long as the eldar ships have the added survivability that they have in your MMS list.

[fracas]

i am not going to answer everything because it is getting a bit tiresome

@horizon
corsairs and fleet engagement. why are you asking? would it have made more sense if they switched corsair and craftworld eldar names?


@Sig

probability of rolling a 6 on one roll is 16.6%. the actuality of rolling a 6 on one roll is either 100% or 0%. probability is apriori. not a premis to build a game system on.
on average, with enough rolls the actuality of roll a 6 is 16.6%.


the rest regarding character is just opinion. you have yours, i have mine. neither really substantiate or insubstantiate the mechanical aspect of the rules. i have enjoyed this conversation though, but we are approaching arguing which is a more characterful color. too subjective.

[horizon]

@horizon
corsairs and fleet engagement. why are you asking? would it have made more sense if they switched corsair and craftworld eldar names?

You misunderstand.

As it stands the Corsair Eldar fleet perfroms better in a fleet engagment then the Imperial Navy*.
Is this how it should be?


* (with celestial phenomena)

[Sigoroth]

@Sig

probability of rolling a 6 on one roll is 16.6%. the actuality of rolling a 6 on one roll is either 100% or 0%. probability is apriori. not a premis to build a game system on.
on average, with enough rolls the actuality of roll a 6 is 16.6%.

What? Of course you use probability! That is how you arrive at your averages in the first place! You don't arrive at probabilities from averages! The average kills vs Eldar escorts in the Lunar example given is 0.78. The probability of at least one kill is 63%. The average kills vs normal escorts is 0.58 and the probability of at least 1 kill is 56%. These are the facts.

]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.

This ^, is nonsense.

the rest regarding character is just opinion. you have yours, i have mine. neither really substantiate or insubstantiate the mechanical aspect of the rules. i have enjoyed this conversation though, but we are approaching arguing which is a more characterful color. too subjective.

No, this is just not the case. You could say that, in your opinion, Imperial ships should be faster and more agile than Eldar ships. You'd be wrong, but it's "your opinion" and "subjective" so no one can gainsay you, right? Wrong. You can hold whatever opinion you like, but it doesn't make your opinion equally valuable. And if we are able to reject extreme views, such as the fast-Imperial example I just used, then there must be a set of criterion by which opinions can be judged and valued. Therefore not subjective.

I have put forward the argument that, absent terrain, the Eldar are far too weak, both from a game perspective and as shown by their background. They're described as having vastly superior vessels and consistently pummel anyone on a one for one basis. Only slavering hordes of Orks or Nids or massive warfleets that outnumber them pose a problem They also have the toughest known material from which to build ships and the best known method of building them (grown!). They consider Imperial shield tech crude and infantile, their own tech being superior and their own philosophy of evasion being more elegant (hence mobility and ECM). I have also stated how the MSM mechanic breaks the abstraction of the game. Note this. Breaks the abstraction. The abstraction will only work if the Eldar can't run away after they fire. Performing a pop-out attack on the scale of BFG is absurd. Why also are these supposed fast ships only able to move as fast as Chaos cruiser?


When there is a heap of terrain the Eldar are way overpowered, to the point of being unbeatable. The combination of the two states makes the Eldar the most boring fleet in the game, both to play and to play against. Auto-wins and auto-losses just suck.

In response you've said that it's "characterful", saying no more than "fast but fragile". Firstly, the Eldar are advanced. They don't need to trade one stat to achieve a gain in the other. For example, if you had a basic Imperial cruiser made by a race with technological superiority then they would be able to, say, increase firepower, with no other loss. Or increase hits. Or armour. Or speed. The Eldar with their level of technology would be able to make a Lunar with 6+ all round armour and 4 shields.  If that's what they were into. They're into speed instead. So instead of being as hard as nails, they should have only average protection, but great speed. So fast but mediocre toughness should be the catchphrase, rather than "fast but fragile".

So, while you may say that this is "just opinion", it doesn't mean that the opinions are equal, unarguable or irrelevant.

[RCgothic]

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.

This is absolute nonsense, as Sigoroth points out. Did you even think about your maths? Take the first part: A Lunar does an average of 1.66 hits, this I'm not disputing, but you then say it has an 83% chance of a kill as a result. So in spite of being not-enough-damage-for-a-kill on average, it will be killed more than 8 times in 10? Did this not ring alarm bells?

And a 1.16 chance of a kill on an eldar escort? There's no such thing as a chance with greater certainty than 1!

This is how you do it properly:

There are 16 unique combinations of four weapons either hitting or missing. 11 of these result in the destruction of at least 1 escort:

0B, 1WB 1WB, 2WB, 1L, 1WB&1L, 1WB&1L, 2WB&1L, 1L, 1WB&1L, 1WB&1L, 2WB&1L, 2L, 1WB&2L, 1WB&2L, 2WB&2L

Many of these results are indistinguishable though: 1WB twice, 1L twice, 1WB&2L twice, 2WB&1L twice, 1WB&1L four times, giving 9 unique outcomes, with the probabilities:

P(0) = P(WBMiss)*P(WBMiss)*P(LMiss)*P(LMiss) = 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.1111
P1WB) = 2*P(WBHit)*P(WBMiss)*P(LMiss)*P(LMiss) = 2 * 1/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.1111
P(2WB) = P(WBHit)*P(WBHit)*P(LMiss)*P(LMiss) =  1/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.0277
P(1L) = 2* P(WBMiss)*P(WBMiss)*P(LHit)*P(LMiss) = 2 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.2222
P(1WB&1L) = 4* P(WBHit)*P(WBMiss)*P(LHit)*P(LMiss) = 4 * 1/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.2222
P(2WB&1L) = 2* P(WBHit)*P(WBHit)*P(LHit)*P(LMiss) = 2 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.0555
P(2L) = P(WBMiss)*P(WBMiss)*P(LHit)*P(LHit) = 2 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.1111
P(1WB&2L) = 2* P(WBHit)*P(WBMiss)*P(LHit)*P(LHit) = 2 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.1111
P(2WB&2L) = P(WBHit)*P(WBHit)*P(LHit)*P(LHit) = 1/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.0277

Now you can either read the chance of destroying an escort straight off of there by adding up the 11 results that represent at least 2 hits, or you can collate and tidy the results further first:

P(0Hits) = P(0) = 0.1111
P(1 Hit) = P(1WB) + P(1L) = 0.3333
P(2Hits) = P(2WB) + P(2L) + P(1WB&1L) = 0.3611
P(3Hits) = P(2WB&1L) + P(1WB&2L) = 0.1666
P(4Hits) = P(2WB&2L) = 0.0277

And:
P(0 Escorts Killed) = P(0hits)+P(1Hit) = 0.4444
P(1 Escort Killed) = P(2Hits) + P(3Hits) = 0.5277
P(2 Escorts Killed) = P(4Hits) = 0.0277
P(At least 1 Escorts Killed) = 1-P(0 Escorts Killed) = 0.5554

These are nowhere near your figures. You can tell these are correct, because if you weight each probability by the number of htis it represents and add them together, you get an average value of 1.667 hits as expected.

If you only want to know the chances of "At least one" for a given number of trials, I use the following procedure:

P(Failure) = 1-P(Success)
P(0 Successes) = P(Failure)^Trials
P(At least 1 Success) = 1-P(0 Successes) = 1-P(Failure)^Trials = 1-[1-P(Success)]^Trials

[fracas]

Sigh

Horizon
I have no problem with an ancient race having a superior fleet even when it is just a corsair fleet. Just as a harvester necron fleet can take on human battlefleet.


Math
You cannot get 1.66 hits. You can get 1.66 hits on average. So for 3 lunars shooting two will cause two hits and one will cause one hit. Thus ten lunars in squadron will cause 16 hits and kill 8 swords. 5 lunars kill 4 swords.
What part of "average" is confusing?
Same principle applies to hits against the eldar. 10 lunars against eldar escorts will kill 11 hemlocks on average. 5 lunars kill 6 hemlocks.
Yes it does take some interpretation. There is no such as fractional hits or kills.

Opinion
You may say my opinion is less than yours, that this is not how the eldar are or should be and thus not characterful. Have you considered that my opinion is same as the game designers'? And that this is indeed how the eldar are meant to be portrayed and played? So when it comes to weight of opinion mine more closely align with facts of the game and play while yours, regardless of your justifications, perceived logic and reason, and obvious superiority lacks any real or actual weight?

[fracas]

MSM is the rules for how the eldar plays. It may be flawed but until the rules change and MSM is no more, that it might be flawed is an opinion. And regardless of the consensus that it is flawed, even overwelming consensus does not constitute science, fact, or the rules.

[skatingtortoise]

the topic of the thread is 'are the eldar movement rules broken? whats the alternative?'

the answer to this has been 'almost certainly' from most parties (to different degrees), and MMS and some discussion on altering MSM (i like the idea of limited turns MSM - encourages you to get into a more favourable arc etc - but as has been said, would need more survivability)
the flawed nature of the eldar isnt being put about because people 'reckon' theyre a bit off. its been shown that in X scenario, they have an excessively high win rate. in Y scenario, they have an excessively low win rate. other fleets dont have this disparity, so the eldar are the issue. its been postulated (very convincingly) that the movement rules are the big issue here, with the raid scenario and asteroid field examples.
so no, its not a scientific fact that eldar are flawed, its a game FFS. but if 5 of the worlds best nuclear physicists came up to me and said they thought that the current model of the atom wasnt right, id seriously consider looking into changing it.

on a personal note, i think the fluff is less important than the 'theme' of the fleet/army. the eldar are and always have been a glass cannon. they hit, they run, they cant hold together in a heavy close quarters fire fight. this has usually been more a result of them being 'squishy on the inside' with armour compensating for comparative frailty, and i wouldnt want to lose this 'niche' in BFG by making them just another high armour fleet, with the added caveat of being 'a bit nippy'

[Sigoroth]

Math
You cannot get 1.66 hits. You can get 1.66 hits on average. So for 3 lunars shooting two will cause two hits and one will cause one hit. Thus ten lunars in squadron will cause 16 hits and kill 8 swords. 5 lunars kill 4 swords.
What part of "average" is confusing?
Same principle applies to hits against the eldar. 10 lunars against eldar escorts will kill 11 hemlocks on average. 5 lunars kill 6 hemlocks.
Yes it does take some interpretation. There is no such as fractional hits or kills.

The truly confusing part is that someone who obviously knows nothing about maths attempting to argue with those that do. Averages are arrived at via probability. You use this probability to arrive at your "average hits" and then try to use these averages to arrive at the probability of a kill (after holofields/shields, etc). Use probability all the way through till you find average kills. Don't do this half-arsed shit and then pretend that it's right.

Opinion
You may say my opinion is less than yours, that this is not how the eldar are or should be and thus not characterful. Have you considered that my opinion is same as the game designers'? And that this is indeed how the eldar are meant to be portrayed and played? So when it comes to weight of opinion mine more closely align with facts of the game and play while yours, regardless of your justifications, perceived logic and reason, and obvious superiority lacks any real or actual weight?

Well, you know that your opinion has even less weight, right? Just agreeing with whatever is official sans reasoning is the same as having no opinion whatsoever. The notion that something is more right because it's official is demonstrably untrue.

on a personal note, i think the fluff is less important than the 'theme' of the fleet/army. the eldar are and always have been a glass cannon. they hit, they run, they cant hold together in a heavy close quarters fire fight. this has usually been more a result of them being 'squishy on the inside' with armour compensating for comparative frailty, and i wouldnt want to lose this 'niche' in BFG by making them just another high armour fleet, with the added caveat of being 'a bit nippy'

This is the problem. This theme of glass cannon is unjustifiable by their background, putative technological superiority and pure logic. If they were really this crap they'd have been wiped out ages ago. If the Imperium didn't do it then the asteroids would have.

A glass cannon themed race isn't impossible, it's just not Eldar. This has been a common mistake for many players and some designers. This is probably because glass cannon is a well known meme and people try to fit that to the Eldar.

I would much rather a truer representation of Eldar than a forced fit to a pretty meh meme.

[lastspartacus]

Fragile isnt an Eldar background trait? 0.o

*universe implodes*

[Sigoroth]

Fragile isnt an Eldar background trait? 0.o

*universe implodes*

No, it's not.

[fracas]

Sig

disappointing come back.
1. an attempt at suggesting superior credential with math on an internet forum is amusing.
2. profanity doesn't demonstrate superiority
3. probability is predictive of what might happen. might happens. probability of 16.6% does not result in 16.6%.
4. average is evaluation of actual occurrences. actual occurrences.
5. yes, very amusing regarding math comprehension. you have no idea.

just because my opinion matches that of the designer doesn't mean it is less than yours. presumption and assumptions are silly. certainly doesn't improve your argument. maybe i have what it takes to understand what the designers are going for?
do you agree with gravity? if yes does that mean your opinion means even less than mine if i disagree with gravity? LOL. fallacy of reasoning.

[horizon]

Horizon
I have no problem with an ancient race having a superior fleet even when it is just a corsair fleet. Just as a harvester necron fleet can take on human battlefleet.

Heck, the designers are off. They wanted man-o-war but left out all the good bits about the High Elves from those rules.

Now, assume Eldar did not exist in the blue book, or as a fleet with just MS (like Dark Eldar). And suddenly someone said: hey, Eldar should have an extra move! In the ordnance phase!
The crowd would go: hahaha, silly you, ships move in the movement phase, not the ordnance phase.

I think the designer gets to much credit, simply as he broke the ruleset of BFG. Yes, he broke it, crushed it and destroyed the ruleset when he gave Eldar a move in the ordnance phase.

Ships move in the Movement phase, not ordnance phase.
Simple, easy, straightforward.

[fracas]

Horizon

I think it depends on your frame of reference perhaps. I think MSM is more realistic than MS. But realism aside it is about game mechanics with sufficient realism for fun. Afterall why should ordnance move separately or why shouldn't they move before ships?
In chess why does the knight movement break all movement standards adhered to by the other pieces?

If I were designing a new bfg I would do things differently perhaps
Institute initiative ala lotr for sure
Apply MSM for all fleets perhaps while bring a bit more restrictive on turns in the second move

But when I picked up bfg and allowed it to become one of my favorite, it is with the understanding that it would be played with the rules as written even if some aspect could be better IMO. It's just that IMO MSM is not one of those things.

Perhaps a more appropriate thread would be what should the next rules for bfg be rather than on what is wrong with it now.

[horizon]

But before you start a BFG20 you should point out the flaws. BFG20 should not be a new system, its should be an improved system.

Afterall why should ordnance move separately or why shouldn't they move before ships?

Because in BFG you have the Ordnance Phase (=core rule mechanic), thus the ordnance phase has its own rules which applies to ordnance.

If they had written that the Ordnance phase became before the movement phase that would be the core system.  But it isn't.

Core:
Special Order Phase
Movement Phase
Shooting Phase
Ordnance Phase
End Phase


Chess:
Has a core system, with each unit having its own rule, same for black and white.