Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[RCgothic]

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.

As previously stated:

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

The above probabilities weighted by their outcome gives an average of 1.667, and demonstrates we understand that they are in fact discrete outcomes. We also understand exactly how likely it is to get each outcome. We understand fully that in a game you only get discrete values and that "Average" is just a concept. Doesn't matter; the Average is still a good figure to make plans around.

On the other hand, it is you who have been demonstrably unable to calculate basic probability, that your "Simple Math" is wildly inaccurate, and you even needed to be told that you can't have an absolute probability greater than 1.

[Sigoroth]

Sig

disappointing come back.
1. an attempt at suggesting superior credential with math on an internet forum is amusing.

Well, um, if I have superior knowledge of maths than you, then it's superior. What has an internet forum got to do with anything? It's not as though this isn't easily supportable. The previous posts have borne this out. It's not like I'm saying I'm a master of martial arts and could beat you up or anything ...

2. profanity doesn't demonstrate superiority

What profanity? What the hell are you talking about? Where have I said "Hey, I can say 'fuck' so I'm superior"? Nowhere. What actually demonstrates superiority was my superior reasoning. In the face of which you come back with this?

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.

Um, this is utterly irrelevant. Firstly, you acknowledge that probability is the tool of choice by ratifying that on average 2 lances will give 1 hit. This is because the probability of a hit is 50%. So you use probabilities already. You just do it half-arsed. So arguing against the proper application of probability is a bit absurd since you use it to some degree in the first place.

Secondly, bringing the actual measured end results into this conversation is ridiculous for 2 reasons. Firstly because you have presented no actual results. You'd have to do an actual experiment, calculate the averages, test to see if the null hypothesis lies within the CI, and if it doesn't only then could you possibly reject the given model of average escort kills (normal vs Eldar) based on "actual occurences". Then you could work out probabilities from the averages. Even then this would be poor science, since you'd first need some sort of theory to justify the predicted difference from the mathematical model, and you'd also be using a system of maths to analyse the results based directly on the premises you're criticising.

The second reason using actual end results as an argument is absurd is because this is a game using theory, not the results of actual individual dice rolls. An armour of 5+ means that you have a 1 in 3 chance of damaging, therefore a 33.3% probability of scoring a hit. It doesn't matter that the results of some particular roll came up 3, 5, 5. This does not mean that in reality you had a 66.7% probability of hitting, since 2 out of 3 hit.

5. yes, very amusing regarding math comprehension. you have no idea.

Er, actually, it seems you have no idea. This isn't such a terrible thing, it doesn't really matter that you don't understand ... but why do you think that you do? That's the most confusing element.

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?

Well, given that there has been ample argument demonstrating that the designers were wrong, and no argument from you beyond "characterful", which has also been argued to be untrue I'd like you to elucidate on what extra special understanding you might have in the matter.

Also, consider that I said that agreeing sans reasoning, ie, for no reason, for the sake of agreeing, means that your opinion is worthless. And this is absolutely true. If you think you're right you should present an argument. You haven't done that. So, your "opinion" seems to be sans reasoning, and therefore worthless, regardless of whatever appeal to authority you might be attempting.

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.

Talk about fallacy of reasoning. When you ask "do you agree with gravity?", what is that supposed to mean? Gravity doesn't have an opinion, how could I agree with it? Do you mean, "do you believe that gravity exists?", in which case this scenario is not analogous with the one I posited earlier. This is because I would be agreeing that gravity existed because it's demonstrable, therefore I have a reason. Your belief against the existence of gravity is sans reasoning, it flies in the face of the demonstrable and logical, and therefore is worthless. Now, you could also mean "do you agree with the theory of gravity", which is a different kettle of fish. My answer would actually be "I don't know".

Now, when you say that your opinion is worth more because it's in line with what the designers wanted you're making an appeal to authority. This stance precludes the possibility that the "authorities" got it wrong. If authorities are infallible then I suppose all those women burnt at the stake really were witches. Good on the Church for ridding us of that evil. If the authorities can get it wrong then when their judgement is called into question you can't just assume that their right and therefore you're right because you agree with them. If you agree with them because you have an argument outlining the reasons they were right then you should present that argument. If you agree with them because they're the authorities and therefore they should know better than some fan on the interweb then yes, your opinion is worthless.

[fracas]

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.

As previously stated:

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

The above probabilities weighted by their outcome gives an average of 1.667, and demonstrates we understand that they are in fact discrete outcomes. We also understand exactly how likely it is to get each outcome. We understand fully that in a game you only get discrete values and that "Average" is just a concept. Doesn't matter; the Average is still a good figure to make plans around.

On the other hand, it is you who have been demonstrably unable to calculate basic probability, that your "Simple Math" is wildly inaccurate, and you even needed to be told that you can't have an absolute probability greater than 1.

i think you are confounding probability and averages
i posted average hits and average kills for a lunar against swords and against eldar escorts; not probability.
my math has been accurate. you can have an average of 1.66 hits, kills or whatever else.
you came to similar conclusion yet my math is wildly inaccrurate?

[fracas]

Sig

1. when designing a game system, imo it is more important to consider average outcomes rather than probability of outcomes. you can argue that point if you wish. but like RCGothic you cannot seem to get around this basic differentiation between averages and probability and have gotten bogged down by semantics and math. its too bad.

2. you can make any claim you wish on your superiority of math credential. this seems to me as grasping at straws though because on an internet forum, you can make any claim you wish. to me it has no weight. same as if i had made unsubstantiable claims of my own credentials.

3. i was trying to be polite by allowing both us to have differences in opinion. you introduced the idea that not all opinions are the same, which is true. an opinion that is closer to the truth should have more weight. it shouldn't be based on popularity, contrariness, or based on the credential of those holding it. as i already stated, concensus does not equal truth. you claim my opinion, being same as that of the game designer, has less weight. i think that is fallacious reasoning given that the game designer did estabilished the standards framework for BFG mechanics. you may believe you are right and the designers are wrong but this is really your opinion. the designer may differ. i differ. in the long run, regardless of how many others share your sentiments, what you offer is not BFG as it is played by thousands worldwide, not BFG fact or reality. the rules for BFG are known facts, and RAW has MSM. the rules for gravity are known facts. thus an opinion more closely adherent to reality and fact carries more weight than one that does not.

4. i think you are too wedded to your own biases.  and fixate on the particulars too much.

[fracas]

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.

why are you picking somethings and acknowledge they are core while claiming another aspect of the same rule system as not core?
yes the rules for MSM give eldar something other races do not, but this is done for variety and character. should all have armor 6? reactive hulls? bombardment cannons? free AAF? torpedoes that turn? marks of chaos? all fleets deviate from an invisible standard, likely IN and Chaos as well. clearly all fleets should be different otherwise we should just play chess.
why would you say it is not core when it is RAW?

MSM is not obviously a flaw to me. in some setting it will allow eldar an easy victory. in other settings it will not prevent a certain loss. it adds variety and character, representing an idea the designer had.

[Eldanesh]

why are you picking somethings and acknowledge they are core while claiming another aspect of the same rule system as not core?

Half a year or so before BFG was released there was a previev of the rules in an WD (sep. 98). It was Imps and chaos with profiles for 2 cruisers each (Lunar/tyrant and murder/carnage) and paper counters to play with.

At all they didn't change anything after that preveiw rules, even the ships profiles were exactly the same (except Pointcosts).

But they added some things after that point: Nova canons, flyers and, well, Eldar rules - and to be honest all these additions weren't that good. Andy C. even admitted at some point that Flyer rules are terrible - he never wanted flyers in the system and just included them because most people think that fighter dogfights are "cool".

Even the ship cost were IMHO better:
Lunar 140P, Tyrant 145, Murder 160 and Carnage 155 - something must have gone terrible wrong at their playtests, that the chaos ships ended cheaper than the imps in the final version

[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.

why are you picking somethings and acknowledge they are core while claiming another aspect of the same rule system as not core?
yes the rules for MSM give eldar something other races do not, but this is done for variety and character. should all have armor 6? reactive hulls? bombardment cannons? free AAF? torpedoes that turn? marks of chaos? all fleets deviate from an invisible standard, likely IN and Chaos as well. clearly all fleets should be different otherwise we should just play chess.
why would you say it is not core when it is RAW?

MSM is not obviously a flaw to me. in some setting it will allow eldar an easy victory. in other settings it will not prevent a certain loss. it adds variety and character, representing an idea the designer had.

Fracas, core is the game system. The fleets behave to the rule system.
The raw for Eldar msm BREAK the core mechanic thus are a BIG designer mistake.

[fracas]

Horizon

i think all fleets break the "core mechanics" to some degree. sure some more than others. this adds variety and character.
but within each fleet rules, these variation defines the fleet's core mechanics do they not? is it not defining core mechanic for orks to autopass AAF? necron to get hull saves?
so lets try this thought, lets rename the ordnance phase to be "end movement phase" where only ordnance and eldar can move. would this fit better than having eldar move in the "ordnance phase"?

i think this conversation is getting too obtuse and subjective, and more and more semantic based. i am guilty of this as well.

you posted a thread asking whether others think msm is flawed. i know you did not mean to post a thread asking for people to agree that MSM is flawed, but it is moving that way more and more.

i've posted why i think we should keep MSM and expand it to other fleets rather than remove it completely.
just limit each fleet to how far it can move or turn


not sure what is there left to say really.
we'll have to agree to disagree

[horizon]

No Fracas,
not all fleets break the core mechanic
of:
SO
movement
shooting
ordnance
end

Only Eldar (CE/CWE) do that.

You are confusing the core game system to the basic weapon systems.

When you start renaming the phases you alter the core game system. The phases got the names for a reason.



Ya, well, guess so.

[RCgothic]

i think you are confounding probability and averages
i posted average hits and average kills for a lunar against swords and against eldar escorts; not probability.
my math has been accurate. you can have an average of 1.66 hits, kills or whatever else.
you came to similar conclusion yet my math is wildly inaccrurate?

Sigoroth and I are completely clear on the distinction between averages and probabilities. The average is the more helpful number if you want to know how many escorts are expected to die for a given number of Lunars shooting, and to a large extent it is possible to work purely with averages and expected values.

 However, you have to understand that just because you're throwing enough firepower at an escort to kill it on average, that does not make its death a certainty. That is where probability comes in. For example, a Lunar with 3 WB dice and 2 L against a sword will kill it on average, but the escort will only end up dead 66% of the time. If it is absolutely critical that a given result is achieved, probability helps you understand how much effort is required vs the risk that the objective will not be achieved. For example, the shooting of 2 Lunars will still leave the Sword alive slightly less than 1 time in 10. This might be an acceptable level of risk vs what you can bring to bear and what firepower is needed in other causes.

If it's simply that you won't get the VPs for the escort squadron in a game that you're already winning, the shooting of 1 lunar or 1/3 risk of failure might be acceptable. If it'll determine the outcome of the game, you may want to go with 2 lunars and a 1/10 risk of failure. If it'll determine the outcome of a 4-month campaign, because the escort is lining up the killing blow on your last remaining transport with VIPs aboard, you may find that you want to absolutely minimise the chance of failure at any cost, in which case you'll want to fire 4-5 Lunars at it. This is firepower far in excess of the 2 average hits you'd expect to be enough to do the job, but the probability shows that the risk of failure is such that you need to expend that firepower anyway.

I'll take this apart more piece by piece; green is where we have no dispute, red is what is causing Sigoroth and I to go wtf.

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.

We are completely agreed that the average number of hits is 1.66. However, "Chance" is by definition a probability, for example "Half a chance" denotes P(X) = 0.5

If, when you say "0.83 chance of a Sword kill from a Lunar", you mean something other than "P(Sword Killed by Lunar) = 0.83", then please enlighten us. Because the probability of a Lunar killing a Sword is actually 0.5554. I don't know where you got this "0.83" figure from, because it appears like you divided the average hits by the required hits, which is statistically meaningless and will do no better than generate a random number. If this isn't what you did, please explain how you came to this 0.83 figure.

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.

0.666 hits on average, agreed. The red bit we also happily agree with providing what you meant was 'on average' rather than '0.66 chance of a kill'. The chance of a kill is actually 0.58, because 42% of the time nothing will hit at all.

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.

Five points here:

1. If the Lunar has 3WB dice, and each hits 1/3 of the time, why 0.99hits instead of 1 hit?
2. This error carriers through: 2 hits on average.
3. Again, have you just divided average hits (incorrect figure of 1.99) by required hits (2)? The actual chance of at least 1 kill is 0.6667. Just because you average enough hits to make a kill does not make that result certain. Sure, if you have an infinite number of Lunars shooting at an infinite number of escorts, you should end up with 1 kill per Lunar. But 1 lunar vs 1 escort is far more likely, and that escort will only end up dead 2/3 of the time.
4. Yup, we agree with your average hits for the closing eldar escort.
5. Once again, this is completely wrong. "1.16 chance of a kill". What you mean is "1.16 Eldar escort deaths on average." You again seem to have divided the average hits by the required hits to get a certainty greater than 1, which is impossible. the chance of at least 1 kill is 0.79.

So I hope this post makes it clear exactly where Sigoroth and I are having our sticking points with regard to your math.

But ignoring the math and going back to the point your post was trying to make: eldar escorts are indeed more vulnerable than equivalent swords. However, in MSM they are far less likely to be in range, and MMS have shields.

[fracas]

RCG


you do realize that averages require more than one data point, right?
so each lunar shooting is just one data point, to get averages you need 2+ lunars shooting
so when one lunar inflict only one hit against sword this is indeed no kill, but 2 lunars doing one hit each produces one kill.
you dismiss completely this scenario when choosing to analyze by probability rather than average
this is the difference between post hoc average analysis rather than probability analysis imo why average works better
the analysis is even simpler against eldar escorts

the more data points there are, the closer the finding approaches the average
average, not probability

btw, when i say chance of a kill, within context, the more data points there are, the more the finding approaches the average. the more chance the finding is the average. perhaps vague, but chance does not equal probability of a kill, but chance of the finding approaching average. all dependent on the number of data points.

regarding MSM+Holofield vs MMS+Holofield+shield, seems simpler just to keep to RAW.

[skatingtortoise]

i think you are all deviating from the point with all this mathematics - what are you hypothesizing with all of it? i feel youre having a go at each other for no good reason. how about you hypothesize a particular situation, and then we can run through the various statistical tools. atm it reads like numbers for the sake of it.

[horizon]

In a math game like BFG it is quite relevant skating.

[RCgothic]

you do realize that averages require more than one data point, right?

Only if the underlying theory is not already known. The average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? African or European? Looks like we're going to have to take some measurements.
The average value of a perfect D6? As every value is known and equally likely, you can get the average straight from theory, no measurements required. 3 1/2.

so each lunar shooting is just one data point, to get averages you need 2+ lunars shooting
so when one lunar inflict only one hit against sword this is indeed no kill, but 2 lunars doing one hit each produces one kill.
you dismiss completely this scenario when choosing to analyze by probability rather than average

That scenario isn't remotely dismissed. As the number of ships firing increases, the probability of a kill tends towards one. The average number of hits scales linearly with number of ships, it doesn't tend towards anything.
As said in my previous post, the probability that between them the 2 Lunars don't score a kill (0 hits, 1 and 0 or 0 and 1) is slightly less than 1/10, 8.6%. That rubbishes your assertion that Probability can't take it into account right there.

As for the limits of "Average analysis", how does knowing that on average 2 Lunars will score 3.3 points of damage, more than enough to obliterate a Sword, prepare you for the scenario where they don't?

Not only do you completely reject a valid field of mathematical analysis in favour of something that can do little better than expected values, you then state these "chances" which everyone on the forum takes to be probabilities anyway (because that's what "Chance" means, and if you mean something different then nobody so far has been able to work out what), and which appear to be no better than random number generation and don't remotely resemble the actual figures for how likely a particular outcome is.

So really, how exactly are these "0.83", "1.16" and "0.99" "chances" calculated. Take us through, step by step. Because to me they look like *average hits* divided by *required hits* which is statistically meaningless.

regarding MSM+Holofield vs MMS+Holofield+shield, seems simpler just to keep to RAW.

MSM is broken beyond repair. It allows for an opponent to strike from beyond weapons range, gain enough victory points for a win, and then disengage without the other player even having a turn, let alone a chance at retaliation. Good game, glad everyone had fun. And that's quite apart from the other flaws in the list.

That is objectively fact, and denying it with your unreasoned appeal to authority holds no weight whatsoever. An opinion stated without reason or dependant completely upon a logical falacy "appeal to authority (link)"can be dismissed without reason.

[Sigoroth]

Sig

1. when designing a game system, imo it is more important to consider average outcomes rather than probability of outcomes. you can argue that point if you wish. but like RCGothic you cannot seem to get around this basic differentiation between averages and probability and have gotten bogged down by semantics and math. its too bad.

Wow, just ... wow.

2. you can make any claim you wish on your superiority of math credential. this seems to me as grasping at straws though because on an internet forum, you can make any claim you wish. to me it has no weight. same as if i had made unsubstantiable claims of my own credentials.

What the hell ... I have not once made claim to some sort of qualifications beyond the scope of this conversation. As it happens I have studied stats throughout my entire degree. Nevertheless, I am not making an appeal to authority. I am presenting the maths as is, it speaks for itself. If you cannot understand it then it simply means that my knowledge is superior to yours. That's not a terrible thing, there are many people with superior knowledge to mine. However, I don't understand why you think you know what you're talking about when it has been pointed out to you time and again where you've gone wrong. RCGothic's post even broke down where you're going wrong. Also, all that gaff about data points, again you're getting confused. We do not need to actually fire Lunars at Swords and take the averages. We have the mathematical model already. Therefore we can find the average value. We know the probabilities.

3. i was trying to be polite by allowing both us to have differences in opinion. you introduced the idea that not all opinions are the same, which is true. an opinion that is closer to the truth should have more weight. it shouldn't be based on popularity, contrariness, or based on the credential of those holding it. as i already stated, concensus does not equal truth. you claim my opinion, being same as that of the game designer, has less weight. i think that is fallacious reasoning given that the game designer did estabilished the standards framework for BFG mechanics. you may believe you are right and the designers are wrong but this is really your opinion. the designer may differ. i differ. in the long run, regardless of how many others share your sentiments, what you offer is not BFG as it is played by thousands worldwide, not BFG fact or reality. the rules for BFG are known facts, and RAW has MSM. the rules for gravity are known facts. thus an opinion more closely adherent to reality and fact carries more weight than one that does not.

The section in red contradicts the bolded section. You agree that some opinions can be worth more than others and yet again dismiss my argument as "mere opinion", as if opinion is worth nothing because everyone can have them.

The section in blue is just retarded. First of all, the laws of gravity are not fully understood. There is always more to learn and scientists are forever updating their model of gravity. If people just agreed with what was the prevailing model of gravity then we'd still be using Aristotelian notions that objects move to their "natural place" as our theory of gravity. So appeals to authority, like the one you are doing, are bad.

If you agree with a thing just because that is how everyone does it, then your opinion is worthless. We already know that that's how things are done, and have been done, and that that's how it was made. We want to know, should it be another way. If you say "I agree with the current method because that's how it is" then your opinion is worthless. If you think that the current method is right because of some property or attribute then you need to let us know what that is, else your opinion is worthless. Present an argument, so that we can judge it by its merits.

4. i think you are too wedded to your own biases.  and fixate on the particulars too much.

I think you don't fixate on the particulars enough. While I may be wedded to my biases, as you say, I have not brought them up. My biases suggest that Eldar should have much heavier armour, even up to 6+ in some cases, and should have shields and likely even turrets. That is not, however, what I'm arguing here. Here I am demonstrating that holofields are inferior to shields, which has been done mathematically.

I am also saying that MSM simply breaks the abstraction of the game. Note that. It breaks the abstraction, not just the core mechanics. Usually, breaks to core mechanics should be rare and only to better typify the race in question. MSM does not typify the Eldar especially, at least, no more so than would MMS. In fact, MMS is a far better at representing Eldar because it allows them to position themselves exactly where they want to be to take advantage of the enemy. More so than would just a MS mechanic (which MSM is at its core, with the second move just allowing them to become invulnerable to return fire, which is not characteristic).

So how does MSM break the abstraction? Well, all ships are putatively in motion continuously and can fire at any point in their movement. For BFG a "turn" is basically one cycle of fire. So a fixed "rate of fire" for all races/ships. Presumably differences in rate of fire is merely represented by increases or decreases in firepower. So what does movement value represent? It represents the amount that a given ship can move before firing again (so, the amount it can manoeuvre a better firing solution). So in reality ALL fleets are MSM, but this is spread over different turns. So the abstraction is that one game turn is equal to the amount of movement a ship can make before firing. Because the Eldar move after firing they break the abstraction.

Consider the big picture over several turns of gameplay (ie, what it represents). So over, say, 7 turns an IN fleet would MSMSMSMSMSMSMS. This looks like the Eldar MSM system, because that's what they do. They move and they shoot and they move again ... and they shoot and they move, etc. On the other hand, over those 7 game turns an Eldar fleet would: MSMMSMMSMMSMMSMMSMMSM. This looks very much like the MMS system, which is essentially because the Eldar get to move twice between shots. They're not actually moving twice, they're just really manoeuvrable, so it seems like it.

So the MMS system fits this abstraction fine. It shows just how much faster and more agile the Eldar are, because they can do more in the same amount of time than could the IN, or Chaos, etc. MSM on the other hand does not demonstrate how much the Eldar can move before firing, it demonstrates how much they can move before the enemy can fire! This is what is ridiculous. The Eldar are able to fly into a prime position to be shot at, and then just fly away without being hit. This breaks the abstraction. The turn based abstraction no longer works because the Eldar opponent can no longer fire when they want. They can only fire when the Eldar player wants. "I want you to hold your fire till I'm hidden in the asteroid field" "Screw you hippie, I'm going to fire when you're in range" "No you're not, haha". Stupid.