Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?

[skatingtortoise]

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

generally yes i agree, but in this particular situation, it doesnt address the real issues, and the big picture (which sig has just summed up perfectly.)

in no other system i know is there a faction that breaks with the abstraction like the eldar. does any team get two blitzes in bloodbowl? does any army get to shoot twice in 40k? can elves in warhammer move into bow range fire, and then run away without risk of being shot at or charged? simple answer: no. just because they are RAW doesnt make them perfect and beyond criticism.

[fracas]

RCG

1. the average of a D6 can be known. 3.5. but one roll doesn't fit average. the more rolls there are, the closer it comes to the average. one hit from one lunar does not kill. one hit each from two lunars cause one kill. averaging this out results in 0.5 kills whereas probability analysis dismiss this and continue to mark this as zero kill. what is difficult about this?
the 8.6% probability of zero kills with two lunars is substantially less than the 0.4444% probability of zero kills with one lunars.
i have shown that your probability analysis is flawed because it is predicated on one sample event. and that when you take more samples into consideration the kills of swords increases. the reality will approach the average analysis much more than your probability analysis. i have not dismissed the application of probability analysis in predicting how effective one lunar might be. are you setting up a strawman?
i have not rejected your probability analysis, but have suggested that it isn't what you suggested it to be.

2. again i have postulated that both you and sigoroth are looking at the math from the gamer's perspective. i have no problem with this and thus there is a role for probability analysis. but when defining mechanics of a game, which is in essence establishing the laws of that universe i think averages work.

3. i have not predicated my argument for MSM based on unreasoned appeal  to authority. that was a response to sigoroth assertion that my opinion is worth less because it coincides with the game's designer. my argument has been MSM is characterful. i have given plenty of reasons for this argument. it is silly to assert that MSM is broken beyond repair when a) it does not make eldar unbeatable under all circumstances and b) that other suggestions of repairing MSM such as limiting the turns allowed in the second move have not been adequately analyzed and evaluated.

4. wiki link: "On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
note i have not claimed infallibility. nor have i disavowed criticism. (in fact, the witch hunt is opposite hasn't it in this thread, that MSM is flawed and any agreement with MSM is wrong! ha ha)
you have put forth another strawman argument.
but i will responds to this further. authorities are fallible because absolute truth cannot be known of the true universe. experts saying the earth is flat does not make it so. experts saying that there is man-made global warming does not make it so. nor does a collection of expert opinions as consensus does make it so. in fact, i have already posted this in a previous thread.
however, within a game system the rules are known. they are scripted facts. referencing the rule as rule is not a fallacious "argument from authority." to suggests so is absurd. in game you claim that your lances hit on 3+. i claim that is wrong because the rules say lances hit on 4+. you retort that i am using a fallacious argument of authority? ha! that is a good one.
in regard to MSM it is the rule and thus fact. and opinion referencing MSM as core rule is not using an argument of authority. an argument that it does not break core rule because it is core rule is not the same as an argument of authority.
a) A (MSM) is C (core rule)
b) A is ~C
there fore a) and b) cannot both be true. if a) is true then b) cannot. since a) is true then b) is not. this was my argument.
btw, this is largely different from an argument that A SHOULD not be C, which was your's and sig's argument but not one i ever responded to.
there are proposed alternatives to MSM. i have not argued against MMS, and have even suggested tweaks to MSM. how is that me infallibility or exemption of MSM? in fact i openly acknowledge the flaws of MSM already! the difference is that i am not ready or willing to throw out the baby with the wash water as you have.
your argument is really just a strawman isn't it.

5. that eldar can strike and withdraw from an engagement is characterful. and realistic. that it provides an autowin in some scenario does not make it a flaw of MSM rather than the scenario. i cannot see why you do not understand this, or if you do understand this why persist in allaying the flaw to the MSM mechanic rather than the scenario. i have never advocated a scenario where it is not fun for both players. read my posts again. but when one faction consistently win with certain scenarios and lose under others, i would look at tweaking the scenario before i tweak the rules.

[fracas]

Sigoroth


1. Math. see my response to RCG regarding how averages and probability analysis may differ. i find it amusing that in refuting claims to authority you then proceed to give your credentials. i understand very well the differences between the two mathematical analysis.
lets try this again.
there is a probability of 0.4444% of a lunar killing any swords. i roll the dice and i kill 2 swords. the actualities is 2 swords killed. yet the probability for the next time the lunar shoots and not killing any swords remain 0.4444%.
i shoot again and i kill no swords. the actuality is 0 swords killed this round but in total i killed 2 swords with two attempts for an average of 1 kill per attempt/event.
i shoot a third time and again the probability of 0.4444% of not killing a sword. sure enough i miss again and do not kill any sword so now my average kill per event is 0.6666. the average has changed, the probability has not. the more times i shoot, the close i get to the true average. so sample size certainly matters. as a gamer probability matters. as a game designer and considering balance, i think averages matter as well and for me, should be of greater significance from the designer's perspective.

2. opinion. please also read my response to RCG. again, i have never claim your opinion is worthless. please read my post #91 again. it is you who have made that claim regarding mine as read in post 93. you stated

"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."

(how is this not an argument of authority? or has it been modified to be an argument of popularity (as in not extreme is popular therefore the authority reference))
yet it is you that claim my opinion is worthless (post 119) because i agree. seems to me that you are the one that rejects differences in opinion much more so than i. that because i happen to agree with MSM my opinion is worthless. quite amusing your reasoning and argument constructions.
your suggestions that i agree with MSM just because everyone else does too is without merit. There is no evidence to suggest this and thus another strawman argument on your part.

this thread, as you suggested, is "should it be another way" regarding MSM. I argued that MSM is characterful but could be better with minor tweaks (perhaps changing holofield, perhaps limiting turns) without complete abandonment of the MSM mechanic. how is this any way similar to the words you try to put in my mouth of ""I agree with the current method because that's how it is" ?" you fixate on my overall agreement with MSM and cannot seem to get beyond that at all.

i posited that you are too wedded to your own bias because you have demonstrated it again and again regarding MSM, which is the core topic of conversation. let me summarize it for you:
a) sigoroth argues MSM is fatally flawed
b) fracas opined that MSM is not fatally flawed
c) therefore fracas' opinion of MSM is fatally flawed.
yup. that about sums it up. this is the bias i referred to. i did not and do not postulate any other bias on your part beyond this.

3. i think you should get beyond strawman arguments while at the same time maintain internal consistency with your own arguments. btw, a ~Argument of authority is the same as an Argument of authority in its fallacy of construction.

4. abstraction
IN vs eldar
MS, msm, MS, msm, MS, msm
IN one move between being shot at; eldar two moves between being shot at.
now i have not looked at MMS but using your analytical process
MS, mms, MS, mms, MS, mms
IN one move between being shot at; eldar two moves between being shot at. looks same but there is a difference in that the mms make eldar faster and better able to position themselves for the shot with second move, whereas msm allow the eldar the ability with the second move to avoid being shot at after taking the shot.
seems to me all ship commanders want to maximize their shooting and minimized themselves as targets. thus again seems to me MSM should be available to all fleets as being more realistic representation of tactical considerations of all commanders. in addition, given time space consideration and everything moving, where you are when you shoot me should not be the same as where you are when i shoot you. you can argue that since both parties have minimum movement this is already the case but this is only incompletely so with MS compared to MSM. that by the time you maneuver for the shot the target may have already moved out of your guns, thus MSM incorporates some of this time lag effect better than MS.

[horizon]

5. that eldar can strike and withdraw from an engagement is characterful. and realistic. that it provides an autowin in some scenario does not make it a flaw of MSM rather than the scenario. i cannot see why you do not understand this, or if you do understand this why persist in allaying the flaw to the MSM mechanic rather than the scenario. i have never advocated a scenario where it is not fun for both players. read my posts again. but when one faction consistently win with certain scenarios and lose under others, i would look at tweaking the scenario before i tweak the rules.

But the scenario is perfect for all other races. Without Eldar there would be no need to change it.


Your tweaks (weaker holofield, limited turns) make Eldar weaker, thus even more of a loss in open space.

[fracas]

my tweaks are suggestions, not that both be adopted. and should be taken with consideration for MSM for all
they certainly need play testing.


just out of curiosity Horizon?
the problem with MSM (other than your belief that it break core mechanic) is what exactly?
it makes eldar too strong?
it makes eldar too weak?
it makes eldar too strong with certain scenariors and too weak with other scenarios? thus too great of a variability? too dependent on terrain?

[Valhallan]

well... breaking the core mechanics is kinda a big deal... but *aside* from that:

#1) playing as/against msm is not fun for many of us
#2) if we tried the [suggested idea in the rulebook] to play LotR sytle (taking turns moving ships, then taking turns shooting, then taking turns with ordy, etc.) then msm falls apart - they'd need the protection given to them in mms v1.9 to survive.

meanwhile:
the current proposed counter to msm, mms is fun to play as and against. mms encourages the same hit and fade strategy - but over the course of the battle - not abstracted within a player turn. mms also provides eldar with the longest striking distance of any fleet (except for bots on aaf), making  the enemy wary and on the defense (as opposed to a headlong charge to surround that asteroid field). all while giving them just enough defense to take some return fire after an attack and AAF back out of weapons range.


PS: no offense to the designers or the HA, but the rulebook was mashed together with tons of inconsistencies, hence all the FAQ's, we would already have a bfg 2.0 if GW hadn't put the kibosh down on our game. who knows if they'd planned to change this?

PPS: i'm edgy on opening this can of worms, but you cannot dispute mathematical fact. that shit's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. also building a system on averages is not a good plan, it marginalizes the variation in the chances of very high and low results when examining multiple ship combats, much less engagements between entire fleets, and you don't want to marginalize, do you?

[fracas]

Valhalan

MSM is core mechanic, thus it cannot break core mechanics. i am sure you mean, as others have implied, that this one core mechanic is incongruent with other core mechanics. it is incongruent because only two fleets can do it. thus to bring congruency, most of you have proposed removing and replacing it. again i ask why not make it available to everybody as it is a better abstraction of the commander's tactical considerations rather than eliminating it.

I have no comment regarding MMS having no experience with it. thus i have not commented in the MMS thread.

I have no problems with internal inconsistencies. this is the human way and the products of our way. but seems the 2010 wasn't only about addressing internal inconsistencies as well as providing clarifications on changes made after the rules were published, such as nova cannon, CAP, turret suppressions, etc; delineating vague rules, and addressing some balance issues with points adjustments. however, this point is not worth further arguments on my part though in this thread.

Worms
i am not sure why you believe that averages marginalized multiple ship combats when the arguments put forth suggests otherwise.
one lunar causes no kills 44% of the time. but when you add more lunar encounters the averages shows the kill rate higher. thus probability marginalizes commonality.
or are you suggesting that averages minimizes the time there are no kills as well as multiple kills? this is where understanding the bell curves come in? there has to be outlyers. how much outlyers should be considered in game design then?
if i had to choose between averaging multiple ships encounters, encounters after encounters, vs preserving the variable probability of a single ship encounter, as a game designer i would look for consistencies hence balance among and across encounters but as a gamer i would look more at the single encounter. the gamer psych is more like a gambler, we play to beat the probability. this is a poor abstraction to instill in a game where huge resources (ships, lives) are at risk.

[barras1511]

Eldar MSM rules although in the core rulebook have special rules only unto themselves in the same manor that a codex does for 40k. If these rules break the norm, then they cannot be said to be core rules but are special rules applicable to that fleet only.

If Eldar can be shot they lose, if they cannot be shot the Eldar wins. This is what people are saying when they call Eldar broken. There are only two predicable out comes for a BFG game involving Eldar. Eldar have terrain or they don't. It is very rare for things to go any differently to these two scenarios.

Perhaps fundamentally flawed would be a better term that you would accept instead of broken. However it amounts to the same thing. Players not wanting Eldar played against them, Eldar vrs Eldar engagements or Eldar with no terrain.

Eldar having the highest strategy rating makes it very likely that they will get the terrain that they need and the scenario they want.

First turn wins for Eldar with your opponent doing nothing but taking brace saves is not exactly fun is it?

@Sig fuck you for those fun times BTW!

[Valhallan]

Point 1:
fracas,

what i meant you snagged exactly when you said ->

or are you suggesting that averages minimizes the time there are no kills as well as multiple kills? this is where understanding the bell curves come in? there has to be outlyers. how much outlyers should be considered in game design then?

and my answer would be +/- 42.5% from the population average as to encompass that nice 85% (because as a player, if i really need to get something accomplished, i go with 85% chance of success minimum.)

btw try a game or two with mms, they're quite fun and consistent. if you don't like 'em, well they're not official anyway. Last campaign I played with my group we had 1 mms eldar, 1 msm eldar. it was funny [and tau won].

Point 2:
Any stats fans who want to run the numbers comparing the lunar-sword vs lunar-hemlock vs lunar-hemlock mms? cuz that's really what i'd like to know.

[horizon]

just out of curiosity Horizon?
the problem with MSM (other than your belief that it break core mechanic) is what exactly?
it makes eldar too strong?
it makes eldar too weak?
it makes eldar too strong with certain scenariors and too weak with other scenarios? thus too great of a variability? too dependent on terrain?

Hi,
it makes Eldar too strong with terrain, it makes Eldar too weak without terrain. It makes Eldar too strong in scenario the raiders, (heck even planetary assault in a daft way iirc), it makes them too strong in fleet engagements. It does not make sense in the common sense (see Sig's captain "story").

MSM is core mechanic, thus it cannot break core mechanics. i am sure you mean, as others have implied, that this one core mechanic is incongruent with other core mechanics. it is incongruent because only two fleets can do it. thus to bring congruency, most of you have proposed removing and replacing it. again i ask why not make it available to everybody as it is a better abstraction of the commander's tactical considerations rather than eliminating it.

Again MSM is not a core mechanic. When we say core mechanic it is about the game system/mechanic. MSM is a fleet special rule.

[Sigoroth]

@Fracas

I would go through and respond point by point, but it's getting too long. Suffice to say on the points I'm not going to elaborate on, I'm right and you're wrong. Take that as read.

Probabilities & averages

I don't know why you're so down on probability. The way you are arriving at your averages is through probability. You are using the mathematical model of average, rather than an actual average of data. Therefore you have no need for multiple data points. You are not gathering and analysing data. When you say that 2 lances will average 1 hit you're using the probability theory to arrive at your conclusion. This is fine, just don't confuse the two.

You suggest that if we were to actually record some data then this data would be closer to the "average" than the "probability". This statement doesn't make sense, and suggests that you don't know what these terms mean. You have arrived at your "average" using probability. We (myself, RCGothic, any statistician in the world that bothered to look at the issue) also arrived at our average using probability, however it is the correct average.

The average number of kills is P(1k) + 2 x P(2k) + 3 x P(3k) + ... N x P(Nk), where N = the maximum potential kills that the shooting shp/squadron could get. This is obviously simplified as there may be a ceiling effect, such as only 1 target in the squadron. In which case the average kills is simply the probability of a kill is, which is 1-P(0k). If there are 2 targets then the average would be P(1k) + 2(P(2k) + P(3k) + ... P(Nk)), etc.

In the example we've been using of the Lunar against the Eldar escorts this means that the probability of at least 1 kill is ~63% whereas the average against a squadron of at least 3+ escorts is 0.78 kills. Against a squadron of 2 the average is 0.75 kills and against a single escort the average is the same as the probabiity, 0.63 kills. Against Swords the probability of at least 1 kill is ~56%, which is also the average number of kills against a single escort squadron (0.56). The average against squadrons of 2+ size is 0.58 kills.

You say that the actual results of these sorts of engagements would approach average over time, and that's true. It would approach these averages, not the ones you posted. So we're actually providing more information than what you think. We're providing the average kills, ie, what you could expect over time, as well as the probability of achieving these kills, ie, the likelihood of getting one or more kills right now. From this analysis we can see the holofield is worse than shields.

MSM, MMS, Abstraction & Character

You suggest that maybe all fleets should get MSM. This is will give the same logical absurdity of hit-and-run attacks that allow someone to attack and be immune to retribution. This will be more likely with more manoeuvrable ships. How this would be operationalised is also a worry. Would this allow all races to get 2 turns per movement? Would IN, say, get 2 moves of 20cm each? Why do they get this increase in speed and manoeuvrability? If they only have the 1 turn and a total of 20cm speed split across both movements, then why do they lose so much reach (10cm movement, shoot, 10 cm movement vs 20cm movement & shoot). If they get to increase speed on the assumption that everyone does so it's no comparative gain then you're still adjusting the movement to range ratio.

Also, in the current abstraction the movement represents the speed between rounds of shooting, and the player turn system represents the cycle of shooting. So splitting the movement before/after shooting doesn't gel with this abstraction. If you changed the abstraction, such that you were playing a single combined turn where all players had an initial movement phase (taking turns or using initiative or whatever) and then all players shot in the same manner and then all players moved again then you could do it.

However, what you want is to be able to deny the enemy the ability to fire when they want. You want to be able to dictate terms. That is unreasonable. You should not get the ability to fly right up to point blank range, shoot and then fly past to make your enemy turn to shoot behind them.

The character of the Eldar is fast and agile, using their speed to take advantage of the enemy. This is not represented by MSM. They have no more speed than Chaos and can't position themselves to attack the enemies vulnerable points. The second movement only enables them to be invulnerable to return fire, which is uncharacteristic and only necessary due to their tinfoil armour, which itself is uncharacteristic.

MMS: You haven't looked at it, which is fine, but it has quite a few upsides. The double movement represents their speed and agility well, allowing Eldar to position themselves where they want. It also gives the variable speed bands associated with solar sails, suiting the models and also tying in with the old rules. It doesn't break the abstraction of the game and, because the enemy can actually shoot back, it makes games against Eldar more fun. Because it lowers Eldar dependence on terrain it makes the outcome not preordained, therefore again more fun for both players.

[fracas]

Sigoroth

i am right and you are wrong once everything is averaged into consideration
moving on


1. i am not down on probability at all! never said so. and from a gamer's perspective it can be very helpful. but there is definitely a role for averages especially from the design perspective and this too must be considered.
i've already worked examples how probability differs from averages with the example above.
i've also suggested that part of the essential difference lies in how they are used. probability is best used to predict outcome of a single event. as a gamer this is important certainly. but a 0.63% probability does not produce a 0.63 outcome. the outcome is either zero or 1.
whereas averages is best used to summarized actual outcomes, and this too is important as a game designer to give a birds eye view for comparative consideration.

2. abstraction. lets first look at MSM mechanics apart from what they are in the rules (intimately associated with eldar and their consequences from this association.)[yes, let go of some bias]
MSM imo better represents tactical consideration. move for the shot. shoot. move away to avoid being shot.
MS. move for the shot. shoot. hope you don't get shot.
MMS. (hypothesizing here since i haven't looked into it.) move for  the shot. move again to get the best shot. then shoot. and hope you don't get shot.
since we are talking abstraction, which would you prefer as a soldier. stand, shoot, duck or stand, shoot (and remain standing)?
which would you prefer as a tank commander? (isn't ability to shoot on the move an essential component of modern combat)?
which would you prefer as a ship captain?
why is a game about future spaceship combat using predominantly antiquated 18th century combat tactic?

[barras1511]

I would prefer to not have an opponent who is invulnerable due to a quirky game mechanic!

If a game is to have the pop out attack ability, it should also give the opponent the chance to counter this. Consider second edition 40k. The old over watch rules were created as a counter to the Eldar pop out attacks. Sure it could be used against other armies but that was the reason for those rules.

What sort of over watch do we have in this system?

In short Eldar are snipers. However they don't just shoot from cover. They move out of cover at full speed (surely this should show up on some sensor) fire their weapons and fall back at full speed to the cover, all before the enemy can fire.

If a soilder tried to do this on a battlefield, what do you think would happen to him?

This is where I disagree with the MSM rules.

[Sigoroth]

Sigoroth

i am right and you are wrong once everything is averaged into consideration
moving on

Heh.

1. i am not down on probability at all! never said so. and from a gamer's perspective it can be very helpful. but there is definitely a role for averages especially from the design perspective and this too must be considered.
i've already worked examples how probability differs from averages with the example above.

Yeeeees, but do you know that your examples are either wrong or confused?

i've also suggested that part of the essential difference lies in how they are used. probability is best used to predict outcome of a single event. as a gamer this is important certainly. but a 0.63% probability does not produce a 0.63 outcome. the outcome is either zero or 1.
whereas averages is best used to summarized actual outcomes, and this too is important as a game designer to give a birds eye view for comparative consideration.

Yes, sort of. Averages are good for summarising long term expectations. Yes, individual events are either 1 or 0, for which the probability is best used to predict. However, let's look at an event with a probability of, say, 63%. This probability means that 63 times out of 100 the event should occur. So this becomes the average. Bookmakers, casinos and lottery agencies all use these probabilities to determine the price they pay. In the long term this works for them. So the relationship between probability and average is well explored. Indeed, you yourself use probability theory to come to your average. It's just that you don't do it properly.

2. abstraction. lets first look at MSM mechanics apart from what they are in the rules (intimately associated with eldar and their consequences from this association.)[yes, let go of some bias]
MSM imo better represents tactical consideration. move for the shot. shoot. move away to avoid being shot.

How does this better represent tactical considerations? You say "move away to avoid being shot", but why should the attacking player get to dictate both where they get to shoot and how the enemy will get to shoot at them? If you're coming straight at me, why can't I shoot now, while you're closing, rather than have to wait until you've closed to where you want to be, shot, and then turned around and fucked off again? Why wouldn't *I* shoot when it best suits me to do so?

This idea seems to reduce tactical considerations by allowing you to approach any way you please, without consideration of retribution and then make up for it later. If you have to expose yourself in order to get a good firing solution then that should be an exploitable weakness. If you can make an oblique approach (ie, Sword, Carnage, etc) allowing you to get a firing solution without exposing yourself to tremendous retaliatory fire then that should be an exploitable strength. MSM does not allow for these tactical considerations, as well as making no sense.

MS. move for the shot. shoot. hope you don't get shot.
MMS. (hypothesizing here since i haven't looked into it.) move for  the shot. move again to get the best shot. then shoot. and hope you don't get shot.
since we are talking abstraction, which would you prefer as a soldier. stand, shoot, duck or stand, shoot (and remain standing)?
which would you prefer as a tank commander? (isn't ability to shoot on the move an essential component of modern combat)?
which would you prefer as a ship captain?
why is a game about future spaceship combat using predominantly antiquated 18th century combat tactic?

You seem to have a poor understanding of the current abstraction. With MS or MMS (which is merely a representation of speed and agility of Eldar) you are always moving. This is the same as your tank commander example. You are not simply standing still or marching slowly into the enemy as you suggest with the "18th century combat tactic" quip. The difference is that you seem to think that the example of the tank commander and the ship captain are identical to the example of the infantryman popping out to shoot and ducking back.

In real life tanks don't pop out, shoot, and duck back into cover. It does not happen. Eldar used to be able to do this in 40k using the crystal targeting matrix upgrade. GW (finally) cottoned on that this was happening and put a stop to it. So if pop-out attacks are impossible on that sort of scale then how the hell is it possible on the scale of BFG!?

Now, going back to the infantryman example, yes, at this scale we see a pop-out attack. However, even this does not make the infantryman immune to retribution. Many men have lost their lives doing this. This is, in effect, the reason for the old overwatch rule. Eventually they found the rule to be clunky (which it is) and did away with it, just using cover saves to represent the added difficulty of shooting people in this sort of manner (of course, they stuffed that too since you should get both an armour save and a cover save, not either/or). Regardless, the concept of a pop-out attack on the scale of BFG is utterly ridiculous, and if it were operationalised then you'd still need some sort of cover or overwatch mechanic to balance it. This is a terrible idea though. Pop-out on this scale is dumb, overwatch is clunky and terrain should retain the ability to block LoS, rather than just provide a save.

[fracas]

1. my examples were not wrong. you must be confused. my 3 lunars shooting averaged 0.66 kills whereas the probability of each lunar shooting remain constant at  ... what was it? 0.55555? maybe with the fourth time i shoot with the lunar i get a kill. now my average kill is 0.75 per lunar shooting whereas the probability for that lunar to kill remain same. how confusing this must be?

2. again you are confused if you acknowledge that outcome is either zero or one  (binomial) despite the probability varying from 0 to 100% (continuous) and some how think you are correct about how superior probability analysis is as compared to average. the same out come of "1" can arise whether the probability is 1% or 99% for any given event that has occur. as the probability remain the same, the average will change with increasing incidence to approach reality. probability is conceptual whereas averages are actual. certainly there is a relationship between probability and average. confounding is it?
but you are trying the expand the application of the probability of 1 event to suggest that the probability of 100 is the same as the probability of 1 event. note probability for 100 separate events is not the same as the probability of 100 sequential events. misapplication. a game designer needs to know how things will play out over 100s, 1000s events. as a gamer you are really only interested in the next event.
when i suggested consider the two perspectives perhaps i should have been more explicit in stating the obvious, in that your perspective will dictate your reference point and what is significant. don't cling too tightly to just one perspective.

3. lets try the abstraction again. do try letting go of your shackles this time and do some deconstruction analysis.
ship targeting and tank targeting are neither relying on visual sighting at this time. a fair amount of it rely on counter fire target acquisition radar. thus neither should move up shoot, and hang there for a few, smoke a sig, pass it around, and wait for incoming because it certainly will come. you move, shoot, and move again so you are not where you where when incoming fire occurs. same with an infantryman. it isn't about being immune to retribution because both sides are doing it and both sides expect the others to do so.
then there is a lag time between recognizing a target and acquiring the target and then hitting the target. this effect is magnified in space because hey, distance is time, eh? over vast scale of distance with a moving target it really matters, you know?
you make msm to be about pop out attack. it isn't. this is the shackle of your bias against eldar msm showing. silly.
i haven't say anything about how much a ship has to move before turning and how much of a turn they can even make in the second move. but lets say there is some limitation on the second move's minimum move before turning and how much it can turn. woah! i know i know a second concept to grasp. see? no pop-outs.
so i am not talking about pop out pop up pop in pop down attacks. talking about not being where you were as you do your drive by. even hoodlums understand this.
since both sides would have msm, the side that can outmaneuver, out plan, and out predict the other gets the edge. not the side with the largest gun. otherwise MS is really is just 18th century.
18th century tactics relied on 2 things, outshooting (force application) and outlasting (training/morale) with your troops. move up boys, front rank kneel second stand, alternate shooting and don't flinch when they shoot back.
no space game should adopt this abstraction if you want to talk abstraction to game mechanics.
modern tactics recognize the importance of movement/speed in addition to force application and morale/training. lets apply some of this?

4. the only thing i might be wrong about in this thread is the assumption that you can get it. hmmm