If Necron had Ork speed then their special weapons would do nothing.
It is due the fact Necrons have high speed& good turns & good weaponry they win.
Thus the problem ain't the holofield.
Out of curiosity, do you think they are broken as in too powerful or too weak.
IMO MSM is characterful and is not broken.Then why did you suggest a holofield change? ;)
IMO MSM is characterful and is not broken.
yes DD, and I meant MMS, which I assume you are talking about.
Ok, well, as it was several months ago I forget specifics but I think we (my group) felt that the mms rules made the Eldar very vulnerable. We played a game and I seem to recall the Eldar lost badly. But, having re-read the rules as they now stand, I think we were trying to play them as the old style msm Eldar, rather than like a regular bfg fleet. (If that makes sense). Having played a 500pts game yesterday I think the mms rules are better and more in character and in tune with the rest of the bfg system than the msm rules. Its now possible to win, but the Eldar are still very powerful, as reflects their superiority.Great!
I especially like the rule saying that when they reach 2hp they have to disengage, its a very nifty way of stopping suicidal Eldar.Sigoroth will be very pleased to read this.
The eldar is not fragile. It only appear so if you do not consider the holofield. Even batteries aren't that good. In a game of movements and position MSM is characterful.
Problem with eldar is that they have too many schticks in addition to MSM
Holofield
Super lances
Super ordnances
Compared to weakness
Of the 4 listed I would change holofield saves ( just like I would change necron reactive hull save)
No bonus against batteries and MSM only for corsairs not craftworld
(necron would not get hull saves against torpedoes)
I especially like the rule saying that when they reach 2hp they have to disengage, its a very nifty way of stopping suicidal Eldar.Sigoroth will be very pleased to read this.
@SigBut then the Craftworld is skewed right?
you confound together MSM and Holofield. regarding MSM its a matter of opinion right now for both of us regarding character of the rule, whether you apply it against the standard rules of the game, the fluff background, or its impact on the game itself. as have i. differing opinions.
having both MSM and holofield is too much for many. some recommend eliminating MSM. others think it could have gone the other way and weaken holofield. Since MSM is much more different than holofield from the standard rules fixing this seems to be the way to go, but it is not the only way to go.
regarding the holofield itself, no it is not impervious to attacks. eldar will die behind holofield just as necron will die despite reactive hulls. this proves nothing. holofield and 4+ criticals gives them a weakness that is necessary.
but holofield is better than standard shields and 6+ criticals because especially for CE, primarily an escort fleet, criticals mean nothing.
What?
50% from wbs + 23% from Lance = 73%.
Plus there is always the luck factor. 1 dice (especially a battery! 50%!!) can kill an Eldar ship, 1 dice can never kill a Sword.
@Sig
you confound together MSM and Holofield. regarding MSM its a matter of opinion right now for both of us regarding character of the rule, whether you apply it against the standard rules of the game, the fluff background, or its impact on the game itself. as have i. differing opinions.
having both MSM and holofield is too much for many. some recommend eliminating MSM. others think it could have gone the other way and weaken holofield. Since MSM is much more different than holofield from the standard rules fixing this seems to be the way to go, but it is not the only way to go.
regarding the holofield itself, no it is not impervious to attacks. eldar will die behind holofield just as necron will die despite reactive hulls. this proves nothing. holofield and 4+ criticals gives them a weakness that is necessary.
but holofield is better than standard shields and 6+ criticals because especially for CE, primarily an escort fleet, criticals mean nothing.
L1 L2 WB1 WB2
0 hits
M(1/2) M(1/2) M(2/3) M(2/3) = 1/9
1 hit
M(1/2) M(1/2) M(2/3) H(1/3) = 1/18
M(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/3) M(2/3) = 1/18
M(1/2) H(1/2) M(2/3) M(2/3) = 1/9
H(1/2) M(1/2) M(2/3) M(2/3) = 1/9
2 hits
M(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/3) H(1/3) = 1/36
M(1/2) H(1/2) M(2/3) H(1/3) = 1/18
H(1/2) M(1/2) M(2/3) H(1/3) = 1/18
M(1/2) H(1/2) H(1/3) M(2/3) = 1/18
H(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/3) M(2/3) = 1/18
H(1/2) H(1/2) M(2/3) M(2/3) = 1/9
3 hits
M(1/2) H(1/2) H(1/3) H(1/3) = 1/36
H(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/3) H(1/3) = 1/36
H(1/2) H(1/2) M(2/3) H(1/3) = 1/18
H(1/2) H(1/2) H(1/3) M(2/3) = 1/18
4 hits
H(1/2) H(1/2) H(1/3) H(1/3) = 1/36
L1 L2 WB BM
0 hits (641/1728)
M(1/2) M(1/2) M(1/2) M(1) = 1/8
HF(5/12) M(1/2) M(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/288
M(1/2) HF(5/12) M(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/288
HF(5/12) HF(5/12) M(1/2) M(5/6) = 125/1728
1 hit (848/1728)
M(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/2) M(1) = 1/8
M(1/2) HF(5/12) H(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/288
HF(5/12) M(1/2) H(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/288
HF(5/12) HF(5/12) H(1/2) M(5/6) = 125/1728
M(1/2) H(1/12) M(1/2) M(1) = 1/48
H(1/12) M(1/2) M(1/2) M(1) = 1/48
HF(5/12) H(1/12) M(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/1728
H(1/12) HF(5/12) M(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/1728
HF(5/12) M(1/2) M(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/288
M(1/2) HF(5/12) M(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/288
M(5/12) HF(5/12) M(1/2) H(1/6) = 25/1728
2 hits (223/1728)
M(1/2) H(1/12) H(1/2) M(1) = 1/48
H(1/12) M(1/2) H(1/2) M(1) = 1/48
HF(5/12) H(1/12) H(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/1728
H(1/12) HF(5/12) H(1/2) M(5/6) = 25/1728
M(1/2) HF(5/12) H(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/288
HF(5/12) M(1/2) H(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/288
HF(5/12) HF(5/12) H(1/2) H(1/6) = 25/1728
H(1/12) H(1/12) M(1/2) M(1) = 1/288
H(1/12) HF(5/12) M(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/1728
HF(5/12) H(1/12) M(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/1728
3 hits (16/1728)
H(1/12) H(1/12) H(1/2) M(1) = 1/288
HF(5/12) H(1/12) H(1/2) H(1/6) = 5/1728
H(1/12) HF(5/12) H(1/2) H(1/6)
my simpler math for the lunar has it having 2 WB dice and 2 lance dice against a sword moving away. this on average is .66 hits from batteries and 1 hit from lance for a total of 1.66 hits. on average. given that it takes 2 hits to kill this means 0.83 chance of a sword kill from an lunar.
against an eldar escort it is 1 WB die and 2 lances for an average of 0.5 hit from the battery and 1 hit from lance, reduced to 0.166 hits after holofield saves for a total of .666 hits on average. given that it only take 1 hit to kill this remain 0.66 eldar kill from a lunar.
versus closing escorts it comes to 0.99 hits from batteries and 1 from lance for a total of 1.99 hits vs the sword (0.99 chance of a kill from a lunar) versus 1 hit from the batteries and 0.166 damage point from the lance on the eldar escort (1.16 chance of a kill). so here the lunar is more effective against the eldar, but this situation should rarely if ever happens with MSM.
my argument is not that the holofield is too powerful, just that the combination of MSM and holofield make the eldar quite formidable. as played with MSM, holofield is better than shields, but yes, in some situation shield is better (more in metagame analysis than actual play imo).
my argument is also that MSM is characterful. the reference mechanic for the game is a human one with IN, Chaos, and AM. All the other races deviate from this some. Orks with free pass for AAF and 10HP cruisers, Tau with their ordnance, necron with hull saves. these are all in character with their 40k fluff (speedy orks, shooty tau, resilient necrons). for eldar the current rules as is make them fast but fragile as in 40k.
yes i recognize that MSM is a radical departure from the core mechanics but i am fine with it for fluffly, hence character, reasons. i am fine with the rules as they are, but if i were to change them i would give them shields and armor 5 rather than holofield because holofield is not representative of 40k eldar.
using statistics for kills should look at probability, therefore using the mean, rather than the range and sum of all possibility
probability rather than possibility
especially looking at a random distribution
i am not advocating changing the holofield,
i am not advocating changing the eldar at all actually,
just that between choosing MSM vs holofield i would choose to keep MSM.
as i see it MSM in essence allows eldar to shoot in their movement, and their actual movement is up to twice what is listed.
in fact, i think MSM should be available to all fleets for similar reasons to what you posted regarding more realistic space combat.
you don't move, shoot, then stop to be shot at. you move, shoot, and move again so you won't be shot at. isn't this the essence of combat in general?
characterful, and imo should not be eliminated. it should be made more common!
terrain is not something that can be factored in with consistency
i do agree that Eldar should not need terrain to win, and should not make them unbeatable
i just don't see that MSM is the primary factor for this phenomena i guess
but if it is, i am fine with that because as above, i think others should have this option as well
using statistics for kills should look at probability, therefore using the mean, rather than the range and sum of all possibility
probability rather than possibility
especially looking at a random distribution
i think LotR rules has it right.
you move i move, which can change based on who wins initiative
then you shoot i shoot, also on based on who won initiative that turn
then we all fight :)
BFG should move that way
Averages represents the references from which the game mechanics resolve
as a gamer as well, you know as i do that we roll dice expecting to beat the average
this doesn't mean if enough data point is collected, that the result is significantly different from the average
yes, i acknowledge there is a role for ranges and confidence interval in addition to averages, but averages should remain the reference point because with any random distributed bell curve, ranges and confidence interval are mirror over the average
with the current mechanics of my turn your turn, everybody is indeed moving and turns represent snap shots. and that is why i don't have a problem with eldar MSM because it is multitasking in action rather than sequential move shoot. the snap shot comes a little later, that is all. would it been better if MSM isn't accompanied by eldar ability to turn on a dime?
the LotR system of i move you move i shoot you shoot we fight is less abstract.
i would be more interested in CI than variance, as in how likely (95% for instance) an occurence would occur.
yes sometimes the distribution is skewed but this pertains to the interpretation of the results rather than the results of the dice themselves.
i think you should expect better than average rolls. positive attitude helps :) for me and my opponent.
i understand better what you said earlier now, that it would be hard to tease apart MSM from holofield as representative of eldar movement. in some ways both represent eldar choice in technological development to stress movement (and with vast distance with the time space continuum a form of uncertainty of placement/location) rather than the necrons, the other ancient race, which stressed resilience.
all the more reason i think it is characterful.
Are you mixing power with ci?
Since we are using stats to estimate the probability of something will happen rather than evaluation is rather whether our data is representative of a measured population.
Now more than ever I think we should keep both MSM and holofield!
Maybe change how much they can turn
in gaming statistical analysis, it isn't about detecting a difference between your sample and the studied population. gaming statistics is about predicting an outcome that hasn't happened yet. thus a 95% ci means that there is a 95% chance something will happen rather than a 95% chance the observed matches reality. predictive vs analytical.
whereas variance is a measure of the difference of the sample distribution from the true value. no?
early on i posted we have differing opinion on what constitute characterful. we are back to where we started from.
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
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
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.
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.
@horizonYou misunderstand.
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%.
]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.
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.
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.
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?
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'
Fragile isnt an Eldar background trait? 0.o
*universe implodes*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.QuoteAfterall 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?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.
Fracas, core is the game system. The fleets behave to the rule system.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.QuoteAfterall 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.
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? :)
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.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.
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.
so each lunar shooting is just one data point, to get averages you need 2+ lunars shootingThat 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.
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
regarding MSM+Holofield vs MMS+Holofield+shield, seems simpler just to keep to RAW.
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.
In a math game like BFG it is quite relevant skating.
"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))
But the scenario is perfect for all other races. Without Eldar there would be no need to change 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.
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?
just out of curiosity Horizon?Hi,
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
i understand very well that all ships are moving continuously and that the turn mechanics is arbitrary as to when the opponent gets to shoot backBut MSM is a BAD abstraction.
whether if be after i shoot or after i move
never the less, the feel of the game is different between ms and msm
ms MS ms MS
msm MSM msm MSM
the latter has greater significance for movement