Rise of the d3 Damage Weapon?

[Dark Shepherd]

At the start of 9th when things like power fists became flat 2 damage I thought great, thats average rolls and saves time.

 

But now minus one damage on 2 or 3 wound models seems like it will be a common and powerful thing (there strats and abilities that hurt d1 weapons too)

 

So looks like anything changed to Damage 2 is at a significant disadvantage to D3 as D3 will do twice as many wounds 1/3 of the time and never worse than the same in such curcumstances

Edited January 31, 2021 by Dark Shepherd

[Karhedron]

A fair point against anything with the -1 Damage trait, a D3 weapon will be the same as a 2D weapon 2/3 of the time and twice as good 1/3 of the time.

 

A Knight with a RFBC and then tap=dancing on enemy units could be fun.

[Charlo]

I think in a lot of cases, the designers realised that there was a LOT of D3 damage weapons on that game and with the advent of 2W marines, would significantly slow down the game.

[Dark Shepherd]

I think in a lot of cases, the designers realised that there was a LOT of D3 damage weapons on that game and with the advent of 2W marines, would significantly slow down the game.

For sure. I like that change. Theres just a lot of minus 1 damage abounding and I can see it being meta. Its still a cool rule for vehicles v plasma, heavy bolters etc

[Jings]

I think it gives them a slight niche but really who wouldn't just take the consistency of D2 over Dd3 most times anyway? Maybe time will tell, but I suspect a lot of d3 damage weapons will either change or be made less relevant by more common availability of D3+ weaponry entirely. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah it’s incredibly disappointing to have an expensive D3 weapon roll a 1 for damage. I’d happily take the consistency of 2 damage every time even if there are a few cases where D3 would be mathematically better.

[Dark Shepherd]

Maybe Im being paranoid as I built my army with so many power fists/Space Wolves chapter tactic screams fists and hammers

 

I like the certainty of Flat 2 too but its the proliferation of minus one damage and I can see that characteristic becoming meta as this is a survivability edition.

 

Theres also some quirky cases like Chainfists costing the same as Power Fists but have the d3 damage AND an extra point pf AP AND flat 3d v vehicles

 

Units that can take Thunder Hammers for a slight increase on Power fists eg Wolf Guard for +4 points look better too

Edited February 1, 2021 by Dark Shepherd

[Xenith]

Change to flat 2 damage over D3, and the change to -1 Damage over a 5+ roll to ignore basically takes 2 additional rolling steps out of the attack sequence, which is good. 

 

As you say, the D3 Dam option might be good now. Against something with a -1 dam trait, on a roll of 1-4, it's essentially the equivalent of a flat 2 dam (goes to 1), but it has a 1/3 chance of being better. So it's never technically worse than a fist in those instances. 

[Focslain]

A fair point against anything with the -1 Damage trait, a D3 weapon will be the same as a 2D weapon 2/3 of the time and twice as good 1/3 of the time.

 

A Knight with a RFBC and then tap=dancing on enemy units could be fun.

 

In Engine War knights got a strat that makes the RFBC of a paladin 3Dmg for 1 CP 

[Volt]

Keep in mind that chainfists are already objectively better than power fists mathhammer wise due to being AP-4. Sometimes you roll a 1-2, but the math still works out in favor of the chainfist unless you're striking at something with a 4+ or worse.

[battle captain corpus]

From what I've noticed is that, especially in competive play environments, randomised anything is unwelcome. It removes the dependability of something. And that's just not what you may want when playing in that way.

 

Personally I think 40K needs far more randomness and chance. Yes you could fluff a roll, or maybe you will kill that warlord with a hopeless last roll...the unknown makes it far more fun. Making this and that a flat "X" damage for me does far more than make the game "safe"....it makes it boring.

 

BCC

[Captain Idaho]

There is another element that can be a positive for D3 damage having a use - when your opponent is determining the threat of your weapons and attacks, they can't gamble that you won't roll a 3, they have to factor it in.

 

For me, slowing the game down is never fun. But D3 damage is only a single part of it and not too much of an issue.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Xenith]

Keep in mind that chainfists are already objectively better than power fists mathhammer wise due to being AP-4. Sometimes you roll a 1-2, but the math still works out in favor of the chainfist unless you're striking at something with a 4+ or worse.

 

Or with a 2+/5++ or 1+/4++ invulnerable save.

 

The additional problem with CFists over PFists is the chance of a 3D roll getting wasted on a model with a single wound left: say you get 3 wounds against a unit of 2w marines, then rolling for damage you roll a normal distribution of a 1, a 2, and a 3. No matter how you slice that, you only kill 2 marines. Best case you roll 321 and kill 2 wound 1. With a fist, they get a 6+ save, but you'll probably kill 3. Kill 2 for sure with like a 50/50 chance on killing the last one. It's the reliability that wins out.

 

In the -1D meta, maybe the chainfist will be king. There's a lot to say for ap-4 and flat out ignoring power armour.  

Edited February 3, 2021 by Xenith

[Dark Shepherd]

Thats a good point

 

Chainfists still would make sense to cost more points. If they were cheaper, power fists get better looking

 

This might just be Wolf Guard but IIRC theres an issue of chainfists being left handed as are all the stormshields

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

[Dark Shepherd]

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

Too late :) everyones tooling up for 2 and 3 wound Astartes

[MegaVolt87]

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

 

Those armies would be good candidates for having D3 + X dmg weapons options to compensate for only being 1 wound to balance them out, in addition to lower per model points costs. D3 to fixed D2 is a fair fix for D3, D3 + X dmg is the real buff to such weapons. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Why does the amount of damage per wound inflicted matter if the majority of your army is one wound models ?

[MegaVolt87]

Why does the amount of damage per wound inflicted matter if the majority of your army is one wound models ?

 

Multi wound infantry that deal fixed dmg like D2 vs one wound infantry with a buffed fixed variable dmg output like D3 + X  is a good mix of ability/ point of difference in playstyles. High risk, high reward vs a safer consistent output. Like an RPG character that has high burst DPS, little defensive ability vs one with a normal DPS curve and a median defensive sustain utility. Do we want 40k to be about all stable dmg curves and survivability or do you want some room for risk and unpredictability in the curve? Its obvious which has more room for excitement and engagement with the right development. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Why does the amount of damage per wound inflicted matter if the majority of your army is one wound models ?

because your more elite units and HQs are going to be lower wounds as well.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Only advantage I see is it nerfs FNP .

[Xenith]

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

 

It's a good thing for majority 1w armies if everyone starts taking more expenside 2D weapons, it means they're wasting their firepower.

 

 

 

Why does the amount of damage per wound inflicted matter if the majority of your army is one wound models ?

because your more elite units and HQs are going to be lower wounds as well.

 

 

Again, 1w elite models vs 2D weapon is wasted firepower. HQ models have other ways of being protected.

[jaxom]

 

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

 

Those armies would be good candidates for having D3 + X dmg weapons options to compensate for only being 1 wound to balance them out, in addition to lower per model points costs. D3 to fixed D2 is a fair fix for D3, D3 + X dmg is the real buff to such weapons. 

 

 

I just want to make sure I understand this. The idea is that an army made up of primarily 1 wound models would have access to a number of D3+X weapons so they'd effectively be the scissors to the paper of an army made up of 2/3 wound models with 2D/3D weapons?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

i hope there isn't a massive proliferation of D2 and D3 weapons...especially with the number of armies that primarily have only 1 wound on most of their infantry...

It's a good thing for majority 1w armies if everyone starts taking more expenside 2D weapons, it means they're wasting their firepower.

 

 

Why does the amount of damage per wound inflicted matter if the majority of your army is one wound models ?

because your more elite units and HQs are going to be lower wounds as well.

Again, 1w elite models vs 2D weapon is wasted firepower. HQ models have other ways of being protected.

Whatever you say, I think it's stupid just like giving vehicles wounds was stupid

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Wounds were given to vehicles so they can’t be destroyed by one shot while something like a Riptide keeps on chugging along.