There is too much damage reduction, change my mind.

[Tiger9gamer]

look, subtracting one from damage is a neat gimmick, but now everyone is getting it. what's the point of damage two weapons anymore besides killing marines? Most of the time it is negated for shooting or combat, especially after watching the new Genestealer cult in battle reports. Dunno what to accomplish with this thread but I feel GW needs a new gimmick to make units tough. I say that even as a Black templar player who loves tannhauser's bones, but aside from dreads and that dude that's the only damage reduction I use.

Any way to change my mind or am I just being salty?
 

[Slave to Darkness]

Nope, Im with you, this will be the new thing to dish out to all new books until the next rule that bends core rules gets slapped on everything and their dog. Then the game will refresh with a new edition and the whole bloat will start over again... 

[MARK0SIAN]

I think you’re rightly annoyed but I think the focus of your ire should be the sheer amount of damage/lethality in the game that makes these abilities necessary.

 

The damage output of units is now so high and so consistent that it is effectively impossible to make a unit tough/durable/survivable just on it’s base stats alone. The designers are essentially admitting this themselves with damage reduction and the even more egregious “this unit can only suffer X amount of damage per phase” rules they’re handing out. If ever there was a rules writer admitting defeat that last one is surely proof of it.

 

The problem is that a huge chunk of the damage comes from the codexes themselves so at this point, only a hard reset like the transition from 7th to 8th can solve it.

Edited January 9, 2022 by MARK0SIAN

[ThePenitentOne]

look, subtracting one from damage is a neat gimmick, but now everyone is getting it. what's the point of damage two weapons anymore besides killing marines? Most of the time it is negated for shooting or combat, especially after watching the new Genestealer cult in battle reports. Dunno what to accomplish with this thread but I feel GW needs a new gimmick to make units tough. I say that even as a Black templar player who loves tannhauser's bones, but aside from dreads and that dude that's the only damage reduction I use.

 

Any way to change my mind or am I just being salty?

 

 

Could you post:

 

1: Which factions ACTUALLY have it.

2: Whether it is on specific units or army wide, and if specific units, how many per faction?

3: Whether it is an always on ability or a strat which can only be used on one unit per turn IF you have the CP?

 

This would be great for a discussion, and much more helpful than "EVERYONE'S GETTING IT" which is clearly not true.

 

That's a lot of work for one dude, so I will help. Over the course of the day, I will comb the 9th ed dexes I have and report back.

 

Do any 8th ed dexes have it? If so, that would exclude Guard, CWE, CSM, Nids, and Knight of both stripes... Did I miss any?

Edited January 9, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Slave to Darkness]

 

look, subtracting one from damage is a neat gimmick, but now everyone is getting it. what's the point of damage two weapons anymore besides killing marines? Most of the time it is negated for shooting or combat, especially after watching the new Genestealer cult in battle reports. Dunno what to accomplish with this thread but I feel GW needs a new gimmick to make units tough. I say that even as a Black templar player who loves tannhauser's bones, but aside from dreads and that dude that's the only damage reduction I use.

 

Any way to change my mind or am I just being salty?

 

 

Could you post:

 

1: Which factions ACTUALLY have it.

2: Whether it is on specific units or army wide, and if specific units, how many per faction?

3: Whether it is an always on ability or a strat which can only be used on one unit per turn IF you have the CP?

 

This would be great for a discussion, and much more helpful than "EVERYONE'S GETTING IT" which is clearly not true.

 

That's a lot of work for one dude, so I will help. Over the course of the day, I will comb the 9th ed dexes I have and report back.

 

Do any 8th ed dexes have it? If so, that would exclude Guard, CWE, CSM, Nids, and Knight of both stripes... Did I miss any?

 

Well I cant comment on the armies I play as they are still on last edition coxed books. :/ 

[Panzer]

I disagree. There's too much damage output in the first place. Things just die WAY too fast and it has been like that for more than two editions now.

[Karhedron]

I think that 2D Plasma etc was intended to mulch Marines but ended up being too good vs vehicles to the point that it eclipsed proper anti-tank weapons. My plasma Inceptors are a staple of my army and can thro out a crazy amount of damage. But they do not struggle against Dreads and similar units so I need to run proper anti-tank in my lists.

 

I agree that the proliferation of -1D is getting a bit silly but I think it is as close we will get to an honest admission from GW that they overpowered plasma in 8th edition and then allowed it to be spammed.

[Dark Shepherd]

I too would like the list of minus 1D armies/units/strats

 

As a mechanic its fine (for flavour) on Death Guard and zero problem with it on vehicles esp dreads which youd be hitting with high damage weapons anyway

 

Dont want it being super common on infantry especially non character units

 

Especially when so many D3 weapons became 2d. And I have a tonne of power fists on my Wolves :)

[ThePenitentOne]

Slave- do any of those 8th dexes have it? I don't think so but I could be wrong.

 

Just combed the DE dex:

- coven of the twelve WL trait is -1 dam

- Urien Rakoth cuts damage in half

- that's it.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I think the stupid amount of damage came first, all the large increases in strength, AP, damage, MW's and bypassing invuln saves everywhere. The damage reduction was a reaction. GW created a problem and are not addressing the creep correctly. I'll give up my DG's -1D for 5+++ again in a heartbeat though!

 

But really it will be impossible to reset without indexes at the beginning of a new edition that levels a playing field at once. No one is going to buy a new codex that intentionally makes your army weaker unless an index did it to every army first.

[Karhedron]

It is not common in 8th edition Dexes but we are starting to see more of it in 9th edition. On Marine Dreadnoughts it went from being a strat to a baked-in rule. Deathguard have it army-wide. A great many Ork vehicles have provided the attack is not S8+. Leaks show the forthcoming Eldar Wraithknight has gained this rule and some rumours say it will apply to other Wraith-units too (although this is unconfirmed).

 

Is it too much? I don't know but I think it is a necessary correction to GW dumping so many 2D weapons on the meta which in turn was because they decided to bump all Marines up to 2W. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.

[BloodyB]

In some ways, the damage reduction mechanics, and the high damage output units that many also dislike, are a result of the past 2 editions simplification of the core game.

 

Any given weapon can be buffed or nerfed in only a small number of ways, if I were designing a new pattern of Bolter for a Space Marine unit, I would have to find a way to make it worth taking based on 8 different aspects: type, range, strength, AP, damage, abilities and cost. Within those constraints, I have to make a weapon that doesn't outshine everything else, while not being a waste of time, because I have to also respect internal logic (Boltguns are usually STR 4, few exceptions in most cases) I am best off looking at the abilities I can give it.

 

Survivability operates under similar constraints. If I asked everyone how to make a Repulsor more survivable, I would get a small number of answers, likely Invuls, extra toughness, a better save and some damage reduction rules. Maybe someone would come up with an off the wall idea, but they still need internal consistency, so Invuls are likely discarded, as a Repulsor doesn't have shields, which every fan knows.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that -1 damage rules are becoming annoyingly common. In some cases I really do get it, but other times... I mean a 10,000 year old Plague Marine infested with Super-Flu? Sure! Every single monster in a monster themed Mid list? Bit much.

 

The problem becomes though, how to demonstrate inordinate toughness? Things can't all have free heals, that's a Necron thing, and isn't always thematically appropriate. The same problem with Invuls, which usually show a mighty forcefield or similar, and if we hand out shrugs, then they could become very dull very fast too.

 

By simplifying the game, there are fewer means to alter units, which means that those alterations can very easily tip the power of a unit in unforeseen ways, such as happened recently regarding the Drukhari and their new love for Pain-Engines.

 

I recently had this discussion with a friend, and I posed this example.

 

If I bought a unit of Aggressors for their fire twice ability, which was then needed, and then bought Eradicators for a similar ability, which was then price hiked, am I being fleeced, or are the game designers struggling to make units viable but not OP? It seems like the former, but I suspect the latter is more true, for a simple reason; if they wanted the unit to fire twice to demonstrate it's immense destructive power, without rocking the boat, they would have made a stratagem that allows Gravis units to do so in the Codex, as they didn't, I suspect they are overcorrecting, and are dubious about trying unusual methods to make units better, and so stick t simple and easily applied rules like damage reduction and mitigation rules.

Edited January 9, 2022 by BloodyB

[ThePenitentOne]

Wraithguard can be taken in sufficient enough numbers that it could lead to a broken build. Maybe their version will have the strength qualifier like ork vehicles.

 

But if other than that, we're looking at something that goes to some non-squadron vehicles, some characters, or is granted by strat, it probably isn't that big a deal.

[Panzer]

In some ways, the damage reduction mechanics, and the high damage output units that many also dislike, are a result of the past 2 editions simplification of the core game.

 

Any given weapon can be buffed or nerfed in only a small number of ways, if I were designing a new pattern of Bolter for a Space Marine unit, I would have to find a way to make it worth taking based on 8 different aspects: type, range, strength, AP, damage, abilities and cost. Within those constraints, I have to make a weapon that doesn't outshine everything else, while not being a waste of time, because I have to also respect internal logic (Boltguns are usually STR 4, few exceptions in most cases) I am best off looking at the abilities I can give it.

 

Survivability operates under similar constraints. If I asked everyone how to make a Repulsor more survivable, I would get a small number of answers, likely Invuls, extra toughness, a better save and some damage reduction rules. Maybe someone would come up with an off the wall idea, but they still need internal consistency, so Invuls are likely discarded, as a Repulsor doesn't have shields, which every fan knows.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that -1 damage rules are becoming annoyingly common. In some cases I really do get it, but other times... I mean a 10,000 year old Plague Marine infested with Super-Flu? Sure! Every single monster in a monster themed Mid list? Bit much.

 

The problem becomes though, how to demonstrate inordinate toughness? Things can't all have free heals, that's a Necron thing, and isn't always thematically appropriate. The same problem with Invuls, which usually show a mighty forcefield or similar, and if we hand out shrugs, then they could become very dull very fast too.

 

By simplifying the game, there are fewer means to alter units, which means that those alterations can very easily tip the power of a unit in unforeseen ways, such as happened recently regarding the Drukhari and their new love for Pain-Engines.

 

I recently had this discussion with a friend, and I posed this example.

 

If I bought a unit of Aggressors for their fire twice ability, which was then needed, and then bought Eradicators for a similar ability, which was then price hiked, am I being fleeced, or are the game designers struggling to make units viable but not OP? It seems like the former, but I suspect the latter is more true, for a simple reason; if they wanted the unit to fire twice to demonstrate it's immense destructive power, without rocking the boat, they would have made a stratagem that allows Gravis units to do so in the Codex, as they didn't, I suspect they are overcorrecting, and are dubious about trying unusual methods to make units better, and so stick t simple and easily applied rules like damage reduction and mitigation rules.

Nah, there's plenty ways to balance them with all those stats. There are other systems that make it work with even less stats.  In fact Warhammer has more ways than most other games to adjust individual units. Simplification is the last cause for the high damage output.

 

It's mainly that strong stuff sells well. People are simple like that and GW knows it. Buff a unit, people will buy tons of it to wreck their opponents. Half a year later buff another unit. Keep that up for a few years and you arrive where we are today. On the other hand, nerfing units, even if it's across every army, upsets people because for some reason they perceive it as personal attack or something.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Xenith

[The Neverborn]

Nope, Im with you, this will be the new thing to dish out to all new books until the next rule that bends core rules gets slapped on everything and their dog. Then the game will refresh with a new edition and the whole bloat will start over again... 

Agreed

 

I disagree. There's too much damage output in the first place. Things just die WAY too fast and it has been like that for more than two editions now.

Agreed with 2nd point.

 

Cause and consequence, or in this case the other way around.

 

Total rules bloat.

 

I'm wondering how much longer they can keep this up before they have to tare it down and start again.

 

It's really the only way or give codex's downgrades.

[Azekai]

It's mainly that strong stuff sells well. People are simple like that and GW knows it. Buff a unit, people will buy tons of it to wreck their opponents. Half a year later buff another unit. Keep that up for a few years and you arrive where we are today. On the other hand, nerfing units, even if it's across every army, upsets people because for some reason they perceive it as personal attack or something.

It is more like people get mad at getting the rug pulled out from under them. If you are sold a unit advertised to do x, y and z, just for GW to come back scant months later and change it, it feels bad. Being told ‘wait, no, that’s unhealthy for the game, none of that anymore, but what what you really want is this other unit over here…’ that approach has been increasingly common, and people are right to dislike it.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Xenith

[Dark Shepherd]

Ork vehicles were broken in a few ways (ignore LOS, spamming) but an easy and fluffy and FUN addition to ramshackle wouldve been that they explode on a 4 or 5 plus not just 6 to represent their ramshackleness

 

Spamming meltas in the design meta and and overpowering D6 damage weapons to make them less swingy were also problems

 

The largely linear codex design problem is a root cause of the powercreep, or whatever element is accidental.

 

If they shifted to even a 4 year cycle let alone 5 they could go back over ALL the codexes before their released to fine tune them instead of just designing them in batches and moving on

[WrathOfTheLion]

As said by others, it's very much a response to the prevalence of higher damage weapons. In the case of vehicles, it's mainly to keep D2 weapons with more shots from overtaking proper antitank weaponry.

 

That said, I don't think pushing for another edition turnover is going to help. Maybe it's as well that we'll be two years into the edition and still not have all the codices released, but I'm not looking forward to restarting that cycle on a 3 year period at all. Need at least 4 years out of this one with all the delays.

Edited January 10, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[spessmarine]

good news for you OP, they'll hand out ignore invulns next

[tychobi]

i would love to see damage reduction introduced game wide attached to the vehicle keyword and not capped at a minimum of one.  Let the bolters bounce.  

[Closet Skeleton]

The damage output of units is now so high and so consistent that it is effectively impossible to make a unit tough/durable/survivable just on it’s base stats alone.

 

Stats have always been meaningless in 40k compared to special rules. Toughest vehicles in 3rd ed were Eldar Vipers, in 4th ed it was blanket Eternal Warrior on Daemons and Tyranids that laughed at everything else. In 5th ed it was the Melta Immune AV12 Storm Raven being superior to the more expensive and slower AV14 Land Raider, which got even worse in 6th with Flyer rules. Wave Serpents have been very hard to kill compared to Land Raiders for ages and that was pretty true in 8th. Eldar Planes were way tougher than anything else in 8th.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Closet Skeleton

[Karhedron]

good news for you OP, they'll hand out ignore invulns next

Many a true work spoken in jest. We have already seen Railguns getting the ability to ignore invulns. The Eldar leaks suggest Heavy warithcannons will also be getting this ability, at least above a certain to-Wound roll.

[Magos Takatus]

I just hope that in order to reduce the firepower of armies we won't go back to "twin linked" weapons acting like a single gun with improved targeting. That really used to grind my gears when they effectively halved the firepower a Land Raider could field in 3rd edition. it wasn't very intuitive that two weapons firing at the same target could only ever inflict one weapon's damage at a time. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Magos Takatus

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The damage output of units is now so high and so consistent that it is effectively impossible to make a unit tough/durable/survivable just on it’s base stats alone.

Stats have always been meaningless in 40k compared to special rules. Toughest vehicles in 3rd ed were Eldar Vipers, in 4th ed it was blanket Eternal Warrior on Daemons and Tyranids that laughed at everything else. In 5th ed it was the Melta Immune AV12 Storm Raven being superior to the more expensive and slower AV14 Land Raider, which got even worse in 6th with Flyer rules. Wave Serpents have been very hard to kill compared to Land Raiders for ages and that was pretty true in 8th. Eldar Planes were way tougher than anything else in 8th.

I get the gist of what you’re saying but I’d argue they’ve never been quite as meaningless as they are now. For example, I also play Horus heresy and if something in that had T6, 2+ and 4 wounds I’d consider that quite formidable and something that would take a fair bit of firepower to put down. If the same thing had those stats in 9th edition I wouldn’t even blink and would know I could take it down quite quickly.

 

Take Ghazkul for example. I feel like I could happily give him a stat line in AoD that would give him a good chance of getting across the battlefield and into combat without needing the damage limitation. I can’t even imagine what that stat line would have to look like in 9th to stop people trivially blowing him off the table but he’d need more wounds than a knight for a start.

[Schlitzaf]

Everyone does realize this edition many ways less killy? Like being out of cover for a marine unit no longer plasma instagibbed (6+ save). And plasma/melta spam always been the word of the day sense I started or rending assault cannons.