There is too much damage reduction, change my mind.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

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?

 

 

I think the damage reduction is actually meant to help marines. Without it damage 2 just becomes such a safe bet. I think the issue is that the game is too lethal and 2 wounds at t4 doesn't feel tough. In order for a unit too feel tough it needs - 1d, transhuman, or an invulnerable save (the more rules from that list the better). I think the designers have realized this which is why those rules show up more.

If they want to get away from that than damage in general needs to be toned down, whether it's changing weapon profiles, getting rid of stratagems, or limiting re-rolls all options should be on the table. I hope they go this route, it's what I asked for in the survey, but it won't be till 10th judging from the previews for Eldar and Tau.  

[sairence]

I don't really think damage reduction is an issue as such. It's a good way to reduce the impact of medium weapons on hard targets. Your plasmagun is good against heavy infantry, it shouldn't be reliable at taking down tanks. Same with heavy bolters and similar weapons. These shouldn't be effective at bringing down dreadnoughts, tanks or big monsters unless massed.

 

It only becomes a problem when it also limits the effectiveness of heavy weapons that are meant to take down bug targets. I think that's an issue for a lot to of DD3 weapons of bigger calibres. I like the limitation that ork ramshackle has for that reason, where the damage reduction gets negated with sufficient S.

 

And honestly, I'm not convinced it's so widespread as to be a fundamental issue. Dreadnoughts, Deathguard, one or two other datasheets in updated codexes and now a specific army of renown for Nids with pretty severe restrictions that will give that army other issues in winning the game. Orks get it on a lot of things, but with the mentioned restrictions so it can be overcome with the right weapon. Where else do we actually see it in large numbers?

 

I think it's talked up to be more of a gatekeeper than it is imo.

[Tawnis]

I feel like you're both right and wrong. 

 

On the one hand, yes, there are way too many units with damage reduction. However, I think that it is because there are way too many weapons that have a multi damage profiles that need to be reigned in. That is because there are way too many units with multiple wounds that needed a way of being efficiently killed. Which is because they are buffing units to make them appealing, while only having so many knobs they can turn to strengthen them. 

 

I liked it back when Space Marines got their second wound, I honestly think it was a fantastic decision. (I'd house ruled 2W marines since 3rd with points tweaks for custom campaigns.) Some other units getting a second wound made sense like Crisis suits or Wraithguard, you know the really chunky stuff, but it should have been the exception, not the rule. Now with basically everything other than basic infantry for most armies having multiple wounds (and some getting up to 3 or 4!), weapons have to go up to compensate, and you need a new way to make the units that need to be more durable, more durable (like Marines).

It's the cycle of buffs that will eventually implode unless we get a complete rules reset to underpower everything at once as they are not going to start underpowering new codices slowly. There is a limit to how strong things can get and so many overlapping rules you can do to retroactively cancel or limit those buffs and maintain "balance". We're already seeing massive bloat as they try to reign this in, and I don't think it's stopping anytime soon. The question is, how long will they keep going with this buff centric model before a reset? Are 3 wound Intercessors on the horizon? I could honestly see it with the way things are going. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Tawnis

[BrainFireBob]

 

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.

It happened in 3rd.

 

Power weapon spam->invulns everywhere->ignore invulns popped up.

 

I do not miss Daemonic Stature+Daemonic Flight+Dreadaxe+Siren.

 

Which is king? Attrition or damage?

 

If this was a pure infantry game, it would not matter.

[BloodyB]

One of the major issues for me is the incredible strength and AP of Anti-tank weapons versus the tanks they are blasting. A Devastator squad with Multimelta can easily turn a Land Raider to ash in one go, and they actually have a fairly good chance of doing so. The games design team are hung up on certain things being true; light tanks are toughness 7, heavy tanks toughness 8, but I don't think those numbers are right.

 

A single infantry handled anti-armour weapon should not be savaging a tank, it should be chip damage. I think if they made Rhino-sized tanks toughness 8, and the heavier armour toughness 9, Baneblades maybe being toughness 10, then they could start to work down, reducing the anti-armour power of plasma spam and decreasing the danger bolters pose. At that point, I would return heavy bolters to damage 1. While I understand why an exploding bullet in the gut should be damage 2, it caused some unbalance with regards to Anti-tank weapons that have been mentioned here. No army suffers from a lack of anti-meq options without heavy bolters, except maybe Guard (make battle cannons damage 2!)

 

But the fact is that doing that requires a rework of many codices, and so would take a long time to come to fruition, in which time those codices would upend the meta greatly. On the other hand, maybe the game designers are going to bring thingsnin a direction I haven't considered, and we might see damage reduction rules become a lot less annoying at some point.

[Captain Idaho]

It feels like GW could have fixed a lot of issues if they made a rule in the main book that if a ranged weapon doesn't have the Anti-tank keyword in the special rules part of the weapon rules, it can only cause a single wound per attack.

 

This would have reduced the amount of damage Plasma weapons would inflict on vehicles, as well as provide stuff like Autocannons with a utility that isn't outstripped by the former.

 

Then GW wouldn't have had to worry about the arms race of all those other weapons in comparison as they'd still have a place and at the same time not have to provide everything and its dog with damage limitation.

 

1 little addition to the main rules and errata to the weapons with anti-tank and it'd been fine.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[MegaVolt87]

D2 weapons seem like a waste to me with so much dmg reduction around. Outside of AT units, I try to lean on stacking D1 weapons which are cheaper/plentiful. I don't care how good your save is, you won't out roll a literal dice bucket to keep your infantry alive. 

[Kastor Krieg]

Ghazkull? 1dmg. Tau Hypergaussguncannon? 1dmg. First Murder End of Empires Reality Rending Sword? 1dmg.

Tannerhaus Bones go BRRRRT :D

[Scribe]

Ghazkull? 1dmg. Tau Hypergaussguncannon? 1dmg. First Murder End of Empires Reality Rending Sword? 1dmg.

 

Tannerhaus Bones go BRRRRT :D

When you put it that way....

 

Gross.

[Kastor Krieg]

 

Ghazkull? 1dmg. Tau Hypergaussguncannon? 1dmg. First Murder End of Empires Reality Rending Sword? 1dmg.

 

Tannerhaus Bones go BRRRRT

When you put it that way....

 

Gross.

Yeah, but the other facet is... Emperor-blessed DaoT forged Custodes blade? Wounds on 2 or 3. Horus' Claw that killed the Emperor? Wounds on 2 or 3.

 

Joe Wrinkle-head Schmoe from Forge Fifteen's own little Black and Decker drill? Auto wounds xD

[Scribe]

 

 

Ghazkull? 1dmg. Tau Hypergaussguncannon? 1dmg. First Murder End of Empires Reality Rending Sword? 1dmg.

 

Tannerhaus Bones go BRRRRT

When you put it that way....

 

Gross.

Yeah, but the other facet is... Emperor-blessed DaoT forged Custodes blade? Wounds on 2 or 3. Horus' Claw that killed the Emperor? Wounds on 2 or 3.

 

Joe Wrinkle-head Schmoe from Forge Fifteen's own little Black and Decker drill? Auto wounds xD

 

 

Dark Gods of the Warp....

 

GW has a lot of things going well, but stuff like this, I just cant.

 

If we could get a completed edition for once, core rules, every product line updated with a 'current' codex, I would be extremely tempted to deconstruct that and release a version that actually made sense.

[Azekai]

 

Dark Gods of the Warp....

 

GW has a lot of things going well, but stuff like this, I just cant.

 

If we could get a completed edition for once, core rules, every product line updated with a 'current' codex, I would be extremely tempted to deconstruct that and release a version that actually made sense.

 

You might as well deconstruct it now. I don't think it will ever be 'completed' in a meaningful sense. It isn't like there is some grand overarching vision to be achieved. GW rules team is just releasing stuff they think will sell and be interesting. They invent design tools (like the Core keyword!) and then under-utilize or abandon them. They make mortal wounds as a design concept and then make a gun that ignores armor and invulnerable saves (so, y'know, deals mortal wounds, except not, because those spill over and we can't have that).

 

It all feels very poorly thought out.

[Kastor Krieg]

It all feels very poorly thought out.

Because it is, they've been faking game design for four decades. I love the lore, I love the minis and the setting, I love painting this stuff, but I just don't play the game anymore, I just can't.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Reclusiarch Krieg

[Vermintide]

Damage reduction isn't alone in getting out of hand. I haven't been following the developments of the edition too closely because honestly, as soon as I saw what it was becoming compared to 8th (and both my armies being early codexes guaranteed to get power creeped) I kinda checked out; but from what I'm seeing, it's just symptomatic of an overall change in design philosophy.

 

The issue it subtlety has gone out the window. If you think back to the early days of the game, what made a Space Marine exceptional? Yes, things were different then, they weren't hyped up to be the godlike unstoppable killing machines they are in today's lore, and the rules have always been rather conservative compared to the lore; but in hard crunch terms, the only real difference between a Marine and a regular human, eldar or 'Nid was a single point in Strength and Toughness (and a better save sure, but saves never mattered, AP has always been meta.) That's all.

 

But the thing is that worked. Within the meta, being an extra point tougher made you harder to wound, and compared to other basic infantry, made you survivable. Of course Marines always had a bunch of other issues and they have been typically pretty overcosted since the earliest of editions, but that's another matter- The point is it didn't take a lot to make a unit seem tougher, because a little went a long way.

 

Gradually, the designers have sought ways to escalate and exaggerate these differences, and often have applauded it for "adding flavour" and whatnot. Everyone likes when their favourite unit has strong rules that make them feel like the badasses in the lore. But over time, it's come at a cost. You have to start adding rules to other units to counteract what you changed with an equivalent unit, you have to adjust other factions to compensate for the difference. So by this stage there's little room for manoeuvre. There's no room to creatively address issues like 2D without handing out -1D like candy. Practically every unit has to be overpowered, so it can face every other overpowered unit. From hat I can tell, there are very few mediocre units any more, it's either auto-include or it's a waste of points. In the end it just ends up being too much.

 

A lot of it comes back to common complaints about codex creep and how GW sees and interacts with "the meta", but the fundamental issue with all of that, as I see it, is just business coming before game design. I get the sense there are certainly designers at GW who would love to scale back on the power creep, who know that reducing the insane lethality of the current game would ultimately lead to a much more tactical and engaging experience overall. But instead they are encouraged to make "strong" books that generate clickbait "XOMG NEW AELRDARI GAME CHANGER OP1?!" discussions, articles and videos, and thus sales.

[chapter master 454]

Curious to ask but...is there a possible bias in viewing? I mean I understand a lot of units are getting things but are we maybe not also considering the reason we see it so much is because people bring them for those reasons?

 

Ok Death Guard have it as their army wide gimmick but how many units in each new army has this ability? and I mean, ALL of them. Not just the ones you see. The whole codex. Similar with how we talked about invulnerables, I am curious if it is just that we are seeing more because people only take those units; not because too many have them.

 

"If I wanted to go about making the strongest shield, how would I do that? By making the strongest sword" (points for knowing where that quote's from)

 

We currently are seeing the game have a very strong sense of lethality despite the fact that really that lethality came more from volume of fire, not quality of fire. We can say a gun is worthless if it can't nuke X unit but yet that discounts the range of units it can take down ranging from A to W. Similarly however units A to W don't see play because of that gun and we only see X and thus complain the gun isn't good enough. So we get better guns. But then we complain the gun kills too good and now we want stronger defence.

 

There are swings and roundabouts to all things. A pendulum of balance where things come into favour and fall out of it. Goodness, the game currently is the most volatile it ever has been since 8th began and going into 9th and during 9th. Back before all this "balancing" we were stuck under the tyranny of whatever was running around at the time...but then again the competitive scene for 40k wasn't so lit up in lights and on the big stage.  I mean, its naturally to complain and its good to; means we can improve things or maybe think about what is and isn't fair.

To me, it just feels like we bump into these abilities because...well people use them and make them part of their strategy. Is it becoming more common? Yea. However I would throw this into the ring.

 

"ignore AP 1 and 2" is becoming more common too. However, before this whole thing was going on and Invulnerables were getting a little out of hand (3++), I would of told you the best weapons in the game were hands down High strength, AP1 with damage 2 if you could with mass volume of fire. However with ignoring AP 1 and 2 becoming a thing, that is now in question.

Maybe the problem is we are seeing a game being made called Rock Paper Scissors. And we only have Rock and Paper so far.

[Scribe]

 

A lot of it comes back to common complaints about codex creep and how GW sees and interacts with "the meta", but the fundamental issue with all of that, as I see it, is just business coming before game design. I get the sense there are certainly designers at GW who would love to scale back on the power creep, who know that reducing the insane lethality of the current game would ultimately lead to a much more tactical and engaging experience overall. But instead they are encouraged to make "strong" books that generate clickbait "XOMG NEW AELRDARI GAME CHANGER OP1?!" discussions, articles and videos, and thus sales.

 

Well said. I wish we had polls here, to see if there is even a desire for a more polished play experience or if, like Krieg and I, many people simply cannot be bothered with playing the game in this state and are 'lost' to it.

[jaxom]

Games Workshop’s mainline games are not purely simulation, but narrativism is influenced by simulation. The short version is that narrativism relies on how parts of a game “feel” to play and that feeling relies heavily on the intersection between a player’s expectations and what the rules allow. The dissonance between a designer-as-player’s expectations and any individual player’s expectations can be a problem, but an understandable one. A larger issue arises when statistical utility breaks the simulation-narrativism connection, because it creates an actual schism in player interaction with the decision-making space. If one category is significantly statistically better at another category’s narrative role, then the decision-making space becomes artificially restricted with regards to roll-optimization. A player-base that pursues roll-optimization, in such a scenario, eventually leads to a game-in-the-wild that is not what the designers wanted, because it is one where the game’s narrative is not accurately reflected.

 

Eighth edition had two changes with outsized impact on the way the game played: the armor penetration system and the vehicle system. Armor penetration was no longer a binary system, bypassing specific save values or having no impact. Vehicles no longer had a separate damage system, but instead had Toughness, Wounds, and Saves. The change to vehicles necessitated a change to weapons; the addition of a Damage characteristic, the ability for a single attack to do multiple wounds. The Damage characteristic meant the Instant Death rule (an attack with Strength x2 of the target’s Toughness kills them regardless of Wounds remaining) could be removed. This impacted how certain weapons were translated into Eighth edition relative to how certain units were translated into Eighth edition. It is not possible to say what the designers expected to happen when Eighth edition became a game-in-the-wild, but what did happen (at least as one trended towards roll-optimization) was a proliferation of medium weapon systems whose statistical utility was greater than spreading the rolls between multiple role weapon systems.

 

Roughly speaking, Warhammer 40,000 has the following narrative groupings for ranged weapons:

Anti-heavy tank

Anti-tank

Anti-light vehicle/heavy infantry (aka high-ish T and W, maybe high Sv)

Anti-heavy infantry (aka high Sv)

Anti-light infantry (aka anti-horde)

 

The rules of Eighth edition, combined with the player decisions observed by the designers (that’s a supposition), made it seem like the game’s simulation-narrativism connection was broken (again, supposing the designer’s viewpoint). Traditional heavy weapons were under-represented compared to what designers were expecting (another supposition). Generally speaking, there are two ways to change what options players choose to take: make what you want them to take better (against its relative target) or make what you don’t want them to take worse (against non-relative targets). There’s a larger design space within that binary; for example one can change the weapon system or change the target, and that binary then spawns other options.

 

An example of this is the Ork ‘Ramshackle’ rule. Many Ork vehicles have lower Toughness than traditional tanks, but they are still “meant” to be targets by heavy weapons. The ‘Ramshackle’ rule is meant to promote this interaction. And this is where I’m questioning spending more time on this post, by talking about Death Guard.

[Azekai]

 

 

A lot of it comes back to common complaints about codex creep and how GW sees and interacts with "the meta", but the fundamental issue with all of that, as I see it, is just business coming before game design. I get the sense there are certainly designers at GW who would love to scale back on the power creep, who know that reducing the insane lethality of the current game would ultimately lead to a much more tactical and engaging experience overall. But instead they are encouraged to make "strong" books that generate clickbait "XOMG NEW AELRDARI GAME CHANGER OP1?!" discussions, articles and videos, and thus sales.

 

Well said. I wish we had polls here, to see if there is even a desire for a more polished play experience or if, like Krieg and I, many people simply cannot be bothered with playing the game in this state and are 'lost' to it.

 

I am in the same boat. Played 2 games of 9th and now even making an army feels like a time-wasting chore. Love the hobby, but actually playing the current edition is not fun.

[sairence]

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of it comes back to common complaints about codex creep and how GW sees and interacts with "the meta", but the fundamental issue with all of that, as I see it, is just business coming before game design. I get the sense there are certainly designers at GW who would love to scale back on the power creep, who know that reducing the insane lethality of the current game would ultimately lead to a much more tactical and engaging experience overall. But instead they are encouraged to make "strong" books that generate clickbait "XOMG NEW AELRDARI GAME CHANGER OP1?!" discussions, articles and videos, and thus sales.

Well said. I wish we had polls here, to see if there is even a desire for a more polished play experience or if, like Krieg and I, many people simply cannot be bothered with playing the game in this state and are 'lost' to it.

I am in the same boat. Played 2 games of 9th and now even making an army feels like a time-wasting chore. Love the hobby, but actually playing the current edition is not fun.

This kind of comment actually makes me wonder about where the majority of people who consider this a big issue sit.

 

For example, I've gotten in multiple events and dozens of weekls games with my guard last year and don't really feel like damage reduction is as big of an issue.

 

Ps: I in no way intend to come across as negative to people engaging with the hobby in other ways and playing less games. Genuinely curious.

[tychobi]

Damage reduction does not seem to be an issue at high level play. None of the really nasty lists with high win rates lean on damage reduction as far as I can tell.  If you are struggling to deal with damage reduction heavy lists in your home meta that is a real problem that you can deal with in a variety of ways (brig bigger guns, play to objectives, more mortal wound generation).  As an overall game mechanic -1 incoming damage seems fine to me.  

[Commander Dawnstar]

Damage reduction does not seem to be an issue at high level play. None of the really nasty lists with high win rates lean on damage reduction as far as I can tell.

 

Kinda depends what you mean by leaning on the rule, but just at this weekend's events we saw the Tyranid Crusher Stampede achieve nine top-four finishes across nine events (including two wins), a similar number of Space Marine and Custodes lists bringing a considerable numbers of Dreadnoughts, and even a few Death Guard lists making it into top fours. None of that means those lists are there specifically because of their access to damage reduction but it's certainly a present factor.

 

I'm not saying this to argue damage reduction is a problem, just to make it clear that it absolutely is present at the top tables in high level play.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Commander Dawnstar

[jaxom]

I think damage reduction on monsters and vehicles mainly makes them more resilient to chip damage from things like autocannons and heavy bolters. I think anti-tank weapons can still handle them.

[tychobi]

 

Damage reduction does not seem to be an issue at high level play. None of the really nasty lists with high win rates lean on damage reduction as far as I can tell.

 

Kinda depends what you mean by leaning on the rule, but just at this weekend's events we saw the Tyranid Crusher Stampede achieve nine top-four finishes across nine events (including two wins), a similar number of Space Marine and Custodes lists bringing a considerable numbers of Dreadnoughts, and even a few Death Guard lists making it into top fours. None of that means those lists are there specifically because of their access to damage reduction but it's certainly a present factor.

 

I'm not saying this to argue damage reduction is a problem, just to make it clear that it absolutely is present at the top tables in high level play.

 

Well Crusher Stampede is a good example that refutes my point.  Touche. I stand by my point that the damage reduction is not the problem. . . stacking a bunch of free defensive buffs on otherwise lackluster units not being well thought through on the other hand. . . .

And then there are dark eldar.  . . 

[OttoVonAwesome]

All this kinda makes a case for DR and or minor invuls to be given to all vehicles that are considered to be heavy. As long as dreads have it and other tanks don't they are always gonna be meta. It's a great way to make something that should be tough without it being so tough it's luaghing at the biggest guns. Like currently I look at tanks and I like em they almost all have better firepower than dreads but then you look at the dread and it's cheaper and tougher with DR and access to 5+ invuls in some cases and I cant help but think shouldn't this be on tanks instead? 

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

Damage reduction does not seem to be an issue at high level play. None of the really nasty lists with high win rates lean on damage reduction as far as I can tell.

Kinda depends what you mean by leaning on the rule, but just at this weekend's events we saw the Tyranid Crusher Stampede achieve nine top-four finishes across nine events (including two wins), a similar number of Space Marine and Custodes lists bringing a considerable numbers of Dreadnoughts, and even a few Death Guard lists making it into top fours. None of that means those lists are there specifically because of their access to damage reduction but it's certainly a present factor.

 

I'm not saying this to argue damage reduction is a problem, just to make it clear that it absolutely is present at the top tables in high level play.

Marine dreadnoughts dont feel inherently broken to me esp Redemptors. D6d weapons will still mulch them and they have reducing profiles

 

Leviathans are for sure getting a points increase and/or price of Volkites