There is too much damage reduction, change my mind.

[Karhedron]

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.

True but 8th edition led to a lot of Marine armies in particular spamming a lot of plasma since it was effective against hordes, Elites and Vehicles to the point that many armies didn't need traditional dedicated anti-tank. If one weapon is chosen to the expense of others, that is a bad sign. The -1 Damage rule is recognition that plasma spam is a little too good and was unintentionally replacing proper anti-tank weapons.

[gorg_graggel]

All of this sounds like a d6 is not granular enough to represent the wide swing of stat lines more than 20 playable factions offer and that all those strategies to combat this are all lackluster at best, because there are only so many things one can do (and ppl can keep track of) to mitigate transposing those wide ranging numbers on to 6. ;P

[OldWherewolf]

 

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.

True but 8th edition led to a lot of Marine armies in particular spamming a lot of plasma since it was effective against hordes, Elites and Vehicles to the point that many armies didn't need traditional dedicated anti-tank. If one weapon is chosen to the expense of others, that is a bad sign. The -1 Damage rule is recognition that plasma spam is a little too good and was unintentionally replacing proper anti-tank weapons.

 

Agreed.  Part of the problem is that there isn't enough differentiation between Tanks and Infantry.  When 2D High-AP weapons became efficient at killing marines, they also became spammable and effective at killing tanks.   Why take a 1-shot weapon which is extremely swingy when I can take dozens of 2D attacks that will inherently be more reliable.  One die is swingy, 100 is not.

[AenarIT]

What's damage reduction for when you can take damage 12 guns?  
 

[Karhedron]

What's damage reduction for when you can take damage 12 guns? 

I think that is the point. It encourages players to invest in "proper" anti-tank weapons rather than spamming 2D guns as the solution to every problem.

[chapter master 454]

 

What's damage reduction for when you can take damage 12 guns? 

I think that is the point. It encourages players to invest in "proper" anti-tank weapons rather than spamming 2D guns as the solution to every problem.

 

 

Yea, GW have been in recent times actually putting effort into realising that their "anti-tank" guns weren't really anti-tank due to being able to troll (intentional typo) fat 1s. This in tandem with 3++ invulnerables led to people going for high rate of fire weapons with 2D. Now GW are bringing that in line by having abilities that ignore AP1 and 2 (common for those high rate of fire guns) and damage reduction helps keeps those guns anti-horde, not anti-everything.

 

Though the anti-tank power may be far more exaggerated with Tau. Though they need it because GW are allergic to melee tau in ANY form.

[Dark Shepherd]

Where theyve gone too far now IMO is jumping from D6d to D6 +2/+4/+ mortals

 

Flat 4d for D3 +3 wouldve been fine

[Vermintide]

 

What's damage reduction for when you can take damage 12 guns? 

I think that is the point. It encourages players to invest in "proper" anti-tank weapons rather than spamming 2D guns as the solution to every problem.

 

While this is true, it's not really the most elegant solution IMO. All it does is tip the balance the other way, and make the no-brainer decision to always overcharge your plasma into a no-brainer decision to never overcharge your plasma (unless firing quite specifically at MEQ infantry).

 

The game has always been kinda rock-paper-scissor in terms of target priority, and that's why the most versatile weapons are often the most valuable. But within the context of a competitive meta, nerfing one thing only nudges people to move to the next most efficient option. Really, the overall lethality of firepower from all sources should be brought town a notch, IMO.

 

It's like how last edition we had a lot of conversations about the balance of melee vs shooting, and a lot of talk about how 9th would make melee viable and important. I'm not sure how true that has worked out in practice, but it seems to me that packing the most guns for the least points is still the simplest and most reliable way to win games.

[Schlitzaf]

Isn’t that kinda point of Plasma? Plasma designed also has been anti-MEQ to Light Tank (Rhino Chassis) even as far back as 4th edition. And also partlt reason for more games over less guns. Is less swinging. There sre times less guns is strictlt speaking more points efficienct but the swingness is painful

[Karhedron]

Isn’t that kinda point of Plasma? Plasma designed also has been anti-MEQ to Light Tank (Rhino Chassis) even as far back as 4th edition. And also partlt reason for more games over less guns. Is less swinging. There sre times less guns is strictlt speaking more points efficienct but the swingness is painful

I agree but it reached the point in 8th edition where plasma was not just flexible, it was arguably superior to dedicated anti-tank in many cases. Hellblasters and Inceptors both allow plasma to be deployed in large numbers and having a Captain nearby mitigates the risk of overheats considerably.

 

5 Hellblasters overcharging have about a 33% higher average damage output than a Dev squad with 4 lascannons and they are much less swingy. They are also more mobile and are great for cutting down MEQs too. There are some downsides such as the Devs having longer range and no chance of blowing themselves up but overall the numbers favour massed plasma over dedicated anti-tank, even wen facing actual tanks!

 

Plasma is an iconic weapon in 40K and I like that it is a good all-rounder choice. But when it starts to get too good, it becomes a no-brainer.

[Tiger9gamer]

alright, all good points. This is still a problem in recent 40k stuff. I just don't like how it makes some power weapons like power fists useless (or more so then they are now)

[Seahawk]

GW: Now your weapons can cut through armor better! And have much more damage!

 

Also GW: Now here's a bunch more invulnerable saves to counter that

 

GW: Okay well here are mortal wounds to ignore those

 

Also GW: So here's a bunch of FNP to counter that

 

GW: Okay how about weapons that ignore FNP

 

Also GW: Let's try some damage reduction to counter that

 

GW: Okay now we'll have weapons that ignore damage reduction too

 

Players: 

 

 

The game at its core is broken. Raise your hand to vote for everything returning to 1 damage with charts instead! 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Seahawk

[MegaVolt87]

You forgot hard damage caps per phase/turn- eg Ghaz as the last point haha.