Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi.

Do all 9th edition armies have a way to ignore invinerable saves? Null zone for SM, and the phase blade for DW. Necrons has Nightbringer. The ned demon has his sword. Do nurgle have any?

Seems to be a new-ish mechanic that’s being rolled out.

Mortal Wounds as a basic mechanic

 Niiai wrote:
Hi.

Do all 9th edition armies have a way to ignore invinerable saves? Null zone for SM, and the phase blade for DW. Necrons has Nightbringer. The ned demon has his sword. Do nurgle have any?

I can't think of something specific to 'Nurgle' themed armies. But all Chaos armies have the option of bringing a Psyker with access to 'Death Hex', which shuts down a units invulnerable save. It's essentially null zone while being (arguably) quite a bit more flexible.

 Niiai wrote:
Do all 9th edition armies have a way to ignore invinerable saves?

Depending on whether you consider the sisters 9th or just late 8th - they have no explicit ignore ability and minimal mortal wound generation.

Pot luck per faction at the moment.

Death Guard have no explicit ignore invul saves anymore come 9th but we do have a lot of ways to deal mortal wounds.

Yea if Belakor is popular then over-investing into Bladeguard becomes a risky proposition. ( Though I thought they were anyway for when Thousand Sons make their return )

Tyranids have a relic gun that ignores invul saves.
It's a bit rubbish though. Ignores invul saves, but only has -1AP. So requires the target to have their invul be equal to or better than their armour save in order to be any stronger than the regular version of the gun.
Mortal wounds are the better method of beating invuls.

I got my awnser. Death guard do not have a weapon that ignores invinerable saves.

I was thinking maiby this was something they where rolling out. Null zone is often popular. Necrons gets a lot of milage out of Nightbringer. While very narrowit is nice to see another tool in the rock paper scissors of the actual battlefield. I would suggest the new bel'kar daemon would be good VS say Terminators and blade guard just like the Nightbringer is.

Death Guard had Allwyther back in 8th with War of the Spider, which was a bale sword that ignored invulns, but I'm assuming that's no longer in the 9th codex.

 Niiai wrote:
I got my awnser. Death guard do not have a weapon that ignores invinerable saves.

I was thinking maiby this was something they where rolling out. Null zone is often popular. Necrons gets a lot of milage out of Nightbringer. While very narrowit is nice to see another tool in the rock paper scissors of the actual battlefield. I would suggest the new bel'kar daemon would be good VS say Terminators and blade guard just like the Nightbringer is.

New 9e thing isn't ignoring invulnerable(after all that's been thing since 8e). What's the real new thing is ignoring damage ignoring abilities like FNP or the "max X wounds per phase".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea if Belakor is popular then over-investing into Bladeguard becomes a risky proposition. ( Though I thought they were anyway for when Thousand Sons make their return )

A stormshield model that starts with 2+ armor is one of the few things I'd consider a solid investment quality-wise to deal with belakor. Actually, assuming Belakor doesn't have a base sv, Bullgryns with Slabshields are probably the best answer to him in the game (high strength, good damage, lots of attacks, 1+ save to actually get to have a half-decent save against Bellaswan's attacks)

Well what units are 2+ with stormshields? Characters and Terminators?

Terminators would save on a 5. On a 6 without stormshield. That does not seem great.

Depends on how many attacks he has with the Piercing Strike profile. If we assume +4s puts him at S10+ (assuming the base strength of I think 7 that demon princes have) and GW says his average attacks can just about kill a land raider which I think is T8 2+ 18w.. Jesus. He'd need to have 8 attacks base. 7 if GW really rounded up with their 'average'

OK yeah nope the solution to bella swan is not to try and survive him, it's to give him only a target of something less valuable than him and then kill him in one swing. Assuming he doesn't have a base save and his toughness isn't absurd, -1 to wound and 4++ shouldn't be *too* hard to get through in one turn. If he's got a 'no more than 4 wounds per phase now don't get too carried away!' type rule then he's gonna be a real problem.

-1 to hit, -1　to wound, no rerolls, 4++ and likely at least 16 wounds. Interesting to see if 18 for no hiding beside biggest terrain pieces

the_scotsman wrote:
Depends on how many attacks he has with the Piercing Strike profile. If we assume +4s puts him at S10+ (assuming the base strength of I think 7 that demon princes have) and GW says his average attacks can just about kill a land raider which I think is T8 2+ 18w.. Jesus. He'd need to have 8 attacks base. 7 if GW really rounded up with their 'average'

OK yeah nope the solution to bella swan is not to try and survive him, it's to give him only a target of something less valuable than him and then kill him in one swing. Assuming he doesn't have a base save and his toughness isn't absurd, -1 to wound and 4++ shouldn't be *too* hard to get through in one turn. If he's got a 'no more than 4 wounds per phase now don't get too carried away!' type rule then he's gonna be a real problem.

Yea with current DPs at 6A he'll certainly be 7 or 8. Doubtful on the wounds per phase limit - that'd be nuts.