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.

Ok so I was going to ask the original question of, does Yriels Bale Eye allow FnP? I then went and looked in the Rulebook and answered that question myself which to those of you who are interested, it is yes, it does allow FnP.

Now to the question I impose upon Dakka. Does Yriels Bale Eye allow WBB? The reason I ask this is WBB and FnP are stated slightly differently. The Bale Eye is AP 3 and is used in CC, now if I remember correctly (I'm sorry I don't have the Necron Codex handy) the WBB rule states that weapons that ignore armor saves in CC will ignore WBB. Now as Bale Eye is AP 3 it is technically ignoring armor saves in CC (since Necrons have nothing with a 2+ save) so I'm wondering would Necrons get WBB. I would say RaW no since it is considered a CC attack and not a shooting attack but RaI I think they would.

I ask you Dakka which is it? Do they get WBB, or not?

If it has an AP it seems odd to be using it as a CC attack, but there are other effects out there that are used in the CC phase that do this (Nightbringer's Gaze of Death for example). Are these effects actually close combat attacks, or just attacks that happen in the assualt phase?

I don't have an eldar book handy, but WBB is negated by shooting attacks that are double the Necrons toughness (ap irrelevant) OR close combat attacks that ignore armour saves (such as power weapons, monstrous creatures etc)

I'd personally say (not a RAW argument, but an opinion) that Bale Eye isn't a close combat attack, but an effect that happens in the assault phase, therefore WBB would apply.

*** found eldar codex**

As far as I can tell from the 'eye of wrath' entry it's a 'shooting' attack that happens in the assualt phase. It uses a blast template and has an AP, but doesn't scatter. It doesn't actually SAY it's a shooting attack, as it's in leiu of making normal attacks in assault, but it seems more in tune with a shooting attack than a CC one. They had a fad for this kind of stuff by the look of it. The GK Holocaust power in the old book was another like it.

My opinion would be that they get wbb, but it could be argued either way (though i guarantee someone is about to jump on with his opinion-turned-immutable-fact and claim that anyone who could argue it any other way is a loser ).


I think it hinges on whether wierd abilities that replace CC attacks count as CC attacks or as wierd abilities I'd love to know myself if there's an official ruling on this, for my Nightbringer's sake

Blast makes it a shooting attack, not a close combat attack, I would say. WBB is allowed.

Also, AP3 is not "ignoring armour saves" regardless of what armour you have.

Ascalam wrote:If it has an AP it seems odd to be using it as a CC attack, but there are other effects out there that are used in the CC phase that do this (Nightbringer's Gaze of Death for example). Are these effects actually close combat attacks, or just attacks that happen in the assualt phase?

I don't have an eldar book handy, but WBB is negated by shooting attacks that are double the Necrons toughness (ap irrelevant) OR close combat attacks that ignore armour saves (such as power weapons, monstrous creatures etc)

I'd personally say (not a RAW argument, but an opinion) that Bale Eye isn't a close combat attack, but an effect that happens in the assault phase, therefore WBB would apply.

*** found eldar codex**

As far as I can tell from the 'eye of wrath' entry it's a 'shooting' attack that happens in the assualt phase. It uses a blast template and has an AP, but doesn't scatter. It doesn't actually SAY it's a shooting attack, as it's in leiu of making normal attacks in assault, but it seems more in tune with a shooting attack than a CC one. They had a fad for this kind of stuff by the look of it. The GK Holocaust power in the old book was another like it.

My opinion would be that they get wbb, but it could be argued either way (though i guarantee someone is about to jump on with his opinion-turned-immutable-fact and claim that anyone who could argue it any other way is a loser ).


I think it hinges on whether wierd abilities that replace CC attacks count as CC attacks or as wierd abilities I'd love to know myself if there's an official ruling on this, for my Nightbringer's sake

First off, the Nightbringers gaze does not have an AP, it is a blast marker attack used in lieu of normal CC attacks that hits automatically (4+ if partially under marker) and ignores armor saves. It does have a STR value obviously.

As for the topic of this thread, it's quite simple...if something doesn't negate FNP then it doesn't negate WBB. But the same is not true the other way around.

And yes, it's still considered a CC attack which also means you'd have to roll individually for any IC's that get hit by the attack (same as for the nightbringer).

I asked this question previously about the nightbringers attack, as far as whether you'd have to roll for the IC individually or not, and the conclusion was that you do since it is still a CC attack for all intents and purposes.

To the Original Poster, AP has NO bearing on negating WBB (whether it is shooting or CC) so the fact that it is AP 3 and not "ignores armour saves" will allow for WBB.

*Edit*
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/301185.page
thread in question regarding Nightbringers Daze attack, just fyi.

et voila..

If you'll notice i mentioned the Nightbringer's effect as an effect used in the assault phase. I didn't claim it as a shooting attack, and didn't claim it had an AP

It's not nearly as cut and dried as you claim with the non-nightbringer 'blast in combat' effects (they aren't the same as Nightbringers), but i'm not in the mood for a vitriol enema, so i'll keep to my opinion that it could be argued about until the crack of doom without any real resolution.

My personal opinion on Yriel is WBB is allowed, as it doesn't seem to qualify for the exceptions to WBB.

My opinion is that WBB is allowed

Yriel's ability doesn't negate FNP or WBB. It's not AP1 or AP2. It's not double the models' Toughness. And it doesn't ignore all armor saves. It doesn't meet the necessary criteria for either a shooting attack OR a close combat attack to negate either of those rules, so we don't even have to worry about what kind of attack it really is.

Thanks for the answers everyone, and to be quite honest, I had completely forgotten that the Nightbringers attack is the same thing. (I will be sure to check out that thread)

Now I have another question that came up, actually one of my friends asked it, and I thought it would be easier to ask here then create a whole new thread.

If Swarmlord is reduced to one wound and uses the one psychic power that lets him regain wounds (I can't remember the name of it I don't own the Tyranid Codex) and he suffers a perils of the warp on two ones, he then proceeds to do two wounds to the unit thus regaining two wounds, would he die first and then inflict the wounds thereby making him dead anyway and the regained wounds dissapear? Or, would he regain the wounds and then remove the final wound afterwards thus giving him a total wounds of 1+2-1=2?