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.

It's my reading of the DE WWP rules that you may not deploy it while in a Raider, as it must be placed in base contact with the model carrying the wargear, and it is not a shooting weapon, which means that the special fire point rules do not apply.

However, I've had DE players try to drop the portal while sitting inside a transport. Is this allowed, or is my reading correct?

I don't have the book on me, but as I recall, you seem to be reading it correctly.

Not allowed.

Fire points can be used for weapons and psychic powers. The portal is neither.

Also, it must be in base contact with the model carrying it, which is not on the table if inside a transport.

I play with DE rarely, though.

Nope, they are not allowed to do it from a transport. If the DE Player Objects, either let him off (because lets face it, he plays DE) or brick him in the gonads and ask him to point out how "Model carrying the wargear" is equal to "Big Flying Spikey Thing of Killydeath™".

Off-topic: The main issue I've had is a player trying to squeeze by with 1 portal and everything in reserve, using a Raider and Grotesques to provide a little bit of anti-firepower for a turn. The DE player in question was very harsh with his reading of the rules on just about everything, so I think Gwar's mentioned violence may have been appropriate in this instance.

On-topic: On the subject of WWP, the FAQ says skimmers may fly over surrounding models. However, the rules state that you must place a model on the portal before moving it. Does this mean that (for instance) a LR covering the portal blocks movement through it (as you may not place a model over an enemy model)? Or can skimmers fly through (over) the LR?
Also, am I correct in reading that the Talos cannot now move over surrounding units, per the FAQ's change from skimmer to MC?

ajfirecracker wrote:Off-topic: The main issue I've had is a player trying to squeeze by with 1 portal and everything in reserve, using a Raider and Grotesques to provide a little bit of anti-firepower for a turn. The DE player in question was very harsh with his reading of the rules on just about everything, so I think Gwar's mentioned violence may have been appropriate in this instance.

Remember: If all else fails, Brick the Gonads!

On-topic: On the subject of WWP, the FAQ says skimmers may fly over surrounding models. However, the rules state that you must place a model on the portal before moving it. Does this mean that (for instance) a LR covering the portal blocks movement through it (as you may not place a model over an enemy model)? Or can skimmers fly through (over) the LR?
Also, am I correct in reading that the Talos cannot now move over surrounding units, per the FAQ's change from skimmer to MC?

Skimmers can MOVE over models, but they cannot be Placed on top or "inside" other models. So if a LR was over the portal, a Skimmer cannot come through, as it would begin it's move over the LR.

As for the Talos, it has its own special Skimmer rule.

The Talos has a rule, but the rule has been FAQ'ed to (I believe) eliminate all of the skimmer-ness. My question is whether or not it should be interpreted to enter through a portal despite it being surrounded. I realize the rules are special, my concern is the wording of the FAQ to allows skimmers to move on.

Off-topic: Gwar, I would have loved to have you present for the game I mentioned. It would've been over in Turn 2 (or sooner, as he found himself unable to drop it from his transport).

ajfirecracker wrote:Off-topic: Gwar, I would have loved to have you present for the game I mentioned. It would've been over in Turn 2 (or sooner, as he found himself unable to drop it from his transport).

-Points to Skype-

of course it wouldnt have helped in the last few days as I am busy IRL, but if you ever need a Real Time Ruling, just gimme a buzz

ajfirecracker wrote:On-topic: On the subject of WWP, the FAQ says skimmers may fly over surrounding models. However, the rules state that you must place a model on the portal before moving it. Does this mean that (for instance) a LR covering the portal blocks movement through it (as you may not place a model over an enemy model)? Or can skimmers fly through (over) the LR?

Dunno if you've looked, but the online FAQ has a pretty good clarification of how to use the WWP (at least it used to; not sure if the current incarnation is as good).

I've seen it. It was one of the things my opponent was using to support his position of flying through the LR. (Based on being able to move on despite being surrounded). And it doesn't address dropping it from a transport, iirc.

ajfirecracker wrote:The Talos has a rule, but the rule has been FAQ'ed to (I believe) eliminate all of the skimmer-ness. My question is whether or not it should be interpreted to enter through a portal despite it being surrounded. I realize the rules are special, my concern is the wording of the FAQ to allows skimmers to move on.

Off-topic: Gwar, I would have loved to have you present for the game I mentioned. It would've been over in Turn 2 (or sooner, as he found himself unable to drop it from his transport).

The Talos FAQ is badly worded and overcompensates to attempt to avoid confusion. In the past many players believed because the Talos had a "skimmer" special rule that made it a vehicle of the type skimmer (despite not having a vehicle statline). Because of this when GW released the FAQ they used that wording of following the MC rules rather than the skimmer rules simply to avoid this confusion. There is no reason that the Talos would cease to benefit from it's own special rules, that is not what the FAQ is saying.

Regarding parking a Land Raider on top of the portal, if you follow the faq you measure from the edge of the portal just as though it was the edge of the table. So just like with all other reserves you don't have to place the model first, you simply measure as though the front of the model (or it's base when not a vehicle) was immediately off the board. Based on what the FAQ says, parking a land raider on the portal would not prevent skimmers, jetbikes, or jump infantry from coming onto the table.

If you dismiss the FAQ and just go by the rules in the codex then the Land Raider might be able to block it. Of course there are also other major issues, such as the fact the way the rules are written in the codex say to place models on the template instead of moving onto the board, suggesting that they don't get a movement phase when they arrive by the portal and have to remain on it till the shooting phase, making it almost impossible to bring through more than one unit.

Regarding the webway portal being placed from a raider, it probably cannot be placed simply because it stipulates base contact with a certain model of course, if you were told to place it within 0" of that model instead then you could measure 0" from the hull and place it because models in transports are technically on the table.

The Talos skimmer rule does nothing for letting it move over other models, though. My point was that it would have to use the word "skimmer" to benefit from the FAQ's description of what can move on, but I think this is not RaW.

Also, the FAQ question regarding the WWP is a clarification, so it cannot be a rules change. As such, I think the WWP only work if you can place the units on it and then move them from there.

And what exactly does a WWP look like? OK so my Sybarite is still in a Raider and the Raider is on the 3" peg. I simply model my WWP so it is 4" tall and viola. I put it on the table and it is in BtB with the Sybarite who is standing on the running board. I've just satisfied the requirement that it be in BtB with him.

The rule says to use a blast template, iirc.

And even if it did not, models on vehicles are purely decorative. For your model to have a particular position on the board, your model must have a particular position on the board, not inside a transport.

ajfirecracker wrote:The rule says to use a blast template, iirc.

<Nitpick> No such thing as a Blast Template any more.

Hmmm, my DE codex is buried somewhere (cant imagine why, Im sure I looked something up in it only 8-9 months ago....) but isnt the webway portal considered impassable terrain that doesnt block LOS? For purposes of parking something on top of it. Or was that the eldar version in the eye of terror expansion bit? Or have I just killed off too many brain cells of late and misremembering entirely?


Sliggoth

I don't recall seeing anything along those lines, perhaps it's the Eye of Terror version you're thinking of?

ajfirecracker wrote:The Talos skimmer rule does nothing for letting it move over other models, though. My point was that it would have to use the word "skimmer" to benefit from the FAQ's description of what can move on, but I think this is not RaW.

Also, the FAQ question regarding the WWP is a clarification, so it cannot be a rules change. As such, I think the WWP only work if you can place the units on it and then move them from there.

I see your point with the Talos and hadn't noticed before, technically by RAW it can only go over difficult terrain so if it wanted to pass something that's dangerous but not difficult or fly over impassable terrain the skimmer rule would have no effect, similarly it doesn't allow it to pass over enemy models ignoring the 1" rule. While I doubt I would play it this way I see your point.

I was under the impression the done thing when following the FAQ and a clarification is contrary to the RAW you stick with the FAQ's new non RAW ruling, it's certainly how most opponents I have had handle it. If you instead ignore the FAQ when it contradicts RAW and stick with the RAW then the Webway portal is unusable in terms of a practical item.

Gwar! wrote:<Nitpick> No such thing as a Blast Template any more.

In this case ajfirecracker made the mistake not the codex, the codex does ask for a "Blast Marker"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:Hmmm, my DE codex is buried somewhere (cant imagine why, Im sure I looked something up in it only 8-9 months ago....) but isnt the webway portal considered impassable terrain that doesnt block LOS? For purposes of parking something on top of it. Or was that the eldar version in the eye of terror expansion bit? Or have I just killed off too many brain cells of late and misremembering entirely?


Sliggoth

Funny that the wraithgate is so well worded and is clearly based on the Webway portal but the Webway portal was not errata'd to match the wraithgate.


"It may be activated by an unengaged model carrying it in the Shooting phase, instead of shooting or using Fleet of Foot that turn."

versus

"It may be activated by the model carrying it in the shooting phase, instead of moving or shooting that turn."

The Dark Eldar version is IMO unclear on whether it means moving or shooting in the whole turn or just in the shooting phase.


The wraithgate also clearly clarifies that if you succeed a reserves roll before it is up the unit will come on the turn after the wraithgate is set up, while the dark eldar codex just says they must wait till it is set up, not clarifying if you re-roll the reserve check. And as mentioned the wraithgate states that it "cannot be moved over and [does] not block line of sight"

I have to agree. While I try to avoid taking shots at GW's rules writing, this is one of those examples of laziness on their part.

The wraithgate's rules were superior and more clear than the WWP's rules ever were. It would have been simplicity in the extreme to merely adopt the 'Gate's rules to the WWP, but GW seemed to feel it more appropriate to leave it two editions out of date and full of potential points of confusion.

I still don't see how a vehicle can be parked on top of a WWP. The DEX states to treat the edge of a WWP as a table edge. Since that is the case then anything inside the WWP would be off the table.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I still don't see how a vehicle can be parked on top of a WWP. The DEX states to treat the edge of a WWP as a table edge. Since that is the case then anything inside the WWP would be off the table.

Well it's not IN the WWP now, is it... it's next to it. On top of it actually.

You back in Hotlanta Bozz?

Yup. Got back Sunday.

In or on depends on the interpretation of what a WWP really is. If it has height in addition to a cicumference then parking one on a WWP would suck the LR into it. There is no GW made WWP. All there is is a refence to one in the DEX. If I make a WWP that is 6" tall how would someone park a LR on top of it?

Units entering from reserves can use it as a table edge.

It does not "count as a table edge". And cannot be used as one for other purposes, as they are not mentioned.

As for parking on one, since it actually says that units must be placed upon it to enter. . . that would very much seem to stop it from functioning.

shrug

You don't place them on a WWP when reserves come in, otherwise a Raider would not be able to enter through one as they are larger than the template.

Codex: DE page 15.
"From then on units entering play as reserves may be placed on the portal template instead of entering on the table edge."

The codex disagrees.

The text says to place the unit on the template, and the FAQ explains that it is treated as if the unit is moving on from a table edge. There's plenty of room to place the base of the raider model on something the size of a small blast marker, so that shouldn't cause any problem.

The other issue is that the web way portal falls into the same grey area as objective markers--the rules do not specify if they count as terrain or hinder movement in any way. Although in the web way portal's case, the FAQ does talk about portals being rendered useless if surrounded rather than covered, so that presumably the FAQ author and others play them as impassible terrain except when a unit leaves the portal.

Right, but there is not plenty of room if there's a LR parked over it. Just following the FAQ would lead you to believe that's not a problem.

Well, if there's a land raider parked on top of it, that may cause problems.

I may have edited my post while you were making your comment, so I can only suggest that if you don't want a land raider to block the portal by camping on it, there are two options:
a) Agree that the web way portal counts as impassible terrain to units not entering the table.
b) There's a tenuous argument that a raider could be placed on top of the land raider on top of the portal because the raider is a skimmer and it is entering as it would from the board edge.

No, you can't place models on top of other models, even temporarily. What you can do is move them over other models, but you may not place them on top of other models. There are an extremely low number of exceptions to this, like Spore Mines, which explicitly (in the FAQ if nowhere else) tell you how to play it (and that you may do so).

Also, there's simply no reason to treat the WWP as impassible terrain, other than to be nice to a DE player. (Who really don't need the kindness as much as most people seem to think.)

I've got another option that would render the entire issue moot.

Don't be so dim as to put your WWP so close to the opponent that having a Land Raider park on top of it is something you have to worry about. Also, play two WWPs rather than one, unless in small point games.

Wyches in a Raider, for example, have a clean 23.5" threat range. You don't have to get closer than 18" from your enemy for any of your WWP units to be effective. Also, place your two WWP units approximately 24" away from each other. You'll have almost total table coverage, and units entering from one portal can support the other portal.

I've used these ideas for the 8 years I've played DE, and I can't remember ever having someone park on top of one of my WWPs.