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.

So in the grot formation you take two units of grots and a hemi/urien. can both of those squads DS together with a WWP? Do I need to take 2 hemi's with WWP in order to get them where I want them?

The formation does not become one single unit, so no.

A Haemonculus with Webway Portal is required for each other unit you wish to bring on in that way.

Any character with a WWP can attach to them including Archon's and Succubus.

DT Raiders can also DS them in but then you re limited to three years Grotesques and have to roll scatter

 Frozocrone wrote:
Any character with a WWP can attach to them including Archon's and Succubus.

DT Raiders can also DS them in but then you re limited to three years Grotesques and have to roll scatter

This is false. You can fit 4 grots in a raider plus a character, and you do not roll for scatter. No tourney or TO will ever make you roll for scatter. If anyone ever tries that, pack your models and walk away. Don't listen to this guy

Always thought they were Very Bulky my mistake.

In regards to the Raider, I was referring to the Raider itself having the Deep Strike rule.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Always thought they were Very Bulky my mistake.

In regards to the Raider, I was referring to the Raider itself having the Deep Strike rule.

Oh I apologize. Some people think that even with a wwp and raider that it scatters. So again I do apologize. I misread what you meant

Its a bit of a mixup on the Codex. WWP rule (108) and reference (112) say very different things.

In any case, its as you say, most TO's play embarked WWP users as not scattering.

Yeah, bottom line is that you need one character per grot unit to WWP them in.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Always thought they were Very Bulky my mistake.

In regards to the Raider, I was referring to the Raider itself having the Deep Strike rule.

Oh I apologize. Some people think that even with a wwp and raider that it scatters. So again I do apologize. I misread what you meant

I understand where they are coming from, and (as much as I'd like not to) must agree. The WWP has two parts. The first gives the model, his unit and their transport the ability to DS. The second gives the bearer and his unit no scatter. The vehicle is absent from this part of the rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
I understand where they are coming from, and (as much as I'd like not to) must agree. The WWP has two parts. The first gives the model, his unit and their transport the ability to DS. The second gives the bearer and his unit no scatter. The vehicle is absent from this part of the rule.

Agreed.

I think it's pretty clearly intended to function with the vehicles. You can make a technical RAW argument to the opposite, but I've never seen a TO rule it that way, and it doesn't seem like the intent.

Of course, I have a strong bias on this issue.

Howeve, the version of the rule in the reference section makes it clear that vehicles do not scatter, either.

Always gonna get people who wanna ignore common knowledge rules...

It's always good to question, though. Often times, "common knowledge" rules turn out not to be rules at all.

(Just ask any D&D player who's ever been told that the rules say using poison is evil.)

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Always gonna get people who wanna ignore common knowledge rules...

It's not a matter of ignoring anything; it's a matter of seeing what the rules say and taking that at face value, setting emotions and viability desires (something I believe you often openly complain about in the case of Dark Eldar) aside.

For the record the example we're discussing is not something I would enforce, given I have an Eldar army with a Dark Eldar Archon, Raider and one squad of Warriors, but more importantly because I recognise the difference between strictly following poorly-written rules and playing the game by what most consider to be more sensible.

In short, rules as written does not equal games as played. You seem unable to grasp that people can make that distinction, though.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Always gonna get people who wanna ignore common knowledge rules...

It's not a matter of ignoring anything; it's a matter of seeing what the rules say and taking that at face value, setting emotions and viability desires (something I believe you often openly complain about in the case of Dark Eldar) aside.

For the record the example we're discussing is not something I would enforce, given I have an Eldar army with a Dark Eldar Archon, Raider and one squad of Warriors, but more importantly because I recognise the difference between strictly following poorly-written rules and playing the game by what most consider to be more sensible.

In short, rules as written does not equal games as played. You seem unable to grasp that people can make that distinction, though.

I'm able to grasp that, however what you are obviously unable to grasp is that people can have an opinion and stick to that. It's a sad day in 40k when players wanna start pointing a finger as you do. Something you wouldn't understand as an obvious newer player. Your.. Generation? Doesn't grasp the constructive arguments and details of the older players. Please, go back to coloring in the lines

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'm able to grasp that, however what you are obviously unable to grasp is that people can have an opinion and stick to that. It's a sad day in 40k when players wanna start pointing a finger as you do. Something you wouldn't understand as an obvious newer player. Your.. Generation? Doesn't grasp the constructive arguments and details of the older players. Please, go back to coloring in the lines

Hardly. There are quite a few that take their opinion as fact, and ignore facts and consider them illegal.

But that is why there is a distinction on this forum between RAW and HYWPI. So that contributors can note when something is written and when they prefer to play it a different way.

It is perfectly fine to play it different from the rules, 40K is a sandbox game, after all. But to tell me that your opinion is fact is like pissing on my leg and calling it rain.

Edit: I would also point out that as the years go by, things change, and some things you could do before, you can't now (Consolidate in to Combat, anyone?), while other things you can do that you couldn't before (move and fire Rapid Fire weapons at full range). So sticking to old standards which are nothing but nostalgia and trying to enforce that as a standard is being disingenuous to yourself and others.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'm able to grasp that, however what you are obviously unable to grasp is that people can have an opinion and stick to that. It's a sad day in 40k when players wanna start pointing a finger as you do. Something you wouldn't understand as an obvious newer player. Your.. Generation? Doesn't grasp the constructive arguments and details of the older players. Please, go back to coloring in the lines

I'm finger pointing at you because you seem to consistently appear in Dark Eldar-related threads and make comments along the lines of, "As if Dark Eldar don't need to be more hard done by with people being harsh on their already bad rules."

If you were able to grasp that a discussion on what the rules strictly say need not be (and personally speaking, often actually is not) necessarily how the game is played then you wouldn't feel the need to cast shade on those making arguments based on strict wording rather than intent. I personally always remember that this is a rules discussion forum, not the middle of an actual game in progress.

As Jimsolo alludes to, there is value to strict RAW discussions even if games shouldn't necessarily be played that way; there's any number of cases in my own gaming experience where being able to apply in-depth rules analysis has made otherwise biased, opinionated and silly rules arguments go away, or at least become infinitely more straightforward to resolve.

I'm not sure how you think you know how long I've been playing, but how long is that, do you think? I'm genuinely curious how and why you reached the conclusion that I'm a newer player.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'm able to grasp that, however what you are obviously unable to grasp is that people can have an opinion and stick to that. It's a sad day in 40k when players wanna start pointing a finger as you do. Something you wouldn't understand as an obvious newer player. Your.. Generation? Doesn't grasp the constructive arguments and details of the older players. Please, go back to coloring in the lines

I'm finger pointing at you because you seem to consistently appear in Dark Eldar-related threads and make comments along the lines of, "As if Dark Eldar don't need to be more hard done by with people being harsh on their already bad rules."

If you were able to grasp that a discussion on what the rules strictly say need not be (and personally speaking, often actually is not) necessarily how the game is played then you wouldn't feel the need to cast shade on those making arguments based on strict wording rather than intent. I personally always remember that this is a rules discussion forum, not the middle of an actual game in progress.

As Jimsolo alludes to, there is value to strict RAW discussions even if games shouldn't necessarily be played that way; there's any number of cases in my own gaming experience where being able to apply in-depth rules analysis has made otherwise biased, opinionated and silly rules arguments go away, or at least become infinitely more straightforward to resolve.

I'm not sure how you think you know how long I've been playing, but how long is that, do you think? I'm genuinely curious how and why you reached the conclusion that I'm a newer player.

All i do is defend what I feel is my interpretation of the rules of an army I play. The reason I feel you're new is you jumped on attacking me with slight insults. It was petty

How about we all stick to addressing the topic, rather than other posters?