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.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

I agree. However, the BRB makes it clear that the Daemons are considered 'enemies' to the Dark Eldar for the purposes of special rules and abilities. And enemy units may not use the Webway portal.

Where in the brb, I'm missing it (it's late.)
And the codex say any of your units, not any friendly units.

Although I don't think it was intended, the language in the codex seems pretty clear, and is probably the more specific rule in this case. I don't think the Webway Portal cares if an enemy unit comes through it, it just requires that it is your unit.

The BRB, under the allies rules (a page number is meaningless, since I have an electronic copy) says that allies of AOC relationship or worse treat one another as enemy units.

Enemy units are defined in the beginning of the rules book as being all models controlled by the opposing side. (Under the big heading Owning Player, Opposing Player, and Controlling Player, and the subheading Friendly and Enemy models.)

If the Dark Eldar are correctly following the allies rules, then they should treat the Daemons as 'enemy models,' which means that they also treat them as being models controlled by the opposing player.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

 insaniak wrote:
Hollismason, the rule you quoted before doesn't say to treat the unit as being in reserve when they are arriving. It says to treat them as having been in reserve after they have arrived.

So to highjack this example:

Hollismason wrote:
Bob arrived at the saloon. <- This can't happen if.
Bob is arriving at the saloon. <- This doesn't happen.

What is actually happening is the following:

Those who arrive at the saloon on a horse can use the front door. Those who arrive at the saloon on a mule have to use the back.

A mule-rider wearing a yellow hat seated in the saloon is counted as having arrived by horse.

The guy in the yellow hat, at the time he arrives is on a mule. So he has to use the back door. Once he is seated inside he counts as having arrived by horse... but that doesn't let him fold space-time and retroactively walk in the front door after he is already inside.


This is the same situation. Daemons have to arrive by Deep Strike. A unit arriving from Reserve can use the WWP... but the Daemons don't count as being in reserve. They just count as having been in reserve after they have arrived. By the time that kicks in, they're already on the table.

Cool, a grammar argument. You made my day!


Okay this is gonna get long....


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.
When the power is resolved. - This tells us that after the power has been successfully cast. We follow onto the text step.

The next step is

The new unit then arrives via Deep Strike - What was the unit doing? Arriving via Deep Strike
within the powers maximum range - this tells us what the restriction on that is
Here's the big issue if there was a .(period) after that you would be correct it would be a new sentence. It's not though. It's a continuation of that previous sentence.

I wrote that specifically because grammatically , you cannot say the following.
The new unit is under your control and is treated as arrive from Reserves for all rules purposes. < past
The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes. < Present

I hope this is clear I have literally not written out something like this since like uh... 20 years?
That's not correct and is kind of weird.
You have to use the present tense, you can say :
Is treated as arriving, which is still present tense

or

You can use this having arrived , why is this more appropriate? Well it looks better but also it gives a clear time line and ending to the sentence.

When the power is resolved - past
the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range;- Present
the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes. - Future

What was the unit doing before it got to the future portion of that sentence? It was arriving, how was it arriving? It was arriving from reserve because we know from the whole sentence that it is treated as arriving from reserve.


What happens though when we add Periods?
When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, with in the powers maximum range.
Or
The new unit arrives via Deep strike with in the powers maximum range when the unit is resolved. - Past
The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes. - Present

Now you would be correct, but that is all one sentence so you need to see the full structure of the sentence if it were seperate sentences you would absolutely be 100% correct. Also, feel free to correct me I super enjoy this it stretches the muscles, just went and did some quick refreshing on present past future etc..

You're over-complicating things.

'...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not. Reread what I wrote at the end with a restruction of the sentence. I just added it , for some reason it's screwing up my writing stuff , maybe it's all the spaces. Dunno.

Also, the wargear specifically states that it doesn't care how the unit arrives from reserve. It makes specific allowance for well anything.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

Yes it is, otherwise it would have said something like "...treated as arriving from reserves..."

That's not correct actually please see my previous statement that in order for something to "having arrived" it has to "be arriving".

That full statement is a sentence , it's not multiple sentences.

What was the unit doing previously to that? It was arriving, past tense , what do we know presently ? That it is treated as coming in from reserves for all rules purposes.

It's important also to not ignore that "all rules purposes". That is simply a statement confirming that yes indeed this is a unit arriving from Reserve.

 erick99 wrote:
Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

It isn't a model/unit but it IS a piece of wargear for a model/unit, which is why I think the army affiliation still applies.

If it said something like, "after placing, the Webway Portal becomes a piece of terrain with the following rule: [etc]" then I think any unit you controlled (enemy to the DE or not) would be eligible to use it.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

It really is.

Yes. It is correct, thank you.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

It isn't a model/unit but it IS a piece of wargear for a model/unit, which is why I think the army affiliation still applies.

If it said something like, "after placing, the Webway Portal becomes a piece of terrain with the following rule: [etc]" then I think any unit you controlled (enemy to the DE or not) would be eligible to use it.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

It really is.

No it's not. That is a full sentence with past present and future tense that is meant to be read as a full sentence.

You would be correct and 100% right if it was not written the way it was written, which is why we were arguing in regards to grammar and punctuation which can I say I really enjoy.


In regards to the Battle Brothers/ Allies thing. Here's the funny thing, I think the Webway portal may cause a Desperate allies check. Is it technically a Dark Eldar model? I think is ,but it states to treat it as impassable terrain.

That's kind of a different argument but I thought it was interesting.


So from our argument we know the following to be true as we have all agreed upon it or at least I believe we have.

The reference to your units , does not in fact just apply to Dark Eldar but all units you control.

We know definitively that it affects units that are in reserve. Although we are still arguing in regard to whether it allows "summoned" daemons to appear through it.

Out of curiosity, would you really try to play it this way?

Or are you just arguing RAW in a vacuum?

The funny thing is I don't even play Dark Eldar, this is for the FAQ thread I wrote about Daemon Summoning.

Someone brought it up and I wanted to clarify it before I put it in as a valid tactic.

Would I play it as a RAW, yes. I think the wording on Webway is strong enough and the wording on Conjured units is strong enough as well.

You also get into these weird arguments about certain special abilities that affect troops arriving from reserve if you play it the other way. There's a few pieces of wargear and special abilities that could be considered "useless" with that argument.

Although researching this has led me to discover that Intercept does not in fact work on Summoned Daemons.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

It isn't a model/unit but it IS a piece of wargear for a model/unit, which is why I think the army affiliation still applies.

If it said something like, "after placing, the Webway Portal becomes a piece of terrain with the following rule: [etc]" then I think any unit you controlled (enemy to the DE or not) would be eligible to use it.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

It really is.

It does say the portal counts as being impassable terrain.
Playing devil's advocate, if it is still wargear (presumably belonging to the archon,) What happens when the archon dies? Shouldn't it be removed from the board as wargear is part of a model?

Hollismason wrote:
That's not correct actually please see my previous statement that in order for something to "having arrived" it has to "be arriving".

This statement makes no sense.

What was the unit doing previously to that? It was arriving, past tense , what do we know presently ? That it is treated as coming in from reserves for all rules purposes.

Yes, it is treated as having arrived from reserves, not as arriving from reserves.

It is arriving by Deep Strike. It is then treated as having arrived from reserves.

 insaniak wrote:
You're over-complicating things.

'...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

100% this.

They are treated as having arrived from reserves after they scatter in from deep strike so it is too late for them to use the webway.

"When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes."'

So the power is resolved. the unit then arrives via Deep Strike. And after it has arrived the unit is under your control and then it is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Therefore no webway use, since they are not in reserves and they are not treated as having arrived from Reserves until after they arrive via Deep Strike.

 erick99 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

It isn't a model/unit but it IS a piece of wargear for a model/unit, which is why I think the army affiliation still applies.

If it said something like, "after placing, the Webway Portal becomes a piece of terrain with the following rule: [etc]" then I think any unit you controlled (enemy to the DE or not) would be eligible to use it.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

It really is.

It does say the portal counts as being impassable terrain.
Playing devil's advocate, if it is still wargear (presumably belonging to the archon,) What happens when the archon dies? Shouldn't it be removed from the board as wargear is part of a model?

Presumably not. There's precedent for wargear that gets placed on the battlefield, but isn't dependent on the person who placed it to stay in place. (The demon gate thing from the daemons codex springs to mind.)

Just re-read it to double check wording. If it had said, "The Webway Portal is impassible terrain," I would concede that it becomes a terrain piece and is therefore universal. But it says that it "counts as impassible terrain," which says (to me at any rate) that it is NOT terrain. (And thus is still a piece of arcane wargear.)

 Jimsolo wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Ok, I see what you're saying. I suspect mainly this is due to the DE book predating allies.
But it says your units. And while allies are treated as enemy units when invoking the allies rules, I don't see how this affects the webway portal as it is not a model/unit and does not belong to a faction. So they would not be treated as enemy units (and therefor not your units) for the purpose of utilizing the webway portal.

GW should FAQ this I think.

It isn't a model/unit but it IS a piece of wargear for a model/unit, which is why I think the army affiliation still applies.

If it said something like, "after placing, the Webway Portal becomes a piece of terrain with the following rule: [etc]" then I think any unit you controlled (enemy to the DE or not) would be eligible to use it.

Hollismason wrote:
Not when it is in a full sentence like that its not.

It really is.

It does say the portal counts as being impassable terrain.
Playing devil's advocate, if it is still wargear (presumably belonging to the archon,) What happens when the archon dies? Shouldn't it be removed from the board as wargear is part of a model?

Presumably not. There's precedent for wargear that gets placed on the battlefield, but isn't dependent on the person who placed it to stay in place. (The demon gate thing from the daemons codex springs to mind.)

The Portalglyph? It specifically states that it is treated as an immobilized vehicle, which means it becomes its own unit. So I'm not sure it is a good precedent.
And I agree, treating it as =/= is, but that is the only line telling us how to deal with it (unlike the Portalglyph which becomes a unit.)

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
That's not correct actually please see my previous statement that in order for something to "having arrived" it has to "be arriving".

This statement makes no sense.

What was the unit doing previously to that? It was arriving, past tense , what do we know presently ? That it is treated as coming in from reserves for all rules purposes.

Yes, it is treated as having arrived from reserves, not as arriving from reserves.

It is arriving by Deep Strike. It is then treated as having arrived from reserves.

I thought it was clear that having arrived can be substituted quiet clearly with arriving.

Having Arrived at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

Arriving at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

It's the same tense.


The big thing is the statement having.

If you remove that you would absolutely be correct ,but having changes the tense of the verb. -ed does not mean past tense at all times. It's the same phrase just worded differently, also I am unsure of English tense as we have to remember that this is written from a British grammar stand point.

Huh..

http://www.onestopenglish.com/grammar/grammar-reference/american-english-vs-british-english/differences-in-american-and-british-english-grammar-article/152820.article#delexical

Hollismason wrote:
Having Arrived at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

Arriving at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

It's the same tense.

No its not. The first is past tense, the second is present tense. Plus you mixed tenses in your second example. It should read "Arriving at his destination Michael steps out of his car."

Hollismason wrote:
Someone brought it up and I wanted to clarify it before I put it in as a valid tactic.

It is not a valid tactic for this reason:

They are treated as having arrived from reserves after they scatter in from deep strike so it is too late for them to use the webway.

 Ghaz wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Having Arrived at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

Arriving at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

It's the same tense.

No its not. The first is past tense, the second is present tense. Plus you mixed tenses in your second example. It should read "Arriving at his destination Michael steps out of his car."

Those are are both correct examples.

No they are not, for the reasons given. They are different tenses and the second one mixes tenses within the same sentence. Just saying they are correct does not make it so.

I see what you are saying , but yes we are both correct in our usage, but the tense of the second one is different that the first.


Okay, so then this ability doesn't work then


I’ve Been Expecting You: If an enemy unit arrives from reserves within 12" of Coteaz
and within his line of sight, Coteaz and his unit can immediately make an out-of-
sequence shooting attack against it. There is no limit on how many times the ability can
be used in a turn.

Hollismason wrote:
Having Arrived at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

Arriving at his destination Michael stepped out of his car.

It's the same tense.

No, it isn't. In the first, he already arrived. In the second, he is arriving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
Okay, so then this ability doesn't work then


I’ve Been Expecting You: If an enemy unit arrives from reserves within 12" of Coteaz
and within his line of sight, Coteaz and his unit can immediately make an out-of-
sequence shooting attack against it. There is no limit on how many times the ability can
be used in a turn.

Why?

The unit is arrives via deepstrike per your argument.

It's the same usage and similar language, it states clearly the unit has to arrive via Reserves, it never arrives via reserve it's just treated as having arrived via reserve.

It's the same usage and language that is being argued against the terms of the Webway. It doesn't "arrive" via Reserve accordingly it "arrives via deepstrike".

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599268.page#6909069

 Ghaz wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599268.page#6909069

Please provide context. I don't believe this is a comparable we can use.

Its your thread, so you should know the context as to how it relates to the current discussion.

It absolutely is my thread but it's regarding a completely seperate ruling and a wording regarding "rolling".

I don't see how that thread is specifically relevant to this discussion.

So far we've established

If they go into reserve, then they'd be able to go through the portal. Still arguing about on the initial summons.

Intercept doesn't work.


The listed example and rule I stated regarding Coteaz is an example that clearly demonstrates that if you make the argument that they are not "arrives from reserve" then the ability doesn't work which I stated previously in the thread was a problem with following that line of interpretation.

Hollismason wrote:
The unit is arrives via deepstrike per your argument.

Sorry, what?


Are you talking about 'Ive been expecting you' not working in general, or not working against 'conjured' Daemons?

Because if it's the latter, then yes, it woudl appear that it doesn't work. Even Coteaz wasn't expecting everybody to be able to summon daemons this edition, apparently.