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 the leaked rules for the Web way gate say they following for deployment:
"When you set up this model during deployment, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" from the enemy deployment zone, and more the 3" from any other terrain features or the centre of any objective markers"

That's pretty restrictive. You are basically limited to your half of the table and the arches of the WWG are so large a WK can fit between them, meaning it may very well be impossible to even set the WWG up if there is:
A) too much terrain, or the terrain is set up in just the right (or wrong?) way or
B) a clever opponent that places objectives in the gaps between terrain to prevent the WWG being set up

So, what happens when you cannot deploy the WWG? Is it just destroyed, and thereby destroys all units waiting to exit it?

It's a real shame that such a beautiful terrain piece has unusable rules right out of the gate (pun intended)

-

The game doesn't have any generic rules to handle what happens if you can't deploy a model, outside of bespoke rules like the Genestealer Cult ambush rule.

So, as usual, the game breaks.

Taking the image with the WK as starting point (it's photoshoped, and only from a single angle, so it might be a bit off) it looks like each pillar is roughly the size of a WK base (120x90mm, or ~4.7"x3.5"), and they are about 5" apart.
On a normal table, it would be very difficult to place a single WK more than 3" away from any terrain feature or objective, let alone two that are 5" away from each other. So yes, on the tables I usually play on, I could never deploy it (and my opponent doesn't even have to be sneaky about objective placement).

You opt to put units in the Webway after you deployed the gate, so if you can't deploy it, you don't loose units.
The rule never explicitly say what happen if you can't deploy a unit, but every time you have things like that (like emergency disembarkation) the models you can't put on the table are destroyed.

It's a model with pretty bad rules, so non-functionning rules is yet another reason to keep it to casual games with houserules.

Doesn't matter if it can be deployed, it's a completely non competitive choice with the beta rules for tac reserves. It will rarely if able touch a competitive table.

Non competitive tables will make room for one , literally.

On the plus side, if you are somehow able to deploy it somewhere near the middle of the board, it can serve as a buffer to push back units arriving from Tactical Reserves or using strats like Forward Operatives/Strike from the Shadows.

But again, needs to able to deploy it there.

Here is another question:
The arches must be set up so that they form an arch, but I can't see anything the "defines" that.
Could you, in theory, set them up 6.1" apart on top of an objective? The gate would still form an arch and each spire is technically more than 3" away from the center of that objective.

Thoughts?

Interesting. Does the thing have a base or is it two separate sections of gate with no base?

If so are there any rules regarding how far away one side of the gate should be from the other?

It seems like really woolly writing on GW's part and is rife for an insta post release FAQ clarification.

I think it would be cool to have it able to replace another piece of scenery, particularly if it is unable to be placed otherwise.

 Galef wrote:
The arches must be set up so that they form an arch, but I can't see anything the "defines" that.
Could you, in theory, set them up 6.1" apart on top of an objective? The gate would still form an arch and each spire is technically more than 3" away from the center of that objective.

Thoughts?

We'll need the actual model to know for sure how far they can be while still looking acceptable. But if you could set them up 5.5" apart, the objective would just have to be 1.25" off the center to get a >3" distance.
But if you start to optimize the gate's position like that to take full advantage, expect your opponent to also measure precisely the 3" from every terrain piece, which as we know is unlikely to result in a good outcome for you.

I really think the best use for it is to play it as normal terrain, without the rules. Put it at the back of your deployment zone and say your guys came out of it just before the beginning of the battle.

It definitely has room on an Adepticon table.

No base, 2 spires and the only rule states they need to be set up to form an arch.

Since you would measure from each spire separately, and measure from the center of objectives, you should be able to place the spires so that each is over 3" from an objective between them, yet close enough to each other to form an arch

fresus wrote:
I really think the best use for it is to play it as normal terrain, without the rules. Put it at the back of your deployment zone and say your guys came out of it just before the beginning of the battle.

I sadly have to agree

-

Ok this is hiwpi and more of propsed rules than ymdc but I would take a leaf out of epic armageddon's book for this. In EA the webway gate replaces one of the objectives on the board. Which makes sense thematically. Otherwise you get the immersion breaking idea of soldiers ignoring an actual portal to another dimension to die fighting for the same old crate of ammo they always die for

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to have it deploy at least 1" away for other terrain features or just replace an existing feature if that isn't possible.

But I like the "replaces an objective" idea too.

so keep it near your own line as a way to bring on reserves while being protected from an alpha strike? It doesn't have to be pushed toward the enemy.

 bullyboy wrote:
so keep it near your own line as a way to bring on reserves while being protected from an alpha strike? It doesn't have to be pushed toward the enemy.

No, but it is advantageous. Instead of units arriving outside 9" from unit in your DZ, they'll have to arrive 20ish". Give you more breathing room.
If the WWG is in the middle of the board, that's a huge bubble that units arriving cannot get near. Add in some Rangers and you can insure not a single unit can arrive in your entire table half on the first turn (specifically for units that aren't affected by the Beta reserves rule already). So no Alpha Legion Berserkers in you table half.

Really the only good use of the WWG, though Rangers do this too.

-

I would second the "replace an objective" option too.
And in my opinion any problems with the rules would do a disservice to a model I think looks gorgeous.

There is no restriction about the table edge, right?

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no restriction about the table edge, right?

Correct, and the way I see most tables set up, I can certainly see there always being room to deploy the WWG somewhere along the table edge.
Sadly, however, that really defeats the purpose of the gate. Unless your purpose is to hide an expensive unit that wants to arrive in your DZ or an extreme flank of the table.

So if you put one piece in one corner of the table, and the other in the opposite corner, line them up so they are making an 'arch' (and who has terrain in the corners?) is that still valid? Is there a limit on how far apart the two pieces must be?

Seems like they should have made a base for it...

But then if you're playing in some of these tournaments I've seen recently with terrible terrain, you'd not have much trouble putting it somewhere properly.

 Kcalehc wrote:
So if you put one piece in one corner of the table, and the other in the opposite corner, line them up so they are making an 'arch' (and who has terrain in the corners?) is that still valid? Is there a limit on how far apart the two pieces must be?

Seems like they should have made a base for it...

But then if you're playing in some of these tournaments I've seen recently with terrible terrain, you'd not have much trouble putting it somewhere properly.

The "limit" is that the 2 spires must form an "arch", which is admittedly subjective. However, you will find very few players who would agree that being placed as far as the opposite corners would count as forming a single arch between the 2 spires. It is clear that they need to be somewhat close to each other.

-

If it's not touching at the apex, it's neither the shape of an arch nor architecturally an arch. GW's promo art fails in this regard as well, but at least it's aesthetically appealing like that.

So, just assume the box art is the intended spacing.

So here is a leaked pic of the rule:

What is frustrating is that there is a glare making some of the words unreadable. But there is clearly a note about setting it up that reads "... place that so that an arch is formed with the <blurry word> <blurry word>

Those last 2 words are likely very important in regards to the spacing of the spires.

-

 John Prins wrote:
If it's not touching at the apex, it's neither the shape of an arch nor architecturally an arch.

Why not? You're forgetting this isn't just some stone work, the bits long the inner rim generate actual elliptical portal that would naturally close the gap up top.

HIWPI is placing them close enough the imaginary portal top follows the curvature of the sides, any more than that (IE top being straight line) is not allowed.

 Galef wrote:
So here is a leaked pic of the rule:

Spoiler:

What is frustrating is that there is a glare making some of the words unreadable. But there is clearly a note about setting it up that reads "... place that so that an arch is formed with the <blurry word> <blurry word>

Those last 2 words are likely very important in regards to the spacing of the spires.

-

Saw the rules today, the two arches must be set up 5" apart (that's the part you can't read in the leaked picture).
The box has the rules, but not the stratagem to get a unit out after the gate has been destroyed (that's still only for Harlies).
The pillars are a little bit smaller than what I was expecting.

Cool, thanx. Did it say if the 5" apart at any particular part of the model? Because 5" apart at the top is quite a bit farther than 5" apart at the base.
And is it within 5", outside 5", or exactly 5"? Because that wording makes a craftworld of difference

5” apart means 5” apart.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
5” apart means 5” apart.

Agreed, but my question is does it say "apart" or "within" or "at least 5" apart" or something like that?
Fresus was not using an exact quote, so while he may have meant "apart" I am asking for clarification.

If it says "at least" or "within", the set up becomes drastically different.
It also matters where on the model you measure to be "apart". If at the base, then yes, it will look like the picture and cannot be "over" and objective
If you can measure 5" from the apex of each spire, then the distance between the spires at the base is likely more than 6", meaning greater flexibility of placement.

I don't doubt its measured from the base of the spires and must be exactly 5", I just wanted confirmation. Gonna have to wait to get the model and rules, I guess

-

I would say the distance between the two nearest parts of the model must be 5"

And it has to form an arch.. so they must be on the same level.

Sounds like they have got the setup sorted.. well for me anyway!

 gkos wrote:
I would say the distance between the two nearest parts of the model must be 5"

And it has to form an arch.. so they must be on the same level.

Sounds like they have got the setup sorted.. well for me anyway!

Right, but my point is that the tops of the spire are much closer to each other than the bottoms. Meaning 5" between the tops could be 7-8" at the bottoms, which would be the best option.
But most likely it is 5" at the base, meaning it much more difficulty in placement.

-

Sorry, I can't remember the exact wording. I think it said 5" between the bases, but I'm not sure. And I won't have another look at the rules before Saturday.
The model has now arrived at most shops throughout the world, I can't be the only one who got to see the inside of the box.

Why don’t we just wait for the actual full rule in the published book/box instead of doing hypothetical problems based off an earthquake reflection photo?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why don’t we just wait for the actual full rule in the published book/box instead of doing hypothetical problems based off an earthquake reflection photo?

Because that makes too much sense and waiting is for losers.

Just kidding. I'm fine to wait, but this particular kit and rules are the main thing I am interesting in at the moment. It's kinda hard to just push that aside when you are excited about something.

-