Webway portal or "normal" Deep Strike?

The webway portal is clearly a nice bit of kit. If you are planning to run a character with a squad anyway, there is a very good argument for including it.

But suddenly, we are not short of options to Deep Strike normally. And while the 35 point cost of a webway portal is not much for what it does, adding a character with a portal is quite a bit pricier. Is Deep Strike without scatter worth an extra 100+ over Deep Strike with scatter?

By my reckoning, the only units in the codex that could use the portal to Deep Strike where they would otherwise be unable to are:

- Units of 11+
- Units of 6+ Grotesques
- Beast packs
- Reavers
(- Talos and Cronos in the Coven formation only)

Which units would benefit the most from using the portal, which would you use standard deep strike for, and which would you deploy otherwise?

I think our primary candidates for the WWP are Medusae and Heat Lance Scourges as both of these can be rendered useless and vulnerable by an average scatter.

Oh. Or Allied Eldar, but I try not to think about that.

For me WWP is used for Medusae bombs and Heat Lance Reavers. The Reavers can drop down 7" back (to avoid any 6" blasts) and land safely in terrain due to Skilled Rider, then Jink for the return fire. The webway character wouldn't allow the Jetbike to jump away however so that's no good.

Looking at Eldar allies, Fire Dragons come to mind....and maybe something tough like Wraith Guard

Is it allowed for an charakter without a jetbike to join a jetbike unit anyway?

Lord Azrael wrote:

Is it allowed for an charakter without a jetbike to join a jetbike unit anyway?

He can join it but won't be able to keep up with it.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Lord Azrael wrote:

Is it allowed for an charakter without a jetbike to join a jetbike unit anyway?

He can join it but won't be able to keep up with it.

If you wanted to, the character could also have a shadowfield/clonefield to take advantage of the unit's majority toughness 4 to tank wounds on the shadowfield. I wouldn't wanna rely on it though with my dice!

Incidentally, anyone understand why guardian jetbikes get a +1 to toughness and an armour save boost when no other bike units have better armour? I'd love this on either reavers or my Iron Fist marines!

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Incidentally, anyone understand why guardian jetbikes get a +1 to toughness and an armour save boost when no other bike units have better armour?

Because the Eldar needed something other than Wave Serpents Wraithguard, Wraithknights, Jetseers, Warp Spiders and Swooping Hawks to make them competitive, the poor dears.

Incidentally, I just created my first 7e codex list and completely inadvertently made a list where all but one unit can Deep Strike if it wishes to.

Count Adhemar wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Incidentally, anyone understand why guardian jetbikes get a +1 to toughness and an armour save boost when no other bike units have better armour?

Because the Eldar needed something other than Wave Serpents Wraithguard, Wraithknights, Jetseers, Warp Spiders and Swooping Hawks to make them competitive, the poor dears.

Incidentally, I just created my first 7e codex list and completely inadvertently made a list where all but one unit can Deep Strike if it wishes to.  

Ah yes, silly me.

That list sounds fun, have you posted it yet?

I'm going to be writing one in about an hour for playtesting on Thursday, it won't be coherent but there's a few things I want to try out on the table, playing against DA or Salamanders i think (it'll end up being sallies, he loves Vulkan)

Will post the list tomorrow. Game tonight and I know at least one of the guys reads this forum so don't want to tip my hand yet

Count Adhemar wrote:

Will post the list tomorrow. Game tonight and I know at least one of the guys reads this forum so don't want to tip my hand yet

Then I wish you the very best of luck, may all your dice roll hot!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Incidentally, I just created my first 7e codex list and completely inadvertently made a list where all but one unit can Deep Strike if it wishes to.  

To be fair, on this point I always thought of Reavers as wearing Wychsuits (6+).

couldnt you drop the reavers with someone, go thru the jinks and such and on the next round unattach the hq letting the reavers go like they should?

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Incidentally, anyone understand why guardian jetbikes get a +1 to toughness and an armour save boost when no other bike units have better armour? I'd love this on either reavers or my Iron Fist marines!

The only other army with just "normal troops on bikes" is Space Marines and they already have a 3+ save and a 5+ save on Reavers IS a boost over the 6+ Wych save so they aren't the only army.  (Back in the good old days, I think Reaver Jetbikes gave a 4+ save and were the only ones with turboboost, and you could give them to HQs,  Combat Drugs on HQs were frigging amazing, Tormentor helms and punishers for HQs, edit:and Rhinos/Razorbacks cost more than raiders did)

Larndorn is quite right on this bikes rules. Technically marines should get 2+ saves on a bike, but the way AP works in 40k this would by OP.
It is rather stranger that Dark Eldar are the only race unable to mount their IC's (unless a transport also counts). My theory is that there were too many successful murder-attempts by rigged Jetbikes and Hellion Skyboards in the past. People saw how powerful the Archon on reaver jetbike was, so these bikes got systematically loaded with bombs, Archons would never leave for realspace without them.
I guess it is far more cinematic to have the IC stand on an open-topped transport, dissing the enemy, and that his transport blows up.

Back on topic:
I would WWP any unit with templates of doom (Medusa bomb) or melta weapons.
Otherwise I don't see the point. For 5 points you van flat out 24" after DS-ing instead of 18". My guess is that it will bring you to where you wanted to be, for only 1/7th of the points...
So basically any unit that needs to be in short range to be effective but also has a very good chance at obliterating its target in one go.

El_Jairo wrote:

I would WWP any unit with templates of doom (Medusa bomb) or melta weapons.
Otherwise I don't see the point. For 5 points you van flat out 24" after DS-ing instead of 18". My guess is that it will bring you to where you wanted to be, for only 1/7th of the points...
So basically any unit that needs to be in short range to be effective but also has a very good chance at obliterating its target in one go.

Plus, passengers can disembark from the Deep Striking Raider an additional 6", letting them spread out and shoot.

It really does seem to be templates of doom or heat lances - although I would consider adding a webway to a blaster Archon in a unit of warriors or Trueborn if he was already going to be hanging out with them, for perfect rear shots.

Thanks for the input, all.

I would never opt for only a blaster on an Archon because I don't want to waste his WS I and A. But he would make for a cheap HQ. Although you would like to have at least a Clonefield to survive some fire. Or would you don't mind going suicidal with your Arhcon as you can make any character your warlord?

Actually I would usually throw the shadowfield on with the blaster and call it good. Then he can hang around with some warriors on a raider and make their shooting slightly scarier.

I'd consider going all suicidal webway if I had a bunch of units that were planning to get close and personal, be they reavers, incubi, wyches (yeah, I know... I'll try them at least), whatever. If I was running a more warrior focussed army I would keep him with the rest of the army. So I don't mind a suicide warlord per se, so long as there will be some support. If fixating on getting through the shadowfield lets another of my units get through then I'm usually happy with that.

I think WWP portal actually has a lot of uses over just templates and heat lances.

The no scatter is really nice, especially for large units, along with some of our tougher units.
Similar to the medusae bomb, I think DSing grots in with Liquifiers is viable - you can get within 1" of the enemy, liquify, plus grots have a T value able to withstand some shooting and lots of wall of death overwatch to deter a charge.

I wouldn't mind trying it out on a bunch of warriors for lots of rapid fire poison shots.

I think whatever you use it to deepstrike in, a lot of its effectiveness will rely on presenting lots of targets. Get your other units up close with fast transports and use the WWP to get key units in exact position. You can even use raiders/venoms to block potential attacks; DS your unit near a juicy enemy and move a raider in to block a charge, or vice versa, use the pinpoint DS to block and protect a weakened/vulnerable unit from being charged/countercharged.

WWP is the only way to deliver a big unit of Grotesques - you're limited to 5 at most on a raider.

I did a few calculations on damage from a 20 strong unit of warriors with an archon and wwp vs 10 warriors in a raider with night shields and splinter racks. The damage output of the warriors is surprisingly even when you take into account the relative costs of the units, though the damage form the archon wasn't factored in.

To my way of thinking, WWP is justified if you absolutely have to be in a specific place, so for template weapons and heat lances. Anything else you can either dismount, turbo boost or move next turn so it's not as important

how do the folks on this forum interpret the skimmer rules regarding "forced movement" and landing on top of friendly & enemy models? The rules (paraphrased) state that a skimmer forced to end its movement on top of friendly or enemy models may be moved the shortest distance to prevent this from happening. Is this the equivalent of drop pod's inertial guidance system? Are our skimmers safe from deepstrike mishaps (baring hitting the board edge)?

I'm gonna be that guy and say they generally just ain't worth it. Even for elder. Maaybe 1 as an alternative deployment. For the most part though your just better off starting on the board inside a raider. The opportunity cost of 2nd turn or later arrival plus an additional cost of 35 and an hq if not the compulsory choice is just too much.

For example consider fire dragons.. a very aggressively costed melta unit at 130 with exarch for 6 shots and good for unlocking a serpent. Yet add a 95+ pt wwp portal and the unit becomes a worse version of scourges and is nearly as fragile.

I believe the unit actually needs to have great ranged damage output, durability and combat ability and remain affordable in order to justify the cost over say a flyer.

I would love to be proven wrong since I want the portal to be that good.. I just don't see it that way.

clever handle wrote:

how do the folks on this forum interpret the skimmer rules regarding "forced movement" and landing on top of friendly & enemy models?  The rules (paraphrased) state that a skimmer forced to end its movement on top of friendly or enemy models may be moved the shortest distance to prevent this from happening.  Is this the equivalent of drop pod's inertial guidance system?  Are our skimmers safe from deepstrike mishaps (baring hitting the board edge)?

i would argue that the wording in deep strike states

BRB pg 162 wrote:

... If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be Deployed...

while the skimmer rules state

BRB pg 89 wrote:

... is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...

Since deploying is not moving, I'd say that it doesn't apply to deep striking

dhrakon wrote:

Since deploying is not moving, I'd say that it doesn't apply to deep striking

But here's the crux: why is deploying not moving? by any definition of the word "movement" the models are physically being moved relative to the other relevant gaming pieces - they're moving from off of the table top, onto the table top.

Further, what other game effects are there, besides deepstrike scattering, where a vehicle model (with no weaponskill) is forced to move? Even flyers, who crash if they don't move have the option to stay stationary & thus crash (meaning they're not forced to move their minimum distance...)

my particular gaming group plays this way, however since Saturday, since I've been posting on various forums around the internet I've heard the same counter argument you're making dhrakon...

Brom wrote:

I'm gonna be that guy and say they generally just ain't worth it. Even for elder. Maaybe 1 as an alternative deployment. For the most part though your just better off starting on the board inside a raider. The opportunity cost of 2nd turn or later arrival plus an additional cost of 35 and an hq if not the compulsory choice is just too much.

For example consider fire dragons.. a very aggressively costed melta unit at 130 with exarch for 6 shots and good for unlocking a serpent. Yet add a 95+ pt wwp portal and the unit becomes a worse version of scourges and is nearly as fragile.

I believe the unit actually needs to have great ranged damage output, durability and combat ability and remain affordable in order to justify the cost over say a flyer.

I would love to be proven wrong since I want the portal to be that good.. I just don't see it that way.

The difference between the Fire Dragons and the Scourges is that the character with the WWP can remain safely embarked on the Wave Serpent whilst the Dragons disembark to nuke stuff and don't stand around in a nice tight bunch waiting for any pie plates, templates etc to ruin their day. They can also run into cover after shooting if the terrain is good for that. Plus, they do more damage and are cheaper than Scourges (in themselves).

You may be right check this:

BRB pg 162 wrote:

In the Movement Phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further...

further being defined as

Quote :

to a greater degree or extent

meaning they've already 'moved' and the only thing that happens before the movement phase is anything happening at the start of your turn, RAW I can see you being correct.