WWP-Questions

Archeonlotet wrote:

This debate as to whether or not the webway blocks LoS has gone beyond silly. The webway portal counts as impassable terrain. GW has marketed a model to represent the webway portal. Can you see through GW's model they have marketed and sold? No... it is opaque. If it was absolutely, no questions asked, meant to be a flat template.. they would have made it that way or kept it in the rules to use a small blast template. That is not what they have in the codex, nor is it what they sold to people to use to represent the webway portal.

I ask again if we cannot use the webway portal as sold by GW themselves, then I suppose we need to toss out all of our other GW models as they surely must not count either.

Problem with "model make rules" lie in fact GW is inconsistent with it. It rarely works that way actually...

I mean...

Same guys said this is not Open Top vehicle, right?

Or rams - You couldn't ram with them because they "don't count as hull" but physically forbid Your hull to touch enemy hull. Yes, I saw people that tried to lawsuit that kind of bull...

Anyway as long as GW/ Your local TO don't FAQ that You may or may not be right. Just take that into account (ask enemy before game, maybe even roll on "most lazy-game-design rule!") to avoid nasty surprises. Truth is "out there" or so I want to believe .

To be honest I still don't think that WWP model is "similary sized counter". It look cool and all that but... it's not flat like RULE say. Because rule clearly says "blast template or something similar in size".

Azdrubael wrote:

Quote :

This may sound nuts to some of you but... Lets say I put wings on a DP that actually matched the size and bulk of said model... they would be huge...

And they wouldn't count, because it said so specifically in Rulebook in LOS section.

This is not true. "Only bodies" count for LoS purposes when shooting AT unit, however whole models coverage (except terrain elements on bases, they are specifically excluded) apply when shooting THROUGH unit and in case of targeting with template/"area" weapons (in blasts/flamer/AoE weapons LoS requirement when shooting AT unit still apply but You can hit everything, even tip of sword.).

I dont get example with Land Speeder...
It is open-toped cause codex say so. If next codex will say it is not i perfectly fine with that. Warwalkers are not open-toped for example.

And he cant ram not because it have assault cannon in fron of it, it cant ram because ramming is thing only Tank can do , and Speeder aint Tank.

Quote :

Because rule clearly says "blast template or something similar in size".

Model of WWP radius is exaclty size of blast template and it is "similiary sized."

Simialiry , not exactly. You obviosly can deviate height , as was shown by GW itself....

Codex dont justify your position, the way it is worded.

Azdrubael wrote:

Quote :

This may sound nuts to some of you but... Lets say I put wings on a DP that actually matched the size and bulk of said model... they would be huge...

And they wouldn't count, because it said so specifically in Rulebook in LOS section.

Quote :

Still not as funny as trapping units with web way portals...

WHich you can't do because of the FAQ.

Mates, just play by the rules, ok? There is enough of them to not invent your own.

references please or even better references + quotes... because I don't want to look through every FAQ ever made and that's not how I remember the core rulebook... but I don't have it...

But the webway portal is no longer impassable terrain?

Azdrubael wrote:

I dont get example with Land Speeder...
It is open-toped cause codex say so. If next codex will say it is not i perfectly fine with that. Warwalkers are not open-toped for example.

And he cant ram not because it have assault cannon in fron of it, it cant ram because ramming is thing only Tank can do , and Speeder aint Tank.

Yes, You totally didn't get Land Speeder example. Actually it ISN'T OT (because "crew is in Power Armours", it was explained that way in WD years ago, that's "overused running gag" from the past, when rules were actually comprehend propertly) while WWalkers are OT [edit: oh, they aren't. So TWO exceptions] (as any other vehicle without roof). It's "only" exception from "rule of thumb" about OT vehicles, making it... well, 100% invalid rule and crappy game design. Point is that model don't make rule. Funky words in codices does.

Ramming bit was "nitpick" to most 40K vehicles that can ram and take some sort of prows. Including Raiders.

Quote :

Quote :

Because rule clearly says "blast template or something similar in size".

Model of WWP radius is exaclty size of blast template and it is "similiary sized."

Simialiry , not exactly. You obviosly can deviate height , as was shown by GW itself....

Codex dont justify your position, the way it is worded.

How about 80mm (about 3,9") half sphere then? Or Big Blast template? I bet my lunch that most players would show severe case of PSM (roidrage in case of females) if I would try to do that.
Problem with "similar" is lack of indication how far from 3" You can go. Hell, it don't even state it have to be round template. This allow bullshit like 3"x3"x1,5" square template that "magically" change into 4,2"x4,2" diamond template (just turn it by 45^o). Or into 3" wall with rectange footprint.

Also, height matter. Try to glue any "flyer" on oval base without this silly plastic stand or just *regular* clear rod. Or make it 36" long, effectively outranging most AT weapons.

What did You learned?
When people abuse modelling for advantage, other people call it bullshit.
When game designers do the same thing, people are happy because they can exploit bullshit.

Anyway my point is that You may be right... or wrong. I don't know, nor do You, nor do GW.

For some reason You've deliberately made up rule that "model make rule". GW don't stick with that. Land Speeder, wroom [edit: and WarWalker, stomp.].

If they would, we wouldn't argue about that because that would be either FAQued or *written* in codex, like it should be in the first place (did I've mentioned that GW don't serve us full products that can be "make or break" by FAQ, depending on that how good it should sale? Like Nids, where all "old" models were nerfed becuase GW needed to sell Trygons and Hive Guards?).

If Your enemy/TO would agree, I'm 100% positive. Otherwise this conversation is indeed pointless, but not because there is correct answer. Precisely, because in this there is none.

Also, it "count as" terrain. I hope You are familiar with that term.

Quote :

Problem with "similar" is lack of indication how far from 3" You can go.

Indeed. You can. Although common logic would call twice bigger not similiar.
But who cares. You can. ITs good you agree with me )

Quote :

For some reason You've deliberately made up rule that "model make rule".

No i didn't. You made that assumption and its actually vague in delivering. Landspeeder being not-open topped contradict codex.
Opaque WWP on the other hand follows its LOS part to the letter. Its that simple.

I also fail to see exception in LOS part of the rulebook and "GW model" being special not to follow it. I aslo fail to see any mention that model that is in the codex art section, and GW site is just for fun and not usable , or usable with exceptions. There is no such things in the codex.

I have my model, for me all other are substitutes at best.

I claim that i can use Games Worksop model Webway Portal to represent (thats big) Webway Portal.I also claim such a model follow all the rules in the rulebook. No more, no less.
Unless True Line of Sight will change i intend to use it according to rulebook.

No elaborations, no smart logics , just following rules , thats it.

Quote :

If they would, we wouldn't argue about that because that would be either FAQued or *written* in codex

I actually find hell of a lot such cases in my country , when people find out crazy things about newly released codexes (no offense). Part of that is cause im not living in english-speaking country, and people with poor english tend to be overlitteral. Then after FAQ arguing why it isnt in the FAQ.

Well because for most people such questions doesnt even exist! When such situatuins arose the most simple answer is usually correct! Thats how GW proved it again and again in its FAQ...like Doom of Malantai cant fire into transport (thats shock...yeah...who would've thought..poor nids players..good nerfbated...totally unexpected) , GK Falchions only got +1 Atack (for 5 pts! Thats robbery i tell you)...etc.

Simple is best. Overliteral is usually wrong as GW proves. (I can actually rememebr such phrase from 4th edition FAQ, it was there....."Stop Being So Bloody Literal, it dont").

English ain't my native language either. In Poland we have "homebrew" rule that "English book>Polish book", due to fact that if You hand sloppy codex into hands of sloppy translators results may... vary. Just GAI (game as intended).

However even english speakers have problems with GW books due to not beeing too literal.
Good ruleset should be less "unexpected", since it's annoying when You have to stop playing and roll die/ask shop owner/TO to see if Your plan would work or not. It's like picking Your dudes, waving them in front of enemy models and shout "pew-pew!". Kinda beat point of playing...

And I totally agree simple is best. Chess, <3 it. However GW didn't provided us with even basic rules for counters/markers. Hell, no rules (size/LoS) for objetives, things that are used in nearly all games. We just wander in mist...

I could agree with interpretation it may follow rules of terrain pieces because it sounds reasonable.
Also, rules for "decoration models" (no LoS) since it sounds reasonable either if we would follow "counter" path.

It's similar to pre FAQ Ork KFF - there were two correct (rulewise) interpretations of how good cover they should provide to vehicles:
4+ (use rule "everything get 5+ cover" and "obscured = 4+", pick better cover from two)
5+ (use rule "everything get 5+ cover" and "obscured = 4+ UNLESS specified otherwise", and since "everything" mean "everything", it apply to vehicles too).

To be honest 5+ for everything was more reasonable and followed obscurement rules "but whatever".

Sorry, in GW land everything is way too informal to make strict answer "on air". It's beer, pretzels and "roll for most lazy rule!" ruleset for that reason.

If someone wants to deny me the use of a model that is produced by GW specifically for the purpose of representing the DE webway portal, it immediately ceases being a friendly game. At that point I will deny them the use of their land raider/drop pod/paladins/anything I feel like because I don't believe it accurately represents what GW intended.

how frak dumb are all of you?

THERE IS A frak GW MODEL FOR A WEBWAY PORTAL IT IS A HALF SPHERE THAT BLOCKS LOS. frak SHUT THE frak UP AND GET OVER IT, GOD DAMNIT I frak HATE STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

clidefr0g wrote:

how frak dumb are all of you?

THERE IS A frak GW MODEL FOR A WEBWAY PORTAL IT IS A HALF SPHERE THAT BLOCKS LOS. frak SHUT THE frak UP AND GET OVER IT, GOD DAMNIT I frak HATE STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

Alas it is a crime to harvest their brains for research... We may never find a cure for the stupid virus.

Also using the shift key is another option to leaving caps lock on.

It's days like this that make me sad to be a mod;

This thread has been reported and there are quite a couple bits of commentary from multiple posters that, in my opinion, are pretty clearly personal attacks. I can appreciate getting heated about something, but getting into it like this is uncool, and uncalled for. I'd advise people to take a break from posting in this thread and then come back in about 24 hours to read what you've posted and see if it looks remotely cool to your mind anymore. I'll not be surprised if a couple of you are embarrassed by your actions.

Consider the whole thread warned.

If there is any more abusive language or personal attacks they will be dealt with harshly.

Let's keep this in perspective here and understand that different opinions exist.

Thank you,
Thor.

I made my own WWP from 2 GW blast markers, ill put a pic up /

Skari wrote:

I made my own WWP from 2 GW blast markers, ill put a pic up /

I use an old vortex grenade (cardboard template from 2nd I think...)... so mine can't block LOS ;'(

Thor665 wrote:

It's days like this that make me sad to be a mod;

This thread has been reported and there are quite a couple bits of commentary from multiple posters that, in my opinion, are pretty clearly personal attacks. I can appreciate getting heated about something, but getting into it like this is uncool, and uncalled for. I'd advise people to take a break from posting in this thread and then come back in about 24 hours to read what you've posted and see if it looks remotely cool to your mind anymore. I'll not be surprised if a couple of you are embarrassed by your actions.

Consider the whole thread warned.

If there is any more abusive language or personal attacks they will be dealt with harshly.

Let's keep this in perspective here and understand that different opinions exist.

Thank you,
Thor.

It's a tough job, but we're glad that you guys do it.

I've never had this matter come up in a game to be honest. Generally everything that comes out of the WWP in my army moves straight forward towards the nearest enemy though I own two of the GW portals, I wouldn't feel sporting using it as blocking line of sight as using a "blast marker or similar sized counter" doesn't really call for blocking LOS(the blast marker is, what-2mm thick?) I hear the guys on this thread that say that GW made a model, it is a LOS game, therefore it blocks. I also would rather lose a game playing in the spirit of the rules than to win through grey areas.

It would seem to me that playing in the spirit of the rules would fall more on the side of using the really cool GW webway model, and allowing the person that dropped the cash on it to be allowed to use it. If someone insisted I remove my portal from the table so they could check LoS because of some dodgy language in the codex, that would seem more like rules lawyering to me. I would go so far as to say the only reason they put the small blast marker reference in the codex is because they knew the webway portal was only going to be a limited run and wanted to have something else in place that could be used in the case of the absence of the portal model.

I consider myself a fairly easy going opponent. I like my gaming group to jazz up their models via conversions, or to make the use of proxies to fill out armies if they need them. I'm just really struggling with understanding why the webway portal made by GW falls under a special restriction that other models don't suffer from.

Wanting to be allowed to use the models I bought and assuming they would be treated the same as any other model I put on the table does not mean I'm a WAAC player. I do not try to win by using "grey areas" and I feel I pay more attention to the spirit of the game than following a strict code of RAW.

hellios wrote:

clidefr0g wrote:

how frak dumb are all of you?

THERE IS A frak GW MODEL FOR A WEBWAY PORTAL IT IS A HALF SPHERE THAT BLOCKS LOS. frak SHUT THE frak UP AND GET OVER IT, GOD DAMNIT I frak HATE STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

Alas it is a crime to harvest their brains for research... We may never find a cure for the stupid virus.

Also using the shift key is another option to leaving caps lock on.

That was the shift key, I felt it was important since stupid people cant comprehend normal typing it seems.

clidefr0g wrote:

hellios wrote:

clidefr0g wrote:

how frak dumb are all of you?

THERE IS A frak GW MODEL FOR A WEBWAY PORTAL IT IS A HALF SPHERE THAT BLOCKS LOS. frak SHUT THE frak UP AND GET OVER IT, GOD DAMNIT I frak HATE STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

Alas it is a crime to harvest their brains for research... We may never find a cure for the stupid virus.

Also using the shift key is another option to leaving caps lock on.

That was the shift key, I felt it was important since stupid people cant comprehend normal typing it seems.

Brian Blessed be those who use the shift key! You walk a righteous path brother!

Gobsmakked wrote:

Second warning, please read the forum rules again.
https://thedarkcity.forummotion.com/t5-please-read-and-obey

Stay on topic and no jibes or personal attacks.

Technically that and the other posts are not personal attacks as they do not attack a person, they are general statements targeted at whoever feels they fit into that category, only by their own volition would someone be offended by the comments made here as they would have to believe themselves to be idiots in order to take offense.

I'm offended by the comments insomuch as you appear to think that only 'true' idiots would be offended as opposed to anyone who has expressed a differing opinion to you (which is what you're really saying there) - you've got two strikes on your record and I'm closing the topic because I think everyone has put out their thoughts now and it's just devolving and making me cry (manly) tears.