- Spiney Norman wrote:
- While WWPs might not be better than transports, surely its still valid that two WWPs are the same points cost as a single flicker raider, so if I bring three units through a portal that would otherwise have needed a transport each then I have more points available to spend on the squads themselves, not to mention that DE transports are probably the easiest way to get points out our list, on average I lose about 2-3 a turn.
Of course it is a valid point that 2 WWPs fall in the same price range as 1 Raider. I would hope so, because WWPs are inferior to Raiders in basically every metric when it comes to carrying assault troops.
A Raider will get them into assault faster.
A Raider also provides additional shooting support (specifically a lance, which is highly beneficial as a support piece to assault troops)
A Raider has battlefield presence after dropping its load, being able to block enemy advances, or help move other infantry units around, in addition to continued fire pressure.
Though you have more to spend on your squads via the WWP purchase, I think you are forgetting that by running WWP list you also need to buy portal delivery units. That is costing you HQ slots (generally Haems) that are obligated to start on the board and also to move and react in certain ways to get portals down in meaningful positions.
So, actual cost of 2 WWPs is not actually the 70 you're suggesting, it's closer to 170 - and that's without any sort of transport or escort unit to help them place the portals (which, though also a cost is mitigated insomuch as you'd probably buy other units anyway)
Still, at 170 - the cost of the WWP delivery system is more akin to 3 naked Raiders or 2 heavily amped up Raiders. So...how much price saving is there in your slower delivery system?
The other argument in favor of WWPs (and believe me, I'm familiar with them, I've worked WWP lists for years) is the advantage of being shot at less. Yes, your units will be slower (not managing functional charges till turn 3 at the earliest, when in Raiders it's possible to do Turn 1 at the earliest and Turn 2 at the latest) However, though they are slower they're 'safer' because you get shot less.
The thing is, I don't think you do get shot that much less.
Here's the best case WWP situation;
Turn 1: Portal deployed.
Turn 2: Your unit appears and moves into charge range.
Bottom of 2 or Top of 3: Your opponent shoots your unit.
Then you get to charge.
Out of a Raider you will be charging Turn 2 at the latest.
If you go 2nd that means the opponent will shoot at you twice.
If you go first that means they will shoot at you once.
So, in the *best* WWP situation I get shot at once. In the average Raider situation I get shot at once or twice - and generally they're shooting at the Raider and need to deal with that, so usually what I'm dealing with is an explosion rather than enemy shooting which, whatever people say, exploding vehicles tend to hurt less than most enemy shooting.
So, even then, I'm not sure what big advantage I'm getting.
Yes, it is possible (indeed, likely) that some Raiders will be shot down.
It is also likely that some of your WWP units won't show up till turn 3-4.
So either way you will have units delayed getting into combat, and likely having to walk a bit to get where they are going.
I don't see a clear win either way on that metric.
Raiders do allow me more freedom to get where I want to go, are not remotely as hindered by Hammer and Anvil Deployment (which seriously hurts WWPs versus gunline builds) and also are potent and useful for target saturation and weight of lance fire early game, both being the times those issues are most important.
WWP can "work but it is competitively inferior to Raiders as far as getting assault elements into the game. I think it's also inferior for bringing int RJBs and Scourges, but at least what it does kind of benefits those units in a conceptual sense as they are useful the turn they arrive and can benefit a bit more by showing up mid game. Still, generally I'd rather have them to start with as well.
- Spiney Norman wrote:
- What's more units like pain engines or larger grot units cannot take transports so the WWP strategy benefits them more.
The Talos benefits, albeit by being an MC it has, to a certain extent, the ability to march up the field anyway - certainly moreso than most units in the codex. Also, frankly, it will get there quicker by not being in a WWP more than likely, all the WWP grants it is 1-2 additional turns o not being shot at. Certainly not a bad thing, and I would agree that benefits the Talos...of course I think the Talos is a suboptimal unit, so using a strategy to help a sub optimal unit perform better seems not as good as using a strategy that helps an optimal unit perform better.
Grots can take transports - though if you meant 'Grot units of a certain size cannot take transports' then I will agree with you, certainly if you want 5+ Grots then it is either footslogging or WWP for them. That said, I actually think a unit of 5+ Grots is one of our better WWP deployment units...so at least for me I wouldn't even want to put them inside the portal if I was going to field them, but your mileage may vary.
Subject: WWP list, can it work? 
Wed Sep 11 2013, 11:15
