Most broken thing ever? Yes.

[Defenestratus]

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/11/board-control-and-dark-eldar-webway.html


Because you can place the Webway Portal Marker over enemy units, and all you have to do is cover a fraction of a models base (so you can maximise what you trap) to affect it, you now strand them in Impassable Terrain for the rest of the Game. The Swarmlord is beinga *****? Strand him where he can't actually do anything anymore. That unit of 10 Mega Nob Bikers giving you a hard time? Strand one of them and thus lock the entire unit up for the rest of the game...it can still shoot you but you ain't gonna charge it so why bother with it until the rest of the army is wiped out?

Lets extend this further - TH+SS Termies with multiple Characters in a LR giving you a hard time? Strand them by dropping 3 Webway Portals across the entry points to each of the Transport exits (Frontal Assault Ramp and 2 Side Access Ports). Sure the Land Raider can still shoot (with restricted arcs, lol) but that Hammer unit now can't do anything to you, at all.

It goes on and on...

[volrath8754]

Pure awesome. Until GW FAQ's that this is going to be amazingly irritating for any assault army.

[Vaktathi]

I'd highly question the ability to drop a WWP on an enemy model, especially for all the awkwardness of what happens to that model. There's as much if not more convention that the WWP should be destroyed for landing on an enemy model as otherwise.

He's also relying on a limited run "vanity" product for much of this.

Easter Egg hunting if I've ever seen it.

[isotope99]

I imagine that GW will FAQ this so that it is deployed like a SM drop pod i.e. it will move uinits the shortest distance so not touching it.

You could use this as a wall but v. expensive.

[DarkLink]

I'd highly question the ability to drop a WWP on an enemy model, especially for all the awkwardness of what happens to that model. There's as much if not more convention that the WWP should be destroyed for landing on an enemy model as otherwise.

He's also relying on a limited run "vanity" product for much of this.

Easter Egg hunting if I've ever seen it.

Right. I wouldn't allow his interpretation of the rules to "trap" models. Period. And if he tried to argue me... well, I'm almost certainly bigger and stronger than him /cracks knuckles/:rolleyes:.



You could use this as a wall but v. expensive.

And while the wall is technically legal, my opponent would have to be a really nice guy if he wanted to try it against me.

[BuFFo]

And while the wall is technically legal, my opponent would have to be a really nice guy if he wanted to try it against me.

So he'd have to be a nice guy to just deploy WWPs?

I guess if you were a nice guy, I'd let you move your units 6"?

[DarkLink]

Nah, really I'm too nice in person, I'd let them do the wall thingie. I'd just make sure I was playing Eldar so I could fly over the impassable terrain;)

Really, though, if the person was a jerk, and started deploying the wall and I was playing an army that couldn't do anything about it, and that person was a jerk, I'd just pack up.



On the other hand, individually placing a webway portal to block off something is just clever playing. Placing an impenetrable wall of them, though, is just #$%^& annoying.

[Brass Scorpion]

Yet another highly suspect, highly unlikely and clearly twisted interpretation of the rules to try and break the game and cause a lot of grief for pick-up gamers everywhere. Does anyone really believe that is legal or an intended bit of design by the Codex author? It's ridiculous. Good luck finding repeat opponents after trying that turd of a twist on people.

[Grubbslinger]

I would say that this is illegal based off the same sort of rules lawyering arguing this is legal. In the rule book is says that a model can not move nor be placed in Impassable Terrain. If the webportal is impassible terrain, then placing it on the model is technically placing the model in impassable terrain, just by your opponent and not the enemy. It would be like lashing wiping an a unit into a mountain...you can't do that so why should you be able to do this?

Now of course people will argue the other way but that is why we have the choice of who we play and if no agreement could be had then I would end the game and pack up my models. Hopefully, most tournaments will not allow this rule.

As for the wall, that seems fair to use. I mean its a freaking webway portal, you cant except to be able to go through that. It would just be a matter a them deploying, moving, and having terrain in the right place to allow for that to be a problem. Something we will have to learn to counter if it becomes a major tactics of DE.

[Renegade]

Well if someone tried this on me, I would declare that as my dudes are in the webway, his dudes have to duel that unit if they want to use it, and that unit get to use his webway. As to the wall thing "this vehicle is reversing".

[BuFFo]

Really, though, if the person was a jerk, and started deploying the wall and I was playing an army that couldn't do anything about it, and that person was a jerk, I'd just pack up.


On the other hand, individually placing a webway portal to block off something is just clever playing. Placing an impenetrable wall of them, though, is just #$%^& annoying.

No more annoying than fighting entire mech armies with only lances... Which contrary to ignorant belief, is not as good as melta weaponry or lascannons.

If I have to deal with a parking lot of AV12 tanks, then you got to deal with a line of Warp Rifts in your force.

:eek:

[addamsfamily36]

Question. Even if a unit can be caught in this portal. If they (the dark eldar) then try to deploy out of the portal. Then the unit will be within an inch of an enemy unit on deploying and won't they then be considered destroyed as there would be no way to deploy without being within an inch of an enemy?

i ask because i do not have the dark eldar codex.

[BuFFo]

Question. Even if a unit can be caught in this portal. If they (the dark eldar) then try to deploy out of the portal. Then the unit will be within an inch of an enemy unit on deploying and won't they then be considered destroyed as there would be no way to deploy without being within an inch of an enemy?

i ask because i do not have the dark eldar codex.

I would agree with this 100%, yeah.

[scadugenga]

Page 13 of the rulebook: "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

This to me says you can't place impassable terrain on other impassable terrain.

So walling--perfectly viable tactic--clever and yet hamstrings the DE player as well. Anyone with G range/barrage weaponry will just ignore it--so it has good uses and vulnerabilities as well.

Trapping? I would say clearly illegal based on page 13 of the rulebook.

[DarkLink]

No more annoying than fighting entire mech armies with only lances... Which contrary to ignorant belief, is not as good as melta weaponry or lascannons.

It is slightly better than only having Eldar Missile Launchers, though. All the Eldar long range heavy AT is overpriced:(. And Fire Dragons tend to jump out and kill one thing dead, then die themselves, and you can only take so many of them...



If I have to deal with a parking lot of AV12 tanks, then you got to deal with a line of Warp Rifts in your force.

:eek:

Fair point, though I don't play IG.


Page 13 of the rulebook: "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

Trapping? I would say clearly illegal based on page 13 of the rulebook.

I agree with that.Trapping didn't feel right when I read it, and this is a point as to why.

[Lockark]

Question. Even if a unit can be caught in this portal. If they (the dark eldar) then try to deploy out of the portal. Then the unit will be within an inch of an enemy unit on deploying and won't they then be considered destroyed as there would be no way to deploy without being within an inch of an enemy?

i ask because i do not have the dark eldar codex.

The Dark Eldar Portal counts as a part of your board edge.

If you can't deploy threw the portal you walk on your board edge.

=U

[Xas]

I like the part with the landraider as it actually IS legal (you dont place the WWP ON the raider but next to it) but it wouldnt be cost effective as you'd need at least 4 so that the landraider cannot reverse to go away.

better take a unit of wracks and surround the raider for far less points!

[scadugenga]

I like the part with the landraider as it actually IS legal (you dont place the WWP ON the raider but next to it) but it wouldnt be cost effective as you'd need at least 4 so that the landraider cannot reverse to go away.

better take a unit of wracks and surround the raider for far less points!

The only part of the wallling tactic that really does kinda make me go "bleh" is the fact you need to fill your HQ w/nothing bt Haemo's.

For an army that has much of it's CC oomph residing in the HQ slot, this also hamstrings the DE player a bit.

[Mal]

if you want to take 140 points of WWP to stop a single unit from deploying from a LR then you are just plain crazy.

Not only will you need a minimum of 200 points of characters to carry them (so thats 340pts so far) but you then need transports to get them into position (another 240 points), and then units to buy the transports for as you cant buy them for a HQ... (thats another 180 points minimum)....

so all in that tactic will cost a minimum of 760 points and leave you with 4 squads of 5 kabalite warriors with no upgrade, 4 haemo's with only basic weapons, and 4 basic raiders... all of which will likely be out in the open after deploying the portals..

so in a standard game of 1500 points, half of your force is thrown away to stop 1 unit from disembarking...

like I said... crazy...

[DrLove42]

When 1 ravager could split that raider aprt in a turn....

On the original point, to me its not putting them in impassible terrain. The portal counts as a new board edge...they're therefore partially off the board. And so have left the play area and are removed...not pinned... :P

But yes, highly questionable wouldn't dream of manipulating the rules that much...

[Lockark]

When 1 ravager could split that raider aprt in a turn....

On the original point, to me its not putting them in impassible terrain. The portal counts as a new board edge...they're therefore partially off the board. And so have left the play area and are removed...not pinned... :P

But yes, highly questionable wouldn't dream of manipulating the rules that much...

This is very much the way I view it too. Thow my reasoning is that because the book says "You can't move across or into impassible Terriean" it means the unit now exists in a place that they can't legally exist inside of!

(But. They also mention there can be exceptions to this like flying, ect.)

But I know I would not make any friends saying that here judging by some of the responses, much less make any friends trying it on someone.
=P


Unless they FAQ it. Then it's fair game.

[Uncle Nutsy]

now technically this is a legal tactic of using the WWP, but personally I feel it breaks the spirit of the game pretty badly.

although you could use it as a really powerful (and some people may say cheesy) way of funneling an opponent into a certain area.

[Weafwolf]

Yet another highly suspect, highly unlikely and clearly twisted interpretation of the rules to try and break the game and cause a lot of grief for pick-up gamers everywhere. Does anyone really believe that is legal or an intended bit of design by the Codex author? It's ridiculous. Good luck finding repeat opponents after trying that turd of a twist on people.

I can't like this comment enough. I truly do not understand people who want to find the most absurd way to use a rule in order to gain an advantage that no sane player would consider to have been intended by the codex. Are there legitimate rules debates? Of course. This just isn't one of them.

Here's what I mean.

Legitimate rules debate: Sliscus allows Raiders to deepstrike. Deepstriking units move at cruising speed. Raiders are open topped. Does this allow units to disembark and assault? There is a lot of gray area there because open-topped vehicles did not deepstrike until the new DE codex. Open topped vehicles can move at cruising speed and still allow a unit to jump out and assault (or shoot). The BRB clearly didn't consider open-topped vehicles deepstriking. I see that as a debate that could go either way.

Absurd rules debate: If Sliscus is part of any unit other than Trueborn or Warriors, he can't deploy. Maybe the rule meant to say that Sliscus could only join Trueborn or Warrior units, but it's not clear. To declare to your opponent, who brought him in good faith with Wyches, that he now can't deploy the model this game because of the grammar of a sentence in the special rules... Sorry, but you're a jerk if you pull that.

Both of these rules should be FAQed. I just don't see them as equally valid arguments.

[Lockark]

I've read threw the rules a cople of times. Going by strictly RAW trapping is what would happen if you drop the web way portal on a unit.

So I did abit of play testing with it and a friend.


It's easy to counter, many of the most nasty units in the game make there points back revenge shooting/assault you, and there are a lot of armies that this just doesn't really bother.

The only thing worth doing with it is:
-Take a homunculus and a squad of wyches
-Drop it on a unit
-Assault
-Hope you win combat and make the other unit run
-Auto kill the squad since the trapped members Can't Run.


In all honesty I wouldn't bother doing this. With I6 you already have a really good chance of doing this anyway, It almost seems like a waste of points. It's also not worth the headache of pissing off your opponent.
XD

[scadugenga]

Legitimate rules debate: Sliscus allows Raiders to deepstrike. Deepstriking units move at cruising speed. Raiders are open topped. Does this allow units to disembark and assault? There is a lot of gray area there because open-topped vehicles did not deepstrike until the new DE codex. Open topped vehicles can move at cruising speed and still allow a unit to jump out and assault (or shoot). The BRB clearly didn't consider open-topped vehicles deepstriking.

You forgot about the SM drop pod. It is an open-topped deepstriking vehicle. (The fact it's immobilized upon landing really doesn't play into the discussion...)

It specifically states you cannot assault from a drop pod the turn it arrives. (Redundant per the BRB rules, but there you go.)

I would think that should stand as precedent to support the res ipsa loquitur* argument that unless specifically stated otherwise (IE Vanguard Heroic Intervention) there is no assaulting the turn you arrive from deep striking--from a vehicle or otherwise.



*sorry--spent too much time today arguing with lawyers. Sometimes it bleeds through. ;)

[BlackEnsign]

Wow - I'm on a roll with the broken bubbles....

I quote:
"Once per game, in your Shooting phase, a model with a webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing."


It doesn't matter how many models take a webway portal, only one can be activated per game.

I think this shoots down most of the strategies employed by Mr. Auretious Taak. I will be posting this on his blog as well as here.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Wow - I'm on a roll with the broken bubbles....

I quote:
"Once per game, in your Shooting phase, a model with a webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing."


It doesn't matter how many models take a webway portal, only one can be activated per game.

nope. It means a model equipped with a webway portal can only use it only once. and if you have two models with webways, each can use it. It's just like a one shot missile.

note that in the codex it doesn't say only one webway portal can be taken.




Legitimate rules debate: Sliscus allows Raiders to deepstrike. Deepstriking units move at cruising speed. Raiders are open topped. Does this allow units to disembark and assault?

Since units deepstriking count as moving already, and you can only shoot when you've deep struck, you cannot assault during the turn you deep struck.

[BlackEnsign]

nope. It means a model equipped with a webway portal can only use it only once. and if you have two models with webways, each can use it. It's just like a one shot missile.

note that in the codex it doesn't say only one webway portal can be taken.


I think you need to re-read that. It says: a model with a webway portal may choose to activate it
Even if you use two different webway portals then this condition has been met twice. (It does not say One-Shot - it has it's own rule... tho I've currently lost the one-shot rule so can't compare wording.)

This rule allows you to have a sencond portal as a backup so if your army is entirely webway based, you aren't completely screwed if that one model carrying it gets killed.


Edit: Not that the words Once per game refer directly to a model. This makes "a model with a webway portal" a condition of the phrase "once per game".

In order for the rule to be as you say, it would need to be the other way around so that "once per game" became a condition of the model.
It would then read like this: "A model with a webway portal may choose to activate it once per game." As it is the other way around, only one webway portal may be activated in a game.

[Weafwolf]

You forgot about the SM drop pod. It is an open-topped deepstriking vehicle. (The fact it's immobilized upon landing really doesn't play into the discussion...)

It specifically states you cannot assault from a drop pod the turn it arrives. (Redundant per the BRB rules, but there you go.)

I would think that should stand as precedent to support the res ipsa loquitur* argument that unless specifically stated otherwise (IE Vanguard Heroic Intervention) there is no assaulting the turn you arrive from deep striking--from a vehicle or otherwise.



*sorry--spent too much time today arguing with lawyers. Sometimes it bleeds through. ;)

I did forget that dps were considered open topped once they land. Something doesn't sit right about comparing an immobile chunk of reentry vehicle that pops open when it hits the ground to a Raider. Maybe it's the fact that you can't even embark in it again, which effectively makes it terrain with an armor value and gun. Still, you're right that, rules wise, there shouldn't be a difference.

[Uncle Nutsy]

I think you need to re-read that. It says: a model with a webway portal may choose to activate it

I have the codex right here and I understand it just fine.


This rule allows you to have a sencond portal as a backup so if your army is entirely webway based, you aren't completely screwed if that one model carrying it gets killed.

yeah, that's what I just said.

you can give the archon and haemonculous both webway portals and they both can use it. Even on the same turn if you want.

[DarkLink]

BlackEnsign, what you're missing is the context of the rule. "It" refers to that one, single webway portal that particular character has, not to all webway portals in play. So, once per game, you use "it", meaning that one, single portal and not all of them.

This has absolutely no effect on any other webway portal whatsoever, because they are not "it".

[dannyat2460]

I did forget that dps were considered open topped once they land. Something doesn't sit right about comparing an immobile chunk of reentry vehicle that pops open when it hits the ground to a Raider. Maybe it's the fact that you can't even embark in it again, which effectively makes it terrain with an armor value and gun. Still, you're right that, rules wise, there shouldn't be a difference.

You can charge from open toped deep striking vehicals, the reason drop pods have the rule that says you cant is because if it didnt have that rule you would be able to charge dreadnoughts out in the 1st turn and that would be too powerful,

and you cant really compare an elegant dark eldar hunting craft to the spartan simplicity of a drop pod and expect them to be the same

[BlackEnsign]

BlackEnsign, what you're missing is the context of the rule. "It" refers to that one, single webway portal that particular character has, not to all webway portals in play. So, once per game, you use "it", meaning that one, single portal and not all of them.

This has absolutely no effect on any other webway portal whatsoever, because they are not "it".


If that was the case, it would have been worded the other way around, as I stated.

[eldargal]

I don't mean to be rude but that is perhaps the most twisted interpretation of the WWP rules I can imagine.


Once per game, in your Shooting phase, a model with a webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing

'a' and 'It' referring to the piece of wargear, not the mechanic of the WWP. It is abundantly clear that this is RAW and RAI. The simple fact without a stupulation such as 'only one portal may be activated per game' you have nothing to support your argument.

An archon with a WWP may, once per game, activate that piece of wargear. In that same army, once per game, an Haemonculus with a WWP may activate his piece of wargear.


No, it really wouldn't, because I don't think Phil Kelly woudl ever have imagined anyone could try and twist the meaning and grammar of the rule to prohibit multiple WWPs.

If that was the case, it would have been worded the other way around, as I stated.

[BlackEnsign]

I don't mean to be rude but that is perhaps the most twisted interpretation of the WWP rules I can imagine.



'a' and 'It' referring to the piece of wargear, not the mechanic of the WWP. It is abundantly clear that this is RAW and RAI. The simple fact without a stupulation such as 'only one portal may be activated per game' you have nothing to support your argument.

An archon with a WWP may, once per game, activate that piece of wargear. In that same army, once per game, an Haemonculus with a WWP may activate his piece of wargear.


No, it really wouldn't, because I don't think Phil Kelly woudl ever have imagined anyone could try and twist the meaning and grammar of the rule to prohibit multiple WWPs.


Q1: Is the Archon a model with a webway portal?
A: Yes
Q2: Is the Haemonculus a model with a webway portal?
A: Yes

The Rule clearly states that only ONCE PER GAME can a model with a webway portal activate a webway portal. That is not me twisting the rule or the words - that IS what is written. It DOES NOT as you claim, say that a webway portal can only be activated once. That is you twisting the Rule.
If it is as you claim that this Rule is separated for each individual piece of wargear (which is not written ANYWHERE, but could easily have been with slightly different wording) then where would you put a rule to allow only one to be activated per game? As it is, the most logical place to have such a rule is under the heading "Webway Portal" - which is what they have done.

That is RAW.

As for RAI - This is the fastest way to create arguements when you are playing and I have seen it many times with players who play RAI. If there is any rules dispute during a game, then both players will always believe that the rule was intended the way they want it to be, rather than the way it was worded.


without a stupulation such as 'only one portal may be activated per game' you have nothing to support your argument.
There is such stipulation - it states very clearly, "Once per game, a model..."
Not "Once per game, a webway portal..."
But "Once per game, a model..."


I don't mean to be rude but that is perhaps the most twisted interpretation of the WWP rules I can imagine.
That is because you have made an assumption of how you think it should work. You have assumed that it is for each individual piece of equipment when that hasn't been stated. Perhaps how you think it should work is exactly how the writers think it should work... (Perhaps how you think it should work is exactly how I think it should work.) But unless the writers tell us, we can't know that.
As it is, when interpreting Rules, we need to use the fundamentals of the English Language, rather than assumptions and preferences. All I have said is that the way the Rule has been written, that this is what it means.

[Melissia]

I doubt I'd want to play against someone attempting to apply this interpretation of the rules. I prefer more friendly interpretations of rules (it's also why I allow people to sporepod their tyranid primes with warriors), and besides, given the debate here, I doubt it's so clear cut as to see someone successfully arguing it.


edit: and seriously? Dude, the wargear may be activated once per game. You can have multiple instances of the wargear each of which can be activated once per game. Deal with it.

****ing rules lawyers.

[eldargal]

What is written is that once per game a model carrying a Webway portal may activate it instead of shooting. No where does it state that another model carrying a WWP can not activate it.

The wording of the wargear entry applies to that item, there is no restriction on the amount of WWPs an army can possess, and the rules do not specifically state only one can be in play. Therefore your intepretation is merely that, and is easily contestable.

You are trying to argue that an item of which more than one can be purchased can only be used once when if that were the case it would be clearly stated. It is not. Therefore I find your interpretation to be utterly without merit, and for you to argue that it is RAW is simply absurd because nowhere is it written that onyl one WWP can be active.

[Col.Gravis]

I hear once per game a Imperial Guardsman with a Demo Charge can throw it, would suck for you if you've got other models equiped with them. :rolleyes:

No different to a WWP, multiple models, means multiple WWP's.

Your spinning a load of tosh BlackEnsign, stop trying to reinterpret the obvious.

[Xas]

I hear once per game a Imperial Guardsman with a Demo Charge can throw it, would suck for you if you've got other models equiped with them. :rolleyes:

No different to a WWP, multiple models, means multiple WWP's.

Your spinning a load of tosh BlackEnsign, stop trying to reinterpret the obvious.

I was about to say the same about master crafted meltaguns/thunder hammers... so you only get ONE reroll per turn for your whole army :D

[arch_inquisitor]

I've read threw the rules a cople of times. Going by strictly RAW trapping is what would happen if you drop the web way portal on a unit.

So I did abit of play testing with it and a friend.


It's easy to counter, many of the most nasty units in the game make there points back revenge shooting/assault you, and there are a lot of armies that this just doesn't really bother.

The only thing worth doing with it is:
-Take a homunculus and a squad of wyches
-Drop it on a unit
-Assault
-Hope you win combat and make the other unit run
-Auto kill the squad since the trapped members Can't Run.


In all honesty I wouldn't bother doing this. With I6 you already have a really good chance of doing this anyway, It almost seems like a waste of points. It's also not worth the headache of pissing off your opponent.
XD

Show me the rule that explicitly states that a model or unit can become trapped underneath a piece of placed terrain.
Because as far as I can tell this is only true because it doesn't explicitly state that you can't drop it on a unit.

Their is no precedent for deciding that this is how this works, so technically it can't be proven one way or the other, that is just too much of an abstraction for me to accept.

In other words block me if you must but keep that #@%!@ thing 1 inch away from my models.

BlackEnsign. Dude give it up your wrong. its okay to be wrong :|

[bryce963]

I would think that should stand as precedent to support the res ipsa loquitur* argument that unless specifically stated otherwise (IE Vanguard Heroic Intervention) there is no assaulting the turn you arrive from deep striking--from a vehicle or otherwise.



*sorry--spent too much time today arguing with lawyers. Sometimes it bleeds through. ;)[/QUOTE]

Sir,

What would negligence, and inferring that for an accident to happen someone had to have been negligent, have to do with a non permissive interpretation of the rules?

Yes it translates to "the thing speaks for itself", but that would support an interpretation that you can get out. As when you cannot, it specifically says you cannot, that just happens to be the other situations we have available, here the is no mention of getting out or not, taking it on its plain meaning, it does not bar you from exiting the vehicle. Since there is not an explicit bar, as evidenced in other rules, that means that it is allowed.

Res ipsa loqitur, as it is understood in US law at least, does not apply in this situation, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[BlackEnsign]

Hey, I am quite happy to play as per "common understanding" and I think that is more fair than telling someone they can't do something part way into a game when it is agreed on by the majority of people that that is what the wording means. I don't think it is fair to argue a rule during a game if that interpretation would require an understaning of the english language that stops players from doing what they would otherwise believe to be legal.

That said, the sentence does say that you can activate a webway portal once per game... but I can see how most people would read that differently. That is why I would rather argue it online and see what kind of reaction comes of it than trying to argue it during a game and getting someone pissed off - it's not a big enough deal for that.

The reason I posted was that I read the blog that was linked to in the first post and thought "Hmmm, I'm not sure if that is within the Rules, I wonder if there is something to stop it."
So, I picked up the codex and when I read that sentence I realised that you couldn't put up a 6 WWP wall as the blogger suggested...

Aside from this, if the blogger tried to tell me I couldn't move my model because he had placed impassible terrain on top of it then I would quite happily play as Mr Pedantic, no holds barred. Against anyone else I play friendly games as I certainly don't play to get into arguments. (Hence why I try as far as possible to play RAW not RAI.)

[Legoklods]

That unit of 10 Mega Nob Bikers giving you a hard time?

wow nobs riding bikers WHILE wearing mega amour... that would be awesome... (face-palm)

[DarkLink]

That said, the sentence does say that you can activate a webway portal once per game...

Ummm... no, that is not what it says.

"Once per game, you may activate it." Once per game refers to 'it'. As in that one, singular instance of the portal that particular model has. I really can't see how you're somehow getting the idea that 'once per game' magically refers to all instances of webway portals, since it pretty clearly refers to that one specific one.