Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes?

[DrBored]

In BuFFo's games, and in a few games I've played myself, I've been using Raiders and Jetbikes in non-linear ways; ie, not in a straight line in order to take advantage of the Bladevanes and Chain Snares.

My own opponents have always given me skeptical looks when I do this...

So can you move things in non-straight-line ways, like Raiders and Reavers in order to take advantage of these underslung weapons? Where does it say you can do this?

[somerandomdude]

Let's try not to drag BuFFo into this. If he wants to comment he can, but he's been fighting people on this for a while and is a little sick of it.

The Raiders are absolutely no problem. You are allowed to move your units in any combination of directions.

However, the Reavers are questionable.

First and foremost, if you come to an agreement with your opponents/local play group, then by all means follow that.

Because of the specific wording of Bladevanes (asking you to draw a line between the start and endpoints) and the way it differs from that of Chain Snares (which simply targets units that have been flown over) one would assume that the two rules work differently. Also, since it asks to "draw a line" and not to "follow the path" many people believe this simply means you draw a straight line. This is hotly contested because nothing suggests that it has to be a straight line, but, by that same reasoning, nothing suggests it has to follow the path either. In fact, I could say that the rules support me drawing a line that goes 70 inches on direction, makes a loop, and then comes back, because it doesn't put a limit on the line (other than the start and end points).

I think the simplest explanation is that it only works as a drawn straight line, and it is in every DE player's best interest to play that way until an FAQ has been released (or, if your play group agrees otherwise). When the rules don't explicited say something, the most restrictive answer is usually the safest. This is coming from a DE player who wants to use it the way you describe, but just like the Power from Pain confusion (with Beasts and Harlies) I'd rather nerf myself beforehand and be pleasantly surprised later.

[DarkLink]

You can drive around terrain in order to avoid a dangerous terrain test, right?

This is exactly the same thing. You are in no way limited to moving in a perfectly straight line between your starting and ending points. You just won't get a cover save because you haven't been displaced 18" or more.

[The Defenestrator]

It's like somerandomdude said: there are only 2 logical interpretations as the rules are written. Either it's a straight line drawn the shortest distance between the start and end points of the unit, or it's any line of any length/dimensions with the specified start and end point meaning I can hit any unit on the board I like by drawing the appropriately shaped line that starts and ends in the correct places. If you limit the second option to only places you imagine the reavers actually went, that's not a limitation in any way laid out by the codex.

Any other interpretations are house rules that do not follow the wording of the codex, I'm afraid. Given the above choices, I think it's clear that option 1 is the most reasonable one. Yes, it limits where your reavers finish their turns and who can be hit by the bladevanes, but I think that's the point.

[ArchonPhelps]

it never says a straight line so you can zig zag all you want. Plus it says an "iimaginary line" so imagine a squad of these guys twisting and turning to get the killing blow against their foes.

[DrBored]

I hope they come out with a FAQ on this soon then...

The wording between those two rules really throws a jink in the box. The trick is that the rules only specify that BIKES (two-wheel bikes, not jetbikes) are limited to travel in a straight line when turbo-boosting, so jetbikes are free to zig-zag about all they like.

It's the 'start and end' points that's the most restricting. Without the ability to zig-zag or even curve so you hit more than one unit, the Bladevanes become.. well, nerfed. Obviously it would be ridiculous to go with the more free form 'imaginary line' interpretation, as you could simply take 3 units of 9 reavers and have them stay in a single corner and draw imaginary lines to every unit on the table. You'd wipe the field very quickly and very cheesily this way.

I think the fairest interpretation is to go with the Chain Snares rule. I'll see if my flgs will allow me to make a house rule on this, to just substitute the Bladevanes reading with the Chain Snares reading.

[The Defenestrator]

I'm glad you mentioned that DrBored; it seems to me (and it sounds like it does to you too) that it's so incredibly ***-backwards for them not to have simply worded the jetbikes to same way as the chainsnares that the only conceivable answer beyond "they're all retarded" is that they don't, in fact, want them to work the same way at all.

My current theory is maybe that the fluff explanation that in order to kill people the reavers need the speed they can only generate by gunning it hard and fast in a straight line.

[BuFFo]

My current theory is maybe that the fluff explanation that in order to kill people the reavers need the speed they can only generate by gunning it hard and fast in a straight line.

Fluff for the Reavers specify that the riders kill by making sharp turns and angles in search of glorious kills!

[eldargal]

Look at the movement rules, you can turn as much as you want within your movement allowance, and there is nothing in the Bladevane rules which says 'straight line' therefore no straight line is needed. This is the only logical intepretation in my opinion. The interpretation which says it has to be a linear line is contradicted by the main rules, and the codex rule which could override that does not say 'straight line'. There fore the line may be curved, zig zagged, anything so long as it is meets the useful criteria for legal movement.

[DarkLink]

I hope they come out with a FAQ on this soon then...

They won't. This issue isn't new. And, really, it's not even an issue.



The wording between those two rules really throws a jink in the box. The trick is that the rules only specify that BIKES (two-wheel bikes, not jetbikes) are limited to travel in a straight line when turbo-boosting, so jetbikes are free to zig-zag about all they like.


Relic of 4th ed. Bikes are no longer required to travel in a straight line when turbo-boosting, jetbike or not. All bikes are free to zig-zag as much as they want.

What the rules actually do say, however, is that you must end up 18" away from where you started if you want a cover save. Which is very, very different from requiring you to move in a straight line.

[somerandomdude]

This issue isn't new.

Yes it is. This isn't about the movement rules for bikes/jetbikes/vehicles anymore, this is about the Bladevanes rules.

The codex says you draw a line between the start and end point. It doesn't say that the line has to be straight, but it also doesn't say it has to follow the "path" that the jetbikes took. If you interpret it loosely enough to allow you to make a curved line, then you can interpret it loosely enough to not even follow a particular path. As long as it's a line that starts where the jetbikes began their movement, and ends where the finish their turboboost, you can do anything with this line.

That is why we need an FAQ. Not to disallow people to do it the way DrBored had been, but to disallow people from doing the extreme. Our luck, they'll disallow DrBored's way as well.


There fore the line may be curved, zig zagged, anything so long as it is meets the useful criteria for legal movement.

I think you meant something like this:

"The line may be curved, zig-zagged, or anything so long as it meets the useful criteria for Bladevanes. This means that a 70" line is possible."

Nothing in Bladevanes says that you have any limit (other than the start and end points). This may seem illogical and ridiculous, but half the things they FAQ are unnecessary.

[ArchonPhelps]

This means that a 70" line is possible."


Really? Because a turbo boosted jetbike can actuallytravel 70". I can make it a 7 mile line but the max the Reaver can travel is on 36" in the movement phase. Then I can move another 6" in the assault phase.

[SeattleDV8]

Really? Because a turbo boosted jetbike can actuallytravel 70". I can make it a 7 mile line but the max the Reaver can travel is on 36" in the movement phase. Then I can move another 6" in the assault phase.

Except that units that Turbo-boost can make no other actions?

A line from point A to point B is by it's nature a straight line.
It is a line from the starting point to the end point, it does not say to follow the path.

[eldargal]

Except a line from A to B is not by definition straight, that would be a staight line from A to B, and the movement rules allow for as many turns and zigzags as you like within your movement allowance. The word straight is NOT in the rule, therefore it is not RAW.

[Farseer Uthiliesh]

I have to agree with most comments here. It doesn't say a straight line. End of story.

[sebi81]

By its geometrical definition every line is straight. There is no such thing as an zig-zag or curvy line. If you connect point A and point B drawing a line, you can't go zig-zag or in a curve.

[SeattleDV8]

I agree, it does not say straight, but then again it does not say path either.
So are saying that it can go anywhere?
The simplest way is a straight line.
There are two effects that I can think of that use lines, Vibro cannon and JotWW.
The Vibro cannon had to be errated to add the word straight.
Eldar FAQ" Page 45 – Vibro Cannon.
The third sentence should be changed to:
If any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36"
straight line from one vibro cannon in any direction."

SW FAQ
"Q. How wide is the line for the Jaws of the World
Wolf power?
A. It’s a hairline, it does not really have a specific
designated thickness. We like to turn our tape
measures on one side and use their edge,
keeping it as straight as possible of course."

RAW? by no means.
How it will be FAQed? more than likely.

[eldargal]

But we aren't dealing with pure geometry, are we, we are dealing with unit movement in Warhammer 40,000, and the movement rules say a unit can turn and zigzag as much as it likes within its movement allowance. This applies to the vibrocannon example too, that was a weapon that was fired, the Reavers are a unit that is moved.
There is nothing in the Bladevane rule which in anyway restricts the Reavers movement, it does not explicitly state 'straight line' because units do not have to move in a straight line.

Besides:


line (a length (straight or curved[) without breadth or thickness; the trace of a moving point)
From Princeton (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=line).

[DaveLL]

"Following the path" is the answer that would actually make sense. Therefore, I expect "straight line" to be the eventual FAQ answer.

[Drew da Destroya]

From Princeton (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=line).

Psh, what do those Princeton boyz know? Gotta hit the source, the good old OED (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1263591?rskey=Yli0c8&result=1#m_en_us1263591).


Mathematics: a straight or curved continuous extent of length without breadth.
:p

[Valkerie]

Without the ability to zig-zag or even curve so you hit more than one unit, the Bladevanes become.. well, nerfed.

Sorry mate, the Bladevanes have already been nerfed. The entry for the Bladevanes explicitely state that you can only hit one unengaged non-vehicle unit that lies under the line. So there's really no need to try and hit as many units as possible.

[BuFFo]

I agree, it does not say straight, but then again it does not say path either.
So are saying that it can go anywhere?
The simplest way is a straight line.
There are two effects that I can think of that use lines, Vibro cannon and JotWW.
The Vibro cannon had to be errated to add the word straight.
Eldar FAQ" Page 45 – Vibro Cannon.
The third sentence should be changed to:
If any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36"
straight line from one vibro cannon in any direction."

SW FAQ
"Q. How wide is the line for the Jaws of the World
Wolf power?
A. It’s a hairline, it does not really have a specific
designated thickness. We like to turn our tape
measures on one side and use their edge,
keeping it as straight as possible of course."

RAW? by no means.
How it will be FAQed? more than likely.

Jaws specifically states STRAIGHT LINE in its rule. Big difference between Jaws and Bladevanes since Bladevanes do not.

Using Jaws actually SUPPORTS the fact Bladevanes don't have to be used in a straight line.


Sorry mate, the Bladevanes have already been nerfed. The entry for the Bladevanes explicitely state that you can only hit one unengaged non-vehicle unit that lies under the line. So there's really no need to try and hit as many units as possible.

That is not a nerf! lol. That is just the rule.Being able to hit more than one unit with reaver would either make reavers cost 50 points each, or just be "IG/SW/BA" broken.

[ArchonPhelps]

Thats like saying youre going on a trip to Dallas from Austin (Point A to B). You dont go in a striaght line. there are curves along the way. Even if you fly the plane turns from point to point.

[Nom]

"Mark the start and end points of the unit's move, and trace an imaginary line between the two points"

The rule says nothing about this line following the movement path of the unit, or any movement rules for any phase at all. It is simply an imaginary line. If this line must be straight, then there is only one possible line. If you allow for curves in this line, then the line may create a curve passing through any point in space, and any number of lines can be drawn.

Thus by RaW and your definition of a line, the jetbike can either hit any unit on the board whenever it moves, or only units in a straight line between it's start and end position.

Of course, you could argue the meaning of the word 'between' too. Between, according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between could mean 2.a" in the time, space, or interval that separates" or 3.a "from one to another of ". 2.a would correspond to the one-dimensional straight line drawn between these two points, and 3.a would again allow us to draw the line anywhere we'd like as long as it connects the two points.

Personally, I think GW would have just written "any unit on the board" if they had meant it.

[DarkLink]

Buffo's 100% correct here. There's no reason why you have to move in a straight line. Any unit that moves may follow any path that is within their movement range. I don't get where anyone is magically conjuring up some sort of argument that you must move in a straight line, because nowhere in the rules does that requirement exist.


Yes it is. This isn't about the movement rules for bikes/jetbikes/vehicles anymore, this is about the Bladevanes rules.


While bloodvanes are new, this issue has still existed since 5th ed came out. Not that it's really an issue.

[Nom]

Buffo's 100% correct here. There's no reason why you have to move in a straight line. Any unit that moves may follow any path that is within their movement range. I don't get where anyone is magically conjuring up some sort of argument that you must move in a straight line, because nowhere in the rules does that requirement exist.

While bloodvanes are new, this issue has still existed since 5th ed came out. Not that it's really an issue.

The only part of the rule that mentions movement is the qualifier that bladevines is used when the unit turbo boosts, the beginning and end points of the movement, and that the hits happen immediately after the move is completed. If GW had wanted any unit moved over while turbo boosting (any sort of 18 inches out and back and the sort), why make mention of ONLY the start and end points? Why not just say "Any one unit passed over by the jetbike while turbo boosting..." ?

[somerandomdude]

Is anyone paying attention?


Buffo's 100% correct here. There's no reason why you have to move in a straight line.

Not once have I stated that you must move in a straight line.


Any unit that moves may follow any path that is within their movement range.

Agreed.


I don't get where anyone is magically conjuring up some sort of argument that you must move in a straight line, because nowhere in the rules does that requirement exist.

No one has (at least, as far as I know).


While bloodvanes are new, this issue has still existed since 5th ed came out. Not that it's really an issue.

Once again, I have no issue with the movement of the jetbikes. I have issue with the bladevanes rule.

I'll say it again, hopefully slowly and clear enough for everyone to understand:

Jetbikes can move (or turboboost) in any combination of directions. I agree with that completely. They can move in a large curve, or zig-zag, or in a straight line, and any variations so long as their total distance traveed is no more than their maximum allowable distance (usually 24 inches, but for Reavers 36 inches). Is it safe to assume that we agree on jetbike movement? If so, then I'd appreciate it if we no longer discuss it, as that is not the issue.

The relevant portion of the Bladevanes rule is:


Mark the start and end points of the unit's move, and trace an imaginary line between the two points.

There are three possible ways to interpret this:

A) The line must be straight.
B) The line follows the path taken by the Reavers, including any curves and zig-zags.
C) The line can follow any path imaginable, so long as it begins and ends at the appropriate points.

NOTE: Keep in mind that jetbikes are allowed to turboboost in any directions. At no point in those interpretations am I assuming that jetbike movement is somehow restricted.

Going by RAI, I believe it is clear that B is the correct answer, based on the fluff and the way other rules like this work. However, as many are found of pointing out in this game (including you Darklink, if I'm not mistaken), there is no RAI, only RAW. So, going by RAW, we must answer, what is a line?

If a line is defined as straight, then A would be most acceptable.

If a line can be curved (as has been pointed out), then C is acceptable.

B is only acceptable if you choose to limit yourself from the C possibility (because no where does Bladevanes say that it must follow the path taken by the reavers, although it could be implied), or introduce RAI to the A possibility.

That is why Bladevanes (not jetbikes, not reavers, not movement, and not the definition of a line) needs to be addressed in an FAQ. Something along the lines of "This line may not exceed 36 inches, but may be made of any number of curves." Until then, I choose to play my reavers in the strictest sense - that the line must be straight.

[BuFFo]

Okay, let me interject a little bit of blunt honesty here.

People who argue FOR the line being able to be drawn all over the table, regardless of distance, are taking it too far.

No where online have I seen anyone suggest a Reaver unit can turbo boost 2", but draw the line all over the table, hitting a unit 70" away. That is completely absurd, and no DE player worth playing would ever try that.

If a DE player DID try that, just tell him no, you cannot do that. Just draw the line following the path of your Reavers, as that is just the logical use FOR the unit, and be done with it.

For so many people on other forums advocating a straight line, I have not seen ONE shred of factual proof that supports such a claim. At all. I also do not see any DE players advocating the infinite length Line hitting whatever they want on the table either.

1) The word STRAIGHT does not appear in the Reaver rule. It does for other rules, like Blood Lance and Jaws. GW knows what the F a line and a straight line is apparently.

2) Academic definitions used by colleges (such as oxford, Brown, Harvard, etc), as well as national accredited dictionaries such as Merrium-Webster(spelling?), define line as a curve as well. Mathematical sources cite a line as straight AND a curve, but usually straight for the purposes of graphing. As an Artist, you draw lines to create art, and lines are both straight and curved, otherwise you wouldn't have art as we know it, everything would be cubism.

This is what I call the internet disconnect.

People argue things online for a plethora of reasons, but in real life things are done differently.

"Oh, your Rhinos don't have Access Points( Old Blood Angels), so you can't get out!" I'll deploy my unit so deal with it or leave the game. Stuff like this boils my eggs!

Move your Reavers, draw the line following their path, and that is it. There is no straight line, and don't be a douche and try to make your line go allover the table, because doing so SHOULD get you laughed off of the table.

[DarkLink]

Not once have I stated that you must move in a straight line.


Oh, no, that part of my last post was directed at others, not you. I agree with you.


If GW had wanted any unit moved over while turbo boosting (any sort of 18 inches out and back and the sort), why make mention of ONLY the start and end points?

If you can point me to the rule that states "turbo-boosters must move in a straight line from point A to B", then I'll agree with you.

Specifying the start and end point specifically says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the path taken between the two. Any one of an infinite number of paths can connect two points. And any one of those paths that are short enough that the unit has enough movement to complete that path is perfectly legal.




Why not just say "Any one unit passed over by the jetbike while turbo boosting..." ?

Because, in case you haven't noticed, GW sucks at writing clear, concise rules.

[Nom]

Specifying the start and end point specifically says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the path taken between the two. Any one of an infinite number of paths can connect two points.

Exactly the point. The rule says nothing about the path taken between the start and end point. As somerandomdude put it so much better than I could: By RaW/the meaning of 'line', either you can A) draw a straight line, C) draw a line with curves that passes through any point you wish, or B) assume GW wants you to trace the movement path of the unit for which they made no mention of in the written rule.



Because, in case you haven't noticed, GW sucks at writing clear, concise rules.

Something I think everyone can agree on!

[Blackyujiro]

I'm of the train of thought that, as long as you traveled the within allowed distance, AND by the Turbo-Boost rules, ended 18" or more from where you started, make all the funky zigzags and curve you want. So, i wouldn't call moving 17'' forward, then 18" back, would not leave you far enough from where you started to claim a Turbo-Boost save with me, but if your opponents allow that, then more power to them.

As an example of what I mean, I drew a quick diagram.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/nekhar/distance.jpg
In Diagram A, if you wanna say you're Turbo-Boosting to use the Bladevanes, fine. But as you did not end 18" away from where you started, you get no cover save. Diagram B, I find perfectely acceptable. Using a curve to "hit" a unit that may have been behind cover, while using all of your alloted movenment, and ending 18" from your start.

Edit: The 8', should be 8" :)

[GrenAcid]

Something I think everyone can agree on!

I disagree! just cuz Im evil.

Buffo made it nice and easy lads, follow path of bikes and we all sound.
As for point of straight line: Imagine you go over a unit then make L turn and hide behind somthin, no you makeing straight line between start adn finish position....lets sey its going next to unit you passed over and what? no attacks from bladevanes made?? see...simple explenation I hope, btw sorry for spelling:rolleyes:

[SeattleDV8]

But we aren't dealing with pure geometry, are we, we are dealing with unit movement in Warhammer 40,000, and the movement rules say a unit can turn and zigzag as much as it likes within its movement allowance. This applies to the vibrocannon example too, that was a weapon that was fired, the Reavers are a unit that is moved.
There is nothing in the Bladevane rule which in anyway restricts the Reavers movement, it does not explicitly state 'straight line' because units do not have to move in a straight line.


I never claimed that their movement was resctricted.
They are free to zig-zag and make curves when moving.
To gain a cover save there must be a 18" displacement from starting point to ending point.
As nicely shown in Blackyujiro's post.

The effect of the bladevane is the question.
It is not a close combat attack, as it allows a cover save.
So then it a shooting attack, well sorta, and as such it will most likely be FAQed to a straight line.
It is a real grey area, poorly defined, please discuss pre-game.
As for myself it is not a problem played either way.

[Tynskel]

I never claimed that their movement was resctricted.
They are free to zig-zag and make curves when moving.
To gain a cover save there must be a 18" displacement from starting point to ending point.
As nicely shown in Blackyujiro's post.

The effect of the bladevane is the question.
It is not a close combat attack, as it allows a cover save.
So then it a shooting attack, well sorta, and as such it will most likely be FAQed to a straight line.
It is a real grey area, poorly defined, please discuss pre-game.
As for myself it is not a problem played either way.

I am not sure why this would need to be FAQed. As long as you move no more than 36", and you end 18" away from start position, you should be able to take any path, following the rules for 40k.

For example: Bikes on the ground may have to move 24" to avoid terrain in order to Turboboost to a position 17.5"--- but all that dippin' and zaggin' made them move predictable enough that they do not receive a cover save.

[SeattleDV8]

I am not sure why this would need to be FAQed. As long as you move no more than 36", and you end 18" away from start position, you should be able to take any path, following the rules for 40k.

For example: Bikes on the ground may have to move 24" to avoid terrain in order to Turboboost to a position 17.5"--- but all that dippin' and zaggin' made them move predictable enough that they do not receive a cover save.

Again, I am not talking about movement.
The movement rules for turbo-boosting are clear, they do not need a FAQ.

[GrenAcid]

The effect of the bladevane is the question.
It is not a close combat attack, as it allows a cover save.
So then it a shooting attack, well sorta, and as such it will most likely be FAQed to a straight line.
It is a real grey area, poorly defined, please discuss pre-game.
As for myself it is not a problem played either way.

OMG, re-read my post and post of Blackyujiro, its not a shooting atack of any sort, is more like special close combat attack(we`re talkin about bladeds on bikes), its not greay either...its silly that anyone could think of anything else than line of attack following path of jetbike WITH BLADES!!
Simple when you use brain not math/definitions/other rules.....its called common sense.

[eldargal]

And the Bladevane attacks occur while the unit turbo boosts*, problem solved.:p



*
When moving with Turbo Boosters a Reaver unit may...

[deagle]

Both the Stormraven and Valkyrie can make an action in the middle of their movement just like a Reaver. Both are resolved after the movement is completed. In the case of the raven/ valk they can deploy a unit, in the case of the reavers they make an attack.

Now the rules for the raven/ valk state "nominate any point over which the (stormraven/ valkyrie) moved over and deploy the squad...."

Those who are advocating the interpretation that bladvanes hit a unit under the path of the reavers, why do you think the rule wasn't written in this format? There's already a precedent of models being able to do something extra in their movement phase in the stormraven and valkyrie.

It could have very easily been written, "nominate one enemy unit which the reavers moved over....", but instead we are given the "line from A to B" mechanic. No mention about how the reavers moved, just where they ended up.

My argument is that bladevanes hitting a unit under the path of the reavers holds no water otherwise it would have been written as such. Similarly if it was a line with no fixed length that could reach anywhere on the board, they could have easily written that way and left out the start/ finish point. A straight line is the only interpretation I can think of that warrants that particular wording of the rule

[eldargal]

And GW rules have been consistently written since when? Yes, it could very easily have been written like that, but just because it wasn't, doesn't mean you can then force Reavers to move in a fashion contrary to the rules.

All that is actually quite irrelevent, because the Reaver rule is not written that way, it does not mention the word straight, therefore your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. Following the rules as written, you turboboost, and one unengaged unit under the flightpath takes the hits, the flightpath being a curved or straight line from the start point to end point. All of this is consistent with the turbo boost rules which dictate how the bladevane attacks are deployed. Your interpretation forces the Reavers into a form of movement that is not consistent with the rules, on the basis of a word which does not appear in the rule itself. A line can be curved or straight.

[deagle]

Following the rules as written, you turboboost, and one unengaged unit under the flightpath takes the hits.

The rule never mentions anything about a fight path either (which is my argument entirely). All it says is draw an imaginary line between the start and end point of the move. The debate is how we define that line. You interpret that line as the model's flight path, I interpret that line as the shortest path between two points.

[eldargal]

Yes, because one of the definitions of a line is the path of a moving point, path and lien can be used interchangeable for this purpose.:p It doesn't have to say path because in context that is what it means. The word straight, on the other hand, is not mentioned at all.

[SeattleDV8]

OMG, re-read my post and post of Blackyujiro, its not a shooting atack of any sort, is more like special close combat attack(we`re talkin about bladeds on bikes), its not greay either...its silly that anyone could think of anything else than line of attack following path of jetbike WITH BLADES!!
Simple when you use brain not math/definitions/other rules.....its called common sense.

Well except for one little problem, Units in CC are not allowed a cover save.
The Baneblades allow a cover save therefore it is NOT a CC attack.
Common sense doesn't alway work with GW rules.

[eldargal]

It isn't a melee attack, it isn't a shooting attack, it is a special equipment ability which inflicts a set though variable number of hits. Receiving cover saves make perfect sense, too, the Reavers are travelling at extraordinarily fast speeds, even with their reflexes they aren't going to have the same precision as someone standing a few feet away.

[DaveLL]

Fluff-wise, it's not a shooting attack. It's not even a throwing attack like that goofy SW hammer. It's an attack against any unit that's unfortunate enough to come into contact with a part of the bike itself, which clearly means following the path of the bike makes sense fluff-wise.

Again, though, I fully expect the FAQ to go the other way, because the rule isn't written in a sufficiently specific way and the FAQs frequently ignore issues of sense, fluff, and game balance.

[GrenAcid]

Fluff-wise, it's not a shooting attack. It's not even a throwing attack like that goofy SW hammer. It's an attack against any unit that's unfortunate enough to come into contact with a part of the bike itself, which clearly means following the path of the bike makes sense fluff-wise.

Again, though, I fully expect the FAQ to go the other way, because the rule isn't written in a sufficiently specific way and the FAQs frequently ignore issues of sense, fluff, and game balance.

Unfortunately you might be right about FAQ and without doubt bladevanes work as you said. Case solved.

[addamsfamily36]

The codex says you draw a line between the start and end point. It doesn't say that the line has to be straight, but it also doesn't say it has to follow the "path" that the jetbikes took. If you interpret it loosely enough to allow you to make a curved line, then you can interpret it loosely enough to not even follow a particular path. As long as it's a line that starts where the jetbikes began their movement, and ends where the finish their turboboost, you can do anything with this line.


Just because a rule, doesn't say you can't do something doesn't automatically mean that you can.

Regarding movement and this issue of the path etc etc, A zig zag is not a line.

If i moved my tank 6 inches forward and then 6 inches directly back, although technically i have moved 12 inches i have ended up in the same location or only a short distance from my original location, i do believe there is a note that if you do this your are not regarded as moving.

If you are to move jet bikes, and have to move them a certain distance, there really is only one way the path can follow and that is between where they start and end, in a straight or curved line. but not a zig zagging line as this would be multiple lines. Regardless of how you are able to move your models, they still effectively move in straight lines, but they just might be moved around terrain/enemy models etc.

im not explaining it very well, and i don;t want to cause a mass of agro, but iv'e read a few comments implying that they can make a path any shape between two points , even if that *imaginary* path exceeds the length of the units movement.

This to me seems like absolute rubbish.

[DarkLink]

Just because a rule, doesn't say you can't do something doesn't automatically mean that you can.


It doesn't necessarily mean you can't, either.

You are allowed to do what the rules say you can do. In this case, it simply specifies that you draw a line (any line, really) between point A and B. It doesn't say anything about what shape that line must take, or what restrictions that line must follow.




It amazes me that this even became an issue. What was GW thinking? They could have just said "you hit the unit you pass over during your movement", but no, they had to not only make it more complicated, but also carelessly add in a bunch of ambiguity.

[DrBored]

Alright, let's sum up some key points so everyone's on the same page (I'm writing with one gimp finger, so please excuse typos).

Let's start with the obvious.

1. Reavers don't get the TURBO-BOOSTING COVER SAVE BONUS if they do not end their movement at least 18" away from their starting point. However, they may use the BLADEVANES ABILITY while TURBO-BOOSTING up to 36", even if they do not receive the COVER SAVE BONUS.

2. A line, by DEFINITION may be CURVED or STRAIGHT. "Imaginary line" suggests wild things, but you would be a BAD PLAYER if you made a line go in any direction or length farther than the Reaver's actually TURBO-BOOSTED.

3. GW has a hard time writing clear, concise rules, even though IN THE SAME CODEX there are two examples of rules that would have made the Reavers less confusing (Voidraven Bomber: Void Mine, Vehicle Upgrade: Chain Snares).

4. Rules as Written makes no mention of the word 'straight', and therefore lines could be curved. Rules as Intended, citing the fluff, suggests that Reavers themselves will do wild aerial acrobatics, jinks and turns, flips and dances, in order to hit an enemy with their BLADEVANES. If you combine RAW and RAI, you are left with the following: A very convincing argument to explain to any player or judge why the BLADEVANES should work similarly to CHAIN SNARES in the same Codex.

5. You can only hit ONE unit with the BLADEVANES ATTACKS after you TURBO-BOOST. (I missed that specific wording of the rule and thought otherwise, but someone corrected that and I am whole again.)

Now, for the sake of argument, I'm going to mention one thing that I don't think has been mentioned...

I have read some posts in here about Valkyries and other vehicles, including Dark Eldar vehicles and other models that have the 'pass over' rule statement that makes it clear that the unit must pass over a point or another unit in order to activate their rule or ability.

There's one key problem with this: Reavers are multiple models within the same unit. 'Passing Over' may be an awkward wording for this unit because of the dynamics of having multiple models. For a Raider with Chain Snares, it's relatively easy. Whatever the hull or base passed over is hit by the attack. Simple. However, with multiple models in a unit, you may be able to claim that some of the Bladevanes didn't hit because some of the models didn't 'pass over' an enemy unit. Let me try to demonstrate..

STEP 1.

EEE

RRR

Here, we can see the Enemy (E) sitting in front of the Reavers (R). The Reavers make their turbo-boosting move, and end here..

STEP 2.

---RRR

EEE

Now, the argument can be made that the right-most Reaver didn't pass over the enemy, and so the d3 hits that would have been allocated from THAT SPECIFIC REAVER MODEL may not actually hit the enemy, the same as a model being farther than 2" from a model in base contact within an assault not getting their contributing attacks.

So, GW would not only have to specify the 'pass over' rule, but would also have to specify whether one single model counts as the WHOLE unit getting all of their Bladevanes attacks, or if you will have to go through a model-by-model basis in order to see how many Bladevanes actually did damage.

Fluff wise, this makes sense. If a pack of Reavers Turbo-boosts over an enemy, but only one model is measured to have actually 'passed over' the enemy and the rest simply follow the leader away without ever touching the enemy, how could you argue that those models get their attacks? However, the way that GW has currently worded the rule, it's clear that they INTENDED to write a rule that allowed you to hit something with full Bladevanes capacity without worrying about individual models not getting their attacks.

And THAT, boys and girls, is why I think GW worded the rule as they currently have it and why they didn't simply copy-paste the Chain Snares rule.

In the end, however, it's still a confusing rule that needs some measure of clarification.

So I suggest to you all that you use BuFFo's solution and simply present to your opponent these findings in order to keep the Reavers fun, fair, and strategically sound. Depending on your flgs, I would also recommend coming up with a simple House Rule that will help quell later arguments that may arise in small tournaments.

[Blackyujiro]

I think the zigzag stuff is a bit much. The most I'd do is curve around some terrain, since you can't TurboBoost through it. Even in the fluff it says that they can "corkscrew" thier bikes to use the blades on their opponents. Not zigzag across the field.

Edit: As far a the issue DrBored mentions, I explain to my opponent that the "rear" Reaver sets my path, this way all of them are assured to fly over the unit . So baically, I draw my Turbo-Boost line from the rear Reaver and w/e unit the path goes ove takes the hits

[somerandomdude]

Actually, you should be able to avoid all terrain because of the Jetbike rules, right?

Thank you DrBored. I was actually struggling with understanding why they felt the need to change the wording, and your explanation actually helps out a lot.

Still, because all other instances of "draw an imaginary line" in this game specify a straight line, I would not be at all surprised if they FAQ it one way or another, simply because many people will jump to that conclusion in an effort to force DE hands (and protect their Long Fangs/HWTs). Obviously, a DE player can defend their position, and will most likely have some support. But it'll help prevent arguments over something stupid, which is all it was really designed to do anyway.

I used to play a CCG that had a "glossary" of clarafications over 70 pages long. Most people complained about it. I loved the fact that I had fewer arguments to deal with. Some say FAQs aren't necessary, where I say FAQs never (well, rarely) hurt.

[addamsfamily36]

It doesn't necessarily mean you can't, either.

You are allowed to do what the rules say you can do. In this case, it simply specifies that you draw a line (any line, really) between point A and B. It doesn't say anything about what shape that line must take, or what restrictions that line must follow.


True, but 9 times out of 10 Gamesworkshop's Erratas and FAQ's (when they do come out) tend to lean towards the if i doesnt say you can, you can;t ruling. but yeh i totally agree that you can argue either way on that point.


As for the movement, i was more concerned with this zig zagging all over the place buisness, with no limits (which is what a minority seemed to be suggesting)

definition of a line is:

A geometric figure formed by a point moving along a fixed direction and the reverse direction.

so for me, straight line yes, curved line yes, but zig zagging? thats more like multiple lines which personally i think is a bit cheeky.

[BuFFo]

so for me, straight line yes, curved line yes, but zig zagging? thats more like multiple lines which personally i think is a bit cheeky.

If your zig zags have multiple end points, then yeah, but a zig zag can also just be a single lined curved many times.

I really don't know people's obsession with trying to force Reavers into playing in such a way that their rule does not suggest. They are not all that threatening.

Lets do this, I'll give you Reavers if you give me one of the following; Seer Council, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Sanguinary Priests, 3+ armor saves, 55 point Chimeras, 35 point Rhinos, Lash of Submission, Plague Marines, Nob Squads, Monoliths, Fearless, Stubborn, Toughness 4, Strength 4 w/ Power Weapons, etc etc etc...

Actually, forget that. Keep all that crap. I would rather rely on skill, strategy and tactics than 'use to win' units/things like those. I'll keep my T4 5+ 22 point models thank you very much...

[DrBored]

True, but 9 times out of 10 Gamesworkshop's Erratas and FAQ's (when they do come out) tend to lean towards the if i doesnt say you can, you can;t ruling. but yeh i totally agree that you can argue either way on that point.


As for the movement, i was more concerned with this zig zagging all over the place buisness, with no limits (which is what a minority seemed to be suggesting)

definition of a line is:

A geometric figure formed by a point moving along a fixed direction and the reverse direction.

so for me, straight line yes, curved line yes, but zig zagging? thats more like multiple lines which personally i think is a bit cheeky.

If you really want to get technical, a curve can be a line that curves any number of degrees and doesn't form a shape. With that in mind, you could zig-zag in a curvy way, making sharp, tiny curves where you need to to make the turns you need.

Zig-zagging is a moot point anyway. You should only ever have to make a single turn or curve in order to hit your target and get to the end of your Turbo-Boost in a decent position, seeing as you can only affect one single unit that falls under your line.

[DrBored]

If your zig zags have multiple end points, then yeah, but a zig zag can also just be a single lined curved many times.

I really don't know people's obsession with trying to force Reavers into playing in such a way that their rule does not suggest. They are not all that threatening.

Lets do this, I'll give you Reavers if you give me one of the following; Seer Council, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Sanguinary Priests, 3+ armor saves, 55 point Chimeras, 35 point Rhinos, Lash of Submission, Plague Marines, Nob Squads, Monoliths, Fearless, Stubborn, Toughness 4, Strength 4 w/ Power Weapons, etc etc etc...

Actually, forget that. Keep all that crap. I would rather rely on skill, strategy and tactics than 'use to win' units/things like those. I'll keep my T4 5+ 22 point models thank you very much...

I for one am not trying to overstretch or overuse something, what I really want is to just get some clarification so that when a rules-lawyer comes along, I can defend myself and my 170+ points of models that not only look awesome, but perform in a radical new way.

Because I know there are a-holes out there that WILL try and cheat you out of things like this because of their own self-obsessed motivation to win. It doesn't matter if they're not /that/ game-changing, a player will still try and cheat you out of it at a tournament.

So just having some clarification and some defense against those players for the future will be nice, and I feel like I've gotten that now.

[somerandomdude]

If you really want to get technical, a curve can be a line that curves any number of degrees and doesn't form a shape.

I study economics, where everything is called a curve, even if straight, so it's not hard for me to believe this. Again, I was concerned about everyone else.


Because I know there are a-holes out there that WILL try and cheat you out of things like this because of their own self-obsessed motivation to win. It doesn't matter if they're not /that/ game-changing, a player will still try and cheat you out of it at a tournament.

So just having some clarification and some defense against those players for the future will be nice, and I feel like I've gotten that now.

Exactly. The simple fact is that people like to win. Some people will refuse something because they think they truly believe that, although they probably subconsciously just want to limit your options, some may just be jerks. Either way, it's nice to settle something. It's easy to say "pick up and never play that person" but I'd rather spend 10 seconds pointing out an errata than walk away and hope I run into another person for a game (otherwise I would have driven there for no reason).

I'm not by all this plastic and spending all my time painting just so I can have people accuse me of cheating on something that's poorly worded.

[BuFFo]

I for one am not trying to overstretch or overuse something, what I really want is to just get some clarification so that when a rules-lawyer comes along, I can defend myself and my 170+ points of models that not only look awesome, but perform in a radical new way.

Okay, I see what you mean. Let me help you.

"Hey, your Reavers can only use Bladevanes in a straight line"

You say "Show me in the rule here" Give him the book "where the word Straight shows up, as it does for Bloodlance and Jaws of the World Wolf. See? It doesn't"

"Lines ARE straight though"

"Um, no they aren't. Not under Mathematics (unless you are graphing, and even then curves are still lines), not under art, not under any definition used by any accredited college (Brown, Yale, etc..), nor any nationally accepted dictionary (Merriam-Webster). A curve is a line. Now either go back to school and get educated and quit trying to limit my unit's options because you just got owned by a cool unit you have never seen before. If GW wanted the line to be straight, they would have included the word straight in the rule like in many other 'line' rules that require the line to be straight."

There you go. :)


Because I know there are a-holes out there that WILL try and cheat you out of things like this because of their own self-obsessed motivation to win. It doesn't matter if they're not /that/ game-changing, a player will still try and cheat you out of it at a tournament.

So just having some clarification and some defense against those players for the future will be nice, and I feel like I've gotten that now.

I agree! Now that you have your ammunition, go forwards my soldier and take to the battlefield!

[GrenAcid]

I agree! Now that you have your ammunition, go forwards my soldier and take to the battlefield!

Oo-rah!

[addamsfamily36]

If your zig zags have multiple end points, then yeah, but a zig zag can also just be a single lined curved many times.

I really don't know people's obsession with trying to force Reavers into playing in such a way that their rule does not suggest. They are not all that threatening.

Lets do this, I'll give you Reavers if you give me one of the following; Seer Council, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Sanguinary Priests, 3+ armor saves, 55 point Chimeras, 35 point Rhinos, Lash of Submission, Plague Marines, Nob Squads, Monoliths, Fearless, Stubborn, Toughness 4, Strength 4 w/ Power Weapons, etc etc etc...

Actually, forget that. Keep all that crap. I would rather rely on skill, strategy and tactics than 'use to win' units/things like those. I'll keep my T4 5+ 22 point models thank you very much...


I think your response, was a little out of hand seeing as i was only speculating against a particular claim made by others and not one made by you.

In regards to curved zig zagging, yes it wound be one continuous path with no angels, but most Math based definitions of a curved line regard to them as being arcs or a curve.

I agree, and have no problem with an arc path for this rule etc etc.

But having multiple arcs, or lines, gives the lines multiple directions along its course. This to me goes against the definition's of what a line is, in the resources i have:

i.e a dictionary which is where i found my original definition of a line, and a math book which has terminology of which this is a quote:

If a line is not straight, we usually refer to it as a curve or arc. In plane geometry the word 'line' is usually taken to mean a straight line.

So if i combine all 3, i find that a straight line is acceptable, an arc is also acceptable because its a term used to describe a curved line. Zig zagging is an extremely grey area, as it follows some but not all of the definitions/descriptions of the previous two. I won't stop someone from doing it, besides as Drbored said:

Zig-zagging is a moot point anyway. You should only ever have to make a single turn or curve in order to hit your target and get to the end of your Turbo-Boost in a decent position, seeing as you can only affect one single unit that falls under your line.

But i'm throwing my dice in, betting, that if and when this gets FAQ'd it will more than likely define a line as a striaght point between a and b, or a curved line between a and b. Not a zig zagging or a curved zig zagging line