Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cheexsta wrote:The rule doesn't tell you how long the line can be, either. Does that mean you can draw the line in any shape around any part of the board? Why bother drawing a line, then, when it would be easier just to tell the player to pick any enemy unit and make the attacks, regardless of where it is on the table in relation to the Reavers.

FWIW, Dictionary.com defines a mathematical line as either being straight or curved. But when you draw a line between two points, it's usually accepted that it's going to be a straight line.

The length of the line has to be between 18" (minimum distance for turboboost) and 36" (maximum movement).

It's "an imaginery line", as written the only restriction depends on the imagination, or lack of, of the reader.

insaniak wrote:For what it's worth, wherever GW have FAQ'd similar issues in the past, they've consistently gone with the 'straight line' approach. ....

To add to this (and staying on topic, Insaniak):

4e's Codex: SM - Fury of the Ancients
Current Eldar - Vibro- cannon
Current SW - Jaws of the World Wolf

All the 'line' bit. I know that citing other powers (and codexes) is not always a valid argument, but it is logical.

Scal wrote:Why did they use the phrase "trace an imaginery line" and not "trace a straight line" or "trace an imaginery straight line",

I suspect that would be because they thought the word 'straight' would be redundant.

why did they even use the word "trace" which suggests following a boundary, route or outline rather than "draw" which would be more applicable if the intention was that the line were straight.

Because 'trace' also fits either interpretation.

Scal wrote:The length of the line has to be between 18" (minimum distance for turboboost) and 36" (maximum movement).

It's "an imaginery line", as written the only restriction depends on the imagination, or lack of, of the reader.

Where does it say that this 'imaginary' line has a minimum or maximum distance?
More to the point what allows one to trace a curve instead of a line, if it's because it imaginary, then by golly I'll imagine some width onto mine and hit the guys on my left flank.

insaniak wrote:I suspect that would be because they thought the word 'straight' would be redundant.

If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion

Because 'trace' also fits either interpretation.

Really? would you ask someone to trace a straight line? Don't think I would, I might however ask them to trace their route.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Where does it say that this 'imaginary' line has a minimum or maximum distance?
More to the point what allows one to trace a curve instead of a line, if it's because it imaginary, then by golly I'll imagine some width onto mine and hit the guys on my left flank.

In the first sentence "When moving with Turbo Boosters" which defines the distance as being between 18" and 36", was sure I'd written that in a previous post....

I'm not tracing a curve instead of a line, I'm tracing a curved line instead of a straight line, which is quite logical if it follows the route taken by the reavers....unless there is some reason why they have to travel in a straight line?

[quote=Scal

Because 'trace' also fits either interpretation.

Really? would you ask someone to trace a straight line? Don't think I would, I might however ask them to trace their route.

There is no restriction place on the lenght of this line (or indeed any line) so for you to say that it has to be between 18" and 36" in lenghth is making rules up - you have nothing to support this assertion.

Secondly, don't you know that a condition for something to be a line is that it's ends move in opposite directions? ie straight away from each other? And the other requierment is that it continues indfiantly in both directions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve

Because what you're describing is a curve and to continue in your vein, I feel, is wilful ignorance or wishing for things to be not what they are.

Scal wrote:

insaniak wrote:I suspect that would be because they thought the word 'straight' would be redundant.

If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion

You asked why they would word it that way, not whether that wording was actually clear to everybody reading it.

But, as I pointed out earlier, this wording is consistent for GW-speak meaning you're supposed to trace a straight line.

Really? would you ask someone to trace a straight line? Don't think I would, I might however ask them to trace their route.

'Trace' in this context simply means 'follow' or 'draw'... there is nothing inherent in the meaning that means straight or otherwise. That's provided by context or the other words around it.

In this case, GW didn't define it, so we're left with the fact that a 'line' is technically usually straight, and past precedence which says that same.

Nothing in the rule suggests a straight line must be drawn, nor a line that has the shortest route possible..

Personally, I just draw the line along the path of the Reavers which start and end at the appropriate points.

If my Reavers want to move 18" forward, and end where they started by moving 18" back, then the line just looks like a V.

ChrisCP wrote:There is no restriction place on the lenght of this line (or indeed any line) so for you to say that it has to be between 18" and 36" in lenghth is making rules up - you have nothing to support this assertion.

Secondly, don't you know that a condition for something to be a line is that it's ends move in opposite directions? ie straight away from each other? And the other requierment is that it continues indfiantly in both directions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve

Because what you're describing is a curve and to continue in your vein, I feel, is wilful ignorance or wishing for things to be not what they are.

If you're going to use lolipedia to support your "arguement" then at least read all of your link. If you did you would see that a parabola satisfies your requirement that it's ends move in opposite directions also, and as it is indeterminate it also continues indefinately, unlike a circle which is determinate.

As for the range thing, well if you want to use semantics to cloud the issue thats fine, it's not really that relevant to the debate anyway.

Finally, please don't suggest that I'm being ignorant, stubborn maybe, but not ignorant.

Scal wrote:The length of the line has to be between 18" (minimum distance for turboboost) and 36" (maximum movement)

Turbo Boost has no minimum distance. You can Turbo Boost 1" if you want. The only condition for Turbo Boosting is saying "This unit is Turbo Boosting". Of course, if you don't go 18", you won't get any of the advantages OF Turbo boosting, but you are still Turbo Boosting.

The beauty of using a straight line is that it's simple. I can easily imagine situations where a player wants to zig zag 36" across the table and it ends up taking 10-15 minutes to measure the full distance... Lots of arguments and many individual sections/arcs to measure and add.

BuFFo wrote:

Scal wrote:The length of the line has to be between 18" (minimum distance for turboboost) and 36" (maximum movement)

Turbo Boost has no minimum distance. You can Turbo Boost 1" if you want. The only condition for Turbo Boosting is saying "This unit is Turbo Boosting". Of course, if you don't go 18", you won't get any of the advantages OF Turbo boosting, but you are still Turbo Boosting.

Thanks, didn't spot that (loving your battle reports )

Scal wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:There is no restriction place on the lenght of this line (or indeed any line) so for you to say that it has to be between 18" and 36" in lenghth is making rules up - you have nothing to support this assertion.

Secondly, don't you know that a condition for something to be a line is that it's ends move in opposite directions? ie straight away from each other? And the other requierment is that it continues indfiantly in both directions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve

Because what you're describing is a curve and to continue in your vein, I feel, is wilful ignorance or wishing for things to be not what they are.

If you're going to use lolipedia to support your "arguement" then at least read all of your link. If you did you would see that a parabola satisfies your requirement that it's ends move in opposite directions also, and as it is indeterminate it also continues indefinately, unlike a circle which is determinate.

As for the range thing, well if you want to use semantics to cloud the issue thats fine, it's not really that relevant to the debate anyway.

Finally, please don't suggest that I'm being ignorant, stubborn maybe, but not ignorant.

It isn't an 'argument' I'm trying to enlighten you on what a line is, and now what 'opposite' means.
Yes it is unfortunate I don't have you in a classroom with the proper resources, but we can make do.
You may not, or not, that the opposing ends of a y=x^2 parabola move in similar directions, both increasing along the y axis - but move away from each other. Not opposite as that would need one to be moving directly away from the other (like in a line).

But as you seem to think calling websites names and insisting that you're being stubborn - which would mean you actually acknowledge what I'm showing is correct and you're just being unmoving on the subject - not ignorant, which I honestly feel you are by your display of lack of knowledge about the topics of lines, curves, rules and spelling, is the best direction to take this *shrugs* not much trying to help someone who doesn't want to learn.

To anyone with any kind of mathematical background the word line is unambiguous. It is also distinctly different than a curve. A line is a subtype of curve, but not all curves are lines.

The problem is your colloquial definition of line.

calypso2ts wrote:To anyone with any kind of mathematical background the word line is unambiguous.

Which kind of makes me glad I don't have a mathematical background.

.. but not all curves are lines.

Doesn't that suggest that some curves are lines??

The problem is your colloquial definition of line.

or maybe your refusal to look outside the mathematical box?

Anyway, it's 4am here, time to sleep, thanks for the company

Scal wrote:ok, I'll go along with your math for a while. My reaver travels 36" and ends up 18" away from it's start point, your math would dictate that the line cannot be straight; point proven

Are reavers for some reason restricted to travelling in a straight line?

What if the reavers, while travelling from A to B are forced to go around an obstacle and in doing so pass over an enemy unit, are you saying that I cannot direct my attacks against them because you want to draw a straight line that in no way reflects my movement?

In terms of fluff, why would GW take the fastest, most agile piece of wargear and restrict it to straight line attack only?

The attacks are caused by the bikes, surely logic dictates that the attacks occur on the actual route taken by the bikes?

Why did they use the phrase "trace an imaginery line" and not "trace a straight line" or "trace an imaginery straight line", why did they even use the word "trace" which suggests following a boundary, route or outline rather than "draw" which would be more applicable if the intention was that the line were straight.

As for attacking any unit on the board, no, just any unit within the 36" movement range.

Sorry for the Delay in response, I GM a Rifts game on Monday nights.

There are quite a few things wrong with this post:

1) My math did not dictate that the line cannot be straight(quite the opposite in fact) the rules given state that you draw a line from the Start point(A) to the End point(B); in math that Line segment is generally considered a straight line, the shortest distance between those points.

2) The movement rules for non-vehicle units is a little hazy; but no, the travel from a starting point to an ending point does not have to be in a straight line(although there is no reason for it not to be with Jetbikes, Jet Packs, or Jump infantry movement)

3) Reavers never have to go around obstacles, they go over them; please re-read the Jetbike rules.

4) because models that ignore intervening terrain are faster and more Agile when traveling in straight lines(Math tells us this).

5) Logic does not belong in a rules discussion when the clearly written rules break logical conventions.

6) Drawing and tracing lines are synonymous, especially when those lines are between 2 points.

7) Where do you get the limit for your curvy lines length? The rule is to trace a line between point A and Point B(A and B as defined earlier in this post), If that line needn't be straight that you have an infinite length to make that line so long as it's start and end point are points A and B.

Finally I want to point something else out to you: the rule is to draw a line between points A and B, not to draw a line between points A and B following the course of the models. The former would need to be straight otherwise the Length is limitless; The latter wiould be exactly what you are trying to read.

Well, the rule is crystal clear. A line between A and B is supposed to be straight even for foreigners. I think that the rule would be better affecting at any unit passed over, but it's not what it says.
This tread it’s like arguing that the line of sight can be curve.

Harridan wrote:This tread it’s like arguing that the line of sight can be curve.

Well....

Given sufficient gravity....

J/K

This is a valid Point.

I always assumed a striaght line was implied

Given *any* gravity at all. It just isnt measurable unless it is a significantly dense field

You could argue that everything is curved, as the whole of space/time is curved, but that then leads to weirdness....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given *any* gravity at all. It just isnt measurable unless it is a significantly dense field

You could argue that everything is curved, as the whole of space/time is curved, but that then leads to weirdness....

You forgot to mention the fundamental problem that the BGB doesn't actually specify that 40k uses Euclidean geometry...

Back on topic:
The rule is poorly written and rather vague. I'd argue that there is no "proper" RAW answer without more information. For a RAI answer, either go with a straight line segment from start to finish or go with the actual path the Reavers traveled. Discuss with opponent or TO.

Grakmar wrote:The rule is poorly written and rather vague. I'd argue that there is no "proper" RAW answer without more information. For a RAI answer, either go with a straight line segment from start to finish or go with the actual path the Reavers traveled. Discuss with opponent or TO.

The most sensible thing yet said so far

BuFFo wrote:

Grakmar wrote:The rule is poorly written and rather vague. I'd argue that there is no "proper" RAW answer without more information. For a RAI answer, either go with a straight line segment from start to finish or go with the actual path the Reavers traveled. Discuss with opponent or TO.

The most sensible thing yet said so far

I agree, thanks for sharing your wisdom Grakmar

Looks like the RAW advocates are losing this one.

well there are some incorrect or incomplete definitions of line.

a line must be straight, if it is not straight then it is a parabola, curve, or some other defined term and ceases to be a line (yes people call a curve a line but they are technically incorrect).
second a line has no width, or height only length.
third gravity has no effect on a line as a line has a mass of zero, though gravity might have an effect on your visual perception ( though techincally you couldnt see it anyway as it has no width or height to reflect light from anyway) of the line as light does have mass and would be subsequently affected by gravity.

the rule is very clear, draw a line from the starting point of the unit ( yes it is grey as to how to define the starting point), to where the unit ends its movement ( yes it is grey as to how to define the ending point). the path the unit moves has no bearing on resolution of the blade vines rule and what units are affected. The most reasonable way to resolve this is to pick a point that lies within the unit area before moving, and a point within the units area after moving. draw a straight line and determine hits.

so yes this means that you cant hit a unit on the board edge unless your traveling nearly parallel to the board edge.

A true line can never be straight since we live in a universe governed by quantum mechanics. Remember when people thought the world was flat?

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Looks like the RAW advocates are losing this one.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:A true line can never be straight since we live in a universe governed by quantum mechanics. Remember when people thought the world was flat?

Cool story, bro.

I have never seen someone play 40k with the assumption that squiggles and curves can be used to trace lines.

One can argue that GW meant lines to curve, but you can also argue they meant the table to be round.

It would not go over well, but you could.

actually that is a myth the concept that the world was round existed long before that.

and yes a line can be straight because it exists outside of quantum mechanics as it only has one dimension. even quantum mechanics to work requires more than one as the elements that make it work are 3 dimensional. and not everywhere in our universe is defined by quantum mechaincs, there are places in our universe where quantum mechanics fails to work and other laws take effect. though again a line is a definition that exists in all states because if it is not meeting the definition then it is no longer a line.

Wow you are really blowing some smoke now. Must have a pipe nearby.