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.

I am curious why the inat faq for the dark reavers says that the line has to be straight. GW and phil kelly clearly know the difference between line and straight line as evidenced by blood lance and jotww (say, wasn't SW written by phil kelly?).

Anyway, I guess that this is just a request to show your work and a request that at the very least, it be changed from "clarification" to "rules change".

Because otherwise you can hit every model within x" y times, by drawing a molecular wide spiral?

Didn't the official FAQ answer this?

Homer

this is the GW DE FAQ

Q: How do you mark the start and end points of a unit of unit of Reavers move when they are using their special Bladevanes attack? (p29) A: Should confusion arise, simply pick any model in the unit as the start point and mark that spot. Then move the unit and pick any model as the end point. One unengaged, non-vehicle unit under the line between the two markers can then be chosen to be the target of the attack.

When I move models they often move on a bending line, for instance if I have to go around another unit or piece of terrain. The tape measure wraps around but my total movement distance is constrained by that. I can't just move to the other side of an impassible terrain piece, for instance, by measuring a straight line of 6"

Somnicide wrote:
When I move models they often move on a bending line,

How you moved the models is irrelevant.

No where in that description does it mention the path of travel; only the starting point and ending point.

just like nowhere does it mention that the line has to be straight. Just the start and end points. Thanks for agreeing with me.

and here, if we need a definition of line:
a length (straight or curved) without breadth or thickness;

So you are told to draw a line between two points and are confused as to where to draw the line, or am I mis-reading this entirely?

No, the poster wants to be able to draw a curved line.

Poster: actually the real definition of a line (the mathematical one) is something entirely straight. By default then the line is straight

Did they allow you to make it a curved line? No? Then you cant.

Alternatively you are allowed to covre any model on the board, as the length of the curved line is not constrained in your definition. Making it entirely pointless to have constrained it in the first place.

Why not a line of poetry between the points, that works too, right?
It would allow a wider swath of model to be under it as well, especially if you use a large font.

Potentially more devastating as well, especially if it's Vogonian.

kirsanth wrote:Why not a line of poetry between the points, that works too, right?
It would allow a wider swath of model to be under it as well, especially if you use a large font.

Boom!

I don't have the codex but since you have been quoting i'm going to chip in. The line is straight.

it was a very artistic interpretation of the FAQ to say the "line" could become a "curve" but i don't see anything that says you can do that, and i cant see anything that would make the player assume they can either...

"permissive rule set" is a phrase i see banded around forums alot, as applied here you do not have permission to fly in loops.

so that is not a line? why the specification of a straight line in jotww and blood lance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Why not a line of poetry between the points, that works too, right?
It would allow a wider swath of model to be under it as well, especially if you use a large font.

AND it doesn't matter how many are under it, it is a single line so your snark is irrelevant.

You can cover the entire table 9830498092384092830948203984029384092380238029034 times or more with one 'line' that way--why stop there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Somnicide wrote:it is a single line so your snark is irrelevant.

My snark is not irrelevant.

A Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary B


I showed a line between A and B as well.
I could do it with a crayon if you want me to draw it. . . .

nosferatu1001 wrote:Potentially more devastating as well, especially if it's Vogonian.

Mmm, yes. . .

kirsanth wrote:Why not a line of poetry between the points, that works too, right?
It would allow a wider swath of model to be under it as well, especially if you use a large font.

I am going to have my friend read this, so when he does it to me again I will state he must have a prepared verse to add insult to injury.


On topic "One unengaged, non-vehicle unit under the line between the two markers" is the wording in the FAQ. If the line is curved it is not between the two points. This maneuver may require strategy to set this up (or luck)! Pick point "a" then point "b". If the model is not between the points you have a curved line. This will prevent people from making you turns, ending up near where they started etc.

Devils advocate, compensate for the rotation of the earth, tell your opponent it is the coriolis affect!

The real question is, are you going to bust out your geometry kit to figure out the distance you can move in your curved line?
Also, is it just me or did they write the DE codex using common math terms and people are doing they're very best to interpret them in the way that is most beneficial to them? A line between two points as described above could very well be a swirly line. But it is implied through common logic that it would be a straight line from point to point. Just as the difference in leliths ability description means subtraction.

Ah the douchebags are out in force today. Must be that time of the month. Can someone who isn't a total douchebag tell me why JOTWW and Blood Lance are written as straight line and the reavers isn't especially when JOTWW rules were written by the same guy who chose not to include the word straight when describing this line?

My opinion not being the same as yours makes me a douchebag? What is this, the internet? Ha ha!
Maybe you should email the author then since you want him to clarify it?

If disagreeing with you makes people douche bags, well the world will be full of em. IF you are targeting 1 person with that well maybe a hint to them to be more constructive.

There is a difference between a line and a curved line in mathematics. I think (only way to get 100% answer is to the author of the codex)the reason is the need to clarify JOTWW from such Tom Foolery in that codex. Simply stated, 2 points make a line, to make a curved line you need every point between the points.

wiki sum up better than mine maybe...

"A arc or segment of a curve is a part of a curve that is bounded by two distinct end points and contains every point on the curve between its end points."

So a curved line is made up of an infinite number of points, not 2.

Recap, I think JOTWW has the added explanation in it to prevent this. This is really GW editing issue not keeping things uniform throughout the process. The meaning of the two are the same, just stated different, I do not have the codex in front of me, but does JOTWW just need line of site? no end point save for the table edge? This may also be the difference of the wording. Either way it way it seems clear to most.

Ah well, this thread can be locked and killed. It served as a nice reminder why YMDC was stelek's favorite hangout on dakka.

The reason the reaver jetbike "line" must be straight is twofold.

1) The mathematical definition of a line is that of a straight line.

2) More importantly, if the line can be curved, it can therefore have any length. That means I can turbo boost along my table edge every turn (hiding behind terrain), drawing a curved line that goes out around the table touching every enemy on the table before returning to the end location.

The codex's are written years apart by different human beings.

there isnt really any standard way to term/describe most things (especially army specific stuff) - as can be evidenced by about half of all rule debates ever in the world ever, EVER!...

maby when the robots write the rule for us we can get some consistency - until then its a straight line fella!

Thanks to ark and x for restoring my faith in humanity. The thread can still be killed.

As noted, the codices are written years apart, and GW's lack of editorial consistency is almost legendary.

As far as why a curved line is not allowed, as noted, there are two reasons:

1. Because otherwise there's no reason why you couldn't draw a spiral covering literally the entire table; there is nothing in the rules to suggest that's any less appropriate and legal than drawing a curved line following the unit's path.
2. Because the procedure given in the FAQ clearly implies a straight line. You are told to draw a line connecting two points, and given no further instructions. Again, unless it's a straight line, what's to stop you from drawing that line all over the table?

Somnicide wrote:Ah well, this thread can be locked and killed. It served as a nice reminder why YMDC was stelek's favorite hangout on dakka.

For the record, he posted all over the place, but Tactics was his favorite hangout, IIRC.

The reason this thread drew some sarcasm was most likely because the question's come up a number of times, sometimes argued by folks trying to take inappropriate advantage.

I'm sorry the Search function's still not up to snuff. It's in progress.

Damn you mannahnin, now I feel bad, thanks a lot. :-p

Well actually that does kinda make sense, given that jetbikes can move in a non-straight line whether turbo boosting or not.

Example: target unit is close to the table edge; jetbikes can't turbo over it without flying off the table. A curved line will allow bladevanes to work, a straight line connecting beginning and end point would miss the unit entirely.

In this situation it would seem that bladevanes should work. If we stipulate that the line need be straight (which the codex does not, unlike JotWW or Blood Lance), then this new interpretation does weaken the wargear in certain situations.

You're the man, Somnicide.

I figured you just hadn't had your coffee yet, and people were being a bit harsh. I know YMDC can be a bit of a shark tank, but we've been making progress!

Yes I am properly caffeinated now. ;-)

and @sourclams that was pretty much the exact situation I was thinking of

sourclams wrote:Well actually that does kinda make sense, given that jetbikes can move in a non-straight line whether turbo boosting or not.

Example: target unit is close to the table edge; jetbikes can't turbo over it without flying off the table. A curved line will allow bladevanes to work, a straight line connecting beginning and end point would miss the unit entirely.

In this situation it would seem that bladevanes should work. If we stipulate that the line need be straight (which the codex does not, unlike JotWW or Blood Lance), then this new interpretation does weaken the wargear in certain situations.

That is a good point; you'd need to have at least one model in the Reaver unit as close to the table edge (or closer) than at least one model in the unit they wanted to hit, before the Reavers move. Or space enough between at least one model in the prospective target unit and the table edge to fit at least one of the Reaver models with 1" clearance.

I do think that tracing a line along the unit's path of movement is intuitive and would make sense too, but the FAQ answer appears designed for the simplest possible resolution without quibbling over exactly where the models moved between the start and end. And seems necessarily to limit it to a straight line, as discussed, with the limitation you've identified.

People are focusing on the wrong word. Straight or not straight doesn't matter at all, but just to settle that argument...

The reason JotWW and Blood Lance state "straight line" is because they don't have a defined end point. If you were to "Draw a line from the base of the Rune Priest and ending 24" away", we'd have more questions: 24" in total length of the line, or distance from the base? If the later, could you make a curved line that goes 23.5" to one side, 23.5" to the other, and continually zig zags (at incrementally smaller distances) until it reaches a point 24" away? If that were the case, you could fit dozens, if not hundreds, of models under the line. The same issue arises with Blood Lance.

However, a line between two points is one thing and one thing only - straight. Notice that it says "between" - not "from... to..." I think we all know how to define "between" but just in case, I'll attempt a diagram (forgive me for my poor skills):

[]_____<>______[]

The diamond is between the two rectangles. Imagine, if you will, that those rectangles are books, and the diamond is a fly. You're goal is to get the fly between the books so you can kill it. So far, so good. Now, what happens if that fly was a little higher (blame it on depth perception).

''''''''''''<>

[]_____________[]

Is the fly still between the books?

How about, instead of a fly in the air, we treat the diamond as a point on a line. In the first diagram, the point on the line is most definitely between the two endpoints. In the second example, it is not. Yes, the line does connect the two endpoints, and yes, it is still classified as a line (even though it is not straight), but that point does not lie between the endpoints, which means that the line (as a whole) does not lie between the endpoints.

And if any part of the line does not lie between the endpoints, then how can you say that "The line is between the endpoints"?