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.

So when using a their bladevanes rule can the reavers zigzag?

How does this power work exactly, anyone got a detailed explanation?

I included an image for visual representation of what im asking.

Essentially are reavers allowed to do the type of movement depicted in Choice A? Moving across their target during the turbo-boost and then turning in any other direction to continue their move and count the target as being hit by the bladevanes.

Or when deciding the starting and end point, do you draw a straight line and the units inbetween the ending/starting point take damage. Which in the case of the diagram in the picture would be no target on choice B.

The Dark Eldar FAQ clarifies this nicely. It mentions a start point and an end point, and hitting one unit under a line between the two.
So it's clearly B.

Actually the codex itself says you draw a line between the starting and ending point and pick an enemy unit under that line to hit.

While someone could theoretically argue that a 'line' doesn't necessarily mean 'straight line' if you don't assume that the rule means 'straight line' then the rule is meaningless because it essentially means you can pick any spot on the table to be crossed by your imaginary sguiggly line.

So the ONLY interpretation that makes any kind of sense whatsoever is option 'B' in your poll.

I had this issue come up with a friend at the gw store, first time i faced his reavers and the way he was using them seemed 'off' to me and someone else at the store.

Turning into a debate where I wasn't convinced that he can just zigzag his way around the board but allowed it after some other people besides him seemed to interpret it as choice A aswell claiming that the rule didn't specify a 'straight line' which is infact true and i let it go

So I just wanted to ask around and see what other people thought or if this had been covered, because even reading the FAQ the 'not a straight line' argument seems does hold some weight even if my better judgement tells me that it makes no sense as mentioned by Yakface because you can simply just pick a random spot on the table and say you arrive there by zigzagging.

In previous editions of the game this 'zigzag turbo-boost' was prevented by the rule explicitly saying you must end your move a certain distance away from where you started.

 Akaiyou wrote:
In previous editions of the game this 'zigzag turbo-boost' was prevented by the rule explicitly saying you must end your move a certain distance away from where you started.

IIRC all the Turboboost has ever required a certain distance for is claiming the cover save for it. It also never required moving in a straight line though many people claim that to this day.

As for the Bladevanes option B. If it's not a straight line then you can actually claim to hit any unit anywhere on the table regardless of how the Reavers moved.

B is the only possible meaning of the rule. People who try to argue that it's not necessarily a straight line are not even trying to understand the ruling, and/or lack knowledge of basic geometry.

If it wasn't a straight line the ruling would be totally meaningless. Since playing that the ruling actually means nothing whatsoever is stupid and unproductive, the answer can only be B.

I completely agree the only LOGICAL conclusion seems to be chioce B here.

Yet with the actual RAW wording of both the codex and faq it allows for that squiggly line crap. Sigh...you'd think the faq at least would've made it clear enough to cover the loophole. Only thing I can hope is that other DE players use their reavers as depicted in option B

Anyone got email for gw customer service, perhaps bringing this loophole to someone's attention there might see it addressed in a future faq.

 Akaiyou wrote:
Yet with the actual RAW wording of both the codex and faq it allows for that squiggly line crap.

No it doesn't, in terms of geometric definitions, a line is straight, something with the properties of a line which isn't necessarily straight is not accurately referred to as a line, it's a curve or sometimes a curved line.

The term "line" is assumed to refer to a straight line as opposed to a curved line.

There really is no grounds for drawing anything other than a straight line between the start and end points for a bladevane attack.

The correct choice is B. You must straight line it.

However only one reaver bike needs to go over the target unit so that provides a lot of flexibility to the reavers...
For instance you could target unit A B or C by travelling an a straight line. However you could also go very oblique and plan on touching unit C with just the far left reaver bike... And still get 4d3 S4 and 2d6 S6 attacks on it...

Here are a couple things to help you convince them:

A) Lines can be either straight or curved.
B) The rules don't actually specify how long the line should be.

So, either you:
1) Go conservative. Draw a straight line from point A to point B.
2) Go the extreme. Draw a squiggly line 60 feet (or more!) long from point A to point B. since the line has no st length this is legal.
3) Go somewhere in between. But where? Nothing tells you how long to make it, unless you go with what "makes sense" (36"), but if you're arguing RAW you don't care about what makes sense.

You can either go RAI, go for absurdity, or go for an arbitrary result between that is not spelled ou anywhere to allow for consistency.