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 want to start by saying I'm not a DE player but my best bro of the last 12 years is a DE player. So I do play vs. DE a good deal and have been trying to help him out building a fun 6th ed DE army. His 5th ed play style was an mixed assault ranged army but we need to adapt to the changes.

He loved using a unit of Reaver Jetbikes but in the last edition it was basically a very expensive throwaway.

So to the question!
(please correct me if I'm wrong or trying to alter the rules to my advantage) <- I'm only human

- Turbo Boost: Now it's done in the shooting phase and removed the restrictions of distance. Also if it's used you can't shoot or do anything in the assault phase "cough" cheaty Eldar extra 2D6 assault move

-Bladevanes: pg 29 of DE codex ... The non copping from the codex fast version is during the turbo boost pick two points create a line between them and swoop over and do some damage. The rule only states a line and not a straight line and this is where a discussion between "Flex Master Funk" and myself came up.

If you can do a loop and not just a straight line this unit gets way better. 12" move plus the 36" turbo boost you can possibly end in a spot that you will not auto lose your very expensive unit. Yes you have a 3+ cover on the turbo boost but just assault them with almost anything and they are gone.

"Flex Master Funk" still holds to it needing to being a straight line is that correct and am I totally butchering this rule?

Thanks!

It can curve around. Last edition turbo boost needed to be in a straight line. Not in this edition.

Additionally when determining targets for bladevanes, you *technically* have to randomize each hit. But since there are so many hits (if against paladins with different wargear it would take over 500 dice rolls just to allocate...) a house rule we have is wherever the reavers "clipped" the unit.

Additionally RAW reavers can bladevane flying MC. Though another house rule we have is that it's too ridiculous. Otherwise reavers are fun.

Thank you for the reply I had to re-post on Dakka as my best bro "Flex Master Funk" was not believing me on this one.

Just doing a check one more time about this as I have some people believing that a line is only ever a straight line via geometry definitions.


Thanks for the insight.

Balor wrote:Just doing a check one more time about this as I have some people believing that a line is only ever a straight line via geometry definitions.


Thanks for the insight.

Well... not by classic definitions. In Euclid's Elements:

2. A line is breadthless length.
....
4. A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

But that's being pedantic... then again, so are those people Just talk it over with them before hand.

It has to be a straight line, that is the only reasonable way to interpret the RAW.

It doesn't say to draw a line following the path the unit travels, it says to mark a start and end point and draw a line between them, if you don't enforce that that line has to be straight, then there's nothing forcing a Dark Eldar player to follow the path the unit travels, and they could just draw silly curvy lines that allow them to freely hit any unit on the board they want every time they bladevane, regardless of that unit's location.

dnptan wrote:Additionally when determining targets for bladevanes, you *technically* have to randomize each hit. But since there are so many hits (if against paladins with different wargear it would take over 500 dice rolls just to allocate...) a house rule we have is wherever the reavers "clipped" the unit.

What makes you say this, there's no rule to the best of my knowledge that says you randomize bladevane hits, bladevanes themselves certainly don't say it.

dnptan wrote:Additionally RAW reavers can bladevane flying MC. Though another house rule we have is that it's too ridiculous. Otherwise reavers are fun.

Is it safe to assume you extend this houserule to saying Flying MCs can't Vector Strike actual Flyers? That seems only fair...

Drunkspleen wrote:It has to be a straight line, that is the only reasonable way to interpret the RAW.

It doesn't say to draw a line following the path the unit travels, it says to mark a start and end point and draw a line between them, if you don't enforce that that line has to be straight, then there's nothing forcing a Dark Eldar player to follow the path the unit travels, and they could just draw silly curvy lines that allow them to freely hit any unit on the board they want every time they bladevane, regardless of that unit's location.

dnptan wrote:Additionally when determining targets for bladevanes, you *technically* have to randomize each hit. But since there are so many hits (if against paladins with different wargear it would take over 500 dice rolls just to allocate...) a house rule we have is wherever the reavers "clipped" the unit.

What makes you say this, there's no rule to the best of my knowledge that says you randomize bladevane hits, bladevanes themselves certainly don't say it.

dnptan wrote:Additionally RAW reavers can bladevane flying MC. Though another house rule we have is that it's too ridiculous. Otherwise reavers are fun.

Is it safe to assume you extend this houserule to saying Flying MCs can't Vector Strike actual Flyers? That seems only fair...

If you do not randomize the hits, how do you choose which models are taken out as casualties?

Use the end position of the jetbikes to determine who is closest

nosferatu1001 wrote:Use the end position of the jetbikes to determine who is closest

To clarify this is also my belief.

It's the defacto method of wounding for both shooting and assault (and while bladevanes fall into a grey area where they technically aren't either of these things, they need to inherit wound resolution from one of the two for us to know how to handle D3 S4 AP- hits)

Furthermore, cover (other than area terrain cover) would be determined from the end position of the Reavers too.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Use the end position of the jetbikes to determine who is closest

To clarify this is also my belief.

It's the defacto method of wounding for both shooting and assault (and while bladevanes fall into a grey area where they technically aren't either of these things, they need to inherit wound resolution from one of the two for us to know how to handle D3 S4 AP- hits)

Furthermore, cover (other than area terrain cover) would be determined from the end position of the Reavers too.

I would actually use the starting position to determine who is hit as that is the direction the attack came from.

 gaovinni wrote:

I would actually use the starting position to determine who is hit as that is the direction the attack came from.

That would be a reasonable houserule I wouldn't argue with, but obviously it requires the creation of some new ruling which doesn't exist.

Of some note is the new Tzeentch Screamers in the Chaos Daemons codex update, which are pretty much Identical to the Bladevane attack, clarifies within it's rules that you determine wounds based on who is closest to the unit after they have completed their move, so it seems to not only be RAW but the most likely FAQ result also given the precedent set by Screamers.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
It has to be a straight line, that is the only reasonable way to interpret the RAW.

It doesn't say to draw a line following the path the unit travels, it says to mark a start and end point and draw a line between them, if you don't enforce that that line has to be straight, then there's nothing forcing a Dark Eldar player to follow the path the unit travels, and they could just draw silly curvy lines that allow them to freely hit any unit on the board they want every time they bladevane, regardless of that unit's location.

This is the interesting part as it seems screamers can do just this as going anywhere during their turbo boost attack.... Just pointing it out.

Where does it say that Jetbikes can turn?

Where does it say that anything in a turbo boost has to go in a straight line or not allowed to turn?

Generally movement is limited to a straight line?
I could be wrong.

No movement is only limited to a straight line in a few things. Like ramming for instance and if it has a special rule. Note that turbo boost in not a jet bike only rule it just alters the existing rule to add the new bonuses and penalties.

 Makutsu wrote:
Generally movement is limited to a straight line?

Only if you can cite the rule that says that.

I could be wrong.

You are.

Balor wrote:
Where does it say that anything in a turbo boost has to go in a straight line or not allowed to turn?

Which is nothing to do with question,which is to do with drawing a line between two points. By definition this straight

I don't have the BRB right now so I couldn't quote the book.

I can draw a squiggly line between 2 points as well.

Quoted from dictionary.com:
"Mathematics . a continuous extent of length, straight or curved, without breadth or thickness; the trace of a moving point."

Quote from Codex:
"Trace an line between the two points"

That definition is wrong. An arc is a curved line.
Try the tenets of this forum

The definition is the same in the Oxford Dictionary.

Unless you want to say that Oxford Dictionary is wrong.

Quoted from Oxford Dictionary:
"Definition of arc
noun
1a part of the circumference of a circle or other curve.
a curved shape, or something shaped like a curve:
the huge arc of the sky
a curving trajectory:
he swung his flashlight in a wide arc
[as modifier] Mathematics indicating the inverse of a trigonometrical function.
[from the former method of defining trigonometrical functions by arcs]"

An arc could be a line, but a curved line is still a line or why else do they call it a curved line? or a squiggly line?

Tenets are beliefs not fact.

It also matters if GW uses mathematical definitions as gaming terms and I don't think they do.

Not using the Mathematics definition lets see what we have here:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/line?region=us&q=Line

the fundamental definition:
"a long, narrow mark or band:
a row of closely spaced dots will look like a continuous line"

there's a lot more of them but none of them says anything about a line MUST be straight.

straight used as an adjective here, it is used to describe the line, not incorporated into line itself.

Unless GW released their own version of a dictionary/language I don't see why a line has to be straight.

Most any reference to "line" is a straight line. Otherwise you will have some place their start point and end point and then "arc" the line from so that you hit everything on the board. The start and end point are only 18" apart but the skimmer will travel 30' before it gets there.

The tenets of this forum. Try reading them

A line is the shortest path between two points. When asked to draw a line a squiggly line would be able to hit any unit on the table, whiv is unlikely

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The tenets of this forum. Try reading them

A line is the shortest path between two points. When asked to draw a line a squiggly line would be able to hit any unit on the table, whiv is unlikely

I'm quoting you as you seem to know what you are doing or at least have a crazy amount postings.

The reason this has come up is two fold first screamers can go all crazy like with their new "Slash Attack" rule. Really the only major difference is not having the line and two point sentence.

The second part and more importantly is GW's use of the word "line" they have it stated as "straight line" in every instance but this one. I spent a lot of time before posting on here looking for another example where they talk about a line without the word "straight" in front of it. Even in the turbo boost you are subject to distance and all the movement rules. (looking at screamers laughing at DE Reavers if they have to go in a straight line)

Beyond people keep stating a straight line is the only type of line can someone locate another rule that deals with a line and that does not have it written as "straight line" in BRB or any codex? (currently valid codex or rule book please)

Also if every line is straight then why would they write "straight line" is most and in bladevanes just use "line". Find me another example and this thread can be locked as the debate will be settled.

Balor wrote:
Also if every line is straight then why would they write "straight line" is most and in bladevanes just use "line".

I think the leap of faith that they wrote that sentence to just mean "hit any unit on the board" is far larger than the "leap of faith" that they're using the standard colloquial terminology where a line is straight unless further qualified.

Balor wrote:
I spent a lot of time before posting on here looking for another example where they talk about a line without the word "straight" in front of it.
...
Find me another example and this thread can be locked as the debate will be settled.

I found it in the very first place I looked: Main rulebook, page 69, first sentence under "Beam". Did you really look??? Functionally identical wording. Do you think a Beam is meant to go anywhere on the board?

Don't forget the Vibro Cannon (Eldar) and Bladevanes (Dark Eldar)

@ Pyrain

Yes I did look around and thank you for finding it. This is all about context and how the word was used in reference to GW. I did go those all the codex's minus eldar as that is the only codex I do not own. I noted that ramming and tank shock was a straight line but if I had even considered the new psychic powers I would have not even have posted it.