Bladevanes

The problem, Erebus, is that they don't specify that the line is limited to the length of the turbo boost move. Of course we'll all play it like that, but the rules lawyers say that if it's not a straight line there is no control limiting the length of the line.

Quote :

@Septimus
I would think that you roll to hit and wound at the time that you bladevane - you can't make the move, shoot with some other units, then roll for the bladevane attacks. That would be a very unusual departure from the way 40k normally works.

Exactly, I roll number of hits and to wound as soon as I have finished my turbo-boost moves - and declare which unit I'm going to bladevane before moving any reavers.

Quote :

They are completely incapable of thinking outside the box when it comes to rules testing.

I think they are completely incapable of play testing.

Quote :

Real Dark Eldar would never tolerate the lesser races having a better game mechanic than them!

Funny thing is, if you do a slash attack, as it's called for screamers, and fly over an ADL - there is absolutely no argument as to which direction the wounds have to be allocated from.

End position of screamers to nearest enemy model that has been slashed.

So no cover save for enemies behind the ADL.

I always introduce an opponent that is unfamiliar with DE to the screamer rule and explain why it is better for both of us. I haven't had any one choose the DE rule yet - and yes, my opponents do get the choice.

Tony Spectacular wrote:

The problem, Erebus, is that they don't specify that the line is limited to the length of the turbo boost move. Of course we'll all play it like that, but the rules lawyers say that if it's not a straight line there is no control limiting the length of the line.

Exactly, As soon as you break the "straight line" rule, you open up a whole can of worms like "I turbo 2" to the left, and Ill trace the line from the starting point and wrap 2ft straight up, turn over top your devs, and come back to where they currently are. That is their path. And I only went 2"... so yah"

Its definitely a grey area that can be opened to a whole lot of abuse.

I'm with Thaotic on this one, especially since rules on turning in 6th ed are clear that a model rotates on its central axis when it turns (they detail it for vehicles, but we all do it for units too - no turning on the edge of the base).

So, ultimately, even if the reavers do a zigzag pattern, it can - and to me should - be defined as a series of straight lines. What I do is mark each turn with tokens, add all the straight lines and make sure the whole sum stays under 36". The added bonus is that each of those lines can be used to define exactly what units I flew over and can target for bladevaning. No fuss, no muss, no questions.

While applying the RAW would be simpler, it does open fringe issues of its own. One example I once actually ran into : in a big game, I was fighting Necrons who had TWO Monoliths on the table, bracketing some of their units and covering their flanks. When I ran my reavers around them, I stayed within the 36" - but the "straight line" would have passed through both Monoliths and their bracketed troops. I could have bladevaned the troops according to the RAW even though my reavers never once came within even 6" of the models, with the Monoliths playing to role in the resolution. Would that have made sense?

I think sticking to a straight line is more in the sprirt of the thing otherwise you could boot 18" from cover - bladevane over a unit, turn around and dive back into cover which I don't believe would be the intention.

netphenix wrote:

While applying the RAW would be simpler, it does open fringe issues of its own. One example I once actually ran into : in a big game, I was fighting Necrons who had TWO Monoliths on the table, bracketing some of their units and covering their flanks. When I ran my reavers around them, I stayed within the 36" - but the "straight line" would have passed through both Monoliths and their bracketed troops. I could have bladevaned the troops according to the RAW even though my reavers never once came within even 6" of the models, with the Monoliths playing to role in the resolution. Would that have made sense?

But the rules are clear you could bladevane the warriors. Where's the problem? If you want a fluff explanation the reavers just went into a dive after the first monolith, and pulled up before the second monolith. Also a series of straight lines doesn't change this as it would be up to the player to change his course to not go over the monoliths, he would have no rule obligation to do so.

Again the sooner they just give us the screamer rules the better. Though I still find curves a bit silly. With only a single straight line reavers take a bit more thought/planning to use and that's part of the fun, but that's just my opinion. Though if we did get the screamer rules I would use the series of straight lines, the way you (netphenix) explained, as I think it makes the most sense in that case.

On another note, big thanks to everyone so far for keeping this discussion civil. I really appreciate it.

You' re welcome. I'm a fan of these kind of threads, so if I may add my 2 cents.

Everything sounds reasonable and fine to me, except the fact that some of you think you can move the Reavers in a zigzag fashion while turbo-boosting, hitting all the units on the board, by RAW (ofcourse I know you fella's would never do that by RAI right... right?! Lol). I can't say by RAW that you have to fly the reavers in a straight line, but IMHO by RAW you have to abide the to the 36" of turboboosting. Nog because of page 45, turbo-boosting. But because of the general rules for moving on page 10.

So, in short, zigzagging is fine I guess (although I play the straight line myself like mush), aslong as you abide to the 36" by measuring your move exactly.

Thronin, I agree totally. Hence my "bend the tape measure" approach. All I do is place the tape measure over the Reavers, extend to the desired movement distance and then bend it to see if it will take me where I want to go. I've never had anyone have any complaints over this approach as it complies with the maximum move distance, makes it clear where you are travelling and shows who is a target for bladevaning.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Thronin, I agree totally. Hence my "bend the tape measure" approach. All I do is place the tape measure over the Reavers, extend to the desired movement distance and then bend it to see if it will take me where I want to go. I've never had anyone have any complaints over this approach as it complies with the maximum move distance, makes it clear where you are travelling and shows who is a target for bladevaning.

But does that mean you could bend the tape back on itself? - I'm not suggesting you would but there are unscrupulous people out there and so what angle would be acceptable when changing direction? Or am I overthinking this?

In theory I guess I could but it's never really occurred to me. I tend to either go in a long curve or x inches to a certain point, change direction and go y inches to somewhere else.

I just think it's silly that you could move your models in a long curve from A to B but not be able to target a unit you moved over whilst being able to target a unit you never went within a mile of.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I just think it's silly that you could move your models in a long curve from A to B but not be able to target a unit you moved over whilst being able to target a unit you never went within a mile of.

Such is GW rulings... I thought you would be used to this by now

Quote :

Though I still find curves a bit silly.

I kinda like curves

Quote :

But does that mean you could bend the tape back on itself? - I'm not suggesting you would but there are unscrupulous people out there and so what angle would be acceptable when changing direction? Or am I overthinking this?

What's unscrupulous about it? If screamers can do it, why shouldn't reavers?

Yes, you can indeed bend the tape back on itself, as long as you stop at the 36" mark you're good to go.

The straight line stuff is only in case of any confusion.

Quote :

I think sticking to a straight line is more in the sprirt of the thing otherwise you could boot 18" from cover - bladevane over a unit, turn around and dive back into cover which I don't believe would be the intention.

Why is that a problem?

You turbo-boost so you already get a 3+ cover save. Skilled rider can only improve your jink save, a cover save from terrain cannot be improved by skilled rider according to p.41.

I suppose its up to the individual then. Personally I'm sticking to a straight line but its interesting to see other people's take on it.

You know surfer, I for one - and I doubt I'm the only one - wouldn't play Dark Eldar if I wasn't somewhat unscrupulous at heart. Were I all about fairness and comradeship, I'd play SoB or Ultramarines. DE win games by being mean pricks. So yeah, I have no problem doing a turbo-boosted U-turn. That's what DE would do in real life.

netphenix wrote:

That's what DE would do in real life.

On the contrary Dark Eldar are all about being arrogant, superfluous and humiliating.

It's not about the mindless kill, or dirty tricks. It's all about the high speed inverse double decapitation whilst being on your webwayshrieker slagging off your rival, who tragically couldn't make the real space raid because you trashed his bike in a drug fuelled haze the night before.

Why? Because you can.

Quote :

On the contrary Dark Eldar are all about being arrogant, superfluous and humiliating.

Well yes. That too.