Bladevanes

I have a few questions for the forum about bladevanes, if you’ll indulge me!

The rule for turbo-boosting (rulebook p45) places no restrictions on direction of movement, i.e. it does not have to be in a straight line.
The rule for bladevanes (codex p29) instructs players to ‘trace an imaginary line’ between the start and end point of the turbo-boost move (the Screamers ‘slashing attack’ move in the Daemon codex seems a lot simpler and more intuitive don’t you think?).
However, it also does not say that this should be a straight line, so surely the line can curve? Taken to extremes (by RAW), the line could make a grand tour of the table before arriving at the ‘end point’, allowing you to bladevane any unit on the table without actually having to move anywhere near them!
Of course, that is a far-fetched interpretation - I play it simply that the line follows the movement of the RJB squad.

• But how do the rest of you interpret it?

Also:

• Can units ‘go to ground’ in response to a bladevane attack?

• And, can characters attempt LOS rolls in response to bladevane hits being randomised to them?

These last two are sort of the same question – both are responses your opponent can make in the shooting phase, but neither rule specifies that they are triggered by a shooting attack (though on p26, the assault phase LOS rule does open with “As with shooting attacks...”).
Or, put another way: Bladevanes is an attack in the shooting phase, but is it a ‘shooting attack’?

Hope to hear your thoughts on these!

PS I’m not telepathic, that’s just a figure of speech – I know psykers aren’t welcome here

I've never had anyone complain about be moving 4" to the left and the rest to the right to

This actually came up in a battle I played Friday.

I had historically been tracing my path as you suggest. Not just in a straight line.

However the RAW as you point out are actually fairly clear. Setting aside the logic of what you say (which does make sense) it does have to be in the straight line.

I guess i can wrap my head around it from the standpoint that if you're trying to run someone down (as you are with a bladevane) then you'd have to focus and charge straight at him. Whereas if you're just driving fast, you can meander.

What it also does, is remove any subjectivity or doubt about where you moved, and whether your bike squad flew over the opponent's squad or not (i.e. simplifies game play).

As far as LOS and go to ground. It hasn't come up for us, but I would think that you do get them as it is basically a "shooting attack".

The problem with bladevane attacks is that 40k normally doesn't trace movement paths. You just measure the distance and put the unit in the new place, so if you want to hit a unit in between you'll have to use the faq's method of marking start and end point and drawing a line.
If that line has to be straight or not, is disputed. Some say that a line should always be straight, others that there is a difference between a line and a straight line.
I'm not versed well enough in the English language to argue about that, but in German it is a big difference, although translations aren't a good source for interpretations.

After all it depends on you and your gaming group. If you want to keep it simple, agree to use a straight line, if you want to have a more realistic solution just trace the reaver's movement.

Regarding the other questions. Bladevanes may be an unusual attack and definitely aren't a gun, but I don't see any reason, why it shouldn't be treated as a shooting attack. It definitely isn't a close combat attack.

I've always just taken my tape measure and bent it around in the path that I want to travel. That way we still know how far the reavers have travelled but you can say where they travelled with some degree of accuracy.

The FAQ makes it clear you can't do any curved line bladevane shenanigans.

Quote :

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 underthe line between the two markers can then be chosen to be the target of the attack.

On another note the mathematical definition of a line means that it is always straight.

Note that the FAQ answer only says "Should confusion arise", so technically you're still free to do whatever you want as long as it's not confusing.

Mushkilla wrote:

The FAQ makes it clear you can't do any curved line bladevane shenanigans.

Quote :

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 underthe line between the two markers can then be chosen to be the target of the attack.

On another note the mathematical definition of a line means that it is always straight.

Ok, thanks - missed that in the FAQ ('cos I searched under 'reaver' & 'bladevane', missing the 's' at the end of those words!)
I still think it could be clearer though. It is also needlessly abstract ...you could easily bladevane a unit that you actually went nowhere near during the turboboost. I suppose it was to make it harder for reavers to pull off an attack (they typically end up deep in your opponents half after the move), but the Screamers get no such restrictions.

Alright, grumble over- though i do wonder if the bods at GW are really aware of the mathematical definition of a line! The common, everyday use of the word allows a line to deviate and curve, and that's usually how they write their stuff.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Note that the FAQ answer only says "Should confusion arise", so technically you're still free to do whatever you want as long as it's not confusing.

Yes, a strangely worded reply. Sorta, like, y'know, if you want...

I just chose the root of least madness and for me that's defining it as a straight line. I still think the omission of straight from the definition of turbo-boosting was a mistake on GWs part, as it was there in 5th.

It's to prevent someone turbo-boosting, then shoot several units - and at the end of the phase going "on and btw I bladevane that unit over there".

Because that might create some confusion after you have moved your reavers half way over the board.

If you declare your bladevane target before you move, I have a hard time seeing how that could be the cause of any confusion.

What I tend to do is use a couple of dice to plot out my path in a series of lines. It makes it clear what path you followed, has discreet points for measurement and lets me have a bit more control as to where I end up. The way I see it, as long as you aren't doing ridiculous U-turn and hard banking shenanigans, a few slight turns before you bladevane an enemy unit makes sense.

I like thaotic's way of doing it, plotting a line with the dice.

For simplicity's sake, even though it may reduce our options, I would just keep it as a straight line. Then you don't get into an argument with your opponent about where the Reavers were.

Real Dark Eldar bladevane in straight lines.

Back in second edition, there was a lot of confusion with swooping hawks.
They could drop grenades on the heads of enemy models they flew over.

But it was almost impossible to get hawks to overfly an enemy model and land in coherency AND do so in a straight line
You would have squads of ten dropping two grenades.

I would let the other guy use the bendy tape measure, but I wouldnt be prepared to argue over doing it myself.

DominicJ wrote:

But it was almost impossible to get hawks to overfly an enemy model and land in coherency AND do so in a straight line
You would have squads of ten dropping two grenades.

I don't see that being a problem. All the reavers don't need to pass over the unit in order to do their hits, the target unit just needs to be under the line between the start and then end point of the reaver squad. Mark point A, mark point B trace a line between the two. Resolve all the hits on a unit under the line. Done. This means effectively you only need one reaver to pass over the unit to do all the hits.

Quote :

Once the move is complete, the unit inflicts... per reaver on one unengaged, non-vehicle unit that lies under the line. - DE codex page 29

Come on guys it's not that hard, the FAQ even explains how you do it! You're all making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Quote :

I've always just taken my tape measure and bent it around in the path that I want to travel. That way we still know how far the reavers have travelled but you can say where they travelled with some degree of accuracy.

This is also what I do.

No confusion whatsoever.

Real dark eldar "bend" the rules

It's not hard at all - you can even do the u-turn if you like. I can't even see why this is an issue as screamers do it all the time.

I, also, use the bent tape method. The dictionary definition of a curve is that it is a line. Some people like to cry about it not being a straight line, as they say that it breaks the bladevane and gives it infinite range, but the bladevane rules specify that the Reaver squad has to have passed over the target unit, thereby limiting your curve to 36".

Link to definition

Note the first definition: A continuously bending line without angles.

If the FAQ entry said to replace any part of the bladevane rules then I would consider it being a change and not a clarification, but it does not say to replace the existing verbage, meaning that the original rules stand.

Ok, thanks for all the feedback everyone, very handy

In summary, bladevaning is probably intended to be a slightly abstract straight line attack (though in my opinion should be FAQed to match the way that Screamers attack), but there is room to interpret it as a more literal "over-flying" attack depending on how your opponent responds to it.

And I take it eveyone agrees that your opponent can GTG and LOS in response?


@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.

@thaotic
Interesting to note that Screamers can perform U-turns (as Septimus says) and other shennigans while making a basically identical attack. In fact, they could circle all the way back to their starting position! And they can hit vehicles (though only in the side armour - chariot sweep attacks hit the rear armour for some reason)
There are a ton of other discrepencies between bladevanes and other very similar attacks (chariot sweep attacks, vector strikes), such as how hits are allocated, or whether or not cover saves are permitted, but I won't list them.

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

Tony Spectacular wrote:

but the bladevane rules specify that the Reaver squad has to have passed over the target unit

Re-read the bladevane rules there is no such line.

Quote :

Mark the start and the end points of the unit's move, and trace an imaginary line between two points. Once the move is complete, the unit inflicts D3 S4 AP- hits per Reaver on one unengaged, non vehicle uni that lies under the line, resolved immediately. - Page 29

I think you're getting confused with screamer slash attack rules. Screamers can do U-turns or whatever the hell they want. The sad thing is I'm sure GW is completely unaware that screamers can do U turn manoeuvres etc. They are completely incapable of thinking outside the box when it comes to rules testing.

It would be nice to have some more consistency.

I just re-read them and you're right. Huh. I was positive that that line read 'unengaged, non vehicle unit that they passed over'. Well. I suppose that the RAW folks that want to cry about anything other than a straight line being broken have a case. I'll still play it the way that I do, making sure to clarify with opponents I don't normally play with, and getting a ruling from a TO before tourneys.

And yeah, stealth, shrouded, area, and GtG are all applicable, as well as LOS. I don't think an ADL would apply though, as you passed right over the unit in question

"That lies under the line" seems pretty clear cut?

Or have I missed something?

DominicJ wrote:

"That lies under the line" seems pretty clear cut?

Or have I missed something?

No you haven't, it's pretty clear cut from the reaver rules that you trace a line between start(A) and finish(B), and it is therefore straight. A single unit under that line gets the hits. Which is what I have been saying for the last few posts.

It's also worth remembering that in 5th, when these rules were designed you had to finish your turbo boost move at least 18" away from your starting point (if I remember correctly).

I have been emailing GW repeatedly to just give us the screamer rules (minus the being able to target vehicles), as it would solve a lot of the muck you need to clear up with your opponent before a game when it comes to bladevaning (randomizing being one of them), but I have had no luck.

Mushkilla wrote:

it's pretty clear cut from the reaver rules that you trace a line between start(A) and finish(B), and it is therefore straight.

Hey, it's perfectly valid to trace a wiggly line between those points!

While the FAQ seems to suggest that it's supposed to be a straight line, they really do need to include the word "straight" in the rule. Given Reavers are skilled riders, it's not infeasible that they'd swerve and weave - I dare say that it's actually the more strategic thing to do.

The problem with the squiggly line is it can hit anything on the board, it has unlimited range! As the rules don't mention the reavers having to pass over the unit.

The sooner they give us the screamer rules the better, really. Fixes this debate, and more importantly fixes randomisation!

Except it doesn't have unlimited range because you can only turbo-boost upto 36". So no matter how wiggly the line, it still can't be any longer than 36". Granted, that's still a lot of range.