Reavers and bladevaves - turbo boosting movement

I have read quite a few rules discussions around the web, arguing whether or not Reavers MUST turbo boost in a straight line or if they can turn while turbo boosting as long as they move no longer than 36". while some valid points are for both arguments I havent quite found a final verdict yet on the subject. My reasoning tells me that they can turn while boosting and their distance can be measured as simply as having a piece of string 36" long that you layout from their starting point and measure their movement that way cris-crossing across the battlefield hopefully finding cover at the end of the string, resulting in no doubt about how far they moved and if they could have moved over an enemy unit during the turbo boost. Thoughts?

I've just checked the rulebook, and Turbo-Boosting says its a move instead of shooting in the shooting phase, so in theory, like a run, there's nothing saying it has to be in the same direction as your movement from the movement phase.


(Although it raises the point, reading it now, that an Eldar Jetbikes turbo move in 36"......so that's on top of the existing 12" move....?! Do my turbo have a longer range than I thought?!)

Yes its an additional 36" on top of the 12" movement, meaning you can move 12" to position yourself for a turbo boost move of an additional 36" for a total of 48''. Now what im looking for an answer to is if there is more freedom of movement in the 36" move than most realize or take advantage of.

Just to be most specific to the type of turbo boost move i am referring to, here is an extreme example: lets say im standing ready to turbo boost across the battlefield towards an enemy unit 15-ish" away from me. I am currently standing in LOS blocking cover and dont want to expose myself to enemy fire after having turbo boosted across the enemy unit and into the open. Can i turbo boost over the enemy and back to my original position which will use less than my 36" movement? In this example i would have used 15" each way for a total of 30" .


4a. Please refrain from double posting. You may "bump" a post every 48hrs if you feel you are not getting responses. Double posts in project logs are acceptable. /Your friendly mod SS

edit: spelling

To Bladevane an enemy, you draw a line between the start and end positions of the Reavers and hit one enemy non-vehicle unit under that line, so you wouldn't be able to Bladevane a unit and go back to your starting position.

A line yes, but it does not say a straight line. Imagine that line bending and turning. I cant find a rule saying that it must be in a straight line.

Technically yes, but there is nothing explicitly stating that the line drawn has to be 36" in length, or correspond to the units actual move in any respect other than its start and end points, at which point RAW becomes an infinite range attack. However, it's pretty clear what the intention is, and pushing rules interpretations to their extreme is a fruitless task. I personally always interpret it as a straight line as I think that was how it was intended - it is a powerful attack and it has to have some built in limitations to create some tactical thought in its use. It also just feels right to have a unit screaming straight towards its target. I don't imagine most opponents would mind if you used a slight curve, but starting and ending on the same point may cause a pretty high degree of dissatisfaction in your opponents, regardless of it's legality.

Yes i agree with your points and find them valid and reasonable thinking how powerful the bladevanes attack would become. I am just trying to push the rules to the limit, so to speak. It would not become an infinite length attack if the entire path of the movement was traced by a piece of string 36" in length, which could allow for a curve in the movement which would never exceed 36" but if it were to be allowed to curve the path even slightly during the turbo boost, how big of a curve would be allowed before its considered too much?

Heck im most likely stretching it but i just want to find the rules to back up the claims that we cant do it rather than not do it because it probably wasnt intended to be used like that. But I like questioning things like this and debating them in a friendly environment:)

It's a reasonable enough question. I suspect there will be no definitive answer and its just one more thing you have to add to the list of "things to discuss with your opponent before the game". There may be some mileage in considering the implications of the wound allocation FAQ, but I don't suppose it would decide it. Sorry for the abbreviated reply, out on my mobile.

Generally I feel that it ought to be a straight line, and if you want to end up out of sight, you have a 12" move to pick a good start, then the 36" one to slice and hide.

We have bent this when playing cityfights in my group though, as screaming through sewer tunnels on a table full of Terraclips scenery, and swinging through bends is epic! We played it as a turn taken during a Bladevane move causes a dangerous terrain test (ignoring Skilled Rider).

The mathematical definition of a line makes it "straight." Technically speaking there is no such thing as a straight line. Its either a line or a curve.

Thus RAW and following generally well know definitions of line, its "straight."

Ligolski, i think you settled the debate. Your logic is solid

sephiroth081184 wrote:

Ligolski, i think you settled the debate. Your logic is solid

yay! 6 years of college have paid off!

yep. darn straight.

per the FAQ

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.

therefore.... straight line.