Caltrops are the new black. Question:

After playtesting in early. 6th, I decided that I preferred small units of Reavers shooting, so forewent on Caltrops.

Now that jink has changed, I anticipate using vanes and Caltrops instead, so can anyone answer, or link to a thread on, the following question:

Must the Turbocharge move be a straight line?

When I fight on a dense board, weaving a zigzag path round trees and down alleyways seems legit, but on Planet BowlingBall, zooming 17" over a squad, then u-turning and landing behind the same LOS blocker seems decidedly naughty.

Let's see what the rulebook says:
"Bikes and Jetbikes cannot Run, but can make a special Turbo-boost move instead of firing in their shooting phase" - p63

Then, further down, "if an Eldar Jetbike elects to Turbo-boost in the Shooting phase, it can move up to 36" (worth nothing that this applies to Eldar and Dark Eldar alike)

So Turbo-boost appears to be an additional Movement action, nothing that says that this must be in a straight line. Flipping back to the Movement phase section, there is nothing there either that says models move in a straight line. So, by strict RAW, it seems legit as there is no part of the rules that says you must move in a straight line, nor is there something that says you must finish your move X" away from the starting point. Still a bit cheeky, mind.

Only problem is that you draw a line between the start and end point of your Reavers movement and can only Bladevane a unit under that line. So you can't, for example, move 18" in one direction, bladevane a unit and then move back to your original position as there would be no line to draw between the start and end points.

Ah yes - looks like I should have read the reaver entry as well for specific things pertaining to bladevanes; you're quite correct, Count, thanks for the clarification!

So, in a nutshell - you don't -have- to turbo-boost in a straight line, but you kinda do to be able to smack things in the face on the way past.

Don't forget the 2d6" movement in the assault phase. With that, you could reach a new cover,
after bladevaning...

Zenotaph wrote:

Don't forget the 2d6" movement in the assault phase. With that, you could reach a new cover,
after bladevaning...

You can't do the 2D6 move if you have turbo boosted. Page 63 of the new rules in the box about eldar jetbikes

Damn. With 6th edition, that was a really helpful feature...

Zenotaph wrote:

Damn. With 6th edition, that was a really helpful feature...

No, it was illegal in 6e too!

In my local club we have always applied a more common sense interpretation to the bladevaning rule in that as you clearly don't have to move in a straight line under any circumstances it made sense to be able to bladevane units under the actual course the reavers would have taken to get from A to B. However RAW is definitely a straight line between start and finish, no matter whether you would have moved that way or not, stupid really but unlikely to get FAQed

EDIT: However under the new jink rules, baldevaning is definitely the way to go, it just requires a bit of planning and measuring before hand.

Count Adhemar wrote:

No, it was illegal in 6e too!

Really? Well, I don't think so, but it doesn't matter. 7th is here...

Thanks chaps, that's clear: 36" weaving path is cool, but the slice-by has to be on the straight A-B line. ;-)

If you don't mind can I just ask a quick question as I don't have my Codex with me.

1. Bladevaning can only hit one unit you moved over?
2. You can ignore cover when moving as long as you don't end your movement in cover?

JDrakeW wrote:

If you don't mind can I just ask a quick question as I don't have my Codex with me.

1. Bladevaning can only hit one unit you moved over?
2. You can ignore cover when moving as long as you don't end your movement in cover?  

2 - yes
1 - nearly, you can only hit one unit that is under the straight line between your start and end point. I know it seems counter intuitive but that's the RAW interpretation.

All it says is draw a line. Doesn't say draw a straight line. I'm arguing as devils advocate, in y group I only do straight lines as well. However, whose to say you can't make a "s" pattern??? I understand drawing a line then retracing steps. However, it does not specify that it must be straight. Like I said, I prolly will Continue to go straight, only for saving a ton of arguments and useless banter. Straight line or not, 36" is a long way.

In response to another thread. I have always used caltrops on my reavers. 3 lances or 5,000,000,000 hits with one pass over. I think I'll take the latter thank you . To me this was always a no brainer. My opponents usually cringe at the sight of reavers on the field

Zenotaph wrote:

Really? Well, I don't think so, but it doesn't matter. 7th is here...

It definitely was. Besides, if you can't reach some cover with a move of up to 36", you don't have enough terrain   

I've only ever played one board that had 'enough' terrain, and that is my friend's WIP Thousand Needles board.

doomseer11b wrote:

All it says is draw a line.  Doesn't say draw a straight line.  I'm arguing as devils advocate, in y group I only do straight lines as well.  However, whose to say you can't make a "s" pattern??? I understand drawing a line then retracing steps.  However, it does not specify that it must be straight.  Like I said, I prolly will Continue to go straight, only for saving a ton of arguments and useless banter.  Straight line or not, 36" is a long way.

In response to another thread.  I have always used caltrops on my reavers.  3 lances or 5,000,000,000 hits with one pass over.  I think I'll take the latter thank you .  To me this was always a no brainer.  My opponents usually cringe at the sight of reavers on the field

I have a huge problem with anyone trying to make the argument you can do 'non-straight lines.'

By mathematical definition, a line is automatically "straight." There is technically absolutely no such thing as a straight line...anything else is a curve. A line is a connection between two points that exists for infinity. Thus, to draw a line would mean you need 2 points and the shortest distance between the two forms the line. Any other shape of this 1-D geometry is a curve.

\math rant from an engineer

Post edited - Count Adhemar

Hence why i said playing devils advocate.  My friends and I had came to the same conclusion, not worded in the same way as you just have.  I dont bend the rules, I was assuming this was the tree of trust and we could discuss any and all possibilities.

There is a lot about this game that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if there was information on this that I wasnt privy too, I would've liked to see it.  Thank you, however for further clarifying the same conclusion we had came to though.  

/butt hurt rant from a guy in the Army

Post edited - Count Adhemar

I don't think he was directing that at you so much as generally addressing fallacious rules lawyering and advising against the same.   

doomseer11b wrote:

/butt hurt rant from a guy in the Army

No offence here but I can't see how being in the army has much relevance to the point maths and lines and that hookum is something an engineer needs to know but again if I get this wrong just add more apologise.

ligolski wrote:

I have a huge problem with anyone trying to make the argument you can do 'non-straight lines.'

By mathematical definition, a line is automatically "straight." There is technically absolutely no such thing as a straight line...anything else is a curve. A line is a connection between two points that exists for infinity. Thus, to draw a line would mean you need 2 points and the shortest distance between the two forms the line. Any other shape of this 1-D geometry is a curve.

\math rant from an engineer

I'm going to have to beg to differ on this. Both mathematically and through common usage, the term 'line' includes both straight and curved lines. The Oxford English Dictionary specifically defines a line as:

Quote :

1.1 Mathematics A straight or curved continuous extent of length without breadth.

Secondly, (mod hat on) I didn't really see any need for the personal comments here and have edited/deleted certain posts in order to keep the thread on topic - Count Adhemar

technically circles are infinitely small lines put together but if the rules specifically say "line" as in a singular line then i'm gonna have to go with the A-B idea

Mathematically definition of line A geometric figure formed by a point moving along a fixed direction and the reverse direction.

Barrywise wrote:

technically circles are infinitely small lines put together but if the rules specifically say "line" as in a singular line then i'm gonna have to go with the A-B idea

I agree that we should, on this occasion, consider the use of the word 'line' to mean a straight line. I'm merely pointing out that the very existence of the term "straight line" would seem to acknowledge the existence of non-straight, or curved, lines and that the dictionary also considers this to be the case.

Bah! so now we have to look at the RAW of the dictionary? Personally I like to make airplane noises as I swoop my reavers around terrain so I'm on the fence with this one. It would be more fluffy for the reavers to stay low to the ground and go around terrain so as to not get shot as much but RAW it seems like A-B. So i'd go with just adding it to the list of "things to discuss with your opponent before the game" and wait for the new dex