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.

Ok, so I understand that in 4th(?) edition, fleet was actually a movement rather than the ability to assault after running, which in the 5th edition, every unit/figure can do (run that is, not fleet). So we (my friends)have had heated discussions about fleet with regards to if it has to be announced or not. The BRB states that:

"There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, and even Fleett of Hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated the same. A unit with this rule may assault in the same turn in which it was run." Pg 75 - BRB

Now the way *I* read fleet, is that it more like a characteristic rather than an ability (even though the rule states ability, but for the purpose of this discussion we will use characteristic to define something that is iherent vs. ability which for this purpose gives you an either/or option). What I mean by this is that it is something that the characteristic inherently has and can be used without declaring during the shooting phase (by running) rather than fleet being an ability in terms of an either/or option in such a way that during the shooting phase I can either fleet D6 inches and assault if in range OR I can run D6 inches and not assault. Granted it would be just easier to declare I am fleeting rather than to argue it out, or to let the other player know which of my units have fleet, but would I be denied an assault in a tournament for not declaring I'm fleeting during 5th edition rules?

All fleet means is that they are allowed to assault after they run. If you are running and you have fleet you can assault after. TMK you don't have to declare that you are fleeting just that you are running. You might just want to say that you are fleeting if they are butthurt about it but just because you didn't say "fleeting" doesn't mean that you can't assault after IMHO.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as fleeting anymore.

You Declare you are running in the Shooting Phase, and if you have fleet, you may assault. If you don't, you can't.

It is THAT simple.

There is no such thing as "fleeting" in 5th edition. A unit which has the Fleet USR is not prohibited from launching an assault in the Assault Phase after running in the Shooting Phase.

Any reference to making a Fleet move in your codex should be treated as the unit in question having the Fleet USR.

The answer to your question is no, and anyone attempting to call you for not announcing you were fleeting deserves a good laugh. And then tell them you're using a Virus Grenade on them.

Ok, thats the way that I read it, and I'm not such a jerk player that I would not declare that I am going to use fleet with the player(s) in question as I do enjoy a smooth game of 40k rather than some of the heated "discussions" that we have some times.

except that declaring that your models are "fleeting" instead of "running" at a tournament might leave you open to even more heated "discussions" wherein the opponent informs you fleet doesn't exist and you can't roll a d6 then move that distance.

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather my opponents learn to play properly in such clear situations rather than have to play two different versions of warhammer 40k.

Declaring that your models are "fleeting" instead of "running, BTW they have fleet" is going to draw complaints from the same sort of people who complain about "rapid-firing" versus "firing rapid fire weapons".

solkan wrote:Declaring that your models are "fleeting" instead of "running, BTW they have fleet" is going to draw complaints from the same sort of people who complain about "rapid-firing" versus "firing rapid fire weapons".

It is a legitimate complaint.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:Declaring that your models are "fleeting" instead of "running, BTW they have fleet" is going to draw complaints from the same sort of people who complain about "rapid-firing" versus "firing rapid fire weapons".

It is a legitimate complaint.

I'm interested in your reasoning, as I don't understand what is complaint-worthy about saying "fleeting" or "rapid-firing", and I want to better understand the complaining mindset. Around here we mght corrct the player, but it's seen as not confusing or misleading, so no one would complain.

Note: I really want the information, this is not some sideways comment or jab.

Because there is no such thing as 'Fleeting' and there is no such thing as 'Rapid-firing'. Fleet is a rule which allows a unit with that rule to make an assault move after it runs. It's not a choice. a unit with Fleet can always decide to assault if eligible without any such declaration of 'Fleeting'.

Also a rapid-fire weapon's rate of fire is determined by the model's movement and the range to the target, etc. 'Rapid-firing' seems to indicate that you get a choice in how a rapid-fire weapon is fired which you do not get.

Ghaz wrote:'Rapid-firing' seems to indicate that you get a choice in how a rapid-fire weapon is fired which you do not get normally.

I assume you meant to say this(Relentless being the only exception I can think of, of course).

No. I said exactly what I meant.

Meh if you are going to get your panties in a bunch because I said that I'm rapid-firing, then I'm going to score you zero for sportsmanship. You know what is meant in that statement - there could be no other meaning than "firing a rapid fire weapon".

How are we to know what you meant? You're using a phrase that has no meaning in 5th edition, plus too many players still think they have a choice in the number of shots that they can fire. To me your choice of the term 'rapid-firing' means to me that you believe (mistakenly) that you can decide how many shots you can fire.

So, you are saying that you do not understand what someone is means when they say "I'm rapid-firing"? Its sort for "I'm firing these rapid-fire weapons". Assuming that someone does not know the rules because they do this is absurd. If I say I'm assaulting do I have to instead say "I'm using the assault rule to move 6" to come into...."....?

Why not just mention rapid fire after announcing your intent to shoot? Like so.

"I am shooting with this squad, by the way they have rapid fire weapons and get to shoot twice at this range."

And you don't seem to understand that people who play rapid-fire weapons WRONG are the ones who tend to use the term 'rapid-firing'. 'Rapid-firing' is NOT a synonym for firing a rapid-fire weapon any more than 'assaulting' is a synonym for firing an assault weapon or 'heavying' is a synonym for firing a heavy weapon.

So Gwar, how does this affect Ghaz's WAAAAGH?






/duckandcover

Brother Ramses wrote:So Gwar, how does this affect Ghaz's WAAAAGH?






/duckandcover

Simple. All it does is give fleet. It doesn't let you count as 6 for the Waaagh! anymore. So what you do, is Run, Call Waaagh! Then assault. No wounds for a roll of 1, no auto 6.

You still remain fearless though.

Yea, I know hence the /duckandcover. Nice new avatar btw.