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.

Incidentally, I noticed for the last few years that most of the arguments that go on for more than a couple of pages on YMDC are situations where somebody has assumed an "all" or "always" or "only" condition where it wasn't stated. Either that or somebody read "instead of" or "in lieu of" as meaning you had to be able to do it in the first place.

I wouldn't call the original argument here a loophole: the rules are clear in how they cover this case. It's also not a contradiction.

Or, to endlessly clarify myself even further...

Clearly, there's a difference between the statement:

Models with the "fleet" USR can assault after running.

And

Models with the "fleet" USR can *always* assault after running.

For example, there's a rule that says you can only assault if you're within assault range of your target. But if B is true and you can *always* assault, then you can ignore the restriction on being within assault range and just jump across the board any distance to assault. If you can *always* assault, then you can claim the USR allows you to assault units in reserve or inside transports or bypass Nightbringer's "can't assault me" powers just because you ran that turn.

Clearly a USR that relieves one restriction doesn't have any effect on other restrictions that are still out there.

I think I see how this works now and I admit that even i was in a grey area about all this. I see now that the one special effect can not undo the two restrictions. I have read through the rule and admit that there should possibly some clarification on this, as with the deep strike rule since the deep strike rule is VERY clear on fleet. I think this may just be an instance where the wording was good, but not perfect I agree with the majority and say that the two restrictions outway the one bonus, but I can see some of why some people are confused.

My eyes hurt after reading that.

Which of you guys are lawyers?

Oh come on as much as I play eldar and would love an advantage like that even I know thats not what the Fleet USR is. The rule is that fleet on a model allows you to assault after running by forfeiting your shooting. Just because you can take advantage of that extra move during the shooting phase don't mean you can assault after the tank has moved. The tank rules clearly say that if the tank moves (except for the free pivot before movement) you can not assault. The fleet rule is just saying that if you use the running rule that everyone and there brother now has you can go ahead and assault after that move. Nothing at all about the fact it allows you to go ahead and assault out of a tank after its movement.

Astalado wrote:Models that disembark from a vehicle before it has moved may move, shoot and assault.

Models that disembark from a vehicle after it has moved may shoot, but cannot move or assault.

Models that disembark from an OPEN TOPPED vehicle after it has moved may shoot and assault, but not move.

In any of the above cases you can forgo shooting to run, but you will not be able to assault after running unless you have the fleet move. (this answers the original question, being that if you disembark a vehicle, you can then run, and assault after fleeting)

To be perfectly honest, I would want to know SPECIFICALLY what your question was, because I think this guy has the impression in last secion in the quoted stuff above, that you were referring to a vehicle that had not moved. In any case, take my word for it, if you call the GW people about rule questions ten times, you might very well get ten different answers.

For my two cents, this topic has gone on long enough. It is utterly ridiculous to think that the fleet rule has the ability to override anything other than what it specifically mentions in its own entry. If it says you cannot assault, YOU CAN'T ASSAULT! Bottom line. Like I tell most, play the way you wish, but good luck finding anyone to play with if you use that kind of rule bending.

Stelek wrote:

Which of you guys are lawyers?

I'm not a lawyer, but I teach them.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Stelek wrote:

Which of you guys are lawyers?

I'm not a lawyer, but I teach them.

Wow... yet in person you seem... human... Nice disguise.

I enjoy reading Flava Flav's logicalness.

Astalado wrote:The deepstrike rules specifically say you may not assault even if you have fleet. (pg 96 of 5th ed rule book)

If they did not want us to use fleet after disembarking a vehicle, wouldn't they have specifically stated this here as well? Since they specifically stated it in the deepstrike rules, you would think they would state it in the disembarking area as well. -if they think about "fleet of foot" for one rule, wouldn't they have thought about this for the other rules, if they didn't want it to be used as well?
just my point of view..........

Here's the problem with your logic, dude.
GW rules are not permissive. They are exclusionary.
This means that you can only do something if the rules specifically say you can.

The rules do not specifically say that fleet allows you to run then charge after disembarking. The argument you're using above DOESN'T specifically say you CAN'T. There's a difference. Yes means yes, no means no, and no answer... means no.

Eric

lol, this is the most amazing thread that I've read in a week or two.

So, I can actually see both sides of the arguement. I wish that models that have fleet could assault out of moving transports, but somehow, I don't think that'll be the case when such things are clarified by those on high.

To take a moment a play devil's advocate, however, let's look at another, paralleling USR.

Eternal Warrior: "The model is immune to the effects of the instant death rule."

Normally:

I shoot your Farseer with a meltagun.
He fails his save.
He dies, since Str 8 >= 2T

Now, if that farseer had Eternal Warrior,
I shoot your Farseer with a meltagun.
He fails his save.
USR takes effect to stop his death by overruling a general rule.
He takes 1 wound.


Now, with Fleet, a model that has run Can Assault on the turn that it ran.

So, let's follow the form.

Normally.
I disembark from a Falcon that's moved 12."
I decide to run, since I want to be behind that cover over there.
I cannot assault.

Now, if I had fleet:
I disembark from a Falcon that's moved 12."
I choose to run towards that juicy space marine over there.
USR takes effect to allow me to assault after running by overrulling a general rule.


Bwahahaha.

Have fun.

banik wrote:
I disembark from a Falcon that's moved 12."
I choose to run towards that juicy space marine over there.
USR takes effect to allow me to assault after running by overrulling a general rule.

You're reiterating the same argument, Banik, and it's still wrong for the same reason.

The USR overrules the general restriction on assaulting after *running,* but not the restriction on assaulting after *disembarking.*

Does "fleet" say the words can always? If yes then you can fleet out of a CT vehicle. If not then no.

"There are many variants of this rule, Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated as the same. A unit with this rule may assault in the same turn in which it has run."


Its worded "may assault" meaning in Urban English (rather than queens): teah restricktion haz all ben removed and like but other lawz appliez.

Which in US standard means: It can assault after running (but not always)

There after explaining it in 3 forms of English I think this topic can rest now.

banik wrote:lol, this is the most amazing thread that I've read in a week or two.

So, I can actually see both sides of the arguement. I wish that models that have fleet could assault out of moving transports, but somehow, I don't think that'll be the case when such things are clarified by those on high.

To take a moment a play devil's advocate, however, let's look at another, paralleling USR.

Eternal Warrior: "The model is immune to the effects of the instant death rule."

Normally:

I shoot your Farseer with a meltagun.
He fails his save.
He dies, since Str 8 >= 2T

Now, if that farseer had Eternal Warrior,
I shoot your Farseer with a meltagun.
He fails his save.
USR takes effect to stop his death by overruling a general rule.
He takes 1 wound.


Now, with Fleet, a model that has run Can Assault on the turn that it ran.

So, let's follow the form.

Normally.
I disembark from a Falcon that's moved 12."
I decide to run, since I want to be behind that cover over there.
I cannot assault.

Now, if I had fleet:
I disembark from a Falcon that's moved 12."
I choose to run towards that juicy space marine over there.
USR takes effect to allow me to assault after running by overrulling a general rule.


Bwahahaha.

Have fun.

well, that argument would only work if the Fleet USR stated that it "ignored the effects of disembarking from a moving vehicle"

Mods, I think this has gone on long enough,... let's lock it and leave it.

banik wrote:<Comparison of Eternal Warrior overriding instant death caused by double Strength to fleet overriding disembark and assault restrictions>

The comparison to instant death and eternal warrior is so not fitting though, because a weapon with a Str double the target's Toughness specifically causes instant death and eternal warrior specifically overrides instant death. Fleet however only specifically overrides run, it has nothing to do with disembarking from transports and overriding those restrictions.

To those saying Fleet doesn't overrule disembarking, by your logic, I can say that that Eternal Warrior doesn't affect HtH wounds, or something ridiculous like that.

It says, simply, if you run and you have fleet, you can assault that turn.

It doesn't says that if you have fleet and run, you can only assault if you're touching your nose, if your unit is ninety-eleven models, or if you didn't assault 3 turns ago.

You're reading into the rules.


Now, for the record, I'll bet that when this is FAQ'd, it'll be just as the majority say, but RAW, I think it's allowed.

Anyway, that's enough of this thread for me- fun though ;-)

banik wrote:To those saying Fleet doesn't overrule disembarking, by your logic, I can say that that Eternal Warrior doesn't affect HtH wounds, or something ridiculous like that.

No you can't.

It says, simply, if you run and you have fleet, you can assault that turn.

No it doesn't. It says "A unit with this rule may assault in the same turn in which it has run."


That grants a grand total of one exception the normal rules: The unit may still assault when it runs, which is normally not allowed.

It doesn't says that if you have fleet and run, you can only assault if you're touching your nose, if your unit is ninety-eleven models, or if you didn't assault 3 turns ago.

You're reading into the rules.

And it doesn't say that a unit with fleet may always assault on the turn it runs.

The disembarking rules have a separate restriction that doesn't allow units to assault after disembarking from a vehicle that moved.

That is a rule you cannot break without express permission, and the fleet rule in no way grants any kind permission to break that rule.

Now, for the record, I'll bet that when this is FAQ'd, it'll be just as the majority say, but RAW, I think it's allowed.

Anyway, that's enough of this thread for me- fun though ;-)

It will never be FAQ'd because there is no logical argument allowing it to happen. In fact, you haven't even attempted to present a logical argument, instead you've posted a bunch of circumstantial alternate examples that don't correspond to the actual issue at hand.

Now, if that farseer had Eternal Warrior,
I shoot your Farseer with a meltagun.
He fails his save.
USR takes effect to stop his death by overruling a general rule.
He takes 1 wound.

I would love a Farseer with EW.
If anyone knows of one let me know.

banik wrote:To those saying Fleet doesn't overrule disembarking, by your logic, I can say that that Eternal Warrior doesn't affect HtH wounds, or something ridiculous like that.

It says, simply, if you run and you have fleet, you can assault that turn.

It doesn't says that if you have fleet and run, you can only assault if you're touching your nose, if your unit is ninety-eleven models, or if you didn't assault 3 turns ago.

You're reading into the rules.


Now, for the record, I'll bet that when this is FAQ'd, it'll be just as the majority say, but RAW, I think it's allowed.

Anyway, that's enough of this thread for me- fun though ;-)

This is as simple as I can make it so here goes:

Excellent visual description. This is the way it works; anyone who disagrees, find actual support IN THE RULES to refute it, or get your head out of the sand, or get out of the game.

I love the door. Sticky that !

I could make a Template for that door for further rules discussions

I do believe that image was the straw that broke the camles back for bring me over.

it's about time you "broke your back"!!!

Thread like a train wreck...

Dunno if anyone still cares but the FAQ did come out and the answer was no. Proof that you can be right and a jack !

Also I love the little warning about losing my peers respect, that things hilarious, and I thought this might help some people newer to the game how just Google questions that come up in game, like me.

Silveralen, please review the forum rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Posts in a topical thread that has been dormant for several weeks ("thread necromancy") will result in the thread being closed.