So how does the tau target lock work since there is no target priority test no more? As far as I can tell reading different FAQs you cant use it. Here is the FAQ that I am baseing it on. It is from the rule book FAQ

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

Two words:
It Doesn't.

Some more words:
Please remove the line breaks, it makes it a lot more readable.

The way i read that is that you ignore the rule that says you require a target priority test to use the TL. The first rule of the TL is that "All Firing in the unit must declare before hit roles are made". The second rule is "One Target Priority test is made for the unit" and since this rule has no effect it does nothing.

Nowhere does it say a Target priority test MUST be made to use the TL it only explains how the target priorty test affects it and since there is no such thing as a target priority test anymore you are not required to make it.

You never ignore rules (unless of course you and your opponents agree to it). If something doesnt work or has been taken out with the publication of a new codex or rule book, the skill/ability is broken and does not work. Its like Thornback for the 'nids. It basically has no effect at all whatsoever in the game. Not If I remember right, TL does not require a target priority test (please quote page if I am missing something) so I dont think you would have to take one, but the question is about target priority check and not TL if I read correctly.

According to GW's FAQ "...if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, ..., it simply does nothing"

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

This doesn't say that the whole ability does nothing just that the rule does nothing. The TL clearly has an effect in 5th edition but the rule that talks about when a target priority test is made has no effect so it does nothing. There for the TL simply allows your model to fire on a different unit than the rest of its unit.

Yeah....not sure where you're getting the idea that target lock doesn't do anything? Its an integral part of the Tau arsenal.

Yeah, we just ignore any parts about 'target priority tests', we don't actually ignore the armoury items that mention it. A model with a target lock may fire at a different target from it that of its unit.

It'd be crazy for us to scrap gear like stealth field generators just because they include target priority in their rules.

the problem is that the target priority test IS integral to the functionality of the wargear.

"One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule."

so if you try and use it your opponent can say you didn't pass or fail the test, thus neither condition was satisfied, thus the wargear has no effect.

This is a case where I personally don't like the RAW since I feel the FAQ mentioned in the OP is more pertaining to wargear that had an effect that no longer exists like thornback, rather than wargear that stops working because it made a reference to explain how a test built in to the basic game structure functioned with it but that test was removed.

edit: damn my selective reading, I'm not so sure about the RAW anymore, I overlooked some stuff at the start of the rule. I guess I'm 50/50 on this one.

As target priority tests don't exist, there are no situations where it could be considered what used to be a 'fail' (ie. all situations are what used to be describes as 'successful' by default). Only wargear such as the command and control node (models within 18" may use the bearers Ld for the purposes of target priority tests) would become useless.

You people seem to be ignoring the most important word in the target lock rule.

ONE Target Priority test is made for the ENTIRE unit.

The clause about target priority tests is simply to clarify HOW MANY target priority tests you are required to make. Compare the wording to the 3rd edition Codex. The first sentence, which contains the real special rule, is identical:

"The target lock enables the suit wearer to target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of his own unit"

The remainder of the text in the 4th edition book is clarification on how to handle the wargear in the 4th edition rule set with Target Priority.

There was a huge number of questions about Target Priority (do you take one for the unit? do you take one per model? if one fails, do all have to shoot at the closest target or do all have to?) and so, this clause was introduced.

The Thornback is a Bad Example, as it references a rules (Outnumbering in close combat) which clearly does absolutely nothing any more, and there are no reasonable ways to apply the effect. The Target lock is in a very different situation that the FAQ does , as its effects can be very reasonably applied in the manner intended by the rules.

Basically it works like this:

Target locks require a target priority test to function. If you pass that test you may then use the target locks, if however failed you may not.

It is impossible to take a TPT in the new edition, because of this you cannot pass the leadership test that would have been necessary to fire at separate units.

basically since you cannot pass or fail a test you cannot make, the wargear becomes useless, as it is worded in an if than statement, "If a TPT is passed then you may fire..."

On the other hand one could effectively hold the game in limbo until their opponent gives in, by not being able to resolve the firing of the unit with target locks.

Doing so would be as equally RAW, and as equally childish, as not allowing target locks to work in their intended manner.

Trasvi wrote:On the other hand one could effectively hold the game in limbo until their opponent gives in, by not being able to resolve the firing of the unit with target locks.

Doing so would be as equally RAW, and as equally childish, as not allowing target locks to work in their intended manner.

No, it wouldn't. RaW, there are no TPT anymore, so the Target Lock Does not Work, if you want your target locks to work, I want my Deathwing to Have all 3+ Invulnerable saves, or my ThornbackCarnifexes to count as inflicting twice as many wounds in CC.

Where did you get that idea from? You don't count an item as useless when it mentions a rule that doesn't exist; you ignore the rule. The item clearly has an effect unrelated to target priority.

This is basically how we do things.

Ridcully wrote:Where did you get that idea from? You don't count an item as useless when it mentions a rule that doesn't exist; you ignore the rule. The item clearly has an effect unrelated to target priority.

This is basically how we do things.

No, the Wargear specifically asks for a TPT. Since you cannot ever pass or fail a TPT anymore, the wargear cannot be used. Using the wargear implies you passed the TPT, which you didn't, thus you are neither using it RaW or RaI

No, it makes an after mention of TPT, clarifying how it works in relation to multiple target selections within the one unit. It's no different to the rule that covered all units in 4th edition. Do you really think this is the same as the Thornback Biomorph thing, which obviously can't possibly function? I'm not familiar with the deathwing 3+.

I've never been on a tau forum, or to a tournament, that has concluded that the target lock has no effect in 5th edition and cannot be taken. Until such time as an FAQ is released, my club, and i'm sure the vast majory of others, will be using this 'house rule'.

Ridcully wrote:No, it makes an after mention of TPT, clarifying how it works in relation to multiple target selections within the one unit. It's no different to the rule that covered all units in 4th edition. Do you really think this is the same as the Thornback Biomorph thing, which obviously can't possibly function? I'm not familiar with the deathwing 3+.

I've never been on a tau forum, or to a tournament, that has concluded that the target lock has no effect in 5th edition and cannot be taken. Until such time as an FAQ is released, my club, and i'm sure the vast majory of others, will be using this 'house rule'.

That is odd because every club I have been too (and therefore the vast majority of others) say it doesn't work. Luckily I have the rules to back me up, you do not.

What if they do a leadership test in place of the TPT to make it work? Most opponents would probably agree to that if they didn't want it to work at all after seeing it as a possible unfair advantage.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:No, it makes an after mention of TPT, clarifying how it works in relation to multiple target selections within the one unit. It's no different to the rule that covered all units in 4th edition. Do you really think this is the same as the Thornback Biomorph thing, which obviously can't possibly function? I'm not familiar with the deathwing 3+.

I've never been on a tau forum, or to a tournament, that has concluded that the target lock has no effect in 5th edition and cannot be taken. Until such time as an FAQ is released, my club, and i'm sure the vast majory of others, will be using this 'house rule'.

That is odd because every club I have been too (and therefore the vast majority of others) say it doesn't work. Luckily I have the rules to back me up, you do not.

That is odd. Many would say you simply ignore the references to target priority. In fact, the few google searches i just did for 'target priority lock' seem to indicate it's popular opinion to allow it. The most controversy i found was here at Dakka.

Ridcully wrote:That is odd. Many would say you simply ignore the references to target priority. In fact, the few google searches i just did for 'target priority lock' seem to indicate it's popular opinion to allow it. The most controversy i found was here at Dakka.

Popular opinion does not make it the correct answer. 40k is not a democracy

Every tourney that I've been to in the last year has allowed Target Locks to ignore the Target Priority Test and allow a model equipped with a Target Lock to target a separate unit than the remainder of the unit. However, shooting for the unit is declared simultaneously.

INAT FAQ is consistent with this, pg. 70, TAU.28.A.01. A: "A model with a Target Lock is allowed to fire at a different traget then the rest of the models in his unit. Ignore the references to taking a "Target Priority test" as they refer to a previous edition of the rules [clarification]."

I don't think this is at all like Thornback, which has no effect. Target Locks still have an effect, but they're tied to a rule that no longer exists. I would check with your gaming group and any tourney organizers, but it seems that most tournies will default to INAT FAQ on most issues.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:That is odd. Many would say you simply ignore the references to target priority. In fact, the few google searches i just did for 'target priority lock' seem to indicate it's popular opinion to allow it. The most controversy i found was here at Dakka.

Popular opinion does not make it the correct answer. 40k is not a democracy

I disagree. Popular opinion often makes it the correct answer, because you're not going to get anywhere by insisting you play 100% RAW everywhere you go. If we all played RAW, there'd be unassaultable piranhas armies.

Ridcully wrote:I disagree.

Disagree all you want, you are still wrong.

Yeah, INAT FAQ has it right and stays consinent with what the GW FAQ states. If the rule is no longer in the game system (ie. TPT) then you ignore it. If you ignore TPT in the wording of the Target Lock, then you have a peice of wargear that lets you split the fire of the squad. Nice and neat.

the_wraith wrote:Yeah, INAT FAQ has it right and stays consinent with what the GW FAQ states. If the rule is no longer in the game system (ie. TPT) then you ignore it. If you ignore TPT in the wording of the Target Lock, then you have a peice of wargear that lets you split the fire of the squad. Nice and neat.

The INAT FAQ Changes the rules. If you ignore the TPT, then the second part cannot work, because it must pass a TPT, which you have just ignored, so you never passed it.

There is no need to take a TPT, because there is no TP. Ignoring the reference to TPT ignores the quoted bit about what results of a TPT would be.

Ridcully wrote:There is no need to take a TPT, because there is no TP. Ignoring the reference to TPT ignores the quoted bit about what results of a TPT would be.

Sorry, you cannot just ignore part of a rule. You either ignore the whole rule or none of the rule.

So, lets say I don't ignore TPT rule. However I have still declared shots with that unit. I can't resolve the shooting (because I can not pass nor fail the TPT thus cannot shoot) so I will wait around til the end of the game until I can figure out some way to resolve my shooting.
Unless of course you relent along the way, the game must by RAW grind to a halt.

The references to TPT in the target lock rules are, in my reading of the rules, a CLARIFICATION on the number of target priority tests you would need to make, if you needed to make Target Priority tests.

Trasvi wrote:So, lets say I don't ignore TPT rule. However I have still declared shots with that unit. I can't resolve the shooting (because I can not pass nor fail the TPT thus cannot shoot) so I will wait around til the end of the game until I can figure out some way to resolve my shooting.

Exactly, hence you ignore the ENTIRE rule for target locks, thus allowing the game to continue.

We ignore it, because it isn't the function of the wargear. Lack of TP means lack of a necessary TPT test. It doesn't matter anymore that a unit fires at multiple targets, obviously at least one of which cannot be the closest.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:There is no need to take a TPT, because there is no TP. Ignoring the reference to TPT ignores the quoted bit about what results of a TPT would be.

Sorry, you cannot just ignore part of a rule. You either ignore the whole rule or none of the rule.

I assume by 'rule' you mean 'entry'. And you back that up with...?

Ridcully wrote:Exactly. Lack of TP means lack of a necessary TPT test. It doesn't matter anymore that a unit fires at multiple targets, obviously at least one of which cannot be the closest.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:There is no need to take a TPT, because there is no TP. Ignoring the reference to TPT ignores the quoted bit about what results of a TPT would be.

Sorry, you cannot just ignore part of a rule. You either ignore the whole rule or none of the rule.

I assume by 'rule' you mean 'entry'. And you back that up with...?

The same thing you back up your claims. Utterly nothing. No wait, sorry, I have the Rules. Show me in the 5th edition Book where you take a TPT. If you can, then the Target Lock Works. If you cannot, you can never pass a TPT (as you never took it) so the Target lock does not work.

You have a RAW mention of TPT. I have the function of the weapon, which in 4th edition triggered a test that no longer exists. If you don't disagree with me over it being popuular opinion, and the fact that it's FAQ'd, then we're done here.

Ridcully wrote:You have a RAW mention of TPT. I have the function of the weapon, which in 4th edition triggered a test that no longer exists. If you don't disagree with me over it being popuular opinion, and the fact that it's FAQ'd, then we're done here.

Yeah, The Rules, ya know how you play the game. The INAT FAQ is full of Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. Allowing a Target Lock to work Breaks the rules. Plain and Simple.

If you wanna play RaI, my Space Wolves can Deep Strike for Free, shoot their Bolters and then Assault, because that's how it used to work.

RAW is very clear - a TP test is required and they don't exist anymore so TL's don't work.

However, I feel that a little flexibility is required with regard to codexes written for now out-dated rulesets. Before TP (3rd ed.), the TL functioned just fine. It had the same function in 4th but required a TP check. I feel that it is perfectly reasonable in this situation to assume that the TP check is auto-passed. This is yet another of those situations where the RAW is clear but ruleset change has broken it. Check it with your opponent or TO and you should be good to go.

Ridcully, I'm not seeing any mention of it in the Tau FAQ - what version of that do you have?

Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

Yeah, like i said, the INAT FAQ changes a lot of rules. RaW, the Target Lock does not work. You may not like it, but I don't care.

Ok, good to know.. again. I get that you don't care.

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

The INAT FAQ? Well if you're playing at a club or tournament where the INAT FAQ is considered official then you're fine. Otherwise, it makes no difference to anything since it's even less official than the GW ones. You might as well just say "the man on the internet told me that it worked."

Here's a quote from the Scott-S6 FAQ:

Tau
Target Locks don't work unless you ask nicely
Pulse Rifles all have the Gets Hot! special rule
Hammerheads only hit on a D6 roll of 6+

The INAT FAQ isn't RAW. It's a good set of house rules.

But, I don't think the rules are clear as to what you are supposed to do with the Target Lock. If you take the rule to be like a legal contract, just because one clause of the contract is invalid, it (at least usually) doesn't make the rest of the clauses invalid.

Since there's a pretty heated debate going on, I think it's clear that the RAW isn't clear. Which means, you have to house rule it. The INAT FAQ is generally a good starting point (although, I will admit, I have some issues with it). What matters is how your gaming group chooses to handle it and how any tourney organizers (for tourneys you play in) rule on it.

Now, for a 5 point piece of wargear, it's pretty powerful. So, I would recommend some caution. The ability to have a single unit split fire is very powerful, it's a force multiplier. But, the Tau codex is pretty hamstrung in other areas, so I think it just balances things out for them. YMMV.

I think the RAW is completely clear. It's just not 5th edition Rules.

It's pretty obvious how to work round it unlike thornback, etc. Just clear it with your opponent or houserule it.

I suspect that most people would be fine with it if you asked them. Gwar! - you're one of the biggest RAW sticklers roundhere. If someone (before the game) put a pint in front of you and asked to use his TLs without a TP test would you refuse or let them do it?

Yes, thornback is right out IMO.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

The INAT FAQ? Well if you're playing at a club or tournament where the INAT FAQ is considered official then you're fine. Otherwise, it makes no difference to anything since it's even less official than the GW ones. You might as well just say "the man on the internet told me that it worked.

I think if you read back, you'll see i wasn't even aware it was in the INAT FAQs. Did i say they were official? No. Do i go generally go by FAQs, such as those from Yakface? Yes. My point was that it's a popular opinion, and one that many choose to play by. It's much more than "the man on the internet". If i didn't go with everyone else, i'd have no one to play with. It is a game.

I do not understand why this went past one response.

The rest is House Rules.

The actualy rules tell you to do something impossible (it does not exist) to get the wargear to work.

Good luck with that.

Every one else with a codex with rules like this has accepted it and moved on. Please join us and play a game of 40k, it can be fun!

Ridcully wrote:
I think if you read back, you'll see i wasn't even aware it was in the INAT FAQs. Did i say they were official? No. Do i go generally go by FAQs, such as those from Yakface? Yes. My point was that it's a popular opinion, and one that many choose to play by. It's much more than "the man on the internet". If i didn't go with everyone else, i'd have no one to play with. It is a game.

The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Popularity of an opinion does not make it correct. The RAW is very clear. It's also very clear that the change from 4th to 5th has screwed up an otherwise simple rule.

Agreeing a work-around is easy when it's as obvious as this one. No-one (except possibly Gwar! - waiting to see his response to my question) is saying that you shouldn't use that work-around.

Oh yea.

I understand now.

I apologize, I reread it and see it was Gwar! that posted the actual rules.

That totally explains why people argued.

Carry on.

Scott-S6 wrote:I suspect that most people would be fine with it if you asked them. Gwar! - you're one of the biggest RAW sticklers roundhere. If someone (before the game) put a pint in front of you and asked to use his TLs without a TP test would you refuse or let them do it?

As long as it was a pint of something nice, I wouldn't mind too much. Just so long as you realise you are a horrible cheating evil man However, I would ask that you take a Ld test to use it, as 5 Points to split fire is silly.

kirsanth wrote:Oh yea.

I understand now.

I apologize, I reread it and see it was Gwar! that posted the actual rules.

That totally explains why people argued.

Carry on.

QFT

Hurrah! Even Gwar! will compromise on it.

Maybe now this can die and we can find something that's actually interesting to argue about.

Scott-S6 wrote:Maybe now this can die and we can find something that's actually interesting to argue about.

Arguing about toy soliders in a hobby isn't fun?

It is when the question is actually a good one. The astropath stack one was good - that actually had two different readings of the rule which were both internally consistent. (the understanding of formal logic was weak in that thread...) This is just old ed. codex problems so the answer is houserule.

Is it just me, or is this section of the forums getting increasingly less fun to read of late. The stuff popping up is ridiculous. :(

Dashofpepper wrote:Is it just me, or is this section of the forums getting increasingly less fun to read of late. The stuff popping up is ridiculous. :(

I suppose it is all my fault eh?

Anti Gwar! Thread #4 In Development!

Scott-S6 wrote:The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Those guys were dicks. Why do you think nobody played 40k with them? jk

I think trasvi summed it up well. The history of TL from 3rd edition to 4th edition explains the intent of the rule. The TPT was for 4th edition rules clarification, and therefore should be ignored in the rule description for 5th edition as the GW FAQ states. The history and the GW FAQ tip the scale on the ruling here. TPT becomes unnessessary for 5th edition therefore you don't need to take a TPT for TL to work. That's my opinion and no one has challenged me on it yet, but I always approach the subject politely.

Though this isn't RAW so house rules should supersede. Honestly I don't think anyone is going to argue that Tau are overpowered in 5th edition with or without TL, and I don't see how a crisis suit heavy list is effective without it.

I empathize with Gwar! though. Nids need a new codex badly. Probably more than Tau do.

The problem is that there is No RAW for this. There are no rules on how to deal with codex that mention defunct rules. This is my biggest issue with GWAR's argument is that he says he has the rules on his side but i can't find any rules in my 5th edition handbook that say you ignore wargear that incorperate old rules. GW has their FAQ but they state right at the begninning that these are their suggestions and not RAW.

If you want to ignore all wargear that has old rules as GWAR stated then you cannot use stealth field generators or markerlights as they all have rules for TPT and if you can't ignore just one rule in the wargear, as GWAR says, and still use that gear. GW's FAQ SUGGESTS that you ignore rules that have no effect but this is not RAW.

As i've stated before using this suggestion i would say TL's work as the rule that lets them 'target a different unit' has an effect. The rule that says they take one TPT has no effect in 5th edition. The FAQ SUGGESTS you ignore the rule not the wargear completely.

VoxDei wrote:The problem is that there is No RAW for this.

Sorry, but there is. In order to use a Target Lock, you must Pass a TPT. Now, there is never a case where you must take a TPT in the new edition, so you can never pass a TPT, so you can never use the Target Lock. It is THAT simple.

There's not a RAW answer. There's no answer. You can interpret the rules that Target Locks don't work, you can also interpret the rules that you need to pass a Leadership test to use the item, and you can interpret the rules that you can simply target two different units. Because part of the statement is invalidated, it doesn't mean all the statement is invalidated. GW doesn't provide an answer. Screaming the loudest doesn't make a person correct.

Ridcully wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Those guys were dicks. Why do you think nobody played 40k with them? jk

I'm sure that they would have cared not at all, ensconced as they were in the comfy armchairs of their own smugness.

dietrich wrote:you can also interpret the rules that you need to pass a Leadership test to use the item,

Can you explain how that is possible using only the 5th edition rulebook please?

and you can interpret the rules that you can simply target two different units.

Again, can you explain how you can get an effect you are only able to get by passing a test that you cannot even take, let alone pass?

since the test no longer exists you ignore the rule needing to take the test and skip to the next part. Since that part of the game still exists you continue playing.

As per the faq.

Gwar! I don't see how your last point is undebateable. There is a reason this thread is locked in an endless loop. There is no right answer to this question. You can't cite rules. You can only cite opinions. RAW is logically impossible. The GW FAQ is actually what we are debating here, and it's worded vaguely. We definitely ingore all instances of TPT in reading rules descriptions, but does that imply that the entire rule disapears or do we just ignore that 1 section statement in the rule applying to TPT. I've always interpretted that you just remove the statement that includes TPT from the rule description and reread it. That's the new rule. Though this is my interpretation of a vague FAQ statment. Just like Gwar!'s arguement is only an interpretation.

We need a FAQ for the GW FAQ.

Gwar, you are not always right. Get over yourself.
In some cases you may be correct, but other people who are arguing with you are also correct.

In this rule, you have two, equally valid readings:

1) "Take one target priority test for the entire unit ..." is a condition and a requirement of being able to use a target lock, that indicates that in order for the unit to fire at all, they MUST take a target priority test.

2) "Take one target priority test for the entire unit ..." is a clarification on the number of target priority tests you would need to make, as the rule previously would have been unclear.

I can see that someone who had not been a Tau player since the codex was released might be drawn immediately to the first reading. However, knowing the original ruling in 3rd edition, the FAQ's needed to sort out Target Priority in 4th edition and finally the release of the 4th ed codex leads me to the second reading.

Again, this is quite different to Thornback, which has no use whatsoever in 5th ed, whereas Target locks make perfect sense if you regard the second half of the rule as a clarification rather than a condition.


And, even if I do follow your reading of the rules, you are wrong that you cannot ever use a target lock. You might not be able to get the benefit of being able to split fire, but you would be able to declare shooting with that unit, and thus hold up a game indefinitely as I cannot resolve shooting with that unit. .

blaktoof wrote:since the test no longer exists you ignore the rule needing to take the test and skip to the next part. Since that part of the game still exists you continue playing.

As per the faq.

Yeah, and guess what, the FAQ is a house rule. I play by RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:And, even if I do follow your reading of the rules, you are wrong that you cannot ever use a target lock. You might not be able to get the benefit of being able to split fire, but you would be able to declare shooting with that unit, and thus hold up a game indefinitely as I cannot resolve shooting with that unit. .

Yeah, go ahead. I just kick you in the balls for being an utter douche.

so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such test the unit can fire at multiple targets. That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it may have no effect is in a faq you don't use)

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

Gwar, get over to the battle report section to the thread about mechanized IG vs. Orks; there are a bunch of people who think that because their opinion on a rule is popular its right. IE, its ok to flame your own guys.

You can't use RAW for this, since if you were playing RAW you run into the exact situation Trasvi presents. RAW asks you to do something that doesn't exists. Tau player can't resolve his unit's shooting. The RAW says you can select TL. TL states that you must make a TPT. TPT doesn't exist in the 5th edition rulebook..........divide by zero....core dump......blue screen of death........

blaktoof wrote:so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

How do you mean? Shrike Has Infiltrate, so he can. Or are you talking about the "His Squad thing"? If you mean that, no, he cannot do that, because he cannot join the squad before deploying, and the squad cannot infiltrate until he is deployed.

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

The rules say only Infantry Models may Ride in transports. Nothing in the Valkraie Rules changes this.

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

They can take it fine, it just has no effect.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such test the unit can fire at multiple targets. That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

Such a shame we do not play 4th edition any more isn't it?

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

No, I play it that the Target lock has no effect (because it doesn't) and the game continues.

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it has no effect is in a faq you don't use)

I never said they couldn't take it. And as for the FAQ's, so what? I do not need an FAQ to tell me it doesn't work, as I have proven RaW it doesn't.

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

Yeah, so it doesn't work.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

Target Priority was never a Codex Rule, it was a Rulebook Rule.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

I play by RaW.

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, get over to the battle report section to the thread about mechanized IG vs. Orks; there are a bunch of people who think that because their opinion on a rule is popular its right. IE, its ok to flame your own guys.

I saw that, and decided not to post. I have grown weary of telling Imbeciles they are incorrect only for them to gang up on me like I'm the new kid in Cell Block B, even though I am right, they know I am right, and are only doing so because it is me.

so where is it written that rules in codexes that are not in the main rulebook don't work?

Is there a page in the mainrulebook that says "if anything says in its codex to take a target priority test then that item doesn't work" ?

blaktoof wrote:so where is it written that rules in codexes that are not in the main rulebook don't work?

Is there a page in the mainrulebook that says "if anything says in its codex to take a target priority test then that item doesn't work" ?

Logical Fallacy. There is nothing in the rulebook saying "If you fail a morale test you may not burn your opponents house down".

The fact is, there is no such thing as a TPT, therefore, when you try to take it, you can't. As such, you cannot hope to pass it, so you cannot use the second ability, which only works if you pass the TPT (Which you didn't do).

I see your train of thought, but there is nothing that supports it other than your opinion.

The codex is valid.

There is nothing in the codex saying you may not take a target lock.

There is nothing in the rulebook saying you may not take the target lock.

The item in the codex allows you to take a single target priority test to target multiple units This is a valid rule at the time of writing the codex and the codex is still valid for 5th edition.

The second special rule of the target lock item has nothing to say it doesn't work in the main rulebook.

There is no rule in the main rulebook on this test.

There is no rule in the main rule book on what to do if a item in a valid codex has rules that do not exist within the main rulebook.

There is no rule in the main rulebook that disallows you to take this item. In fact there is no rule in the main rulebook that is even GW style ambiguous as to what to do.

There is no rule in the main rulebook that says anythhing along the lines of "if there is a rule in a valid codex that is not in the main rulebook then do X"

actually I believe it states that codex supersede the main rulebook, which is unhelpful for this situation. I'll have to review my 5th edition rulebook after work.

In any event:

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

No, I play it that the Target lock has no effect (because it doesn't) and the game continues.

Reread your statement. "I play that". You are making a house rule. Saying "because it doesn't" isn't helpful or insightful.

@blaktoof: Until you come up with something better than "I play it like this" or "It doesn't say it doesn't", I am afraid I am going to have to ignore you.

Gwar! wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:And, even if I do follow your reading of the rules, you are wrong that you cannot ever use a target lock. You might not be able to get the benefit of being able to split fire, but you would be able to declare shooting with that unit, and thus hold up a game indefinitely as I cannot resolve shooting with that unit. .

Yeah, go ahead. I just kick you in the balls for being an utter douche.

Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Trasvi wrote:Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Yeah, I am sure you make a lot of friends with that attitude.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The problem is that there is No RAW for this.

Sorry, but there is. In order to use a Target Lock, you must Pass a TPT. Now, there is never a case where you must take a TPT in the new edition, so you can never pass a TPT, so you can never use the Target Lock. It is THAT simple.

My codex does not say you must pass a TPT. The codex says that if you fail the TPT then you must all fire at the closest target. But i will never fail a TPT because it doesn't exist.

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The problem is that there is No RAW for this.

Sorry, but there is. In order to use a Target Lock, you must Pass a TPT. Now, there is never a case where you must take a TPT in the new edition, so you can never pass a TPT, so you can never use the Target Lock. It is THAT simple.

My codex does not say you must pass a TPT. The codex says that if you fail the TPT then you must all fire at the closest target. But i will never fail a TPT because it doesn't exist.

Neither will you pass, so you cannot target a different unit. As such, the Wargear does not work.

The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

GWAR! your whole arguement falls apart because you say you are playing RAW, but you aren't. You are making an interpretation. Once you have to interpret beyond the actual words on the page you are making a house rule. RAW would be as Trasvi describes. Give up. There is no objective answer to this topic. You need a FAQ or house rule to clarify.

phillosmaster wrote:GWAR! your whole arguement falls apart because you say you are playing RAW, but you aren't. You are making an interpretation. Once you have to interpret beyond the actual words on the page you are making a house rule. RAW would be as Trasvi describes. Give up. There is no objective answer to this topic. You need a FAQ or house rule to clarify.

Yeah, because ya know, Causing the game to stop because you don't take a test is RaW.... Wait what?

No, you give up you damn troll.

Why is it every post I comment on now has 4 or 5 damn trolls lambasting me just because it is me?

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Yeah, I am sure you make a lot of friends with that attitude.

Hey, personal attacks from Gwar ?
I don't play like that. I could, and probably would, if someone adamantly danced around the table with a diary of all the times they were right, and then proceeded to display without any real proof why their interpretation of the rules was the only possible interpretation of the rules and was not willing to budge on any single point they said. Fortunately, no such people exist in Australia, and I make lots of friends when gaming as I have an amicable way of solving rules disputes quickly through application of logic combined with common sense and a willingness to compromise.
Now I don't think I've actually seen you disagree with my interpretation in any logical manner, so I'll just assume we will agree to disagree on this point.
And VoxDei, according to the latest codex you must pass your One Target Priority test. Whether that means you are required to take a target priority test, or that it is simply clarifying for you how many target priority tests to take, is where (IMO) the actual debate lies.

Yeah, because ya know, Causing the game to stop because you don't take a test is RaW.... Wait what?

Yes it does because it's a broken mechanic. It breaks the game. GW isn't infalible. That's why they needed a FAQ in the first place. The RAW don't make sense. You can't make a ruling without reinterpreting the rules. Once you do that it isn't RAW. What are you arguing? Are you honestly arguing that this isn't a broken rule?

If you take a strict RaW stance on this kind of thing Gwar! is half-correct. (Don't quote that in your signature, Gwar!, i'm not done.) Target Lock is a VITAL part of many tau lists. to remove it would be tantamount to removing chainswords from all marine lists. (Yes, i know theres no rules supporting that, it's just an analogy, calm down.) But, if you're going that strict with RaW, then if a unit has a Target Lock (except vehicles, theirs work differently) then the game freezes while waiting for an impossible target priority test. Therefor, by saying "target lcoks don't work" Gwar! is, in fact wrong. They work by freezing the game. Those tau have some neat technology. Instead of looking at ONLY the words why not look at the meaning behind them. These rules are written (mainly to sell miniatures) SO PEOPLE CAN PLAY A GAME. I'm going to reiterate the second part of that:

A GAME

A game ceases to be a game when it becomes unplayable. So if you are Gwar!, you get angry, kick someone, get removed from the premises and probably get charged with assault. If you're not a total whackjob, you agree to depart from RaW (OH THE NOES!) for this rule and decide on one of two solutions: Target lock has no effect (And if the Tau's opponent isn't TFG (Gwar!), they'll probably let the Tau player get those points back somehow (a piece of wargear they diddnt take orginally, maybe an extra kroot model, whatever seems fair). Or target lock works because (moar branching!) a) You ignore the PART of the rule that mentions target priority, or b) you assume all target priority tests are passed. The bottom line here is you NEED to depart from RaW here. Sorry, Gwar, i guess that means you can't play against Tau anymore.

I have thought of a third option that may be satisfactory. To use a Target lock, you actually take a target priority test. Yes i know they don't exist in the BRB, but codexes override BRB anyways, don't they? so to use a target lock you use it exactly as RaW, target lock included.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Exactly my point. The codex says that if you fail you must all fire at the closest target. You cannot Fail (the codex has no provisions for if you donot fail so it doesn't matter if you donot fail) therefor it works as stated. Therefor the reverse to your argument is more true than your argument. The problem with this rule is that both arguments are true even though they are opposite.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Exactly my point. The codex says that if you fail you must all fire at the closest target. You cannot Fail (the codex has no provisions for if you donot fail so it doesn't matter if you donot fail) therefor it works as stated. Therefor the reverse to your argument is more true than your argument. The problem with this rule is that both arguments are true even though they are opposite.

actually it also says that if you pass you take shots separately. there's no fall-through clause.

Gwar! wrote:@blaktoof: Until you come up with something better than "I play it like this" or "It doesn't say it doesn't", I am afraid I am going to have to ignore you.

ironically not only did you not answer my question but you pretty much told me to come up with something better than "I play it like this" which is actually what you said word for word not I... and the "it doesnt say it doesnt" arguement is pretty valid.

The codex says do this, and the rulebook "doesnt say it doesnt" or in this case the rulebook has no rules as written against the codex rules taking precedence or as to what to do if there is a codex rule that cites a rulebook rule that is no longer in this edition of the rulebook, only the codex states the rule- a codex which is valid with all of its rules still being valid unless 'specifically' stated otherwise in the rulebook. Which is not the case.

This isnt a case of saying OH i can move all my units twice because the rulebook doesnt say it doesnt and the codex doesnt say it doesnt, one source of rules(codex which takes precendence over rulebook unless state otherwise) says do this. The rulebook has absolutely nothing to say.


And some advice just because people don't agree with you doesnt mean people are cyber stalking your every thread and mass posting against you.

Also if you feel like you are getting "flamed" or disagreed with a lot maybe you shouldnt troll every thread looking for things to argue about.

I know a lot of times you provide helpful insight, but this is not that case. You have basically just said "this is how I play it" "I play by RAW" which is nice and all but that is not RAW infact the only RAW on this issue is to take a target priority test as per the RAW in the codex, and the rulebook has no RAW on that, and it has no RAW against taking it.

Incase anyone cares, without needing a FAQ or erratta all GTs and RTs since 5th came out and even the upcoming ard boyz tourney this week is allowing target locks to fire at seperate units.....

VoxDei wrote:According to GW's FAQ "...if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, ..., it simply does nothing"

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

This doesn't say that the whole ability does nothing just that the rule does nothing. The TL clearly has an effect in 5th edition but the rule that talks about when a target priority test is made has no effect so it does nothing. There for the TL simply allows your model to fire on a different unit than the rest of its unit.

Bunk.

COPYPASTA . . . FAIL.

"rule" is a note. The option itself is negated if you use the FAQ.
If you use the rules you have no words to stand on other than house rules.
If you want to talk intent, do so. That's not rules.
The rules are as clear as the intentions behind the "logic" posted above.

As a note:
Designer intent was actually stated in the FAQ posted. They intend to have players IGNORE options that no longer have a basis and intend players to spend their points on upgrades and wargear that actually does something in 5e games, instead of upgrades and wargear that used to do something in 4e. The intend to wait to update the rules for those upgrades and wargear as they make a new codex.

so if a entry has a rule that no longer exists do you ignore the entry?

Kroot had fieldcraft, this special rule no longer functions in the game yet they have other rules that function in the 5th edition game.

Can you take kroot in 5th edition?

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

spartanghost wrote:

actually it also says that if you pass you take shots separately. there's no fall-through clause.

Yes but it does not say that you must pass the test to take the shots seperately. There for it is a non affecting clause as it can only cause the wargear to work, not fail. The only stipulation in the codex is that you must not fail the TPT or all shots target the closest unit. This is the only clause that will cause this wargear to fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

VoxDei wrote:According to GW's FAQ "...if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, ..., it simply does nothing"

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

This doesn't say that the whole ability does nothing just that the rule does nothing. The TL clearly has an effect in 5th edition but the rule that talks about when a target priority test is made has no effect so it does nothing. There for the TL simply allows your model to fire on a different unit than the rest of its unit.

Bunk.

COPYPASTA . . . FAIL.

"rule" is a note. The option itself is negated if you use the FAQ.
If you use the rules you have no words to stand on other than house rules.
If you want to talk intent, do so. That's not rules.
The rules are as clear as the intentions behind the "logic" posted above.

No it's not. That is a direct quote from the linked PDF from GW's page (minus irrelivant information as noted by ellispsies). If the options or the rule has no effect it does nothing. The option (the wargear) has an effect, it allows you to target a different unit that the rest of your unit (there for not affected by this FAQ). The rule that says you take one TPT has no effect as it does not exist there for that rule is ignored. But as i stated in a previous post the FAQ is not RAW, it is RAI.

GW doesn't tell you what to do if the wargear rules are 'half' invalidated. They tell you to ignore them if they have no effect. They don't tell you how to handle a 'half way no effect' like the Target Lock.

There's basically three ways to handle this:
1. Ignore the referrence to TPT
2. Strike down the entire wargear item as worthless
3. Substitute a leadership test for the TPT to use the wargear item

I'm sure there's some other optinos that I'm not thinking of. If Target Lock did something like "Model may ignore Target Priority Tests", it would be clear it was just a meaningless piece of wargear now (like Thornback). But, there's no statement like, "If part of the rule references something that's now out of date, ignore that part, but apply the rest of the rule as written" or "If part of the rule references something that's now out of date, the whole rule is invalid and ignore the whole thing."

Again, most legal contracts stipulate that if one clause is invalid, that doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract. Now, that doesn't mean it's applicable in this situation.

And, if you compare the rules as written, it just says you can't fail the test. Since the test is gone from the rules, does that mean that I now Auto-Pass it?

The wargear item, as it is, is a mess. Just like most of the codexes left over from Third and Fourth edition. I have no problem with a tourney or group ruling that the Target Lock does nothing - it is a very powerful piece of wargear (that nearly every Tau army has several of them is a hint that it's really that good). But, I don't see how you can state that by RAW there is an answer. There isn't. There's a written rule that refers to something that is no longer in the game. Until GW issues an errata or FAQ addressing it, there is no RAW on this issue. Everyone is reading it and interpreting the rule as they see fit, but unless you can quote a reference (book and page number) with the answer, there isn't a RAW answer.

VoxDei wrote:

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

exactly. so lets rewrite this rule without that nasty TPT stuff

blaktoof wrote:so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

How did you figure that one out? "Shrike (and models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule" p92

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

Actually, the BRB says "Only infantry models may embark in transports" "unless a Codex book states otherwise." P66

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

And 'nid players can take Thornbacks - they still don't do anything. No wargear has been disallowed despite many items becoming useless.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such tst the unit can fire at multiple targets.

This bit's actually correct

That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

So, how can you take and pass a test that does not exist in the codex or the BRB?

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it may have no effect is in a faq you don't use)

Same as thornback - you can take it but it does nothing.

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

As I've said previously - there is an easy and obvious work-around to the this issue. It's called "house rule". Even Gwar! has said he'd allow it. But a house rule is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

spartanghost wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

exactly. so lets rewrite this rule without that nasty TPT stuff

Which is what we've all been suggesting. Gwar! has suggested replacing TPT with leadership test (makes sense). I've suggested replacing TPT with nothing at all (also makes sense).

As long as you're acknowledging that it's houserules and not RAW then that's fine.

Scott-S6 wrote:Which is what we've all been suggesting. Gwar! has suggested replacing TPT with leadership test (makes sense). I've suggested replacing TPT with nothing at all (also makes sense).

As long as you're acknowledging that it's houserules and not RAW then that's fine.

Pretty much what I have been saying.

Note that in order to convince me not to play RaW I will need copious amounts of Booze!

Scott-S6 wrote:Which is what we've all been suggesting. Gwar! has suggested replacing TPT with leadership test (makes sense). I've suggested replacing TPT with nothing at all (also makes sense).

As long as you're acknowledging that it's houserules and not RAW then that's fine.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no RAW, because GW doesn't tell us how to handle it. Saying that Target Locks do nothing is as much a houserule as ignoring the TPT requirement, or even replacing TPT with a Leadership test.

dietrich wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Which is what we've all been suggesting. Gwar! has suggested replacing TPT with leadership test (makes sense). I've suggested replacing TPT with nothing at all (also makes sense).

As long as you're acknowledging that it's houserules and not RAW then that's fine.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no RAW, because GW doesn't tell us how to handle it. Saying that Target Locks do nothing is as much a houserule as ignoring the TPT requirement, or even replacing TPT with a Leadership test.

Does GW have to Wipe your arse for you too? It is Simple. You cannot take the TPT, so you cannot Possibly Pass it. Therefore, the Target Lock does nothing.

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Sorry, but that is "it doesn't say I cant". You did not "not fail" the test. You didn't take the test to begin with, so there was no way you could have either passed or failed it. It is impossible to pass a test you didn't take, it is also impossible to fail a test you didn't take.

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Keep that up and you can out troll Gwar!
Well, maybe. If you read the rules (Hint, it does not say that)


It does do something though, it costs points! So you can use it to make that list EXACTLY 2000 points or whatever.

Of course, that is ALL it does in 5e.

kirsanth wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Keep that up and you can out troll Gwar!
Well, maybe. If you read the rules (Hint, it does not say that)


It does do something though, it costs points! So you can use it to make that list EXACTLY 2000 points or whatever.

Of course, that is ALL it does in 5e.

Yes it does. It does not say i have to pass a TPT to make it work. It says if you fail the TPT then it won't work. I didn't pass or fail as GWAR has point out many times.

And stop trolling. Enter an argument or don't show up


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Sorry, but that is "it doesn't say I cant". You did not "not fail" the test. You didn't take the test to begin with, so there was no way you could have either passed or failed it. It is impossible to pass a test you didn't take, it is also impossible to fail a test you didn't take.

Exactly. That is my point. The codex does not require me to pass the test to make it work.

"One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separeate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule."

There is the rules.

They require you to pass.

RTFM.

edited to add: Page 28 for those who do not have the time to look up the rules they are quoting.

Gwar! wrote:It is Simple. You cannot take the TPT, so you cannot Possibly Pass it. Therefore, the Target Lock does nothing.

Please quote the book and page number that states that. If you can't, it's not RAW, because it's not written anywhere.

And I'm not the one that needs a need signature block to boost my self-image. As Terrell Owens would say, "I love me some me."

Throwing the rule away isn't RAW. There is no words in the BRB or the codex that tells you how to handle this situation. The only thing the suggests you might need to throw the rule away is the GW FAQ, which is why it was written in the first place.

I don't know why this has become a debate over whether there is a RAW solution to this debate, when there clearly isn't one. Throwing the rule away, counting the TPT as always passed, or substituting a leadership test are all rules interpretations. They are not rules as written since there is nothing written down to clarify this rule in any of the rulebooks I own.

To say that it's implied that the rule should be thrown away is going a bit too far. I don't expect GW to tell me how to roll dice or use a tape measure, but I do expect them to tell me how to handle a major game function like TPT when it no longer exists. That was a big oversight, and it needs to be handled by each groups own rules interpretation.

Once it's acknowledged that there is no clear RAW solution this becomes a very subjective debate. Prove to me that one sunrise is more beautiful than the next. That sort of thing.

You're right, 40k Rules don't deal with arson. That's what the US legal system is for. 40k also doesn't deal with self-defense. 40k doesn't deal with a lot of things. There's no RAW that says you can't sock-jack your opponent, but somehow people don't.

Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

kirsanth wrote:"One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separeate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule."

There is the rules.

They require you to pass.

RTFM.

edited to add: Page 28 for those who do not have the time to look up the rules they are quoting.

You are making an inference based on this statement and that is incorrect. these are If then statements

"If passed (then) all separate shots are taken"

You are assuming there is an "else doesn't work" but that is not stated. the Roll is not passed so then statment is ignored.

"If Failed (then) all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule"

I did not fail then statment is ignored.


As i have stated before. Both your argument and my argument are technicaly correct and that's what makes this whole issue. According to RAW Both are correct but opposing. We just sit here and argue who is more right .



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unfortunatly english is a very inaccurate language which is the reason why legal documents are always so huge.

kirsanth wrote:Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

so the rules tell us when can take a test and if we don't fail we can have target lock equiped models fire at two seperate units.

Things like thornback dont work and are useless because 100% of what they do has no effect.

thornback- you count as extra models for outnumbering. There is no outnumbering step in cc resolution, so the fact you count as extra models does happen but it doesn't have an effect.

Target lock- if you don't fail a target priority test, model with target lock may fire at a unit seperate than the rest of its firing unit.

the first rule no longer exists so its disregarded but the unit is still allowed to shoot and as per the remaining special rules which are not disallowed by the rulebook (since there obviously is a shooting phase) you may not fire at multiple units.

so the first part doesnt exist anymore so you don't take the test, but your still allowed to shoot so if you disregard the first part the second part is still valid and doesnt require any rules that are in the 5th edition rulebook to work, nor is it disallowed by the 5th edition rulebook as written.

blaktoof wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

so the rules tell us when can take a test and if we don't fail we can have target lock equiped models fire at two seperate units.

Things like thornback dont work and are useless because 100% of what they do has no effect.

thornback- you count as extra models for outnumbering. There is no outnumbering step in cc resolution anymore so nothing happens.

Target lock- if you don't fail a target priority test, model with target lock may fire at a unit seperate than the rest of its firing unit.

so the first part doesnt exist anymore so you don't take the test, but your still allowed to shoot so if you disregard the first part the second part is still valid and doesnt require any rules that are in the 5th edition rulebook to work, nor is it disallowed by the 5th edition rulebook as written.

Why is it valid to say "I didn't take the test, so Now I go as if I didn't fail the test, even though I never took a test to fail", but not valid to say "I didn't take the test, therefore I will go as if I didn't take the test, meaning I do not use the wargears effect as I did not take the test"?

In short: People who want to target lock with no test are cheaters.

My lord I think I'm done here!

Obviously yesterday's sunrise was more beautiful than todays.

1: VoxDei, you still have it wrong. The rules say:

Pg 28:
This specialised target acquisition system enables the model to target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of its own unit. All firing in the unit must be declared before any 'to hit' rolls are made. One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule"

You must either pass or fail the test. There is no clause for 'not pass' or 'not fail'.

However, if we follow RAW in the strictest sense:
A model may equip a target lock. Page 25 of the Tau book says so.
A model with a target lock may declare shooting. As described in pg28 of the Tau book, following the rules outlined in the Shooting section (beginning pg15 BRB).
A model with a target lock that has declared shooting must have its shots resolved before another unit in your army (pg15 BRB)
A model with a target lock that has declared shooting is unable to resolve its shots, as it must either pass or fail a test it is unable to take.

Thus, following RAW, time stops indefinitely as you are unable to resolve shooting with a unit that you have declared shooting with, thus are unable to move onto another unit, thus you are unable to finish your shooting phase.
That is RAW.

So, if you wish to avoid this temporal anomaly, you must come up with a HOUSE RULE.
HOUSE RULE #1: To prevent this time stop, Tau players are not allowed to declare shooting with Target Locks. This can be taken to the next extreme of, Tau players are not allowed to field models with target locks.


HOUSE RULE #2: Ignore the references to Target Priority tests as, given the context and history of the wargear, it is obvious that the references to TPT are a clarification of the amount of targt priority tests that need to be made.


Note that, following rule #1, a Tau player may not field: Pathfinders with Railrifles, Sniper Drone teams, Sky Rays, or Commander Farsight, which all come with Target Locks as standard.

It seems obvious to me that #2 is the correct ruling to follow. If you disagree, Gwar or anyone else, could you show me a ruling or reasoning why half of the Tau list should be invalidated?

Trasvi wrote:It seems obvious to me that #2 is the correct ruling to follow. If you disagree, Gwar or anyone else, could you show me a ruling or reasoning why half of the Tau list should be invalidated?

The same rule that invalidates a lot of Tyranid and Space Wolf Wargear.

P.S. You can still take target locks, they just don't do anything.

You people are overcomplicating the matter to try and twist things your way. It is simple. You cannot take a TPT, so the target lock does not work.

Which rule invalidates Tyranid and Space Wolf wargear? Can you show me a page number in the rule book or codex?
Can you show me a reason why my target locks are not a 5pt time-freezing device? You keep saying they don't do ANYTHING, which is blatantly false.

Trasvi wrote:Which rule invalidates Tyranid and Space Wolf wargear? Can you show me a page number in the rule book or codex?
Can you show me a reason why my target locks are not a 5pt time-freezing device? You keep saying they don't do ANYTHING, which is blatantly false.

There is no "Rule" as such, but the rules in general. Several Tyranid and Space Wolf Items have no Function any more, either due to outdated wording or references to rules that no longer exist.

The target lock is one such item. Can you please explain how you justify being able to use it freely without the need for a test when the rules clearly ask for a test, but as the test no longer exists, you cannot take it, so you cannot use the wargear.

Several Nid items still function, they just have no IN GAME effect. For example, Thornback, counts as double the amount of wounds for purposes of outnumbering (IIRC). It could count as being a pink elephant for outnumbering, it just has no effect anymore.
Target Locks do have an in game effect that still has relevance and meaning, and that is the prime difference between this item and other pieces of wargear.

Furthermore, my interpretation of the Target Priority clause is as a clarification on the number of Target Priority tests that need to be made for that particular unit in a complicated situation. Combined with the fact that I still see people fielding Sniper Drones, Pathfinders and Sky Rays, it would seem to me that target locks are still intended to work.

And, assuming I followed your interpretation, how would you resolve the time-freezing incident?

I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

spartanghost wrote:I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

From what I can gather from P1,2 & 4.. QFT.

Now.. surely there is no TPT anymore? But either way, I agree; Addressing the issue rather than flat-out refusal is always the better course.

I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Trasvi wrote:I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Thats what most Tau players want (and apparantly how most people play it), but the leadership test is kind of a compromise for those who thing the target lock should suddenly become useless which, honestly isn't fair.

spartanghost wrote:I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

We have addressed it. The RAW has been broken by the change to 5th ed. rules. Two different and perfectly reasonable houserules have been suggested. What exactly is the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

spartanghost wrote:

Trasvi wrote:I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Thats what most Tau players want (and apparantly how most people play it), but the leadership test is kind of a compromise for those who thing the target lock should suddenly become useless which, honestly isn't fair.

How many points was the 3rd ed. target lock? (which didn't require a test)

5 points. I don't believe target priority existed in 3rd edition?

Well, if it was same point in both then I would suggest houserulling that the TPT is auto-passed.

I see Gwar!s point about taking a leadership test instead but they didn't take it in 3rd and paid the same points.

Scott-S6 wrote:Well, if it was same point in both then I would suggest houserulling that the TPT is auto-passed.

I see Gwar!s point about taking a leadership test instead but they didn't take it in 3rd and paid the same points.

my first post on the first page suggested a Ld test. So why did this need to go for 4 pages again?

That was 3rd edition though. This is 5th (and a 4th codex). The reason for suggesting the Ld test is to satisfy the Raw hounds. Same thing, effectively. I think most people would play that you auto-pass the TPT, but a leadership test would probably satisfy most tfgs.

There is actually ONE army that has FAQ that says LD test will cover their TPT.

That would lead most to believe that unless the rest get said FAQ, they do not get to ASSUME anything.

House rules? Fine.
Vehicles? Fine.

Saying its RAW that you can somehow pass TPT is simply wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Is it just me, or is this section of the forums getting increasingly less fun to read of late. The stuff popping up is ridiculous. :(

I suppose it is all my fault eh?

Anti Gwar! Thread #4 In Development!

Could you please direct me to Anti Gwar! Thread #1-3?
I'm very intrigued you must be infamous.
I was thinking about modeling a Chaos Librarian "GWAR the quoted" model BGB in one hand Crozius in the other.

Krimmsonscurge wrote:Could you please direct me to Anti Gwar! Thread #1-3?
I'm very intrigued you must be infamous.
I was thinking about modeling a Chaos Librarian "GWAR the quoted" model BGB in one hand Crozius in the other.

Sadly the powers that be deleted them. However, If you make that Librarian I will be forever Honoured

I was just looking over Markerlight rules and i found this neat little blurb among the things markerlights can do:

"(Marker lights can be expended) To allow the firing unit to automatically pass a Target Priority test when shooting at the marked unit, declared before the test is made"

Therefor, target locks CAN be used with RAW, it just requires a markerlight :-P