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.

I am curious what this feature is supposed to be in the game. When I read the 5th edition rules, I see no reference to target priority, though I confess I may be missing something. I see where the rules clearly state that if you are trying to shoot an opponent that is behind another target, then you must have line of site (a), and deal with a 4+ cover save as the units in the way make it very likely that you will fire off target (b). That's it.

But as I read through several codex details trying to know my enemy, I see references repeatedly to target priority. I particularly note it in the Tau codex, where equipment can be purchased for units that explicitly states that they won't be subject to the elusive rule.

What is target priority? Is it a holdover from a previous ruleset? 4th edition perhaps? Does it apply in 5th edition, having been amended somewhere that I'm not aware of? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

yes its an old rule from 4th no longer used. Just ignore it.

Yes indeed that was a rule in 4th ed. that did not make it to 5th. Ignore it and don't buy the wargear that goes with it.

It also still takes effect if you are playing Black Templars, correct?

Ya its gone in 5th, so you can ignore it. However if your playing tau the target lock (think thats it) still can be used as it now just allows the owner to shoot at another squad (think its in the faq).

Old rule, no longer exists, basically it required you to shoot at the closest unit unless you passed a LD test to do otherwise, so ignore any references to it.
With that said, certain armies just might still have similar rules (ie Black Templars) that force them to do pretty much the same thing.

As a Tyranid player I really miss target priority. It made gaunt shields far more useful for my Warriors.

Mattlov wrote:As a Tyranid player I really miss target priority. It made gaunt shields far more useful for my Warriors.

Your warriors should be enjoying their 4+ cover save much more than Target Priority. It gives them a chance to try and be something more than heavy bolter bait.

What?? I would much rather get a 4+ save instead of a TP test.

This has come up previously on the YMDC boards and I recall that in that thread a number of people were insistent that if you took the Target Lock for a tau battlesuit, despite the fact target priority is an old rule because they say to take it in the Tau codex you must, codex trumps rulebook afterall.

It seems a bit strange to me and I would invite them to, without referring to the 4th edition rulebook, show me the rules for a target priority test, but regardless I feel it's worth knowing that some people think this way.

Drunkspleen wrote:This has come up previously on the YMDC boards and I recall that in that thread a number of people were insistent that if you took the Target Lock for a tau battlesuit, despite the fact target priority is an old rule because they say to take it in the Tau codex you must, codex trumps rulebook afterall.

It seems a bit strange to me and I would invite them to, without referring to the 4th edition rulebook, show me the rules for a target priority test, but regardless I feel it's worth knowing that some people think this way.

That would be ludicrous tbh. Codex shouldn't trump game mechanics (not that it does), if it did my DE would be in one heck of a world of hurt.

Rymafyr wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:This has come up previously on the YMDC boards and I recall that in that thread a number of people were insistent that if you took the Target Lock for a tau battlesuit, despite the fact target priority is an old rule because they say to take it in the Tau codex you must, codex trumps rulebook afterall.

It seems a bit strange to me and I would invite them to, without referring to the 4th edition rulebook, show me the rules for a target priority test, but regardless I feel it's worth knowing that some people think this way.

That would be ludicrous tbh. Codex shouldn't trump game mechanics (not that it does), if it did my DE would be in one heck of a world of hurt.

but it does, just look at the armies who still have oldschool dedicated transports that can't be used for any unit other than the one it was bought with.

Rymafyr wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:This has come up previously on the YMDC boards and I recall that in that thread a number of people were insistent that if you took the Target Lock for a tau battlesuit, despite the fact target priority is an old rule because they say to take it in the Tau codex you must, codex trumps rulebook afterall.

It seems a bit strange to me and I would invite them to, without referring to the 4th edition rulebook, show me the rules for a target priority test, but regardless I feel it's worth knowing that some people think this way.

That would be ludicrous tbh. Codex shouldn't trump game mechanics (not that it does), if it did my DE would be in one heck of a world of hurt.

codex always trumps rulebook and GW has supported this.

Codex>BRB doesn't come into play. The codex says to take a target priority test... yay.... so, what exactly *is* a target priority test, and how do I take one?

Oh, do you happen to have a page reference for any rule you are quoting?

And we have a nifty FAQ too!

"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."

What, if anything, does a Target Lock do?
A: A model with a Target Lock is allowed to fire at a
different target 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].

From the inta faq 2.0 (please dont start debating the Inta faq). They ruled similar in several circumstances that you simply can ignore target priority because it is no long in the rules.

but it does, just look at the armies who still have oldschool dedicated transports that can't be used for any unit other than the one it was bought with.

The concept still exists in the rulebook, though - the book goes out of its way to clarify this case. It could even, in theory, crop up in another rulebook.

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:This has come up previously on the YMDC boards and I recall that in that thread a number of people were insistent that if you took the Target Lock for a tau battlesuit, despite the fact target priority is an old rule because they say to take it in the Tau codex you must, codex trumps rulebook afterall.

It seems a bit strange to me and I would invite them to, without referring to the 4th edition rulebook, show me the rules for a target priority test, but regardless I feel it's worth knowing that some people think this way.

That would be ludicrous tbh. Codex shouldn't trump game mechanics (not that it does), if it did my DE would be in one heck of a world of hurt.

codex always trumps rulebook and GW has supported this.

Correct.

BGB p.62 : Smoke Launchers : Last sentence "As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

However a codex rule that overrules a non-existent BGB rule obviously has no effect.