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.

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...?