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.

There is a debate raging in another post and I would simply like to see what popular opinion is on the use of Target Locks. Not that popular opinion means anything at all, and you all could be playing it completely wrong. Please vote how YOU play this, rather than what you consider 'RAW' even though it is different to how you play.


Debate:
The wording on the Target Lock wargear item for Tau reads:

Tau Codex 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 by 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."

Considering that Target Priority tests (which was equivalent to a leadership test) no longer exist, you can no longer pass or fail said test. Should Tau units equipped with Target Locks be able split fire? Are they allowed to fire at all?


Background:
When the Tau Codex was first released in 3rd edition, the wording was "The target lock enables the suit wearer to target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of his own unit.
However, in 4th edition the Target Priority rules made this a very complicated situation. Should you make one test per model firing? What happens if one model fails and the others pass?
An FAQ was released that said you only needed to take One target priority test for the entire unit.
Subsequently, this ruling was included in the 4th edition codex rules on target locks to get the rule you see today.

Now in the 4th edition codex, Target Locks can be taken as wargear for Battlesuits (crisis, stealth and broadside), as well as infantry commanders. In addition, many Tau units come with Target Locks as standard gear; including Sniper Drone Teams, Pathfinders with Rail-rifles, and Commander Farsight. Many people who take exception to the use of Target Locks on Battlesuits do not seem to realise that these units also use the same rules.


Different Resolutions.
One camp considers the taking of a target priority test to be a requirement and condition of firing. Seeing as you cannot pass nor fail a test that you cannot take, the Target Lock does nothing.
-- A counter argument to this is that the first few lines of the target lock may still be used, in which case you begin firing with one unit, but cannot resolve firing with that unit, and thus the game freezes as you cannot complete your shooting.

Another stance is that given the wording and context of the rule, taking "One" target priority test, is a clarification on the amount of target priority tests that need to be taken, and not an actual condition of firing.
-- the counter argument is that there is no indication that this is a clarification and as such should be treated as a condition.

A third (minor) stance, is that you should still take a leadership test in place of the target priority. This is vaguely supported by an FAQ on how Black Templars' rules interact with Target Priority.


Voting options:
Option A: You cannot take a target Priority test, so no Target Locks work.
Option B: You may use Sniper Teams, Sky Rays, Farsight and Pathfinders without restriction, but Battlesuits may not take a Target Lock as they cannot take a target Priority test.
Option C: You must take a Ld test in order to use the target lock.
Option D: You may use Target Locks without any restrictions as any references to Target priority should be ingored.
Option E: Something else: Please post below.

My vote's on D.

Target Priority Tests no longer exist.

Given that the purpose of the test was simply to allow the suit to fire at something other than the nearest target, and that's freely allowed under the current shooting rules, I see no reason for the Target Lock to not function without impediment.

To put it another way, the Target Priority Test has been superceded by the general shooting rules allowing you to shoot at whatever you want. Or in other words, under the current rules they automatically pass their 'Target Priority Test' by simply being eligible to shoot.

It's arguably not RAW, but it's how I would play it.

Humm actually I answered A, and I'm pretty sure that's how we played it. After reading it I'm inclined to go D as "target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of its own unit" is pretty clear and it is its own sentance. The next sentance only cements its meaning that target a separate enemy unit is an action you may take in the game. The sentances dealing with Target Priority can be ignored and the rule used as is.

edit: Interestingly enough, what does "engaged" mean in game terms? It is not really defined except in CC. It does not really say outright that you can shoot at another unit, i guess we are reading "engaged" as "shooting at"?

It is also useful to note that, according the this rule, you must take a TPT even if every model is firing at the closest target. So effectively, there is no way (according to some) to ever use a Tau Rail Rifle.

D.

It seems clear the part concerning target priority is telling you how target priority should be resolved with a piece of wargear that alters the basic 40k rules. It does not establish a new requirement to use the wargear.

Regardless of "RaW", the intent seems clear-cut.

Option D.

It may not be RAW, but its how I play it.

The answer is A, but people cheat and Play D

As I said in the other thread. Playing by A requires a house rule to prevent time-stopping. Playing by D requires a house rule to ignore the second half of the sentence. By your definitions, both ways are cheating.

The thread is regarding How YOU play it. If you have a valid counterargument, (not just calling people cheaters) as to how you can play option A by using only what is in the BRB and codex, you might sway people.

Gwar! wrote:The answer is A, but people cheat and Play D

Your continued insistance that everyone who chooses to alter the rules of the game is a cheater got old a long time ago, and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

The question asked was about how people play the game. If you really can't deal with the fact that some people play the game exactly as intended by the people who wrote the rules then just kindly stay out of threads that aren't discussing RAW.

We play C, it's a fair compromise since it did have a chance of failing to start with.

D, use them as counts as Advanced Target Locks. If opponent doesn't like it then compromise with a Ld test.

insaniak wrote:Your continued insistance that everyone who chooses to alter the rules of the game is a cheater got old a long time ago, and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

It is the truth though.

A is technically the right answer, but everyone plays it as D

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Your continued insistance that everyone who chooses to alter the rules of the game is a cheater got old a long time ago, and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

It is the truth though.

No it's not, the "true answer" that you claim to have to the question "how do you handle target locks in your game" is only true for you and four other people so far. There is no right answer to the question posed in this thread because it's not asking for RAW, and there is a RAW basis for ignoring the bit of the rules that say the result of the target priority test effects how you proceed anyway, it's definitely not a clear cut case of A being correct.

But none of it matters, since the FAQ that says to ignore rules that no longer work under 5th edition is a FAQ and not Errata, so it's just a houserule anyway.

I think A is strictly correct, but I would never hold anyone to it. The wargear grants a specific effect (being able to split fire) after a test of leadership, so I would play that if they pass a leadership test they can split if I were asked. Same effect as the rule had under 4th edition.

So I picked D.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Your continued insistance that everyone who chooses to alter the rules of the game is a cheater got old a long time ago, and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

It is the truth though.

No, Gwar, it's not.

Cheating involves acting dishonestly, deceiving your opponent.

Agreeing with your opponent to alter a rule because you both agree that it's a better way to play the game does nto fit that definition. not even remotely. No matter how many times you insist otherwise.

That's even assuming that there's a clear-cut rule there to begin with... which in this case there isn't. Again, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

So, please, for the sanity of the slowly dwindling number of people who haven't yet added you to their ignore list, stop with the nonsense.

Telling your opponent that you can split fire without a target priority test because of a piece of wargear that requires one to function (which any Tau player should be aware of - agree with the sentiment or not) could very well be seen as dishonest by someone who does not agree.

Insisting that the RAW actually backs that is decieving. It could really go either way - though I think it is clear enough.

I really see both sides. RAI, sure - 4e backs it.

Dozens of rules fall into that trap, however. And they do not work any longer either. It is sort of odd to me that for whatever reason this one rule seems to cause an amazing amount of butthurt to lose when other losses are much more relevant.

I have said before - I have a list of things I discuss with any opponent I have not played before. If you play Tau, put this on your list. If you ASSUME your opponent will let the wargear work because you think it's RAI (or even RAW) be prepared for problems.

That said, I vote A. Once you succeed in a non-existant roll, you can use your wargear that specifies you need to use said roll.

aside: If you and your opponent agree to ANYTHING - it is fine. And totally outside of any YMDC discussion, imo. I am pretty sure that is where Gwars!'s "I win on a 1+" rule comes from. It is as fair to insist that as anything else your opponent _disagrees_ with.

kirsanth wrote:Telling your opponent that you can split fire without a target priority test because of a piece of wargear that requires one to function (which any Tau player should be aware of - agree with the sentiment or not) could very well be seen as dishonest by someone who does not agree.

How is it dishonest if you're discussing it with your opponent?

Insisting that your own interpretation of a given grey area is the only correct answer? That could be seen as somewhat dishonest. Or just misguided.

But discussing it with your opponent and agreeing how to play it? Doesn't even wind up in the same dictionary as dishonest, no matter how much you decide to stray from RAW.



And for what it's worth, the debatable part here is whether the test is required for the wargear to function. As I see it, it's not. The test was required under previous edition rules because taking a target priority test was the only way to target a unit other than the closest. Since the rule requiring you to target the closest enemy is gone, the TPT serves no purpose.

Having said that, the opposing view is also a valid one. It's something that I would be discussing if I played Tau... which I don't. So given that Tau players are more likely to go with the 'No test' option, and I agree with that option, it's not likely to ever be a problem...

aside: If you and your opponent agree to ANYTHING - it is fine. And totally outside of any YMDC discussion, imo.

Most definitely not outside a discussion on how people actually play the game. Given that Yakface was the one who started the 'How do you play it' thread trend, these sort of discussion are acceptable YMDC fodder.

Then you missed both my points, or I missed getting them across.

The polls are indeed discussing how we play.
Generally I was assuming polls would be in the Polls section, YMDC would be for rules.

Discussing House rules (ie, changes made with consent of all players) really is not all that related. For example :

insaniak wrote:Agreeing with your opponent to alter a rule because you both agree that it's a better way to play the game does nto fit that definition. not even remotely. No matter how many times you insist otherwise.

As for it being dishonest?

kirsanth wrote:
Telling your opponent that you can split fire without a target priority test because of a piece of wargear that requires one to function (which any Tau player should be aware of - agree with the sentiment or not) could very well be seen as dishonest by someone who does not agree.

That covers what I actually said.
"Telling" vs "discussing".

n0t_u wrote:
D, use them as counts as Advanced Target Locks. If opponent doesn't like it then compromise with a Ld test.

Shows why I said it pretty well also. Insisting that its one or the other of these is worse than Gwar!'s assertion.

kirsanth wrote:Telling your opponent that you can split fire without a target priority test because of a piece of wargear that requires one to function (which any Tau player should be aware of - agree with the sentiment or not) could very well be seen as dishonest by someone who does not agree.

I personally don't agree that the Target Lock requires a Target Priority test to function. The parts regarding target locks are simply a guideline on how many target priority tests need to be made. Now that no-one needs TPT, neither does the TL.

Dozens of rules fall into that trap, however. And they do not work any longer either. It is sort of odd to me that for whatever reason this one rule seems to cause an amazing amount of butthurt to lose when other losses are much more relevant.

I can't actually think of a single other rule that prevents 3 units (including one special character) from taking any part in a game. It also severely hurts tactics for another 3-4 units. Leaving you with only Kroot, Drone Squads and the vehicles that still retain their full function. If you show up to a battle with the assumption that you can use this, and your opponent denies you that ability, chances are you can't play the game at all as you've built your army around a (reasonable) assumption that it would work. Many people seem to focus on these as they pertain to Battlesuits, yet do you people who advocate option A refuse to let people field sniper drones?

Insisting that the RAW actually backs that is decieving. It could really go either way - though I think it is clear enough.
That said, I vote A. Once you succeed in a non-existant roll, you can use your wargear that specifies you need to use said roll.

Do you agree though, that this needs some kind of house rule to make the game work? And that voting option A is against RAW as much as option C or D?
If you believe that the TPT is a condition of firing, Following strict RAW you end up in a time-freezing situation. Which you need a house rule to get out of.
If you believe that the TPT is a clarification of firing, you need to disregard the parts pertaining to TPT. Which you need a house rule to do.

I think we already had this debate until we were blue in the face. This thread is nice though because we get to see the statistics on the ruling. Everyone has a different opinion on this topic though. So debating this endlessly gets us no where. I don't think any one of these options are the correct option, because there is no correct option. I chose D because that's usually how it goes down where I play, but I have no problem playing C if the opponent disagrees with the ruling.

The rules say what happens when the TPT works and what happens when it fails.

So yes, it requires one to work. Ignoring that is an entirely valid house rule. The BT FAQ goes along the lines of using LD to back it.

That is totally unrelated to Tau.

Tyranids as an army used overwhelming numbers and had at least two "wargear" options to make this work.
Using the BT FAQ as . . ."precident" . . . I should get some bonus too as a Tyranid player - simply based on the Tau complaints that their wargear does not work either.

As to whether I agree that it needs a house rule to work?
Loaded as any question can be.
Really.
The answer is yes.
Simply because the rules actually state it does not work. So to make it function as you think is RAI, house rules are needed.

as for my thoughts on YMDC, I still think I am vague.
The forum is great for debates about rules and rulings.
As for saying "our house rule is. . . " or " we all agreed to do this" and then questioning it? YMDC is for actual rules we all can read.

Edit for this :

phillosmaster wrote:I think we already had this debate until we were blue in the face. This thread is nice though because we get to see the statistics on the ruling. Everyone has a different opinion on this topic though. So debating this endlessly gets us no where. I don't think any one of these options are the correct option, because there is no correct option. I chose D because that's usually how it goes down where I play, but I have no problem playing C if the opponent disagrees with the ruling.

I agree. Sorry for the rants again ^^. It reinforces my list of FAQs brought to the game.