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, I had a cunning plan - A 3-suit crisis team. One has fusion blasters and target lock, the other two have flamers.

The original idea was they could deep strike and shoot a vehicle and a seperate infantry unit.

But what I would like to know is - would it be legal to target a transport with the fusion blasters, resolve the attack and then shoot the flamers at the passengers. Technically, you are shooting at two different targets, but do you have to declare the targets for all members of the squad first, or can you get away with declaring your shooting in sequence?

Obviously, its legal to target a transport with one unit, then if the passengers come out target them with a different unit, but how does the target lock-split fireplay out here?

Thanks in advance,

C_C

All shooting is simultaneous, so you cannot do this.

Also Target locks RaW do not work, so it is a Moot Point.

What's wrong with Target Lock RaW?

Alkasyn wrote:What's wrong with Target Lock RaW?

you must pass a targeting priority test to use them, if i recall correctly

Tri wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:What's wrong with Target Lock RaW?

you must pass a targeting priority test to use them, if i recall correctly

Correct, which then causes one of two things:
1) It doesn't work as you cannot take, pass or fail a test that is not defined (my view)
2) The game implodes.

Bearing in mind that the majority of players play that the target lock functions as normal, and that any reference to target priority is ignored. Which is also the view of the INAT FAQ's. While Gwar may argue that RAW they don't function, he isn't saying this is how everyone plays.

So don't stress about taking them.

Uh, target locks do work. There is no longer any such thing as a target priority test so you ignore that part of the rule per the BRB.

So RAW is that they still work.

Not that again...

...wasn't there a half dozen pages about if target locks work or don't work? I think someone pointed out that per purest grey-knights-pure RAW the game would freeze, because the rules require you to take a test that is in no way possible to take in fifth edition, because it isn't described anywhere.

Possiblity 1: Say it doesn't work because you can't take that test (Gwar!'s position, I assume)
Possiblity 2: Ignore the test, like the INAT FAQ does, and let target lock work without taking the test. This keeps the wargear useable, though rules purists might have problems with it.
Possibility 3: Do some houseruley kind of stuff and build in a Ld test or something, to keep it as close as possible to the original ruling. If my novice Tau opponent wants to field this thing, I'd probably discuss this with him as an option.

Timmah wrote:Uh, target locks do work. There is no longer any such thing as a target priority test so you ignore that part of the rule per the BRB.

So RAW is that they still work.

No, you cannot ignore PART of a rule, you ignore THE RULE. Part of the Target Lock Rule doesn't work, so you ignore the whole rule.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Uh, target locks do work. There is no longer any such thing as a target priority test so you ignore that part of the rule per the BRB.

So RAW is that they still work.

No, you cannot ignore PART of a rule, you ignore THE RULE. Part of the Target Lock Rule doesn't work, so you ignore the whole rule.

Uh, target priority is an old rule, so you ignore all instances of that rule. Just because it is referenced/part of another rule does not mean it can't be ignored.

You ignore the part of the sentence that states about the target priority test in the RaW. The sentence is still a complete sentence. RaW they do work.

As for the OP - No you cannot do that. All firing is simultaneous. Also, you must declare all targets before firing as stated in the functionality of the target lock. No seeing if you completely destroy one squad before saying this guy is also firing at that squad.

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Uh, target locks do work. There is no longer any such thing as a target priority test so you ignore that part of the rule per the BRB.

So RAW is that they still work.

No, you cannot ignore PART of a rule, you ignore THE RULE. Part of the Target Lock Rule doesn't work, so you ignore the whole rule.

Uh, target priority is an old rule, so you ignore all instances of that rule. Just because it is referenced/part of another rule does not mean it can't be ignored.

So then with my Inquisition stuff that reads "immune to minor powers", can I just ignore the minor part since minor powers don't exist anymore?

daedalus wrote:So then with my Inquisition stuff that reads "immune to minor powers", can I just ignore the minor part since minor powers don't exist anymore?

Woot! Take that Lash, My WH army is coming to rip you a new one

@daedalus

I am pretty sure the rule says immune to "minor powers" which is a rule that you ignore. So yes you can ignore the part of the rule that states minor psychic powers.

Is minor a keyword rule somewhere? I am pretty sure it is not. So it cannot be ignored. "Minor powers" however are/were so they can be.

Unfortunately this makes the rule to nothing.

You can't pick and choose words to ignore, but when a rule references a keyword rule from previous editions it can be ignored just like the BRB states.

Since shooting for a single unit is done simultaneous, you couldn't shoot the transport and then flamer the disembarked passengers.

Whether Target Locks do or do not accomplish anything:
1) If at a tourney, ask the TO (preferable beforehand). Note that the INAT FAQ says they do work and just ignore the Target Priority test
2) If not at a tourney, work it out with your gaming club and/or opponent (before the game begins). The three basic options are: Play as per INAT FAQ; Target Locks can never, ever do anything; substitute a leadership test for the target priority test.

That TLs show up in nearly every tourney Tau list - means that they are really that good. That Tau aren't crushing their tourney oppnents means that they need all the help they can get.

I can see both sides of the RAW debate. GW made it clear in the FAQ that you just ignore wargear that no longer has as function (like Thornback). They didn't address what to do if part of the rules for wargear don't work, but the other part still does.

Timmah wrote:You can't pick and choose words to ignore, but when a rule references a keyword rule from previous editions it can be ignored just like the BRB states.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing. You mention "keyword" rules. Where does it define which rules are keyword rules and which ones are not?

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:You can't pick and choose words to ignore, but when a rule references a keyword rule from previous editions it can be ignored just like the BRB states.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing. You mention "keyword" rules. Where does it define which rules are keyword rules and which ones are not?

The BRB doesn't state anything about ignoring keywords. The October 2008 FAQ for the Rulebook states on page 3:

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.

The problem is that TLs still have an effect, if you ignore the part of the about Target Priority tests. Personally, I side on the 'ignore the reference to target priority test' camp, on the 'Tau need as much help as they can get' theory. YMMV. There is no RAW answer, because GW doesn't specifically address what to do if part of rules for an 'option' has no effect, but the rest of it does. Is the whole option invalid, or do you ignore the parts that have no effect and use the rest? If go for the approach that it's most sporting to take the worst interpretation for your army, then you wouldn't use Target Locks at all.

Where's that picture of a dead horse being beaten?

There is a big difference in the difference between ignoring thornback, and ignoring target locks.
Thornback has no way it could possibly work in the current edition of the game. The rule it is affecting does not exist any more, and GW would have to come up with an entirely new rule to use thornback. In fact the FAQ that talks about this says that they "don't have time to go writing NEW rules for old wargear".
Target Locks, on the other hand, affect shooting at multiple units, with the requirement that you take a target priority test. The intent is that you are allowed to shoot at multiple units. You don't need a NEW rule and it is perfectly intuitive how the wargear is intended to function.


However, as Gwar has said, the only option (if you play by RAW) is for the game to implode. Not "your target locks don't work" and the game continues merrily. The game breaks.
The Rules state:
1) Once you select a unit to fire with, you must resolve all shooting with that unit before selecting another unit to fire with.
2) Your models equipped with target locks must take a target priority test. If passed, fire as you wish. If failed, shoot at the closest unit.

As you cannot take a target priority test, you can neither pass nor fail the test. As you can not pass or fail the test, you cannot resolve your shooting.
However you are required to resolve your shooting before you move on to selecting another unit.
Thus.... your game gets temporally suspended unit a judge comes over and rules in the Tau player's favor.

If someone tries to pull "RAW, Target locks don't work" then you pull this one right back at them.


However, in answer to your question: No. All shooting from one unit is simultaneous

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:You can't pick and choose words to ignore, but when a rule references a keyword rule from previous editions it can be ignored just like the BRB states.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing. You mention "keyword" rules. Where does it define which rules are keyword rules and which ones are not?

Really Gwar? Can you tell me what a target priority test is without the BRB? I am pretty sure it is defined in there as a rule. Thus just needing the keyword in the codex. Like "gets hot" weapons and such. Since it (target priority) is an entire rule by itself, then we can ignore it per the FAQ.

Can you tell me what a target priority test is without the BRB? I am pretty sure it is defined in there as a rule.

2004 called, they want their lawnmower back.

Thus just needing the keyword in the codex. Like "gets hot" weapons and such. Since it (target priority) is an entire rule by itself, then we can ignore it per the FAQ.

Gets Hot! is never defined as a "keyword". It is a Weapon type.

Please show me where it says you may ignore "Keyword Rules" and where such "Keyword Rules" are defined.

Gwar! wrote:

Can you tell me what a target priority test is without the BRB? I am pretty sure it is defined in there as a rule.

2004 called, they want their lawnmower back.

Thus just needing the keyword in the codex. Like "gets hot" weapons and such. Since it (target priority) is an entire rule by itself, then we can ignore it per the FAQ.

Gets Hot! is never defined as a "keyword". It is a Weapon type.

Please show me where it says you may ignore "Keyword Rules" and where such "Keyword Rules" are defined.

Keyword rules should not be in quotes. It was my description of a rule defined in the BRB.

Are you saying Target Priority was not a rule on its own? Was it only defined in the Target locks entry?

Obviously not, it is a rule that functioned on its own. So this rule can be ignored.

In current terms think sweeping advance. There is a reference to it in the terminator armor entry. However you wouldn't say its define there or only a rule because of terminator armor would you?

It would be fun(?) if rules I used were "clarified" to ignore all of the restrictions on their use as well.

imo, Target Locks work simply because INAT said so, and most use it.

shrug

Timmah wrote:Obviously not, it is a rule that functioned on its own. So this rule can be ignored.

In current terms think sweeping advance. There is a reference to it in the terminator armor entry. However you wouldn't say its define there or only a rule because of terminator armor would you?

So you are in effect just picking and choosing.

For my SoB, "Minor Powers" do not exist, but Powers do, so then I can ignore Minor, which means all my SoB are immune to every Power. Thanks Timmah!

Ignoring a single word and ignoring the phrase is completely different. The target lock is a complex sentence. If we split it into it root sentences you get that the target lock allows you to shot at multiple targets. To shoot at multiple targets you take a target priority test. This is the same thing as ignoring the bullet point about markerlights allowing a unit to ignore a target priority test. So are we saying Tau cannot use markerlights anymore because they include something about target priority tests? No. The phrase before states the intention of the wargear - allowing it to fire at multiple targets. If we ignore the second sentence we still see that a target lock allows you to fire at multiple units.

Tau Codex Pg 28 wrote:
Target Lock
This specialized 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 separate shots are taken; if failed all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority Rule

So we need to ignore the last SENTENCE. For minor psychic powers you should ignore the entire sentence that states about them. The rest of the rule states the premise of the wargear. The sentence that references rules no longer in existence is taken out. So we end up with:

- Target Lock allows model to fire at separate unit than the rest of his unit.
- All firing must be declared before any to hit rolls are made.
- Everything else requires 4th edition rules which are ignored.

The rest of the rule does not require the last sentence. It is a calrification sentence.

So without the "if passed all seperate shots are taken" sentence, seperate units can be targeted, but not shot - as this is only allowed if you use the sentence you want removed.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Obviously not, it is a rule that functioned on its own. So this rule can be ignored.

In current terms think sweeping advance. There is a reference to it in the terminator armor entry. However you wouldn't say its define there or only a rule because of terminator armor would you?

So you are in effect just picking and choosing.

For my SoB, "Minor Powers" do not exist, but Powers do, so then I can ignore Minor, which means all my SoB are immune to every Power. Thanks Timmah!

No, Minor powers is an old rule from the BRB. You can't remove words in it to match a current rule. Its pretty obvious that you are grasping at straws here. You are changing a referenced rule from the BRB. I am ignoring one completely.


Rogueeyes laid everything out nicely.

@Kirsanth

If you take out the 4th ed rules reference you get:

Target Lock
This specialized 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.

Where is the problem in this?

Timmah wrote:No, Minor powers is an old rule from the BRB. You can't remove words in it to match a current rule. Its pretty obvious that you are grasping at straws here. You are changing a referenced rule from the BRB. I am ignoring one completely.

Could I get a Page number please because I do not remember seeing "minor power" in any Rulebook.

Target Lock
This specialized 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 separate shots are taken; if failed all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority Rule

if you follow the flow of the sentence, you get something like this....

declare all firing before any hit rolls are made.
one target priority test is made for the unit (ignore)
if passed all seperate shots are taken (ignore)
if failed all shooting must be at the nearest target(ignore)

so, you end up declaring all firing, and then ignoring the rest of the rules.

as the part of the rule where you take sperate shots is written in a part of the rule that references target priority tests, then RAW gwar is right.... you can't get to that outcome without taking a non-existant test.

however, RAW is overwritten by INAT FAQ in my gaming circle and most tournaments I attend, so it has no bearing on me.

but yes, in a strict, GW-rule only, anal-retentive way, GWAR is right.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:No, Minor powers is an old rule from the BRB. You can't remove words in it to match a current rule. Its pretty obvious that you are grasping at straws here. You are changing a referenced rule from the BRB. I am ignoring one completely.

Could I get a Page number please because I do not remember seeing "minor power" in any Rulebook.

Again grasping at straws. No one will think less of you if you have to admit you were wrong.

I do not possess a Xth edition rulebook. (not quite sure which one it is in, but I believe it is 2nd) Anyways since it is not referenced anywhere you ignore it. Not 1 word of it, all of it.

You are trying to pick and choose words to pull out of an entry to make it do something according to the current rules. I am pulling out an entire rule out of an old entry so the game doesn't freeze.

No by the RaW you are stating you are then ignoring the normal flow of the game. After targeting comes to hit rolls then to wound rolls according to the BRB. So we find the specifics in the codex and the it reverts to the normal rules for the game. Shots are fired at the targeted unit and rolls to hit and to wound are done.

The only difference is stated in the Codex is that multiple units may be fired on. This model may fire at another unit. If you take out the last sentence you continue to resolve the combat based on the normal rules of a model firing at a unit.