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.

Hi everyone, played a game yesterday against a friend and had a debate that became quite heated. Put simply he wanted to use his target lock without taking any test. I said no, 4+ it or roll a LD test. I just want to do this poll to see what the general consensus is. Please be polite and don't insult other people's opinions...I just want your poll answer and a reason. I went through the Tau Codex FAQ and have seen that GW still havent updated it, so this is the next best thing (IMHO).

Thanks

Lukus83 wrote:Hi everyone, played a game yesterday against a friend and had a debate that became quite heated. Put simply he wanted to use his target lock without taking any test. I said no, 4+ it or roll a LD test. I just want to do this poll to see what the general consensus is. Please be polite and don't insult other people's opinions...I just want your poll answer and a reason. I went through the Tau Codex FAQ and have seen that GW still havent updated it, so this is the next best thing (IMHO).

Thanks

Options are
1) since every one now automatically passes a priority test you can ignore the rule (Most fair and RAP)
2) take the priority test aka Leadership test (This RAI since that's what's asked for)
3) it doesn't work any more because it uses rules that are no longer valid (Most valid RAW explination)

In truth I think most people will go with (1). Should also be noted that (2) is using rules that no longer exist so can never be 100% valid ether. personally i go with 1 ... YMMV


(edit for poll)

Personally, the first two sentences completely describe how the item functions. Since Target Priority no longer exists and is directly referenced, I would ignore the rest of the text .

RaW, they do not Work. You cannot take a TP test, so you can never actually use the wargear.

Vast majority of people play 1, and this wouldn't be the first poll to show it. Unless your friend always plays RAW 100% (ie he follows FAQs and majority RAI consensus) then telling him so ought to be enough. God knows it's not the only RAW tau issue ignored.

Ridcully wrote:Vast majority of people play 1, and this wouldn't be the first poll to show it. Unless your friend always plays RAW 100% (ie he follows FAQs and majority RAI consensus) then telling him so ought to be enough. God knows it's not the only RAW tau issue ignored.

People Ignore RaW? BLASPHEMY!

Just curious, what are the "other" issues. This (Target Locks) seems to be the one with the most bad blood imo.

You didn't reply to my PM. Did you not receive it? It has a few examples, but i have more if you want them.

Ridcully wrote:You didn't reply to my PM. Did you not receive it? It has a few examples, but i have more if you want them.

No, I never got any PM from you?

Dern Interwebs

I think you either play by the strictest RAW and say they don't work, or you filter out bits of rules that refer to obsolete rules, there's nothing in the rule for a target lock that says what a target priority test is so there's no way to take one with it, other than prior knowledge of 4th edition which is actually not useful information.

I suppose you can play that they still take the test but it seems to be the option furthest from actually trying to follow the rules, and is most definitely a house rule.

Personally I agree with the idea that they still function with no test required.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:You didn't reply to my PM. Did you not receive it? It has a few examples, but i have more if you want them.

No, I never got any PM from you?

Dern Interwebs

It's in my sent folder. Meh. Your mind probably blocked it out to avoid trauma.

Anywho, here's some basic things i can think of in the Tau codex off the top of my head:
- By RAW it can be argued that pulse carbines cause pinning tests merely for wounding.
- A squadron of piranhas can have all members equipped with flechette dischargers, which trigger when attacked. Following attack rules for squadrons, by RAW attacking one member of the squadron may trigger the dischargers on all members.
- Inconsistent wording of special issue equipment/weapons allowance showing who can take what.
- Wording of the first battlesuit armoury paragraph, saying something along the lines of 'if a model has access to the armoury, it may also take up to 100 points from the wargear list'. Which could be taken to mean everyone has permission, but the entries themselves specify that certain upgraded models have access to wargear.
- The target lock
- Hard-wired systems and hard point systems could be taken as technically not being the same system. Ie. a model can take 2 drone controllers (one hard-wired) allowing him to take 4 drones.

But my PM wasn't simply to alert you to any of these, but merely to ask if your group played RAW by Tau in every way.

People only play good Armies here, so it is a Moot Point (joking).

But seriously, no-one plays Tau, so I have never had to deal with these things on anything but a theoretical level.

Wow, ok. I had not expected you to say that. I figured you played against all armies on a regular basis. Your club is probably smaller than i envisioned.

Irdiumstern wrote:Personally, the first two sentences completely describe how the item functions. Since Target Priority no longer exists and is directly referenced, I would ignore the rest of the text .

This sums it up completely. Ignore the entire sentence with the rule that doesn't exist and you still have functional wargear. Tau are not a top tier army unless they are played by a very good general. If played by a good general they still cannot compete with other top generals. Would you like to handicap them more and say markerlights no longer work because they have a sentence that states about target priority as well?

Tau perform very well when they have enough prior knowledge of their enemy to tailor a counter list. All comers lists are usually less successful.

@Ridcully
Sorry I meant when building an all-comers list. Tau gear very well if they know a head of time what they will be facing.

Ridcully wrote:Wow, ok. I had not expected you to say that. I figured you played against all armies on a regular basis. Your club is probably smaller than i envisioned.

Its a bit small, but it has everything but Tau We even have a Dark Eldar and Grey Knights Player

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:Wow, ok...

Its a bit small....

I KNEW IT!!!!

I thought we had this conversation last week and per RAW the game freezes in place and ends.

If we want to go strictest RAW then that is the solution. It tells me to take a target priority test to proceed, I can't, so we can't proceed.

I believe all Tau players would be happy with this solution.

(also, I am really wondering whether Gwar has ever played against a good tau list)

My answer: 1

Reason: It's unfair to penalise one army in particular just because GW can't be bothered to do proper rules updates.

I appreciate the RAW argument that you can't take a test which doesn't exist, but I think that's bordering on sophistry when you consider the unfairness specifically to Tau armies.

Ridcully wrote:Wow, ok. I had not expected you to say that. I figured you played against all armies on a regular basis. Your club is probably smaller than i envisioned.

When I read this I couldn't help but envision Gwar! carefully executing his Space Wolves turn before walking around to the other side of the table and having his Imperial Guard turn

Timmah wrote:(also, I am really wondering whether Gwar has ever played against a good tau list)

Yes, I have actually. I Murderised them. Turns out Tau do not like Drop Podding Grey Hunters

Kilkrazy wrote:My answer: 1

Reason: It's unfair to penalise one army in particular just because GW can't be bothered to do proper rules updates.

I appreciate the RAW argument that you can't take a test which doesn't exist, but I think that's bordering on sophistry when you consider the unfairness specifically to Tau armies.

I agree, Tau do need all the help they can get. I would have no problem letting them use it (On a Ld Test i.e. 4th ed functionality), so long as he was not a dick about it, because Tau Do need all the help they can get


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Ridcully wrote:Wow, ok. I had not expected you to say that. I figured you played against all armies on a regular basis. Your club is probably smaller than i envisioned.

When I read this I couldn't help but envision Gwar! carefully executing his Space Wolves turn before walking around to the other side of the table and having his Imperial Guard turn

HOW DID YOU KNOW!

Wait, waaaaait... I get it now... Funny...

I find making it a Ld test silly personally. In 5th edition it should operate as it did in the edition prior to target priority. I feel it only mentions target priority at all because people would be confused as to how TP applies. Obviously if you're firing at two targets, one of them won't be the closest.

I voted B. Mainly because the Tau players at my local store make leadership tests for target priority, so I'm used to that being how it's handled.

I think that is a fair solution though. We're talking about inventing a compromise for broken RAW. At that point prior knowledge of the game makes for an easy solution, which is to know that the test was just a leadership test. Easy and a no brainer to adapt to 5th.

Lacking the prior knowledge I would say automatic pass. Plenty of broken RAW in the game, why penalize anyone over it? Players shouldn't be obligated to play a shoddy game because the writers created one to a poor standard.

It's a little OT for the thread, but my 'don't go OT' gland hasn't been suffiently caffeinated yet...

Ridcully wrote:- By RAW it can be argued that pulse carbines cause pinning tests merely for wounding.

Not sure what the argument is there. Pulse Carbines don't have any special pinning rule. They simply cause a pinning test if they wound, just like any other Pinning weapon.

If you mean that they cause a Pinning test even if the wound is saved, I would point out that wounds aren't actually applied to the unit until after saving throws. So up until that point, the unit hasn't actually suffered any wounds, even though you have rolled them.

- A squadron of piranhas can have all members equipped with flechette dischargers, which trigger when attacked. Following attack rules for squadrons, by RAW attacking one member of the squadron may trigger the dischargers on all members.

Makes it a little pointless to put them on more than one member of the squadron, but other than that I'm not seeing a rules issue there.

- Inconsistent wording of special issue equipment/weapons allowance showing who can take what.

I don't see a problem with the wording... I simply take it as meaning that Crisis Shas'vres have different options to Commanders and Bodyguards. It's only a RAW issue if you make it one.

- Wording of the first battlesuit armoury paragraph, saying something along the lines of 'if a model has access to the armoury, it may also take up to 100 points from the wargear list'. Which could be taken to mean everyone has permission, but the entries themselves specify that certain upgraded models have access to wargear.

It can't be taken to mean everyone has permission, because that's not what it says.

Every battlesuit selects from the weapons and support lists. Those with Armoury access can also select from the wargear list. So the only way they can select wargear is if their list entry specifically says they can do so.

- The target lock

That one is an issue. Obviously, hence this thread.

- Hard-wired systems and hard point systems could be taken as technically not being the same system. Ie. a model can take 2 drone controllers (one hard-wired) allowing him to take 4 drones.

That can be argued, but doesn't give you extra drones. You take 1 or two drones if you have a controller... but it doesn't say you get them for each controller.

Except for Sniper Drone Team leaders.

About half past three?

insaniak wrote:About half past three?

And a Very Merry Unbirthday to you!

insaniak wrote:It's a little OT for the thread, but my 'don't go OT' gland hasn't been suffiently caffeinated yet...

Ridcully wrote:- By RAW it can be argued that pulse carbines cause pinning tests merely for wounding.

Not sure what the argument is there. Pulse Carbines don't have any special pinning rule. They simply cause a pinning test if they wound, just like any other Pinning weapon.

If you mean that they cause a Pinning test even if the wound is saved, I would point out that wounds aren't actually applied to the unit until after saving throws. So up until that point, the unit hasn't actually suffered any wounds, even though you have rolled them.

I'm certain i can pull up numerous 40k (including BRB) rules that use "wounds suffered" to refer to wounds that have been rolled for (rolled to wound), but haven't had their saves taken. Meaning if the target unit suffers any wounds, it must take a pinning test. Without specifying unsaved wounds, it applies to both.

insaniak wrote:

- A squadron of piranhas can have all members equipped with flechette dischargers, which trigger when attacked. Following attack rules for squadrons, by RAW attacking one member of the squadron may trigger the dischargers on all members.

Makes it a little pointless to put them on more than one member of the squadron, but other than that I'm not seeing a rules issue there.

Any model attacking the vehicle with flechette discharges is wounded on a d6 roll. As each vehicle is being attacked, and is equipped, each may trigger their flechette dischargers. 10 orks = 50 dice. The INAT FAQs have ruled it to be 10 orks = 10 dice.
Edit: i might also point out that a dakka poll on the issue, or lack there of, showed a majority in the '10 orks = 50 dice' boat.

insaniak wrote:

- Inconsistent wording of special issue equipment/weapons allowance showing who can take what.

I don't see a problem with the wording... I simply take it as meaning that Crisis Shas'vres have different options to Commanders and Bodyguards. It's only a RAW issue if you make it one.

What's that supposed to mean 'if you make it one'? If you follow RAW to the letter, you're going to have an issue with the wording. Special issue items are only available to those whose "entry states they may take Special Issue systems" (RAW).

The HQ entry says to take the usual weapon/support set-up, then continues to say they may take additional items from the wargear list, including 'Special Issue systems'. Now, the wording there is basically fine, but it's only in selecting additional items that it mentions special issue systems (yes, it does almost seem like it's saying special issue stuff from the wargear list, but i don't really care about any ambiguity there). Therefore an HQ commander cannot take special issue weapons by RAW.

And the bit on the next page with crisis suits only specifies 'Special Issue wargear', which doesn't meet the requirements listed in the special issue items entry by not saying 'Special Issue systems'. It seems most people take this as a typo allowing Shas'vre to take anything special issue, including weapons and support systems.

insaniak wrote:

- Wording of the first battlesuit armoury paragraph, saying something along the lines of 'if a model has access to the armoury, it may also take up to 100 points from the wargear list'. Which could be taken to mean everyone has permission, but the entries themselves specify that certain upgraded models have access to wargear.

It can't be taken to mean everyone has permission, because that's not what it says.

Every battlesuit selects from the weapons and support lists. Those with Armoury access can also select from the wargear list. So the only way they can select wargear is if their list entry specifically says they can do so.

The wording isn't great, period. Had it said "models with access to the wargear list" it would make sense. No models specify access to the Armoury, but all models may select from the armoury. All sections of the armoury have limits, including wargear. All models have access to the armoury.

insaniak wrote:

- The target lock

That one is an issue. Obviously, hence this thread.

Like i said though, these are all easily ignored. All of these have had threads. I would say there are even more piranha threads than target lock threads.

insaniak wrote:

- Hard-wired systems and hard point systems could be taken as technically not being the same system. Ie. a model can take 2 drone controllers (one hard-wired) allowing him to take 4 drones.

That can be argued, but doesn't give you extra drones. You take 1 or two drones if you have a controller... but it doesn't say you get them for each controller.

It could be argued either way. A model with "a" etc.

If you feel it's off topic, we can take it to PMs. But it was just yesterday i saw a YMDC thread go from rules, to ice-cream, to the approximate height of Napoleon and explanations of why people see him as short.

Ridcully wrote:I'm certain i can pull up numerous 40k (including BRB) rules that use "wounds suffered" to refer to wounds that have been rolled for (rolled to wound), but haven't had their saves taken.

You might be able to, but it wouldn't make any difference. Until the unit fails its save, it hasn't actually taken any wounds. So doesn't have to take a pinning test until that point.

Any model attacking the vehicle with flechette discharges is wounded on a d6 roll. As each vehicle is being attacked, and is equipped, each may trigger their flechette dischargers.

Good point. Works for me. So still not a RAW issue, and I would disagree with the INAT ruling, personally.

The HQ entry says to take the usual weapon/support set-up, then continues to say they may take additional items from the wargear list, including 'Special Issue systems'.

Gotcha. Had forgotten about that one. (Was still on my first coffee of the morning, so that'll do as an excuse...)

So yes, by RAW the Commander can't actually take SI weapons. Most players (I would venture to say 'all' really) have been ignoring that as simply dodgy wording since the codex was released.

And the bit on the next page with crisis suits only specifies 'Special Issue wargear', which doesn't meet the requirements listed in the special issue items entry by not saying 'Special Issue systems'. It seems most people take this as a typo allowing Shas'vre to take anything special issue, including weapons and support systems.

If I recall correctly, when this was dicussed back when the codex was released, the general concensus was that the Shas'vre's wording was deliberate, to allow him access to SI Wargear only, not SI weapons and support systems.

The dodgy wording of the Commander and Bodyguard entries does give an argument for the interpretation you suggest, though.

The wording isn't great, period. Had it said "models with access to the wargear list" it would make sense. No models specify access to the Armoury, but all models may select from the armoury. All sections of the armoury have limits, including wargear. All models have access to the armoury.

It's poorly written, but still fairly clear. Models have access to only those sections of the armoury specifically granted in their rules. In the case of regular suits, that means only weapons and support systems, as specified by the Armoury itself.

It could be argued either way. A model with "a" etc.

It can be, but similar arguments on stacking around here have always gone the same way. ie: It only stacks if it specifically says that it stacks.

FWIW.

I took the "think they should work" asa 'how do you play it' and voted accordingly.

my method is not a popular one t'would seem.