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, target priority has been dropped in 5th ed.

The Target lock wargear in the Tau codex says that in order to divide fire, the equipped suit must pass a Target priority test.

What I have not been able to find however, is any errata or FAQ dealing with the lock. Found two positions floating around the net:


1. Allow it to function with no test: The codex is referring to a test no longer in the rulebook, so that test is disregarded entirely.

2. Don't allow people to use it: The rulebook says no dividing fire. To break this rule, the tau must pass a test. With no way to pass the test, there is no way to break the rule.


If this has been discussed into the ground already I apologize. Please direct me to the source! I haven't been able to find a solid ruling for it online, and GW seems to remain silent on the issue. Which I find amusing, since it's a pretty obvious problem. Like how do they deal with this at tournaments... or maybe nobody who works at GW plays Tau in tourneys so they don't care... Anyway, I will end now before I start raging at GW as I tend to do...

I've seen the RaW argument that says since there's no target priority test the target lock simply does not work. The INAT FAQ says to ignore the target priority language and let the equipped model fire at a different target than the rest of the unit.

I think the RAI is pretty clear about what the item is supposed to do and I'd go along with the INAT FAQ.

Yeah, what Arschbombe said. I printed the FAQ and carry it with my codex when I play.

Shas'o Nom Nom wrote: Found two positions floating around the net:
1. Allow it to function with no test: The codex is referring to a test no longer in the rulebook, so that test is disregarded entirely.

2. Don't allow people to use it: The rulebook says no dividing fire. To break this rule, the tau must pass a test. With no way to pass the test, there is no way to break the rule.

Yup, it's been kicked around a bit here. Those two are then two main interpretations if how it should work now. Which you use is really up to you and your opponent.

And adding to that, i'm not sure i've ever witnessed a poll where option #2 has got the majority vote.

Allow it to function with no test: The codex is referring to a test no longer in the rulebook, so that test is disregarded entirely.

Like the Tau need any more handicaps.

Why do you get to ignore 1 half of the rule but not the other?

You cannot take the test, so the wargear does not work, period.

IT'S MAH EVIL TWEEN!

Just check with your opponent beforehand. My gaming group uses the INAT FAQ, so we're set, and the guys that I game with the FLGS are all reasonable, easygoing gents, so these sorts of things are never a problem.

If my opponent didn't ask about it before the game i remind him that as per RAW its a non-functional wargear item, then i make him take a leadership test to see if he passes if he does he can use it if not then he can't. (which i believe is the best interpretation of RAI)

Red_Lives wrote:If my opponent didn't ask about it before the game i remind him that as per RAW its a non-functional wargear item, then i make him take a leadership test to see if he passes if he does he can use it if not then he can't. (which i believe is the best interpretation of RAI)

Would you let a Tyranid Player let Thornback give a -1 Ld penalty to an enemy losing close combat or allow Battle Sisters to Disembark, shoot then charge from a 12" moving Rhino, since they are also the RaI?

ya, but if i don't allow target locks i'm called a duchebag and get funny looks. So in the interest of having people want to play with me i politely remind them and move along.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:If my opponent didn't ask about it before the game i remind him that as per RAW its a non-functional wargear item, then i make him take a leadership test to see if he passes if he does he can use it if not then he can't. (which i believe is the best interpretation of RAI)

Would you let a Tyranid Player let Thornback give a -1 Ld penalty to an enemy losing close combat or allow Battle Sisters to Disembark, shoot then charge from a 12" moving Rhino, since they are also the RaI?

Thornback has no meaning whatsoever. None of it relates to 5th edition functions in the slightest. Target locks however do. You just get people asking what target priority is.

Ridcully wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:If my opponent didn't ask about it before the game i remind him that as per RAW its a non-functional wargear item, then i make him take a leadership test to see if he passes if he does he can use it if not then he can't. (which i believe is the best interpretation of RAI)

Would you let a Tyranid Player let Thornback give a -1 Ld penalty to an enemy losing close combat or allow Battle Sisters to Disembark, shoot then charge from a 12" moving Rhino, since they are also the RaI?

Thornback has no meaning whatsoever. None of it relates to 5th edition functions in the slightest. Target locks however do. You just get people asking what target priority is.

Exactly, "What's Target Priority?" It's nothing. You cannot take the test, so the wargear cannot work.

If you allow Target Locks to work as in the previous edition (or some mishmash hybrid), then you have to let everything else.

Others say you ignore the 4th edition test, allowing the rule to be clear as it was in 3rd edition. Clear in this edition. Allowing the thornback to read what it did in 3rd edition still does nothing in 5th.

Sounds like you agree with my view on the Thornback.

Gwar! wrote:allow Battle Sisters to Disembark, shoot then charge from a 12" moving Rhino

You want to do what with SoB?! Are you mad?

@OP: If i was playing a friendly game, i'd happily let my opponent take a test for the Target Lock whenever they wanted to use it. Mainly because Tau are rubbish enough already. I honestly don't mind if they want to miss two targets per turn rather than one.

J.Black wrote:

Gwar! wrote:allow Battle Sisters to Disembark, shoot then charge from a 12" moving Rhino

You want to do what with SoB?! Are you mad?

^^, Glad to see subtle humour isn't lost on everyone


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ridcully wrote:Others say you ignore the 4th edition test, allowing the rule to be clear as it was in 3rd edition. Clear in this edition. Allowing the thornback to read what it did in 3rd edition still does nothing in 5th.

Sounds like you agree with my view on the Thornback.

No, I am saying, if you allow the Target Lock to allow you to shoot a 2nd unit upon a Successful Leadership test, you should allow Thornback it's effect from 3rd and 4th, which was to give a -1 to Ld after losing an assault (via outnumbering)

I don't do leadership tests. But no kind of test, or even lack of test, would fix the Thornback to make any kind of sense in 5th edition. You need a complete rewrite.

Ridcully wrote:I don't do leadership tests. But no kind of test, or even lack of test, would fix the Thornback to make any kind of sense in 5th edition. You need a complete rewrite.

You need a re-write for the Target Lock also, unless they somehow snuck Target Priority tests into the errata.

Changing even 1 word constitutes a re write IMO.

Does this really need to be hashed out yet again?

There are two popular views (and the third, which I had forgotten but which doesn't seem as widely accepted, which is to take a Ld test to use the Lock) on this, which have been thoroughly hashed out before... and can both be called RAW.

That's what happens when codexes go through multiple editions. Rules change, and sometimes wording that made sense in one edition no longer does.

You can in such an instance choose to follow the path that makes the rule meaningless, or you can create a house rule to cover the situation in a way that reflects the changes in the rules. It's up to you.

insaniak wrote:Does this really need to be hashed out yet again?

Of course it does, we don't have anything else to do!

Notice the word 'complete'. None of the rule makes sense. This isn't an argument, this is just observation. Scrubbing a bit out doesn't tell us what happens. A person new to Warhammer has no clue what it could possibly do. *shrug*

What else is there to say? Nothing. Just different opinions that are months old.

Ridcully wrote:Notice the word 'complete'. None of the rule makes sense. This isn't an argument, this is just observation. Scrubbing a bit out doesn't tell us what happens. A person new to Warhammer has no clue what it could possibly do. *shrug*

What else is there to say? Nothing. Just different opinions that are months old.

Someone who is new to Warhammer won't know how a Target Lock is supposed to work either, since they are new to the wrong game

My question would be; if I am playing in a tournament, would the INAT FAQ apply? If the INAT FAQ applies in most tournaments, there's no reason why it shouldn't apply in friendly matches as well.

Since GW, in its infinite wisdom, remains silent on the matter and we're left to twist in the breeze; we can decide our own rules. If your opponent agrees with it, use it; it's not like it's free or anything, you have to pay points for it.

To be honest, I really don't see what the whole argument is about. If someone wanted to use Target Locks, I wouldn't care if a test was needed, I would just let them use it.

If people start having huge arguments about small issues such as this, the game just dosen't become fun.
I just think some people need to lighten up about this. (Some people are going to have a go at me for this, and I don't really care about that either)
Just my £0.02

Valkyrie wrote:To be honest, I really don't see what the whole argument is about. If someone wanted to use Target Locks, I wouldn't care if a test was needed, I would just let them use it.

Ok, so my Carnifex modeled with Thornback and a Ripper base is ok too?

This stuff is all covered, sure.
The issue with target locks is that it is not even a sentence that gets removed. It is the restrictive part of the sentence.
The "If. . ." part of "If . . .Then" is removed.
Ignoring the rule, would mean both the advantage and disadvantage, using a very legitimate reading of the FAQ.

Even so, most tourneys DO use INAT, and as such, I have only met one person who does not use it in other games as well.
Or rather he does not like the deff-rolla part and gets. . . righteous about his thoughts in that regard.

I go with the INAT ruling.

I did meet a Tau player who told me that target lock did nothing. But then he went on to explain that it wasn't as good at all that even if he could use it. (paraphrase:"The whole suit has to fire at a diffrent target, you can't just target lock off the drones or something, you have to shoot the entire model at a diffrent target...and it's only one model")

starbomber109 wrote:I did meet a Tau player who told me that target lock did nothing. But then he went on to explain that it wasn't as good at all that even if he could use it. (paraphrase:"The whole suit has to fire at a diffrent target, you can't just target lock off the drones or something, you have to shoot the entire model at a diffrent target...and it's only one model")

That's one way too look at it. The other is that one battle suit can have up to 10 shots. Or that the twin linked fusion blaster may not be as effective shooting at the squad of smurfs as it would be shooting at the LR it came out of. And it can be placed on vehicles too, and shooting STR 5 secondary armament isn't always worth shooting at the same target as the railgun.

I'll have to check the codex when I get home, I think there was a bit in there about enemies wishing to ignore stealth suits to shoot at models further away had to take a target priority test to do so. Bam, throw some stealth suits out front, and no one can shoot at the rest of my army till they are dead :p

The vehicle target lock doesn't refer to a priority test and works just fine in 5th.