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.

Question: when using Target Locks (especially in regards to suits), do I have to equip it on all members of the squad to have them target something independently, or just all but one?

Here's what I mean: I have a squad of 3 Broadsides, do I have to equip all three of them with Target Locks to have them target different units, or just two?

The squad may shoot at one target, and each model with a lock may choose a different target. So if your squad is 3 models, two locks will get you three targets.

IMO there is better wargear for broadsides than Locks for them all, give your broadside squad leader a hardwired one, and leave it at that.

You only need 2.

Of course Target Locks don't actually work, but that's beside the point. If they DID work, you would only need 2.

*Waiting to see if someone takes the bait from Gwar!*

Melchiour wrote:*Waiting to see if someone takes the bait from Gwar!*

It's not bait. They don't actually work anymore.

I know they do not work as written, I am just waiting for someone to argue it =).

Gwar! wrote:Of course Target Locks don't actually work, but that's beside the point. If they DID work, you would only need 2.

*cough* INAT! *cough*

tiberius183 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Of course Target Locks don't actually work, but that's beside the point. If they DID work, you would only need 2.

*cough* INAT! *cough*

How does the INAT affect anything?

INAT says its usable, so I'm gonna use it. If its allowable in tournaments, I'm going to use it in normal games. If my opponent has an issue with it, he can go himself.

From INAT 3.3:

TAU.28A.01 – Q: What, if anything, does a Target Lock do?
A: A model with a Target Lock is allowed to fire at a different target 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].

Gwar!, sorry but they do work. You ignore the target priority test because there is no such thing. Even GW said you ignore old rules.

Sorry but you are wrong here.



Also, srsly don't quote INAT in here.

CptZach wrote:Gwar!, sorry but they do work. You ignore the target priority test because there is no such thing. Even GW said you ignore old rules.

Sorry but you are wrong here.



Also, srsly don't quote INAT in here.

Huh, GW said it where? In an FAQ? The one that is house rules?

It says to ignore Wargear that doesn't have an Effect. Target Locks no longer have an effect, so you ignore them.

Perhaps next time coming up with an argument or even quotes might help.

tiberius183 wrote:INAT says its usable

Bully for you. Inat Also says that Altering how Wolf Claws work completely is a "Clarification".

Really Gwar? I think everyone knows the little quirk of this legacy codex, and ignores it by now. You don't really need to keep bringing it up.

INAT labels something as a clarification if it is at all possible to interpret the way the rules are written in the manner they decided to rule. I am sure that if you cannot see the alternate view it seems like a blatant rules change, however to someone on the other side of the fence it is indeed a clarification.

More about Target Locks:
* a number of Tau models come standard with Target Locks (Sniper Drones and Farsight)
* the GW ruling on ignoring rules Thornback has no real relevance to ignoring target lock: its effect was to increase your outnumbering bonus, which can obviously no longer be done; however the effect of being able to target mutliple units is still something that can be performed in the latest edition
* under the previous edition of the rules, the target lock wording was a clarification/unnecessary wording as in 90% of uses you would have been forced to take a TP test anyway
* most people play it by letting TL's work; most tournaments (around here) use the INAT FAQ
*Tau need all the help they can get

I concede that by one reading of the rules you can interpret target locks as not working; but that is not my natural interpretation, nor that of the majority of players, tournament staff or gw staff.


To the OP: You only need 2 (say that the 'squad' is targetting target A then broadsides 2+3 use their target locks to engage targets B and C). However I also agree with Melchiour, there are better ways to outfit your suits.

Trasvi wrote:
INAT labels something as a clarification if it is at all possible to interpret the way the rules are written in the manner they decided to rule. I am sure that if you cannot see the alternate view it seems like a blatant rules change, however to someone on the other side of the fence it is indeed a clarification.

Ahahaha.

INAT labels things whatever they want to label things. I would take Gwar!'s word on how something works any day over theirs.

Timmah wrote:

Trasvi wrote:INAT labels something as a clarification if it is at all possible to interpret the way the rules are written in the manner they decided to rule. I am sure that if you cannot see the alternate view it seems like a blatant rules change, however to someone on the other side of the fence it is indeed a clarification.

Ahahaha.

INAT labels things whatever they want to label things. I would take Gwar!'s word on how something works any day over theirs.

Well that is a pleasant surprise

So assuming you aren't playing TFG, am I right in guessing that drones that are being controlled by a battle suit with target lock do no benefit from it (i.e. they still have to fire at whatever the overall unit is firing at)?

Maelstrom808 wrote:So assuming you aren't playing TFG, am I right in guessing that drones that are being controlled by a battle suit with target lock do no benefit from it (i.e. they still have to fire at whatever the overall unit is firing at)?

1) How is playing by the rules being TFG? This is something I have never understood. Wouldn't a guy who ISN'T playing by the rules be more of a TFG?

2) Correct. If they did work, they only work for the suit. The Drones have to shoot at the targeted unit. That means, if they worked, you could shoot up to 4 units with 3 Target locks, 1 per suit and the drones at the "Target" unit.

First, to be clear the TFG comment wasn't intended to be a dig at you, just in case it was taken that way. Also, thanks for the clarification.

I am fine with playing strict RAW in cases where the intent of the rule is unclear or debateable...but trying to negate a rule or piece of wargear with rules lawyering based on the invalidation of a step that has little or no impact on the overall purpose of the piece of war gear IS being TFG in my opinion (the "in my opinion" portion of that statement being the most important part). There is a a clear precedent and intent on what the rule is for, and how it's intended to be used. If I tried to screw my opponent out of using it just because target priority isn't in the game anymore, I deserve to have a big red "TFG" rubber stamped on my forehead. This is all based on friendly play though. In a tournament, just find out beforehand how the TOs are going to play it and adjust your list accordingly.

Rules change over editions. Don't get me wrong, I definitely disagree with Gwar! on this issue, but I think we have been over this before.

However, just check meltaguns or any other AP1 gun since 5th ed. Do you think designers intended for railguns to be even better at popping tanks? Nope, the 5th ed rules made them better.

Things change in new additions sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I would say the exact opposite - the designers DID intend for AP1 weaponry to be better than they were (well,a ctually they give the same odds as before...*) otherwise they wouldnt have written an explicit improvement to the rules for AP1 weapons.

*1/2 of the penetrating table blew you up previously, now 1/3 of the single table do - AP1 adds +1 so you end up with the same odds of success. You can argue that, now they can glance (and only have a 1/6 chance of destroying the vehicle) they are actually worse at killing vehicles

nosferatu1001 wrote:I would say the exact opposite - the designers DID intend for AP1 weaponry to be better than they were (well,a ctually they give the same odds as before...*) otherwise they wouldnt have written an explicit improvement to the rules for AP1 weapons.

*1/2 of the penetrating table blew you up previously, now 1/3 of the single table do - AP1 adds +1 so you end up with the same odds of success. You can argue that, now they can glance (and only have a 1/6 chance of destroying the vehicle) they are actually worse at killing vehicles

In 5th ed they did. Not when the Tau book was initially written though.

Except, as i pointed out, AP1 weapons have a *worse* time of it than they did in 4th. When the book was written.

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So assuming you aren't playing TFG, am I right in guessing that drones that are being controlled by a battle suit with target lock do no benefit from it (i.e. they still have to fire at whatever the overall unit is firing at)?

1) How is playing by the rules being TFG? This is something I have never understood. Wouldn't a guy who ISN'T playing by the rules be more of a TFG?

2) Correct. If they did work, they only work for the suit. The Drones have to shoot at the targeted unit. That means, if they worked, you could shoot up to 4 units with 3 Target locks, 1 per suit and the drones at the "Target" unit.

your arguement that they do not work is based off a FAQ and then your arguement that a faq that says it does work is wrong is because its a faq....

Then you go on to ignore the actual wording of the faq you base that they do not work [GWs] where it says if part of the rule still function for the wargear you use those and ignore the parts that are no longer valid or reference rules that no longer exist.

the first part about target lock mentions targeting units, units targeting units still exists and a unit picking its target to fire at still exist. The second part of the rule then goes on about targeting priority. so as per the faq that says if wargear has rules that no longer exist, or part of their rules pertain to rules that no longer exist you follow the first part of target lock that lets you pick other units then ignore anything that mentions target priority.

blaktoof wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So assuming you aren't playing TFG, am I right in guessing that drones that are being controlled by a battle suit with target lock do no benefit from it (i.e. they still have to fire at whatever the overall unit is firing at)?

1) How is playing by the rules being TFG? This is something I have never understood. Wouldn't a guy who ISN'T playing by the rules be more of a TFG?

2) Correct. If they did work, they only work for the suit. The Drones have to shoot at the targeted unit. That means, if they worked, you could shoot up to 4 units with 3 Target locks, 1 per suit and the drones at the "Target" unit.

you are tfg because your arguement that they do not work is based off a FAQ and then your arguement that a faq that says it doesnt work is because its a faq.

Then you go on to ignore the actual wording of the faq you base that they do not work [GWs] where it says if part of the rule still function for the wargear you use those and ignore the parts that are no longer valid..

No, my argument for why they do not work is based off the rules, not an FAQ.

The rules say you need to take a Target Priority Test. You can't do that because there are no rules for it. Thus, it doesn't work. End of Discussion.

Which page of the rules say they do not work RAW?

There is nothing RAW that says "if you are told to take a target priority test and cannot this item doesnt work"

there is nothing raw that says "IF you are told to take any test by a piece of wargear and that test no longer exists it does not work"

go ahead state the page that rule is on that you just made up.

blaktoof wrote:Which page of the rules say they do not work RAW?

That is not how the rules work. You have to show why they DO work. Where is the page detailing what a Target priority test is?

Because you hit a condition that cannot be fulfilled - you have no ability to take a Target Priority test, therefore the rule cannot work.

that line of reasoning doesnt exist in the rule book so obviously its not RAW.

the faq however does give a gudeline for dealing with it, and within this guideline is the only place that your stated reasoning for a piece of wargear not working exists.

the tau target lock states the rules how it works, if codex supercedes rulebook then look at the tau codex.

show me anywhere in the rulebook that it says it doesnt work, you cannot.

blaktoof wrote:that line of reasoning doesnt exist in the rule book so obviously its not RAW.

the faq however does give a gudeline for dealing with it, and within this guideline is the only place that your stated reasoning for a piece of wargear not working exists.

What? Firstly,. the FAQ is not rules.

Secondly, again, please answer the question. Where in the rulebook does it say what a Target Priority test is?

the faq is the only place it states that wargear that has rules that no longer works, does not work.

so if its not the rules how can you use that line of arguement

blaktoof wrote:the faq is the only place it states that wargear that has rules that no longer works, does not work.

so if its not the rules how can you use that line of arguement, do you realize how hypocritical that is?

I don't need the FAQ.

You have a rule saying "Take a TP test".

How do you take a TP test?