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.

I'm probably going to regret opening up this can of worms, but it matters to me, so it's worth it:

I am aware of the RaW dispute. I'm not looking for a RaW answer here. This is "YOU make da call", not "GW makes the call sometimes, maybe, if they're in and feel like it". I want to hear how it is handled in practice, not from armchair laywers.

I would like for this poll to follow the same guidelines normally applied to yakface's questions. Please read the below explanations and let me know how you feel about it.

A: Target lock doesn't do anything at all and should be disallowed. This is the hardline "RaW" opinion formed from the 5th edition faq stating that any rule that refers to something that no longer exists shouldn't be used.

B: Target lock automatically works. This is an alternative "RaW" argument made based upon the claim that when the faq says to ignore the rule that doesn't work, it's not talking about the entire entry, but merely the part that doesn't work (the test referenced in the wargear).

C: Target lock works, but you need to make a leadership test. This is the "common sense" alternative justified by the fact that a Target Priority Test was basically a Leadership Test, and I just would rather a fun game without rule bickering. Disclaimer: THIS HAS NO BASIS IN RAW.

D: Something else altogether.

Please keep it clean and be honest. The goal here isn't winning the internet, but helping keep the game fun and playable.

Just skip over the part that requires a target priority test. Many different aspects of several armies were changed in terms of strength and Tau were no exception. Some things got better (target lock) and some things got worse (battlesuits not being able to hide behind area 3 terrain for example).

I like B, it doesn't invalidate the modeling that has gone into creating target locks on those suits!

I go with B as the easiest option within the current ruleset that still allows the item to work.

I've played Tau for 6 months now and have never had a rules dispute in tourney/local play in regards to this.

Option B.

B for me also.

I don't play them but my regular playing partner does.

My friend plays Tau and we always used B. It was intuitive I guess because we didn't even consider the other options.

I tend to just let it work without any kind of test. Keeps things simple, keeps the game moving.

I voted A, because that is what the rules say, and as surprising as it sounds, I like playing a game by the rules, whether it is 40k, Chess, Monopoly or Poker.

Gwar! wrote:I voted A, because that is what the rules say, and as surprising as it sounds, I like playing a game by the rules, whether it is 40k, Chess, Monopoly or Poker.

You probably cheat at Tic-Tac-Toe...nobody can always follow the rules!

Gwar! wrote:I voted A, because that is what the rules say, and as surprising as it sounds, I like playing a game by the rules, whether it is 40k, Chess, Monopoly or Poker.

But if an opponent discussed it with you before a game I'm sure you'd find a position amicable to both (or more) players... Right Gwar!

ChrisCP wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I voted A, because that is what the rules say, and as surprising as it sounds, I like playing a game by the rules, whether it is 40k, Chess, Monopoly or Poker.

But if an opponent discussed it with you before a game I'm sure you'd find a position amicable to both (or more) players... Right Gwar!

It depends.

Did the Opponent bring Booze and Kendel Mint Cake? If so, then yes. If not, I hit him with the RaWStick!

A alternative for me as well. I like playing RaW even if it's not always logical.

Well I think you have your answer no one has come up with a near decent reason to use option A and even in internet lannd where people will argue until they are blue in the face that literalist traqnslations of the rules are all that matters you have an 83% confirmation that the target lock works in the way the rules most likely say it works.

FlingitNow wrote:Well I think you have your answer no one has come up with a near decent reason to use option A and even in internet lannd where people will argue until they are blue in the face that literalist traqnslations of the rules are all that matters you have an 83% confirmation that the target lock works in the way the rules most likely say it works.

Actually, all he has is an 83% confirmation that people use House Rules.

Woop De Do.

And I have come up with a decent reason to Use Option A:
It's what The Rules say.

Actually, all he has is an 83% confirmation that people use House Rules.

I disagree I think what people play are the rules in this instance unless you have the relevant GW source to prove otherwise?

And I have come up with a decent reason to Use Option A:
It's what The Rules say.

Nobody plays RaW all the time even you (just read one of your own FaQs) and how do you know what the rules say in this instance? Again I ask for the relevant GW source or I'm goping to just follow the most consistent reading of the English written in the rules (not the most literal).

It works with a Target priority test and it seems almost everyone agrees. This is how the rules work in this instance (though obviously not exactly how they read).

FlingitNow wrote:Nobody plays RaW all the time even you.

Of course. Not all the time. However, this is one of the times were RaW is so unashamedly clear that to play it in any other way is downright, for lack of a better word, wrong.

Of course. Not all the time. However, this is one of the times were RaW is so unashamedly clear that to play it in any other way is downright, for lack of a better word, wrong.

RaW on the Doom's invulnerable save is actually far clearer than this situation (how can you place something back in reserves that has never been in reserves) and no one would play that by RaW. Just saying I play it by RaW because it is RaW is:

a) Not a valid reason for playing the rule that way.

b) Entirely unhelpful to the original poster .

FlingitNow wrote:

Of course. Not all the time. However, this is one of the times were RaW is so unashamedly clear that to play it in any other way is downright, for lack of a better word, wrong.

RaW on the Doom's invulnerable save is actually far clearer than this situation (how can you place something back in reserves that has never been in reserves) and no one would play that by RaW. Just saying I play it by RaW because it is RaW is:

a) Not a valid reason for playing the rule that way.

b) Entirely unhelpful to the original poster .

Firstly, I do play the DoM as having No Invulnerable save, if my opponent also wishes it, as that is what the RaW says. My FAQ did indeed say that he has a 3++ save, but it was clearly labeled as a Rules Change.

Secondly, it IS a Valid Reason for playing the rule that way, and is in fact more valid than your reasoning of "RaI".

Thirdly, it is helpful. He was asking how people play it, and I play it as such, for the reasons I have previously outlined.

Firstly, I do play the DoM as having No Invulnerable save, if my opponent also wishes it, as that is what the RaW says. My FAQ did indeed say that he has a 3++ save, but it was clearly labeled as a Rules Change.

So you ignore your own FAQ? Yes Gwar I really believe you do that.

Secondly, it IS a Valid Reason for playing the rule that way, and is in fact more valid than your reasoning of "RaI".

No it is not becuase if you use that as your reason you have to play pure RaW all the time (as that reason is always present). See the fun list of RaW article for other RaW rules that no one plays by or in deed your own FaQs...

Thirdly, it is helpful. He was asking how people play it, and I play it as such, for the reasons I have previously outlined.

As pointed out it is not reasons it is reason and a reason that is neither valid no (as you don't play pure RaW all the time as your own FaQs are testament to). I'm not convinced you even play this rule the way you are claiming but you may do and if so posting the reasons why would at least inform the debate rather than just say RaW, RaW, RaW as if that is a valid stand point.

I usually agree with your opinions on rules, Gwar, but I have to disagree here. I think when playing a game where the rules are sometimes unclear or obviously mis worded then you just have to use common sense. I agree with option b, and I've never met anyone who doesn't as well. Not to put down your view on the debate, just throwing my 2 cents in.

Edit: Oh, and hello to Peter.

There are a couple of things objectionable, RaW for only the sake of RaW that takes away from fun is pretty much a WAAC attitude. The game is first and foremost meant to be enjoyable.

It may be enjoyable for you to play Raw regardless of inane outcome or that it may make it not fun for your opponent, and so long as you play with others that feel the same way everyone will have a good time.

While RaW is recommended to help settle disputes, the agreement between gentlemen (or women) is an important part of the game.

And regardless of how the internet says a judge will rule, for those that have played in many, many tournaments, we know that more often than not people will rule based on what sounds good to that particular judge and venue. This includes games at or with GW itself. To inform people and be aware of potential RaW retardations that are not at all what makes a game enjoyable is important. However if you are the guy who walks into a tournament with some ridiculous RaW interrpretation (as that is what they usually are, combining your interrpretation of english usage, etc) expect the rulings to go against you.

We need to be aware of all aspects of the rules, not just what any one person thinks is right. Sometimes we know, even when 99.9% of people agree on how a rule is both written and played a judge can rule completely opposite and counter intuitive if they think the other guy sounds reasonable and don't know the rules themselves.

Btw, the question was how do you play it, not what the rules say, once you have said how you play it and why you don't need to defend yourself. That is just how you play it. Armchair lawyering is not looked for here.

And a small note, this is not a dig at Gwar, dude knows the rules for sure and helps in many situations, I just wanted to comment as most people I encounter say "according to the internet this is Raw" and don't know why for themselves.

Even in tournaments, where I usually do well, I let may of these go against me and then allow my opponent to interpret according to what makes sense and is fun. And I still usually win, so no big deal for me. But I will think you are a D-bag pretty much from then on, someone who usually relies on rules knowledge and not ability to play the game to win. Gwar just appears to have ability and knowledge which is a dangerous combination to face!

I'm with B.

GW is insanely slow in updating codecii but very quick to put out a complete change in the basic rules.

A newer codex, Space Wolves, has a similar ability in a unit, Long Fangs.

Logic would dictate that since the rules change, target lock is just as valid as the long fangs ability.

RaW discussions are like reading the directions on a package of toilet paper....do you really do it the way they recommend?

Thanks agnosto, now I have to go to the store and see if there are ACTUALLY directions on packages of toilet paper!

daedalus wrote:Thanks agnosto, now I have to go to the store and see if there are ACTUALLY directions on packages of toilet paper!

LOL, I'm not 100% on that myself but you have to admit there are instructions for some pretty ridiculous things. My point is that just because something is written down, there's no excuse to turn your brain off.

My point is that just because something is written down, there's no excuse to turn your brain off.

QFT

Gwar! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I voted A, because that is what the rules say, and as surprising as it sounds, I like playing a game by the rules, whether it is 40k, Chess, Monopoly or Poker.

But if an opponent discussed it with you before a game I'm sure you'd find a position amicable to both (or more) players... Right Gwar!

It depends.

Did the Opponent bring Booze and Kendel Mint Cake? If so, then yes. If not, I hit him with the RaWStick!

Fear the RaWStick.

Gwar! wrote:Of course. Not all the time. However, this is one of the times were RaW is so unashamedly clear that to play it in any other way is downright, for lack of a better word, wrong.

In a game that is designed under the idea that altering the rules to suit yourself is not only ok, but encouraged and a long-standing part of the game, playing it other than how the rules say to play it is most certainly not wrong.

You are certainly well within your rights to want to play it the way you perceive the RAW to read... but your way of playing it is no more valid than anyone else's.


So how about we drop the RAW discussion and let the thread get back to what was actually asked, which is how people are playing it.

Ok, sorry. It was wrong of me to call him wrong.

And I was contributing to the discussion, by saying that I play it as RaW, but alas, a few people have misinterpreted me (again) and gotten offended. I shall take my leave of this thread then I suppose.

Oh Gwar! you silly beast.