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.

There is historical justification for the target lock working without a test. The original incarnation in the Tau Codex (not Tau Empire) didn't require a test.

I realise that this doesn't exactly cover the current issue but in "friendly" games it would be harsh to disallow the wargear effect. I would tend to side with Kilkrazy though in reckoning that a well organized tournament will FAQ it locally.

I asked my local black shirt about this and the answer was you don't take any test and works automaticaly as i don't do tournies or no any one who does this rule will be used untill faqed.

"black shirts" aren't official universal answers, granted that's how most people have house ruled it. But by pure RAW its a broken peace of wargear.

Kilkrazy wrote:Well organised tournaments have a FAQ to cover issues like this.

Really well organised tournaments issue the FAQ in advance to allow for player feedback on missed issues before they finalise it.

Tourney organisers do not base their FAQ rulings on the literal RAW, they take into account ambiguity, the "rules as played" and problems with the pre-5th ed codexes.

Look at this issue from that perspective.

Tau have a piece of wargear that gives them an advantage. They pay points for it and it's a significant part of Tau tactics because of the way the Tau army is designed. Why would a reasonable player deny this wargear, simply because the exact wording about leadership tests is not in the 5th edition rules? That is clearly only because the Tau codex is 4th edition. The 5th edition FAQ concerning BT supports the continuation of target priority tests -- simply apply this to Tau.

So should a reasonable player give my Carnifex with Thornback a 10 wound advantage in CC resolution?

This is just one more instance of a piece of wargear that is 'broken' until or unless it is FAQ'd back into play. Most non-updated army lists have something to complain about here but we will just have to realize that all codex rules do not fit in 5th edition play as they are written.

Rockit wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Well organised tournaments have a FAQ to cover issues like this.

Really well organised tournaments issue the FAQ in advance to allow for player feedback on missed issues before they finalise it.

Tourney organisers do not base their FAQ rulings on the literal RAW, they take into account ambiguity, the "rules as played" and problems with the pre-5th ed codexes.

Look at this issue from that perspective.

Tau have a piece of wargear that gives them an advantage. They pay points for it and it's a significant part of Tau tactics because of the way the Tau army is designed. Why would a reasonable player deny this wargear, simply because the exact wording about leadership tests is not in the 5th edition rules? That is clearly only because the Tau codex is 4th edition. The 5th edition FAQ concerning BT supports the continuation of target priority tests -- simply apply this to Tau.

So should a reasonable player give my Carnifex with Thornback a 10 wound advantage in CC resolution?

This is just one more instance of a piece of wargear that is 'broken' until or unless it is FAQ'd back into play. Most non-updated army lists have something to complain about here but we will just have to realize that all codex rules do not fit in 5th edition play as they are written.

This thread is about the Target Lock.

Kilkrazy wrote:
This thread is about the Target Lock.

If you couldn't decipher it from my previous post... Target Lock doesn't work anymore.

Wait for the FAQ (if it gets one) or the new codex (when it arrives) for updates to it, until then it is just another piece of wargear that doesn't work with the transition to 5th edition.

Wow, I'm crushed.

No more target lock for me.

Soo it seems that all reasonable players play with home rule - pass LD test to shoot at different target, if failed all shoot at just one target?

Most probably don't take any test, since the only reason you needed to take a test before was so you could shoot at something other than the closest target, which no one is required to test for anymore.

I've played in two 5th edition tournaments at my GW store and this came up in the second tournament by a real rules lawyer. The staff just said to take a leadership test. Target priority was just a specialized leadership check in 4th edition.

In a friendly game I'd refuse to play anyone who didn't allow target locks to be used for the "broken" reason. If anyone tries to pull that rule on me in a Tournament again I think the judges will rule that the target locks are legal. If by chance the judges don't then I'd pull out of the tournament.

There is no section in the rule book stating my dice have to have the numbers 1-6 they just state I need to have a "standard" six sided die. If my interpretation of "Standard" is different then I could bring dice that are shaped in such a way that the only number they land on is a six. There is no rule stating what the definition of a "standard" six sided die is.

I guess I'm just trying to say that this is not rocket science. Either do the priority test or don't. If you are dead set in trying to be a rules lawyer then roll a "standard" six sided die and decided which interpertaion of the rule to use. However if you try to pull this on me don't be surprised if you don't have anyone to play.

While I agree with you that the Target Lock should be allowed and reasonable players and judges will allow it, I think you go too far in your definition of a standard D6.

Everyone knows what a standard D6 is, they existed in Roman times. It doesn't need to be defined in the rulebook.

If the game used Average dice like WRG Ancients, or D3s then they would need to be defined because they are not standard.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If the game used Average dice like WRG Ancients, or D3s then they would need to be defined because they are not standard.

There are several things that use D3s such as fury of the ancients.

We have two options here, but really you should just take an LD test. Your LD is already putting you at a good odds with doing what you want to.

1. Either follow what has been done to the BT Faq.

2. Roll off a d6 and that how it should be handle.

Personally just take an LD test and get it over with. If your going to say you can do it for free then your kinda bending the number one rule, have fun. Its not that big of a deal to take a quick test being that failure will force you to just shoot with the rest of the unit. A passed LD will allow you to target another unit and shoot at it.

Red_Lives wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If the game used Average dice like WRG Ancients, or D3s then they would need to be defined because they are not standard.

There are several things that use D3s such as fury of the ancients.

No doubt the D3 is defined in the FotA rule.

Kilkrazy wrote:D3s would need to be defined because they are not standard.

Page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook defines what a D3 is, actually.

In rare circumstances you may be told to roll a D3. Since there's no such thing as a three-sided dice, use the following method for determining a score between 1 and 3. Roll a D6, and halve the score, rounding up. Thus, 1 or 2 = 1, 3 or 4 = 2, and 5 or 6 = 3.

Killkrazy wrote:No doubt the D3 is defined in the FotA rule.

Actually, it isn't. It simply says that every unit suffers d3 Strength 5, AP - hits.

OK, so my point is reinforced. The standard D6 does not require definition and other types of six-sided dice are defined in the rules.

I know what a D6 is. I was just trying to make the point that people who want to throw out common sense don't need to stop with a target priority check.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Tau have a piece of wargear that gives them an advantage.

Error number one. (No. By RAW it does not give an advantage - it USED to, sure but that is not what you wrote)

Kilkrazy wrote:
They pay points for it

Error number two. (That is just silly, see Error number one)

Kilkrazy wrote:
That is clearly only because the Tau codex is 4th edition

Error number three. (No, it is because the game itself has changed, leaving the rule irrelevant)

Kilkrazy wrote:
because the exact wording about leadership tests is not in the 5th edition rules

Error number four. (Leadership tests are explained, Target Priority tests are not as they do not exist anymore)

Kilkrazy wrote:
simply apply this to Tau.

While not exactly an error, it does seem to be akin to suggesting we just use other rules. Why bother using the Codex and FAQs at all?

Kilkrazy wrote:
(when RAI does allow it)

Again not an error, per se. But very much not a FAQ'd Fact. That's what is called "opinion" and is an odd way to found a rules discussion.

A fair number of rules were invalidated in various codecies with the edition change. All of the people playing those armies, that I know of, have simply spent those points elsewhere in entirely legitimate ways following RAW. Some people still whine about codex rules that are now useless (I like to wax on about the Thornback rules and Symbiote Rippers), but no one actually demands using - as the example was given - The Black Templars FAQ to explain Tau rules. (or even the "better" weapon version from a different codex a la SM,BA,DA,BT). Seems odd to me that anyone would, but then I miss a lot.

shrug