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.

Ridcully wrote:Exactly. Lack of TP means lack of a necessary TPT test. It doesn't matter anymore that a unit fires at multiple targets, obviously at least one of which cannot be the closest.

Gwar! wrote:

Ridcully wrote:There is no need to take a TPT, because there is no TP. Ignoring the reference to TPT ignores the quoted bit about what results of a TPT would be.

Sorry, you cannot just ignore part of a rule. You either ignore the whole rule or none of the rule.

I assume by 'rule' you mean 'entry'. And you back that up with...?

The same thing you back up your claims. Utterly nothing. No wait, sorry, I have the Rules. Show me in the 5th edition Book where you take a TPT. If you can, then the Target Lock Works. If you cannot, you can never pass a TPT (as you never took it) so the Target lock does not work.

You have a RAW mention of TPT. I have the function of the weapon, which in 4th edition triggered a test that no longer exists. If you don't disagree with me over it being popuular opinion, and the fact that it's FAQ'd, then we're done here.

Ridcully wrote:You have a RAW mention of TPT. I have the function of the weapon, which in 4th edition triggered a test that no longer exists. If you don't disagree with me over it being popuular opinion, and the fact that it's FAQ'd, then we're done here.

Yeah, The Rules, ya know how you play the game. The INAT FAQ is full of Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. Allowing a Target Lock to work Breaks the rules. Plain and Simple.

If you wanna play RaI, my Space Wolves can Deep Strike for Free, shoot their Bolters and then Assault, because that's how it used to work.

RAW is very clear - a TP test is required and they don't exist anymore so TL's don't work.

However, I feel that a little flexibility is required with regard to codexes written for now out-dated rulesets. Before TP (3rd ed.), the TL functioned just fine. It had the same function in 4th but required a TP check. I feel that it is perfectly reasonable in this situation to assume that the TP check is auto-passed. This is yet another of those situations where the RAW is clear but ruleset change has broken it. Check it with your opponent or TO and you should be good to go.

Ridcully, I'm not seeing any mention of it in the Tau FAQ - what version of that do you have?

Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

Yeah, like i said, the INAT FAQ changes a lot of rules. RaW, the Target Lock does not work. You may not like it, but I don't care.

Ok, good to know.. again. I get that you don't care.

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

The INAT FAQ? Well if you're playing at a club or tournament where the INAT FAQ is considered official then you're fine. Otherwise, it makes no difference to anything since it's even less official than the GW ones. You might as well just say "the man on the internet told me that it worked."

Here's a quote from the Scott-S6 FAQ:

Tau
Target Locks don't work unless you ask nicely
Pulse Rifles all have the Gets Hot! special rule
Hammerheads only hit on a D6 roll of 6+

The INAT FAQ isn't RAW. It's a good set of house rules.

But, I don't think the rules are clear as to what you are supposed to do with the Target Lock. If you take the rule to be like a legal contract, just because one clause of the contract is invalid, it (at least usually) doesn't make the rest of the clauses invalid.

Since there's a pretty heated debate going on, I think it's clear that the RAW isn't clear. Which means, you have to house rule it. The INAT FAQ is generally a good starting point (although, I will admit, I have some issues with it). What matters is how your gaming group chooses to handle it and how any tourney organizers (for tourneys you play in) rule on it.

Now, for a 5 point piece of wargear, it's pretty powerful. So, I would recommend some caution. The ability to have a single unit split fire is very powerful, it's a force multiplier. But, the Tau codex is pretty hamstrung in other areas, so I think it just balances things out for them. YMMV.

I think the RAW is completely clear. It's just not 5th edition Rules.

It's pretty obvious how to work round it unlike thornback, etc. Just clear it with your opponent or houserule it.

I suspect that most people would be fine with it if you asked them. Gwar! - you're one of the biggest RAW sticklers roundhere. If someone (before the game) put a pint in front of you and asked to use his TLs without a TP test would you refuse or let them do it?

Yes, thornback is right out IMO.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Ridcully wrote:Not the GW FAQ, see above posts.

The INAT FAQ? Well if you're playing at a club or tournament where the INAT FAQ is considered official then you're fine. Otherwise, it makes no difference to anything since it's even less official than the GW ones. You might as well just say "the man on the internet told me that it worked.

I think if you read back, you'll see i wasn't even aware it was in the INAT FAQs. Did i say they were official? No. Do i go generally go by FAQs, such as those from Yakface? Yes. My point was that it's a popular opinion, and one that many choose to play by. It's much more than "the man on the internet". If i didn't go with everyone else, i'd have no one to play with. It is a game.

I do not understand why this went past one response.

The rest is House Rules.

The actualy rules tell you to do something impossible (it does not exist) to get the wargear to work.

Good luck with that.

Every one else with a codex with rules like this has accepted it and moved on. Please join us and play a game of 40k, it can be fun!

Ridcully wrote:
I think if you read back, you'll see i wasn't even aware it was in the INAT FAQs. Did i say they were official? No. Do i go generally go by FAQs, such as those from Yakface? Yes. My point was that it's a popular opinion, and one that many choose to play by. It's much more than "the man on the internet". If i didn't go with everyone else, i'd have no one to play with. It is a game.

The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Popularity of an opinion does not make it correct. The RAW is very clear. It's also very clear that the change from 4th to 5th has screwed up an otherwise simple rule.

Agreeing a work-around is easy when it's as obvious as this one. No-one (except possibly Gwar! - waiting to see his response to my question) is saying that you shouldn't use that work-around.

Oh yea.

I understand now.

I apologize, I reread it and see it was Gwar! that posted the actual rules.

That totally explains why people argued.

Carry on.

Scott-S6 wrote:I suspect that most people would be fine with it if you asked them. Gwar! - you're one of the biggest RAW sticklers roundhere. If someone (before the game) put a pint in front of you and asked to use his TLs without a TP test would you refuse or let them do it?

As long as it was a pint of something nice, I wouldn't mind too much. Just so long as you realise you are a horrible cheating evil man However, I would ask that you take a Ld test to use it, as 5 Points to split fire is silly.

kirsanth wrote:Oh yea.

I understand now.

I apologize, I reread it and see it was Gwar! that posted the actual rules.

That totally explains why people argued.

Carry on.

QFT

Hurrah! Even Gwar! will compromise on it.

Maybe now this can die and we can find something that's actually interesting to argue about.

Scott-S6 wrote:Maybe now this can die and we can find something that's actually interesting to argue about.

Arguing about toy soliders in a hobby isn't fun?

It is when the question is actually a good one. The astropath stack one was good - that actually had two different readings of the rule which were both internally consistent. (the understanding of formal logic was weak in that thread...) This is just old ed. codex problems so the answer is houserule.

Is it just me, or is this section of the forums getting increasingly less fun to read of late. The stuff popping up is ridiculous. :(

Dashofpepper wrote:Is it just me, or is this section of the forums getting increasingly less fun to read of late. The stuff popping up is ridiculous. :(

I suppose it is all my fault eh?

Anti Gwar! Thread #4 In Development!

Scott-S6 wrote:The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Those guys were dicks. Why do you think nobody played 40k with them? jk

I think trasvi summed it up well. The history of TL from 3rd edition to 4th edition explains the intent of the rule. The TPT was for 4th edition rules clarification, and therefore should be ignored in the rule description for 5th edition as the GW FAQ states. The history and the GW FAQ tip the scale on the ruling here. TPT becomes unnessessary for 5th edition therefore you don't need to take a TPT for TL to work. That's my opinion and no one has challenged me on it yet, but I always approach the subject politely.

Though this isn't RAW so house rules should supersede. Honestly I don't think anyone is going to argue that Tau are overpowered in 5th edition with or without TL, and I don't see how a crisis suit heavy list is effective without it.

I empathize with Gwar! though. Nids need a new codex badly. Probably more than Tau do.

The problem is that there is No RAW for this. There are no rules on how to deal with codex that mention defunct rules. This is my biggest issue with GWAR's argument is that he says he has the rules on his side but i can't find any rules in my 5th edition handbook that say you ignore wargear that incorperate old rules. GW has their FAQ but they state right at the begninning that these are their suggestions and not RAW.

If you want to ignore all wargear that has old rules as GWAR stated then you cannot use stealth field generators or markerlights as they all have rules for TPT and if you can't ignore just one rule in the wargear, as GWAR says, and still use that gear. GW's FAQ SUGGESTS that you ignore rules that have no effect but this is not RAW.

As i've stated before using this suggestion i would say TL's work as the rule that lets them 'target a different unit' has an effect. The rule that says they take one TPT has no effect in 5th edition. The FAQ SUGGESTS you ignore the rule not the wargear completely.

VoxDei wrote:The problem is that there is No RAW for this.

Sorry, but there is. In order to use a Target Lock, you must Pass a TPT. Now, there is never a case where you must take a TPT in the new edition, so you can never pass a TPT, so you can never use the Target Lock. It is THAT simple.

There's not a RAW answer. There's no answer. You can interpret the rules that Target Locks don't work, you can also interpret the rules that you need to pass a Leadership test to use the item, and you can interpret the rules that you can simply target two different units. Because part of the statement is invalidated, it doesn't mean all the statement is invalidated. GW doesn't provide an answer. Screaming the loudest doesn't make a person correct.

Ridcully wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The world has always been advanced by those who refused to agree with what was commonly held as correct.

Those guys were dicks. Why do you think nobody played 40k with them? jk

I'm sure that they would have cared not at all, ensconced as they were in the comfy armchairs of their own smugness.

dietrich wrote:you can also interpret the rules that you need to pass a Leadership test to use the item,

Can you explain how that is possible using only the 5th edition rulebook please?

and you can interpret the rules that you can simply target two different units.

Again, can you explain how you can get an effect you are only able to get by passing a test that you cannot even take, let alone pass?

since the test no longer exists you ignore the rule needing to take the test and skip to the next part. Since that part of the game still exists you continue playing.

As per the faq.

Gwar! I don't see how your last point is undebateable. There is a reason this thread is locked in an endless loop. There is no right answer to this question. You can't cite rules. You can only cite opinions. RAW is logically impossible. The GW FAQ is actually what we are debating here, and it's worded vaguely. We definitely ingore all instances of TPT in reading rules descriptions, but does that imply that the entire rule disapears or do we just ignore that 1 section statement in the rule applying to TPT. I've always interpretted that you just remove the statement that includes TPT from the rule description and reread it. That's the new rule. Though this is my interpretation of a vague FAQ statment. Just like Gwar!'s arguement is only an interpretation.

We need a FAQ for the GW FAQ.

Gwar, you are not always right. Get over yourself.
In some cases you may be correct, but other people who are arguing with you are also correct.

In this rule, you have two, equally valid readings:

1) "Take one target priority test for the entire unit ..." is a condition and a requirement of being able to use a target lock, that indicates that in order for the unit to fire at all, they MUST take a target priority test.

2) "Take one target priority test for the entire unit ..." is a clarification on the number of target priority tests you would need to make, as the rule previously would have been unclear.

I can see that someone who had not been a Tau player since the codex was released might be drawn immediately to the first reading. However, knowing the original ruling in 3rd edition, the FAQ's needed to sort out Target Priority in 4th edition and finally the release of the 4th ed codex leads me to the second reading.

Again, this is quite different to Thornback, which has no use whatsoever in 5th ed, whereas Target locks make perfect sense if you regard the second half of the rule as a clarification rather than a condition.


And, even if I do follow your reading of the rules, you are wrong that you cannot ever use a target lock. You might not be able to get the benefit of being able to split fire, but you would be able to declare shooting with that unit, and thus hold up a game indefinitely as I cannot resolve shooting with that unit. .