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.

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:No, Minor powers is an old rule from the BRB. You can't remove words in it to match a current rule. Its pretty obvious that you are grasping at straws here. You are changing a referenced rule from the BRB. I am ignoring one completely.

Could I get a Page number please because I do not remember seeing "minor power" in any Rulebook.

Again grasping at straws. No one will think less of you if you have to admit you were wrong.

I do not possess a Xth edition rulebook. (not quite sure which one it is in, but I believe it is 2nd) Anyways since it is not referenced anywhere you ignore it. Not 1 word of it, all of it.

You are trying to pick and choose words to pull out of an entry to make it do something according to the current rules. I am pulling out an entire rule out of an old entry so the game doesn't freeze.

If it is in the 2nd edition rulebook, then I have no idea what you are on about, as Codex Witch Hunters is a 3rd edition codex.

I am not grasping at straws, you are the one who has failed to show any reason why you can ignore some words but I cannot.

Simple Question: Where does it say ANYWHERE that you can ignore ANY parts of rules, whether it be words, or taking out whole sentences?

Here on page 3.

Eight Ball wrote:Simple Question: Where does it say ANYWHERE that you can ignore ANY parts of rules, whether it be words, or taking out whole sentences?

The FAQ, which by definition means nothing. However, working under the assumption that we are following the FAQs guidelines, it is clear that certain people are using it to remove the bits they don't like, while keeping the bits they do, when the FAQ says to ignore the rule, not part of a rule.

Thanks Kirsanth, but that says to ignore the entire rule, not taking out bits of it to force it to still do something

EDIT: Agree with Gwar (ninja'd)

Eight Ball wrote:Simple Question: Where does it say ANYWHERE that you can ignore ANY parts of rules, whether it be words, or taking out whole sentences?

Actually, let me amend my response to that.

It does not ever say that.

It says that options or rules can be ignored. Parts of them or sentences are not in that stipulation.

Again, I think Target Lock only works because of the INAT . . . "clarification".

That's sort of what I was implying Kirsanth, that you can ignore entire rules, but not just parts (or a couple words)

Target priority tests are a rule. It is not part of a rule or a word in a single rule. It is an entire rule on its own. I am not picking and choose which words to get rid of. I am ignoring an entire rule.

(If you are arguing that a target priority test is just part of a Tau specific rule, please show me where it is in the Tau codex.)

This is perfectly legit per the FAQ.

Your argument, you are removing a single word, that is not a rule. Minor is not a rule. Minor power is and so could be removed.


Gwar, just because I don't know exactly which codex something is in does not make my entire argument wrong. Whats next, are you going to claim I am stupid so I am wrong?

I am saying that the wargear functions if a non-existant roll is successfully made. This is impossible.

To me (and others) this falls into "clearly has no effect", since the roll cannot be successful.

Again, INAT "clarifies" that the restriction on the wargear is removed, but the bonus is not - and many are fine with that.

shrug

Timmah wrote:Target priority tests are a rule. It is not part of a rule or a word in a single rule. It is an entire rule on its own. I am not picking and choose which words to get rid of. I am ignoring an entire rule.

(If you are arguing that a target priority test is just part of a Tau specific rule, please show me where it is in the Tau codex.)

This is perfectly legit per the FAQ.

No, it's not. As Gwar likes to point out, GW doesn't claim their FAQs are official changes, only the errata section is. So, first of all, it's in the FAQ portion, so it's not even an official ruling. Second, the only example given is for a wargear item that relates to outnumbering in close combat, which is now gone. There's no other effect of Thornback (iirc). They don't stipulate what to with, specifically Target Locks, or any 'option or rule' which references a rule that is not in Fifth Edition. The first part of TL works fine. It breaks down when you get to the discussion about target priority tests. At which point, your options are: TL's do nothing; TL's work without needing to pass a target priority test; other (leadership test, flip a coin, d6 it each round, thumb-wrestling, break out the rulers, etc.).

There is no RAW about TLs because there are no written rules telling us what to do with it in Fifth Edition.

@ dietrich

If you want to get that technical and use the whole argument that FAQ's =! rules.

Then technically I can freeze the game whenever I want by using a target lock.

Oh, hey I need to make a target priority test to continue. Game ends.

I will happily play that way, since that is real RAW. I don't mind a 5pt piece of wargear that lets me end the game whenever I want.

Timmah wrote:@ dietrich

If you want to get that technical and use the whole argument that FAQ's =! rules.

Then technically I can freeze the game whenever I want by using a target lock.

Oh, hey I need to make a target priority test to continue. Game ends.

I will happily play that way, since that is real RAW. I don't mind a 5pt piece of wargear that lets me end the game whenever I want.

Well it doesn't let you win, it just makes you unsportsmanlike -shrug-

@timmah
Generally, I accept that GW's FAQ is a ruling, unless it contradicts itself or another rule. Gwar pointed out that the Ork FAQ on dreads with extra DCCWs is wrong, so they're certainly failable.

I play that Target Locks work without taking the target priority test. 1) it seems to follow the spirit of the GW FAQ, 2) it is what INAT FAQ determined, 3) Tau need all the help that they can get. I'd be willing to play with it as substituting a Leadership test for the TPT, but I'd do so grudgingly.

But, neither side of the aisle can make a claim that RAW says it's one way or the other. There's no reference anywhere that says what do with a wargear item that is only partially invalidated by Fifth Edition.

dietrich wrote:
But, neither side of the aisle can make a claim that RAW says it's one way or the other. There's no reference anywhere that says what do with a wargear item that is only partially invalidated by Fifth Edition.

It does say that I can ignore any rule that doesn't work anymore. Target Priority tests are a rule that doesn't work anymore. So I can ignore that part of the wargear.


How does freezing the game make me unsportsmanlike Gwar!? and how does that have anything to with this conversation?

The FAQ does not say ignore part of the wargear.

It says "If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition. . ."

"if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing."

Not pick and choose parts of the option (or rule) to ignore. You ignore the codex option.

Timmah, you don't understand what they're saying: When they say "You ignore the options (or other rule)", the thing you are ignoring is the Target Lock itself. You can't ignore part of the TL rule, you have to ignore all of it.

The option clearly as an effect however. If a rule has no effect (Target Priority Test) you ignore it. You can't ignore that it has no effect because it does have an effect in game that can be determined (Target Lock that is). Target Priority Test does not. It is a rule that was in an old edition that is no longer there. Since the rule clearly has no effect we ignore it. The wargear still clearly has an effect on the game - you can shoot two different units.

This is from your quote form the FAQ and an argument based solely on what you quoted.

Again though, you can't ignore PART of a rule (taking a target priority test is IN the Target lock rule), so you have to ignore all of it (ignoring Target Lock)

rogueeyes wrote:The option clearly as an effect however. If a rule has no effect (Target Priority Test) you ignore it. You can't ignore that it has no effect because it does have an effect in game that can be determined (Target Lock that is). Target Priority Test does not. It is a rule that was in an old edition that is no longer there. Since the rule clearly has no effect we ignore it. The wargear still clearly has an effect on the game - you can shoot two different units.

This is from your quote form the FAQ and an argument based solely on what you quoted.

kirsanth wrote:I am saying that the wargear functions if a non-existant roll is successfully made. This is impossible.

To me (and others) this falls into "clearly has no effect", since the roll cannot be successful.

The other issue is that the FAQ is about Codex options and rules.

Target Priority is neither.

Lets compare and contrast with the Command and Control node that Tau get.

The EFFECT of the C+C node is to allow Tau to use the bearer's leadership for Target Priority tests.

The EFFECT of the Target Lock is to allow Tau to shoot at multiple units. It has a CLARIFICTION that you need to take one target priority test.
It is most definitely not *clear* that a target lock has 'no effect'. The effect is still there.

No tau player attempts to ignore the 'target priority' part of the Command and Control node. Obviously, the entire effect is lost as it cannot ever have any impact in game. The Target Lock does still ahve a clear effect, and you ignore the old rule of Target Priority.


In any case, you have to use one of three house rules:
1) Ignore the 'target priority' part and let units with TL's fire without restriction.
2) Ignore the entire target lock and don't allow models equipped with them to fire, ever (note this includes Sniper Drone Teams, Rail-Rifle pathfinders and Commander Farsight).
3) Ignore the part where if the RAW is followed the game freezes as you cannot resolve shooting with that unit.
Seeing as you have to "break the rules" anyhow, which is the most sporting way to go about it?

4) Don't use target lock?

PS it isnt a "Clarification" but a requirement, a slight difference

The "effect" of Perils of the Warp is to cause a wound on the psyker. Does this mean that I don't have to take a psychic test to use a psychic power, and that I automatically take a wound and don't roll the test?

PS: RaW not RaP

Basically Gwar is correct in his RAW interpretation. Although, as far as the way the game is played, he is in the minority. No amount of argueing is going to change his mind as he is standing on firm ground in his position.

However, this is a game with many holes and instances of poor wording written into it. As such a lot of responsibility as to how the game is played falls to us, the players. I think it can be said that as far as the way most people play the game, that target locks work without having to take a target priority test. That's the way it's going to be played in 99% of friendly games and tourneys. So there's no real need to try and justify that position to Gwar.

augustus: Yeah, of course, for the most part everyone would be fine with letting people use it, but we were discussing how some people argued it was RAW to let them still use it without a TP test (RAW Gwar! is right of course). So yeah, it's always played as a usable piece of Tau wargear, even though by RAW it's unusable.

I fail to see how the stance that "Target Locks do not work" is RAW. People who play that way are ignoring the rule that you must resolve shooting with one unit before moving on to another unit. That is against the rules just as much as people using target locks is breaking the rules.

@nosferatu: If you knew the history of the Target Lock, you would know that the entire statement about TP tests is a clarification. In 3rd edition, the rule had no reference to TP test. In 4th edition, people were all like "Omg, how do you take target priority tests when there are 3 models all shooting at different targets???" and so a FAQ came out with the exact wording that is now in the codex. So, I see it as a clarification on HOW MANY target priority tests you would need to take.

@Kitzz: Different situation. Perils of the Warp is a rule on how to deal with the RESULT of a psychic test. Perils of the Warp is akin to models who failed their target priority test being required to fire at the closest unit.

It is not a clarification: IF YOU PASS THE TP TEST you get to fire at different targets. It is a direct conditional requirement in order to perform an action: you can tell this because it tels you what happens if you fail to filfill the condition.

Having owned both codices it doesn't matter what was in the 3rd ed FAQ: the current codex requires you to take a TP test. IF you pass it you get to fire at different targets, if not you don't. In no way, shape or form can that be considered a clarification

I like context. Especially when dealing with rules from old, out of date codices, context is quite good.

However, I understand that not many people take this view, so I have another question: How do you deal with the game-freezing situation?

Trasvi wrote:How do you deal with the game-freezing situation?

The Game ends without a result.

Trasvi wrote:I fail to see how the stance that "Target Locks do not work" is RAW.

then read this thread. Not just the parts you agree with.

Trasvi wrote: People who play that way are ignoring the rule that you must resolve shooting with one unit before moving on to another unit. That is against the rules just as much as people using target locks is breaking the rules.

No, actually. I think you missed a line or something.

Trasvi wrote:@nosferatu: If you knew the history of the Target Lock, you would know that the entire statement about TP tests is a clarification. In 3rd edition, the rule had no reference to TP test. In 4th edition, people were all like "Omg, how do you take target priority tests when there are 3 models all shooting at different targets???" and so a FAQ came out with the exact wording that is now in the codex. So, I see it as a clarification on HOW MANY target priority tests you would need to take.

Interesting, but given that the rule states that TL works only if the TP test succeeds, and you ASSUME that the opponent even knows what this means, succeeding in even 1 TP test is the problem. The history is - still - irrelevant as we are simply discussing 5e.

Trasvi wrote:@Kitzz: Different situation. Perils of the Warp is a rule on how to deal with the RESULT of a psychic test. Perils of the Warp is akin to models who failed their target priority test being required to fire at the closest unit.

TL works as the RESULT of a successful TP test. Same , different pile. Actually, not even that far. As psychic tests are detailed. You assumption is akin to what would happen if psychic tests were removed but you wanted to keep your opponent taking perils wounds.

kirsanth wrote: then read this thread. Not just the parts you agree with.

Oh I have read the thread.
I completely agree that, by the RAW, there is something *wrong* with Target Locks. However, if you are attempting to use "Pure RAW" to solve the situation, preventing models equipped with target locks from firing is NOT the correct RAW.
(Now i'm sorry that I don't have the rulebook on hand for exact quotes):
Target Locks: blah blah Take a target priority test: if passed, fire as you wish; if failed, fire at closest unit.
Shooting (1st page of shooting rules) Select one unit, and shoot with it. Once all shooting has been resolved, select another unit and fire with it.

* A Tau player may take target locks.
* A Tau player may select a unit and declare shooting with that unit
* Thus, a Tau player may select a unit that has target locks and declare shooting with that unit.
* There is no rule for Target Priority Tests.
* You can neither pass nor fail something you cannot do.
* Thus, a model equipped with target lock may not resolve shooting as he can neither pass nor fail a test he is required to take but does not exist.
* The Tau player has selected a unit to fire with and cannot select another unit to fire with until the shooting from the selected unit is resolved
* The tau player can't resolve Shooting, and so cannot select another unit.
* The game is held in eternal stasis as the Tau player can't continue his turn.

THAT is the RAW. Well, unless you can find a flaw in my reasoning.
So, as before, three options:
1) Don't allow models with target locks to fire, ever. (breaks rule in bullet point 3)
2) Allow models equipped with target locks to fire without restriction (breaks rule in bullet point 6)
3) Some other house rule.
However no solution can possibly follow the RAW.


I reference the history of the rules only because I believe that in a situation like this, where all possible solutions are not coherent with the rules due to differences in legacy codices, you should follow most closely the historical context of the rule. You are free to disagree of course, and provide your own justification behind your house rule.