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'd go with C, as there was a penalty for failure (Wargear not working) it seems off to me to remove that chance of failure now.

The chance of failure is removed for all armies.

Target Priority used to apply to all armies. It doesn't apply to any army now, so Tau gain nothing special in comparison to everyone else, and they lose something if you make them take a test or not allow them to use the wargear.

Black Templar it still applies to

My point was that in 4th edition all armies had to take a target priority test to be able to shoot at a target farther away than the nearest one. That no longer applies.

Except as I recall you never needed to take target priority to target vehicles even if it wasn't the closest unit. So in the Case of BSS the failure meant shooting at 1 tank not 2 or 3.

Yes, I think you are right.

Red_Lives wrote:Except as I recall you never needed to take target priority to target vehicles even if it wasn't the closest unit.

Not quite. Last edition, you could choose to fire at the closest Large target instead of the closest unit. You still needed to roll for Target Priority to fire at anything other than the closest Large Target, though.

Anyway the point is that since the rule is no longer in the game, all armies are better off, except Tau and Dark Angels (?) .

Why should they be specifically penalised? It's not like Tau is a strong codex that could do with being taken down a couple of pegs.

Option B.

(in my view) the only reason the wording for target priority tests even exists in the Target Lock rule, is because it is a clarification on how to take your target priority tests - if it didn't tell you, how would you know?
In fact the only situation where you could have fired with target locks and NOT taken a TP test is the situation where you are shooting some models at close infantry and other models at distant tanks. Any other situation would have required you to take TP tests, and then the question comes up 'how many tests do I take?'. Thats why the rule clarifies, only ONE test.
Black Templars I think used the reference to the target priority rule as they needed some kind of rule that made them focus on the closest unit occassionally, but distant units upon successful leadership tests; it just so happens that Target Priority filled that exact rule already!

And additionally, option A breaks the game as tau can't finish their shooting phase, so option A is as much house rules as option B.

I choose B

Anyone playing against me is welcome to bring out the RAW and insist i 'play by the rules'. However, if they do that, I'll insist on playing by ALL the RAW rules as per this thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

Black Templar, and they have a specific rule which states what a TP is - so they SHOULD use it, as it is fully described within their rules. they also take the test at -1...

ArbitorIan wrote:
Anyone playing against me is welcome to bring out the RAW and insist i 'play by the rules'. However, if they do that, I'll insist on playing by ALL the RAW rules as per this thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

The majority of the silly rules in that thread are either wrong or are fine but happen to not match majority RAP.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
Anyone playing against me is welcome to bring out the RAW and insist i 'play by the rules'. However, if they do that, I'll insist on playing by ALL the RAW rules as per this thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

The majority of the silly rules in that thread are either wrong or are fine but happen to not match majority RAP.

A good number of them are incorrect, but the point stands that RAW can hit some silly places if taken to far. I treat Target Lock (as a Tau player) as a useless piece of wargear and move on.

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.

I seem to recall, the last time this came up, you said that you would allow option B for a Tau player that provided you with quality alcohol...

I've always played it as option B mainly because that is how all 3 of my FLGS ruled it. However if an opponent wanted to play 100% RaW (And all the sillyness it involves, by which I mean little exploits that can be made I am NOT saying playing RaW is silly) than I would have to concede & use option A.

Gwar! wrote: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.

Love the new avatar by the way.