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.

blaktoof wrote: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.

Yeah, and guess what, the FAQ is a house rule. I play by RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote: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. .

Yeah, go ahead. I just kick you in the balls for being an utter douche.

so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such test the unit can fire at multiple targets. That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it may have no effect is in a faq you don't use)

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

Gwar, get over to the battle report section to the thread about mechanized IG vs. Orks; there are a bunch of people who think that because their opinion on a rule is popular its right. IE, its ok to flame your own guys.

You can't use RAW for this, since if you were playing RAW you run into the exact situation Trasvi presents. RAW asks you to do something that doesn't exists. Tau player can't resolve his unit's shooting. The RAW says you can select TL. TL states that you must make a TPT. TPT doesn't exist in the 5th edition rulebook..........divide by zero....core dump......blue screen of death........

blaktoof wrote:so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

How do you mean? Shrike Has Infiltrate, so he can. Or are you talking about the "His Squad thing"? If you mean that, no, he cannot do that, because he cannot join the squad before deploying, and the squad cannot infiltrate until he is deployed.

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

The rules say only Infantry Models may Ride in transports. Nothing in the Valkraie Rules changes this.

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

They can take it fine, it just has no effect.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such test the unit can fire at multiple targets. That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

Such a shame we do not play 4th edition any more isn't it?

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

No, I play it that the Target lock has no effect (because it doesn't) and the game continues.

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it has no effect is in a faq you don't use)

I never said they couldn't take it. And as for the FAQ's, so what? I do not need an FAQ to tell me it doesn't work, as I have proven RaW it doesn't.

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

Yeah, so it doesn't work.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

Target Priority was never a Codex Rule, it was a Rulebook Rule.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

I play by RaW.

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, get over to the battle report section to the thread about mechanized IG vs. Orks; there are a bunch of people who think that because their opinion on a rule is popular its right. IE, its ok to flame your own guys.

I saw that, and decided not to post. I have grown weary of telling Imbeciles they are incorrect only for them to gang up on me like I'm the new kid in Cell Block B, even though I am right, they know I am right, and are only doing so because it is me.

so where is it written that rules in codexes that are not in the main rulebook don't work?

Is there a page in the mainrulebook that says "if anything says in its codex to take a target priority test then that item doesn't work" ?

blaktoof wrote:so where is it written that rules in codexes that are not in the main rulebook don't work?

Is there a page in the mainrulebook that says "if anything says in its codex to take a target priority test then that item doesn't work" ?

Logical Fallacy. There is nothing in the rulebook saying "If you fail a morale test you may not burn your opponents house down".

The fact is, there is no such thing as a TPT, therefore, when you try to take it, you can't. As such, you cannot hope to pass it, so you cannot use the second ability, which only works if you pass the TPT (Which you didn't do).

I see your train of thought, but there is nothing that supports it other than your opinion.

The codex is valid.

There is nothing in the codex saying you may not take a target lock.

There is nothing in the rulebook saying you may not take the target lock.

The item in the codex allows you to take a single target priority test to target multiple units This is a valid rule at the time of writing the codex and the codex is still valid for 5th edition.

The second special rule of the target lock item has nothing to say it doesn't work in the main rulebook.

There is no rule in the main rulebook on this test.

There is no rule in the main rule book on what to do if a item in a valid codex has rules that do not exist within the main rulebook.

There is no rule in the main rulebook that disallows you to take this item. In fact there is no rule in the main rulebook that is even GW style ambiguous as to what to do.

There is no rule in the main rulebook that says anythhing along the lines of "if there is a rule in a valid codex that is not in the main rulebook then do X"

actually I believe it states that codex supersede the main rulebook, which is unhelpful for this situation. I'll have to review my 5th edition rulebook after work.

In any event:

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

No, I play it that the Target lock has no effect (because it doesn't) and the game continues.

Reread your statement. "I play that". You are making a house rule. Saying "because it doesn't" isn't helpful or insightful.

@blaktoof: Until you come up with something better than "I play it like this" or "It doesn't say it doesn't", I am afraid I am going to have to ignore you.

Gwar! wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote: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. .

Yeah, go ahead. I just kick you in the balls for being an utter douche.

Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Trasvi wrote:Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Yeah, I am sure you make a lot of friends with that attitude.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

My codex does not say you must pass a TPT. The codex says that if you fail the TPT then you must all fire at the closest target. But i will never fail a TPT because it doesn't exist.

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

My codex does not say you must pass a TPT. The codex says that if you fail the TPT then you must all fire at the closest target. But i will never fail a TPT because it doesn't exist.

Neither will you pass, so you cannot target a different unit. As such, the Wargear does not work.

The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

GWAR! your whole arguement falls apart because you say you are playing RAW, but you aren't. You are making an interpretation. Once you have to interpret beyond the actual words on the page you are making a house rule. RAW would be as Trasvi describes. Give up. There is no objective answer to this topic. You need a FAQ or house rule to clarify.

phillosmaster wrote:GWAR! your whole arguement falls apart because you say you are playing RAW, but you aren't. You are making an interpretation. Once you have to interpret beyond the actual words on the page you are making a house rule. RAW would be as Trasvi describes. Give up. There is no objective answer to this topic. You need a FAQ or house rule to clarify.

Yeah, because ya know, Causing the game to stop because you don't take a test is RaW.... Wait what?

No, you give up you damn troll.

Why is it every post I comment on now has 4 or 5 damn trolls lambasting me just because it is me?

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Why? I'm playing by RAW. I declared a unit's shooting and I can't shoot with another unit until the first units' shooting is resolved. In actual fact, I'd probably fire a shot or two with my railguns, hopefully take out a light vehicle or similar, and then hold up shooting so that I win the match anyway.
I'd consider *you* to be the (bad sport) if you kicked another player over a game of toy soldiers. Especially seeing as its over a disagreement between two equally valid interpretations of RAW.

Yeah, I am sure you make a lot of friends with that attitude.

Hey, personal attacks from Gwar ?
I don't play like that. I could, and probably would, if someone adamantly danced around the table with a diary of all the times they were right, and then proceeded to display without any real proof why their interpretation of the rules was the only possible interpretation of the rules and was not willing to budge on any single point they said. Fortunately, no such people exist in Australia, and I make lots of friends when gaming as I have an amicable way of solving rules disputes quickly through application of logic combined with common sense and a willingness to compromise.
Now I don't think I've actually seen you disagree with my interpretation in any logical manner, so I'll just assume we will agree to disagree on this point.
And VoxDei, according to the latest codex you must pass your One Target Priority test. Whether that means you are required to take a target priority test, or that it is simply clarifying for you how many target priority tests to take, is where (IMO) the actual debate lies.

Yeah, because ya know, Causing the game to stop because you don't take a test is RaW.... Wait what?

Yes it does because it's a broken mechanic. It breaks the game. GW isn't infalible. That's why they needed a FAQ in the first place. The RAW don't make sense. You can't make a ruling without reinterpreting the rules. Once you do that it isn't RAW. What are you arguing? Are you honestly arguing that this isn't a broken rule?

If you take a strict RaW stance on this kind of thing Gwar! is half-correct. (Don't quote that in your signature, Gwar!, i'm not done.) Target Lock is a VITAL part of many tau lists. to remove it would be tantamount to removing chainswords from all marine lists. (Yes, i know theres no rules supporting that, it's just an analogy, calm down.) But, if you're going that strict with RaW, then if a unit has a Target Lock (except vehicles, theirs work differently) then the game freezes while waiting for an impossible target priority test. Therefor, by saying "target lcoks don't work" Gwar! is, in fact wrong. They work by freezing the game. Those tau have some neat technology. Instead of looking at ONLY the words why not look at the meaning behind them. These rules are written (mainly to sell miniatures) SO PEOPLE CAN PLAY A GAME. I'm going to reiterate the second part of that:

A GAME

A game ceases to be a game when it becomes unplayable. So if you are Gwar!, you get angry, kick someone, get removed from the premises and probably get charged with assault. If you're not a total whackjob, you agree to depart from RaW (OH THE NOES!) for this rule and decide on one of two solutions: Target lock has no effect (And if the Tau's opponent isn't TFG (Gwar!), they'll probably let the Tau player get those points back somehow (a piece of wargear they diddnt take orginally, maybe an extra kroot model, whatever seems fair). Or target lock works because (moar branching!) a) You ignore the PART of the rule that mentions target priority, or b) you assume all target priority tests are passed. The bottom line here is you NEED to depart from RaW here. Sorry, Gwar, i guess that means you can't play against Tau anymore.

I have thought of a third option that may be satisfactory. To use a Target lock, you actually take a target priority test. Yes i know they don't exist in the BRB, but codexes override BRB anyways, don't they? so to use a target lock you use it exactly as RaW, target lock included.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Exactly my point. The codex says that if you fail you must all fire at the closest target. You cannot Fail (the codex has no provisions for if you donot fail so it doesn't matter if you donot fail) therefor it works as stated. Therefor the reverse to your argument is more true than your argument. The problem with this rule is that both arguments are true even though they are opposite.

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoxDei wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:The codex does not require that i pass. It only requires that i Do not fail. 0/0 =/ 0

*=/ does not equal (I don't know the ansi character off hand)

Well, the thing is, you cannot "Not Fail" because you didn't take the test.

As for "Not Equal", I tend to use !=, but that's because I am a nerd.

Exactly my point. The codex says that if you fail you must all fire at the closest target. You cannot Fail (the codex has no provisions for if you donot fail so it doesn't matter if you donot fail) therefor it works as stated. Therefor the reverse to your argument is more true than your argument. The problem with this rule is that both arguments are true even though they are opposite.

actually it also says that if you pass you take shots separately. there's no fall-through clause.

Gwar! wrote:@blaktoof: Until you come up with something better than "I play it like this" or "It doesn't say it doesn't", I am afraid I am going to have to ignore you.

ironically not only did you not answer my question but you pretty much told me to come up with something better than "I play it like this" which is actually what you said word for word not I... and the "it doesnt say it doesnt" arguement is pretty valid.

The codex says do this, and the rulebook "doesnt say it doesnt" or in this case the rulebook has no rules as written against the codex rules taking precedence or as to what to do if there is a codex rule that cites a rulebook rule that is no longer in this edition of the rulebook, only the codex states the rule- a codex which is valid with all of its rules still being valid unless 'specifically' stated otherwise in the rulebook. Which is not the case.

This isnt a case of saying OH i can move all my units twice because the rulebook doesnt say it doesnt and the codex doesnt say it doesnt, one source of rules(codex which takes precendence over rulebook unless state otherwise) says do this. The rulebook has absolutely nothing to say.


And some advice just because people don't agree with you doesnt mean people are cyber stalking your every thread and mass posting against you.

Also if you feel like you are getting "flamed" or disagreed with a lot maybe you shouldnt troll every thread looking for things to argue about.

I know a lot of times you provide helpful insight, but this is not that case. You have basically just said "this is how I play it" "I play by RAW" which is nice and all but that is not RAW infact the only RAW on this issue is to take a target priority test as per the RAW in the codex, and the rulebook has no RAW on that, and it has no RAW against taking it.

Incase anyone cares, without needing a FAQ or erratta all GTs and RTs since 5th came out and even the upcoming ard boyz tourney this week is allowing target locks to fire at seperate units.....

VoxDei wrote:According to GW's FAQ "...if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, ..., it simply does nothing"

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

This doesn't say that the whole ability does nothing just that the rule does nothing. The TL clearly has an effect in 5th edition but the rule that talks about when a target priority test is made has no effect so it does nothing. There for the TL simply allows your model to fire on a different unit than the rest of its unit.

Bunk.

COPYPASTA . . . FAIL.

"rule" is a note. The option itself is negated if you use the FAQ.
If you use the rules you have no words to stand on other than house rules.
If you want to talk intent, do so. That's not rules.
The rules are as clear as the intentions behind the "logic" posted above.

As a note:
Designer intent was actually stated in the FAQ posted. They intend to have players IGNORE options that no longer have a basis and intend players to spend their points on upgrades and wargear that actually does something in 5e games, instead of upgrades and wargear that used to do something in 4e. The intend to wait to update the rules for those upgrades and wargear as they make a new codex.

so if a entry has a rule that no longer exists do you ignore the entry?

Kroot had fieldcraft, this special rule no longer functions in the game yet they have other rules that function in the 5th edition game.

Can you take kroot in 5th edition?

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

spartanghost wrote:

actually it also says that if you pass you take shots separately. there's no fall-through clause.

Yes but it does not say that you must pass the test to take the shots seperately. There for it is a non affecting clause as it can only cause the wargear to work, not fail. The only stipulation in the codex is that you must not fail the TPT or all shots target the closest unit. This is the only clause that will cause this wargear to fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

VoxDei wrote:According to GW's FAQ "...if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, ..., it simply does nothing"

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

This doesn't say that the whole ability does nothing just that the rule does nothing. The TL clearly has an effect in 5th edition but the rule that talks about when a target priority test is made has no effect so it does nothing. There for the TL simply allows your model to fire on a different unit than the rest of its unit.

Bunk.

COPYPASTA . . . FAIL.

"rule" is a note. The option itself is negated if you use the FAQ.
If you use the rules you have no words to stand on other than house rules.
If you want to talk intent, do so. That's not rules.
The rules are as clear as the intentions behind the "logic" posted above.

No it's not. That is a direct quote from the linked PDF from GW's page (minus irrelivant information as noted by ellispsies). If the options or the rule has no effect it does nothing. The option (the wargear) has an effect, it allows you to target a different unit that the rest of your unit (there for not affected by this FAQ). The rule that says you take one TPT has no effect as it does not exist there for that rule is ignored. But as i stated in a previous post the FAQ is not RAW, it is RAI.

GW doesn't tell you what to do if the wargear rules are 'half' invalidated. They tell you to ignore them if they have no effect. They don't tell you how to handle a 'half way no effect' like the Target Lock.

There's basically three ways to handle this:
1. Ignore the referrence to TPT
2. Strike down the entire wargear item as worthless
3. Substitute a leadership test for the TPT to use the wargear item

I'm sure there's some other optinos that I'm not thinking of. If Target Lock did something like "Model may ignore Target Priority Tests", it would be clear it was just a meaningless piece of wargear now (like Thornback). But, there's no statement like, "If part of the rule references something that's now out of date, ignore that part, but apply the rest of the rule as written" or "If part of the rule references something that's now out of date, the whole rule is invalid and ignore the whole thing."

Again, most legal contracts stipulate that if one clause is invalid, that doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract. Now, that doesn't mean it's applicable in this situation.

And, if you compare the rules as written, it just says you can't fail the test. Since the test is gone from the rules, does that mean that I now Auto-Pass it?

The wargear item, as it is, is a mess. Just like most of the codexes left over from Third and Fourth edition. I have no problem with a tourney or group ruling that the Target Lock does nothing - it is a very powerful piece of wargear (that nearly every Tau army has several of them is a hint that it's really that good). But, I don't see how you can state that by RAW there is an answer. There isn't. There's a written rule that refers to something that is no longer in the game. Until GW issues an errata or FAQ addressing it, there is no RAW on this issue. Everyone is reading it and interpreting the rule as they see fit, but unless you can quote a reference (book and page number) with the answer, there isn't a RAW answer.

VoxDei wrote:

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

exactly. so lets rewrite this rule without that nasty TPT stuff

blaktoof wrote:so I guess shrike can't infiltrate in any games you play since you play by RAW?

How did you figure that one out? "Shrike (and models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule" p92

maybe valks can carry landraiders since it says "up to 12 models" and a landraider is a model, and no where does it say a landraider can't be in a valkyrie.

Actually, the BRB says "Only infantry models may embark in transports" "unless a Codex book states otherwise." P66

anyways RAW you can take a target lock, so if you played against a player who takes one it is actually wrong to say it doesnt work because RAW they are allowed to take it.

And 'nid players can take Thornbacks - they still don't do anything. No wargear has been disallowed despite many items becoming useless.

now it asks for a test to be taken that no longer exists, after such tst the unit can fire at multiple targets.

This bit's actually correct

That test actually isnt required in this edition to fire at any target let alone multiple targets and is a rule that can only be explained by going back an edition.

So, how can you take and pass a test that does not exist in the codex or the BRB?

So the unit goes to fire and nominates the two units it wants to fire at, the player just stands there and holds dice until time runs out. is that how you play it?

Because telling them they cannot take the wargear is not RAW, and telling them the wargear has no effect is not RAW (in fact the only mention that it may have no effect is in a faq you don't use)

Same as thornback - you can take it but it does nothing.

However the entry refering to the rule is in the codex which is RAW but the rule it asks you to use is not in the current edition rulebook.

However the current edition rulebook never has a mention of ignoring codex rules. or this specific rule on target priority.

So seriously if you are playing logically and by RAW how do you play it?

By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

As I've said previously - there is an easy and obvious work-around to the this issue. It's called "house rule". Even Gwar! has said he'd allow it. But a house rule is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

spartanghost wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

spartanghost wrote:

Then you'll probably understand this analogy well:

What happens when a program tries to call a function that doesnt exist?

You smack the programer and rewrite the program

exactly. so lets rewrite this rule without that nasty TPT stuff

Which is what we've all been suggesting. Gwar! has suggested replacing TPT with leadership test (makes sense). I've suggested replacing TPT with nothing at all (also makes sense).

As long as you're acknowledging that it's houserules and not RAW then that's fine.