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.

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

Pretty much what I have been saying.

Note that in order to convince me not to play RaW I will need copious amounts of Booze!

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no RAW, because GW doesn't tell us how to handle it. Saying that Target Locks do nothing is as much a houserule as ignoring the TPT requirement, or even replacing TPT with a Leadership test.

dietrich wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no RAW, because GW doesn't tell us how to handle it. Saying that Target Locks do nothing is as much a houserule as ignoring the TPT requirement, or even replacing TPT with a Leadership test.

Does GW have to Wipe your arse for you too? It is Simple. You cannot take the TPT, so you cannot Possibly Pass it. Therefore, the Target Lock does nothing.

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Sorry, but that is "it doesn't say I cant". You did not "not fail" the test. You didn't take the test to begin with, so there was no way you could have either passed or failed it. It is impossible to pass a test you didn't take, it is also impossible to fail a test you didn't take.

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Keep that up and you can out troll Gwar!
Well, maybe. If you read the rules (Hint, it does not say that)


It does do something though, it costs points! So you can use it to make that list EXACTLY 2000 points or whatever.

Of course, that is ALL it does in 5e.

kirsanth wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Keep that up and you can out troll Gwar!
Well, maybe. If you read the rules (Hint, it does not say that)


It does do something though, it costs points! So you can use it to make that list EXACTLY 2000 points or whatever.

Of course, that is ALL it does in 5e.

Yes it does. It does not say i have to pass a TPT to make it work. It says if you fail the TPT then it won't work. I didn't pass or fail as GWAR has point out many times.

And stop trolling. Enter an argument or don't show up


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:By RAW you cannot play it - it's impossible to pass a test that you can't take.

The codex does not require you to pass this test. It requires you to NOT FAIL it. I didn't take it so i didn't fail it. TL works.

Sorry, but that is "it doesn't say I cant". You did not "not fail" the test. You didn't take the test to begin with, so there was no way you could have either passed or failed it. It is impossible to pass a test you didn't take, it is also impossible to fail a test you didn't take.

Exactly. That is my point. The codex does not require me to pass the test to make it work.

"One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separeate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule."

There is the rules.

They require you to pass.

RTFM.

edited to add: Page 28 for those who do not have the time to look up the rules they are quoting.

Gwar! wrote:It is Simple. You cannot take the TPT, so you cannot Possibly Pass it. Therefore, the Target Lock does nothing.

Please quote the book and page number that states that. If you can't, it's not RAW, because it's not written anywhere.

And I'm not the one that needs a need signature block to boost my self-image. As Terrell Owens would say, "I love me some me."

Throwing the rule away isn't RAW. There is no words in the BRB or the codex that tells you how to handle this situation. The only thing the suggests you might need to throw the rule away is the GW FAQ, which is why it was written in the first place.

I don't know why this has become a debate over whether there is a RAW solution to this debate, when there clearly isn't one. Throwing the rule away, counting the TPT as always passed, or substituting a leadership test are all rules interpretations. They are not rules as written since there is nothing written down to clarify this rule in any of the rulebooks I own.

To say that it's implied that the rule should be thrown away is going a bit too far. I don't expect GW to tell me how to roll dice or use a tape measure, but I do expect them to tell me how to handle a major game function like TPT when it no longer exists. That was a big oversight, and it needs to be handled by each groups own rules interpretation.

Once it's acknowledged that there is no clear RAW solution this becomes a very subjective debate. Prove to me that one sunrise is more beautiful than the next. That sort of thing.

You're right, 40k Rules don't deal with arson. That's what the US legal system is for. 40k also doesn't deal with self-defense. 40k doesn't deal with a lot of things. There's no RAW that says you can't sock-jack your opponent, but somehow people don't.

Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

kirsanth wrote:"One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separeate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule."

There is the rules.

They require you to pass.

RTFM.

edited to add: Page 28 for those who do not have the time to look up the rules they are quoting.

You are making an inference based on this statement and that is incorrect. these are If then statements

"If passed (then) all separate shots are taken"

You are assuming there is an "else doesn't work" but that is not stated. the Roll is not passed so then statment is ignored.

"If Failed (then) all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule"

I did not fail then statment is ignored.


As i have stated before. Both your argument and my argument are technicaly correct and that's what makes this whole issue. According to RAW Both are correct but opposing. We just sit here and argue who is more right .



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unfortunatly english is a very inaccurate language which is the reason why legal documents are always so huge.

kirsanth wrote:Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

so the rules tell us when can take a test and if we don't fail we can have target lock equiped models fire at two seperate units.

Things like thornback dont work and are useless because 100% of what they do has no effect.

thornback- you count as extra models for outnumbering. There is no outnumbering step in cc resolution, so the fact you count as extra models does happen but it doesn't have an effect.

Target lock- if you don't fail a target priority test, model with target lock may fire at a unit seperate than the rest of its firing unit.

the first rule no longer exists so its disregarded but the unit is still allowed to shoot and as per the remaining special rules which are not disallowed by the rulebook (since there obviously is a shooting phase) you may not fire at multiple units.

so the first part doesnt exist anymore so you don't take the test, but your still allowed to shoot so if you disregard the first part the second part is still valid and doesnt require any rules that are in the 5th edition rulebook to work, nor is it disallowed by the 5th edition rulebook as written.

blaktoof wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Thats because the rules tell us what we CAN do in the game.


Still.

so the rules tell us when can take a test and if we don't fail we can have target lock equiped models fire at two seperate units.

Things like thornback dont work and are useless because 100% of what they do has no effect.

thornback- you count as extra models for outnumbering. There is no outnumbering step in cc resolution anymore so nothing happens.

Target lock- if you don't fail a target priority test, model with target lock may fire at a unit seperate than the rest of its firing unit.

so the first part doesnt exist anymore so you don't take the test, but your still allowed to shoot so if you disregard the first part the second part is still valid and doesnt require any rules that are in the 5th edition rulebook to work, nor is it disallowed by the 5th edition rulebook as written.

Why is it valid to say "I didn't take the test, so Now I go as if I didn't fail the test, even though I never took a test to fail", but not valid to say "I didn't take the test, therefore I will go as if I didn't take the test, meaning I do not use the wargears effect as I did not take the test"?

In short: People who want to target lock with no test are cheaters.

My lord I think I'm done here!

Obviously yesterday's sunrise was more beautiful than todays.

1: VoxDei, you still have it wrong. The rules say:

Pg 28:
This specialised target acquisition system enables the model to target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of its own unit. All firing in the unit must be declared before any 'to hit' rolls are made. One Target Priority test is made for the unit - if passed, all the separate shots are taken; if failed, all shooting must be at the nearest target, as specified by the Target Priority rule"

You must either pass or fail the test. There is no clause for 'not pass' or 'not fail'.

However, if we follow RAW in the strictest sense:
A model may equip a target lock. Page 25 of the Tau book says so.
A model with a target lock may declare shooting. As described in pg28 of the Tau book, following the rules outlined in the Shooting section (beginning pg15 BRB).
A model with a target lock that has declared shooting must have its shots resolved before another unit in your army (pg15 BRB)
A model with a target lock that has declared shooting is unable to resolve its shots, as it must either pass or fail a test it is unable to take.

Thus, following RAW, time stops indefinitely as you are unable to resolve shooting with a unit that you have declared shooting with, thus are unable to move onto another unit, thus you are unable to finish your shooting phase.
That is RAW.

So, if you wish to avoid this temporal anomaly, you must come up with a HOUSE RULE.
HOUSE RULE #1: To prevent this time stop, Tau players are not allowed to declare shooting with Target Locks. This can be taken to the next extreme of, Tau players are not allowed to field models with target locks.


HOUSE RULE #2: Ignore the references to Target Priority tests as, given the context and history of the wargear, it is obvious that the references to TPT are a clarification of the amount of targt priority tests that need to be made.


Note that, following rule #1, a Tau player may not field: Pathfinders with Railrifles, Sniper Drone teams, Sky Rays, or Commander Farsight, which all come with Target Locks as standard.

It seems obvious to me that #2 is the correct ruling to follow. If you disagree, Gwar or anyone else, could you show me a ruling or reasoning why half of the Tau list should be invalidated?

Trasvi wrote:It seems obvious to me that #2 is the correct ruling to follow. If you disagree, Gwar or anyone else, could you show me a ruling or reasoning why half of the Tau list should be invalidated?

The same rule that invalidates a lot of Tyranid and Space Wolf Wargear.

P.S. You can still take target locks, they just don't do anything.

You people are overcomplicating the matter to try and twist things your way. It is simple. You cannot take a TPT, so the target lock does not work.

Which rule invalidates Tyranid and Space Wolf wargear? Can you show me a page number in the rule book or codex?
Can you show me a reason why my target locks are not a 5pt time-freezing device? You keep saying they don't do ANYTHING, which is blatantly false.

Trasvi wrote:Which rule invalidates Tyranid and Space Wolf wargear? Can you show me a page number in the rule book or codex?
Can you show me a reason why my target locks are not a 5pt time-freezing device? You keep saying they don't do ANYTHING, which is blatantly false.

There is no "Rule" as such, but the rules in general. Several Tyranid and Space Wolf Items have no Function any more, either due to outdated wording or references to rules that no longer exist.

The target lock is one such item. Can you please explain how you justify being able to use it freely without the need for a test when the rules clearly ask for a test, but as the test no longer exists, you cannot take it, so you cannot use the wargear.

Several Nid items still function, they just have no IN GAME effect. For example, Thornback, counts as double the amount of wounds for purposes of outnumbering (IIRC). It could count as being a pink elephant for outnumbering, it just has no effect anymore.
Target Locks do have an in game effect that still has relevance and meaning, and that is the prime difference between this item and other pieces of wargear.

Furthermore, my interpretation of the Target Priority clause is as a clarification on the number of Target Priority tests that need to be made for that particular unit in a complicated situation. Combined with the fact that I still see people fielding Sniper Drones, Pathfinders and Sky Rays, it would seem to me that target locks are still intended to work.

And, assuming I followed your interpretation, how would you resolve the time-freezing incident?

I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

spartanghost wrote:I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

From what I can gather from P1,2 & 4.. QFT.

Now.. surely there is no TPT anymore? But either way, I agree; Addressing the issue rather than flat-out refusal is always the better course.

I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Trasvi wrote:I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Thats what most Tau players want (and apparantly how most people play it), but the leadership test is kind of a compromise for those who thing the target lock should suddenly become useless which, honestly isn't fair.

spartanghost wrote:I would like to clarify something here: Target locks on vehicles are in no way related to target priority tests; they simply allow a vehicle's weapons to each fire on a different target.

It seems to me that the main misunderstanding here is Gwar! & co. think other people are saying that TLs ignore the target priority test, whereas they are saying that by RaW Target lock freezes the game because you have to pass or fail a test which you cannot take to continue the game. Unless you (Gwar! & camp) address this instead of spamming "Target lock does nothing! target lock does nothing!" everyone's going to think you're morons. The idea of replacing the TPT with a leaderhip test makes perfect sense. Expecially since a target priority test IS A FREAKING LEADERSHIP TEST. does the name of the test you're taking really matter that much?

We have addressed it. The RAW has been broken by the change to 5th ed. rules. Two different and perfectly reasonable houserules have been suggested. What exactly is the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

spartanghost wrote:

Trasvi wrote:I personally disagree that taking a leadership test is the same effect.
My stance is that require a TPT for Target Locks was simply the easiest way to write how this unit needed to deal with the existing Target Priority.
If the clause was not included, then you would have had multiple situations arising whereby units needed to take 2-3 target priority tests, and if any one test was failed they all had to shoot at the closest unit. Now that no-one has to take target priority any more, then the TPT for TL's is not required at all either.

Thats what most Tau players want (and apparantly how most people play it), but the leadership test is kind of a compromise for those who thing the target lock should suddenly become useless which, honestly isn't fair.

How many points was the 3rd ed. target lock? (which didn't require a test)

5 points. I don't believe target priority existed in 3rd edition?

Well, if it was same point in both then I would suggest houserulling that the TPT is auto-passed.

I see Gwar!s point about taking a leadership test instead but they didn't take it in 3rd and paid the same points.

Scott-S6 wrote:Well, if it was same point in both then I would suggest houserulling that the TPT is auto-passed.

I see Gwar!s point about taking a leadership test instead but they didn't take it in 3rd and paid the same points.

my first post on the first page suggested a Ld test. So why did this need to go for 4 pages again?

That was 3rd edition though. This is 5th (and a 4th codex). The reason for suggesting the Ld test is to satisfy the Raw hounds. Same thing, effectively. I think most people would play that you auto-pass the TPT, but a leadership test would probably satisfy most tfgs.