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.

So, the design behind the twin linked gun is that it fires twice. Correct? Then why don't we just have guns that fire twice on the table top instead of the re-roll to hit? If a twin linked bolt gun fires twice at rapid fire range then it should have 4 bullets flying at the enemy, therefore It can put 4 holes in the enemy.

I like twin-linked, I think from a game perspective it's good to have rerolls in a dice game. Plus it helps reduce Gets Hot on plasma weapons. I think it adds to the fun rather than just rolling 4 dice, which could all be 1s and 2s, but giving you a second chance to hit.

 Smotejob wrote:
So, the design behind the twin linked gun is that it fires twice. Correct? Then why don't we just have guns that fire twice on the table top instead of the re-roll to hit? If a twin linked bolt gun fires twice at rapid fire range then it should have 4 bullets flying at the enemy, therefore It can put 4 holes in the enemy.

In 2nd ed twin linked meant one roll to hit, but if it hit then both/all weapons would hit.

lasplas razorbacks were fun.

 Smotejob wrote:
So, the design behind the twin linked gun is that it fires twice. Correct? Then why don't we just have guns that fire twice on the table top instead of the re-roll to hit? If a twin linked bolt gun fires twice at rapid fire range then it should have 4 bullets flying at the enemy, therefore It can put 4 holes in the enemy.

You're not forging the narrative, son.
Twinlinked means incredibly inaccurate, but lots of lead, so "something should hit."

From a rules standpoint it's a really good way to balance a buff without giving you too much potential killing power. The only problem with that is that it's like trying to fine tune a car that's stuck in a lake. Fine tuning isn't gonna help balance a ruleset when it's lodged at the bottom of a lake.

It shouldn't be firing twice.

Those two weapons are both lined up to aim at the same target. They're not going to be hitting two different people like would happen if it were no different from having two weapons. Because rolling a die for an attack in the game doesn't represent firing a single shot, it represents an entire attempt by the weapon to kill what is, in most cases, a person.

It should affect the weapon's ability to wound though, since hitting with one should mean that the other one hits too in most situations. Perhaps a re-roll to wound would be more appropriate?

 Pouncey wrote:
It shouldn't be firing twice.

Those two weapons are both lined up to aim at the same target. They're not going to be hitting two different people like would happen if it were no different from having two weapons. Because rolling a die for an attack in the game doesn't represent firing a single shot, it represents an entire attempt by the weapon to kill what is, in most cases, a person.

It should affect the weapon's ability to wound though, since hitting with one should mean that the other one hits too in most situations. Perhaps a re-roll to wound would be more appropriate?

And as usual 2nd ed rules are superior. One roll to hit, 2 hits scored to the target.

Combined with ability to alter which location you hit in vechiles the linked lascannons(due to additional sensors attached to those linked lascannons) were something to be feared. Even if first hit didn't penetrate failing to penetrate twice was pretty rough.

I think twin-linked weapons should be able to fire twice imo. That change would fix a lot of Imperial stuff.

The idea is that a Twin-linked Weapon has both weapons hit at the exact same point, which is why you only get one hit.

This is ridiculous if you know anything about trajectory and the fact that most TL weapons do not have separate mounts, but rather are just two barrels put side-by-side (and the logic of "two barrels generally in the same direction" doesn't really work when stuff like Storm bolters also have two barrels, but can still land two different hits). It's one of those rules that really shouldn't exist anymore and instead just have TL weapons become two weapons of the same type on the same mount. The old Co-axle rule was a much better version imo (although it was never used with two weapons of the same type if I remember).

 Smotejob wrote:
So, the design behind the twin linked gun is that it fires twice. Correct? Then why don't we just have guns that fire twice on the table top instead of the re-roll to hit? If a twin linked bolt gun fires twice at rapid fire range then it should have 4 bullets flying at the enemy, therefore It can put 4 holes in the enemy.

Simple, it is all about math...

9 guns twin-linked; hit on 3+ = 8/9 hits = 8 wounds average

9 guns firing twice; hit on 3+ = 12/18 = 12 wounds average


It should stay like it is right now, nobody likes playing versus Taus, imagine if they could fire twice..... I would leave 40k haha

Remember, a twin-linked weapon also costs less than actual twin weapons. This "should" be reflected in the points cost of the unit with the twin linked weapon.

Say a weapon costs 20 points...the twin-linked version would be 25-30 points instead of the full 40 points for mounting two identical weapons.

Silly? Of course. But twin-linked is very much a way to bolster a weapon without going full bore and using double the weapon/double the hit.

I don't particularly mind their cost nor their effect in the game, but it's their mere existence that causes some...fridge logic.

I get the feeling they're kept in solely so that the rerolling to hit mechanic can be somewhat justified outside of specially trained heroes, but still feels kinda weird when you look into the logic behind it.

Twin-linked is fine from a balance point of view. Two guns will cause more wounds on average than 1 gun re-rolling To Hit. That's reflected by the cost of a single Twin-Linked weapon being cheaper than two separate weapons.

Because things like twin linked auto cannons, and laz canons would be very VERY strong. Plus some models use the twin linked rule for special events.

For example, Deathwing are twin linked the turn they arrive. Being able to reroll 8 bolter shots, and 4 assault cannon shots, is a hell of a lot more balanced then potentially hitting with 16 bolter shots, and 8 assault shots in a single go.

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
It shouldn't be firing twice.

Those two weapons are both lined up to aim at the same target. They're not going to be hitting two different people like would happen if it were no different from having two weapons. Because rolling a die for an attack in the game doesn't represent firing a single shot, it represents an entire attempt by the weapon to kill what is, in most cases, a person.

It should affect the weapon's ability to wound though, since hitting with one should mean that the other one hits too in most situations. Perhaps a re-roll to wound would be more appropriate?

And as usual 2nd ed rules are superior. One roll to hit, 2 hits scored to the target.

Combined with ability to alter which location you hit in vechiles the linked lascannons(due to additional sensors attached to those linked lascannons) were something to be feared. Even if first hit didn't penetrate failing to penetrate twice was pretty rough.

I actually disagree with 2 hits being better than a re-roll to wound.

Because it still allows for 2 models to die from one twin-linked lascannon, since those 2 hits, if they both wound, would be allocated to different models in most cases.

So the 2nd edition rules aren't really any better for realism since the problem of killing two models instead of one exists just as much as simply doubling the number of dice rolled to hit.

But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

Except for rank by rank units like Imperial Guard, and even tactical marines if there isn't much room.

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

I could see twinlinked on large weapons such as laz cannons, or plasma cannons, but small arms weapons like auto cannons and storm bolters no because it would be detrimental to horde armies.

Or you know what better yet.

If its modeled has two barrels, it gets two shots, if its only got one barrel and has twin linked, it just gets rerollable shots.

Eh eh eh?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I could see twinlinked on large weapons such as laz cannons, or plasma cannons, but small arms weapons like auto cannons and storm bolters no because it would be detrimental to horde armies.

Or you know what better yet.

If its modeled has two barrels, it gets two shots, if its only got one barrel and has twin linked, it just gets rerollable shots.

Eh eh eh?

My Necron Destroyers weep at their heavy 2 shots from the Gauss Cannons ;_; (it has four barrels)

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

Except for rank by rank units like Imperial Guard, and even tactical marines if there isn't much room.

They do that in the fluff, but not on the tabletop. And since we're talking about a game rule, the tabletop is relevant since a model's position on the battlefield is not meant to be abstract.

 Pouncey wrote:

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

Except for rank by rank units like Imperial Guard, and even tactical marines if there isn't much room.

They do that in the fluff, but not on the tabletop. And since we're talking about a game rule, the tabletop is relevant since a model's position on the battlefield is not meant to be abstract.

Then consider the fact that a lascannon can penetrate any infantry, whatever is behind the victim would probably get hit too.

And even then, with 25mm bases you probably could get 2 guardsmen close enough so they line up with a twin linked lascannon pred or something like that. Would have to test though.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Running in front of someone being shot at and dying too can happen with ANY weapon. Firing one weapon and not the other is not how twin-linked weapons EVER work - they start and stop firing together. Sweeping lascannons to hit two targets does NOT require a second lascannon to be slaved to the first.

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Except you still have to roll to hit for those shots, so it doesn't just represent the damage done, but instead the potential. So a las-cannon can be assumed to be one shot.

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

Except for rank by rank units like Imperial Guard, and even tactical marines if there isn't much room.

They do that in the fluff, but not on the tabletop. And since we're talking about a game rule, the tabletop is relevant since a model's position on the battlefield is not meant to be abstract.

Then consider the fact that a lascannon can penetrate any infantry, whatever is behind the victim would probably get hit too.

And even then, with 25mm bases you probably could get 2 guardsmen close enough so they line up with a twin linked lascannon pred or something like that. Would have to test though.

Then the lascannon should not roll to hit, it should draw a line along its line of fire and hit everything touched by that line.

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Okay, allow me to rephrase this. Why can a boltgun with two shots hit two different targets but a side by side mounted pair of Lascannons not? Conceivably the gunners of both weapons could shift fire from one target to another.

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Except you still have to roll to hit for those shots, so it doesn't just represent the damage done, but instead the potential. So a las-cannon can be assumed to be one shot.

And a heavy bolter is heavy 3, but fires WAY more than just 3 bullets. Because it has the potential to kill up to three people during a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Okay, allow me to rephrase this. Why can a boltgun with two shots hit two different targets but a side by side mounted pair of Lascannons not? Conceivably the gunners of both weapons could shift fire from one target to another.

Because the boltgun has a high enough RoF to shoot and kill two different people, the lascannon does not. And shifting their fire from one target to another does not require a twin-linked weapon to begin with, and we are discussing the perk that a weapon being twin-linked brings, NOT the killiness of a lascannon in particular.

 Pouncey wrote:

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But two Lascannons on a side by side mount could kill two different people, though.

Not unless they were standing shoulder to shoulder and the lascannons hit them perfectly.

Most units in 40k are spread out enough that that's unlikely to happen very often.

One man was running somewhere behind the target and got hit. The gunner let one barrel loose on one target and then shifted the gun slightly to the next and then let the other loose. (The most likely scenario tbh) The gunner "swept" the Lascannons to hit two different targets.

I mean, we let multi shot single weapons wound multiple targets. How is this any different?

Because a die does not represent one shot, it represents the ability for that weapon to deal the amount of damage represented by a "wound" (i.e. lethal to a standard humanoid combatant) in the duration of time represented by a game turn. High-RoF weapons are essentially spraying indiscriminately, hence why Assault weapons tend to have higher RoF than most other weapons.

Except you still have to roll to hit for those shots, so it doesn't just represent the damage done, but instead the potential. So a las-cannon can be assumed to be one shot.

And a heavy bolter is heavy 3, but fires WAY more than just 3 bullets. Because it has the potential to kill up to three people during a turn.

You just said in a post fluff has no place in tabletop, so that heavy bolter is only firing 3 shots. It may have a high RoF in the books, but it only fires 3 bolts a turn in-game, besides, it wouldn't make much sense if a space marine went full auto into a crowd of people and only killed 3, would it?

Two lascannons have the capability to kill two different people.

The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.