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.

Before I start, I will make my preference clear that I would prefer it if the twin-linked rule simply didn't exist, and existing weapons were just stat/point as if they were two weapons.

With that in mind, if you had to have a 'twin linked' rule to represent two guns in the same axis, I think the current (and previous 3rd edition) renditions are pretty awful.

How about something like this: Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, for each successful hit, you may roll an additional attack with the weapon. Any additional attacks do not generate additional attack if they hit.

It's worse than simply having twice the attacks, as it relies on the first one hitting, but it represents follow on fire from one of the twin-linked weapons hitting. I also thought of: Each hit generates a bonus hit which is another way of having the linked weapons be 'all or nothing' in that they only point in the same direction, and it's faster than the previous rule. It's more powerful though and pretty close to just doubling the number of attacks.

Obviously things will want some slight re-pointing, and it benefits better BS over worse in this case, but I think it better represents the flavour of twin weapons than the 10th and 3rd-7th iterations of it.

Seems like an okay way to go, but I'm not sure it's significantly "better." Some thoughts:

* Every version of the TL rule is some variation on making the weapon X% better at it's job than a non-linked version (up to 100% better in the case of the 9th edition version where you just doubled the shots.) Your version does this. The current official version does this.

So with that in mind, what's your goal with these changes? What do you find "awful" about the current version, and why do you believe your version is superior? Is it just that you feel the X% better offered by the current rule isn't high enough? If so, what's your target value for X, and does your proposal hit that value?

Or is there some other benefit to your proposal that's going over my head?

* Your version kind of gets doubly-nerfed by bad BS and to-hit penalties. So not only do you miss more shots (and more bonus shots) thanks to a to-hit penalty, you also have fewer bonus shots in the first place.

* How would your version interact with something like sustained hits? For example, a shuriken cannon is sustained hits 2 (if I remember correctly). So does a TL shuricannon that rolls a 6 functionally land 6 hits instead of 1? Does that mean I can use a strand of fate die to hectouple my number of hits?

I like it when twin linked was: make 1 hit roll. if it hits both shots hit.

That's basically almost like having the same gun twice though....

 Wyldhunt wrote:

So with that in mind, what's your goal with these changes? What do you find "awful" about the current version, and why do you believe your version is superior? Is it just that you feel the X% better offered by the current rule isn't high enough? If so, what's your target value for X, and does your proposal hit that value?

Lack of verisimilitude in the current one, and not one that is easily ignored because it's baked into the model. The predator annihilator with four barrels being the one with only ever one hit, but then you have a single barrel weapon from the gladiator lancer that does two and it just feels so inverted, and it's irritating like a bad itch you can't reach.

* How would your version interact with something like sustained hits? For example, a shuriken cannon is sustained hits 2 (if I remember correctly). So does a TL shuricannon that rolls a 6 functionally land 6 hits instead of 1? Does that mean I can use a strand of fate die to hectouple my number of hits?

I should clarify all bonus hits don't generate extras, only the initial number rolled, but the additional rolls are subject to any other traits it has:

A weapon that is BS3+, A4, Sustained hits 2, TL - I roll four dice, and get 1, 1, 4, 6 - two hits scored and and I roll again, and roll 4 and 6 again. I get 4 hits from my rolls, and 2 from my 6s on sustained hits for a total of 6 hits.

(shuriken cannon only has sustained hits 1 currently btw)

 Mickmann wrote:
I like it when twin linked was: make 1 hit roll. if it hits both shots hit.

That's basically almost like having the same gun twice though....

Except killed max 1 model per shot, not 2.

2 side by side barrels don't suddenly fire way different directions.

Reroll to wound keeps that from happening. Also less rolls than 2 guns or 1 hit, 2 rolls and reduces lethality.

I think you'd probably be better off just switching back to the 9th edition version and doubling the shots of TL weapons if your main goal is to translate the extra shots as extra attacks/dice.

That way, the benefits of TL would be uniform. That is, the rule doesn't become more powerful on BS3+ units than on BS4+ units, and you can roll all the attacks at once instead of pausing to roll an extra pool of dice.

It's a little more powerful than OP's suggestion, but that's theoretically an issue that can be addressed by points (which OP was planning to adjust anyway.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I think you'd probably be better off just switching back to the 9th edition version and doubling the shots of TL weapons if your main goal is to translate the extra shots as extra attacks/dice.

That way, the benefits of TL would be uniform. That is, the rule doesn't become more powerful on BS3+ units than on BS4+ units, and you can roll all the attacks at once instead of pausing to roll an extra pool of dice.

It's a little more powerful than OP's suggestion, but that's theoretically an issue that can be addressed by points (which OP was planning to adjust anyway.)

Running numbers, 36 shots for each...

BS...........Hits........Ratio
2+...........55...........55/30 or 11/6
3+...........40...........40/24 or 5/3
4+...........27...........27/18 or 3/2
5+...........16...........16/12 or 4/3
6+...........7.............7/6

So it's the inverse of full rerolls to-hit. That benefits worse hit rolls better than good rolls.

 Mickmann wrote:
I like it when twin linked was: make 1 hit roll. if it hits both shots hit.

That's basically almost like having the same gun twice though....

Yes, I think that was the best 'feel' for twin linked weaponry (and we used to have this back in the 2nd days). Getting hit by a twin linked gun meant that you had twice as many bullets in you, right?

I always thought that the 3rd+ version with re-roll to hit was kind of off. I think that if one barrel misses, the other one was pointed the same direction, you know?

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Mickmann wrote:
I like it when twin linked was: make 1 hit roll. if it hits both shots hit.

That's basically almost like having the same gun twice though....

Yes, I think that was the best 'feel' for twin linked weaponry (and we used to have this back in the 2nd days). Getting hit by a twin linked gun meant that you had twice as many bullets in you, right?

I always thought that the 3rd+ version with re-roll to hit was kind of off. I think that if one barrel misses, the other one was pointed the same direction, you know?

I think the idea behind the to-hit reroll was that you basically had a second gun shooting slightly to the side of where you were aiming, possibly firing on a slight delay. So if my wave serpent pilot misses with the bright lance shot he was actually aiming, the second shot might accidentally be on target. But then conversely, if he actually lined up the first shot successfully, the second lance would end would be a bit to the side. Against a tank, you'd expect that to mean that both shots probably hit. Against a marine, that might mean the second shot went wide of his pauldron even though the first shot hit him in the chest.

Maybe bikes are a better example. I don't expect TL bolters or TL shuriken catapults on marine and eldar bikes to be actively aiming at multiple targets. I expect them to basically have a second "stream" of shots that might hit the target in case the first one misses. So in that sense, I guess the current to-wound reroll sort of makes sense, but I agree with OP that it's not super intuitive.

It always struck me as funny how the designer seemed to think that being hit with twice as many bullets doesn't make ones' day any worse- especially given the way the wound and armor mechanics work in the game.


I think what's happened is that the game designers imagined different advantages for twin linked weaponry by thinking of different scenarios.

But to be fair, twin linked weapons should really act different from in a lot of technical ways based on what you're shooting. If you're shooting into a tightly packed crowd of gretchin then stray bullets from the second gun should likely hit other targets. If you're shooting at a large target, one shot might hit the same target twice.



I think they got rid of the "two hits from one damage roll" for the sake of game-flow.

Sure, when you're shooting at a tank, it is really easy to simply double the number of hits, but if you're shooting into a unit of troopers with a unit of twin linked bolters, you would end up needing to make all of your wound rolls separately (and tediously).

Reroll to wound is the one that makes the most sense to me, since it gives you twice as much chance to wound like you would if you hit two times.

The problem, of course, is that if you hit a big target, you could hit once and not kill it, so the extra hit is considerably different from an extra wound roll. Plus, two hits could result in two saving throws, and that's better than just a re-roll on a wound roll. But there still are gameflow issues there.

I always imagined TL weapons to be something that hits like a jackhammer - as in, it's a type of weapon that sends focused stream of ammunition into a single point rather than an indiscriminatory spray of ammunitions in a general area.

In that sense, I personally think re-roll wound is a better representation of the weapon and not another version of rapid fire without needing to be within half range of the weapon.

 skchsan wrote:
I always imagined TL weapons to be something that hits like a jackhammer - as in, it's a type of weapon that sends focused stream of ammunition into a single point rather than an indiscriminatory spray of ammunitions in a general area.

In that sense, I personally think re-roll wound is a better representation of the weapon and not another version of rapid fire without needing to be within half range of the weapon.

Fair interpretation, but I think that odinsgrandson is right about different designers picturing different things.

The guns on bikes, for instance, probably aren't being angled by the guy driving the bike to make sure that both guns are hitting the same enemy at the same time. And the twin flamers on my immolators definitely aren't.

Rerolling to-wound is probably as good a rule as any of the other interpretations /rules we've seen, but I totally get how people might find it a little underwhelming or weird. Like, there probably isn't a huge (fluff) difference between a war walker firing two separate bright lances and a wave serpent firing a single pair of twin-linked bright lances. In both cases, they're shooting a pair of weapons at the same target. I guess the war walker's guns are probably able to be aimed more independently, but that difference seems academic when he's shooting at an enemy tank. I doubt the war walker pilot is like, aiming his guns independently with the intent to target specific separate weak points. Rather, he's probably just trying to make the pretty danger light hit the target wherever he can land the shots.

Mechanically, the concept of twin-linked weapons are a little odd because the rule basically exists to give a unit a less powerful alternative to having two of a given gun. Which begs the question: is a wave serpent with two bright lances (instead of a twin-linked lance) too powerful? And if so, just exactly how much less powerful than that does it need to be? Do we need to bring it all the way down to a single shot that rerolls to-wound, or will simply preventing it from split firing its guns suffice?

Just put twin-linked guns back to being double the shots like they were in 9th and adjust point cost appropriately. Conceptually it was exactly what it needed to be, there were just lethality problems with twin-linked weapons not costing the appropriate amount relative to their performance.

I think the point of taking those weapons back from 2xA to Re-Roll Wounds is to moderate out damage potential. They simply do now want all those Twin-Linked weapons to have twice as many attacks as that does not reduce the damage in the system overall.

This is more of an issue on large models with twin-linked weapons than on smaller models. The offense/defense difference for small models (like Aggressors) makes it harder to determine the proper points for the model. This is much less an issue for a large model like a Predator.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Just put twin-linked guns back to being double the shots like they were in 9th and adjust point cost appropriately. Conceptually it was exactly what it needed to be, there were just lethality problems with twin-linked weapons not costing the appropriate amount relative to their performance.

This.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Just put twin-linked guns back to being double the shots like they were in 9th and adjust point cost appropriately. Conceptually it was exactly what it needed to be, there were just lethality problems with twin-linked weapons not costing the appropriate amount relative to their performance.

Which units with TL weapons did you find to be undercosted? I wasn't dialed in to competitive 9th edition and I don't think any Necrons units with TL weapons were undercosted, I think the best Tomb Blades at the end of the edition ended up being the ones without TL weapons because the basic weapon was super cheap, Doomscythes were good, Nightscythes were not, both had TL weapons, what made Doomscythes good was probably the huge S13 D10 gun.

Those FW dreadnaughts in 9th.

Jarms48 wrote:
Those FW dreadnaughts in 9th.

Deredeo? Missile launcher or auto cannons being the problem? Sorry if this was a widely known problem.

Twin Linked weapons as “twin” weapons with double the shots was perfect. Should be required to target the same target (twin weapons can’t split-fire), but otherwise act like two of the same weapon.

I have to find it funny that GW removed most Twin Weapons in favor of a nerfed Twin-Linked Weapon and people here are arguing they rather have a more lethal twice the attacks weapon.

Being twin linked should give an advantage over 2 single weapons otherwise why bother twinlinking a weapon?

A twin linked should have the same #shots of a pair of single weapons but:

Reroll to wound (advantage)
Cannot split fire (disadvantage)

The cost should therefore being higher than a pair of non twinlinked weapons, how much higher don’t know, maybe 1.5 times

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Being twin linked should give an advantage over 2 single weapons otherwise why bother twinlinking a weapon?

A twin linked should have the same #shots of a pair of single weapons but:

Reroll to wound (advantage)
Cannot split fire (disadvantage)

The cost should therefore being higher than a pair of non twinlinked weapons, how much higher don’t know, maybe 1.5 times

A guy cannot fire two boltguns, a guy can fire a twin boltgun. That's the advantage, no need to re-roll to wound. What matter of dark magic would enable two bolters stapled together to do more damage than two separate boltguns?

There are two reasons to twin up weapons. To increase hits by throwing more lead at the target or to improve armor penetration by hitting the same small area repeatedly. The Twin-Linked rule basically covers the second case.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Being twin linked should give an advantage over 2 single weapons otherwise why bother twinlinking a weapon?

Are you asking in terms of lore or mechanics? In terms of lore, the point of twinlinking a weapon is that it does make the weapon do more damage for the various reasons discussed above.

If you're asking in terms of mechanics, you've got it backwards. The utility of a twin-linked rule is that it lets you make two guns strapped together less effective than two instances of the same gun. So twin-linking my wave serpent's bright lances means that its maximum damage potential stays at 9 instead of jumping up to 18, but it will do damage more reliably.

Given the age of some of the model designs and what we know about the unit design process, I feel like GW probably has paired weapons more as a matter of model symmetry/aesthetics than as a result of lore or mechanical considerations. For such models, the twin-linked rule becomes a way for them to stick a pair of barrels on a tank turret or on the front of a bike without having to give the model two barrels' worth of firepower.

Of course, GW is still bad and inconsistent at it.

I'm a big fan of using existing mechanics wherever possible rather than adding more and more special rules. I think the re-roll To Wound is insufficient to represent what a Twin-Linked weapon is (it's two guns!). Worse, GW's typical inconsistency jumps up so we get things like Land Raiders getting two shots from their Lascannons, but things like the Macharius Vanquisher suffering with a really expensive single-shot cannon.

In the rules we used to use, TL-Weapons re-rolled To Hit as normal, but on a natural 6 on that first roll, you got two hits.

In 10th, you could do that with re-rolls to hit and Sustained Hits. I think that'd be far better than re-rolling To Wound.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Just put twin-linked guns back to being double the shots like they were in 9th and adjust point cost appropriately.

We know that won't work because of the way "points" work (or don't work) in this edition. Anything that has an option for a TL weapon as well as a non-TL weapon will go up in cost, making the non-TL option, whatever it may be, even worse in comparison.

I'm sure they considered Twin-Linked affecting Hit Rolls, but then remembered that some Twin-Linked Weapons are also Torrent Weapons that automatically hit. The easier solution was to put Twin-Linked on the Wound Roll, which incidentally was the rule for Twin-Linked Template weapons.

Added bonus was it moved the mechanic away from the already mechanic rich Hit Roll to the Wound Roll part of the equation. All and all, it was an elegant solution, even if non-satisfactory for some.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm sure they considered Twin-Linked affecting Hit Rolls, but then remembered that some Twin-Linked Weapons are also Torrent Weapons that automatically hit.

Then you just give them double shots. Or an extra 150% shots. It's not that complicated.

I don't see what's elegant about the new rules at all. All they've done is add inconsistency to the game by having some TL weapons not actually be twin-linked, whereas others are, and ones that probably shouldn't are saddled with a crappy single shot.

Actually, thinking on it, Sustained Hits might be a decent way to represent twin-linked this edition, no? The idea being that normally you're basically just shooting a basic gun, but occassionally you'll manage to land hits with both barrels. It wouldn't trigger very often for single-shot weapons, but getting that second hit could potentially feel really good. Then again, failing a to-wound roll with your bonus hit might feel more bad than a successful bonus hit feels good. Thoughts?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In the rules we used to use, TL-Weapons re-rolled To Hit as normal, but on a natural 6 on that first roll, you got two hits.

In 10th, you could do that with re-rolls to hit and Sustained Hits. I think that'd be far better than re-rolling To Wound.

Re-roll to wound increases damage output by 17/33/50/67/83% when wounding on 2/3/4/5/6+.

Sustained hits and re-roll hits increases damage output by 40/67/100/150/267% when hitting on 2/3/4/5/6+. So it'd be worse in niche cases like hitting on 3+ wounding on 6+ or hitting on 2+ wounding on 4+. But the math looks a little wonky, with it twin-linked weapons being very good for Orks and meh for Custodes.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Actually, thinking on it, Sustained Hits might be a decent way to represent twin-linked this edition, no? The idea being that normally you're basically just shooting a basic gun, but occassionally you'll manage to land hits with both barrels. It wouldn't trigger very often for single-shot weapons, but getting that second hit could potentially feel really good. Then again, failing a to-wound roll with your bonus hit might feel more bad than a successful bonus hit feels good. Thoughts?

One thing to consider is that they can make melee weapons like lightning claws twin-linked to give them re-roll wounds. I'd take any option that gets rid of re-rolls, I think sustained hits are fun.