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.

Deffgob wrote:Ultimately, the rules are set up to make the game run, not to fit perfectly into every possible interpretation of the fluff. TL is there to make weapons more accurate, maybe they could have found a better thing to call it. Maybe sighted weapons or some such but I think orkz using sighted weapons is more of a violation of fluff than TL.

I agree with this completely. The name was given to the rule, not visa versa. Meaning, they didn't take the concept of twin-linking a weapon and try and apply it as accurately as possible, they thought of a rule and gave it an appropriate name.

So, trying to say what twin-linking actually is and how it should be fixed is completely pointless.

Alright, I wanted to contribute without calling you a stupid but you're clearly not going to make that easy. You're telling me that the only reason to argue that they don't fire simultaneously is to help support the rules. How about common god damn sense? If you were designing a rapid-fire weapon with 2 barrels to increase it's output, would you design it to fire both barrels simultaneously to increase kickback as much as possible? No, you would have them alternate to increase accuracy. The only time it really makes sense for them to fire at the exact same time is with big guns like las canons, where the barrels are far apart enough that it could easily hit with one and miss with the other in many cases. But besides all that, why don't you tell me all of the places where it mentions that they DO fire at exactly the same time? Wait, there are none? Then someone would have to be extremely high or half slowed to stick by that concept this fervently, wouldn't he?

As for the last paragraph of my post, I guess I'll rephrase it in a way that might be easier for you to understand: You should use a lot of little bullets to kill a lot of little things. You should use big bullets to kill big things.

Actually, Deffgob, you have, seemingly, achieved doing absolutely nothing to support yourself. In fact! There are MANY examples of multi-gunned weapons firing simultaneously. Most notably, is the DOUBLE BARRELED SHOTGUN which can fire two shot shells at exactly the same time, regardless of its kickback, with no affect to accuracy as both rounds (if you are using slugs for instance, which would hurt like a SOB but you can still do it, and I have) leave the barrel at the same time because they were FIRED AT THE SAME TIME! Besides that, recoil being a factor is relative to the comparative forces at work. A multi-ton tank really won't give a crap about the recoil of a couple of small arms firing simo because it is a tank, which are very heavy, and wont be affected enough for accuracy to become an issue. Anoth example of a vehicle that fired multiple weapons simultaneously is a whole bunch of German WWII light armored vehicles mounted with dual machine guns. The purpose here was a cloud effect, mostly for fending off aircraft, but against ground forces it still worked very well by sheer volume of fire. The weapons were not bothered to have complex alternating firing systems, they simply hooked up a dual trigger and they fired... oh, wow, simultaneously and were quite effective historically... my oh my oh my, see what a bit of researching can do.

As for where in the fluff are Twin Linked weapons firing simo? Well, Dawn of War is a good start which visually depicts them doing so for those out there who are confused by all the words in all the books the Black Library is printing. Just about any time a Chaos Terminator or Rhino is wielding their TWIN LINKED Bolters they are described, to some effect, as punching out two bolts at a time, rather than alternating barrels. Predators, Land Raiders, Baal Predators, Baneblades, err.. can't think of their names but the Imperial Navy's heavy bombers? They have Twin Linked weapons as well, um, in some of the older short stories, depictions of the weapons mechanics (not sure if those were canon to be perfectly honest), oh geez, this list could go on for pages.... Basically just about everywhere Twin Linked weapons might be described. I know, I didn't cover all the alien weapons, but to be honest they're not covered as well as the Imperial side of things, and in all fairness, Twin Linked is used by Imperial players more often than the other races, so by volume it is of more concern (I said BY VOLUME!). Is it possible that everyone else works compeltely differently and what little support they have (can only think of Dawn of War, to be honest) should be disregarded? Well that just seems like a stupid idea to throw out your only evidence because there isn't a source to totally confirm it due to the possibility that there might be differing options with a chance of being drastically different enough to requite separate interpretations. Man, there were a lot of depending variables in that last sentence... Basically it seems the entire opposing argument exists simply to be an argument with no substance, a theory of "what ifs" and "in far unlikely possibles" of thought. Which, really, when having the Scientific Method applied, makes no sense and is rather fruity (lack of evidence proves existence argument opposing an argument carrying acceptance and evidence).

But, to digress, I am no longer going to argue about the subject of Twin Linked weapons in depiction vs. rules. That isn't really the point of this thread. That would go somewhere under Fluff for Nutters, a title I find amusing.

Damn, I can't believe I forgot about the double-barreled shotgun, truly an obvious example of a rapid-fire handheld weapon. My bad.
Okay, so you don't want this to be about fluff mechanics vs rule mechanics. You just want to take a rule that lets you reroll hits and change it to reroll wounds, but take all of the wounds that were already successes w/o the reroll and force the opponent to reroll successful saves against those wounds, but not against the wounds that were only successful after the reroll. And you want to do this for no reason at all. I wonder, do you have fun with Excel spread sheets by any chance?

Actually, I do. And under rerolling saves, only rerolling armor and invul. saves, so not cover saves. The basic idea is instead of two shots firing and one missing the other hitting, it is two shots hitting the same spot, which has been the complaint of many a Twin Linked weapon user when their first roll was a success, but failed either to wound or penetrate armor immediately afterward. The point here is to create a rule system that accurately, and reasonably simply, reflects an intent. In this case, how do you treat a one shot, two hit mechanic without just doing a two for one thing?

See, I think that's where we're getting into trouble here. changing TL mechanics to better suit the fluff would not better reflect the intent. The intent is to give low BS armies weapons that allow them to actually hit things and to give high BS armies weapons that are almost a guaranteed hit. Games workshop is a game company. There primary goal is to make the game mechanics and then they label them with fluff to make the whole experience more enthralling. If they don't always line up perfectly, it's the fluff that's the issue. Not the mechanics. (except when the mechanics alone are a problem *cough* wound allocation *cough*)

Personally I think the re roll should be used when rolling for the "wound/penetration die and not the rolling to hit.

The weapons fire at the same time and at the same spot so if one misses, the distance between the two shots is going to be negligible.

However if the shot hits, then you have two potential hits striking near enough the exact same spot which would allow a greater deal of damage to be inflicted (hence a re roll of the "wound/penetration" die)

I feel that the roll should work like the rules for the Space Marine venerable dreadnought, if the player firing the weapon is unhappy with the wound result they can reroll once and have to accept the new result even if it is worse.

Just my thoughts...

So by your reckoning, Twin-Linked would actually be hideously inaccurate at longer range, say, after the apex of the two arcs is reached and the charges actually start moving apart.

Worse yet, if they're bolts or grenades etc, they actually collide mid-air and completely miss.

Right.

The problem with it being called twin-linking is that there is double the shots flying through the air but the effect is only making likely to hit some thing. What happened to hlaf the rounds?

If the rule was called some thing like ...
Accurate - This weapon is incredibly accurate due to advanced targeting sensors. Due to this all failed hit may be rerolled.
... would make more sense

@ Deff : No.

@ Hells : Reasonable, and thank you for helping out with the actual topic rather than bickering about the nuances of "what's the point" when the point is obvious and different by both changing the mechanics in a totally different way yet trying to stay reasonably simple.

@ Tek : No.

@ Tri : Yes, and agreed. In fact, there is a rule for many such systems, whether it simply be high BS, Master Crafted, or a unit/model/character Special Rule that works to that same effect. Twin Linked isn't the only way to simply be more accurate, and there is nothing to cover such a weapon that has two rounds following right with the other.

Skin, if you're going to acknowledge arguments, at least actually acknowledge them. The basis of your argument is that twin-linking 'doesn't make sense' in a fluff perspective.

Tek pointed out that if you want to be technical, that such a system would have even greater difficulties.

Personally, while I support your ability to pursue such a modification, I disagree with your reasoning, and in fact support how twin-linked currently works on the following principles:

1. My father builds navy ships. He has told me about the systems of the ships he makes almost countless times. Twin-linking specifically reminds me of a particular system, known as Phalanx, which is a defense system against incoming missiles or some shells. It works by predicting where the weapon approaches from, and then fires a gatling gun at that area. The wall of bullets then collides with the weapon, forcing it to activate before hitting the ship. You fire a lot of bullets so that it doesn't matter how many miss.

2. If I were firing at you with two pistols, I would in fact suspect myself to be more likely to hit you every "round" of firing, as by using both guns, I can fire to cover multiple movement vectors. Simply put, if you're in front of me, and I hold out both my guns and fire, I have established a threat on both left and right, making it more likely to hit you, regardless of which way you dodge.

Now, I don't anticipate getting much here, so I will simply say again, I don't agree with what you're working toward, but I do support your decision to do it.

As an aside, for the rule you're proposing, I see as being more appropriate to something like the Metal Storm. The Metal Storm is a machine gun developed in Australia, that stacks it's bullets in the tube. If it were actually a case of a bullet hitting the same spot after a preceding bullet, then I'd agree, this rule would be more appropriate, but that's not how I see twin linked working.

@ AWF2M : Your 1 and 2 are actually the exact same concept using two different methods. Phalanx puts out more ammunition than a typical machine gun, as most all gatling guns. It is not more accurate, it just has a higher rate of fire, increasing its chance of hitting by having more ammunition moving towards the target. In your number 2 you are using two weapons with relatively, compared to a gatling gun, low rates of fire. By using two, you have increased that rate of fire. In game terms that would be an increased number of rounds moving down range and just letting the firer's BS handle things. Firing pistols duel style will not put rounds to left and right of the target unless they are aimed as such. Hold out two pistols, close your eyes, and pull the triggers, you'll probably get rounds from one weapon going to the other weapon's side almost as likely as not.

As for dismissing Deff, I feel he is trolling and there isn't much point to contributing more time than necessary to his "argument." As for Tek, I just don't know where he came up with what he said and he brought forth no effort to plausibly support it other than the side he is trying to support. He is correct, if munitions traveled at the exact same velocity as another similar munition and they were converging at a point, they would very likely collide. But munitions aren't perfect and will always have slightly different ballistics in relation to each other over a distance. You can put all your money on it, I promise you will win that bet. Not only that, what if the point of convergence was at a distance (assuming they will collide) that was so great it doesn't matter in relation to the target (point of convergence, for example being at a 1k meters, and the target being at 100m). The rounds would still be subjectively close enough to one another to impact the same relative point, but not obstruct each other's trajectory.

You see all that text up there? It is a relatively basic deduction if you just try and think of a way they WON'T collide, rather than assuming that there isn't a way they won't collide. Heck, I'm not even covering cross trajectory ballistics or screw trajectory! Not to mention vertical drift and munition setting! And those are just a bit more complex but still basic ideas! (except for their names, which are a bit more intimidating)

Any way i do like the idea of a floating re-roll but i would say it could also re-roll cover savers (you still stand 2x the chance of being hit behind cover). Playing it like this wouldn't be too hard to do ether ...

Ok lets use a bike squad (any one will do they almost all have TL weapons) Roll to hit any that make go to one side (white) those that don't change colour (red) and are rerolled those that hit add to the the others ... Now roll to wound place to one side all those that wound and re-roll any white dice those that hit now become red ... Allocate wounds roll saves, any successful saves made on white dice must be rerolled (models have a rule to re-roll any failed saves in which case only roll once and the dice counts as being rerolled) ...

... this might be a little unfair but ...

... any dice (white) that are never rerolled count as 2 wounds.

@ Tri - That is really complicated, I'm not really sure what if going on. Perhaps breaking all that down into list format would be easier to understand? Also, the reason cover saves are not rerolled is because if the round impacted cover than the other round, which is moving towards the same point, did as well. Not some might try to argue that if you are using Twin Linked Lascannon than it could pen most cover (which I also disagree with), but then you are forgetting what if it is Twin Linked Lasguns? They don't exist but since we are looking at a system and not a specific weapon we need to accept all possibilities. If you don't like that idea, well then Twin Linked Bolters.

At the moment all a TL weapon does is reroll to hit ... but that doesn't seem to cover what a TL weapon would do. As i said the rule should have been called Accurate for just rerolled hits.

A Floating re-roll is much closer to what would happen with an actual Twin-linked weapon ... You get one re-roll but any where in the shooting process. Re-rolls on the saves would also be nice but after a couple of quick trials this make it too much of a pain to carry out.

(wish dakka had colour dice) Ok say the numbers are dice rolls for a Eldar jetbikes (3) shooting space marines
roll to hit
123456 || 3 hit which are placed to one side
246 ||two more hits (colour is changed so that we know they don't get another re-roll)
roll to wound
12345 || 2 wound 3 fail ... the red fail cannot be rerolled so is discarded
36 || another wound
allocate wounds roll saves

... And yes i do think there should be a re-roll on penetrations for lascannons and the like.

Agreed, rerolls on failed rolls to penetrate (but not on glances).

This whole mixing colored dice never appealed to me. I have always just rolled for all things to be considered individually (it really doesn't take much longer and there is never any confusion! A tie win situation).

6 Bolter shots from Guard on Space Marines.
3 Hit
2 Wound. Reroll failed wound, it wounds. Set the die aside to be counted for later or, if it doesn't matter towards wound allocation, have the Space Marine player roll their saves.
Allocate Wounds
2 Saves, reroll and one fails.
Recovered wound rolled for saves, saved, no reroll as it already got its one reroll.
One wound total on Space Marine unit.

No rerolls to hit.

Yep that way works as well ... personaly i like using different colour dice and have a rainbow of them ^_^ (edit i normal place an extra dice next to the different weapons being fired so that i can tell them apart)

But you are rerolling to hit.

? oh i see you want to just re-roll wounds and saves? again that isn't what i think Twin-link does ...

Re-rolling hits = a more Accurate weapon
Re-rolling wounds = a more lethal weapon
Re-rolling saves = a better penetrating weapon

Twin-linking is doubling the shots fired it should be ether double the shots or something to make the shot doubly effective ... ether a re-roll on both hits and wounds, or a floating re-roll ...

... but that just my opinion on it ... technical it work out about the same ether way (re-roll hits & wounds or re-roll wounds & saves) both give two re-rolls.

I look at Twin-Linked as one round following essentially the same trajectory and sharing the same target (think one round behind the other if that is easier for you).

Actually, if you math it, those two different rerolls give drastically different results, especially depending on who is firing and/or who is being fired upon. A weapon that does not allow hit rerolls depends more on the firer's ballistic skill being good, such as Space Marines or Eldar, as they are better shooters than the average (assuming BS3 is average). They would be more concerned with breaking though armor and wounding than the weapon compensating for their accuracy, or lack there of.

Rerolling wounds, but not saves, doesn't make much sense, however, because those are both heavily dependent on the their ability to cause damage. So a weapon that has high anti-armor properties is also going to need a high strength property, they go pretty much hand in hand. It would be like implying that a Lascannon isn't very good at penetrating armor, but is very powerful to make up for it! Or that a melta-gun isn't very powerful, but dang can it cut up armor! They go hand in hand, and almost always do.

Skinnattittar wrote:I look at Twin-Linked as one round following essentially the same trajectory and sharing the same target (think one round behind the other if that is easier for you).

and that i think is why we don't agree on this i see it as 2 rounds firing next to each other traveling parallel to one another. The floating re-roll on the hit and wound are because as i see it ...
A) you hit dead on so its likely both will cause a wound (rerolled failed wounds)
B) you miss but one round or other hits (the re-roll to hit)
C) your an ork and miss both shots
... now i can see the floating re-roll going all the way to the saves but i only ignored that idea because A) it adds to the complication B) with wound allocation rules they all end up on bob any way.

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually, if you math it, those two different re-rolls give drastically different results

yes and no ... it all evens out ... you must hit, wound, and it must no be saved ... i guess with AP beating weapons mine would be more likely to kill but then that's the point of AP. A weapon could be Strength 10 but if its only AP ' - ' even dark Eldar can armour save against it.

this is certainly one sided in favor of sanity

61 vs 9 to keep it as is

if that is not an indicator of a bad idea, i am not sure what is

@ Tri : Actually I interpret it the same as you do. When I say "essentially" I am speaking of relative distance. If two bullets are traveling parallel to each other and are only inches apart, then they are going to essentially hit the same target. If one misses, the other is going to essentially miss as well. Is this saying that there is not a chance that one might miss and the other hit? No, there is, but that is a really slim chance, so slim in fact it can easily be worked into the wound system later on, if that is indeed what happened, the other round would only be hitting by a few inches, maybe even less, and cause only a superficial wound. That would be factored into the wound part. In your system, Twin Linked will drastically change, and require a total points overhaul for all weapons with Twin Linked, and the vehicles bearing them, or the chance of bearing them or not.

LAST EDIT : Addition to "@ Tri" : No, it doesn't "even out." Your system is beneficial twice to mine, making no trade offs compared to current Twin Linked.

FIRST EDIT :
@ EasyE : Actually, if you look at the poll, you will notice THREE options, only one of which is a flat out "no" and says nothing about changing it being a bad idea, just that those people prefer the current way. The actual ratio is 20 : 61, about 1 : 3 ratio, not TERRIBLE odds. But as I was saying before, it may just mean that those people voting "against" prefer a simpler system, are afraid of change, just trolling, or any number of other reasons. I put that poll there simply out of curiosity, since I know a lot of people read but don't post. Remember, about 95% of Warhammer 40,000 people think is total BS and should be done away with or modified massively, and we've been playing it for over twenty years!

Ok, sense anyone who tries to tell you why things should just stay the same is a troll or an idiot, I guess I'll try to tell you why you're idea of floating rerolls is stupid. say a unit of 5 marines in a forrest for a 4+ cover is shot at by 12 dakkagunz (assault 3 5-5 TL).
12 shots hit.
8 wound (2 more after reroll)
So, the SM player assigns 2 wounds to each, but assigns both of the wounds that don't require rerolled successful armor saves to the same model, allowing everyone to take their 4+ cover and then the one model with both of the "regular" wounds would just take 2 armor saves.

Aside from being a stupidly complicated replacement for a rule that functions perfectly as written, your suggestion would give players another way to abuse wound allocation.

Raise your hand if you want players to have a new way to abuse wound allocation.

If you insist on rewriting TL, it should just be reroll to wound/pen. Not this ridiculous reroll wound, or force reroll of successful saves but not against wounds that didn't need a reroll to be a successful wound.

I voted "no" for a couple of reasons. First, this is a massive change that would wreak havoc with point costs for years. Secondly, I'm of the opinion that TL is more of the "just spray bullets in the general vicinity"(course, the most common TL'ed weapons I use are Spinefists and Devourers). Thirdly, I think that the name was only written to describe the rule, not the other way around.

@ Skinnattittar ...
SM with bolter firing at a SM
standard chance to wound (0.1..) or ....(144/1296)
with TL as it is now ..........(0.148..) or .(192/1296)
My version .....................(0.2037..) or (264/1296)
Your version ...................(0.2407..) or (312/1296)

Eldar guardian with shurikens firing at Eldar guardian
standard chance to wound (0.3..) or .(432/1296)
with TL as it is now ..........(0.5) or ....(648/1296)
My version ......................(0.61..) or (792/1296)
Your version ...................(0.4..) or ..(576/1296)

i did a others but it should be clear that your version does slightly better against armour saves but worse the then mine and the original rule when the AP beats the save.

======

"total points overhaul for all weapons with Twin Linked" Is that you biggest problem?
Tau TL weapons cost double ... Tyranids TL also cost double ... all Bikes tend to be over priced ... I'm sure there are some TL weapons at reasonable points but most of them aren't.

i think just scrap the twin linked idea since they fire paralel so if your fireing at something thats smaller than the distance form the barrals both shoots will miss since they will fly by the sides of it twin linked dosent work for war games, in real life it helps save turret space since you only need 1 turret for 3 guns.

Skinna is right about the twin linked it makes no sense the way GW made the rules and personally it looks incredibly <edited by moderator>. I think if you really needed to have fluff on why weapons are twin linked it should have been written where if one gun misses the computer can adjust by observing the first round miss and send another round down range quickly with the proper adjustments needed to hit. but sadly GW has it written sooooooooooo wrong for how weapons work oh well what do you expect from a company that keeps up prices and giving nothing back to its followers.

chris13f wrote:Skinna is right about the twin linked it makes no sense the way GW made the rules and personally it looks incredibly <edited by moderator>.

Please refrain from using terms that reference sexual preference, as demeaning terms. Not acceptable or appropriate, now or ever.

Cheers!
Che-vito

With the way twin-linked weapons are mounted, the current way makes more sense; this new way implies that the both barrels hit the exact same spot in which case I might as well just make my twin-linked Lascannon a Heavy 2 weapon and get two shots at my target. As it is, the barrels are spaced to hit more area in case your shooting isn't accurate enough. If I shoot at a Gaunt Brood with my Baal Predator, my twin-linked Assault Cannons aren't focus-firing and hitting each Gaunt with twice the bullets. They're spraying lead over a radius that's twice as big, therefore doubling the blood-crazed gunner's change of hitting something while not necessarily granting additional density of fire. The current rule isn't 100% realistic but it does the job.