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.

40k has co-axial weapons, but how they work is they fire at the same target as the main gun.  So say you could VDR a tank that had a Twin-linked Lascannon and a co-axial Autocannon and under the same conditions that the Lascannon fires, the Autocannon could fire with it.

While uncommon, the Baneblade comes with a co-axial Autocannon that fires at the same target as the main cannon.

In real world warfare co-axial weapons are not uncommon but their purpose is the opposite.  A tank's main cannon is aimed and fired by the tank's commander, but often the main cannon is not necessary.  As such, a second gun is in place co-axially such that it can be used against softer targets if necessary.  Some tanks even have three guns in place, the equivalent of a 40k Battle Cannon, Autocannon and Heavy Bolter.  But rather than fire them all at once, the purpose is that the tank's commander can choose which gun to fire given the circumstances.

So what I would propose, given the current 40k rules where it is not possible to fire Ordnance and secondary weapons at the same time, is that Russ tanks have a second gun alongside their main cannon, probably either a Lascannon or an Autocannon.  I don't think it would be unreasonable to add the Autocannon for free at the current points cost, with an increase in price for the Lascannon, altho a more experienced guard player would know better than I, after taking into account the prices for the other Russ tanks.

I'm not sure what the current rules are for Ordnance+co-axial mounted weapons are, but even if it's possible to fire both at once it could just be written into the rules that it's not possible.

It also allows for the firing of two lascannons instead of the main gun, which gives the guard a bit more anti-tank firepower w/o resorting to the Leman Russ Annihalator.

Tacobake wrote: In real world warfare co-axial weapons are not uncommon but their purpose is the opposite.  A tank's main cannon is aimed and fired by the tank's commander, but often the main cannon is not necessary.... 

Sort of, actually coaxial guns are used to quickly aim the main one, as in, fire the MG, move the turret, when it starts sparking off the bad guys, fire the main gun, it will have the same trajectory. and you will get a hit.  It's actually similar to the twin linked concept already in 40k,...

I see your idea, but looks like a more firepower issue.  I dont like it much. 

Now if coaxial weapons made battlecannons twin linked,  if they hit a target first, (reroll the hit arrow) there would be something cool. (and of course could be fired alternatively to the ordinance along with everything else as a normal turreted gun alone, instead.)

That's true, I overlooked that, they're also often used for tracer rounds.

TL idea is very cool.

I think the way Co-Axial weapons will work in Apoc (the Baneblade being a good example) is that if the co-ax weapon hits, the Battlecannon hits automatically.

It could be a re-roll, but it's designed to make it easier to hit with the BC on the Baneblade.

BYE