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.

Yesterday when i was playing a game of 40k, i spotted what i presumed to be a typo in the Witch Hunter Codex. It says the following.

The Immolator is armed with twin heavy flamers.
And in the options field its says that it can be equipped with twin-linked heavy bolter or a twin-linked multi-melta.

I thought this were a typo so i started to look through the codex for more info, and on p.55 i found that they had formulated it the same way, stating that its not twin-linked, but just twin heavy.

Is this a double typo? Ive looked through the errata without finding any answers.

Thank you for reading.

EDIT: Found it on a third place aswell, p.23 under Holy Prometheum.

Fabbes Out!

twin as in two.

yep - its not 'twin-linked' because it doesn't use the twin linked USR, ie you don't reroll to hit (Its unnescessary anyway 'cos it hits automatically!)

instead you re-roll to wound to represent the second flamer.


mmmm, regular.... or extra crispy....

ahh.. i was drifting towards two templates first but it just seemed too overpowered.
I thought that a twin-linked heavy flamer rerolled wounds, so i was abit puzzled when it just said twin heavy.

Well thanks for clearing things up.

Fabbe Out!

PS. Extra Crispy Please DS.

The confusion comes from the fact that the Witch Hunters codex was written before 4th edition added the rule that twin-linked template weapons re-roll their wounds. The immolator was given this special "twin flamer" rule to represent this effect. Now, this "twin flamer" and twin-linked flamers would be identical.

~I still prefer the original rules, the choice of two templates or a single one re-rolling....

(edit) Thinking about it you still have that option.....just fire both at the same target. SIlly me

two templates? wasn't that 3rd ed rules.....

oh wait no it had an inferno canon back then.... oh man i;d os be wnatin gone if it stil had a inferno canon

pretty sure it was 2nd, don't think it was an inferno cannon though as I had one back then.....

covenant84:

~I still prefer the original rules, the choice of two templates or a single one re-rolling....

(edit) Thinking about it you still have that option.....just fire both at the same target. SIlly me

There isn't a "both." Currently, you lay down one template, re-rolling to wound. No choice involved.

swize1 wrote:The confusion comes from the fact that the Witch Hunters codex was written before 4th edition added the rule that twin-linked template weapons re-roll their wounds. The immolator was given this special "twin flamer" rule to represent this effect. Now, this "twin flamer" and twin-linked flamers would be identical.

Not identical. The SoB "twin flamer" also gets to re-roll penetration rolls. Twin-linked template weapons do not.

Democratus wrote:

swize1 wrote:The confusion comes from the fact that the Witch Hunters codex was written before 4th edition added the rule that twin-linked template weapons re-roll their wounds. The immolator was given this special "twin flamer" rule to represent this effect. Now, this "twin flamer" and twin-linked flamers would be identical.

Not identical. The SoB "twin flamer" also gets to re-roll penetration rolls. Twin-linked template weapons do not.

You sure about that? (p. 31)