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.

Twin-Linked weapons are supposedly two weapons directed to fire at a single point (why you would want to do this in reality, I don't know). So, why do you re-roll misses? If both weapons are linked to fire at the same point, why if one misses does the other one not? I have heard some suggestions that the two weapons make a larger fire zone, but almost all twin linked weapons are side by side, almost barrel to barrel, so the "fire zone" would be larger, as the rounds travel down range, that zone would get smaller and smaller, until they are essentially riding atop eachother. Another interpretation is that the rounds travel parrallel to eachother, but there is still the basic problem that if one whiffs it, the other isn't effectively much more likely to hit.

Instead, I propose that Twin-Linked does not give rerolls to hit, but one reroll to any result after that. So if the weapon hits, then fails to wound (or penetrate armor), reroll the result. If your opponent succeeds their armor save, they will reroll Twin-Linked wounds (but not cover saves) for a chance to fail. No rerolls on the Vehicle Damage Table, however, as both shots are hitting the same point.

Is this more complicated? Yeah, a bit. Will it slow things down? Yeah, a bit. Will it make Twin-Linked weapons more interesting? In my humble oppinion, most definitely. Will they be almost the same points wise? I don't think it will change their end result far too much, which begs the question; Why make a more complicated rules system if it isn't going to change things considerably? I have always had a raw spot when it comes to how Twin-Linked weapons work, the current rules just don't make any sense, and if anything, it will mean fewer twin-linked weapons strikes, but those strikes will be more affective, more entertaining in my opinion, and make more sense, which is the real objective of this change. And with these rules, Twin-Linked weapons should be more effective tank hunting weapons (if you're going to fail anything when attacking a vehicle, it usually seems to be the Armor Penetration roll).

Wow you utterly missed how twin linked weapons actually work.

They are linked side by side, so that if one is off a bit to the side, the one to the left of it will hit and visa versa.

There is no need to overly complicate the rules with something that doesn't even fit how the weapon is supposed to work.

See Attached Diagram. As you can see they arnt aimed at a single point, but side by side to cover a wider area, and therefore more likely to hit whatever you are aiming at (hence the reroll to hit)

Skinnattittar wrote:Twin-Linked weapons are supposedly two weapons directed to fire at a single point (why you would want to do this in reality, I don't know).

You have obviously never seen real world weapons, like the anti-aircraft guns that make an appearance in every WWII movie that features navel action. That's the kind of effect TL weapons are supposed to emulate.

I think they should get to reroll every roll!!

I'm looking foward to the new leman russ exterminator cannon. It has a rumoured twin-linked 4 autocannon shots!

@ Gwar and Book : I'm guessing you only read part of what I wrote.

Skinnattittar wrote:Another interpretation is that the rounds travel parrallel to eachother, but there is still the basic problem that if one whiffs it, the other isn't effectively much more likely to hit.

Because I clearly covered that idea as well.

@ Book : You'll notice those anti-aircraft weapons also worked completely different from how 40k models are modeled and fluffed to work. WWII AA machine guns (on ground emplacements) had their weapons mounted in very wide patterns and fired at very high rates. this created a cloud of ammunition in the air. Since then an now you can't really aim a round at the ranges they were firing, they weren't directed towards a single point, as you would still make a cloud rather than a stream of rounds. Twin-Linked Lascannons still only fire one shot at a time, so they wouldn't make that cloud effect, jsut two beams either aimed at the same point of traveling relatively close to eachother (as the models always have the weapons mounted directly next to one another). There is no representation for large fire zones increasing accuracy in 40k. Many weapons have large fire zones, bit it a massive rounds like the Vanquisher, Rail Gun, Plasma bolts (which fire a sort of beam in some fluff, in others a large ball of plasma), some eldar energy weapons, ect... why would Twin Linked get the benefit if these other weapons don't?

I can appreciate your thought process on how Twin-Linked weapons work, but mine is just as valid and better supported by history, engineering, and fluff (depending on whose and what era you are reading, of course).

A simple experiment for parallel barrels is to take two rifles, mount them side by side, and go target shooting. You are only increasing your likelyhood of hitting your target by increasing your fire-zone, but then you are still putting two rounds on target. If you miss, you still miss, but twice. The current system completely forgets about the other round once you have hit your target. Are we saying that if one hits, the other misses? We would need weapons spread far apart for this. But then what happens when you fire at hordes or utterly massive objects like buildings, super heavy tanks, Titans, the sides of regular vehicles, ect... we are forgetting a LOT more if you think about it, the way things are now.

No, no I read what you wrote.

Its still utter rubbish, but I did read it.

Skinnattittar wrote:Are we saying that if one hits, the other misses?

No, but it's a simple abstraction that gives you a better chance of hitting without straight-up doubling the firepower. You're introducing a 'fix' that's more complicated and time-consuming to 'fix' something that isn't broken.

It isn't as simple as "Re-roll missed hits" but it isn't really complicated either, just; "Re-roll failed 'to wound', 'armor penetration', or successful armor saves."

Obviously, Book and Gwar have their sights set on how Twin-Linked weapons MUST work (I'll remind everyone that there isn't anything in reality called "Twin Linked"), there really isn't much point to debating with them about it. I have my opinion (which has reality support) and they have their's, which helps keep things simpler, but I don't feel accurately reflects such a system.

I like your idea much more than the "reroll to hit" idea.

IMO, the best way to do it would be to roll once to hit, and then it would be like 2 of the weapon hit you. IE, you hit with a twin-linked lascannon, it does 2 lascannon wounds. So I hit a Carnifex with a TL Lascannon, and I wound with both, it takes 2 wounds.

If you miss, then nothing happens.

The logic works both ways, a twin linked heavy stubber isnt going to improve your change to wound/pen with a hit, but more hits. Its just an abstraction that applies to all weapons, rather than each type having separate rules. Neither is more supported by reality than the other, just different examples.

If you wanted it to be real they would just be separate weapons using 1 to hit roll (2nd Ed) or 2 guns that fire at the same target.

Most of the rules in the game are very abstracted from what it would actually be in a "real life' situation of those same events. The rules you are proposing would be more complicated than the current rules, but if you and your opponents find them to be more enjoyable, go nuts with em.

I will say that rules that are more realistic are not always the best for abstracted table top games - too many such rules and things can really bog down. But, if you like to have complicated rules to better simulate real world conditions, and your opponent does too (an important point!) then play the game that way.

Have you tried a game with these rules yet?

@ Vlad : I actually think your solution/suggestion is actually pretty good, except that there would need to be some sort of narrowing point, one roll to hit, but only one result at the same time. i.e.; one model shouldn't take two wounds from the weapon, nor should it get two results on the Vehicle Damage Table. So perhaps the final result should reflect that.

Roll to hit, roll two dice to wound/penetrate. If the model is wounded, or the armor penetrated, use only one result. Resolve as normal. Re-roll succesful armor saves.

The whole point of the 40k rules are to be simple.
The basic idea behind twin linked is that 2 guns firing in the same direction kick out more rounds in that direction so there is more chance of a hit. things like lascannons that only have one shot a turn, twin linked versions would just use a spilt second delay in the second barrel to cause the same effect.

Im more of a fan of twin linked weapons being more deadly, as in fire an extra shot or lower Ap or higher strength

My main issue with twin-linked weapons is with large targets.
There would be good chance of hitting something with a large profile like a Rhino or Land Raider with both barrels.
I've thought that getting to roll an additional chance to hit on a successful hit with a first roll natural 6 would be a good way of simulating this.
This second hit would not benefit further from twin-linked.
Though, in regards to burst and template weapons I think the current rules should stand unmodified.

- just my nickel

EDIT: in italics

Yeah it makes no sense why doesn't it get to re-roll EVERYTHING?!

My idea is just to reroll ONE die in the whole process per Twin-Linked shot. Even if it is decided that to hit is also re-rolled, I would still be happy, the majority of my first post is about how I interpret (and how it has been presented in the fluff and engineering) "Twin Linked" weapons.

I'd just make it count as two weapons, if I was re-designing the rules.

Twin linked Lascannon = two lascannons that cannot fire at different units, unlike most tank-mounted weapons.

(Note: most tank-mounted weapons can fire at different targets because that's how I'd redesign them. Obviously they can't do that now.)

That's actually a pretty nifty idea Skinnattittar. I like it.

The way we do Twin-Linking in 40K Revisited is you get the standard re-roll To Hit, but if you roll a '6' when rolling To Hit the first time (not on the re-roll), you get 2 hits with the weapon.

It can lead to situations where a weapon hits more than it shoots (ie. a Twin-Linked AssCannon can potentially hit 8 times, assuming you rolled four 6's), but we like the roll a 6 get something special style of doing it (hence the reason why Rending stays on a To Hit in our rules even if To Wound makes more sense).

That said, Skinnattittar, as I said, your idea is a nifty one and I'll be bringing it up with our group.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

The way we do Twin-Linking in 40K Revisited is you get the standard re-roll To Hit, but if you roll a '6' when rolling To Hit the first time (not on the re-roll), you get 2 hits with the weapon.

Who's this going around re-rolling sixes?

I'm quite happy with re-rolling to hit, but I've always been of the opinion that linked template weapons should be niftier than they are.

I disagree on the whole 'both shots are hitting the same point' point. That doesn't make sense.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The way we do Twin-Linking in 40K Revisited is you get the standard re-roll To Hit, but if you roll a '6' when rolling To Hit the first time (not on the re-roll), you get 2 hits with the weapon.

I disagree on the whole 'both shots are hitting the same point' point. That doesn't make sense.

Having two weapons firing at different points makes even less (with the exception "Cloud" weapons, talked about earlier). If one round is not enough to destroy your target, then a second one in the same general area but not striking at the same point isn't going to help at all. But if both round are focussing on the same point, well then slamming that point twice is definitely going to increase your chances of breaking the target. Having them fire parallel is just going to make a larger "fire zone," and not really increase your chances of hitting your target much at all.

Just blame GW. They wanted Co-Axial, called it Twin-Linked, and then said "ohh, that's the word... hm... let's put it on tanks and call it a day!"

I agree that the rule could use some tweeking. The big problem is that the second weapon in every twin-linked profile is bought at a reduced rate in every codex. This means that whatever rule is used to update has to be nerfed or GW has to simul-release every codex with the new ruleset.

I do like the idea of in addition to the normal re-roll, the first roll of a six to hit with each twin-linked weapon system per turn adds one extra hit over the normal weapon profile. Blast weapons gain one extra to wound die to add to the total number of models hit per template.

Abstraction.

Twin-linked is the step below gatling (as we know from VDR)

It represent increased R.o.F. which in the abstraction equals increased chance to hit.

I'm ok with this, and if I wanted to change anything I would just let everyone fire them twice rather then have a floating re-roll, as Orkeosaurus's solution.

Jack

@ Jack : I have no idea where you got Twin-Linked being one step below Gatling, which is a multi-barrelled, gatling gun style, version of the original weapon, firing D3 rounds.

A "floating" re-roll actually seems like a good way to run it, rather than even the whole +1 shot on 6's to hit. Remember, Space Marines and IG aren't the only ones with Twin-Linked weapons, Orks got them too, which means on 6's, which is half the shots they make, they're landing extra rounds.

@fire : Actually, if it stays at just a floating re-roll (I like that term now), then the weapon's value is not going to be that much higher than the weapon's price, so it would be okay to leave things be while GW eventually gets around to updating codices.

I couldn't quote you the page in VDR where it talks about the scale of stuff from single barrel>twin-linked>gatling but I'm pretty sure its in there.

Glad I at least provided you with some help you like

Jack

Skinnattittar: [...] Orks got them too, which means on 6's, which is half the shots they make, they're landing extra rounds.

This isn't such an issue if the '6' grants an additional to-hit, as apposed to a 'hit'

This thread give complete explanation on TL weapons:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228159.page

LunaHound wrote:This thread give complete explanation on TL weapons:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228159.page

Yeah, I just read through a chunk of that and they're mostly wrong. A lot is covered there, and it shouldn't be brought up here unless you are going to post it here.

Twin-Linked weapons seem nice enough as is.

Maybe a nice rule to add on is when you roll a 6 you get two wounds instead of one.