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.

The Bringer wrote: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.

As I said before, this favors low BS models and is disproportionate to higher BS models. If a model with BS1 is properly priced, they will get a second wound everytime they hit once, even if they have to roll to hit again, they still get a disproportionate chance, and you're STILL not reflecting the reality of the situation. So unless we go to a weapon where you roll to hit once, then get two hits (which makes more sense) or have a "floating" reroll, double hits on 6's doesn't really reflect the situation.

Skinnattittar wrote:

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.

It's just the idea the the weapons can pivot independently together and compensate for range in order to hit the same target twice... I can understand hitting a broad tank-like target twice, and I think that linked frag launchers ought to put that second template somewhere, but like most of your proposed rules, this is just what you would prefer, right? The re-roll to hit covers all of these scenarios.

In bold above, wut?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

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.

It's just the idea the the weapons can pivot independently together and compensate for range in order to hit the same target twice... I can understand hitting a broad tank-like target twice, and I think that linked frag launchers ought to put that second template somewhere, but like most of your proposed rules, this is just what you would prefer, right? The re-roll to hit covers all of these scenarios.
In bold above, wut?

Just think about it for a bit and it should make sense. Two shots travelling towards the same point, or a very very close point/small area. If one misses, why should the other hit? Was the aim off only so slightly that one misses and not the other? Well then if the first hits, shouldn't the other still be rolled for? Or are we talking about something more complex going on here...

If you have ever practiced combat BRM you would understand a bit more, perhaps, on that section in bold. 95% of the time, if you are missing your target, you are missing wide, not by a little bit, but by a good margin. Now, I do agree that a big target like a tank should be easy to hit, but you have to remember with tanks is that they are designed to be taking fire, and it can be presumed that the MBTs are designed with thought of anti-tank weapons. So the majority of tanks are inpenetrable, but they will have weaknesses.

A HMMWV (Humvee) can take anti-tank mines and rockets and still have reasonable crew survivablity, even the un-uparmored ones. But the HMMWV is only a light tactical vehicle?! Soldiers do die in them too! Well that's because they have weaknesses. Bradleys are armored personel carriers (APC/APV) designed to shrug off small arms fire. however they have been known to be penetrated by AK-47 rounds. Weaknesses.

So a Leman Russ may actually be quite capable of taking Melta and Anti-Tank rounds with more then enough left over armor for another go. However, they would have weak points; exposed tracks, sight holes, weapons joints, ect... Those are the areas to hit. Some will be small, like joints and look-outs, others will be parger, turret and tracks. Toughness of the armor would also be included, where plates meet might be thicker, and more resilient, or weaker because they are rivetted together or only have surface welds (Rivets are far weaker than surface welds, and surface welds are far weaker than deep welds, which are weaker than single forge). So there is a lot that goes into shooting a tank, even a lightly armored Rhino or Eldar Speeder will have hard points (though I doubt they would shrug off a Lascannon no matter where you hit...).

What does all that mean? Even if you miss by enough that another barrel firing to the side to strike the vehicle, odds are it won't be enough inboard to strike that weak point. Same goes for weak spots and near misses, assuming you're not actually missing by a mile.

IMO they are fine as they are.

just because they are both aimed at the same point does not mean they both fire at the exact same time.
what if one fires a second or 2 later than the 1st?
effectively you then have the 1st shot missing but give a more accurate aim for the 2nd shot afterwards.

nowhere does it say they fire at the exact same time as eachother.

JD21290: nowhere does it say they fire at the exact same time as eachother.

actually in DoW both barrels of the T-linked lascannons are shown firing at the same time, and I believe the imagery in DoW (at least the 1st one) is canon

ill state again belphegor.

Nowhere does it SAY they fire at the exact same time.

DOW is a game, and its not even close to 100% right as there are alot of faults with it.

oh, my bad JD21290.
Good call and I stand corrected.
Visual references of GW IP should not be taken into account when discussing modifying rules to more appropriately reflect the background.
Please strike my previous statement from the record.
The written word should be forever separate of the crude illustrations of artists.
Also, the simple game DoW has no connection with the untouchable faultless gilded texts of the Warhammer 40k way of life.
Thus, I stand corrected. Doubly so.

im simply saying that DOW is nothing to go by due to the ammount of faults in it.
no one here has seen such a weapon in real life (TL las), so no one here can really state how it would fire, all that can come of this is simple opinions.

That's kinda my point.
It's all made up.
So your designing rules for something that is entirely fictional you need to make-up how it works and stay consistent with the available fiction to give the universe some sort of cohesion.
(which is a struggle to say the least when it come to Wh40k in general.)
So, the T-Linked lascannons fire both barrels at the same time at a single target, based on the most widely distributed visual reference we have.
(it's one the reasons GW try's to keep a death-grip on their IP)
and unless you have at least one direct counter-reference, then that's how it works

lol, not atall, that would just be your opinion.
as are every other posts here.

so all in all, it doesent fire in any particular way.
we do not know how it works, so we could all be right or wrong.

and to be honest, i rather not waste time with pointless posts about how a fictional weapon system works lol.
rather be working on getting updates done for my 2 blogs or reading other blogs.

Actually, there have been a few weapons that could be considered "Twin Linked" the way GW has somewhat consistantly portayed their version of Twin Linked in history. The Italians, I think it was the Italians, had vehicle pintle mounted automatic pistols that were mounted side by side firing from seperate magazines on a single trigger mechanism, some time around WWI I think. The Russians later had a twin barrelled tank, though it worked completely different I believe from 40k Twin Linked (I don't think it could be fired at the same time at all). However, there is something we can reasonably assume from all the fluff on Twin-Linked weapons, both portrayed in various GW games, written in accepted cannon (I don't know of many things in DoW that could be considered wrong enough to throw the game out the window as canon) that Twin-Linked weapons fire either simultaneously or so close to simultaneously that the difference in inobservable.

Next, you, JD21290, you have even less, and by that I mean absolutely zero, nadda, zilch, pittoi, squat (not Squats as a reference source), none, total lack there of, non-existance, ect... to support your proposition. So I would ask you to please keep such unsupportable, entirely un-defensible, pointless, and frivolous comments and suggestions.

However, that is not what we are hear for. This is not "Fluff for Nutters" or "General Discussion," this is Proposed Rules.

i take it you have seen a TL lascannon fire in real life then?
if not then you have just about as much info as i have.

ok, using a ref. from older things such as tanks, great, but this is 40k and alot of things are different.



just as a semi-old reference here, but in the previous ork dex if a dread took 2 or more of the same weapon it became TL, now, they were not next to each other like most TL weps, so would they have the same function, or different?

JD21290 wrote:i take it you have seen a TL lascannon fire in real life then?

Yes.

JD21290 wrote:just as a semi-old reference here, but in the previous ork dex if a dread took 2 or more of the same weapon it became TL, now, they were not next to each other like most TL weps, so would they have the same function, or different?

Congrats! You have found one outdated reference! The Eldar used to (they may still) have a similiar model with that same idea, though for them it was a horrible option that nobody took (anyone with half a brain at least). As far as I know, those are the only two that come close to being modern Twin-Linked weapons cases where the weapons AREN'T side-by-side mounted.

i would like to know where this time machine is.


i was simply giving a reference of a TL weapon that was not side by side.
nothing worse than an old tank.

also, by taking vulkan in an army it TL's weapons (?), so, how does it work with them?

JD21290 wrote: would like to know where this time machine is.

Corner room, fifth desk in the center isle, third drawer down on the right hand side. Open the secret bottom, reach down under the spinal ganglion, under the thirteenth magazine you see. Becareful, their might be highwaymen along the way, they keep snarks for pets.

JD21290 wrote:i was simply giving a reference of a TL weapon that was not side by side.
nothing worse than an old tank.

also, by taking vulkan in an army it TL's weapons (?), so, how does it work with them?

First off, you don't seem very confident of that rule you seem to be trying to palm off as fact. It could be true, but I don't know and you don't seem to either, so please can it. Second, it's another rare exception, we can't base everything on exceptions. 40k is chalk full of exceptions. 99.9% of all Twin-Linked weapons are mounted side-by-side and on vehicles. Let us work from those facts, shall we?

JD21290 wrote:just because they are both aimed at the same point does not mean they both fire at the exact same time.
what if one fires a second or 2 later than the 1st?
effectively you then have the 1st shot missing but give a more accurate aim for the 2nd shot afterwards.

And what does the second cannon do if the first one hits it target and fails to destroy it?

According to the twin-linked rules, it does nothing. It just sits there and waits for the first cannon to be ready to fire again.

It's illogical.

skinn: i posted the ? because i was unsure of the spelling of vulkan, not the rule.
so, 99.9% are based side by side? so, how many variations of TL weapons are there?


ork: i would guess the 2nd shot misses.
seems more viable than 2 fire together at the same point, as they would either both hit or both miss.
seems to work better with the rules idea.

Why would the second shot always miss though?

They can hit it the first time, but they can't hit it again?

Surely it would have at least as good of a chance to hit as the first one, after all, it's supposed to adjust it's shot based on where the first one lands.

Let's look at a Land Raider. If those cannons fire simultaneously, a marine hit in the chest would not be hit by the other barrel, unless he was pulling a stupid pose. It's possible but not likely. Stormbolters have their barrels very close together, multiple barrels implies a design for using alternating barrels (higher rate of fire) and/or a dual-magazine (higher rate of fire). But wait, these are assault 2! Now look at the linked bolters back on the Land Raider. They're pretty far apart...

Barrelled firearms with solid ammunition (as opposed to laser/balls of energy) are just inherently inaccurate.
Two guns strapped together aren't going to be as accurate - that should be pretty obvious. If they fire out of phase they;'re going to throw one another off quickly, and if they fire simultaneously then the greater recoil would necessitate more time to restabilise... If it's firing faster it's less accurate, if it fires slowly to compensate, it gets less shots off. If we're looking at a twin-linked ork shoota, whereas a stormbolter is probably designed to compensate for off-centre recoil.

This is just as speculative as what anyone else has said, but I'm just saying that your opinion is not irrefutable, within the fluff or no. Remember that the rules are an abstraction - an autogun doesn't just fire two bullets in an entire round when you rapid-fire, and Eldar catapults are supposed to absolutely piss shurikens. You could up the scale by making wounds more in-detail, and rolling a lot more dice to-hit, but that's just a pain. Twin-linked is easy and it makes sense, unless you insist that the barrels are pointing inwards, which simply cannot work.

Uh.. who are you talking to?

@ Arktik- good explanation. Now if I might add.

Actually, lets look at the defensive armaments of WWII bombers. They are what GW considers twin-linked. Look at the gun footage from those turrets and its easy to see how only one barrel hits while the other doesn't.

I know, I know, the planes were travelling faster and you have the effects of mass and friction. GW doesn't take these factors into play because the added complication of solid mass vs energy vs wave vs particle weapons would slow and complicate the game to 2nd ed(biblical) proportions.

What I'm getting at is 2 guns linked firing at the same time from the same mounting have a completely different downrange characteristic than 2 weapons firing parallel simultaneously. GW represents this as recoil for solid mass weapons and something like parallel energy shots affect each others path through something like rotating magnetic containment fields that push/pull each other.

Is this truth verbatim? No
Is this how I interpret the function and reason? Yes
Is this how you have to see it? Heck No.

One little clarification, the side by side mountings on aircraft fired parallel. The wingtip guns on fighters were aimed inwards at pilots preference. Generally the allied pilots used 100-200 yard convergent points where as the Luftwaffe pilots would set as low as a 50 yard centerpoint. From what I understand, the pointing inward for convergence only is effective if the guns are more than six feet apart.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Let's look at a Land Raider. If those cannons fire simultaneously, a marine hit in the chest would not be hit by the other barrel, unless he was pulling a stupid pose. It's possible but not likely. Stormbolters have their barrels very close together, multiple barrels implies a design for using alternating barrels (higher rate of fire) and/or a dual-magazine (higher rate of fire). But wait, these are assault 2! Now look at the linked bolters back on the Land Raider. They're pretty far apart...

That would be great, if anybody fired at individual, man-sized models.

Lascannons are anti-tank weapons; 3/4 of the time they are fired at tanks. Or monstrous creatures, which are much the same. Now, there is virtually never a situation where the two barrels being a foot and a half apart means that only one is able to hit the tank.

Now if you're not firing at a tank, what are you firing at? An independent character?

No, you're nearly always firing at a unit, a squad of ten or so models, so spraying those models with twice the number of shots should do, approximately, twice the amount of damage. Not 1.3 times as much.

And, if a twin-linked weapon was resolved as two, the chance of both hitting would be lower.

Barrelled firearms with solid ammunition (as opposed to laser/balls of energy) are just inherently inaccurate.
Two guns strapped together aren't going to be as accurate - that should be pretty obvious. If they fire out of phase they;'re going to throw one another off quickly, and if they fire simultaneously then the greater recoil would necessitate more time to restabilise... If it's firing faster it's less accurate, if it fires slowly to compensate, it gets less shots off. If we're looking at a twin-linked ork shoota, whereas a stormbolter is probably designed to compensate for off-centre recoil.

First of all, no, Heavy Bolters don't have that much recoil. A space marine - who is strong, yes, and is wearing power armor, yes, but is still and infantry sized model - can fire a heavy bolter. Are you saying that a tank wouldn't have the ability to handle twice as much recoil? Seriously? Even though it's already known that a tank can move and fire while a space marine cannot?

Second, if a lascannon has the ability to fire once in the time it takes to reload, or recharge, or whatever, then it wouldn't be slowed down at all by firing them out of phase. You fire the first shot, fire the second shot, fire the first shot, fire the second shot, and since twin-linked weapons are usually no more than a foot and a half apart, there's not much of a need to re-aim, apart from using the right targeter when you fire the right one, and the left targeter when you fire the left one.

This is just as speculative as what anyone else has said, but I'm just saying that your opinion is not irrefutable, within the fluff or no. Remember that the rules are an abstraction - an autogun doesn't just fire two bullets in an entire round when you rapid-fire, and Eldar catapults are supposed to absolutely piss shurikens. You could up the scale by making wounds more in-detail, and rolling a lot more dice to-hit, but that's just a pain. Twin-linked is easy and it makes sense, unless you insist that the barrels are pointing inwards, which simply cannot work.

The rules aren't entirely an abstraction of a real combat; this isn't Chess, this is a miniatures game, made to sell the miniatures it is played with, which means the capabilities of what a model can do should tie into the miniatures appearance, and to how whatever the model is a model of would theoretically have the capability to do.

It is not intuitive for the two lascannons mounted on the turret to be significantly less powerful than the two lascannons mounted on the vehicle's sides. It is not intuitive for a model spraying a squad of orks with two miniguns to be doing barely any more damage than one.

You talk about simplicity, but one of the strongest principles of simplicity in a game is for the mechanics to be intuitive; the two guns on the side of the tank should be as powerful as the two on the turret. Hitting a tank with two laser beams should have better chance of hurting it than one.

What is the benefit to this abstraction? Not all that nonsense about "rolling a billion shots for an assault cannon and applying wounds to the ork's limbs," what is the benefit of the abstraction of twin-linked weapons to the gameplay? What makes it more "tactical?" What makes it easier? Do you really think rolling four dice twice takes longer than rolling two dice three times?

Personally, I don't see a single benefit. I see a counter-intuitive mechanic that makes two guns here far less powerful than two guns there, and makes it a bitch to try and keep track of whether something has two guns, or one twin-linked gun, or a second weapon entirely. (See: Bolters, Combi-Bolters, Storm Bolters)

Also, there is nothing in the core game that is anything close to a bomber. I can't even think of anything besides Wazdakka that can shoot after moving over 12".

Orkeosaurus wrote:That would be great, if anybody fired at individual, man-sized models.

Lascannons are anti-tank weapons; 3/4 of the time they are fired at tanks. Or monstrous creatures, which are much the same. Now, there is virtually never a situation where the two barrels being a foot and a half apart means that only one is able to hit the tank.

Now if you're not firing at a tank, what are you firing at? An independent character?

No, you're nearly always firing at a unit, a squad of ten or so models, so spraying those models with twice the number of shots should do, approximately, twice the amount of damage. Not 1.3 times as much.

And, if a twin-linked weapon was resolved as two, the chance of both hitting would be lower.

Not necessarily true. there is a reason why the military moved to 3 round bursts. Cover fire is inherently much less accurate and much more wasteful.
There are times where you are going for the insta kill on the toughness 4 multiwound model and its not a mosterous creature. So please to not make assumptions.
We're talking about twin-linking in general not just lascannons.

Orkeosaurus wrote:First of all, no, Heavy Bolters don't have that much recoil. A space marine - who is strong, yes, and is wearing power armor, yes, but is still and infantry sized model - can fire a heavy bolter. Are you saying that a tank wouldn't have the ability to handle twice as much recoil? Seriously? Even though it's already known that a tank can move and fire while a space marine cannot?

A person can fire a shotgun, doesn't mean the recoils isn't a b***h. Now a bolter is more powerful than a shotgun, the recoils still there and with a higher RoF(Rate of Fire) Talk to a Marine about firing a .50 cal and he'll tell you that the recoil is awsome. They train to get used to it but a .50 cal machinegune is in no way as accurate as a .50 cal sniper rifle.
Also its all speculation as to that there aren't any bolters. Closest thing to it is firing an auto shotgun loaded with magnum slugs. Why slugs? Because they produce a heckuva lot more recoil than buck-shot.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Second, if a lascannon has the ability to fire once in the time it takes to reload, or recharge, or whatever, then it wouldn't be slowed down at all by firing them out of phase. You fire the first shot, fire the second shot, fire the first shot, fire the second shot, and since twin-linked weapons are usually no more than a foot and a half apart, there's not much of a need to re-aim, apart from using the right targeter when you fire the right one, and the left targeter when you fire the left one.

I covered this up thread. It has to do with simplification of the rules so as the game doesn't become 2nd ed again. There arre many scientific reasons that could be thought up as to why the rule works this way: Power cell can only discharge at a certain rate or magnetic containment fields interfere with one another but the real reason is for streamlined gameplay.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It is not intuitive for the two lascannons mounted on the turret to be significantly less powerful than the two lascannons mounted on the vehicle's sides. It is not intuitive for a model spraying a squad of orks with two miniguns to be doing barely any more damage than one.

You talk about simplicity, but one of the strongest principles of simplicity in a game is for the mechanics to be intuitive; the two guns on the side of the tank should be as powerful as the two on the turret. Hitting a tank with two laser beams should have better chance of hurting it than one.

Unless they are sharing the same powerline to the power source.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Personally, I don't see a single benefit. I see a counter-intuitive mechanic that makes two guns here far less powerful than two guns there, and makes it a bitch to try and keep track of whether something has two guns, or one twin-linked gun, or a second weapon entirely. (See: Bolters, Combi-Bolters, Storm Bolters)

Ah, so this has less to do with logic and is more of a personal pet peeve. Here is your intuitive, take 2 guns to the range. Fire with your left hand, then with your right, and then both at the same time. Compare yopur scores and remember the feeling of the recoil. If this doesn't convince you then get to know the local collectors and afficianado's. one of them will have one of the old double or quad guns operated on a single mount and operated by a camshaft. Set to fire singly, then fire multiples. once again compare your levels of accuracy. If this doesn't convince you then there is no hope.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, there is nothing in the core game that is anything close to a bomber. I can't even think of anything besides Wazdakka that can shoot after moving over 12".

Ah, but we're not just dealing with the core game. Apoc uses the base game codices and rules with things like bombers. Twin-linked rule makes sense. Now would I complain if it was changed and I got to throw an extra Die or two? No, not one bit. But if that happened you would see a rewrite on every new book to where only rapid fire, assault 1 or 2, and heavy 1's could be twin-linked.

focusedfire wrote:Not necessarily true. there is a reason why the military moved to 3 round bursts. Cover fire is inherently much less accurate and much more wasteful.
There are times where you are going for the insta kill on the toughness 4 multiwound model and its not a mosterous creature. So please to not make assumptions.
We're talking about twin-linking in general not just lascannons.

So the rules should be written for the off chance that the weapons are being fired at an idependent character, as opposed to the units that the weapon is designed to go against?

Besides, I don't know that it is that absurd for a twin-linked lascannon to hit a marine with both barrels. Blow both his arms off at least.

A person can fire a shotgun, doesn't mean the recoils isn't a b***h. Now a bolter is more powerful than a shotgun, the recoils still there and with a higher RoF(Rate of Fire) Talk to a Marine about firing a .50 cal and he'll tell you that the recoil is awsome. They train to get used to it but a .50 cal machinegune is in no way as accurate as a .50 cal sniper rifle.
Also its all speculation as to that there aren't any bolters. Closest thing to it is firing an auto shotgun loaded with magnum slugs. Why slugs? Because they produce a heckuva lot more recoil than buck-shot.

It has nothing to do with what kind of recoil a person can handle, it has everything to do with what kind of recoil a weapon mounted in the turret of a tank can handle. Which is over twice the amount a person can.

I covered this up thread. It has to do with simplification of the rules so as the game doesn't become 2nd ed again. There arre many scientific reasons that could be thought up as to why the rule works this way: Power cell can only discharge at a certain rate or magnetic containment fields interfere with one another but the real reason is for streamlined gameplay.

Except it doesn't do anything to make the game simpler.

There is no added complexity to it counting as two weapons.

Unless they are sharing the same powerline to the power source.

Why would there be two barrels if it could only muster as much power as one lascannon?

Plus, regardless, that's not at all intuitive. Two guns = two guns. Making up reasons for one pair of guns to be exceptionally weak without there being any sign of that breaks the connection the model is suposed to have to the game.

Ah, so this has less to do with logic and is more of a personal pet peeve. Here is your intuitive, take 2 guns to the range. Fire with your left hand, then with your right, and then both at the same time. Compare yopur scores and remember the feeling of the recoil. If this doesn't convince you then get to know the local collectors and afficianado's. one of them will have one of the old double or quad guns operated on a single mount and operated by a camshaft. Set to fire singly, then fire multiples. once again compare your levels of accuracy. If this doesn't convince you then there is no hope.

I'll fix this for you:

Here is your intuitive, take 2 guns to the range. Mount the guns in the turret of a tank. Fire with your left hand, then with your right, and then both at the same time. Compare yopur scores and remember the feeling of the recoil.

Also, it has nothing to do with a "personal pet peeve," it has to do with it being a counter-intuitive game mechanic, that adds complexity to the game with no real benefit.

You yourself were whining about the game's complexity, so don't act like that's insignificant.

Ah, but we're not just dealing with the core game. Apoc uses the base game codices and rules with things like bombers. Twin-linked rule makes sense. Now would I complain if it was changed and I got to throw an extra Die or two? No, not one bit. But if that happened you would see a rewrite on every new book to where only rapid fire, assault 1 or 2, and heavy 1's could be twin-linked.

First of all, making the core game rules try to fit whatever nonsense people do in Apoc is doomed to failure.

GW doesn't do it, they let people figure it out themselves. They don't do it for a good reason.

Second, there's nothing about my rule that wouldn't work perfectly fine with the flyer rules. There's a 1/36 chance of you hitting a flyer with both shots, it barely even comes up.

Third, I didn't say GW should come out with 6th edition next month to replace the twin-linked rules, so don't get into hysterics. Yes, if I replaced the twin-linked rules it would be simultaneous with a lot of changes. The codices being in limbo would not be an issue.

First) never said independent character. Your making assumptions and you know what that does.

Second) Except not all twin-linking occurs on tanks. As a matter of fact its pretty rare. The game mech is set that infantry with 2 of the same weapon is twin-linked but on the Tank they are not twin-linked unless otherwise noted.(Its a game mechanic to give you a balance increase of fire power when the math says that it can only be a fraction more because a full point more is too powerful.)

As to the Tank mounts, fire pintle mounted twin .50's and see how smooth and accurate you are.

Third) The added complexity is rewritting everything just so you can use whole numbers is way more complex than a system that allows that 1/3 increase where its needed. Your way wouldn't just add an extra die but triple the number bieng rolled just so everything is based off of whole numbers.

Fourth) Because it isn't the same power but 1/3 more powerful. Not a bad upgrade on an existing chassis by simply adding a barrel as opposed to retrofitting a whole new power system. It makes sense in war by being cheap.

Fifth) Here fix this for you. Go to range and fire pintle mounted twin .50s one handed and after they pick up all of your friendly fire casualties you'll have a long time in military prison to figure out what was wrong with your idea.
You still seem to think everything twin-linked is in a turret. Must be an Armored comp player.
But here lets keep playing. Fire those twin guns with one mag empty and then with them both loaded and see if your any more accurate per round fired. Until you do that and realize that more bullets doesn't equate to greater accuracy it just equals more bullets being less acurate but still more bullets there will be no agreement here.

Will you two stop bickering like a couple of old crones and get back on the subject?

Simple fact of the matter is that we are all agreeing that Twin-Linked weapons are two weapons firing on the generally same target. I am seeing many suggestions that Twin-Linked weapons fire staggered (one, then the other) rounds. The bare FACT of the matter it, there is not a single word of fluff supporting that idea, but there is PLENTY of fluff supporting simultaneous fire (books, story clips in codices, games of all the eras [Daw of War, Rites of War, Chaos Gate, Armageddon], battle reports from White Dwarf, ect...). Is it possible that Twin-Linked weapons still have the option to stagger their fire? Well... I guess so, I haven't heard it written or anything that they CAN'T, then again, I haven't unseen the tooth fairy either. Though I'll say without a doubt there wasn't a magical fairy sneaking into my room, when I was a little kid, to collect my teeth.

@Skinny- Upon examination of the original post it seems we were on subject.

There was nothing in the OP about whether the fire from twin-linked weapons were staggered or simultaneous. Yes we agree its 2 weapons firing...LINKED.

The fire being staggered or simultaneous doesn't change the arguments one way or another as to why the current rules are as they are.

We were discussing the reasons and mechanics of why twin-linking is the way it is and what it would take to change the system as you and others proposed. Or rather that firing linked weapons affects accuracy. example:

Pls remember that the actual on target numbers are just used as example as opposed to being any kind of hard real world number.

Higher Rate of Fire = more bullets in general area(twice as many rounds)
Higher Rate of Fire = overall lower on target percentage(only 6 rounds in a hundred hit as opposed to 9 rounds in a hundred)
Math to represent the increased Rate of fire you take the lowered on target percentage and double by the rounds fired and you get 12 on target.
12 is a 1/3 improvement over 9

reason why on target percentage drops is that increasing rate of fire has always dropped the hit to shot ratio(yes even on a tank)

Is this 100% real world accurate? NO
Is this a mechanic that allows for the use of fractions to balance the game? YES
Does just rolling extra dice for the extra gunbarrel seem simpler? Yes
Is this the reality of what would happen? NO
Would the game designers have to triple the dice rolled by all other weapons to restore balance? YES
Is rolling 3x the nuber of shooting dice simpler than the current way? NO

focusedfire wrote:First) never said independent character. Your making assumptions and you know what that does.

How many single-model, man-sized, units are there that aren't independent characters? Not many.

Second) Except not all twin-linking occurs on tanks. As a matter of fact its pretty rare. The game mech is set that infantry with 2 of the same weapon is twin-linked but on the Tank they are not twin-linked unless otherwise noted.(Its a game mechanic to give you a balance increase of fire power when the math says that it can only be a fraction more because a full point more is too powerful.)

It's rare for twin-linked weapons to be on tanks? Really?

What is an example of a common, twin-linked weapon that is not mounted on: a) a vehicle b) a monstrous creature, or c) an extremely large, bulky suit of armor, a la Terminators or Battlesuits.

Chances are whatever this weapon is will be far less than a Heavy Bolter.

As to the Tank mounts, fire pintle mounted twin .50's and see how smooth and accurate you are.

1. We're not talking about pintle mounted weapons and you know it. Name one pintle-mounted weapon that's twin-linked. I can't think of anything besides the combi-bolter, and a bolter is quite a bit lighter than a .50.

2. I bet I'll be more accurate with two pintle mounted .50s than I would be with one .50 held in my hands.

Third) The added complexity is rewritting everything just so you can use whole numbers is way more complex than a system that allows that 1/3 increase where its needed. Your way wouldn't just add an extra die but triple the number bieng rolled just so everything is based off of whole numbers.

What? How would it triple the number of dice being rolled?

Rolling an extra dice takes less time than rolling a dice twice.

And as I already said, and you want to ignore, evidently, I'm not saying 5th edition should be recalled so that the twin-linked rules can be improved.
I'm saying that if the game was redone, the twin-linking rules should be made more intuitive.

Fourth) Because it isn't the same power but 1/3 more powerful. Not a bad upgrade on an existing chassis by simply adding a barrel as opposed to retrofitting a whole new power system. It makes sense in war by being cheap.

You're crossing the game mechanics with fluff.

No where in the fluff does it say that a twin-linked weapon only has the same amount of power as a regular weapon, nor does it say a twin-linked lascannon is significantly less powerful than two lascannons. It's the game mechanic.

Fifth) Here fix this for you. Go to range and fire pintle mounted twin .50s one handed and after they pick up all of your friendly fire casualties you'll have a long time in military prison to figure out what was wrong with your idea.

I must have lost brain cells reading that.

You still seem to think everything twin-linked is in a turret. Must be an Armored comp player.

I'm pretty sure most AC tanks don't have twin-linked weapons in the turret, but regardless, it doesn't have to be in the turret. They can be sponsons. They can be hull mounted. They can be fastened to a monstrous creature, or a huge exoskeleton. They aren't going to be pintle mounted, even though you keep trying to skirt that issue with your .50 nonsense, unless they're a already a weapon that's a basic small-arm.

No matter where they're placed, a powerful twin-linked weapon will be somewhere with enough stability for it to fire without the recoil making any larger an impact than it would make on a model that carries that weapon normally.

Eg: Devastator with a Heavy Bolter vs. Land Raider with Twin-Linked Heavy Bolters.

Terminator with a Combi-Bolter vs. Chaos Marine with Bolter.

Ork boy with a Big Shoota vs. Warbike with a TL Dakkagun.

But here lets keep playing. Fire those twin guns with one mag empty and then with them both loaded and see if your any more accurate per round fired. Until you do that and realize that more bullets doesn't equate to greater accuracy it just equals more bullets being less acurate but still more bullets there will be no agreement here.

Let's not keep playing, because I'm talking about a situation with little to no recoil, like the majority of the situations someone would be firing a twin-linked weapon in.

I never said more bullets means more accuracy, and given that the rules you favor make twin-linked weapons more accurate, but with less shots, I fail to see the merit of your point. What I'm saying is that twice the weaponry should equal twice the shots, especially when you take into consideration the fact that many if not most twin-linked weapons are weapons that have very little recoil in the first place, and every twin-linked weapon that I know of that has a significant amount of recoil is mounted somewhere that can take far more recoil than where the weapon is mounted when not twin-linked.

We were discussing the reasons and mechanics of why twin-linking is the way it is and what it would take to change the system as you and others proposed. Or rather that firing linked weapons affects accuracy. example:

Pls remember that the actual on target numbers are just used as example as opposed to being any kind of hard real world number.

Higher Rate of Fire = more bullets in general area(twice as many rounds)
Higher Rate of Fire = overall lower on target percentage(only 6 rounds in a hundred hit as opposed to 9 rounds in a hundred)
Math to represent the increased Rate of fire you take the lowered on target percentage and double by the rounds fired and you get 12 on target.
12 is a 1/3 improvement over 9

reason why on target percentage drops is that increasing rate of fire has always dropped the hit to shot ratio(yes even on a tank)

The twin-linked rules are supposed to represent a greater amount of shots with reduced accuracy by artificially reducing the number shots the weapon has, and increasing the weapon's accuracy. Okay.

There's nothing sensible or intuitive about that. It's simply not a necessary rule for anything, and it complicates the game.

I still don't see how exactly the accuracy would be as reduced as you say. Most twin-linked weapons have little to no recoil, or are mounted in such a way as to reduce the recoil a lot. Most targets in the game are at a relatively short distance from the tank, and many targets are either so large that hitting them with both barrels should be easy (vehicles, MC, some other units), or forming a large mob that can soak up fire (just about any squad with more than 10 models). Even the full 2" coherency isn't a lot, that's what makes blast weapons any use.

Furthermore, there are no accuracy modifiers in the game for distance. There are none for the speed at which the firer or the target has moved, there are none for whether or not the firing unit is under fire themselves, there are none for the size of the target, etc, etc. It's inconsistent for something as minor as the dip in the accuracy for firing a twin-linked weapon to reduce a weapon's accuracy by 1/3 while there are no modifiers for so many far more important things.

It's a needless special rule.

Is my mechanic 100% real world accurate? NO
Is this a mechanic that makes the game more intuitive and connected to the models? YES
Is rolling extra dice for the extra gunbarrel simpler? YES
Is it easier to not have to remember whether something has two weapons or one twin-linked weapon? YES
Is this the reality of what would happen? NO
Is the current twin-linked rule the reality of what would happen? NO
Would there be any major problems if the rule was changed at a period in time when the rules were undergoing changes everywhere? NO
Would there be any reason to roll 3x the number of dice that are being rolled now? NO
Does Games Workshop have a need for fractions of a weapon? NO

Orke-

I served in the military and operated some of the systems that you so casually claim knowledge of. You sound to me as someone whom has never had much experience with guns whether civilian or military.I'm not trying to be a d**k, just telling you how your coming across.

From my personal experience and training, the basic rule of thumb is that the faster or higher the volume of fire, the lower overall percentage of shots are on target. Also these systems kick, A LOT. The Vulcan on the A-10 can't fire sustained or it will cause the plane to stall. Ask around about female crew persons experiences when certain high rate of fire weapons start resonating through combat vehicles. Not trying to be gross just pointing out that you can feel it.

Sorry if this is snarky but your starting to make me feel like I'm wasting my time. If you can't grasp overall game balance and the need to use fractions then the fact that overall percentage can be down while having more hits on target will probably be unfathomable. Not trying to be a jerk, just frustrated that I'm unable to communicate the point.

You seem to think this is an all tank game where in fact its roots are in squad actions. The playing board is really to small for accurate representation of vehicles.
The Game designers do their best to represent basic real world tactics and concepts through a balancing rule system that compensates for various factors including an unrealistically small battlefield.

This system is a mathematical system of percentages working off of D6 dice.
Now divide 100 by 6 and see if you don't come up with decimals, or more simply fractions of whole numbers.

This system isn't about just one or two vehicles or units that get a twin-linked weapon but a vast array of units that act as variables in the mathematical equation that is the gaming system. When you change one variable you affect the overall balance of the equation. If the equation becomes too unbalanced the mathematical construct will fail and you will have an unplayable gaming system.

Now you want take something that needs to be 1/3 better to balance and improve by a whole 1, thus improving the unit by 2/3 more than needed. in order to restore balance to the structure you will have to find a way of making everything else 2/3 better because you don't want to deal with fractions. The simplest way of doing this is adding more dice to everything else which is a heckuva lot more cumbersome than reroll your misses.

Oh yeah one of the other things the system reflects is that no matter the war, there are bean counters there to cut costs. That was why I mentioned cost of tank redisign. If you ever serve you find out just how much the budget determines your equipment and safety. I'll give you a historical example.

The allies didn't win WWII because their tanks were better but because they could make more of them. Case in point. It took 4 shermans tanks to take out one tiger tank.

The tigers armor was to tough for the small American battle cannons except on its rear. The only liability with the tiger was that the turret was so heavy that its turn rate was very slow. The americans adopted a tactic that sacrifice three of the shermans so that the fourth could outflank and get the rear shot.

Why not build a better tank? Because those three tanks and their crews were cheaper to train and produce than the one tiger.

As to the commonality of twin-linking and what gets it. Read all of the codices and the BRB and you'll see what I'm getting at.

As to the power of the sci-fantasy weapon, it seems you both over-estimate and under estimate its abilities at the same time. Maybe we;ll discuss it later.