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.

There is no clear resolution in the rules. You have to agree on it with your opponent.

The weapon counts as one weapon, but clearly has two barrels. The rules for tracing LOS down the "barrel" do not account for this possibility. Nothing in the rules gives us guidance to indicate whether we can legitimately just pick one.

IMO the more appropriate way to do it is to think of it like two firing models or two firing weapons; if half or more of them have an obscured shot, then the shot/s count as obscured. This is essentially a house rule, but as the rules do NOT cover the eventuality of a weapon having two barrels, you have to come up with some kind of patch no matter what you do.

I'm with the 'one barrel is good enough' camp. The rules support it well and it's less fiddly than the fairly reasonable alternative.

So your Land Speeder's missile rack doesn't have a 'barrel'? Your tank doesn't technically have a hull either... but compromise and common sense are awesome.

Compromise and common sense?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet it is only one model. And as such as long as you can fulfil the rule (trace LOS) you have fulfilled the rule.

The rules do not explicitly cover this, but they dont really need to.

A twin-linked weapon system still often consists of multiple weapons, with multiple weapon mountings and barrels. Players are not told to pick any of those to determine LoS. Otherwise you could park a chaos dreadnought at a corner of a ruin with one multimelta/autocannon/bolter barrel behind the corner and simply chose the hidden barrel to get around fire frenzy, and choose the other one to fire without granting cover (Not sure about the actual weapon models though).

On top of that 4+ cover seems perfectly reasonable for a twin-linked weapon pumping half its shots into a wall.

No, it consists of ONE weapon, as the rules tell you it is. Otherwise, as I pointed out, you could try to destroy one "weapon" from a TL weapon system, which is not how the rules work.

A TL Weapon is ONE weapon and ONE weapon only. Tracing from one barrel is sufficient to satisfy the rules, and, more importantly, is how it is played in every tournament ive been to or heard of, in the UK at least.

They are multiple weapons counting as one weapon of the same weapon type, this is what the TL rule says.
As shooting weapons are defined by their profile, anything asking for a weapon will find the the entire weapon system and do something to it.
Weapon mountings and barrels are not defined in any such way, and as TLoS is concerning the actual model(see prone fire warriors), not the weapon profile, you would not be playing it correct if you are freely picking a barrel.

"Most tournaments" is a weak argument as lots of tournaments are playing Fire Frenzy LoS or Deff Rolla ramming wrong, for example.

Counting as ONE weapon - and thus you are under no compunction to trace LOS from all barrels, just "a" barrel. You only need to trace from one mounting, as that is all the LOS rules state.

It isnt a weak argument when it comes to how it is played.

Nos, if you have to resort to misquoting, you might want to concede the point.

It doesn't say trace LOS down "a" barrel. It says trace LOS down "its barrel".

As I have said repeatedly, the rules don't account/allow for multiple barrels on a single weapon. So it's a hole in the rules.

If we're going to try to rationalize "what makes sense" or err on the side of the least-powerful interpretation (often a good rule of thumb), granting the target cover if one of the barrels is obscured makes sense. At least IMHO.

"its barrel" is still singular.

Have you traced LOS down a barrel? Yes? Then you have completed the requirements.

I will not concede the point, as nothing needs conceding - you can fufill the rule just fine

As the proud owner of three psy-riflemen dreads, I have to agree with nos.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"its barrel" is still singular.

Have you traced LOS down a barrel? Yes? Then you have completed the requirements.

I will not concede the point, as nothing needs conceding - you can fufill the rule just fine

The rule does not admit or allow for the possibility of multiple barrels. "its barrel" assumes there is only one. Which is factually false in many cases. There is no guidance given for which to use in the event that there is more than one.

You are patching a hole in the rules with an assumption, and pretending that there is no hole.

if it only allows for one barrel, then it makes sense that you can pick whatever barrel you want.

It makes sense to me that if half the shots are physically blocked by terrain, that either the shots are no longer twin-linked or cover is granted. I think cover being granted makes more sense within the context of the rules as a whole.

Neither of which has support in the rules; whereas picking a barrel does.

You are making that up.

It is false to state that picking a barrel is supported in the rules. The rules do not imply or explicitly grant any choice in the matter.

Please stop it.

Mannahnin wrote:You are making that up.

It is false to state that picking a barrel is supported in the rules. The rules do not imply or explicitly grant any choice in the matter.

Please stop it.

Given that it's an inclusive rules set it would need to say you could pick more than one barrel in order for that to be an option. Currently, as far as the rule's are concerned picking more than one barrel isn't even allowed let alone the play style we should default to. If you can find anything in the rules that mentions anything about an weapon needing to have multiple lines of sight traced then cite them now, if not then you have no leg to stand on.

You cannot seriously be supporting the idea that the rule as written takes into account a weapon having multiple barrels, and explicitly or implicitly allows you to choose one.

Anyone who reads the rule can clearly see that it only allows for the possibility of one barrel per weapon. It's a simple rules hole. It's not the first in the 40k rules and it won't be the last.

The idea that there is support in the rules to choose one of multiple barrels is simply false.

It shouldn't be a big deal to come to agreement with your opponent about how to play it, but pretending that the rules are clear on this is dishonest and disrespectful.

So can I model my wave serpent to have both barrels next to each other like forgeworld? Or do i have to use them as they came?

Mannahnin wrote:You cannot seriously be supporting the idea that the rule as written takes into account a weapon having multiple barrels, and explicitly or implicitly allows you to choose one.

Anyone who reads the rule can clearly see that it only allows for the possibility of one barrel per weapon. It's a simple rules hole. It's not the first in the 40k rules and it won't be the last.

The idea that there is support in the rules to choose one of multiple barrels is simply false.

It shouldn't be a big deal to come to agreement with your opponent about how to play it, but pretending that the rules are clear on this is dishonest and disrespectful.

It's not a hole at all, it's perfectly clear that you only need one mounting and one barrel to draw line of sight. All of the wording is singular meaning that to play any other way is to disregard the RAW, intent is also clear, if they wanted to say anything different they easily could have, it's not like TL weapons or Assault Cannons are new inventions that just suddenly sprung from the ground for 5th edition. Once again, show me where it says barrels or mountings instead of screeching about rules holes, or drop the argument.

Norade wrote:It's not a hole at all, it's perfectly clear that you only need one mounting and one barrel to draw line of sight. All of the wording is singular meaning that to play any other way is to disregard the RAW, intent is also clear, if they wanted to say anything different they easily could have, it's not like TL weapons or Assault Cannons are new inventions that just suddenly sprung from the ground for 5th edition. Once again, show me where it says barrels or mountings instead of screeching about rules holes, or drop the argument.

If it is not a hole, tell me, what page tells us which barrel to use for Twin Linked Weapons systems.

given a permissive ruleset, we are told to trace LoS along its barrel, and if there are two barrels the rules do not tell us which one to trace LoS along, thus the rules hole.

Mind that RAW twin-linked weapons are not one weapon. RAW tells us that multiple weapons count as one weapon of a weapon type, but they are still multiple weapons.

"Counts as" is not the same as "Is", so as the specific rule (twin linked) fails in this context, you'd have to fall back on less specific rules, ie. the twin-linked weapon actually being two weapons(or more).

DeathReaper wrote:

Norade wrote:It's not a hole at all, it's perfectly clear that you only need one mounting and one barrel to draw line of sight. All of the wording is singular meaning that to play any other way is to disregard the RAW, intent is also clear, if they wanted to say anything different they easily could have, it's not like TL weapons or Assault Cannons are new inventions that just suddenly sprung from the ground for 5th edition. Once again, show me where it says barrels or mountings instead of screeching about rules holes, or drop the argument.

If it is not a hole, tell me, what page tells us which barrel to use for Twin Linked Weapons systems.

given a permissive ruleset, we are told to trace LoS along its barrel, and if there are two barrels the rules do not tell us which one to trace LoS along, thus the rules hole.

We don't need to be told what to do in firing twin-linked weapons systems because they simply count as a single weapon of that type and thus we look at the rules for firing a single weapon which say pick a mounting and a barrel and fire.

Jidmah wrote:Mind that RAW twin-linked weapons are not one weapon. RAW tells us that multiple weapons count as one weapon of a weapon type, but they are still multiple weapons.

"Counts as" is not the same as "Is", so as the specific rule (twin linked) fails in this context, you'd have to fall back on less specific rules, ie. the twin-linked weapon actually being two weapons(or more).

They count as a single weapon which is the same as being a single weapon and thus we look at the rules for firing one of them and go from there. that is, unless you can find where the rules let us know that, in this one case, we should ignore that the rules tell us to treat them as a single weapon. We also have the example of the assault cannon, a multi-barreled weapon, which if half is covered it may still fire as normal giving no cover save because you pick one mounting and one barrel.

Norade wrote:

We don't need to be told what to do in firing twin-linked weapons systems because they simply count as a single weapon of that type and thus we look at the rules for firing a single weapon which say pick a mounting and a barrel and fire.

Page # for where it says to "pick a mounting and a barrel and fire" when you have 2 barrels for the same weapon.

If you can not show the RAW then there is a hole in the RAW.

DeathReaper wrote:

Norade wrote:

We don't need to be told what to do in firing twin-linked weapons systems because they simply count as a single weapon of that type and thus we look at the rules for firing a single weapon which say pick a mounting and a barrel and fire.

Page # for where it says to "pick a mounting and a barrel and fire" when you have 2 barrels for the same weapon.

If you can not show the RAW then there is a hole in the RAW.

So how do we fire assault cannons then? Even if not twin-linked, they clearly have more than one barrel. How do we know which one to measure from?

Assault cannons like all rotaries only have one true barrel anyway - the top one, where the firing chamber is. The rest stop it overheating

Jidmah - "count as" means "in every way treat as"

So "in every way" you treat them as one weapon.

On the single assault cannon there is only one barrel to draw LoS from.

There are two when twin linked, and the rules do not tell us what to do in that situation.

Edit: I just read Nos's post and I get what you are getting at, but there is only one true barrel like nos stated.

I am finding myself in agreement with Mannahin on this. Yes there are two weapons on one mount, however the best means of describing the effect would be to draw your line from between both barrels, in reality both barrels would be trained to a singular point between both barrels, as the weapon would have a singular gunsight. For an example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadmount as the weapon features four guns, yet only has one sight for aiming.


As for vehicles like the typhoon, we house rule that to draw LOS from the center of the vehicle, to prevent shenanigans.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Assault cannons like all rotaries only have one true barrel anyway - the top one, where the firing chamber is. The rest stop it overheating

Jidmah - "count as" means "in every way treat as"

So "in every way" you treat them as one weapon.

Which breaks as soon as a weapon has more than one mounting. So you'd either have no way to trace LoS for the one twin linked weapon, or you have a way to trace LoS for the two weapons making up the twin-linked weapon.

The rules do not allow you to pick one mounting and ignore the other one.

No, the rules do not require you to trace from both - they jsut require you to trace along its barrel

Have you traced along its barrel? Then the rule is satisfied. ANy other barrels just dont exist, according to the rules

FOr a weapon with 2 barrels but is only one weapon - have a look at the Vulcan megabolter. 2 rotary cannons, only ever one weapon.

It still has two mountings, two barrels. Just because it is inside an armored turrent, does not make it cease to exist. If one of the barrels is not able to see target, it should get cover(though highly unlikely to happen on both warhound and baneblade). Also the discussion only realy matters to weapons at least an inch apart, or guns pressed into a wall to exploit the "picking" rule.

Note that you are not checking whether you have LoS or not, but if the shot "is blocked by terrain or models"(BRB pg. 58). "The shot" is fired by all barrels at the same time, so if any of the barrels sight gets blocked by terrain, the shot was blocked, and the target unit would recieve cover.