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.

Circa 2nd Ed. Twin linked weapons were one roll to hit, if you hit then you hit twice. I see a lot of changes coming that remind me of 2nd ed

In short, yes they were stupid to have changed twin linked. It makes no sense now, except maybe for automatic weapons.

However, you would have to change the point costs for everything if you were going to go back to the way they used to be.

The point i'm writing is the new land raider FW made has quad linked lascannons. Maybe the rules for that might be something useful you could use in place of twin linked (didn't see them myself).

So again, this has nothing to do with 6th edition?

TL should be for the damage/wounding parting of the rolls, not to hit. Here's how it should be:

Versus Toughness: reroll to wound (like lightning claws in melee)
Versus AV: roll 2 and take the highest (like Ordnance)

erikwfg wrote:However, you would have to change the point costs for everything if you were going to go back to the way they used to be.

Exactly. Balance wise giving TL weapons one hit = two hits would require some serious re-costing in many areas.
GK Venerable Drednaught with his BS5 has ~48% of scoring 4 hits with 4 attacks. One half chance of scoring 8 S8 hits is a bit much.

Macok wrote:

erikwfg wrote:However, you would have to change the point costs for everything if you were going to go back to the way they used to be.

Exactly. Balance wise giving TL weapons one hit = two hits would require some serious re-costing in many areas.
GK Venerable Drednaught with his BS5 has ~48% of scoring 4 hits with 4 attacks. One half chance of scoring 8 S8 hits is a bit much.

I know, i was just saying that the current fluff dosent make sense.

i suppose they could add another 1/4 or 1/3 of the cost to it.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Macok wrote:

erikwfg wrote:However, you would have to change the point costs for everything if you were going to go back to the way they used to be.

Exactly. Balance wise giving TL weapons one hit = two hits would require some serious re-costing in many areas.
GK Venerable Drednaught with his BS5 has ~48% of scoring 4 hits with 4 attacks. One half chance of scoring 8 S8 hits is a bit much.

I know, i was just saying that the current fluff dosent make sense.

i suppose they could add another 1/4 or 1/3 of the cost to it.

This, the current twin linked rules beg the question of "where does the other shot go if you hit on the first roll?" Does it just decide to not leave the barrel despite the fact that firelinked weapons by definition fire simultaneously?

Well, just 1 week to go and we'll have an answer

Just as a note, the rules for twin-linked aren't going to be going anywhere.

Also, as an additional note, the rules for Twin-Linked actually make more sense than you are making it out to be. Historically, look at a large number of Anti-Aircraft guns used over the past 100 years. A large number of them are equivalent to what would be twin-linked in warhammer 40k, two barrels slightly spaced from each other which fire together. The reason this design is so common is because it increases the effective weapon area of your weapon exponentially. With a single gun being fired, your weapon area is effectively a singular point the size of a bullet. If that weapon area crosses over any part of the target (assuming continuous fire) the weapon will hit that target. However, hitting something with a single dot is very difficult, particularly at range and with fast-moving targets. By adding the second gun, the effective weapon area has increased from a single point to what is effectively a line between the two barrels. The barrels are placed at a distance where the probability of a target "slipping" through the two bullet streams is neglible, so instead of the gunner trying to place a dot where it will align with the target, he is now trying to place a line the target will cross over. In the same sense, a 4 barrel AA gun gives you a rectangular area, making even less precise aiming required to score a hit. Also, in terms of damage, it isn't significant whether one of the bullets fired or two hit the target, the only important thing is that the target was hit.

Also, when you think about it in a gaming sense, TL doubling the number of hits may make sense against vehicles, but against infantry it doesn't really work from a logistical standpoint. For example a space marine biker fires a TL Bolter at a Chaos Space Marine. The odds of both shots connecting are extremely low due to the spacing of the bolters (they are separated by about the same distance as a SM is wide), thus doubling hits with TL against infantry doesn't really make sense in a lot of cases. Same goes with boosts to strength and the like, it doesn't make sense as only 1 shot hits.

In this sense, the current TL rules do work. I'll admit the analogy becomes less clear when we move away from rapid fire weaponry into siege weaponry such as a Lascannon, but that I will just write off as GW wanting to keep the rules simple and unified.

RegalPhantom wrote:Just as a note, the rules for twin-linked aren't going to be going anywhere.

Also, as an additional note, the rules for Twin-Linked actually make more sense than you are making it out to be. Historically, look at a large number of Anti-Aircraft guns used over the past 100 years. A large number of them are equivalent to what would be twin-linked in warhammer 40k, two barrels slightly spaced from each other which fire together. The reason this design is so common is because it increases the effective weapon area of your weapon exponentially. With a single gun being fired, your weapon area is effectively a singular point the size of a bullet. If that weapon area crosses over any part of the target (assuming continuous fire) the weapon will hit that target. However, hitting something with a single dot is very difficult, particularly at range and with fast-moving targets. By adding the second gun, the effective weapon area has increased from a single point to what is effectively a line between the two barrels. The barrels are placed at a distance where the probability of a target "slipping" through the two bullet streams is neglible, so instead of the gunner trying to place a dot where it will align with the target, he is now trying to place a line the target will cross over. In the same sense, a 4 barrel AA gun gives you a rectangular area, making even less precise aiming required to score a hit. Also, in terms of damage, it isn't significant whether one of the bullets fired or two hit the target, the only important thing is that the target was hit.

Also, when you think about it in a gaming sense, TL doubling the number of hits may make sense against vehicles, but against infantry it doesn't really work from a logistical standpoint. For example a space marine biker fires a TL Bolter at a Chaos Space Marine. The odds of both shots connecting are extremely low due to the spacing of the bolters (they are separated by about the same distance as a SM is wide), thus doubling hits with TL against infantry doesn't really make sense in a lot of cases. Same goes with boosts to strength and the like, it doesn't make sense as only 1 shot hits.

In this sense, the current TL rules do work. I'll admit the analogy becomes less clear when we move away from rapid fire weaponry into siege weaponry such as a Lascannon, but that I will just write off as GW wanting to keep the rules simple and unified.

Thats interesting, i didnt think about it that way.
Also i just got the new rulebook, and its not changed.

Two barrels pointing at the same target. (twin-LINKED).

Should be two shots with one to-hit roll. Two hits, or nada.

Ostrakon wrote:Two barrels pointing at the same target. (twin-LINKED).

Should be two shots with one to-hit roll. Two hits, or nada.

I guess, but RegalPhantom was right, it makes (slight) sense the way it is now.

I actually don't understand the line logic; what you're doing with twin-linked barrels is that you're making two points instead of one point, not a line. It will increase the chances of at least one shot hitting, especially with inaccurate weapons, but I don't see the dramatic improvement in hit probability from a line of fire.

I agree that with dispersed barrels it's unlikely that both shots will hit the same target, but the way I think about it, there's still a possibility of that.

So, for rules, maybe if the first shot hits on a 6, the second shot also hits as well. It adds maybe 22% hits with BS 3 and 18.75% hits with BS 4 and 30% hits with BS 2.

I would love twin linked to be double shots....who wouldn't want flyrants shooting 24 str6 shots at people

Let's use the quad gun as the example here.

At the moment, if you put a ballistic skill 5 character on it, chances are, you will hit with 4/4 shots.

If it were as you said, it would get 8 shot's, that around 7/8 would hit. Which is significantly better.

In short, doing this would defy the point. Twin linking is the orky way of doing thing's, to put it simply. You get twice the bullet's flying at the target, at the cost of it being less accurate due to this.

 Praxiss wrote:
I would think (and not being mathhammer capable i can't back this up) that having 2 shots or 1 shot with a re-roll would be more or less the same chance of hitting?

that is how I think it should work, but not GW




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ostrakon wrote:
Two barrels pointing at the same target. (twin-LINKED).

Should be two shots with one to-hit roll. Two hits, or nada.

but how do you kill 2 guys with a single shot. Both shots hit the same guy, both shots wound the same guy. The one guy fails his armor save, and somehow his friend dies?

BS5 with twin-linking with crit (double attack) on 6 is 4.56 hits vs 3.89 hits without crit on 6 rule.

It's probably a bit superfluous and complex to have twin-linked weapons hit twice if the first shot hits on a 6, though.

The idea of TL is that you have two barrels strapped together so that a not-so good marksman can hit a target. Although double the shots are being fired, you don't get double the shots because they are both shooting at the same target. (if one hits then the other will have to miss because they are strapped together.) this way you won't get an extra wound against another model that you weren't shooting at.

although it baffles me as to why any army would choose two guns strapped together over two independently shooting guns.

nonowho: twin-linking is more about targeting limitations. If you had a second independent weapon, you'd need someone to aim the second weapon, you'd need a turret device to allow the second weapon to swivel, and that would add more costs compared to having a single weapon twin-linked.

With regards to the Tau, you can see that they've faced the problem and with some of their suits, they have wargear that assists the gunner in aiming and shooting the other weapon, which is already on its own independent turret due to having a second gun arm. That adds costs in itself, but can result in greater effective damage.

===

I still think twin-linking weapons should be able to crit on a 6 and have both rounds impact the target. It would be very rare and very hard to pull it off, of course, but these things do occur.

You'd also end up with absurdities where, with Orks with BS2, you'd have more hits that occur as crits than with SM or Eldar units that can fire at BS4.

Tau who takes two of the same gun just twinlink them... it's Eldar War Walkers who magically don't.

Err....threadcromancy much? How is adding to a discussion that took place BEFORE 6th edition was released about a potential rules change IN 6th edition in any way productive. It didn't change, it isn't going to change. Honestly, regardless of how much sense it might make logically, twin-linked has meant re-roll to hit for several editions, and a radical rules change like this would have absolutely insane ramifications for the game. It won't happen.

/thread?