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.

When replacing the Assault cannon with "twin-linked lascannons" is it two lascannons or one?
Argument- Razorback says twinlinked lascannon
Storm raven is plural I believe" ie" A twin-leaked lascannons doesn't make sense.
When looking at my friends model it has 2 sigle barrels, am I insane, or does this h seem correct in an oddd way?

You get one TL-lascannon, whcih of course is 2 barrels.

So I take it it's a typo then?

Not really, it is a common way of expressing it within GW. You get both twin linked lascannon and twinlinked lascannons - from memory the 3rd ed CSM codex used the latter, and it was argued about then.

You have 2 barrels, and are told it is twin linked, meaning 1 lascannon shot with a reroll. You would need 4 barrels to even havea hope of convincing someone otherwise

A twin linked lascannon would be a typo

Twin linked lascannons would not (which is what is says)

Who on earth thought you could replace a twin linked assault cannon with 2 twin linked lascannons for free?! This person is an obstinate little moron and they deserve to have their Stormraven taken away and to be clubbed with their own Baal predator. Come on!

Ok thanks, but just looking at the typo with how its worded, was this conclusion that it was two guns far fetched? Without reference to the pictures, would it be reasonable to come to that conclusion that it was 2 instead of 1?(pointless? Very, but I'm curious)

no, there's no more support that it's 2 than that it's 3, or 4, or any other number, the only sensible conclusion in lieu of being told a specific number is to assume it means one.

Two barrels on a twin-linked weapon system makes it manifestly obvious that it's one weapon with a re-roll. TL weapons have worked the exact same way for at least three editions now.

Is the plural of Cannon not also Cannon? Or is that not canon?

Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

Steelmage99 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

Or do you say "I have fired all of the cannon" or "I have fired all of the cannons"?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Or, as we prefer to think of it on this side of the pond, gramatically correct

DeathReaper wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

Or do you say "I have fired all of the cannon" or "I have fired all of the cannons"?

Uh, "I have fired all the cannon". Sorry, that's what it is.

Steelmage99 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

In that expression, you use the singular. As in "a twenty-one gun salute". You don't say a "twenty-one guns salute".

Lobukia wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

Or do you say "I have fired all of the cannon" or "I have fired all of the cannons"?

Uh, "I have fired all the cannon". Sorry, that's what it is.

Not sure if serious or just sarcastic.

DeathReaper wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

Do you say; "A four-cannon salute" or "a four-cannons salute"?

Or do you say "I have fired all of the cannon" or "I have fired all of the cannons"?

Uh, "I have fired all the cannon". Sorry, that's what it is.

Not sure if serious or just sarcastic.

Seriously, I'm serious

Google is telling me that both are valid (even in British English) and that Americans have moved toward adding the S. Probably because we've also gravitated away from "cannon" and use "artillery", "tube", "mortar", "gun", "howitzer" or the like instead.

I have fired all of the cannons is correct.

Cannon as a plural is kinda antiquated.

"I have fired all of the cannon" Sounds like you have 1 cannon and have fired every bit of it that you can.

a hundred years ago "I have fired all of the cannon" might have been correct.

In contemporary English it is not.

Next you are going to tell me that it is spelled "color" not "colour" and "gray" not "grey".

And its all made out of speciality aluminium

Aaaaanyway, I think the actual answer is up there somewhere!

The plural of 'cannon' is irrelevant (although I lean towards it being 'cannon' being somewhat of an expat)

'Lascannon' is a proper noun, and so the plural becomes 'Lascannons.'

A Ford Focus doesn't not become a group of Ford 'Foci', for example, it is a group of Ford Focuses.

DoW