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.

I'm on a thread in another forum where players are insisting that the Warrior gets the benefit of twin linking when they take two Devourers on a Warrior, and a Carnifex gets twin linking from two Venom Cannons. I am absolutely frustrated because they insist that the Warrior only has to carry the second weapon for the benefit of twin linking where as the Carnifex gets no added benefit from firing two instead of one.

The rules quotes being used are:

 Twin Linked = two weapons firing to get rerolls, counts as one weapon being fired. This is fluff, not a straight up definition.  - BGB.

Tyranids with two of the same ranged symbiote counts them as twin linked.- Tyranid codex ranged weapons symbiotes section.

A Warrior with two ranged symbiotes may only fire one of symbiote per turn - Tyranid codex Warrior entry.

A Tyranid Monstrous Creature (TMC) may fire two ranged weapon symbiotes per turn. - Tyranid ranged weapon symbiote section?

I can go either way and am trying to get them to clarify their actual stance as one has gone from saying both weapons fire to count as a single twin linked weapon to the only fires one wepon and get the benefit of twin linking, but won't admit he has changed. Most people are also misreading everyone else's posts and think they agree when they contradict each other, and one guy even said that you could buy two bolt pistols for a Marine Captain to get twin linked . I have no idea how that guy would play tank sponsons....

 

I know that the Dakka Dakka decision was the carnifex only gets a single twin linked Venom Cannon out of two Venom Cannons, but I don't know what the Warrior decision was. Any way here are my two conclusions for either situation kind of grouped together, tell me if I need to split them.

P1: Twin linked weapons are two weapons firing together.

P1: Tyranids with the same ranged weapon Symbiote count them as twin linked.

P2: Warriors may only fire one ranged weapon symbiote per turn.

P3 TMC's can fire two ranged weapons per turn.

P4: The more specific codex overrides the general fluff rule about twin-linked weapons.

C1: A warrior with two Devourers may only fire one of them, but it counts as twin linked because the Warrior is carrying the second Devourer it cannot fire. The Nid codex does not say that you count them as a single twin linked weapon.A Carnifex with two venom cannons counts each of it's Venom cannons as seperate twin linked weapons because it it is firing twice as many guns as the warrior. Since the twin linking explination in the Tyranid Codex says you count 'them' as twin linked then each would be it's own twin-linked venom Cannon and you would get 4 twin linked shots.

Alternate conclusion based on the codex not superceding the general rules, and interprets 'them' to be the combining of the weapons firing.

C2: A warrior with  two Devourers may only fire one Devourer per turn, and would not gain the benefit of the second weapon's twin linking ability because it was not able to be fired as per the Warrior entry. A TMC with two Venom Cannons would only get the benefit of twin linking from the firing of the second weapon, a Carnifex for example would get two twin linked shots.

 

Well, C2 is false. If the warrior cannot fire both then he can fire neither, as the weapons must fire together. There is no option to fire only one of them as a non-TL weapon.

IMO, you either have either two individual TL weapons, or one TL weapon which requires the ability to fire two weapons to use.

TL weapons on a warrior may not be playable per the RAW.


I believe the intention was that the two weapons combine to make one single TL weapon which just happens to take up two bio-weapon slots and counts as a single weapon for firing purposes. This is not an argument, its just a way to make that option for the warrior playable as a house rule. One gun twinlinked.

I'd say you're missing an important point from your logic - and that would be that when two weapons of the same type are twin-linked they effectively become 'a single weapon' - I realize it's two of a give weapon system - but *BOTH* are being fired as a *single attack*. GW's rationalization for this is that a player is foregoing the ability to get additional hits/wounds in exchange for the ability to re-roll missed 'to hit' rolls. (One can argue about the logic of this, but the game mechanics behind this rule are fairly straight forward.) Because you don't take this into account, I'd have to say that neither of your conclusions are in fact correct.

Using the point I make above would lead me to the following conclusion that fits within the framework of the current 40K rules...

A warrior with a matching pair of ranged weapons (Fleshborer, Devourer, or Deathspitter) *MUST* count those weapons as twin-linked. (In other words - they 'count as' one ranged weapon symbiote.) The Warrior may only fire that (twin-linked) weapon once at its standard rate of fire, etc - with re-rolls for missed 'to hit' rolls. The warrior *MANY NOT* take two of the same ranged weapon and attempt to fire each of them independantly. A Warrior may legally buy two different types of ranged weapons and then choose one (1) and only one of them to fire per turn.

The same would apply to the Carnifex as well. The reason it gets confusing for some folks is that a Carnifex has the option to buy a 'twin linked weapon' that takes up only a single weapons choice (unlike the warriors) and it may have two pairs of twin-linked weapons in some cases (like two pairs of twin linked Devourers) in which case it could fire both pairs of twin linked weapons (using two actions as Monstrous creatures are allowed to do - for 8 shots with re-rolls in the case of the Devourers). However, if a Carnifex buys a pair of Venom Cannons - it automatically becomes *a single twin-linked weapon* and the Tyranid player *MANY NOT* opt to have the Venom cannons fire independantly. The Carnifex burns both its weapons slots to get a *single large* weapon that's twin linked.

This is why folks like Yakface have clearly pointed out that it's a huge waste of points to arm a Carnifex or a Hive Tyrant with a pair of Venom Cannons or a pair of Barbed Stranglers - as they *by default* become twin linked and thus sacrifice extra shooting on the part of a monstrous creature.

The same would apply to the Carnifex as well. The reason it gets confusing for some folks is that a Carnifex has the option to buy a 'twin linked weapon' that takes up only a single weapons choice (unlike the warriors) and it may have two pairs of twin-linked weapons in some cases (like two pairs of twin linked Devourers) in which case it could fire both pairs of twin linked weapons (using two actions as Monstrous creatures are allowed to do - for 8 shots with re-rolls in the case of the Devourers). However, if a Carnifex buys a pair of Venom Cannons - it automatically becomes *a single twin-linked weapon* and the Tyranid player *MANY NOT* opt to have the Venom cannons fire independantly. The Carnifex burns both its weapons slots to get a *single large* weapon that's twin linked.

 

You didn't give a reson that the two sets of twin linked Devourers on a Carnifex would not become twinlinked twin linked weapons (ie one redundant set of twin linked weapons).

"You didn't give a reason that the two sets of twin linked Devourers on a Carnifex would not become twinlinked twin linked weapons (ie one redundant set of twin linked weapons)."

That would be because there's *no such thing* as a "twinlinked twin linked weapons" in 40K 4th Edition. The core rules very clearly state that a given dice may only be re-rolled once (period). There is absolutely *NO* advantage to be gained by twin-linking something that's already twin-linked by definition as you can't 're-roll' a re-roll a second time.

The source of the confusion seems to be that Warriors have one (and only one) method of ending up with twin-linked weapons, while Monstrous Creatures (Tyrants & Carnifex) have two methods that give them twin-linked weapons.

Method #1 - a Tyranid buys two of the same (non twin-linked) ranged weapons symbiotes. By the rules they merge into a single 'twin-linked' ranged weapon symbiote that takes up two weapons slots, but requires only 1 action to fire.

Method #2 - a Tyranid buys a single 'pre twin-linked' weapon symbiote. By the rules, this symbiote takes up only a single weapons slot and requires only one action to fire while providing all the benefits of being twin-linked.

Warriors can *ONLY* use method #1. If they buy two of the same ranged weapon - then it automatically becomes a single twin-linked weapon (as per the Tyranid Codex). MC's on the other hand can purchase weapons via method #1 or #2. In point of fact - MC's can *NOT* purchase a non twin-linked devourer or deathspitter. If an MC buys two Venom Cannons or two Barbed Stranglers - then method #1 applies and it's a single (large) twin linked weapon that takes up 2 weapons slots on the MC. If it buys a pair of 'pre twin linked' weapons (Deathspitter or Devourer) via method #2 - then it has two (2) completely seperate twin linked weapons each of which take up only a single weapons slot and each of which require a seperate action to fire. (Hence part of the reason why GW clearly points out that MCs can fire more than one ranged weapon a turn.) Buying two 'pre twin-linked' weapons does *NOT* result in a single 'twin-linked twin linked' weapon as there's no such thing in the 40K 4th Edition rules.

Hope that clears things up.

I'll drop the twin linked twin linked question since you didn't get my point about them being two of the same ranged symbiotes, therefore causing them to be twin linked (redundant and yes they still would not get an additional reroll).

 

What really matters is how do you get to fire two Devourers on a Warrior as a single twin linked weapon when the entry specifically says if you have two ranged weapon symbiotes you may only fire one of them. It does not say you can make one shooting attack (which would allow twin linked) or that you may only fire "one symbiote or one twin linked symbiote". The part about the twin linking states that you "count the weapons as twin linked". This does not actually say they are a single twin linked weapon, just that they behave as one. I lean towards blue loki's interpretation which is that the inability to fire the second weapon causes a conflict in the rules.

Because for warriors you have to choose 2 devourers to get it twin linked, then tyou only get to fire it once.

Carnifex cannot choose a single devourer, they get twin linked by default as one weapon, therefore they can have 2 and shoot 2.

by the by, what forum is this being debated in? doesn't sound like a warp shadow discussion .....

Posted By snooggums on 03/29/2006 3:48 PM

I'll drop the twin linked twin linked question since you didn't get my point about them being two of the same ranged symbiotes, therefore causing them to be twin linked (redundant and yes they still would not get an additional reroll).

     No, I understood the question as you wrote it just fine.  You asked about 'twin linked twin linked' weapons - of which there are a grand total of ZERO in 40K 4th Edition.  If you're attempting to ask "What happens when you have two pairs of the same kind of twin-linked weapon on a single model?"   Then my responce is "The exact same thing that happens on any other model that has two identical pairs of twin linked weapons - they fire independantly of each other".   If you want a crystal clear example of this - try the Land Raider or better yet, the Crusader.  Either of these models can fire BOTH pairs of twin linked weapons under specific conditions.   Because Las-cannons are high S weapons the Raider can only fire both pairs of twin-linked weapons if it remains stationary, or only a single pair if it moves 6" or less.  Meanwhile the Crusader can fire both pairs (i.e. both sponsons) of Hurricane bolters even if it moves up to 6 inches because they're classified as 'defensive weapons' due to their S value.   It is a *crystal clear* example and sets a very clear precident on how a model with 2 sets of identical twin-linked weapons works in 40K 4th edition. A Carnifex with two (2) pairs of twin linked Devourers gets to fire  

What really matters is how do you get to fire two Devourers on a Warrior as a single twin linked weapon when the entry specifically says if you have two ranged weapon symbiotes you may only fire one of them. It does not say you can make one shooting attack (which would allow twin linked) or that you may only fire "one symbiote or one twin linked symbiote". The part about the twin linking states that you "count the weapons as twin linked". This does not actually say they are a single twin linked weapon, just that they behave as one.

Good Lord!  You just answered you own question - and then ignored the correct answer (apparently because it doesn't suit whatever end your desired outcome happens to be here.)    The words "counts as" literally mean in this case "same as" or "is" a twin-linked weapon.  If you're going to use the argument of "it isn't spelled out word for word in mind-numbing detail somewhere in the rules" - then I'm going to respond with "Show me the exact paragraph and page number in the rules where it says YOU personally are allowed to play."   If you're going to tell me it's ok for you to make certain assumptions that aren't explicitly covered word for word in the printed rules, then I'm going to point out that GW has done that here with the not (well not usually) unreasonable idea that most players could follow the logic of this without any undue mental effort or difficulty. 

I lean towards blue loki's interpretation which is that the inability to fire the second weapon causes a conflict in the rules.

And that interpretation would be incorrect.   I'm reminded of a comment I saw a while back.

"...unless of course you a want to exploit the wording of rules to do something stupid and turn your gaming experience into counting the number of frowny faces looking at you, as opposed to enjoying a good ol sci fi wargame.

GW games.  Common sense not included.

-SupAmaN"

It's becoming rapidly becoming obvious that this is NOT an issue of poorly written rules - but rather of someone having issues with rules they dislike.  

Gah! Goofy Dakka html reply form is driving me nuts.

It should read "A Carnifex with two (2) pairs of twin linked Devourers gets to fire both of them. In other words - it fires 4 shots with the first 'twin-linked Devourer' and 4 more with the 2nd as it's allowed 2 shooting actions due to it being a monstrous creature."

Land raider sponsons wouldn't link up any more than a Predator or Leman Russes sponsons become twin linked, there is no precendent in any other army of combing two seperate weapon choices to become a single twin linked weapon that I know of and the Land Raider certainly isn't one of them. The problem is that you are conflicting the Warrior entry that says you cannot fire the second weapon with the special tyranid twin linking rule. If you can prove that taking two weapons that 'count as' twin linked actually makes them twin linked then please do.

...two weapons that 'count as' twin linked actually makes them twin linked...

Exactly.

Posted By snooggums on 03/30/2006 6:47 AM
Land raider sponsons wouldn't link up any more than a Predator or Leman Russes sponsons become twin linked, there is no precendent in any other army of combing two seperate weapon choices to become a single twin linked weapon that I know of and the Land Raider certainly isn't one of them.

The Land Raider sets a very clear precident - and that precident is that in 40K it *IS* very possible to have a single model with multiple sets of identical twin linked weapons *AND* that each of those sets functions as an independant weapon rather than your supposed "twin linked twin linked" weapons.    This clearly covers any arguement about MCs only being able to fire one twin linked weapon if they're equiped with multiple sets twin linked weapons - like a Tyrant or Carnifex equiped with 2 pairs of twin linked Devourers for example.

The problem is that you are conflicting the Warrior entry that says you cannot fire the second weapon with the special tyranid twin linking rule. If you can prove that taking two weapons that 'count as' twin linked actually makes them twin linked then please do.

No - this is definitely not *my* problem.  What *you're* talking about here now is arguing semantics on what the definition of the words 'counts as' mean in the context of how GW is using them in this case.  Try looking up the definitions of the words 'counts' and 'as' - counts  'included or numbered among' as part of a group, and 'as' - short form of 'just as'   If a weapon 'counts as' - it literally means it's 'numbered or counted just as'.   What is it that's being 'counted as' in this case?  A *TWIN LINKED* weapon.   It literally 'numbers among' twin linked weapons - which is a fancy way of "it is" a twin linked weapon.  The definition of the very words being used by GW give a very clear cut definition of *EXACTLY* how these rules work.

I have an assault marine modeled with a pair of old 2nd Edition hand flamers - does that mean I can't use it in 40K 4th Edition because there are no 'hand flamer' rules for assault marines?  NO.  Under the current rules, this model 'counts as' a marine armed with a standard flamer.  What does this mean in terms of 40K game mechanics?  When the model fires - it uses the standard flamer template and rules - 'just as' any other model with a flamer.  For all intents and purposes - the model in question *IS* an assault marine armed with a standard flamer according to the letter of the rules as GW wrote them.

Please show me even a single instants in 40K where the words 'counts as' when applied to a weapon description of some type does NOT mean that the weapon in question 'is' that type.  The definitions of the words choosen by GW make it crystal clear exactly what they expected to happen in this case.  'The problem' here seems to be your unwillingness to accept the definition of the words 'counts as' - and that's not my problem.    If you think that telling an experienced Tyranid player that he or she *cannot* fire a Warrior model armed with a twin-linked weapon because *YOU* have a problem grasping the meaning of the words 'counts as' is going to work - then good luck on finding an opponent willing to game with you. 

In the main rule book where it describes twin linked weapon it describes them as two weapons firing together, with the effect of a single weapon with rerolls. It does not say they are one weapon. by this description the Warrior would only be able to fire one half of his twin linked weapons since he is only allow to fire one of his weapon sybiotes. Find a quote that says that twin linking the weapons creates a single weapon, and I will agree with you. I am still undecided until I see a clear answer either way.

FYI it is unclear enough I would let it slide in a game. Don't assume I'm a jackass because I stick to RAW interpretations in YMDC.

To use the RAW, pg 30, "The big advantage of twin-linked weapons is that they only count as a single weapon being fired."

Counts as twin linked, is twin linked, is single weapon when fired.

by this description the Warrior would only be able to fire one half of his twin linked weapons since he is only allow to fire one of his weapon sybiotes.

Ok so it fires it's one weapon, it happens to be twinlinked. There ya go! Pretty simple! To be twin-linked you don't have to be able to fire 'both' weapons at once! You fire once and reroll and misses.

How in the heck is this THAT difficult to accomplish?

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/30/2006 11:36 AM

by this description the Warrior would only be able to fire one half of his twin linked weapons since he is only allow to fire one of his weapon sybiotes.

Ok so it fires it's one weapon, it happens to be twinlinked. There ya go! Pretty simple! To be twin-linked you don't have to be able to fire 'both' weapons at once! You fire once and reroll and misses.

How in the heck is this THAT difficult to accomplish?

If each weapon can independently be considered twin linked then a carnifex with two venom cannons would have double the shots because each wepaon would fire twin linked independently. This is the same stupid crap they posted on the other board.

Posted By Aronious on 03/30/2006 11:35 AM
To use the RAW, pg 30, "The big advantage of twin-linked weapons is that they only count as a single weapon being fired."

Counts as twin linked, is twin linked, is single weapon when fired.

When you master craft a pistol it IS twin linked. An Annihilator turret Lascannon IS twin linked. A Carnifex twin linked Devourer IS twin linked. A Warrior with two Devourers 'counts them as twin linked', but is restricted to only firing one of his weapon symbiotes, it does not give an exception to two weapon symbiotes that 'count as twin linked'. There is a conflict here. I'm not arguing intent, I'm not arguing common usage, I am arguing RAW.

If each weapon can independently be considered twin linked then a carnifex with two venom

NO! NO! NO! NO!... you are sooo missing the point snoog.

When a nid has two weapons it fires as one twinlinked. A fex with two venom cannons fires as ONE twin linked. It happens to take up two symbiote spots.

When a warrior has two devourers, it fires as ONE twin linked.

How many weapons the MC can fire has NOTHING to do with what cause a weapon to be twin linked.

A Warrior with two Devourers 'counts them as twin linked', but is restricted to only firing one of his weapon symbiotes, it does not give an exception to two weapon symbiotes that 'count as twin linked'. There is a conflict here. I'm not arguing intent, I'm not arguing common usage, I am arguing RAW

No you are arguing... well I have no idea what you are arguing. You are trying to incorporate two rules that have no bearing on one another. Whether or not a warrior can fire one or two weapons is irrelevant to the rule that says when a warrior has two symbiotes that are the same weapon they 'count as twin linked'.

How is it that a warrior with two devourers can't fire as twin linked because it can't fire two weapons when it is obviously firing only one weapon that is twinlinked?

How is that arguing RAW?

The warrior rule forbids the firing of the second symbiote, which is required to be fired to be part of the twin liked symbiotes. Are you illiterate?

I think you are all missing the point. The TL argument is hulking in the middle of the primary argument and screwing everything up.

There is a HUGE debate about what the Tyranid TL rule actually does. Some of you are in one camp, some in the other, but none of you appear to realise that you are all talking in circles because you don't realise that there are TWO camps.

Here is a short breakdown of the two ways in which the rule can be read by the RAW (Please don't agrue either side, its pointless, both can be argued sucessfully by the RAW. This is for informational pruposes only.):

RAW Camp 1:
When you buy two of the same bio-weapon, no matter what the original configurations of the weapons were, you result in exactly ONE twin-linked weapon.

RAW Camp 2:
When you buy two of the same bio-weapon, no matter what the original configurations of the weapons were, you result in exactly TWO INDEPENDENT twin-linked weapons.

Trading post between the two camps (This is how most people play it, though it is not strictly supported by the RAW):
When you buy two of the same NON-Twin-linked bio-weapon, you result in exactly ONE twin-linked weapon.
When you buy two of the same Twin-linked bio-weapon, you result in exactly TWO INDEPENDENT twin-linked weapon.

I suggest you all move from either camp to the "Trading post". It makes things much easier.


Now that thats out of the way,

SNOOG said:
"When you master craft a pistol it IS twin linked. An Annihilator turret Lascannon IS twin linked. A Carnifex twin linked Devourer IS twin linked. A Warrior with two Devourers 'counts them as twin linked', but is restricted to only firing one of his weapon symbiotes, it does not give an exception to two weapon symbiotes that 'count as twin linked'. There is a conflict here. I'm not arguing intent, I'm not arguing common usage, I am arguing RAW."

DIG said:
"How is it that a warrior with two devourers can't fire as twin linked because it can't fire two weapons when it is obviously firing only one weapon that is twinlinked? How is that arguing RAW?"

I said... *er* say:
The difference between TL weapons and counts-as-TL weapons is that, in order for the counts-as weapons to count as TL, both individual weapons must fire to create the TL effect. The warrior cannot fire both weapons, and cannot therefore generate the TL effect. Unfortunately, the warrior does not have the ability to fire one weapon independently either as both weapons count-as TL.

"Twin-linked" itself does not grant the ability to fire two guns as one, instead, it uses the multiple-shot-source as a fluff argument to grant a weapon a reroll.

How does the warrior acquire the reroll? He fires both weapons.
Can he fire both weapons? No.

Like I said previously, I don't think that this is what they intended (If so, they should have limited the TL rule to MCs), but it seems to me that this is what it says.

Excellent summary.

which is required to be fired to be part of the twin liked symbiotes

Where does it say that the ability to fire the second one is required to shot one that now counts as twin-linked?

Also, let's try to be a bit more civil, I am literate.

The difference between TL weapons and counts-as-TL weapons is that, in order for the counts-as weapons to count as TL, both individual weapons must fire to create the TL effect. The warrior cannot fire both weapons, and cannot therefore generate the TL effect. Unfortunately, the warrior does not have the ability to fire one weapon independently either as both weapons count-as TL.

Sorry, there is no rule that supports "counts as" Twin linked weapons actually requiring the firing of both weapons.

Fluffy? Sure it is, but this isn't Rules As Fluffed. It's Rules As Written.

Sorry but there is no premise or support for the "warriors can't fire a Tlinked weapon because they can't fire both single weapons". Find it and show us.

 

Please note I see your side of this, I am not making an argument as anythign personal, just standing up for the opinion I have stated...

Because its not "a twinlinked weapon" its "counts them as twin-linked". If it said "counts them as a single twin-linked weapon" then there would be no issue, unfortunately it does not. "Them" is plural, you still have two weapons.

There is nothing that definitively tells you that you end up with a single weapon in the end. Without that, you still have two weapons, both of which must be fired.

Snoogums: The warrior rule forbids the firing of the second symbiote, which is required to be fired to be part of the twin liked symbiotes. Are you illiterate?

Blue Loki: "Twin-linked" itself does not grant the ability to fire two guns as one, instead, it uses the multiple-shot-source as a fluff argument to grant a weapon a reroll. How does the warrior acquire the reroll? He fires both weapons. Can he fire both weapons? No.


Lets start with Blue Loki - your comment about weapons that are twin-linked not being able to fire as a single weapon is in a word *WRONG!* Try reading the core rules - page 30 of the Big Green Book - paragraph on Twin Linked Weapons...

"The big advantage of twin linked weapons is that they only count as a single weapon being fired."

Which then leads us to the Tyranid codex - page 30 - paragraph on Ranged Weapons Symbiotes...

"A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote count them as twin linked"

For the record (once again) in the english language the words 'counts as' are being used here to mean...

Counts - "to include in a tallying and reckoning" or "to number among or be grouped with"

As - "in the capacity, character, condition, or role of <works as an editor>

Now we get down to basic deductive logic...

1 - A Tyranid Warrior with 2 of the same ranged weapons counts them as a single twin-linked weapon.
2 - Twin Linked weapons count as a single ranged weapon being fired.
3 - Tyranid Warriors are allowed to fire one ranged weapon per turn.

Therefore, a warrior armed with two of the same ranged weapons symbiotes counts them as a single twin linked weapon and is by virtue of the definition of 'twin linked weapon' allowed to fire said twin linked weapon once per turn with the warrior's ability to fire a single ranged weapon per turn.

There is *absolutely nothing* ambiguous or unclear about the wording of the rules or their function in game in this case. At *BEST* one could argue that the real problem lies with not spelling out in exacting detail how Monstrous Creatures that have two identical sets of twin linked weapons (like 2 sets of twin-linked Devourers) work - but I've already covered that ground with the example of other models in game that have more than one set of (identical) twin-linked weapons.

Myrinden:

Therefore, a warrior armed with two of the same ranged weapons symbiotes counts them as a single twin linked weapon and is by virtue of the definition of 'twin linked weapon' allowed to fire said twin linked weapon once per turn with the warrior's ability to fire a single ranged weapon per turn.

 

Had you actually read the thread you would have seen that the warrior limits you to firing one of its symbiotes. Not one weapon, one symbiote. Should you be able to prove that the twin linking creates a single symbiote you would have a point. Go back and read the entire thread again.

 

DIG:

Where does it say that the ability to fire the second one is required to shot one that now counts as twin-linked?

 

If a single weapon can fire and gain the twin linking ability, then I ask again, why don't they get twice the shots when you fire two of them on a monstrous creature. It is inconsistent to allow the Warrior to fire a single weapon twin linked but require the Carnifex to fire two of them to achieve the same result. Your argument contradicts the twin linking text anyway, which is two weapons firing together. If only being carried is the requirement I would field twin linked 4 shot VC Carnifexes.

Posted By blue loki on 03/30/2006 2:01 PM
Because its not "a twinlinked weapon" its "counts them as twin-linked". If it said "counts them as a single twin-linked weapon" then there would be no issue, unfortunately it does not. "Them" is plural, you still have two weapons.

There is nothing that definitively tells you that you end up with a single weapon in the end. Without that, you still have two weapons, both of which must be fired.

Tyranid with 2 identical weapons = twin linked.  Page 30 Nids codex
Twin linked = two weapons count as only a single weapon being fired.  Page 30 Core rules. 

Your 'plural' verse 'singular' argument still fails the test.  It doesn't matter whether it's a pair of devourers that count as 'twin-linked'  or it's a single 'twin linked' devourer that's being fired.  By virtue of the definition of twin-linked - in either case the devourers "count as a single weapon being fired".   And a tyranid warrior is allowed to fire one ranged weapon per turn.

snooggums: "Had you actually read the thread you would have seen that the warrior limits you to firing one of its symbiotes. Not one weapon, one symbiote. Should you be able to prove that the twin linking creates a single symbiote you would have a point. Go back and read the entire thread again."

Try reading the Tyranid Codex instead of trying to make things up and stating them as fact or part of the rules when they're not.

I'm sitting here with the Tyranid Codex and BGB in hand as I write this.

Tyranid Warriors entry from the codex - Page 37 the exact words are...

"Warriors with two ranged weapons symbiotes may only fire one per turn."

Tyranids codex on ranged weapons symbiotes - Page 30

"A Tyranid that carries two of the same ranged weapon symbiote counts them as twin-linked."

Core rules on twin-linked weapons - Page 30

"The big advantage of twin-linked is that they (plural - emphasis mine - in response to the singular vs plural argument earlier) only count as a single weapon being fired."


The exact words are 'ranged weapon symbiote' in the warrior entry, the exact words in on page 30 of the Nids codex clearly state 'ranged weapon symbiote' and the twin-linked rules clearly state 'count as a single weapon being fired'. There is no 'wiggle room' in this part of the discussion. The words being used are consistant, and the definitions of those words are not ambiguous.

snooggums: "If a single weapon can fire and gain the twin linking ability, then I ask again, why don't they get twice the shots when you fire two of them on a monstrous creature."

They do - but if and only if one is talking about firing two distinct *Pairs* of weapons - each of which is twin-linked in and of itself. Those would be weapons that MC's can buy *ONLY* as twin linked - in this case it's Devourers and Death Spitters. Please recall the following...

Warriors have one (and only one) method of ending up with twin-linked weapons, while Monstrous Creatures (Tyrants & Carnifex) have two methods that give them twin-linked weapons.

Method #1 - a Tyranid buys two of the same (non twin-linked) ranged weapons symbiotes. By the rules they "count as" a 'twin-linked' weapon that takes up two weapons slots, but requires only 1 action to fire.

Standard weapon + Standard Weapon = 'counts them as twin linked'

Method #2 - a Tyranid buys a single 'pre twin-linked' weapon symbiote. By the rules, this symbiote takes up only a single weapons slot and requires only one action to fire while providing all the benefits of being twin-linked.

Twin-linked weapon + 2nd Twin-linked weapon = 2 seperate twin-linked weapons, each of which takes one action to fire.

Warriors can *ONLY* use method #1. If they buy two of the same ranged weapon - then the two ranged weapon symbiote automatically 'counts as' a twin-linked weapon (as per the Tyranid Codex) thus requiring one action to fire. MC's on the other hand can purchase weapons via method #1 or #2. In point of fact - MC's can *NOT* purchase a non twin-linked devourer or deathspitter. If an MC buys two Venom Cannons or two Barbed Stranglers - then method #1 automatically applies and the VCs or BSs 'count as' a twin linked weapon that takes up 2 weapons slots on the MC. If a MC buys two pair of 'pre twin linked' weapons (Deathspitter or Devourer) via method #2 - then it has two (2) completely seperate twin linked weapons each of which take up only a single weapons slot and each of which require a single seperate action to fire. (Hence part of the reason why GW clearly points out that MCs can fire two ranged weapons a turn.)


It is inconsistent to allow the Warrior to fire a single weapon twin linked but require the Carnifex to fire two of them to achieve the same result.

This is a flat out mis-representation of the rules - a warrior fires two deathspitters which 'count as' twin-linked and because twin-linked weapons "count as a single weapon being fired" the warrior is able to do so with its single shot per turn. The twin linked rules *DON'T* say "is a single weapon being fired" they clearly say "counts as a single weapon" the benefit being that one action fires a single weapon and the 'twin linked deathspitters' count as a single weapon.

Snooggums: "Your argument contradicts the twin linking text anyway, which is two weapons firing together."

No. No it doesn't. My arguement is, that in the case of warriors which have two identical ranged weapons symbiotes, that said ranged weapons symbiotes 'count as' twin-linked and that 'twin linked' weapons 'count as a single weapon being fired'. Zero contradiction.

Snooggums: "If only being carried is the requirement I would field twin linked 4 shot VC Carnifexes."

Back to making up rules again? Taking a Carnifex with two venom cannons means that the Carnifex 'counts them (them being the venom cannons - plural) as twin linked' (singular - exact wording of the rules Tyranid Codex page 30) (See 'Method #1 above.) Thus the net result would be a Carnifex with two venom cannons that 'count as twin linked' meaning the Carnifex would fire once (because you can't fire the same weapon twice in a turn) with 2 shots that get to re-roll misses due to 'counting as twin-linked'.

Now if you want to see some brutally effective fire power - try a Winged Tyrant with 2 sets of 'Twin Linked Devourers'. (As per method #2 above.) As each pair of twin linked Devourers is an independant twin-linked weapon, the Tyrant gets 6 shots (with re-rolled 'to hit' rolls and 'to wound' rolls' due to twin linked and living ammo) plus 6 MORE shots from the 2nd twin linked Devourer.

I'm laughing about the fact that the second half of your post was about my response to DaIronGob "DIG" as I mentioned in my post. I never said that was your opinion and I was showing him the absurdity of his claim that only one of the weapons fired, but somehow got the one weapon to be twin linked by virtue of carrying the second weapon. The comment about the 4 shot carnifex was to show that his conclusion gave an obvious contradiction to his logic as he believes the guns combine on the Carnifex. you write well but you don't read well.

I am not denying that a twin linked weapon is a single weapon. The Carnifex's twin linked Devourer is an example of a twin linked weapon. What I am questioning is the Warrior's 'counts as' weapon that is the combined fire of two other weapons, one if which the warrior cannot fire. All you need to do it the P1, P2 C thing that shows how two Devourers on a Warrior becomes a single weapon, not 'counts as' which actually means "has the same properties as" and has nothing to do with counting as was posted earlier.

From "Leading the Swarm" at http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tyranids/gaming/tactica/2.htm
There is one exception to this rule, and that is a Tyranid Warrior equipped for a shooting role. Because Warriors don?t benefit from taking two guns, I would suggest that all Warriors with guns take a set of rending claws.

For what it is worth, there is a GW opinion from some guy on the US website. Maybe this is an opinion the other guys haven't posted in the other thread.