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.

focusedfire wrote: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.

What systems kick?

Do your Heavy Bolters kick a lot? Your Lascannons? Since those are the only systems I've ever "casually claimed knowledge of"?

I'm not saying big guns have no recoil. I'm not even saying a gun has little recoil when mounted in a tank.

I'm saying that a weapon that can be accurately fired while held by a single person is not going to have so much recoil that it will be difficult to aim two of them when they are mounted in a tank.

All of your talking about real combat skirts around that. You keep bringing up weapons that have a lot of recoil and saying "see? This is another thing with a lot of recoil! You can't fire one in each hand!"

I get it. What I'm saying is that twin-linked weapons are not going to have that much recoil, because they are commonly used by infantry in their non twin-linked form, and rarely used by anything that isn't far larger in their twin-linked form.

Also, I acknowledge there would be some lack of accuracy, for some weapons. That doesn't mean that every weapon needs to take a major hit in accuracy, when there aren't modifiers for things far more important, since, as I've said, twin-linked weapons just aren't going to have that much recoil, simply because they're never mounted on something that can't easily shake that kind of recoil off.

Also, most weapons in the game have little to no recoil.

Imperium: About half and half. For every Heavy Bolter and Autocannon there's a Multi-Melta and a Lascannon.
Chaos: Same as Imperium.
Orks: Most do have a lot of recoil. Otherwise it wouldn't be proppa.
Eldar: Very little recoil for the weapons that even have any.
Dark Eldar: Same as Eldar.
Tau: Some recoil, but less so than the Imperium, due to all the plasma.
Tyranids: I would guess very little recoil. Maybe some from the Venom Cannon.
Necrons: I don't think have any twin-linked weapons. No recoil if they did.

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.

I understand exactly what you said.

I just don't think it's significant enough of a difference, in enough situations, to justify as special rules being written out for it, especially when that rule makes thing more unrealistic the other half of the time.

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.

I talk about tanks because most twin-linked weapons are mounted on vehicles. Those that are not are nearly always mounted on monstrous creatures or hulking exoskeletons, so are much the same thing. Yeah, there are more tactical squads than tanks, but they aren't carrying twin-linked weapons around, so what's the significance?

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.

Hate to say it, but nothing in 40k is that carefully balanced. There are no equations to be invalidated. They barely even playtest half the time.

Did making Troops the only scoring units "throw of the equation?" How about Kill Points? How about making vehicles more difficult to kill, but always hit on their rear armor?

Games Workshop isn't using an equation, they're making it up as they go along. Besides, I've said numerous times, this would be a change enacted with quite a few others. It would probably be a rewrite of the codices currently in print. It's not realistic, but hell, GW's never going to ask me for advice regardless.

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.

Except the game has no need to be that fine-tuned. There is no formula, there is no situation where a GW game designer goes "oh man... if only I had a lascannon that was 33% more powerful than a regular one!"

After all, what happens if a space marine Lascannon needs to be 2/3 better? Twin-Linking can't help. What if an ork rokkit only needs to be 1/3 better? Oh no! Twin-Linking can't do anything about that either, but nonetheless the armies get by.

Pretty much everything can be adjusted with point costs. If something has a lot of twin-linked weapons, increase the point cost to compensate. It's easy, and hell, it's more than GW does when they randomly nerf and buff everything every new edition.

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....

Yeah, I know all this.

Guard aren't given bolters. Leman Russes are Rear AV10.

What does it have to do with twin-linked weapons? Is that just a reason for why something is far weaker than it should be?

It's not at all intuitive for that to be the case, there's no evidence that the Twin-Linking Weapons Correctly budget was slashed, and it doesn't even make sense in the context of some of the most prized vehicles in the Imperium - Land Raider, for instance - having twin-linked weapons.


::EDIT:: Okay, you seem to be bewildered by what I'm talking about half the time, and half the time I have no idea what you're talking about.

We might be kind of talking past each other here.

"I don't think that word means what you think it does"

Intuitive pretty much means easy to learn or pick up without having to put in much logical thought.

The amount of thought that your putting into claiming that twin-linking is more than you claim the game designers put into designing the game.

Your own actions prove your argument wrong by the definition of intuitive.


Now personally I believe the rules are playtested, just not to the level that Tourny players would like. I, also believe that they start with a mathhammer formula then try to tweak from there. The system reeks of them making it look good on paper then doing a limited playtest to make sure there are no major or fatal flaws in the design before sending to market.


It's funny that you list armies and try to point out recoil as opposed to who has twin-linking on their Tanks.

Necrons-none
Tyranids-No tanks but plenty of twin-linking
Eldar-The shuriken catapults, any other time 2weapons are mounted on the same vehicle they fire seperately.
Orks-warbuggies
Dark Eldar-none(That I can remember)
Tau-none, Their are twinlinked drones but no twinlinked vehicle mounted weapons
Imperium of man- This is where all of the vehicle twin-linking occurs but the majority of it is in vehicle upgrades such as the pintle mounted weapons you dismiss. Matter of fact I think that there are only 4 or 5 tank variants out of what 40-50 that have a twin-linked turret mounted weapons system.

You want to change the system for what is probably less than 10% of your armies options and has no real significance to the other armies. This reeks of power-gamer.

To compound this point you keep harping on twin-linked bolters which are not turret mouted but are always represented with pintle mount unless its the Landraider. So you want to change the rule for just one vehicle?

Now go back and compare the amount of infantry twin-linking and it becomes clear where the majority of twin-linking occurs.

Necrons-not so much
Tyranids-Everywhere
Eldar-Jetbikes, Heros, and Farseers that give the Twin-link rule to the whole army(Proof right here of how powerful twin-linking is)
Orks-Bosses & Nobs
Dark Eldar-None
Tau- Drones, Broadsides, and Crisis suits. The Tau would become completely unbalanced by changing the rule.
Imperium of man- Getting more common with each codex.

It's funny that you complain about this rule yet have no complaint about master crafting.

P.S. Just because Tau players have adapted to unfavorable conditions by running lots of plasma doesn't mean that the army has tons of it. Plas is one of five common suit options and one of seven commander suit options. It also appears nowhere else in the army.
What the Tau have a lot of is pulse weapons. With some Rail and fusion weapons coming in a distant 2nd as far as whats common.

focusedfire wrote:"I don't think that word means what you think it does"

Intuitive pretty much means easy to learn or pick up without having to put in much logical thought.

It does mean that it is simple and easy to pick up, but it more specifically means that it is easy to pick up because that's what is expected.

You see a weapon like an Assault Cannon, and you think it probably has a high rate of fire, and it probably a pretty heavy weapon. You don't have to know anything about an assault cannon specifically, the fact that it's a huge minigun makes it the logical assumption.

If an Assault Cannon fired a single shot per round, and could be carried by light infantry, that would be counter-intuitive, because it would be a game mechanic that breaks the assumptions someone would make about the weapon.

The current Twin-Linking rules are counter-intuitive because they make the second weapon significantly less powerful than the first one. If someone sees a tank with two lascannons and finds out that it's closer in power to one lascannon than two, that's somewhat jarring. It's not a huge deal, but it counts against the current twin-linking rules, and I don't see that much counting for them.

That a weapon with a higher rate of fire and (sometimes) lower accuracy is being represented with an artificially reduced rate of fire and artificially higher accuracy only exacerbates the disconnection. I understand how the end result would be the same, but the method is poor, and the end result is rather superfluous itself.

The amount of thought that your putting into claiming that twin-linking is more than you claim the game designers put into designing the game.

Your own actions prove your argument wrong by the definition of intuitive.

No they don't, you can have complicated arguments for making a change with the hopes that the change will simplify things.

Twice the guns = twice the firepower is simple. Going into discussions about how much recoil a twin-linked weapon has, what the power feeds for a twin-linked weapon entail, and how some armies benefit more from the twin-linking of their weapons than others is complicated. As is differentiating between twin-linked weapons and pairs of weapons, which can have significant differences in firepower while being mounted in the exact same manner.

Now personally I believe the rules are playtested, just not to the level that Tourny players would like.

Yeah, I know they do, it was more of a hyperbole to say they didn't.

I, also believe that they start with a mathhammer formula then try to tweak from there. The system reeks of them making it look good on paper then doing a limited playtest to make sure there are no major or fatal flaws in the design before sending to market.

I disagree about there being a formula. They understand the math involved, most of the time, but I doubt there's a central formula they use to calculate point costs. I think they themselves said they price things based on what seems right, through intuition and playtesting, and the "make your own Apoc datasheet" article online makes it seem that - for Jervis at least - trying to make a formula to price things is doomed to failure. That was his criticism of the Vehicle Design Rules, and the reason he gave for not doing another set for Apocalypse.

It's funny that you list armies and try to point out recoil as opposed to who has twin-linking on their Tanks.

Honestly, I'm not that up to date on all the twin-linked weapons in the game. Also, I'm not only talking about tanks, I'm talking about anything with twin-linked weapons. It just so happens the vast majority of the models that have twin-linked weapons are vehicles, monstrous creatures, or otherwise extremely large.

Necrons-none

Right.

Tyranids-No tanks but plenty of twin-linking

Yep.

Eldar-The shuriken catapults, any other time 2weapons are mounted on the same vehicle they fire seperately.

The Wraithlord has them twin-linked though, right? (Fire Prisms can twin-link their shot, but that's a whole different thing.)

Orks-warbuggies

Also Deffkoptas, Bikes, and Nobs, for the non-vehicle (not vehicle by unit type, anyway) units.

Dark Eldar-none(That I can remember)

Don't know their codex very well either.

Tau-none, Their are twinlinked drones but no twinlinked vehicle mounted weapons

Plus Broadsides, Crisis Suits, quite a few other things I'm sure.

Imperium of man- This is where all of the vehicle twin-linking occurs but the majority of it is in vehicle upgrades such as the pintle mounted weapons you dismiss.

Huh? What pintle mounted weapons are there that are twin-linked?

Matter of fact I think that there are only 4 or 5 tank variants out of what 40-50 that have a twin-linked turret mounted weapons system.

I'm not talking about the turrets exclusively, sponsons, hull-mounted weapons, and guns not carried on vehicles are just as valid. I was just using turrets as an example of where they're commonly mounted.

You want to change the system for what is probably less than 10% of your armies options and has no real significance to the other armies.

Actually, I pretty much just play orks, and I never fire the Dakkaguns on my cyboars anyway.

I'm not saying the twin-linked rule is a plague upon the game, or that it needs to be immediately thrown out of the game (*cough* wound allocation *cough*), or even that I plan to recost every twin-linked weapon in the game so I can use my rule with my friends.

I'm just saying that if the game was to be redone I wouldn't keep the twin-linked rules. It's not such a huge issue that they should go through everything to change it, but if everything was already being redone, dropping it would make sense. Maybe they can replace add something more useful to the game in place of the billion special rules. Not likely, but what they're likely to do and what I would like them to do aren't necessarily going to meet up anywhere.

This reeks of power-gamer.

Eh?

To compound this point you keep harping on twin-linked bolters which are not turret mouted but are always represented with pintle mount unless its the Landraider. So you want to change the rule for just one vehicle?

Are we talking Bolters or Heavy Bolters? I've never seen a pintle-mounted Heavy Bolter.

Also, I'm giving the Heavy Bolter as an example of a weapon which may have a (fairly) high recoil. I could talk about Lascannons and Plasma Guns but as far as I know those weapons don't have much of a recoil at all, so they would be an example that favored my rule even more.

Now go back and compare the amount of infantry twin-linking and it becomes clear where the majority of twin-linking occurs.

I'm guessing we are not using infantry in the same manner here.

Necrons-not so much

Nope. Kind of boring.

Tyranids-Everywhere

Often on monstrous creatures, and their weapons have so little recoil regardless it doesn't really matter where the weapon is.

Eldar-Jetbikes, Heros, and Farseers that give the Twin-link rule to the whole army(Proof right here of how powerful twin-linking is)

Um.. what? Farseers allow rerolling hits, that's not twin-linking. And yes, allowing an entire unit to reroll all their rolls to hit is a powerful ability. However, if a Farseer was somehow able to make a squad of Dire Avengers turn into two squads, I would expect the two squads to have twice the firepower of one squad. Also, a jetbike is a vehicle, outside of the 40k unit designations.

Orks-Bosses & Nobs

Who are large enough to handle twin-linked weapons. Hell, you can give a boy a big shoota.

Dark Eldar-None

Okay.

Tau- Drones, Broadsides, and Crisis suits. The Tau would become completely unbalanced by changing the rule.

Not if they were repriced. (Actually, with the way Guard might be turning out, they might be that overpowered after all. (Internal balance would tank though.))

Imperium of man- Getting more common with each codex.

???

It's funny that you complain about this rule yet have no complaint about master crafting.

Master-crafting is a) not very common, b) logical in increasing a model's accuracy, c) obviously not going to make a weapon twice as powerful.

P.S. Just because Tau players have adapted to unfavorable conditions by running lots of plasma doesn't mean that the army has tons of it. Plas is one of five common suit options and one of seven commander suit options. It also appears nowhere else in the army.
What the Tau have a lot of is pulse weapons. With some Rail and fusion weapons coming in a distant 2nd as far as whats common.

I meant plasma to include pulse weaponry, as it's plasma technology. However, upon further research, pulse weaponry still has a good deal of recoil, so never mind that point.

focusedfire wrote: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.

And of course I have to question what actual operational experience and weapons knowledge someone has when they try and claim that an A-10's Avenger can stall it.

Read up on the not so accurate wikipedia page and they attempt to smooth over this problem by calling it Urban legend. But they do admit the following.

While the Avenger doesn't put out enough recoil to stall at full throttle it does has a max recoil force that comes out to equalling just under half of the planes thrust.

You see, you don't run a plane at full throttle all of the time. Even in combat. In the seventies and early eighties there was a learning curve of what to do and not do in an A-10. Firing with throttles cut was one of those lessons. Ever watch a plane slow from 400 knots to 280 in one gun burst?
Most of you youngsters forget that the A-10 has been flying for 37 years now if you count its first flight and 34 if you count the first production flights. They shook out the bugs and developed the flight protocols before the average Dakkite was born.


P.S. There was a gun redesing and plane redesign for engine performance problems because of gas discharge. They re-routed the exhaust so that it never comes close to the engine no matter what the conditions(even negative g) yet after doing this they still shortly thereafter redesigned the engines with a stall proof system the kicks on an igniter as soon as the gun start to fire.


Spelling edits and sentence double worded.

@Orke- we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

When you say that the farseers ability to grant re-rolls to hit isn't the same as or equal to twin-linking then I know its time to stop debating the issue and to just sit back and nod quietly.

The value of 'double' weapons can be clearly read up on, AA weapons have multiple linked weapons. Cannons on Navy boats are also linked. Some large machineguns on vehicles are linked. Some times both weapons fire at the same time, sometimes they alternate fire (left, right, left, right)
So we don't have to argue about it, whoever wants to know can just look it up.

How this is handled in game, imo should just be +1 to bs or s. Do we need a special rule for something so common.

To be honest it is a bit backward. As technology improves we see less twin linked weapons, and more effective methods to increase rate of fire or spread of fire.

Thats it though. 40K is supposed to be the Dark Ages. A backward time where humanity shuns knowledge and uses force in its place'

focusedfire wrote:@Orke- we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

That's fine.

Let's face it, we've already hijacked this thread and ran it into a canyon.

When you say that the farseers ability to grant re-rolls to hit isn't the same as or equal to twin-linking then I know its time to stop debating the issue and to just sit back and nod quietly.

Same effect on the game, entirely different in what it is supposed to represent. And, while they may be nearly identical, it isn't twin-linking, any more than my kannons are twin-linked whenever I use an ammo runt.

What it comes down to is that if the farseer didn't have that ability then the army would get twin-linked weapons to balance it out.

The point was you couldn't or as I now believe won't see the benefit to the mechanism. The benefit has been pointed out and your now saying doesn't matter and not the same thing just the same effect.

To that I can only

Back to the original topic. How would one adjust the twin-link rule without it becoming overpowering and possibly destroying the internal balance of a few innocent armies..

Why would the Farseer need to give the Twin-Linked rule to a squad? He doesn't need to now. He allows a squad to reroll to hit, which makes sense, since he's Guiding their shots.

If something desperately needs to be able to reroll it's hits it can have that as an ability, but 9/10 of the time it's not necessary. For the same reason there doesn't need to be a special rule that allows space marines to have a weapon 166% more powerful. Twin-linking can't do anything there but, what do you know, nothing is hurt by the loss.

Besides, a psychic power affecting any unit in the army is another thing entirely. It can't be controlled in the same the Twin-Linked designation can.

What does twin link rule do?
What does Guide do?
Same rule different names.

So I say tomatoe

Then you say,"No, its gotta be tomato."

All the more reason to get rid of a redundant rule.

Ok, get rid of ammo runts and guide. Twin-linked was here first.



edit to show orke that its ok to admit and fix your mistakes

focusedfire wrote::nod

Failure.

@Orke- Pls to reread now.

focusedfire wrote:edit to show orke that its ok to admit and fix your mistakes

What?

I didn't write the Twin-Linked rules, I'm trying to get rid of them!

Well, don't just talk. Take action. go on a protest. If you really hate the rule that much it shouldn't be hard to give up anything that has that or a similar rule.

Refuse to build your armies with anything gives you a re-roll to hit. Thats no twin-linked weapons or ammo runts.

Once you set the example then try to convince everyone else to not use twin-linked weapons.

Now, I've noticed a tendency for this thread to get rather silly. Now I do my best to keep things moving along, but I'm not having things getting silly. Those two last posts you did got very silly indeed, and that last one about protesting was even sillier. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do... except perhaps my wife and some of her friends... oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that's beside the point.

Thank You for that Orkeosaurus.RLMAO

Skinnattittar wrote:
(I'll remind everyone that there isn't anything in reality called "Twin Linked"),

Twin linked then you say, would be could be defined as (in Tau terms), two barrels of Rail Guns pointing parallely to each other, mounted in very close proximity, and unable to point at different targets than the other. This then, my friend DOES exist in real life, in a handhead as well as vehicle mounted weapons actually. (searching "dual coaxial mounted machine gun system")

Trying to relate an abstracted world (40k) to the world that we all live in, in some cases requires a suspension of disbelief. I admire that you are trying to make the abstraction of rules reflect reality, but in this case, the rule makes sense in that (a) Maybe the operator fires one, then the other, (b) Maybe the operator's error on one of the twin-linked shots was not so great that the distance from one to the other made a hit possible.....etc. etc. etc.

Coaxial is distinctly different from Twin-Linked, Che-Vito. Coaxial weapons are alternative weapons for the same mount (almost exclusively a 7.62mm weapon attached to the main cannon of a vehicle) and has more to do with the Geneva Convention than any sort of practicality. Twin-Linked, in 40k, is two weapons fired side by side for some sort of advantage of destruction, not as an alternative weapon to the main weapon.

@ Orke and Focus : You should have heeded my warning! STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Okay, I have something to say about the INGAME changes if something like this were to actually happen:

The main problem I see is that some weapons (like 2 twin-linked lascannons on a Land Raider) would turn completely overpowered, especially when not all armies have TL weapons, and the armies that do have them are already balanced cost-wise....so if this were to happen, any armies NOT updated with more expensive TL weapons would get a pretty big advantage...

@ 8Ball : Explain with facts, please.

Skinnattittar wrote:Coaxial is distinctly different from Twin-Linked, Che-Vito. Coaxial weapons are alternative weapons for the same mount (almost exclusively a 7.62mm weapon attached to the main cannon of a vehicle) and has more to do with the Geneva Convention than any sort of practicality. Twin-Linked, in 40k, is two weapons fired side by side for some sort of advantage of destruction, not as an alternative weapon to the main weapon.

@ Orke and Focus : You should have heeded my warning! STAY ON TOPIC!!!

We stayed on-topic, sort of....

As to your assertion that there is no such thing as a twin linked weapon system in real life. Thats what I was trying to point out with some of the aircraft guns and turret weapons. They are not called twin-linked but there were twin mounted weapons systems that fired side by side and used two seperate ammo belts to supply them. There are even some current weapon systems that use this type of an arrangement. Instead of calling them twin-linked we instead just call them twin (insert weapon caliber here). Like twin .50s or twin 30 mike mikes(twin 30mm).

These types of weapon systems are becoming more rare because newer single gun systems are more accurate and waste less ammunition(resources).

Skinnattittar: Isn't this obvious:

Example: A Land Raider is attacking a Monolith.

1)With the current rules: It shoots with it's LEFT side Lascannon, rolls a 2, then rerolls a 4...so it hit...

2)With the "2 weapons per twin-linked" idea:
It shoots with (now both) of it's lascannons (on the left side)...it rolls both to-hit dice as 4's, then (Somehow) BOTH as 6's, then manages a 2 and 5 on the damage chart...Monolith is wrecked....(Obviously an extremely lucky example)

3)With the "Rerolls to wound instead of hit":
It shoots with it's Left lascannon, rolls a 2 to hit...now it's just as useless as a single lascannon, the twin-linked doing NOTHING at all for the vehicle that shot...

Obviously I am totally against the 2nd option...especially for stuff like Assault Cannons, 8 rending shots seems like overkill..

For some stuff like Lascannons, rerolling to HIT is a LOT more useful that rerolling to wound (especially weapons that take 2+ to wound) so this would be like a nerf to them.

Rerolling armor saves also doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of 40k, and sort of makes the "new twin-linked (as in rerolls to wound AND armor saves)" overpowered in that as long as you hit, most units won't end up surviving even slightly higher strength weapons (due to having to reroll their lucky 5+ invuln save for example)...

There's a very large difference in performance between rerolling misses and firing double amount of shots. Every linked weapon in the game would have to take a significant pricehike to compensate. I doubt anyone can dispute that.

If you want to, please consider that the Land Raiders 4 lascannon have a ~18% chance to ALL hit in the same round if they were to be fired separately.

Dual barrels just look cooler than "targeter widgets" bolted onto the guns. GW likes to represent "accurate" weapon systems this way, if you disagree you can convert your own models to your hearts content. I look forward to seeing them in the painting sections.

@ 8 Ball : So pretty much you just proved that current Twin-Linked on an average roll isn't as good as proposed Twin-Linked getting extremely lucky rolls? Or am I missing something here. Also, you've made no attempt to describe how the original post of re-rolling anything once EXCEPT the to hit affects things. That one, because you're more likely to miss but more likely to wound, penetrate, or your opponent fail his armor save (though only ONE of those per round of shooting) it wouldn't be a huge difference, statistically speaking. Work it out in several different scenarios, mathematically not just with your gut instinct, and you'll find there isn't a huge difference. I already have made an Excel that demonstrates the original TL method and my TL method (not the double hits per successful hit method, which I won't subscribe to). I ran it against space Marines vs. the two most common Imperial TL weapons; Lascannons and Heavy Bolters. Because of the complexity I had to use massive numbers of shots, 54 in my base case, and I still haven't gotten proper whole numbers, but that doesn't matter.

The Results? Predictably, you get fewer models removed with Lascannons from BS3, the same with BS4, about 50% increase from Heavy Bolters on BS3, almost double on BS4. I can run just about any scenario of BS v. Toughness and Armor Save, so make suggestions if you want.

Suggested points increase? ~50% It is very complicated as to what happens, BS plays a major factor, as Guard with TL Lascannons actually score fewer wounds in ratio with the proposed system, but more with Heavy Bolters in ratio.

Skinnattittar wrote:Coaxial is distinctly different from Twin-Linked, Che-Vito. Coaxial weapons are alternative weapons for the same mount

I was afraid someone would make this assumption without researching what I had posted first. The gun system that I posted, although NAMED "coaxial" is two machine gun's, bolted side by side, pointing the same direction, and unable to fire in seperate directions. Thus, a twin-linked gun.

Yes, you can call it the Coaxial Machine Gun System, "twin-mounted", "twin-linked", whatever makes you sing. The term is irrelevant really, as the function is the same...it seems that many of you have thrown out synonymous terms, and over-complicated a very simple pretense.

Suggested points increase? ~50%

and there in lies the main problem I was trying to point out....THE ARMIES who's codex's WEREN'T updated with those new rules would have a (point wise) advantage...


Also you said how the current system is worse....ever think that was the point, to give you better firing capability, without actually giving you another gun (and all this at not too high of a points cost)