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 are so many different instances of weapons that are twin linked in this game that 1) finding a middle ground of what twin linking is intended to do/ does for a weapon is impossible and 2) trying to argue that point is equally impossible.

And in some cases real life logic has to take hold too, For example, there has been much talk of a twin linked lascannon from, say a predator turret. Sure, the barrels are close enough together that whatever one is pointing at the other is surely to be close. But, what about from something like a Storm Raven?

Those barrels aren't even close together, yet they firing at the same intended target. Weapons have to be sighted and zeroed to work properly.

At what range is the Storm Ravens lascannon zeroed? If the target is closer than the zero range the two shots are going to be far enough apart to potentially miss the intended target because they both go to either side of it. If the target is further away the two beams will intersect before they hit the target and continue on their course, missing the intended target all together and hitting two other things that could be a hundred meters from each other.

And that's just one example. I'm not saying to use real world logic in determining how to make the rule, I'm actually saying the opposite. Use logic to understand it makes no sense. Trying to argue that the rule should be "x" because of "y" is either focusing on one example of a twin linked weapon and how it would work on the battlefield or trying to find that impossible middle ground.

The only time in history a weapon has been expressly joined together with another is when that weapon was intended to get as many bullets into the air from one single firer as possible: ie, ground to air guns and air to ground guns, where it was just about quantity. Which is ridiculous to think that a game setting like 40k's would need to emulate that.

Therefore, with this rant over, I can say that using real world logic on the twin link rule itself, it's stupid and shouldn't exist because 1) you wouldn't need to really ever do it and wouldn't really work and 2) if you did you'd just be mostly wasting ammo

The reason they count as TL is simply for balance and point cost reasons. Rules-wise they are a mid-point between having 1 and 2 of a single weapon. Fluffwise, this could easily be better represented through other means because if you shoot a tank with 2 lascannon barrels, 2 holes will be made on 2 different spots, not 1. This would involve adjusting the point costs of everything with twin linked weapons but sure, it could be done and make more sense fluffwise. If they wanted to fluff the TL rule, they could just say a vehicle or person has advanced skills or targeting systems and just give a vehicle or model that rule. At this point they won't those as the rule has been longstanding and ingrained into players minds and it would involve adjusting the points of a metric CRAPTON of units.

It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?

 Draco wrote:
It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?

This.

If Twin Linked Weapons are firing two of the same weapons, it should have an even higher chance of the user coming down with a case of melty face, not less.

 Draco wrote:
It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be better if twinlinked would mean increased rate of fire (not fired dame time). Most odd think is that tl prevents get hot. How?

I like to think it is because by using a twin linked weapon, each part of the gun is firing more slowly, despite a higher overall volume of fire. This allows each gun more chance to cool between shots.

How about we just go back to 2nd editions rules? IE, each hit with a twin linked weapon is doubled?

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about we just go back to 2nd editions rules? IE, each hit with a twin linked weapon is doubled?

Nice idea but...

Do you really want Divination + Pask to have a 66%~ chance of 40 rending shots? Or 30 grav shots from 3 Centurions?

If you want a twin-linked lascannon that fires twice, then you should have to pay, at minimum, the cost for two lascannons. 40 points minimum.

You don't want to pay 40 points minimum? You only want to pay 30?

Then enjoy the rerolls and stop complaining.

 Purifier wrote:

You're not forging the narrative, son.
Twinlinked means incredibly inaccurate, but lots of lead, so "something should hit."

This is my way of looking at it.

Twin Linked implies multiple barrels shooting the same target. If more dice were rolled it would be more wounds moving to more targets. By having the reroll instead you allow the same amount of targets to be hit but more likely.

 Traditio wrote:
If you want a twin-linked lascannon that fires twice, then you should have to pay, at minimum, the cost for two lascannons. 40 points minimum.

You don't want to pay 40 points minimum? You only want to pay 30?

Then enjoy the rerolls and stop complaining.

Then again if it's 1 hit=2 hit to target model that's less than twice as good as having 2 guns still. So paying twice the point would be stupid.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My Necron Destroyers weep at their heavy 2 shots from the Gauss Cannons ;_; (it has four barrels)

It has 1 barrel and 4 'power rods'

 malamis wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about we just go back to 2nd editions rules? IE, each hit with a twin linked weapon is doubled?

Nice idea but...

Do you really want Divination + Pask to have a 66%~ chance of 40 rending shots? Or 30 grav shots from 3 Centurions?

As a Guard player who knows just how utterly terribly bad Pask and the Gakinisher - sorry, Punisher, are? Yes.

 Traditio wrote:
If you want a twin-linked lascannon that fires twice, then you should have to pay, at minimum, the cost for two lascannons. 40 points minimum.

You don't want to pay 40 points minimum? You only want to pay 30?

Then enjoy the rerolls and stop complaining.

Why is a lascannon that fires twice worth two Lascannons? The latter has several advantages over the former including the ability to split fire and not getting totally destroyed by a single weapons destroyed hit. It should cost 30.

Or more like 25 pts imo. I don't think Lascannons are worth 20 points a pop in today's meta.