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.

@ Che-Vito : Why should we do your research for you. Post a link next time.

Okay, you found AN example of a modern "Twin-Linked" weapon (though I have yet to see it, so for all I know it is 100 years old or a one off somebody made for gaks and giggles), but what is it's purpose? Is it for focused fire on a single point? Or to make the cloud effect by just putting more ammunition into the air? Because I think we all agree those weapons already exist, but are distinctively different from what we're discussing.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Che-Vito : Why should we do your research for you. Post a link next time.

If I give the phrase "Coaxial Machine Gun System," and you cannot go to Wikipedia or something of the sort...a link will not help you either.

The practical purpose of putting two weapons twin-linked as such in the real world is mainly an issue of barrel temp. and ROF. Granted, for some examples in the 40k world (twin-linked Rail Rifles), ROF and barrel temp. are not an issue, as the ROF is 1 per round.

@ Che-Vito : Actually, numbskull (why be passive aggressive with statements like "a link will not help you either."), you don't get anything by searching that phrase, you get a bunch of single crew served co-axial systems (though a few pictures of Baneblades do show up, but I would think they are talking about the co-ax Autocannon) pictures and articles. That's why Al Gore created web links, so you can be SPECIFIC if you're trying to show something that is RARE.

Still, these systems that DO exist, are either older systems, one offs or small number production for what-ever plethora of reasons they were made, or prototypes, which don't really count either. Not only that, they don't operate the same way as they do in 40k rules.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Che-Vito : Actually, numbskull (why be passive aggressive with statements like "a link will not help you either."), you don't get anything by searching that phrase, you get a bunch of single crew served co-axial systems (though a few pictures of Baneblades do show up, but I would think they are talking about the co-ax Autocannon) pictures and articles. That's why Al Gore created web links, so you can be SPECIFIC if you're trying to show something that is RARE.

Still, these systems that DO exist, are either older systems, one offs or small number production for what-ever plethora of reasons they were made, or prototypes, which don't really count either. Not only that, they don't operate the same way as they do in 40k rules.

Well, since no in-depth writing is done on the specifications of how 40k twin-linked weapons work, you cannot make the claim you do at the end. The "older models", prototypes, etc. are just as valid as long as they are functional. What they do is allow a higher ROF (two weapons as opposed to one) without the worry of overheating.

This being the case, the rules in 40k do not reflect this.

I'm a bit confused... First you say that I can't possibly know how Twin-Linked weapons work in 40k, then you say exactly what I had just said, saying that they do not work the way similar looking weapons do in reality, which is what I said.... I'm not patronizing you, I'm just trying to make sure I understand this.

As for "they don't really count." No, they don't. The context wasn't whether or not these weapons exist, it context is whether or not those weapons have a valid role in context to what we are discussing. As you openly admitted that they do not have context to what we are discussing, I would propose we stop bringing them up.

Skinnattittar wrote:Still, these systems that DO exist, are either older systems, one offs or small number production for what-ever plethora of reasons they were made, or prototypes, which don't really count either. Not only that, they don't operate the same way as they do in 40k rules.

Of course they don't operate the same numbskull. (You said you don't want passive aggressive) those systems you pull a trigger or press a button and actuall real world damage occurs. Where in 40K you roll dice as part of an abstact game played with little toy models.

If you had spent less time mouthing off about orke and myself not being on topic and read a little you would have seen that we were covering the issues of how real world weapons are reflected in the abstraction of 40K.

Okay....so obviously no one wants to actually discuss the rules in the FAKE 40k universe, so whatever....

@ Focusfire : I don't know what you're talking about, there's a definite difference between being objective and passive aggressive (you'll notice there were no pronouns referring to any humans). And, I'm not going to acknoledge your posts that weren't on topic that were trying to compare real world weapons to 40k terms, as there isn't really a basis for any such thing, so they don't count.

So, I'll go with "Fail," for your post there.

@ 8 Ball : I guess you don't, because you have yet too.

You can call it a fail but that doesn't make it so.

BTW, Yep no pronouns in either statement

You were the one that opened up relevance and comparisons to real world weapons in your first post. Then when poeple engaged in that dialoge, you said that they were the basis for why the rule doesn't make sense.

Then you say that there are no such comparitive weapons when someone makes a point that damages your position on the rule.

But when someone brings up that their actually are such weapons, the ones that you say don't exist, or how the mechanics of such weapons can be used to support the twin-link rule you say you can't compare the two.

Make up your mind. Pick your point and debate it. Quit running when someone brings up a decent counter point.

If you check the first page I was willing to consider a version of the roll a six idea. Now, after watching your unwillingness to actually truly discuss the ideas and inability to defend your stance. I'm somewhat put off on the idea.

If your looking for a somewhat balanced change as opposed to attempting to power game then stand your ground and debate your point without using derogatory comments. As long as your not rude or insulting you'll find myself and others willing to listen and respond in kind.

So please, state your point as it now stands and whether or not the debate is open to real world weapons or confined to 40K. Also, please to let us know if this is to be a RAW or will it be an all-encompassing 40K debate with fluff as a means of understanding the thoughts behind the rules.

Balls in your court


Edit for spelling

Essentially this thread is a big argument over nothing.

Double barreled weapons exist in the real world, with various functions. Increase rate of fire, fire spread, and often simply as a way of cheaping out of just making a bigger gun.

They are backward - but the aesthetic of 40k is very backward. (Knights, WW1 shaped tanks etc)

Rule wise a double barreled weapon should be better than a single, but not quiet as good as a whole new gun. For whatever reason gw chose to hit rerolls, which is awesome for orks, but pointless for marines. But every alternative option has a drawback so why not stick with things as they are rather than fiddling with a tiny insignificant rule for no gameplay change

One Hundred Posts Here

Gwar! wrote:Wow you utterly missed how twin linked weapons actually work.

They are linked side by side, so that if one is off a bit to the side, the one to the left of it will hit and visa versa.

There is no need to overly complicate the rules with something that doesn't even fit how the weapon is supposed to work.

See Attached Diagram. As you can see they arnt aimed at a single point, but side by side to cover a wider area, and therefore more likely to hit whatever you are aiming at (hence the reroll to hit)

Gwar: I have to agree with you on this one because the new rule that was suggested would just slow the game up. This rule is fine as it is. Why try and Complicate it. GW changes rules for smoother game play and for simplicity. With twin linked it's simply reroll your misses ( as to see if the adjacent barrel hit it's target) NO this RAW I think is OK.

Personally, I like the current TL'ed system. While there may be better ways to represent twin-linked, I think that the rule it is the name of is the important thing, not the name itself.

Changing TL'ed s a HUGE thing. It drastically alters how it behaves, and every codex has TL'ed. I'd only ever support a change to TL'ed if every army was going to have at least a points update to go with it.

I always figured that Twin-linked worked like a Double Barreled Shotgun, the second barrel giving you the chance to get another shot off should it be needed in case you miss with the first or the target doesn't go down. For simplification GW just went with the first part.

The whole discussion is really a moot point. Is the current TL system the most realistic? Probably not. Is it easy to learn, remember, and make the game flow? Yes. I hate it when games get interrupted by stupid little things that are changed to make things more complicated.

"I missed, twin-linked so I'm re-rolling-"

"No wait they changed that."

"What is it now?"

"Hell if I know. Hold on a sec."

It is looked up in 6th ed rule book and there are three paragraphs on how it works, exceptions, what can nullify it, enhance it etc. Instead of just "re-roll failed hit." Seems a lot better that way to me.

Oh just want to add, to something from earlier. The Cloud Effect is twin-linking it uses the same principal, more lead/energy more chance of hitting things and thats what the reroll is for.

twin linking doesn't make the ammunition any more powerful, or able to penetrate armor

it just means there is more of it, making it easier to hit

33.3% to 55.5%, a 22.2% difference
66.6% to 88.8%, a 22.2% difference
Twin-linking helps marines just as much as it does Orks. The increase in chance to hit is the same.

Its subjectively less advantageous to the marine as 66.6 is 3/4 of 88.8, vs the ork's chance being 60% of what it is once twinlinked but the odds of hitting are increased by the same amount.

Changing TL to allow rerolls of wound or armour penetration in a "whatever one chooses" way would be a massive advantage to things like marine bike gangs, nob bike gangs, vendettas, etc, and far less help to others. rerolling failed wound or AP is a pretty big thing for some weapons, that you pay for, more than twin-linking. The changes would be substantial, and not at all friendly to some armies as they are.

I created a large excel spread sheet to test a variety of different scenarios. Essentially as Strength of the weapon increases the ratio of Proposed to Current (Proposed/Current) decreases, or less likely to kill. As the saves and BS get better the ratio increases, kills are more likely.

So if you are not getting a save, then Proposed is worse than current. Better BS makes the Proposed better, as so does increased Strength, which usually decreases the likely hood of saves (most higher strength weapons don't give many armor saves) decreasing the ratio.

I have not made an excel v. armor. Make any BS and T v. S you want and I'll tell you the increase or decrease so you can see for yourself. Add in any saves that would be possible.

The Bringer wrote:Twin-Linked weapons seem nice enough as is.

Maybe a nice rule to add on is when you roll a 6 you get two wounds instead of one.

I actually like that. That wouldn't slow the game down but I'm sure most players would complain & bellyache and whine about how much of an advantage that would give tyranids... As if we haven't lost some of our best assets in 5th already. It sure would make predator drivers with autocannons happy though. 2 rolls to penetrate armour if you actually hit? That'd be nice.

When I think of twin linked I think of spinegaunts. Each hand has a gun on it. In my world I see one fist missing by a foot or so and then the gaunt firing the second one and hitting. It seems to me that all twin-linked weapons should at least have 2 shots though... How can you only fire once and have 2 chances to hit (i.e. spinegaunts again)?

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:How can you only fire once and have 2 chances to hit (i.e. spinegaunts again)?

My only answer is this: 40k is a game, and it won't ever be a perfect simulation of real life. This is probably the best rule they could make and still keep the game balanced at the same time.

@ Grunt : My proposed rules address your gripe better than the current rules, though I think you're misunderstanding how "Twin Linked" fires, which is both at the same time aimed at the same target, rather than firing one, then the other if you miss, rather than the obvious idea of firing both and if you have time for more shots shoot more.

EDIT : Adding the following examples:

Space Marines Firing Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter at Guardsmen out of cover.

BS4 S5 v. T3 AP4 v. SV5+

Current System = 2.22 Guard Dead
Proposed System = 1.94 Guard Dead
Ratio = 88% Proposed/Current

With Cover 4+ Saves
C = 1.11 wounds
P = 1.32 wounds
R = 119%

Guard Firing Twin Linked Autocannon at Space Marines.
BS3 S7vT4 AO4vSV3
C = 0.42
P = 0.63
R = 152%

As you can see, the differences are not dramatic, but are a marginal difference that would make you actually think about what is better to twin-link and what targets to choose with twin-linked. This is another layer with a simple modification that pretty much just adds to the game for just a few more seconds of time (considering few battles outside of Apocalypse will have many twin linked weapons in odd enough configurations to dramatically extend a battle, and Apoc. takes all day anyhow so the difference would be relatively negligible anyhow).

The Bringer wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:How can you only fire once and have 2 chances to hit (i.e. spinegaunts again)?

My only answer is this: 40k is a game, and it won't ever be a perfect simulation of real life. This is probably the best rule they could make and still keep the game balanced at the same time.

Well obviously... I guess I'd rather err on the side of simplicity than of life-like-ness. I still think there's a better way to do twin linked that makes more logical sense without adding a ton of rules.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Grunt : My proposed rules address your gripe better than the current rules, though I think you're misunderstanding how "Twin Linked" fires, which is both at the same time aimed at the same target, rather than firing one, then the other if you miss, rather than the obvious idea of firing both and if you have time for more shots shoot more.

Well you just said what I said I think: "Which is both at the same time aimed at the same target". You just said that there are 2 shots being fire instead of just one. Which is what I said, just with a few more words. In my example the spinegaunt fires twice at different times. What you just said is that the spinegaunt would fire both at the same time. I don't see the difference, save for the timing. See what I mean?

Timing is the key, my friend. If you fire both your weapons aimed at the same point you are either hit or you are miss with both shots. Stagger that timing and you can correct, but that would only matter if your weapons are effectively single shot/very low rate of fire. But since 85% of the weapons Twin-Linked are not slow firing (lascannons ARE slow firing but they are not ever depicted as being utilized differently as all the other twin-linked weapons but we should NOT get into that argument again!), why not just put more rounds down and correct as you fire dual weapons!

I would like to mention TL Blast ... why do you only get to reroll to hit? these things might miss but they're still going to explode. I think that any TL blast weapon should also get, at the very least, a reroll to wound.

Tri wrote:I would like to mention TL Blast ... why do you only get to reroll to hit? these things might miss but they're still going to explode. I think that any TL blast weapon should also get, at the very least, a reroll to wound.

If it was a re-roll to wound, that would imply ammunition is somehow getting more powerful. Getting shot at by four bolters instead of two bolters doesn't make an individual bolter bullet any more dangerous. It just means there is a lot more ammunition in the air, and more likely to hit you. If the bolt hits you it doesn't make it any more powerful (a heavier load, or an armor piercing round) than it was before.

Twin-linking means "more stuff flying at you" it does not mean "the stuff flying at you gets stronger". If we were to use a real world example (which I don't like doing but maybe it can help illustrate the idea). No matter how many pistols are firing at a tank, they're never going to damage it because the pistol bullet it always the same. The more pistols shooting, the more shots will hit, though it's still hitting with the same ammunition.

EasyE wrote:

Tri wrote:I would like to mention TL Blast ... why do you only get to reroll to hit? these things might miss but they're still going to explode. I think that any TL blast weapon should also get, at the very least, a reroll to wound.

If it was a re-roll to wound, that would imply ammunition is somehow getting more powerful. Getting shot at by four bolters instead of two bolters doesn't make an individual bolter bullet any more dangerous. It just means there is a lot more ammunition in the air, and more likely to hit you. If the bolt hits you it doesn't make it any more powerful (a heavier load, or an armor piercing round) than it was before.

Twin-linking means "more stuff flying at you" it does not mean "the stuff flying at you gets stronger". If we were to use a real world example (which I don't like doing but maybe it can help illustrate the idea). No matter how many pistols are firing at a tank, they're never going to damage it because the pistol bullet it always the same. The more pistols shooting, the more shots will hit, though it's still hitting with the same ammunition.

? ok so what happened to the other explosion ? Say i roll for scatter. Its bad i only hit 1 guy ... so i reroll now i hit 3 people ... So what the hell happend to the explosion that hit the first guy?

Skin, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting the idea that twin-linked guns fire both barrels at exactly the same time. They fire "together" but it's not like there's one primer for the 2 rounds in the gun. Increased chance to hit can be easily justified if you think of the barrels taking turns firing as opposed to shooting two parallel shots at the same time. Saying they hit together or miss together would be like saying that a model should roll 1 die to hit and then either hit with all of his shots or miss with all of them.

But, more to the point, if they made TL weapons do silly things with other rerolls, then they wouldn't do what they're supposed to do. Ultimately, the rules are set up to make the game run, not to fit perfectly into every possible interpretation of the fluff. TL is there to make weapons more accurate, maybe they could have found a better thing to call it. Maybe sighted weapons or some such but I think orkz using sighted weapons is more of a violation of fluff than TL.

What TL essentially does is double your hits (I know it's not quite this, don't bother me with math, that's not the point) Well, if you double your hits against a low-toughness unit instead of rerolling wounds, you're going to see more dead bodies. Whereas a high toughness model would take more wounds from the rerolling of wounds/successful saves. That doesn't seem right to me. TL weaponry should mow down the most guardsmen but just be so many more bullets bouncing off the hide of a Carnifex.

Deffgob wrote:Skin, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting the idea that twin-linked guns fire both barrels at exactly the same time. They fire "together" but it's not like there's one primer for the 2 rounds in the gun. Increased chance to hit can be easily justified if you think of the barrels taking turns firing as opposed to shooting two parallel shots at the same time. Saying they hit together or miss together would be like saying that a model should roll 1 die to hit and then either hit with all of his shots or miss with all of them.

But, more to the point, if they made TL weapons do silly things with other rerolls, then they wouldn't do what they're supposed to do. Ultimately, the rules are set up to make the game run, not to fit perfectly into every possible interpretation of the fluff. TL is there to make weapons more accurate, maybe they could have found a better thing to call it. Maybe sighted weapons or some such but I think orkz using sighted weapons is more of a violation of fluff than TL.

What TL essentially does is double your hits (I know it's not quite this, don't bother me with math, that's not the point) Well, if you double your hits against a low-toughness unit instead of rerolling wounds, you're going to see more dead bodies. Whereas a high toughness model would take more wounds from the rerolling of wounds/successful saves. That doesn't seem right to me. TL weaponry should mow down the most guardsmen but just be so many more bullets bouncing off the hide of a Carnifex.

Deffgob, I don't know where to start here, so I think the best place is to just disregard your post entirely, but then I don't think you'll learn anything.

It is pretty much 100% accepted and verified that Twin Linked weapons fire simultaneously, and what you're thinking of is Rate of Fire, which is represented by the number of shots a weapon has. And you are correct in one regard, however, the current system is more likely designed for simplicity and speed, but that's not the point of this thread, which is to discuss an alternative system that might be felt to be more "realistic" to how "Twin Linked" weapons are described as actually operate. There are a few people poking in here spouting out about seperate firing Twin Linked weapons, but I can guarantee with a 99% certainty that there isn't a single description or portrayal of Twin Linked weapons firing in a non-double shot way. The only reason to argue otherwise is because it helps fit your solution and there GW hasn't actually said that Twin Linked weapons only fire one way. This ideaology is akin to putting the cart before the horse. From a simple physics problem, it makes sense, but the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't, and if we could actually take this horse and cart out and try it the two ways, the later thought of Twin Linked weapons (the one folks like Deffgob keep proposing) just wouldn't make sense. If you want more individual shots, then get a weapon with double Rate of Fire and take away half the shots that hit and reroll those that missed. Why fire only once when you can twice. Don't be stupid, stop being idiots, and accept the truth for what it is, otherwise start your own thread arguing about reality, I'm sure plenty of people on the internet would join you to argue about stupid things.

As for your last paragraph; What? You basically just said "The game should be totally out of balance favoring these guys and boning these guys for no particular reason, and all the facts I am stating don't even make sense!" I'm sorry, but your whole post deserves and "EPIC FAIL" stamp.