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.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

You're not really wasting one shot, since they hit slightly apart and shooting a person twice is more likely to kill them than shooting them once.

You just said in a post fluff has no place in tabletop, so that heavy bolter is only firing 3 shots. It may have a high RoF in the books, but it only fires 3 bolts a turn in-game, besides, it wouldn't make much sense if a space marine went full auto into a crowd of people and only killed 3, would it?

No I didn't.

I said the tabletop matters in this case, not that the lore doesn't also matter.

Also the amount of detail you would need to put into the game to make it represent every battlefield situation totally accurately would turn WH40k into an RPG instead of what it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

Actually... a twin-linked weapon is simply two identical weapons mounted together, aimed parallel to each other, slaved to fire in unison.

Well, since the game assumes half your shots automatically miss I would say you are wasting your shots.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, since the game assumes half your shots automatically miss I would say you are wasting your shots.

...What?

My argument is that twin-linked would be better represented as a re-roll to wound than a hit counting as two hits.

It's almost the same thing, except you don't get the option to kill two models where you should only have killed one.

Because the reason to say you get a hit to count as two hits is because that hit probably landed both shots from the weapon on the target.

 Pouncey wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

You're not really wasting one shot, since they hit slightly apart and shooting a person twice is more likely to kill them than shooting them once.

You just said in a post fluff has no place in tabletop, so that heavy bolter is only firing 3 shots. It may have a high RoF in the books, but it only fires 3 bolts a turn in-game, besides, it wouldn't make much sense if a space marine went full auto into a crowd of people and only killed 3, would it?

No I didn't.

I said the tabletop matters in this case, not that the lore doesn't also matter.

Also the amount of detail you would need to put into the game to make it represent every battlefield situation totally accurately would turn WH40k into an RPG instead of what it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

Actually... a twin-linked weapon is simply two identical weapons mounted together to aim parallel to each other slaved to fire in unison.

The way you said it made it sound like that. Besides, the point still stands. Fluff doesn't make any sense for the fast-shooting weapons. However, a twin-linked weapon like a las-cannon is simply another weapon strapped to a different one. I don't think it's ever stated they have to fire in unison. However, the pilot most likely fires at the same time for a higher chance of hitting (which you would think would translate to 2 shots).

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, since the game assumes half your shots automatically miss I would say you are wasting your shots.

...What?

My argument is that twin-linked would be better represented as a re-roll to wound than a hit counting as two hits.

It's almost the same thing, except you don't get the option to kill two models where you should only have killed one.

My argument is that doesn't make any sense since clearly more than one model can be hit by a gunner who doesn't blow his entore magazine on one target. Who in the right mind would design a side by side mounted pair of Lascannons but only allowed simultaneous fire? Most double barrelled weapons in real life allow the gunner a choice whether to fire one or both barrels at the same time.

I did mean they fire in unison, I had a poor choice of words.

Also I still say it's better to represent them as two shots.

Two barrels, unless calibrated to hit the exact same point, will produce two different effects on the target.

For example, two lascannon shots going into a tank; one shot can take out a crew member while another might just graze his neck and take out the magazine rack behind him. In game terms this is a Crew Shaken and Weapon Destroyed/Explodes! result.

Similarly, shooting a Daemon prince like this will not produce one hole on his body, but two.

The only scenario where it would only produce one result would be if you somehow aimed to graze the target rather than center of mass. Otherwise both guns have to continually re-calibrate to adjust for distance to hit at the exact same point, which is not only a complete waste of time, but also unfeasable for many of the "twin linked" weapons we have (especially a Dreadnought TL lascannon, since the barrels can't move independently of each other).

GW probably got the idea from real-life shotguns, who use the same principle to compensate for the user's lack of marksmanship. However, there's a reason why Shotguns are instead wildly known as crowd-control weapons rather than a poor marksman's rifle.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I did mean they fire in unison, I had a poor choice of words.

Also I still say it's better to represent them as two shots.

Two barrels, unless calibrated to hit the exact same point, will produce two different effects on the target.

For example, two lascannon shots going into a tank; one shot can take out a crew member while another might just graze his neck and take out the magazine rack behind him. In game terms this is a Crew Shaken and Weapon Destroyed/Explodes! result.

Similarly, shooting a Daemon prince like this will not produce one hole on his body, but two.

The only scenario where it would only produce one result would be if you somehow aimed to graze the target rather than center of mass. Otherwise both guns have to continually re-calibrate to adjust for distance to hit at the exact same point, which is not only a complete waste of time, but also unfeasable for many of the "twin linked" weapons we have (especially a Dreadnought TL lascannon, since the barrels can't move independently of each other).

GW probably got the idea from real-life shotguns, who use the same principle to compensate for the user's lack of marksmanship. However, there's a reason why Shotguns are instead wildly known as crowd-control weapons rather than a poor marksman's rifle.

And my problem with representing it as extra rolls to hit or extra rolls to wound instead of a re-roll is that doubling the rate of fire means that you can easily kill two different models that are not actually close together.

Imagine firing a twin-linked bolter at one guy, and the guy ten feet to the left of anywhere your bullets went also got killed from your shots.

That would be absurd, but it would be a situation that happens all the time with twin-linked giving you extra dice instead of re-rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, since the game assumes half your shots automatically miss I would say you are wasting your shots.

...What?

My argument is that twin-linked would be better represented as a re-roll to wound than a hit counting as two hits.

It's almost the same thing, except you don't get the option to kill two models where you should only have killed one.

My argument is that doesn't make any sense since clearly more than one model can be hit by a gunner who doesn't blow his entore magazine on one target. Who in the right mind would design a side by side mounted pair of Lascannons but only allowed simultaneous fire? Most double barrelled weapons in real life allow the gunner a choice whether to fire one or both barrels at the same time.

The Imperium, because that. Is how. They work.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Twin-linked

A twin-linked weapon is effectively two weapons of the same type positioned next to each other firing in tandem, therefore increasing the chances that the selected target will be hit.

This is why I'm in favor of a re-roll. Either you hit the guy you're aiming at more often, or you kill the guy you hit more often. This is how the weapon should work, and adding extra dice instead of a re-roll lets you kill people you weren't even aiming at.

Which is why I pointed to the old Co-Axial rules, those represented it better because you fire off a "warning" shot that might hit the enemy, then aim with the second weapon slaved to it to fire a more precise shot (I forgot if in-game it was represented by a BS boost or giving rerolls just like a TL Weapon). The Baneblade's Co-Axial Autocannon is the most iconic weapon with that rule. That would be the closest "realistic" representation than the rerolling to hit.

However those rules were needlessly complex. The current reroll mechanic is a good stopgap, but it's a Voodoo Shark as far as I'm concerned and just so much easier to say "look it's just two weapons on the same mount ok?"

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Which is why I pointed to the old Co-Axial rules, those represented it better because you fire off a "warning" shot that might hit the enemy, then aim with the second weapon slaved to it to fire a more precise shot (I forgot if in-game it was represented by a BS boost or giving rerolls just like a TL Weapon). The Baneblade's Co-Axial Autocannon is the most iconic weapon with that rule. That would be the closest "realistic" representation than the rerolling to hit.

However those rules were needlessly complex. The current reroll mechanic is a good stopgap, but it's a Voodoo Shark as far as I'm concerned and just so much easier to say "look it's just two weapons on the same mount ok?"

Coaxial was more of a thing where you effectively use a lesser weapon as a sight for the other more powerful one, rather than two weapons being equally valuable in their damage potential.

@Pouncey

Using a rule to justify that rules existence is a circular argument.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Pouncey

Using a rule to justify that rules existence is a circular argument.

Well okay then.

I guess you're saying that Twin-linked shouldn't be a thing at all?

Though I didn't actually use the rule itself. I used the stated fluff for the thing that rule represents.

So I used the rule's lore to justify the rule's existence. Which is fine with me.

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Pouncey

Using a rule to justify that rules existence is a circular argument.

Well okay then.

I guess you're saying that Twin-linked shouldn't be a thing at all?

Though I didn't actually use the rule itself. I used the stated fluff for the thing that rule represents.

So I used the rule's lore to justify the rule's existence. Which is fine with me.

No, you're using the reason why a rule exists the way it does as a justification in of itself of it's existence rather than using the merits of the rule itself. I understand the explanation but I disagree with how twin-linked works in of itself.

And I think there should be a re-roll mechanic but just universally applying it to every Imperial weapon on a twin mount makes no sense. A twin linked weapon should be a weapon that fires twice but can't qualify for split fire.

The reason I bring up Co-axial weapons is that they're actually used in real life for the same function as what the Twin Linked rule claims it does. The rifle mounted is either an alternative weapon to the tank's main gun, or a Spotter Rifle that uses cheaper, more abundant ammunition to fire "test shots" before the more expensive shells are fired. In both cases, this is done so as to not waste the far more expensive tank shells.

There's a reason that any weapon that even remotely resembles a twin-linked weapon in real life generally is used for "spray and pray" operations, because when you fire two guns at the same target, you're expecting them to hit two different things, even if those two things are close to each other. Again, the Shotgun metaphor works here because that's literally what a Shotgun was designed to do.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Pouncey

Using a rule to justify that rules existence is a circular argument.

Well okay then.

I guess you're saying that Twin-linked shouldn't be a thing at all?

Though I didn't actually use the rule itself. I used the stated fluff for the thing that rule represents.

So I used the rule's lore to justify the rule's existence. Which is fine with me.

No, you're using the reason why a rule exists the way it does as a justification in of itself of it's existence rather than using the merits of the rule itself. I understand the explanation but I disagree with how twin-linked works in of itself.

You... disagree with the actual lore on how twin-linked weapons work? Because I quoted Lexicanum, which is a lore site, not a rules site.

I don't disagree that twin-linked weapons are dumb for working the way that they do, but most of what the Imperium does is stupid anyways so that's par for the course.

And if you won't accept the official lore as valid, is there really anything more that I can offer as evidence?

I mean, I could ask you to go look up footage of Dawn of War (the video game) units firing twin-linked weapons, but that's about it, really.

And I think there should be a re-roll mechanic but just universally applying it to every Imperial weapon on a twin mount makes no sense. A twin linked weapon should be a weapon that fires twice but can't qualify for split fire.

Just, tell me, what more can I offer as evidence that twin-linked weapons fire together and aren't a one-or-the-other at-will deal? I will try to find it for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The reason I bring up Co-axial weapons is that they're actually used in real life for the same function as what the Twin Linked rule claims it does. The rifle mounted is either an alternative weapon to the tank's main gun, or a Spotter Rifle that uses cheaper, more abundant ammunition to fire "test shots" before the more expensive shells are fired. In both cases, this is done so as to not waste the far more expensive tank shells.

And hence is not relevant since twin-linked weapons are the same weapon twice, not two different types of weapons.

There's a reason that any weapon that even remotely resembles a twin-linked weapon in real life generally is used for "spray and pray" operations, because when you fire two guns at the same target, you're expecting them to hit two different things, even if those two things are close to each other. Again, the Shotgun metaphor works here because that's literally what a Shotgun was designed to do.

With twin-linked weapons, those two different things are close enough together that they're usually the same person or thing, you're just hitting the same thing in two different places.

A lore quote stating twin-linked Lascannons can only fire in unison. But at this point I don't think I can convince you of my point of view and you can't convince me so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

CustomLime already knows the two guns fire at the exact same time. Me and him are pointing out that in-universe, this is a comically inept way to do things as the only way to produce the results as represented by the rules is if every time the gun fired, one of it's two barrels completely missed the target. Which means the gunner is INTENTIONALLY missing with one barrel each time, to the point that he won't even accidentally hit anything else other than the point he's looking at.

If anyone is that good of a marksman, one wonders why his superiors don't just tell him to not intentionally miss with the second barrel.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A lore quote stating twin-linked Lascannons can only fire in unison. But at this point I don't think I can convince you of my point of view and you can't convince me so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

According to the Lexicanum page on Twin-Linked Weapons, the 4th edition book "Warhammer 40,000: Wargear" describes twin-linked weapons as "firing in tandem", with one of the listed twin-linked weapons being lascannons.

I don't actually have that book myself, but I'm not sure why you would take my word for what the book says if you wouldn't take Lexicanum's word for it, and if you want verification you'd have to actually own the book and thus I should say you should tell me what it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
CustomLime already knows the two guns fire at the exact same time. Me and him are pointing out that in-universe, this is a comically inept way to do things as the only way to produce the results as represented by the rules is if every time the gun fired, one of it's two barrels completely missed the target. Which means the gunner is INTENTIONALLY missing with one barrel each time, to the point that he won't even accidentally hit anything else other than the point he's looking at.

If anyone is that good of a marksman, one wonders why his superiors don't just tell him to not intentionally miss with the second barrel.

No it wouldn't.

If you re-roll and get a hit the first time, that doesn't mean if you re-rolled anyways you'd always miss. The extra damage isn't represented by that, but ultimately that's why I favor the re-roll being to wound, not to hit, since a re-roll to wound literally gives you a second chance to kill someone if you wouldn't have already.

Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A lore quote stating twin-linked Lascannons can only fire in unison. But at this point I don't think I can convince you of my point of view and you can't convince me so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

According to the Lexicanum page on Twin-Linked Weapons, the 4th edition book "Warhammer 40,000: Wargear" describes twin-linked weapons as "firing in tandem", with one of the listed twin-linked weapons being lascannons.

I don't actually have that book myself, but I'm not sure why you would take my word for what the book says if you wouldn't take Lexicanum's word for it, and if you want verification you'd have to actually own the book and thus I should say you should tell me what it says.

This is probably why:

Pouncey wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

Actually... a twin-linked weapon is simply two identical weapons mounted together, aimed parallel to each other, slaved to fire in unison.

At this point I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing with him or pointing out a contradiction.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A lore quote stating twin-linked Lascannons can only fire in unison. But at this point I don't think I can convince you of my point of view and you can't convince me so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

According to the Lexicanum page on Twin-Linked Weapons, the 4th edition book "Warhammer 40,000: Wargear" describes twin-linked weapons as "firing in tandem", with one of the listed twin-linked weapons being lascannons.

I don't actually have that book myself, but I'm not sure why you would take my word for what the book says if you wouldn't take Lexicanum's word for it, and if you want verification you'd have to actually own the book and thus I should say you should tell me what it says.

This is probably why:

Pouncey wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

Actually... a twin-linked weapon is simply two identical weapons mounted together, aimed parallel to each other, slaved to fire in unison.

At this point I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing with him or pointing out a contradiction.

I think we're all agreeing the current way of representing twin-linked is silly, and he and I both agree it should do extra damage to anything actually hit by the weapon instead of improving accuracy. I just disagree that that extra damage should come from an extra die instead of a re-roll, since the purpose of dealing extra damage to a person you hit necessitates that the extra damage go to the person you hit, and an extra die allows you to deal extra damage to someone else.

Would a twin-linked weapon let you kill faster, and thus swap targets more? Yes, but that's also represented by the re-roll to wound since it applies to every wound the weapon rolls for, not just one, thus making every die more likely to kill someone so the rest of your attacks can move on to someone else.

Also, I pointed out Co-Axial is meant to simulate what a Twin-Linked Weapon is suppose to do; make you more accurate. However this isn't what a Twin-Linked Weapon is ACTUALLY doing. It's actual results would be more like that of a shotgun, which is why I keep referring back to that.

Also you seem to only default back to "it can't hit anything that's not touching shoulder to shoulder", which is why in my example I included a Daemon Prince; a DP is huge, there's no way that one shot would completely miss a DP without intention, but being hit twice with a lascannon would definitely shave off two wounds from it. And yet somehow in the game when a Twin-Linked Weapon, which is described to be two of the same weapons firing together, hits him he only loses one wound, but two lascannons from the same platform (i.e: a predator) that aren't linked together somehow causes two wounds. And don't say that they might be hitting completely different areas; Why would they not all aim for the same center of mass?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I personally think the Twin Linked rule shouldn't exist, and they should find something else to represent a generic reroll for people that don't have master-crafted weapons or insane BS. Or at least it shouldn't be "justified" this way because it just sounds weirder the further you dig into it.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also, I pointed out Co-Axial is meant to simulate what a Twin-Linked Weapon is suppose to do; make you more accurate. However this isn't what a Twin-Linked Weapon is ACTUALLY doing. It's actual results would be more like that of a shotgun, which is why I keep referring back to that.

:: facepalms ::

Sorry, that was at my own stupidity, not yours. You had a good point I was missing.

I just realized that the Lexicanum quote mentions it increasing accuracy too. I only brought the quote up because it shows that both weapons fire together, not one at a time.

Yes, I agree that a twin-linked weapon likely would not increase accuracy in the lore. But a shotgun is designed with a spread of pellets over a large volume being its main appeal, and twin-linked weapons don't actually spray indiscriminately, they keep each weapon aimed in the same specific direction.

Also you seem to only default back to "it can't hit anything that's not touching shoulder to shoulder", which is why in my example I included a Daemon Prince; a DP is huge, there's no way that one shot would completely miss a DP without intention, but being hit twice with a lascannon would definitely shave off two wounds from it. And yet somehow in the game when a Twin-Linked Weapon, which is described to be two of the same weapons firing together, hits him he only loses one wound, but two lascannons from the same platform (i.e: a predator) that aren't linked together somehow causes two wounds. And don't say that they might be hitting completely different areas; Why would they not all aim for the same center of mass?

My concern was more about standard infantry. A lascannon that counts one hit as two, to be rolled separately, would work well if both of those wounds HAD to apply to the same model. But the way that wound allocation results work, they actually don't, so any time that the target is not a single, large model that can take more than one hit from a lascannon, counting each hit as two is liable to result in two people being killed by a twin-linked lascannon which, in fact, only hit one person. And if you simply go for doubling the damage of any wound dealt to avoid that problem, then it doesn't do any extra damage to models with 1 wound and hence there is no buff to be had to twin-link something like a heavy bolter firing at infantry, since they all die in one wound anyways.

So yes, I do agree that a re-roll to wound wouldn't be the ideal solution in every case. But ultimately, the three ways suggested of dealing extra damage all have problems:

-counting 1 hit as 2 lets you kill models who weren't actually hit.
-re-rolling to wound doesn't do extra damage to stuff that's too tough to die in one shot
-counting each wound as two doesn't do extra damage to anything weak enough to die in one shot
-combining any two or three methods makes the ability WAY more powerful than it should be.
-having very specific rules for how twin-linked weapons are handled slows the game down and makes it needlessly clunky, essentially similar to barrage blasts in 7th edition

So... How exactly do you do twin-linked weapons then as it pertains to the rules, if every possible solution is bad in some way?

And that's when I realized that improving accuracy without firing more shots increases effectiveness against all targets without letting you kill extra stuff, and can be represented simply through re-rolling to hit.

It's why I simply want them to remove Twin-linked weapons; there is no fixing the rule without making it sound more stupid as it goes. Those weapon mounts should just be two actual weapons. Trying to simulate how it is harder for the second barrel to hit will require even more rules, and complexity is never a good thing when you can just simplify.

As for the Mechanic of Rerolling, that's another issue entirely. I would just say that simple targeters would grant rerolls; they by definition are suppose to help the shooter aim, which would be a good representation of the increase accuracy afforded by a reroll, while also conveniently sidestepping how a common infantryman can have just as good of an accuracy as a centuries-old Chapter Master. This rule, like many other things in the game, has become an anachronism that if the game was made new today, would not be there at all.

Also yes this would buff existing models that have twin-linked weapons, but this can be easily balanced out by simply increasing their cost.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The idea is that unlike a bolter or some other fix-mounted weapon, the two twin-linked barrels are fired in tandem rather than rotate firing. So both shots land in the general vicinity of where you aimed, rather than allowing you to rapidly tap the trigger to fire at multiple targets.

That is the idea. However that idea is stupid because the entire reason to have a rapid-firing weapon with multiple barrels is to speed up the load time and reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Firing them both at the same time, at the same target, means that you're always wasting one shot (the idea is that both guns are hitting the same place), while still putting just as much wear and tear on the individual barrels as if you fired them singularly.

I like to interpret it differently for different weapons. For example, I view TL lascannons as firing more or less simultaneously. However, I imagine twin linked plasmas firing alternately (resulting in a close output to a regular plasma weapon, but dramatically reducing the chance of overheating).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
It's why I simply want them to remove Twin-linked weapons; there is no fixing the rule without making it sound more stupid as it goes. Those weapon mounts should just be two actual weapons. Trying to simulate how it is harder for the second barrel to hit will require even more rules, and complexity is never a good thing when you can just simplify.

As for the Mechanic of Rerolling, that's another issue entirely. I would just say that simple targeters would grant rerolls; they by definition are suppose to help the shooter aim, which would be a good representation of the increase accuracy afforded by a reroll, while also conveniently sidestepping how a common infantryman can have just as good of an accuracy as a centuries-old Chapter Master. This rule, like many other things in the game, has become an anachronism that if the game was made new today, would not be there at all.

Also yes this would buff existing models that have twin-linked weapons, but this can be easily balanced out by simply increasing their cost.

There is actually some reason to it though.

On the models, you can't actually aim or even move the two parts of a twin-linked weapon separately. If you change where one points, you also change where the other points.

It would be... weird, maybe confusing, to have two non-separate weapons being treated as completely separate weapons.

I mean, if they retool the model kits so that each instance of a twin-linked weapon is instead a single weapon, yeah, that'd work just fine. But there's enough twin-linked weapons out there that it would take years to get rid of them all.

So I guess... just don't expect it soon?

One of my friends is a gunsmith.

The combi-melta that the Blood Angels Terminator Librarian has just boggles the mind. There's a reason all guns with a secondary weapon has it underslung, not to the side of the barrel.

The actual design of the weapons is a different issue entirely, one which bugs me and my friend to no end. However at least existing twin-linked weapons make some sense; if they fire alternately then there is at least a small window of chance for the user to adjust his aim. Plus again there's always the chance of accidental hits, all of which would require too many rules to actually represent realistically on the tabletop beyond giving them an extra shot.

Guys...it's just a game mechanic. If you take this level of study to any rule (let alone anything) in 40K you'll end up walking in circles.

Re: Real firearms design. Whoooa boy...that's a road we don't need to go down. Nothing in the GW universe makes any mechanically sound sense.

The main part that bugs me is that the mechanic they're trying to represent has a very simple solution to it: A Targeter. They even have these on the models in the form of a high-tech scope.

The entire concept is the very definition of a Voodoo Shark trope.

Boy, I love 40k discussion pages.

@Pouncey, the game already is a big mess and there are far bigger fish to fry than "Your Twin-Linked Lascannon killed two models who were 4" apart" when flamers and other template weapons do not remove models that are.... under the template. Why can't my flamer kill what I want it to? Why are you removing casualities strictly from the front (or back/side if this is an early edition) when there are more valuable targets to hit. Joining a big ol Tyranid Warrior behind some gaunts somehow confuses soldiers into only hitting the things in front? (GW says you need to forge the narrative, your flamer guy was sweeping his flamer or something)

I play Star Wars Battlefront: 2 where there are plenty of weaponry that are compatible with the term "twin-linked" and yet I do successfully use both shots to kill different targets more frequently than one might imagine.

Why is all this a thing? Game Balance in the eye of the Developer at the time of writing the rules. I'd be down for Twin-Link weapons issuing double strikes against 1 target with one roll-to-hit, and if we use the Twin-Link cannon that it is "One shot in unison so the shooter is aiming them together at one target blah blah" then yes this makes sense. Why not re-roll to wound? If you wounded with the first, where did the other shot go, because you hit with both. But again, game balance would be needed such as... massively expensive guns.

It took Relic's Space Marine for, what I believe, they were trying to represent to really click with me in the form of the twin linked autocannon:

With a few exceptions, shooting attacks don't represent single bullets/bolts/whatever, instead they represent the firing model's loaded magazine being exhausted in shooting at a target.

With the heavy bolter this certainly makes more sense than a belt fed, crew served or vehicle mounted machine gun shooting only 3 bullets.

With the lascannon, autocannon, and several other 'heavy' weapons, exhausting the temporary magazine as a single shooting attack isn't exactly unreasonable. For example Space Marine gives the Lascannon 4 shots before a reload, and you need two or more body hits to kill a fully armoured marine without superior headshot skills (aka bs 6+, a reroll).

As such it begins to gel with the rest of the aesthetic if you visualise twin linked not as firing two shots at one target, but firing a standard magazine/capacitor/ammo belt at a target in half the time, making the most of an accurate shot against what we're told is a moving/ducking/reacting target.

In many cases this would apply to blast weapons as well, if you assume that the template is an abstraction instead of a perfectly circular explosion.

To use the Twin linked Stormshard Mortar on the Wyvern for example, the first blast from the barrage marks the centermost point of a wide and we would assume not perfectly circular bombardment. The twin linked element representing more shells hitting where it would do more damage. As such while particularly unpleasant for the chap on the receiving end, it's not 'unreasonable' to wipe out an entire unit of say 50 guardsmen marching 10 abreast whilst only actually hitting 5 of them in the middle 12 times.

It even makes sense applying it to the plasma cannon on the Stormraven and similar, twice the cooling/venting for the same amount of fire to justify rerolling the gets hot result, and just as many discrete explosions in half the time, with twin linked representing the best outcome.

I found once I started applying the 'magazine' assumption to the 40k armory, the actual weapons that can be twin linked started to make sense as to why they were chosen.

The only major exception I don't get is why grav cannons aren't blast weapons instead of heavy 5.

If More of my orks weapons were TL i would not mind at all , and by that other way your interpreting it I would love my Dakkagunz to fire 6 shots each. I would almost feel like an eldar player.