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.

If it matters that much, they could just give the tank's main gun better BS than the sponsons; 3+ heavy twin-linked las with 4+ heavy las sponsons.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If it matters that much, they could just give the tank's main gun better BS than the sponsons; 3+ heavy twin-linked las with 4+ heavy las sponsons.

You think it doesn't matter that a tank's main gun isn't its most effective weapon? And that two individual lascannons are somehow more effective than two strapped together?

And yes, the way BS works in 10th seems like a prime way to differentiate weapons such as this, but GW has to remember that...

I think it's important that the main gun is better than either of the sponsons individually but that's about as far as I strongly care about the matter. If the main gun has specific bonuses to make it better than everything else the tank shoots that's fine, if it doesn't then that's fine too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If it matters that much, they could just give the tank's main gun better BS than the sponsons; 3+ heavy twin-linked las with 4+ heavy las sponsons.

You think it doesn't matter that a tank's main gun isn't its most effective weapon? And that two individual lascannons are somehow more effective than two strapped together?

And yes, the way BS works in 10th seems like a prime way to differentiate weapons such as this, but GW has to remember that...

You do realize that right now, two Lascannons are better than one Twin Lascannon?
Exact same, but with the ability to split fire if needed, for a pretty minor boost.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I... I don't really get your complaint.
Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.

Can you articulate why this is such a big deal?

Because Lightning Claws wouldn't exist in this new set up. They're just Power Weapon (Twin-Linked), and become no different to someone wielding a Power Axe and Power Sword at the same time, both of which are also now "Power Weapons". It also makes single lightning claws into nothing basically. They're just "power weapons".

I think that's boring. I think that in an effort to make things "Simple, not simplistic", they are making things grey-scale.

As someone who has used Lightning Claws, both paired and singular, heavily in both my characters and Champions (as it is "in character" for my preferred Legion), I find this concept offensive.

Good thing that I play a game that has the good sense to make Lightning Claws distinctive compared to other Power Weapons, I guess, instead of the absolute show that 10th edition is shaping up to be.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?

[

Yea. Good luck making things less lethal without weakening damage output.

Of course we could add more defensive layers. Howabout luck save? Roll dice for each damage and on 5+ ignored. This in addition to fnp's etc :>

Ideally, a giant, twin-barreled, turret mounted Lascannon would be more dangerous than a small sponson mounted Lascannon. It took the Rules Designers until some point between producing the 9th Edition Codex Space Marines (and Death Guard and Thousand Sons) and 9th Edition Chaos Codex Space Marine to make that reality.

Still, I take heart in the fact they did make that jump before 10th Edition rolled around.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Do you not want lethality to go down?

That's a near non-sequitur. Yes, leathatlity does need to go down, but not at the expense of common sense.

If the sponsons on an Annihilator are more effective than a tanks main gun, that strikes me as a problem.

Twinlinked has spent most of its existence as a re-roll buff. The whole doubling of shots bit came about in 8th. This is very much a "return to form".

And on that front... It's also always been that way. I can flip open by 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th ed SM codex and find that, if I want to throw all lascannons onto my predator tank, the two "sponsons" are technically capable of more damage than the "main gun". However the TL main-gun has a reroll, meaning that it's point-for-point better than either of the sponsons because it's more likely to actually hurt its target.

This feels like such a weird, pointless hill to die on. The main gun is still more dangerous than an individual sponson because of the reroll aspect, and "But my sponsons could do more damage if they both hit, both wound, and both saves are failed!" has been a thing for as long as 40k vehicles have been a thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Exact same, but with the ability to split fire if needed, for a pretty minor boost.

Their damage output is identical. Two shots, same strength, AP and damage. The shift to the TL one just being a re-roll to wound dramatically decreases its potential damage output vs two separate weapons, making two individual weapons more effective than two of the same weapons strapped together.

The tactical implications over selecting targets are a whole separate issue.

But as Alex correctly pointed out, the turret gun may have a different profile to the sponson weapons, and GW might use the differing ballistic skill and "weapon abilities" rules to further differentiate them and make turret weapons better than their lesser brethren, so this entire discussion might be moot.

 morganfreeman wrote:
This feels like such a weird, pointless hill to die on.

It's illogical. Why do two weapons strapped together do less damage than two of the same weapons that aren't???

tneva82 wrote:
Yea. Good luck making things less lethal without weakening damage output.

Yeah you clearly don't understand the point being made...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This part is new information, and as according, I retract my statement.

However, I still don't really care too much for the difference. Power swords, power mauls, power axes, and now power claws (probably a fine way to refer to them) doesn't really irk me. There's been plenty more changes made, and this one isn't particularly egregious.

It can be one, when your entire army infantry carries or can carry a plethora of once different power weapons. Even more so when some of the weapons are part of what constitutes your anti tank, and now it just became a power sword in a world of higher T vehicles and monsters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
This feels like such a weird, pointless hill to die on.

It's illogical. Why do two weapons strapped together do less damage than two of the same weapons that aren't???

Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

One more time, for the people in the back, Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

This is not some bizarre utter reworking of a rule, it's returning a rule to the capacity it filled for 20 years.

So far as logic goes? This is a game where space knights charge through heavy weapons fire to stab their enemies with chainsaw swords. Logic was checked at the door, and that's not even getting into the weeds of 40ks stupidity as a setting. If you really, really, really need something? Two bullets (or laser blasts) hitting the exact same spot do not deal more damage in a technical sense; the first simply makes the second more likely to penetrate now damaged defenses and thereby inflict appreciable harm.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's illogical. Why do two weapons strapped together do less damage than two of the same weapons that aren't???

There are logical reasons why twin mounts are not twice as good as single mounts.

It could be that the power conduits feeding twin-linked guns tend to be less robust than those feeding single mounts, or that vibrations from both guns firing at once means that a twin-mount of ballistic weapons can't keep on target as easily as two of those weapons across multiple mounts. The second one happened IRL to US battleships before they figured out the harmonics created by firing their weapons and corrected the issue.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

One more time, for the people in the back, Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.

You keep repeating this like it has some special deep significance or meaning. You didn't even stop to ask: Was that a good rule back then?

 morganfreeman wrote:
So far as logic goes? This is a game where space knights charge through heavy weapons fire to stab their enemies with chainsaw swords.

How many times... *sigh*

You realise this argument doesn't function? The more fantastical the setting, the more noticeable the deviations from reality become. We can accept a towering machine with a giant chainsaw fighting a hellish beast made of willpower from another dimension, but it only makes the differences in the mundane more stark.

Two guns? Good! Two guns slightly closer together? Less good... for some reason...? What?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It could be that the power conduits feeding twin-linked guns tend to be less robust than those feeding single mounts, or that vibrations from both guns firing at once means that a twin-mount of ballistic weapons can't keep on target as easily as two of those weapons across multiple mounts. The second one happened IRL to US battleships before they figured out the harmonics created by firing their weapons and corrected the issue.

Nice of you to join us. You've provided an actual counter-argument beyond "They used to be a re-roll".

I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.

Just some more spitballing at this same idea.

There are reasons we don't double up on primary weapons on things smaller than ships. It's been tried with tanks and generally, the ergonomics were terrible and everybody decided that a single sufficiently powerful weapon worked just as well as a pair. The same goes for infantry and support weapons outside of the AA roll where massed bullets were basically used as flak to score [b]any[/b[ hits on a fast target with a short engagement window.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nice of you to join us. You've provided an actual counter-argument beyond "They used to be a re-roll".

I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.

It might just be a not-very-good design that gets used because that's what's in the STL. Perhaps it ends up that expected battle damage tends to leave at least one of the pair of weapons functional after expedient field repairs and that's worth each turret-mounted weapon being less efficient when they're both working. There are plenty of logical reasons why two guns crammed on a mount are enough worse than those same guns over a pair of mounts that I can accept re-roll wounds as a compromise solution because other options are too powerful.

As an ork player I am kinda sad it isn’t reroll hits anymore, plus the idea of it being hits makes a bit more sense than wounds. Hits makes me think- shoot more bullets in same area hit more things. Wound rerolls makes me think you’re robin hooding the exact same point the last lascannon hit didn’t penetrate

Personally I am on the Twin-Linked should be double the shots train.
Mainly because it is two guns, they may be shooting at the same target but it is still two guns.

I think of it like this gun, it's a quad gun but the principal is the same (two Twin-Linked maybe)

Sure. Just halve shots of individual weapon then. Heavy bolter 2 shots etc

Twin linking guns is something that is mostly done for rapid fire Anti Air weapons, simply because it makes it easier to actually hit the target if you fire more shots. It doesn't make your hits more dangerous. It will also not double the amount of shots you hit, like if 2 different platforms were shooting at that target. So for this kind of weapons the best representation is a bonus to hit.


If applied to single shot weapons, then that concept is lost, you aim at the target and fire with both barrels. If you shoot with a double lascannon then yes the actual effect is that you are more likely to inflict lethal damage since the area affected is bigger, assuming that the target is large enough. It isn't in any way the same as shooting two laser cannons at two different points, so the best rule representation is a bonus to wound.

If firing with a rapid fire weapon at a big target, then you are probably hitting with twice as many shots, and spreading them over a sufficiently large area where the single damages inflicted are independent. In this case the best representation is double the amount of shots. Were this rule version really doesn't work is against infantry targets. You can't tell me that a double barreled lascannon is conveniently nailing 2 marines.

So reroll to hit, reroll to wound and double shots are all abstractions which fall flat to represent something. You have to decide which one works best for you.

One can easily imagine that the two Lascannons simply alternate to give the system a higher rate of fire. That would be the two-shots version.

Or assume that they fire together to focus on one point in a mighty combo-blast. That could be wound-twice or reroll to wound.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.

Something to consider is that sponsons don't really exist on modern tanks and haven't since (IIRC) the early WW2 era. They were basically replaced by the turret, which provided far better firing arcs (and probably far better accuracy).

However, when sponsons did exist (generally on WW1-era tanks), they were the main guns.

Thus, since many 40k vehicles have chosen to have both sponsons and turrets, you could see the former as still being main guns in the own right (not just secondary or point-defence weapons).

You can see examples of this even on some of the more alien tanks. For example, the Dark Eldar Ravager has the exact same weapons on its sponsons as it's central platform.

Twin Linked should go back to doubling the number of HITS.

 Insectum7 wrote:


There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.

Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.

Something to consider is that sponsons don't really exist on modern tanks and haven't since (IIRC) the early WW2 era. They were basically replaced by the turret, which provided far better firing arcs (and probably far better accuracy).

However, when sponsons did exist (generally on WW1-era tanks), they were the main guns.

Land Raiders!

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.

Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.

The novels are sometimes inconsistent, and the aithors are often pretty bad. . .

But a Chaos Lord with a Powerfist could take out a Warhound in 3rd, I believe. The Powerfist could Glance/Pen AV 13/14, a Chaos Lord also could have Daemonic Strength, and a Meltagun could likewise Glance/Pen once past the Void Shields. Moreover, the Powerfist both in game and in lore is depicted as a capable AT weapon from RT through 7th, arguably still. A Chainfist would be better, but the Fist will suffice.

Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

 Nevelon wrote:
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.

Just chainfist your way through them.

Honestly I'm fine with vehicles being a lot harder to take down.

What I'm not ok with is the de facto removal of degradation. It would have been a nice trade off if they were harder to damage but damaging them was actually significant and made them degrade.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.

Dudes. We literally have chainfists.

As for the TL uproar. A TL LC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.

Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.

The novels are sometimes inconsistent, and the aithors are often pretty bad. . .

But a Chaos Lord with a Powerfist could take out a Warhound in 3rd, I believe. The Powerfist could Glance/Pen AV 13/14, a Chaos Lord also could have Daemonic Strength, and a Meltagun could likewise Glance/Pen once past the Void Shields. Moreover, the Powerfist both in game and in lore is depicted as a capable AT weapon from RT through 7th, arguably still. A Chainfist would be better, but the Fist will suffice.

Titans had Structure Points(the OG version where you had to do 3 "wounds" per SP) and a separate Super Heavy damage table in 3rd.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.

Dudes. We literally have chainfists.

As for the TL uproar. A TL LC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.

Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.

Yes? So you did more damage to it.

It took out in book. As long as it can damage in game no disconnect.

Maybe it was on last sp.

Jupt because lord took out in story doesn't mean in game it has to effortlessly one shot...