Twin-Linked

[Erasmus of Baal]

Could someone please defend the idea of TL weaponry to me? Why are these not treated as two weapons, since we have to fire at a single target anyways?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Could someone please defend the idea of TL weaponry to me? Why are these not treated as two weapons, since we have to fire at a single target anyways?

 

This isn't an official rule is it?

 

Anyway. It is just a rule and hopefully the points you pay for tl is appropriate. If it is not, don't use that weapon or use that weapon muchly, if it is too steep or too cheap, respectively.

 

I guess it is like co-axial firing or the idea of bracketing ~ shots fired allow you to adjust your aim.

Sort of like when you use a garden hose. Waggle it around and improve your aim.

[Erasmus of Baal]

This isn't an official rule is it?

 

Although this was indeed brought up by my recent attempts at creating custom characters, it really is about the basic point of why TL is even around, since it's just two guns.

 

Anyway. It is just a rule and hopefully the points you pay for tl is appropriate. If it is not, don't use that weapon or use that weapon muchly, if it is too steep or too cheap, respectively.

 

Well, yeah. I've always found TL weapons to be good for their pricing, I'm just talking about it fluffwise. I figured it should go in this forum since it's discussion of a rule.

 

I guess it is like co-axial firing or the idea of bracketing ~ shots fired allow you to adjust your aim.

Sort of like when you use a garden hose. Waggle it around and improve your aim.

 

Okay, I can understand that. That's pretty much what I was looking for, thank you. (Why I hadn't thought of it myself, I really don't know.)

[Frosty the Pyro]

Because there is generaly a limit to the amount of weapons you can fire.

[rat of vengence]

So you have the opportunity to miss twice with one shot :D

 

RoV

[nurglez]

I'm sure in 2nd edition twin linked meant you rolled to hit once but with 2 weapons, as opposed to the other way round, though I might be wrong.

[Hellios]

It is pretty much about game balance... in fluff terms you have two lascannons glued together... greater vchance to hit and maybe even twice the pain...

 

But yer it is game balance... Wraithlords who take two of the same weapon count them as twin-linked (and in this case that is waaaaaaaay over-priced... but that is elder heavy weapons for ya...) and then you have the war walker where they both count as two different weapons.... so yer... game balance...

[Frogstaff]

Could someone please defend the idea of TL weaponry to me? Why are these not treated as two weapons, since we have to fire at a single target anyways?

Area saturation - the more shots you put into a certain volume of space, the greater the chance of solidly hitting something. Works better when describing high rate of fire weapons, but not that much of a stretch to apply to things like lascannons.

 

It gives a weapon profile a more subtle improvement than simply doubling everything. Consider the power shift that would happen if standard land raiders fired four lascannon shots, or IG Hydras could unload sixteen autocannon rounds every turn.

[Valerian]

I'm sure in 2nd edition twin linked meant you rolled to hit once but with 2 weapons, as opposed to the other way round, though I might be wrong.

 

You are absolutely correct. Back in 2nd edition the rules mechanic actually made sense. Instead of counting as they do now, which is quite counterintuitive, the old rules had you roll a single dice to Hit. If you failed, then both weapons/shots failed because they were coaxially mounted systems that are pointed in the exact same direction. If your roll passed, then you Hit with both weapons off of a single die roll. Obviously, it used to be much more of a "feast or famine" result.

 

In 3rd Edition onward the game mechanic for Twin-linked weapons was inexplicably changed to the current reroll to Hit. It is still an advantage over a single weapon, and therefor worthwhile, however I prefer the old method as it just makes more sense.

 

V

[nurglez]

Aye, I much prefered this system too, makes more sense to me, and would prefer our landraider to fire 4 lascannon's and 6 heavy bolter shots :)

[Isiah]

[...], and would prefer our landraider to fire 4 lascannon's and 6 heavy bolter shots :tu:

 

Indeed and maybe that's why it was changed eh ;)

 

Cheers

I

[thade]

The rules do a poor job of explaining themselves in so many places; this is one of them. Saying that two guns fire as a "crude way of increasing it's accuracy" makes sense for Orks...but not Space Marines, you might think. So, what gives?

 

What gives is a method of point-balancing and budgeting: note the difference between a weapon that's Heavy 2 vs a weapon that's TL Heavy 1 in points. For X points, you get one gun. For Xx2 points, you effectively get two guns. View this instead as "For X points, you get P chance of hitting something once, and for Y points, you get P_2 chance of hitting something twice where P_2 > P." So for how many points would you say "hitting something once at P_3 where P_3 > P_2"? Well, for more points than one shot, and less points than two max possible hits.

 

It's just another option, and another way to shift and budget your points.

[Acebaur]

The rules do a poor job of explaining themselves in so many places; this is one of them. Saying that two guns fire as a "crude way of increasing it's accuracy" makes sense for Orks...but not Space Marines, you might think. So, what gives?

 

There are examples of this all over the rule book. Stuff that makes sense for one army and not another. Like wound allocation. You mean to tell me that a plasma gunner is the only one trained to use the weapon... in a Space Marine army? Please...though in an IG army, yeah I could see that. But in fairness to all armies you can't have specific armies gaining advantages like that, so oh well.

[thade]

The assumption there is that the guy shooting the plasma gun dies (as he's removed as a Casualty) and it's dumb that another guy in the unit can't pick up that plasma gun.

 

Several other things could be going on:

- The gun itself dies; the marine withdraws from the field to treat the holy weapon.

- The gun itself dies; in game terms this is represented by the model being lost. The marine is still there, shooting, fighting, but doesn't have a real game effect for the rest of the match.

- The marine withdraws from the field and keeps his weapon: casualty does not mean "dead".

[pingo]

Also, obviously, it stops all the most deadly weapons always sticking around to the bitter end. Every single time. While that might make some sense 'for real', it kind of goofs up the game and means you don't really have much of a chance to eliminate these potent weapons. It provides that random element which makes the game more unpredictable. Imagine that the only way to get rid of a power fist is to kill 9 tactical marines first. At least now if you deal out enough wounds, powerfist guy has a chance to bite the big one early.

 

I think there is a necessary dichotomy between rules or stats and fluff in 40K. Marines are the classic example of stats not matching fluff. I mean, going on fluff marines would have, I dunno, 2 wounds, feel no pain, better armour, better guns, a tweak in WS and BS, and, well, everything basically. But that would not make for a balanced game.

 

Rules are kind of similar. There has to be an amount of abstraction to provide a workable (and simple) system. Re-rolling to hit for twin-linked might not make sense literally, but what it does do is increase the likelihood of causing damage but an amount that seems sensible, and about right in terms of game balance.

 

Look at it like this: while the mechanism might not make sense, the effect absolutely does. At the end of the day, the effects of dice rolls matter in the outcome of the game.

 

Also, don't allow the literalness of the rules constrain your imagination on what story is playing out on the tabletop :(

[Frogstaff]

That's one of the things I really didn't like about 4th edition how upgrade/special characters, power and special weapons were always the last to die.

[talanis]

Its a balance to points as others have said, the maximum you can hit is one weapon profile if it was two weapons for the the same price the odds of landing no hits and one set of hits are the same but there is an additional chance to land two hits.

 

With the wraithlord IMO its a crap system, if you're paying the points for a whole weapon you should get the chance to do the additional damage otherwise you're being ripped.