PDA

View Full Version : Twin linked weapons dont make sense to me...



cleansingfury
03-12-2007, 07:52
Alright can someone please tell me why in the name of the god emperor is it that a twin linked weapon only re rolls to hit?

The very twin linked rule says the weapon sprays out more shots then a non twinlinked weapon. Why then is it that my las cannon or heavy bolter (i swear first person to say something bout using marines as example) should only get a reroll? A twin linked las cannon should be sort of like a co axial weapon with another of its type.

That would mean my land raider would have 4 las cannon shots, and 6 heavy bolter shots.
To me that makes a lot more sense! Especially for the ammount of points we pay for things as fragile as these vehicles!

So why is it not like that? Is there some reason we are given the reroll instead of more shots like real life?

big squig
03-12-2007, 07:55
Because then the LR should just say it has 4 lascannons. What's the point of calling something twinlinked if it's really just two guns? Why not call it two guns?

I agree though, a re-roll to hit doesn't make much sense. A re-roll to wound/penetrate might make more.

graveaccomplice
03-12-2007, 07:56
So the weapons produce more wounds without exceeding the amount GW wants it to max out at. Knowing players, they'll max out all extra attacks and wipe out opponents with more dice than they throw now.

USABOB
03-12-2007, 08:12
Maybe we should model the guns to reflect rules and say the "twin-linked" weapon has a "target acquisition system", reroll misses to hit, optical type sensors would be appropriate to show this. Maybe then it would make more sense:confused:

big squig
03-12-2007, 08:19
Or maybe it's just a game with toy soldiers?

The Gothic Me
03-12-2007, 08:23
I've always said the twin-linked rules do the opposite of what they should, seems like the gun should only get one role to hit because if one it's they both do, but do two wounds or get a re-rolled to wound.

Vaktathi
03-12-2007, 08:43
While I think everyone will agree that the Twin Linked system, as it currently works, does not in fact make a whole lot of sense (if its not actually 2 weapons, then why not re-roll penetrates or wounds as well? wouldn't they more realistically have a single to-hit roll and count as 2 hits?)

That said, if Twin Linked was switched to 2 actual weapons, then many current vehicles would be really hurt. A Land raider can currently move and shoot a single TL lascannon, if this was changed, a Land Raider could only move and shoot one lascannon with no rerolls, but could fire 4 if stationary but doing so would preculde it from moving and transporting.

Ronin_eX
03-12-2007, 08:45
I preferred the 2nd Ed. method of one roll to hit and two wound/pen rolls. It meant it packed a punch when it hit but if one didn't hit then neither did. It seems to make the most sense as a twin-linked weapon is unlikely to be more accurate but if it hits both shots will do a good chunk of damage.

bosstroll
03-12-2007, 08:55
I preferred the 2nd Ed. method of one roll to hit and two wound/pen rolls. It meant it packed a punch when it hit but if one didn't hit then neither did. It seems to make the most sense as a twin-linked weapon is unlikely to be more accurate but if it hits both shots will do a good chunk of damage.

Ah the good'ol days of 2nd ed. When men where men, and heavy weapons overpowered ;)

Voleron
03-12-2007, 09:03
I think the whole "Twin-Linked gives to-hit rerolls" thing was concieved through the imagery of high-rate-of-fire guns - TL Heavy Bolter, for example. Essentially, 2 guns bolted together to put out a ridiculous amount of shots, which would result in /something/ getting hit from sheer volume of fire.

As for not re-rolling wounds/whatever, I suppose that the unbalanced recoil from two huge guns bolted together precludes the precision needed to put multiple shots in the same spot consistently.

(Actually, I believe this is the reasoning that's used to differentiate combi-bolters from storm bolters - one is just 2 bolters bolted together, the other is actually properly balanced and designed from the ground up to be a 2-barreled gun - hence the superior capabilities out to a longer range.)

Admittedly, the whole example falls down when you have slow rate-of-fire, single shot guns like Lascannons... Eh. Logic can only get so far in the 40k universe.

MuttMan
03-12-2007, 09:25
Ok let me clarify something.

Anyone here ever shot a sniper rifle? The difference of the scope to the gun berrel and sight range calibration varying one tiny 1/16th means you miss a target 50 feet away by a 2 foot margin of error.

Now with that in mind, when you have 2 guns *side by side* trying to hit prime targets in vulnerable locations, and not just shooting off toes or glancing the round edge of a shoulder pad, you need to hit in their gut or head. When you have a gun thats a foot or more differential from the main gun your aiming with firing at the exact same target, then your margin of error (assuming they are both aimed perfectly straight) is exactly the space between both of the guns.

So, lets say they calibrate one gun to be the aiming gun, and the other gun say, at 200 yards will hit the same target (or called in WW2, gun convergance, where guns aimed slightly towards the center at one point in front of the plane where they bullets converge in a X pattern) then the margin of error could be mere inches.

That is why its a reroll to hit, where one gun may miss that shot hitting a skimmer, the other gun may hit it. You guys try flying in Aces High 2, a WW2, a plane fighting simulator. You will see what I mean with multiple guns being fired by one individual, where one misses, the other may hit.

Multiple guns being fired by one person, means there is not enough capacity to house another gunner (or turret for the gunner) and to conserve space for ammo, armor and general convenience of the vehicle design, some guns are better off being twin-linked.

I think its a fine rule as-is.

WLBjork
03-12-2007, 09:40
I preferred the 2nd Ed. method of one roll to hit and two wound/pen rolls. It meant it packed a punch when it hit but if one didn't hit then neither did. It seems to make the most sense as a twin-linked weapon is unlikely to be more accurate but if it hits both shots will do a good chunk of damage.

That was only ever the twin lascannon - the Dread one IIRC (which also allowed a modifier on the Hit Location chart).

I'm pretty sure all the other weapons rolled extra sustained fire dice to represent the increased volume of fire.

Maren
03-12-2007, 10:11
I think they only wanted something to enable players to reroll the to-hit dice. So basically its just a means to an end. Not that I dont agree with you but I think thats it.

Ronin_eX
03-12-2007, 10:17
That was only ever the twin lascannon - the Dread one IIRC (which also allowed a modifier on the Hit Location chart).

I'm pretty sure all the other weapons rolled extra sustained fire dice to represent the increased volume of fire.

Actually sustained fire dice are rolled after the to-hit roll. So a single to-hit would be rolled as if it were one weapon and you would roll double the sustained fire dice with any jams effecting both guns. Sustained fire dice didn't tell you how large your burst was it only told you how many shots out of you burst actually hit (a small difference but important).

So in a way we are both right, only one roll is made to hit but weapons with sustained fire get more dice when linked. Though weapons didn't always need to use sustained fire if you wanted to avoid loads of jams.

Kasonic
03-12-2007, 11:02
I think it makes perfect sense. MuttMan summed it up correctly; it's a redundancy system. If Lascannon A of your twin-linked lascannon sponson fires just wide left, Lascannon B could still hit the target.

Does completely eliminating the chance of the weapon having more than 50% accuracy a little strange? Sure. But it makes for just fine gameplay and gives army lists a little bit more depth.

Although I hate the fact that twin-linked Eldar vehicle weapons are twice as much; they should be a roughly ~x1.5 cost, like Tau Battlesuit weapons.

kilgoretrout
03-12-2007, 12:10
I was thinking about this the other day. IMO I think the twin-linked weapons weapons rule should be expanded to one re-roll to hit OR wound per turn (pick one). On a wraithlord it makes no sense to take TL weapons, unless of course one could reroll the wound or armor penetration roll. I suppose it would be viable if you had a crappy BS or just wanted something that had a better chance to hit or wound. Just an idea.

MrBigMr
03-12-2007, 12:21
Anyone here ever shot a sniper rifle?
I've been trained in one in the army, but not really fired it. But the same can be achieved with normal rifles. At 150m, adjusting the sight even a quater of a milimeter wrong and you'll be just hitting nothing but dirt.


And your point on triangulation and coverage of fire is pretty much what I think. Both guns aim the same way, but both make slight adjustements, forming a sort of are on which a hit can be achieven more accurately.

I've played IL-2 Sturmovik and in it it's quite clear on how you have to take your aim or you won't hit a thing. Or in some Star Wars flight sim (I think it was Rebel Alliance) where the Z95 Headhunter didn't have an automatic range adjustment, so you had to alter the arc of the guns from straight to 200, 100 and 50 meters. If the enemy ship was right in front of you, it was hard to hit when the guns were pointing forwards. Same with long range and 50m setting (the beams actually crossed in front of the fighter).


So I like and accept the TL as what it is. Why do you think so many AA guns have multible barrels? Hitting a fast moving object in 3D is hard, so more fire into the air means a better chance of scoring a hit.

ehlijen
03-12-2007, 12:27
The idea is that the gunner only aims one barrel, the other sprays shots in roughly the same direction. When the primary shot misses, there is a chance that the shot missed in such a fashion that the other barrel hits.
It vaguely makes sense against man sized targets, not so much against bigger things, but if you differentiate there, you might as well bring to hit modifiers back.

The Highlander
03-12-2007, 12:33
Also single shot weapons could represent firing one gun, observing fall of shot and then firing the second (adjusting if the first misses).

Bunnahabhain
03-12-2007, 13:07
They made much more sense back in 2nd ed, where you had some sensible rules around vehicle mounted weapons*, and twin linking simply meant one roll to hit, but twice as many hits when you did.

The current mechanic isn't bad, not compared to some of the other travietsies of the curret rules set, but changing twin linked to Co- axial would be good. Curently, twin linked weapons don't put out the storm of damage thtey should really.

* Hmm, left sponson and turret are shooting at something to the left of the tank. Right sponson is allowed to pick another target it can see, rather than sit there twiddling their thumbs. common sense! Shock horror!

Hellebore
03-12-2007, 13:11
Certainly, one to hit roll = two hits makes much more sense.

Hellebore

Icarus
03-12-2007, 13:20
Gotta agree, I've always found it a silly rule.

Too much to hope for "one roll = 2 hits" in 5th ed? Probably but would be nice!

EVIL INC
03-12-2007, 13:32
How about if you consider it a weapon that isnt aimed as well but uses the "tracer fire" to fing its mark. The extra "kick" would keep it from being as accurate without it.
Just an idea right wrong or indifferent.
Yes, I would rather just have 2 shots but then, the points would likely get jacked up to match.

Vault-Dweller
03-12-2007, 13:52
I think that the rule is made for weapons who has twinlinking as a way of increasing rate of fire, as that seems to be the case of most real world twinlinking.

rerolling seams like a good way to represent that a twinlinked weapon is not twice as good at 2 weapons of the same type fired with different gunners.

A bit simplefied but it works.

greenmtvince
03-12-2007, 13:59
It's because the technology for twin-linked weapons to grant a higher rate of fire has been lost to the dark age of man. Only the eldar posess the advanced knowledge of how to make two identical weapons working in tandem provide double the shots.

Icarus
03-12-2007, 14:09
It's because the technology for twin-linked weapons to grant a higher rate of fire has been lost to the dark age of man. Only the eldar posess the advanced knowledge of how to make two identical weapons working in tandem provide double the shots.

Except on Wraithlords. Because... erm...... erm...... of the C'tan? Yeah that works!

Mr Feral
03-12-2007, 14:26
More shots, more likely to hit.
That's my take on the rule anyway.

Sajuuk
03-12-2007, 14:50
Current rule is not so bad. Of corz, it's not perfect, but it's a fair balance between reality and swift play.

If I had to make this rule more reliable I would make re-roll to hit OR re-roll to wound. That could represent better aiming, or if aiming was good at the beginning of shooting represents more bullets hitting the target. But it would slow down game ;) Nothing for free.