[CalgarsFinest]

I was playing a game againts this guy who said if you have a twin linked weapon and you make one shot you get to make the other too. I thought that you just got to roll missed hits. His rule makes more sense but I don't know if it is true. Is it?

 

[Ostsol]

He is incorrect.

 

[Caluin]

Page 30 of the Warhammer 40K Rulebook, right hand column, bottom of the page under the heading of "Twin-Linked Weapons." Ask him to show you exactly where it says you get to make the second shot if the first one hits.

Besides - if that were the case, why wouldn't the weapon just be labeled with the extra shot in its profile? For instance, instead of Assault 1 Twin Linked, why wouldn't it just be labeled Assault 2?

 

[High Priest Avion]

Exactly, your opponent was incorrect, buy him a rulebook!

HPA

 

[Cheredanine]

Personnaly I would tell him to buy his own!

Whilst you are at it, point him at the eldar walkers, they have 2 identical weapons that both shoot and so are NOT called twin linked

 

[Blue Meanie]

Does this flurry of twin-linked questions remind anyone else of this:

http://tsoalr.com/view.php?date=2004-02-23

 

[Ratus]

or possibly this:

http://tsoalr.com/view.php?date=2004-03-04

 

[Ostsol]

Yeah. . . Logically, the rules for a twin-linked Lascannon should be: each successful to-hit roll causes two hits. Basically an all or nothing weapon.

Of course, this would make a Hive Tyrant with two sets of twin-linked Devourers rather insane. 24 shots via 12 to-hit rolls. :w00t:

 

[XenomarinesKiller]

Exactly, your opponent was incorrect, buy him a rulebook!

HPA

buy him a rulebook and hit him with it.

 

[tarzen]

or see if he learns through osmosis. Spit in his face, then hit him with your rulesbook.

It really saddens me how often we get that here on the forums..." I showed him the rules but he insists that they don't apply, oh, and he won't back it up with another cited rule".

While some of it falls onto us players to police ourselves and spread info as we become aware, I believe a large factor of it sits squarely on GW's shoulders for not putting out erratas to all the changes they make (read as new printings of codexs, making you buy the new one for the new rules) and answering basic screwups (like wargear book listing termies as a 3+ 5++ save) or often questioned rules (living metal says all sources are treated the same, so powerfists shouldn't work) instead of playing by and misprinting rules (IC's joined to deepstriking squads and monoliths and...and...).

Anyways, just my rant, sorry, carry on, nothing to see here.

 

[Loestal]

Personnaly I would tell him to buy his own!

Whilst you are at it, point him at the eldar walkers, they have 2 identical weapons that both shoot and so are NOT called twin linked

Wouldn't that make them twin-linked under the 4th ed. rules? I know it's an old codex, and rules might be different but by 4th edition....they should be twin-linked shouldn't they?

 

[Ostsol]

Wouldn't that make them twin-linked under the 4th ed. rules? I know it's an old codex, and rules might be different but by 4th edition....they should be twin-linked shouldn't they?

Nope, there is no such rule. Some units simply have special rules that turns their two weapons into a single twin-linked weapon. Seraphims have two pistols, but their rules count it as firing as a twin-linked pistol. Then there's Tyranids. . . Either way, it is the units' special rules that turn the weapons into twin-linked and not something from the rulebook.

 

[Loestal]

Nope, there is no such rule. Some units simply have special rules that turns their two weapons into a single twin-linked weapon. Seraphims have two pistols, but their rules count it as firing as a twin-linked pistol. Then there's Tyranids. . . Either way, it is the units' special rules that turn the weapons into twin-linked and not something from the rulebook.

Ah...I see. I'm a nid player so I guess I was thinking that the Tyranid twin-link rule was the basic 4th ed rule...my bad.

 

[Sabe]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the direction that GW was taking dual weapons Loestal, however as it sits now the old codex's don't have that specific mentioning in them, and so they kinda get a leg up on newer one's when it comes to dual weapons.

 

[Loestal]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the direction that GW was taking dual weapons Loestal, however as it sits now the old codex's don't have that specific mentioning in them, and so they kinda get a leg up on newer one's when it comes to dual weapons.

For consistancy sake...I hope it is. I like all my rules to apply to all the armys.

 

[Ostsol]

I really don't see why it should be that way, though -- especially for vehicles. In general, though, I'm not particularily fond of the currently rules for twin-linked weapons anyway, so that may have something to do with my bias. . .

 

[Loestal]

I really don't think it makes sense either, but since it's like that for one army...I would like for it to be that way for all armys to be consistant and easier to remember and makes me less apt to make mistakes.

 

[Cheredanine]

Wheras I dissagree, I think there is a distinction between a twin linked weapon, say the Razorback main weapons, and something like a war walker or serephim.

The former is sold short by GW, a twin linked weapon should roll once to hit but if it hits, twice for damage, the latter should get a straight 2 shots, possibly at -1 to BS for shooting 2 weapons at once