Twin-Linked Weapons - What does it really mean?

[cadianshock]

So I wrote this article about Twin-Linked weapons, a little fun really thinking through what it may mean in real life.

My three reasons are


Fixed Firing Structure
Inexperienced Shooters
Time Constraints


Full details and article here

http://cadianshock.com/twin-linked-weapons-really-mean/

[Broodingman87]

If you want a real world example of the twin-linked rule at work in real life, look at all the fighter planes from world war two. It's not that they are more accurate, you're just dumping more shots down range. The P-51 had 6x .50 cal machine guns, the Bf 109 had 2x 20mm Cannons. The 109 left holes the size of a dinner plate in aluminum, where as the P- 51 left hole the size of a coin in aluminum, the thing is it left 20 holes the size of coins, allowing the P-51 to slice a wing clear off. More guns equal less time between shots. While not in changing your probability to hit, it does increase the exposer.

[cadianshock]

That my friend is a superb comparison.

[Broodingman87]

That my friend is a superb comparison.

Sniff sniff, I smell sarcasm.

[cadianshock]

No no! Not at all. Its a great example and makes perfect sense in that situation where you just needs lots of shots to hit something thats hard to hit.

But when you move that into a game with dice it makes less sense. The only difference is that the plane could hit twice with both weapons. Eg the left weapon hits the enemies left engine and the right weapon hits the right engine. It could, in theory hit twice. But in the world of 40K we can only hit once - ever.

Thanks for reading and thanks for commenting! :-)

[CoffeeGrunt]

I always thought the point of Twin-Linked was that each one alternated shots. I made a tank in UDK that had two Autocannon-esque weapons that alternated in fire, and not necessarily every hit came from both barrels, especially when traversing to track a moving target, the timing difference between one barrel firing and another could mean that you miss with the first, but hit with the second.

High Rate-of-Fire weapons would benefit from spraying more lead downrange, and the game simplifies this to prevent it getting too encumbered with dice. I saw a suggestion that Twin-Linked should make every Hit count for two, which could work I suppose if barrels are firing simultaneously.

Twin-Linking is represented a lot in movies and such, though. It's normally just to unleash a hail of lead on the target. I prefer the Co-Axial special rule Forge World have that GW have never bothered to pick up on: if the Co-Ax weapon hits, the main gun re-rolls to Hit. Works similarly enough to real life and makes sense as a method of lining up a shot.

[Path Walker]

Current rules for Twin Linking is just a way of simplifying the old rules, which was that both weapons fired at -1 to hit, this gets a roughly similar result and reduces the number of dice to roll.

[cadianshock]

I always thought the point of Twin-Linked was that each one alternated shots. I made a tank in UDK that had two Autocannon-esque weapons that alternated in fire, and not necessarily every hit came from both barrels, especially when traversing to track a moving target, the timing difference between one barrel firing and another could mean that you miss with the first, but hit with the second.

High Rate-of-Fire weapons would benefit from spraying more lead downrange, and the game simplifies this to prevent it getting too encumbered with dice. I saw a suggestion that Twin-Linked should make every Hit count for two, which could work I suppose if barrels are firing simultaneously.

Twin-Linking is represented a lot in movies and such, though. It's normally just to unleash a hail of lead on the target. I prefer the Co-Axial special rule Forge World have that GW have never bothered to pick up on: if the Co-Ax weapon hits, the main gun re-rolls to Hit. Works similarly enough to real life and makes sense as a method of lining up a shot.

That Co-Ax rule sounds really great, realistic, useful and tactical too. Wish there was more stuff like that in 40K and less stuff like Twin-Linked and Soul Blaze. But thats another article altogether.


Current rules for Twin Linking is just a way of simplifying the old rules, which was that both weapons fired at -1 to hit, this gets a roughly similar result and reduces the number of dice to roll.

This I did not know, the new rule is a lot simpler, which is better I guess.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That Co-Ax rule sounds really great, realistic, useful and tactical too. Wish there was more stuff like that in 40K and less stuff like Twin-Linked and Soul Blaze. But thats another article altogether.

Indeed, like a specific Laser Lock kinda deal.

[Broodingman87]

No no! Not at all. Its a great example and makes perfect sense in that situation where you just needs lots of shots to hit something thats hard to hit.

But when you move that into a game with dice it makes less sense. The only difference is that the plane could hit twice with both weapons. Eg the left weapon hits the enemies left engine and the right weapon hits the right engine. It could, in theory hit twice. But in the world of 40K we can only hit once - ever.

Thanks for reading and thanks for commenting! :-)

Or it could be that you want raw damage, look at a battleship, the U.S.S. Iowa has 9x 16 in. (406mm) cannons. Compared to a plane a ship is pretty easy to hit, It just takes a lot more punishment to kill a ship.

One big thing, if I'm hitting a planes left engine with my left weapon and right engine with my right weapon... unless we're talking modern where both engines are on the center line, if we're talk WW2 where the engines are on opposite wing, I don't want to be following that close to the target plane. Hitting two centerline engines, two right engines, or two left engines is okay but, hitting a left and a right engine at the same time is impossible.

Keep in mind another thing about ballistics, you can hit, penetrate the target, and do no damage, it is possible to shoot me in the torso and not hit a single blood vessel, organ, or bone. The bullet just passed clean through.

[cadianshock]

Indeed, like a specific Laser Lock kinda deal.

Yeah or like tracer fire.

[Cactus]

I've always thought of it as tracer fire.

[Popsical]

P51 and spitfire had machine guns in the wings that converged fire a set distance in front, not to hit both engines of a plane ahead, but to maximise the chance to hit.
Bf109 had only two machine guns because they were more accurate as they were situated down the centre line of the plane. Its cannons were wing mounted and converged like its allied cousins but were more useful for damaging bigger planes.
Germany pioneered interuptor gear successfully in WW1 and this meant the bf109 could point and shoot, rather than spray an area.

[Mr Mystery]

Is gonna depend on the army.

Eldar, Marines and Tau? Probably sequential fire.

Astra Militarum, Orks and Tyranids? Saturation fire.

[Broodingman87]

Bf109 had only two machine guns because they were more accurate as they were situated down the centre line of the plane. Its cannons were wing mounted and converged like its allied cousins but were more useful for damaging bigger planes.

Not at the same time though, in the 30s it had MG 17s but by the time the Mustang came around in was boasting Flak 30s.

[cadianshock]

Is gonna depend on the army.

Eldar, Marines and Tau? Probably sequential fire.

Astra Militarum, Orks and Tyranids? Saturation fire.


Good call there buddy - I like your thinking.

[Denzark]

2 x 20mm > 6 x .50. That is all.

[Broodingman87]

2 x 20mm > 6 x .50. That is all.

Depends on the target, against a bomber the 20 mm was just insanely effective, against fighters it was nearly worthless.

[DarkLink]

...modern fighters ditched multiple .50's in favor a single 20mm because the .50's were worthless against modern aircraft. It's not a matter of damage, a .50 will punch through modern aircraft frames easily enough, it's a matter of range and rate of fire and weight.

[Broodingman87]

...modern fighters ditched multiple .50's in favor a single 20mm because the .50's were worthless against modern aircraft. It's not a matter of damage, a .50 will punch through modern aircraft frames easily enough, it's a matter of range and rate of fire and weight.

Keep in mind with that comment is the era. The m2 fired solid shells at 600 rounds per minute, the m61 fires armor piecing, incendiary shells at 6000 rounds per minute. Big difference in rate of fire and the bullet being fired.

[cadianshock]

The comments from Sandwyrm here http://cadianshock.com/twin-linked-weapons-really-mean/#comment-1906797239 may demo what you are both talking about, it links to this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNX6uSdushg

[Kirsten]

you are clearly all over thinking it. weapons in 40k are twinlinked because two guns are better than one gun. like the mammoth tank in Red Alert, somebody looked at the heavy tank and thought, it is good, but what if it had twice as many guns? somebody looked at the las cannon and thought, if I doubled these up, it would look at least twice as cool! and nobody questioned it, because it was true.

[cadianshock]

you are clearly all over thinking it. weapons in 40k are twinlinked because two guns are better than one gun. like the mammoth tank in Red Alert, somebody looked at the heavy tank and thought, it is good, but what if it had twice as many guns? somebody looked at the las cannon and thought, if I doubled these up, it would look at least twice as cool! and nobody questioned it, because it was true.

Over thinking it perhaps, but its a game, its a little fun exploring how rules would be represented in real life. Its not meant to be taken too seriously.

But its not as simple as two is better than one. If it was two is better than one then two should be able to hit, e.g I pick up one gun fire it and hit, I pick up a second gun fire it and hit. Thats not whats happening.


Hit a bird with this stone or that stone – but by the Emperor’s holy name you mustn’t hit it with both!

[Broodingman87]

Over thinking it perhaps, but its a game, its a little fun exploring how rules would be represented in real life. Its not meant to be taken too seriously.

But its not as simple as two is better than one. If it was two is better than one then two should be able to hit, e.g I pick up one gun fire it and hit, I pick up a second gun fire it and hit. Thats not whats happening.


Hit a bird with this stone or that stone – but by the Emperor’s holy name you mustn’t hit it with both!

Yeah, there are a lot of fallacies in the AP system as a whole, this thread isn't about that so please try not to get off on a tangent but I'll stat it as an example. The wound process, roll to hit, roll to wound, then roll saves. Why are you saving after the wound is taken, that like when you were playing Cowboys and Indians and your friend say "I shot you, you're dead" and you respond "nota because I have this super awesome duper armor". One thing to fix this is to have the saves come before the wounds. In the D20 system (used in dnd), to hit and armor saves are one test you roll to hit vs the target's armor class which is a total of all the target's defenses (flexibility, armor thickness, skin thickness, etc.). Which is why I say there is a need for a D20 wargame.

I usually say with the Twin-Linked rule, it's like saying that the left one missed but, now you can say the right one hit.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You roll Saves after Wounds, so that they can add in systems like Rending which decide what Saves you're allowed based on the Wound roll. Twin-Linked Gets Hot weapons re-roll the overheat effect just doesn't make sense though.

"Ooh, right gun overheated, but the left one didn't. Guess I'm not getting flambeed today then!"

[Broodingman87]

You roll Saves after Wounds, so that they can add in systems like Rending which decide what Saves you're allowed based on the Wound roll. Twin-Linked Gets Hot weapons re-roll the overheat effect just doesn't make sense though.

"Ooh, right gun overheated, but the left one didn't. Guess I'm not getting flambeed today then!"

The exception is not the rule. You cannot deny how dumb it is to have a bullet/claw go backwards in time. I liked that joke, that was quite funny.

[Chris*ta]

you are clearly all over thinking it. weapons in 40k are twinlinked because two guns are better than one gun. like the mammoth tank in Red Alert, somebody looked at the heavy tank and thought, it is good, but what if it had twice as many guns? somebody looked at the las cannon and thought, if I doubled these up, it would look at least twice as cool! and nobody questioned it, because it was true.

Yes, this is pretty much why there are so many twin-linked weapons in 40K. Historically, it was realised fairly quickly that one big gun is better than two (or more) little guns fairly quickly, during WW2 in fact (at least in most circumstances).

Which is why, sadly, we never saw tanks like this on the battlefield:
http://ww2photo.se/tanks/aus/sentin/01873.jpg

[Path Walker]

Why does being behind a wall make you no less vunerable to being hit just more able to deal with being hit? The game has abstractions, twin linking is a way of abstracting that the guns are more likely to hit because you're firing more shots.

[Kirsten]

I don't know, personally I find walls very reassuring.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The exception is not the rule. You cannot deny how dumb it is to have a bullet/claw go backwards in time.

You're assuming that Hit-Wound-Save rolls all happen in sequence, rather than at the same time. Hit represents the shot landing, Wound represents the shot inflicting lethal damage, and Saves represent the chance of various protections preventing that from happening. Logically, yes, Saves should come before Wounds, but alternating dice rolls would take longer than simply handing your opponent their Saves after you roll Hits and Wounds, and it allows effects based on Wound rolls to affect Saves. If you imagine all the rolls occurring in the same instant, then it makes much more sense. "That shot would've hit their heart and taken them down, but luckily the armour plating blocked it!"

As Path Walker says, 40K is very much about abstraction feeding the narrative rather than everything occurs in reality precisely as it does on the table a la Warmachine. In older Editions they even said that 10 Space Marines could be representative of 100 on the field.

Another one we talk about a lot is how a single Guardsman can stop a Railgun shot capable of punching through both sides of a Leman Russ, sucking the crew through the exit hole and scattering their pureed remains. Yet it can only ever kill a single Guardsman a turn if it shot them directly.

[daboarder]

You roll Saves after Wounds, so that they can add in systems like Rending which decide what Saves you're allowed based on the Wound roll. Twin-Linked Gets Hot weapons re-roll the overheat effect just doesn't make sense though.

"Ooh, right gun overheated, but the left one didn't. Guess I'm not getting flambeed today then!"

actually, its because it gives the playing being a shot a chance to "save" his models, its to do with psychology and that fact that giving the player being shot the final chance to stop the wound, rather than have it be in the middle of the sequence makes them feel better.

[Broodingman87]

You're assuming that Hit-Wound-Save rolls all happen in sequence, rather than at the same time. Hit represents the shot landing, Wound represents the shot inflicting lethal damage, and Saves represent the chance of various protections preventing that from happening. Logically, yes, Saves should come before Wounds, but alternating dice rolls would take longer than simply handing your opponent their Saves after you roll Hits and Wounds, and it allows effects based on Wound rolls to affect Saves. If you imagine all the rolls occurring in the same instant, then it makes much more sense. "That shot would've hit their heart and taken them down, but luckily the armour plating blocked it!"

As Path Walker says, 40K is very much about abstraction feeding the narrative rather than everything occurs in reality precisely as it does on the table a la Warmachine. In older Editions they even said that 10 Space Marines could be representative of 100 on the field.

Another one we talk about a lot is how a single Guardsman can stop a Railgun shot capable of punching through both sides of a Leman Russ, sucking the crew through the exit hole and scattering their pureed remains. Yet it can only ever kill a single Guardsman a turn if it shot them directly.

But even abstraction logic doesn't make sense. "That Bolt would have shattered my Guant's skull, but luckily my Fex stepped in the way, but now you can't roll to wound my Fex."

Wow, so instead of my friend bringing a company to shield the forgeworld from my hunt, every Imperial Fist showed up, forsaking all the rest of their watch to protect this one forgeworld in the middle of no where. Only if I'm hunting Mars would that make remote sense.

Oh yeah, Warhammer is full of those... My favorite is your Terminator Squad emergency disembarked next to the Land Raider on the other side of my Carnifex Brood, why can't they just roll it on top of them, or throw it onto another squad.

[Mr Mystery]

Cover saves aren't so much about shots fired being stopped, as shots stopped from being fired - target occlusion and that.

Yes it's an imperfect abstract, but welcome to wargaming in general. It's all imperfectly abstract.

[Path Walker]

I still think second had a better system for that, but it involved maths.