Twin-Linked Weapons, Is this the worst rule in the game? Options

[Numpty]

Morning all,

I was thinking about the rules over the weekend for 40K and trying to work out which rule was the single worst that should be changed. Here is what I think is the worst rule and why:

Rule: Twin Linked Weapons
Why: They cost twice as much as two individual weapons but you can only get a maximum of one hit.
How it should be changed: Going back to the old rules where you got to fire each weapon and potentially hit twice on the same target makes the most sense to me but I understand that a lot of weapon and probably vehicle stats would have to change as a result.

What do you think is the worst rule in 40K, why and how should it be changed?

Cheers,

Ant

[Good ol Shakey]

Random game length at turn 5...

"Well, we could keep fighting, but there goes the bell"
"Really, well lets just stand here after, who needs objectives"...

[EmpireGuard]

Most of the time a twin linked weapon isn't twice the cost.

Plus why make twin linked = two separate weapons?

Some thing just have two separate weapons. You might as well just get rid of the rule twinlinked altogether.

[neil]

Morning all,

I was thinking about the rules over the weekend for 40K and trying to work out which rule was the single worst that should be changed. Here is what I think is the worst rule and why:

Rule: Twin Linked Weapons
Why: They cost twice as much as two individual weapons but you can only get a maximum of one hit.
How it should be changed: Going back to the old rules where you got to fire each weapon and potentially hit twice on the same target makes the most sense to me but I understand that a lot of weapon and probably vehicle stats would have to change as a result.

What do you think is the worst rule in 40K, why and how should it be changed?

Cheers,

Ant

I thin kTwin Linked weapons should be a reroll to wound (or armour penetration) rather than to hit. It would make more sense thematically.

Rules I dislike:

- Lack of premeasuring
- Defensive weapons S4 or less. Should be defensive weapons are assault or rapid fire.
- Wound allocation

[Crynn]

I thin kTwin Linked weapons should be a reroll to wound (or armour penetration) rather than to hit. It would make more sense thematically.

Rules I dislike:

- Lack of premeasuring
- Defensive weapons S4 or less. Should be defensive weapons are assault or rapid fire.
- Wound allocation

I love no premeasuring hehe.
defensive weapons are stupid as there are almsot no weapons that fit that category, but Ba's would love to have all assault weapons count as defensive!

Twin linked should simply be 2 shots but both shots have to hit the same model/target as they are fired together off one turret mount, for instance a land raider couldn't split fire with one or if you shot at infantry both hits would be allocated to the same model.

Rules , I don't like hmmm....

- Cover in general, there is just too much of it. why does a log give you the same save as carapace armour? It shouldn't, nor shoult id protect tanks from lascannons.
- Even though I play only varine varients and i do realize this rule needs to be in for game balance, the idea of something turning and running and then auto being cut down is a bit rediculous.
- Any ability that allows opponents to touch/move my models.

Regards,
Crynn

[KIng Yoshi]

Its not a rule but what i dislike the most in 5th ed is....

Capture and control, or whatever the mission is with the objective in both deployments. Bloody pointless.

[Mousemuffins]

Morning all,

I was thinking about the rules over the weekend for 40K and trying to work out which rule was the single worst that should be changed. Here is what I think is the worst rule and why:

Rule: Twin Linked Weapons
Why: They cost twice as much as two individual weapons but you can only get a maximum of one hit.
How it should be changed: Going back to the old rules where you got to fire each weapon and potentially hit twice on the same target makes the most sense to me but I understand that a lot of weapon and probably vehicle stats would have to change as a result.

What do you think is the worst rule in 40K, why and how should it be changed?

Cheers,

Ant

I Think for the most part twin linked weapons are 50% more than for single weapon of the same type.

[TheOriginalHavoc]

Rather than just a rule, I'd have to say my preference would be a change to the Vehicle Damage Rule Set.

A Str 10 doing exactly the Same as a Str 6 (or having exactly the same chance of result) and an AV10 light fast vehicle or an AV14 Behemoth can be utterly destroyed by a single Penetrating hit each...

That's really the Number one thing I'd like to tweak in the current Ed.

[Demon]

Its not a rule but what i dislike the most in 5th ed is....

Capture and control, or whatever the mission is with the objective in both deployments. Bloody pointless.

you cant see a circumstance where you would hold your own position with some of your army & push forward with another?

Rapid fire being a weapon attribute, not a space marine attribute.

1. heres a special rule thats about how awesomer marines are

2. we've decided these guardsmen should have it too. and these aliens.
3. so youre firing haphazardly on auto at a reduced range, but cant attack anyone.
meanwhile, those guys with clunkier larger heavier stormbolters are getting right in there
4. so are the guys with little pistols, that youre closer than


This post has been edited by Demon: Mar 5 2012, 12:27 PM

[Aurenian]

I don't see how this doesn't apply to tactical marines as well as the aliens and guard. Unless you really think bolt pistols are something to write home about. If anything I'd argue that pistols are so bad at shooting that you may as well just give your squad a second CC weapon and be done with it. No, BA special weapon pistols don't count.

I dislike instant death. I see why it's there. But all it seems to do is get my already uninteresting captains and officers killed quicker. Not fun.

This post has been edited by Aurenian: Mar 5 2012, 01:24 PM

[Grovel]

- Any ability that allows opponents to touch/move my models.

+1 to this. Bad idea that causes tears, and not the life sustaining variety.

[Satmaka]

"power of the machine spirit" No special rule makes me groan as much as that....bloody marines....

[PapaSmurf]

Grey Knights....


On a more serious note, I would like to be able to take allies in my armies

This post has been edited by PapaSmurf: Mar 5 2012, 04:11 PM

[southernskies]

Twin-linked used to be much more worthwhile in previous editions (2nd-3rd ed), as it was re-roll to *wound* or *penetrate vehicles*.
Re-rolling penetration is a lot more valuable than to-hit. GW has just never re-costed them between editions to account for the lower statistical/tactical value.

The twin-linked lascannon used to be king for anti-tank, but was consigned to the dustbin with the "melta" rule and re-rolling to-hit.

This post has been edited by southernskies: Mar 5 2012, 06:00 PM

[radle]

Re-rolling penetration is a lot more valuable than to-hit. GW has just never re-costed them between editions to account for the lower statistical/tactical value.

The twin-linked lascannon used to be king for anti-tank, but was consigned to the dustbin with the "melta" rule and re-rolling to-hit.

Depends on your BS vs weapon strength. Ask an Orkney whether they'd rather re roll to hit at bs 2 or pen av 10 with a strength 8 weapon.

They could have simplified it to just give you +1 to your bs and had roughly the same effect, except for blast weapons.

There are situations where twin linked is more useful than two weapons such as vehicles or walkers. A rifleman dread couldn't fire four auto cannons

[ArchonCryx]

Twin-linked used to be much more worthwhile in previous editions (2nd-3rd ed), as it was re-roll to *wound* or *penetrate vehicles*.

Really? I think you're mistaken. I played 3rd ed for several years and yet not once did anyone get reroll wound or penetrate from a twin linked weapon. *maybe* it was a 2nd ed rule, that was before my time.

2nd ed was a lot more complex rule set that wouldn't translate well to our current scale of gaming b-c in those days you usually only had 1 or 2 units, so they could have much more complex rules . It was a mid level skirmish game but we play with many more models and real "mini armies" these days. I figure we therefore want a more streamlined/simplified rule system that keeps the game flowing.

Pretty sure GW reworked the costings quite thouroughly for *everything* in the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed so am unsure about this ovber-costed twinlinking thing at all!
------


Back to OT, I am pretty satisfied with 5th ed, although I do look forward to 6th. I agree with neil, wound allocation is annoying, pre-measurement won't break 40K, and I really likie the idea of defensive weapons being those that are "Assault" or "Rapidfire" - then Psyammo Stormravens with hurricanes would be even more frightening!

And also that cover is too generous (even though I directly benefit from 4+ cover hugely and will make a big impact on my army, I would like to see it reduced to 5+ for next edition.

Satmaka - don't forget "And They Shall Know No Fear" - At least make them consolidate without a free move in future would be a nice tweak.

I think I'd also like to see "Last chance rally attempt" for when a squad hits the table edge and is >6" from enemy (instead of just running off)

demon - I prefer the current rules for RapidFire weaponry thanks.

Overall I look forward to 6th edition.

[Demon]

demon - I prefer the current rules for RapidFire weaponry thanks.

oh as a game mechanic no worries

[Paraelix]

I Think for the most part twin linked weapons are 50% more than for single weapon of the same type.

I'd like to see some examples of this...

Aside from Nids, I can't think of a single one. There are virtually no situations where a model has access to a single weapon and a twin-linked version, except where this option is for a different weapon slot (ie, model may have x, model may also upgrade y to twin-linked x) - I'm thinking Dreadnoughts with storm bolter to hvy flamer vs arm twin hvy flamer.

[Mousemuffins]

The 50% thing is a hangover from the vehicle design rules, and still applies in many cases.

Eldar missile Launchers, starcannon and brightlances are all about 50% more when twin linked, Though multi shot weapons seem to costed higher, as re-rolling is just worth more to them. Twin linked Lascannon are typically valued at around fifty points, with singles being 35.

This varies a lot depending platform, of course.

[neil]

If eldar wraihlords buy two of the same hea y they become twin linked (but paying the full cost of both weapons). Noone is wuite sure why (since the same rule doesn't apply to warwalkers, and eldar have an extremely redundant weapon list..).

Tau get twin linking for +50%