trentmorten said:

Hmm, if those barrels double the firing rate (which is not the case for rotary weapons), then yes, in a way that is so. Double-barrel shotguns - if operated by a single trigger (most have two, or one trigger that fires them independently) - actually are a very good example of a twinlinked weapon, as there is little conceptual difference to a storm bolter if you get down to the details.

It boils down to what exactly would you consider as "twinlinked". By your own definition (and the description as given in the book), a double-barrel shotgun would apply for this just as much as a storm bolter.

trentmorten said:

Gravity. At some point the armour - whilst physically able to carry the weight of such a monstrum - will just topple over (unless maglocked to a metallic surface). Aside from serious impracticability of not fitting through doors, into vehicles, etc.

BossTroll said:

That's a way better example, yes. Also in terms of how it seems to look.

Deathwatch are also known to use suspensors and gyroscopic stabilizers.

Redusing the penalty for not being braced (gyros) and reducing the weight of the weapon (suspensors) isn't just for us weak humies.

Man, I totally forgot about suspensors.

Alright then, this just leaves the ridiculous size as a potential issue. At some point you'd have to ask yourself why you did not roll in with a tank right away, though.

Actually this reminds me of X-COM now - anyone remembers those little mini-tanks that were about the size of four people and basically only served to transport a heavy weapon system?

personally I think this:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/02/28/double-glock-full-auto-pistols/

amply demonstrates twin linking.

it is mainly the purview of people with crazy moustaches and an orkish outlook on life.

Lynata said:

Yes =)

I guess you could outfit a gun servitor in the same way. They are allready partway to being vehicles anyway =) Gun servitor with twinlinked weapons sound like something the Omnissiah would approve of =D

Something a lot of people in here seem to be forgetting is that the system caps the amount of dice you roll for firing on full-auto at 10. The twin-barrelled heavy stubber could have just been given 20 shots, but instead gained the Storm trait, to represent a withering hail of fire. Twin-linked is NOT about getting lots more shots out of a weapon, it's about better accuracy (ie you have double the chance of at least one of your shots hitting), this is why the majority of human-portable twin-linked weapons are weapons that fire in single or burst-2 mode, such as boltguns. The only examples that come to mind of twin-linked heavy weapons to increase ROF are on vehicles and emplacements (Dreadnoughts twin-link heavy bolters so they aren't mounting multiple heavy weapons and losing the CCW, Hydra platforms twin-link the pair of long-barrelled autocannon for increased accuracy against aircraft and more shots). All of these weapon systems would weight multiple hundreds of kilograms, their ammo feeds are larger than people and the recoil would be bone-crushing.

As a GM i would have to ask my players serious questions about why they want to slap lots of twin-linked upgrades onto their weaponry. There are enough weapon options amongst the 40k RPG line as a whole that if a player is unsatisfied with their 'dakka' then they can just find a different tool for the job. If your arch-militant isn't getting enough rate of fire from their boltgun, get a stormbolter. If that's not kicking out enough damage, then get a best-craftsmanship plasma gun with backpack ammo feed. Still not enough? Then question what on earth the players are regularly having to combat that requires insane (and personally, canon-breaking) levels of personal firepower. Remind them that they do command a ship with several tens of thousands of crew, so if they need more firepower, just purchase en-masse a job lot of heavy weapons and dish them out to combat ratings.

Personally i rule that whilst according to RAW most heavy weapons can be manportable with the right Strength/Bulging Biceps/Power armour/Suspensors combination, it's not going to make the weapon any easier to reload, thus pushing the players to forming a 2-man weapon team to reduce reload time and ballistic skill penalties (spotter/reload + gunner = dead gribblies).

Kasatka said:

Answer to that question: Rak'Gol

HappyDaze said:

No kidding.

HappyDaze said:

very, very true. especially as per canon they tend to attack in swarms of 10-20...

trentmorten said:

Yeah, I think that's for when you want a canon justification for throwing a planned TPK out there.

Don't know if anyone has brought this up but there is at least one example of twin linked personal weapons used by the Eldar. The Chainsabres used by striking scorpion aspect warriors are indicated as housing a twin linked set of shuriken pistols. Now granted that's tabletop and is likely a simplification but it's possible to have specially constructed weapons on forearm mountes tied to a central targeting system that produces the effect of twin linking.

Beats picking up Blood of Martyrs just to use the Seraphim rules on twin pistol use.

I'd argue that the players are failing to best utilise their starship and scores of arsmen under their command if they are constantly under direct attack from hordes of Rak'Gol, but maybe other groups are running RT as much more of a hack and slash than my group.

It's a hard habit to break your players out of. They want to be the Big Damned Heroes on the ground, either because they don't trust their minions to do the job properly themselves, or they want to be down in the blood and mud for the action. RT is pretty different to other RPGs.

Kasatka said:

Odd that you say that since in my experience, it's usually the opposite - the PCs start becoming armchair leaders and the game becomes either about narrative or some version of mass combat rules. Either of which doesn't tend to do it for my roleplaying itch.

Heh, I was about to point out that the opposite is just as bad. I guess the best games come from the happy medium.

Aye, i just meant that if a group's first response to conflict is "well let's go down there ourselves" they'll quickly end up facing adversaries too powerful or numerous to handle. Even a meagre raider has the ability to arm several thousand crewmen, and you'll have a number of social, commerce and assorted 'skill specialist' proxies you can send off at your whim.

However i agree it is worth trying to strike a balance. As RT in my games i'll go along for trade talks and to socialise, but if there's a hint of combat i take units of hired mercenaries with me. Conversely if there's a game session without much combat going on i'll try and find tasks to send the combat characters off on.

my Pc's have a strong incentive to be first into the fray, their warrant dictates they can only claim places where they stood upon the ground before any living human. this has lead to a zero g race in spacesuits with a competitor to see who can get on an wreck first which was quite funny.

trentmorten said:

My players would - if bound by such a clause - hire kroot (or possibly ork) to send in waves ahead of them.

I can only imagine that their competitors have a similar handicap on them, otherwise this is really a "screw you" to the players.

HappyDaze said:

Or servitors (bzzt - pew-pew), Mutants (arg, grrr!) or hololiths (Oh hai dar, i r rogue trader here b 4 u!).