Ok so I was wondering what the point is in having different mechanics for storm and twin-linked.
the flavor text description is almost the same and the description of how a storm bolter works is almost identical to twin-linked.

Storm: A weapon with the Storm Quality unleashes shots at rapid speed, often through the use of a double-barreled design.

Twin-linked: A Twin-linked weapon represents two identical weapons connected together and linked to fire at the same time, often through one pull of the trigger or push of a button.

Storm Bolter: These weapons resemble two bolters with a single casing and a single trigger.

So why bother with the mechanical difference that makes one far superior to the other?

Nathiel said:

Storm weapons have a more narrow gap between the linked weapons so that the two bullets are assumed to always hit the same person (in the same location, I guess). Twin-linked have a wider spread and therefore only increase the chance of hitting something.

Alex

But then Storm shouldn't do more Magnitude damage than a normal weapon (as the two bullets hit the same person), whereas twin-linked should.

Don't you think so?

Stormast said:

That's the house rule I have been suggesting for some time now: Storm give you a second chance to wound, not double hits, against hordes.

Alex

its to represent the difference from the TT version. Storm was a multiple attack weapon, twin linked gave you a re-roll to hit.

The fluff represents it as Storm weapons are harder to produce and are usually artificer's work in and of themselves, the two halves never working if separated from the whole. they are designed from the ground up to function perfectly together. Twin-linked weapons are just two of the same weapon rigged to fire from the same trigger. theoretically, you could split a twin-linked weapon and have two functioning weapons, (provided of course you had a trigger.)

I like that these 2 options exist. The Twin-linked I think works well well on vehicles and gun-turrets as it really increases the chances to hit, while not necessarily making the hits as deadly as the storm part.

Nathiel said:

My personal interpretation is that a twin-linked weapon fires both barrels simultaneously, while a storm weapon fires them sequentially, one at a time - the former works on "accuracy through quantity of fire", the latter increases rate of fire through increasing the number of barrels that can be fired from.

The thing is, as is, Storm is nearly as accurate (in terms of bullets effectively hitting the target) as Twin-linked, except in the zone where Twin-Linked makes you hit instead of missing.

And I think that seems strange, to say the least.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Except you can't hit with one shot and miss with the other of the pair. If it only increases the ROF, the ROF stat should instead have been changed to reflect that.

Alex

ak-73 said:

ROF is a diminishing-returns value; just increasing it doesn't produce the same results as producing more hits per Degree of Success, and there is a point beyond which increasing ROF makes an insignificant amount of difference.

It's an abstract system, as all RPG systems are, and there are only a limited number of ways to represent effects in a way that makes them worth the effort of representing them. A change that makes no practical difference isn't a change worth having, and a change that takes more effort to work out than the payoff is worth is also entirely undesirable.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

If you can assign the Assault Cannon of ROF of 10, you can assign the SB double ROF.

That said I remember us debating that the Storm quality actually should give a bonus while storming a compound (aka moving and shooting).

Alex

If we were just looking at storm just getting bullets out faster, then the assault cannon would have storm. Using multiple barrels to shoot faster is what the AC is all about.

I guess having them seperate means you could mount a twin-linked storm bolter on your vehicle and waste lots of ammo to get a little bonus to hit and a couple extra hits possible.

ak-73 said:

Can? Of course. Should? Well, that's a different matter altogether.

Would you bother with a Stormbolter that just had twice the ROF of a Bolter and nothing else? Does it make the weapon sufficiently different in practical terms?

Those are the relevant questions. Designing weapons is trickier than it looks, because ensuring that two weapons feel appropriately, sufficiently and satisfyingly different when used in-game is more art than science.

That's not to say that I agree entirely with decisions made with regards to certain weaponry, but that's a different matter - I would, for example, have made the Assault Cannon quite different to its current incarnation, more akin to the utter terror it once was back in 2nd edition. My point is that there are frequently several ways to represent the same thing, and as often several things all represented the same way (think how many factors all end up being boiled down to a simple bonus to damage), and there is seldom a clear-cut method of determining which is most appropriate.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

If you compare with DH patterns, I'd say the difference is substantial and, yes, I would bother. I'd be eager to use it in combination with Strongpoint and/or Signum Link.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Well, the first step is modelling pseudo-reality. If the result is too complicated, then you have to dumb down. In this case I don't see the need. The question is whether one only wants to model the increased ROF or whether one wants to model property that give the weapon an edge in those situations it was made for. Storming forwards.

Alex