So scatter lasers' new laser lock rule, to my eyes, seems to only give twin linked to the firing model if the model also has an additional, non-scatter laser weapon as well.
The rule reads:
"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first. If the laser lock weapon(s) causes one or more hits, treat all weapons on the same model yet to fire this phase as being twin linked for the rest of the phase. Note that all of the hits caused by the firer's shooting attacks are still resolved simultaneously."
Applied to a war walker, for example, with dual scatter lasers, the walker has no weapons other than the scatter lasers, so firing the "weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first" would mean firing both weapons at once. There are thus no "weapons yet to fire" that could benefit from the twin-linked rule, therefore a dual scatter laser walker would not become twin linked. Note that the twin link, if available, comes after the firing of the laser lock weapon. It is prospective, not retroactive.
Thoughts?
The rule reads:
"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first. If the laser lock weapon(s) causes one or more hits, treat all weapons on the same model yet to fire this phase as being twin linked for the rest of the phase. Note that all of the hits caused by the firer's shooting attacks are still resolved simultaneously."
Applied to a war walker, for example, with dual scatter lasers, the walker has no weapons other than the scatter lasers, so firing the "weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first" would mean firing both weapons at once. There are thus no "weapons yet to fire" that could benefit from the twin-linked rule, therefore a dual scatter laser walker would not become twin linked. Note that the twin link, if available, comes after the firing of the laser lock weapon. It is prospective, not retroactive.
Thoughts?
