[FT] WotW #8 Gatling Battery & Gatling Phaser

Well, if we've finished with the Holofield, I suggest something simple,
that shouldn't take long, a '2 for the price on 1 deal' (ok, so they
have similar names).

Gatling Batteries [Paul Wellman] (Sam Penn's Website)
MASS: 3, Cost 9

The Gatling battery is a high rate of fire class 1 battery, with an
effective range of 9mu and attacks target ships with 4 dice.
Alternatively, the Gatling Battery can attack incoming fighters and
missiles as 2 standard PDS.

Comments: (Oerjan) Mass and cost is for FT2, not FB. Superseded by the
Pulser-C.

Gatling Phaser [Star Fleet Battles Conversions by Alan Brain]

Treat as Re-useable submunitions which do not ignore shields (i.e. a
half range class 3 beam) but can be fired at incoming Fighters, Missiles
and Plasma Torpedos as a single PDS. Still requires Firecon in PDS mode.
Same cost and arcs as a Class 2 Beam.

Comments: (Oerjan) Depending on its PD firepower it could be anything
from very poor or very good. It should balance ~OK if it gets 1 PDS die
or 2-3 B1 dice against fighters/missiles/plasma torps. I know I've asked
Alan about it before, but can't find his reply at the moment.

Despite there obvious differences, the concept behind these weapons is
similar - a short-range, rapid fire beam with reasonably good
capabilities as both an anti-ship and a point defence weapon.

The Gatling Battery is similar to a weak Pulsar-C with improved PDS
capability - from a comparison with a Pulsar-C I'd say that either its
MASS should be increased to 4 (and COST to 12), or its MASS left
unchanged (at 3) and its COST increased to 15 (assuming an all-arc
weapon).
Or give it pulsar arcs, 1-arc is MASS 2, 3-arc is MASS 3, and 6-arc is
MASS 4, COST is 3x MASS.

The Gatling Phaser is a half range Class 3 beam battery with PDS
capability (treat as PDS system with same arcs - c.f. Pulsars - needs
firecon), and is MASS 2 for a 3-arc version, and MASS 3 for a 6-arc
version - COST is 3x MASS - I think the MASS and COST given is quite
alright.

Both weapons _could_ be replaced by a 'locked' Pulsar-C (i.e. weapon
description could be replaced by 'treat this weapon as a Pulsar battery
configured in Close (C) mode').

My vote is to treat both weapons as the same - use either Alan Brain's
version or a Pulsar-C.

What do you think?

Charles