Re: [GZG] [SG] Rapid Fire antipersonnel plasma gun?

[J L Hilal <jlhilal@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Samuel Penn <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 15:19, John Atkinson wrote:
> > Maybe it's just me, but that whole "terror" thing just doesn't do it for
> > me.
> 
> That's what I was thinking, hence the check to see if similar weapons
> were already ruled as causing a similar effect.
> 
> p.43 under 'Terror Effects' is where the rule is btw. Speaking as
> someone who's never had someone shoot at them or try to set them
> on fire, Fire does seem slightly scarier because a crispy fried
> corpse looks worse than a corpse that is simply blood stained.
> 

p. 21 covers TERROR effecta vis-a-vis PANIC.
p. 41-43 covers TERROR effects vis-a-vis Infantry Close Assault.

These are the only places that I found it mentioned.  Also, the section on p.43
specificly says that TERROR effects should be agreed upon or designated by the
ref, and also says that TERROR effects can depend on the type of troops on each
side.  This leads me to conclude that is could be resonable for some troops to
be subject to TERROR from a specific source while others are not.  e.g. PA and
well equipped regular forces w/nomex undies do not receive TERROR from flame
weapons, but conscript forces and volunteer militia w/o fire resistant suits
do.  Or newbies who have never encountered or even heard of
xenomorphs/bugs/Posleen are ready to kick butt, but veterans who have seen
their buddies swarmed under do suffer TERROR from such drooling beasties.

So you could say that well equipped NAC, NSL, and IJF professionals have nomex
skivvies, but the ESU doesn't waste funds on such frivolities for their
conscript hordes.

J
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l