Re: [SG] WotW

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
>  
> > I have to admit I'd like to see more area effect weapons, such as
> > grenades. Some of the folks at my gaming club tend to field regular
> > firing squads, standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Best way to train that
out
> > of them is area effect weaponry.
> 
> Here's another one then for you :)
> 
> Flamers in SGII are terror weapons but of only close assault range.
Now
> in WWII the US produced a bunch of shermans that had huge flamers on
> them (most of which ended up in Canadian hands which lead to the
> stereotype of Canadians as pyros) so why can't SGII have a ranged
flamer
> weapon. In 40K (I know, sorry) they have ranged templated flamers. Now
> why not use something similar to that. Terrain already has a flash
point
> I believe (I'll have to look this up right afterwards) so why not make
> flamers in heavy weapons sizes, say, like GMS systems. 

Because flamers are short range weapons? Remember, 1" = 10 metres range?
> 
> Light Flamer:
> Size: 4
> Range: 14"
> Width at max range: 2"
> Damage: D10

Err. Max range 140 metres? Width at max range 20 metres? And you call
this
light?

> Heavy Flamer:
> Size: 6
> Range: 18"
> Width at max range: 3"
> Damage: D10

180 metres? 30 wide?

I'm sorry, but these simply strike me as far too heavy. I _could_ be
wrong
about the ranges of realistic flame weapons, but this strikes me as
excessive.

Now as for game terms, this is a damn heavy flamer as well. The light
flamer does over 2 range bands for green troops, the heavy 3. (or over
1,
and 1.5 for elite troops), and with NO penalty for the longer range
whatsoever. In fact, it's worse, it's an automatic hit? Or am I
misunderstanding this thing? Also, a flamer is no more area effect than
a
machine gun - you have to sweep it across to hit a larger area. The only
difference is the indirect damage dealt by setting the geography on
fire. 
I assume your damage suggestions imply a direct hit; indirect damage is
covered under fire rules (pg. 57), and only does a D4 damage.

The effect, a D10 on all figures in the area, with potential repeat
effects the next round, is very harsh compared to regular fire (D4).
Unless you're going to ditch the area effect, I'd say don't go over a
D6.
You'd have to be lucky to harm them. Also, drop the repeat effect.
Either
the figure is REALLY on fire, except possibly for wounded, but not dead,
figures. EITHER he really IS on fire, or he isn't. The burning geography
will already inflict an extra D4 in later turns. (Mmm. Do suppressed
units
get to run out of the fire? I'd allow it, towards the closest
non-burning 
area)

I'm sorry, but I think this would be too heavy, as suggested? I'd rather
be taking heavy orbital bombardment than this ;)

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE6wu/8JXH58oo6ncURAqLqAJ9QU+bHEr5lLiiTmZr72YE9G8Yz5gCgxprg
l+kCE14BBTCW8wsnb005mcg=
=RMOk