Re: [GZG] [SG] Rapid Fire antipersonnel plasma gun?
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@h...>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:09:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG] Rapid Fire antipersonnel plasma gun?
On 9/27/06, email@example.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:19:31 +0400
> From: "John Atkinson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Maybe it's just me, but that whole "terror" thing just doesn't do it
> I don't see anything inherently more terrifying about a plasma gun as
> compared to a gauss rifle. You're just as dead, and the gauss rifle
> is a lot harder to pinpoint as compares to a huge, hot (shows up
> nicely on thermals) weapon that spits fireballs at a slow rate of
> IMNSHO terror is a thing for draftees or green troops.
I tend to agree. All a "terror" unit does is cause a panic test in
Blues, Greens and Yellows. It could be a simple matter to drop Blues
from the list and just add terror units to the list of things that
cause panic among Greens and less.
Flamethrowers are terror units not because they can kill, but because
they kill you in a horrible way. There are people who will brave a
bullet but are scared to death of burning (even if it doesn't kill
them). Whether this manifested itself in real life is questionable. I
have seen accounts where some Japanese surrendered when given the
chance partly due to the idea of being roasted alive. I think Guy
Gabaldon used the threat of flamethrowers when he captured 800
Japanese single-handedly on Saipan. On the other hand, the vast
majority of Japanese troops on islands like Tarawa, Peleliu, and
Okinawa fought until the end, or killed themselves, even with the
threat of flamethrowers.
"Flamers" are a part of the sci-fi genre (largely thanks to GW), so I
guess that's where the terror aspect comes in.
I may be wrong about Plasma Guns being terror weapons. If they are
not, then the Rapid Fire version should not be, either.
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
Gzg-l mailing list