[SG] Specs

Writing up Hudak's Hooligans
(http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/sg/hudak.htm)  I realized I don't know
what the specs are for flamers. Is this just that I've overlooked

The video clips of those flame tanks in C&C were pretty impressive... Until
you consider what even one bullet might do to those huge cannisters of
gasoline stacked up like cordwood on the top of that "tank"...

on 02.8.26 1:33 PM, Brian Burger at yh728@victoria.tc.ca scribbleth:
> There've been a couple of proposed/house ruled larger flamers -

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Laserlight wrote:

> Writing up Hudak's Hooligans

Flamers don't really have FP/impact specs like the rest of the weapons
in
SG - they just have a close combat effect, AFAIK. (cause TERROR, & two
die shift for CC, I think. Don't quote me, my book is in a box somewhere!)

So you can't use them except in Close Assault. Not unreasonable, given
that most modern/historical flamethrowers had a range of 30m or less,
and that's only 3 inches in SG2.

There've been a couple of proposed/house ruled larger flamers -
vehicular
or just 'heavy' - they've all suffered from being grotesquely over the
top, I remember.

Brian commented, responding to Laserlight:

> Writing up Hudak's Hooligans

I've never liked the fact that flame weapons only have a CC effect,
particularly with the idea that you can mount them on vehicles with bigger
power pumps, etc.

I've tried out the following rules in SG games:

Flame Thrower:

FP d8 Impact d8 Range: Close only
Special:  Forces a confidence test, +2 threat level for suffering ANY
hit
with a Flame Thrower, +3 for suffering a casualty.  Any *shot* with a
flame thrower, even if it misses entirely, causes a Suppression. Plus can set
terrain on fire (as per the rulebook).
CC:  Same as rulebook says.

Re the confidence issues ans suppression - they're terrifying, so
getting shot at by one should be scary. People are going to duck if one is
sent in their general direction. Actually getting hit by one will be
terrifying to the point where confidence tests are necessary, and seeing your
buddy running around on fire trying to put it out is just over the top (so,
earns the BIG penalty against your morale).

I've played them this way a number of times and these rules seems to work fine
and not be overpowering or unbalancing. Note that I don't let many of them get
in the game in the first place, though.

This is a bit more interesting than CC only, and not overpowering (in my
experience).

Vehicle Mounted Flame Thrower:

Tom and I wrote these up a while back and posted them on stargrunt.ca

"Heavy Vehicle Mounted Flame Throwers ("HVMFT") have limited range, and can
only fire at targets within the vehicle's close range band (up to 12"). They
attack infantry formations as per a normal vehicle heavy weapon (quality die,
FC die). Any hits to the unit are resolved with a d10 impact. The main effect
of the weapon is it's dramatic influence on a target unit's morale. The target
unit struck by a Heavy Flame Thrower must take a
confidence test with a TL of +2, and an additional penalty of +1 per
casualty suffered by the attack. This confidence test is required even if the
target unit suffers no hits. These weapons are designed to terrorize, and if
the unit fails the confidence test, it's morale level drops by 2 levels for a
simple failure, and 3 levels for a serious failure (when the dice result is
less than half the target number). This could be catastrophic for even
experienced and highly motivated troops, but that is appropriate after coming
under fire from this type of weapon."

the page is at:

http://www.stargrunt.ca/vehicles_equipment/sg2_hvyflmr/sg2_hvyflmr.htm

Yes, these rules are pretty potent, though the very short range is a balancing
factor.

I've played with these rules a couple of times and they can be very potent.
Having said that, I only use them on walkers (easy to kill), and the vehicles
suffer additional penalties for carrying them (greater chance for
damage from the exposed weapon system including from small-arms fire,
greater chance of catestrophic damage if penetrated, etc). If you had a bunch
in your force, they would be nasty, but putting them on
easy-to-kill
vehicles and limiting them in number (part of the scenario design) is a good
way of balancing their effectiveness.

Adrian said:
> Flame Thrower:

Might also make it a limited ammo weapon, like GMS/P.  IIRC the