Long Bursts are described under the "Full Auto Mode" section. The reason that the multiple targets section under the burst fire mentions long bursts and short bursts, is that it looks like the same text was copy&pasted into both places.

Here's the break down:
Burst Fire weapons fire 3 round bursts as Simple actions.

Full Auto weapons can fire any of the following
A 3 round burst as describe in the burst fire section as a simple action (this would be a "short burst")
A 6 round burst called a "Long Burst" as a simple action, but only one per action phase
A 10 round burst called a "Full Burst" as a complex action

RunnerPaul, provide me with a rules quote that supports that about short bursts from SR4, or a precedent for it from a previous edition. I found a precedent about my argument for short bursts from the only ruleset I have on hand that defines them.

He is right, you are wrong.

Well, nice to know that the standard of evidence is so high...

Look, I asked for a rules quote for a reason. If they're going to use it as a synonym when in previous editions it's been different, they need to indicate that. As it stands, I have a rules precedent from a previous edition that I do not see contradicted in the ruleset of this one.

If I may direct attention to "Not enough Bullets" under "Long bursts".
Long burst is normally 6 bullets. With 5 or 4 bullets, it's a long burst with reduced effect. When you have three bullets, it's treated as a short burst.

Okay, I have a simple question: Why the hell would they use SR3 terminology for that?

And, I'll admit I was wrong. I would assume they'd make it a point to include all information about bursts under burst fire. But, meh.

Because the term "ultra-fast" can be game fluff to explain why the short burst is only treated as SA recoil. You know, a way to make the burst-fire weapon in the book that is the exception to the rules have a logical reason as to why.

And, while rules from previous editions are not valid (ever notice me claiming I was going to use the rule?), that doesn't mean the precedents they set are not still valid. Unless, of course, you want to argue that precedents are not valid, in which case we'll have a lovely discussion about the link between magic and essense.

And the therm 'short' can't be fluff? Even if it is nowhere mentioned in this edition?
Let's talk about touble-think.

Don't you mean "double-think?" And, yes, I did think it could be fluff... until I checked the hard rules section and saw it mentioned 2 times and corresponded it with an existing rule in a previous edition. At that point, it being fluff flopped out the window.

Besides, I am honestly one of those people who would think they'd put all of the information about bursts in the burst-fire section.

Butterblume, because short-bursts used to be the term for when you had a burst that was only two bullets. The problem with throwing it in and then not explaining the change until in the Full-Auto section is demonstrated by the last page or so of this topic.

RunnerPaul, then they have a problem, as they mention short bursts under the Burst-Fire section. I agree it could have been laid out better, and have asked for a simple change that improves layout, provides a clear definition long before you get to Full Auto, and prevents people from scrambling to search the book to find the definition for a term that mysteriously shows up out of nowhere.

And then not going on to define it until after we know about lacking bullets and what a long burst is. Instead of, you know, defining it when they brought it up.

@Lilith: no.

Smokeskin, do you get off on posting random comments?

@Lilith: no.

Sorry, couldn't resist it

Look, you're not making any sense. Just give it a rest.

Okay, I'm sigging that comment

Sorry about asking that. In any case, I could explain it all again in a much-shorter and fully-coherent form, or we could all just nod, pretend I did, and go on with our lives.

/me proceeds with nodding and pretending.

Not to butt in on anyone's lovely argument, but it seems to me that people are simply overanalyzing text and getting too caught up on a term from a previous edition. Aside from the fluff text in the Fubuki's description, the only other place in the book where "short burst" is mentioned is in the burst fire rules (p143-144). The descriptions for long and full bursts both refer to the previous, smaller types of burst, and both of them refer to the basic one as "short."

The burst fire rules explicitly state the number of rounds fired for the three types of bursts available. "Normal/short" bursts are three rounds, long bursts are 6, and Full auto is 10. All three have narrow and wide options available to them. For short and long bursts, there are specific descriptions of what happens when there aren't enough rounds to complete that kind of burst. In the normal/short's case, it specifically mentions two rounds as being "not enough."

So, just from reading that section of the rules, it seems pretty straightforward, and the only issue seems to be that "short burst" was an SR3 term, while in SR4 a two round burst is an "incomplete normal(short) 3-round burst."

As for the Fubuki itself its an interesting gun, although there are a couple ways to interpret the rules surrounding it. The image would suggest that the barrels are removable, and that does make sense. However, the ammo listing is 10(ml)x4, which implies 4 muzzle loading barrles and thus may not be removable at all. If they were, it would might make more sense to list it as 10©x4, since they would serve the same function as a clip. Of course, the metalstorm technology itself has the barrrels being removable, to quickly swap out payloads. My personal take on the thing's ammo is that the barrels are removable as clips, and muzzle loading would only come into play if you want to reload it without removing the barrels.

As for the Fubuki's recoil/BF capabilities, it makes sense that due to the firing technology, it can't fire wide bursts (it says nothing about short/long/full). The bullets exit too rapidly to allow the user to fan the gun around to achieve a wide burst effect.

The weapon's size is the real issue though, and while from looking at the picture it seems like the length is pretty much what it would have to be to fit that clip/barrel in there, the height could be smaller (by a lot if the barrels weren't stacked vertically). Depending on the caliber and how big the barrels need to be, the gun could probably be no larger than a normal handgun (with just an unusually long barrel length). Since the front of the gun only needs to contain the barrels and enough metal to hold it together, the grip and rear portions are free to contain the batteries and electronics that make the gun function. Not having to fit feed mechanisms, firing chambers, and all that stuff in there frees up a lot of room that can either .

Really, the biggest issue with the picture that I can see is that the scaling on the grip seems to be way too small to even hold comfortably, which also makes the gun seem bigger in comparison. If you ignored the finger indentations and shaved off some of that wasted space at the bottom near the stock, the gun appears to be around the same size as the Ares Predator.

You can stick 2 small/medium caliber pistol barrels side by side without making the gun much wider than many of the larger frame handguns. This, for example, looks quite a bit smaller than the Ares Predator does.

The YSF would, unless limited in factory, be capable of firing any length of burst (up to 40) at whatever rate of fire the user prefers. Just because it can fire at 40,000rpm from a single barrel doesn't mean it has to.

Sure - but why stop there?

Where?

@Austere: You're missing a www. in your link, causes it to 404 with out it in.

While I'm posting: Our group never had a problem with the short burst definition. Since the word Short is a antonym for Long, it made sense to us that a definition of a long burst of 6 bullets, would then be complimented by the short burst of 3.

Odd. The link only works for me without www.

Because that would involve making it much longer, taller and blockier?

Sure, to some extent - but flatness adds to carrying comfort and concealability.

Seeing as how we don't have any guns whose forends consist of 4 stacked barrels, I'm not sure we can make a good comparison from the added flatness of only being one barrel across (and not having to have the extra material of a slide) being counteracted by the added top-to-bottom height of the gun from having four barrels on top of each other.

I have a feeling holsters for this gun tend towards vertical shoulder rigs, and the like.

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5231

The guys at metalstorm actually have a 4 barreled handgun, if not in prototype, atleast in design. A YSF could very well look like a normal handgun if they had a design like the one in the video above.

I take it, then, that you couldn't view the image I linked at all?

Okay. Just to be clear the image is of the exact same design as they whirl around in the video you linked.

i think the last discussion about this gun landed it as a security gun rather then a runners gun. ie, as a sidearm carried on the hip (or there about) by a person in security armor.

maybe with a special holster that allows you to relase it outwards (or maybe forwards?) rather then drag it up first or something.