SST LZ(Stream)

[reklawyad]

Sorry if this has been answered.

Question about Stream weapons. If I fire a stream weapon with the template, let's say the skinnie neural beamer (I think 8" range) it would only be able to go 8"s from the figure out. But Let's say that you fire the stream weapon in Direct fire mode, can you then say it's going to go out 14 inches because basically you will be firing in a Firezone?

I'd assume you still have to have a target be within the first 8 inches, but then it will make a 6 inch Radius around it?

Correct or incorrect?

Thanks.

Ken

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

correct. The main advantage of firing stream is that you hit each target under the template with the damage dice roll. Firing direct gives you only a few dice to roll, divvied up between targets in the Fire Zone. An MI flamer does D10+2 damage to each target hit by the stream, and 2D10 damage in a fire zone

 

[CudaHP]

reklawyad,

I have to disagree with Lorcan Nagle.
A Stream weapon may only damage models that fall within or under the template.

Page 26 under Traits: LZ (Stream)
Direct Fire: . . . . They do not generate their Lethal Zone when firing directly, however; they only affect the target struck in the same manner as a normal weapon. (This would mean do not assume the Auto Trait so no 6" radius Firezone, Max 3" inch Firezone from target).
Stream Fire: . . . . The weapon's damage bonus applies to every model struck. The Lethal Zone is 2" wide but remember: A model's center point must be within this to be affected.

page 34 under Determine Fire Zone
page 32 under Pick a Target Model
In the defintions and rules for firing actions especially as regards Fire Zones The models in a unit must pick a (as in one) target model and have an unobstructed line of sight to it.
Models in the unit that are unable to shoot at the target model miss out on the Shoot action all together.

Earlier on page 32 under Restrictions
"In order to fire, individual models must have their unit's target model:
* Within their line of sight (unless they are using Artillery fire),
* Within range of the weapons they are using.

I realize that all seems rather pedantic but what I gather from this is as follows The Stream weapon can be fired Direct or Stream Fire on its own by splitting the units fire and paying the penalty(lose two dice) or it can be added to the Fire Zone but, only if the unit target falls within its max range (in this case 8 inches).

The ultimate answer seems to be yes but only if target's center is within the 8 inch stream template range.

Now that is simply my opinion based on the rules I have quoted. I may have some more specific rules dealing with this situation elsewhere or there have been some Official ruling that contradicts the rules as written.

Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted these rules, but I believe this is in fact what they say.

Hope this is of some help to you relawyad.

 

[reklawyad]

I forgot about the weapons having 3" because they are not auto.

I do agree that it seems a little to overpowered if you fire a stream in direct fire and create a "firezone" but that doesn't mean anything.

I would like to hear from someone "official" though because we had a problem last night in a game and it seems that it's like pulling teeth to try and get some of the people I play with to go with the rules even when I do read the rules (I quoted Page 26 as well.)

Thanks for everyones help. It does help out alot.

Ken

 

[GreyDL]

(This would mean do not assume the Auto Trait so no 6" radius Firezone, Max 3" inch Firezone from target).

Stream weapons have a LZ so they do get a 6" fire zone when using direct fire.

reklawyad you were right. Firing a LZ/Stream weapon in direct fire mode is just like direct firing any other LZ weapon. You just calculate the number of damage die in a different way and lose the damage bonus.

As you are allowed to pre-measure, you can always choose to fire in artillery/stream mode if you wouldn't have the range to affect the target model of the squad's fire zone.. hopefully torching some closer enemies.

As for official.. it's all clearly in a couple of pages in the rulebook. LZ/stream is just like LZ/?" with some noted modifications.

 

[reklawyad]

(This would mean do not assume the Auto Trait so no 6" radius Firezone, Max 3" inch Firezone from target).

Stream weapons have a LZ so they do get a 6" fire zone when using direct fire.

reklawyad you were right. Firing a LZ/Stream weapon in direct fire mode is just like direct firing any other LZ weapon. You just calculate the number of damage die in a different way and lose the damage bonus.

As you are allowed to pre-measure, you can always choose to fire in artillery/stream mode if you wouldn't have the range to affect the target model of the squad's fire zone.. hopefully torching some closer enemies.

As for official.. it's all clearly in a couple of pages in the rulebook. LZ/stream is just like LZ/?" with some noted modifications.

I thought unless a weapon has auto it's LZ was always 3"?

Ken

 

[Rabidchild]

I don't have my rulebook nearby, but I thought all LZ weapons created a 6" kill zone when fired direct.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

All lethal zone weapons indeed make a 6" fire zone when fired direct.

 

[CudaHP]

Lorcan Nagle, please read my original post as it quotes the relevant rules section directly.

The LZ of a stream weapon is quoted as 2" wide and length of stream template (which is 8 inches with the weapon the question was related to); unless you can quote a ruling from Mongoose which clearly negates that rule.

Please all if you are going to correct my post when it quotes the rulebook, include a rulebook quote that counters my quote.

I believe the section being misinterpreted is
page 34 under Determine Fire Zone
A Fire Zone covers an area of the following size:
* Up to 6" from the target model for Auto weapons or direct fire Lethal Zone weapons.
( This allows a Fire Zone up to 6 " which means from 0 to 6" as I read it but Stream Weapons has a specific and as far as I can tell overriding definition of usage and results in Direct Fiire: . . . as stated on page 26 under the LZ (Stream) Trait (weapons)
* Up to 3" from the target model in all other cases.

Now I could very well be wrong but I would really appreciate those of you who are so certain I am wrong, if you would please quote the contradicting rule from the Rulebook so I would be able to use that quote when this potential situation occurs in a game.

If your certainty is based on an official ruling which contradicts the rules I have quoted (twice now in some cases), please quote that source or the relevant section of the Players Guide if that is your source.

I am not asking for personal opinions here but actual rules or rulings, especially since a Stream weapon has a specific template and area of effect.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Up to 6" from the target model for Auto weapons or direct fire Lethal Zone weapons.


That's your own rules quote: Stream weapons are by definition 'lethal zone weapons' they are reffered to as LZ: stream. Therefore, they follow the normal convention for LZ weapons when fired directly. The stream class is a sub rule under the LZ rules. There are no fire zone rules specific to an LZ:stream weapon fired directly, so, I'd assume you use the existing rules for stream weapons fired directly (it represents the sweep of a flamer for example).

Look at the wording under fire zone (page 34)
Up to 6" from the target model for auto weapons or direct fire lethal zone weapons.

If you are to go by the conventions of the book, then this implies that ALL lethal zone weapons are included, why? Because if it only reffered to artillery type weapons, then this would be LZ/x with a range modifier for x. It doesn't it just states direct fire LZ weapons. (There are two types of LZ in SST LZ/X and LZ/stream, if it meant just LZ/X I'd assume that's how the rule would read).
At no point does it specifically say that stream weapons recieve a 3" fire zone, it does however state that all LZ direct fire is 6".

 

[CudaHP]

So what you are saying Jose is that rules which are specific to the weapon type or trait do not effect the general rule or override it in any way.

None of the specifics have any effect on the general rules??? Then why in the world are they even in the rules????

If the rules for stream weapons have no effect in the game, why include them. For stream weapons such as they are, why include a template and a rule regarding its use. I.e. centerpoint of target model MUST fall under the 2" wide stream...

The usual procedure in rules, is that the general rules are modified by specifics, not rules on specific weapons are ignored in favor of the general rules.

The prime example of a clearly delineated rule set where what is modified by what (sub rules always do the modifying) is clearly indicated and understood is Advanced Squad Leader. One of the most complex yet clearly organized rule systems I have ever dealt with.

If your chosen method of definitions of rules is the official one, then no wonder there have been so many complaints and literally bitch threads about the rules.

Every discussion you and I have had revolves around this same difference of logic in rules interpretation and application.

I give up, I now have to agree with many others, that by using your interpretations as how the rules should be aqpplied, SST had great ideas for rules, which are indeed very poorly executed, there is no clearly defined hierarchy in the rules leading to endless discussions and arguments as to who is correct.

No further rules discussions for me, pick and choose as you care to, I no longer care.

I may look at SST Evo when it appears, but the current system is in need of too much major surgery and translation into actual American English, also needs far to many corrections to ever appeal to me.

As for now I will go back to writing up my own set of generic rules using what I regard as good concepts; that way I only have to argue with my own play testers.

It is a local product for local use only.

 

[emperorpenguin]

This is precisely why I favour dropping direct fire for ALL lethal zone weapons. Apartf from the confusion it causes just how exactly does a flamethrower pick out one or two targets in one fire mode and spray napalm death in the other? :?

I think lethal zone weapons should fire as such and direct fire should only be for non-lethal zone weapons, no arguments and no suspension of disbelief! :wink:

 

[CudaHP]

I'll buy that now emperorpenguin. As it stands right now there appears no way to come to any agreements under the current rules.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Yup, far better to throw your toys out of the pram and flounce off like a 12 year old girls.
They won't agree with me, it's pointless, have the courage of your conviction and try to convince, rather than lecturing endlessly. I hadn't personally noted down who I'd discussed things with.

All I said was, it doesn't mention in the stream rules that they have a 3" fire zone. I take the wording to mean that losing the damage bonus and applying it as a modifier replaces losing the area effect and using that as a modifier, this is the specific rule that applies to stream weapons i.e. their damage bonus is their modifier, not their area of effect. d10+2 becomes 2D10 rather than d10+4 2" becoming 2d10 + 4
With that in mind, read the rule, aren't both possible interpretations of the rules?
See what I mean? You read a rule one way, maybe you're right, it's possible. I put my interpretation across...... you get all upset.

I think the rule reads very specifically and alters how many dice are rolled, I don't think the area effect enters into it. It may do, I'm certainly not weeping because people don't immediately agree with me.



I think the rule in question is a little unclear and requires discussion..... that's what I was doing.

 

[CudaHP]

You know Jose you are a jerk.

I said lets not argue about it and that you have a right to your opinion I disagree with it because I quoted the whole rules for Stream Direct Fire and Stream Fire as well as quoting the portion of your most precious general rules relating to Picking a Target as well as all rules that seemed related.

Your response was that the rules did not forbid your interpretation. I specifically asked for specific quotes or rulings that clearly support only your position, instead you quote your own opinion, again.

I grew tired of the discussion because no matter what I quote you return to your own opinion, yet again without any supporting evidence. I state that if your opinion concerning the lack of hierarchy in so far as what rules do indeed modify what rules is the OFFICIAL POSITION then I can fully understand why some individuals have stated that they feel the rules need serious work; and that based on your position of this being the designers intentions and how the rules MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED I feel it is better to simply go about my business rather than continue to argue.

By the way in my quote it says stream weapons are treated as normal not auto weapons and thereby do in fact get a 3 inch radius Fire Zone.

You must be very impressive to your students if your concept of discussing a logical debate involves calling them a 12 year old girl because they disagree with you.

I have tried discussing this, I have tried dropping this discussion neither have worked so . . ., s'in loi.

The discussion by the way was how does the inclusion of a Stream Weapon effect a Fire Zone, not what is stand alone effect.

Keeping that in mind youre final statement about stream weapons totally ignores the question asked. Considering the question originally asked your final answer states that a stream weapon fired into a Fire Zone adds 2D10?????

None of what you just said answers my question regarding the illogic of your answer relating to the heirarchy of rules effects: i.e. General to Specific and which efeects which, which overrides which and thereby which rule in each case is the actual rule taking precedence in application.

Instead you think it is cute to insult me when I elect to stop the discussion from devolving further into personalities and argument.

This is the second time you have tried to pursue a discussion ad absurdum ad ignorantum. I apologized the first time assuming it was my fault, not so this time. At this point the tone and tenor of this discussion is strictly your fault. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

You of course see all, know all and are always the only correct one so just shut up, and agree to disagree.

You see Joe in a rules discussion one or the other must be the only viable answer or the rule in question does in fact need revision. Which is what I said before.

The Rules discussions are yours.

 

[reklawyad]

This is why I posted it in the RulesMasters forum so that I could get someone Official to tell us which it is.

Mainly I'm a little worried that LZ Stream weapons are overpowered (Especially the damned nerual beamers from Skinnies)

Weapons that get to fire at you TWICE a turn and that are KILLSHOTS? Holy sheet batman that's crazy.

But that's just my two cents into the pile. I wanted to hear from someone offical before I go to my next game.

Not that I don't mind having anyone else give me their ideas just like to get offical channels myself.

Ken

 

[GreyDL]

None of the specifics have any effect on the general rules??? Then why in the world are they even in the rules????

But they do get used:
I) Direct Fire
Generate a fire zone of 6", generate a number of dice depending on damage modifier, lose damage modifier for any rolls
II) Artillery fire
Place template, roll against all targets with centre points under template for full effect

The LZ/Stream rules override the more generic rules when it comes to how many dice are generated(direct fire) and how the LZ template is placed(artillery fire).

EP:
Personally I feel that the direct fire rules are a rather good innovation (no need to play around with the template) that fits well with other SST rules and conventions (all direct fire weapons are considered to automatically hit). Of course they could be fine tuned more (like FZ depends on LZ size, how dice are generated etc).

And I also think that discussing rules changes when trying to work out an existing rule is a Bad and Confusing thing.. oops just did that :twisted:

 

[JoseDominguez]

You know Jose you are a jerk.

I said lets not argue about it and that you have a right to your opinion I disagree with it because I quoted the whole rules for Stream Direct Fire and Stream Fire as well as quoting the portion of your most precious general rules relating to Picking a Target as well as all rules that seemed related.

Your response was that the rules did not forbid your interpretation. I specifically asked for specific quotes or rulings that clearly support only your position, instead you quote your own opinion, again.

I grew tired of the discussion because no matter what I quote you return to your own opinion, yet again without any supporting evidence. I state that if your opinion concerning the lack of hierarchy in so far as what rules do indeed modify what rules is the OFFICIAL POSITION then I can fully understand why some individuals have stated that they feel the rules need serious work; and that based on your position of this being the designers intentions and how the rules MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED I feel it is better to simply go about my business rather than continue to argue.

By the way in my quote it says stream weapons are treated as normal not auto weapons and thereby do in fact get a 3 inch radius Fire Zone.

You must be very impressive to your students if your concept of discussing a logical debate involves calling them a 12 year old girl because they disagree with you.

I have tried discussing this, I have tried dropping this discussion neither have worked so . . ., s'in loi.

The discussion by the way was how does the inclusion of a Stream Weapon effect a Fire Zone, not what is stand alone effect.

Keeping that in mind youre final statement about stream weapons totally ignores the question asked. Considering the question originally asked your final answer states that a stream weapon fired into a Fire Zone adds 2D10?????

None of what you just said answers my question regarding the illogic of your answer relating to the heirarchy of rules effects: i.e. General to Specific and which efeects which, which overrides which and thereby which rule in each case is the actual rule taking precedence in application.

Instead you think it is cute to insult me when I elect to stop the discussion from devolving further into personalities and argument.

This is the second time you have tried to pursue a discussion ad absurdum ad ignorantum. I apologized the first time assuming it was my fault, not so this time. At this point the tone and tenor of this discussion is strictly your fault. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

You of course see all, know all and are always the only correct one so just shut up, and agree to disagree.

You see Joe in a rules discussion one or the other must be the only viable answer or the rule in question does in fact need revision. Which is what I said before.

The Rules discussions are yours.

Listen up cupcake, I'm posting on a discussion board, discussing a rules point someone brought up. I'm not posting on your personal space and you don't actually get to make the rules. I could post in red too y'know, make it all official.
You state your opinion, I state mine, we both disagree on a point, you then state yours again and say you aren't arguing anymore. So I state mine, you argue again and again.
Then you call me a jerk. Listen mate, you can outline as much as you want in red, people are disagreeing with you. Now you get personal.... pretty pathetic really. I get paid plenty to put up with the histrionics and tantrums of children at work. I don't expect it from so called adults.
If I've insulted you, then develop thicker skin or maybe try to read ALL OF THE WORDS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY APPEAR. You keep repeating the same rules... I don't happen to agree with you interpretation. That's all. I don't know you, I wouldn't presume to start name calling.

And when did you try dropping the discussion? I still feel it's a valid disputed rule between sensible posters. If you want to drop it, then simply stop typing. The rest of us don't have to stop just because we don't agree with you.
Some other posters do agree with you, so I'm discussing a rules interpretation with them, there ya go. Happy. Don't reply. Then you don't need to make faceless insults at someone miles away (which incidentally just leave you looking a little sad).


So, back on topic and leaving the private little world of whoever he was. 'Cos I don't care, reading back I think I must have upset you some time earlier, sorry about that, but my lifes a little too full to bear a grudge about an argument over wargames rules

Does a stream LZ weapon have a 3" or a 6" direct fire zone? I think the rules could read either way. How about everyone else? We could just Email matt, get a final answer, he always gets back about it. I'll do it now actually, y'see I was enjoying the discussion, but if it's making people miss their afternoon nap then we can't have that can we.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Got an answer from Matt straight away. So, if you really didn't want to argue, that's all that was needed. We just read a rule two different ways, that was my point. I didn't think the rule was confusing, I'd always read it one way, you the other, the ambiguity was in the interpretation, not the wording. So, I'd like to be mature about it and admit that your opinion was the correct one and even though you attempted to dictate the run of the thread, you were indeed correct in the long run

Unfortunately, here's Matt's answer

Hi there,

It is an LZ weapon, so 6"!

Matthew Sprange

So na ne na ne na naaaaaaaaa :lol:

Just goes to show, typing it in red doesn't make it right does it?


So, back on topic...... I agree with emp penguin, I think stream weapons should really be just that, no direct , what's everyone think?

 

[CudaHP]

You know Jose,
I already agreed with emperor penguin on this issue then you, not I, started the name calling.
Because this post from you came after I had agreed with emperorpenguin.
Josedominguez

Yup, far better to throw your toys out of the pram and flounce off like a 12 year old girls.

This was in response to my following quoted statements:

No further rules discussions for me, pick and choose as you care to, I no longer care.

I may look at SST Evo when it appears, but the current system is in need of too much major surgery and translation into actual American English, also needs far to many corrections to ever appeal to me.

As for now I will go back to writing up my own set of generic rules using what I regard as good concepts; that way I only have to argue with my own play testers.

I will state emphatically that I stand by my opinion that the rules need work on this and other rules which seem to be poorly organized in such a way as to need rewriting, which the company must agree with , since they are doing just that.

Matthew has stated that you are correct on the rule so, that is that.
That is what I asked for Jose not your or anyone else's opinion, simply because that is what reklawyad asked for.


The final portion of your posting of Matt's answer demonstrates your real attitude toward situations doesn't it Joe.

First you call me names when I state the obvious that the rules need work, and then when Matt rules your answer is correct you simply cannot resist your five year old Na na na etc. .......... type of response even with the laughing face to emphasize the fact that even when you are correct you cannot seem to do it gracefully. As for you being mature, noop.