Akirapryde2006
10/27/15 07:00 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Please forgive me if this topic was already raised. I did to a search and didn't find anything on this topic.
Okay, before we get started I want to acknowledge that I know FASA was sued for ripping Robotech Ideas.
But that didn't have to be the end of LAM's over all? Or did it?
Was there a stipulation to the final ruling that removed LAM's from the game as a whole?
Also, in the TRO 3085 LAM's were further hamstrung by the authors. By not allowing LAMs to use weight saving technology, the authors placed the final nail in the coffin of the LAMs.
To call LAM's Jack of All Trades and Master of None greatly under estimates the LAMs and their remarkable ability as forward scouts.
I took a modified P-Hawk LAM against three Assault class mechs at one time and defeated two out of three.
So my question is, where did they go and why were they hamstrung?
Akira
|
Cray
10/27/15 07:12 PM
72.189.109.30
|
LAMs are back. The final rules haven't been published, but the play test version is available somewhere on the official forums.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Akirapryde2006
10/27/15 07:18 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Well that is really great to hear.
Will the mechs continued to be hamstrung? As stated in the TRO 3085?
|
ghostrider
10/28/15 12:29 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Think about the entire game. Something that causes the normal mechs to look weak is always hamstrung. That is why things like ICE's are so heavy and no double heat sinks in vehicles aren't allowed.
And honestly, there is some tech that should not be allowed in lams no matter what. Endosteel and ferrous armor being one thing. The critical space issue would be key there. The extra bulk in some areas would negate the ability to change forms, ie left arm filled with crits yet nothing in right arm but weapons.
I would also assume lams didn't fit in with the games direction and as you said. A medium lam taking down 2 assault mechs. The strafe is dangerous, yet no fuel issue to prevent constant use. Also, how long can a jump jet be used before it runs out of fuel? To my knowledge you can fly using those jets and never have to land as long as the reactor is running.
I liked lams, as it was a good way to scout a planet without having to drop units that needed pick up on them. Then again, people probably had the same thought, and it stopped defenders from being able to destroy recon units. Imagine a scouting mission that you could avoid all the defenders units and complete in 3 rounds? Really screws up a nice defense with things like mines and sighted artillery. Even towers and bunker traps are useless when you can fly over and land at the target. Rescue missions are that much easier as well.
|
Akirapryde2006
10/28/15 09:23 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Think about the entire game. Something that causes the normal mechs to look weak is always hamstrung. That is why things like ICE's are so heavy and no double heat sinks in vehicles aren't allowed.
And honestly, there is some tech that should not be allowed in lams no matter what. Endosteel and ferrous armor being one thing. The critical space issue would be key there. The extra bulk in some areas would negate the ability to change forms, ie left arm filled with crits yet nothing in right arm but weapons.
There is a massive flaw in your logic ghostrider. I really hope that Cray is paying attention so he can take this conversation to the powers that be and maybe some mistakes can be prevented.
ghostrider, a LAM pays for being a LAM in terms of expensive, heavy and space consuming conversion gear. (1)This cost is paid in 10% of the over all Mech's weight is taken up by its conversion gear (rounded up to the nearest half ton). For example, a 55 Ton LAM must pay 5.5 tons worth of conversion gear that takes up six spaces within the mech. This tonnage/space must be paid first before anything else is added to the mech.
Your logic/opinion states that because the LAM has the conversion gear, there isn't enough space for things like Endosteel. However the actual math doesn't support this logic. According to the record sheet, a 55 ton LAM has the same space within its structure as a 55 Battlemech as does a 100 Battlemech. To say that LAM Conversion gear takes up more space than it actually does according the record sheet is only creating rules to break the construction rules of the game just because the unit is a LAM. (Does that make sense, or do I need to better explain that thought?)
Then there is the terms of cost for a LAM. A LAM's total cost is more than normal battlemechs and .5 more than an Omnimech. The (2) Formula is (Weapons and Equipment Cost + Structure Cost) x .75, where the cost formula for an Omnimech is (Weapons and Equipment Cost + Structure Cost) x .25. This makes LAM's some of the most expensive units in the game. Upkeep and repair costs are also more expensive. It is not the fault of the players who choose to play a LAM that over all cost is not a consideration in the game.
I have always been opposed to the idea that different units can't field certain equipment because that would unbalance the game. Like your example, Double Heat Sinks for Vehicles. You mean to tell me that some ingenious tech couldn't come up with a way to make a double heat sink fit inside a vehicle. Again this is only creating a rule for balance sake. The limitations on these technologies is only to ensure that these remarkable units can't take the upper hand over battlemechs. But there are rules in place to prevent this already.
In VTOL's mode (Air Mech Mode) it is treated like a VTOL not a mech. In fighter mode, it is treated like a fighter not a mech. So what does this mean? mechs like the Riflemen get a bonus for shooting at LAM in either mode. Units using LB-X Autocannons gain a bonus for shooting at the LAM in these two modes. I have seen mechs like the Rifleman fitting LB-X's have kicked my little LAM's butt a number of times. In Mech Mode, the unit is still a medium mech with the loss of 5.5 tons due to conversion gear. The LAM has its limitations in combat. There is no reason for new rules to further limit them in terms of gear that they can mount.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would also assume lams didn't fit in with the games direction and as you said. A medium lam taking down 2 assault mechs. The strafe is dangerous, yet no fuel issue to prevent constant use. Also, how long can a jump jet be used before it runs out of fuel? To my knowledge you can fly using those jets and never have to land as long as the reactor is running.
Fuel within the game has always been an issue with me. It is described in several sources that when a Mech uses its jumpjets, its hot plasma coming from the fusion engine of the mech. This plasma is what gives the mech the ability to "jump" tens of meters. This very engine allows the mech to move and has paved the way for the battlemech to become the King of the Battlefield. A vehicle with the same style engine does not require fuel. I have searched the original rules and found no reference that states that ICE engines must allocate space or tonnage for fuel (if someone else knows of the reference please let me know). In fact, no mech, VTOL or Vehicle has to allocate for fuel (as far as I know)
However a Aerospace fighter, Dropship, Jumpship and Warship with the same style of fusion engine (or much more powerful ones) require tonnage for fuel. It seems very one sided in this regard.
This said, I do have an example in one of the books where a Pilot of a LAM ran out of fuel and crashed. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the novel. But what I can remember is that there was gold stored in the back of the cockpit and the owner of the LAM had removed the bulb for the Low-Fuel Warning Light earlier in the book because it was annoying him. Later in the book, another pilot was in the middle of combat and ran out of fuel. Take it for what you want, but I am sure there is a reference that LAM's require fuel.
Do I think that LAM shouldn't use fuel? No, I am not saying that. But I think that fuel usage in the game really needs to be looked at. Why would a Aerospace fighter require fuel when a VTOL doesn't?
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I liked lams, as it was a good way to scout a planet without having to drop units that needed pick up on them. Then again, people probably had the same thought, and it stopped defenders from being able to destroy recon units. Imagine a scouting mission that you could avoid all the defenders units and complete in 3 rounds? Really screws up a nice defense with things like mines and sighted artillery. Even towers and bunker traps are useless when you can fly over and land at the target. Rescue missions are that much easier as well.
Dude, I love LAM's. LAMs are great scouts and fast raiders. Their speed and versatility makes them a master at these two roles. No longer is a LAM a Jake of All Trades/Master of None. LAM's can really prove themselves on the battlefield if only deployed correctly. If you need a surgical strike carried out, send in a LAM to hit the target. Need to know where the enemy is, send in a LAM. Need to scout out a world with limited warning, (you guessed it) send in a LAM. In common terms, LAM's are the Special Forces of a Mech Force.
Could a LAM stand up in a massive large scale battle without a special mission, no. And Trust me, I know this for a fact. I spent a great deal of time creating some really impressive LAM's. While my fellow players created Mechs equally suited at smashing my little LAM's. When used outside of their role, it becomes a very costly mistake. However if you need to tip the tide of a battle in a very small corner of the battlefield, a LAM is perfectly suited.
I don't think that the 55 Ton limit needs to be removed. However there are some rules that do need to be looked at. There doesn't need to be any hamstringing of the LAM in terms of what equipment they can use. However I think that space could be addressed across the board.
Here is my thought:
Look at the Record Sheet for a Mech. This record sheet doesn't change from a 20 mech to a 100 ton mech. In fact the only real change is if I am using a Quad Mech (which does make sense). Why is it that the 20 ton mech has the potential to hold the same number of slots as a 100 ton mech. Not talking tonnage mind you, just slots. Has anyone ever thought about that question? A 100 ton Mech is much larger than a 20 ton mech, but both have the same amount of space within its structure (speaking only in terms of space).
We tested this theory before in our group. We built a basic 20 ton mech and a basic 100 ton mech and fitted each with the machine guns. While the 100 ton mech had much more tonnage left over, we were able to match the same number of machine guns in each mech. This didn't make any sense to us. The 100 Ton Mech should be able to carry much more machine guns.
The same goes for any other kind of unit of different sizes. Over all weight of the unit should also impact the amount of space available within the unit, not just the available tonnage of what can be fitted.
Okay ghostrider, your turn. Also I would really love to see Cray's thoughts on this topic as a whole.
Akira
Cited Sources:
1: The Battletech Compendium, page 105
2: The Battletech Compendium, page 128
|
ghostrider
10/29/15 12:32 AM
98.150.102.177
|
The book you refer to is Far Country. A dest team with a mech lance misjump into a system combine troops misjumped into centuries before.
Now the issue I can see isn't space so much as oddly weighted and shaped limbs not fitting into a different form properly. Yes, the designing of it should take care of that, but as I said. A fully packed arm with a lightly pack opposite arm is going to have issue balancing out when put into a fighter from a mech. I know it pays the 10% conversion equipment weight. But it would be like a thorn being made into a lam. Right arm is normal, yet the left arm has the shoulder and upper actuators and an lrm. Not something that will work properly.
The original rules did not say anything about fuel consumption for anything other the space capable ships. Even lams did not have to deal with it, since it implied they were only used in atmosphere with HALO style drops as their limits in space. It did NOT say they could not be used that way. I am not sure if it is fluff, but there was something saying they use a bit of mercury in jets for use in the void. Still not limit on jets otherwise.
Now the critical space issue is one I brought up in another thread. I agree it is crap that a 20 ton mech has the same amount of critical space as a 100 ton mech, even the a locust is like 12 meters tall and the atlas is like 18. The crap that a 10 rated engine takes the same space as a 400 rated engine is garbage. It is ease of record keeping that seems to keep it the same. I would think the same goes for gyros and other things based on mech weights, including actuator and myomers.
Now you want to really screw with crits not matching, use medium lasers in the 100 tonner. The mg takes the same space, weighs half of it.
Had a minor disagreement with terms of critical space and volume taken. It touched on how the xl shielding takes up more criticals, yet volume didn't seem to play in. The IS xl takes up 3 spaces in each side torso, but yet there is no allowance to put 2 in the center torso?
So the lam issue can be used to argue other issues of the game as well.
Honestly, the urbanmech lam cartoon was funny as hell, but the ac 10 in one arm and the sl in the other would not work for fighter mode as the amount of wing surface area is too far gone to work.
The strafe ability of the lam is very dangerous in itself. That is where the lam is extremely powerful compared to a mech of the same size. Depending on dice rolls, you could very well kill an assault company of mechs with head hits/critical strike on a single path, with the energy weapons hitting EVERYTHING in the path.
|
ghostrider
10/29/15 12:37 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Oh yeah. Lams came out before the advanced weapons such as the lbx cannons, so there wasn't any canon thing to specifically counter strafes and such. Even the rifleman had no bonuses for shooting at it. The partisan had flak shot but no official stats to back up the fluff for it.
And yes, the lawsuit probably made them reconsider the concept of it. Hard to say no infringement when they are too close and they didn't even modify the pictures to boot.
|
DavidG
10/29/15 05:01 PM
96.29.193.32
|
In the original BT Compendium the section on LAMs listed that they had 30pts of fuel for use in aerospace fighter mode. It also listed that the only change to building a LAM from regular Battlemechs was the 10% cost of the conversion equipment and that they couldn't be built as Omni Mechs. Which implies that at the time it was published LAMs could us all upgraded construction materials and weapons. The way we played it since and XL engine had crits in the torsos and on a LAM the torsos become its wings, if the LAMs wing armor was destroyed, so were the engine crits there.
|
ghostrider
11/01/15 11:53 AM
98.150.102.177
|
If I know right, the damage and criticals are supposed to be done that way.
But I guess the way the lam changes form might be what is causing the issue of why some items might not work.
My idea of it changing involved more then just a simple torso spreading to form wing with the center torso being the fuselage. I imagine the torso actually twisting and warping. Something like the Transformers in the movies do.
Otherwise, I would think the fighter would have gaps between the fuselage and wings.as the armor shifts and that doesn't cover the airmech mode.
I would think that since the dynamics of the torso changes size and shape for the change, some things would not work properly. And example of this would be narrowing of one part of the torso, while lengthening of another. Like taking playdough and squishing it. Some things would not allow a change like that as they are solid and rigid.
And now that I think about it, there is no rules about making a lam that has no usable arms, such as the Urbanmech.
|
DavidG
11/01/15 04:09 PM
96.29.193.32
|
A LAM needs to have Upper arm actuators and shoulders. So a Mech that doesn't have those can't be used as a basis for a Lam. Also remember that when a LAM converts from Mech to Air-Mech and then to Aerospace Fighter, the side torsos become the wings by taking the front and back armor, adding it together, and then halving it for the wing armor. What I always wondered, was where is the rest of the armor located? Also, if all but one point of wing armor is destroyed, and the LAM changes back to Mech mode, it still had half of it's torso armor plus the one point. I always assumed that the damage to the torso armor was split proportionately between the front and rear.
|
ghostrider
11/01/15 11:55 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I thought the lams use the armor for a wing from the armor that was on the torsos of the side it came from. So if the left torso has 12 points on from and 2 on back normally, it would have 14 for the left wing. Now if the front armor was down 5 points, that would mean the wing would be down the 5 points as well with a total of 9 left.
As for the 1 point damage information, the compendium (published in 1990), I have does not state that. It does not say it requires arm actuators, but does says if shoulder or upper arm is destroyed it can not turn into fighter mode. Which makes sense because the arms become the nose.
I don't know how it would split the armor damage for front/back on wing damage, as most mechs that took a single ppc would destroy most rear side torso armors. Would that mean it would go internal even though it might have more armor? That doesn't make sense.
This might explain why the had to change the wasp around as the leg mounted srm become the fuselage which last I knew, didn't have a firing arc.
Interesting that arm weapons become wing weapons yet the arms become the nose. Why does that sound completely wrong? I would think they should be nose weapons.
But it would support why things like endosteel and ferrous fiber wouldn't work. Even xl engines would have issues.
I might have to look for the original battle tech book I got and see what it has.
|
DavidG
11/02/15 12:33 AM
96.29.193.32
|
On page 35 of Aerotech it states that when a Mech changes to Air Mech mode it deploys it's wings. That these have an armor value equal to one half the total armor value of the side torsos (front and back). So if you Mech had side torso armor of 15 front and 5 rear, then it would have an armor value on it's wings of (15+5=20/2=10) 10 points.
The reason I stated that LAMs needed only upper arm actuators and shoulder actuators is that without them, i.e. they have been damaged and are missing, a LAM can't transform. You need some actuators for the transformation to take play, just not hands and lower arm actuators.
As for if a LAM in mech gets hit in the rear and loses its rear armor, it's just like a mech, any damage past the armor goes to the internal structure. You then roll for crits normally. Then later if the LAM survives and it can still convert, (hasn't taken a crit that stops it), like in the example I used earlier, it only has (15+0=15/2=7.5 or 7) 7 points on its wing.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
3 registered and 148 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 6389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|