Karagin
09/04/02 03:06 PM
63.173.170.207
|
Who here still uses these? If you do how do you use them?
What I am looking for is info how you folks use them, I am not looking for why they are unbalancing or why they should be removed etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
09/04/02 03:19 PM
192.195.234.26
|
I use them in campaign play. A character might get lucky and find a functional LAM of a standard design (or GM made design) which can potentially be customized as far as is rational. In one case (using optional rifle rules), this lead to a Phoenix Hawk LAM with a claw and a most of its other weaponry in the rifles (one picked before each conflict, the rest in storage on the dropship).
When playing with RPG characters, the need to learn a new set of skills to use the aerospace mode, or move in air-mech mode helped limit how many characters tried to become LAM pilots.
I would also allow use of LAMs in random plotless battles, but my opponents have not yet attempted them.
(my random plotless battles consist of a victim or two designing whatever mech(s) they want, and then I choose an equal number of stock mechs of similar tonnage and tech base)
meow
|
Countergod
09/04/02 04:06 PM
160.39.138.242
|
I personally find them in no way unfair. However, one rule does apply when my friends and I use them: if we are playing strict BT rules, once they convert, they cannot strafe for 6 turns (turn conversion in Aerotech). LAM mode does not concern us, because we play on as small a map board as possible to reduce actual play time. As for campaigns, we have not had time to play one yet, so I have not tested this yet...
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck 
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Grizzly
09/04/02 05:11 PM
12.108.119.227
|
I used a couple once and had them land in the oppositions rear area where they became a harrasing force that pulled some enemy mechs away from the main combat giving me a slight weight advantage which I used to good effect. One LAM made it back to my side of the map, the other was knocked out of combat, but I was able to recover it due to winning the scenario. Unfortuneatly I haven't been able to play for about three months due to work. Gotta love tourist season at an amusement park for sucking your free time up due to long hours. Oh well we are closed during the week now and I hope to have a real life soon! 
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
Nightward
09/04/02 05:28 PM
132.234.251.211
|
I didn't find them to be that bad. Mind you, I was in my Dire Wolf "Vogeljaeger" Configuration at the time (it's packed out with LB cannon, Pulse Lasers, and Streak SRMs).
With the advent of Clan and the newer Inner Sphere technology, LAMs probably wouldn't be all that unbalanced. But against 3025-Era technology? Yes. I can totally understand why they were unbalanced.
Anyway, my opponent simply converted to irMech mode and spent his time hopping around, until I smacked him senseless with my buckshot ammo 
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
09/04/02 05:43 PM
63.173.170.116
|
Uhmm which part of leaving out the comments on the balance or not issue with LAMS did you miss? 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
09/05/02 12:21 AM
132.234.251.211
|
I dunno. Maybe I sort of thought that you wanted to know how my opponent used them, how I countered them, and how I felt about them in general. Wasn't that what you wanted?
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
09/05/02 01:49 AM
63.173.170.193
|
No, I didn't want the negative thoughts...those are easy enough to see...what I was looking for was HOW they are used...offering counter tactics are good, complaing is not...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
09/05/02 02:29 AM
216.14.192.226
|
WoB's counter tactics have worked wonders I found... nuke the dodgey things 
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
09/05/02 11:09 AM
63.173.170.83
|
groan....why play then?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Acolyte
09/05/02 04:38 PM
142.179.27.248
|
Well...... I'm a dyed in the wool old style 3025 player and fan of all the unseen, so I do. And I don't think they should be removed, at least not from the universe.
As to how they are used.
Tactical.
Bounce around like a flea on a crack addict. AirMech mode allows you to jump enough to get a +5 modifier every turn. You'll need a good pilot 'cause you'll be getting a +3 penalty to fire back. That 2mp take off and 2mp landing also present an interesting tactic. You don't have to land. This means you can choose to land and have cover or be three levels over the terrain below, allowing you to nullify the target's cover most times. The fact that you don't gain heat from jumping means that you can fire you're energy weapons with impunity.
Stratigic.
No unit is so good at keeping forces tied down. A couple of LAM's behind the lines is very worrying. And if you need to pull them away, no other unit can withdraw so easily. They can fly away and go to ground if AeroSpace is called in. You can also call them away from one front to do strafing runs on anouther.
All 'Mechs can land on planet from space with coccoons and booster packs, but LAM's can launch from space, land on planet, do their objective, take off and dock back with the DropShip. Those DropShips never have to land.
LAM's are also the only vehicle that can be transported in a 'Mech bay, a small craft bay, an AeroSpace Figther bay or even a vehicle bay (although that's a bit of a waste).
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Nightward
09/05/02 05:02 PM
132.234.251.211
|
*Sigh*
Read the post again, Karagin. I did not complain; I had one line of the post dedicated to game balance, and it was part of my opinion on how I felt about the LAMs.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
09/05/02 07:10 PM
63.12.147.166
|
Thats what I think of LAMs as well ... why play then?
I can easily take them out of the game in level 3 play, but the tactics required are defensive. So just fielding one gives a player the advantage even if he doesn't really use it.
The best way to deal with LAMs in level 2 is either ambush or Arrow IV.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:30 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Given that I have seen new stuff from folks on LAMs...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/17/07 02:31 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Karagin, please use this link's rules (my advanced rules and link to official rules) for LAMs:
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/143121/an/0/page/0#143121
and read the information for my Balancer LAM.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/142766/an/0/page/0#142766
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (01/17/07 02:46 PM)
|
Karagin
01/17/07 02:55 PM
70.123.166.36
|
I have read them, hence the reason I pushed this back to the current time frame...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/18/07 06:26 PM
207.160.205.13
|
So shall Randall Bills use them or not?
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/18/07 07:45 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Odds are he won't. Given how they have tried very hard to keep anything related to Robotech out of the game since the lawsuit.
But you never know they may bring them back in so way or another.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/18/07 08:52 PM
65.82.104.120
|
I wish they would bring back some canon LAMs, or else create new canon LAMs. True, with the lvl three rules, one can just create and use custom LAMs, but having at least a couple of canon LAMs lends more credence to the design it self.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Karagin
01/18/07 11:59 PM
70.123.166.36
|
The side effect is that with LAMs you have the munchkins dream killer mech. Picture this, a mech that can jump and get a bonus for it x3, has no heat issues, like any munchkin mech has that issue, thus can alpha strike every turn, and has pulse/targ combo and is made using Clan tech...that is called ubalanced. And I have seen folks refuse to play in games with LAMs being used.
My group allows them, since they aren't all the great as original written and don't have much as far as weapons and armor, no more then their non-transformable counterparts.
The rules out of the THB weren't bad ones they just put the LAMs out of the mainstream game and thus ended their life cycle. And with the lawsuit, Nystul and FASA as whole, felt that they were to Robotechish and thus were dead. Right or wrong good or bad that was the call made.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/19/07 10:21 AM
65.82.104.120
|
Clans would never use LAMs. Doesn't really fit into their culture. The Nova Cats dismantled the last known working LAM factory on Irece. Canon LAMs are dead,true, but the rules still exist to use LAMs, and make your own.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/19/07 11:34 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Karagin, we've been over this before. Facts, ideas, and methods of operation (LAMs and how they transform) cannot be copyrighted.
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (01/19/07 03:53 PM)
|
Seras
01/19/07 11:48 AM
209.56.12.253
|
...just so i don't feel so stupid anymore, when u say LAMs, are u talking about Land-Air Mechs, or something else?
-Seras
Lord of Pokemon
|
Toontje
01/19/07 12:44 PM
88.159.68.238
|
He is..
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/19/07 08:18 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Land air mechs...
Not laser antimissile syste..
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/19/07 08:22 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Yes they can. Harmony Gold at one time owned the Robotech and the Transformable Veritechs which FASA used for the LAMs.
Different SciFi shows can have similar things, ie Gobots vs Transformers and BT vs Robotech, but in the end for the BT universe TPTB had prior to the lawsuit already turned LAMs into an opintional level 3 item.
Then with the Lawsuit, TPTB wrote LAMs out with the desturction of the last factory in Ireece.
If you want to use LAMs then do so, but I don't think you can get Randal to bring them, hell we have better chance of getting them to drop the Jihad storyline before they bring back LAMs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/20/07 12:55 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Then why does the US Copyright Office webpage say they can't?
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/20/07 01:46 PM
70.123.166.36
|
The name LAM no it's not unusable, BUT the artwork, the name airmech and things like that are.
Also given that FASA didn't have the money or the right people to fight off HG, they went and gutted the game of anything that could give cause to be sued.
Also given how unbalancing LAMs can be and how easy it is to munch them out is another set of reasons that they are gone.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/21/07 04:20 PM
65.82.104.120
|
The images are Copyrigthed by Harmony, cause they sued fasa into the toilet over it. The concept can not be. therefore, we can still have land-air mechs, but they can not use the images from robotech as they once did. LAMs are not GONE! you can still use them according to the rules. There are no canon designs, though, for the afore mentioned reasons.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Karagin
01/21/07 05:49 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Never said LAMs couldn't be used, I said they would never be allowed back in canon Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/21/07 11:52 PM
203.206.125.163
|
The canon designs still exist, same as the old Unseen/Reseen ones.
Somethin' tells me you young fellas don't really know toomuch about the lawsuit. It turned out that Harmony Gold didn't hold the copyrights or trademarks, either, but nobody could really determine who did. Because they were taken to task by an American corporation that wasn't the originator (and which had, in fact, butchered the original material) it kind of disintigratecd. FASA just made them Unseen rather than face the hassle. We got them back in the end any way.
Finally, the Clans did use LAMs. Admittedly, it happened in the OMG, JDAE FLACONS RULE OMGOMGOMG!!11eleventy novel, Freebirth, but there you go.
I hate the Jade Falcons. And any time people ask me why, I point at Freebirth and I Am Jade Falcon. They're not as bad as Roar of Honour, but that's a rant for another day.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
01/22/07 06:28 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Actually you need to come up to date your self, we got back new images but NOTHING has replaced the 3025 images as of yet. When TPTB have been asked about the new Project Phoinex images being used for or as replacements for the old 3025 images we have told no they aren't ment for that.
One time use in a novel is just that one time experimental use and even they dropped the project as failure.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/22/07 08:49 AM
65.82.104.120
|
Yeah, I remember hearing that about Harmony not really holding the rights. ANd though I have not read the project phoenix material, I do rememebr reading about it that the imges/reworking were not meant as a replacement, but as an alternative. Is that correct?
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Greyslayer
01/22/07 09:49 AM
216.14.198.138
|
Quote:
If you want to use LAMs then do so, but I don't think you can get Randal to bring them, hell we have better chance of getting them to drop the Jihad storyline before they bring back LAMs.
Can't they just drop both LAMs and Jihad storyline? About as worthy of each other. 
|
Toontje
01/22/07 11:37 AM
88.159.68.193
|
Well.. Jihad is a new approach. It has comparable parts in other story lines, but it is most definately genuine product. (Where lawyers just got rich in the HG-FASA lawsuit; bit dirty, to sue a smaller company till they relent due to cashflow, but that's the corporate world.)
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Fang
01/22/07 12:25 PM
65.82.104.120
|
Never read the Jihad storyline. Not sure I want to.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/22/07 01:02 PM
207.160.205.13
|
How about calling LAMs "WAMEs" (Wingstube Airglidance 'Mech Effects)?
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (01/22/07 02:10 PM)
|
Karagin
01/22/07 08:18 PM
70.123.166.36
|
It could work...but again I point out how easy it is to turn the LAMs into Munchkin machines from hell and very little can counter them. That I believe is one of the biggest reasons they aren't considered worth bring back.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/07 08:19 PM
70.123.166.36
|
You know I agree with you, but as I said...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/07 08:21 PM
70.123.166.36
|
The Jihad is nothing more then the Amaris Coup and the First Succession War rolled into one plot line...instead of something believable for a universe reset they rehashed old plots to get the same old over done storyline. Nutcases with nukes go on rampage...tons of sci-fi out there with that in it...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/07 08:27 PM
70.123.166.36
|
ComStar splits in two, you get some fantics called the Word of Blake who flee to the FWL, then in 21 years they become this major player on interstellar stage, they invade and take Terra from ComStar, and some how start this massive building spree to gain huge army since they hold Terra they can do all this and keep it hidden from the IS Intell groups for well over 2 and half decades, then they strike out at everyone including the Clans in the IS when the SL is disolved once again after the FC civil war, they nuke the crap out of Outreach all because Wolf's Dragoons have been trying to help planets that don't want to be part of the WoB rebuilding of the old Terran Hegemongy. The fighting goes on with Tamar being nuked and biochem weapons used and in all of this a super hero arises who bring about a rebellion and throws off the WoB's yoke on Terra and other worlds and in the end gets to for the Republic of Sphere (ROTS) and then things move full into the MWDA set of events...
So far the plot has nutcases with nukes, a rehash of the Amaris Coup with the 1st Succession War mixed in. The events from Renegade Legion where Tarjan throws off the yoke of the aliens who took over Terra during the Snow Plauge and the ROTS is BT version of RenLeg's version of new Roman Empire or as it's called Terran Overlord Goverment etc...nothing truely originial or really worth while, but some folks seem to be so proud and happy of and with it that it's the only thing that matters.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/23/07 12:36 PM
65.82.104.120
|
Renegade legion....haven't looked at that in a long time. still have it packed in my closet. I knew about Comstart split, and the WoB fleeing to the FWL and naming Marik as precentor in exile or something. the rest....sounds really annoying. Liek the rest of the MWDA poop I have seen.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/23/07 01:41 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Karagin, how about letting the WAMEs be tournament legal if that's what all players in that tournament agree on? This wouldn't apply to Clan style tournaments. And since the side torsos expand to form wings how about allowing more critical slots in them?
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (01/23/07 01:57 PM)
|
Karagin
01/23/07 08:26 PM
70.123.166.36
|
If the players agree then you can pretty much do what you want...trust me I have had games where mechs took on grav tanks and folks enjoyed them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/24/07 04:38 AM
88.159.70.47
|
they won't be tournament legal; since tournament legal means using the rules as published in TW, they will not be legal. It's a simple rule.
Same with customs, also not tournament legal.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/24/07 06:24 AM
70.123.166.36
|
You are missing the point, if you are running the game, and folks sign up to play knowing full well what mechs and tech is being used then it's all legal and good to go...
The tournament rules mean and only mean, that there is a common rule base to run offical FANPRO/WK sanctioned tournements. That's it. What you do with your game that you happen to run at a convention is up to you. If you want LAMs then have fun with them, if you want Kanag jump tanks, have fun. If you want paint ball firing ACs then I guess thats' what you have in the game.
As long as all of the players agree and know before hand then there is no issue and it's still a game of BT.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/24/07 11:03 AM
65.82.104.120
|
I want a paint ball firing AC mounted on top of my mini van!
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Toontje
01/24/07 12:33 PM
88.159.68.246
|
A tournament is not a game, it's a contest. A game, true, use the rules you want and ignore the ones you do not want; in a tournament, KISS principle as well as consistency.
The WK MW:DA tournaments are a good example; worldwide, all rules were the same, where the did change environment (more or less).. Yet worldwide consistency.
then I quit due to monetary requirements of it. (too much to my liking) But the support behind it was good to my knowledge, which resulted in quite some activity everywhere.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/24/07 09:04 PM
70.123.166.36
|
I agree a tournament isn't a normal BT game, but if you are running a BT tournament and you tell everyone up front that you have LAMs in play then it's up to the folks to agree to play or not...
Also with the new wording of the rules, all games will be tournements since the standard rules ARE the tournement rules...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/25/07 03:34 PM
207.160.205.13
|
So does that mean if a player simply plays a Total Warfare game online with another player that game is considered a tournament game?
Greetings to you too.
|
Fang
01/25/07 08:49 PM
65.82.104.120
|
No....
Toontje has the more acceptable definition of a tournament
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Karagin
01/25/07 11:22 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Based on the wording of the rules, if you aren't using advanced rules then it would a tournement game...there are no more level 1, 2 or 3 rules sets anymore.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/25/07 11:25 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Fang, the rules are split between Tournement and Advanced.
Tournement covers all things that are level 1 and level 2 with some level 3 stuff in it. That means any game using just that and nothing from the Advanced rule section of TW is going to be a Tournement game since those are the rules being used.
There is no basic or levels anymore you only have two choices for rule sets.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/27/07 03:42 PM
207.160.205.13
|
That is not a good idea to require all Total Warfare games to be tournament games. What if some players don't want their Total Warfare games to be tournament games? And there's another rule level beyond advanced: homemade.
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/27/07 04:38 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Homemade rules and weapons etc...are one option that I do use a lot even when running games at conventions.
Unless they reword the TW rules a standard game follows Tournement rules and one that uses what was Level 3 tech would now be an Advanced game.
It doesn't matter if it is at a convention or at home, if there are no advanced rules in play then it's a tournement game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
01/28/07 04:18 PM
65.82.104.120
|
so....if you win the tournament, what is the prize? If playing a tournament at home, what does the winner get? To take home the rest of the nachos and mountain dew? Tournament suggests a contest with a winner and a prize to be had, not a game of friends at home. I understand games held at a convention would be held with tournament rules. I also understand a game at home could be held with tournament rules. Just because one uses tournament rules, does not make the game a tournament.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Karagin
01/28/07 05:16 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Sigh...until they reword the rule set, all games NOT USING ADVANCED RULES are tournement games. The prize? You won, collect your salavage and get ready for the next battle.
The word is as it is. You have no advanced rules then the rule set in play is the tournement rule set, if you have advanced play items in use then you are using the advanced rules.
There is no middle group. They should have picked different wording or keep the levels for the rules.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/29/07 03:11 PM
207.160.205.13
|
That is not good wording to say that those games are tournament games. That will cause less people to play because they might feel they could be deceived and/or taken advantage of.
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/29/07 08:41 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Good point, I posted the question over at CBT we will see if they give us something.
Standard and advanced would have been better choices.
UPDATE:
Please go here for the ruling via the PM:
http://forums.classicbattletech.com/index.php/topic,13829.0.html
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (01/29/07 08:46 PM)
|
Fang
01/30/07 10:16 AM
65.82.104.120
|
That does clear things up a bit. ty.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Karagin
01/30/07 09:25 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Here is a link to the offical reasons behind why no more LAMs as per the ones we know...
http://forums.classicbattletech.com/index.php/topic,13755.0.html
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (01/30/07 09:27 PM)
|
Greyslayer
01/31/07 04:56 AM
216.14.198.58
|
Could be worse... they could call it "Classic" 
|
Fang
01/31/07 03:26 PM
65.82.104.120
|
or remember when they crapped coke up and called it "New Coke"? MW:DA is like the New BT and now we have Classic BT like when they brought back regular Coke and called it Classic to try to disguise the fact the fudged up. creepy.....
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/12/07 01:25 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Given the popularity of WAMEs (and Gundams, VeriTechs, and others), I propose that they be considered advanced units (they would use advanced rules) or perhaps since they used to be tournament legal how about a compromise in that the rules for them between standard (which is also tournament) and advanced (which is not tournament)? Such rules for WAMEs could be considered "tournament game agreeable?" in that WAMEs may not be used in a tournament game unless at least 70% of the players involved in that tournament game agree that they may be used in that game though it seems to me personally like they would not be in Clanlike tournaments. If these rulebooks are intended to be sold to gain an income, then the compromise I suggested above I theorize will most likely bring in more income though I do recommend using the additional WAMes rules I've posted. http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/143121/an/0/page/0#143121
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (02/12/07 01:40 PM)
|
Toontje
02/12/07 08:44 PM
88.159.69.230
|
not 70%, 100%.
Optional (advanced) rules should be agreed upon by all players in the game. Now if it is multiple battles with 1:1, for each and every battle these rules may or may not be used, if both players agree. It would be hell to calculate how much points each side won, since the games played are not similar.
Keep it simple for a tourney. So no LAM (or Wham, or whatever you like to call it.) 4 players or less, doable, more than that, simplicity is the rule.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/13/07 02:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
A slight error on my part I was referring to those apparent "sort of anything goes" type tournaments like this one: http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Solaris_Melee_Challenge
100% we can go for Open tournaments and more of those Martial Olympiads?
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
02/14/07 06:30 AM
70.123.166.36
|
IF folks are using LAMs then they are doing so on a single use deal only, like if it's the last thing they can possible use.
90% of the players don't like LAMs. They don't like the rules, they don't the jump mod plus the extra mod that LAMs in Airmech mode get etc...
And given that TPTB have stated that if LAMs come back it will be a single case/special case deal and this it, then it's clear that LAMs are not going to ever leave the relam of Level 3 play.
And most open tournements pick and chose what they want to uses and I have only seen LAMs used once...and that was by the guy running the game and used to force the folks who wanted to hang back tell the rest of us killed each other off, to move into the fighting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/15/07 01:00 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Karagin, how exactly do you know how many don't like LAMs? I've typed rules for LAMs that many players on the old ClassicBattleTech.com forums agreed to. There is no Level 3. There's just standard (which can be used for tournaments) and advanced. Players in one tournament game will find it ok if players in another tournament game consent to LAMs being played with. Players at tournaments play for fun not to gripe at those in other games.
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
02/15/07 06:43 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Having them like your ideas for improving the LAMs isn't the same as having them actively use them or the LAMs. Also you need to make them compatible with ALL of the BT rule sets, ie Solaris 7, Battleforce, AT2r etc...not just the board game based around the mechs. Witheach rule set you have to balance them and thus you might get folks to want to use them, but then you still need to get Randal to publish your ideas as canon and based on the quote I posted from CBT directely from him, it's not likely we will see anything done up offically other then as a passing footnote in one book.
Do a poll up on all of the BT boards, you will find that folks don't like them for many reason.
And how do I know that folks don't? Simple, you ask them and they will tell you.
And yes there is level 3 stuff still around it's called advanced and that is where the LAMs are, thus they can not be used in standard tournment play.
And thank you for repeating back verbatim what I have told you to me.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/23/07 03:15 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Total Warfare book p.10 reads "The rules presented in Total Warfare {book} are considered the standard rules of Classic BattleTech. They represent all tournament rules." So apparently that can be interpreted as: the rules in Total Warfare book are the standard rules for playing CBT games but not a declaration that they transform games into tournament games but rather the rules in Total Warfare can be used for tournament games not that they must.
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (02/23/07 03:17 PM)
|
Karagin
02/23/07 11:26 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Please go here for the ruling via the PM:
http://forums.classicbattletech.com/index.php/topic,13829.0.html
It explains things nicely and ends the debate.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/26/07 05:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Actually Cray, I talked this over with my wife Sailor Venus. Having listened to her viewpoint on LAMs, she believes they are of too advanced rules to work. This isn't about the complexity of rules for LAMs or game balance but rather they have a gracefulness that permeates their statuses. LAMs are relaxation units; they're for basically having fun on nice dice rolls. This is why Randall does not want LAMs (WAMEVs) to be of standard rules.
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (02/27/07 11:27 AM)
|
Karagin
02/26/07 11:31 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Okay I think you have finial lost 90% of us with this one...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/27/07 11:47 AM
207.160.205.13
|
The rules for LAMs could be put in an advanced unit designing book which should be titled "Pseudo Engineering".
Greetings to you too.
Edited by NewPharoah_Max (02/27/07 11:47 AM)
|
Karagin
02/27/07 06:31 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Short of the possibly brief part in the book Randal mentioned in the link and quote I provided, LAMs are gone from the game. They are like the one off mentioned things like the Gooney Bird and other oddites from the SLDF Housesource book (original).
Nothing short of Randal changing his mind will get LAMs back. Again we have a better chance of getting TPTB to drop the whole Jihad storyline then we do off getting LAMs back...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Newtype
10/14/08 12:04 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Karagin, Matti on HeavyMetal forums said that rules for LAMs will be in Liberation of Terra book for pre 3050 games. Obviously if you want to use them in 3050+ games you have to use the LosTech Prospector Life Path to find LAMs to reverse engineer to learn how they work and can be built and used. NewPharoah, you got good rule improvements for LAMs. By the way I noticed in Tactical Handbook rules for LAMs that they use all the rules for VTOL movement so LAMs should be capable of making sideslip moves and using VTOL jet boosters (though not at the same time).
Edited by Newtype (10/14/08 12:49 PM)
|
Prince_of_Darkness
10/15/08 09:52 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Great way to resurrect a post that is over one year old. I love the bouquet' of death and useless additions.
|
Christopher_Perkins
10/16/08 12:21 AM
24.125.201.167
|
Quote:
I personally find them in no way unfair. However, one rule does apply when my friends and I use them: if we are playing strict BT rules, once they convert, they cannot strafe for 6 turns (turn conversion in Aerotech).
Actually, no...
AeroTech 2 Space Turn = 60 Seconds
AeroTech 2 Atmospheric Turn = 10 Seconds
BattleTech Turn = 10 Seconds
Strafing Happens when a fighter on the Atmospheric Map ends on the AT 2 Air hex that the BattleTech Map Sheet represents. There are rules for Abstracting Fighter Movement... and they do force an interval if you do not want to game it out on the AT2 Air Board in addition to the BT Board... but the interval is not from a difference in turn length, its because it takes the fighter a considerable amount of time to turn around after each strafing run. (its a way to balance against the fighter...)
Quote:
LAM mode does not concern us, because we play on as small a map board as possible to reduce actual play time. As for campaigns, we have not had time to play one yet, so I have not tested this yet...
Humm, sounds like you would like to try the Solaris VII dueling Rules, if you can find a copy...
Do you do a lot of 1 on 1 play, or do you do lance on lance?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Venom
10/16/08 03:25 AM
12.217.219.103
|
Hey kar, this is the internet, you get what you pay for. FWIW, I realy did not see him complain at all.
|
Venom
10/16/08 03:31 AM
12.217.219.103
|
I have not used them in years, but when I did they were purely recon since parts are so scarce I could not risk them in battle. Now in a purely non-canon run-what-ya-brung match I would use them as harassers on the enemys flank.
However I built a Sha-Yu LAM once for fun. It weighed more than a standard Sha-Yu, but had the same capabilities. 18 jump movement and stealth armor made it easily the munchiest machine that I had ever contrived.
|
Newtype
10/23/08 05:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Now Matti on the HeavyMetalPro.com forums is claiming that Clutch said that LAM rules will be in Liberation of Terra. Clutch is claiming they won't be. I was disappointed that LAM rules weren't in Total Warfare but rules for generating random units were. The real reason LAM rules apparently aren't coming back is because rulebook typists are biased in favor of the Clans. 
Edited by Newtype (10/23/08 05:18 PM)
|
Christopher_Perkins
10/24/08 02:58 AM
24.125.201.167
|
:::Sigh::: NewType, slightly off again
1: PTB Dislike LAMS, have since at least Tactical Handbook
2: PTB wrote LAMs out of current portion of timeline with destruction of factory declared Last LAM (& LAM Parts) production center in 3054 (leaving LAMs canon 2680 - 3067)
3: Had AT2 not invalidated AT1 we would have never had any chance at updated/fixed LAM rules... But then again, would not really have required it.
4: Since AT2 invalidated AT1 (Specificly from 6 Locations to 4), this broke the LAM Rules, and requirement existed to keep LAM's workable for the era's that LAMs are Canon for, even if they were never Tournament Legal.
5: Clutch, like the PTB, hates LAMs.... However, Clutch does not have to deal with the LAM rules because he only deals with Tournament Legal Stuff in the Commando's
6: Total Warfare and Tech Manual are ONLY for TOURNAMENT LEGAL Units...
7: LAMs were never Tournament Legal
8: The Only Core Book that was possible for LAMs was Tactical Operations Manual
9: The PTB have quite clearly stated that the LAM rules did NOT belong in the CORE Books (TW, TM, TOM, SOM, IOM, CBT RPG 4th Ed) so are best fitted a Historicals Product - Possibly Liberation of Terra that was mentioned by FanPro... Under Catalyst this may change, and they are too far out to deal with it.
So, what may come is anyone's guess.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
10/24/08 11:21 AM
207.160.205.13
|
If there is a Total Warfare revised edition for sale or a new book that will supercede TW in which either book does not have LAM rules I definitely won't purchase it. Furthermore any tournament I run I will charge an extra $50 per player that opposes new published LAM rules.
|
Lafeel
10/24/08 03:16 PM
157.157.73.13
|
Quote:
If there is a Total Warfare revised edition for sale or a new book that will supercede TW in which either book does not have LAM rules I definitely won't purchase it. Furthermore any tournament I run I will charge an extra $50 per player that opposes new published LAM rules.
What's next, charge people a extra 100$ if they bring a aerospace fighter?
|
Newtype
10/25/08 01:19 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Perhaps I will charge $100 per aerofighter. And $500 per Clan unit used.
Edited by Newtype (10/25/08 01:20 PM)
|
Lafeel
10/25/08 01:49 PM
157.157.73.13
|
Quote:
Perhaps I will charge $100 per aerofighter. And $500 per Clan unit used.
..That will just loose you every player, and probably most of your friends, too.
|
Newtype
10/25/08 06:51 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
..That will just loose you every player, and probably most of your friends, too.
Perhaps. On the other hand Clan players seeking battleglory could lose alot of money.
|
Lafeel
10/25/08 07:29 PM
157.157.73.13
|
If they are stupid enough to just go and accept your rules like that, they deserve to lose that money, all right..
|
Newtype
10/26/08 01:44 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Furthermore I'll gain friends that very much want LAM rules improved and republished. Given the popularity of RoboTech, Gundam, and Transformers there'll probably be others who'll charge money for using Clan units and for opposing improved LAM rules.
|
Lafeel
10/26/08 01:59 PM
157.157.73.13
|
I seriously doubt that, after all there are less extreme methods of getting LAM's back into the game.
You've certainly not conviced me (a long standing Robotech, Macross, and Transformes fan) to agree with your line of thought.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
10/28/08 12:31 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps I will charge $100 per aerofighter. And $500 per Clan unit used.
..That will just loose you every player, and probably most of your friends, too.
Please- he probably doesn;t even have any.
Why else would he resurrect a long-dead thread?
|
Christopher_Perkins
10/28/08 09:12 PM
24.125.201.167
|
Quote:
The name LAM no it's not unusable
Check, The Name Land-Air Mech and its Acronym LAM is a BattleTech Creation
Quote:
BUT the artwork
Check, the Artwork was the Creation of Studio Nue and liscenced by Harmony Gold in the United States for Translation and Marketing of the Anime (but neither they Nor FASA had the rights to use the Artwork in an Entirely new Universe... RoboTech is different from SDF Macross, SDF Southern Cross, and Mosepeda)
Quote:
the name airmech and things like that are.
False, The Name AirMech was the Creation of FASA, the Three Mode (Mecha, Hybrid, Fighter) vehicle is a staple of Anime, and, as such, no Intellectual Property can claim to own the Concept.
The Only thing that FASA Could NOT use was the Artwork... and the Names "VeriTech", "Gerwalk" etc. that were used in the original Anime and Harmony Gold's Distortion of the Same.
Quote:
Also given that FASA didn't have the money or the right people to fight off HG, they went and gutted the game of anything that could give cause to be sued.
partially right... Harmony Gold didnt have the scratch or the right people to Fight off FASA after FASA went after them for infringing on the TimberWolf mech for the ExoSquad Cartoon....
So Harmony Gold went running to Playmates and got their help...
The Mutually Assured Destruction pact was enough that FASA went running scared from a lot of things that they should have kept active... (IOW Project Phoenix should have taken place in 1996's Revised TRO's)
Quote:
Also given how unbalancing LAMs can be and how easy it is to munch them out is another set of reasons that they are gone.
The only game that LAMs unbalance is Double Blind.
They Suck as Fighters, & BattleMechs, and beyond that make good raiders...
The rules as they are written have some good balancing Factors...
The Problem is that not many people try to undferstand the LAM rules and thus allow themselves to be taken advantage of by people who (benefit of doubt) do not understand the rules themselves... or (worse) just do not care what the real rules are.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
10/28/08 09:20 PM
24.125.201.167
|
NewType...
Total Warfare is TOURNAMENT LEGAL ONLY UNITS and TOURNAMENT LEGAL GAME PLAY RULES
LAMs were NEVER Tournament Legal
Tech Manual is the Construction rules for these Tournament Legal Units
Tactical Operations Manual is the Advanced rules supplement for Equipment that is either in production or in the Experimental stage in 3067... LAMs were out of production in 3054 and were museum Pieces in 3067... so they are No longer part of the Core. This is also the Place for Advanced Game Play Rules such as Artillery (something else that you need to study)
Your arguement would have much better standing if you would STOP citing the TOURNAMENT LEGAL book as being deficient for not having something that No one claims should be Tournament Legal
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
10/31/08 11:20 AM
207.160.205.13
|
I'd like for LAMs to become tournament legal. Those that don't want LAMs tournament legal will have to pay money (alot of money) to be accepted at tournaments I run. I and many others intend to have LAM rules in a revised edition of TW.
Edited by Newtype (10/31/08 12:50 PM)
|
Lafeel
10/31/08 02:19 PM
157.157.73.13
|
Quote:
I'd like for LAMs to become tournament legal. Those that don't want LAMs tournament legal will have to pay money (alot of money) to be accepted at tournaments I run. I and many others intend to have LAM rules in a revised edition of TW.
Don't hold your breath, as that's probably not going to happen, no matter how much you beg Catalyst to do just that.
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/04/08 03:28 AM
24.125.201.167
|
1: Any Tournaments that you run would have no Official Standing. The Only Tournaments that matter are run by the Commandos (or what ever the Official BattleTech Demonstrator Team are known as under Catalyst), (and possibly any of the Writers & Developers that are not members of the Demonstrator Team).
2: Revising Total Warfare & Tech Manual and releasing it would be costly in time & Effort, and Legal Fees
3: Tournaments in BattleTech have always used the LEAST & EASIEST of the rules... they have never fully represented the BattleTech universe at its fullest. This remains the same.
Frankly, do not feel constrained by what is published in Tech Manual and Total Warfare...
if you want the full rules, you need at least the 6 books of the core, and what ever tertiary volumes have rules.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
11/04/08 06:08 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Ah but you're forgetting about my remote influencing abilities. My abilities enabled several beneficial rule changes that appeared in TW most notably TAG equipped units being able to shoot weapons & use TAG in the same turn. TW is going to be revised. There are several rules in TW that have to be clarified.
|
MacLeod
11/04/08 06:17 PM
169.233.108.49
|
Quote:
TW is going to be revised. There are several rules in TW that have to be clarified.
Which is what FAQs are for.
Don't feed the troll.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Newtype
11/04/08 06:20 PM
207.160.205.13
|
MacLeod, you're just frustrated because my ideas for TW are coming forth more and more each day.
|
Lafeel
11/04/08 06:23 PM
157.157.73.13
|
Quote:
MacLeod, you're just frustrated because my ideas for TW are coming forth more and more each day.
I doubt you can really call it that when you are the only one who's even remotely considering them.
|
Newtype
11/04/08 06:35 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Lafeel, oh really? I was the first to call for TAG equipped units to be allowed to use their weapons in the same turn. In TW that's a rule.
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/04/08 08:19 PM
24.125.201.167
|
Quote:
Lafeel, oh really? I was the first to call for TAG equipped units to be allowed to use their weapons in the same turn. In TW that's a rule.
NewType... the Rules in Total Warfare and Tactical Operations Manual are rules because Catalyst Game Labs said they are...
Whither or not they beta tested and then canonized rules similar to the ones that you used in your gaming group is irrelevant.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/04/08 10:11 PM
123.2.140.247
|
He has a point there NewType....
I've had that happen alot myself.... my own house rules or ideas being picked up by the game at some later stage.
But that doesn't mean that i've effected what the game designers think would be good rules....
They make up there own minds based on whatever they see fit.... now getting back to the point.
I have used LAMS before... there unique abilities make them well suited for a hit and run match where you can use lighter units to take out much larger and better armed ones..... I've used spiders for the same purpose tho and they seem to do just about as well (i'm quite partial to the Pulse Laser varient fo this use.... great for firing on the run (or jump)... good times)
As for the whole Tournament vs non-Tournament rules debate.... i'd like to point out that nowhere in any of the books does it say "These are Tournament rules" it says that they're "Suitable to be used as Tournament rules".
That means that they CAN be used as tournament rules and in fact may be recomended but the actual rules of ANY and ALL tournaments are subject to the body running the tournament.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
MacLeod
11/04/08 11:41 PM
24.6.94.252
|
Again, like I said, don't feed the troll. He isn't listening to anything we're saying, and even went as far to call me "frustrated."
I suppose I'm frustrated in as much as this is the first time I've posted on this site in a couple years, and this guy's shenanigans are what drag me out of retirement.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Karagin
11/05/08 12:31 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Hey he got banned from Heavy Metal Pro for this same kind of stuff...guess he's not going to change...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
11/05/08 07:51 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
MacLeod, you're just frustrated because my ideas for TW are coming forth more and more each day.
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/05/08 09:51 PM
123.2.140.247
|
LOL love the pic.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
11/09/08 01:48 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Quote:
You've certainly not conviced me (a long standing Robotech, Macross, and Transformes fan) to agree with your line of thought.
Lafeel, I'm referring to those who are staunchly ardently requesting now accepting (sarna?) LAM rules to be republished, not those who indicate they once in a while want LAM rules republished.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
11/09/08 05:57 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Lafeel, I'm referring to those who are staunchly ardently requesting now accepting (sarna?) LAM rules to be republished, not those who indicate they once in a while want LAM rules republished.
Yeah, all 2 of them.
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/09/08 06:07 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
Quote:
You've certainly not conviced me (a long standing Robotech, Macross, and Transformes fan) to agree with your line of thought.
Lafeel, I'm referring to those who are staunchly ardently requesting now accepting (sarna?) LAM rules to be republished, not those who indicate they once in a while want LAM rules republished.
... 
 Newtype >>> 
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Lafeel
11/09/08 06:10 PM
157.157.106.160
|
Quote:
Quote:
You've certainly not conviced me (a long standing Robotech, Macross, and Transformes fan) to agree with your line of thought.
Lafeel, I'm referring to those who are staunchly ardently requesting now accepting (sarna?) LAM rules to be republished, not those who indicate they once in a while want LAM rules republished.
Says a lot that you aren't convincing me though, doesn't it?
|
Prince_of_Darkness
11/10/08 01:04 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Quote:
You've certainly not conviced me (a long standing Robotech, Macross, and Transformes fan) to agree with your line of thought.
Lafeel, I'm referring to those who are staunchly ardently requesting now accepting (sarna?) LAM rules to be republished, not those who indicate they once in a while want LAM rules republished.
This trolling is beginning to bore me.
Let's liven it up a little!
|
Fang
11/14/08 03:35 PM
12.54.128.7
|
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ok, now can we let this thread return to the land of the dead?
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Newtype
11/15/08 01:00 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I say RI those that type the next revised edition of TW to omit the random unit tables to make room for updated & republished LAM rules. Why would anyone care to use random unit tables anyways? Just pick units you want.
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/15/08 09:32 PM
76.104.32.151
|
More people use the Random Unit Tables for unit generation and once off games than use the Land-Air Mech
Seriously, in the BattleTech Universe you do not always get to pick the equipment that you are issued.
Also, you seam to be unable to comprehend the fact that Total Warfare is for the Standard Rules of BattleTech Play. This Basic level of play is also known as the Tournament Legal Rules Set.
Land Air Mechs were Never Tournament Legal Units, Even before the Numbered Rules Level System was Instituted in Tactical HandBook.
Classic BattleTech Boxed Set - Basic Game Play Rules
Total Warfare - Standard Game Play Rules (also Tournament Legal Game Play Rules)
Tech Manual - Construction Rules for Standard Rules / Tournament Legal Equipment
Tactical Operations Manual - Advanced Game Play Rules (Non-Tournament Game Play Rules)
-------------------------------- Advanced Rules Equipment (Equipment that is not Tournament Legal that is in production in the BattleTech Universe)
-------------------------------- Experimental Equipment (Equipment that both not Tournament Legal and is either in the prototype stage of development or has fallen out of production in the BattleTech Universe.)
that is on the Tactical Level.
Strategic Operations Manual - Advanced Game Play Rules (Non-Tournament Game Play Rules)
-------------------------------- Advanced Rules Equipment
-------------------------------- Experimental Equipment
that is on the Strategic Level.
Interstellar Operations Manual - Advanced Game Play Rules (Non-Tournament Game Play Rules)
-------------------------------- Advanced Rules Equipment
-------------------------------- Experimental Equipment
that is on the Interstellar Level.
CBT RPG 4th Edition (Perhaps Finally MechWarrior 4th Edition)
if there is ANY core book that the Land Air Mechs would have belonged in... it is the TACTICAL OPERATIONS MANUAL and NOT Total Warfare... Constantly Saying "Total Warfare" when you mean "the New Core" is an Imprecision that makes you look... well... off...
and If you are Demanding what it looks like you are saying when you cite Total WarFare, that they actually Put Land Air Mechs in the Standard / Tournament Legal Only Rules book... well... thats even more ... off... than in the first instance - Land Air Mechs are TOO Complex for the Standard, Tournament Legal Rules...
And the Potential for their Misuse (by Duplicitous individuals that do not care if they use them by the rules ) or Accidental Misuse has been demonstrated almost since their introduction
LAM's Should have been in the New Core Books... (and they will be republished in one of the Historicals)
But they have no place in the Standard / Tournament Legal Rules.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Prince_of_Darkness
11/16/08 02:49 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ok, now can we let this thread return to the land of the dead?
Only if Newtype lets us.
|
Newtype
11/16/08 01:11 PM
75.52.182.110
|
Quote:
More people use the Random Unit Tables for unit generation and once off games than use the Land-Air Mech
How do you know this to be fact. I don't recall the entire CBT community being polled.
Quote:
Seriously, in the BattleTech Universe you do not always get to pick the equipment that you are issued.
Depends on who GMs games you play.
Quote:
Also, you seam to be unable to comprehend the fact that Total Warfare is for the Standard Rules of BattleTech Play. This Basic level of play is also known as the Tournament Legal Rules Set. Land Air Mechs were Never Tournament Legal Units, Even before the Numbered Rules Level System was Instituted in Tactical HandBook.
Which is why I'm RIing Randall Bills to have LAMs be in a revised edition of TW.
Quote:
But they have no place in the Standard / Tournament Legal Rules.
I believe they do and so do others.
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/16/08 05:14 PM
76.104.32.151
|
Quote:
Quote:
More people use the Random Unit Tables for unit generation and once off games than use the Land-Air Mech
How do you know this to be fact. I don't recall the entire CBT community being polled.
Because the Random Unit Tables have been in Every Boxed Set since 2nd Edition, Every Omnibus Volume since BattleTech Manual: The Rules of Warfare, and Every House Specific Book since the Field Manual Series, and Every BattleTech RPG since 1st Edition.
The Randon Unit Tables are the direct source for the BattleMechs that Faction Players can choose from for Every Martial Olympiad ever since the first list was Compiled from Fluff and the Random Unit Tables by Peter Lacassie and was eventually Published in Combat Operations.
Land Air Mechs, have been only in
AeroTech 1st Edition
BattleTech Manual: the Rules of Warfare
BattleTech Compendium
Tactical Handbook
And, They were Never Tournament Legal, not even before the Rules Level System was Instituted.
Quote:
Quote:
Seriously, in the BattleTech Universe you do not always get to pick the equipment that you are issued.
Depends on who GMs games you play.
Who GM's the Games is Irrelevant... I specificly said "the Universe", not "the Games"
The Only People in the BattleTech universe that get to choose the Units that they drive are those that are rich enough to Buy their Own units, and even then do not always get to Choose what they are Allowed to buy.
Most of the time the Mechwarrior is issued a BattleMech by the Unit's Procurement Group, or, Even worse, the House's Procurement Group and then Issued to the Unit, then the Unit Issues the BattleMech to the Mech Warrior.
So the Random Unit Tables better reflect the chances that 98% of the mechwarriors have.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, you seam to be unable to comprehend the fact that Total Warfare is for the Standard Rules of BattleTech Play. This Basic level of play is also known as the Tournament Legal Rules Set. Land Air Mechs were Never Tournament Legal Units, Even before the Numbered Rules Level System was Instituted in Tactical HandBook.
Which is why I'm RIing Randall Bills to have LAMs be in a revised edition of TW.
Fine, go do that...
Do not Expect it to have any effect
Quote:
Quote:
But they have no place in the Standard / Tournament Legal Rules.
I believe they do and so do others.
Who Believes that Land Air Mechs belong in Tournament Games?
Standard / Tournament Rules are the Easiest rules to play by that will give you a feel for the universe... Nothing too Complex, Nothing too Time Consuming, and Nothing that not a lot of People will have had experience in using.
LAM's, Fire, Artillery, Mines, and a lot of other things in Tactical Operations Manual have no place being in Tournament's These rules are so Complicated...
Heck, the Original MOVEMENT rules were too complicated for tournaments (look in BattleTech 2nd Edition... and compare the movement rules in 2nd Edition to the Movement Rules from Total Warfare before you respond to that point)... I just home that when i look at the movement section of Tactical Operations Manual there are movement rules that allow for the original way of movement that left you able to expend just enough movement to enter a hex and move along a level from one hex to another. Like was in the original Rules...
But Yes, the old way was too complex for tournaments
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Lafeel
11/16/08 05:24 PM
157.157.106.160
|
Quote:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ok, now can we let this thread return to the land of the dead?
Easy, just stop replying to chip.
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/16/08 05:51 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Oh.... the troll is back.... shame...
BTW the RIing he's so stuck on..... WTF IS THAT?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
11/19/08 06:17 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Land Air Mechs, have been only in
AeroTech 1st Edition
BattleTech Manual: the Rules of Warfare
BattleTech Compendium
Tactical Handbook
And, They were Never Tournament Legal, not even before the Rules Level System was Instituted.
Then why is it that this website indicates LAMs were tournament legal? Scroll to the bottom of the following webpage:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tactical_Handbook
Quote:
Who Believes that Land Air Mechs belong in Tournament Games?
There have been players that want LAMs tournament legal. I just don't know their names. On the old FASA message boards and ClassicBattleTech.com boards there's been about a dozen interested in having LAMs tournament legal and a few didn't want them tournament legal.
Quote:
LAM's, Fire, Artillery, Mines, and a lot of other things in Tactical Operations Manual have no place being in Tournament's These rules are so Complicated...
LAMs are actually less complicated to play with than airships. LAMs don't have complicated movements; airships require their movement points to be halted until they have sufficient MP to move.
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/23/08 10:27 AM
76.104.32.151
|
Quote:
Oh.... the troll is back.... shame...
BTW the RIing he's so stuck on..... WTF IS THAT?
His networks name for E-Mail or Instant Messaging?
Could be a clue to what region of the world he is from if he is ESL
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/23/08 10:30 PM
123.2.140.247
|
oh ok...
I wondered why the game designers were after the most advanced e-mail / spam filter they could get there hands on....
no need to wonder now
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/25/08 12:15 AM
76.104.32.151
|
Quote:
Then why is it that this website indicates LAMs were tournament legal? Scroll to the bottom of the following webpage:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tactical_Handbook
Because the Writer of the Article (just a fan, most likley, and not a PTB) was not aware that Mechforce NA controlled the US Tournaments before the fall of FASA and the Advent of FanPro Commandoes and then the Catalyst Agents
To find out what was Tournament Legal Previous to the publication of Tactical Handbook it is necessary to look at the MechForce Manual and/or Issues of Mech Magazine or Mechforce Quarterly.
Quote:
Quote:
Who Believes that Land Air Mechs belong in Tournament Games?
There have been players that want LAMs tournament legal. I just don't know their names. On the old FASA message boards and ClassicBattleTech.com boards there's been about a dozen interested in having LAMs tournament legal and a few didn't want them tournament legal.
Quotes/Links please about tournament Legtality...
also, many people have the misconception that if somethign is illegal for tournament use it is illegal for play...
Quote:
Quote:
LAM's, Fire, Artillery, Mines, and a lot of other things in Tactical Operations Manual have no place being in Tournament's These rules are so Complicated...
LAMs are actually less complicated to play with than airships. LAMs don't have complicated movements; airships require their movement points to be halted until they have sufficient MP to move.
LAMs transform, Airships Do not
LAMs have
Mech Walk
Mech Run
Mech Jump
AirMech Walk
Airmech Run
Airmech Jump
AirMech Flight
Figher Thrust
Fighter OverThrust
(and there is a good case for renaming Airmech Flight to Airmech Flank and adding Airmech Cruise)
Airships have Cruise and Flank
Then there is the question of Physical Attacks...
LAMs are much more complicated
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Prince_of_Darkness
11/25/08 10:07 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Quote:
Who Believes that Land Air Mechs belong in Tournament Games?
There have been players that want LAMs tournament legal. I just don't know their names. On the old FASA message boards and ClassicBattleTech.com boards there's been about a dozen interested in having LAMs tournament legal and a few didn't want them tournament legal.
SCREENSHOTS or it DIDN'T HAPPEN.
|
Lafeel
11/26/08 12:34 PM
85.220.115.86
|
Even those can be faked, PoD..I should know, I've taken classes in Photo manip programs..
|
Newtype
11/26/08 12:35 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
BTW the RIing he's so stuck on..... WTF IS THAT?
RIing means remote influencing (psychic influencing from a distance). RIing is basically I can psychically cause events to happen (I've taken the Remote Influencing Course from Gerald O'Donnell's Academy).
Quote:
Because the Writer of the Article (just a fan, most likley, and not a PTB) was not aware that Mechforce NA controlled the US Tournaments before the fall of FASA and the Advent of FanPro Commandoes and then the Catalyst Agents
To find out what was Tournament Legal Previous to the publication of Tactical Handbook it is necessary to look at the MechForce Manual and/or Issues of Mech Magazine or Mechforce Quarterly.
Really? Did Tactical Handbook's rules for LAMs say they were no longer tournament legal.
|
Lafeel
11/26/08 12:37 PM
85.220.115.86
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW the RIing he's so stuck on..... WTF IS THAT?
RIing means remote influencing (psychic influencing from a distance). RIing is basically I can psychically cause events to happen (I've taken the Remote Influencing Course from Gerald O'Donnell's Academy).
Quote:
Because the Writer of the Article (just a fan, most likley, and not a PTB) was not aware that Mechforce NA controlled the US Tournaments before the fall of FASA and the Advent of FanPro Commandoes and then the Catalyst Agents
To find out what was Tournament Legal Previous to the publication of Tactical Handbook it is necessary to look at the MechForce Manual and/or Issues of Mech Magazine or Mechforce Quarterly.
Really? Did Tactical Handbook's rules for LAMs say they were no longer tournament legal.
Ok..*backs away, now sure that whoever this Chip is, he's clearly insane*
|
Newtype
11/26/08 12:39 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Yes, my mind is inside sane people's minds remotely influencing them.
|
Lafeel
11/26/08 12:43 PM
85.220.115.86
|
Quote:
Yes, my mind is inside sane people's minds remotely influencing them.
Sure, whatever..You just "manipulated" what little respect I had left for you right out of existence. (which wasn't much to begin with)
Be glad I don't know your real name or where you'd live, or I'd send the men in white coats after you.
Edited by Lafeel (11/26/08 12:43 PM)
|
Newtype
11/26/08 12:45 PM
207.160.205.13
|
No I didn't. I'm going to RI CBT tournament rule typists to legalize LAMs for tournaments.
|
Lafeel
11/26/08 12:47 PM
85.220.115.86
|
Quote:
No I didn't. I'm going to RI CBT tournament rule typists to legalize LAMs for tournaments.
Don't hold your breath..
Actually on second thought, please do, it'd save the rest of us a whole lot of bother. *last post he's ever going to make in reply to Newtype and puts the lunatic on ignore*
|
Newtype
11/26/08 12:55 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I RIed TW rulebook typists to have a unit equipped with TAG get to use TAG & its weapons in the same turn. And I RIed them to have ground and aerospace rules integrated - that's what's in TW. Soon LAM rules will be in TW. I'll have to be in delta state (asleep) to get this accomplished).
|
GiovanniBlasini
11/27/08 07:10 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW the RIing he's so stuck on..... WTF IS THAT?
RIing means remote influencing (psychic influencing from a distance). RIing is basically I can psychically cause events to happen (I've taken the Remote Influencing Course from Gerald O'Donnell's Academy).
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Fang
11/27/08 10:53 AM
12.54.128.7
|
Seems he won't
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Christopher_Perkins
11/27/08 01:54 PM
76.104.32.151
|
oooo kay...
He has definately exceeded his Doubt Benefit...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Zandel_Corrin
11/30/08 05:41 PM
123.2.140.247
|
... o.O
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Prince_of_Darkness
12/01/08 12:50 AM
205.202.120.139
|
We just might as well start spamming this thread ourselves to save us the hassle of him doing it.
|
Newtype
12/04/08 08:50 AM
75.52.182.110
|
Quote:
LAMs transform, Airships Do not
Yes LAMs transform which is why many players like them.
Quote:
LAMs have
Mech Walk
Mech Run
Mech Jump
AirMech Walk
Airmech Run
Airmech Jump
AirMech Flight
Figher Thrust
Fighter OverThrust
(and there is a good case for renaming Airmech Flight to Airmech Flank and adding Airmech Cruise)
Actually no. The wings provide lift only and jump jets provide thrust only; the wings simply extend the movement of the jump jets. A VTOL with wings can move farther than a VTOL without wings.
Quote:
Then there is the question of Physical Attacks...
LAMs are much more complicated
No more complicated than 'Mechs and aerofighters doing physical attacks.
|
Zandel_Corrin
12/04/08 05:35 PM
123.2.140.247
|
As a unit they are more complicated cause they are basically a mech and an aero at the same time...
the possibilities are simply much higher that you can screw up some rule for use with LAMS that if unnoticed makes them to overpowered
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Christopher_Perkins
12/04/08 11:00 PM
76.104.32.151
|
Quote:
Quote:
LAMs transform, Airships Do not
Yes LAMs transform which is why many players like them.
LAMs Transform, which is why even players that like them acknowledge that they do NOT belong in the Tournament Legal portion of the BattleTech rules set that has been pared down to what tens of players playing in the same game can be expected to get straight.
Frankly, Chip,
Tournament Legal doesn't mean spit so stop kvetching about LAMs being left out of Total Warfare...
I am a bit peeved that LAMs were not in Tactical Operations Manual... but I am Satisfied in their statement that the bugfixed rules would be in Liberation of Terra as they promised when they first started talking about Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations Manual, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
LAMs have
Mech Walk
Mech Run
Mech Jump
AirMech Walk
Airmech Run
Airmech Jump
AirMech Flight
Figher Thrust
Fighter OverThrust
(and there is a good case for renaming Airmech Flight to Airmech Flank and adding Airmech Cruise)
Actually no. The wings provide lift only and jump jets provide thrust only; the wings simply extend the movement of the jump jets. A VTOL with wings can move farther than a VTOL without wings.
The Wings provide lift based on the sweep of the wings...
if the wings are swept, the lift of the wings are almost non Existant, leaving the Airmech to use only the Thrust of the Jump Jets...
If the Wings are Fully Extended, then the Airmech has the distance that it can get from its JJ Thrust trebbled (to the point that it can remain in the air)
If the wings are in an interim step, then there should be a point where the wings provide only enough lift to double the distance from the jump
Quote:
Quote:
Then there is the question of Physical Attacks...
LAMs are much more complicated
No more complicated than 'Mechs and aerofighters doing physical attacks.
Aerofighters cannot do physical attacks, AirMech Mode LAMs have the possibility of doing so.
BattleMechs and Fighters Cannot Transform into the other, Land Air Mechs have 3 Modes, with two and a half seperate styles of movement
Land Air Mechs are Complicated Units.
If they are not so complicated...
then Why are you making such a stink about there not being new rules for them?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Prince_of_Darkness
12/05/08 10:24 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
If they are not so complicated...
then Why are you making such a stink about there not being new rules for them?
Because he is an idiot who probably should be banned.
|
Newtype
12/05/08 02:23 PM
75.52.182.110
|
LAMs are complicated but their movement calculations are not as complicated as airships (airships require adding). I'd like for them to be tournament legal because I think they'd attract more players to CBT. I don't think that LAMs should be Clan tournaments legal but I think LAMs could be in Martial Olympiad tournaments and other nonClan tournaments.
|
Christopher_Perkins
12/05/08 11:24 PM
76.104.32.151
|
Quote:
LAMs are complicated but their movement calculations are not as complicated as airships (airships require adding).
Airships have only two movement modes
Land Air Mechs have Walk, Run and Jump for 2 Movement Modes and Thrust and Flank for the final Movement mode.
That is complicated
Quote:
I'd like for them to be tournament legal because I think they'd attract more players to CBT.
1: Them not being tournament legal does not keep them out of home play
2: LAMs were always rare in universe
3: Tournament Legality does not mean spit.
Quote:
I don't think that LAMs should be Clan tournaments legal but I think LAMs could be in Martial Olympiad tournaments and other nonClan tournaments.
Ultra Light BattleMechs
BattleMechs using the Null Signature System and Chameleon Light Polarization Shield
BattleMechs using Anti-Aircraft Targeting System
none of these are Tournament Legal, but they still exist in the game...
Artillery isnt Tournament Legal
Neither Are Mines
Neither are any of the Tings that are Published in Tactical Operations Manual...
so...
Also.. Land Air BattleMechs ceased to be in production with the destruction of what was retconned into the last LAM Factory... as such, they were no longer in Production, so...
Reasons for them to not be Tournament Legal now
1: Rules Complexity of the Air Mech Mode in comparison with Standard Mechs and Fighters
2: Multiple Modes increases the rules complexity
3: Rare units
4: Being Rules Level 3 as long as the Rules Level System has been In Effect
5: They were never Tournament Legal, not even under Mech Force.
6: Out of Production in 3054... and the current game year is 3075
7: The Powers that be had to be practicly bludgeoned into thinking that the LAM rules may just need to be fixed if only so that games set during 2680 and 3054 will have viable AeroTech 2 rules for them (this is when they would have much rather had them dissapear into footnotes of history)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
12/13/08 09:57 AM
75.52.182.110
|
How about letting LAMs be tournament legal at tournament organizer's discretion?
|
Zandel_Corrin
12/14/08 06:36 PM
123.2.140.247
|
And what makes you thing that that hasn't always been the way it is?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Prince_of_Darkness
12/14/08 08:10 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
And what makes you thing that that hasn't always been the way it is?
Because he is a troll. He only wants to continue this stupid argument, which if I could, would have been locked sometime ago after Chris's post.
|
Christopher_Perkins
12/16/08 10:25 AM
76.104.32.151
|
Note, when I say Tournaments, I am only talking about the Official Games that are run by the Catalyst Agents (once FanPro Commandos) that have any meaninng at all that I would travel hundreds of miles to get to , and not fan run events that I will not travel even five feet for
Non-Tournament Rules may always be added to a tournament if the tournament Organizer so desires, however Tournaments are run by Catalyst Agents (Formerly Fanpro Commandos) so they tend to be run with just the bare minimum, i.e. Total Warfare.
Some Non-Tournament rules are more likely to be co-opted at Official tournaments and other official games... (fire, mines, artillery)
but if a Agent decided that they wanted to deal with LAMs, they could do so and reprint the LAM rules in a flyer for the tournament or specifify that the players need to bring the Book to the tournament in addition to Total Warfare.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
12/20/08 06:54 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I propose that a vote be cast of everyone who owns Tactical Operations and Total Warfare. Voters can submit their votes as yea or nay for LAM rules. To make sure people own books, the bar codes on books can be photocopied and sent with votes. So basically if WizKids gets more votes for Tactical Operations than Total Warfare, then LAM rules should be published in a revised version of Tactical Operations and vice versa.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
MacLeod
12/20/08 07:00 PM
169.233.104.154
|
Except that makes no sense. Hell, that logic is convoluted enough to make me think you're Newtype under a new name...
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Prince_of_Darkness
12/20/08 10:22 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Except that makes no sense. Hell, that logic is convoluted enough to make me think you're Newtype under a new name...
He is.
|
Newtype
12/21/08 01:17 PM
75.52.182.110
|
I don't want LAM rules in Tactical Operations. I want them in Total Warfare. The random units tables must be omitted in favor of LAM rules. Let the players have more control over what units they want to use. Some claim that those tables are for specific tournaments such as the Martial Olympiad. But players could have gotten their units from other affiliations due to trading, LosTech discovery, theft, etc.
|
Christopher_Perkins
12/21/08 04:16 PM
76.104.32.151
|
New Type... I am Being Brutally Honest Here
LAMs, if they are re-published at all, will be in on of the Historicals set in the Star League Era
This is the Best that we can hope For
1: The Powers that Be (Line Developer, and the other Decision Makers), Frankly, Hate the idea of Transforming Units, and have stated this repeatedly.
If they saw free to alter the Canon, they Would have expunged them from the books, instead, they confined themselves to "Destroying" the factories retroactively to game year 3054 (Objective Raids (c) 1992) When Invading Clans (Game Year 3058) was Published was published in 1994.
So, Having them in a Historical is where they would be, if at all, since the Powers that Be are Adamant in their statement that Land Air Mechs do NOT exist (as a viable combat unit) in 3067...
and 3067 is when the current Core Rules are being Written For, so they will not be in any book that could be, even remotely, considered a Core Book.
2: If they wanted Land Air Mechs to be in a Core Book, it would NOT be Total Warfare, which is the basic, bare minimum, absurdly limited, skeleton of the Game Playing Rules.
If the Land Air Mechs were a current (3067) Technology, then Tactical Operations Manual or Strategic Operations Manual would have been the appropriate place for their publication. And, Again, this is something that the Powers that be have stated (for Tactical Operations Manual when SOM was a distant cloud on the horizon and TOM was looming).
LAMs were Never Tournament Legal (That killed it for Total Warfare)
LAMs were Never in the BattleTech Boxed Set (They were in AeroTech) (That Killed it For rules level 1, and again for Total Warfare)
LAMs were moved into the Rules Level 3 (Advanced/Experimental/Optional) Books as soon as the numbered rules levels were defined, and then excluded form the next edition of the Rules Level 3 (Advanced/Experimental/Optional)
3: New Type, I Beg you, Do NOT screw up the work that I put in to getting them to even consider Revising and republishing the rules for the Historicals.
It was only that the AeroTech Rules were revised to the point that Land Air Mechs were non Starters in AeroTech 2 that made it even a talking point for them to be revised / reprinted for Historicals purposes.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
12/29/08 02:50 PM
207.160.205.13
|
So why is it that real life religions are mentioned in TW first edition but apparently not rules for LAMs? Real life religions belong in RPG book, not TW. LAM rules belong in TW.
|
MacLeod
12/29/08 04:03 PM
76.126.19.26
|
Because the religions are mentioned in passing as simple, interesting fluff for the various realms, whereas LAMs require rules.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
12/31/08 03:40 AM
173.116.112.136
|
There will be no LAMs in any game that I play in or run. There stupid and moronic. Battlemechs defy logic enough with out making it worse with LAMs.
If you want to play with LAMs play Robotech!!!
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/01/09 12:56 PM
98.244.100.135
|
Quote:
There will be no LAMs in any game that I play in or run. There stupid and moronic. Battlemechs defy logic enough with out making it worse with LAMs.
If you want to play with LAMs play Robotech!!!
Donkey...
Land Air Mechs, Airmechs & BattleMechs are BattleTech
Veritechs, Guardians, Battleoids are RoboTech
Valkyries, Gerwalks, & Battroids are Macross
BTW the thing that is stupid and Moronic is you having such an issue with the existance of an optional rule that you can choose to use or not...
You and I both know that Land Air Mechs do not belong in the Standard/Tournament Rules (the Non-Optional rules) but the time to exclude LAMs from the game was 1986...
LAMs and fighters were introduced as optional rules in AeroTech, when Total Warfare was Published Fighters became part of the Standard Game and Land Air Mechs were left in the Optional Rules Set...
LAMs do not exist as viable combat units in 3067... from 2680 - 3054 they are Viable units (optional rules for games set during this period)
so... what is your Gripe?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
01/02/09 11:22 AM
207.160.205.13
|
There were no more IS WarShips and shipyards to build them until about 3057. So if there are new shipyards for WarShips, then there can be new LAM factories.
|
Newtype
01/03/09 12:03 PM
207.160.205.13
|
The kitworking miniatures part near the end of TW could be removed to make room for new LAM rules and some rules from Tactical Operations such as evading. What disappoints me about TW is that those who've purchased many CBT products were never asked for their opinions on what rules they'd like to see in TW. Well I'm not purchasing anymore CBT products until there's rules for LAMs in TW. I took my copy of TW back to bookstore when I found out there weren't LAM rules in that book.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/04/09 03:45 PM
24.5.142.150
|
Quote:
Quote:
There will be no LAMs in any game that I play in or run. There stupid and moronic. Battlemechs defy logic enough with out making it worse with LAMs.
If you want to play with LAMs play Robotech!!!
Donkey...
Land Air Mechs, Airmechs & BattleMechs are BattleTech
Veritechs, Guardians, Battleoids are RoboTech
Valkyries, Gerwalks, & Battroids are Macross
BTW the thing that is stupid and Moronic is you having such an issue with the existance of an optional rule that you can choose to use or not...
You and I both know that Land Air Mechs do not belong in the Standard/Tournament Rules (the Non-Optional rules) but the time to exclude LAMs from the game was 1986...
LAMs and fighters were introduced as optional rules in AeroTech, when Total Warfare was Published Fighters became part of the Standard Game and Land Air Mechs were left in the Optional Rules Set...
LAMs do not exist as viable combat units in 3067... from 2680 - 3054 they are Viable units (optional rules for games set during this period)
so... what is your Gripe?
What got up your butt? All I said was that I think LAMs are stupid, and I will have nothing to do with them. Then you went and blew a fuse. I think its time for you to have a chill pill.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/05/09 11:38 PM
98.244.100.135
|
Quote:
There were no more IS WarShips and shipyards to build them until about 3057. So if there are new shipyards for WarShips, then there can be new LAM factories.
true, however that will not happen since the powers that be hate LAMs... De-Munchkining the rules (physical Attacks, Zero Heat for Movement, poorly understood Wing armour followed by invencible wing armour) is the best that we can hope for as collateral damage from fixing the Rules for AeroTech 2 integration.
Accept that they are going to fix the rules eventually, and hopefully once the errors are fixed then the LAMS will recover from the bad odour that is really only people misinterpeting the rules... or using the excuse of their opponents poor understanding of the rules to CHEAT.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/08/09 11:58 PM
98.244.100.135
|
Quote:
What got up your butt? All I said was that I think LAMs are stupid, and I will have nothing to do with them. Then you went and blew a fuse. I think its time for you to have a chill pill.
You said Stupid and Moronic...
Those that Like LAMs... (if only because they are already in the game... and only a year or two younger than the game) Are not all like new type
actually, With out Veritechs we probably would have never had BattleTech
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Lafeel
01/09/09 03:43 AM
157.157.75.183
|
To be fair it would be more appropriate to say that we probably would never have had Battletech if it wasn't for Macross.
|
Fang
01/09/09 01:55 PM
12.54.128.7
|
sry, just read that post. you took back TW just because it did not include an optional rule? that sounds like a colossal waste of time and energy.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/09/09 09:53 PM
98.244.100.135
|
Quote:
To be fair it would be more appropriate to say that we probably would never have had Battletech if it wasn't for Macross.
True Enough... and I should have Said Valkyries (what is the proper Name?) but it was the VeriTech/Valkyries that were the major draw of the Super Dimension Fortress Macross Series series...
2nd Place has to go to the Officers BattlePod Gulag
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/09/09 09:54 PM
98.244.100.135
|
Quote:
sry, just read that post. you took back TW just because it did not include an optional rule? that sounds like a colossal waste of time and energy.
Much less, it shows a total disconnect with the realities of the situation being that Total Warfare was not intended to Have Optional Rules...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Lafeel
01/10/09 07:58 AM
157.157.75.183
|
Quote:
Quote:
To be fair it would be more appropriate to say that we probably would never have had Battletech if it wasn't for Macross.
True Enough... and I should have Said Valkyries (what is the proper Name?) but it was the VeriTech/Valkyries that were the major draw of the Super Dimension Fortress Macross Series series...
2nd Place has to go to the Officers BattlePod Gulag
Yup, that's what they are called all right. Valkyries, as in the norse bringers of the dead (to Valhalla):)
|
Newtype
01/10/09 04:24 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I decided to get a refund for returning TW because it lacked rules for LAMs, optional rules from Maximum Tech/Tactical Handbook and other books & TO, and because aerounits, with their targeting abilities, can outperform ground units.
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/12/09 08:05 PM
98.244.100.135
|
That demonstrates your willful ignorance of reality.
The powers that be have ALWAYS been clear that Total Warfare was ONLY going to the be the Tournament Legal Rules
These are primarily Level 1 & 2 Standard rules from BMR, CEG, Combat Ops, AeroTech 2 Revised, etc
The Consturction Rules for Tournament Legal units were always going to be in Tech Manual...
All that has changed is that certain things have rolled over to Strategic Operations Manual & Interstellar Operations Manual thhat were Originally Intended for Tactical Operations Manual. (LAMs were always going to be Back Burnered for a historicals)
so, it was not the PTB Lying to you... it was you lying to yourself.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
01/12/09 08:21 PM
207.160.205.13
|
So TW was only supposed to be only tournament legal rules eh? In that case the kitworking section should never been a part of TW. I don't recognize kitworking as part of any tournament.
Edited by Newtype (01/12/09 08:42 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/14/09 08:56 PM
67.180.139.229
|
Quote:
so, it was not the PTB Lying to you... it was you lying to yourself.
But he is SOOOO good at it!
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Lafeel
01/14/09 09:18 PM
157.157.28.195
|
Quote:
So TW was only supposed to be only tournament legal rules eh? In that case the kitworking section should never been a part of TW. I don't recognize kitworking as part of any tournament.
Regardless of how much you wish otherwise, you are not a part of the powers that be, so it is not your choice.
|
Lefric
01/15/09 12:32 PM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
So TW was only supposed to be only tournament legal rules eh? In that case the kitworking section should never been a part of TW. I don't recognize kitworking as part of any tournament.
OK, two things.
1) What is kitworking? I've never heard that term in ten + years of playing battletech.
2) OK, I admit this is my first post, but I've been lurking for several months now that I've found a battletech site not blocked by the proxie server here at work. That being said, I am amazed that you guys keep feeding this troll, especially after you've said he's a troll! Come On! The guy is obviously either 1) trying to anatagonize people for s***s and giggles, or 2) a hopeless idiot. Since I don't want to believe the later of anyone, I must believe the former. Therefore, simply ignore him! If he wants to prove he's a doofus by continually posting such stuff, let him! Just ignore him, and eventually he'll go away!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
MacLeod
01/15/09 03:21 PM
98.234.140.111
|
Welcome to the boards, Lefric. Newtype presents us with a unique situation - he's pissed enough of us off that the board has been kicked into a state of activity that I haven't seen in a while (nevermind the four years where I stopped visiting the site because I'd stopped playing BT). So yeah, he's a gibbering mouther, but he's got people posting again. Although it seems Cray and Nightward have left for the CBT.com forums again, possibly for good...
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Zandel_Corrin
01/15/09 06:03 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Mac has a point.... he may be lacking some common sense and logic (ok a LOT of both) but he does get people posting.... besides it's fun to argue some times... even if he'll never listen to reason.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/16/09 05:27 AM
67.180.139.229
|
Quote:
Mac has a point.... he may be lacking some common sense and logic (ok a LOT of both)
Man your the optimist! I don't think that he has the capacity for either common sense or logic.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Lafeel
01/16/09 08:39 AM
157.157.28.195
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mac has a point.... he may be lacking some common sense and logic (ok a LOT of both)
Man your the optimist! I don't think that he has the capacity for either common sense or logic.
Come now, with a name like yours you have to respect him for being more stubborn than a mule..(even if you don't agree with a word he says) 
|
Kovax
01/16/09 09:47 AM
75.146.193.46
|
I could never understand why they insist on calling it "common sense" when it seems to be such a rare commodity.....
Despite having played BT since before there were "Clans", I too am unfamiliar with the term "kitworking". Can anyone define this for the sake of those of us who seem to have overlooked it?
|
Lafeel
01/16/09 09:50 AM
157.157.28.195
|
Quote:
I could never understand why they insist on calling it "common sense" when it seems to be such a rare commodity.....
Despite having played BT since before there were "Clans", I too am unfamiliar with the term "kitworking". Can anyone define this for the sake of those of us who seem to have overlooked it?
Might be more familiar with the term if I replaced the word "kitworking" with "conversions", ie making something new out of a model, or parts of a model, you aren't using.
Needless to say it is a term familiar to most Warhammer players.
|
MacLeod
01/16/09 03:19 PM
169.233.108.145
|
Aye. I'm used to hearing "kitbashing" rather than "kitworking," and that more from model-building communities rather than miniatures - it comes from the concept of taking two model kits and "bashing" them together in hopes that you wind up making something nifty. In fact, "kitworking" sounds like a rather moronic idiom; it isn't as technically accurate as saying "conversion," and doesn't sound as Orky as anything involving the word "bash," so why bother saying it at all?
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/16/09 05:51 PM
67.180.139.229
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mac has a point.... he may be lacking some common sense and logic (ok a LOT of both)
Man your the optimist! I don't think that he has the capacity for either common sense or logic.
Come now, with a name like yours you have to respect him for being more stubborn than a mule..(even if you don't agree with a word he says)
I have a grater respect for mules than to compare then to him. Even though there half breeds.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
01/17/09 12:23 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Kitworking means your kit of miniature parts is worked with till its complete. I've interpreted kitbashing as a word that degrades kits. I remember Randall Bills saying that BattleTech was created for money. When I get enough money I'll invest in BattleTech (paying the ruletypists money) to improve CBT - there will be new LAM rules. + Check this out for a to-hit modifier:
+1 dual cockpit
+7 jumpglided +25 hexes
+10 at extreme range with Null Signature System
+7 Excellent Evading (my version of skilled evading with advanced ability of evading)
+2 prone and partial cover by having LAM crouch lay against hillside
+2 intervening heavy woods
equals +29 to-hit modifier
|
Zandel_Corrin
01/18/09 06:11 PM
123.2.140.247
|
you are never gonna it anything.... no point using a LAM.... if thats your def then what's you atk mods?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/19/09 08:26 PM
67.180.139.229
|
Quote:
Kitworking means your kit of miniature parts is worked with till its complete. I've interpreted kitbashing as a word that degrades kits. I remember Randall Bills saying that BattleTech was created for money. When I get enough money I'll invest in BattleTech (paying the ruletypists money) to improve CBT - there will be new LAM rules. + Check this out for a to-hit modifier:
+1 dual cockpit
+7 jumpglided +25 hexes
+10 at extreme range with Null Signature System
+7 Excellent Evading (my version of skilled evading with advanced ability of evading)
+2 prone and partial cover by having LAM crouch lay against hillside
+2 intervening heavy woods
equals +29 to-hit modifier
And let me guess you going to use your +50 magic + 100 against battalmech sword. And if the GM says no, your going to throw a temper tantrum.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Lefric
01/20/09 11:14 AM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
Kitworking means your kit of miniature parts is worked with till its complete. I've interpreted kitbashing as a word that degrades kits. I remember Randall Bills saying that BattleTech was created for money. When I get enough money I'll invest in BattleTech (paying the ruletypists money) to improve CBT - there will be new LAM rules. + Check this out for a to-hit modifier:
+1 dual cockpit
+7 jumpglided +25 hexes
+10 at extreme range with Null Signature System
+7 Excellent Evading (my version of skilled evading with advanced ability of evading)
+2 prone and partial cover by having LAM crouch lay against hillside
+2 intervening heavy woods
equals +29 to-hit modifier
Kitbashing is a model railroad (well, that's where I heard it) term that means combing structure models to make a new one that combines the two.
The only negative connotation in in your mind.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Newtype
02/07/09 11:12 AM
207.160.205.13
|
It is ironic that new LAM artwork and improved LAM rules aren't published. CBT products are supposed to be produced for money. New LAM artwork and improved LAM rules could bring forth more money for FanPro/WizKids.
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/08/09 05:30 PM
123.2.140.247
|
that's not gonna happen.... mainly cause it's not fanpro/wizkids now.....
no wonder you like LAMs so much... your living in the passed!
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Kovax
02/09/09 10:10 AM
75.146.193.46
|
The other problem with LAMs is that every one of those designs was an "unseen" lawsuit 'Mech. They can't do any artwork for the "past" of LAMs, so continuing with them in the present setting of the game presents more than the usual difficulties.
I'm of "mixed" opinion on them, since they typically don't make great 'Mechs, and don't make great aerospace fighters. Unless you're trying to take advantage of quirks in the rules to turn them into something that was never intended (Uber strafing machines that essentially ignore heat rules by firing the same weapon at EVERY target in line of fire), they're pretty marginal, although not entirely useless.
Since they can be "exploited", I can see why Newtype (or whatever he calls himself today) would want them. He seems to have a thing for wanting to push every broken game mechanic out there to its absolute limit.
|
Lefric
02/09/09 11:15 AM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
It is ironic that new LAM artwork and improved LAM rules aren't published. CBT products are supposed to be produced for money. New LAM artwork and improved LAM rules could bring forth more money for FanPro/WizKids.
Sigh. Here I am feeding the troll.
Just because you want a product doesn't mean anyone else does, or that it will make money.
Take the issue of Babylon 5 episode DVD's. For years, Warner Bros. would not realease them, as there was "no money in them." OTOH, they would not sell them to a third party for publication, becuase "if anyone was going to make money on them, they were" (Straight from the mouth of JMS at GENCON 2000, FYI).
So, just because money can be made off of something doesn't mean it will.
and, in the case of LAMs, you have 1) Unseen legal issues, 2) the fact that they were ripped off of mecha, and have no place in the flavor text as it has evolved, and 3) are, IMO, LAME. If I wanted to play with transformers, I'd pull out my toys from when I was a kid.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/09/09 10:17 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
It is ironic that new LAM artwork and improved LAM rules aren't published. CBT products are supposed to be produced for money. New LAM artwork and improved LAM rules could bring forth more money for FanPro/WizKids.
|
Fang
02/10/09 08:54 AM
12.54.128.7
|
It was my understanding that FASA actually won those lawsuits, but Harmony Gold kept suing to the point of driving FASA into the ground financially. So in order to avoid that, the "unseen" images were thus pulled. And I am sure I misspelled something in there. Personally, I like the idea of LAMs when used in moderation. GM should nvr allow more than say one or two at most in a game. and nvr in tournament play.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Kovax
02/10/09 10:02 AM
75.146.193.46
|
From my understanding of the lawsuit (which is shaky at best), Harmony Gold technically "lost" the suit, but FASA certainly didn't win.
Harmony Gold didn't really own the rights to the artwork. It appears that they had purchased them from some company that claimed to hold the rights, but didn't, or something to that effect. The outcome was that BOTH companies had to discontinue use of the images, since neither of them had any legal right to them.
At this point, I have no idea who actually DOES hold the copyrights, but it might be interesting to find out, and why FASA or Harmony Gold didn't go back after the fact and license them from the actual owner.
|
Newtype
02/12/09 10:32 PM
207.160.205.13
|
It wouldn't hurt to try to publish new LAM rules & new LAM artwork. They could at least be published in a revised edition of TW. How about giving a revised edition of TW containing new LAM rules & new LAM artwork at least one year? If after a year and a portion of players purchase CBT products because of new LAM rules & new LAM artwork, then keep those rules & artwork in TW revised, otherwise those rules & artwork can be moved to TO revised.
Also, Big West owns the copyrights to the Unseen.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/13/09 02:09 AM
24.5.141.133
|
Because no one cares other than you.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
02/13/09 04:01 PM
207.160.205.13
|
That's not true. There are others that do care. Use Google search if you want to know about others that like LAMs. Here I discovered 95,300 websites pertaining to Land Air Mechs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Land+Air+Mechs&aq=f&oq=
BattleTech websites result in about 1,160,000 websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BattleTech
That means that about 9% of potential CBT customers like Land Air Mechs. That's alot of customers not being satisfied since TW currently doesn't have LAM rules. In fact I'd say there's probably more than 9% potential customers that like LAMs because many of those BattleTech websites are probably computer game websites.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/14/09 01:53 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
That's not true. There are others that do care. Use Google search if you want to know about others that like LAMs. Here I discovered 95,300 websites pertaining to Land Air Mechs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Land+Air+Mechs&aq=f&oq=
BattleTech websites result in about 1,160,000 websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BattleTech
That means that about 9% of potential CBT customers like Land Air Mechs. That's alot of customers not being satisfied since TW currently doesn't have LAM rules. In fact I'd say there's probably more than 9% potential customers that like LAMs because many of those BattleTech websites are probably computer game websites.
Newtype, just because you find comments about LAM's on the net that does not mean that anyone cares about then other than you.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/17/09 10:31 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
That's not true. There are others that do care. Use Google search if you want to know about others that like LAMs. Here I discovered 95,300 websites pertaining to Land Air Mechs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Land+Air+Mechs&aq=f&oq=
BattleTech websites result in about 1,160,000 websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BattleTech
That means that about 9% of potential CBT customers like Land Air Mechs. That's alot of customers not being satisfied since TW currently doesn't have LAM rules. In fact I'd say there's probably more than 9% potential customers that like LAMs because many of those BattleTech websites are probably computer game websites.
|
Newtype
02/20/09 11:21 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Newtype, just because you find comments about LAM's on the net that does not mean that anyone cares about then other than you.
Or maybe His Royal Highass Donkey, you're just frustrated that LAM's are getting so much attention.
Also, how about +1 to-hit modifier for dawn and +1 to-hit modifier for fog giving a total of +31 to-hit modifier? Wow, that's a very high to-hit modifier against my LAM.
Edited by Newtype (02/20/09 11:40 AM)
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
02/20/09 11:40 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Hmm,
+0 gunnery
-3 anti-aircraft & long range targeting
-10 precision cluster flak proximity fused ammo
-2 bracing
-2 weapon specialist (LB-20XAC shooting above ammo)
-1 careful aim (I presume you'll go to a position that blocks LOS during "second careful aim attempt"
-18 total to-hit modifier
+31+-18=+13 total to-hit modifier against your LAM, Newtype
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
02/20/09 11:40 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Yeah, that LAM is undefeatable. Glad you're here at this library, MaiShirunaiispretty. Hopefully we can get some tournaments started.
|
Lefric
02/20/09 11:46 AM
216.120.184.66
|
It seems Newtype and his alter ego are carrying on a lively discussion with themselves.
you know, Newtype, that talking to yourself - and ansering yourself - is a sign that you've lost your mind.
Of course, your obsession with crappy-ass LAMS proves that all by itself.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT LAMS EXCEPT THE FIVE ITERATIONS OF YOU, NEWTYPE.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Newtype
02/20/09 11:54 AM
207.160.205.13
|
MaiShirunaiispretty is my new friend here at this library. I guess you're frustrated also that LAMs are becoming more and more popular and/or frustrated that I've discovered a means to win indefinitely with this Balancer LAM. Had I enough money, I'd hire Randall Bills to publish new LAM rules. Hopefully I'll win the Powerball Jackpot this Saturday night. I saw two signs I could win: a flock of birds shaped like the letter W (for win?) next to and above another flock of birds shaped like a Valentine's Day heart last Saturday on Valentine's Day and a wingstube apparently not moving high in the air. I want to donate lots of money to help Kat Swift Green Party presidential candidate in 2012, The Smile Train, Kristi Yamaguchi's foundation, and more.
Edited by Newtype (02/20/09 11:58 AM)
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
02/20/09 12:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Uh, Newtype, the woods hex could be destroyed dropping final to-hit modifier down to +11. And Lefric, how can I be an alter ego of Newtype since it takes a different library card to operate each computer here at the library? Each of us here at this library only gets one useful library card at a time.
|
Newtype
02/20/09 12:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Uh, oh. Hopefully I can get a head critical MechWarrior hit. No, that won't work because LB-20XAC ammo could be indirectly shot at woods hexes.
|
Lefric
02/20/09 01:23 PM
216.120.184.66
|
Newtype, you sir, are one of the biggest idotic egomaniacs I have ever met, and I will henceforth ignore everything you say. No matter how much your drivel irriates me from here on out, your simply not worth the noise coming from a monkey's rear CT.
Too think I've lowered myself by feeding your trollish ways. I feel ashamed.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/20/09 03:57 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Too think I've lowered myself by feeding your trollish ways. I feel ashamed.
Remember, we are not laughing WITH newtype we are laughing AT newtype.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Kovax
02/20/09 04:28 PM
75.146.193.46
|
95,300 websites pertaining to Land Air Mechs:
60,000 of them pertain to Land, 40,000 to Air, and 5,300 to Mechs????
....and of the 5,300, Newtype and his multiple aliases posted at least 2000 of them, I'll bet.
Don't worry about him losing his mind, it's not like it's being used for anything worthwhile.
Edited by Kovax (02/20/09 04:31 PM)
|
Newtype
02/21/09 03:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Actually there's a MechWarrior RPG trait in a MechForce Quarterly issue called Phantom Combat. I think it can raise that +11 final to-hit number. Seems like it worked sort of like Null Signature System to-hit modifiers or maybe it increased to-hit modifier on each attack against that unit (I'm not sure). Heavy Metal forums could perhaps have info on this trait. And I take back saying that my Balancer LAM is undefeatable. A very fast Clan 'Mech could close to short range and could significantly damage my Balancer LAM into defeat. That's ok, my Mole Assault Tank could probably defeat such a Clan 'Mech.
Lefric, you're just jealous because I found a way to defeat Clan units at very long ranges.
Kovax, I never posted any of those webpages. I don't even have the means to do so.
Edited by Newtype (02/21/09 03:48 PM)
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/21/09 06:15 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Have any of you noticed how people who make LAM's always want to put physical weapons on them? I wonder why...
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/21/09 10:21 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
It wouldn't hurt to try to publish new LAM rules & new LAM artwork. They could at least be published in a revised edition of TW. How about giving a revised edition of TW containing new LAM rules & new LAM artwork at least one year? If after a year and a portion of players purchase CBT products because of new LAM rules & new LAM artwork, then keep those rules & artwork in TW revised, otherwise those rules & artwork can be moved to TO revised.
LAMs do not belong in Total Warfare or Tech Manual, they are too complex
LAMs belong in Tactical Operations Manual... But because the PTB dislike LAMs they will be put in a tertiary Product
Quote:
Also, Big West owns the copyrights to the Unseen.
True..
However the artwork for the LAMs could easily have been replaced like the rest of the Unseen
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/22/09 05:39 PM
123.2.140.247
|
[q]Kovax, I never posted any of those webpages. I don't even have the means to do so. [/q]
Then how are you posting here?
O.o
>.>
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/23/09 03:38 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Have any of you noticed how people who make LAM's always want to put physical weapons on them? I wonder why...
Poor tactical planning? LAMs should be doing their best to stay as far away from the guns of their enemies as possible, in order to minimize contact with the enemy's guns. Physical combat is anathema to their long-term survival, and should be avoided at all costs.
As for fans of LAMs...they've certainly got their supporters. In fact, I'm one of them. But, and as much as it might shock him to find me agreeing with him, Chris is right - LAMs are complicated enough in operation that they really don't belong in tournament play, which precluded them from being included in Total Warfare or Tech Manual.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/23/09 08:55 AM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Have any of you noticed how people who make LAM's always want to put physical weapons on them? I wonder why...
I have not seen that but I have not played BT with very many people. Back when I played around with LAMs I built them just like all of my other mechs, all laser weapons.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
02/27/09 02:23 PM
207.160.205.13
|
LAMs are not too complicated; in fact I'd say LAMs are less complicated than DropShips given that DropShips have bays and many different types of critical hits. LAMs belong in Total Warfare. Transformable units do attract attention and are big sellers, i.e., Transformers, RoboTech VeriTechs, Wing Zero Gundam. And let's remember that LAMs were produced before ProtoMechs were. So LAM rules should be in TW before ProtoMech rules.
from Lafeel: Quote:
Doesn't matter. That technology exists in real life. I don't care what the manual says. If we can do that now, in the 21st century, then they sure as hell can in the 31st.
And since the technology exists in the 21st Century to build LAMs, then LAMs can be built in the 31st Century. I haven't noticed much evidence (if any) that hyperspace technology can exist. I have noticed that leaflets do exist and also other types of ammo, i.e., super polymer ammo. How about RPG and TW rules, respectively, for those also? How about a rule to let TAG be compatible with a targeting computer? How about rules for letting autocannon, SRM, MRM, and DFM ammo go indirectly at immobile targets? How about a rule that lets conventional vehicles and monitor spacecraft use hardened armor and their crew personnel equipped with heavy armor? How about a rule for alloy armors, i.e., reactive armor mixed with reflective armor? How about a rule that lets structures use their weapons as if they were braced like a 'Mech's arm braced weapon(s)? How about putting the floating critical hits and glancing blows rules in Total Warfare since they're realistic?
As for physical weapons on LAMs, I designed a 100 ton LAM equipped with hardened armor and mechanical jump boosters that had a power amplified jump jet and a mace and TSM.
Edited by Newtype (02/27/09 05:55 PM)
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/27/09 03:14 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Quote:
Have any of you noticed how people who make LAM's always want to put physical weapons on them? I wonder why...
I have not seen that but I have not played BT with very many people. Back when I played around with LAMs I built them just like all of my other mechs, all laser weapons.
Well, a lot of people who still make LAM's always seem to like putting physical weaponry on them. Some was the common hatchet-sword stuff, but there was one that tried to go Manei Domini on us with a small cockpit and retractable blade. However, the dork forgot the C3i computer, and completely blew that idea out of the water.
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/01/09 04:49 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
LAMs are not too complicated; in fact I'd say LAMs are less complicated than DropShips given that DropShips have bays and many different types of critical hits.
Um, say what? If anything, DropShips have fewer potential critical hit issues to track than BattleMechs.
With LAMs, various critical slots have multiple effects when hit, especially ones like actuators. Three completely different sets of movement characteristics, combined with completely different rules for targeting LAMs have to be factored in - at any given time, you might be using rules for shooting at 'Mechs when targeting a LAM, or the rules for aerospace fighters.
LAMs are more complicated to handle on the game board than BattleMechs, aerospace fighters, or DropShips. For you to claim otherwise is, well, wrong.
Quote:
LAMs belong in Total Warfare. Transformable units do attract attention and are big sellers, i.e., Transformers, RoboTech VeriTechs, Wing Zero Gundam.
Define "Total Warfare" in this sense. Keep in mind that book has already been printed. You're not going to get LAMs in that book. Not now, not ever. That ship has sailed. If the developers revisit LAMs, it will have to be in a different book.
As for your anime examples, that brings up another complication with LAMs - making them significantly different in operation from any of the above you mentioned, due to the need to avoid any potential copyright issues.
Quote:
And let's remember that LAMs were produced before ProtoMechs were. So LAM rules should be in TW before ProtoMech rules.
....Or not. It's not a question of "seniority". It's a question of how well a unit or set of rules meshes with other rules, and whether it disrupts gameflow. LAMs are more complicated to handle than ProtoMechs. Ergo, LAMs are less desired for inclusion in tournament play. Hence, LAMs were not published as part of Total Warfare or Tech Manual.
Quote:
from Lafeel: Quote:
Doesn't matter. That technology exists in real life. I don't care what the manual says. If we can do that now, in the 21st century, then they sure as hell can in the 31st.
And since the technology exists in the 21st Century to build LAMs, then LAMs can be built in the 31st Century.
I'm going to dispute that LAMs could be built today - a transforming vehicle? Maybe. A transatmospheric fusion-powered transformable vehicle that can handle hypersonic speeds at high altitude? Not a chance - practical fusion power, fusion rocketry, or materials that demonstrate the durability of Battletech armor plating combined with the necessary levels of thermal protection have not been invented yet.
From a fictional standpoint, LAMs have been described in the canon as being difficult for even the highly-technologically-sophisticated Star League to design and engineer. It's not at all surprising that the Inner Sphere would be unable to maintain production of them.
Quote:
How about a rule that lets conventional vehicles and monitor spacecraft use hardened armor and their crew personnel equipped with heavy armor?
There are no "monitor" spacecraft in Battletech.
Quote:
As for physical weapons on LAMs, I designed a 100 ton LAM equipped with hardened armor and mechanical jump boosters that had a power amplified jump jet and a mace and TSM.
Under no incarnation of LAM rules have a 100-ton LAM been legal. Additionally, there are no rules for a "power amplified jump jet", either. If your local gaming group is fine with such things, that's entirely your business, but they're not part of any Battletech ruleset that's ever been published, and I can see a myriad of reasons why such a LAM would never see approval, ranging from out-of-whack game balance to not fitting in with the fiction, where the Star League struggled to make the 50-ton Phoenix Hawk LAM work, due to the complexity in making something its size convert, and failed to make the larger Shadow Hawk do so. To have a LAM twice the mass of the Phoenix Hawk doesn't fit with the Battletech setting.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/01/09 09:55 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Just so everyone here knows (NEWTYPE!!! looking at you here), Lafeel did NOT say that last quote in this topic..... newtype has taken to making shit up to try and win an unwinable argument.
And IF lafeel did say that in ANOTHER topic then it's being taken out of context and thus is as bad as making it up on the spot.
Newtype.....
I happen to like the LAM concept but bof battletech play they are just not any good.... they only exist cause they came from the original material that btech designers started from.... and even they realised that they were crap... hence the NO new rules for them...
In a LAM vs LAM game (not btech game... original game) built around the LAM concept they might work ok.... hell there are plenty of anime and other shows about them so they'd be popular but NOT for btech.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/01/09 11:16 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for physical weapons on LAMs, I designed a 100 ton LAM equipped with hardened armor and mechanical jump boosters that had a power amplified jump jet and a mace and TSM.
Under no incarnation of LAM rules have a 100-ton LAM been legal.
incorrect, the first incarnation of the LAM rules in AeroTech 1 made no distinction between BattleMech Tonnage limites published in BT 2nd Edition Boxed Set and Land-Air Mech Tonnnage limites... and the second incarnation in "BattleTech Manual: The Rules of Warfare" published the tonnage limits for Both BattleMechs and Land Air Mechs in the same sentance... 100 Tons.
Quote:
Additionally, there are no rules for a "power amplified jump jet", either.
true, unless he is giving his own name to "improved Jump jets", given it is new type, this is entirely possible...
Quote:
To have a LAM twice the mass of the Phoenix Hawk doesn't fit with the Battletech setting.
Not after the unneeded Retcon in BattleTech Compendium that limited the LAM to 55 tons, no... but we shall see what happens in InterStellar Operations Manual (YIppie a CORE book) or Historicals: Liberation of Terra (a terteriary product that is quite easy for the Hoi Polli to ignore... or even be blissfully ignorant of)
given that one of the best advocates of LAMs (JE from Vegas) Loves 100 Ton LAMs... we shall see... its not like we are talking about a Tournament Legal unit that will unbalance tournaments...
those that allow LAMs of any tonnage deserve what they are going to get... so the 55 ton limit is, well... useless
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Prince_of_Darkness
03/02/09 12:19 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Besides the point, a 100 ton LAM actually isn't all that threatening. Especially when you see how much tonnage you need to spend to get that guy moving more than the range of a medium laser in airmech mode. IJJ's at that weight are like a prerequisite, and that means you have to spend at least 20+ tons just to give it any viable level of effectiveness. Plus, because of the Mace rules, you can't mount one on a 'mech larger than 80 tons 
|
Newtype
03/02/09 05:07 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
LAMs are more complicated to handle on the game board than BattleMechs, aerospace fighters, or DropShips. For you to claim otherwise is, well, wrong.
Depends on what LAMs are played with. Light and very light LAMs don't have much armor and/or weapons. So they can be defeated probably more quickly than a heavily armed and armored DropShip.
Quote:
I'm going to dispute that LAMs could be built today - a transforming vehicle? Maybe. A transatmospheric fusion-powered transformable vehicle that can handle hypersonic speeds at high altitude? Not a chance - practical fusion power, fusion rocketry, or materials that demonstrate the durability of Battletech armor plating combined with the necessary levels of thermal protection have not been invented yet.
Then aerofighters described in Total Warfare should not be in Total Warfare either. CBT armor plating doesn't protect aerofighters with necessary levels of thermal protection. How about a compromise: put new artwork pictures of LAMs in Total Warfare and on the front cover while keeping LAM rules in a revised edition of Tactical Operations. This should satisfy both interests.
Quote:
There are no "monitor" spacecraft in Battletech.
Actually they're covered in MechForce Quarterly and designed using HMAero.
Quote:
Under no incarnation of LAM rules have a 100-ton LAM been legal. Additionally, there are no rules for a "power amplified jump jet", either. If your local gaming group is fine with such things, that's entirely your business, but they're not part of any Battletech ruleset that's ever been published, and I can see a myriad of reasons why such a LAM would never see approval, ranging from out-of-whack game balance to not fitting in with the fiction, where the Star League struggled to make the 50-ton Phoenix Hawk LAM work, due to the complexity in making something its size convert, and failed to make the larger Shadow Hawk do so. To have a LAM twice the mass of the Phoenix Hawk doesn't fit with the Battletech setting.
The Kanga hovercraft is an ICE powered hovercraft that has jump jets. And the driver of it doesn't use power amplifiers for those jump jets. And I disagree about not having 100 ton LAMs; they're good to train for 100 ton BattleMechs and 100 ton aerofighters.
Quote:
Lafeel did NOT say that last quote in this topic..... newtype has taken to making shit up to try and win an unwinable argument.
Use this link and scroll down to find that quote I posted.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/152120/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/02/09 06:33 PM
123.2.140.247
|
AND that is my point.... OUT OF CONTEXT!!!
That was posted in response to tracking the flight of a Long Tom shell.... Nothing to do with LAMS at all!!!
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
03/02/09 06:36 PM
207.160.205.13
|
MaiShirunaiispretty, -5 seems seems powerful for proximity fused ammo. Is that realistic against LAMs flying/jumpgliding?
Zandel Corrin, I was trying to indicate that Lafeel's quote is on the General Forum. So if one aspect of reality becomes Total Warfare/Tactical Handbook rules (such as Lafeel's comment that artillery ammo trajectory can be tracked) then so should LAMs and other aspects of reality. How about turn modes for conventional vehicles become TW rules?
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/02/09 06:44 PM
123.2.140.247
|
but we can't make lams now....... doesn't look like we ever will either......
As has already been said... LAMS do NOT belong in battletech... they are not right for the setting.... they aren't the only rules to be droped like that you know?
There are others that were just as bad and have been droped for obvious reasons.
If YOU like lams so much why not go AWAY and design your own game to use them in based on battletech... it's not hard... I could do it given the time and inclination.... but i do NOT like lams that much.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Lafeel
03/03/09 02:17 PM
157.157.29.92
|
Quote:
Just so everyone here knows (NEWTYPE!!! looking at you here), Lafeel did NOT say that last quote in this topic..... newtype has taken to making shit up to try and win an unwinable argument.
And IF lafeel did say that in ANOTHER topic then it's being taken out of context and thus is as bad as making it up on the spot.
Newtype.....
I happen to like the LAM concept but bof battletech play they are just not any good.... they only exist cause they came from the original material that btech designers started from.... and even they realised that they were crap... hence the NO new rules for them...
In a LAM vs LAM game (not btech game... original game) built around the LAM concept they might work ok.... hell there are plenty of anime and other shows about them so they'd be popular but NOT for btech.
I actually did say that, but Newtype took it out of context. I said that when he was wondering if you could track artillery shells on radar. I'm not sure if it is in the BT rules, but you can in rl..If you have the right sort of radar pointed at the right area of sky.
|
Newtype
03/04/09 08:45 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Zandel Corrin, how about letting LAMs be in Tactical Operations and if you don't want to play with them, then you keep them out of your games.
And let's remember that LAMs don't complicate LOS the ways DropShips do.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
03/04/09 09:36 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
And let's remember that everything I say and do should be laughed at upon a regular basis.
Here, I've fixed another one of your posts.
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/05/09 01:19 AM
123.2.140.247
|
Well you see the thing is that i'm not in charge of what does and doesn't go into tac ops and neither are you.....
The designers of tac opps however are and they do NOT agree with you or they would be in there....
So basically get over it already.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/05/09 10:27 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Quote:
And let's remember that everything I say and do should be laughed at upon a regular basis.
Here, I've fixed another one of your posts.
I would say that is the best post that he never did.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Lafeel
03/06/09 07:15 AM
157.157.29.92
|
Lol. Well here's a picture that says something about this thread to.
|
Newtype
03/06/09 11:31 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Prince of Darkness, frustrated that you don't have the mental capacity necessary to respond adequately to what I've typed? Or perhaps you're frustrated that you've come to the realization that LAMs will eventually be in Total Warfare?
How about an additional +3 to-hit modifier for having painted Balancer LAM to camoflauge easily with dawn and heavy woods? That brings the final to-hit modifier (not including Phantom Combat to-hit modifier) to +32. +32 plus -18 equals +14
Edited by Newtype (03/06/09 01:14 PM)
|
Prince_of_Darkness
03/06/09 01:14 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, frustrated that you don't have the mental capacity necessary to respond adequately to what I've typed? Or perhaps you're frustrated that you've come to the realization that LAMs will eventually be in Total Warfare?
OMG FAIL
|
Newtype
03/07/09 12:34 PM
207.160.205.13
|
So Phantom Combat trait could provide an additional to-hit modifier to bring final to-hit modifier against Balancer LAM to be +33, +34, or +35.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/07/09 03:22 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, frustrated that you don't have the mental capacity necessary to respond adequately to what I've typed? Or perhaps you're frustrated that you've come to the realization that LAMs will eventually be in Total Warfare?
How about an additional +3 to-hit modifier for having painted Balancer LAM to camoflauge easily with dawn and heavy woods? That brings the final to-hit modifier (not including Phantom Combat to-hit modifier) to +32. +32 plus -18 equals +14
Now that's funny! The brain dead cant see his own stupidity, but he sees a problem with P.O.D.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/08/09 12:24 AM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
LAMs are more complicated to handle on the game board than BattleMechs, aerospace fighters, or DropShips. For you to claim otherwise is, well, wrong.
Depends on what LAMs are played with. Light and very light LAMs don't have much armor and/or weapons. So they can be defeated probably more quickly than a heavily armed and armored DropShip.
That has Nothing to do with How COMPLICATED the LAMs are in comparison with Dropships... let alone Regular Fighters and BattleMechs
Quote:
Quote:
I'm going to dispute that LAMs could be built today - a transforming vehicle? Maybe. A transatmospheric fusion-powered transformable vehicle that can handle hypersonic speeds at high altitude? Not a chance - practical fusion power, fusion rocketry, or materials that demonstrate the durability of Battletech armor plating combined with the necessary levels of thermal protection have not been invented yet.
Then aerofighters described in Total Warfare should not be in Total Warfare either.
Limited Agreement.... Tournaments have BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters, so BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters are in Total Warfare... But IMO the Tournament Legal Rules for AeroTech stuff should have been left in their own Book. (one question is why Warships are not in TW if Small Craft, Fighters and Dropships are)
Quote:
CBT armor plating doesn't protect aerofighters with necessary levels of thermal protection. How about a compromise: put new artwork pictures of LAMs in Total Warfare and on the front cover while keeping LAM rules in a revised edition of Tactical Operations. This should satisfy both interests.
LAMs are getting their place in the Sun... they are rumored to be soon to be publiished in Strategic Operations Manual or Interstellar Operations Manual
Quote:
Quote:
There are no "monitor" spacecraft in Battletech.
Actually they're covered in MechForce Quarterly and designed using HMAero.
HMA allowing for their creation is not such a big thing... HMA has a lot of things that were allowed that are not precisely under the rules...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/08/09 07:58 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
LAMs are more complicated to handle on the game board than BattleMechs, aerospace fighters, or DropShips. For you to claim otherwise is, well, wrong.
Depends on what LAMs are played with. Light and very light LAMs don't have much armor and/or weapons. So they can be defeated probably more quickly than a heavily armed and armored DropShip.
That has Nothing to do with How COMPLICATED the LAMs are in comparison with Dropships... let alone Regular Fighters and BattleMechs
Pretty much.
Quote:
Limited Agreement.... Tournaments have BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters, so BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters are in Total Warfare... But IMO the Tournament Legal Rules for AeroTech stuff should have been left in their own Book. (one question is why Warships are not in TW if Small Craft, Fighters and Dropships are)
Because the intent of the Total Warfare book was to include everything that might regularly take place in combat on the ground - landed and landing DropShips, aerospace fighters on support, small craft acting as landing craft, BattleMechs, conventional vehicles, etc. That's true for all eras of play. WarShips generally aren't participating in ground battles, orbital bombardment capability or no.
Quote:
Quote:
CBT armor plating doesn't protect aerofighters with necessary levels of thermal protection. How about a compromise: put new artwork pictures of LAMs in Total Warfare and on the front cover while keeping LAM rules in a revised edition of Tactical Operations. This should satisfy both interests.
LAMs are getting their place in the Sun... they are rumored to be soon to be publiished in Strategic Operations Manual or Interstellar Operations Manual
Strategic Operations is already out in PDF form, and doesn't contain LAM rules. I am curious as to the source of rumors on Interstellar Ops, though.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/09/09 12:53 AM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
Limited Agreement.... Tournaments have BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters, so BattleMechs Dropships and Fighters are in Total Warfare... But IMO the Tournament Legal Rules for AeroTech stuff should have been left in their own Book. (one question is why Warships are not in TW if Small Craft, Fighters and Dropships are)
Because the intent of the Total Warfare book was to include everything that might regularly take place in combat on the ground - landed and landing DropShips, aerospace fighters on support, small craft acting as landing craft, BattleMechs, conventional vehicles, etc. That's true for all eras of play. WarShips generally aren't participating in ground battles, orbital bombardment capability or no.
thing is, there are tournaments and official games that use Warships almost Entirely... And Total Warfare is the Tournament Legal Book..
ohh well it works out for most games...
Quote:
Strategic Operations is already out in PDF form, and doesn't contain LAM rules. I am curious as to the source of rumors on Interstellar Ops, though.
not sure, either HM Pro board or BattleCorps... stunned me, i thought they were going to have to wait till the tertiary product Historicals: Liberation of Terra.
Still, the rather Specific "other era's of BattleTech portion of InterStellar Operations Manual" made it entirely believable... humm, maybe third hand from someone who had been to a BattleCorps Chat?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (03/09/09 12:54 AM)
|
Newtype
03/10/09 11:37 AM
207.160.205.13
|
If I'm so brain dead, then why did I outsmart Cray in that I designed a model self contained engine dual fan U driven boxboat?
Quote:
That has Nothing to do with How COMPLICATED the LAMs are in comparison with Dropships... let alone Regular Fighters and BattleMechs
Less armor and less weapons means less complicated unit to deal with. When I offer money to Randall Bills to hire him to make rules for LAMs tournament legal (which will create more tournament judge jobs), you'll see those rules in Total Warfare. Randall said that CBT products are intended "to be sold for money". While Randall won't violate copyright law, he'll take my money for updated LAM rules. Those of you who don't like LAMs in Total Warfare are just frustrated that I'll make sure they're in an updated edition of Total Warfare. Actually I'm glad that aerounit rules are in Total Warfare. Soon updated rules for LAMs will be too. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/10/09 12:34 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
MaiShirunaiispretty, -5 seems seems powerful for proximity fused ammo. Is that realistic against LAMs flying/jumpgliding?
I chose -5 as a combination of -4 (artillery cannon attacking hex) plus -1 (good at long range targeting field manual ability). Quite realistic IMHO, just wasn't too well explained. I suppose the field manual ability you'd use, Newtype, is spending 2MP for +2 to-hit modifier defensive bonus. That'd put you at +35, +36, or +37 to-hit modifier plus my -18 to-hit modifier equals +17, +18, or +19.
Newtype isn't brain dead, BTW; he's just confused from all the meth haldol he takes per his prescription.
I actually think that LAM rules should be in Tactical Operations.
|
Fang
03/10/09 02:57 PM
12.54.128.7
|
Um..you sure about that...
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/10/09 10:25 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Less armor and less weapons means less complicated unit to deal with.
BS, it is the rules that make a unit complicated, not how much armour there is or the number of weapons
Quote:
Those of you who don't like LAMs in Total Warfare are just frustrated that I'll make sure they're in an updated edition of Total Warfare.
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have...
Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
Quote:
Actually I'm glad that aerounit rules are in Total Warfare. Soon updated rules for LAMs will be too. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Clueless as always...
The Question was Why not ALL AeroUnits, why one AeroUnit was Left out when alll the rest were included
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/10/09 10:34 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
I actually think that LAM rules should be in Tactical Operations.
Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations Manual, and Strategic Oerations Manual are locked in...
While Land Air Mechs do not really Belong in INTERSTELLAR Operations Manual (if a LAM is in interstellar space, something has gone truly wrong... and LAMs are only Strategic when they are used in a PathFinder Role...) InterStellar Operations Manual is a Core book... and Catalyst Might as well continue the Family Tradition of publishing some thing right now as opposed to in the right book...
But Definately, Tactical Operations Manual would have been the right book, but they only recently reversed their stance on LAMs not belonging in a core book... (if indeed they have)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/11/09 05:59 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
If I'm so brain dead, then why did I outsmart Cray in that I designed a model self contained engine dual fan U driven boxboat?
I'm stunned and amazed I'm about to do this, but it's appropriate:
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Newtype
03/13/09 11:44 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
BS, it is the rules that make a unit complicated, not how much armour there is or the number of weapons
More armor & more weapons means more complicated defense & attacks. A Balancer LAM that has one point of armor per location and only one weapon vs. an Overlord DropShip that has massive armor and dozens of weapon results in that DropShip having more complicated defense and attack capabilities.
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/13/09 04:15 PM
70.0.101.156
|
Quote:
Quote:
BS, it is the rules that make a unit complicated, not how much armour there is or the number of weapons
More armor & more weapons means more complicated defense & attacks.
That's an invalid metric for comparison. A DropShip, by contrast, has a single movement mode while in the atmosphere. A LAM has six in the last published ruleset for hem: ground-based and jumping movement in 'Mech mode; ground-based, jumping and flight as an AirMech; and aerospace fighter flight, which differs from AirMech flight.
LAMs also use different hit location tables, and sometimes multiple tables, depending on their mode: for example, under current rules, when shooting at a LAM in fighter mode, you have to convert from aerospace locations to 'Mech ones when allocating damage.
Even little things like actuators become multi-purpose, in that, when tracking damage to a LAM's actuators, you need to not only track how that affects it as a 'Mech, but how it affects its ability to convert between different modes.
That's enormously more complicated than a DropShip from the perspective of rules required by a single unit.
Quote:
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
Well, not demanding they be included in already-published books is probably a good start. They's not gonna be in a book already sent to press, or ddistributed and already on sale. As you might have noticed, page count is already extremely high - I know that page count indicated as a serious concern when they had the Aerospace Cabal (mentioned in the credits for Strategic Operations) review the advanced aerospace rules in Strategic Operations, and page count was why they moved those rules from Tac Ops to Strat Ops in the first place.
While future printings of those books may incorporate errata to resolve typos and misprints, adding new content isn't going to happen. If LAMs get updated rules, it will be in a future publication.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/13/09 08:47 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
1: I have used Sweet reson to convince them that the pre-existing (even if out of print- they were still current) Land Air Mech Rules were broken by the changing of the Fighter hit location tables from Nose, Cockpit, Fuselage, Right Wing, Left Wing and Engine to Nose, Right Side, Left Side and Aft
2: I convinced them that even if Land Air Mechs died out by 3067 in the canon universe, there was from 2680 to 3067 that would have to have valid rules for Land Air Mechs as they are Legal for Non-Tournament Play
This is what caused them to Specify Historicals: Liberation of Terra (i.e. Kerensky vs Amaris) as the location for new LAM rules with the PTB Assertion that LAMs did not belong in a core book because of their status of being defunct in 3067.
I was not a party to what ever discussions convinced them to put LAMs back in a Core Book for the first time since the Publication of the Tactical HandBook, but If I had not made my points LAM rules may have never even been on the Horizon, Let alone soon to be published in InterStellar Operations Manual.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/17/09 06:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
LAMs also use different hit location tables, and sometimes multiple tables, depending on their mode: for example, under current rules, when shooting at a LAM in fighter mode, you have to convert from aerospace locations to 'Mech ones when allocating damage.
Armor locations can be these for a LAM: head (cockpit control area), left arm (left forward), right arm (right forward), front center torso (belly center fuselage), back center torso (top center fuselage), front left torso (underneath left wing), back left torso (top left wing), front right torso (underneath right wing), back left torso (top left wing), left leg (left tail aft), right leg (right tail aft). It actually makes sense. Fighter wings can't have weapons on one side or the other (exclusively top or bottom wing pieces); the weapons on a fighter wing are split between the top and underneath parts of that wing.
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/19/09 08:26 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Armor locations can be these for a LAM: head (cockpit control area), left arm (left forward), right arm (right forward), front center torso (belly center fuselage), back center torso (top center fuselage), front left torso (underneath left wing), back left torso (top left wing), front right torso (underneath right wing), back left torso (top left wing), left leg (left tail aft), right leg (right tail aft). It actually makes sense. Fighter wings can't have weapons on one side or the other (exclusively top or bottom wing pieces); the weapons on a fighter wing are split between the top and underneath parts of that wing.
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Also inaccurate, given that, for example, WarShip combat occurs in-universe, is decribed in several sourcebooks and novels, yet isn't included in the first book in the Total Warfare suite.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Lefric
03/19/09 11:38 AM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played. So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
Yet you continues tomake trollish posts, day after day, despite being rountinely told to shut up. So I hearby make a proposal: Total Warfare should be updated to say that LAMS are a hodge-podge abortion that should be shot on sight.
Wait, that offends you? Well, so does your constant bravo sierra about LAMS, remote influenceing, and how "You got Randall to do this."
I've met Randall. He's a nice guy. Your the biggest flaming troll I've ever met on any BBS on any topic. I know I said I was going to ignore you, but God in His Heaven... SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!!!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
Edited by Lefric (03/19/09 11:42 AM)
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/19/09 10:24 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Umm, Did you miss the thousands of times that PTB and Fans have stated that Total Warfare was only the Standard Rules/ Tournament Rules
Would you prefer to pay for a single encyclopedic volume that costs 6-times as much and included all of the Rules?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/20/09 11:43 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Aerofighters should have the aerofighterlike locations I've described above for LAMs in aerofighter mode.
Quote:
Also inaccurate, given that, for example, WarShip combat occurs in-universe, is decribed in several sourcebooks and novels, yet isn't included in the first book in the Total Warfare suite.
Yes, Total Warfare is inaccurate that way too by not having spacecraft combat and orbit to surface attacks.
Quote:
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
Yes to both of those questions. In that novel Star Lord, there were horsedrawn chariots that were involved in the battle at New St. Andrews. And there are shotguns in MWRPG.
Quote:
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played. So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
LAMs are necessary for:
*attracting the Gundam Wing fans, Transformers fans, and RoboTech fans to CBT
*those that like to do evasive raiding and evasive dueling
*carrying objects long distances for quick repair work on spacecraft and/or other objects
*crosstraining ground forces for aeroduty and aerounits for ground duty
*significantly unifying ground and aero units together as a single teamworking force
*a more balanced and unified altitude levels and elevation levels playing area for units
Quote:
Would you prefer to pay for a single encyclopedic volume that costs 6-times as much and included all of the Rules?
I would prefer to pay for such a book at such a price. Actually I'd rather pay for the computer game version. $240 is fine with me for such an egame. I've advocated for a much more comprehensive higher priced and higher quality CBT game the last ten years.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/20/09 12:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Ha, ha, ha, the first edition of Total Warfare is published then comes the "Tournament Battles book" then Total Warfare revised is published. So when FanPro Commandos ask players starting CBT if they want to learn CBT by being taught Tournament Rules book, they'll just respond by asking for Total Warfare revised instead thinking it's really just the tournament rules when really it's the whole enchilada.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/20/09 09:27 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
In a Way, yes, but Irregulars with shot guns are covered under the TW Infantry creation rules...
ShotGun rules definately, and Possibly unit quality...
Total Warfare was INTENDED to be incomplete... and NewType cnnot figure it out....
Quote:
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played.
Only if you limit it to the Tournament Legal Rules Set.
The Most Complete Book was The BattleTech Manual: The Rules of Warfare because it had ALL the Rules...
Then comes The First BattleTech Compendium....
All of the Books Since the Second BattleTech Compendium (BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare) have Been Incomplete... mmainly because there are now too many rules to get even all of the STANDARD game play and construction rules in a single Unitary Volume...
This is Why the Standard (Level 2 Tournament Legal) Game Play rules are in Total Warfare, the Standard Construction rules are in Tech Manual, the Advanced (Level 2 NON-Tournament Legal) and some of the Special Case/Experimental (Level 3) rules are in Tactical Operations Manual, others of the Advanced and "Experimental" rules are in Strategic Operations Manual, and the lions share of the rest of the Advanced & Experimental rules are going to be published in InterStellar Operations Manual
Calling Total Warfare "Complete" is like calling NewType SANE...
Quote:
So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
Not Total Warfare.... InterStellar Operations Manual.. and if Not InterStellar Operations manual... then Historicals Liberation of Terra
Mainly, Land Air Mechs need to be in the new series of Core Books because they were EVER part of the BattleTech Universe...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (03/20/09 09:29 PM)
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/20/09 09:32 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Aerofighters should have the aerofighterlike locations I've described above for LAMs in aerofighter mode.
the Fighter Rules have already changed....
The Location Changes should have been left out of AeroTech 2... but since they were changed... too bad
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/21/09 06:01 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I've not seen any Heavy Metal design programs for large support vehicles nor have I seen any such programs for airships. Heavy Metal Pro does provide LAM designing, though. It therefore makes sense to have rules for LAMs in Total Warfare rather than rules for large support vehicles and airships. Still, I'd like an updated Total Warfare ebook/egame that would include rules for Classic BattleTech warfare as I've stated in my previous message. I'd like it to be multiplayer too and include all the units ever produced by Inner Sphere, ComStar, Periphery, mercenaries, pirates, and Clans. I wanted to be Supreme Commander of all Periphery forces during MechForce Quartlery days. Fun to launch invasions and conquests of affiliations/worlds. Wait till I win the Powerball jackpot lottery hopefully; I'll hopefully provide Rick Raisley and others with the funding to make this more complete warfare ebook/egame.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/21/09 10:42 PM
76.9.73.231
|
OK fine, you write it, you can add all of your stupid ignoramus ideas also.
Oh, you will be the only one that will ever use it, or for that matter see it. So, don't worry if there are errors, like anything intelligent.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/21/09 11:02 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
I've not seen any Heavy Metal design programs for large support vehicles nor have I seen any such programs for airships.
HM Vee 3 or HM SUV will cover all these
Quote:
Heavy Metal Pro does provide LAM designing, though. It therefore makes sense to have rules for LAMs in Total Warfare rather than rules for large support vehicles and airships.
Heavy Metal Pro 5, Heavy Metal Vee 2, HM Aero 1, and HM Lite are still stuck in the time when the Core Books were
BattleTech Master Rules Revised
AeroTech 2 Revised Revised
and Maximum Tech revised with some rules left over from Tactical HandBook... (LAMs and THB Weapons are Legacies of this era)
Rick Raisley is working on Updates required by the New Core Books
Heavy Metal Pro 6.0 for Prototype Mechs and updates to BattleMechs and Utility Mechs, then i think that
Heavy Metal Vee 3.0 for ground & Naval SUVs and Mobile Structures would be next to update, then
Heavy Metal Aero or HM Aero 2 for updates to AT2 units, Space SUVs, AeroSpace SUVs
Heavy Metal Lite should be revised for the Infantry Platoon Creation Rules first published in Combat Operations and updated in Total Warfare and the other Core Books.
Quote:
Still, I'd like an updated Total Warfare ebook/egame that would include rules for Classic BattleTech warfare as I've stated in my previous message.
Electronic Rules and Electronic Games are Different parts of the IP
Electronic Rules are part of the BattleTech intellectual Property owned by either WizKids or Catalyst Game Labs (not sure where the Rules and fiction are currently held)
Quote:
I'd like it to be multiplayer too and include all the units ever produced by Inner Sphere, ComStar, Periphery, mercenaries, pirates, and Clans.
Electronic Gaming portion of the BattleTech IP is owned by Microsoft, and Smith and Tinker has LISCENCED the right to do what appears to be a MMPOG due to titles of the persons rumored to be involved
Quote:
Wait till I win the Powerball jackpot lottery hopefully; I'll hopefully provide Rick Raisley and others with the funding to make this more complete warfare ebook/egame.
Rick Raisley is a Liscencee... And he CANNOT DO COMPUTER GAMES
He has a liscence from MicroSoft and WizKids to build the Design Programs.
Catalyst has liscenced the rights to do BattleTech novels and sourcebooks in electronic formats...
Go to BattleCorps and Buy yourself PDFs of
Total Warfare
Tech Manual
Tactical Operations Manual
Strategic Operations Manual
{BattleTech RPG 4th Edition}: A Time of War (when it is Released)
InterStellar Operations Manual (when it is released)...
Any other Catalyst Book, Most FanPro Books and Some FASA Books are also available on PDF from BattleCorps
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (03/21/09 11:26 PM)
|
Newtype
03/24/09 12:29 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I thought it was revealed that Microsoft sold FASA Interactive (or at least the electronic game designing rights) to Jordan Weisman. If Total Warfare is supposed to be "just a game", then you should have no problem with those that want updated LAM rules published in an updated TW book. Or perhaps TW isn't "just a game" after all. So what happens when fiction owned by a corporation gets produced? Remember, a corporation is "an unregulated entity". Does that mean that fiction owned by the corporation is "unregulated" in that it's no longer "fiction" anymore? Does that mean that those in the Classic BattleTech Universe are actually alive and can think on their own? Does that mean that 31st Century visitors, using time machines, could perhaps come to Earth (Terra) and arrive in the 21st Century? Does that mean that Peter Smith is really Peter Davion and/or General Arianna Winston is Arianna Huffington?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/24/09 07:18 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
I thought
That would be a new concept, newtype thinking. To bad for the rest of us that that will never happen.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Fang
03/25/09 06:43 AM
12.54.128.7
|
...um.....no.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Prince_of_Darkness
03/25/09 10:49 AM
205.202.120.216
|
Oh, just let it die. This is doing nothing more than displaying our collective stupidities by feeding this troll.
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/25/09 08:27 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
I thought
Really newtype? Really?
I thought not.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
03/27/09 11:43 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Maybe Rick Raisley could do programming an advanced Total Warfare egame with Microsoft's approval. And you still haven't answered my question: is CBT just a game where you'd have no problem with players playing with and manufacturing LAMs, or CBT Universe real?
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/28/09 12:30 AM
24.127.68.31
|
i begin to see how the people that have argued with me throughout the years have felt...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/28/09 06:40 AM
24.5.141.133
|
OK, its time to search for some serous psychological help when you see your self in newtype.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/28/09 09:25 AM
24.127.68.31
|
just his persistance...
at least i try to make the game match reality.... (and see where the writers haphazzardly did so to a limited extent in the 1980's in re cannon and armour)
he trys to make reality match the game...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/28/09 12:47 PM
24.5.141.133
|
There is one thing that they could do to make the game more mach reality, but I do not see them dumping battlemechs from the game. I think that has something to do with battlemechs being the main focus of the game. =P
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/29/09 11:59 AM
24.127.68.31
|
The way that they got around the "Shoot the large target" thing is by making armour that masses 1875 kg and is 30 mm thick (30 pts Bar 10 Tech D Armour) but has better protection than a 300 mm thick plate of steel armour and masses 787.5 kg (12.5 pts Bar 5 Tech B Armour)
Still, even if the real world never develops BattleMechs the BattleTech universe diverges from the real one in 1985, thus there are things like machine guns, missiles and cannon that are derived from current era equipment... (note: the BattleTech Missiles are derived from current era Infantry weapons, Like the TOW or Dragon for the SRM and the RedEye for the LRM)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/31/09 06:09 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Here's another reason why updated LAM rules must be in Total Warfare: so if someone playing LostTech Prospector Life Path or Back Woods Life Path finds a LAM custom vehicle, then they'll be available for custom LAM vehicle unit discoveries. And you still haven't answered my question if Classic BattleTech is just a game or that the Classic BattleTech Universe is real.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/31/09 06:54 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Why not just have updated LAM rules published in an updated Tactical Operations book? Updated LAM rules would probably be more popular than tornado rules.
|
Newtype
03/31/09 06:56 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Because LAMs are the cornerstone hallmark of combat. Updated LAM rules deserve to be in Total Warfare.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/31/09 06:58 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I disagree. Total Warfare is intended to be a tournament rules book only. LAM rules are not tournament rules. LAMs contradict Clan tournament fighting.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
03/31/09 07:01 PM
207.160.205.13
|
How does a Clan aeropilot and a Clan MechWarrior have equal tournament status? Aeropilot prefers space to make MechWarrior incapable of lots of movement therefore easy to hit and MechWarrior prefers ground to have aeropilot run out of fuel. LAMs are necessary to get rid of this unequalness.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/31/09 07:03 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I see, sounds like you want to get rid of Clan tournaments; that won't ever happen.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
03/31/09 07:05 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Sure it will because as Clan players that are MechWarriors or aerowarriors realize that neither will have a victory, they'll come to a truce, request a new type of tournament rules, or quit altogether.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/31/09 09:06 PM
207.160.205.13
|
It's unlikely that Clan tournaments will be done away with. There are many players that like Clan tournaments. You're better off getting updated LAM rules in Tactical Operations.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
03/31/09 09:10 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I don't recognize many players that like Clan tournaments. In fact, Randall said that advanced rulesbooks like Maximum Tech, Tactical Operations, and MechWarrior RPG books sold more than any other rulesbooks. Furthermore, there's captions and picture of large surface naval craft (aircraft carriers & battleships) described in Total Warfare, therefore there should at least be a picture and caption that talks about Land Air 'Mechs.
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/31/09 10:18 PM
123.2.140.247
|
LAMs have never been more then an oddity in battletech... plain and simple....
You may love them you may hate them but the fact of the matter is that as far as the current BTech game is concerned they are DEAD!
I personally do not mind them and love the idea but they just do NOT fit with BTech and so they have been let go.
Trying to keep them around is like that guy that got fired yesterday but shows up today at his desk to work denying that it ever happened and has to be dragged off by security....
The only reason Newtype has not been dragged off by security here is because the security (mods) have already left.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Cray
04/01/09 10:23 PM
97.97.243.184
|
Quote:
Sure it will because as Clan players that are MechWarriors or aerowarriors realize that neither will have a victory, they'll come to a truce, request a new type of tournament rules, or quit altogether.
OMG, HeroChip, you're arguing with yourself. We know MaiShirunaiispretty and NewType are both you.
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.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/02/09 12:13 AM
205.202.120.216
|
Wow. And it was getting pretty good for awhile, there.
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/02/09 02:47 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
LAMs have never been more then an oddity in battletech... plain and simple....
True enough, the way that they were brought in in AeroTech I without any real description of how the Air Mech Mode Works (i.e. for much of the time that the original rules were used, people {me included} actualy thought that it got extra armour for the wings in AirMech Mode when what the rules actually stated was that if the Front and Rear side torso armour lost a combined total of half the armour for both locations it was no longer flight-worthy in airmech mode, I.E. the wings crapped out at 50% of front and rear side torso armour, not 150%... the Later Change to 100% made it clear that even the PTB of the THB period were confused) makes it clear that LAMs were very much only an after thought...
Quote:
You may love them you may hate them but the fact of the matter is that as far as the current BTech game is concerned they are DEAD!
the Current BattleTech game is for all eras, including
BattleTech: Star League and
BattleTech: Succession Wars as well as
BattleTech: Clan War,
they are only dead for
BattleTech: Civil War, and for
BattleTech: Jihad as well as
BattleTech: Dark Age
Quote:
I personally do not mind them and love the idea but they just do NOT fit with BTech and so they have been let go.
They need to exist in the current rules for one simple, (two part) reason,
They ever existed, and AeroTech 2 Broke the previously published rules.
Quote:
Trying to keep them around is like that guy that got fired yesterday but shows up today at his desk to work denying that it ever happened and has to be dragged off by security....
LAMs are being revamped, and even if MacAttacks more ungainly ideas get used (using rear torso armour as the wings, OH RLY? so the only way to crash an AirMech LAM is to get back shots!!? um , no), it will either be brought back in InterStellar Operations Manual (new rumor from PTB, third hand) or Historicals: Liberation of Terra (Old Rumor from Herb, first hand)
Quote:
The only reason Newtype has not been dragged off by security here is because the security (mods) have already left.
Just because he is a bit nuts, don't be disgusted with all that he supports...
Even a stopped analog clock is right occasionally
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/03/09 11:44 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
I don't recognize many players that like Clan tournaments. In fact, Randall said that advanced rulesbooks like Maximum Tech, Tactical Operations, and MechWarrior RPG books sold more than any other rulesbooks.
I think you meant Tactical Handbook, Newtype. Tactical Operations hasn't been out long to sell copies of.
Quote:
Furthermore, there's captions and picture of large surface naval craft (aircraft carriers & battleships) described in Total Warfare, therefore there should at least be a picture and caption that talks about Land Air 'Mechs.
Which is why that updated LAM rules should be in Tactical Operations.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
04/03/09 12:00 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
The only reason Newtype has not been dragged off by security here is because the security (mods) have already left.
Yeah, left me to talk some sense into you all as to why improved LAM rules should, no I mean, must be in Total Warfare.
Quote:
OMG, HeroChip, you're arguing with yourself. We know MaiShirunaiispretty and NewType are both you.
No Cray, MaiShirunaiispretty and I each use a computer here at the library. Why would I even care to suggest improved LAM rules be in Tactical Operations (thus dividing my ambitions) when I want improved LAM rules to be in Total Warfare? And I'd still like an answer from you Cray, is CBT just a game or is the CBT Universe real?
Quote:
Which is why that updated LAM rules must be in Tactical Operations.
No, improved LAM rules must be in Total Warfare. I've listed several reasons why improved LAM rules must be in Total Warfare; why don't you all list several reasons why they shouldn't? Or maybe you'd like to concede that improved LAM rules belong in Total Warfare for the reasons I've stated above. Having improved LAM rules in Total Warfare won't hinder your games; you don't have to play against those that want to play with LAMs.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/03/09 12:25 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Newtype, you're outnumbered here. Why are you so insistent that LAM rules be published in Total Warfare? Tactical Operations should be fine. By the way, you'll notice that Newtype's reply to this message should be just a few seconds; not time for either of us to login/logout. That should indicate to you he and I are different.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
04/03/09 12:25 PM
207.160.205.13
|
LAM rules must be in Total Warfare!!!!!!!!!!!! This way many more players (both beginning and experienced) will come back to Total Warfare. Here's an ultimatum: if you all don't want LAMs in Total Warfare, then just concede that you don't want these tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of talented players playing CBT games and purchasing CBT products.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/03/09 12:29 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Newtype, listen to reason: an updated Tactical Operations book could contain rules for LAMs. This way, everybody can be happy. New players won't be confused by LAM transformation modes and those that like LAMs can play with them.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Newtype
04/03/09 12:35 PM
207.160.205.13
|
What I'm listening to is the voice in my head telling me that improved LAM rules must be in Total Warfare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The survival of the Inner Sphere Federation depends on it. I saw the space-time traveller and her ship in my mind's eye. I saw her ship in real life.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/153051/an/0/page/0#153051
I didn't meet with presumably her but she wants me to have LAMs legal for tournament play soon. Here's another ultimatum: either admit that LAMs can be in Total Warfare games and admit that CBT is just "a game", or admit that CBT Universe is real in that I've remotely influenced it into existence.
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/03/09 01:37 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Which is why that updated LAM rules should be in Tactical Operations.
settle for InterStellar Operations Manual...
Indications are that they and the "other eras of BattleTech" rules will be in InterStellar Operations
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Lafeel
04/03/09 02:06 PM
157.157.126.53
|
In your place I would, Newtype, as they could have just written them out of the game entirely.
|
Fang
04/03/09 02:13 PM
12.54.128.7
|
Not really. Could have multiple windows open. no need to log in or out, just switch windows.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/04/09 12:29 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I think rules for LAMs could be in an updated Tactical Operations book. More players seem to like LAMs than tornadoes. I don't know of any House, Clan, or any other group for that matter that uses scalar weapons to make tornadoes to affect battles. I don't know of any players that have opted for tornado rules but there are websites that do indicate players are much more interested in LAMs.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Lafeel
04/04/09 01:15 PM
157.157.126.53
|
Post links, Newtype, because no one is just taking you on your word alone any more.
|
Cray
04/04/09 03:08 PM
68.205.198.74
|
HeroChip, please stop this arguing with yourself stuff. When you and MaiShirunaiispretty have the same IP address, it's pretty damned obvious that you're the same person (even if your record of sock puppets on www.classicbattletech.com, www.heavymetalpro.com, and rec.games.mecha weren't open to public review).
Whenever you show up, Chip, and find a little bit of disagreement with your posts, you start creating new accounts to argue more than one side of the story. Its happened over and over, and by now the pattern is extremely obvious.
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.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/07/09 01:00 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I suppose I should introduce myself. My name is Ryan Cole. I'm a friend of Newtype (HeroChip). I've purchased Rick Raisley's HM programs. Ask Rick Raisley if you don't believe me; I've contributed to his forums years ago and hopefully he still remembers me. I also left a review of Total Warfare on Barnes and Noble website. I took pity on Randall Bills and so I gave it a 3/5 rating.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/07/09 05:44 PM
71.215.57.61
|
Quote:
MaiShirunaiispretty said:
BAAAAWWWW
Another post I had to fix...SPELLCHECK MOTHERFUCKER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT?
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 01:50 PM
72.133.227.6
|
I too would like to see LAMs in Total Warfare. But I know that won't be a reality because the scumbucket rule typists are so Clan biased. I'm in a way glad LAMs aren't in Total Warfare because given how that FASA/WizKids/FanPro mismanage so much of Classic BattleTech, i.e., Stackpole's money & keeping many books out of print, I won't be surprised when WizKids goes out of business. And good riddens. Once Microsoft agrees to sell such gaming rights to my game designing business I'll buy Classic BattleTech from WizKids. Then I'll have LAMs as the premier units to be played with. I've got over half a billion dollars I can spend and I KNOW how to manage and make better Classic BattleTech.
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/10/09 02:57 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
I too would like to see LAMs in Total Warfare. But I know that won't be a reality because the scumbucket rule typists are so Clan biased.
Huh. Gonna disagree on that assertion.
Quote:
I'm in a way glad LAMs aren't in Total Warfare because given how that FASA/WizKids/FanPro mismanage so much of Classic BattleTech, i.e., Stackpole's money & keeping many books out of print, I won't be surprised when WizKids goes out of business. And good riddens. Once Microsoft agrees to sell such gaming rights to my game designing business I'll buy Classic BattleTech from WizKids.
What game designing business would that be?
Quote:
Then I'll have LAMs as the premier units to be played with. I've got over half a billion dollars I can spend and I KNOW how to manage and make better Classic BattleTech.
O RLY?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 03:14 PM
72.133.227.6
|
Quote:
Huh. Gonna disagree on that assertion.
Which that I want LAMs in Total Warfare or that the scumbucket rule typists won't put LAMs in Total Warfare because they're Clan biased or both?
My game designing is that in which uses the Torque engine; not that crappy game desgning engine Microsoft used for MCG. I used to work for Jerry McManus designing Super Conflict: The MidEast for the SNES.
Yes, I really do. I use the HDR to win lotteries.
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
Edited by SwordofLightwaiver (04/10/09 03:15 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/10/09 05:04 PM
24.5.141.133
|
So, newtype has a forth account.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 05:10 PM
72.133.227.6
|
Hold it, asshole donkey. I'm not this Newtype person. Who are you supposed to be, Givonnai? Just because I like LAMs doesn't mean I'm Newtype. I'll point out that not all Classic BattleTech players are Clan players.
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
Edited by SwordofLightwaiver (04/10/09 05:13 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/10/09 05:50 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Hold it, asshole donkey. I'm not this Newtype person. Who are you supposed to be, Givonnai? Just because I like LAMs doesn't mean I'm Newtype. I'll point out that not all Classic BattleTech players are Clan players.
Yes, by default asses/donkeys do have ass holes.
Me thinking that your newtype has nothing to do with you liking LAMs or not being pro Clan. You are not the only one on list that are pro LAM and anti Clan. Me calling you newtype has everything to do with you claiming that you have a half billion dollars, and even more so that you got it by some way by cheating lottery's. That is exactly something that I would expect newtype to say.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 05:59 PM
72.133.227.6
|
Whereas I use HDR to win lotteries, Newtype uses RV. The HDR is a time travel device invented by Steven Gibbs. Art Bell talked with Mr. Gibbs on his radio show alot.
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/10/09 06:03 PM
24.5.141.133
|
I did not check your IP address before claiming your newtype, I did not think of it. Looking at your IP address it does not mach even closely. You still sound just like him.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 06:08 PM
72.133.227.6
|
What's Newtype's opinion of what should be done in response to 9/11?
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/10/09 06:16 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Whereas I use HDR to win lotteries, Newtype uses RV. The HDR is a time travel device invented by Steven Gibbs. Art Bell talked with Mr. Gibbs on his radio show alot.
OK you're not newtype, you're even a bigger nut than newtype. There are only two kinds of people that listened to art bell, nut cases, and the people that listened to have a good laugh at art bell and the nut cases he had on his show.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/10/09 06:21 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
What's Newtype's opinion of what should be done in response to 9/11?
Don't know don't care, and since I know that you're a nut case, I don't care about your opinion either. But I am sure just like newtype you will tell us.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/10/09 06:23 PM
72.133.227.6
|
Oh so the fact that I'm abiding by the In God We Trust motto to encourage the USA to surrender makes me a nutcase, huh?
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/10/09 10:34 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Huh. Gonna disagree on that assertion.
Which that I want LAMs in Total Warfare or that the scumbucket rule typists won't put LAMs in Total Warfare because they're Clan biased or both?
The former is your personal opinion. The latter is a specific claim, one that I know to be false. The reasoning as to why LAM rules haven't been published in any of the Total Warfare suite of books has been detailed in this thread at length, and is directly related to rules complexity.
Quote:
My game designing is that in which uses the Torque engine; not that crappy game desgning engine Microsoft used for MCG. I used to work for Jerry McManus designing Super Conflict: The MidEast for the SNES.
Torque's kind of old, don't you think? We're talking about an eight-year old game engine at this point. I mean, sure, there's been community coding and updates since then, but there are undoubtedly newer, better engines out there.
Quote:
Yes, I really do. I use the HDR to win lotteries.
I'm not clear on how high dynamic range imaging would help one win lotteries. I assume you're referring to something else?
Quote:
So, newtype has a forth account.
A quick whois search of the publically-posted IP addresses here on Sarna makes it highly unlikely that they're the same person. As I mentioned in another thread, it doesn't look like what I'd see with an anonymous proxy, and this kind of IP spoofing would be very weird for Newtype to suddenly start using this late in the game.
Besides, posting style seems very different between the two. I'd say they're two different people.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/11/09 12:01 AM
71.215.57.61
|
Quote:
Oh so the fact that I'm abiding by the In God We Trust motto to encourage the USA to surrender makes me a nutcase, huh?
No, it makes you look like an ignorant prick who believes there is a conspiracy behind everything.
Saying that, it appears to me that you need to LURK MOAR.
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/11/09 01:31 AM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
The reasoning as to why LAM rules haven't been published in any of the Total Warfare suite of books has been detailed in this thread at length, and is directly related to rules complexity.
Define "Total Warfare Cycle of Books" Indications are that LAMs will be in the "other Era's of BattleTech" portion of InterStellar Operations Manual...
Complexity is why it was left out of Total Warfare and Tech Manual... is that the extent of "Total Warfare Cycle of Books"
They were going to leave LAMs out of the new core rules to 'put them in their place'... dead rules that no one should care about that they were forced to fix because AT2 broke them, but a tertiary product would have been a fine place to bury the dead horse.
Luckily they saw fit to put them into one of the Core Rules Books in a section earmarked for dead rules instead of a tertiary product...
hopefully the writer has an up to date subscription to "Clue"
I just hope the writer doesnt accidentally munch out by making the wings impossible to hit by using the rear armour represent them...
LAMs are Weak and Die Fast... and hiding the most critical and vulnerable part behind the parts that you -can- hit does NOT do that
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/11/09 01:59 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Define "Total Warfare Cycle of Books" Indications are that LAMs will be in the "other Era's of BattleTech" portion of InterStellar Operations Manual...
Has that been publically announced or verified, though?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/11/09 03:20 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
Define "Total Warfare Cycle of Books" Indications are that LAMs will be in the "other Era's of BattleTech" portion of InterStellar Operations Manual...
Has that been publically announced or verified, though?
not sure... Its a little too specific to be discarded out of hand... have you asked them about it?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
04/11/09 06:20 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I am not SwordofLightwaiver. It is true I've been using RV to play the lottery. I've only had three successful RV sessions where once I saw four ARV objects corresponding to lottery numbers, once I saw five ARV objects corresponding to a winning Powerball number and a telepathic message I did in an RV attempt to tell myself before a Powerball lottery was played the winning Powerball number. I did a Google search for HDR Steven Gibbs and found these websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=HDR+Steven+Gibbs&aq=f&oq=
I don't even listen to Art Bell.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/11/09 07:10 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Define "Total Warfare Cycle of Books" Indications are that LAMs will be in the "other Era's of BattleTech" portion of InterStellar Operations Manual...
Has that been publically announced or verified, though?
not sure... Its a little too specific to be discarded out of hand... have you asked them about it?
I'm still curious as to where you saw that in the first place.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/11/09 11:02 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Either HM Pro or BattleCorps
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
SwordofLightwaiver
04/12/09 03:54 PM
72.133.227.6
|
Since Microsoft is profit craving, Microsoft will be very grateful with the money I offer them for the exclusive rights to designing Classic BattleTech electronic games. The days of pencil & paper Classic BattleTech games will be over. A new day will soon dawn in the making of electronic wargames. I'll have Land Air Mechs as the premier units on the cover of each expanded Total Warfare CD. NewPharoah Max, I would suggest another rule for LAMs that while a LAM is transforming from one mode to another, each Determining Critical Hits Table roll has a +3 modifier and a LAM in any fully transformed mode has a +2 modifier applied to each Determining Critical Hit Table roll.
If 9/11 was part of God the system's plan then should the USA surrender to the terrorists or go to war against God? I say surrender.
Edited by SwordofLightwaiver (04/12/09 04:39 PM)
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/13/09 03:04 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Since Microsoft is profit craving, Microsoft will be very grateful with the money I offer them for the exclusive rights to designing Classic BattleTech electronic games.
Monopoly money isn't really worth much in the real world.
Quote:
The days of pencil & paper Classic BattleTech games will be over. A new day will soon dawn in the making of electronic wargames. I'll have Land Air Mechs as the premier units on the cover of each expanded Total Warfare CD.
Or...not.
Quote:
NewPharoah Max, I would suggest another rule for LAMs that while a LAM is transforming from one mode to another, each Determining Critical Hits Table roll has a +3 modifier and a LAM in any fully transformed mode has a +2 modifier applied to each Determining Critical Hit Table roll.
Having trouble keeping your sock puppets straight?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Newtype
04/13/09 01:14 PM
207.160.205.13
|
And, Christopher Perkins, when I had $10,000+ money I would have been willing to have spent $2,500 for a very advanced Total Warfare egame.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/13/09 01:49 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Quote:
Since Microsoft is profit craving, Microsoft will be very grateful with the money I offer them for the exclusive rights to designing Classic BattleTech electronic games.
Monopoly money isn't really worth much in the real world.
Heehaw! Heehaw! Heehaw! Heehaw!
OK, I had a real good laugh over that one!
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/14/09 01:44 AM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
And, Christopher Perkins, when I had $10,000+ money I would have been willing to have spent $2,500 for a very advanced Total Warfare egame.
so, what is your gripe with having to pay 6*26 to 45 = $156 to $270 to get a very advanced game that covers from the individual Mechwarrior in "A Time of War: The BattleTech RolePlaying Game" to the so basic that Every Game has it and the Tournaments are so Chaotic as to be Limited to it "Total Warfare", to the Construction rules in "TechManual", to the point that the REAL game play and Construction rules Start to appear in "Tactical Operations Manual", to the Strategic and Campaign Play that apppears in "Strategic Operations Manual" and is expanded upon in Interstellar Operations Manual.
I mean Really, why are you so put out that LAMs are not in something so meaningless as the useless "Tournament Legal Book" lets put it this way, how important is the floor.... without the house a foundation is just a parking space
If that is the only book that a player gets, then they DESSERVE to get screwed out of the rest of the game.
I am quite glad that the Powers that Be have finally stopped listening to the bitching that caused the last batch of PTBs move the Campaign only rules like Customization, Salvage and Repair from Maximum Tech to BattleTech Master Rules Revised (no level three rules in the BMR R, yeah right, pull the other one, it has bells on it)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Zandel_Corrin
04/14/09 03:35 AM
123.2.140.247
|
And the salvage and repair rules in BMRR were CRAP. If they were at least good rules that covered at least most possible salvage and repair situations then that would be ok but they just plain sucked.
I'd like to see some DETAILED salvage and repair rules but you don't see me posting masses and masses or useless crap arguments about them do you?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
04/14/09 12:55 PM
207.160.205.13
|
You, Christopher Perkins, are just jealous that a Balancer LAM can pretty much defeat any other unit in one unit vs. one unit combat.
|
adamwehn
04/14/09 12:59 PM
66.227.178.216
|
Quote:
You, Christopher Perkins, are just jealous that a Balancer LAM can pretty much defeat any other unit in one unit vs. one unit combat.
No he's totally awed by your blatant stupidity. *puts the Munchkin hat on Chip*
|
Newtype
04/14/09 01:33 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Since I'm smart enough to read so many rules to win many one unit vs. one unit combat, I am therefore not stupid; I'm smart.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/14/09 01:41 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Since I'm smart enough to read so many rules to win many one unit vs. one unit combat, I am therefore not stupid; I'm smart.
Cause as we all know, winning against a megamek bot with your own guns is HARD WORK.
|
Newtype
04/14/09 01:43 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Prince of Darkness, how would you defeat the Balancer LAM I designed?
Here's a link, note I offered suggestions so that the Balancer LAM uses a pulse laser at extreme range of 50 doing 12 heat and one point of damage.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/142766/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1
Check this out for a to-hit modifier:
+1 dual cockpit
+7 jumpglided +25 hexes
+2 moved additional 2 hexes in accordance with Field Manual special ability
+10 at extreme range with Null Signature System
+7 Excellent Evading (my version of skilled evading with advanced ability of evading)
+2 prone and partial cover by having LAM crouch lay against hillside
+2 intervening heavy woods
+3 camoflauge painting for woods
+1 Phantom Combat ability from MechForce Quarterly
equals +35 to-hit modifier
Edited by Newtype (04/14/09 01:55 PM)
|
adamwehn
04/14/09 01:55 PM
66.227.178.216
|
Quote:
Since I'm smart enough to read so many rules to win many one unit vs. one unit combat, I am therefore not stupid; I'm smart.
Yeah so smart that you come up with the stupidest equipment and the most munchkin designs. Not my idea of a high IQ, more like my idea of someone trying to make up for lack of IQ and lack of size somewhere else.
|
Newtype
04/14/09 01:57 PM
207.160.205.13
|
How is my equipment stupid? Only the jealous who lose in CBT combat complain about munchkin designs.
|
adamwehn
04/14/09 01:58 PM
66.227.178.216
|
Quote:
How is my equipment stupid? Only the jealous who lose in CBT combat complain about munchkin designs.
Whatever munchkin. *sends you to the land of Oz*
|
Newtype
04/14/09 01:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
And I meet with the wizard to learn how to be even more munchy.
|
Lefric
04/14/09 02:07 PM
216.120.184.66
|
PLEASE!!!!!!! QUIT FEEDING THE TROLL!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Newtype
04/14/09 02:12 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Lefric, you're jealous that I'm winning this LAMs topic.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/14/09 03:07 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, how would you defeat the Balancer LAM I designed?
Saturation bombardment of the area from orbit with capital energy batteries. If I'm feeling particularly nasty, I'll make sure to throw in some Santa Anas. What LAM? Hell, what terrain features?
And, yes, folks, I've actually done something similar in a large game before - it's one of my standard responses to munchkinism.
In the FGC '48 game on Classic Battletech a few years back, when I was helping run the Snow Ravens, I jumped in on the Star Adders and challenged them to a Trial of Possession for their McKenna class battleship, the Soverign Right. They responded with around 215,000 BV worth of Elementals, in an underground factory, and said, "I hope you brought ground troops." I replied with "Why?", used my McKenna to conduct continual orbital bombardment until I collapsed all the tunnels, and said, "You chose poorly. Thanks for the battleship."
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
adamwehn
04/14/09 03:24 PM
66.227.178.216
|
Quote:
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, how would you defeat the Balancer LAM I designed?
Saturation bombardment of the area from orbit with capital energy batteries. If I'm feeling particularly nasty, I'll make sure to throw in some Santa Anas. What LAM? Hell, what terrain features?
And, yes, folks, I've actually done something similar in a large game before - it's one of my standard responses to munchkinism.
In the FGC '48 game on Classic Battletech a few years back, when I was helping run the Snow Ravens, I jumped in on the Star Adders and challenged them to a Trial of Possession for their McKenna class battleship, the Soverign Right. They responded with around 215,000 BV worth of Elementals, in an underground factory, and said, "I hope you brought ground troops." I replied with "Why?", used my McKenna to conduct continual orbital bombardment until I collapsed all the tunnels, and said, "You chose poorly. Thanks for the battleship."
Me likes dis story!
|
Lefric
04/14/09 04:40 PM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
Lefric, you're jealous that I'm winning this LAMs topic.
No, I'm "jealous" that an f'ing douchebag like yourself gets all the attention on this board, and not real battletech topics. I'm "jealous" of the fact that I can't live in a crack-induced stupor like you, but must exist in the real world.
And I'm "jealous" that I've gone and lowered myself to your level, which is the only thing I really care about, and that just pisses me off even more.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Zandel_Corrin
04/14/09 07:47 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Hey newtype. Why is it that you can win every game with your own rules but if you play by tournament rules you loose every time?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/14/09 08:56 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, how would you defeat the Balancer LAM I designed?
Saturation bombardment of the area from orbit with capital energy batteries. If I'm feeling particularly nasty, I'll make sure to throw in some Santa Anas. What LAM? Hell, what terrain features?
And, yes, folks, I've actually done something similar in a large game before - it's one of my standard responses to munchkinism.
In the FGC '48 game on Classic Battletech a few years back, when I was helping run the Snow Ravens, I jumped in on the Star Adders and challenged them to a Trial of Possession for their McKenna class battleship, the Soverign Right. They responded with around 215,000 BV worth of Elementals, in an underground factory, and said, "I hope you brought ground troops." I replied with "Why?", used my McKenna to conduct continual orbital bombardment until I collapsed all the tunnels, and said, "You chose poorly. Thanks for the battleship."
Yeah, what he said.
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/14/09 09:30 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
And the salvage and repair rules in BMRR were CRAP. If they were at least good rules that covered at least most possible salvage and repair situations then that would be ok but they just plain sucked.
I'd like to see some DETAILED salvage and repair rules but you don't see me posting masses and masses or useless crap arguments about them do you?
The Most Detailed Salvage. Repair and Customization rules were published in Mechwarrior 1st Edition... the BattleTech ones, (even from Strategic Operations Manual) are so incomplete that they better serve as a suppliment to Mechwarrior 1st editions Rules than they serve as stand alones...
Note, it takes going back to te Combat Equipment Guide to figure out that if you have all the Tool Kits and Repair Equipment (including the Repair Platform) listed in Mechwarrior 1st Edition you get the Mobile Field Base modifier... THAT is how incomplete the background information for the Strategic Operations rules Customization, Salvage and Repair rules are
Hopefully they decide to reverse themselves and include a more detailed (RPG Style detailed, not BattleTech Style sketched out) work up in "A Time Of War"
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/14/09 09:35 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
You, Christopher Perkins, are just jealous that a Balancer LAM can pretty much defeat any other unit in one unit vs. one unit combat.
have you tried going against a LB-X Rifleman using the Advanced Rules Anti-Air Targetins Systems?
One things that munchkins LOVE to forget is regular LB-X cluster shots get a -3 modifier against Jump-Gliding AirMechs (anyting over a 1x jump), Flying VTOLs Flying Fighters and other Flying AeroTech 2 Units.
and that part about the LB-X is IIRC right in Total Warfare, so you cannot "i forgot" out of THOSE rules
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/15/09 12:39 AM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Quote:
How is my equipment stupid? Only the jealous who lose in CBT combat complain about munchkin designs.
Whatever munchkin. *sends you to the land of Oz*
I don't thing we want to make an enemy of the people in Australia. How about sending him into the sun. The sun might be bigger than newtype's ego.
Hay, I said might!
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
TrendlineTrainer
04/15/09 05:58 PM
212.50.72.250
|
hello.
it is very useful forum. thanks to creators for www.sarna.net.
what do you think is it possible to have a stable profit at Forex market? I think it is. All that you need is to have constant futures trend for the future trend and you will always know what is going on.
if you are not using metatrader indicators, I offer you to see my indicator which I haVE been using during the year. it might help you to know about the market data movement, look at here forex trix indicator
if you have any questions or recommedns, please, do not hesitate to ask me
|
Newtype
04/17/09 02:24 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Saturation bombardment of the area from orbit with capital energy batteries. If I'm feeling particularly nasty, I'll make sure to throw in some Santa Anas. What LAM? Hell, what terrain features?
Remember, I don't have to land (be on a ground hex) to be hit by bombardment. I've calculated that improved version of Balancer LAM to be about 700 BV. That includes Piloting 0, Gunnery 0. What's your BV, GiovanniBlasini?
Quote:
Hey newtype. Why is it that you can win every game with your own rules but if you play by tournament rules you loose every time?
Actually I haven't lost "every time" by playing with tournament rules. I defeated Turkina11@aol.com when he went up against my Mole Assault Tank. He retreated. In another one vs. one combat I did lose to SilentHarbinger@aol.com. Furthermore, I'm not using my rules to give me advantages; actually my rules place restrictions on my Balancer LAM.
Quote:
have you tried going against a LB-X Rifleman using the Advanced Rules Anti-Air Targetins Systems? One things that munchkins LOVE to forget is regular LB-X cluster shots get a -3 modifier against Jump-Gliding AirMechs (anyting over a 1x jump), Flying VTOLs Flying Fighters and other Flying AeroTech 2 Units. and that part about the LB-X is IIRC right in Total Warfare, so you cannot "i forgot" out of THOSE rules
I'm not afraid of such a unit. It's +35 to-hit my improved Balancer LAM at extreme range. That's using a Gunnery base to-hit number of 0. So,
-2 weapon specialist in LB-XAC
-2 bracing
-3 three turns careful aim
-2 anti-aircraft targeting
-1 long range targeting
-1 good at long range combat field manual special ability
-10 (-2 flak, -1 cluster, -2 precision, -5 proximity fused ammo)
-21 total to-hit modifier
+14 final to-hit number (+35 plus -21=+14)
I gave you special ammo and let you use both long range and anti-aircraft targeting; you still can't hit my Balancer LAM.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/18/09 01:54 AM
205.202.120.216
|
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/18/09 12:15 PM
24.5.141.133
|
PoD that is the first time I saw newtype's name and liked what I saw. Who could hate a photo of a cute puppy and hate it!?!
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/18/09 04:19 PM
205.202.120.216
|
I don't care if the rest of /b/ doesn't like Advicedog. Puppies make everything better.
Plus, this thread wasn't good enough for...CourageWolf.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/20/09 01:34 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Saturation bombardment of the area from orbit with capital energy batteries. If I'm feeling particularly nasty, I'll make sure to throw in some Santa Anas. What LAM? Hell, what terrain features?
Remember, I don't have to land (be on a ground hex) to be hit by bombardment.
You're right, you don't have to land to be hit by bombardment. If you're in the blast radius, you're in the blast radius.
Quote:
I've calculated that improved version of Balancer LAM to be about 700 BV.
Then your math skills suck horribly.
Quote:
That includes Piloting 0, Gunnery 0. What's your BV, GiovanniBlasini?
Considering you've thrown BV out the window by using a false BV, who cares?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Newtype
04/21/09 11:48 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
You're right, you don't have to land to be hit by bombardment. If you're in the blast radius, you're in the blast radius.
Again, what's the BV for your the unit you're using and how did you calculate that BV?
Quote:
Then your math skills suck horribly.
You're correct: my previous formula was too high, which would have put me at an unfair disadvantage had my Balancer LAM been combatting your unit.
This formula is more accurate; it indicates that my updated Balancer LAM has a BV of about 378:
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/142766/page/0/fpart/2/vc/1
Quote:
Considering you've thrown BV out the window by using a false BV, who cares?
Again, I used a more accurate formula.
Each of you should realize that I'm not responsible for your ineptuous combat behavior. If you can't design a unit that can defeat my updated Balancer LAM in a reasonably fair one unit vs. one unit
BV combat, then that's your fault instead of being my fault.
Edited by Newtype (04/21/09 12:08 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/21/09 12:26 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
then that's your fault instead of being my fault.
No, you continuing being a moron IS your fault.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
04/21/09 12:28 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
No, you continuing being a moron IS your fault.
Put up or shut up. Design a unit that can defeat my updated improved Balancer LAM in a one unit vs. one unit reasonably equal BV combat or admit you're not credible.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/21/09 12:40 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, you continuing being a moron IS your fault.
Put up or shut up. Design a unit that can defeat my updated improved Balancer LAM in a one unit vs. one unit reasonably equal BV combat or admit you're not credible.
Why would I want to think of competing ageist someone that needs to cheat? You cheat because you can't win any other way.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
04/21/09 12:44 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Why would I want to think of competing ageist someone that needs to cheat? You cheat because you can't win any other way.
Put up or shut up. What would I do that would be cheating?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/21/09 12:52 PM
24.5.141.133
|
I am sure that in your own... mind?... Making up your own rules is not cheating.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
04/21/09 01:07 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
I am sure that in your own... mind?... Making up your own rules is not cheating.
The rules I make up would be BV calculated, i.e, jet boosters on my Balancer to make evasive movement while shooting a pulse laser at your unit and jet boosters have a mass equal to engine rating divided by 100, conversion equipment takes up five slots (one per side torso, one per arm, one per center torso or head), combustion chambers for fuel thrust movement are symmetrically positioned and take up a number of critical slots equal to engine rating divided by 100 in legs, center torso, and/or side torsos, jumpgliding/flying in AirMech mode due to standard jump jets creates one heat point per 3 hexes moved (round up), gyro is not in this LAM (components are symmetrically tonnaged balanced), LAM has +2 modifier applied to all DFA attacks done while in AirMech mode, LAM has +2 modifier applied to all Determining Critical Hits Table rolls (I'd probably have it stay in AirMech mode).
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/21/09 01:12 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Put up or shut up. Design a unit that can defeat my updated improved Balancer LAM in a one unit vs. one unit reasonably equal BV combat or admit you're not credible.
Dick Cheney.
There, I win.
|
Newtype
04/21/09 01:15 PM
207.160.205.13
|
And if I donated alot of money to Barack Obama to have him be the pilot of a Balancer LAM, do you still think your "Dick Cheney unit" could win?
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/21/09 03:19 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
And if I donated alot of money to Barack Obama to have him be the pilot of a Balancer LAM, do you still think your "Dick Cheney unit" could win?
Nope. It still would.
|
Newtype
04/23/09 08:02 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Nope. It still would.
Put up or shut up. Thoroughly explain or admit you're not credible. And let's say this infantry person you're proposing to deploy "would" defeat my Balancer - I'd say that's credible enough evidence to indicate that this Balancer LAM wouldn't be very munchy and should be tournament legal after all.
Also, perhaps an AirMech using standard jump jets to jumpglide with wouldn't generate heat. The Kanga ICE hovercraft is equipped with jump jets and they don't give off heat, so the Balancer's standard jump jets (when in AirMech mode) shouldn't give off heat either. That would enable the Balancer to use an XXL 300 fusion engine instead of an XL 300 fusion engine. That could enable it to mount an second pair of jet boosters for a second bunch of evasive movement points (a pair of jet boosters could be put in each of the Balancer's arms) - that increases the final to-hit number to about +41. I'll have to recalculate the BV for this new improved Balancer LAM.
edited part: BV calculated it's about 844.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/154626/Main/142766/#Post154626
How about a +1 Piloting Skill Roll modifier for every 15 points of damage taken while in AirMech mode and a +1 Piloting Skill Roll modifier for every 15 points of damage taken while in aerofighter mode?
Edited by Newtype (04/23/09 09:05 PM)
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/23/09 09:01 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Newtype, a burst fire of LB-XAC shots, like pulse laser -2 to-hit modifier, would reduce that "final" to-hit number down to +39. Perhaps Cray could enlighten us on proximity fused ammo and the type of to-hit modifier it would theoretically have in CBT games.
Quote:
Whenever you show up, Chip, and find a little bit of disagreement with your posts, you start creating new accounts to argue more than one side of the story. Its happened over and over, and by now the pattern is extremely obvious.
"More than one side of the story", eh, Cray? So does that mean that since LAM rules won't be published in Total Warfare according to you whereas according to Newtype they should be published in Total Warfare? So which position is having LAM rules published in Tactical Operations - one that resembles what you're saying, Cray, or one that resembles what Newtype is saying? By the way, please call me Ryan Cole, ask Rick Raisley if he still remembers me or have him do a topic search on his Heavy Metal forums for my loginname there; I've purchased HM programs from him.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
Edited by MaiShirunaiispretty (04/23/09 09:15 PM)
|
Newtype
04/23/09 09:20 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Cray, I'm the same Newtype on www.physicsforums.com and www.GreenPartyCentral.tk . I haven't created new accounts.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/23/09 11:06 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Quote:
Prince of Darkness, in all of his unholy glory said:
Nope. It still would.
Newtype, Prince's lap-dog, said:
Put up or shut up. GIMMICKS ARE DUMB, I SHOULD BE BANNED.
Spellcheck, motherfu*ker, have you heard of it?
Grammar issues aside, I think you forget about Dick's ole' unholy power I had given him awhile back at the cost of his heath. See, making people believe that he was innocent even when he fired upon his own friend (just to let you all know: it was not by accident!) was just a tiny fraction of his power. In battlemech form, this equates to a -30 on his to-hit rolls; the powers that I have gifted him include things that one would normally see in a friendly game of Warhammer 40,000, such as Unholy sight, invulnerability to fire, ect. Not to mention that his constant "quail" hunting makes him quite the expert in any form of shotgun (he's a -4, instead of -2) and the fact that his 'mech mounts, as it's main armament, a dual punch of Clan LB-10X autocannon; of which, carry 30 rounds of shared cluster ammo and targeting-computer controlled (-2).
Even with *just* a -36, he could easily enact the chains of torment and corruption abilities upon you, bringing that -36 over a -40. And when he does, he'll do what we all do;
He'll do the mash, he'll do the monster mash.
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/25/09 05:31 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. It still would.
Put up or shut up. Thoroughly explain or admit you're not credible. And let's say this infantry person you're proposing to deploy "would" defeat my Balancer - I'd say that's credible enough evidence to indicate that this Balancer LAM wouldn't be very munchy and should be tournament legal after all.
Your Balancer LAM is not a legal Battletech unit, and is therefore irrelevant. You can discuss it all you like, but, given it's not legal in the first place, it's not germane to the discussion.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/25/09 12:24 PM
24.127.68.31
|
In what manner is his Balancer LAM illegal?
Tonnage? the Tonnage of the LAMs were originally not limited to 55 Tons... it was only for the last one or two iterations of the rules that the limit has been in place. If you do nto blast JRE from Vegas for his extra Large LAMs, then there really isnt much point in hounding New Type for it.
Equipment? as long as he runs the equipment through ricks bv generator then the BV should be usable
and if he Generates Three BV, one for each mode, and then uses the Highest BV.. this then works.
That is, provided that he is capable of runnning the BV or BV2 properly
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (04/25/09 12:26 PM)
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/25/09 11:31 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
In what manner is his Balancer LAM illegal?
I did a breakdown of the unit and its legality in the Balancer LAM thread. Check it out there for more information.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
04/26/09 12:52 AM
24.127.68.31
|
found it
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
04/27/09 01:07 PM
207.160.205.13
|
GiovanniBlasini, I responded to your breakdown of my Balancer. With the Think Tank Life Path I was able to improvise LAM construction.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/28/09 02:18 AM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini, I responded to your breakdown of my Balancer. With the Think Tank Life Path I was able to improvise LAM construction.
AKA you are trying to cheat more.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Newtype
04/28/09 06:20 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Do you even know what the Think Tank Life Path is? It's a Classic BattleTech RPG life path that can enable someone to design pretty much anything. Go to this link:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=downloads
Click on Life Path Master Table and open that file. Search for "Great Houses gather" and you should find the Think Tank Life Path.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
04/28/09 06:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Due to how players keep disagreeing as to what book LAM rules should be published in, there's a 50/50 chance of LAM rules being published in a CBT reference book, a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Tactical Operations book, and a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Total Warfare book. I SAY COMPROMISE put LAM RULES IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS!!!!!!
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Lafeel
04/28/09 08:00 PM
85.220.122.111
|
Your maths are their usual faulty selves, that's a even 150%
|
Prince_of_Darkness
04/28/09 09:24 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Due to how players keep disagreeing as to what book LAM rules should be published in, there's a 50/50 chance of LAM rules being published in a CBT reference book, a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Tactical Operations book, and a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Total Warfare book. I SAY COMPROMISE put LAM RULES IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS!!!!!!
BAAAWWWWWW
|
adamwehn
04/28/09 10:18 PM
66.227.178.216
|
How about they appear in no future Battletech books, since they suck!
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/28/09 11:09 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini, I responded to your breakdown of my Balancer. With the Think Tank Life Path I was able to improvise LAM construction.
Still doesn't allow you to break the rules, or make your design in any way legal.
Seriously, someone sat down and tried bringing that to the gaming table, I'm deploying Manei Domini with nuclear Davy Crockett ordinance on general principle.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
GiovanniBlasini
04/28/09 11:13 PM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Due to how players keep disagreeing as to what book LAM rules should be published in, there's a 50/50 chance of LAM rules being published in a CBT reference book, a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Tactical Operations book, and a 50/50 chance of them being published in an updated Total Warfare book. I SAY COMPROMISE put LAM RULES IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS!!!!!!
The chances of already-published books getting revised to include LAM rules in their next publication is essentially zero. Their page count is high enough already. If the developers choose to revisit LAM rules, they'll be published, as Herb I think stated at one point on CBT.com, in an "appropriate book".
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/28/09 11:34 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Your maths are their usual faulty selves, that's a even 150%
Sorry, but you don't add odds like that you multiply them. That would be run the gambit from .125% chance of not being in any of the books to a .125% chance in being in all of the books, of course that is if he knew what he was talking about. The real odds are 0% chance of being in any of the books.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
04/29/09 08:47 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Karagin,
If you find something productive in keeping this thread open for further arguments with HeroChip, send me a PM and I'll unlock the thread. Right now, this thread seems to have ceased being sensible around October of '08 when HeroChip/NewType jumped in and the subsequent X hundred posts have not added to it, so I'm locking it.
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.
|