LAMs

BattleTech : Board Game Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | >> (show all)
Karagin
01/30/07 06:25 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 06:27 PM)
Greyslayer
01/31/07 01:56 AM
216.14.198.58

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Could be worse... they could call it "Classic"
Fang
01/31/07 12:26 PM
65.82.104.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 10:25 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 10:40 AM)
Toontje
02/12/07 05:44 PM
88.159.69.230

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 11:12 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 03:30 AM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 10:00 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 03:43 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 12:15 PM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 12:17 PM)
Karagin
02/23/07 08:26 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 02:12 PM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 08:27 AM)
Karagin
02/26/07 08:31 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 08:47 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 08:47 AM)
Karagin
02/27/07 03:31 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 09:04 AM
75.52.182.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 09:49 AM)
Prince_of_Darkness
10/15/08 06:52 AM
205.202.120.139

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Great way to resurrect a post that is over one year old. I love the bouquet' of death and useless additions.
Christopher_Perkins
10/15/08 09:21 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 12:25 AM
12.217.219.103

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 12:31 AM
12.217.219.103

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 02:12 PM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by Newtype (10/23/08 02:18 PM)
Christopher_Perkins
10/23/08 11:58 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
:::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 08:21 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lafeel
10/24/08 12:16 PM
157.157.73.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 10:19 AM
75.52.182.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Perhaps I will charge $100 per aerofighter. And $500 per Clan unit used.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by Newtype (10/25/08 10:20 AM)
Lafeel
10/25/08 10:49 AM
157.157.73.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 03:51 PM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lafeel
10/25/08 04:29 PM
157.157.73.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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 10:44 AM
75.52.182.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lafeel
10/26/08 10:59 AM
157.157.73.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
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.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | >> (show all)

Extra information
0 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 50024


Contact Admins Sarna.net