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
|