questions about lams

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
04/25/16 12:46 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The thought came up while reading about the obscurity of lams.

Wouldn't a lam need a fighters thrust system as well as normal jets?
For some reason, it sounds like the 2 are one and the same with a lam set up, but that doesn't sound right. Jump jets don't use fuel.
With airmech mode, they can fly around using the jump jets all day long.

It sounds like they should pay for the extra motive system.
I know a few people will not like this idea.
I like lams, but this does sound like something for nothing.
GiovanniBlasini
04/26/16 02:35 AM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
1. LAMs are already penalized by sacrificing 10-15% of their mass to conversion systems, not to mention all the restrictions in their construction.

2. All 'Mechs with jump jets maintain at least a limited amount of fuel to use outside of an atmosphere, per Strat Ops. LAMs just maintain larger tanks for use in fighter mode.

3. LAM jump jets, when combined with their fusion reactors, are able to operate in such a fashion that they become poor-efficiency aerospace fighters.

4. LAMs get a reprieve from fuel allocation and usage in AirMech mode, yes, but so do other fusion-powered WiGEs. You'll note no fuel mass was allocated on the Fensalir Combat WiGE, for example.

5. At no point are LAMs getting something for nothing. They pay heftily for their abilities, and get restrictions heaped upon them in return.
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
ghostrider
04/26/16 12:11 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was under the impression that the only time a lam uses fuel for flight was in fighter mode. I thought airmech mode used normal jump jets to keep moving. Not sure if that has changed.

The conversion weight is nothing when you compare it to the operational range they can work in. No need to land a drop ship, just launch from orbit, land, do your mission (scouting being the envisioned one here), go back up and dock.

Don't have much dealing with wiges. From the sounds of it, wiges can not float like lams can. I take it from limited information, they glide for a short time. If they have sustained powered flight, then do they gain strafing abilities?

The penalties for lams for are not that bad, as they are not pure for either. They can be used for more then one thing, so the jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind.
GiovanniBlasini
04/26/16 12:27 PM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I was under the impression that the only time a lam uses fuel for flight was in fighter mode. I thought airmech mode used normal jump jets to keep moving. Not sure if that has changed.



Correct, in essence. LAMs only track fuel usage in fighter mode.

Quote:

The conversion weight is nothing when you compare it to the operational range they can work in. No need to land a drop ship, just launch from orbit, land, do your mission (scouting being the envisioned one here), go back up and dock.




You don't need to land a DropShip to deploy aerospace fighters, either.

Quote:

Don't have much dealing with wiges. From the sounds of it, wiges can not float like lams can. I take it from limited information, they glide for a short time. If they have sustained powered flight, then do they gain strafing abilities?




Define limited information. What sources are you using? Are you working off incomplete information on the current rules, including Total Warfare, which covers ASF and WiGE movement, and Interstellar Operations, which covers finalized LAM rules?

Quote:

The penalties for lams for are not that bad, as they are not pure for either. They can be used for more then one thing, so the jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind.



The penalties for LAMs are bad enough that the Word of Blake turned to arming theirs with Clan weapons to try to make them competitive with Jihad-era Inner Sphere 'Mechs and fighters, and still failed.
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
ghostrider
04/26/16 04:59 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Information limited to what is in the forums. I still haven't really looked over the wiki yet for it. It is annoying when you type in something and it needs a different label to come up.
So far my master rules is the last book I have found in my stash. I know I don't have anything after the clan invasion for rules. I do have a few tros like 3067.

The idea of thinking lams equal to mechs of that era would be like thinking an urbanmech is equal to an atlas.
They are not front line units. Though depending on how they armed them would make a difference. Still. They have their uses.
Drasnighta
04/26/16 05:44 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I was under the impression that the only time a lam uses fuel for flight was in fighter mode. I thought airmech mode used normal jump jets to keep moving. Not sure if that has changed.

The conversion weight is nothing when you compare it to the operational range they can work in.




Jump Jets themselves are EQUALLY absurd...

I mean, what is the operational Range of a Spider Battlemech with its Jump Jets being used every turn?


... I've been looking for a while to see if there was a "stated limit" to how many times -operationally- Jump jets can be used before breaking/running out of reaction mass... And I havn't found it...


So, RULES wise, if that's the case, it appears - to me - that the LAM having to track Fighter fuel IS a further limitation compared to BattleMechs... Even if it is free to do what it wants in AirMech Mode... Because a Spider Battlemech can do almost the same thing
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
04/26/16 09:15 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I questioned that in another thread. Jump jets have no limit to the amount of times you can use them even in a row.
Makes me wonder why a mech even has to land.
Even in a void they can be used unlimited time even though they are supposed to use something other then hot air over the engine.

And the idea of a mech being able to move 240 meters in 10 seconds as well as land and fire is a bit much. And that doesn't have to be in a straight line either. Penalties is for distance away from start, but the mech can more out and come back as well as turn in mid air going a new direction.

I understand the wings will allow a lam to glide. during part of this.
Now what happens when you turn around to fire in that round?
Do you drop to the ground as the air is not sent over the wings properly?
GiovanniBlasini
04/26/16 10:24 PM
76.243.24.105

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Information limited to what is in the forums. I still haven't really looked over the wiki yet for it. It is annoying when you type in something and it needs a different label to come up.



So you don't have any of the actual current rules for how they work, but you're sure they're wrong, because...

Quote:

So far my master rules is the last book I have found in my stash. I know I don't have anything after the clan invasion for rules. I do have a few tros like 3067.



...the information you do have is decades out of date?

Quote:
The idea of thinking lams equal to mechs of that era would be like thinking an urbanmech is equal to an atlas.
They are not front line units. Though depending on how they armed them would make a difference. Still. They have their uses.



Funny thing, those rules you haven't read but are sure are wrong don't make them equal to 'Mechs or aerospace fighters of the same mass.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And the idea of a mech being able to move 240 meters in 10 seconds as well as land and fire is a bit much. And that doesn't have to be in a straight line either. Penalties is for distance away from start, but the mech can more out and come back as well as turn in mid air going a new direction.




A 'Mech that can move 240 meters in 10 seconds...you mean like a Shadow Hawk? Or a Dragon? That's only 8 hexes.

So, how slow should BattleMechs be in your opinion?

Quote:

I understand the wings will allow a lam to glide. during part of this.
Now what happens when you turn around to fire in that round?
Do you drop to the ground as the air is not sent over the wings properly?



You understand completely incorrectly. The rules do not work that way. However, given that you've never seen the rules, I'm not surprised that you don't know how they work.

I think once you've actually read them, you'll see that the way you imagine them to does not actually conform to reality.
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
ghostrider
04/26/16 11:54 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting. How did you get the rules are wrong from me saying using the wiki comes up with items that isn't what I am looking for, yet they require a specific name to come up?
"Funny thing, those rules you haven't read but are sure are wrong don't make them equal to 'Mechs or aerospace fighters of the same mass."

This statement makes me wonder if the information put on the boards is purposefully trying to bait a fight. OR did you mean something else by this statement?
"The penalties for LAMs are bad enough that the Word of Blake turned to arming theirs with Clan weapons to try to make them competitive with Jihad-era Inner Sphere 'Mechs and fighters, and still failed."
So basing an opinion off of someone else's information is turning out to be wrong. So how much of the information given here is correct?

I was wrong to assume the 'and land' was talking about a jumping mech. Guess I should have had jump instead of move 240 meters.

I have asked questions to get information, and yet it seems condensation is the only answer to those questions. Maybe the questions are stated in a way as to make people see something that isn't there.
And I keep forgetting real physics have no part in the game. A wing going backwards goes down, not up.

Is there an explanation how jump jets can handle the plasma thrust from the fusion engines fuel to use fighter mode without melting those exhaust tubes?
To my knowledge there is a large difference between fusion exhaust and simple hot air.
GiovanniBlasini
04/27/16 12:12 AM
70.95.184.185

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Interesting. How did you get the rules are wrong from me saying using the wiki comes up with items that isn't what I am looking for, yet they require a specific name to come up?



You expressly stated you did not have the rules and had not really perused the wiki. Now you're saying you did. Which is correct?

Quote:

"Funny thing, those rules you haven't read but are sure are wrong don't make them equal to 'Mechs or aerospace fighters of the same mass."

This statement makes me wonder if the information put on the boards is purposefully trying to bait a fight. OR did you mean something else by this statement?



I have no idea what information you purport to have, but have demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the rules, which you also previously stated you had not read.

Please document your sources on information on LAMs.

Quote:

"The penalties for LAMs are bad enough that the Word of Blake turned to arming theirs with Clan weapons to try to make them competitive with Jihad-era Inner Sphere 'Mechs and fighters, and still failed."
So basing an opinion off of someone else's information is turning out to be wrong. So how much of the information given here is correct?



What Information? Links please.

Quote:

I was wrong to assume the 'and land' was talking about a jumping mech. Guess I should have had jump instead of move 240 meters.




First, why would it have any more or less difficultly aiming and shooting than a unit that traverses the same distance running, and doesn't stop running to aim and shoot? Both have the same average land speed.

Quote:

I have asked questions to get information, and yet it seems condensation is the only answer to those questions. Maybe the questions are stated in a way as to make people see something that isn't there.
And I keep forgetting real physics have no part in the game. A wing going backwards goes down, not up.




See, and that is one of the ways I know that your interpretation of LAM rules does not bear any resemblance to the actual LAM rules: AirMechs in flight cannot turn in the method you're describing. In fact, they're more restricted in turning than WiGES, for whom Tac Ops turn modes are optional, versus being mandatory for AirMechs in flight. And if you want to know how a hovering AirMech turns, search for videos of the Harrier on YouTube.

Quote:

Is there an explanation how jump jets can handle the plasma thrust from the fusion engines fuel to use fighter mode without melting those exhaust tubes?
To my knowledge there is a large difference between fusion exhaust and simple hot air.



Perhaps you should read the rule book covering them? I'll wait to answer this one when I'm not posting from my phone and I know what you're reading to form your interpretation of the rules.
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
ghostrider
04/27/16 01:36 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
First. How did you come up with me suggesting I have the new rules with the first statement? I said using the WIKI. The one that is on this site.

The second and third things comes from YOUR statement of lams. You didn't put up links to any source for them. Using YOUR information you put up, I used that as a basis.

Now the fourth statement, I have no idea where you came up with difficulty in targeting. The topic was jump jets.
I find it stupid to think a unit can jump 240 meters, turn in air, find a good landing spot and land the unit and fire on others in 10 seconds. And as I stated before, why is it the penalty for a unit that runs 3, more then a unit that walks 8?
Still that was about jumping in 10 seconds.

So they changed the fact lam in airmech mode have to travel forward so many spaces?
You can end your turn spun around and go forward the opposite way after turning around to fire. But again, reality has no place in the game.

Unless they changed it, jump jets work by sending air over the engine, superheating it to form the thrust. To my knowledge that is no where near the inferno that plasma coming out of the engine to form the thrust on fighters. But yet again, real physics have no place in the game.
GiovanniBlasini
04/27/16 02:38 AM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

First. How did you come up with me suggesting I have the new rules with the first statement? I said using the WIKI. The one that is on this site.



The Wiki, you say?

"Information limited to what is in the forums. I still haven't really looked over the wiki yet for it. It is annoying when you type in something and it needs a different label to come up."

Hmm. The goal posts seem to be moving of their own accord here.

Quote:

The second and third things comes from YOUR statement of lams. You didn't put up links to any source for them. Using YOUR information you put up, I used that as a basis.

Now the fourth statement, I have no idea where you came up with difficulty in targeting. The topic was jump jets.
I find it stupid to think a unit can jump 240 meters, turn in air, find a good landing spot and land the unit and fire on others in 10 seconds. And as I stated before, why is it the penalty for a unit that runs 3, more then a unit that walks 8?
Still that was about jumping in 10 seconds.



And the penalty for jumping and shooting is even higher.

Quote:

So they changed the fact lam in airmech mode have to travel forward so many spaces?



Please clarify what you mean by that statement. Yes, LAMs flying in AirMech mode are required to travel a certain number of hexed forward before making a facing change. See Interstellar Operations.

Quote:

You can end your turn spun around and go forward the opposite way after turning around to fire. But again, reality has no place in the game.



How, if you're required to use turn modes? Flying AirMechs cannot pivot in place.


Quote:

Unless they changed it, jump jets work by sending air over the engine, superheating it to form the thrust. To my knowledge that is no where near the inferno that plasma coming out of the engine to form the thrust on fighters. But yet again, real physics have no place in the game.



Real physics would mean BattleMechs would not work. If you're looking that, I'd recommend Squad Leader or Harpoon, or something similar.
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
ghostrider
04/27/16 03:57 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have used the wiki for some things, but not this particular subject until tonight.
The vehicle crits as well as information on some of the hover tanks and their upgrades being a large part of the few times I have used it. Wiges were the same way. Tried to find information on wige movements, and didn't get squat under that search except the movement table which has an error for hovers entering water hexes. The words such hexes is used twice, and I asked one of the wiki people if flank speed was correct. That was a little earlier so no response from it yet.

I understand jumping being a higher penalty, but the idea of a unit walking at 8 has no more penalty then a unit walking at 4 doesn't make sense. The bouncing and even speed would cause more issues the faster you go. Just as being hit is based on how far you move, firing should have the same thing. But that is off this subject.

So they changed the fact you could land facing any direction? That would be nice to see.

The original idea for the something for nothing is this. In airmech mode, you can use the jump jets to fly around the world without ever worrying about running out of fuel or even needing to recharge the jets, like the video games imply as well as a few of the novels.

And the question on if the unit should need a fighters jets on top of the jump jets has not been answered.
It was a simple question. Not one saying the rules are wrong. Just finding out if it was missed or if there was a logical (ha ha) answer to this.

One more thing I thought about. Has anyone actually played using lams with clan tech against the jihad era units?
Just because the developers wrote it, doesn't make it so. The pulled lams out for being too powerful at one time. As I said. Depending on what they were using, as loading up small pulse lasers is worthless against lrms and ppcs. Even the heavy laser is not a good thing as the range blows on it. Which is in the tro project phoenix. The phoenix hawk had it.
GiovanniBlasini
04/27/16 04:57 PM
172.56.16.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One of the things we did when we wrote the new LAM rules (yes, I was one of the authors of the beta rules in RS3085, which were then refined for IO) was not to require changes to the basic tonnage allocations on the old designs: 10% for a trimodal LAM's conversion gear, fusion engine as normal, plus jump jets.

From there the goal was to make sure we had unit that presented unique capabilities, without outperforming either dedicated BattleMechs or aerospace fighters. WiGE movement, with some modifications, seemed a perfect fit for AirMechs, and handily removed most of the worst complaints about AirMech movement under the old rules.
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
CrayModerator
04/27/16 05:35 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hey, folks, this thread is showing a little testiness. If you want to reply, please take a moment to chill a bit before committing words to paper. Or browser, or whatever.
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.
Akalabeth
04/28/16 11:38 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Giovanni, did you guys playtest the WoB LAMs against Jihad-era designs?
ghostrider
04/29/16 11:57 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The issue with lams being able to basically land facing any direction came up in several games I had back in the mid to late 80s. One person would fly as far as he could to get the bonuses, then land in woods or something getting a back shot on people, as he landed facing the units that just left the woods.
It was a smart idea, but that is where the question about flipping in air came from.
Basically if the one unit moved, there was almost no chance of even firing on the lam.
Since there were no rules about this, we had to revert to the jump jet rules, and they say you can land facing any direction.

Since it was our game masters best freind, we finally ended up having to find another group to play with, as he refused to stop with the flipping while landing.
Akalabeth
04/30/16 03:58 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Since it was our game masters best freind, we finally ended up having to find another group to play with, as he refused to stop with the flipping while landing.



Not everyone wants to play with house rules.
GiovanniBlasini
05/03/16 07:03 PM
172.56.40.146

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Giovanni, did you guys playtest the WoB LAMs against Jihad-era designs?



WoB LAMs came after my time, actually.
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
Akalabeth
05/03/16 07:28 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:

Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Giovanni, did you guys playtest the WoB LAMs against Jihad-era designs?



WoB LAMs came after my time, actually.



Ah. Well I've seen Randall playtest the Summoner G before it hit the books, so I expect they had a number of people playtest the WoB LAMs before their publication. They are a professional company after all.
ghostrider
05/04/16 12:40 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well the issue was not house rules, but a lack of canon rules.

And this is why I question things I see as loop holes. To land facing a mech you just flew over in airmech mode violates the no backward flying rule, yet there is nothing stating an airmech can not change facing while landing. It is a very specific abuse of a hole in the canon rules. One that I asked if they closed it.
From the looks of it, they didn't have an issue with it.
Akalabeth
05/04/16 05:16 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Well the issue was not house rules, but a lack of canon rules.

And this is why I question things I see as loop holes. To land facing a mech you just flew over in airmech mode violates the no backward flying rule, yet there is nothing stating an airmech can not change facing while landing. It is a very specific abuse of a hole in the canon rules. One that I asked if they closed it.
From the looks of it, they didn't have an issue with it.



If a mech using running movement goes forward 5 hexes and then turns around 3-hexsides, did it run backwards? No.


Tactical Handbook page 49

"Except for the following modifications, treat an AIrmech jump as a standard battlemech jump. Airmechs that jump or fly must make two additional movements: launching and landing. Each costs 2 MP."

BMR:R page 19

"[mechs] may jump in any direction, regardless of facing"
"As it lands, the player can face the Battlemech in any direction he chooses, at no extra cost"
GiovanniBlasini
05/04/16 12:16 PM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That ends up completely moot under the Interstellar Operations rules. Per page 107, a LAM in AirMech mode can't combine two forms of movement in one turn. Since they move like 'Mechs when landed, when an AirMech lands, they're done: they don't get to then make facing changes, nor can they torso twist in AirMech mode.

The only way an AirMech has to get behind someone is to fly there, spending 1 MP per facing change, and requiring turn mode rolls any time they fail to move the minimum number of hexes in a straight line before turning. LAMs do not use jumping movement in AirMech mode.
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
ghostrider
05/04/16 12:38 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That was the issue. In the turn they were flying, they landed facing the unit. Not landed then turned.
Now akalabeth. the jump in any direction does NOT work with lams in Airmech mode while flying. And the very heart of this is their landing. As it is the end of their flight, turning around to land is against the backward flying, but not a mech jump.
This looks like a contradiction of the rules.

The only way an AirMech has to get behind someone is to fly there, spending 1 MP per facing change, and requiring turn mode rolls any time they fail to move the minimum number of hexes in a straight line before turning. LAMs do not use jumping movement in AirMech mode.
So this means they can do a full 180 in air?
I thought you said it wasn't possible as in How, if you're required to use turn modes? Flying AirMechs cannot pivot in place.
Yet that sounds like they can if they make turn mode rolls..
Could you clarify this?
Drasnighta
05/04/16 01:10 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They Can't do it *freely*.

Or *just do it* because of 'because'.

They have to make Turn mode rolls.

That would represent a truly awesome or skilled pilot being able to feather his landing in such a way as to "spin" on approach and touchdown.

But just do it because its a LAM? No. Those days are gone.

There are some depictions of truly awesome things being done with BattleMechs in the Fluff, after all... The Noisel games is indeed, built around that. But they are in the realm of the truly exceptional pilot - not something that just eveyrone can do...

And a lot of pilots will screw it up (fail the roll) when called to do it.



I don't see what the issue / clarification need is here...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
Akalabeth
05/04/16 01:59 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

That was the issue. In the turn they were flying, they landed facing the unit. Not landed then turned.
Now akalabeth. the jump in any direction does NOT work with lams in Airmech mode while flying. And the very heart of this is their landing. As it is the end of their flight, turning around to land is against the backward flying, but not a mech jump.
This looks like a contradiction of the rules.



It isn't a contradiction.

"Except for the following modifications, treat an Airmech jump as a standard battlemech jump. Airmechs that jump or fly must make two additional movements: launching and landing."

What you assumed, which is not supported by the text, is that because Airmechs which are flying using VTOL movement to fly, that they suddenly also use VTOL rules for landing. But there's nothing in the text to support that. "Except for the following . . . standard battlemech jump". So unless the restriction is in the text, it doesn't exist. Its absence does not create a question, it answers one.

Either way as Giovanni states, the LAM rules have been drastically changed in newer rules editions so that ambiguity no longer exists.

Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:

That ends up completely moot under the Interstellar Operations rules. Per page 107, a LAM in AirMech mode can't combine two forms of movement in one turn. Since they move like 'Mechs when landed, when an AirMech lands, they're done: they don't get to then make facing changes, nor can they torso twist in AirMech mode.

The only way an AirMech has to get behind someone is to fly there, spending 1 MP per facing change, and requiring turn mode rolls any time they fail to move the minimum number of hexes in a straight line before turning. LAMs do not use jumping movement in AirMech mode.



Cool to know. Ghost doesn't have any ruleset beyond BMR.
So was discussing the older scenario in the context of the older rules which while overpowered are fairly clear in how they operate. Still need to fully familiarize myself with the IS rules.

Quote:
Drasnighta writes:

They have to make Turn mode rolls.

That would represent a truly awesome or skilled pilot being able to feather his landing in such a way as to "spin" on approach and touchdown.

But just do it because its a LAM? No. Those days are gone.



The changes to me look like more of a gameplay concession than something that specifically makes sense.

What you're describing isn't any different than what every battlemech does every time it jumps. Urbanmechs, the most ponderous of machines can jump backwards, spin around in mid air and face the other way with the greenest of pilots.

The benefit that mechs have over aerospace fighters is that aerospace fighters depend on lift to fly and have fixed-directional thrust whereas battlemechs rely on raw power and can direct their jump jets thrust in a multitude of ways. Airmechs ought to have the best of both worlds, with the flexibility of jump jets but the benefit of a fixed wing to lengthen their flight.

Why for example can a mech with a partial wing jump as normal, with no restriction on facing when landing but an Airmech cannot? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

What is the difference between this and a LAM in Airmech mode? Do a few feet of wingspan have such a drastic impact on what it can and cannot do? Shouldn't it be different by degrees?

Drasnighta
05/04/16 05:41 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay then, next question:

Why is it being a Gameplay concession a *bad thing* ?




I think that's the problem I have with most of these posts, and why I don't post very often...

I'm cool with things being a Fun game. It doesn't have to make sense.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
Akalabeth
05/04/16 06:07 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Personally I prefer more elegant game systems with general principles which are applied with varying degrees across different systems. Whereas Battletech tends to be a system where, nearly every piece of equipment is not an extension of a rule but an exception to it.

Taking the LAM & Partial Wing example.

A partial wing gives +2 Jump MP
A Land Air Mech gets 3x Jump MP

Why the difference in application?

WiGEs in general are a bit funny as well. because I don't think they fly at fast enough speeds to actually be WiGEs. Like a 75 ton wige needs to go 54 km/h to stay aloft, whereas something like the Russian Transport WiGe of 63 tons loaded has a cruising speed of 450 km/h ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan ).

So on the one hand, you have battlemechs with jump jets which behave in a certain way.

Then you have WiGes which move too slowly for their weight.

Then you have Land Air Mechs, which behave like WiGes and are restricted to operate much like Jet Aircraft while having a fraction of the speed.
Akalabeth
05/04/16 06:29 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Drasnighta writes:

I think that's the problem I have with most of these posts, and why I don't post very often...

I'm cool with things being a Fun game. It doesn't have to make sense.



As for the fun factor, look at the table on page 110 of Interstellar Operations. Does that look like a lot of fun?

That table is a product of two things:

#1 Aerospace Fighters have been built so different, rules-wise, from Battlemechs (they used to be much more similar to mechs in Aerotech1)

#2 Land Air Mechs are considered an exception to both.

So two units in the same game are treated completely different (mechs and aerospace), and a third hybrd-unit (LAMs) comes in and tries to marry those two units and in doing so needs to reference a fourth completely different unit (WIGes) along with normally optional rules (TacOps).

At the end of the day, you have:

Original lam Rules in Tactical Handbook being about 1.5-2 pages

Compared to the new rules in Interstellar Operations being now about 10.5 pages. Not even counting the turn mode rules in Tac Ops which are probably another 1 page.


I dunno dude. The explosion of rules and exception to rules does not strike me as super fun. And that's not really a dig at Giovanni, I think it's a trend in the game in general. An explosion of verbosity which stretches across all the core rulebooks from exceptions piling upon exceptions. That's why instead of having 7 pages at the back of a book to design a unit we have a book called tech manual that is 350+ pages long and is now frankly obsolete, lacking the ability to design Tripods, LAMs and quad vees along with scores of contemporary-era equipment.
ghostrider
05/04/16 06:43 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is a minor issue with aerofighters in at least the novels. More then a few of them have suggested they can use their thrust to maintain altitude without moving forward. I don't know if they changed this in the new rule sets. I want to say the black dragons invasion of the planet Town during a flight with the ultralight aircraft used this form to allow the fighters to engage them. And it is not the only one that has had this.

With the inclusion of the partial wing, you open up the issues of consistency even more. I agree that the partial wing should follow lam rules as it suffers the same aerodynamic issues. Though back to the issues of lams landing and changing facing.
The issue of landing being part of flight should mean you should not be able to change facing coming in for a landing. They should have to face the direction they were flying. Nothing is stated as such. It is all part of flight mode.

Now saying the lam can not flip directions in air, but then saying they can change facing without moving forward by making piloting rolls is contradictory. Can not and piloting rolls is the key here.
So can they make a u-turn in air or not? Piloting rolls suggest it can be, but more likely to result in a crash.
As mentioned the older rules did not have the turn rules in them. Just no flying backwards, with the launch/land added to it.

Granted that is with the unit is flying straight towards the mech. If it was angling from the side, you could turn once in air to receive the bonuses. And with altitude issues, you can be one hex from the mech or even the same hex, but be alt level 4. No physicals, but point blank with shots.

This is the issue we had, and it still seems like it wasn't solved.
Akalabeth
05/04/16 06:48 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why is a LAM rotating in mid-air thought to be impossible?

We've done that with Jet Aircraft for years

https://youtu.be/gY423vqG9uU?t=15s

We can fly backwards as well:

https://youtu.be/bKQlxCbaRQ4?t=40s


Slowly in both cases yes. But 300 years of innovation will allow LAMs to do some crazier stuff no? ]


In the original rules, LAMs had to pay 2 MP to land and could face any direction.
Compare to this Battlemechs, which when jumping pay 0 MP to perform any facing changes.
ghostrider
05/05/16 01:00 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Relooking at the partial wing picture, if that is an accurate portrayal of it, I should think it should be center torso, or spread out over both sides. The lift in one section would or at least should unbalance the whole thing while flying.

And with the original issue, the person that did this should have been a lawyer, not a computer tech. He took alot of rpg's and distorted alot of the rules to allow him to do things few others would have bothered with.

I still like lams and the concept. Without that being allowed, they work. They are not dedicated mechs or fighters, and should not be thought as that.
ghostrider
05/18/16 03:35 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
another thought about launching lams.
Shouldn't they have to go so many spaces forward on launch before they can turn.
Not just pop up facing a different direction then they were when on the ground going into flight mode?
GiovanniBlasini
05/21/16 05:19 AM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

another thought about launching lams.
Shouldn't they have to go so many spaces forward on launch before they can turn.
Not just pop up facing a different direction then they were when on the ground going into flight mode?



What makes you think they don't? And, no, I'm not referring to twenty-year old rules.
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
ghostrider
05/21/16 02:07 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No references to it during the discussion. As logic only seems to come into the concepts when the developers want to keep something from happening, it stands to reason, they did not deal with this subject as well as they could have.

And with your response of what makes me think they didn't as opposed to putting up where that can be found tends to support this idea.

Now unless someone else is using your account, you have been very good about posting the rules or where they are at, GB.
No one else has posted about it either.
But it was a question of shouldn't they. Not 'oh my god. the such and such that did it missed this important concept' like it seems people are taking it as.
Akalabeth
05/21/16 07:02 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

No references to it during the discussion. As logic only seems to come into the concepts when the developers want to keep something from happening, it stands to reason, they did not deal with this subject as well as they could have.



Giovanni stated quite clearly that they use turn modes which makes it dangerous to turn before moving X number of hexes. Turn modes are explained in Tactical Operations and referenced in the LAM rules in Interstellar Operations.

Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:

The only way an AirMech has to get behind someone is to fly there, spending 1 MP per facing change, and requiring turn mode rolls any time they fail to move the minimum number of hexes in a straight line before turning. LAMs do not use jumping movement in AirMech mode.

GiovanniBlasini
05/21/16 07:57 PM
172.58.17.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now unless someone else is using your account, you have been very good about posting the rules or where they are at, GB.



Nobody else is using my account. I just don't enjoy having to explain the same thing over and over, pointing out that someone is wrong, as they're looking at rules that were last published in 1994 (Tactical Handbook), rather than actual current rules, only to bonce again asked why things work in a way that they don't actually work, and expressly state doesn't work.

To reiterate again, in the hopes that maybe this will be the last time I have to:

AirMechs don't use jumping movement. LAMs have not used jumping movement in AirMech mode since 2010, when the LAM quick-start rules, which two posters on this board helped write, were published. They use modified WiGE movement.

WiGE movement doesn't permit what you're describing.

AirMechs, under current rules published in Interstellar Operations, are further restricted by being required to use turn modes, the optional rule for WiGE movement in Tactical Operations. Even if players agree that WiGEs don't need to use this rule, LAMs in AirMech mode are required to do so, further restricting their turning ability.
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
ghostrider
05/21/16 11:05 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. So from this last statement. Gb is saying lams do not spin around in flight mode, without piloting rolls.

Why wasn't this said when it was suggested by another that lams could face any direction while landing.
It was stated that the lam could face any direction while landing, as they were run by jump jet rules, yet this was not stated at this time. Only when the launching of a lam was questioned.
Yet with the person suggesting the jump jet rule was to be used, it would be logical to believe the launching was handled the same way.


AirMechs don't use jumping movement. LAMs have not used jumping movement in AirMech mode since 2010, when the LAM quick-start rules, which two posters on this board helped write, were published. They use modified WiGE movement.

Why wasn't this stated in the beginning?
It seems you supported the person that was suggesting the ability to land facing any direction without stating this earlier on.
I did not see it posted in opposition to that statement, but in opposition to the other end of that logic.
GiovanniBlasini
05/22/16 01:34 AM
75.80.182.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Really? Really?

You know, it might actually help if you actually read what I wrote in the first place.

We're done here.
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
ghostrider
05/22/16 02:02 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. I did misinterperate the seemed like statement
WiGE movement, with some modifications, seemed a perfect fit for AirMechs, and handily removed most of the worst complaints about AirMech movement under the old rules.
I did not realize it was made into the rule.

You know, it might actually help if you actually read what I wrote in the first place.
This statement works in the opposite direction as well.
Several statements referred to information put up by the very person asking for links when used to counter the same statements.
Stating information is in a book I had said several times previously I did not own, starts off with this very statement of reading what was written to be more then one sided.
And I do realize not everyone rereads what they posted previously to see where context might be gotten from.
So remember that as you post to other comments.

And I did not see where you corrected the other person stating a lam in flight mode can land facing any direction after you stated the seemed like statement.
CrayModerator
05/22/16 05:13 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Looks like there are plenty of answers to LAM movement and performance here even if the answers from the LAMs' current writer aren't being read. So, thread is closed.
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.
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 57 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

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

Topic views: 16619


Contact Admins Sarna.net