LAMs using advanced materials

[sunshadow]

Okay, so maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but I've decided to start a thread for people to argue about wether or not LAMs can use advanced equipment like Endo-Steel, Ferro-Fiber and XL Engines. Now, before any of you start yapping away at how they can and can't be used, let's just think for a minute. To me, it seems perfectly logical that they could make use of these items. After all, the Word of Blake created a LAM that used them, though to be truthful it didn't get beyond the experimental phase. However, my reasoning behind their usage is the fact that as long as the critical space can be alloted to the materials and the conversion gear, it is possible. The reason is because, in my understanding, critical slots taken up by an item represent its mass in the design. So, if the crits will fit, then why shouldn't they be able to use the stuff? However, there are many different opinions out there and the rules currently around are seriously outdated. Until the release of Interstellar Operations, we're pretty much stuck in limbo on the matter of up-to-date LAM construction rules.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

After all, the Word of Blake created a LAM that used them, though to be truthful it didn't get beyond the experimental phase.

They did? Where was that shown?

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[sunshadow]

I was researching LAMs on the Sarna.net pages, and they mentioned the design in the variants for one. I believe it was the Stinger. However, I may be completely wrong about the design existing, so apologies to the makers of Battletech if I fibbed there. No wrong intended.

[JPArbiter]

I think he was reffering to the composite structure one.

LAMs have been assumed to be unable to use any special construction materiel that uses critical space, and so far every canon variant has held to that rule.

Double Heat Sinks apparently (and IMNSHO unfortunatly) can be used.

a Composite internal structure can apparently be used, as that does not take any critical space.  it does however weaken the overall LAM in tersm of damage soaking capability.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

Ah. Well, in the interests of saving time, here is a major spoiler from an upcoming product with an undefined delivery date and low chances of being seen before dozens more threads like this are generated. I submit this not out of some sense of malice or the will to mercilessly tease the fan-base, but merely to save time, energy, and pointless debates that are certain to get individuals banned in the end.

[spoiler]
Prohibited Technologies on LAMs
   Except as noted on this list, a LAM may use any equipment not prohibited for BattleMechs, IndustrialMechs, or aerospace fighters. The following items are prohibited in LAMs:
   Armor: Hardened Armor and any other armor that requires critical hit slots, including ferro-fibrous armor, modular armor, and stealth armor.
   Cockpits: Torso-mounted cockpits are prohibited.
   Engines: Any engine that requires additional critical hit slots beyond the six center torso slots.
   Gyros: Any gyro that requires additional critical hit slots beyond the four center torso slots.
   Internal Structure: Any internal structure that requires critical hit slots, such as Endo Steel.
   Other Components: Any items requiring the allocation of critical slots in more than one hit location. This includes items that may normally be split between multiple hit locations (such as a ground-mobile HPG). For example, a LAM may mount MASC or TSM as either may allocate all of its critical slots to one hit location, but not mount a Chameleon Light Polarization Shield as it requires 1 critical slot in each of the ’Mech’s limbs and left and right torsos.
   Primitive: Any primitive components, such as Primitive engines, Primitive cockpits, and Primitive gyros.
   Weapons: Any weapon system that must be allocated to more than one hit location (e.g. Right Arm & Right Torso), such as the Thumper or Arrow IV artillery weapons. Additionally, all artillery weapons (except bomb munitions) are prohibited. Also, any weapon that requires a Piloting skill as part of its use (such as the Heavy Gauss Rifle) are prohibited.
[/spoiler]

Hopefully, that helps. All standard disclaimers caused by this being presented outside of the designated Fan Interaction boards (where the question was apparently never asked, or where I have somehow failed to see it) apply.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[JPArbiter]

Boom herb set us up the bomb!

I am actually glad to see this as it ends some of the pointless deabate. Plus no sneak systems on lams makes me happy

Admit it lam heads yiu would have done it

[Grim_Reaper]

All pretty much what i had been expecting for years now, more for logic reasons due to the modular nature of LAMs (not at all like the Moular nature of Omnimechs) where many of these things would get in the way of the LAMs transforming.

[GBL]

Upsetting but understandable.

[haesslich]

Yay, Herb!  The arguments may continue, but at least we've a hint at what rules lie in store.

[Marwynn]

Thanks for the spoiler, Herb.

Hoping that product sees the light soon.

[ColBosch]

Upsetting but understandable.

Told you guys we'd been hinting at what could and couldn't be mounted the entire time.

[GBL]

Told you guys we'd been hinting at what could and couldn't be mounted the entire time.

OK. however i would have liked this, instead of being strictly forbidden, to do something extravagant like triple the cost and force the unit to an experimental tech only place. I think that TPTB in their effort to keep LAMS removed, may have used some overkill. I was always hopeful that we would see that rumoured clan tech refit Jade Falcon Omni LAM that was really effective except for the Clan pilots inability to work together. Ah well i can dream.

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

[ColBosch]

OK. however i would have liked this, instead of being strictly forbidden, to do something extravagant like triple the cost and force the unit to an experimental tech only place. I think that TPTB in their effort to keep LAMS, may have used some overkill. I was always hopeful that we would see a clan tech refit Jade Falcon Omni LAM that was really effective except for the Clan pilots inability to work together. Ah well i can dream.

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

It's not an exhaustive list, just the most important bits. Now, you can always do what you want in non-canon, home designs.

[GBL]

It's not an exhaustive list, just the most important bits. Now, you can always do what you want in non-canon, home designs.

I already do. Would have loved to see a canon approach. But they seem to have burnt that bridge.

[Stormfury]

OK. however i would have liked this, instead of being strictly forbidden, to do something extravagant like triple the cost and force the unit to an experimental tech only place. I think that TPTB in their effort to keep LAMS removed, may have used some overkill. I was always hopeful that we would see that rumoured clan tech refit Jade Falcon Omni LAM that was really effective except for the Clan pilots inability to work together. Ah well i can dream.

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

Evil Twins One and Two were not Omnis.

LAMs with normal rules are abusive enough as it is (though not as bad as in prior iterations, possibly due to rules clarity). LAMs with access to the full suite of advanced technology would be troublesome in the extreme, particularly given what Clan technology would add.

[Jellico]

OK. however i would have liked this, instead of being strictly forbidden, to do something extravagant like triple the cost and force the unit to an experimental tech only place. I think that TPTB in their effort to keep LAMS removed, may have used some overkill. I was always hopeful that we would see that rumoured clan tech refit Jade Falcon Omni LAM that was really effective except for the Clan pilots inability to work together. Ah well i can dream.

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

Aerospace fighters still can't use exotic chassis and advanced engines required high end Star League.

At the end of the day, if you want a 'Mech to be able to fly you have to accept some of the costs.

[ColBosch]

I already do. Would have loved to see a canon approach. But they seem to have burnt that bridge.

 [metalhealth] So what? It's not like construction rules can't be modified to reflect different periods. No Inner Sphere 'Mechs can be made with OmniTechnology in 3045, but they can use it in 3051.

[GBL]

Aerospace fighters still can't use exotic chassis and advanced engines required high end Star League.

I wasn't aware of that, i have never paid too much attention to the aero side of things, from that angle the restrictions make sense.

[metalhealth] So what? It's not like construction rules can't be modified to reflect different periods. No Inner Sphere 'Mechs can be made with OmniTechnology in 3045, but they can use it in 3051.

Well i will save the future LAM possibility as a  question for a future battlechat.(the developers, i take it, absolutely love questions about LAMs  ;D) However the whole thing seems exclusive rather than inclusive. For example: if the general consensus is "if you don't like it use the old rules" then what is the incentive?  ???

a)People who want LAMs with access to slightly more bite can use the old rules.

b)People who want LAMs at all have been using the old rules this entire time.

c)People who don't like LAMs might want these rules if they have a friend who is in the (a) category who has been abusing higher tech.

d)New players don't know what they are generally.

Upset was probably too harsh a term, i am simply disappointed that there is nothing in this for me  :(

[Grim_Reaper]

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

he didnt need to, Omni Tech had never been avaible for LAMs anyways

[JPArbiter]

I already do. Would have loved to see a canon approach. But they seem to have burnt that bridge.

so far they have done a canon approach, after all 1) they make Canon, and 2) so far there has not been anything presented EVER that did otherwise.  seriously I have never seen an official recordsheet from WBW that had any advanced construction materials.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

Speaking of which, he didnt outright remove omnitech, perhaps that is still available?

Oh, thank you for reminding me:

[spoiler]
   Only BattleMechs that weigh 55 tons or less may be constructed as LAMs. They may not be constructed as Quads or as OmniMechs. Furthermore, due to the complexity and precision of their conversion process, LAMs may not mount certain weapons, equipment, and structural components that would interfere with the conversion process (see Prohibited Technologies, below).
   LAMs must be constructed with a minimum Jumping MP of 3 and may use only Fusion engines. LAMs receive 1 free ton’s worth of fuel as part of their conversion equipment and may add additional fuel in full-ton lots. Each additional ton of fuel grants the LAM 80 points of fuel and requires 1 critical slot.
   Unlike fighters, LAMs do not have to mount their weapons symmetrically (matching weapons in opposite torsos and arms).
[/spoiler]

Hopefully, that helps.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[Goose]

… I thought I'd heard something about "half tons of fuel were kosher", game-system wide …

[GBL]

so far they have done a canon approach, after all 1) they make Canon, and 2) so far there has not been anything presented EVER that did otherwise.  seriously I have never seen an official recordsheet from WBW that had any advanced construction materials.

Please read the post i was responding to, i wanted to see a canon approach to a higher tech LAM, this is quite the opposite.

I wasnt trying to claim that herb isnt canon or anything.

Hello,

Oh, thank you for reminding me:

[spoiler]
   Only BattleMechs that weigh 55 tons or less may be constructed as LAMs. They may not be constructed as Quads or as OmniMechs. Furthermore, due to the complexity and precision of their conversion process, LAMs may not mount certain weapons, equipment, and structural components that would interfere with the conversion process (see Prohibited Technologies, below).
   LAMs must be constructed with a minimum Jumping MP of 3 and may use only Fusion engines. LAMs receive 1 free ton’s worth of fuel as part of their conversion equipment and may add additional fuel in full-ton lots. Each additional ton of fuel grants the LAM 80 points of fuel and requires 1 critical slot.
   Unlike fighters, LAMs do not have to mount their weapons symmetrically (matching weapons in opposite torsos and arms).
[/spoiler]

Hopefully, that helps.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

No Quads?

No ICE Engines?

Cant really complain about those exclusions. :D

[Sid]

Hello,

Hopefully, that helps. All standard disclaimers caused by this being presented outside of the designated Fan Interaction boards (where the question was apparently never asked, or where I have somehow failed to see it) apply.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Herbie,

  I don't envy the headaches your job no doubt induces.

  Before the arguments begins.

  Thank you

[God and Davion]

Gentlemen, I would like that people here calm down.  [copper] [copper] [copper] [copper]

[sunshadow]

Sorry for that God and Davion, I guess I really might have opened a can of worms here - I guess I really need to start listening to those quiet little voices in the back of my head, lol. :D

[JPArbiter]

Please read the post i was responding to, i wanted to see a canon approach to a higher tech LAM, this is quite the opposite.

Can you cite a source?  Every LAM TRO entry thus far has obeyed the rules Herb presented, anything else used older rule sets or an absence of rules preventing such things.  remember there was a time when a Highlander LAM would have been legal.

I think that is what is bothering you.  that some of the rules presented closes up loopholes made by an absence of rules.

for example, there was no rule that I was ever aware of PREVENTING Omni-LAMs, but now there is, and you do not like that.  am I incorrect in that assumption?

[Weirdo]

I am sad. Now we'll never see the Quad Urbie LAM...

[BlazingSky]

I am sad. Now we'll never see the Quad Urbie LAM...

But Urbies aren't quads. So you can still make the 2/3/2 flying autocannon of DOOM!

[JadeHellbringer]

But Urbies aren't quads. So you can still make the 2/3/2 flying autocannon of DOOM!

Of course, being an Urbie, it's powered by an Inspector Gadget-style propeller coming out of the top of it's head...