LAM Questions

[FedComGirl]

Does TRO:3085 Page 287 need an eratta?

It says that after being produced for 8 years Admiral Peterson had the design team redesign all three LAMs. The redesign took 5 years and began production in 2701. How is that possible? With an 8 year production plus a 5 year redesign they would have had to been originally introduced in 2688. That would work for the Stinger LAM as those dates match up, except the fluff for the Stinger LAM MkI says that the MkII model had already been designed before the redesign call went out. It doesn't work for the WASP LAM and Phoenix Hawk LAMs at all though since that predates them completely. In fact the Phoenix Hawk LAM didn't even enter service until 2701. Why would they need to redesign a unit that hadn't seen the field yet?



Where did the 105M Wasp LAM come from? The MUL says it was introduced in 3024 but there weren't any Wasp LAM factories? Was the RS the first appearce of it? Is it legal? I can't figure out what was removed to fit in the LRM-5.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

You know, it still astonishes me how often I read your questions and suspect that I'm being lured into a trap...

There *could* be errors in those entries, but I would need far more free time to verify, all the while wondering what I am being set up for. Not trying to offend you, just admitting that you make me paranoid....

I will put some bloodhounds on the case in the meantime; see if there is an error or a kind of flawed interpretation at work here.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[FedComGirl]

 :o Wowey!

I'm not trying to trap you or anything. I hadn't even noticed it until last night. I had a question about the LAM art in FM:SLDF. I was wondering how Shadow Hawk LAMs could by flying in formation with Phoenix Hawk LAMs since I thought the SLDF didn't buy any. So I double checked TRO:3085 to be sure. That's when I what the entries said really hit me. And then I triple checked with the MUL. So no trapping. Just me being confused.

Thanks

[Welshman]

Bloodhound work has been completed. Thanks again to the great MUL Fact Check team for their stellar assistance.

Does TRO:3085 Page 287 need an eratta?

Yes, it does. Please post a link to this post in the TRO3085 Errata thread.

TR entry for PXH-HK1 should change

“It officially entered service in 2701, nineteen years after the initial evaluation of the Shadow Haw LAM.”

To

“It officially entered service in 2692, ten years after the initial evaluation of the Shadow Hawk LAM.”

Where did the 105M Wasp LAM come from? The MUL says it was introduced in 3024 but there weren't any Wasp LAM factories? Was the RS the first appearance of it? Is it legal? I can't figure out what was removed to fit in the LRM-5.

The WSP-105M is referring to the notable mechwarrior entry for the Wasp LAM where a pilot in 3024 refits their 105 with 100 armor and some weapon modifications.

Thank you,
Joel BC
Catalyst Bloodhound Handler

[FedComGirl]

Bloodhound work has been completed. Thanks again to the great MUL Fact Check team for their stellar assistance.

Yes, it does. Please post a link to this post in the TRO3085 Errata thread.

TR entry for PXH-HK1 should change

“It officially entered service in 2701, nineteen years after the initial evaluation of the Shadow Haw LAM.”

To

“It officially entered service in 2692, ten years after the initial evaluation of the Shadow Hawk LAM.”

Okay. I'll try that. Hopefully it'll work.

What about the LAM intro section where it talks about them being in production for 8 years before a 5 year refit? The dates only work for the Stinger LAM but are contrary to it's fluff.

The WSP-105M is referring to the notable mechwarrior entry for the Wasp LAM where a pilot in 3024 refits their 105 with 100 armor and some weapon modifications.

Thank you,
Joel BC
Catalyst Bloodhound Handler

Ah! Okay. It's the customized one. Thank you.