LAM construction...

[BlazingSky]

First, you chimed in on the discussion.

And second, you're making an assumption about the rules.  And I had made that SAME assumption Myself; so in the face of others presenting information to Me that conflicts with My assumption, I would like to know definitively.

Oh!  and what's the URL for your thread?  you never know, there might be something in there that would help Me with this or something else.  Thanks!

It's impossible to make an assumption about rules we don't have yet, beyond what's stated in the QSR. So until IO, the QSR rules are gospel until otherwise errata'd. And my post is the third post down from the top of the page, but quoted here:

Yes, you're correct. Here's the relevant passage from RS:3085 Print:

[Martius]

ok ... I had considered that possibility too.  But I checked the eratta and I only saw the hardcover books.  Where did you get the info about the revisions of RS3085?  Did it specifically recant the damage threshold info in RS3085 and TRO3085?

I checked the box at BC when I downloaded the file after buying so I got an email about the update so I downloaded it.

About the Threshold in TRO3085:

It is only included in the obsolete version of the TRO, the updated one does not show it anymore.

Yes- I keep them all, even the outdated, obsolete stuff  :D. *Hogs his old 25Years Art and Fiction.*

[GOTHIK]

@BlazingSky -- I hear you about making assumptions.  That's why I've been looking for a passage in RS3085 that specifically states that LAMs do NOT abide by any rules concerning Damage Thresholds.

@Martius -- aw man, I must have gotten Mine from Drive-Thru RPG.  Is there anyway you could forward that email to Me so I can see what the official revisions are, since they're not up on the eratta page?

[Martius]

@Martius -- aw man, I must have gotten Mine from Drive-Thru RPG.  Is there anyway you could forward that email to Me so I can see what the official revisions are, since they're not up on the eratta page?

The e-mail just told me that there is a new version waiting for me as usual. I downloaded a full updated PDF, not just some errata sheet.

Both updated documents- TRO 3085 and RS: 3085 print lack the entry for threshold. Might be that there is other errata as well included, but I did not bother to check.

If your documents lack the threshold you already have the new books. If not try to ask for a free update.  :) Don't know if its possible at Drive-Thru but asking never hurts.

[GOTHIK]

Does anyone who's following this thread have the (or any of - in the event that there's more than one) Jihad era book(s) that have other LAMs in them that have been published since these things have changed? If so, do those LAMs have a damage threshold?

[BeeRockxs]

The LAM recordsheets in Jihad Final Reckoning do not list any damage thresholds.

[GOTHIK]

That's a pretty considerable advantage over aerospace fighters, then.

[monbvol]

If hargel is in use then the breach rules are somewhat better because now for four tons you can have everything but the head and center torso not breach.  Considering the head cannot be hit in ASF mode that leaves the center torso.  Still leaves me a bit wary since even an AC-2 hit to the front torso of a LAM can cause a breach on a 10+ even against fresh armor.

[FedComGirl]

IIRC LAMs have no threshold anyway instead are subject to the breach rules like all Mechs. Even as wannabe fighters they are still humble 'Mechs.

But I might be wrong as I am away from books and PDFs now but I also cannot recall seeing a threshold marked on my Sheets. IS yes, threshold no.

According to my PDF LAMs do have Threshold Ratings. The Rules also say that LAMS in fighter mode follow fighter rules.

This is from a scenario that also includes ASFs. Those of course have a threshold.

LAMs are fighters with Avionics and are subject to all the atmospheric modifiers and effects that Fighters are.

I read through the thread and it looks to me like they just use a single outdated book (old RS 3085 print; downloaded by me on 07292010; corrected update is from 08032010).

So the PDF was erratta'ed? Where's the thread that says what was changed?

ok ... I had considered that possibility too.  But I checked the eratta and I only saw the hardcover books.  Where did you get the info about the revisions of RS3085?  Did it specifically recant the damage threshold info in RS3085 and TRO3085?

If there's an erratta it applies to both older PDFs and print books. PDFs are easier to update though so there can be multiple editions of the PDF but only one of the Print version.

If RS:3085 Print has been erratta'ed to remove Damage Thresholds from LAMs, ignore what I said about them.

[Grim_Reaper]

according to the Print RS 3085, pg 8, under Movement Phase: Fighter Mode
"A LAM's Structural Integretity is equal to the number of internal structure points in it's center torso. A LAM that suffers structural Integrity damage from high-thrust manuvers applies this damage directly to its center torso internal structure and rolls for critical hits to that location as a Battlemech"

[Martius]

If RS:3085 Print has been erratta'ed to remove Damage Thresholds from LAMs, ignore what I said about them.

It has so I do  :).

[GOTHIK]

according to the Print RS 3085, pg 8, under Movement Phase: Fighter Mode
"A LAM's Structural Integretity is equal to the number of internal structure points in it's center torso. A LAM that suffers structural Integrity damage from high-thrust manuvers applies this damage directly to its center torso internal structure and rolls for critical hits to that location as a Battlemech"

We've got the SI rules down ... this discussion is about DT.

[GOTHIK]

Anyone who wants to know how DT works for LAMs should check out this conversation btw Me and Herb:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,12376.0.html

[BlazingSky]

And until it's actually in a product, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the forum posts are subject to change at any time.

[GOTHIK]

hahaha!  I hear you ... but what spurred this ENTIRE conversation is the fact that it was changed even after it was put into print.  ;)

[ColBosch]

It's called "errata." Mistakes happen; in this case, I seem to recall that the person who designed the record sheet thought LAMs would have DT values. When the mistake was discovered, a correction was issued. LAMs do not have Damage Thresholds, instead using the standard BattleMech critical hit rules. This is in keeping with their design as 'Mechs that transform into fighters. Were it the other way around - fighters that transform into 'Mechs - then DT would be an issue. Piling DT on top of the 'Mech critical hit rules makes them extremely fragile, moreso than what is intended.

And by the way, it's considered extremely poor form to ambush the developers with house rules. Herb's commentary should not be taken as tacit nor implicit approval for your ideas beyond "whatever works for your games."

[GOTHIK]

woah!  I didn't ambush him with a house rule.  I just asked him what he thought about what We came up with.  When he stated his position I understood where he was coming from and never said another word about it. 

That statement DOES bring Me to another point that you made though, and I'm glad that you read the other thread so you'll know that LAMs DO infact have DT.  Herb said so.  That's the only reason that I included the link here; bc if other players are using the advanced aerospace rules from SO, then perhaps they can benefit from what I've learned as well.

And one final point ... it wasn't just the record sheets, it was also the TRO.  And has been pointed out, before this discussion even started, I checked the eratta and other boards and didn't find anything.

[Kit deSummersville]

I just asked him what he thought about what We came up with. 

There's a phrase for that....

[GOTHIK]

Yeah.  Feedback.  Input.

[Goose]

It has so I do  :).

Wha'? What's this at?

[GOTHIK]

He was saying that he ignores the Damage Threshold information regarding LAMs from previous print and pdf versions of any combination of products: TRO3085, RS3085, and RS3085 Unabridged - The Cutting Edge.

As Herb has pointed out however, if you're using advanced aerospace rules from Strategic Operations it still comes into play - each individual locations Damage Threshold is equal to it's current[/b] Structural Integrity.

[Goose]

 :-[ Oh.

[ColBosch]

Yeah.  Feedback.  Input.

"Unsolicited submissions."

[GOTHIK]

I checked the rules for that board before responding to Herb's response to My post and I didn't break any rules.

If Herb has been offended, I'm sure he'll let Me know.  Otherwise, you guys should probably just let it go since it has nothing to do with you or the discussions posed by this thread whatsoever.

[Kit deSummersville]

Yeah.  Feedback.  Input.

Actually, a rule you came up with is by definition a house rule.

[GOTHIK]

Actually, a rule you came up with is by definition a house rule.

Which rule?  That LAMs have DT?
Herb confirmed that.

Just let this go.

[Kit deSummersville]

Which rule? 

what We came up with

That one.

[GOTHIK]

How does you hounding Me about a conversation (which as I've already pointed out didn't break any rules) with someone else contribute to the understanding of the rules for LAMs for anyone who's participated in or might be following this thread?

A brief summary of My conversation with Herb might go something like this:

Me: I've got a question about DT for LAMs bc it seems like there is info in some sources but not others; how does it work?
Him: It works like this for SI vs IS.
Me: Ok, but I meant DT specifically for control rolls.
Him: Oh those rules from SO; well, that works like this.
Me: Thanks. This is what We were doing since We didn't know.
Him: I don't get into house rules. Hope this helps.
Me: It does, thanks!

tada!  no big deal.
Stop making this an issue.  If you want to make your control rolls every time an aerospace fighter takes damage in atmosphere as described in TW, instead of only when then damage exceeds the DT like in SO, then go ahead.  It doesn't matter to Me, but leave My conversation with someone else alone.

[Goose]

Big Deal, alright: When mislabeled house rules start making the rounds, it becomes a mess to get everyone else sorted out.

Claiming a noncommittal response by TPTB as some kind of endorsement is how mislabeled house rules get spread.

[ColBosch]

No, no, I see: LAMs have a simulated DT for one special case rule in one advanced book far beyond the purview of the printed Quick Start Rules. That's not the problem, Gothik: it's the homebrew rules you pasted in the same thread.