Author Topic: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs  (Read 6884 times)

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7206
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #240 on: 16 March 2024, 12:20:27 »
Actually, IO doesn't prohibit Industrial LAMs. They are just limited to Bipeds chassis.
Also on IOpage 114.

None of those things prohibit the building of Industrial LAMs as IndyMech Cockpits and Structure don't take critical space. They just can't operate in space because Environmental Sealing can't be installed. They'd also lose another 10% do to the heavier structure but they can be built. The problem is not being able to carry cargo. I don't know if TPTB just overlooked that or if it was an intentional nerf but I wish they'd fix it.

It'd also be nice if there were cargo pods for use on external hard points as they do exist. It's really strange people would stop using them in the future.

Dude, I literally just quoted where Interstellar Operations said only bipedal BattleMechs could be LAMs.  It's in the post if mine you quoted.

Unless they changed the very first paragraph of LAM Construction under “Chassis Restrictions and Requirements” when they severed the book in two, then IndustrialMech LAMs are as illegal as quadrupedal LAMs or LAMs over 55 tons.

Quote from: Interstellar Operations, the unbroken edition, page 114
Chassis Restrictions and Requirements
LAMs may only be constructed using an Inner Sphere technology  base, and may not be constructed as OmniMechs. Only bipedal BattleMechs weighing up to 55 tons may be constructed as LAMs. LAMs may not be constructed weighing more than 55 tons or using four-legged (quad) or three-legged (tripod) chassis types.
« Last Edit: 16 March 2024, 12:25:24 by Giovanni Blasini »
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #241 on: 16 March 2024, 13:01:20 »
IO explicitly states Battlemech, so Industrialmechs would be excluded by default.  Gio has the right of it.

Chinless

  • Modicis Amice
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #242 on: 16 March 2024, 13:59:45 »
3) For the LAMs to bring back enough supplies to make their losses worthwhile, they'd have to carry the cargo externally. I could see no external cargo while converting but AirMechs can't carry cargo externally. LAMs can't even carry cargo internally. That means the LAMs couldn't have carried cargo back in AirMech Mode.

LAMs have hands so can carry objects as per the 'Mech Lifting Capabilities rule, TW p261. IO p102 makes no mention of having to drop carried objects when changing from a 'Mech to AirMech mode either. Its not much, compared to external cargo carrying, but they can still carry supplies or loot away.

Chris

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8745
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #243 on: 16 March 2024, 14:28:58 »
When LAMs were introduced by the Star League, a "raid" meant "get in there and destroy something." The idea of a raid being to recover something mostly arose during the ScavengerTech days of the Succession Wars. If the SLDF wanted to capture something, they'd send in transports alongside the combat units.

I think a fun scenario could pit a force of LAMs, Karnov-like transports, and Nighthawk PA(L) suits against a scattered defense force. The LAMs would be trying to keep the VTOLs alive while the infantry hauls some McGuffin out of a target building, all while the defenders have units regularly entering the map to destroy or drive off the raiders.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12049
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #244 on: 16 March 2024, 15:31:54 »
that actually brings up something i think would be nice in general. scenarios designed around scouting, raiding, and so on, which are designed to play up the roles of scouts, LAM's, etc. one of the reasons that so many people have opinions like "lightmechs are worthless" and "LAM's need to be more combat effective and thus buffed" is the fact that most of our default game scenarios presuppose some version of a pitched battle, which will invariably end up being dominated by units with heavier armor and firepower.

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5861
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #245 on: 16 March 2024, 15:43:09 »
that actually brings up something i think would be nice in general. scenarios designed around scouting, raiding, and so on, which are designed to play up the roles of scouts, LAM's, etc. one of the reasons that so many people have opinions like "lightmechs are worthless" and "LAM's need to be more combat effective and thus buffed" is the fact that most of our default game scenarios presuppose some version of a pitched battle, which will invariably end up being dominated by units with heavier armor and firepower.

Hard agree with that one.

I can think of a handful of scouting missions from some of the old scenario books, but the game does not do a stellar job of advocating for scenarios in which recon units and raiders would truly excel.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4495
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #246 on: 16 March 2024, 16:30:09 »
Dude, I literally just quoted where Interstellar Operations said only bipedal BattleMechs could be LAMs.  It's in the post if mine you quoted.

Unless they changed the very first paragraph of LAM Construction under “Chassis Restrictions and Requirements” when they severed the book in two, then IndustrialMech LAMs are as illegal as quadrupedal LAMs or LAMs over 55 tons.

There's a conflict there. BattleMechs can use Industrial Structure and Cockpits do to the FrankenMech Rules. I admit it's very rules lawyer-y but there's also the statement at the beginning of the Prohibited Technologies List.
Quote
Except as noted on this list, a LAM may use any equipment not prohibited to BattleMechs, IndustrialMechs, or aerospace fighters.

Primitive Components, outside of weapons, are prohibited. So are certain items that permitted to BattleMechs. Industrial Items are not. Why include IndustrialMechs in that list if LAMs can't use their components or items allowed to them? If Industrial isn't allowed, that statement  should only have BattleMechs and Aeropace Fighters and Industrial Components should be listed as prohibited.

Personally, I hope they don't change that. LAMs have more uses than just combat.


LAMs have hands so can carry objects as per the 'Mech Lifting Capabilities rule, TW p261. IO p102 makes no mention of having to drop carried objects when changing from a 'Mech to AirMech mode either. Its not much, compared to external cargo carrying, but they can still carry supplies or loot away.

Chris

Yes, however, the rules also say that LAMs can only carry external cargo in Mech Mode. So there's a conflict there too.


When LAMs were introduced by the Star League, a "raid" meant "get in there and destroy something." The idea of a raid being to recover something mostly arose during the ScavengerTech days of the Succession Wars. If the SLDF wanted to capture something, they'd send in transports alongside the combat units.

I think a fun scenario could pit a force of LAMs, Karnov-like transports, and Nighthawk PA(L) suits against a scattered defense force. The LAMs would be trying to keep the VTOLs alive while the infantry hauls some McGuffin out of a target building, all while the defenders have units regularly entering the map to destroy or drive off the raiders.

I'm not sure about that raids for items didn't take place. The flow of combat could mean that things end up behind enemy lines. Plus they need to conduct a snatch and grab operation from space LAMs would be more efficient.

That does sound a fun scenario. :)


that actually brings up something i think would be nice in general. scenarios designed around scouting, raiding, and so on, which are designed to play up the roles of scouts, LAM's, etc. one of the reasons that so many people have opinions like "lightmechs are worthless" and "LAM's need to be more combat effective and thus buffed" is the fact that most of our default game scenarios presuppose some version of a pitched battle, which will invariably end up being dominated by units with heavier armor and firepower.

I agree there should be more scenarios that just pitched battle. The problem for LAMs though is that Turn Modes aren't limited to combat. The Sandman LAM was used for rescue. Imagine playing that scenario out with the current rules. Turn modes would make it much more difficult than side slipping alone.

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12049
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #247 on: 16 March 2024, 16:38:04 »
I agree there should be more scenarios that just pitched battle. The problem for LAMs though is that Turn Modes aren't limited to combat. The Sandman LAM was used for rescue. Imagine playing that scenario out with the current rules. Turn modes would make it much more difficult than side slipping alone.
doesn't seem that hard to me. airmech mode gets you close, then switch to mech mode and just walk over to the person being rescued.

people keep trying to make airmech mode do everything, when it isn't meant to be the combat mode or the only way a LAM gets around on a ground map.

Chinless

  • Modicis Amice
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 569
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #248 on: 16 March 2024, 17:18:43 »
Yes, however, the rules also say that LAMs can only carry external cargo in Mech Mode. So there's a conflict there too.

Lifting/carrying things in a 'Mech's hands aren't external cargo, so there's no conflict there.

Chris

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4495
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #249 on: 16 March 2024, 18:52:24 »
doesn't seem that hard to me. airmech mode gets you close, then switch to mech mode and just walk over to the person being rescued.

people keep trying to make airmech mode do everything, when it isn't meant to be the combat mode or the only way a LAM gets around on a ground map.

It's the flying AirMech in and out I was referring to. Walking over is fine but even running can take longer than flying. Would the Sandman have gotten in and out as quickly in Mech Mode?

AirMech Mode should be capable of combat and getting around on a map. I need not be the best unit but it does need to be capable. Right now, they are not.




Lifting/carrying things in a 'Mech's hands aren't external cargo, so there's no conflict there.

Chris

TW page 261.
Quote
In addition, the ’Mech suffers the limitations
described in Cargo Carriers, above. Note that ‘Mechs suffer no movement penalties provided that they are carrying no more than 10% of their constructed weight (20% with active Triple-Strength Myomer)

If the rules are clarified so that AirMechs can carry cargo in their hands, that would be great. I'm not sure 3 tons per LAM would make up for losses in the battle I mentioned above but it'd be better than nothing.

Dapper Apples

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 256
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #250 on: 16 March 2024, 19:05:51 »
tbh to me its not whether or not an airmech could pick something up, in my head the added weight/bulk of carried cargo would interfere with whatever aerodynamics is going on with airmech flight.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7206
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #251 on: 16 March 2024, 19:15:25 »
There's a conflict there. BattleMechs can use Industrial Structure and Cockpits do to the FrankenMech Rules. I admit it's very rules lawyer-y but there's also the statement at the beginning of the Prohibited Technologies List.


...are you being serious?  I'm honestly having trouble telling.

FrankenMechs aren't Land-Air 'Mechs.  You can note this because FrankenMech rules don't convert flight or transformation.

Quote

Primitive Components, outside of weapons, are prohibited. So are certain items that permitted to BattleMechs. Industrial Items are not.


They didn't need to be.  They were banned the instant the statement "bipedal Battlemechs" were made.  IndustrialMech components aren't Battlemechs components. Primitive BattleMech components are still BattleMech components.

Quote
Why include IndustrialMechs in that list if LAMs can't use their components or items allowed to them? If Industrial isn't allowed, that statement  should only have BattleMechs and Aeropace Fighters and Industrial Components should be listed as prohibited..

Because equipment and components are not the same thing.  A cockpit is a component. Internal structure is a component.  An engine is a component.  A lift hoist is equipment.

I think I'm done in this thread, and desperately wish I could remove it from my unread replies list.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5861
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #252 on: 16 March 2024, 19:33:26 »
And here we are again.

Locked for re-review.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5861
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #253 on: 19 March 2024, 15:58:30 »
Once more, with feeling.

Since most people who were participating in this thread have been respectful of others, we are unlocking the conversation. To those of you still eligible to post here, I hope you will take the opportunity to do so in order to share your thoughts on the subject. Personally, I have found it quite interesting to hear about the thought processes behind the current set of rules for LAMs.

The same rules apply, though. If you are only interested in this thread as a vehicle for making demands, arguing, or loudly dismissing the thoughts and opinions of other users as being inferior to your own, please find somewhere else to be.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

LAMFAN

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Powered by LAM Autism
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #254 on: 19 March 2024, 16:25:14 »
Thanks Action!

So since I've (for the moment) exhausted my discussions about improvements LAM's need, I've got a concept I'd like to throw ya'lls way:

Conventional Fighter LAMs.

Essentially LAM's that can only function within the atmosphere. They still have three modes, but their ASF mode is just a straight up Conventional Fighter Mode. I haven't put much thought into this yet since I haven't had time to look over conventional fighter rules and all that, but I thought it might be a neat concept to discuss...
"It's called the Death Basket, because I'm riding this coffin all the way to Hell!"

CEO of Hamric Industries and Hamric's Hammers Mercenary Unit

Want to play with Air Mech's without the extra Battlemech/ASF mode of LAMs? Try Air-Slip Mechs!
AIR-SLIP MECH: LORE AND RULES

BrianDavion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #255 on: 19 March 2024, 16:28:40 »
I'd use the partial wing rules as inspiration for a LAM rules re-write. it even allows for LAMs to not be a complete developmental deadend, with the Jade Falcon LAM research on Huntress eventually leading to the development of the Cougar XR and the jade falcon Totems.

As such the LAM rules to my mind would be that LAM conversion gear takes up the 10% of the mechs mass (as normal) and has 3 mods, regular battlemech mode. an Airmech mode, that DECREASES walk speed by 1 (and run speed by the approeprate amount) but also gives the mech the benifits of a partial wing (so a Phawk LAM with a standard movement of 5/8/5 would in airmech mode have a move speed of 4/6/7) aerospace fighter mode works the same.

This would IMHO be a nice comprimsie between the insane jump movement of the original LAM rules, and the unsastifying WIGE airmech rules.
The Suns will shine again

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7191
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #256 on: 19 March 2024, 16:31:09 »
Thanks Action!

So since I've (for the moment) exhausted my discussions about improvements LAM's need, I've got a concept I'd like to throw ya'lls way:

Conventional Fighter LAMs.

Essentially LAM's that can only function within the atmosphere. They still have three modes, but their ASF mode is just a straight up Conventional Fighter Mode. I haven't put much thought into this yet since I haven't had time to look over conventional fighter rules and all that, but I thought it might be a neat concept to discuss...
I think that such an idea is a bit too close to fan rules, so that would be best to discuss in a new thread in the fan designs section.

However I have been using the art of the Defender CF and Meteor CF on LAM record sheets, I feel that those are pretty good fits.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

LAMFAN

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Powered by LAM Autism
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #257 on: 19 March 2024, 16:39:00 »
I think that such an idea is a bit too close to fan rules, so that would be best to discuss in a new thread in the fan designs section.

However I have been using the art of the Defender CF and Meteor CF on LAM record sheets, I feel that those are pretty good fits.

Eh, that's fair.

I'd use the partial wing rules as inspiration for a LAM rules re-write. it even allows for LAMs to not be a complete developmental deadend, with the Jade Falcon LAM research on Huntress eventually leading to the development of the Cougar XR and the jade falcon Totems.

As such the LAM rules to my mind would be that LAM conversion gear takes up the 10% of the mechs mass (as normal) and has 3 mods, regular battlemech mode. an Airmech mode, that DECREASES walk speed by 1 (and run speed by the approeprate amount) but also gives the mech the benifits of a partial wing (so a Phawk LAM with a standard movement of 5/8/5 would in airmech mode have a move speed of 4/6/7) aerospace fighter mode works the same.

This would IMHO be a nice comprimsie between the insane jump movement of the original LAM rules, and the unsastifying WIGE airmech rules.

Would the Air-Mech mode in this version still have WIGE capabilities?

Because you tack on one or two fixes to ASF mode on top of that, you might be onto a good idea....
"It's called the Death Basket, because I'm riding this coffin all the way to Hell!"

CEO of Hamric Industries and Hamric's Hammers Mercenary Unit

Want to play with Air Mech's without the extra Battlemech/ASF mode of LAMs? Try Air-Slip Mechs!
AIR-SLIP MECH: LORE AND RULES

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7206
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #258 on: 19 March 2024, 17:12:12 »
I'd use the partial wing rules as inspiration for a LAM rules re-write. it even allows for LAMs to not be a complete developmental deadend, with the Jade Falcon LAM research on Huntress eventually leading to the development of the Cougar XR and the jade falcon Totems.

As such the LAM rules to my mind would be that LAM conversion gear takes up the 10% of the mechs mass (as normal) and has 3 mods, regular battlemech mode. an Airmech mode, that DECREASES walk speed by 1 (and run speed by the approeprate amount) but also gives the mech the benifits of a partial wing (so a Phawk LAM with a standard movement of 5/8/5 would in airmech mode have a move speed of 4/6/7) aerospace fighter mode works the same.

This would IMHO be a nice comprimsie between the insane jump movement of the original LAM rules, and the unsastifying WIGE airmech rules.

Partial Wing rules were considered during the Quick-Start Rules discussion, and even partially incorporated in the current rules, but not quite the way you're thinking.  This was a decision that was made after we'd settled on WiGE movement for AirMech mode, BTW.

One of the concerns everyone had was how to encourage the use of modes other than AirMech mode.  I mean, a typical trimodal LAM has all three modes, so they have to offer some advantage or utility, right?

To that end, one of the things I proposed was that LAMs in BattleMech mode should get benefits equivalent to having a Partial Wing: ie. a +2 to their jump in 'Mech mode and an additional 3 points of cooling.  The general consensus, though, was that because a Partial Wing is 7% of a 'Mech's mass and a full LAM conversion is 10% of a 'Mech's mass, but also gives you AirMech and Fighter modes, that giving them all the benefits of a Partial Wing was a step too far.  Instead, we settled on the benefits to heat dissipation, since the wings are going to increase surface area no matter where they are, but may not be in the most opportune spot to provide lift in BattleMech mode.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

LAMFAN

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Powered by LAM Autism
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #259 on: 19 March 2024, 18:01:13 »
...an Airmech mode, that DECREASES walk speed by 1 (and run speed by the approeprate amount) but also gives the mech the benifits of a partial wing (so a Phawk LAM with a standard movement of 5/8/5 would in airmech mode have a move speed of 4/6/7).....
Partial Wing rules were considered during the Quick-Start Rules discussion, and even partially incorporated in the current rules, but not quite the way you're thinking.  This was a decision that was made after we'd settled on WiGE movement for AirMech mode, BTW.

One of the concerns everyone had was how to encourage the use of modes other than AirMech mode.  I mean, a typical trimodal LAM has all three modes, so they have to offer some advantage or utility, right?

To that end, one of the things I proposed was that LAMs in BattleMech mode should get benefits equivalent to having a Partial Wing: ie. a +2 to their jump in 'Mech mode and an additional 3 points of cooling.  The general consensus, though, was that because a Partial Wing is 7% of a 'Mech's mass and a full LAM conversion is 10% of a 'Mech's mass, but also gives you AirMech and Fighter modes, that giving them all the benefits of a Partial Wing was a step too far.  Instead, we settled on the benefits to heat dissipation, since the wings are going to increase surface area no matter where they are, but may not be in the most opportune spot to provide lift in BattleMech mode.

So ignoring some other issues with LAMs already discussed, that is good point, thank you for reminding us. Then a different option: instead of the WIGE (I personally like WIGE myself but we're going for alternate ideas), what if instead you keep the halved movement speed of the current AirMech, but get a major bonus to jump. Not anything insane like before, but more along the lines of a +4 Jump instead of just +2, with NO WIGE movement.

Actually, how rediculous was jumping before hand in AirMech mode?

"It's called the Death Basket, because I'm riding this coffin all the way to Hell!"

CEO of Hamric Industries and Hamric's Hammers Mercenary Unit

Want to play with Air Mech's without the extra Battlemech/ASF mode of LAMs? Try Air-Slip Mechs!
AIR-SLIP MECH: LORE AND RULES

BrianDavion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #260 on: 19 March 2024, 18:07:49 »
double jump movement for no heat IIRC.
The Suns will shine again

LAMFAN

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Powered by LAM Autism
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #261 on: 19 March 2024, 18:16:00 »
double jump movement for no heat IIRC.
.....wow, ok, +4 while still having to pay for your JJ heat is much more reasonable in response.
"It's called the Death Basket, because I'm riding this coffin all the way to Hell!"

CEO of Hamric Industries and Hamric's Hammers Mercenary Unit

Want to play with Air Mech's without the extra Battlemech/ASF mode of LAMs? Try Air-Slip Mechs!
AIR-SLIP MECH: LORE AND RULES

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #262 on: 19 March 2024, 18:32:26 »
Partial Wing rules were considered during the Quick-Start Rules discussion, and even partially incorporated in the current rules, but not quite the way you're thinking.  This was a decision that was made after we'd settled on WiGE movement for AirMech mode, BTW.

One of the concerns everyone had was how to encourage the use of modes other than AirMech mode.  I mean, a typical trimodal LAM has all three modes, so they have to offer some advantage or utility, right?

To that end, one of the things I proposed was that LAMs in BattleMech mode should get benefits equivalent to having a Partial Wing: ie. a +2 to their jump in 'Mech mode and an additional 3 points of cooling.  The general consensus, though, was that because a Partial Wing is 7% of a 'Mech's mass and a full LAM conversion is 10% of a 'Mech's mass, but also gives you AirMech and Fighter modes, that giving them all the benefits of a Partial Wing was a step too far.  Instead, we settled on the benefits to heat dissipation, since the wings are going to increase surface area no matter where they are, but may not be in the most opportune spot to provide lift in BattleMech mode.

Well, the few times we actually put LAMs on the field (beyond something super abstract like a scenario intro of "an allied LAM recon squad discovered this force, go hit it or something"), we never really used 'Mech mode except to store idle units.  For actual combat it was AirMech mode, with sometimes switching to ASF mode to get around somewhere real quick if the sky was clear enough.

IMO, that's probably because there's a significant opportunity cost to making a 'Mech an AirMech.  If you're bringing that instead of a regular 'Mech or even a Partial Wing 'Mech, you want it to do AirMech things.  If you're using it to do Battlemech things then you just have a lousy overengineered Battlemech so why didn't you bring a regular one in the first place?

Plus, a lot of the canonical Airmechs don't really get much use of that +3 heat dissipation?  A Wasp LAM can already jump and alpha strike all day.  A P-Hawk LAM can alpha strike with minimal heat buildup, but it's honestly better off doing hit and run attacks in AirMech mode than it is jumping around in 'Mech mode.

I can see the logic on paper in omitting it due to the 5% (3% for IS) weight difference in partial wing weights vs. LAM conversion gear, but given the rest of the restrictions that exists (no crit splitting, no XLEs, no endo structures, no fancy armors, no omni), I don't think it panned out that way in practice.  And while I am talking about my games, I also mean in the canonical universe.  Every canonical Battlemech with the Partial Wing system (either IS or Clan) uses some sort of advanced component that LAMs can't use (most commonly XLEs, though the Peregrine 7 opts for endo and FF instead).

Basically, you lose the option of having any of the other neat trinkets, knick-nacks and doo-dads to become a LAM.  The fact that (in canon at least) your 'Mech has only +3% dead weight compared to "Mech Z," a theoretical IS 'Mech with a partial wing but no other fancy trinkets, doesn't actually matter, because Mech Z simply doesn't exist in the universe.

Of course that's just a sample size of one person, but that's my 0.02 C-Bills.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10418
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #263 on: 19 March 2024, 18:33:52 »
LAMs make an appearance in the latest issue of Shrapnel!
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

LAMFAN

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Powered by LAM Autism
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #264 on: 19 March 2024, 18:38:35 »
LAMs make an appearance in the latest issue of Shrapnel!
......Ok, I'm scared for how they're presented. Context?
"It's called the Death Basket, because I'm riding this coffin all the way to Hell!"

CEO of Hamric Industries and Hamric's Hammers Mercenary Unit

Want to play with Air Mech's without the extra Battlemech/ASF mode of LAMs? Try Air-Slip Mechs!
AIR-SLIP MECH: LORE AND RULES

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7206
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #265 on: 19 March 2024, 18:56:39 »
double jump movement for no heat IIRC.

Oh it was worse than that: triple their standard jump MP with no heat buildup, flying like a VTOL, though you also spent 2-3 MP each time you took off and landed.your defensive modifiers we’re the same as a jumping ‘Mech, as were your offensive modifiers.

The net result, though, with something like a Phoenix Hawk LAM was that you could jump a minimum of 12 hexes at a time, got a defensive modifier for jumping that far, allowing you to usually break LOS or exit range when you lose initiative, yet be able to almost unerringly get a rear shot at someone’s armor when you win initiative.  Even the three medium lasers on a Stinger LAM could be brutal under those conditions.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

BrianDavion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #266 on: 19 March 2024, 19:08:45 »
Partial Wing rules were considered during the Quick-Start Rules discussion, and even partially incorporated in the current rules, but not quite the way you're thinking.  This was a decision that was made after we'd settled on WiGE movement for AirMech mode, BTW.

One of the concerns everyone had was how to encourage the use of modes other than AirMech mode.  I mean, a typical trimodal LAM has all three modes, so they have to offer some advantage or utility, right?

To that end, one of the things I proposed was that LAMs in BattleMech mode should get benefits equivalent to having a Partial Wing: ie. a +2 to their jump in 'Mech mode and an additional 3 points of cooling.  The general consensus, though, was that because a Partial Wing is 7% of a 'Mech's mass and a full LAM conversion is 10% of a 'Mech's mass, but also gives you AirMech and Fighter modes, that giving them all the benefits of a Partial Wing was a step too far.  Instead, we settled on the benefits to heat dissipation, since the wings are going to increase surface area no matter where they are, but may not be in the most opportune spot to provide lift in BattleMech mode.

yeah thats why I suggested just making the partial wing part of airmech mode, the idea is something in theory useful, but in practice by the ilclan era likely just obseleted with a mech partial wing anyway
The Suns will shine again

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7206
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #267 on: 19 March 2024, 19:17:57 »
yeah thats why I suggested just making the partial wing part of airmech mode, the idea is something in theory useful, but in practice by the ilclan era likely just obseleted with a mech partial wing anyway

In my own headcanon, BattleMech partial wings and improved jump jets were kludgey byproducts of the LAM programs that the Star League never developed or bothered with since they had full LAMs, and which only really came about after the Irece factory was destroyed, with varying parties incorporating small elements of LAM tech into standard BattleMechs.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Prospernia

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 925
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #268 on: 19 March 2024, 20:09:23 »
Since LAMs can't have internal-bays, can they transform holding something or someone in their hands, like Minme, I mean, Katherine Steiner-Davion?

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8745
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Discussion Sidequest: LAMs
« Reply #269 on: 19 March 2024, 21:30:20 »
Since LAMs can't have internal-bays, can they transform holding something or someone in their hands, like Minme, I mean, Katherine Steiner-Davion?

LAMs can convert from BattleMech to AirMech mode (and back) while carrying something in their hands. If they convert to aerospace fighter mode, whatever they were holding is dropped.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1