LAM construction...

[Giovanni Blasini]

I can't say too much on the topic, as all the LAMs so far published were done by either myself or Joel S., but I will say that they were checked pretty strenuously and the 9 tons for the Shadow Hawk LAM's conversion equipment is not an error.

Um, yeah.  As one of the writers of the new rules, I can say "This."  And that's all I can say about that.

[Medron Pryde]

According to the currently official rules, my answer is perfectly correct.

According to the new rules, I THINK it is correct.

Or at least, I don't see why it WOULDN'T be correct...hehehe.

[FedComGirl]

While we can make educated guesses and extrapolate a few of the rules we don't have the full picture yet.  Until we do anything we know about LAM construction is pure speculation, but sometimes speculation can be right.

I speculate that the buried Scorpion LAM prototypes were fully functioning but no one wanted a two mode LAM of a Quad Mech no one liked anyway, especially not when the weight of the conversion system made Light Mechs better armed. So Defiance Industries instead of seeing their stock plumetif they tried to sell it they burried it.

I'm still hoping for stats on the Scorpion LAM though!  ;D

[Kit deSummersville]

Be careful what you wish for....

[va_wanderer]

Be careful what you wish for....

Hey, it's nice knowing where we finally got a smooth ride out of that spine-breaker of a 'Mech design.

[snewsom2997]

At this point who cares, I still use the old Compendium Rules for LAM Construction Anyways. It is all about what your table is willing to do. The people I play with have played for almost 2 decades, we use the rules we want to.

[FedComGirl]

Be careful what you wish for....

Where's the evil laugh smiley?  ;D

Hey, it's nice knowing where we finally got a smooth ride out of that spine-breaker of a 'Mech design.

The new art is really great :)



Just had an odd thought. Would using a Composite Internal Structure allow for Heavy and Assault class LAMS to be built?

[JPArbiter]

here is something I openly wonder about.  when we get full construction rules we know that will include Bi Modal as well as Tri Modal LAMs.  Which LAM fanboys will build custom Bi-Modals?

I might be more inclined to take LAM fans a little more seriously if I start seeing those in the custom mechs page

[A. Lurker]

here is something I openly wonder about.  when we get full construction rules we know that will include Bi Modal as well as Tri Modal LAMs.  Which LAM fanboys will build custom Bi-Modals?

I might be more inclined to take LAM fans a little more seriously if I start seeing those in the custom mechs page

Bi-Modal as in fighter/'Mech only, no intermediate form?

Assuming that's are what you're talking about and they get some kind of design cost break, however minor, relative to "full" tri-modals, expect me for one to be interested. That sort of design would still actually make just a little more sense to me than a "transformer" whose hybrid mode is just as functional as either of its two "real" ones.

[JPArbiter]

Bi-Modal as in fighter/'Mech only, no intermediate form?

Assuming that's are what you're talking about and they get some kind of design cost break, however minor, relative to "full" tri-modals, expect me for one to be interested. That sort of design would still actually make just a little more sense to me than a "transformer" whose hybrid mode is just as functional as either of its two "real" ones.

Bi Modal as in the Shadow Hawk LAM, with no Airmech mode.  fluff wise it really did not work, but after it's entry in TRO 3085 we have to assume there will be construction rules for it eventually.

to me that will be a litmus testy for LAM fans as to whether they are fans of transforming mechs for the sake of transforming mechs, or if they are just LAM fans for the Glider/Airmech modes capabilities

[Thatguybil]

How bout just mech and airmeck mode with wige movement.

[ColBosch]

Bi Modal as in the Shadow Hawk LAM, with no Airmech mode.  fluff wise it really did not work, but after it's entry in TRO 3085 we have to assume there will be construction rules for it eventually.

to me that will be a litmus testy for LAM fans as to whether they are fans of transforming mechs for the sake of transforming mechs, or if they are just LAM fans for the Glider/Airmech modes capabilities

Current printed evidence suggests that bimodal is heavier than trimodal. I expect to see maybe one design using it, along with a paragraph about how it's pointless because you get so little mass to work with.

(In all fairness, I only tend to post in the Designs area when I come up with some whacked-out, munchkin unit, but that's mostly because I like taking a concept to its illogical conclusion.)

[JPArbiter]

How bout just mech and airmeck mode with wige movement.

why not a mech and an aerofighter, why does it need the airmech mode?

Current printed evidence suggests that bimodal is heavier than trimodal. I expect to see maybe one design using it, along with a paragraph about how it's pointless because you get so little mass to work with.

(In all fairness, I only tend to post in the Designs area when I come up with some whacked-out, munchkin unit, but that's mostly because I like taking a concept to its illogical conclusion.)

that is besides the point I am trying to make

[skiltao]

why not a mech and an aerofighter, why does it need the airmech mode?

The same reason that FPS's let you hit guys with the butt of your rifle.

[Grim_Reaper]

Current printed evidence suggests that bimodal is heavier than trimodal. I expect to see maybe one design using it, along with a paragraph about how it's pointless because you get so little mass to work with.

(In all fairness, I only tend to post in the Designs area when I come up with some whacked-out, munchkin unit, but that's mostly because I like taking a concept to its illogical conclusion.)

frankly i see that teh Bimodal LAM was a Prototye that was later perfected when Trimodal was developed a few years later. by then they also probably figured out how to make the conversion equipment lighter as well.
but yeah it does look like BiModal was heavier in the Conversion equipment.

I found it funny that the TRO entry mentions the maiden flight of chassis 001. I wonder if this was a reference to Roy Fokker's VT 'Skull 1' from Robotech as it did have the same number on it

[Giovanni Blasini]

I found it funny that the TRO entry mentions the maiden flight of chassis 001. I wonder if this was a reference to Roy Fokker's VT 'Skull 1' from Robotech as it did have the same number on it

Dunno, but that's also a pretty common naming/numbering scheme for prototype aircraft. For example, there's F-22 prototype 91-001:

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-22/airframe-profile/5503/

[GOTHIK]

IIRC, LAMs were intended to be bimodal, but pilots discovered they could manipulate the conversion process and stop it a the half-way point that became known as air-mech mode.  At any rate, if the new rules will allow the LAM to go straight from mech to aero mode only requiring 1 round to convert before it takes off and starts striking/strafing/bombing ... you can count Me in!!!

[Grim_Reaper]

actually it was the BiModal was found to be too limiting to be usefull except in specific roles. )and considers a failure of sorts) trimodal was introduced a few years later

[GOTHIK]

source?

also, if you go back a few pages you'll see a confirmation that the bimodal nature of the Shadowhawk LAM had nothing to do with the tonnage of the conversion equipment; the experimental nature of the project itself is what led to the deviation from the T/10 construction rule.

[FedComGirl]

source?

The second sentence of the Stinger LAM entry in TRO:3085. If that isn't enough, the abilities of the LAM in Airmech mode give a clear advantage over bimodal. And while we don't have rules for bimodal LAM I would imagine there's some pretty tough penalties when it comes to conversions. Battlemechs don't fly after all. They just drop.

also, if you go back a few pages you'll see a confirmation that the bimodal nature of the Shadowhawk LAM had nothing to do with the tonnage of the conversion equipment; the experimental nature of the project itself is what led to the deviation from the T/10 construction rule.

That's true so there could be lighter production quality bimodal conversion equipment. Unfortunately, there were only 23 bimodal LAMs produced before the project was canceled. Even if the Scorpion LAM is bimodal it was also canceled so and lighter bimodal conversion systems would have to be newly developed tech and I don't see that happening. At least not until we start getting production Quad LAMs.  :D

[Grim_Reaper]

source?

as pointed out already its in TRO 3085
2680 -Prototype X1's for the Shadowhawk was completed in
        - 3 were built and one destoryed even before being reviewed
2682 - SLDF review, received poor marks in armor protection and firepower
2684 - X2 built and reviewed in , did better but failed for consideration due to high fuel consumption,
         - plans for an X3 never reach fruition
2688 - Trimodal conversion equipment perfected 

[GOTHIK]

ah ... I don't HAVE TRO3085 (the group that I play with is strictly pre-3050) ... I've looked over the stats of the Shadowhawk LAM pretty well though, and I have RS3085 for the rules & RS3085 Unabridged-The Cutting Edge for the recordsheets, so that line about the Stinger LAM escaped Me.   Thank you, FedCom Girl. 

Having said that, the line of new text also doesn't necessarily preclude the old fluff that air-mech mode was a happy accident - one whose benefits were realized and deemed highly desirable some time shortly before 2688 (during the development of the Stinger LAM).

Regarding the advantages of air-mech mode...they have certain CLEAR advantages over mechs, to be sure (they always have), I do wonder though, if that advantage is superceded by aerospace fighters however.  Meaning you've got mechs moving around the board at say, 4/6/0 and 5/8/5 and then some LAMs convert and they're moving around at 18/27 (wow! you go Stinger LAM!!!), the maneuverability may even be able to more than offset the tonnage disparity inferred by the movements listed (I'm not saying it will or not, the mechs aren't really the point, fighters are), but what happens when even an unequal number of up to 75T aerospace fighters enter the fray and target the LAMs?  18/27 is pretty impressive, but when air-mech mode mechs have to move before fighters who are going to strike them in the rear arc, it's not a fun day to be in a LAM.  hahaha!  Not that it's particularly a fun day to be on the ground at all for that matter.  ;)  But the point is, the advantages (and modifiers) of air-mech MP can still be trumped.  Now granted they can convert to fighter-mode too, and I personally see that as being their greatest battlefield advantage (consider for example not only their drastically improved maneuverability but also the fact that they have neither a damage threshold nor structural integrity to deal with like a standard aerospace fighter).

The guys I've always played with (and Myself included) tend to prefer battles/campaigns that include a variety of war machines on the board - mechs, tanks, VTOLs, fighters, infantry, LAMs, and even artillery, and it's not uncommon for all of it to be there at the same time.  I've seen the scenario I described above played out in LOTS of different ways over the last 25 years (oh god ... I'm old!  haha), and alot of times I believe that it comes down to individual playing style (and sometimes to lucky rolls).  But the idea of a bimodal mech ... where the logical conclusion to draw is that it can convert from mech to fighter in one turn (because consistently all the way back to the Aerotech boxed set in 1986 it has taken two full turns to convert from mech to fighter - unless you used a house-rule concerning the FASA TRO3025 statement that Wasp LAMs "can convert faster than any other LAM" to allow them to make any conversion in only one turn)... for guys who play the way We do ... that's a serious advantage.

[FedComGirl]

ah ... I don't HAVE TRO3085 (the group that I play with is strictly pre-3050) ... I've looked over the stats of the Shadowhawk LAM pretty well though, and I have RS3085 for the rules & RS3085 Unabridged-The Cutting Edge for the recordsheets, so that line about the Stinger LAM escaped Me.   Thank you, FedCom Girl. 

You're welcome. :) I don't have the stats for the Shadow Hawk LAM :( TRO:3085 is good for fluff and stats though. And the art is really good.

  Having said that, the line of new text also doesn't necessarily preclude the old fluff that air-mech mode was a happy accident - one whose benefits were realized and deemed highly desirable some time shortly before 2688 (during the development of the Stinger LAM).

I don't remember reading anything about airmech mode being a happy accident. I can't find anything either. I think you might be bringing Macross into Battletech.

ghly desirable some time shortly before 2688 (during the development of the Stinger LAM).

Regarding the advantages of air-mech mode...they have certain CLEAR advantages over mechs, to be sure (they always have), I do wonder though, if that advantage is superceded by aerospace fighters however.  Meaning you've got mechs moving around the board at say, 4/6/0 and 5/8/5 and then some LAMs convert and they're moving around at 18/27 (wow! you go Stinger LAM!!!), the maneuverability may even be able to more than offset the tonnage disparity inferred by the movements listed (I'm not saying it will or not, the mechs aren't really the point, fighters are), but what happens when even an unequal number of up to 75T aerospace fighters enter the fray and target the LAMs?  18/27 is pretty impressive, but when air-mech mode mechs have to move before fighters who are going to strike them in the rear arc, it's not a fun day to be in a LAM.  hahaha!  Not that it's particularly a fun day to be on the ground at all for that matter.  ;)  But the point is, the advantages (and modifiers) of air-mech MP can still be trumped.  Now granted they can convert to fighter-mode too, and I personally see that as being their greatest battlefield advantage (consider for example not only their drastically improved maneuverability but also the fact that they have neither a damage threshold nor structural integrity to deal with like a standard aerospace fighter). 

The LAMs airmech speed drops off with elevation but even if it didn't the same thing would happen to an Aerospace fighter when they become outnumbered by enemy fighters. Mostly they get shot down. LAMs in airmech mode do have an advantage though. Their size. At Level 1 they can hide behind a lot more things which make targeting them more difficult. LAMs do have a Structural Integrity Ratings. They always have. They also have to deal with atmospheric rolls and threshold damage just like aerospace fighters when in fighter mode. It's in the Quick Start rules in RS:3085 Print.

  The guys I've always played with (and Myself included) tend to prefer battles/campaigns that include a variety of war machines on the board - mechs, tanks, VTOLs, fighters, infantry, LAMs, and even artillery, and it's not uncommon for all of it to be there at the same time.  I've seen the scenario I described above played out in LOTS of different ways over the last 25 years (oh god ... I'm old!  haha), and alot of times I believe that it comes down to individual playing style (and sometimes to lucky rolls).  But the idea of a bimodal mech ... where the logical conclusion to draw is that it can convert from mech to fighter in one turn (because consistently all the way back to the Aerotech boxed set in 1986 it has taken two full turns to convert from mech to fighter - unless you used a house-rule concerning the FASA TRO3025 statement that Wasp LAMs "can convert faster than any other LAM" to allow them to make any conversion in only one turn)... for guys who play the way We do ... that's a serious advantage.

I like using a mix of units two and if I had a bimodal LAM I'd use it. However, they are at a disadvantage over trimodal LAMs. Especially in an atmosphere. Converting to Battlemech Mode in the air is treated as making an atmospheric drop. There's also the problem of converting back into a fighter. An airmech can just take off, get to elevation 8 of higher and then convert. A bimodal LAM would have to convert first. Then you'd either need a runway or to take off vertically which can damage your LAM. Either way you're still on the ground while the trimodal LAM is moving away.

[GOTHIK]

Hey what page numbers are the SI and threshold rules for LAMs on?  I've looked for those multiple times.

You're right too, that there are tradeoffs to being bimodal and having to take off ... so maybe skipping that middle turn isn't as advantageous as I think it will be, but it'll be situational like everything else, I suppose.

[FedComGirl]

 
Hey what page numbers are the SI and threshold rules for LAMs on?  I've looked for those multiple times.

The latest versions? RS:3085 Print page 8, 9 and the first sentence on page 10. Basically in Fighter mode they're treated as Aerospace Fighters with differences being hit locations, critical hits, and loss of structural integrity do to center torso internal structure hits. The Damage Thresholds are listed on the record sheets under the LAMs Tech Base. The Structural Integrity is also listed in the stats in the TRO entries. The rules for SI have changed though so the ones listed in TRO:3025 are no longer correct. But that's what pencils are for :)

You're right too, that there are tradeoffs to being bimodal and having to take off ... so maybe skipping that middle turn isn't as advantageous as I think it will be, but it'll be situational like everything else, I suppose.

Yep, needing a runway does put a crimp in bimodal LAMs usefulness. I think bimodal would be best for use in zero or very low gravity or for quads LAMs and for quick assaults by first in troops, when the dropships are coming in behind them.

[ColBosch]

You're right too, that there are tradeoffs to being bimodal and having to take off ... so maybe skipping that middle turn isn't as advantageous as I think it will be, but it'll be situational like everything else, I suppose.

It weighs more and cuts out the AirMech mode. I'm not sure why you'd think it'd have any advantages.

[mbear]

sarna.net has it with a 180
i'd guess the person who entered the info into the wiki got it wrong..

Fixed now.

[GOTHIK]

It weighs more and cuts out the AirMech mode. I'm not sure why you'd think it'd have any advantages.

Please read the developers commentary earlier in this thread .... the reason it weighs more for the Shadowhawk is because it was prototype/experimental tech.

[Kit deSummersville]

Please read the developers commentary earlier in this thread .... the reason it weighs more for the Shadowhawk is because it was prototype/experimental tech.

Tell us more about the new LAM construction rules.

[GOTHIK]

The latest versions? RS:3085 Print page 8, 9 and the first sentence on page 10. Basically in Fighter mode they're treated as Aerospace Fighters with differences being hit locations, critical hits, and loss of structural integrity do to center torso internal structure hits. The Damage Thresholds are listed on the record sheets under the LAMs Tech Base. The Structural Integrity is also listed in the stats in the TRO entries.

I have to apologize ... a friend of Mine was here saying, "yeah, and there's no SI on this sheet or in the book." at that exact moment, I forgot that it's down by engine/gyro/sensor etc. hits.

But for damage threshold ... I reviewed the pages you noted, and I've looked over the sheets in both RS3085 and RS3085 Unabridged-The Cutting Edge and I don't see that listed under the tech base on any of the LAM record sheets.