Discussion Sidequest: LAMs

[ColBosch]

Know what cracks me up?  When the Aerospace Cabal was working on the LAM rules that eventually ended up in the RS 3085 book, the first thing we did with our new construction rules was make sure we could recreate the canon LAMs with them.  After that, we threw out a few conjectural ones.  Mine actually was an UrbanMech LAM, which Joel B-C told me to hang onto because he liked it enough to try to get it included (which obviously didn’t happen).  It also scares me how many years it’s been since we worked on that project.

I found a bunch of my old emails, and yeah, it's been a hot minute. What amuses me is that it was the height of "the devs hate WarShips" sentiment, while an entire team was quietly working behind the scenes on all things aerospace.

[Luciora]

Thanks for all the additional information about the back history of LAMs in Battletech!

[Scotty]

Agreed, that's interesting stuff.

I do think LAMs can afford to be better than they used to be - the limiters feel like they've come off a bit on designs recently and it's exciting.  If AirMech mode doesn't exist, a pox upon it, then in both Mech and ASF mode I think it's fine that a well designed LAM is better than a badly designed mech or fighter, as long as a well designed mech or fighter is better than the best designed LAM.

[glitterboy2098]

even with the limits on the structural stuff, you can do some interesting things with them. they just all have trade offs. small cockpits, composite structure, IJJ's.. combined with how potent that newer weapons can be (especially when combined with DHS to deal with heat) and the options for bomb bays and internal fuel tanks, and there are a lot of options. though i think that most of the canon ones tend to skew too much toward combat and don't really play around with roles that LAM's would be ideally suited for. with their mobility, fitting LAM's out with Recon Cameras, deployable sensor dispensers, and comms gear could create a spectacular forward scouting unit, for example. and while those tend to be overlooked by players due to the combat centric nature of the game, they could still be interesting fodder for scenarios or to take as a supplemental unit within a larger force to gain useful abilities. and that sort of loadout is something the SLDF could do, no need for post-clan tech.

[Wrangler]

I really don't understand why people still worry about LAMs.  Outside using MegaMek (which thank god has all rules plugged into it.)  Their highly complicated to use since you got operated out of 3 rules books on table top.

Mech & Air Mech Modes
Total Warfare - Mech based Movement, Aerospace Fighter Rules
Interstellar Ops - LAM rules - 106 - Points other books 
Tac Ops 1st Ed - 1 Table - Turn Modes (pg 2) Move Radius - (Pg26) Fail Piloting Rule/turn -0
Strategic Ops - High Altitude (Fighter Mode)

Tac Ops and Interstellar Operations, most of the rules are in Interstellar,
Tac Ops mostly contains info related to Hybrid Modes WIGE Movement and of course Total Warfare

Tac Ops it mostly just needing the turning Radius optional Rule, which is not Optional for LAMs
The Rule itself is optional for things other than LAMs, but Lams have to use it is all.

Having UrbanMech LAM or any other one, won't be like the ye olde days. Where rules were untested, maybe sometimes someone miss using the rules.

[tassa_kay]

I think it's fine that a well designed LAM is better than a badly designed mech or fighter, as long as a well designed mech or fighter is better than the best designed LAM.

This is a very fair mindset for LAMs, and I'd love for this to be a guideline for them going forward, if it meant actually getting to see more of them. Now that we're entering a new era in the current timeline, it feels like the right time to be able to do things like this.

[Retry]

Compared to a Battlemech, you lose the opportunity to make it a quad or a tripod, you can't make it a heavy or assault 'mech, you can't make an omni, you lose many of your alternative structure options (though composite is still useful; Reinforced is too heavy to be practical on a LAM though), advanced engine options are out (Compact doesn't count), advanced gyro options are out (Compact's actually good in general here, but there's not enough weight to go around), advanced cockpit options are out besides smalls, advanced armors are out.  Weapon-wise, the no-split rules doesn't really matter since with all the restrictions there's not enough weight and so many crits that there's never any situation you'd need to do so, so in practice it just means you can't mount Arrow IVs or Thumpers on your LAMs.

Compared to an ASF, the 'Mech pays an extra 10% weight for conversion gear, another 10% for internal structure (5% with composite), a flat 2-3 tons for the gyro, a flat 0.5 tons per thrust point via jump jet (1 ton with IJJs), loses all of the free hardpoints an ASF enjoys, and loses 2 safe thrust points compared to an equivalent ASF at same weight and engine rating.  Other than LAM-specific features like AirMech mode, the one boon LAMs get is a ton of fuel that is effectively free, but that weight doesn't offset any one of these features.

There's a lot of restrictions.  Some of them seem like they have a balance dimensions (though for some of them I disagree on them), but quite a few of them don't.  I don't think a LAM quad or tripod would be particularly good, but how does restricting them from the LAM classification balance them?  Ditto heavies/assaults.  The Champion and Scorpion LAMs appear to exist solely to show that they never work, but why they need to never work isn't clear.  Feels like a restriction for the sake of itself.

I think it's fine that a well designed LAM is better than a badly designed mech or fighter, as long as a well designed mech or fighter is better than the best designed LAM.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

[Nerroth]

I don't think a LAM quad or tripod would be particularly good, but how does restricting them from the LAM classification balance them?  Ditto heavies/assaults.  The Champion and Scorpion LAMs appear to exist solely to show that they never work, but why they need to never work isn't clear.  Feels like a restriction for the sake of itself.

Now I'm wondering what would happen if someone tried to create a quadruped that was both a LAM and a QuadVee. Would one have to set aside 20% of its weight to cover both sets of conversion equipment, then?

Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps the tracks/wheels would could be used both in ground vehicle mode (for driving on the surface) and in aerospace mode (in order to take off and land on a runway)...

-----

By the way, how much of a difference (if at all) is there to the use of LAMs and QuadVees over in Alpha Strike, as opposed to Total Warfare?

Rules-wise, at least, both unit types are covered in Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition. But in terms of their actual use on the tabletop, do the AS rules help or hinder either type in any appreciable way?

[ColBosch]

Canonically, there are no successful quad or 60+ ton LAMs because nobody bothered doing more than the most-cursory development of them. If you want to ignore the 55-ton limit, have at it.

[I am Belch II]

LAM's would make very good scouting and recon units. Can cover lots of ground fast, put a active probe and see what you can find

[Scotty]

Canonically, there are no successful quad or 60+ ton LAMs because nobody bothered doing more than the most-cursory development of them. If you want to ignore the 55-ton limit, have at it.

This is incidentally also the reason Silver Bullet Gauss can't switch ammo types, and it's very nearly as unsatisfying there as it is here.

[RifleMech]

Urbie QuadVees? I like it!   

The 10% (15% for BiModal) for conversion system doesn't help any LAM but I felt it was a fair trade off for their mobility. Adding in Avionics and Landing Gear stacks the trade against LAMs a little as they take up 6 critical slots but I think it's still an acceptable trade off. The rest of LAM's construction restrictions (No XLE, FF, ES etc.) used to make sense until the introduction of QuadVees. Now the restrictions don't make as much sense and some feel like pure nerfing.  I hope the needless restrictions get reversed. I'm also hoping the lack of tech restrictions for QuadVees will open the door for more advanced LAMs with fewer tech restrictions. I don't think we need to go all the way back to zero restrictions but it would be nice if there were fewer.

I like those write ups in TRO:3085 and I hope the UrbanMech LAM gets published.

It would be nice to see more LAMs that weren't designed to slug it out. LAMs are good in other rolls. Why not have LAMs for them? I liked the Mk1 Wasp LAM being a bomber until the bomb bays were nerfed. And I can totally see a LAM with the equipment you mentioned. LAMs are already good scouts. Why not use that equipment to make them better?

XTRO: Boondoggles did give reasons why the Champion and Scorpion LAMs didn't work but I don't think those reasons need to apply to the entire class. I also don't see why other techs couldn't get them to work eventually. I wouldn't mind there being Quad LAMs, Heavy and Assault LAMs or even Tripod LAMs. They wouldn't have to be TriModal either. It would be nice if the Thorizer came back too. 

A flying QuadVee would be fun. 

[glitterboy2098]

How were bomb bays 'nerfed'?

[Prospernia]

One basic design-flaw with LAMs I've noticed in 3025 is, "Where's the fuel"? 

Going to say this: I have never used Aerospace mode in combat on LAMs...In fact, I have rarely used 'Mech mode on LAMs...Once they get to the battlefield, it is AirMech mode the whole time. This is because I use them as fast raiders and harrassment units, not sluggers.

Aerospace mode is no joke especially with 100-point bombs; a direct hit from a dive-bombing LAM in Aerospace-mode is no laughing matter; wait, it is if you get a head-hit!  I've literally destroyed Clan assault-stars using LAMs.

I've used LAMs as ambush-mechs using this map (upper right corner (it's a webp)): just stay in cover until you win initiative.

https://www.picclickimg.com/oN8AAOSwwC5kx5Ej/Battletech-Maps-Pack-1991-X-8-Fasa-Corporation.webp

I think AirMechs get a lot of flak (pun intended) in part because they were originally anime inspired. Because anime has a different feel people say LAMs don't fit in with BattleTech and that they're too anime-y. That attitude rarely seems to apply to other anime mechs though even though all the original BattleDroids were inspired by Anime. So it's a bit weird, and while BattleMechs are capable of a wide variety of movement types, I think the lore does a good job of making the universe it's own thing.
. . .

I was going to say, "Um", Dougram and Macross, but yeah; Battletech is based off of Anime: well, based off of '70's & '80's.

[Retry]

Canonically, there are no successful quad or 60+ ton LAMs because nobody bothered doing more than the most-cursory development of them. If you want to ignore the 55-ton limit, have at it.

I recall 60+ ton LAMs and non-bipedal LAMs both being called out as explicitly illegal with the current LAM construction rules.  Am I incorrect?

Aerospace mode is no joke especially with 100-point bombs; a direct hit from a dive-bombing LAM in Aerospace-mode is no laughing matter; wait, it is if you get a head-hit!  I've literally destroyed Clan assault-stars using LAMs.

100-point bombs?  Where are you getting those?  Base HE bombs is 10 points per, clusters 5 points in a larger area.  FABs don't get you there either; largest I think gets you to 100.

[Sartris]

60+ ton lams have been strictly illegal from a rules perspective since BT Compendium (1990). i did enjoy the Champion LAM in boondoggles. i like that those kinds of products exist so some genuine batshit envelope-pushing has a place in the (relative) canon.

[paladin2019]

One basic design-flaw with LAMs I've noticed in 3025 is, "Where's the fuel"? 

It hasn't been invented yet.

Fuel wasn't a thing for LAMs until BTM:ROW. Seriously, they don't even have fuel points in AeroTech, however that works 

[glitterboy2098]

one of the reasons that the current rules give them free fuel points. works out to about half a ton's worth. not much, but they only use it when in fighter mode (or in orbit in general) so is enough for getting to and from a planet to orbit, with a little for atmospheric fight across long distances. so long as they avoid any dogfighting along the way.

[RifleMech]

How were bomb bays 'nerfed'?

The way the original Bomb Bay rules could be read that 1 ton bombs took 1 critical slot and 2 ton bombs took 2 slots. Now bombs take up as many critical slots as they do bomb slots.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2708.msg66979#msg66979

So a 5 slot bomb takes up 5 critical slots. That's 5 tons of bomb bay for a 1 ton bomb. That's a big nerf.

I recall 60+ ton LAMs and non-bipedal LAMs both being called out as explicitly illegal with the current LAM construction rules.  Am I incorrect?
100-point bombs?  Where are you getting those?  Base HE bombs is 10 points per, clusters 5 points in a larger area.  FABs don't get you there either; largest I think gets you to 100.

The Champion Heavy LAM and Scorpion Quad LAM are in XTRO: Boondoggles. So you can build them but they get the Illegal Quirk.

Bombs in Aerotech 1 came in ratings from 10 to 100 points. The bigger the rating the slower they made the fighter but the bigger boom made up for slower speeds.

60+ ton lams have been strictly illegal from a rules perspective since BT Compendium (1990). i did enjoy the Champion LAM in boondoggles. i like that those kinds of products exist so some genuine batshit envelope-pushing has a place in the (relative) canon.

Me too. :)

It hasn't been invented yet.

Fuel wasn't a thing for LAMs until BTM:ROW. Seriously, they don't even have fuel points in AeroTech, however that works 

Maybe it was because fights didn't last as long in AT1 because armor was thinner as it had to cover more locations.
 

[ColBosch]

The way the original Bomb Bay rules could be read that 1 ton bombs took 1 critical slot and 2 ton bombs took 2 slots. Now bombs take up as many critical slots as they do bomb slots.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2708.msg66979#msg66979

So a 5 slot bomb takes up 5 critical slots. That's 5 tons of bomb bay for a 1 ton bomb. That's a big nerf.

That's not a nerf, it was clarifying a rule that people were misinterpreting. The entire reason the Wasp Mk. I has a five-ton bomb bay is to allow it to carry a single Arrow IV AGM...which, by the way, makes it the lightest 'Mech capable of making a nuclear attack.

[thedancingjoker]

I'm not a fan of transforming mecha on an asthetic level but oh man would I get behind a single-form Clan Snow Raven Airmech.  It would fit well with the Ravens bluring the lines of clan society and their focus on Aerospace.  I like this idea a lot actually.

[Maingunnery]

That's not a nerf, it was clarifying a rule that people were misinterpreting. The entire reason the Wasp Mk. I has a five-ton bomb bay is to allow it to carry a single Arrow IV AGM...which, by the way, makes it the lightest 'Mech capable of making a nuclear attack.

Most people do not use nuclear attacks, so from that perspective it is like paying 5 tons for a single arrow attack, which does feel like a bad deal.

[paladin2019]

Maybe it was because fights didn't last as long in AT1 because armor was thinner as it had to cover more locations.

I mean, fuel points are a thing in AeroTech, just not for LAMs. It took BTM to give them 30.

[LAMFAN]

I don't hate the concept inherently of multi-role machines but the concept of AirMech mode needs to be taken out back and shot, both for the health of a tactical engagement that has a LAM in it and so each half of a LAM can be less worse than a normal unit of that type without its intermediate stage being more than the sum of its parts.

You take out the Air-Mech mode you take out a fundamental reason us LAM lovers even enjoy the LAM. Hell, we'd take an Air-Mech ONLY mode (one I've recently designed myself actually) before we let that happen.

I've never agreed with the "LAMs don't fit Battletech" argument. LAMs fit. The reason for their creation makes sense and is as valid as wanting Fighters to have VTOL and tanks to hover. If those things fit so do LAMs. That doesn't mean all mechs have to be LAMs but they do fit. For those that don't like LAMs, don't say they don't fit. Just don't use them. That simple.

As usual, you are on point my friend.

I must admit, I’m always more than a little fascinated by the depth and breadth of LAM opinions. As a mod, these threads are often a little touch-and-go because so many people have so many very passionate opinions (which is great until people start arguing…), but as a fan of the game, it’s pretty fun to see what other people would add if given the magic dev wand.

For my two cents, while I am passionately opposed to the idea of the classic, triple-changer LAM, I’m 100% down with airmech mode as a standalone entity. That makes perfect sense, IMO. Even before the Falcons started putting partial wings on every flat surface, a mech that moves like a VTOL has a metric ton of obvious potential. That’s almost exactly how I would rewrite the rules, too. It can fight on (or maybe just near?) the ground like a mech, but move around the board like a traditional VTOL.

The scenarios practically write themselves, at that point. Airmech commandos strike the undefended side of an island facility while the main force is distracted by a mass of troops, or they land on the skin of a warship during an in-system burn, or they harass supply lines while waiting on off-planet support.

I can absolutely get behind all of that and it plays right into the hands of the traditional “mechs are king of the battlefield” line. Just keep it in one shape. It doesn’t have to be a Veritech to add value to the game.

.....I think this is the absolute PERFECT opportunity to shill my Air-Slip mech concept to you then! It's a pet project to at least bring the spirit of the LAM and its Air-Mech mode into the setting more.

Honestly, if we only got an Air-Mech-Only variant, that would be enough for me in the future in terms of bringing LAMs back. But take a gander and see what you think:
Air-Slip Mechs
Logan's Longshots

I find that to be the case for most of IWM's miniatures.  The Phoenix Era ones were especially bad.  That said, I've only built one IWM LAM mini, the Shadow Hawk LAM, and I don't recall the 'Mech mode being quite as awful to put together.

Which reminds me...quite often it seems like the biggest objection to LAMs is AirMech mode.  Personally, I thought that got pretty reasonably tamed by switching them to WiGE movement, and seriously constrained by the need to use turn modes, but AirMechs seem to still be controversial on a conceptional level.

So...what if there wasn't an AirMech mode?  Make all LAMs bimodal, fix the conversion gear at 10% of mass so the old LAM designs are still legal (though, oh no, you'd need to figure out what to do with the extra mass on the SHD LAMs, or just make it "Prototype LAM Conversion" or something).  Let LAMs get the equivalent of the extra jump MP in 'Mech mode that partial wings would give them, and otherwise keep the rules basically the same?

I dislike this on a personal level because I adore Air-Mech mode, at least astheticall, if you made some improvements to the ASF mode like more free extra fuel and give them the base +2 Thrust MP like they should get, then you'd have a good compromise idea here. Otherwise, for AirMech mode, you at LEAST need to make Turn-Modes optional. Sideslip and Turn-Modes all at once? You should only have to choose between the two, not endure both.

they can't hit the broad side of a barn in airmech mode though, not with the penalty to hit they have in that. at least under current rules.

Yeah, another change necessary would be reducing it to +2/+3 in Air Mech mode or +1/+2, since they still have risks of crashing if not planned out properly.

** Jokes are not funnier the more they're told.

This is factually wrong, Clanner/Capellan/StienerScoutLance jokes never get old. Thats the beauty of a hobby; the memes are eternal and when you love something, they never tire out.

Urbie QuadVees? I like it!   

The 10% (15% for BiModal) for conversion system doesn't help any LAM but I felt it was a fair trade off for their mobility. Adding in Avionics and Landing Gear stacks the trade against LAMs a little as they take up 6 critical slots but I think it's still an acceptable trade off. The rest of LAM's construction restrictions (No XLE, FF, ES etc.) used to make sense until the introduction of QuadVees. Now the restrictions don't make as much sense and some feel like pure nerfing.  I hope the needless restrictions get reversed. I'm also hoping the lack of tech restrictions for QuadVees will open the door for more advanced LAMs with fewer tech restrictions. I don't think we need to go all the way back to zero restrictions but it would be nice if there were fewer.

Either fewer restrictions (XLE, FF, ES, etc) or more enhancements (More than 1ton free fuel, +2 thrust to ASF mode, simplify/remove critical hit tables for transformation, make turn modes/side slip optional, reduce the targeting penalty for Air-Mech movement (not +3/+4) etc). If you made these changes, the 10% of the mechs weight becomes that much less of an issue and balances it out better.

[tassa_kay]

This is factually wrong, Clanner/Capellan/StienerScoutLance jokes never get old. Thats the beauty of a hobby; the memes are eternal and when you love something, they never tire out.

I've loved the BattleTech universe for most of my life and those jokes have absolutely gotten old and stale to me. Humor is subjective.

[LAMFAN]

I've loved the BattleTech universe for most of my life and those jokes have absolutely gotten old and stale to me. Humor is subjective.

A Clanner WOULD say that...

[tassa_kay]

A Clanner WOULD say that...

Not a Clanner, just a guy who likes his jokes to be a little fresher than three decades old.

[Giovanni Blasini]

You take out the Air-Mech mode you take out a fundamental reason us LAM lovers even enjoy the LAM. Hell, we'd take an Air-Mech ONLY mode (one I've recently designed myself actually) before we let that happen.

There's plenty of the LAM fan-base who would be fine with them outside of AirMech mode, and there's probably a whole lot more players who would be happy if that mode were to go away, despite the restrictions and "nerfs" placed on it under current rules.  That said, I do wish that they'd included my original idea to have LAMs in BattleMech mode gain the jump MPs from a partial wing, and not just the cooling bonuses.

Honestly, if we only got an Air-Mech-Only variant, that would be enough for me in the future in terms of bringing LAMs back.

AirMech-only modes defeat the whole purpose of a LAM, which a 'Mech that can function as an aerospace fighter and self-deploy from space.

I dislike this on a personal level because I adore Air-Mech mode, at least astheticall, if you made some improvements to the ASF mode like more free extra fuel and give them the base +2 Thrust MP like they should get, then you'd have a good compromise idea here.

LAMs already got multiple bumps in Fighter mode under the current rules, compared to their old rules.  First, LAM thrust is based on the number of jump jets you have, not your engine rating, like it was in the old system.  Combined with allowing improved jump jets, and you can get some interesting combinations: just look at the Waneta, which, thanks to its improved jump jets, is a 6/9 55-ton aerospace fighter, putting it on par with a Corsair ASF, but more durable, especially when you consider the structural integrity differences.

LAMs also got a boost in terms of fixed fuel, carrying a full ton of fuel as standard, continuing to be able to mount more internal fuel as a design option, and gaining the ability to carry drop tanks in the bomb bays that were also added as a design option.

Otherwise, for AirMech mode, you at LEAST need to make Turn-Modes optional. Sideslip and Turn-Modes all at once? You should only have to choose between the two, not endure both.


Yeah, another change necessary would be reducing it to +2/+3 in Air Mech mode or +1/+2, since they still have risks of crashing if not planned out properly.

Confession time: I'm probably the person who can be "blamed" for making AirMechs use WiGE movement.  When the team was first trying to figure out how the heck to make AirMechs not overpowered, and how they should move, I threw out the idea of WiGE movement, since it's more restrictive than jump/VTOL, and would also fulfill a line in Total Warfare that other unit types might use WiGE movement in the future (I'd assumed they were already thinking of LAMs then).  Since I suspect others were on the same page, and I was just the first to say it, it got readily adopted.

I can understand where you come from on both turn modes and side slips.  Making turn modes mandatory was added between the LAM Preview rules and Interstellar Operations final.  That, to-hit modifiers, were hot topics in Interstellar Operations Beta here on the board, the source of many, many arguments.  I'll note that, for a while during the Beta, it was worse, and note that the current system is probably the best compromise that could be come up with.

Either fewer restrictions (XLE, FF, ES, etc) or more enhancements (More than 1ton free fuel, +2 thrust to ASF mode, simplify/remove critical hit tables for transformation, make turn modes/side slip optional, reduce the targeting penalty for Air-Mech movement (not +3/+4) etc). If you made these changes, the 10% of the mechs weight becomes that much less of an issue and balances it out better.

The only way you're ever going to get more than a ton of fuel free is if you increase the weight of the conversion gear.  Likewise, +2 thrust to fighter mode isn't going to happen either, as LAM thrust in fighter mode is now tied to their jump jets, not their engine.  As for AirMech movement penalties, like I said, for a while they were worse, so I wouldn't count on that changing.

[ColBosch]

Confession time: I'm probably the person who can be "blamed" for making AirMechs use WiGE movement.  When the team was first trying to figure out how the heck to make AirMechs not overpowered, and how they should move, I threw out the idea of WiGE movement, since it's more restrictive than jump/VTOL, and would also fulfill a line in Total Warfare that other unit types might use WiGE movement in the future (I'd assumed they were already thinking of LAMs then).  Since I suspect others were on the same page, and I was just the first to say it, it got readily adopted.

Yeah, I don't think we had a serious debate about it. When you (and I am pretty sure it was you) suggested WiGE movement, it just felt right.

[Maingunnery]

The WIGE movement and to-hit penalty did give the AirMech mode a clear role, one of maneuvering, which was definitely a good thing.