A couple of the new Battletech players at my local store found about LAMs recently and asked me about them. As a kid playing Battletech I fell into the "oh cool they're Veritechs!" trap. We played 1 game with them and swore we'd never use them again. I jump 15 hexes, and you can't shoot me. I fire 1 medium laser. Repeat "LAMs are a great way to turn a nice fun game of Battletech into getting punched in the face" You nailed it, they are an artifact from the early anime inspired days of Btech. They don't have a place in modern Battletech and I'm glad they were effectively retcon'd out.
Fun fact, LAM's count as Aircraft while using WIGE movement meaning not only do you get the +1 from Cluster LBX but also the +2 from Flak Attacks as well, still a slog but far from invincible, much like Stealth Armor VTOLs, or Dug-In Camo/IR Field Gun Squads, specific tools for exceptionally specialized units.
Since almost no one runs with 4/5 pilots anymore, and 2/3 is very common, LAMs aren't that big a deal anymore. The problem was that, canonically, 4/5 was the standard for Inner Sphere pilots and 3/4 was the standard for Clan pilots. This turned games into a slog. Most people don't want a 2v2 to take 2 days, so they bump the pilots up to at 2/3 or at least 3/4. I've killed a few LAMs in my time; had a friend who used to love them. Between modern weapons, piloting skills, and simply everyone focus-firing the damn things, they wound up not being that scary anymore. He sent one through my formation, and promptly lost it; Gauss Rifle needed a 12 to hit, and I rolled a 12. Went through the left rear torso, destroying it and taking the wing off. It then proceeded to crash into the back of my Madcat and kill it. The rest of his LAMs never got close enough to worry me after that. The previous game, my Madcat (represented by the same mini) had met an equally-random fate. It was being dive-bombed by a 95-ton aerospace fighter. My Turkina returned fire. Two critical hits, control surfaces. It did not pull out of its dive. It slammed into the Madcat at full power, and the fighter Stackpoled (we applied the full center torso rule to the fighter since, obviously). We both had a good laugh about that. We just wrote them off, knowing they were both dead, and started rolling damage from the explosion to surrounding mechs. After two games in a row where that mini died from something randomly falling out of the sky onto it, I decided to retire it.
I have the first set of rules. If you use them as bombers that is a perfect time to nail them. The old rules allow you to hit with a -4 to hit for being the target. If you are using them as staffing fighter you could hit again with -4. Been awhile since I looked at the older Aerotech rules. 1985 ones.
Going back to my childhood, Robotech was formative(English isn't my first language, and I can be said to have learned English trying to figure out Rick and Lisa), but by the time Battletech came around, even when faced with the RFL-3N, I knew it wasn't a Destroid Defender... I totally support you in saying: these two things are better when appreciated apart, not everything is better "blended together", etc...
From a world-building perspective, I like LAMs because they are a great example of Star League technological spectacle, as well as a in-universe example of story-telling deconstruction of the idea that any and all 'LosTech' is actually practical. Plus I simply like Battletech having the option for these things to be made and exist, even if it is only an opportunity for an Industrialists and wannabe LAM Pilots to perform epic (and fatal) examples of being 'Leeroy Jenkins'. Plus, it is also great world-building for people to want the things as art pieces /+/ playthings as well...
I agree with this. I left a comment noting that the 25 ton (or 20 ton with less hardware) F-35C can transform from VTOL mode to full standard fighter jet mode in a short amount of time and is armed with comprable weaponry to a Stinger or other light mechs from BT, and it exists today. It would take very little technological development to allow an arrogant, spectacle-oriented entity like the Star League to make LAMS.
hey for the peaole that wat to stop lam chesse just use tag and semi gided lrm ammo that when fired agest taged targets ingores all target modfiers movment and tereain peltalys and wacth thsoe lams fall out of the sky.
For world building it is great to remind people that a mech is not the only battlefield unit available. Sure pretty much any ASF of the same weight can outfight a LAM but that isn't the point. Like the array of machineguns or small lasers found on mechs that we can use for crit seeking, but that isn't really the point of those anti infantry weapons.
@@Real_Iron_Smith What a crappy comparison. F-35 is designed purely as an aircraft. STOVL and VTOL are simply options for the F-35 B to get airborne, options I might add that come with costs, such as reduced weapons and fuel load. F-35 was NEVER designed as a ground combat vehicle. It would take a fecking HUGE amount of technological development to make a vehicle able to operate both as an aircraft and a ground vehicle because many of the basic principles are literally incompatible. Even if you succeeded, which is doubtful the vehicle would be horrifically complex, inefficient, expensive and frankly not worth the time and effort. LAM's only make sense if you decide to accept that hey, these fictional people are all fecking morons who do not know how basic physics works. They add nothing to world building beyond a certain cool factor, because even I will admit some of them do look cool.
@@alganhar1 > these fictional people are all fecking morons who do not know how basic physics works. I mean, they already have some of the most BS engine tech in all of scifi. And mechs, which are frankly kinda silly if you put much thought into it... so transforming mechs that fly (or even just tuck their arms in... don't really need to go the full Macross transformation) isn't that much more of a stretch, especially given how the lore insists upon itself how wars are fought.
catalest games has a way to do that but mega mek can do that for you so you can laern how the rules form them work. just google mega mek and have fun with it.
I never really took a close look at LAMs because as you mentioned, I'd heard they weren't very good. Kinda funny that using them to their full effectiveness essentially requires that the pilot have the piloting skills of an anime protagonist though. Maybe LAMs have a place in the California Nebula lol.
Meanwhile me: Prefers the old lore that described battlemechs as nimble beasts that could have the articulation to safely pick up a person and brand them with a hot ppc barrel without killing them (thanks early novels and house kurita) Edit: Still going to like though.
It could certainly vary, depending on type of mech, pilot skill, neuro helmet compatibility, maintenance, and quality of replacement parts. Like a JLG product (forklift, scissor lift, MEWP) is going to be more finnicky then something from Genie or the sort.
I've never liked the Rock'em Sock'em animation style in the games. Even if it's a purely practical/technical consideration it's never looked right in motion. It's always been my head canon that mech's movement is based on their pilot's sense of balance and varies from pilot to pilot. Except for Atlases, they always do the chad walk like BT from Titanfall, stomp stomp stomp.
I've said before how much I enjoy LAMs, so I won't stress that point. I think LAMs are in a good place in the setting. They're like bouillon. There's just a little bit here and there for flavor and in fact, we shouldn't be adding much more as it is. Because as we know, too much bouillon just makes things salty. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm hungry and I've just decided to name my Shadowhawk SHD-2X "Bouillon".
You brought up starscream in the end. Which I found funny because all throughout the video, I was thinking "people just wanna be starscream from the Bay movies". Also, playing a control deck in a ttcg?! You absolute monster! Let me just flood the board with bears you meany!
I still love LAMs - they are the epitome of what Star League was, and loved the aesthetic :) I had experience with Battletech before Macross / Robotech, so it never felt weird to me. LAMs have had issues with rules with the pendulum swinging both ways over time, but I think there is a way to find a happy medium and do hope to see a resurgence of them when the new Aerotech (eventually) comes out. Long live the LAM !!!
Honestly, the best and simplest fix to stop the brokenness would just be to change MP in Airmech mode to 2x instead of 3x. In ASF mode they already get chewed up by actual ASF, in Mech mode they suck compared to normal mechs, in Airmech mode they... match or outspeed VTOLs and WiGE, while still having Mech durability rather than speedster fragility. Make them slower than these and at the same time cut the TMM due to reduced speed, and the Airmech now gets threatened by them. (I've always found conventional fighters, Flak, Hovercraft and VTOLs a significant threat to a LAM even under rules as written, admittedly only due to relative costs/numbers) Terrain avoidance also becomes harder due to reduced MP making climbing and hovering much more costly. Still does nothing for the complexity problem/number of books, or the problem of it never being worth using mech mode. ASF mode remains useful for arrival, and in theory for strafing/strike attacks once there are no opposing Aero units (but, honestly, if you have complete air superiority, you have already won)
I find LAMs interesting, and I'm okay with them being more of an older tech that ended up hitting a deadend due to tech constraints and falling out of production.
In the current battletech lore, what if' LAMs were transformed only on the ground. Realism and practical. No quick transformation mid jump-to-flight. Idk just my 2 cents
And maintenance. Can you imagine having to troubleshoot those bastards? They'd wind up being like the Panther, an interesting design in theory that was in a work bay most of the time.
@@miasma19 My thinking would be more VTOLs with legs. That is they would be able to walk and do pop up attacks like a heli. But, they wouldn't be able to fly long distances at high speed or hold positions on their own because they would be too lightly armored. They would be more like lite air cushion AFVs designed to hover on the flanks and attack supply dumps. There to harass not overwhelm. That would make game balancing issues better.
Bimodal LAM were a good opportunity for variant rules, sadly wasted. No Airmech mode, but able to operate without needing a Dropship to land, swapping out the Airmech mode for lighter conversion gear would let the Bi LAM perform better as a Mech or LAM without being broken.
Robotech was my gateway drug to Battletech way back in 1989, and I've never looked back. Their tactical flexibility would make LAMs the apex predator of the setting, even with all their handicaps in the rules...but absolutely agree with you that they suck the fun out of the game. Although that didn't stop me from ordering an Urbie LAM, which may or may not get painted up like Skull 1.
Clearly we need to go back to when it was "Battledroids". Wait, no, that's even worse. Early Battletech literally try to exist without legal troubles challenge level: impossible. It really is a miracle Battletech survived the 80s.
80's Battletech really didn't have many problems with HG. HG considered BT to be a niche Table Top game without the mass appeal that they had. When FASA branched out into video games, and they became popular, that's when HG felt threatened, and the Lawsuits started.
@@gregdomenico1891 That isn't true. When FASA sued Playmates in 1994/95 over the "heavy assault e-frame" that was based on the madcat/timberwolf Harmony Gold was brought in as a material witness and it was revealed that HG had been sending cease and desist letters since pretty much 1984 that FASA had completely ignored confident in their assumption that Twentieth Century Imports had given them exclusive rights to the Macross designs. When pressed on this FASA was unable to provide any evidence the TCI deal was legitimate which it never was to begin with then tried to claim HG had abandoned the Macross property which also had no basis in reality. Long story short FASA screwed itself when it trusted TCI, a company whose only operations consisted of buying unsold backlogs of old model kits from warehouses in Japan then reselling them to specialty shops in the US.
@@gregdomenico1891 Of course there WAS a reason they had to change the name from Battledroids if you recall.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@gregdomenico1891 Especially when Robotech died off and the attempted 2000's reboot failed miserably, tends to happen when you just rehash the same BS over and over again. It was ALWAYS "Oh joy another Robotech show, let me guess the last aliens get beaten, new ones show up immediately to be a new enemy, then they get beaten and another alien group show up...." rinse and repeat to absolute lameness and stupidity. Maybe if they spent less on suing people and actually spent it on hiring decent writers they might not of needed to feel threatened.
Its what you get when your lawsuits are financed by Sony. HG and Sony are two of the worst companies regarding copyright to ever play the game. Just ridiculously litigious as a strategy of destroying competition.
I love Macross and Robotech, and with all due respect to Battletech, but when I want to play a game in this style, I"ll play a game that focuses on anime style units, like Mekton Zeta.
Mekton Zeta is the way to go for proper mecha anime fun! 👌 Not that it stopped a couple of us from trying to adapt TRO 3025 via Mekton II rules back in the day. 😅
Gonna have to disagree on them not fitting the setting. The ones that fully transform are a bit silly, but all the standard LAMs aren't mechs with wings, they're VTOL jets that can walk.
LAM Airmech rules used to be cool, VTOL Movement, 3x Jumping. The Defense to it is an ASF, LAM, or Flak Artillery. So to balance the game your opponent would need one of those.
Any ground based unit is at a huge disadvantage against LAMS and Aerospace. The rules for both are just broken and nothing in the last 30 years has really addressed this.
Right, but rare units in BT. LAM and aero are battalion or regiment level assets, which would also have respective counters, whereas BT is more commonly fought on the lance or company level, which would not have the appropriate counters.
I hate the new rules. Just made it harder. The old rules told you range and what was needed to hit if the fighter was going for a strafing run. Also what a mech outside needed. It also taught the importance in having your own air cover
Oh god I thought you were going to play the full song at the end! The horror that caused, and the relief when you didn’t. Good video summarising the issues.
Guilty. Back when I played my Recon lance was 2 Wasp LAM's, a Stinger LAM, and a Phoenix Hawk LAM was lance leader and fire support. The lights carried C3i and Beagle Active Probe. The PHawk was the master. I only used them for the sole purpose of scouting. I exclusively ran them in GERWALK mode.
My favorite game was escorting my younger brother up the hill in a king of the hill grand melee, to get him in a LAM. We were the youngest players and no one took us seriously until it was way too late. While I started my last turn with no armor and no criticals; my brother went on to take out several damaged units before succumbing to cross-fire.
Way back in the 80s, I beg my father to buy the BattleTech box set.I thought it was a RoboTech game.I was not happy when I found out it wasn't but I read the rules and I especially read over and over the border of the rule book and all that cool history and I loved it when I got AroTech I read the rules that had for the lambs and realized they did not need to exist in the game.They were garbage and I still feel much the same today but if I was living in that world, I would definitely want the land air Mac just simply for the halfway mode to use against my enemies.But on the table top I would never want to face that or put that on the table To use against an opponent
I like LAMs but I agree their rules are bad. I have young cousins who I teach to play Battletech (with simplified rules) and we use houseruled LAMs because it is cool for them to have mech that can become airplane.
It's not the LAM, but the rules. I loved BattleTech, wrote for FASA, but the one thing that the game suffers from is rules bloat across the whole setting.
Their recent Universe lore compendium highlights how badly they need a similar rules compendium. Get everything-and I mean everything, every variant, every weapon, every vehicle, every optional advanced rule-in one book, make any needed updates, and put it out there. They can draw a bright line saying “this is everything as of today” and continue on releasing new stuff as they wish. But it’s been long enough, it needs to be gathered up into one place as a new foundation. It can retain advanced/optional rules, but having it all in one book in one coherent balance pass gives the chance to meaningfully update the game and facilitate onboarding. New players routinely bounce off because it’s just too many books, over too many mediums, and too much time. Who knows, maybe in such an update they can finally take a pass at making ballistics not a direct handicap for the player. It would also be a chance at doing BV 3 which could unify the setting. An ilClan era mech can just have a much higher BV than a 3rd Succession War Mech, and suddenly we aren’t seeing games almost entirely defined by “use these specific books.”
We had a guy running a long-term BattleTech campaign for our group. He literally forced me to play a LAM pilot. I skimmed over the rules, and I explained that he was making a huge mistake. He agreed with me after I cored out every big-bad he had in every major battle. Lose initiative? Fly to the far end of the map and behind cover. Win initiative? Rear arc the biggest threat. I only got hit once. ONCE! So stupid.
Thanks! I needed validation that Catalyst did infact re-print the rules, (in Interstellar Ops Alternate Eras) keeping LAMs alive! I had been using my old 3056 Tac Handbook up to this point.
"I used to play a blue control deck..." You deserve every LAM that happens to you. :P Seriously, though, I like LAMs being in the setting. I love all of the weird and crazy things in the universe that don't often get the spotlight like LAMs, protomechs, and Quads. The gameplay and rules side of things isn't really an issue in my local group because we mostly just run fluff lists and narrative campaigns anyway. At the end of the day, if you really wanted to be That Guy and break the system there are so many other ways to do it already that LAMs are hardly anything new.
I LOVE the idea of LAMs! Back in the day, my buddies and i would play them all the time. Didn't take long to figure out how broken they were. Then the new LAM rules came out and it was beyong my tolerance to play them. All that said, we will still field one now and then, for fun. But we have toned them down a LOT with house rules. So much that they have no real advantage except in campaign type settings... We just like the idea of them. But i have to address that you played Blue Control, back in the day... Yikes! LOL
I get the sneaking feeling they didn't try balancing anything until about the FedCom Civil War. Between how broken the early stuff is (LAMs, hovercraft spam, etc) and the 3050 stuff having no balance at all when it came to Clan tech..
Technically yes, practically no. It's a similar idea to Savannah spam, Savannah's are cheap, fast enough that they are hard to hit, and strong enough to break through rear armor eventually. LAM's occupy a similar niche, as outlined by Red, that they can be an absolute pain to deal with. Spending 3-5k BV on a unit that effectively teleports behind people and generates massive hit penalties to the opponent's for doing so can result in a unit the opponent has to deal with, but might not have the tools to do so, and even if you did a +7 to hit means you have your work cut out for you.
@@gwotkid This. I think this is why i get a little annoyed with vids like this. Now, I tend to agree with Reds takes more often than not. But his talks on stuff like quads and LAMS feel...idk, grognardy? While BT has had relatively fewer overt retcons than other setting (looking at you 40k), but they do occur. Retcons just tend to be more subtle (newer material may just not mention it for instance). and rebalancing is possible, so bemoaning balance, while understandable, feels silly. the immersion part also kinda feels funny to me. Alot of novels show mechs to be pretty dexterous and capable of fluid motions like emoting and handstands (if your a really good pilot). if anything, BT makes a lot of Anime mech feel more plausible. i understand the stance, I just cant agree with it. I like more variety, and it makes sense for a bunch of space nations (who are, mind you, in a state of constant hot and cold war) to be innovating and seeking advantages wherever possible. that said, I'm a huge anime and mecha fan, so that colors my views as well, the more mechs the better I say.
I really like the idea of LAMs. Their place in the SLDF royal units as a technological marvel of military engineering; and becoming 'lostech' during the succession wars was a positive addition to the lore of battletech, imo. But they really do need some good counters to them. Maybe the anti-aircraft targeting quirk on the Rifleman for example gets a big boost to targeting LAMs in airmech mode. Or rules that reflect how difficult they are to operate in airmech mode and/or how a super complex machine is prone to catastrophic failure if one element of it is comprised. If a pilot had to make a PSR for every hit they take to avoid loosing control and crashing... I don't know. The LAMs rule set right now is broken, but I believe completely removing them from the setting is a net loss for the hobby.
Me at 0:00 😀"Well, I just had an extra hard day at work. I am exhausted but grateful for the opportunity to watch a new Big Red video and maybe relax a little." Me at 1:45 😡"THAT'S ENOUGH INTERNET FOR TODAY"
If you play campaigns, LAMs are gold! Take a leopard, put 6x LAMs into it. LAMs start, approach a space station, satelite, asteroid mining as a Fighter and land as a mech. No station keeps their fighting spirit with mechs standing on the surface. Reducing unload time significantly. They make you unpredictable. Hit an undefended target. When the reinforcement comes, you just fly away. They are not the right tool for those big legendary battles. But they are the gold standard for raiding.
From a game perspective I agree that they are not a very good fit for modern BT but they're fun anyway, if highly game breaking. However in lore in I absolutely adore them
I love that Ace Combat 7 gameplay was being for this video.the fact that my head was also playing Liberation of Gracemaira while the video was playing was hilarious.
Back in the day, the main reason we didn't use LAMs wasn't because we didn't like the idea of them (most of us were already Robotech fans) - but because there were NO RULES for them. I've got the original box and the Citytech box. No LAM rules. I've got the original Mechwarrior book. No LAM rules. You had to get your hands on Aerotech (which you had to special order at our "local" game store, because they didn't stock the actual box) to find any LAM rules - and, as you say, they were completely broken - LAMs were impossible to hit. But, I, personally don't like how the video games portray mechs as these stiff things that clomp along with their arms, shoulders, and elbows locked so that they don't even swing their arms to counter balance (because it was too hard to animate that fluid a movement). I thought the whole point to mechs that require NEUROHELMETS to pilot is because it made them nimble and even graceful when they moved - why else would a trippable, 18 meter tall target be able to outmaneuver and out fight smaller (that means harder-to-hit) just as fast and as heavily armed and armored tanks (which, even in the advanced rules, don't automatically get a "low profile" quirk even though they're far lower profile than the lowest profile mechs). You were supposed to be able to recognize the pilot of a mech because the mech's posture and body language mimicked the pilot's. Sure, they're not gundams - vehicles for which "gravity" is a silly, meaningless term - but they're not supposed to be these lumbering land-sloths that take a twenty second movement cycle to draw back a fist and throw a punch, either.
Okay,I can see your logic. I still like the lam, but I probably won't run a lam any time soon. We play the game to have fun (not to screw our opponents, usually).
Ah yes the latest rules for LAMs, yes now they are scary. Have been around long enough to have seen both sides. We used to make two changes, you needed both an aerospace and mech pilot skills, buying both as normal. This pushes BV extremely high. The range band movement modifiers are a pain, but we would alter the movement to hits but dividing the movement per plus by 3 just like the jump change. These help, but the hard counter used to be aerospace fighters. Zoom and boom.
If you don't like LAMs because it seems impractical from an engineer or physics point of view then you should hate jump jets that make even less sense. If you can vertical lift a 40+ ton vehicle with jump jets then you can fly it with wings. If the Highlander can jump then it can fly. Which is my way of saying that jump jets are dumb.
This is part of why I like LAMs. In a world where you can have 45 ton mechs that have jets mounted on them that can lift the thing 180m straight up, surely someone is going to mount some wings and keep the thing flying in a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. The transforming makes less sense. Jump Jets are kind of absurdly non linear. lifting a 20 ton Locust 30m takes 500kg of JJ, 2.5% of its mass. Lifting a 100ton Atlas the same height takes 2 ton, 2% of it's mass. Square cube eat your heart out! Making the JJ worth using instead of running typically takes even more % of weight the lighter your mech is. A Highlander devotes less than 7% to the jumpjets. A Spider uses over 13%. Somehow, the heavier the mech is, the more mass % you need to devote to achieve a given land speed, but the less you need to make it fly.
When Battletech first came out I never used LAM's in my games, because the just did not make sense. I did use the transforming rules to add Transformers into my games, more for laughs than anything else.
It’s always sad to hear you venom for LAMs, as I’ll always have a soft spot for them in concept and perhaps the best part of your content is your genuine enthusiasm. Even “liking” them, though, I don’t have any real desire to see them brought back to the fore and seeing the Urbanmech version revealed was disappointing (I’d rather have seen almost any other force pack). For the effort of the video, the least I can do is feed the algorithm and look forward to brighter topics to come!
From a logistics standpoint, LAMs are the only mechs you need. An Overlord can deliver 42 fighters that become helicopters or mechs as needed to complete a mission. Union? 14. Leopard? 6. You are now dealing with modern warfare cranked to 11, only the carrier needs to sortie only Harriers that are also tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
I've already mentioned it on twitter, but as someone that is pro-LAM, I can see why people don't like them, that being said, I do think a house rule I'd implement at my table are that LAMs cannot contribute to objectives in Airmech mode, so if they want to hold an objective area they have to do so as a Battlemech, or as Aerospace if it's an objective that Aerospace are meant to contest instead of ground forces, essentialky if a LAM wants to be in Airmech mode, all it can do is contribute to the direct fight but if victory isn't achived through simply killing the enemy then they should see a bite taken out of their overall effectiveness and value as units. The other thing I am considering but haven't really tested is making them apply the modifier to hit a moving target to their own shots while in Airmech mode since if your essentially half a Mech moving around like an Aerospace you should have some added difficulty in aiming reguardless of how good you actually are, but the first one should at least force some more mode changes more often (especially in games that require an area to be controlled since if all your other units are dead and the LAM is in airmech mode your obviously not going to be scoring while all the units you are killing will be scoring), and make them a potentially easier target to kill. Could maybe also just x2 (rounding up when needed) the BV of LAMs.
Barely started watching, but I gotta just smirk at the hate and popularity of hating LAMs when in fact the first merc handbook listed a brand new light LAM as cheaper to procure than repairing a Heavy mech. I understand people being frustrated with how Harmony Gold attacked BT as a result...but tell me that the Marauder, Crusader, Archer, Rifleman, Stinger, Wasp, P.Hawk, Ost Series, Valkyrie, and Warhammer aren't the most beloved 3025 origin mechs in all of Macross. The next iconic Battletech design is the Timberwolf, and nothing after that, so hate all you want but LAMS and Macross designs in particular ARE Battletech.
Those designs fit in-line with Battletech because they are lumbering warmachines. Their now visually distinct as well. (The Atlas is very iconic, almost as much as the Timber Wolf....)
I've never dealt with one in play but I can see your point about the game-breaking un-fun-nes of an unhittable lightly armed foe. However, my first experience with Battletech was The Crescent Hawks Inception in which the end goal of the game was to find your father's Phoenix Hawk LAM so I don't think I will ever shake that awe of the machine. Maybe it's best that they remain nigh-mythical unobtanium relics of a bygone era.
I like LAMs as scouts and only as scouts/spotters. I almost NEVER use them for direct fire combat roles,and usually only use them when I'm running a Campaign where the players are fighting a VERY rich merc company,or they manage to salvage one themselves. But we're very strict on them on our table. They're very fast,but extremely fragile,and Riflemen/Blackjack/Jaegermechs love eating them. Most players I know who run LAMs only use them in scouting roles to replace a light mech. And we usually only take the Stinger and Wasp. The only mechs I haven't liked are Quadvees or the Domini. Way too expensive and awful to repair in a campaign sense. Right now I only have an Urbanmech LAM from the salvage boxes but that's because short of printing them myself,Aerospace minis are a bitch to find. I'm bout ready to get a 3D printer and start printing a couple Warriors or something.
Totally agree with you. I was one who played Battltech because there was no Robotech game. You are right, it never fit with the setting or the game play.
I started playing before LAMs came out. By the time they had rules we were only playing in RPG settings. We also house ruled needing aerospace pilot skill to use them, and they were a huge pain to maintain in-setting. Holding ground made them as vulnerable to attack as any other mech/ground unit. Nobody in our group even wanted to use them at that point.
Way back in the day looking at the original rules I quickly came to the conclusion, "Why play anything else?" And the answer to that was, "This doesn't belong in this setting." From all my friends, and that's a solid argument. I still hold that for mechs with movement speeds of 6/9 and above they should be able to move/shoot/move so long as they don't exceed their total movement that turn in order to give light mechs a reason to exist beyond lols. Then that's me coming to the game as an Ogre player.
The best LAM is literally a spicy clantech'd Griffin 2N... and it was made by... THE WORD OF BLAKE! PRAISE BE TO BLAKE! (just give me the spicy griffin, it'll probably last longer)
Although I like LAM's, I deeply appreciate a different point of view. particularly when it is well researched and supported. The art of civil discourse ia a dying art. I don't share your visceral reaction but I appreciate the fact that it's based on respect for a setting/
That’s because Robotech is a mashup of three unrelated anime. The flower part comes from the Army of the Sothern Cross part (tanks), but oddly uses the “protoculture” name from Macros (where the LAM and Marauder pictures come from), which was referring to an ancient precursor civilization culture, not horticulture.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +4
It lost me after 3 seasons of "Oh look bad aliens attack, humans win, oh look new aliens show up IMMEDIATELY and repeat the same crap again" Even when they tried to reboot it all it came down to was "Oh flower energy aliens are actually good guys, your new alien friends are the bad guys now" Maybe they should of spent less on lawyers and more on decent writers who were able to think beyond "Aliens bad, now ded, need new aliens to be bad"
@Big Red-40Tech - while I do like the occasional use of LAMs, you make excellent points. You did mis the absolute hard counter to them - fighters. WiGE vehicles, like VTOLs, are practically immobile targets to conventional and aerospace fighters, and are very easily hit. Move max cruise across the map? To a fighter at altitude, it has the same TMM as if you hovered. Also, LAMs don't have bomb hard points like fighters. You have to give up internal tonnage - armor or weapons - for a bomb bay. Not a great trade, honestly. Regardless, great points, and another excellent video.
I always appreciate hearing another person's take on a given subject, even if it's not a glowing endorsement. Personally, I view LAMs as an in-universe joke (especially the Urbie). Outside of simply having one in the collection for its meme status, I wouldn't even dream of fielding one. It's the sort of thing I would use just to practice my painting skills and little else.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I am very curious why Red hates the laser anti missile system. I mean, it generates a lot if heat compared to the ballistic version, but no risk of ammo detonation...
Understandable to be fair, my ONE group that I play LAMs all know how they play, so we can counter and have fun with them, but as a one off that is prepared for, or long campaign reasons. LAMs are not for casual/pick up games or with our newer group members. LAMs to us are at best goofy, like taking a all urbie.
Always enjoy your videos Red. I have a Phoenix Hawk mini that is unpainted...I now have the urge to paint it "Control Blue" and put "Water" symbols on it for markings.. :)
That's just like... your opinion man. FWIW, the fluidity of mech movement never actually went away in the books and fluff, it just shifted to the background. Stuff like coordinated jumping jacks and mechs doing unassisted handstands has always been there, it just stopped being the focus around MW2s release, as you said. Granted: that's still a *far* cry from transforming from mech to aircraft, and was almost wholly relegated to non-combat scenarios or solaris showmanship, so that doesn't really matter for the argument against the LAMs on a technical and gameplay level. And for the actual gameplay...yeah, it definitely *is* garbaggio as far as sucking the fun out, but I will push back that they're overpowered. They're definitely not "bad" - they're just *fine* balance wise. The one big downside you alluded to, but dismissed was buying down *both* piloting and gunnery for LAMs gets expensive for BV. For most units, buying down past 4 piloting sees diminishing returns unless you're doing some Fireball Charge cheese. Typically, it's just more BV efficient to trade out the LAM for an inexpensive line mech to be a distraction carnifex and one or two seperate sniping VTOL with a little bit of gunnery investment as your actual damage dealer. It's ultimately the same toxic as hell strategy in the broad strokes, just more BV efficient and refined.
They'll make back that BV. Only a Waneta or WOB Lam really starts to risk not being financially responsible just due to their starting BV being enormous.
Yeah, honestly I wouldn't be mad if LAMs just stayed in the past, where they belong. It says a lot that even for Wobbies, LAMs feel like a huge departure from the established weirdness. Leave 'em in the past, where they belong. Throw the Protomechs there with 'em while you're at it.
I am of the opinion they are best used for black ops fluff missions, and as highly mobile raiders. I like to think of them as a way to give black ops teams of BA troopers light mech support and a dedicated air transport with an internal BA bay. I also think that the bimodal LAMs being heavier than trimodal makes no bloody sense. Bimodal LAMs are probably the better route for game balance anyway, as it gets the strategic mobility that makes them so useful without the annoying airmech mode.
I love LAMS for 2 reasons. 1. Coz Im a die hard weeb and Macross Frontier is the greatest Macross. Lion, Diamond Crevase and Northern Star are the greatest songs Macross has ever created. And yes, this is the hill im going to die on. Bring it! 2. Unlike Macross (scifi fantasy), Battletech embraces semi realism and it works well for the hulking war machines in its universe. The in universe explanation behind the LAMS being over ambitious, overly complicated and poorly thought of weapons of war draws parallel to IRL weapons development. Just look at tanks with 2 or more main cannons. Notice how non existent they are in the modern battlefield. Same as the LAMS.
While I love the LAMbie as a meme, I don't think LAMs have any real place in the wargame or the setting. It's fun to joke about but that is about where it ends, as a joke, and they don't fit where the game has come to be.
As someone who actually does like LAMs quite a bit, I found the repeated "Airmech mode, the only mode anyone will use after they have dropped their bombs" highly amusing - I have never transformed a LAM to Aerospace mode. Ever. And I fully agree with you on the transformation being too out of tech scale with everything else in setting, especially the idea of it being done smoothly while in flight. Odd to hear the dislike of LAMs being a controversial idea at the start of video, I'm used to most people disliking playing both using and against them, and no-one I've met argues they fit neatly in setting. Our group has a bunch of Houserules/Headcanon to let me use them without it breaking things as badly (They are still kind of busted): a) LAMs don't transform - they are stuck in Airmech shape. b) They can land, and walk using standard mech movement mode rules with -1Run(standard walk), or takeoff and use Airmech-WiGE rules, using piloting check like transforming would. c) Failing that check means it takes crash/fall damage determined off current speed and altitude. d) Takeoff can only be accomplished using a full run in a straight line on level ground, rather than rules as written 5mp, as they are less aerodynamic than a regular WiGE. Landing similarly requires a same length "runway" e) Any actuator crit disables WiGE mode, and causes crash damage if airborne at the time f) No, it can't hover. Like a normal WiGE, if you don't move at least 5 hexes, it comes down out of the sky. You don't have enough jets to defy gravity long term, you need airflow over those wings. g) You can gain elevation via thrust, unlike a normal WiGE - cost 5MP/level. h) LAMs carrying Bombs DO have these effect their performance like external stores would. i) No, you still can't mount external stores. j) LAMs may enter at any elevation level. k) LAMs may not use Low altitude Aerospace map l) LAMs operate on the HA/Space maps like any other Mech, as covered in Stratops, except they get thrust=JJ/2 rather than JJ/3 m)If we aren't playing with FULL combined arms involving Artillery and Air/space support, instead play them in mech-mode only.
LAMs are absolutely terrible. But,... I'm of a particular age. I love them. They are trash, but, I'd happily get cored in one anytime. EDIT~ Note, I would NEVER play one unless the opponent is either an AI, or has one themselves.
The transformable Valkyries in Macross are the result of advanced alien technology that's essentially space magic. I completely agree that they just don't fit in the Battletech setting. Besides, all it would take is a single seal to fail in something made up entirely of moving parts for a LAM to burn up in re-entry or cause its pilot to be exposed to the harshness of vacuum. I've always contended that LAM's were built to impress the brass who sign the contracts, and the unfortunate victi- um, I mean pilots were an afterthought.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
yep I always saw it as a typical military graft, a bit like the hover tank in Sgt Bilko
This video is incredibly insightful. The experiences with LAM's have been that they were very underpowered and pathetic, only winning non-narrative edge cases in the succession wars. As all I have heard from them had been in the Aerospace or 'Mech modes. Hearing how they are in the hybrid mode in skilled hands is baffling. I can see your distaste in them from the streams now. Though I am of the opinion that the rules sides of things can very well be overhauled to make it fit better (similar to the new Aerospace rules coming up for CAS). They always did stick out as awkward looking and feeling in BattleTech for me. Though I do think 'mechs are far more nimbler and flexible than the video game depictions show as we can see in literature they aren't to the degree of the Mecha of anime. Though IMO some fit the BattleTech aesthetic more than others though ironically enough often are illegal designs such as the Scorpion LAM which is basically an aerospace fighter with leg landing gear. I always did find LAM's a bit weird, albeit some other things like QuadVee's (at least all the canonical depictions of them and rules) out-weirded LAM's for me. Though it isn't something I would've ever put in the franchise myself (Perhaps more emphasis on Aerospace/ Conventional aircraft/ VTOL's carrying them. The logistical and mobilization side of things make sense to me) I did always have a tinge of wishing to see them fleshed out more, redrawn, rules changed, etc. To have a more grounded and western take on these compared to the eastern counterparts, however far that would be. I think this video, however, essentially marks the end of that. Maybe if we have some VTOL's like the Tonbo intending to carry and drop 'mechs around could fill that weird special interest hole LAM's vaguely touched on...
The old rules weren't any more favourable to LAMs beyond what they could do as Aerospace fighters, and all fighters could drop a fuck-ton of bombs on a single target or strafe across the entire ground map. But a 25 ton Sabre Aerospace fighter with 3 medium lasers could carry twice the bomb load of a Stinger or Wasp LAM. That 25 ton light fighter could literally drop 400 damage worth of bombs on a single mech in a single turn. Wasp or Stinger only 200 damage worth. Same weight Aerospace fighters could fly circles around LAMs too. But 400 damage, holy crap. Make sure you have air cover. Or boom, bye bye Atlas. Plus keep in mind how fragile they were at least in old Aerotech rules. 10% of their tonnage was devoted to LAM stuff so that's 3 to 5 tons less armour compared to the full mech versions. And in Airmech mode they were extra fragile 9 damage (half side torso armour, no structure) to a Phoenix Hawk's side torsos in Airmech mode destroys a wing and causes a height 4 crash instantly. 4 damage to a Wasp or Stinger Side torso/wing. Extremely delicate. Ground units did have +4 to hit vs them but all air units had -1. They also couldn't hover. But had no heat buildup. They were weak in og if not for how OP Aerotech was.
@@Real_Iron_Smith Where are the most recent LAM rules btw? I have Total War and Tactical Operations and neither even mention them. I have the old 1986 Aerotech rules.
@dimman77 I know they're in TRO 3085, and most recently in Interstellar Operations. Though apparently Catalyst now split Interstellar Operations into two books?
You know, this video made me realize something. I am a huge fan of Macross, and the VFs are some of my favorite mecha/spacecraft designs. And yet when I play or think of Battletech, I never even think about LAMs despite the obvious inspiration. I've never played them myself, just heard some stuff about their (broken) rules before and haven't bothered looking into them at all. And it's not that I dislike them in any way or think they aren't plausible in the setting (in a very specific way). Just when I think of Battletech, it's things like the Atlas, the Mad Dog, the Orion, the Catapult, the Zeus, etc. these towering battle-scarred behemoths that shake the ground wherever they walk. That's what screams Battletech to me.
We have mechs that roll, jump, go prone, lean around corners, dodge out the way of things, climb cliffs, and even Techmanual describes assault mechs with hands and actuators being able to do handstands in controlled conditions. With the Hells Horses Quadvees and old Huntress taken into account as well, I 100% believe LAMS belong in battletech if only under controlled/experimental conditions but their ability is definitely not out of the realm of what is possible with a battlemech. With that being said, I do agree with you from a gameplay standpoint the last I played with a LAM was when I was a kid in 2011 using a IWM Word of Blake LAM but I heard they got nerfed around 2015-2016 with the new catalyst rulebook when I stopped playing way earlier so I don't know how they are now. I think a good combative against LAMs on tabletop would be if a new set of vehicles and mechs with the Anti-Aircraft targeting quirk got a slightly greater accuracy boost against LAMs specifically.
I started this hobby back in the early 2000s because of Robotech. The guys I played with bullied me so hard that I dropped my LAMs quickly. Moved away, have a new group, still no LAMs.
@@BigRed40TECH Don’t be sorry. It was a learning experience that I appreciate after the fact. Communities have standards and expectations. I’m glad they taught me. This isn’t anime, this isn’t Robotech. And learning how grand strategy this setting was elevated this setting to a whole new level for me. And I think it’s cool you took the time to respond to my comment.
![Battletech/Mechwarrior Lore Tex Talks Battletech : - A Primer on the Clans [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CDR_Zpb05uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Battletech/Mechwarrior Lore Tex Talks Battletech : - A Primer on the Clans [Part 1]](/img/tr.png)
A couple of the new Battletech players at my local store found about LAMs recently and asked me about them.
As a kid playing Battletech I fell into the "oh cool they're Veritechs!" trap. We played 1 game with them and swore we'd never use them again.
I jump 15 hexes, and you can't shoot me. I fire 1 medium laser. Repeat
"LAMs are a great way to turn a nice fun game of Battletech into getting punched in the face"
You nailed it, they are an artifact from the early anime inspired days of Btech. They don't have a place in modern Battletech and I'm glad they were effectively retcon'd out.
If you count the lawsuits, you will know why LAM sucks.
Fun fact, LAM's count as Aircraft while using WIGE movement meaning not only do you get the +1 from Cluster LBX but also the +2 from Flak Attacks as well, still a slog but far from invincible, much like Stealth Armor VTOLs, or Dug-In Camo/IR Field Gun Squads, specific tools for exceptionally specialized units.
Since almost no one runs with 4/5 pilots anymore, and 2/3 is very common, LAMs aren't that big a deal anymore. The problem was that, canonically, 4/5 was the standard for Inner Sphere pilots and 3/4 was the standard for Clan pilots. This turned games into a slog. Most people don't want a 2v2 to take 2 days, so they bump the pilots up to at 2/3 or at least 3/4. I've killed a few LAMs in my time; had a friend who used to love them. Between modern weapons, piloting skills, and simply everyone focus-firing the damn things, they wound up not being that scary anymore. He sent one through my formation, and promptly lost it; Gauss Rifle needed a 12 to hit, and I rolled a 12. Went through the left rear torso, destroying it and taking the wing off. It then proceeded to crash into the back of my Madcat and kill it. The rest of his LAMs never got close enough to worry me after that.
The previous game, my Madcat (represented by the same mini) had met an equally-random fate. It was being dive-bombed by a 95-ton aerospace fighter. My Turkina returned fire. Two critical hits, control surfaces. It did not pull out of its dive. It slammed into the Madcat at full power, and the fighter Stackpoled (we applied the full center torso rule to the fighter since, obviously). We both had a good laugh about that. We just wrote them off, knowing they were both dead, and started rolling damage from the explosion to surrounding mechs. After two games in a row where that mini died from something randomly falling out of the sky onto it, I decided to retire it.
I'll respect your opinion. But I disagree. I've never had issues with the gameplay of having an LAM in a game.
I have the first set of rules. If you use them as bombers that is a perfect time to nail them. The old rules allow you to hit with a -4 to hit for being the target. If you are using them as staffing fighter you could hit again with -4. Been awhile since I looked at the older Aerotech rules. 1985 ones.
Never half-ass two things. Whole ass one thing. -ancient Terran proverb
Or at least quarter-ass four things.
@@BoisegangGaming those are Protomechs and Quadvees
Shame that those Koprulu Sector hillbillies who dare to call themselves _Terrans_ forgot that memo when they made the Siege "Tank" and the Viking.
@@R17inator Hey, the Viking is arguably the coolest new thing in Starcraft 2. At least for Terrans.
You can type as many words as you wish, but I cannot hear you over my Wasp LAM’s jet engines.
Helllz yeah!
Or my WoBBie Isorla.
LAMs under 40 tons are not worth it. Scouts and painters maybe.
And a lot of words he did type. Man, how was this video so long? Learn to be concise, please.
Clearly, Big Red is a man of Protoculture.
I see what you did there. lol
Imagine if they got the flying Marauder in the game... the horror... the horror...
"Much beloved company: harmony gold" I died
Going back to my childhood, Robotech was formative(English isn't my first language, and I can be said to have learned English trying to figure out Rick and Lisa), but by the time Battletech came around, even when faced with the RFL-3N, I knew it wasn't a Destroid Defender... I totally support you in saying: these two things are better when appreciated apart, not everything is better "blended together", etc...
"Ach!! Ssssss!! We hates it, my Precious, we hates it!!"
FUCK HARMONY GOLD!!!
Sorry, reflex action.
the burns were coming thick and fast
@@GhostBear3067 FUCK HARMONY GOLD!
Dire Wolf LAM.
Elemental LAM, strap that Toad to an Arrow IV.
Atlas LAM
Anni LAM - Oh lawds he commin
Charger LAM
@@redasylumJust at a zeppelins with ac-2’s lol
"I had a blue control deck" To know evil, you must do evil. I can't judge, I had a warp world deck.
I had a future sight Linessa bounce deck that my mate LOOOVED 😆 (I'm a bad man...)
Dream Thrushes & Seasingers. Called it 'MINE'
Blue control decks were bad to play against but boring to play. Black/White control was more fun as you forced your opponent to hurt themselves. 😈
From a world-building perspective, I like LAMs because they are a great example of Star League technological spectacle, as well as a in-universe example of story-telling deconstruction of the idea that any and all 'LosTech' is actually practical.
Plus I simply like Battletech having the option for these things to be made and exist, even if it is only an opportunity for an Industrialists and wannabe LAM Pilots to perform epic (and fatal) examples of being 'Leeroy Jenkins'. Plus, it is also great world-building for people to want the things as art pieces /+/ playthings as well...
I agree with this. I left a comment noting that the 25 ton (or 20 ton with less hardware) F-35C can transform from VTOL mode to full standard fighter jet mode in a short amount of time and is armed with comprable weaponry to a Stinger or other light mechs from BT, and it exists today. It would take very little technological development to allow an arrogant, spectacle-oriented entity like the Star League to make LAMS.
hey for the peaole that wat to stop lam chesse just use tag and semi gided lrm ammo that when fired agest taged targets ingores all target modfiers movment and tereain peltalys and wacth thsoe lams fall out of the sky.
For world building it is great to remind people that a mech is not the only battlefield unit available. Sure pretty much any ASF of the same weight can outfight a LAM but that isn't the point. Like the array of machineguns or small lasers found on mechs that we can use for crit seeking, but that isn't really the point of those anti infantry weapons.
@@Real_Iron_Smith What a crappy comparison. F-35 is designed purely as an aircraft. STOVL and VTOL are simply options for the F-35 B to get airborne, options I might add that come with costs, such as reduced weapons and fuel load. F-35 was NEVER designed as a ground combat vehicle.
It would take a fecking HUGE amount of technological development to make a vehicle able to operate both as an aircraft and a ground vehicle because many of the basic principles are literally incompatible. Even if you succeeded, which is doubtful the vehicle would be horrifically complex, inefficient, expensive and frankly not worth the time and effort.
LAM's only make sense if you decide to accept that hey, these fictional people are all fecking morons who do not know how basic physics works. They add nothing to world building beyond a certain cool factor, because even I will admit some of them do look cool.
@@alganhar1 > these fictional people are all fecking morons who do not know how basic physics works.
I mean, they already have some of the most BS engine tech in all of scifi. And mechs, which are frankly kinda silly if you put much thought into it... so transforming mechs that fly (or even just tuck their arms in... don't really need to go the full Macross transformation) isn't that much more of a stretch, especially given how the lore insists upon itself how wars are fought.
Wow, Red. I can't believe you love LAMs so much. I agree with this video, LAMs should be made again, and in plastic.
:|
@@BigRed40TECHLAM campaign pwease :3
catalest games has a way to do that but mega mek can do that for you so you can laern how the rules form them work. just google mega mek and have fun with it.
Cast them in metal, then they'll at least have utility as throwing stars.
Iron wind metals @@fix0the0spade
I never really took a close look at LAMs because as you mentioned, I'd heard they weren't very good. Kinda funny that using them to their full effectiveness essentially requires that the pilot have the piloting skills of an anime protagonist though. Maybe LAMs have a place in the California Nebula lol.
'LAMs are blue control' is not the argument I expected, but a very effective one nonetheless.
Meanwhile me: Prefers the old lore that described battlemechs as nimble beasts that could have the articulation to safely pick up a person and brand them with a hot ppc barrel without killing them (thanks early novels and house kurita)
Edit: Still going to like though.
@@tommydude6735 Yeah, nechs going prone and climbing was cool.
A mech can still pick up a small object. It's a Piloting check, after all. But, skill and precision count! 😮
It could certainly vary, depending on type of mech, pilot skill, neuro helmet compatibility, maintenance, and quality of replacement parts.
Like a JLG product (forklift, scissor lift, MEWP) is going to be more finnicky then something from Genie or the sort.
They still are that way
I've never liked the Rock'em Sock'em animation style in the games. Even if it's a purely practical/technical consideration it's never looked right in motion. It's always been my head canon that mech's movement is based on their pilot's sense of balance and varies from pilot to pilot. Except for Atlases, they always do the chad walk like BT from Titanfall, stomp stomp stomp.
Man says he doesn't like making 'negative videos', then drops the hottest diss tracks on Clan Wolf and LAMs 🔥
Yea, out of 300+ videos, there are like... 2 like this. lol
But they are some of my favorites
Shitting on clanners is the civic duty of every spheroid.
@@DoubleWhammy preach on
@@DoubleWhammy wow. Dezgra.
I've said before how much I enjoy LAMs, so I won't stress that point.
I think LAMs are in a good place in the setting. They're like bouillon. There's just a little bit here and there for flavor and in fact, we shouldn't be adding much more as it is. Because as we know, too much bouillon just makes things salty.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm hungry and I've just decided to name my Shadowhawk SHD-2X "Bouillon".
They're objectively broken.
You brought up starscream in the end. Which I found funny because all throughout the video, I was thinking "people just wanna be starscream from the Bay movies".
Also, playing a control deck in a ttcg?! You absolute monster! Let me just flood the board with bears you meany!
No. You shall not play one card :P
Ah, Clearly red wanted to be rid of this so much he couldn't wait for saturday.
Just means it's in the rear-view mirror now.
@@BigRed40TECH Because you threw it out the window like a trucker bomb?
I still love LAMs - they are the epitome of what Star League was, and loved the aesthetic :) I had experience with Battletech before Macross / Robotech, so it never felt weird to me. LAMs have had issues with rules with the pendulum swinging both ways over time, but I think there is a way to find a happy medium and do hope to see a resurgence of them when the new Aerotech (eventually) comes out. Long live the LAM !!!
Honestly, the best and simplest fix to stop the brokenness would just be to change MP in Airmech mode to 2x instead of 3x.
In ASF mode they already get chewed up by actual ASF, in Mech mode they suck compared to normal mechs, in Airmech mode they... match or outspeed VTOLs and WiGE, while still having Mech durability rather than speedster fragility.
Make them slower than these and at the same time cut the TMM due to reduced speed, and the Airmech now gets threatened by them. (I've always found conventional fighters, Flak, Hovercraft and VTOLs a significant threat to a LAM even under rules as written, admittedly only due to relative costs/numbers)
Terrain avoidance also becomes harder due to reduced MP making climbing and hovering much more costly.
Still does nothing for the complexity problem/number of books, or the problem of it never being worth using mech mode.
ASF mode remains useful for arrival, and in theory for strafing/strike attacks once there are no opposing Aero units (but, honestly, if you have complete air superiority, you have already won)
I've no greater gamer moment than finding one in the last cache while playing Crecent Hawk's Inception. Nearly 40 years I've been chasing that high.
No doubt, I would love a remaster
Holy crap, you weren't kidding. They actually MADE an urbie LAM product... I genuinely never thought I'd see the day...
I find LAMs interesting, and I'm okay with them being more of an older tech that ended up hitting a deadend due to tech constraints and falling out of production.
Same. Star League spectacle mechs that never survived practical warfare.
In the current battletech lore, what if' LAMs were transformed only on the ground. Realism and practical. No quick transformation mid jump-to-flight. Idk just my 2 cents
And maintenance. Can you imagine having to troubleshoot those bastards? They'd wind up being like the Panther, an interesting design in theory that was in a work bay most of the time.
@@miasma19 My thinking would be more VTOLs with legs. That is they would be able to walk and do pop up attacks like a heli. But, they wouldn't be able to fly long distances at high speed or hold positions on their own because they would be too lightly armored. They would be more like lite air cushion AFVs designed to hover on the flanks and attack supply dumps. There to harass not overwhelm. That would make game balancing issues better.
Bimodal LAM were a good opportunity for variant rules, sadly wasted. No Airmech mode, but able to operate without needing a Dropship to land, swapping out the Airmech mode for lighter conversion gear would let the Bi LAM perform better as a Mech or LAM without being broken.
Robotech was my gateway drug to Battletech way back in 1989, and I've never looked back. Their tactical flexibility would make LAMs the apex predator of the setting, even with all their handicaps in the rules...but absolutely agree with you that they suck the fun out of the game. Although that didn't stop me from ordering an Urbie LAM, which may or may not get painted up like Skull 1.
What we really need is an Urbie that has helicopter blades pop out of the head, Inspector Gadget style.
Judging by this video it's clear, we need LAMS to return to Battletech.
XD
I had always thought LAMs were silly fun and we need more fun things in the world. I never knew just how badly unbalanced LAMs were.
Clearly we need to go back to when it was "Battledroids". Wait, no, that's even worse.
Early Battletech literally try to exist without legal troubles challenge level: impossible.
It really is a miracle Battletech survived the 80s.
80's Battletech really didn't have many problems with HG. HG considered BT to be a niche Table Top game without the mass appeal that they had. When FASA branched out into video games, and they became popular, that's when HG felt threatened, and the Lawsuits started.
@@gregdomenico1891 That isn't true. When FASA sued Playmates in 1994/95 over the "heavy assault e-frame" that was based on the madcat/timberwolf Harmony Gold was brought in as a material witness and it was revealed that HG had been sending cease and desist letters since pretty much 1984 that FASA had completely ignored confident in their assumption that Twentieth Century Imports had given them exclusive rights to the Macross designs.
When pressed on this FASA was unable to provide any evidence the TCI deal was legitimate which it never was to begin with then tried to claim HG had abandoned the Macross property which also had no basis in reality.
Long story short FASA screwed itself when it trusted TCI, a company whose only operations consisted of buying unsold backlogs of old model kits from warehouses in Japan then reselling them to specialty shops in the US.
@@gregdomenico1891 Of course there WAS a reason they had to change the name from Battledroids if you recall.
@@gregdomenico1891 Especially when Robotech died off and the attempted 2000's reboot failed miserably, tends to happen when you just rehash the same BS over and over again.
It was ALWAYS "Oh joy another Robotech show, let me guess the last aliens get beaten, new ones show up immediately to be a new enemy, then they get beaten and another alien group show up...." rinse and repeat to absolute lameness and stupidity.
Maybe if they spent less on suing people and actually spent it on hiring decent writers they might not of needed to feel threatened.
Its what you get when your lawsuits are financed by Sony. HG and Sony are two of the worst companies regarding copyright to ever play the game. Just ridiculously litigious as a strategy of destroying competition.
I still think it was a missed opportunity FASA didn't make a LAM called the shepherd...
I love Macross and Robotech, and with all due respect to Battletech, but when I want to play a game in this style, I"ll play a game that focuses on anime style units, like Mekton Zeta.
Exactly.
Mekton Zeta is the way to go for proper mecha anime fun! 👌 Not that it stopped a couple of us from trying to adapt TRO 3025 via Mekton II rules back in the day. 😅
Macross and Robotech tabletop games exist.
@@NuclearFalcon146 For all the hate it gets, Robotech RPG Tactics is a great little game. I personally love the thing.
@@rcgunner7086 That is a good game. It deserved a better fate.
Gonna have to disagree on them not fitting the setting. The ones that fully transform are a bit silly, but all the standard LAMs aren't mechs with wings, they're VTOL jets that can walk.
LAM Airmech rules used to be cool, VTOL Movement, 3x Jumping. The Defense to it is an ASF, LAM, or Flak Artillery. So to balance the game your opponent would need one of those.
Any ground based unit is at a huge disadvantage against LAMS and Aerospace. The rules for both are just broken and nothing in the last 30 years has really addressed this.
It's just mixed unit warfare, jeez. Air units are good against ground units unless you employ flak, this has been common knowledge for near 100 years.
Right, but rare units in BT. LAM and aero are battalion or regiment level assets, which would also have respective counters, whereas BT is more commonly fought on the lance or company level, which would not have the appropriate counters.
I hate the new rules. Just made it harder. The old rules told you range and what was needed to hit if the fighter was going for a strafing run. Also what a mech outside needed. It also taught the importance in having your own air cover
Oh god I thought you were going to play the full song at the end! The horror that caused, and the relief when you didn’t. Good video summarising the issues.
Thanks Darren! lol
To the best of my knowledge, you can buy 80 Savannah Masters for the price of one Pheonix Hawk LAM; so, if you're bringing a LAM, well...
Guilty. Back when I played my Recon lance was 2 Wasp LAM's, a Stinger LAM, and a Phoenix Hawk LAM was lance leader and fire support. The lights carried C3i and Beagle Active Probe. The PHawk was the master. I only used them for the sole purpose of scouting. I exclusively ran them in GERWALK mode.
My favorite game was escorting my younger brother up the hill in a king of the hill grand melee, to get him in a LAM. We were the youngest players and no one took us seriously until it was way too late. While I started my last turn with no armor and no criticals; my brother went on to take out several damaged units before succumbing to cross-fire.
Way back in the 80s, I beg my father to buy the BattleTech box set.I thought it was a RoboTech game.I was not happy when I found out it wasn't but I read the rules and I especially read over and over the border of the rule book and all that cool history and I loved it when I got AroTech I read the rules that had for the lambs and realized they did not need to exist in the game.They were garbage and I still feel much the same today but if I was living in that world, I would definitely want the land air Mac just simply for the halfway mode to use against my enemies.But on the table top I would never want to face that or put that on the table To use against an opponent
I like LAMs but I agree their rules are bad. I have young cousins who I teach to play Battletech (with simplified rules) and we use houseruled LAMs because it is cool for them to have mech that can become airplane.
Be safe Red, you have unleashed the cult of the LAM and their dark and strange powers.
I HEREBY CURSE YOU
WITH A STUBBED TOE!
*fake lightning shoots from my hand s*
It's not the LAM, but the rules. I loved BattleTech, wrote for FASA, but the one thing that the game suffers from is rules bloat across the whole setting.
Their recent Universe lore compendium highlights how badly they need a similar rules compendium.
Get everything-and I mean everything, every variant, every weapon, every vehicle, every optional advanced rule-in one book, make any needed updates, and put it out there. They can draw a bright line saying “this is everything as of today” and continue on releasing new stuff as they wish. But it’s been long enough, it needs to be gathered up into one place as a new foundation.
It can retain advanced/optional rules, but having it all in one book in one coherent balance pass gives the chance to meaningfully update the game and facilitate onboarding.
New players routinely bounce off because it’s just too many books, over too many mediums, and too much time.
Who knows, maybe in such an update they can finally take a pass at making ballistics not a direct handicap for the player.
It would also be a chance at doing BV 3 which could unify the setting. An ilClan era mech can just have a much higher BV than a 3rd Succession War Mech, and suddenly we aren’t seeing games almost entirely defined by “use these specific books.”
We had a guy running a long-term BattleTech campaign for our group. He literally forced me to play a LAM pilot. I skimmed over the rules, and I explained that he was making a huge mistake. He agreed with me after I cored out every big-bad he had in every major battle. Lose initiative? Fly to the far end of the map and behind cover. Win initiative? Rear arc the biggest threat. I only got hit once. ONCE! So stupid.
Thanks! I needed validation that Catalyst did infact re-print the rules, (in Interstellar Ops Alternate Eras) keeping LAMs alive! I had been using my old 3056 Tac Handbook up to this point.
They tried to turn a Mech into an aircraft what they should have done is to turn an aircraft into a Mech
Torso mounted cockpit, partial wings and jump jets. it's an Air-Mech mode LAM on the cheap. 👍
@@rmcdudmk212 Hm... noted.
Red is the Indiana Jones of Battletech. IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!!
"I used to play a blue control deck..."
You deserve every LAM that happens to you. :P
Seriously, though, I like LAMs being in the setting. I love all of the weird and crazy things in the universe that don't often get the spotlight like LAMs, protomechs, and Quads. The gameplay and rules side of things isn't really an issue in my local group because we mostly just run fluff lists and narrative campaigns anyway. At the end of the day, if you really wanted to be That Guy and break the system there are so many other ways to do it already that LAMs are hardly anything new.
I LOVE the idea of LAMs! Back in the day, my buddies and i would play them all the time.
Didn't take long to figure out how broken they were. Then the new LAM rules came out and it was beyong my tolerance to play them.
All that said, we will still field one now and then, for fun. But we have toned them down a LOT with house rules. So much that they have no real advantage except in campaign type settings... We just like the idea of them.
But i have to address that you played Blue Control, back in the day... Yikes! LOL
Ah, yes. The Squats of Battletech.
I miss my Space Dwarves.....
I get the sneaking feeling they didn't try balancing anything until about the FedCom Civil War. Between how broken the early stuff is (LAMs, hovercraft spam, etc) and the 3050 stuff having no balance at all when it came to Clan tech..
Aren't they balanced by BV and C-bill cost?
@@gwotkid The rules they have now are already an attempted nerf, the partial wige limit was replacing something way worse.
Technically yes, practically no. It's a similar idea to Savannah spam, Savannah's are cheap, fast enough that they are hard to hit, and strong enough to break through rear armor eventually.
LAM's occupy a similar niche, as outlined by Red, that they can be an absolute pain to deal with. Spending 3-5k BV on a unit that effectively teleports behind people and generates massive hit penalties to the opponent's for doing so can result in a unit the opponent has to deal with, but might not have the tools to do so, and even if you did a +7 to hit means you have your work cut out for you.
@@gwotkid This. I think this is why i get a little annoyed with vids like this. Now, I tend to agree with Reds takes more often than not. But his talks on stuff like quads and LAMS feel...idk, grognardy? While BT has had relatively fewer overt retcons than other setting (looking at you 40k), but they do occur. Retcons just tend to be more subtle (newer material may just not mention it for instance). and rebalancing is possible, so bemoaning balance, while understandable, feels silly. the immersion part also kinda feels funny to me. Alot of novels show mechs to be pretty dexterous and capable of fluid motions like emoting and handstands (if your a really good pilot). if anything, BT makes a lot of Anime mech feel more plausible. i understand the stance, I just cant agree with it. I like more variety, and it makes sense for a bunch of space nations (who are, mind you, in a state of constant hot and cold war) to be innovating and seeking advantages wherever possible. that said, I'm a huge anime and mecha fan, so that colors my views as well, the more mechs the better I say.
I really like the idea of LAMs. Their place in the SLDF royal units as a technological marvel of military engineering; and becoming 'lostech' during the succession wars was a positive addition to the lore of battletech, imo. But they really do need some good counters to them. Maybe the anti-aircraft targeting quirk on the Rifleman for example gets a big boost to targeting LAMs in airmech mode. Or rules that reflect how difficult they are to operate in airmech mode and/or how a super complex machine is prone to catastrophic failure if one element of it is comprised. If a pilot had to make a PSR for every hit they take to avoid loosing control and crashing... I don't know. The LAMs rule set right now is broken, but I believe completely removing them from the setting is a net loss for the hobby.
Well damn. Was just getting by work and didn't expect this. Very nice!
Me at 0:00 😀"Well, I just had an extra hard day at work. I am exhausted but grateful for the opportunity to watch a new Big Red video and maybe relax a little."
Me at 1:45 😡"THAT'S ENOUGH INTERNET FOR TODAY"
BuT i DiD iT fOr U BeEpS!
If you play campaigns, LAMs are gold!
Take a leopard, put 6x LAMs into it. LAMs start, approach a space station, satelite, asteroid mining as a Fighter and land as a mech.
No station keeps their fighting spirit with mechs standing on the surface.
Reducing unload time significantly. They make you unpredictable.
Hit an undefended target. When the reinforcement comes, you just fly away.
They are not the right tool for those big legendary battles. But they are the gold standard for raiding.
From a game perspective I agree that they are not a very good fit for modern BT but they're fun anyway, if highly game breaking. However in lore in I absolutely adore them
I love that Ace Combat 7 gameplay was being for this video.the fact that my head was also playing Liberation of Gracemaira while the video was playing was hilarious.
Imagine being in a mech and you hear someone called (Three Strikes) is up above you.
Back in the day, the main reason we didn't use LAMs wasn't because we didn't like the idea of them (most of us were already Robotech fans) - but because there were NO RULES for them. I've got the original box and the Citytech box. No LAM rules. I've got the original Mechwarrior book. No LAM rules. You had to get your hands on Aerotech (which you had to special order at our "local" game store, because they didn't stock the actual box) to find any LAM rules - and, as you say, they were completely broken - LAMs were impossible to hit.
But, I, personally don't like how the video games portray mechs as these stiff things that clomp along with their arms, shoulders, and elbows locked so that they don't even swing their arms to counter balance (because it was too hard to animate that fluid a movement). I thought the whole point to mechs that require NEUROHELMETS to pilot is because it made them nimble and even graceful when they moved - why else would a trippable, 18 meter tall target be able to outmaneuver and out fight smaller (that means harder-to-hit) just as fast and as heavily armed and armored tanks (which, even in the advanced rules, don't automatically get a "low profile" quirk even though they're far lower profile than the lowest profile mechs). You were supposed to be able to recognize the pilot of a mech because the mech's posture and body language mimicked the pilot's.
Sure, they're not gundams - vehicles for which "gravity" is a silly, meaningless term - but they're not supposed to be these lumbering land-sloths that take a twenty second movement cycle to draw back a fist and throw a punch, either.
You give me no choice but to take all of my glorious stash of protoculture and go home!
☝️🤪👈
Okay,I can see your logic. I still like the lam, but I probably won't run a lam any time soon. We play the game to have fun (not to screw our opponents, usually).
For a video about hating on LAMs, that U.N.Spacy LAMs illustration are fire tho.
Macross on its own ain't the problem XD
Ah yes the latest rules for LAMs, yes now they are scary. Have been around long enough to have seen both sides. We used to make two changes, you needed both an aerospace and mech pilot skills, buying both as normal. This pushes BV extremely high. The range band movement modifiers are a pain, but we would alter the movement to hits but dividing the movement per plus by 3 just like the jump change. These help, but the hard counter used to be aerospace fighters. Zoom and boom.
Honestly if somebody is cheesing a LAM against you, just bring Aerospace Fighters and make them fight with Aerospace rules...
BLASPHEMY! Urbi-LAMs to the rescue!!
but for real: LAMs should be different in rules and only have 2 stages and stem from avoid mechs not humanoids..
AMERIIIIIICA, AMERRRIIIIIIICAAAAA........AMERICA F**K YEA
Nice Macross Valkyrie thumbnail!
If you don't like LAMs because it seems impractical from an engineer or physics point of view then you should hate jump jets that make even less sense. If you can vertical lift a 40+ ton vehicle with jump jets then you can fly it with wings. If the Highlander can jump then it can fly.
Which is my way of saying that jump jets are dumb.
This is part of why I like LAMs. In a world where you can have 45 ton mechs that have jets mounted on them that can lift the thing 180m straight up, surely someone is going to mount some wings and keep the thing flying in a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. The transforming makes less sense.
Jump Jets are kind of absurdly non linear.
lifting a 20 ton Locust 30m takes 500kg of JJ, 2.5% of its mass. Lifting a 100ton Atlas the same height takes 2 ton, 2% of it's mass. Square cube eat your heart out!
Making the JJ worth using instead of running typically takes even more % of weight the lighter your mech is.
A Highlander devotes less than 7% to the jumpjets. A Spider uses over 13%.
Somehow, the heavier the mech is, the more mass % you need to devote to achieve a given land speed, but the less you need to make it fly.
When Battletech first came out I never used LAM's in my games, because the just did not make sense. I did use the transforming rules to add Transformers into my games, more for laughs than anything else.
It’s always sad to hear you venom for LAMs, as I’ll always have a soft spot for them in concept and perhaps the best part of your content is your genuine enthusiasm.
Even “liking” them, though, I don’t have any real desire to see them brought back to the fore and seeing the Urbanmech version revealed was disappointing (I’d rather have seen almost any other force pack).
For the effort of the video, the least I can do is feed the algorithm and look forward to brighter topics to come!
From a logistics standpoint, LAMs are the only mechs you need. An Overlord can deliver 42 fighters that become helicopters or mechs as needed to complete a mission. Union? 14. Leopard? 6. You are now dealing with modern warfare cranked to 11, only the carrier needs to sortie only Harriers that are also tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
Just a few seconds in, and we're breaking out Min Mei images. We're going sorched earth nuke the site from orbit! Hell yeah!
But Red, what shall we do with all this mint jelly? 😂
O.O
I've already mentioned it on twitter, but as someone that is pro-LAM, I can see why people don't like them, that being said, I do think a house rule I'd implement at my table are that LAMs cannot contribute to objectives in Airmech mode, so if they want to hold an objective area they have to do so as a Battlemech, or as Aerospace if it's an objective that Aerospace are meant to contest instead of ground forces, essentialky if a LAM wants to be in Airmech mode, all it can do is contribute to the direct fight but if victory isn't achived through simply killing the enemy then they should see a bite taken out of their overall effectiveness and value as units.
The other thing I am considering but haven't really tested is making them apply the modifier to hit a moving target to their own shots while in Airmech mode since if your essentially half a Mech moving around like an Aerospace you should have some added difficulty in aiming reguardless of how good you actually are, but the first one should at least force some more mode changes more often (especially in games that require an area to be controlled since if all your other units are dead and the LAM is in airmech mode your obviously not going to be scoring while all the units you are killing will be scoring), and make them a potentially easier target to kill.
Could maybe also just x2 (rounding up when needed) the BV of LAMs.
Barely started watching, but I gotta just smirk at the hate and popularity of hating LAMs when in fact the first merc handbook listed a brand new light LAM as cheaper to procure than repairing a Heavy mech. I understand people being frustrated with how Harmony Gold attacked BT as a result...but tell me that the Marauder, Crusader, Archer, Rifleman, Stinger, Wasp, P.Hawk, Ost Series, Valkyrie, and Warhammer aren't the most beloved 3025 origin mechs in all of Macross. The next iconic Battletech design is the Timberwolf, and nothing after that, so hate all you want but LAMS and Macross designs in particular ARE Battletech.
Those designs fit in-line with Battletech because they are lumbering warmachines. Their now visually distinct as well.
(The Atlas is very iconic, almost as much as the Timber Wolf....)
The Lynn Minmei opening is such gritty, resentful humor. You are an artist, Sir 👌🏻
MMMAAAAACCCUUURRROOOOSSSS
I can hear this, loud and proud.
Lounge singer voice active
I've never dealt with one in play but I can see your point about the game-breaking un-fun-nes of an unhittable lightly armed foe. However, my first experience with Battletech was The Crescent Hawks Inception in which the end goal of the game was to find your father's Phoenix Hawk LAM so I don't think I will ever shake that awe of the machine. Maybe it's best that they remain nigh-mythical unobtanium relics of a bygone era.
"Lightly armed" doesn't describe all LAMs by any means, especially when they are shooting you in the back.
I like LAMs as scouts and only as scouts/spotters. I almost NEVER use them for direct fire combat roles,and usually only use them when I'm running a Campaign where the players are fighting a VERY rich merc company,or they manage to salvage one themselves. But we're very strict on them on our table. They're very fast,but extremely fragile,and Riflemen/Blackjack/Jaegermechs love eating them.
Most players I know who run LAMs only use them in scouting roles to replace a light mech. And we usually only take the Stinger and Wasp.
The only mechs I haven't liked are Quadvees or the Domini. Way too expensive and awful to repair in a campaign sense.
Right now I only have an Urbanmech LAM from the salvage boxes but that's because short of printing them myself,Aerospace minis are a bitch to find. I'm bout ready to get a 3D printer and start printing a couple Warriors or something.
Totally agree with you. I was one who played Battltech because there was no Robotech game. You are right, it never fit with the setting or the game play.
LAMs don't get to go until the Urbanmech LAM is canon!
I started playing before LAMs came out. By the time they had rules we were only playing in RPG settings. We also house ruled needing aerospace pilot skill to use them, and they were a huge pain to maintain in-setting. Holding ground made them as vulnerable to attack as any other mech/ground unit. Nobody in our group even wanted to use them at that point.
Way back in the day looking at the original rules I quickly came to the conclusion, "Why play anything else?"
And the answer to that was, "This doesn't belong in this setting." From all my friends, and that's a solid argument.
I still hold that for mechs with movement speeds of 6/9 and above they should be able to move/shoot/move so long as they don't exceed their total movement that turn in order to give light mechs a reason to exist beyond lols. Then that's me coming to the game as an Ogre player.
The best LAM is literally a spicy clantech'd Griffin 2N... and it was made by... THE WORD OF BLAKE! PRAISE BE TO BLAKE! (just give me the spicy griffin, it'll probably last longer)
Although I like LAM's, I deeply appreciate a different point of view. particularly when it is well researched and supported. The art of civil discourse ia a dying art. I don't share your visceral reaction but I appreciate the fact that it's based on respect for a setting/
"...much beloved company, Harmony Gold" LOL Riiiiiiiiiight
Robotech lost me when I found out that everything runs on flower power
That’s because Robotech is a mashup of three unrelated anime. The flower part comes from the Army of the Sothern Cross part (tanks), but oddly uses the “protoculture” name from Macros (where the LAM and Marauder pictures come from), which was referring to an ancient precursor civilization culture, not horticulture.
It lost me after 3 seasons of "Oh look bad aliens attack, humans win, oh look new aliens show up IMMEDIATELY and repeat the same crap again"
Even when they tried to reboot it all it came down to was "Oh flower energy aliens are actually good guys, your new alien friends are the bad guys now"
Maybe they should of spent less on lawyers and more on decent writers who were able to think beyond "Aliens bad, now ded, need new aliens to be bad"
Pretty on par for 80s cartoons.
I love LAMs. They're crazy, and not particularly good to use, but I still love them.
@Big Red-40Tech - while I do like the occasional use of LAMs, you make excellent points. You did mis the absolute hard counter to them - fighters. WiGE vehicles, like VTOLs, are practically immobile targets to conventional and aerospace fighters, and are very easily hit. Move max cruise across the map? To a fighter at altitude, it has the same TMM as if you hovered. Also, LAMs don't have bomb hard points like fighters. You have to give up internal tonnage - armor or weapons - for a bomb bay. Not a great trade, honestly.
Regardless, great points, and another excellent video.
I always appreciate hearing another person's take on a given subject, even if it's not a glowing endorsement. Personally, I view LAMs as an in-universe joke (especially the Urbie). Outside of simply having one in the collection for its meme status, I wouldn't even dream of fielding one. It's the sort of thing I would use just to practice my painting skills and little else.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I am very curious why Red hates the laser anti missile system. I mean, it generates a lot if heat compared to the ballistic version, but no risk of ammo detonation...
Laser AMS has always been an enemy of the people!
🤩 urbie flying on the wings of angels 🤩
Understandable to be fair, my ONE group that I play LAMs all know how they play, so we can counter and have fun with them, but as a one off that is prepared for, or long campaign reasons. LAMs are not for casual/pick up games or with our newer group members. LAMs to us are at best goofy, like taking a all urbie.
Always enjoy your videos Red. I have a Phoenix Hawk mini that is unpainted...I now have the urge to paint it "Control Blue" and put "Water" symbols on it for markings.. :)
LAMs are awesome. Come at me.
That's just like... your opinion man.
FWIW, the fluidity of mech movement never actually went away in the books and fluff, it just shifted to the background. Stuff like coordinated jumping jacks and mechs doing unassisted handstands has always been there, it just stopped being the focus around MW2s release, as you said.
Granted: that's still a *far* cry from transforming from mech to aircraft, and was almost wholly relegated to non-combat scenarios or solaris showmanship, so that doesn't really matter for the argument against the LAMs on a technical and gameplay level.
And for the actual gameplay...yeah, it definitely *is* garbaggio as far as sucking the fun out, but I will push back that they're overpowered. They're definitely not "bad" - they're just *fine* balance wise.
The one big downside you alluded to, but dismissed was buying down *both* piloting and gunnery for LAMs gets expensive for BV. For most units, buying down past 4 piloting sees diminishing returns unless you're doing some Fireball Charge cheese.
Typically, it's just more BV efficient to trade out the LAM for an inexpensive line mech to be a distraction carnifex and one or two seperate sniping VTOL with a little bit of gunnery investment as your actual damage dealer.
It's ultimately the same toxic as hell strategy in the broad strokes, just more BV efficient and refined.
They'll make back that BV. Only a Waneta or WOB Lam really starts to risk not being financially responsible just due to their starting BV being enormous.
Yeah, honestly I wouldn't be mad if LAMs just stayed in the past, where they belong. It says a lot that even for Wobbies, LAMs feel like a huge departure from the established weirdness. Leave 'em in the past, where they belong. Throw the Protomechs there with 'em while you're at it.
I am of the opinion they are best used for black ops fluff missions, and as highly mobile raiders. I like to think of them as a way to give black ops teams of BA troopers light mech support and a dedicated air transport with an internal BA bay.
I also think that the bimodal LAMs being heavier than trimodal makes no bloody sense. Bimodal LAMs are probably the better route for game balance anyway, as it gets the strategic mobility that makes them so useful without the annoying airmech mode.
It's a free country, *you're free to be wrong.*
@@Kepora1 He's Canadian, so not even that!
I love LAMS for 2 reasons.
1. Coz Im a die hard weeb and Macross Frontier is the greatest Macross. Lion, Diamond Crevase and Northern Star are the greatest songs Macross has ever created.
And yes, this is the hill im going to die on. Bring it!
2. Unlike Macross (scifi fantasy), Battletech embraces semi realism and it works well for the hulking war machines in its universe.
The in universe explanation behind the LAMS being over ambitious, overly complicated and poorly thought of weapons of war draws parallel to IRL weapons development.
Just look at tanks with 2 or more main cannons. Notice how non existent they are in the modern battlefield. Same as the LAMS.
While I love the LAMbie as a meme, I don't think LAMs have any real place in the wargame or the setting. It's fun to joke about but that is about where it ends, as a joke, and they don't fit where the game has come to be.
As someone who actually does like LAMs quite a bit, I found the repeated "Airmech mode, the only mode anyone will use after they have dropped their bombs" highly amusing - I have never transformed a LAM to Aerospace mode. Ever.
And I fully agree with you on the transformation being too out of tech scale with everything else in setting, especially the idea of it being done smoothly while in flight.
Odd to hear the dislike of LAMs being a controversial idea at the start of video, I'm used to most people disliking playing both using and against them, and no-one I've met argues they fit neatly in setting.
Our group has a bunch of Houserules/Headcanon to let me use them without it breaking things as badly (They are still kind of busted):
a) LAMs don't transform - they are stuck in Airmech shape.
b) They can land, and walk using standard mech movement mode rules with -1Run(standard walk), or takeoff and use Airmech-WiGE rules, using piloting check like transforming would.
c) Failing that check means it takes crash/fall damage determined off current speed and altitude.
d) Takeoff can only be accomplished using a full run in a straight line on level ground, rather than rules as written 5mp, as they are less aerodynamic than a regular WiGE. Landing similarly requires a same length "runway"
e) Any actuator crit disables WiGE mode, and causes crash damage if airborne at the time
f) No, it can't hover. Like a normal WiGE, if you don't move at least 5 hexes, it comes down out of the sky. You don't have enough jets to defy gravity long term, you need airflow over those wings.
g) You can gain elevation via thrust, unlike a normal WiGE - cost 5MP/level.
h) LAMs carrying Bombs DO have these effect their performance like external stores would.
i) No, you still can't mount external stores.
j) LAMs may enter at any elevation level.
k) LAMs may not use Low altitude Aerospace map
l) LAMs operate on the HA/Space maps like any other Mech, as covered in Stratops, except they get thrust=JJ/2 rather than JJ/3
m)If we aren't playing with FULL combined arms involving Artillery and Air/space support, instead play them in mech-mode only.
Stinger LAM :) Scout unit.
LAMs are absolutely terrible.
But,... I'm of a particular age. I love them. They are trash, but, I'd happily get cored in one anytime.
EDIT~ Note, I would NEVER play one unless the opponent is either an AI, or has one themselves.
The transformable Valkyries in Macross are the result of advanced alien technology that's essentially space magic. I completely agree that they just don't fit in the Battletech setting. Besides, all it would take is a single seal to fail in something made up entirely of moving parts for a LAM to burn up in re-entry or cause its pilot to be exposed to the harshness of vacuum.
I've always contended that LAM's were built to impress the brass who sign the contracts, and the unfortunate victi- um, I mean pilots were an afterthought.
yep I always saw it as a typical military graft, a bit like the hover tank in Sgt Bilko
This video is incredibly insightful. The experiences with LAM's have been that they were very underpowered and pathetic, only winning non-narrative edge cases in the succession wars. As all I have heard from them had been in the Aerospace or 'Mech modes. Hearing how they are in the hybrid mode in skilled hands is baffling.
I can see your distaste in them from the streams now. Though I am of the opinion that the rules sides of things can very well be overhauled to make it fit better (similar to the new Aerospace rules coming up for CAS). They always did stick out as awkward looking and feeling in BattleTech for me. Though I do think 'mechs are far more nimbler and flexible than the video game depictions show as we can see in literature they aren't to the degree of the Mecha of anime. Though IMO some fit the BattleTech aesthetic more than others though ironically enough often are illegal designs such as the Scorpion LAM which is basically an aerospace fighter with leg landing gear.
I always did find LAM's a bit weird, albeit some other things like QuadVee's (at least all the canonical depictions of them and rules) out-weirded LAM's for me. Though it isn't something I would've ever put in the franchise myself (Perhaps more emphasis on Aerospace/ Conventional aircraft/ VTOL's carrying them. The logistical and mobilization side of things make sense to me) I did always have a tinge of wishing to see them fleshed out more, redrawn, rules changed, etc. To have a more grounded and western take on these compared to the eastern counterparts, however far that would be.
I think this video, however, essentially marks the end of that. Maybe if we have some VTOL's like the Tonbo intending to carry and drop 'mechs around could fill that weird special interest hole LAM's vaguely touched on...
The old rules weren't any more favourable to LAMs beyond what they could do as Aerospace fighters, and all fighters could drop a fuck-ton of bombs on a single target or strafe across the entire ground map. But a 25 ton Sabre Aerospace fighter with 3 medium lasers could carry twice the bomb load of a Stinger or Wasp LAM.
That 25 ton light fighter could literally drop 400 damage worth of bombs on a single mech in a single turn. Wasp or Stinger only 200 damage worth. Same weight Aerospace fighters could fly circles around LAMs too.
But 400 damage, holy crap. Make sure you have air cover. Or boom, bye bye Atlas.
Plus keep in mind how fragile they were at least in old Aerotech rules. 10% of their tonnage was devoted to LAM stuff so that's 3 to 5 tons less armour compared to the full mech versions. And in Airmech mode they were extra fragile 9 damage (half side torso armour, no structure) to a Phoenix Hawk's side torsos in Airmech mode destroys a wing and causes a height 4 crash instantly. 4 damage to a Wasp or Stinger Side torso/wing. Extremely delicate. Ground units did have +4 to hit vs them but all air units had -1.
They also couldn't hover. But had no heat buildup.
They were weak in og if not for how OP Aerotech was.
Yeah, pretty much every mechanics issue he brought up seems to be more an issue with how Aerotech works in general.
@@Real_Iron_Smith Where are the most recent LAM rules btw? I have Total War and Tactical Operations and neither even mention them.
I have the old 1986 Aerotech rules.
@dimman77 I know they're in TRO 3085, and most recently in Interstellar Operations. Though apparently Catalyst now split Interstellar Operations into two books?
You know, this video made me realize something. I am a huge fan of Macross, and the VFs are some of my favorite mecha/spacecraft designs. And yet when I play or think of Battletech, I never even think about LAMs despite the obvious inspiration.
I've never played them myself, just heard some stuff about their (broken) rules before and haven't bothered looking into them at all. And it's not that I dislike them in any way or think they aren't plausible in the setting (in a very specific way). Just when I think of Battletech, it's things like the Atlas, the Mad Dog, the Orion, the Catapult, the Zeus, etc. these towering battle-scarred behemoths that shake the ground wherever they walk. That's what screams Battletech to me.
We have mechs that roll, jump, go prone, lean around corners, dodge out the way of things, climb cliffs, and even Techmanual describes assault mechs with hands and actuators being able to do handstands in controlled conditions. With the Hells Horses Quadvees and old Huntress taken into account as well, I 100% believe LAMS belong in battletech if only under controlled/experimental conditions but their ability is definitely not out of the realm of what is possible with a battlemech. With that being said, I do agree with you from a gameplay standpoint the last I played with a LAM was when I was a kid in 2011 using a IWM Word of Blake LAM but I heard they got nerfed around 2015-2016 with the new catalyst rulebook when I stopped playing way earlier so I don't know how they are now. I think a good combative against LAMs on tabletop would be if a new set of vehicles and mechs with the Anti-Aircraft targeting quirk got a slightly greater accuracy boost against LAMs specifically.
I started this hobby back in the early 2000s because of Robotech.
The guys I played with bullied me so hard that I dropped my LAMs quickly. Moved away, have a new group, still no LAMs.
I think you'll find LAMs aren't really welcome given how they operate. I'm sorry you had a negative experience though.
@@BigRed40TECH Don’t be sorry. It was a learning experience that I appreciate after the fact. Communities have standards and expectations. I’m glad they taught me. This isn’t anime, this isn’t Robotech. And learning how grand strategy this setting was elevated this setting to a whole new level for me.
And I think it’s cool you took the time to respond to my comment.