Zitat
Land-Air-'Mechs (LAMS) were apart of the game from the very beginning, starting with the publication of Technical Readout: 3025 and the AeroTech box set in 1986. However, the last standard rules book they appear in was The BattleTech Compendium, which published in 1990; 1994 saw the publication of The BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare, which deleted the LAMs and they were moved to Tactical Handbook, which also published that year (this is when "Levels" were introduced to BattleTech and LAMs were relegated to "Level 3" rules). That same year also saw the publication of the Invading Clans sourcebook, which detailed Clan Nova Cat's annihilation of LexaTech Industries, the last holdout of LAM production in the Inner Sphere. In 1996 Technical Readout: 3025, Revised was published, removing those images FASA no longer would use in BattleTech, which included the LAMs. With the publication of Maximum Tech in 1997, which replaced the Tactical Handbook as the "Level 3 advanced rulebook" (which didn't include LAMs at all), LAM rules fell out of print. Now because I was involved from 1996 on and have agreed with the original decisions regarded LAMs, there's a lot of players that believe I hate them. First, note that I didn't start working at FASA until 1996, so the process began years before I started work. Second, I don't hate them...well back in the day (late 80s) I had a lance of LAMs in my mercenary unit I ran...lots of fun memories there, coordinating attacks between them and a lance of Longbows. So if I don't hate them, why were they removed and why have I been adamant about keeping them that way for some 15 years? I've discussed this before, but thought it useful to showcase the reasoning (we'll ignore the 'can't use those images any more' issues, as they're not actually relevant). 1. LAMs were included at the very beginning because they were part of the block of images brought to the game from various anime sources. However, as BattleTech grew and progressed it created its own Western-style aesthetics, where 'Mechs were not ultra nimble, gynmnastic robots as shown in many anime, but instead were "walking tanks." 100 tons of lumbering death stalking the battlefields (some of the moves shown in various novels by "legendary warriors", not-with-standing). As such, LAMs simply did not fit well into that aesthetic. 2. The art of what a LAM fighter looks like was completely different than all the other aerospace fighters within the game. Now one could make the argument (and it has been made) that 'Mechs run a huge gamut of look and style and so do aerospace fighters, so why not just consider the LAMs at the extremes. But the thinking is that they ran just too extreme. Even the most 'airplane' looking of the aerospace fighters (say the Corsair) were different 'enough', as opposed to the LAM aerospace fighters which looked like our modern day F-14s/F-15s. 3. Rules were completely broken. Now rules can always been fixed...I've been doing that for endless years it seems. But this was a small part that, added to the two parts above, ultimately resulted in the decision to ensure they didn't return in the 'current' BattleTech universe. So why am I talking about this? Well...because comprehensive rules for LAMs are done and will be included in the Alternate Eras section of Interstellar Operations. And I must say, there's rarely been a rules set I've seen have to go through so many revisions and playtest cycles before we felt it worked across the board and completely plugged into all the rules we have now. I've always known the original rules had problems, but the more we poked and the more we playtested, the more the problems came to the fore...but after a lot of months of good playtesting by a lot of people...we've got a rules set that I believe fully works. So item 3 is gone. What about item 1? Don't they still violate the aesthetics of BT? Yes...they still do. However, there are several different types of units/rules that violate the established aesthetic of BT 'as a whole,' and yet are canon within the universe. For example, the use of nukes and biologicals are part and parcel of the history of BT. However, until the Jihad they'd never been used 'on screen' (and even in the Jihad they're a small candle next to the massive use of them during the early Succession Wars). However, even though they've been used during the Jihad, it doesn't make them appropriate for the entire swath of BattleTech eras. So you'll notice that while we published nuke rules in Jihad Hot Spots: 3070, we've not yet included them in any core rulebook...that's because they fit within only a few eras, not all and so those rules will appear in the Alternate Eras section of IO. The same applies to LAMs. While a lot of effort was put into removing them from the 'current' time line, it doesn't mean they were ever "removed from canon." In fact, that's ultimately why I gave in and threw my whole support behind making them happen. Because the entire purpose of the new line of books is the "whole kitchen sink" approach, where we put in every rule we can think of to cover every last bit of what's in our awesome universe...and let the players decide what they do or don't want use in a given scenario/campaign. And since LAMs are absolutely part of that canon, thanks to a single sentence in the Star League sourcebook concerning Striker regiments, if I ever want to see my pet project of Historicals: Liberation of Terra and I want it to match canon...we've got to have LAMs. So, that only leaves item 2 to figure out...but...well...have to leave something for you guys to guess about, right? Hopefully this gives everyone something they can sink they're teeth into. If you love LAMs, their coming back, but specifically placed within the 'alternate eras' framework. And for those that hate LAMs, exactly because they're placed in that framework, depending upon when and where you run your campaigns, you can ignore them to your hearts content.
...
nton: )
In dieser Form natürlich noch nichts Großartiges, aber das Potenzial ist da. Sozusagen ein großes PnP-Videospiel-Crossover mit den besten Parts aus beiden? Klingt gut. Und sieht gut aus.
Warum nicht ein Heroes, ein Villains? Wie bekloppt. Sonst klingt es gut und überschaubar.
Berechtigungen
Zitieren
