Do we know for certain all of the effects of a jamming token 2.0 yet?
I know there's been some mentions by developers during their streamed games, but that's not quite the same thing as the final complete, official wording of the rules.
From that, we know that jam tokens can eliminate green tokens. But is that everything they do, or do they have additional effects that didn't have a reason to come up during those games?
11 minutes ago, Freeptop said:From that, we know that jam tokens can eliminate green tokens. But is that everything they do, or do they have additional effects that didn't have a reason to come up during those games?
Such as?
What additional effect could you add that would not make this control element too good when the devs have said and demonstrated that control elements should generally be limited in strength anyway?
33 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:I haven't seen it. Anyone? is there even a jamming beam in 2ndE?
27 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:Such as?
What additional effect could you add that would not make this control element too good when the devs have said and demonstrated that control elements should generally be limited in strength anyway?
Demonstrated? How?
And you know. That would make sense, if all control elements were comparably weak. But they are not. If Jam was only as effective as stress, or ion, I'd be happy. They don't need to make it go overboard.
What you could do, for example, is to make them fire in the system phase.
Or you could make them stay until they definitely remove something. You could make it so that it only ever removes 1 token (like Ion doesn't make you ionized for 3 rounds if you are a small ship) no matter how many jam tokens you apply, but they stick around.
You could make them work against all tokens, not just the green ones.
You could give a trigger to their removal, like stress, so they don't just fall off no matter what you do.
There are many things you could do, to make them more useful, but not broken.
1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:Such as?
What additional effect could you add that would not make this control element too good when the devs have said and demonstrated that control elements should generally be limited in strength anyway?
One option that would at least have some utility would be if it could strip target locks in addition to green tokens. It wouldn't elevate the jamming beam to competitive, but at least would make it something that could be used on lower initiative pilots.
Honestly, I don't know what could elevate it to competitive, but since I also don't know the full 2.0 rules, I can't really make an exhaustive list of possibilities, either.
40 minutes ago, Freeptop said:One option that would at least have some utility would be if it could strip target locks in addition to green tokens. It wouldn't elevate the jamming beam to competitive, but at least would make it something that could be used on lower initiative pilots.
Honestly, I don't know what could elevate it to competitive, but since I also don't know the full 2.0 rules, I can't really make an exhaustive list of possibilities, either.
They've said on stream that it still works on locks.
7 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:They've said on stream that it still works on locks.
They also said the advanced sensor thing. We discussed this.... They cannot be trusted.
It could be that they thought about the 1.0 Jam
It could be that jam was changed during the development of 2.0
There could be a number of thing why they said that. It is not enough.
You can't just accept one of the things they say as obviously wrong, then claim another as obviously true... Can you not see the disconnect here?
As if you don't know how frequently they make mistakes in their articles or quotes, LITERALLY every time we hear from them.
Having mulled this over I simply do not understand why FFG didn't do the following.
Jam Cannon - 3 Attack - Range 1-3
If this attack hits, spend hit/crit results to remove green tokens from the defender. If the defender has no green tokens you may apply the Jammed token instead.
Jammed
Spend an action to remove this token. You cannot perform any other actions.
What are your thoughts?
54 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:As if you don't know how frequently they make mistakes in their articles or quotes, LITERALLY every time we hear from them.
You are aware that these articles are not written by the devs, yes?
Just now, GreenDragoon said:You are aware that these articles are not written by the devs, yes?
And you are aware that they made the mistake of advanced sensors and Vader working together, yes?
1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:And you are aware that they made the mistake of advanced sensors and Vader working together, yes?
Classic, as usual you just ignore that part where you're shown to be wrong. You started over 30 threads since 2.0 dropped, one train wreck after another. Even the Mynocks call you out in their latest episode, maybe you should tone down your constant stream of nonsense.
But to answer your question, are you aware of the supernatural reflexes force power? They are functionally very similar to advanced sensors, close enough to say one when meaning the other.
Supernatural Reflexes (Force Power, Small Ship). Before you activate, you may spend 1 [Force] to perform a [barrel roll] or [boost] action. Then, if you performed an action you do not have on your action bar, suffer 1 [damage] damage
2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:Classic, as usual you just ignore that part where you're shown to be wrong.
Dude... You literally just did this. I wrote several sentences and you picked the one half sentences about the articles that you could find an issue with.
My point was that they mix up a lot of things. THEREFORE, we can't be sure, so stop saying that "but the devs said it on the stream"
If you think there is a difference between mixing up 2 upgrade cards (like advanced sensors or supernatural reflexes) and mixing up 2 versions (1.0 and 2.0) of the same mechanic... I don't know what to tell you.
I see what you mean when you say that they could have mixed the two cards up (even though, that is nothing but PURE 100% speculation). Even you agree that they make mistakes... Why is it so difficult to believe that one of their utterances about the jam tokens is ALSO a mistake? What is the difference between these two arguments?
So you can come here and say how the Mynocks called me out (I'm flattered), and how I am a trainwreck... But to think that you hold a superior argument is pretty rich.
You bring up a baseless speculation to "prove" me wrong. You could be right, I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying that THAT specific argument holds no water.
For the record, this is my comment. You ignored everything in italics, and commented about the bold part.
1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:They also said the advanced sensor thing. We discussed this.... They cannot be trusted.
It could be that they thought about the 1.0 Jam
It could be that jam was changed during the development of 2.0
There could be a number of thing why they said that. It is not enough.
You can't just accept one of the things they say as obviously wrong, then claim another as obviously true... Can you not see the disconnect here?
As if you don't know how frequently they make mistakes in their articles or quotes, LITERALLY every time we hear from them.
There. Go in the corner, and think about what you just did, before telling me off next time.
Cheers. Have a lovely evening.
I think the wording of "they can't be trusted" has a rather sinister feeling to it, with an implication of malice on the part of the developers.
May I suggest, instead, saying that we should take anything the devs have said on the streams with a grain of salt? For one thing, some of those streams were recorded a while ago, so things could have changed since then. Also, when speaking off the top of their heads, it's pretty easy to get mixed up as to what version you worked on ended up in the final product.
I'm not a game developer, but from my experience as a software engineer, I run into similar problems all the time. I'm generally working on software that's 1-2 versions past what's in the field, so when I get asked about particular features, I generally have to refer back to the source code - if I don't, I'm likely to give a wrong answer, since the question can be about something I last worked on over two years ago, and I've made significant changes to that code since.
So, I do agree with Commander Kaine that we can't just treat anything stated by the devs on the streams as the final version. But I would suggest to him that he may want to more carefully consider how he words things. Hostile statements tend to be reacted to with hostility. Even if the intention wasn't to be hostile, the words used can imply hostility that wasn't intended. (This has long been a major flaw in a primarily text-based medium - much harder to glean intent without tone of voice!)
10 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:Dude... You literally just did this. I wrote several sentences and you picked the one half sentences about the articles that you could find an issue with.
My point was that they mix up a lot of things. THEREFORE, we can't be sure, so stop saying that "but the devs said it on the stream"
And supporting that claim with articles is utter nonsense.
Besides, you‘re - yet again - incredibly dishonest by just bolding the word instead of the sentence. You had 6 sentences. 4 make the point with advanced sensors, one is repeating your claim, and one uses the articles to support it. Of course I quote that last one, what else would you expect?
But here, just for those lacking reading comprehension:
19 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:If you think there is a difference between mixing up 2 upgrade cards (like advanced sensors or supernatural reflexes) and mixing up 2 versions (1.0 and 2.0) of the same mechanic... I don't know what to tell you.
I see what you mean when you say that they could have mixed the two cards up (even though, that is nothing but PURE 100% speculation). Even you agree that they make mistakes... Why is it so difficult to believe that one of their utterances about the jam tokens is ALSO a mistake? What is the difference between these two arguments?
With the AdvS/SR they referred to the - for the situation - exact same mechanic, namely taking the action before activation. The difference is in card slot and name, which has no bearing on the mechanic. They used AdvS when another card name was correct, so wrong label for same content.
With Jam they referred to several different parts of the effect, namely which tokens. Tokens that are now very different, and much more so than in 1.0. They added more content to the effect, which is much less likely to happen compared to mislabelling something already present.
26 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:So you can come here and say how the Mynocks called me out (I'm flattered), and how I am a trainwreck... But to think that you hold a superior argument is pretty rich.
I still think so. But then again, every time so far in this thread when you apparently agreed a d conceded you stopped replying, so I can‘t be too sure.
27 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:For the record, this is my comment. You ignored everything in italics, and commented about the bold part.
Really?
28 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:Go in the corner, and think about what you just did, before telling me off next time.
I thought about it. I think should keep calling you out on your fake news.
You start almost daily a thread, so you provide both ample display of it and opportunity for me to do so.
1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:They also said the advanced sensor thing. We discussed this.... They cannot be trusted.
But you have absolutely no counter evidence.
You have no full rules doc to quote, and I don't even believe you've ever provided a link to a stream or article where any mention of jam "only affecting green tokens" has happened.
What is the basis for your assumption contrary to what FFG devs have apparently said outright on stream? Where is the reasonable doubt?
If it is literally just 'they have made mistakes before' then why bother discussing anything 2.0 related? If the articles make mistakes, then nothing in them should be taken for true, surely? If they make mistakes on streams, then all the information in them is worthless.
If you can't trust the word of a dev on a stream then you're saying that no information is trustworthy until we have the rulebook and printed cards in hand. So why bother discussing anything until then? Why make threads ranting about design decisions that may or may not even be true (apparently) until then?
And in case you feel I'm singling you or your stance out, I'm not. I would very much like to see someone link to other side of the argument too. People have said the devs apparently mentioned jamming works on target locks, but I've not yet seen a single link to back that up.
@HolySorcerer or anyone else in the thread who has claimed FFG have stated jam will work on target locks, do you have an actual timestamped link to a stream recording where they've said as much? Or a quote in an article, or the AMA, a forum post or anything of the sort? Because if not, my opinion is that such claims are equally worthless for discussion.
2 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:But you have absolutely no counter evidence.
You have no full rules doc to quote, and I don't even believe you've ever provided a link to a stream or article where any mention of jam "only affecting green tokens" has happened.
What is the basis for your assumption contrary to what FFG devs have apparently said outright on stream? Where is the reasonable doubt?
If it is literally just 'they have made mistakes before' then why bother discussing anything 2.0 related? If the articles make mistakes, then nothing in them should be taken for true, surely? If they make mistakes on streams, then all the information in them is worthless.
If you can't trust the word of a dev on a stream then you're saying that no information is trustworthy until we have the rulebook and printed cards in hand. So why bother discussing anything until then? Why make threads ranting about design decisions that may or may not even be true (apparently) until then?
And in case you feel I'm singling you or your stance out, I'm not. I would very much like to see someone link to other side of the argument too. People have said the devs apparently mentioned jamming works on target locks, but I've not yet seen a single link to back that up.
@HolySorcerer or anyone else in the thread who has claimed FFG have stated jam will work on target locks, do you have an actual timestamped link to a stream recording where they've said as much? Or a quote in an article, or the AMA, a forum post or anything of the sort? Because if not, my opinion is that such claims are equally worthless for discussion.
My basis is that they have repeatedly stated that Jam removes green tokens. The mechanic removes tokens from the Defender. Blue lock tokens do not exist on the Defender anymore. Logically, it doesn't hold up. There is nothing to remove there. There isn't a "good" lock token, therefore, it cannot be removed.
I can't listen to the podcasts now, to get timestamps, because I'm at work.
Even if I did, I'm not sure I would post them. I've tried reasonable arguments on this site, very few people are capable of debating without ad-homs, or just generally ignoring what I say. I could link stuff all day, and people would just not read the links. I'm not interested in elevating this debate for my enjoyment only. As I think I have clearly shown, REPEATEDLY, if I'm convinced, I will concede. If I'm given respect, I repay it. It is not my responsibility however to go up against baseless points. Hitchen's razor and all. I don't need any evidence to dismiss something without evidence.
Now, right now, I can't recall Alex Davey ever saying anything about Jam removing locks, but I have seen everything. It could be that I missed it. Logically, however, the way the mechanics work, it doesn't seem to apply to Locks. I maintain that.
Everyone who disagrees with this, seems to cite a video, where Alex was talking about these. Mixing up this thing could be a small mistake, (just the same way Advanced Sensors was). I just find it strange that the same people that argue that Advanced Sensors cannot stack actions with Vader, say that Jam removes locks, while the strength of the evidence is the same.
7 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:I just find it strange that the same people that argue that Advanced Sensors cannot stack actions with Vader, say that Jam removes locks, while the strength of the evidence is the same.
And here it is again, a lie so casually thrown in that it does not always register.
You imply that the entire group of people saying something about AdvS and Vader actions is the same as the one talking about removing target locks, and paint that seemingly single group in a negative light. So casually with a hint of concern trolling that it is manipulative in nature. Smh
9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:And here it is again, a lie so casually thrown in that it does not always register.
You imply that the entire group of people saying something about AdvS and Vader actions is the same as the one talking about removing target locks, and paint that seemingly single group in a negative light. So casually with a hint of concern trolling that it is manipulative in nature. Smh
One day, I hope, you will be able to engage an argument on is substance. Your inability to grasp what I am saying is staggering. But fine, I won't talk about people (although, I wasn't really... the "some people" part was referring to you), I will talk about you.
You say that Advanced Sensors doesn't stack actions despite what Alex says, because Alex just thought about Supernatural Reflexes. - The latter part of this idea is pure conjecture.
You also say that Jam removes locks, because Alex said so.
These two premises cannot support the same argument, because they contradict each other.
I wrote my thought process down. I explain why I think Jam doesn't remove tokens. You don't. You "cite" something that could be wrong. Logically, Jam shouldn't remove locks, because they are not green tokens. Is it possible, despite this, that they remove them? Absolutely. It is also possible that Vader can stack actions with Advanced Sensors, since the Force allows you to disregard normal limitations (like Luke Gunner). These claims are equally strong, based on identical evidence. It could go either way. And we have one of the Dev-s confirming it. Yet, you seem to be sure, that only one of them is true. Which I find strange.
If saying this is painting you in a negative light, it is not me doing it.
Just saying... New ISB Slicers have been revealed.
Enemy ships at R1-2 don’t remove jam tokens.
Edit: for some derpy reason it won’t let me post pics from my phone anymore lately.
Edited by ForceMHey guys, the Reaper article is out. It confirms that jam removes locks AND has a crew that makes Jam tokens stick around.
3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:Hey guys, the Reaper article is out. It confirms that jam removes locks AND has a crew that makes Jam tokens stick around.
Woooo! I win the internet points, and I didn't even have to scrub through a bunch of videos to pull out the clips where they talk about jam!
Still doesn’t mean jamming beam is worth it, but for 1 point, it could be great next to an ISB slicer or against reinforce.
"At the very least, Major Vermeil can assign a jam token to the ship, preventing it from gaining a green token or lock later in the round."
Also I'm not sure we knew that jam token prevents future focus/locks in the round.
19 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:Hey guys, the Reaper article is out. It confirms that jam removes locks AND has a crew that makes Jam tokens stick around.
I'll say it again:
On 6/12/2018 at 6:51 AM, Jo Jo said:If Vader does become a menace (or anything with FCS), it does counter him a bit. He'll want to keep his TLs on stuff, and Jamming makes that difficult.
?
Eh, jam tokens might irritate Vader, but he's extremely well equipped to deal with them. He can use his ability to shed jam tokens before locking, or just ignore them as force tokens don't care.