16 minutes ago, mcintma said:

"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.

Well... If they don't have a focus, you activate before them, slap a jam token on them. Then it would remove future tokens as well. That hasn't changed.

Just now, HolySorcerer said:

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.

But that drains the Dark Lord's supply of force tokens, and if he doesnt reapply the target lock, he loses a whole extra die of offense.

1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:

But that drains the Dark Lord's supply of force tokens, and if he doesnt reapply the target lock, he loses a whole extra die of offense.

Sure, but he can work through it, other pilots are just plain out of luck.

17 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

But that drains the Dark Lord's supply of force tokens, and if he doesnt reapply the target lock, he loses a whole extra die of offense.

Vader should be able to keep out of range. There is no I6 option for jamming

Let’s also remember that a jamming beam could now potentially inflict up to 4 jam tokens! Vader would hate that, and so would a ghost or Decimator that can’t even mitigate those. Add an ISB Slicer...

1 minute ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Let’s also remember that a jamming beam could now potentially inflict up to 4 jam tokens! Vader would hate that, and so would a ghost or Decimator that can’t even mitigate those. Add an ISB Slicer...

Sure, but I think Vader (or any other ship for that matter) would prefer to be dealt 4 jam tokens than 4 damage.

Just now, HolySorcerer said:

Sure, but I think Vader (or any other ship for that matter) would prefer to be dealt 4 jam tokens than 4 damage.

Sure, but it’s kind of assumed that if you’re using a secondary cannon, it’s because you have a weapons disabled or a 2 primary. Sure it’s no HLC, but mangler doesn’t exist and this should be super cheap to boot. You want to throw 3 dice for 1 point? Here you go.

Just now, ClassicalMoser said:

Sure, but it’s kind of assumed that if you’re using a secondary cannon, it’s because you have a weapons disabled or a 2 primary. Sure it’s no HLC, but mangler doesn’t exist and this should be super cheap to boot. You want to throw 3 dice for 1 point? Here you go.

Assuming that a Gunboat is the only one firing it and would prefer a 4 die jam over a 3 die primary. If the XG-1 is disarmed it only had 3 dice on the jamming beam. On a Lambda or a Defender you're giving up real damage.

Jamming beam is still bad, even with the slicers.

24 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Sure, but I think Vader (or any other ship for that matter) would prefer to be dealt 4 jam tokens than 4 damage.

That is on some ships, but look at the Gunboat that has 2 attack only you might prefer to jam somtimes...

Just now, ForceM said:

That is on some ships, but look at the Gunboat that has 2 attack only you might prefer to jam somtimes...

I think I'd prefer to tractor or ion.

18 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

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've never understood your insistence on this point. Sure there is no blue lock token on the ship anymore. But this does not mean the rules for Jam can't easily say "removes a green token assigned to the ship or a lock token with the same ID number as the ship." (Can probably be worded better but you get the idea).

But in any case since we now have a Dev statement in a stream that Jam removes locks AND an article saying it can we all accept that Jam does remove locks? Sure they can both be wrong (especially articles) but in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary i don't see a reason not to believe it.

Just now, JamesWG said:

I've never understood your insistence on this point. Sure there is no blue lock token on the ship anymore. But this does not mean the rules for Jam can't easily say "removes a green token assigned to the ship or a lock token with the same ID number as the ship." (Can probably be worded better but you get the idea).

But in any case since we now have a Dev statement in a stream that Jam removes locks AND an article saying it can we all accept that Jam does remove locks? Sure they can both be wrong (especially articles) but in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary i don't see a reason not to believe it.

Now, yes. But now it's a different set of sources, so you know.

Jamming beam on a Shuttle (if the shuttle still has a cannon slot) with an ISB riding along might not be a bad combo if its cheap. Other than that, it will be pretty hard to justify it over something else.

I wrote this in the morning around 16h ago, but I didn't want to bump this horrible thread. Now that I'm back home and the thread is again on the first page I might as well.

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

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.

I did not. It was your point that the two won't work together. If they don't (which is still unclear), then his mistake can be explained with supernatural reflexes.

Proof for that:
You said: "And you are aware that they made the mistake of advanced sensors and Vader working together, yes? "
I said: "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. "

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

These two premises cannot support the same argument, because they contradict each other.

You had made that point before, and I had replied how they can support different arguments because they are different premises. One adds a mechanic, the other swaps one mechanic for an almost identical one.

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

I wrote my thought process down. I explain why I think Jam doesn't remove tokens.

And you don't know whether that's true or not because you don't have the rulebook. We will soon have it, so your entire point is at this moment pointless. [and now that it's evening we know how wrong your thought process was]

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

You don't. You "cite" something that could be wrong.

Unlike your thought process? So let me get this straight: citing a dev is unreliable because he might have made a mistake. But your thought process is foolproof? Wow. [evening: haha, wow indeed]

8 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

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.

And I laid down why and how these two claims are not equal. As usual, you chose to simply ignore that and pretend it never happened.

@GreenDragoon Kaine can be curt and abrasive in his replies, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in Any of your posts in this argument.

1 minute ago, Forgottenlore said:

@GreenDragoon Kaine can be curt and abrasive in his replies, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in Any of your posts in this argument.

eh, we're too far down the rabbit hole. You'd have to reread half the thread, which I'd not want anyone to do. Essentially it's a petty back and forth by now, way too deep into semantics.

My overall point is that jam is fine (as posted in the other thread), and one subpart of that was that TLs are removed. Of course he still insists on having been right at the time because the dev on stream could have been wrong. But at this point it's so pitiful that I won't continue.

You know... @GreenDragoon. Fine. I started to type an answer to each of your points, then I realized it will lead nowhere. You were right about Locks being removed.

That is however not a testament to your argumentative process. You happened to be right. I didn't claim to know for sure, in fact my point was that we didn't know for sure. So I definitely didn't claim to be foolproof. You claiming that I did is a misrepresentation, exactly what you accused of me doing. What I claimed, is that unlike you, I did explain why I thought what I thought, while you didn't. That doesn't make me right, as you can clearly see, but the only thing that proves, is that you can argue the Truth in a flawed manner.

But let this be a reality check. Whatever you accused me of doing, in terms of ignoring your points etc., you repaid in kind. You are just as pitiful in this debate as I am. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with being a parody of an angry miniatures player online. Are you?

34 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

@GreenDragoon Kaine can be curt and abrasive in his replies, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in Any of your posts in this argument.

I've always preferred brutally honest as a descriptor.

48 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

because the dev on stream could have been wrong.

Which was quite possible, and he cited evidence of that with the advanced sensors gaff

I'm drunk, so this should be easy for you. Just tell me if I'm bullying you here because then I'll stop. I know I'm making fun of you, but that's not necessarily the same. I'm definitely having too much fun here.

You follow this

57 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Of course he still insists on having been right at the time because the dev on stream could have been wrong.

up by saying this:

31 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

You happened to be right.

That's hilarious!

32 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

What I claimed, is that unlike you, I did explain why I thought what I thought, while you didn't.

You keep repeating yourself, so I, too, can quote myself again. A quote where I already refer to a previous post.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

You had made that point before, and I had replied how they can support different arguments because they are different premises. One adds a mechanic, the other swaps one mechanic for an almost identical one.

As for this:

34 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

That doesn't make me right, as you can clearly see, but the only thing that proves, is that you can argue the Truth in a flawed manner. 

Eh, you'd have to put in a little bit more effort to classify that as proof.

17 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I didn't claim to know for sure, in fact my point was that we didn't know for sure. So I definitely didn't claim to be foolproof.

Your messages were a bit mixed to be fair:

On 6/13/2018 at 12:59 AM, Commander Kaine said:

But according to what we know, that's how they work. It removes green tokens, and Locks are no longer tokens on the attacker. Not just not green, no token of any kind. 

I think there will be mechanics to remove Locks, but only from the Defender.

I want Jam tokens to work better, I really do, but FFG is being inconsistent in their communications, and more things suggest that Jam tokens do not remove Locks.

My real problem is that even if they do remove locks (they don't) jamming beam is still almost useless without a double tap.

On 6/13/2018 at 8:59 PM, Commander Kaine said:

Locks are not confirmed to be affected, and with so fewer actions, it is likely that most ships will not take focus/evade/reinforce/calculate every round.

On 6/13/2018 at 8:59 PM, Commander Kaine said:

It doesn't affect everything,

On 6/13/2018 at 10:04 PM, Commander Kaine said:

No matter how many jam tokens you slap on something, if they don't have a green token, they won't do anything.

On 6/14/2018 at 6:11 AM, Commander Kaine said:

I don't think removing 2 or more tokens will be a thing... like ever. [note by GD: implying that it doesn't affect TLs]

On 6/14/2018 at 7:57 PM, Commander Kaine said:

You could make them work against all tokens, not just the green ones. [note by GD: stating that it doesn't affect TLs]

6 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Which was quite possible, and he cited evidence of that with the advanced sensors gaff

which I replied to. Three times now. He never answered it and kept repeating his point. Clearly I failed to communicate the argument, and/or it's so bad that the proper response is complete ignorance.

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'm drunk, so this should be easy for you. Just tell me if I'm bullying you here because then I'll stop. I know I'm making fun of you, but that's not necessarily the same. I'm definitely having too much fun here.

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You follow this

up by saying this:

That's hilarious!

I believe you are drunk. This makes no sense.

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You keep repeating yourself, so I, too, can quote myself again. A quote where I already refer to a previous post.

Are you saying that there is a fundamental difference between the two mistakes?

Like. Person A changes his phone numbers, because he moved to another city for a job. When asked about his new number, he might:
A, Give his old phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the old mechanic for Jam)
B, Give his new, company phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the new, added mechanic)

Those are two different phone numbers. The reason why he mixed them up, or what he though when he gave them, is irrelevant. The fact that he mixed them up remains that way.

Alex could mix up the new and old versions of Jam, just as well as he can mix up two different cards.

The reason why I didn't address this point, because it is frankly ridiculous. Yes, there is a difference in the two cases.... But why does that matter? Especially when in interviews they often get many things wrong.

14 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Your messages were a bit mixed to be fair:

For brevity, and rhetoric reasons, I sometimes didn't put the usual disclaimers there. This is because we were having the same conversation, and I thought that saying it several times is enough. The phrases "according to what we know", "I think", "suggest", and "not confirmed" are there to explain that I am aware that there is unknown information out there. To address that in each and every post would be insane, and I hoped you could follow it. It seems I expected too much.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

which I replied to. Three times now. He never answered it and kept repeating his point. Clearly I failed to communicate the argument, and/or it's so bad that the proper response is complete ignorance.

Definitely the second one.

29 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

which I replied to. Three times now.

Not with anything coherent, which is why I said

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

@GreenDragoon Kaine can be curt and abrasive in his replies, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in Any of your posts in this argument.

The only thing I can get out of a dozen or so of your posts is that you don’t think the Vader/advanced sensors interaction is clear. Which it totally is.

4 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I believe you are drunk. This makes no sense.

Hah, we both are, apparently. I said you will make an excuse about why you were not actually wrong but I was, and that's what you do. Pretty funny!

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Are you saying that there is a fundamental difference between the two mistakes?

Exactly. Not that it matters now, but yes.

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Like. Person A changes his phone numbers, because he moved to another city for a job. When asked about his new number, he might:
A, Give his old phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the old mechanic for Jam)
B, Give his new, company phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the new, added mechanic) 

Those are two different phone numbers. The reason why he mixed them up, or what he though when he gave them, is irrelevant. The fact that he mixed them up remains that way.

It's actually a good analogy, so I'll roll with it. What you are missing is that we don't know that the number is mixed up. That's exactly what we want to know: did he give us the right new private number? He once gave us his old phone number, that we know. But now he gives us another phone number and some other person B believes it might be the wrong one. That person B claims it is the company number. The reason is actually not irrelevant when we try to figure out whether it could be his new private number or his company number.

Reverting back to an old, known number is an easy mistake, so it's very believable and realistic. But mixing up his new private number with his company number would be a strange mistake. They have different functions, so why would he think of work when trying to give the private number?

We now know that, indeed, he did not arbitrarily jump into a different category and added something entirely new. Which would have been very weird and unexpected.

14 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Alex could mix up the new and old versions of Jam, just as well as he can mix up two different cards.

The reason why I didn't address this point, because it is frankly ridiculous. Yes, there is a difference in the two cases.... But why does that matter? Especially when in interviews they often get many things wrong.

It matters because you try to extrapolate from one known instance of mix-up to another, unknown instance of a possible mix-up. That means you have to compare whether the same circumstances are given. Different circumstances mean that your extrapolation becomes less reliable.

15 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

To address that in each and every post would be insane, and I hoped you could follow it. It seems I expected too much.

That seems smart, increasing the communicated certainty when the argument is heating up. I did not see that coming!

4 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

The only thing I can get out of a dozen or so of your posts is that you don’t think the Vader/advanced sensors interaction is clear. Which it totally is. 

That's on you though.

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's on you though.

See, this is a perfect example. What is? You’re not actually providing any context to your statement. Are you trying to imply it’s my fault that I can’t understand what you’re writing? Are you trying to say that I’m wrong about the rules interaction? Are you trying to say that I have incorrectly deduced what you thought on even that one point? You keep dropping these vague, undefined declaratives and then thinking you have proven something when no one knows what you meant.

Irrespective of who was correct and who wasn’t, who was being a jerk and who maybe wasn’t, Kaine’s reasoning could be followed, yours couldn’t.

4 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

What is?

That the only thing you can get out of a dozen or so of my posts is that I don’t think the Vader/advanced sensors interaction is clear. 

5 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

You’re not actually providing any context to your statement.

The context was your statement. That‘s why I quoted it.

6 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Are you trying to imply it’s my fault that I can’t understand what you’re writing?

That was not implied. It‘s right there. ‚That‘s on you‘ = your fault. The context is that you could not get anything else out of it. Hence the quote.

By the way, you might want to read my answer to Kaine‘s analogy. Maybe that clears things up.