This came up (not to me) at a local thing over the weekend. Say I use a ship with push the limit to get a focus and evade. Then, someone Jams be while using ISB Splicer. People were saying that you remove one of the tokens, focus or evade, then ISB kicks in and you remove the other. I kind of think that is horseshit. The wording of the Jam reference card says,

" When a ship has both a jam token and a focus, evade, or blue target lock token, remove the jam token. Then that ship chooses and removes one of its focus, evade, or blue target lock tokens. A ship is "Jammed" if it has a jam token."

ISB says

"After you perform a jam action against an enemy ship, you may choose a ship at Range 1 of that ship that is not jammed and assign it 1 jam token."

So since the Jam Token goes away BEFORE removing a focus, evade, or TL, then it seems like ISB would be all,"oh look, not jammed", and kick in, but sine you do not remove the evade, focus, or TL until after the Jam token is gone, it doesn't make sense that one jam action with ISB could remove 2 tokens.

Of course, this is FFG and they ARE SO GOOD at writing clear, concise rules and interactions, so I guess it might wok the other way.

The other people were correct.

Just now, Innese said:

The other people were correct.

well, that's crappy.

The way I read it is:

1. Player 1 Uses PTL to take a Focus and Evade
2. Player 2 Jams Player 1. Jam token is assigned to Player 1. The Jam Token is immediately removed , along with the Focus Token.
3. Player 2 Jams Player 1 again, using the ISB Slicer-provided second Jam Action. The Jam Token is immediately removed , along with the Evade Token.

Because it says “ after you perform an jam action ...” and not “ when you perform a jam action …” I’d say this is a second free action; not a simultaneous action.

41 minutes ago, Innese said:

The other people were correct.

Yup.

Once you've removed the Jam token and the relevant green token or lock, you're no longer Jammed, and you're a valid target for the Slicer.

The wording is perfectly clear, logical, and unambiguous, annd not liking it doesn't change that.

I think a ruling where ISB Slicer couldn't double-jam a ship is theoretically possible (that is, to interpret the Jam action as resolving before the Jam token counteracts a token), but I think it's far less convincing, and clearly the community has gone the other way.

So, ISB Slicer double-jamming has the community support and the stronger rules interpretation. It double-jams, unless we hear anything from the Devs. We almost surely won't before 2e upends everything.

At least neither the Jam action nor ISB Slicers can currently stack Jam tokens on a ship (as in, Jamming a ship that already has 1 Jam token, in order to force it to carry a second one around)... but yes, ISB Slicers are still a virtual must-carry on any Reaper you're planning on using for the Jam action.

2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

At least neither the Jam action nor ISB Slicers can currently stack Jam tokens on a ship (as in, Jamming a ship that already has 1 Jam token, in order to force it to carry a second one around)... but yes, ISB Slicers are still a virtual must-carry on any Reaper you're planning on using for the Jam action.

Currently* the only way to get more than one Jam token on a ship is Scrambler Missiles or Jamming Beam in combination with the action.

*lol who am i kidding that's not going to change before 2e.

What about jamming the Inquisitor who does not have any Jam tokens. Assuming he has the V1 title equipped. When he acquires the target lock, does he still benefit from the evade granted by the title?

I think the answer is yes since he did acquire a target lock although it got jammed. I got this interaction in a game a couple of weeks ago and we decided that Inq still benefited from the evade

3 minutes ago, Mandalorian27 said:

What about jamming the Inquisitor who does not have any Jam tokens. Assuming he has the V1 title equipped. When he acquires the target lock, does he still benefit from the evade granted by the title?

I think the answer is yes since he did acquire a target lock although it got jammed. I got this interaction in a game a couple of weeks ago and we decided that Inq still benefited from the evade

I concur with this interpretation. The target lock WAS acquired, it just instantly fizzled. So, you take the target lock action, acquire the lock, Jam token discards the Lock token, then you may perform a free Evade action.

Yup. He gains the lock then immediately discards it. So he gains it so he gets the evade. But strictly in that order so he can't end up with lock focus and drop the evade to clear the jam.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:32 PM, thespaceinvader said:

Yup. He gains the lock then immediately discards it. So he gains it so he gets the evade. But strictly in that order so he can't end up with lock focus and drop the evade to clear the jam.

This. The jam token 'burning' the token doesn't prevent the action from having occurred. So anything which triggers off the action or acquiring the token can still occur (like TIE/v1), and it stops you attempting the action again that round if you get additional actions later (Valen Rudor, for example).