Yes. Jammers ignore Vis Mods (ODD, TO, Camo, Mimmetism, Poor Vis, Low Vis etc). The -6 due to Engaged is not a visual mod it's caused by the Engaged state.
We don't. Jammers are really badly written. But taking a conservative position on this is the easiest option (ie. unless it's clearly a vis mod then Jammers don't get to ignore it). The trait that seems to give Jammers the ability to ignore mods is 'No LOF'. Since there's nothing in either the Jammer or BS Attack into Close Combat rules that indicates LOF is a factor in why the MOD is applied ergo it LOF is not a factor and the MOD should be applied as normal. The strictest reading of the rules as written would apply ODD, TO, Camo and Mimmetism MODs to Jammers. There is no indication that these mods rely on LOF whereas this text is present in Low/Poor Vis Zones: "Any Skill, Special Skill or piece of Equipment that requires LoF and is declared from, into, or through a Low Visibility Zone suffers a -3 MODto the relevant Attribute in the required Roll." Since Jammers do not require LOF they certainly ignore those mods. However, previously we've been advised that Jammers ignore Mimmetism, TO, ODD and Camo MODs. This was on the old forums. This is the only reason people play it as ignoring those MODs. We have never been told that Jammers ignore the MOD for attacking an Engaged model. Furthermore, from a gameplay POV allowing Jammers to attack models engaged in CC with impunity is bad and should be resisted unless it is absolutely clear that it's intended.
Really ? Being in CC is imo obviously a visual modifier as it represent the difficulty to put a bullet on a target without hitting your friend. You don't get mod for hacking someone who is in CC. Why would you get some for a jammer ? EDIT : Jammer are probably too strong and should be nerf for sure (like isolated for only two player turn). But I don't like the rule being counter intuitive or inconsistent.
This. I can see people making a (valid) point that Engaged state is "kinda of visual mod" and people arguing otherwise. So CB has to step in again and fix what they have broken. Unless this is example of this "coffee talk" and they are beyond our peasant problems ^^
Comms Attack. But Technical Weapon. So it can go either way... /shrug And yeah, Jammers need to change so hackers can reply with something else than reset.
I wouldn't say that the Jammer rules are broken. Broken implies that they worked some time before. Jammers were dead on arrival.
You are wrong. Jammer is what CB designed jammer to be. If you don't like it don't play it (dunno how you can "not play against it" ? ask opponent to be nice?) If you have problem go play other game. Don't post your critique as it is irrelevant. War is peace etc.
Because Hacking and Jamming are VERY different. With reference to the rules explain to me why we shouldn't apply the CC MOD? You won't be able to, ergo we do. Next someone be telling me that Jammers ignore Surprise Attack MODs because they're 'kinda a visual MOD' and it's more consistent. Ultimately, though, Jammers already avoid some MODs and are affected by others, this is nothing new.
It's not either way, nothing in Comms Attack removes the obligation from applying mods to the attack. Indeed Sat-Lock has this text to avoid doing it: This Roll applies no further MODs (for Range, Cover, CH,ODD...) or bonuses unless otherwise specified. Jammers do not. If anything the problem is that Jammers ignore ODD, Camo, Mimmetism and TO with no justification in the rules. Seriously why do they avoid those MODs? Justify it without saying 'because we were once told it was that way on a forum that is now dead'.
Because all those are "optical" stuff that Comms Attacks, being faced with Reset, can ignore reasonably. Making the Jammer a Comms Equipment (so it could be Blackout'ed, for example) would bring the thing down a peg, also giving a little breathing room to the AHD (which are now kinda hidden because KHD).
