So I want to start by framing my question with the proper language, sourced from:

http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Jamming_Field

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/2c/4d/2c4de555-925d-4fde-8af6-02873437149b/swm01_rules_reference_guide_lowres.pdf

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/4d/1c/4d1cbbc1-709f-417c-ac8c-511a61a38828/armada_faq_v211.pdf

Now, having provided that, let's talk. In the effects section of the rules reference, we see:

• "A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event." (pg.5)
• "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified." (pg.5)
• It is clearly specified in the Upgrade Cards section (pg.13) that Jamming Field is an upgrade card.

Then, if we look at jamming field, we see the following:

• "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack is treated as obstructed."

So what do we have?

1. It appears that the Jamming Field effect is a "while" effect, and is not specified as being non-optional.
2. It appears that the Jamming Field effect impacts each instance of an "attack".

Therefore, here are my ultimate questions:

• RAW, it appears as though I can choose to use the Jamming Field when I am being attacked (e.g. obstruct my squadrons when an opponent attacks them), but then not use it when I am attacking them (e.g. the card effect is optional, and I choose not to resolve it).
• RAW, if you look at the section for attacks, does this mean that if I run squadrons with counter and a Jamming Field, I can obstruct my opponent, then turn off the field when I counter, as the counter itself is also an attack and I choose not to resolve the Jamming Field?

Curious what the peanut gallery thinks, as it seems as though this card is actually quite good as written, unless it is intended to be a mandatory effect (at which point I think it needs an FAQ or errata, as I can't see where on the card it is made clear that is mandatory).

When this was last discussed, the consensus was the field is always on.

From a logical standpoint I would think that it would be impossible to jam individual fighters' targeting systems in the thick of starfighter battle.

And since this obstructs only squadrons, the idea is, IMO, to prolong the battle and make them vulnerable to AA fire.

So, its quite powerful in fleets that only really want to keep enemy bombers occupied.

When this was last discussed, the consensus was the field is always on.

Right, but I just can't find rules support for that is what I'm saying. I've re-read it all, and I still don't see where it's "otherwise specified" that they are always on, and with the way it is written, I don't see where it is otherwise specified (such as if the card read "the attack must always be treated as obstructed").

The reason I am asking is that what you are saying is how I feel like it should play at a first glance, but again, the rules are kind of confounding me on this one. Just like I felt that Demolisher shouldn't have been able to attack after using ETs the first time I read that, but... it can, as written.

I would reinforce Reinholt's interpretation here.

RAW - There is nothing to support the argument that Jamming Field operates differently than any other upgrade card. There is nothing on the Jamming Field card that overrides the Effects and Timing bullet quoted above. So if it's an upgrade card, you can choose when to resolve its effects. Its effect is triggered when a squadron at Distance 1-2 is attacking or defending. So I attack your squadron, the upgrade card triggers, as per the Effects and Timing rules I can choose whether or not to apply its effect, and I don't. Your squadron attacks mine, the effect triggers, I can choose whether or not to apply its effect, I don't.

RAI - It would also make sense that you wouldn't jam whatever frequencies are being used by your own fighters. Why would I reduce my own squadrons' fighting capacity?

I haven't seen any argument against Jamming Fields turning on and off that is actually based on the rules. Did anyone provide one elsewhere?

Remember that You can Jam all of B - Z Frequencies and still leave a backup freq for your team to use.

I believe that the rules as written make Jamming Field effect optional. However, I think that it's likely that the intent of this card is to have an "always-on" effect, so it may end up being FAQ'd (as would G8 vs Engine Tech).

I think it's hard to say what they intended. It very well could have been complete oversight, but the only ones who can say for certain are the devs themselves. As we have it now, you can make a solid RAI argument for either side, but you can only make a RAW argument for one, so I would err on the side that can be supported by both RAI and RAW.

When this was last discussed, the consensus was the field is always on.

No it wasnt. That was the consensus of some, mostly on the basis of cost rather than rules.

I thought this was pretty dead, but actually it's kind of interesting:

A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event.

Food for thought: is the resolution of JF also optional for your opponent?

Food for thought: is the resolution of JF also optional for your opponent?

No, because its your upgrade card.

Count me as another voice for it being optional.

First of all, the RAW pretty clearly specify that resolving an upgrade effect is optional, as many have mentioned, so really, until/unless it's errata'd, that's pretty much the end of it.

But I've seen the RAI argument involving the cost, and how powerful it is. Here's the thing though: it doesn't actually only cost 2. Much like the Interdictor's upgrade don't actually cost the printed cost on the card, part of the cost is baked into the ship. You're paying 18/23 points minimum on top of the price of the upgrade itself, to put it on a ship that's pretty vulnerable in the middle of the furball.

I've also seen the comparisons to Gallant Haven. Thing is, Haven is much better than JF, for a couple of reasons. First of all, GH stacks with normal obstruction; JF just guarantees it. GH applies after damage is totaled and defense tokens are spent; JF is before, meaning it reduces the effectiveness of braces rather than amplifying them like GH does. On top of that, GH is pretty commonly regarded to be overpriced (i know some people swear by it, chill out), and it rides on a much more survivable ship.

I don't know, I can see it being intended to be permanent--and frankly, I hope it is, because I think it presents a much more interesting challenge to the using player that way--but I don't think there's much support for it being non-optional.

Gallant haven is distance 1.

Thats the ultimate cost.

The more sensible comparison is flight controllers.

My two cents on this:

When the introduction of the various tools that can be used on the Gozanti came out from FFG, they provided an example of each feature.

Here is a link to the article: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/4/29/support-your-squadrons-support-your-fleet/

In the Jamming Field section of the article, you can clearly see the intended use of the Jamming Field upgrade by the way FFG maneuvered the Gozanti in relation to the squadrons that are engaged with each other. In my opinion the card is an always on feature.

Here is a screen shot of the Jamming Field section of the article for those of you who do not wish to visit the link:

Jamming field has no restriction against who gets the benefit, nor who may invoke it. So your opponent cam say it's on.

Jamming field has no restriction against who gets the benefit, nor who may invoke it. So your opponent cam say it's on.

This is basically saying its always on. Because one party will always want it.

I see the RAW argument, but I'm with steve and pt106 that the article leads me to believe that at the very least, it is intended to be always on. In general I hate RAI arguments, because intention is difficult to discern, at best, from a third party perspective. Or even a first person persective, depending on how much you drank that night. In this case though, because the article is pretty deliberate in its example, I'm gonna assume its correct until the FAQ in my home games.

I do think its the RAW argument as presented is technically correct (the best kind!) though, and that the FAQ is necessary if thats how they actually want it to work. For now, I think TO's have a difficult decision to make here, and I honeslty couldn't fault one for going either way.

The other side is, generally speaking, the word "May" makes an upgrade card Optional. Jamming fields lack the word "may"

Excellent point Dras.

Devil's advocating. Its one of those things where I think it'd be awesome to be able to switch it off.... But it would have to be worth more than 2 goddamn points, when you consider stackable bomber commands as a counter-point...

For 2 points, no, it should mess everyone up, including you...

As much as that annoys me.

Because I'd abuse the everliving love out of it otherwise...

Honestly, the more I think about this, the more that bullet under Effects and Timing doesn't make ANY sense.

Reading that rule, you are left with the impression that unless an upgrade card says "must" or "always," you have the option of using its effect or not. So that would make the use of "may" on an upgrade card pointless, because the base rules already state that an upgrade without "must" or "always" already has an implied "may" on it. But when you look over upgrade cards, they really fall into three categories: ones that say "may," ones that are triggered by a command or critical (which is covered elsewhere in the rules that clearly states their effects as optional), and ones that have a permanent game effect with no timing (and don't include "may/must/always"). That last category counts things that modify a ship's battery armament or stats, like Spinal Armament, Expanded Hangars or Boosted Comms. They don't say "must/always," so by the rules you can opt to use them or not. And sure, you don't have to use the upgrade, but why would you ever not use the effect if given the choice? Are you ever going to say, "Nah, three Red Dice should kill that ship, so I'm going to turn Spinal Armaments off," or "Welp, those squadrons I want to activate are at Medium range, so I'll turn off my Boosted Comms."?

Then we have Jamming Field. Jamming Field does not "specify otherwise," so by the Effects and Timing rule it's optional. It doesn't include "may," so it's not in my first category. It's not triggered by a command or critical, so no to the second. And it doesn't have a permanent effect, so it really doesn't fall into three. It's on its own. It has a clear timing (when a squadron at range 1-2 is attacking or defending against a squadron). By a literal reading of the rules, that means every time a squadron attacks or defends within range 2, you have the option of resolving the upgrade's effect. And that's what I'm basing my opinion on.

I guess the point of this whole ramble is to highlight the fact that RAW only supports Jamming Fields being optional, but the only rule that gives us guidance on the issue is ambiguous and doesn't make a ton of sense. The ONLY reason I can think of for including "may" on all of those upgrade cards is so that someone who didn't read the base rules carefully doesn't go around thinking that they must use their tractor beams every time a ship activates, or must use Lando the first time they get shot at.

There is an assumption there, in a core of your idea, which I will basically quote here:

They don't say "must/always," so by the rules you can opt to use them or not.

The assumption made is that, if there is no must, then it is option. They may clearly be not optional, but not resolving them is tantamount to missed opportunities ...

Jamming field has no restriction against who gets the benefit, nor who may invoke it. So your opponent cam say it's on.

Well I choose to turn my opponents X17s off. Not sure why you guys stopped using advanced projectors

Yes, you can choose to turn it on. You can't choose to turn it off. There is no "may" attached to it. It also specifies an effect for the Defender, regardless of whom that may be. The upgrade still needs to be equipped to the attacking ship though.