And I apologise for the above statement having to be made... I've had a very bad day with some very bad Beer and clearly its finally getting to me.

You people are all just crazy! If you equip a flotilla with the Jamming Field upgrade it now has a distance 1-2 Jamming Field around it. The word "while" is only being used here as a "defining" word to let you know that "while" any squadron within its range, now has an obstructed shot when it attacks or defends. The card should probably read, "Any squadron within distance 1-2, its attacks are obstructed, whether attacking or defending." In my eyes, there is no difference between the phrase "while a squadron" or "any squadron" in the definition of the card. It's all just reading into it what you will....

You people are all just crazy!

You people are all just crazy! If you equip a flotilla with the Jamming Field upgrade it now has a distance 1-2 Jamming Field around it. The word "while" is only being used here as a "defining" word to let you know that "while" any squadron within its range, now has an obstructed shot when it attacks or defends. The card should probably read, "Any squadron within distance 1-2, its attacks are obstructed, whether attacking or defending." In my eyes, there is no difference between the phrase "while a squadron" or "any squadron" in the definition of the card. It's all just reading into it what you will....

So the questions from the RRG should be:

Is this an upgrade card? If so, its effect is optional *unless it specifically states that it is mandatory

Is this a "while" effect? If so it is optional for an independent second reason

For the record I don't care either way what the effect is. I'm fine if FFG comes back and says it is mandatory. But the sections in the RRG covering Upgrade cards and while effects are clear.

You people are all just crazy! If you equip a flotilla with the Jamming Field upgrade it now has a distance 1-2 Jamming Field around it. The word "while" is only being used here as a "defining" word to let you know that "while" any squadron within its range, now has an obstructed shot when it attacks or defends. The card should probably read, "Any squadron within distance 1-2, its attacks are obstructed, whether attacking or defending." In my eyes, there is no difference between the phrase "while a squadron" or "any squadron" in the definition of the card. It's all just reading into it what you will....

It doesn't matter if those phrases read the same in English, the rules add information and context for how to work with the effect on the card. You can't just ignore those pages of the rule book.

So the questions from the RRG should be:

Is this an upgrade card? If so, its effect is optional *unless it specifically states that it is mandatory

Is this a "while" effect? If so it is optional for an independent second reason

For the record I don't care either way what the effect is. I'm fine if FFG comes back and says it is mandatory. But the sections in the RRG covering Upgrade cards and while effects are clear.

A : new cards overrule, old rule book.

B : Why do they specifically word optional upgrade cards. to allow that optional use, if all upgrade cards are already optional?

C : it is not a while effect in the way you are talking about it, it is a while you are inside the radius of the field, you are affected by it.

Honestly, this is not clear in the rules as written, what is clear in the rules as written is, an upgrade card that says, you may do something is optional, not you have to use it when ever the trigger for use is met.

No chance this is supposed to be a turn on turn off effect, nothing else is even remotely close to that use, you either have something always in effect, or you exhaust or spend something to generate an effect in a specific timing window.

But you think a 2pt upgrade, that ignores the usual high cost & penalties for powerful effects, IE Exhaust this card, or spend this dice/token, can be turned on and off at will? even to the point you can make an opponent lose a dice when attacking you, then switch it off for your counter attack. or vice versa and switch if off for your attack and on for your opponents counter attack.

I cannot believe people are trying to argue this is true, or in fact how the rules are as written. it is a possibly the worst example of rules lawyering I have seen to date on these forums.

I just went trawling through upgrade cards to look at wording.

Basically most things that are optional say "may" on them, interestingly Adar Tallon does not, he just says to exhaust him after you activate squadrons with a command, but everyone else I checked says "may" on it.

17/18 Rebel Officer Upgrades have "may" on them

5/6 support slot upgrades have "may" on them

2/5 offensive slot have "may" on them

3/4 defense slot have "may" on them

2/7 ion slot have "may" on them

2/9 Tl slot have "may" on them

Seems a mighty amount of effort has gone into putting "may" onto things to show they are optional, but if all upgrades are "optional" why go to all that effort? why make the distinction?

I just went trawling through upgrade cards to look at wording.

Basically most things that are optional say "may" on them, interestingly Adar Tallon does not, he just says to exhaust him after you activate squadrons with a command, but everyone else I checked says "may" on it.

17/18 Rebel Officer Upgrades have "may" on them

5/6 support slot upgrades have "may" on them

2/5 offensive slot have "may" on them

3/4 defense slot have "may" on them

2/7 ion slot have "may" on them

2/9 Tl slot have "may" on them

Seems a mighty amount of effort has gone into putting "may" onto things to show they are optional, but if all upgrades are "optional" why go to all that effort? why make the distinction?

So your point is moot and you can give it up.

I just went trawling through upgrade cards to look at wording.

Basically most things that are optional say "may" on them, interestingly Adar Tallon does not, he just says to exhaust him after you activate squadrons with a command, but everyone else I checked says "may" on it.

17/18 Rebel Officer Upgrades have "may" on them

5/6 support slot upgrades have "may" on them

2/5 offensive slot have "may" on them

3/4 defense slot have "may" on them

2/7 ion slot have "may" on them

2/9 Tl slot have "may" on them

Seems a mighty amount of effort has gone into putting "may" onto things to show they are optional, but if all upgrades are "optional" why go to all that effort? why make the distinction?

Yet it matters not Eastern because the rules have built in the optional rule.

So your point is moot and you can give it up.

it is not an optional rule, either all upgrade cards are use as you choose, in which case why did FFG specifically state on cards when you may or may not use them (outside of the timing window), or you accept that the section of rules being quoted is being misunderstood.

Wow, really good discussion. I keep a busy day, so I've just now had a chance to read up. This has been an upgrade card whose interpretation does matter in terms of whether you play it or not, and how you play it in your fleet, and it certainly does deserve a clarification. I also see pretty good arguments on all sides. The discussion here is pretty good and although there is some disagreement and perhaps slightly more heat than light, there's definitely a point with language where one's ability to argue breaks down, at least until a clarification is received.

All I can offer is a bit of interpretation as I see it. I don't expect it to resolve anything, and I don't really want to participate in a belabored fashion, but I figure one more voice to the thread adds to point that a clarification is pretty much necessary.

1. From reading the FFG promo article, they demo it as always on, which is where my mind first runs when I see this card. Whether they have a habit of getting it right or wrong, this is still going to be the first place I'd go to clarify intent. At least until other official information is produced such as errata or a FAQ. That may not be decisive in itself, but as someone who has to TO at least some of the time, I'd say it guides my thinking in how I might clarify it for a tournament (if FFG doesn't take care of it before the next one I have to run).

2. I did notice a grammatical claim that I think is incorrect. May is not redundant with while (or when) because both words can be used to trigger a Future More Vivid Conditional sentence. In that particular kind of sentence, the first clause poses a condition which may or may not occur (in this case, squadrons attacking or defending), the second poses a consequent of that condition that follows as fact. In a Future More Vivid, if the first clause does become a reality, then the second clause is guaranteed. This is why I think the "unless otherwise specified" group has a solid argument. The card is effectively saying that if item A is true, then item B is also true, and is therefore specifying that claim.

3. Creating parallels with other cards is difficult because there's virtually no conceivable instance in which you'd want to turn off something like XI7, or basically any of the cards that TheEasternKing mentions as lacking "may."

In the end, I agree with Reinholt that it really needs a clarification, because a five page thread is pretty good evidence that the community is going to dispute with itself until that happens. This is a great game and with this level of depth and complexity, a bit of confusion about language is bound to happen is a healthy.

I am convinced the intent is for it to always be on, even though I think it us unworthy of play as such. RAW say otherwise.

This will be a FAQ item that states it is always on. Ill never use it, as I find most flotilla cards to be overcosted (ship cost counts) and extremely inflexible to use with their ridiculous close range requirements. Im not spending 20-30 points to possibly obstruct a few enemy squads once or twice a match. Range 1-2 is very limiting and difficult to accomplish when ships are cluttered up at firing ranges.

Just not worth the hassle of trying to get it to work.

Wow, really good discussion. I keep a busy day, so I've just now had a chance to read up. This has been an upgrade card whose interpretation does matter in terms of whether you play it or not, and how you play it in your fleet, and it certainly does deserve a clarification. I also see pretty good arguments on all sides. The discussion here is pretty good and although there is some disagreement and perhaps slightly more heat than light, there's definitely a point with language where one's ability to argue breaks down, at least until a clarification is received.

All I can offer is a bit of interpretation as I see it. I don't expect it to resolve anything, and I don't really want to participate in a belabored fashion, but I figure one more voice to the thread adds to point that a clarification is pretty much necessary.

1. From reading the FFG promo article, they demo it as always on, which is where my mind first runs when I see this card. Whether they have a habit of getting it right or wrong, this is still going to be the first place I'd go to clarify intent. At least until other official information is produced such as errata or a FAQ. That may not be decisive in itself, but as someone who has to TO at least some of the time, I'd say it guides my thinking in how I might clarify it for a tournament (if FFG doesn't take care of it before the next one I have to run).

2. I did notice a grammatical claim that I think is incorrect. May is not redundant with while (or when) because both words can be used to trigger a Future More Vivid Conditional sentence. In that particular kind of sentence, the first clause poses a condition which may or may not occur (in this case, squadrons attacking or defending), the second poses a consequent of that condition that follows as fact. In a Future More Vivid, if the first clause does become a reality, then the second clause is guaranteed. This is why I think the "unless otherwise specified" group has a solid argument. The card is effectively saying that if item A is true, then item B is also true, and is therefore specifying that claim.

3. Creating parallels with other cards is difficult because there's virtually no conceivable instance in which you'd want to turn off something like XI7, or basically any of the cards that TheEasternKing mentions as lacking "may."

In the end, I agree with Reinholt that it really needs a clarification, because a five page thread is pretty good evidence that the community is going to dispute with itself until that happens. This is a great game and with this level of depth and complexity, a bit of confusion about language is bound to happen is a healthy.

Good post, and I agree they need to state categorically that this is not an optional effect.

Losing dice on attacks and counter attacks, every single squadron in range, for 2pts, that you can pick not to work on your own stuff? I mean it negates Dengars give everyone counter 1 already, but to negate it but no penalty to yourself, seems a bit much. anything else of a comparable magnitude A costs more, B has an additional cost, dice/tokens/exhaust.

I mean it would not have been hard for them to add a "may" into that sentence structure on the Jamming Field card, nor would it have been hard to say "enemy" either.

Which was the point of listing all the times they did put "may" onto upgrade cards, so you specifically know, you may or may not chose to activate the card in question.

But I am just repeating myself in different ways now, I will wait for the Errata/FAQ publication.

It still has purpose if ruled to be always on.

Slow roll your flotilla near your bombers with an intel squadron nearby. Your bombers are now harder to kill and don't suffer a penalty while shooting at ships.

3. Creating parallels with other cards is difficult because there's virtually no conceivable instance in which you'd want to turn off something like XI7, or basically any of the cards that TheEasternKing mentions as lacking "may."

Dodonna's Effect is always on but due to the optional rule I can choose not to use Dodonna if a ship is going to die and I don't want to waste the chances of a good crit being near the top.

Sometimes you dont want Xi7's because you need another shield face down for shots from something else. It is rare but does happen.

There are many abilities that are good to not have the word "may" in it. The Optional rule just gives all cards that freebie out if they want.

Sometimes you dont want Xi7's because you need another shield face down for shots from something else. It is rare but does happen.

I can't see that possibility given that the opponent can always elect to redirect only 1 damage.

So...my wager is still up for the taking. First three takers step up. I am on the "ALWAYS ON" side. Who is against? C'mon now. It's obvious I'm wrong?...right?

Three Flo-tee-jahs for the taking and losing.

So...my wager is still up for the taking. First three takers step up. I am on the "ALWAYS ON" side. Who is against? C'mon now. It's obvious I'm wrong?...right?

Three Flo-tee-jahs for the taking and losing.

Buggered if I know, but I'm on your side... So the world is clearly ending anyway.

I am of the crowd that it is on until you dont want it and when its off it is off, you cant just spike it on to negate counter or anything.

This one is a bastard. And I must say after TOing a tourney (my first time TOing, also first wave 3/4 tourney) there was a decent turnout (10) and there were a LOT of question on the new upgrades.

I decided to announce right from the beginning that JF was always on, and that G8s DID hit Engine Techs (and about exactly half of the people agreed and half hated me)

I do feel that sometimes the rules lawyering gets out of hand here. I can just imagine the poor bastard at FFG who wrote the thing reading this and wondering why people dismantle every word and put it through a wringer when what he intended is pretty **** clear.

Personally I think it is in the worst spirit of the hobby to take a "technically correct" interpretation that allows what is essentially abuse of a rule and run with it with a smug page long breakdown that justifies it. It leaves novice players feeling like they were cheated when you "clarify" for them why the perfectly obvious interpretation of the card is "wrong" because the English language has a new and temporary dictionary when it suits you (namely the RRG)

I know I'll probably catch heat for saying it but if you play this as optional on just because you technically can while you know (lets face it we all know, cue vehement and self righteous protestations of ambulance chasing rules lawyers) that it was NEVER intended to be optional on (even saying it out loud you have to realize how ridiculous it sounds "Ok im going to shoot your a-wing, JF OFF!, ok now your counter JF ON! ok my next squad JF OFF!" ... give me a break).

Could FFG have written it clearer? Probably, but i bet the guy who wrote it thought he was being clear enough with his definitive "is" and the fact that even a drunk chimpanzee can see that if the INTENT was to ONLY affect enemy squads IT WOULD SAY SO ON THE GOD D CARD.

Have fun rules lawyering and protesting how much "Internet RIght" you are until it is FAQd, and shame on you if you use it as optional on. Just, shame.

This one is a bastard. And I must say after TOing a tourney (my first time TOing, also first wave 3/4 tourney) there was a decent turnout (10) and there were a LOT of question on the new upgrades.

I decided to announce right from the beginning that JF was always on, and that G8s DID hit Engine Techs (and about exactly half of the people agreed and half hated me)

I do feel that sometimes the rules lawyering gets out of hand here. I can just imagine the poor bastard at FFG who wrote the thing reading this and wondering why people dismantle every word and put it through a wringer when what he intended is pretty **** clear.

Personally I think it is in the worst spirit of the hobby to take a "technically correct" interpretation that allows what is essentially abuse of a rule and run with it with a smug page long breakdown that justifies it. It leaves novice players feeling like they were cheated when you "clarify" for them why the perfectly obvious interpretation of the card is "wrong" because the English language has a new and temporary dictionary when it suits you (namely the RRG)

I know I'll probably catch heat for saying it but if you play this as optional on just because you technically can while you know (lets face it we all know, cue vehement and self righteous protestations of ambulance chasing rules lawyers) that it was NEVER intended to be optional on (even saying it out loud you have to realize how ridiculous it sounds "Ok im going to shoot your a-wing, JF OFF!, ok now your counter JF ON! ok my next squad JF OFF!" ... give me a break).

Could FFG have written it clearer? Probably, but i bet the guy who wrote it thought he was being clear enough with his definitive "is" and the fact that even a drunk chimpanzee can see that if the INTENT was to ONLY affect enemy squads IT WOULD SAY SO ON THE GOD D CARD.

Have fun rules lawyering and protesting how much "Internet RIght" you are until it is FAQd, and shame on you if you use it as optional on. Just, shame.

I, too, sometimes become angry that the rules are what they are.

I know I'll probably catch heat for saying it but if you play this as optional on just because you technically can while you know (lets face it we all know, cue vehement and self righteous protestations of ambulance chasing rules lawyers) that it was NEVER intended to be optional on (even saying it out loud you have to realize how ridiculous it sounds "Ok im going to shoot your a-wing, JF OFF!, ok now your counter JF ON! ok my next squad JF OFF!" ... give me a break).

One reason I rule it that it is on/off for the entire attack not just a portion. Thus you cant say its off for just your attack and on for their counter but instead on/off for the attack and counter thus there is no abuse of the card or optional rule.

I decided to announce right from the beginning that JF was always on, and that G8s DID hit Engine Techs (and about exactly half of the people agreed and half hated me)

I applaud you, Hast... For having the Guts to "make the call". Its something that more TOs need to be willing to be able to do...

It is part of that job. Making the call. If you can make it in advance and let everyone know, even better - that way there are no arguments on the day.

People will hate you. Oh, people hate me just for what I do here on the forums (and I have PM's to prove it, both here and where people have attempted to track me and my business down elsewhere).

But, its important. When the call is made, the call is made.

So Congratulations, for doing that... Regardless of the call you made. You made it.

Somebody sounds a bit drunk on their TO power. I would NEVER argue with a TO after the start of an event. This is not a tournament, this is a Rules forum. This is exactly the place to discuss the nuances of card/rule interaction. It is a special kind of arrogant to accuse people of lawyering when they disagree with you IN A RULES FORUM. I'm not going to apologize for pointing to the RRG rule that backs up my understanding of how the game is played.

Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified.

The bigger questions are how the players choice to resolve an effect works and what qualifies as an override. I feel like players have gotten lazy and expect this to be reiterated on every single card by using the word "may". And maybe the designers have gotten lazy too. IMO Adding "may" to every card actually confuses the underlying rule of player option because the result of using "may" can be misunderstood as the card Effect always resolving, and that its the "may" allowing the player to either apply the resulting clause or not. Many players seem to be playing this way. In most cases the outcome is the same, but the rules for "effects" aren't actually written with this flow.

The actual rules for "effects" on upgrade cards state that the player CHOOSES to resolve the effect (unless specified). "Is" can't count as specifying mandatory because it falls under the result, not the condition.

I think that there is good chance that this card was meant to always resolve in the devs head, but I don't see anything indicating that on the card or rules.

This particular card doesn't matter other than the fact that is the first card with a clear benefit in not resolving. I really dont care about the outcome. The debate is academic for me.

I read the rules very different from some of you. Probably because of a background in technical documents. For me upgrade cards default to "off" until the time the player chooses to resolve the effect (to completion). The rules also seem to be written with this in mind.

So, is FFG constantly following this pattern/rule? Maybe not, but there sure would be fewer arguments if they were more disciplined.

I'd take the "flotilla challenge", but it is by definition talking about dev intention and will have little to do with what is written on the card/rules. So winning doesn't swing on the merits of the argument.

(As an aside, this card effects two other objects, and not the ship itself. This actually makes inserting the word "may" awkward because "you" refers to the flotilla. To have the exact effect and include "may" adds a lot of extra verbiage.)

I know I'll probably catch heat for saying it but if you play this as optional on just because you technically can while you know (lets face it we all know, cue vehement and self righteous protestations of ambulance chasing rules lawyers) that it was NEVER intended to be optional on (even saying it out loud you have to realize how ridiculous it sounds "Ok im going to shoot your a-wing, JF OFF!, ok now your counter JF ON! ok my next squad JF OFF!" ... give me a break).

Could FFG have written it clearer? Probably, but i bet the guy who wrote it thought he was being clear enough with his definitive "is" and the fact that even a drunk chimpanzee can see that if the INTENT was to ONLY affect enemy squads IT WOULD SAY SO ON THE GOD D CARD.

Have fun rules lawyering and protesting how much "Internet RIght" you are until it is FAQd, and shame on you if you use it as optional on. Just, shame.

Here is the problem with this: where do you draw the line?

Should Demolisher be able to shoot after engine techning (an oversight)? Not by RAI. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to see a fix along these lines in the future. Should I now come down on you like a ton of bricks for having used that, if you ever did in the past? Shameful. You should quit and burn your models.

What about people who played the XI7 interaction with AP various ways before that was ruled, and then over-ruled by FFG in their FAQ? Should we also get pissed at the people who played it the way it was in the FAQ the first time for shamefully abusing the rules because clearly that turned out not to be the RAI, as it was later also overruled?

Here is the problem: when language is involved, there is necessarily grey area. The most problematic grey areas are the ones where either RAI directly conflicts with RAW (and I honestly believe that to be the case here), or where the RAI and RAW are legitimately not clear (G-8 + ET, anyone?).

In those cases, you are now left with only bad options, because reasonable people can and will disagree.

In the first one, it is the right move to make a call, but some TO'ing advice from someone who has been running events for 10+ years is don't get aggressive about it and always hear people out. You don't have to change your opinion (in fact, you probably shouldn't unless they can produce an official FAQ or the rules clearly are on their side, as being right is more important than anything else), but I will openly state that you are going to damage your community if you act self-righteous or like a dictator about these things. If someone showed up to an event, genuinely believing Jamming Fields worked that way and having built a list with it, and you not only overrule them but tell them that they are a loathesome shameful toad for WRONGGAMING and they deserve what they got, you have not only likely lost a player, you've also likely created an enemy for both the game and your community.

Don't be that guy. It's not wrong to make a call. It is wrong to be imperious about it, or not announce it far in advance so people don't show up with lists that now magically don't work (or don't give them time to re-jigger a list, go back home and get stuff to adjust, etc. if that's possible).

This is not to say you did that (I am on record as saying we never know unless we are there and I generally dislike forum stories of in-person conduct for this reason), but your tone in your post definitely comes across that way (probably not intentional), and it could alienate people.

Edit: this is also precisely the time when an FAQ is most needed.

Just a nitpick but I feel comfortable, given that its been FAQ'd in, that we can assume Demo shooting post engine tech manuever is RAI as well as RAW. I wouldn't be shocked to see them reverse course now either, but unless one of the deisgners intimated to you at gencon that they didn't intend for that to happen I don't see the basis for saying it wasn't RAI. Does serve to show how murky the waters get when we start ascribing intentions to the actions of others.

On topic I will say the RAW argument on jamming fields comes from very specific points in the manual, and just reading the card I was left with not only the impression that it was always on, but the feeling that "well no **** of course its always on". And I can be looked at as a sophisticated party (in the legal sense) with regards to rules discussions for this game. Additionally, we have precedent for upgrade cards that you would think could be left unresolved being "always on" as it were, in the form of the interaction between Gunnery Teams and Advanced Gunnery, in that the upgrade's Cannot restriction triggers even if you use the objective as the agency for your second attack. (Which is also something they reversed course on, although the intital ruling was via email exchange not FAQ).

Again, while the RAW argument is valid and sound, I would bet cash money that jamming field is going to be ruled to be always on.

That ruling ended consistent with the RRG. "Cannot" is defined as absolute and always in effect (not optional). A "can" does not override it. In fact most upgrade cards ruled "always on" are due to the keyword "cannot".