Hastatior - what they are saying, is this is the rules forum, the very place for these discussions.

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".

I disagree with that. To me the word "cannot" is defined as absolute in the meaning that if a card or rule says that something "can" happen and a card says that it "cannot" happen, then the "cannot" always wins.

Quouting what the RRG says: "If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute."

It tells that the "effect" is absolute, not that the card bearing that effect is. So by this deffinition it doesn't tell you that the word "cannot" is the only way that makes the use of a card not optional. In fact, there is nowhere defined what words overrule the "otherwise specified" of the optionality of upgrade cards.

Taking all this into account, is clear to me (altough I know some may disagree with this) that the cards are mandatory when they don't give you a choice like by using the words "may" or "can" just like most of the upgrade cards say.

So comming back to JF, the card never gives you even an opportunity to think it is optional, it says: "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or deffending, the attack IS treated as obstructed"

So comming back to JF, the card never gives you even an opportunity to think it is optional, it says: "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or deffending, the attack IS treated as obstructed"

So coming back to your argument, the reverse argument of that is:

The "Can" is in the "While". because it is a "While" trigger... The word 'Can' is in the sentence for "While" in "Effects and Timing" on page 5 of the RRG.;

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".

I disagree with that. To me the word "cannot" is defined as absolute in the meaning that if a card or rule says that something "can" happen and a card says that it "cannot" happen, then the "cannot" always wins.

Quouting what the RRG says: "If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute."

It tells that the "effect" is absolute, not that the card bearing that effect is. So by this deffinition it doesn't tell you that the word "cannot" is the only way that makes the use of a card not optional. In fact, there is nowhere defined what words overrule the "otherwise specified" of the optionality of upgrade cards.

Taking all this into account, is clear to me (altough I know some may disagree with this) that the cards are mandatory when they don't give you a choice like by using the words "may" or "can" just like most of the upgrade cards say.

So comming back to JF, the card never gives you even an opportunity to think it is optional, it says: "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or deffending, the attack IS treated as obstructed"

I feel like Hast is raging at the wrong people if tangled rules lawyering is really what's making him angry.

This right here is some seriously intense bend-the-words-to-make-them-fit-my-opinioning. You literally twisted the rules to mean the opposite of what they say.

Fair enough, but so far all of the mandatory cards I can think of have "cannot". I know of Slaved turrets and Gunnery team. Can you think of any card that does not have "may" or "cannot" that is confirmed mandatory?

That depends, how do you want to define "confirmed mandatory"...

Because none, the way I see it.

None are Confirmed Mandatory, because FFG has not put out a list that has said, "These Cards are confirmed to be Mandatory:"

Fairly Obtuse, I know. But this 'discussion' has gone way beyond any and all bounds of decency a long time ago, and since I live here in the Rules Forum, if people are tossing rubbish around, I might as well, too

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".

Thats fine reasoning, but thats not even why they changed the ruling. They changed the ruling because every single list with an ISD in it was taking Gunnery Teams and Advanced Gunnery, and they wanted more objective/upgrade diversity.

That depends, how do you want to define "confirmed mandatory"...

Because none, the way I see it.

None are Confirmed Mandatory, because FFG has not put out a list that has said, "These Cards are confirmed to be Mandatory:"

Fairly Obtuse, I know. But this 'discussion' has gone way beyond any and all bounds of decency a long time ago, and since I live here in the Rules Forum, if people are tossing rubbish around, I might as well, too

I like dropping by your house every once in a while to spill beer on your carpet and crap in your shower.

I like dropping by your house every once in a while to spill beer on your carpet and crap in your shower.

I like this too much. (Well, half of it) - But that's because the only carpet in my house is a small 6"x6" swatch I keep on my desk.

The floors are Hardwood or Bare concrete/baseboards...

So I can imagine setting up a little straw system to siphon beer out of my carpet swatch

...

The Shower thing though, man... I've got a 3 year old. Crapping in the Shower is almost a weekly occurance, since its a shower/bath Combo

Your 3yr old must know my 18mo old...

We do have two upgrade cards confirmed to be in effect despite player intention with GT and ST. Both of these have "cannot". As far as I know all of the rest are optional. And then there is JF...

You are mistaking the word "Confirmed" for the words "Agreed", "Implied" and/or "Understood".

You are mistaking the word "Confirmed" for the words "Agreed", "Implied" and/or "Understood".

Advanced Gunnery in the FAQ says that the player must suffer the effects of the "cannot" clause, despite there desire to not resolve the effect. But your right, technically it is not directly stated as mandatory.

Technically all I am arguing is that it is not "Confirmed" without FFG saying "These are Confirmed...."

You can read anything else into it you want... But that was my defined statement

Both sides have a point. We currently play it as always on. If it reveals itself otherwise then fair enough. But I believe the cost of the upgrade at 2 pts reflects its always on status. If you could ignore it as a friendly I feel it would be higher costed. Thats my thinking anyway.

"But how can they be jamming us if they don't know....that we're coming..."

I have to ask my opponent before the game starts if he's comfortable with always on or switchable to agree on until a FAQ is out

"But how can they be jamming us if they don't know....that we're coming..."

I have to ask my opponent before the game starts if he's comfortable with always on or switchable to agree on until a FAQ is out

Ok, lets Roleplay it out.

"But how can they be jamming us if they don't know....that we're coming..."

I have to ask my opponent before the game starts if he's comfortable with always on or switchable to agree on until a FAQ is out

Ok, lets Roleplay it out.

What, no Interpretive-Dance-Off?

Jamming Field is going to be a problem until the official resolution comes out. It cannot be satisfactorily interpreted without an official ruling and/or errata. If it's able to be selectively enforced by the owner, then it joins XI7s in the category of very powerful upgrades undercosted for their effects, very powerful and without the conventional limitations that the designers put on similar effects (i.e., exhaust limits or symmetrical risks for both sides). If it's always on, then it seems about right for a 2-point upgrade that has situational usefulness for throwing TIE speedbumps at the enemy and letting them stay alive as obstacles longer.

It's inadequately written, and the ambiguity doesn't end there. Maybe it can be even more insane! For all we know, maybe it's:

While a squadron at distance 1-2 is

• attacking

OR

• defending against a squadron

THEN

the attack is treated as obstructed.

And the "defending against a squadron" condition is separate from "attacking," which can trigger the Jamming Field effect whether or not the defender is a squadron. "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking [or defending against a squadron] , the attack is treated as obstructed." So ships too are permanently obstructed from squadron attacks in a range 1-2 radius. Is that RAI for this upgrade? I doubt it. But its wording is ambiguous and I can't prove that it isn't intended by RAW.

I'm just hoping for an errata or FAQ before Worlds.

That reads right. Gotta love english.

As for the cost, that's a hard call. It's a fleet support slot which is really the only point of a flotilla. It's hard to separate the cost of the upgrade from the cost of the ship.

On the other hand, as they add fleet support slots to ships in the future, the low cost could be exploited.

Jamming Field is going to be a problem until the official resolution comes out. It cannot be satisfactorily interpreted without an official ruling and/or errata. If it's able to be selectively enforced by the owner, then it joins XI7s in the category of very powerful upgrades undercosted for their effects, very powerful and without the conventional limitations that the designers put on similar effects (i.e., exhaust limits or symmetrical risks for both sides). If it's always on, then it seems about right for a 2-point upgrade that has situational usefulness for throwing TIE speedbumps at the enemy and letting them stay alive as obstacles longer.

It's inadequately written, and the ambiguity doesn't end there. Maybe it can be even more insane! For all we know, maybe it's:

While a squadron at distance 1-2 is

• attacking

OR

• defending against a squadron

THEN

the attack is treated as obstructed.

And the "defending against a squadron" condition is separate from "attacking," which can trigger the Jamming Field effect whether or not the defender is a squadron. "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking [or defending against a squadron] , the attack is treated as obstructed." So ships too are permanently obstructed from squadron attacks in a range 1-2 radius. Is that RAI for this upgrade? I doubt it. But its wording is ambiguous and I can't prove that it isn't intended by RAW.

I'm just hoping for an errata or FAQ before Worlds.

Is this for real?

Jamming Field is going to be a problem until the official resolution comes out. It cannot be satisfactorily interpreted without an official ruling and/or errata. If it's able to be selectively enforced by the owner, then it joins XI7s in the category of very powerful upgrades undercosted for their effects, very powerful and without the conventional limitations that the designers put on similar effects (i.e., exhaust limits or symmetrical risks for both sides). If it's always on, then it seems about right for a 2-point upgrade that has situational usefulness for throwing TIE speedbumps at the enemy and letting them stay alive as obstacles longer.

It's inadequately written, and the ambiguity doesn't end there. Maybe it can be even more insane! For all we know, maybe it's:

While a squadron at distance 1-2 is

• attacking

OR

• defending against a squadron

THEN

the attack is treated as obstructed.

And the "defending against a squadron" condition is separate from "attacking," which can trigger the Jamming Field effect whether or not the defender is a squadron. "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking [or defending against a squadron] , the attack is treated as obstructed." So ships too are permanently obstructed from squadron attacks in a range 1-2 radius. Is that RAI for this upgrade? I doubt it. But its wording is ambiguous and I can't prove that it isn't intended by RAW.

I'm just hoping for an errata or FAQ before Worlds.

Is this for real?

Its a Third interpretation...from a 'Certain point of view'.

Needs a lesson in punctuation. That's my interpretation.

Punctuation won't do it. But if you're got a mastery of English, then the natural sense of the passage is to construe "against a squadron" with both sides of the "or." His proposal is at least grammatically possible, its just against the ordinary and plain sense of how most good writers of English use the word "or." There are entire discussions of the different effects of "or" in Introductory Logic textbooks that can shed light on this. That's partly because whereas some languages split those various meanings of "or" across several words, English just has the one word. And that's part of what prompts the need for clarifications.

Punctuation won't do it. But if you're got a mastery of English, then the natural sense of the passage is to construe "against a squadron" with both sides of the "or." His proposal is at least grammatically possible, its just against the ordinary and plain sense of how most good writers of English use the word "or." There are entire discussions of the different effects of "or" in Introductory Logic textbooks that can shed light on this. That's partly because whereas some languages split those various meanings of "or" across several words, English just has the one word. And that's part of what prompts the need for clarifications.

And if FFG really meant for it to work that way, they would have added a couple of commas. Hence punctuation.

Let's have a competition: go thorough all the cards, find out which need clarification, based on willful misinterpretation!

My guess: most of them.

Have any of you read the more important alternate text?

"This is not bomber command"

Pretty conclusive that.