There is no mechanic to cancel an effect that is currently active. So how do you plan to stop Motti's effect without adding a new rule? We know that it doesn't stop in it's own, because that would cause ships to spontaneously explode.
As far as intent for RF, nobody is arguing the intent. We are discussing what is written. Most are assuming that intent is Mandatory, so feel free to play it that way. That doesn't change that FFG should clarify the card to avoid requiring assumptions.
This was the primary argument against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo, too.Sorry, I don't buy "it's obvious even though the rules say otherwise" as the final word.
Obviously it's not "the final word". I don't recall myself, or anyone else suggesting that it was. Obviously we need to wait for the FAQ to make it the final word unless it changes later.
There is no mechanic to cancel an effect that is currently active. So how do you plan to stop Motti's effect without adding a new rule? We know that it doesn't stop in it's own, because that would cause ships to spontaneously explode.
As far as intent for RF, nobody is arguing the intent. We are discussing what is written. Most are assuming that intent is Mandatory, so feel free to play it that way. That doesn't change that FFG should clarify the card to avoid requiring assumptions.
He is an upgrade card, so his ability is optional. His ability provider an increase in Hull points. It doesn't stop on its own? I'm not sure what that sentence means, exactly. Upgrade cards can't act on their own. The fact that when Motti does his effect goes away is pretty good evidence that you don't just cost to activate him once for a permanent bonus that doesn't go away. For example, Needa is a one-and-done ability. If he got discarded after being used then the token replacement would still active. If Motti is discarded, his active, persistent ability would stop. Or you can just choose to deactivate him, since as an upgrade card he's optional. Although this Needa issue is entirely tangential, and not really worth getting into a huge argument about.
Some people were arguing intent, actually. In fact, the post right above yours does to some degree. Of course FFG should clarify it. Has anyone said that they shouldn't?
This was the primary argument against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo, too.Sorry, I don't buy "it's obvious even though the rules say otherwise" as the final word.Intent on Jamming Field and Montferrat are equal. it's quite obvious that despite the technicality, both are intended to be mandatory.
It isn't "obvious", but let's be honest - anyone who want monferrat and jamming fields to be selective is using wishful thinking, but they're right that through rules lawyering there isn't anything to forbid it.
Activate was the wrong word. I should have been consistent with the RRG and said Resolve. Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional. So when is Resolution of Motti's effect complete? I don't see what would cause this effect to finish resolving outside of the card no longer being in play.
It make sense to me, but if that doesn't work for you, play it as mandatory for now. It doesn't affect the game in either case.
The problem with "obvious" intent is that not everyone agrees. To me RF is "obviously" optional. It seems to be a fun card that way, but still to expensive to actually use. I'm fine treating it as mandatory because of community consensus.
Playing by the same rules is really all that matters.
Monserrat on the other hand feels like it should have said 'must'.
This thread isn't really about any particular card any more. RF it just the poster child for a deeper rules flow discussion. It's about the optional rule for upgrade cards effects. Most people have been playing for two year as if that rule isn't in the RRG. Which would be fine if the rule actually wasn't in the book. But since it is, what does that mean for the game.
Up until RF it meant very little. The cards were written to work either way. RF is just the best example of a serious game play impact.
This was the primary argument against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo, too.Sorry, I don't buy "it's obvious even though the rules say otherwise" as the final word.Intent on Jamming Field and Montferrat are equal. it's quite obvious that despite the technicality, both are intended to be mandatory.
I remember people saying that Intel was only intended to be used on other ships, and I thought then that they were wrong to ascribe that intention to the card.
I agree with your point though, in that intention cannot over-rule RAW.
Although at this point I think I'm interpreting the RAW differently than some.
I am also convinced that FFG won't release an FAQ because they love this thread too much.
I am also convinced that FFG won't release an FAQ because they love this thread too much.
Don't say that. Otherwise we'll never get a SSD....
I got my reply today.
JF was effectively ERRATAED to read 'must'.
FFG made a point of upgrades being optional, unless stated otherwise.
I'll post the e-mail later.
ERRATAED, YOU SAY?
I just spent a considerable amount of time reading this thread. What a wealth of rules information and interpretation here!
I see Green Knight may have official word..... but for the record, I never believed this was toggable. Did not make any sense for it to be so.
Awaiting posting of clarification.
Hello, Bjorn.
In response to your question:
Jamming Field The RRG clearly states that all upgrade cards are optional to resolve. How does this apply to Jamming Field? The text of the card seems (rather heavily in fact) to imply it's on. There is no may or can or whatnot in the text, for example. Yet going by the RAW I could potentially flicker my Field on an off, as I chose. Which seems rather too good, for a 2 pt card. So, what's the verdict? Regards, Bjørn
Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. Jamming Field should read:
While a squadron at distance 1–2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack must be treated as obstructed.
Please also note that only the attack is treated as obstructed, so the attacker and defender remain engaged before and after the attack.
Thanks for your question!
Michael Gernes
Game Producer
Nice. This is exactly what I was hoping for. I was sure that I was reading the card correctly as optional, but the intent felt like mandatory.
Im glad that the email makes it clear that the wording has an issue. Otherwise a mandatory ruling would have a cascading effect to other cards.
I always knew it to be so, the card clearly stated it. Bloody rules lawyers.
I always knew it to be so, the card clearly stated it. Bloody rules lawyers.
No, that is the whole point. The card clearly implied it, while actually saying the opposite.I always knew it to be so, the card clearly stated it. Bloody rules lawyers.
Yup. The response clearly shows we were right. Vindication feels good.
/highfive
Also, Dano, I could use another GR-75 I think. Will pm my address. Thanks.
@Ardaedhel and @err404
1 x Gozanti to each (of specified faction) coming up once FFG releases the FAQ.
GK - thanks for the update, and thanks to Mr. Gernes for the answer. This is what I was hoping it would be, and a quick wording clean-up should solve, really, this entire thread.
I think this is the right outcome for the card.
GK, will you please post that to the email clarifications thread? Thanks.
I'm glad to see that at least they've answered the major questions in advance of the FAQ. Good stuff.
I'm glad to see that at least they've answered the major questions in advance of the FAQ. Good stuff.
Just need some stuff on G-8 and we almost have ourselves the next FAQ all done.
Just need some stuff on G-8 and we almost have ourselves the next FAQ all done.I'm glad to see that at least they've answered the major questions in advance of the FAQ. Good stuff.
Also stacking BCC's and scramblers.
Eastern.
Unless stated otherwise
"Cannot" definitely falls into the category of "unless stated otherwise." GT and Slaved Turrets both say "cannot," which is directly accounted for in the Effects Use and Timing sentence that has been quoted into oblivion in this thread. The argument for JF being optional only applies insofar as it does not "otherwise specify." Trying to compare JF to GT or ST doesn't work, because both of those cards do specify whereas JF doesn't. Seriously, an "always" or "must" would clear up the whole argument.
I disagree. I think the GT - Adv Gunnery point speaks directly to the argument at hand. Because in said example, there are two seperate agencies by which you can take a second shot from the same arc. If all upgrade card effects were optional, and holy hell gunnery teams even says "may" on it, then you could just chose to use advanced gunnery as your agency. But you can't. And it kills me when people treat this example like the cannot is so absolute, because this ruling is a reversal! A reversal they made because adv gunnery was included in like a million lists, not because they were like, "oh wait guys this says cannot"
I realize GK has a semi-official answer, which puts the thread to bed, but I read through the thing, and do want to address this point that has been made, wrongly, repeatedly in this thread.
To quote from the RRG, page 5: "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified."
This means that upgrade cards are optional unless otherwise specified, whereas non-upgrade cards are the opposite. People have also had a problem with that, and only quoted the 2nd part, which does not apply to upgrade cards.
So, AG would be optional unless specified otherwise, so we go to page 1 of the RRG, under "Golden Rules": If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.
So it is otherwise specified that the cannot effect is absolute. (Note that that specific rule does not specify upgrade or non-upgrade cards.)
If it's a rule reversal, I seem to recall that being like AP and XI-7s, as an email ruling. It was however, something that should have been corrected, because per the other rules, it was wrong. Clarifying that the rules as written are consistent leads to a non-ambiguous state for people, especially when new things come out.
Stop. They reversed the AG ruling (which was an email ruling) as a balance patch. End of story.
It was not wrong for reasons I have already elucidated.