Just curious on this since I didn't follow the AG threads at the time. Was the reason for the change in AG after you got the original email response ever clarified, or are we assuming that it was for balance reasons.

I ask is because that email response you received seemed arbitrary to me. There is nothing contradictory about both cards having their full effect, including the restrictions. Basically the current ruling seems more consistent with the RAW.

If you can point me to a thread so I can educate myself, I'd prefer not to have this thread not go down that tangent.

Just curious on this since I didn't follow the AG threads at the time. Was the reason for the change in AG after you got the original email response ever clarified, or are we assuming that it was for balance reasons.

I ask is because that email response you received seemed arbitrary to me. There is nothing contradictory about both cards having their full effect, including the restrictions. Basically the current ruling seems more consistent with the RAW.

If you can point me to a thread so I can educate myself, I'd prefer not to have this thread not go down that tangent.

I can't point you to anything specific. But at the time every list with an ISD in it was taking both Gunnery Teams and Advanced Gunnery, and I feel like I remember something being related to that effect but I have nothing documented aside to substantiate that.

I do not think the current form is more a more valid interpretation of RAW for reasons previously stated.

Just curious on this since I didn't follow the AG threads at the time. Was the reason for the change in AG after you got the original email response ever clarified, or are we assuming that it was for balance reasons.

I ask is because that email response you received seemed arbitrary to me. There is nothing contradictory about both cards having their full effect, including the restrictions. Basically the current ruling seems more consistent with the RAW.

If you can point me to a thread so I can educate myself, I'd prefer not to have this thread not go down that tangent.

It was clarified. Future game balance.

only really read the first page, so this may be addressed. The text on the RRG plus the text on Jamming fields would have 1 timing window for you to choose to use the card or not to use it. That timing being the First attack or deffense a squadron makes while in range of jaming field per turn.

So to be noted, the player who has equiped the card has the choice of activating the card or not... if he activates then he activates the card in whole applying both of the cards effects...

I may have missed it but I don't see anyway that you can have the card apply only one of it's 2 effects to a squadron in range as if you chose to trigger it on a squadron you get it for all of it's attacks and all of it's deffenses. I also don't see where the opponent can choose to use the upgrade/skill of an opponents ship...

So I read the card with the rules refference as being actived at the time a squadron First attacks/deffends (whichever comes first while in range of the upgrade each turn) the player with the card equiped chooses to trigger or not if yes both parts apply, if no then none of the card effects will apply... rinse and repeat for each squadron in range on their first attack/deffense.

If a squadron is no longer in range either due to the ship or the squadron moving out of range it is no longer affected.

I am only basing this on many years of gaming and I am willing to admit that my interpretation of the rules interactions can be wrong here. I think I'm right but other people also think they are right and they will undoubtedly have their own experiences to fall back on and still read it differently to me...

With that said a faq would be greatly appreciated

They responded to an email, the intent is that it is always on.

Cards overrule the rulebook.

There's no mention of Jamming Fields being optional so "While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack is treated as obstructed."

No "may" or "can" or "can choose" so it's always on.

You can't draw the correct conclusion from the way the card is currently written. Read the response from FFG earlier in the thread. They intended the card to be mandatory activation for each instance of the "while" condition, however the way that the card is worded technically makes the card activation optional (because of a rule where upgrade cards effects are optional by default).

FFG provided a corrected wording for that card that adds the word "must" to the effect to make the card mandatory. This should be included in the upcoming FAQ.

The new wording should be:

While a squadron at distance 1–2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack must be treated as obstructed.

Please read the thread before responding...

Please read the thread before responding...

Yeah, to be fair, people aren't going to read 12 pages. Frankly, it's faster for them to simply per incorrect information, and be corrected.

Please read the thread before responding...

Yeah, to be fair, people aren't going to read 12 pages. Frankly, it's faster for them to simply per incorrect information, and be corrected.

Well, Fair or not is one aspect of it.

Disrespectful is another.

Didn't think FFG responded on the forums haha, and only really came here due to another thread (complaining about the missing faq) saying this was still up for dispute and didn't feel like trolling through it all, as I was just throwing my 2cents up there till I had a faq to read.... glad that it's adressed then. and thanks for pointing it out.

Edit And I don't really trust email confirmations when I've seen different email responses from the same company before, so still waiting on an faq. Happy to play per the email though, rulling till FAQed though.

Didn't think FFG responded on the forums haha, and only really came here due to another thread (complaining about the missing faq) saying this was still up for dispute and didn't feel like trolling through it all, as I was just throwing my 2cents up there till I had a faq to read.... glad that it's adressed then. and thanks for pointing it out.

Edit And I don't really trust email confirmations when I've seen different email responses from the same company before, so still waiting on an faq. Happy to play per the email though, rulling till FAQed though.

FFG doesn't respond directly on the forums, but people generally post email responses in applicable threads.

But I agree with you that, while i have no issue with playing according to the email clarification, an FAQ is needed, particularly with Worlds coming up in less than three weeks and Regionals restarting immediately thereafter.

The emails are definitely great resources, they are technically not official documents, however.

When its all you've got, and its all you're getting.....

... its all you've got and its all you're getting....

No. They aren't insanely good.

And we're spent... let this one die. =)

And it is up. The second official card errata.

So, where are all the "Adamantly Correct" dides (no typo) who think this upgrade is toggleable?

I posted clear as day I would wager a Flotilla expansion to the first three takers. I am wagering its NOT toggleable.

You don't see it, but I'm holding a pair under the bubbles in my tub...RRG in the other. There was so much hot air in here a ways back that I had to relight some candles. Rascals musta took flight when the shadows grew long.

...but I know you're still there lurkin'.

/sings Three Flo-teeja packs on the wall, three Floteeja paaaaacks, you take one down set UPS Package to ground, Dano has one more Floteeja to SKLOUNCE!

Yeah, I've been actively avoiding this thread because my position is pretty clearly laid out and there's nothing more to gained by arguing it until the FAQ comes out.

But I could sure use a free Gozanti.

I don't think you're going to get any takers for this because you want to wager on what the intent is. I have no idea if the intent is that it not function as written--and I have, indeed, said repeatedly that I hope it's not optional--but the current rules are quite clear on its function as it stands now.

If JF is supposed to be non-optional, it will be made so through an errata or other RRG update , not an FAQ . The written rule as it stands right now is that the effect of this upgrade card is optional. The rules or card text will have to be changed in order for it to be optional.

So, if you want a wager:

1) I believe that, if FFG makes a change to the rules such that this card's effect becomes optional, it will be via a change to the rules: an errata either to the card text or to the tenth bullet under Effect Use and Timing on RRG pg 5, or by releasing an updated rules document that otherwise specifically addresses this interaction. If one of these things happens, you owe me a Gozantilla.

2) You believe that the rules as currently written provide that this card's effect is mandatory, always. Therefore, it does not require an errata, and, if it is addressed when the FAQ drops, it will be as an FAQ clarification specifying that it is always on. If this happens, I owe you either a Gozantilla or a GR-75.

If it is not addressed when the FAQ is released, we'll call it a wash. And lay siege to the mothership in Roseville until they fix it.

Deal?

So...you guys win...right?

Erata'd on an FAQ...hmmm.

I'd say we take this one. This is exactly what we predicted; that FFG would take the less common stance of changing the wording rather than clarifying the effect.

This sets some good precedents on the rules too since it reinforces that upgrade cards are optional even without "may". Otherwise the errata would not have been needed.

GR-75 for me.

I admit I was wrong. I thought they'd just clarify in FAQ, rather then Errata.

Just glad I didn't bet anything.

Soooooo, if my Zombie Rieekan ship is in my way, I can remove it before the end of the round...

Ginkapo, sort of. While you can't terminate an effect in progress, this does suggest that you could choose to not activate Rieeken and have your ship destroyed normally instead of becoming a zombie in the first place. However once you start the effect and become a zombie, you are committed until the effects defined completion.

Ginkapo, sort of. While you can't terminate an effect in progress, this does suggest that you could choose to not activate Rieeken and have your ship destroyed normally instead of becoming a zombie in the first place. However once you start the effect and become a zombie, you are committed until the effects defined completion.

Which has implications on viability of precision strike with rieekan

Sure. Many cards have implications with other cards. I don't see Rieeken being optional causing any contradictions or conflicts with precision strike. The player just has to balance if he wants to have the zombie ship get one more attack or deny his opponent victory points.

In any case this is probably better for another thread. I think Jamming Field is done

Soo...its optional?

Ginkapo, sort of. While you can't terminate an effect in progress, this does suggest that you could choose to not activate Rieeken and have your ship destroyed normally instead of becoming a zombie in the first place. However once you start the effect and become a zombie, you are committed until the effects defined completion.

Which has implications on viability of precision strike with rieekan

Suddenly opens up possibilities for a Rieekan Aces fleet's objectives where you left out arguably the best two squadron objectives to save you from points farming.