I feel that they are always on because of 2 things in the way the card is written.

1) the way it does not define friendly/enemy squadrons. it simply states "when a squadron..."

2) "...the attack IS treated as..." No May, must, always. Just a simple IS.

The verb and tense written on the card reads to me as it effects everyone all the time.

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.

So I will say a few additional things:

1. The core issue to me is actually in the Rules Reference Guide where it specifies the default state as optional unless otherwise specified. This means that when you read a card, unless it actually does otherwise specify, your default is optional.
2. Jamming Field may be the first card (at least the first I can find) where it's genuinely advantageous to constantly use it optionally. There others that have edge effects (maybe there is some convoluted situation where you'd want to not use Bright Hope or something) but I think Jamming Field is the first one where every single turn it's in use, you want to use it sometimes but not always.

Thus, I really do think this is the first time we've had to genuinely grapple with this issue from a rules perspective. Basically, if we want a standard interpretation, I think this needs a FAQ, but as it stands, I am grudgingly in the "optional by RAW" camp because of that statement about "unless otherwise specified".

To address this, also:

I feel that they are always on because of 2 things in the way the card is written.

1) the way it does not define friendly/enemy squadrons. it simply states "when a squadron..."

2) "...the attack IS treated as..." No May, must, always. Just a simple IS.

The verb and tense written on the card reads to me as it effects everyone all the time.

The optional condition for this card is, unfortunately, found in the RRG itself:

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

Notice that Jamming Fields, which clearly contain the "while" keyword, are specified by the RRG itself as being a "can" occur, not a "must" occur or "cannot". So the RRG itself says you can, but doesn't say you have to, much like any card that repeats may or can on the card itself.

So there is, actually, a "may" for this card. It's just in the RRG when you look up the type of event.

Good job. I was in the "always on" camp, but I am throughly convinced by the RAW argument for it being optional. There is no FAQ needed on this because the rules are very clear that it is optional. At this point the only hope for "always on" on is an errata that CHANGES the behavior of the card.

Additionally, while technically a TO could rule for "always on", that would be for personal preference because there is no ambiguity in the rules.

If it can be turned off - with the idea that it is only a drawback for your opponent, why wouldn't it just specify that your opponents are considered obstructed? Why do through all the wording to suggest that it can apply to both players, when functionally it would only apply to the opponent? Between that obvious line of thought, and the article we don't really need points-value extrapolation to determine the RAI. It is extremely clear.

Good job. I was in the "always on" camp, but I am throughly convinced by the RAW argument for it being optional. There is no FAQ needed on this because the rules are very clear that it is optional. At this point the only hope for "always on" on is an errata that CHANGES the behavior of the card.

Additionally, while technically a TO could rule for "always on", that would be for personal preference because there is no ambiguity in the rules.

FAQ, not errata.

And while the RAW points to optional, the RAI is also extremely clear. Play RAW all you want now, because when the FAQ comes out they'll fix it.

No way this is a card that can be used to only affect your opponent and not yourself, it costs 2pts, and it makes every enemy squadron inside its range lose 1 attack or counter dice, for 2pts?

Hello to the new auto include card if you use squadrons.

The effect is either on for everyone, or off for everyone, that is the only way you can have "I'm not going to use my upgrade." shenanigans.

My point is that the card and its effect are clear as it is written. They use keywords that are explicitly defined. A FAQ is a clarification and that is not needed.

If the card is worded incorrectly, FFG needs to take a stand and issue an errata to change the function of the card. Until that time, "always on" is just projecting your feelings of the intended rule.

Sure the card may be cheap, but it is not the players place to make that call.

Personally I think there is a good chance for an errata on this, but as a community we can't alter the rules until they make a statement. If they dont comment on this, the only rational course is RAW.

I am fine with debates on RAW vs RAI when there is ambiguity, but when the rules is clear, RAI becomes nothing more than a house rule.

If the card is worded incorrectly, FFG needs to take a stand and issue an errata to change the function of the card.

And they May.

But the time has not yet passed for them to do so.

So demanding it to happen is irrelevant at this point as the rest of the arguments are

To be clear, my agenda is not to push for a specific implementation, just a clear one. I don't care if jamming fields is optional or mandatory. I do care that people know in advance, before bringing lists to games or, worse, before it comes up in the middle of a tournament game as a dispute.

As I read it, and after reading this thread, I think the RAW is (unfortunately?) clear that it is optional: the card is a while effect, and while effects clearly include the "can" keyword. I would also be fine with FFG FAQ'ing or Errata'ing the card to work the other way (e.g. must), and wouldn't be bothered if that's the way the card eventually works.

What would bother me is people playing the card totally different ways, or having the expectation that the game will be played a way other than as the rules describe it and this should be enforceable upon others. I mean, in your own games with people who agree, do whatever you want, but for pickup play, in tournaments, etc., there has to be a common understanding.

The reason I made this thread was that I encountered this and had to ask "Wait, what? Why does someone think that? What do the rules actually say?"

It's not about advocating RAI (who knows, and I'm not about to start psycho-analyzing the dark and deeply Freudian minds of game designers), it's about asking what actually exists as of now. Which, again, FFG can always change if they intended something different.

My question is: what does an upgrade card have to say to override this? "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified"

Must it say "this is not optional" or what? Who says what it have to say to override this?

The way I see it, the effects in general are optional because they give you a choice as they say "may", so you can choose to apply it or not.

In this particular case, for me the key is "the attack IS treated as obstructed"

So in this case, that "IS" doesn't give you a choice, for me that is the " otherwise specified "

Of course this is up to interpretation and I know that many may not think it this way, but it's how I think it works (and also how all the upgrades works unless I'm forgetting something)

I agree, otherwise couldn't players turn off Gunnery Teams, or Slaved Turrets to get the extra attack afforded by Advanced Gunnery? (Of course the official word is that no, these upgrades cannot be turned off, even though nothing on their cards indicates that they are explicitly mandatory. Yes, I know they say "cannot", but that would be turned off of the upgrade card was optional - so those cards must not be optional upgrades, even though they don't explicitly indicate that they are mandatory.)

Good job. I was in the "always on" camp, but I am throughly convinced by the RAW argument for it being optional. There is no FAQ needed on this because the rules are very clear that it is optional. At this point the only hope for "always on" on is an errata that CHANGES the behavior of the card.

Additionally, while technically a TO could rule for "always on", that would be for personal preference because there is no ambiguity in the rules.

FAQ, not errata.

And while the RAW points to optional, the RAI is also extremely clear. Play RAW all you want now, because when the FAQ comes out they'll fix it.

Errata, not FAQ.

You may think the RAI is clear, but I don't, and neither do several others here. I've already pointed out why I think it's not particularly outrageous if it is optional. Regardless, though, the RAW is extremely clear. Meaning, yes, it would need an errata to be non-optional.

Which, again, I think it would be more fun if it is mandatory, and hope they make it so. But as of right now, as written, it's not.

My question is: what does an upgrade card have to say to override this? "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified"

Must it say "this is not optional" or what? Who says what it have to say to override this?

The way I see it, the effects in general are optional because they give you a choice as they say "may", so you can choose to apply it or not.

In this particular case, for me the key is "the attack IS treated as obstructed"

So in this case, that "IS" doesn't give you a choice, for me that is the " otherwise specified "

Of course this is up to interpretation and I know that many may not think it this way, but it's how I think it works (and also how all the upgrades works unless I'm forgetting something)

FFS, I can never get image embedding right manually...

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars-armada/images/3/32/Slaved_Turrets.png"http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars-armada/images/3/32/Slaved_Turrets.png]

Edit: (No longer Needed, as Ard got his **** together )

I agree, otherwise couldn't players turn off Gunnery Teams, or Slaved Turrets to get the extra attack afforded by Advanced Gunnery? (Of course the official word is that no, these upgrades cannot be turned off, even though nothing on their cards indicates that they are explicitly mandatory. Yes, I know they say "cannot", but that would be turned off of the upgrade card was optional - so those cards must not be optional upgrades, even though they don't explicitly indicate that they are mandatory.)

I think if you look closely at the Slaved Turrets card, it both answers this question and the Jamming Field question.

Slaved Turrets

Modification

You cannot attack more than once per round.

While attacking a ship, add 1 red die to your attack pool.

Thus, the restriction for ST is clearly specified prior to the "While" effect. Technically, you don't have to add 1 red die to your attack pool (the while keyword can be resolved, but apparently doesn't have to be), but I don't know where you'd ever want to roll less dice.

It is this precise lack of a restriction on Jamming Fields (there is no statement that you must use it, or that you cannot avoid applying it, etc.) and the fact that Jamming Field starts with "while" as the first word in the text box of the card when contrasted with cards like ST that make me think the RAW is very clearly optional.

Again, RAI is __________ [FFG to fill in blank], but RAW seems to pretty clearly indicate it's optional, especially in light of how ST works.

Edit: in response to Lemmi, the conditional part is in the RRG. Read the "while" effect section on p5 of the RRG. You will see where FFG uses a can/may to describe the effect there.

I know this is semantics, but for this reason I think a FAQ should not be used to make this as mandatory. That would justify the verbiage on the card as being correctly written for that interpretation. This sets bad prescient.

An Errata accomplishes the same result by providing an alternate verbiage for the card that is consistent with the RRG.

But that is FFGs decision.

I agree, otherwise couldn't players turn off Gunnery Teams, or Slaved Turrets to get the extra attack afforded by Advanced Gunnery? (Of course the official word is that no, these upgrades cannot be turned off, even though nothing on their cards indicates that they are explicitly mandatory. Yes, I know they say "cannot", but that would be turned off of the upgrade card was optional - so those cards must not be optional upgrades, even though they don't explicitly indicate that they are mandatory.)

I think if you look closely at the Slaved Turrets card, it both answers this question and the Jamming Field question.

Slaved Turrets

Modification

You cannot attack more than once per round.

While attacking a ship, add 1 red die to your attack pool.

Thus, the restriction for ST is clearly specified prior to the "While" effect. Technically, you don't have to add 1 red die to your attack pool (the while keyword can be resolved, but apparently doesn't have to be), but I don't know where you'd ever want to roll less dice.

It is this precise lack of a restriction on Jamming Fields (there is no statement that you must use it, or that you cannot avoid applying it, etc.) and the fact that Jamming Field starts with "while" as the first word in the text box of the card when contrasted with cards like ST that make me think the RAW is very clearly optional.

Again, RAI is __________ [FFG to fill in blank], but RAW seems to pretty clearly indicate it's optional, especially in light of how ST works.

Edit: in response to Lemmi, the conditional part is in the RRG. Read the "while" effect section on p5 of the RRG. You will see where FFG uses a can/may to describe the effect there.

Sorry, but I don't understand why the "While attacking a ship, add 1 red die to your attack pool." can be optional and the "You cannot attack more than once per round." not. They are both part of the card and I don't know any rule that specifies that only the while effects of the cards are optional.

Or maybe I understood you wrong, if that's the case sorry, I'm not a native english speaker and do my best

Errata, not FAQ.

FAQ, not errata. It probably belongs in errata, but I'm willing to bet they explain it in the FAQ, rather than officially changing the word on the card. That's how they resolve almost every issue, even ones that go against the wording on the card.

If you just turn off Slaved Turrets, because it's optional, than the "cannot" that is part of the upgrade is also turned off.

(Obviously not the case, but I've said it already and no one has really addressed it.)

Both terms "cannot" and "while" are defined in the RRG.

"Cannot" is an override condition that is always in effect.

"While" is a trigger that a player "may" activate.

ST makes both statements, but they are independent clauses (I think). To be honest, I'm not 100% sure if the "while" is optional in this case because the first clause is always in effect. Can a card be partially activated?

In any case, ST doesn't impact the interpretation of JF.

I'ma just sit here like:

In the tub thinking:

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

"Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified ." (pg.5)

To me, Optional resolving means 'not forced to PAY COST to use' ie Base Critical, Dodonna's Pride, and H9 Turbolasers. What is being overlooked is the second sentence, " All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified ". In this case, it neither says may or may not...it does say IS though. (Pun: The interpretation of the rule depends on what the definition of IS, is.)

More to the point, if this were supposed to be toggleable, there would be no instance in where I would want it ON when MY squadrons were attacking, and the wording would have simply referred to "Your opponents/nonfriendly/enemy squadrons".

My bubbles are on Jamming Field always being on based off the above, the point cost, and gut gaming instincts.

Of course I've been known to be wrong...from time to time.

Upgrade cards are a subset of the cards in the game. For example there are damage cards. In this case we have an upgrade card so the default position is that resolving its effect is optional. Further a "while" statement is also defined as an optional "can".

Using "is" as indicating mandatory is a bit too much of a stretch.

That said there are valid reasons to suspect that FFG ment this as a mandatory condition. But all we have are hunches. All we are left with is a card who's effect is clear by the rules. At this point FFG will either leave it alone as optional or errata it to mandatory.

A "while" word doesn't define if it's optional or not (unless I'm missing some part of the rule book). What always define this in the upgrade cards is the word "may" or sometimes the word "can", but not the "while" per se.

Otherwise the majority of the cards would have the words "may" or "can" writen in vain for that matter, but not, I'm sure FFG put those words in many many cards to distinct the cards that give you an option to turn them on or off from those that are mandatory (doesn't give you a choice like JF)

At this point FFG will either leave it alone as optional or errata it to mandatory.

Again, they'll probably just stick their intent, very and the ruling in the FAQ, rather than errata-ing the cars text itself.