Correct me if I'm wrong, but FFG seems to have forgotten all about Jamming Field - it's no longer errataed.

So I'm going back to playing it RAW.

Just because.

????

from what to what back to what???

6 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:

????

from what to what back to what???

Maybe they just forgot...or maybe they want those JF flots to be in the thick of it?

It got errataed to include 'must', so you can't just flicker the field on and of as you please (effectively obstructing enemy attacks, but not friendly ones).

It's now back to being super-value for 2 pts.

Either way, aren't you activating the jamming field flotillas last and then moving them in to obstruct the enemy after you've taken all your squadron activations that turn? Or is that just me?

Not the greatest upgrade, but it does have uses.

1 minute ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

Either way, aren't you activating the jamming field flotillas last and then moving them in to obstruct the enemy after you've taken all your squadron activations that turn? Or is that just me?

Not the greatest upgrade, but it does have uses.

The point was:

• all upgrades are optional to resolve

So unless there is a "must" or "cannot" or other condition check (like a "while", which limits it to 1 use), I can just declare I'm using JF when YOU attack ME, but not the other way around.

That's why JF got that 'must' errata in FAQ 311.

I did not know there was a question on weather or not it was optional. I all ways saw it as must

FAQ 3.1.1:

Quote

Jamming Field
This upgrade card’s effect should read:
“While a squadron at distance 1–2 is attacking a squadron or defending against a squadon, the attack must be treated as obstructed.”

This one is missing in the FAQ 3.2.1.

i guess they messed it up. They changed it from Errata cards (in FAQ 3.1.1.) to Errata upgrade cards; Squadron Cards, Station Cards, Objective Cards and Campaign Objective Cards.
But in the FAQ 3.1.1. the errata from the Jamming Fiend was between two Objective Cards (Hyperlane Raid and Most Wanted). I guess they just forgot to add it to the Upgrade Card section.

But you are right. If you follow the 3.2.1. FAQ, the Jamming Field is optional again

Or take Stronghold.

27 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:

I did not know there was a question on weather or not it was optional. I all ways saw it as must

That was the LOGICAL AND INTUITIVE way of reading it.

Until that t**t @Reinholt put his filthy fingers into the cookie jar

22 minutes ago, Tokra said:

FAQ 3.1.1:

This one is missing in the FAQ 3.2.1.

i guess they messed it up. They changed it from Errata cards (in FAQ 3.1.1.) to Errata upgrade cards; Squadron Cards, Station Cards, Objective Cards and Campaign Objective Cards.
But in the FAQ 3.1.1. the errata from the Jamming Fiend was between two Objective Cards (Hyperlane Raid and Most Wanted). I guess they just forgot to add it to the Upgrade Card section.

But you are right. If you follow the 3.2.1. FAQ, the Jamming Field is optional again

That was my thought too - but you cannot be sure with FFG

JAmmingField
This upgrade card’s effect should read:
“While a squadron at distance 1–2 is attacking a squadron or
defending against a squadon, the attack must be treated as
obstructed.”

Wow I never saw it before I think its because I never see anyone fly it.

where do I find what Reinholt had to say?

This seem like an unintended omission... hopefully they fix it. I think Jamming Fields was good as they where for two points.

IF it was in there, and now it's not, that must be intentional right?

Or they used an outdated rule document as the base for them to edit forgetting about that errata...

1 hour ago, BrobaFett said:

IF it was in there, and now it's not, that must be intentional right?

I think we have had X-Wing game tournament rules accidentally copied & pasted into the Armada Tournament pack before. They were corrected in a day or two but FAQ mistakes and omissions can occur. Give it a week perhaps.

14 hours ago, Green Knight said:

That was the LOGICAL AND INTUITIVE way of reading it.

Until that t**t @Reinholt put his filthy fingers into the cookie jar

I don't write the rules, I just play by them (and for the record, I always thought the jamming fields thing was a mistake and should have been errata'd, though it's now been... un-errata'd?).

JAMMING FIELDS ARE AMAZING AGAIN GUYS.

13 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

JAmmingField
This upgrade card’s effect should read:
“While a squadron at distance 1–2 is attacking a squadron or
defending against a squadon, the attack must be treated as
obstructed.”

Wow I never saw it before I think its because I never see anyone fly it.

where do I find what Reinholt had to say?

16 hours ago, Tokra said:

the Jamming Fiend

What if it is an oversight? They could have been working on 2 FAQs at the same time and released the first one with the JF errata, and now they released this one which did not include it, simply because both were living documents. Wouldn't they at least say something as to why they changed it back?

How will TOs deal with this? I will continue to play it as always on because that's what FFG wanted to begin with.

FFG did not release new material on Jamming Field. Which is exactly what they did with X-17s and Advanced Projectors.

Until such time FFG do release an updated ruling on Jamming Field, it is staying as a "must" option.

I mean, it's not highlighted in red, so I can only imagine it's just an error. All intentional changes from the previous FAQ are highlighted. Either they meant to highlight this in red as a return to not having "must" - which would be odd - or they simply pulled the text from an older revision by accident.

how can you highlight something thats missing?

22 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

how can you highlight something thats missing?

If a jamming field is turned off optionally in space, but no squadrons used it, did it actually happen?

Are jawas small, or just far away?

We have questions, FFG. Deep questions.

(I think it was an oversight and will be fixed, but until then, welcome to the jamming field meta.)

Edit: Tokra looks like exactly what I expected he would look like. Glad Ard pulled that off his Facebook profile.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

FFG did not release new material on Jamming Field. Which is exactly what they did with X-17s and Advanced Projectors.

Until such time FFG do release an updated ruling on Jamming Field, it is staying as a "must" option.

I agree that is should remain as a "must". But what about the people that will fight tooth n nail to say otherwise?

Tell them the most recent update to that card still says "must", so that ruling takes precedence? Dunno if that'll work on hardened rules lawyers, but it makes sense to me.

16 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree that is should remain as a "must". But what about the people that will fight tooth n nail to say otherwise?

Don't play with them? It's clearly a misprint. Had it been a change, the change would have been marked in red.

Realistically, though, how often do you run into Jamming Fields?

I don't play Jamming Fields, but I have played games (not Armada) competitively in the past, and sadly, in all those other instances, the rule was always:

• Most Recent copy of Rules as Written
• Most recent copy of Errata

that said, if Jamming Fields was errata'd one way in version 3.1.1 but is now missing in version 3.2.1, then that is the way it must go.

Think of it this way.

You are a player who has been around since the inception, since Wave 1, thus you have seen all the erratas to date. But a new player, who has only just come into the game does not have access to older errata documents, only the most recent. To them, the JF card is as written.