I'm really more confused about why this even became a problem. When I first got Jamming Field I read it and thought it wasn't optional. I didn't even know why they errata'd it until the last few days.
I mean, I've come across players in other games who will take every word of a rule and twist it to work for them before, but this is ridiculous. The original wording makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that it isn't optional.
33 minutes ago, Blinkus Maximus said:I'm really more confused about why this even became a problem. When I first got Jamming Field I read it and thought it wasn't optional. I didn't even know why they errata'd it until the last few days.
I mean, I've come across players in other games who will take every word of a rule and twist it to work for them before, but this is ridiculous. The original wording makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that it isn't optional.
The problem is that while the designers probably INTENDED it to be mandatory, that's not what the card actually says.
It has a 'while attacking' trigger, meaning you can use it exactly once per attack.
Or not. As the rules EXPLICITLY says resolution of an upgrade is OPTIONAL unless otherwise specified.
So it's not twisting anything. It's playing by the rules, instead of playing by what you think the designers intended.
So the real question now is:
What will the TO say when I show up to play my Biggs Ball/GH/Jamming Field fleet at Store Champs in two weeks?
Just now, BrobaFett said:So the real question now is:
What will the TO say when I show up to play my Biggs Ball/GH/Jamming Field fleet at Store Champs in two weeks?
"Why didn't you ask me this question 2 weeks ago?"
Just now, Drasnighta said:"Why didn't you ask me this question 2 weeks ago?"
I'll call today. When I got the notification Dras had quoted me in a topic this was my reaction.
2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:So the real question now is:
What will the TO say when I show up to play my Biggs Ball/GH/Jamming Field fleet at Store Champs in two weeks?
With this setup you can take Rieekan. Won't be losing many squads, so you can pretty much get him to work like the old Rieekan 
Just now, Green Knight said:With this setup you can take Rieekan. Won't be losing many squads, so you can pretty much get him to work like the old Rieekan
Same mind!
For once, I was being legitimately helpful! I can't give an actual answer on what your TO would say - but I'm sure your TO would 
Then I go like: RAW RAW RAWALA (with Lady Gaga Bad Romance playing I my head).
11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:For once, I was being legitimately helpful! I can't give an actual answer on what your TO would say - but I'm sure your TO would
I know Dras, was just giving you a hard time because I knew it would be a legitimate helpful answer to my preposterous question I was only throwing out there to stir the pot.
Thank you for being always being geared toward helpfulness Dras. It is appreciated!
Unfortunately in this case rules is rules, what is in the most recent FAQ counts..... It sucks eggs and I think it's probably a mistake/misprint but...........
Edited by Jondavies72If only FFG also released a companion article highlighting all the changes they intentionally made. Which included no wording at all suggesting they intentionally reverted their Jamming Fields ruling. Which seems to suggest it was an oversight rather than an actual change.
If only....
9 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:If only FFG also released a companion article highlighting all the changes they intentionally made. Which included no wording at all suggesting they intentionally reverted their Jamming Fields ruling. Which seems to suggest it was an oversight rather than an actual change.
If only....
If wishes were fishes...
31 minutes ago, Green Knight said:If wishes were fishes...
We'd all be eating steak.
38 minutes ago, Valca said:We'd all be eating steak.
I like meat.
But Gollum would be really happy!
5 hours ago, Blinkus Maximus said:I'm really more confused about why this even became a problem. When I first got Jamming Field I read it and thought it wasn't optional. I didn't even know why they errata'd it until the last few days.
I mean, I've come across players in other games who will take every word of a rule and twist it to work for them before, but this is ridiculous. The original wording makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that it isn't optional.
funny, when I first read it, it was totally obvious for me that its optional and you can use or not use as you chose, as per rules.
I'm pretty thick so please just to make it clear per the official rules is the Jamming Field optional or not?
22 minutes ago, jbc98k said:I'm pretty thick so please just to make it clear per the official rules is the Jamming Field optional or not?
To be clear:
The wording on the card, as printed, is clearly optional when you parse through the RRG on how upgrade cards and while clauses work. See the thread I linked to earlier where I lay this out. Note that I, among others, said that despite RAW being optional, we did not believe this was the intent.
To that point, in the last FAQ, FFG included an errata for jamming fields where a "must" clause was added to the card to make clear it was not optional, confirming both points I make above (that RAW was optional but that was clearly not the intent).
In the current FAQ, the hamming (typo but I'm leaving it because a giant field of pigs in space would be amazing) field errata was removed. Therefore, jamming fields are optional again! However, I think this was also an oversight and I expect it will be re-added to the FAQ (or at least I hope, otherwise ****, that card is amazing).
Until then, it is technically optional, but I would not suggest pulling that and as a TO I would rule against it, while cursing the FAQ for this error.
I hope that is clear?
Edited by Reinholt4 minutes ago, Reinholt said:
Until then, it is technically optional, but I would not suggest pulling that and as a TO I would rule against it, while cursing the FAQ for this error.
I hope that is clear?
Perfectly So, Reinholt 
I just wanted to add an additional Note to Marshals:
" All card interpretations during a tournament are a marshal’s responsibility, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when a mistake or error is discovered."
If you believe its an error, its an error, and you overwrite it.
Simple as that.
While i agree this is mostly likely a mistake, i hope to god its not.
I played jamming fields all the time when it was optional and after it became i must i switched to comms net flotillas instead.
Please FFG either fix it quick or keep it before i start getting used to it again! Lol
"While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack is treated as obstructed."
how does anyone get optional out of this?? or only working once? there is not "tap this card" or "use this card" there is no way to turn it on or off, it just is.
There is no way to turn the effect off or on in the statement or in any of the rules.
Its a very cut and dried statement. Is the squadron in distance 1-2 of the ship with the card? NO no effect YES is it attacking or being attacked? NO no effect, YES then the attack is treated as obstructed. move on to the next squadron.
there is NO other way to look at it. Unless your making it up because that is the way you want it to be,
They screwed up creating a blanket rule that says all your upgrades are optional. They should have simply used "may" and "must" on every card.
Optionally turning on/off your own cards when they sometimes use the word must and sometimes dont, even though they should have used it when they implied it, it really a PITA and is getting out if control with keeping track of how to use many upgrade cards.
No doubt JF is always on. Its not even remotely written to imply it can be disabled.
33 minutes ago, ouzel said:"While a squadron at distance 1-2 is attacking or defending against a squadron, the attack is treated as obstructed."
how does anyone get optional out of this?? or only working once? there is not "tap this card" or "use this card" there is no way to turn it on or off, it just is.
There is no way to turn the effect off or on in the statement or in any of the rules.
Its a very cut and dried statement. Is the squadron in distance 1-2 of the ship with the card? NO no effect YES is it attacking or being attacked? NO no effect, YES then the attack is treated as obstructed. move on to the next squadron.
there is NO other way to look at it. Unless your making it up because that is the way you want it to be,
Because page 5 of the RRG under Effects and Timing states "resolving an upgrades card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified"
Thats where people got it from.
The previous faq errata'd the card to introduce the keyword 'must'. The latest one is missing it.
1 hour ago, Irokenics said:Because page 5 of the RRG under Effects and Timing states "resolving an upgrades card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified"
Thats where people got it from.
The previous faq errata'd the card to introduce the keyword 'must'. The latest one is missing it.
Actually it's more than that.
From Page 5:
Effect Use and Timing
Each effect in the game has a timing during which it can
resolve. This timing is usually specified within the effect,
though some effects use the more specific timing described
in this section.
• A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified
event and cannot occur again during that instance of the
event.
• Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless
otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory
unless otherwise specified.
So, the 'While' effect states it CAN be resolved. not that is must be resolved.
I'll definitely be bringing this up Saturday at the FFG Event Center Store Championship.