2 hours ago, NeonKnight said:

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.

Confused on why this was aimed at me and what the objective was.

1 minute ago, Irokenics said:

Confused on why this was aimed at me and what the objective was.

Not aimed at you. Was supposed to be a continuation of the whole shebang but the quote only grabbed your part.

7 hours 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,

Really?

So you mean the RRG doesn't apply to this card?

Or maybe you're making up things?

Because as written - then JF is optional. There is no other way to interpret it.

Which is why it became the second errata for Armada ever.

6 hours ago, Thraug said:

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.

Except that's not remotely true.

JF is written so that it is definitely optional to resolve.

Which is why it got errata in the first place.

8 hours 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,

always, hm, problematic when someone claims there is "NO" other way to look at it. I am tempted to say that you yourself want it to be exactly the way you understand it

Really no need to continue arguing, of course, I think its very clear that the rules allowed you to think that you can turn it on and off, and its also apparent that this was not the intent, as proved by the errata afterwards. There was no errata when the card appeared, only the rules text.

Now its gone from the FAQ, and I was sorely tempted for a minute to use it as writtten at a tourney this weekend, but it would create unecessary tension and would put the poor TO in considerable stress if I insisted. In all likelihood FFG will correct this (but not quickly as they must assume with the last FAQ things have been clear enough for people like me not pulling something controversial).

10 hours 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,

A lot already said why it is optional. But i want to swing around a bit and explain a bit more.

I would agree with you for every other game (i know). The normal wording in the rules is that each effect is madatory unless otherwise said.

For Armada they made the Rule:

Quote

• Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified.

This messed it up, and might have caused some problems for the dev team from Armada. You have to write some cards different to what most are used to, to get the right effect.

You just cannot write: "The line of sight is obstructed". You have to write: "The line of sight must be obstructed".
Same with Rieekan. The wording right now makes him an optional effect. If it should be a mandatory effect, it need the word "must" or similar. "... it must remain in the play area..."

On top of this the wording for while:

Quote

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

Gives you a timing for the optional effect. It can be resolved when the while trigger is given, and when it is an optional effect you can choose not to trigger it. In case of the jamming field (the way it is writen without the FAQ), you can decide to use the effect or you can choose to not use it.

But as soon as you get used to it (all effects are optional unless otherwise said), you have no problems anymore with all the cards and rules. And you might find, or see, some tactics that are not so common.

I would also like to take a moment to urge people not to get bombastic or personally invested in rules discussions.

The rules say whatever they say, and there needs to be a shared community understanding of what they are (otherwise every game will just degenerate to Chewbacca ripping someone's arms off when they can't agree on rules). The only goal here is to get to that, and it would be foolish to assume otherwise.

For example, I brought up the original jamming fields because I thought it was a legitimate oversight and wanted to draw attention to it. This did lead to an errata (also let me once again commend the designers for caring about the game and attempting to fix mistakes and improve it), which is a positive for everyone.

We are all in the same flotilla lifeboat together here, guys. Wait, what? That got banned too!?

As has been stated, yes you can interpret it to be on/off, it DID get errata'd so in my opinion, to use it RAW would be in extreme poor taste and bad sport. Clearly they did not call out that they removed that errata in their "these be the changes" article so its likely a mistake, and to take advantage of that would be lame AF.

Incidentally, @NebulonB the new FAQ does not take effect until the 26 so any tourney this weekend would still obey the previous FAQ with the errata'd fields so you would be cheating. (after the 26th you would just be a D***)

Hastatior, we with the TO decided to use the new version. Any objections?

I know peps are saying well it was in the last FAQ so it must be a typo/mistake that it's been removed from this one, but it's very possible they may have purposefully removed it..... Maybe they want to encourage flotillas to be used in a more aggressive up front fashion, this would tie in well with the no lifeboat FAQ.

We cannot know if it was purposeful or a mistake, therefore we follow the rules as they stand at the time, when I TO my store champ it will be FAQ as published at that time and rules as written. I will publish beforehand so people know this.

never assume........

6 minutes ago, Johnnyreb said:

I know peps are saying well it was in the last FAQ so it must be a typo/mistake that it's been removed from this one, but it's very possible they may have purposefully removed it..... Maybe they want to encourage flotillas to be used in a more aggressive up front fashion, this would tie in well with the no lifeboat FAQ.

We cannot know if it was purposeful or a mistake, therefore we follow the rules as they stand at the time, when I TO my store champ it will be FAQ as published at that time and rules as written. I will publish beforehand so people know this.

never assume........

Well, for me, as a counterpoint:

It has been ommitted, and by cirumstance, ommittance is a mistake in a document that is required to have Changes tracked.

Updates are required to be shown with Red Text.

There is no red text stating "Our previous FAQ on the matter has been changed."

Instead, we default to the last piece of official correspondance on it.

That is an Email from Michael Gernes (available as a copy in the Rules Forum) that states (effectively, as a paraphrase) that: "This is an oversight and it will be erratta'd soon."

Soon just hasn't come yet.

But as I said, that's for me - and that's where my Argument comes from to this being a Mistake... But that's because I'm a Marshal -I can make that call for my Tournaments. Just so you can with your own.

The only thing I ever ask of my fellow Organizer/Marshal/Judges is to be upfront about those sorts of things as soon as humanly possible - because there's few things angrier than an On_The_Spot Upset Player.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Well, for me, as a counterpoint:

It has been ommitted, and by cirumstance, ommittance is a mistake in a document that is required to have Changes tracked.

Updates are required to be shown with Red Text.

There is no red text stating "Our previous FAQ on the matter has been changed."

Instead, we default to the last piece of official correspondance on it.

That is an Email from Michael Gernes (available as a copy in the Rules Forum) that states (effectively, as a paraphrase) that: "This is an oversight and it will be erratta'd soon."

Soon just hasn't come yet.

But as I said, that's for me - and that's where my Argument comes from to this being a Mistake... But that's because I'm a Marshal -I can make that call for my Tournaments. Just so you can with your own.

The only thing I ever ask of my fellow Organizer/Marshal/Judges is to be upfront about those sorts of things as soon as humanly possible - because there's few things angrier than an On_The_Spot Upset Player.

Apsolulty if you know there is debate or uncertainty always prepublish how you will judge, it's just unfair to do it any other way. One of my pet hates is stores that will not tell you these things in advance.

If I see a copy of that email which clears it up as a mistake I will be very happy to go with the old FAQ ( I think it's the. Better ruling ) it's just until we hear from the developers in not assuming either way and will revert to RAW.

5 minutes ago, Johnnyreb said:

If I see a copy of that email which clears it up as a mistake I will be very happy to go with the old FAQ ( I think it's the. Better ruling ) it's just until we hear from the developers in not assuming either way and will revert to RAW.

Here's the Original Email.

Of course, nothing is going to get a response like sending in new clarification requests...

I'm doing so - so we can make sure its a Mistake... But who knows on the turnaround time for something like that....

Well , for what it's worth I did ask when I was at the Store Championship at the FFG Event Center today and asked about this it was confirmed that the Jamming Field being omitted was an error and not deliberate. Take that for what you will.

People can play however they wish... But if something is removed and not noted in the change section of the Errata it is clearly a mistake of some kind and the old ruling should be used until the error is cleared up. At least in any official capacity.

At home on your own table you can use whatever rules you like...

I don't get involved with rules discussions because all I see are people pulling the Bill Clinton "what's the definition of is" nonsense, but I will chime in that no, you cannot ASSUME it was omitted in error. There is no "clearly" here, as is evidenced by a 3 page discussion of this very topic.

Just now, emsgoof said:

I don't get involved with rules discussions because people all I see are people pulling the Bill Clinton "what's the definition of is" nonsense, but I will chime in that no, you cannot ASSUME it was omitted in error. There is no "clearly" here, as is evidenced by a 3 page discussion of this very topic.

No... it "might" not have been omitted by mistake... the problem is that EITHER it was omitted by misstake OR it was not referenced properly in the notes section of changes.

So in ANY case there IS and error which one we can't know for sure, so using the last known rules would be appropriate for any official gathering since the current ones are in ERROR in some form.

4 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

I don't get involved with rules discussions because all I see are people pulling the Bill Clinton "what's the definition of is" nonsense, but I will chime in that no, you cannot ASSUME it was omitted in error. There is no "clearly" here, as is evidenced by a 3 page discussion of this very topic.

The most damning part is the fact it is not referenced. You can remove things from FAQs. That's totally legitimate. But you must tell people you have done so in a living document. Otherwise, its not a living document.

That is the equivelant of saying "These Rules aren't Rules."

They're well within their right and requirement to reverse the decision previously made.

What's the point of having Updates you can Track, if you can't track them.

Ergo, The onus is on FFG to account for the mistake - in either direction. It may not have been a mistake to remove it from the FAQ - but it was a mistake to do so without record.

*sigh* This is why I don't do rules discussions.

Sonce you insist, please show definite proof of your claim. Otherwise, all we know as fact is any reference to Jamming Fields is no longer found in the FAQ, and therefore is no longer covered by a change to the rule as printed on the card.

5 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

*sigh* This is why I don't do rules discussions.

Sonce you insist, please show definite proof of your claim. Otherwise, all we know as fact is any reference to Jamming Fields is no longer found in the FAQ, and therefore is no longer covered by a change to the rule as printed on the card.

From the FAQ:


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THIS VERSION

• Errata, Page 2–3 • Card Clarifications, Pages 10, 12, 14 TM TM

All changes and additions made to this document since the previous version are marked in red.

ALL CHANGES

No Change is Marked in Red for Jamming Field. It is not a Change to the Document since the Previous Version. Ergo, the Previous Version Stands.

A big chunk of the discussion here hasn't been on the removal from the FAQ. Its been on rehashing the Argument itself. So the "3 pages" doesn't really account - it is less than that.

I would now ask though, that if you continue to disagree with my assertion above - I believe I have found the "definite proof" you requested, so I will request the same as the onus is on you to dispute: Show me definite proof that a removal would not be classed as a change.

23 hours ago, emsgoof said:

I don't get involved with rules discussions because all I see are people pulling the Bill Clinton "what's the definition of is" nonsense, but I will chime in that no, you cannot ASSUME it was omitted in error. There is no "clearly" here, as is evidenced by a 3 page discussion of this very topic.

What's the definition of "error"

Silver Crane already said they forgot about it. It was a mistake. I don't see any logical reason as to why they would reverse their ruling.

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, Drasnighta said:

From the FAQ:


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THIS VERSION

• Errata, Page 2–3 • Card Clarifications, Pages 10, 12, 14 TM TM

All changes and additions made to this document since the previous version are marked in red.

ALL CHANGES

No Change is Marked in Red for Jamming Field. It is not a Change to the Document since the Previous Version. Ergo, the Previous Version Stands.

A big chunk of the discussion here hasn't been on the removal from the FAQ. Its been on rehashing the Argument itself. So the "3 pages" doesn't really account - it is less than that.

I would now ask though, that if you continue to disagree with my assertion above - I believe I have found the "definite proof" you requested, so I will request the same as the onus is on you to dispute: Show me definite proof that a removal would not be classed as a change.

I think this pretty much settles it. QED.

Also, clearly Armada is dead.

RIP

On 25 June 2017 at 2:41 PM, Drasnighta said:

From the FAQ:


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THIS VERSION

• Errata, Page 2–3 • Card Clarifications, Pages 10, 12, 14 TM TM

All changes and additions made to this document since the previous version are marked in red.

ALL CHANGES

No Change is Marked in Red for Jamming Field. It is not a Change to the Document since the Previous Version. Ergo, the Previous Version Stands.

A big chunk of the discussion here hasn't been on the removal from the FAQ. Its been on rehashing the Argument itself. So the "3 pages" doesn't really account - it is less than that.

I would now ask though, that if you continue to disagree with my assertion above - I believe I have found the "definite proof" you requested, so I will request the same as the onus is on you to dispute: Show me definite proof that a removal would not be classed as a change.

But how can it be marked in red if it's not there to observe, until we observe it in the FAQ it is both red and black.

36 minutes ago, Jondavies72 said:

But how can it be marked in red if it's not there to observe, until we observe it in the FAQ it is both red and black.

Does it die when we open the box the FAQ is in?

3 minutes ago, Viktor Tanek said:

Does it die when we open the box the FAQ is in?

What if the FAQ has the Jamming Field errata when the box is closed but disappears when the box is open?