Jamming Fields: wait, are these insanely good?

[Vetnor 297]

I haven't read all of this thread but have people considered that an obstructed squadron isn't engaged?

[Green Knight 9,746]

I haven't read all of this thread but have people considered that an obstructed squadron isn't engaged?

 

Yes. But Jamming Field doesn't create obstruction - it just treats as obstruction during pew pew.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Green Knight

[miferr 179]

Hrrm...I'm just going to wait for the FAQ. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by miferr

[Vergilius 2,118]

Hrrm...I'm just going to wait for the FAQ. 

Good idea!  

[Kahadras 97]

Always on feels correct to me. I was chatting about it last night with a friend and we agreed that the card really needed an FAQ.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

But has anyone asked the question....? Its not frequently asked if no one asked.

[Madaghmire 7,276]

How hilarious would it be if it wasn't on the FAQ?

[err404 132]

Then the tread blows up by 7 more pages.

But seriously, I feel like somebody should just create a checklist of the common disputed rules that players can both review before a match and agree on common interpretation. A TO could also use this to post his rulings before an event.

Call it a FUQ (Frequently Unanswered Questions)

[Drasnighta 26,832]

That's exactly what I do.  I have my own Q&A Sheet for the Leagues I run, and they're essentially adopted for all Sentry Box events...

 

 

But outside of those walls, its up to individual TOs...   Because its Unofficial, it has just as much weight as the whiney teenager who wants to have Gunnery Teams and still get his Advanced Gunnery benefit...  

[Thraug 1,066]

That's exactly what I do.  I have my own Q&A Sheet for the Leagues I run, and they're essentially adopted for all Sentry Box events...

 

 

But outside of those walls, its up to individual TOs...   Because its Unofficial, it has just as much weight as the whiney teenager who wants to have Gunnery Teams and still get his Advanced Gunnery benefit...  

 

Give us the goods Greedo!!!!!

[Drasnighta 26,832]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:18 AM, Thraug said:

Give us the goods Greedo!!!!!

 

 

This is the temporary one I'm still working on for Waves 3 and 4.

It comes with the Caveats that, basically:

"I am the Marshal, the TO, the Judge, whatever you wish to call me...  I havn't come to these decisions willy-nilly or arbitrarily.  Game time is not a time to discuss them.  Game time is game Time.  Facebook outside of game time is time to discuss them."

(Deleted, those with interest in it can contact me)

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Drasnighta

[Green Knight 9,746]

Too much reason in one document.

 

Please remove it from the Rules subforum this instant!

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Too much reason in one document.

 

Please remove it from the Rules subforum this instant!

 

 

Negative, Ghost Rider.  The pattern is Full.

[ianediger 1,346]

Too much reason in one document.

 

Please remove it from the Rules subforum this instant!

 

 

Negative, Ghost Rider.  The pattern is Full.

*buzzes tower anyways*

[Drasnighta 26,832]

If you are trying to goad me into saying "I want somebody's butt! I want it now!", you have clearly underestimated me...

Not even a "I want Some Butts!"

 

 

Nope.

 

Not fallin' for it.

[Versch 689]

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!

[Madaghmire 7,276]

Sorry Dano, I'd take you up on it but I fall on your side of the argument.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

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?

[DerErlkoenig 975]

It'll be FAQ, has anything actually been errata'd, yet? For example, Mon Mothma not functioning as the rules dictate that she should, according to her card wording?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

It'll be FAQ, has anything actually been errata'd, yet? For example, Mon Mothma not functioning as the rules dictate that she should, according to her card wording?

 

Most Wanted was the first and most famous piece of Errata.

 

 

That is only works on Ship Attacks.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

It'll be FAQ, has anything actually been errata'd, yet? For example, Mon Mothma not functioning as the rules dictate that she should, according to her card wording?

 

Most Wanted was the first and most famous piece of Errata.

 

 

That is only works on Ship Attacks.

That's right. I remember that now.

[err404 132]

Versch, I'll take challenge with with Ardaedhel's caveats. The rules seem to state the effect pretty clearly as optional. But that does not always correspond to intent.

If this goes mandatory it will be not be a simple "well of course it's mandatory". It will come with alterations to the RRG to account for the interaction or a change to the card's wording.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

In theory it should be an errata - but FFG tends to resolve issues like this with FAQ more often than errata.

Not that is particularly relevant how they address it, exactly.

[err404 132]

I realize that, but JF is a bit different. Most rulings are about ambiguous interactions or unclear wording. This is not just a clarification, rather a conflict with a rule in the RRG .

They could easily claim it is mandatory and walk away, but that would effectively reverse the effect timing rule for upgrade cards as being optional by default. By claiming that upgrade cards require the word 'May' to be optional they are really saying that upgrade cards are mandatory unless stated otherwise. The exact opposite of what is written. This would lead to a lot of undue confusion going forward as people try to guess what wording should reverse a rule.

What I'm saying is that I trust FFG will try to avoid that kind of rules conflict in some way beyond just stating it is mandatory. I could easily be wrong as this at the whim of FFG.

[Crabbok 9,869]

I'm sorry there is just no way that this upgrade is togglable.  The card itself tells you it is always on.   Otherwise it would say ""You MAY treat the attack as obstructed".  Other "While" effects will have the term "may", but this one doesn't give you an option.  It's always on "While" squadrons are shooting at each other. 

 

  There is literally no wiggle room on this... it is crystal clear.