Jamming Fields: wait, are these insanely good?

[Ginkapo 9,321]

Eastern.

Unless stated otherwise

[Daht 481]

MAYBE!!!

[err404 132]

 If all upgrade cards are optional in use, then GT is optional in use, and so is Slaved Turrets, and yet FFG have stated that there always in effect, because if they were not always in effect, they would not have posted what they did to clarify Advanced Gunner and its interaction with them two upgrade cards.

I somewhat agree. FFG wrote every other upgrade card in a way that is compatible with the effects being mandatory or optional. Yet they have a rule in the RRG that clearly states they are optional. This is obviously causing confusion.

FFG could change the effects and timings rule to be mandatory for all card effects and only RF would be impacted.

However, until they do, the rules lead me to read RF as optional.

(That doesn't mean I think the intention was optional)

[reegsk 742]

Eastern.

Unless stated otherwise

 

"Cannot" definitely falls into the category of "unless stated otherwise." GT and Slaved Turrets both say "cannot," which is directly accounted for in the Effects Use and Timing sentence that has been quoted into oblivion in this thread. The argument for JF being optional only applies insofar as it does not "otherwise specify." Trying to compare JF to GT or ST doesn't work, because both of those cards do specify whereas JF doesn't. Seriously, an "always" or "must" would clear up the whole argument.

[Madaghmire 7,276]

Eastern.

Unless stated otherwise

 

"Cannot" definitely falls into the category of "unless stated otherwise." GT and Slaved Turrets both say "cannot," which is directly accounted for in the Effects Use and Timing sentence that has been quoted into oblivion in this thread. The argument for JF being optional only applies insofar as it does not "otherwise specify." Trying to compare JF to GT or ST doesn't work, because both of those cards do specify whereas JF doesn't. Seriously, an "always" or "must" would clear up the whole argument.

I disagree. I think the GT - Adv Gunnery point speaks directly to the argument at hand. Because in said example, there are two seperate agencies by which you can take a second shot from the same arc. If all upgrade card effects were optional, and holy hell gunnery teams even says "may" on it, then you could just chose to use advanced gunnery as your agency. But you can't. And it kills me when people treat this example like the cannot is so absolute, because this ruling is a reversal! A reversal they made because adv gunnery was included in like a million lists, not because they were like, "oh wait guys this says cannot"

[TheEasternKing 607]

 

Eastern.

Unless stated otherwise

 

"Cannot" definitely falls into the category of "unless stated otherwise." GT and Slaved Turrets both say "cannot," which is directly accounted for in the Effects Use and Timing sentence that has been quoted into oblivion in this thread. The argument for JF being optional only applies insofar as it does not "otherwise specify." Trying to compare JF to GT or ST doesn't work, because both of those cards do specify whereas JF doesn't. Seriously, an "always" or "must" would clear up the whole argument.

 

 

The cannot only comes into play if the card is used, if the card is not used, then the wording is in effect blank, it has no bearing on what is being done, that is the crux of the "upgrade cards are optional." argument.

 

If the card with Cannot is always in effect, then the card is not optional, and if that is so, what is differentiating that from any other upgrade card? the statement is ALL upgrade cards are optional. they either are or are not.

 

The while on Jamming fields is to tell you when it is in effect, you are either at distance one - two, or you are not at distance one - two, there are your choices, if you are, your attack/defense is affected by the wording on Jamming Field, if you are not, then your attack/defense is not affected by the wording on the card.

 

Otherwise, you could quite legally attack, say its off, when they use counter, say its on, and keep doing so until all attacks have been made and resolved inside the Jamming Field, and that is far FAR to powerful for an upgrade card that costs 2 points. 

[err404 132]

Eastern, you make good points. Are are you support of FFG removing the "upgrade card effects are optional unless stated otherwise" rule from the RRG to support this interpretation? Or do you have a reason why this rule should be ignored in this case?

I've said before that this rule could be removed with(out) effecting any other card.

Edit - without

Edited September 7, 2016 by err404

[TheEasternKing 607]

Eastern, you make good points. Are are you support of FFG removing the "upgrade card effects are optional unless stated otherwise" rule from the RRG to support this interpretation? Or do you have a reason why this rule should be ignored in this case?

I've said before that this rule could be removed with effecting any other card.

 

I'd say they need to either amend it, or remove it. Or just explain exactly what they meant by it, and while doing so explain why they actually worded choices on some upgrade cards, and not on the rest.

[reegsk 742]

Yeah, that clause is just. . .strange. If it was their intent to make all upgrades optional, why include "may" on so many of them? Or why not include "must/cannot/always" on more of them (this one in particular)?

 

The only reason I can think of to default upgrade cards to optional but include "may" on a lot of them is to save people the hassle of flipping to the RRG every time someone insists that they have to resolve an upgrade card when they don't want to.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Going back and thinking through upgrade cards with that clause in mind. It occurs to me... Is Rieekan's effect optional? Can I decide not to apply it to, say, a dead ship that's in my own way? Or one that's about to get pumped for Precision Strike points?

Hmm...

[Madaghmire 7,276]

No, none of that **** is optional.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

I think they just need to do away with the "upgrades are optional" clause in the rulebook.  It really adds no value over just defining "may" or "can" to mean "is optional" if these probably-ridiculous edge cases are not intended.

[err404 132]

I've looked through most of the cards, and treating upgrade cards as default optional doesn't really break or change anything. RF is the only card that I could find that would really exploit the optional clause to the players advantage. The vast majority of upgrade cards that do no say "may/can" have no reason not to activate at every possible instance.  

A small handful of cards, like Rieekan, may have an edge case when you might not want to active it. if it were in-fact Optional, so what? Your ship is removed as normal. The mechanics don't implode and nothing breaks. 

 

Put it this way. I have always played assuming that upgrade cards are optional. If we were to play, I doubt that you would find any action I took counter to your Mandatory interpretation. (RF obviously being the exception)

 

So who is going to email FFG first asking "did you really mean it when you wrote upgrade cards are optional in the rule book"?

If they keep it or toss it, the game barely changes.

Edited September 15, 2016 by err404

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Dodonna is another one where you may not want to mess up what is left in a deck for the last crit. 

[DonKarnage 189]

Until Jamming field and other potential future upgrades of course...

And I disagree on the "so what" for Rieekan... you remove a ship from the front of a conga line so you dont cause a ramming chain? Bull.

[err404 132]

My point with "so what" is that we know how to deal with the rules for Rieekan whether he is mandatory or optional. There are no cascading ramifications that would cause the game to fall into chaos. There are a few contrived cases that could effect gameplay, but nothing so serious that it would effect overall strategies. 

For now just play as always. FFG will probably make a clarification for RF, since it has a greater gameplay impact. That clarification should provide insight as to how they view the "optional" rule.

[Green Knight 9,746]

Going back and thinking through upgrade cards with that clause in mind. It occurs to me... Is Rieekan's effect optional? Can I decide not to apply it to, say, a dead ship that's in my own way? Or one that's about to get pumped for Precision Strike points?

Hmm...

Using Jamming Field logic, yes.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

The same could also apply to Motti, for exactly the same reason. Don't want someone milking a few extra tokens from your extra hull? Turn Motti off.

[err404 132]

Motti reads a bit differently. The optional upgrade effect rule applies to each instance of an effect. You only activate Motti once, and then your whole fleet get the extra hull points. There is no function in the game to terminate an effect in progress.

I guess you could hold off on activating those points until some point during the match But once you do, the points are assigned until the card is destroyed.

Contrast this to RF. RF has a while condition that makes each use of it a separate instance of the effect.

Remember that you could never choose to "stop" RF. Rather you would decline to activate it during an instance of the conditions being met.

(This is just how I reconcile the rules. It is best to wait on FFG for this)

[Green Knight 9,746]

Motti reads a bit differently. The optional upgrade effect rule applies to each instance of an effect. You only activate Motti once, and then your whole fleet get the extra hull points. There is no function in the game to terminate an effect in progress.

I guess you could hold off on activating those points until some point during the match But once you do, the points are assigned until the card is destroyed.

Contrast this to RF. RF has a while condition that makes each use of it a separate instance of the effect.

Remember that you could never choose to "stop" RF. Rather you would decline to activate it during an instance of the conditions being met.

(This is just how I reconcile the rules. It is best to wait on FFG for this)

 

Is that really the case?

 

If Motti leaves the table, his effect is gone that instant.

 

How is that different from say Rieekan's ability?

[Green Knight 9,746]

We're really just overthinking the whole "optional" thing.

 

Next time I take Montferrat, I'll ram something, then refuse to discard him. It's optional to resolve after all

 

[err404 132]

It is all about what constitutes a single instance of an effect and what are the conditions to activate it. All effect run through to completion.

Rieekan's ability is a when conditional effect. The player has the option to activate the effect after that condition is met. Each effect instance is for the one ship that met the condition.

Motti can activate at any time, but single instance of the effect says that it is for each ship (you can't choose which ships). So it is all or nothing. Motti's effect also has no end state to return the ships to the hull original value. So the single use of the effect remains so long as the card is in play.

This reading does not conflict with the FAQ clarifications or the RRG, but for now is just my interpretation.

[err404 132]

Frankly I think Montferrat should have a "must" in that clause. But the alternative is to ignore the RRG for upgrade card effects.

So is the error on Montferrat or is the error in the RRG? In any case, intent is far more clear on Montferrat.

As I said, play as you wish. The FAQ should be providing clarity soon.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Intent on Jamming Field and Montferrat are equal. it's quite obvious that despite the technicality, both are intended to be mandatory.

And I see nothing on Motti that he activates once and is permanent. When I choose to have him activated, he increases the hull effective hull points of my ships. when I choose to have him inactive, I would not retain his bonus. and GK is right, according to the "once and done" logic of Motti, his hull point bonus should stay even after he's gone.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Intent on Jamming Field and Montferrat are equal. it's quite obvious that despite the technicality, both are intended to be mandatory.

This was the primary argument against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo, too.

Sorry, I don't buy "it's obvious even though the rules say otherwise" as the final word.