If you read the FAQ, Captain Yorr presents us with another precedent. More importantly, it's a game rule that should probably be explored more thoroughly on its own. It presents us with two different scenarios:

Cost -> Effect, whereby paying a cost directly produces an effect (Yorr vis-a-vis Fel and Opportunist)

Trigger -> Effect, whereby a change in game state indirectly produces an effect (Yorr vis-a-vis Push the Limit)

To apply that here, the semantic distinction between "spend" and "remove" is meaningless. You manipulate the stress token to directly produce an effect. Fel's ability does not refer to either term, yet remains an obvious case of paying a cost to produce an effect. And, as people have already stated numerous times, Keyan's effect is universally handled the same way across all previous ships with similar abilities, regardless of the cost. There's absolutely no reason to believe that it should be handled differently this time.

I edited my last post, for anyone inclined to read it.

I'll vouch for WAAAGH. We had a difference that we cleared up via PM like gentlemen.

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

Sekac, if you post one more time in this thread, I will change all of my posts here that contain "You Rebel Scum!" into "May the Force be with you".

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

As a matter of fact, your interpretation is very much based on assumption.

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

As a matter of fact, your interpretation is very much based on assumption.

No. We can all see that he is AT THE VERY LEAST as powerful as I think he is. There is no other possible interpretation. He may be more powerful, that's true, but that IS NOT made explicitly clear. I'm using the rules as they are written, not connecting dots.

There are no precedents required when reading the rules as they are written. A conclusion based on a precedent is unavoidably an assumption.

I really don't think there's more I can add to this conversation though. You have your stance and I have mine. I'm not judging anyone and I mean no hard feelings. I've just got an Irish-Catholic guilt complex a mile wide. Whether or not I should feel guilty for playing a more powerful version of a rule and find out later I was wrong, I guarantee you I would. I don't expect others to feel the same way, nor think they should, just explaining why I draw the line where I do.

Good luck, all.

Any debate over power level requires context. Keyan is powerful, certainly, but you pay for that power. Build a list for me, using our interpretation of his ability, that you feel would break the current meta.

Or just ignore this post like you have my last three.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

Well, this is classy.

What do you suppose I'd do if I were playing AGAINST Farlander? Which interpretation do you think I'd pick? Hint: it's probably a whole lot like the one I'd use if I'm flying him. Would you care to explain how allowing - even EXPLAINING if they didn't know it - a more powerful interpretation could be screwing my opponent?

What I have to gain is playing the game as correctly as possible, using all the information we have at hand. What you're gaining is absolutely nothing but a false sense of your own correctness - you're substituting baseless RAI guesses for actual rules, which leads you to wrong interpretations of things like this and your incorrect reading of Nien.

Would you say that if you strike him down, he would become more powerful than you could possibly imagine?

I'm using the rules as they are written, not connecting dots.

No, you're making just as many assumptions as anyone else. The rules as-written do not support your conclusion, you're just assuming that the ability is too overpowered to work any other way.

And BTW, it was clear as-written that you could spend a focus token and modify zero dice to activate Garven's ability. The FAQ didn't change anything, it just made it so that everyone understood what the answer was.

I have posted on this before, but I am in the class that thinks you need eyeballs to active Keyan's ability and that the wording does not allow the leap to the way TL, Focus and Evade tokens are allowed to be used. For that leap, the word "token" would replace TL, Focus and Evade in the FAQ.

Until stated otherwise by an FAQ, we should take the literal wording of the card as true and not make assumptions that it works like an unrelated FAQ.

The wording clearly requires "eyeballs" to remove the stress token right now.

You could very well see it as two effects that are independent but requiring the first (removing stress) to trigger the second (changing dice results). In that case to be honest you can just remove the stress and the rest is optional.

Second thing is that even if modifying dice was a prerequisite to removing stress, then you can still modify 0 dice, and that is exactly what Garven does and why he may use his skill. This has nothing to do with "spending" or "removing" in my opinion either.

Last but not least, if FFG wanted to force you to have an eyeball on your roll in order to shed stress, why did they not just word it somewhat like this: "While attacking, you may modify one or more focus results to hit results to remove a stress token." Let's face it they are not dumb and if that was what they wanted, the wording would be different.

To me it is pretty clear that this will appear in FAQ and i am also quite sure that for said reasons this will be ruled like Garven, but not 100% sure... Still the people pointing fingers at others because they use the more liberal vs the more conservative version, accusing them to screw opponents over, my god just be quiet! Such epic dumbness...

That being said, Farlander is a strong pick, but nothing near as gamechanging as someone like Howlrunner. He is quite expensive too, and has one agility like numerous people have mentioned. You also don't need any specific counter to him like yo would need against a swarm. So crying OVERPOWERED already is just ridiculous!

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

Nobody is screwing opponents over... They are playing the game the closest to how they understand as possible. Don't start trying to moralize a rules dispute. That way lies a whole lot of insulting mess. Both opinions are valid, but yours ignores a whole lot of evidence about the way the designers think in favor of following a set of rules that frankly seem out of line with FFG's own description of the pilot. deliberatley underpowering every questionable pilot isn't going to help anybody.

Well if your opponent feels like Sekac does and you insist its your way and you play it as such and the FAQ rules in your opponent's favor, you may not feel you screwed him over but he will probably feel that way especially if it was a tournament setting and a place/prize was at stake

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?

By referring to the FAQ, which tells you which ones can . Bottom line: You ASSUME that they intend for stress tokens to resolve the same way, but you cannot know that until they make it clear. Your interpretation is based entirely on assumptions. Mine is not. I refuse to play a pilot more powerfully than I can know with certainty is intended. For instance, I would not have played Garven the way they FAQed it until they did. I wouldn't count a 1 forward with an Ion token as green with Nien Nunb until they FAQed it that way.

You are willing to make that leap, that's fine, I'm not. But the consequence of you being wrong are that you have screwed many many opponents over (depending of course on how much you play), the consequence of me being wrong is I say, "Awesome!" And I use him a lot more. I've got nothing to lose but a lot to gain. You've got nothing at all to gain but a whole lot to lose. That's clearly a risk you're willing to take, so go for it.

As a matter of fact, your interpretation is very much based on assumption.

As a personal choice I would lean towards Sekac's point of view, if assumptions are to be made I would rather err on the side limiting an ability rather than the other way around

you may not feel you screwed him over but he will probably feel that way especially if it was a tournament setting and a place/prize was at stake.

Two things.

One, I can't control how the other guys feels.

Two, that's the whole point of having a TO. If the players can't agree on something it's up to the TO/Judge to decide, and that ruling is final. Even if a FAQ comes out latter ruling otherwise, the ruling given at the time is still valid.

This doesn't cheapen my win, because I played by the rules as they were at the time.

I have posted on this before, but I am in the class that thinks you need eyeballs to active Keyan's ability and that the wording does not allow the leap to the way TL, Focus and Evade tokens are allowed to be used. For that leap, the word "token" would replace TL, Focus and Evade in the FAQ.

Until stated otherwise by an FAQ, we should take the literal wording of the card as true and not make assumptions that it works like an unrelated FAQ.

The wording clearly requires "eyeballs" to remove the stress token right now.

Still the people pointing fingers at others because they use the more liberal vs the more conservative version, accusing them to screw opponents over, my god just be quiet! Such epic dumbness...

Why necro a month-and-a-half old thread just to tell people to be quiet? Everyone has been quiet for a very long time...

I wrote a blog post on this guy.

http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/31044/the-rebels-interceptors-hint-its-not-an-e-wing-or

I have posted on this before, but I am in the class that thinks you need eyeballs to active Keyan's ability and that the wording does not allow the leap to the way TL, Focus and Evade tokens are allowed to be used. For that leap, the word "token" would replace TL, Focus and Evade in the FAQ.

Until stated otherwise by an FAQ, we should take the literal wording of the card as true and not make assumptions that it works like an unrelated FAQ.

The wording clearly requires "eyeballs" to remove the stress token right now.

Still the people pointing fingers at others because they use the more liberal vs the more conservative version, accusing them to screw opponents over, my god just be quiet! Such epic dumbness...

Why necro a month-and-a-half old thread just to tell people to be quiet? Everyone has been quiet for a very long time...

So has it be clarified? No i don't think so. Then it's not a necro.

Besides, the only thing that got clarified here is your awesome combination of whining and stubbornness, combined with absolutely ridiculous accusations against players (that they screw orher players over and ruin the fun of others and such...) just because they are interpreting a rule differently than you. Something that is clearly their good right to do. I have yet to see an official ruling to see and while to me it seems clear which way the ruling will probably go, i still respect your interpretation although i absolutely disrespect your attitude of promoting it here.

Therefore cheers, and again, sshhhhh!

Does Keyan ever really end a turn stressed if he has a target to shoot at? We have a precedent to follow the X-Wing pilot Garvin. Garvin can spend a Focus token even if he has not rolled any eyes in his dice roll, allowing him to hand off his focus to a friendly ship. Does this same logic apply to our B-Wing Ace? if so toss on an an advance sensor and never worry about the green maneuvers again. This really starts to shine when you toss on a Push the Limit or Opportunist. He very well be the deadliest B-Wing out there!

All I am seeing here is that he can stress himself, and then remove the stress while at the same time using the stress tolken as a focus. It only works IF he can attack an enemy.

It sounds like the tolken being turned into a focus is just a byproduct.

Does Keyan ever really end a turn stressed if he has a target to shoot at? We have a precedent to follow the X-Wing pilot Garvin. Garvin can spend a Focus token even if he has not rolled any eyes in his dice roll, allowing him to hand off his focus to a friendly ship. Does this same logic apply to our B-Wing Ace? if so toss on an an advance sensor and never worry about the green maneuvers again. This really starts to shine when you toss on a Push the Limit or Opportunist. He very well be the deadliest B-Wing out there!

All I am seeing here is that he can stress himself, and then remove the stress while at the same time using the stress tolken as a focus. It only works IF he can attack an enemy.

It sounds like the tolken being turned into a focus is just a byproduct.

The question people are debating is whether he can remove the stress token to "turn Focus into hits" if there are no eyeballs to change. I'm of the camp that he can remove the stress to turn 0 eyeballs into 0 hits, but I may have B-wing bias.

Does Keyan ever really end a turn stressed if he has a target to shoot at? We have a precedent to follow the X-Wing pilot Garvin. Garvin can spend a Focus token even if he has not rolled any eyes in his dice roll, allowing him to hand off his focus to a friendly ship. Does this same logic apply to our B-Wing Ace? if so toss on an an advance sensor and never worry about the green maneuvers again. This really starts to shine when you toss on a Push the Limit or Opportunist. He very well be the deadliest B-Wing out there!

All I am seeing here is that he can stress himself, and then remove the stress while at the same time using the stress tolken as a focus. It only works IF he can attack an enemy.

It sounds like the tolken being turned into a focus is just a byproduct.

Yeah I don't see what is so hard to comprehend on the card text.

It's real simple.

Use a stress token as if it were a focus when rolling reds.

Shazam.

I'm of the camp that he can remove the stress to turn 0 eyeballs into 0 hits, but I may have B-wing bias.

That's not really B-Winb Bias, that's just using existing rulings that say you can use a token even if it doesn't actually change anything.

If Garven can spend a Focus to change no eyes into hits then there is simply no reason why Keyan can't do the same thing.

I'm of the camp that he can remove the stress to turn 0 eyeballs into 0 hits, but I may have B-wing bias.

That's not really B-Winb Bias, that's just using existing rulings that say you can use a token even if it doesn't actually change anything.

If Garven can spend a Focus to change no eyes into hits then there is simply no reason why Keyan can't do the same thing.

I do know of that pass with Garven, and personally I think it's stupid. I have no choice but to go along with it but really it makes absolutely no sense to use a game mechanic in an instance where one half of the prerequisites are missing.

But I have to agree. If Garven gets a pass, then everyone else must as well. The game isn't called X-Wing:Double Standards.

I'm of the camp that he can remove the stress to turn 0 eyeballs into 0 hits, but I may have B-wing bias.

That's not really B-Winb Bias, that's just using existing rulings that say you can use a token even if it doesn't actually change anything.

If Garven can spend a Focus to change no eyes into hits then there is simply no reason why Keyan can't do the same thing.

I do know of that pass with Garven, and personally I think it's stupid. I have no choice but to go along with it but really it makes absolutely no sense to use a game mechanic in an instance where one half of the prerequisites are missing.

But I have to agree. If Garven gets a pass, then everyone else must as well. The game isn't called X-Wing:Double Standards.

I am in this camp too. Keyan can turn 0 eyes into 0 hits and remove the stress.

Does it make sense? Not really.

Is it legal citing the FFG Supreme Court ruling of the case of "Garven Dreis V. Dice Results." **** straight.

I'm of the camp that he can remove the stress to turn 0 eyeballs into 0 hits, but I may have B-wing bias.

That's not really B-Winb Bias, that's just using existing rulings that say you can use a token even if it doesn't actually change anything.

If Garven can spend a Focus to change no eyes into hits then there is simply no reason why Keyan can't do the same thing.

I do know of that pass with Garven, and personally I think it's stupid. I have no choice but to go along with it but really it makes absolutely no sense to use a game mechanic in an instance where one half of the prerequisites are missing.

But I have to agree. If Garven gets a pass, then everyone else must as well. The game isn't called X-Wing:Double Standards.

I so agree on the Garven thing. Spending a token on nothing just seems dumb.

Keyan is going to be scary good. Your only good counter is to double stress him and somehow try to keep him like that. Sure he can still use his ability, but he will still end the turn stressed.