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

Seriously. How much sense does it make to spend a focus token on nothing? You need two things: a focus token and an eyeball on a die.

Next time I play I'm going to spend my no token to change my eyeballs to hits. Makes as much sense as spending my token on no eyeballs.

This is a silly argument. Of course you can spend your focus on nothing. I try really hard to do nothing all the time.

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

Seriously. How much sense does it make to spend a focus token on nothing? You need two things: a focus token and an eyeball on a die.

Next time I play I'm going to spend my no token to change my eyeballs to hits. Makes as much sense as spending my token on no eyeballs.

All a focus token does is change all of your focus icons into hits. All of nothing is still all. The thing that would not make sense is it working the way you'd like it to as it be very poorly worded.

Not to splice words, but the text of the card does not specify who gets their stress removed from Keyan's ability. Rather, it only tells us that Keyan is the one removing the stress. So until we have some clarification from FFG, I'm going to make a new camp that says you have to remove stress with Keyan from the person you are attacking in order to change eyeballs to hits.

My reasoning? Hobbie! On Hobbie's card, the text specifically states that you are removing a stress FROM YOUR SHIP.

This wording also appears on Expert Handling. You may perform said action to remove one enemy target lock FROM YOUR SHIP.

Keyan's card does not say you remove the stress FROM YOUR SHIP. So, yes, FFG definitely needs to clarify his ability.

Except for the fact that the FFG article says that Farlander can "perform stressful red maneuvers with impunity."

Um, this thread again?

All a focus token does is change all of your focus icons into hits. All of nothing is still all…

For instance, I'm an old-fashioned guy: I have married all of the supermodels I've ever dated.

Not to splice words, but the text of the card does not specify who gets their stress removed from Keyan's ability.

Yes, it does. The "Card Abilities" sidebar on page 19 of the core rules reads:

Many card abilities use the word “you” to specifically reference that Ship card. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless explicitly specified by the ability.

So the person doing the removing is "you" (that is, Keyan); the only ship that can be affected by Keyan's ability is Keyan, so the stress comes from Keyan; and "your" roll gets the benefit (that is, Keyan's roll). It's not badly worded or confusing in any way.

For instance, I'm an old-fashioned guy: I have married all of the supermodels I've ever dated.

It's really the only way to go.

Not to splice words, but the text of the card does not specify who gets their stress removed from Keyan's ability.

Yes, it does. The "Card Abilities" sidebar on page 19 of the core rules reads:

Many card abilities use the word “you” to specifically reference that Ship card. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless explicitly specified by the ability.

So the person doing the removing is "you" (that is, Keyan); the only ship that can be affected by Keyan's ability is Keyan, so the stress comes from Keyan; and "your" roll gets the benefit (that is, Keyan's roll). It's not badly worded or confusing in any way.

It is badly-worded, hence why they have to clarify it in the rules, so settle down.

What gave you the impression I was unsettled? I admit it would have been nice to know that you're not actually interested in understanding the rules issue you brought up, because then I wouldn't have wasted my time finding and quoting the relevant bits from the rulebook, but that's a mild irritation at best.

Just for once, wouldn't it be great if someone read the rulebook properly before diving into a discussion half-cocked and making a fool of themselves?

Wording completely consistent with the core rulebook is only badly worded to those that may need to re-read the core rulebook.

Just for once, wouldn't it be great if someone read the rulebook properly before diving into a discussion half-cocked and making a fool of themselves?

It's true, there's no sense opening your mouth unless you do it fully-cocked.

Just for once, wouldn't it be great if someone read the rulebook properly before diving into a discussion half-cocked and making a fool of themselves?

That's why there are so many rule questions, right? I mean....hell...there is an entire forum dedicated to rule questions.

Plz go.

People in the rules forum ask rules questions because they may have missed something. You didn't ask a question, you wildly asserted that FFG needed to clarify something that was already clear if you bothered to read the rule book. Why you did so I'm not sure, it looks as if you did so just to be contrary. You then respond to another poster that calmly cleared up your confusion in a flippant matter telling them to settle down, all because they called you on a mistake.

And reading through that forum, I see time and time again questions that could be answered by reading the rulebook properly.

I mean....hell...there is an entire forum dedicated to rule questions.

Of course, those 6 issues are constantly brought up again and again, but that is another story.

I mean....hell...there is an entire forum dedicated to rule questions.

And it is absolutely filled with threads of questions whose answers are clear as can be in the rulebook and FAQ. In a year of reading this board daily I think I have come across less than a half dozen issues that can't be answered by quoting the book and/or FAQ.

Of course, those 6 issues are constantly brought up again and again, but that is another story.

So I'm not the only one who has noticed this trend then?

If you intent was to joke then why get pissed of at Vorpal when he clarified the situation? What was the point of the flippant "settle down" if you were just joking? Or the subsequent post continuing to assert that it needed to be clarified?

No one is expecting you to memorise the rules so you can quote them verbatim, but an understanding of the game's concepts is required. I haven't memorised the rulebook, but knowing how some of the key terms are used is required.

And as for your comments "in jest", maybe I didn't read them properly, because I couldn't see any jest in there.

So I'm not the only one who has noticed this trend then?

Indeed not. And sometimes, in order to remain polite, I really have to restrain myself from commenting on some threads.

I don't always succeed.

We tell each other at work to "settle down" for no apparent reason whatsoever, so I say it to almost everyone now. Are you upset about it?

You didn't tell me to settle down. You asked me to "Plz go". Do you also ask your workmates that all the time, for no apparent reason?

Most of the folks on this forum have generally proven to be hugely helpful and it's great to be able to tap into their knowledge of the game.

At no stage did I imply, or infer that you're not welcome here. What I implied was that one of the basic fundamental terms used in this game is in the rulebook, and by no means hidden. You're the one that told Vorpal Sword to "settle down" when he pointed out the terminology reference.

And I'll have a rethink about the one who's half-cocked and making a fool of himself. Nope, still not me.

<= this implies jest.

There is no soultion/final word from FFG regarding this issue?

http://moseisleyraumhafen.forumieren.com/t3056p15-keyan-farlander-s-stressbewaltigung#50014

There is no soultion/final word from FFG regarding this issue?

There it is! Word from Frank, Keyan can absolutely remove stress after rolling zero focus results.

http://moseisleyraumhafen.forumieren.com/t3056p15-keyan-farlander-s-stressbewaltigung#50014

There is no soultion/final word from FFG regarding this issue?

There it is! Word from Frank, Keyan can absolutely remove stress after rolling zero focus results.

Knew it! Now to wait for all the new Keyan is breaking the game threads to replace all of the Falcon/3P0 threads.

Also for the whole 'spend vs remove' wording debate on here, Frank calls it spending a stress in that answer. They are not nitpicky with the wording and neither should you be. It seems like the one thing they are picky about is timing.

I believe at one point Keyan's wording did, in fact, say "spend" a stress. Part of the reason it was changed to say "remove" a stress was in an (apparently futile effort to imply that his ability could be used even if no eyeballs were rolled. In which case, something like "When attacking, you may remove a stress token. If you do, you may change all of your {eye} results to {hit} results." But hindsight is 20/20. Frank may have simply been remembering an older version of the card.

Frank probably used spend because focus is spend, but who cares about spending or removing anyway. That was never the issue, the issue was can you use something to change nothing and the answer was always yes. Because ALL.

But you call this a long rules forum? I've played Legend of the Five rings for an extended period, learned all about reading cards and even there, where they have done enough sets of the game to make the rules clear they need a rule forum bigger than this by a mile and with 1 question per issue max, or the post gets locked. The thing is, complex games with cards require rules that can't always be written in the max allowed number of characters. The exceptions, the interaction with other existing cards, things the devs didn't see in their limited testing area.

But most questions require good reading of the FAQ and Rulebook and previous rulings.