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

Many were still left unconvinced that he can remove his stress even after rolling zero eyeballs, even with the precedent set by Garven Dreis. There is a response from Frank Brooks on a German website that someone just posted to Facebook. This is this is how myself and others at our FLGS have been playing it, and how many people believed it works. However in the discussion threads and on the Facebook page many people still had doubts. Any time Keyan attacks, he can remove a stress. He can remove it when he rolls zero eyes, he can remove it while under the effects of Blinded Pilot. If he attacks, he is unstressed.

It always seems like the same people arguing on the wrong side.

I wish there was a way to put up a poll with ruling disputes like this, and everyone can vote on which way they think the ruling will go. Then when the official ruling comes out, the people that voted correctly get a check on their profile and those who voted for the wrong thing get an x on their profile. Then when another dispute happens you can look at their profile, if you see a bunch of Xs you know the person has a history of being wrong and if they have a lot of checks then you know they historically knew their stuff.

Good to know, since I'm running prototype/Keyan/Corran tonight.

No eyes, no stress removal.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

No eyes, no stress removal.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. This is incorrect.

Keyan can, in fact, remove a stress token in order to change 0 eyeballs to 0 hits.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

Can spend stress as a focus token, can spend focus on any roll, ergo... Yup.

just pointing out that Frank, one of the current creative leads on the game, has sent an email addressing the question. There is no official ruling in the FAQ, but he is a creative director on the game. That is good enough for me.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll, thanks.

I care about FAQ, not letters. I'm eye rolling at this.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll, thanks.

I care about FAQ, not letters. I'm eye rolling at this.

Well, you do certainly have the right to be wrong until the FAQ makes it "official."

But Frank or Alex making such a ruling, in any format, is a clear indication that an addition to the FAQ is imminent and that their word may be taken as gospel in the meantime.

And Alex has stated to me explicitly that Keyan uses Garven's ability and ruling as precedent. He may, in fact, remove a focus token in order to change 0 eyeballs to 0 hits. That is 100% set as far as the designers are concerned and will 100% be added to the undoubtedly soon to arrive FAQ update.

Disagreeing does not make you a troll. It does, however, in this case, make you wrong,

It means they balanced his points based on that. If you are forcing opponents to keep their stress then I'd let them have him for 26 or 27 points. Or, you know, play the game the way designers clearly intended...

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll, thanks.

I care about FAQ, not letters. I'm eye rolling at this.

Well I suppose if you want to wait 2 months to hear the same clarification that's your perogative.

I knew this would be the ruling... I don't necessarily like it, but rules are rules.

No eyes, no stress removal.

Every attack removes stress, actually.

Methinks it's a troll.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll, thanks.

I care about FAQ, not letters. I'm eye rolling at this.

Well then, I'll see you in a couple months when they finally update the FAQ. Meanwhile, this is how it is.

I'm cool with being wrong. At least I'm not behaving in an aggressive way for no reason.

If the FAQ or some official article says it, that's fine with me.

Obviously I stepped into the wrong chat thread. Some unresolved emotions floating about here.

Fly casual.

Come Wave 5, I'm betting Stay on Target+Advanced Sensors will be quite a common kit on Keyan, like Paul suggested in his article. Focus or roll, choose the maneuver you need to always get a shot, take a shot, do it again.

I'm cool with being wrong. At least I'm not behaving in an aggressive way for no reason.

If the FAQ or some official article says it, that's fine with me.

Obviously I stepped into the wrong chat thread. Some unresolved emotions floating about here.

Fly casual.

Hope I didn't offend you, that wasn't the goal. Just meant to say that I'd trust Frank. Fly casual, indeed.

Yeah I don't think anyone was trying to be aggressive. I suspect some of us are, however, frustrated by people who refuse to acknowledge anything short of an FAQ update as correct. Frank has obviously put up replies a couple of places, clarifying this and acknowledging the Garven precedent. I have it straight from Alex's keyboard in response to my own query that this is how it works.

So I think mainly we're a little confused, if the two game designers have both unequivocally stated that "Keyan may remove a stress to change 0 eyes to 0 hits" why you, or anyone, would have the slightest reason to believe that isn't how it works, or doubt that it will absolutely show up when the next update to the FAQ is released.

They're the lead designers, and this is how they have publicly stated they want his ability to work. So it's not like someone is going to randomly sneak around behind their backs and release an FAQ update that says the opposite. They write it themselves. I know. I'm part of the team that helps them make sure that things which need clarified get clarified.

So when I tell you "this is how it works. They have both said so. It is going to be in the next FAQ" you can believe me or not, but it's just silly to say "I care about FAQ, not letters," when the letters in question are written by the same two guys who are writing the FAQ. Just sayin'.

I'm cool with being wrong. At least I'm not behaving in an aggressive way for no reason.If the FAQ or some official article says it, that's fine with me.Obviously I stepped into the wrong chat thread. Some unresolved emotions floating about here.Fly casual.

You did come across as very unreasonable. Somebody quoted the designers as being of one view, and you, without any counter argument, stated the opposite view. I can see why he thought you were a troll, it was the lack of any argument, just a point that had already apparently been proven wrong.

Yeah I don't think anyone was trying to be aggressive. I suspect some of us are, however, frustrated by people who refuse to acknowledge anything short of an FAQ update as correct. Frank has obviously put up replies a couple of places, clarifying this and acknowledging the Garven precedent. I have it straight from Alex's keyboard in response to my own query that this is how it works.

So I think mainly we're a little confused, if the two game designers have both unequivocally stated that "Keyan may remove a stress to change 0 eyes to 0 hits" why you, or anyone, would have the slightest reason to believe that isn't how it works, or doubt that it will absolutely show up when the next update to the FAQ is released.

They're the lead designers, and this is how they have publicly stated they want his ability to work. So it's not like someone is going to randomly sneak around behind their backs and release an FAQ update that says the opposite. They write it themselves. I know. I'm part of the team that helps them make sure that things which need clarified get clarified.

So when I tell you "this is how it works. They have both said so. It is going to be in the next FAQ" you can believe me or not, but it's just silly to say "I care about FAQ, not letters," when the letters in question are written by the same two guys who are writing the FAQ. Just sayin'.

So now you're going to tell us when we'll see the new FAQ, Wave 5, Wave 6, and give us insider secrets, RIGHT?

But, really though, thanks for your comments.

Tempting. Sadly I don't have that much info to spill even if I wanted to. All I know about the FAQ release is "soon." I'm not sure if they decided to wait and roll 4.5 and 5 into a single update, in which case the answer would be 'in the next month or two, probably, or whenever 5 comes out finally,' or if the 4.5 update is just held up for some reason and will still be out between releases. Wish I knew.

And if you're talking release dates, even Frank and Alex could only share so much there. There's a reason that they give vague, subject to change, "Q3 2014" or whatever windows. You never know what's happening on the production end, the shipping end, the distribution end, and if you give a date and that date gets moved people riot. So they tend to err on the side of caution, give a vague window of a few months they're pretty sure they're going to make, where if something happens they can push it back a quarter to be even safer.

Like I know people who have Outriders and Decimators they're playing with because they bought them at GenCon. There were a ton of them at GenCon. Whether that was the entire first printing and they're working on a second one, or there's some other reason they're staggering it with some distance post-Aces, I do not know.

To expand a bit on mazz0's post:

I'm cool with being wrong. At least I'm not behaving in an aggressive way for no reason.

If the FAQ or some official article says it, that's fine with me.

Obviously I stepped into the wrong chat thread. Some unresolved emotions floating about here.

I suspect that the reason people aren't being receptive to your contribution to the thread is due to your implied assertion that the designers of the game are wrong about the design of the game, without providing any justification for why you feel that way.

If you'd lead off with "I think that the game works better when..." or "I am going to house-rule it so that..." then people could engage with you; "Why do you think that," etc.

Instead, you just flatly assert something that runs directly counter to both precedent and the designers stated intent, phrased in such an authoritative way that, absent context or justification, it comes across as incredibly dismissive.

People get upset when they're treated dismissively.

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...