Actually, dice modification does happen, you are just modifying 0 dice. It's the same as spending a TL and picking 0 dice to reroll.

If the state of the die results don't change, no modifying took place. No matter you pay the cost.

Dice modifications are well defined. Add, change or reroll. If neither of these happened OL can't stop you.

Just like he can't stop the use of AC to cancel the dice. Only the adding is prevented.

From the Rules Reference page 5 Under Dice Modification

Modify Attack Dice: The defender can resolve any card abilities that allow him to modify the attack dice. Then the attacker can modify his attack dice in one or more of the following ways as many times as possible:

• Focus: The attacker can spend a focus token to change all of his (focus) results to (boom) results.

• Target Lock: The attacker can spend a target lock he has on the defender to reroll any number of his attack dice.

From the FAQ Allowing you to spend focus when no Focus Results are present.

Spending Tokens When attacking, players may spend target locks and choose to reroll 0 attack dice. Additionally, players may spend a focus token even if they do not roll any (focus) results. When defending, players may spend focus tokens even if they do not roll any (focus) results and may spend evade tokens to add evade results in excess of the number of hit and critical hit results.

Finally from the Rules Reference again, Page 13 Under Modifying Dice

MODIFYING DICE Players can modify dice by spending focus, evade, and target lock tokens and by resolving card abilities. Dice can be modified in the following ways:

• Add: To add a die result, place an unused die displaying the result next to the rolled dice. A die added in this way is treated as a normal die for all purposes and can be modified and canceled.

• Change: To change a die result, rotate the die so that its faceup side displays the new result.

• Reroll: To reroll a die result, pick up the die and roll it again. • Dice can be modified by multiple effects, but a die cannot be rerolled more than once.

Once again, i ask, if you are not modifying dice what are you spending the focus on. The physical results of the dice do not matter. You can't just spend a focus because you want to, you have to spend it to do something.

Just like he can't stop the use of AC to cancel the dice. Only the adding is prevented.

Right, because cancellation is not modification.

As i showed in the quoted rules and FAQ text, you can spend a focus when you have no focus results on the dice, and you can spend a target lock to reroll no dice, however in both of these cases you are still modifying dice as per the rules on page 13 of the rules reference i quoted, you are just modifying 0 dice. Omega Leader prevents all dice modification, even if that modification effects 0 dice, it is still dice modification.

Please Remember "Modifying Dice" is a clearly defined game term. You can change it to "Gobbledegook" and it would function the same, changing the physical dice doesn't really have an impact, other than it is a effect that can come from Modifying Dice (as the game term).

Now if you can spend a focus or target lock on something else, such as Latts Razzi's ability to reduce Agility by spending a target lock, or spending a focus via deadeye to fire a missle/torpedo. Those things are not dice modification, those work just fine, they are not dice modification.

Anything that Adds, Changes, or Rerolls (even if the number of physical dice are 0) is blocked by omega leader's ability when the conditions are met.

All other arguments aside, the logic of 'modifying 0 results is still modifying results' is specious in and of itself.

Modifying 0 results is the same as not modifying results, from both a logical and rules perspective.

Would you feel better about it if it had said 'you can spend a focus token without modifying dice' instead? Because that's the same thing.

You're correct, modifying dice IS a defined thing:

- Adding results

- Changing results

- Rerolling dice.

Unless one of those things *happens* (and doing nothing means none of those things happen) no dice have been modified.

But clearly this needs an FAQ. Have you asked?

If it said you could spend a focus token without modifying the result it would be a moot point. The same would be said if you could spend a token for no effect. My point is the rules and FAQ say you can spend it when there are no focus results, however that is very different from spending it for no effect.

Maybe this is a better way to explain the difference. Legally you are driving if the vehicle is engaged. Even if you come to a full stop, you are still Driving. Modifying Dice is the same way. As soon as you spend the focus you are modifying dice, the amount changed, or the physical aspect of the dice do not matter, they are the effect of modifying, not the actual modification. This is because the game term "Modify Dice" is not the same as the English language definition of the action "Modify", on the noun "dice". So while they are the same words, they have differing meanings, even if those meanings are very similiar. This happens very often in technical writing and programming (depending on how the author chooses to define terms).

This is the root of the confusion on "the logic of 'modifying 0 results is still modifying results' is specious". If you replace the game term with a nonsense word like "Gobbledegook" it makes more sense within the linguistic context.

Paraphrasing parts here - For instance if Omega Leader's ability said "You cannot gobbledegook dice ..... " and the FAQ and rule book read "Goobledegooking dice is Changing, adding, or rerolling" and the spending of focus was listed under the "Goobledegooking Dice" Header, i doubt this confusion would exist at all. But understandably FFG wanted to use a common vernacular so people would have a easier time understanding it. Sadly this does make some interactions more complex simply because of the language involved.

This would then make it read "You are modifying 0 dice (as in the physical modification) while still goobledegooking them (performing the action listed in the rules reference, which starts with spending the focus in this case)"

If it said you could spend a focus token without modifying the result it would be a moot point. The same would be said if you could spend a token for no effect. My point is the rules and FAQ say you can spend it when there are no focus results, however that is very different from spending it for no effect.

Maybe this is a better way to explain the difference. Legally you are driving if the vehicle is engaged. Even if you come to a full stop, you are still Driving. Modifying Dice is the same way. As soon as you spend the focus you are modifying dice, the amount changed, or the physical aspect of the dice do not matter, they are the effect of modifying, not the actual modification. This is because the game term "Modify Dice" is not the same as the English language definition of the action "Modify", on the noun "dice". So while they are the same words, they have differing meanings, even if those meanings are very similiar. This happens very often in technical writing and programming (depending on how the author chooses to define terms).

This is the root of the confusion on "the logic of 'modifying 0 results is still modifying results' is specious". If you replace the game term with a nonsense word like "Gobbledegook" it makes more sense within the linguistic context.

Paraphrasing parts here - For instance if Omega Leader's ability said "You cannot gobbledegook dice ..... " and the FAQ and rule book read "Goobledegooking dice is Changing, adding, or rerolling" and the spending of focus was listed under the "Goobledegooking Dice" Header, i doubt this confusion would exist at all. But understandably FFG wanted to use a common vernacular so people would have a easier time understanding it. Sadly this does make some interactions more complex simply because of the language involved.

This would then make it read "You are modifying 0 dice (as in the physical modification) while still goobledegooking them (performing the action listed in the rules reference, which starts with spending the focus in this case)"

Let me repeat. I know the definition of modifying dice.

Spending a focus token does not fall within that definition.

Then for the third time, what are you spending the focus token to do? Or what is allowing you to spend the focus token in the first place?

Then for the third time, what are you spending the focus token to do? Or what is allowing you to spend the focus token in the first place?

I am spending the focus token to allow me to modify dice. The token is spent, the dice do not get modified. The modification is blocked OL's ability, which says nothign about preventing you from spending tokens, only about preventing you from modifying dice, which spending tokens is explicitly not.

OL intervenes later in the process.

If I could remember where the FFG rules questions thingy was I'd ask Frank myself.

Then for the third time, what are you spending the focus token to do? Or what is allowing you to spend the focus token in the first place?

I am spending the focus token to allow me to modify dice.

Spending the token is the first step of Modifying Dice (in relation to focus tokens), and is not followed by a "may" conditional. If it had a "may" conditional then you could spend the token, and choose not to modify. However the way the rules are worded, you spend the token then you change all the focus results into hit results. Even if there are 0 focus results you are still performing a dice modification. Just like 1-0=1 is still subtraction, 1+0=1 is addition and so forth. 0 is a quantitative number. 0 and nothing are different quantities, even though they are commonly accepted as the same thing.

Yes you may spend a focus token without focus results (as per the FAQ linked earlier) however that does not alter the fact that you are still modifying dice, even if the number modified is 0. This is the same as spending a target lock and choosing to reroll 0 dice. It is still a dice modification as defined by the rules reference.

Round and round and round it goes.

The spending of the token is not the modifying of the dice. OL does not block the spending of the token, he blocks the changing of the result.

Which of these three things is 'spending a focus token'?

- modifying die results? Nope. No results are being modified.

- rerolling dice? Definitely nope, no rerolling here.

- adding results? Nope, no results being added here.

Think of it like trying to buy something that's not for sale - nothing stops me giving you money for your item, but you block me from taking your item away. I can throw all the money at you I want, but your item remains where it is.

But you can't stop me throwing the money at you by telling me the thing is not for sale, or by stopping me from taking it away.

OL blocks the taking away of the thing, not the spending of the money, despite the spending of the money being part of the process of the buying of the thing under normal circumstances. His card would have to specifically block the spending of tokens, to block the spending of tokens. Like HOming Missiles do, for instance. Homing missiles could have said 'you may not add evade results'. But they don't.

E: I've emailed rules support, hopefully there will be an answer shortly.

If you are spending the token to modify dice OL prevents the action. I am sorry that despite trying to lay it out several times in several ways you do not want to accept that spending a focus token to modify dice, in the modify dice step of the attack sequence does not make sense to you.

The rules do not say you may spend your token and not modify dice, they say you spend your token and dice. Even if the number of dice is 0, you are still modifying dice.

Spending the focus changes all of the focus results to hits, even if there are 0 focus results it is still changing results, and thus is prevented.

However have said all of that, and all of the rules quotations and sources i have provided, if you are still so convinced that you are correct. I have one last thing to say, Try it at a FFG event. You will find you are wrong, and i will be sorry that you refused to listen to reason before then.

If you are spending the token to modify dice OL prevents the action. I am sorry that despite trying to lay it out several times in several ways you do not want to accept that spending a focus token to modify dice, in the modify dice step of the attack sequence does not make sense to you.

The rules do not say you may spend your token and not modify dice, they say you spend your token and dice. Even if the number of dice is 0, you are still modifying dice.

Spending the focus changes all of the focus results to hits, even if there are 0 focus results it is still changing results, and thus is prevented.

However have said all of that, and all of the rules quotations and sources i have provided, if you are still so convinced that you are correct. I have one last thing to say, Try it at a FFG event. You will find you are wrong, and i will be sorry that you refused to listen to reason before then.

For the record, I play Omega Leader a LOT more than I play against him. I generally try to be kind to my opponents when thinking about rulings WRT him, because his ability is trolly enough as it is.

I've not run a list without OL in it at a tournament since I bought the f/o expansion. I don't think I've played against him at all.

If you are spending the token to modify dice OL prevents the action. I am sorry that despite trying to lay it out several times in several ways you do not want to accept that spending a focus token to modify dice, in the modify dice step of the attack sequence does not make sense to you.

The rules do not say you may spend your token and not modify dice, they say you spend your token and dice. Even if the number of dice is 0, you are still modifying dice.

Spending the focus changes all of the focus results to hits, even if there are 0 focus results it is still changing results, and thus is prevented.

However have said all of that, and all of the rules quotations and sources i have provided, if you are still so convinced that you are correct. I have one last thing to say, Try it at a FFG event. You will find you are wrong, and i will be sorry that you refused to listen to reason before then.

You seem to keep deluding yourself that you are right and everyone agrees with you except a few people here. But you have no actual proof of that. You refuse to listen to the logic of our arguments. You state your view as fact even though you yourself has quoted the exact section on page 13 that tells you, you are wrong.

Try thinking of this, Why did FFG clarify that you can spend a focus token even when there are no focus results to modify? And that you can spend a target lock and not reroll any dice.

The answer is because this is not part of the modification but the cost, and that cost can trigger other abilities even though no dice are actually modified. If you can not poit to a physical die and say that die was added, changed or rerolled, then no dice were modified, and thus OL's ability was not violated. Spending tokens during the attack does not constitute dice modification. Only physically changing the dice results in 1 of the 3 ways stated on page 13 does. As you have quoted yourself.

Physically changing the results does not equal modification. Modification is a defined term within the rules. Once again, FFG did not and has not ever said you can just spend a token because you want to spend a token. They said you can spend a token when no focus results are rolled, they did not say you can spend a token and not modify dice, they said you can spend a token to modify 0 dice. There is a very large difference between "modify 0" and "not modify" based upon the terms and definitions set forth by the game.

As i have said before, What are you spending the token for, what allows you to spend the token? If the answer is dice modification, then you are modifying dice as per the current rules. FFG can FAQ this to either clarify, or change that fact, but until that time it is based upon the current rules reference and faq. Which state that when you spend a focus token you are modifying dice, the number of dice does not matter.

As for refusing to listen, i think you have that backwards, I've listened, and I've offered rebuttal, citing sources. Cite me a source that says spending a focus token, during the modify dice step, to modify dice, is not modifying dice. Or a source that says modifying 0 dice, is not modifying dice. All i keep hearing is "the physical dice have not been changed" and "It's the only the cost". Cite me the rule or FAQ entry where the cost and the effect are divorced from each other without a "may" conditional, or cite me the source that the physical dice must be changed for it to be dice modification. The effect of the modification is changing the physical dice, that isn't actually the modification itself.

For example.

• Change: To change a die result, rotate the die so that its faceup side displays the new result.

Change is a type of dice modification. Stop, that is the modification, the effects of the Change dice modification is to rotate the die so that it's faceup side displays the new result.

There is the chain of events.

- Modify Attack Dice Step

- Spend a Focus Token to Modify Dice

- Change all of the Focus results to Boom Results.

- To Change (as per the dice modification term) Results, you "Rotate the die so that it's faceup side displays the new result." (in this case Focus to Boom)

It doesn't matter if you physically change 0 dice, or 10 dice, you are still performing the Change Dice Modification as outlined in the Rules Reference Document. The FAQ clarifies that you may perform this action even if there are no focus results on any dice rolled, but you are still performing the Change Dice Modification, because it is a non-optional step. There is no "may" conditional.

Prove that point and i will graciously say i was wrong, and thank you for correcting me on my part. I act as if i am correct for the same reason you do, because you believe it to be correct, don't try to brandish that as a weapon against my statement, prove your point with citations and references instead. I have done so, and i have been patiently waiting for your side of the discussion to do the same, instead of just saying "You are wrong."

There is no spoon.

There is the chain of events.

- Modify Attack Dice Step

- Spend a Focus Token to Modify Dice

- Change all of the Focus results to Boom Results.

- To Change (as per the dice modification term) Results, you "Rotate the die so that it's faceup side displays the new result." (in this case Focus to Boom)

In bold the things OL blocks. Not in bold, the things he doesn't.

They are all part of the same action. As i have asked several times, cite me a source that they are divorced. If you spend the token, you modify dice, there is no "may" conditional. If you cannot modify you cannot spend the token to modify.

It is not

• Focus: The attacker can spend a focus token, then may change all of his (focus) results to (boom) results.

It is

• Focus: The attacker can spend a focus token to change all of his (focus) results to (boom) results.

You spend the Focus token you modify the dice. EXCEPT when there is something else specifically telling you that you may NOT modify the dice. You pay the cost of modification with your Focus token but then get nothing in return for whatever reason.

In a way spending that Focus is like spending money to get something. You usually spend it expecting to get something otherwise you wouldn't spend it but sometime you just can't get anything for it. If you can't get anything for your money does that mean you are forced to hand on to it? What's stopping you from just throwing it off a bridge or burning it both of which are akin to "spending" the money but getting nothing from it. Now maybe that stuff you throw off the bridge happens to land somewhere allowing someone else the opportunity to spend it but that has nothing to do with the person who started with it.

Yes it says you can and yes it's the dumbest thing ever.. It's like if you buy one candy you get the second free and saying can I just have the free one and they said sure ...