Does Ten Numb have to roll an eyeball in order to spend his stress?

10 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Does Ten Numb have to roll an eyeball in order to spend his stress?

Yes.

In 2.0, you cannot spend a token to modify 0 results.

My understanding of the rules is that Yes, Ten can spend a stress to modify 0 eyeball results. Focus specifically states that you cannot use it if you have no eyeball results but Ten's ability does not specify that nor does it suggest you're using stress as a focus. I'd really like some reference from the folk who are claiming that "you cannot spend a token to modify 0 results."

Indeed, this manner could use some additional clarification. Now that a precedence has been established for an appropriate thread, can we please have this non-rule-altering inputs more often? Help us FFG, you're our only hope!

On 10/7/2018 at 6:33 AM, MockingBird ME said:

My understanding of the rules is that Yes, Ten can spend a stress to modify 0 eyeball results. Focus specifically states that you cannot use it if you have no eyeball results but Ten's ability does not specify that nor does it suggest you're using stress as a focus. I'd really like some reference from the folk who are claiming that "you cannot spend a token to modify 0 results."

"Paying Costs
A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved.
• For example, GNK “Gonk” Droid’s ability says “Action: Spend 1 ? to
recover 1 shield.” The ship cannot spend the charge if it has no inactive
shields." - page 2 of the rules reference.

So no you can't spend the stress to change 0 results. (this is corroborated with every other effect in the game that has token spending, all of them make you have to do something)

The rule quoted above is a catch-all, they tried to put as many spending things in the rules as they could (focus, evade, calculate, target lock... and more) but there was no way to have everything that could possibly happen with card effects. The above catch-all says to spend you have to have the effect happen (and doing nothing is not having it happen, like the example they gave.)

So no you can't spend the stress to modify 0 dice, as you have to be able to resolve the effect to spend it and changing nothing does not resolve the effect.

(this is a rule thats pretty clear cut covered in the rules... we don't really need a clarification)

Spend 1 stress to change all focus results, there are not focus results so you can't resolve the effect and cannot spend the stress.

The problem with the gonk droid example in the RR is that the card specifies you recover 1 shield; one being the important term here, the effect can not be resolved if there is not one to recover. Ten says "All <eyeball> results." so the question is not "can it be performed if it can't be resolved." but "does changing zero results resolve the all results requirement."

0 of 0 would indeed fit the definition of all, but given the change to focus tokens, evade tokens, and locks I'm pretty sure the intent is that Ten Numb is not allowed to spend 1 stress if there are no focus results to change.

Each of those specifies that it can't be used with zero though. Focus has a extra line to clarify it can't be used if there are zero <eyeballs>, evade says spend a number of tokens to convert that number of <eyeballs> thus you can't spend one to convert zero. Lock states you can spend it to "reroll one or more results." None of those are the same case as Ten.

I'm not saying "he can 100% spend it for zero" I'm saying "we need a ruling because the RR doesn't seem to have the answer."

I think a ruling would be redundant and a waste of FFG's time. There is clear adjacent precedent that focus tokens cannot be spent to modify 0 Eye results. This ought to be enough.

Taking specific rules and trying to apply them to other areas would cause all kinds of problems. Just because focus states "A ship cannot spend a focus token to change ? results to ? or ? results if it does not have any ? results." does not mean this applies to other cases in the same way that just because lock states "• A ship can maintain only one lock." does not limit a ship to only one of any other advantage.

2 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Taking specific rules and trying to apply them to other areas would cause all kinds of problems. Just because focus states "A ship cannot spend a focus token to change ? results to ? or ? results if it does not have any ? results." does not mean this applies to other cases in the same way that just because lock states "• A ship can maintain only one lock." does not limit a ship to only one of any other advantage.

It's not really taking a specific rule, it's taking every single other "spend" rule and saying ya you cant spend something to do nothing. Then taking the Paying costs rule and its single example (because they could not make an example for every single thing that could ever come up in the game) and saying you cant spend something and have 0 effects. Nowhere in the game are you allowed to spend something to do nothing why would this case be different?

I do not understand how defaulting to having it work differently then every other aspect of the game makes any sense.

7 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Each of those specifies that it can't be used with zero though. Focus has a extra line to clarify it can't be used if there are zero <eyeballs>, evade says spend a number of tokens to convert that number of <eyeballs> thus you can't spend one to convert zero. Lock states you can spend it to "reroll one or more results." None of those are the same case as Ten.

I'm not saying "he can 100% spend it for zero" I'm saying "we need a ruling because the RR doesn't seem to have the answer."

you're ignoring Iceloms great explanation above.

the rules reference states on page two:
"A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved."

Ten Numb says:
"While you defend or perform an attack, you may spend 1 stress token to change all of your focus results to evade or hit results."

while i will agree that technically, zero results could fall under the definition of "all of your focus results", if there are no focus results to change, the effect cannot be resolved - and if the effect cannot be resolved, the cost cannot be paid.

if it could be done, it would be stated on the card.

15 minutes ago, meffo said:

while i will agree that technically, zero results could fall under the definition of "all of your focus results", if there are no focus results to change, the effect cannot be resolved - and if the effect cannot be resolved, the cost cannot be paid.

I would argue that it is being resolved, it's resolution simply doesn't change the game state.

12 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Taking specific rules and trying to apply them to other areas would cause all kinds of problems. Just because focus states "A ship cannot spend a focus token to change ? results to ? or ? results if it does not have any ? results." does not mean this applies to other cases in the same way that just because lock states "• A ship can maintain only one lock." does not limit a ship to only one of any other advantage.

This is how all interpretation works, however. It's the fundamental backbone of applying learned experience to our future endeavors. If two things are "similar enough" then you apply what you know about the first to what you know about the second. If we've shaken two soda bottles and opened one, we don't need to open the second to know it will explode.

Ten Nunb's ability is "similar enough" to the normal behavior of a focus token that we ought to treat it like a focus token, without asking for validation.

Are there limits to this? Sure. But that's the process of learning. We learn that shaking Coke bottles and shaking Sprite bottles are similar enough, but that shaking a bottle of hot sauce or salad dressing is different.

If Ten Nunb is an example of something where "we need a ruling" instead of being able to trust ourselves and the community to apply inductive rules interpretation, then the implication is we cannot be trusted to perform any rules interpretation at all.

@theBitterFig if rules need to be interpreted then they are, by definition not clear, we're not children making comparisons of things in life we're gamers wanting to ensure we're playing correctly so as to avoid dispute. The very fact that interpretation is needed means the rules should be updated to clarify the situation.

It seems to me that this all falls to whether or not "all" includes zero, or if it requires one or more to be successfully resolved. Or, to put it a different way, can you say that you've successfully resolved the effect by changing "all" zero results?

For focus tokens, the rules include an additional clause to prevent this, so it's not relevant. But Ten Numb isn't a focus token, so that rule doesn't apply. Instead, allow me to present another card with "all" in it's wording:
Genesis Red (Scum M3-A pilot) has a a pilot ability reading: "After you acquire a lock, you must remove all of your focus and evade tokens. Then, gain the same number of focus and evade tokens that the locked ship has."

For that case, if "all" doesn't successfully resolve for zero, then the first part of Genesis Red's effect wouldn't resolve if he had no focus or evade tokens. This would cause the "then [...]" part not to trigger. Therefore, by that reading, Genesis Red cannot gain focus and evade tokens from target locks unless he already had at least one. To me, that seems pretty absurd. I'd argue that Genesis Red can clearly remove "all" his zero tokens and continue with his effect.

If that's the case, then it would stand to reason that Ten Numb can spend a stress of change "all" his zero [eyeball] results. Otherwise, the word "all" would have two different meanings.

Regardless, there's definitely enough room for argument to merit an official ruling from FFG.

18 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

I would argue that it is being resolved, it's resolution simply doesn't change the game state.

changing zero focus results is changing nothing, so the effect is not resolved. a resolution is to resolve something - and you cannot, by definition, resolve nothing. that's what nothing means, it isn't. if it isn't, there is nothing to resolve, so no resolution is possible.

again, if it could be done, it would be stated on the card.

of course rules needs to be interpreted, just like everything else if it is to have any meaning to sentient beings such as ourselves. we are children making comparisons. we may be more than that as well, but still children.

3 hours ago, meffo said:

changing zero focus results is changing nothing, so the effect is not resolved.

See my post just above yours for an argument against that point. (It was under moderator review at the time you posted.)

By a strict RAW reading, Ten still works as in 1e, but the intent is very, very clear and I have no doubt it will be clarified as such (i.e. must roll at least 1 eyeball) if enough people ask.

Then, I guarantee people will STILL argue that it works like 1e because a small subset of this game's fans simply can't accept reality that doesn't work how they want it to.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

By a strict RAW reading, Ten still works as in 1e, but the intent is very, very clear and I have no doubt it will be clarified as such  (i.e. must roll at least 1 eyeball) if enough people ask.

Then, I guarantee people will STILL argue that it works like 1e because a small subset of this game's fans simply can't accept reality that doesn't work how they want it to.

How is it that you feel you know the intent? I don't know that you're wrong but I keep seeing folks in this thread and others claim "The intent is clearly ________, that's how it's meant to be!" without ever showing how they've come to that conclusion. I can only judge what the card and the rules say not some nebulous unstated intent of the game devs.

I disagree that the intent is clear. Especially since his wording is almost exactly the same as Keyan Farlander's from first edition and they had to clarify it back then too. If they intended it to be different, I'd imagine they'd have used different wording this time around.

The statement that people will argue otherwise, after an official ruling, is a straw man.

I know it because they stated it in relation to focus tokens, and because I've seen how they've ruled half a dozen other similar cases of iffy wording with reasonably obvious intent, and because I spoke to Alex Davey at Euros and witnessed his response to people asking stupid questions about poorly worded rules with obvious intent and because I played 1e for years and got a good handle on how the devs were likely to rule when rules lawyers like myself got involved.

Among a few other reasons.

I also know what the response to this will be, so I'm out, enjoy arguing.

19 minutes ago, jftanner said:

See my post just above yours for an argument against that point. (It was under moderator review at the time you posted.)

your argument is invalid, because we're not discussing effects that has a "must" or that does not have a cost. we're discussing paying a cost of an ability that does not resolve.

"After you acquire a lock, you must remove all of your focus and evade tokens. (no tokens removed? fine, this is a forced effect, it doesn't take into consideration if you've paid a cost or if it can resolve) Then, gain the same number of focus and evade tokens that the locked ship has. (again, this is a must, whether you want the tokens or not, you just gain them. no tokens? well, you get no tokens. the effect does not resolve, since you cannot gain nothing. for all intents and purposes, you removed no tokens and you gained no tokens.)"

on the other hand, Ten Numbs effect has a "may" and a price to pay, so the rules for paying costs to resolve effects should be followed as normal.

16 minutes ago, meffo said:

the rules for paying costs for resolving effects should be followed as normal.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a effect is only resolved if it changes something. If I have no results to change, I have still successfully changed "all" of those zero results by changing nothing. This is different from the abilities which say "one or more", in which zero would be an invalid result. The focus section does specifically say you can't spend a focus if you don't have any [eyeball] results, but there's no rule that states that generically for all "spend" actions.

The section on paying costs says "A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved." Unfortunately, the word "resolved" isn't defined anywhere else and the only example provided isn't relevant here.

So, no one here is arguing that the rules for paying costs shouldn't be followed. We're arguing that "all" includes zero, and that the effect is therefore resolvable and can be paid for normally.

1 minute ago, jftanner said:

Nowhere in the rules does is say that a effect is only resolved if it changes something. If I have no results to change, I have still successfully changed "all" of those zero results by changing nothing. This is different from the abilities which say "one or more", in which zero would be an invalid result. The focus section does specifically say you can't spend a focus if you don't have any [eyeball] results, but there's no rule that states that generically for all "spend" actions. 

 The section on paying costs says "A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved." Unfortunately, the word "resolved" isn't defined anywhere else and the only example provided isn't relevant here.
 
So, no one here is arguing that the rules for paying costs shouldn't be followed. We're arguing that "all" includes zero, and that the effect is therefore resolvable and can be paid for normally. 

so you're saying that there are no examples? i think the gonk-example under paying costs on page two and the paragraph under focus on page 11 are excellent examples. granted, they do not represent the situation specifically, but since they are the only current guidelines we have, i'm sticking with them.

outside of Ten Numbs ability, there is no reason to argue whether an effect has been been resolved or not, since it is simply ignored if it nothing happens.

however, in english, you cannot resolve nothing or no effect. if nothing happens, there is nothing to resolve, so there is no resolution. if the effect has no effect, it's impossible to resolve. also, everything does not include nothing, since nothing does not exist. all could include zero, on the other hand, but following the two examples we have, that's not how i interpret the rules. i realize that this is just philosophical and linguistic semantics , but at least it's technical english.

according to the paying costs-section on page two, you cannot pay the cost if the effect cannot be resolved - and indeed, if there are no focus results to modify, the effect has no effect, as in it does not resolve.

while i can't say i would be too surprised if FFG clarified this and made Ten Numb the exception to how these mechanics are used for other parts of the game, simply to make him better, i still stand with my interpretation of the text in the rules reference and his ship card. after all, it's not very hard to roll a focus result, especially with a three dice primary and maybe a fire control system at that.

it may be worth mentioning that i tend to roll completely unnatural amounts of focus results, though. perceptive co-pilot has become a bit of an addiction. kind of like glitterstim.