Did this ever get answered?

Also people are different and our brains work different, to my mathematical / software developer brain it is very intuitive that spending to change something would mean you could spend it to change zero. You are indeed changing all your eye results, all is just 0, this is an interaction that needs to exist in software to work fairly often, when i write code to perform an operation on a set of things that set of things could be empty.

In many ways rules of a game are like code, and they should be logical well defined things, so feeling on how things should work have no place in their resolution. Of course to some people's thinking like this is obstinate or i have heard it described as "petty". Well you wouldn't be able to go on to a computer and look on an internet forum without people that think like that, so....

Anyway, what's the ruling ?

42 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

...

Anyway, what's the ruling ?

Still no official ruling for Ten Numb specifically, but this line from the Rules Reference (1.2.0) p12 in the Focus section is pretty clear about spending focus without results and that is most commonly references as precedent for Ten:

• A ship cannot spend a focus token to change [eye] results to [evade] or [hit] results if it does not have any [eye] results.

A comprehensive reading of the rules shows that this is a trend throughout that you are restricted from spending things if the effect cannot be completed.

Try thinking of it this way: if 'change all results to hit/evade' is the intended effect you are unable to complete it if there are zero eye results because you don't end up with any of the intended results when you 'change zero'.

THREAD NECROMANCY! 😄

I don't think it's ever been formally answered, but the general consensus is that you can't pay a cost (in this case, spending a stress) if there's no ability to resolve (changing a result). Like @nitrobenz said, if there are no focus results, there's nothing to change. Since Ten Numb's ability lacks an available "target" (in this case, focus results), he can't resolve his ability.

27 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

THREAD NECROMANCY! 😄

I don't think it's ever been formally answered, but the general consensus is that you can't pay a cost (in this case, spending a stress) if there's no ability to resolve (changing a result). Like @nitrobenz said, if there are no focus results, there's nothing to change. Since Ten Numb's ability lacks an available "target" (in this case, focus results), he can't resolve his ability.

what do you mean consensus? it's RAW.

The very fact that the rules specify: " A ship cannot spend a focus token to change [eye] results to [evade] or [hit] results if it does not have any [eye] results. "

is indicative of the fact that this doesn't fall under the paying costs rule, because the word All can obviously include none and therefore this case needs to be specified, and since Ten does not specify this restriction to me it is not clear cut, I don't believe it's obvious that the All case falls under the pay cost restriction, if it did then I don't think you would need to specify it for spending focus.

You can definitely resolve it, if you have none because changing ALL is resolved by doing nothing.

2 hours ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

The very fact that the rules specify: " A ship cannot spend a focus token to change [eye] results to [evade] or [hit] results if it does not have any [eye] results. "

is indicative of the fact that this doesn't fall under the paying costs rule, because the word All can obviously include none and therefore this case needs to be specified, and since Ten does not specify this restriction to me it is not clear cut, I don't believe it's obvious that the All case falls under the pay cost restriction, if it did then I don't think you would need to specify it for spending focus.

You can definitely resolve it, if you have none because changing ALL is resolved by doing nothing.

care to elaborate?

there is nothing indicating the rules about spending focus does not fall under the paying costs rule, no. it's not uncommon for things to be repeated several times throughout the rules reference. it's also known as clarification.

do you have any examples in the rules where paying a cost for no change in the game state is permitted?

i mean, you are arguing that you can pay costs for no effect, other than paying the cost.

On 10/9/2018 at 10:06 AM, joeshmoe554 said:

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.

Actually 0 of 0 fits the definition of none, not all; because if you have zero amount of something you are trying to count, you don't have any of that something. So if you don't roll a focus, you don't have any focus to spend you token on, so you cannot resolve it, which goes back to the point that ten numb cannot remove his stress if he doesn't spend the focus token. This happened in first edition and they fixed him so that it wouldn't happen is second edition.

I am just saying that it is not as clear cut as you say, you cannot just decide your world view is the correct one and therefore that's how the rule works as nice as that would be.

As I said before as a programmer when I do something to a set of things I don't care if that set of things is empty or not, and as a ruleset follows logic and well... rules more than it does interpretation of language then and changing all of something is possible when all is zero. I can accept there is no ruling and it's ambiguous, I can't accept you are just correct because that's how you see it because there are other ways to see it. It is ambiguous, the examples they give don't deal with All including 0, and it could. I could easily see it being the intent that Ten should always be able to shed his stress when he attacks because that's a nice and consistent experience, no gambling on rolling a certain result, and since the card doesn't specify you cannt do it then it feels to me it's intended that he can. Otherwise why not say that he can spend stress as if it was a focus token?

9 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

I am just saying that it is not as clear cut as you say, you cannot just decide your world view is the correct one and therefore that's how the rule works as nice as that would be.

As I said before as a programmer when I do something to a set of things I don't care if that set of things is empty or not, and as a ruleset follows logic and well... rules more than it does interpretation of language then and changing all of something is possible when all is zero. I can accept there is no ruling and it's ambiguous, I can't accept you are just correct because that's how you see it because there are other ways to see it. It is ambiguous, the examples they give don't deal with All including 0, and it could. I could easily see it being the intent that Ten should always be able to shed his stress when he attacks because that's a nice and consistent experience, no gambling on rolling a certain result, and since the card doesn't specify you cannt do it then it feels to me it's intended that he can. Otherwise why not say that he can spend stress as if it was a focus token?

i'm with you. unfortunately, the rules of the game are not a programming language. technical english is not a stong point of the rules reference or the available card text in the game either.

how ever, your argument that "why not say?" has no bearing what so ever. we have the rules and the card text - and that's what we have to interpret and work with. if you want an answer to your question of "why not?", then you'll have to ask the developers, not the community. this forum is a community resource, not a point of contact with the game developers.

i can ask you something similar though. if you'd be able to spend a stress for no effect, why wouldn't his card text say "while attacking or defending, you may spend a stress token. if you do, you may change all of your (focus) results to (hit) or (evade) results."?

that's not what his card says, though, is it? it says you may spend a stress to change your (eyeball) results, not that you may spend a stress and that you may change your (eyeball) results, if any. i mean, adding an "if any" clause wouldn't be that hard if what you're arguing was the intention, would it? or adding another "may" wouldn't be unreasonable if that was the intention, would it?

in my view, this is the correct interpretation until the rules state otherwise. i appreciate that i'm not always right, but i believe i'm representing a consensus here, not just my own interpretation? please correct me if i'm wrong.

if it's not clear to you, just go ahead and ask FFG. and ask your TO in advance if you're going to a tournament. for casual games, just roll a dice or what ever. the precedence from not being allowed to spend focus and not being able to spend anything to resolve nothing still stands, though.

you can reach the developers with rules questions from here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/