So, let's say I tell my child: "You can go outside only after you finish all your homework." If he was given no homework, can he go outside?

Obviously, that's outside the framework of the X-Wing rules, but it goes to show that "all" includes zero in normal conversational English. Having had no homework to do, my child has done all of it, therefore he may go outside.

30 minutes ago, meffo said:

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.

This is also only true at the moment; there are a number of other pilots that have an "all" effect that currently either can't be done, wouldn't be done, or fail with no side effect but a firm answer on if "All includes zero" has a lot of potential future implications should they release new pilots/upgrades that cause those cards to have desirable side effects.

For example Scum lando can reroll all blanks in exchange for a stress, stress is generally bad but you get an upgrade that gives him a bonus while stressed and suddenly he may want to gain the stress even without any blanks to reroll. Munitions failsafe allows you to cancel all dice rolled for a missile or torpedo attack, if a future upgrade causes you to roll no dice it'll be important to know if the failsafe can work. Saw Gerrera crew lets you take a damage to turn all focus into crits, if a ship is able to get an advantage while damaged knowing if you can trigger it is important.

The question is not about how strong is Ten's ability, it's about a fundamental way a term works in the game that affects a few cards already and may affect many more in the future. Ten is just the most obvious example of wanting to trigger it with "all" including zero.

5 minutes ago, jftanner said:

So, let's say I tell my child: "You can go outside only after you finish all your homework." If he was given no homework, can he go outside?

Obviously, that's outside the framework of the X-Wing rules, but it goes to show that "all" includes zero in normal conversational English. Having had no homework to do, my child has done all of it, therefore he may go outside.

i agree, but i still think the framework of x-wing indicates that Ten shouldn't be able to spend a stress to change no focus results.

also, i wouldn't say your child finished any (or all) homework if there was no homework to being with. all can include zero (i would even go so far as to say it normally would), yes, but it doesn't seem like it does in this scenario, judging from the wording on Ten Numbs pilot card and the text in the rules reference about paying costs and spending focus.

since that's all the text we have to go by, making up other circumstances or interpretations about how we think it should work is not our imperative.

of course you should let your kids go out and play, though. it's good for the brain, you know? almost as good as making them stay in and play x-wing.

3 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

This is also only true at the moment; there are a number of other pilots that have an "all" effect that currently either can't be done, wouldn't be done, or fail with no side effect but a firm answer on if "All includes zero" has a lot of potential future implications should they release new pilots/upgrades that cause those cards to have desirable side effects.

For example Scum lando can reroll all blanks in exchange for a stress, stress is generally bad but you get an upgrade that gives him a bonus while stressed and suddenly he may want to gain the stress even without any blanks to reroll. Munitions failsafe allows you to cancel all dice rolled for a missile or torpedo attack, if a future upgrade causes you to roll no dice it'll be important to know if the failsafe can work. Saw Gerrera crew lets you take a damage to turn all focus into crits, if a ship is able to get an advantage while damaged knowing if you can trigger it is important.

The question is not about how strong is Ten's ability, it's about a fundamental way a term works in the ga  me that affects a few cards already and may affect many more in the future. Ten is just the most obvious example of wanting to trigger it with "all" including zero.

i agree with this. maybe make a new thread titled "does all include zero?"

15 minutes ago, meffo said:

all can include zero (i would even go so far as to say it normally would), yes, but it doesn't seem like it does in this scenario, judging from the wording on Ten Numbs pilot card and the text in the rules reference about paying costs and spending focus.

That's definitely the critical assertion where we disagree. Ten's card uses the word "all", the section on paying costs only requires that the effect "resolves", and the rules on spending focus aren't relevant because they specifically refer to focus tokens. I don't see anything there to imply that all doesn't include zero in this context. So, my judgement here is clearly different from yours.

I think we all agree that the crux of the matter is whether changing no results "resolves" the effect of "change all your [...] results" if there aren't any. Since the word "resolve" isn't properly defined in the rules reference -- and the only example given doesn't cover this particular edge case -- it seems to be that the only concrete solution here is to wait for FFG to put out an official ruling one way or the other.

In the meantime, rather than arguing about the definition of "resolve" and whether or not "all" includes zero, I'm gonna go play X-Wing. It's far more fun than arguing about X-Wing. And, should my opponent fly Ten Numb, I'll happily allow them to spend a stress on no results. You, with your friends, may choose otherwise. Hopefully there'll be an official answer by the time there are any tournaments.

2 hours ago, jftanner said:

So, let's say I tell my child: "You can go outside only after you finish all your homework." If he was given no homework, can he go outside?

Obviously, that's outside the framework of the X-Wing rules, but it goes to show that "all" includes zero in normal conversational English. Having had no homework to do, my child has done all of it, therefore he may go outside.

You changed the wording completely to fit your version.... But sure.

"You may go outside to finish all your homework" is how it would actually fit ten numb. And in this case if the child has no homework they can't go outside.

You can't just change the wording to fit your own interpretation.

Using your own English and child logic ten numb does not work if you have nothing to change (unless of course you randomly reword the ability.... )

Another example "you may take the car to go to the store" if you can't go to the store then you can't take the **** car.

@icelom the question is about whether "all" can apply to zero results, the quote you're responding to was just one example where in regular English it can be. It was specifically in response to a previous post. If you think that "all" shouldn't apply to zero results or that changing zero results means you have not "resolved" an effect please explain why simply complaining about a quote not designed to match the grammar of the card does not show it. And if you're concerned that the grammar of the card is the problem think of any of the countless folktales where some trickster has some poor sod give his last coin in exchange for all of the trickster's riches which turn out to be none.

2 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

@icelom the question is about whether "all" can apply to zero results, the quote you're responding to was just one example where in regular English it can be. It was specifically in response to a previous post. If you think that "all" shouldn't apply to zero results or that changing zero results means you have not "resolved" an effect please explain why simply complaining about a quote not designed to match the grammar of the card does not show it. And if you're concerned that the grammar of the card is the problem think of any of the countless folktales where some trickster has some poor sod give his last coin in exchange for all of the trickster's riches which turn out to be none.

1

Really? he changed the grammar and correlated to real-world English to prove it worked the way he and you want it to.

I called him out on it saying that changing the wording so an example works in your favor is bull. "where in regular English it can be"-MockingBird no it can't be, he literally reworded it in order to make it fit.

The grammar is not the problem it's pretty **** clear. (unless you change the grammar).

Apparently, I can't call people out for randomly making **** up in the rules section to prove there point.

if 0 was an option it would be worded like "remove a stress token, then change any focus results to hits" but it's not it's removing a stress to change them... nothing to change then you can't remove.

In x-wing second edition there are 0 times in the rules where you can do nothing and pay the cost to do that nothing. Why would this random time be the time? 0 precedent whatsoever. The paying the cost section is pretty clear you can't pay the cost if you can't resolve the thing, and changing nothing is not resolving the thing.

If I asked you "did you walk my dog" and I had no dog would you answer "yes" since there were no dogs to walk so you walked the 0 dogs? or would you say "no"

The grammar seems very clear.

7 minutes ago, Icelom said:

If I asked you "did you walk my dog" and I had no dog would you answer "yes" since there were no dogs to walk so you walked the 0 dogs? 

If you asked "did you walk my dog?" and had no dog to walk I would say "no." If you asked "did you walk all my dogs?" with no dogs to walk I would be correct in saying "yes," though in that example I would be confused as to why you were asking. If you're going to get all aggressive about using different grammar than is on the card please do not yourself commit that act and, censored or not, please try to remain civil in the forms.

Please understand that while I think it can be used for zero <eyeball> results what I want is clarification by FFG because the mere fact that this thread is now over a page with people defending both sides means there is a need for clarification.

4 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

If you asked "did you walk my dog?" and had no dog to walk I would say "no." If you asked "did you walk all my dogs?" with no dogs to walk I would be correct in saying "yes," though in that example I would be confused as to why you were asking. If you're going to get all aggressive about using different grammar than is on the card please do not yourself commit that act and, censored or not, please try to remain civil in the forms.

Please understand that while I think it can be used for zero <eyeball> results what I want is clarification by FFG because the mere fact that this thread is now over a page with people defending both sides means there is a need for clarification.

I don't disagree that it needs a clarification.

And my annoyance is not with you, I apologize if I came off strong. I was just very annoyed that someone changed the wording of the card around in order to fit there own narrative. I did not want to bring English logic into the conversation someone else did and did it in a very wrong way.

Where else, in the rules can you spend a token to gain an effect?

I've not seen a single rule exception where you spend to gain nothing. In fact, the precedent has been set out clearly with both Gonk and Focus rulings.

The sad thing is people who know they don't actually have an argument still try to manipulate the rules to their own advantage. It's a game of plastic spaceships. Whatever happened to Wheaton's Law?

Seems pretty clear to be, you spend to gain an effect. If that effect does nothing then you cannot spend the cost as per the Gonk example.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

Seems pretty clear to be, you spend to gain an effect. If that effect does nothing then you cannot spend the cost as per the Gonk example.

The Gonk example doesn't apply here. Gonk says "Spend one charge to recover one shield." Ten says "Spend one stress to change all <eyeball> results" The question is, and I think has always been, can all include zero? This has other potentially important implications as cited above.

Quote

Where else, in the rules can you spend a token to gain an effect?

The other tokens all specifically state they can only be spent if you are modifying one or more, or in evades case an equal number (necessitating at least one if you've spent it), die result. The fact that those tokens each have a specific rule or wording that prohibits them from being spent with zero results does not mean there is a general rule that nothing can be spent to modify zero results; if this was the intent it would have been a lot easier to have a blanket statement and not three separate, differently worded, specific rules.

5 hours ago, Damo1701 said:

The sad thing is people who know they don't actually have an argument still try to manipulate the rules to their own advantage.

That's not at all what I'm doing. I stopped playing Ten Numb the moment it came to my attention that some players thought he worked differently. I'm a player who only has time for, at best, a game or two a week and don't want to spend that time refining lists and strategies that don't actually work regardless of how the ruling comes down.

I understand that many people, myself included, think this one is really obvious. The fact that we think that while disagreeing on how it works clearly says we need an official ruling on it as it's important for Ten now and potentially very meaningful for a number of already existing cards to determine how they work should new cards, or combos I've not thought of, make their 'cost' beneficial (see a few posts up for examples).

6 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

The Gonk example doesn't apply here. Gonk says "Spend one charge to recover one shield." Ten says "Spend one stress to change all <eyeball> results" The question is, and I think has always been, can all include zero? This has other potentially important implications as cited above.

The other tokens all specifically state they can only be spent if you are modifying one or more, or in evades case an equal number (necessitating at least one if you've spent it), die result. The fact that those tokens each have a specific rule or wording that prohibits them from being spent with zero results does not mean there is a general rule that nothing can be spent to modify zero results; if this was the intent it would have been a lot easier to have a blanket statement and not three separate, differently worded, specific rules.

That's not at all what I'm doing. I stopped playing Ten Numb the moment it came to my attention that some players thought he worked differently. I'm a player who only has time for, at best, a game or two a week and don't want to spend that time refining lists and strategies that don't actually work regardless of how the ruling comes down.

I understand that many people, myself included, think this one is really obvious. The fact that we think that while disagreeing on how it works clearly says we need an official ruling on it as it's important for Ten now and potentially very meaningful for a number of already existing cards to determine how they work should new cards, or combos I've not thought of, make their 'cost' beneficial (see a few posts up for examples).

Can you recover a shield if you have full shields? Can you SPEND a charge if you don't have one?

Where does it say you can spend stress for zero in-game effect?

I'll play Ten Numb all day every day if I wished to, but, he'd only be able to spend his stress if there was a result he could affect. Because that's the precedent for token-spending, as referenced by the Focus ruling.

I wish I had the opportunity for games that frequently. I really do. However, because I don't, I do what I can to read the rules as closely as possible, as well as try to learn some of the pilot abilities for other factions.

The trouble is, this whole thread is why we can't have nice things without FAQ/Errata documents becoming hefty tomes in their own right. The sheer fact people are trying to spend tokens to modify nothing is why the focus rule has that line in it. There really doesn't need to be a ruling, players should remember Wheaton's Law, and give good game.

It feels extemely unsporting to take the position that you can spend a token on no required results, especially when there is already a ruling about spending tokens on non-existent die rolls.

Whenever I've had a rules question, I've been told one thing. X-Wing is a permissive game. The rules tell you what you can do. So, does the card say you can spend a stress to change focus results to hits, even if there are no focus results? If it doesn't, it doesn't work like that. Surely being able to spend stress on offense or defense is good enough anyway?

16 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Where does it say you can spend stress for zero in-game effect?

The Rules Reference doesn't say anything about spending stress, outside of card abilities you can't so no general rules currently exist for it.

Quote

Because that's the precedent for token-spending, as referenced by the Focus ruling.

Focus has a rule that applies to focus, no other specific to a thing rule is being used to say it works that way for other things why should focus be any different. The rule says "A ship cannot spend a focus token to change ? results to ? or ? results if it does not have any ? results." It is very clearly talking about Focus Tokens both by what section it's in and by it's own wording. It does not say you can not spend tokens to modify zero results, it say you can not spend focus tokens to do so.

19 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

The rules tell you what you can do.

And cards override general rules. Ten's card tells you that you are able to spend stress to modify all results. That all is the only thing that should be in debate here as it's a word that can be used to include or exclude zero depending on the situation and the user.

21 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

So, does the card say you can spend a stress to change focus results to hits, even if there are no focus results?

Clearly I believe it does, I also understand why some people don't and want FFG to clarify. What I do not want is for people to claim that it unequivocally works one way and have the question fall off FFGs radar.

23 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

If it doesn't, it doesn't work like that.

I get that some people think it doesn't but outside of the "All" question the only evidence that has been given is rules specific to other situations and not this one. Specific rules are not general ones and cards take precedence over general ones.

24 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

If it doesn't, it doesn't work like that.  Surely being able to spend stress on offense or defense is good enough anyway?

This isn't a thread about the strength of the card so I'll leave my opinions of that to something other than the rules forum.

Simple question.

Can you turn ZERO focus results to hits? Show me how to turn Zero focus results into hit results.

I've rolled a hit, crit and blank. How can I get that hit result from the focus that isn't there?

5 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Simple question.

Can you turn ZERO focus results to hits? Show me how to turn Zero focus results into hit results.

I've rolled a hit, crit and blank. How can I get that hit result from the focus that isn't there?

You spend Ten's stress to target all (zero) <eyeball> results and turn them into an equal number (zero) of hit results. The dice to not change but the ability is successfully resolved unless it is ruled that "All" is not inclusive of zero.

39 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

The Gonk example doesn't apply here. Gonk says "Spend one charge to recover one shield." Ten says "Spend one stress to change all <eyeball> results" The question is, and I think has always been, can all include zero? This has other potentially important implications as cited above.

I think you're misinterpreting what the Gonk example is saying and it comes down to what you think 'resolving an effect'is. Can you resolve an effect which does nothing, as it does on Ten Numbs case here. To most people resolving an effect has to do something, which is backed up by the rules on focus. I don't expect to convince you but that doesn't really matter because you're right there is no specific ruling covering this exact circumstance so people are generally going to go with the way to interpret the rules which is most similar to other rules that exist, they're going to read the Gonk example and the focus example and come up with Ten Numb can't spend stress if he has no eye results.

Until there's an official ruling (Which will say he can't) you're reduced to the tyranny of the majority or if you can brow beat a specific TO to let you do it.

Nope, you've not met the conditions of the ability.

Sorry.

I'm after that hit from the stress, otherwise, I can't spend the stress. That has been established already, with precedent.

Any other attempt at an outcome is void. There are clear rules for the spending of tokens. You don't want to play that way? Fine. As long as your gaming group is happy. However, constantly arguing against the printed rules in the Rules Reference, that you've quoted yourself, to get the result you want, just puts you down. Play the game, don't be "that guy".

I think most of the arguments here seem to be fuelled by 1.0, FFG used to say zero was indeed a number (which mathematically it is), but now they seem to be saying it isn't. I think we just have to get onboard and move on, it's not like the Bwings will ever be meta.

9 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

I think you're misinterpreting what the Gonk example is saying and it comes down to what you think 'resolving an effect'is. Can you resolve an effect which does nothing, as it does on Ten Numbs case here. To most people resolving an effect has to do something, which is backed up by the rules on focus. I don't expect to convince you but that doesn't really matter because you're right there is no specific ruling covering this exact circumstance so people are generally going to go with the way to interpret the rules which is most similar to other rules that exist, they're going to read the Gonk example and the focus example and come up with Ten Numb can't spend stress if he has no eye results.

Until there's an official ruling (Which will say he can't) you're reduced to the tyranny of the majority or if you can brow beat a specific TO to let you do it.

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.

If you cannot change a FOCUS result to a HIT result, you cannot spend the token.

Why?

Because the ability cannot resolve.

5 minutes ago, xwingMinty said:

FFG used to say zero was indeed a number (which mathematically it is), but now they seem to be saying it isn't.

That's exactly the question we're asking them to clarify. Thus far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're (currently) saying one way or the other.

3 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.

If you cannot change a FOCUS result to a HIT result, you cannot spend the token.

Why?

Because the ability cannot resolve.

Where is the word "resolve" defined in the rules? You're claiming that changing zero results doesn't "resolve" on effect that calls for changing "all" results, I'm claiming that it does. All we're actually asking for is for FFG to clarify one way or the other.

2 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

If you cannot change a FOCUS result to a HIT result, you cannot spend the token.

No one is trying to argue that you can change "a FOCUS result to a HIT." "a" is an indefinite article meaning one non-specific instance of the noun it modifies. The argument is that is that you can change "all FOCUS results to Hits" when there are zero results because all encompases zero.

1 minute ago, Damo1701 said:

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.

If you cannot change a FOCUS result to a HIT result, you cannot spend the token.

Why?

Because the ability cannot resolve.

That comes down to what you believe resolving the effect of an ability is.

It's either resolving the ability has to actually change something, so if you have no focus results none of them can change so his ability would change nothing.

OR

Resolving an ability is just doing what it says, all and obviously includes none, so changing all can be resolved here no problem.

Now for me, based on the rulings so far I say something has to change, it has nothing to do with if all includes 0 or not and everything to do with the fact the game state does or doesn't change as the result of his ability. In this case he would not change the game state so he cannot do it.

Dalan Obereos is the interesting case here, can he use his ability if he has full shields. I would say no, but I can see why he might be able to bit of a coin flip that one.

You have to actually modify the dice rolled in order to meet the condition on the card for stress removal.

In two places the Rules Reference clearly states you need to have the required conditions in order to pay costs. Both in the first linked image, and in the much-discussed Focus section.