Ten can shed stress for zero focus results?

Can Garven Dreis spend a focus on zero focus results?

The restriction is the same. Regardless of the token or source.

Frankly, the hairs being split here are ridiculous. There are two related rules to shed light on the issue, but they are being dismissed because they are not specific to stress tokens. Actually, worse--you are treating the rule regarding focus tokens as an exception to a universal rule that, under normal circumstances, allows you to spend tokens to modify 0 results.

But the problem is that that rule doesn't exist. Where is the rule that says you can use an ability to modify 0 results? If you want to argue in favor of Ten being able to spend stress, you need to find something somewhere to support it, because as it is, the only similar interaction tells you--in no uncertain terms--that you cannot. So you can argue that it doesn't mention stress tokens all you want, but until you find something that can be spent to modify 0 results, the most relevant rules say that you cannot.

3 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

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.

Well said. I do lean the other way intuitively but this is a very good point. It's not just "does all include zero" it's also what constitutes resolution.

Resolution is picking up a die, or flipping it around, from a focus result to a hit result. Then you remove the stress token from the board.

If you cannot do that, you cannot resolve.

5 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Resolution is picking up a die, or flipping it around, from a focus result to a hit result. Then you remove the stress token from the board.

If you cannot do that, you cannot resolve.

I suspect that you're wrong but until they clarify we won't know for sure. I just hope they clarify soon so I can play Ten again; don't care which way the rule, I love B-Wings and will play him regardless I just don't want to deal with this kind of disagreement during a game and don't want to get into bad habits with a ship I think I'll end up flying a lot.

1 minute ago, Damo1701 said:

Resolution is picking up a die, or flipping it around, from a focus result to a hit result. Then you remove the stress token from the board.

If you cannot do that, you cannot resolve.

Exactly, this is the point. Resolving an effect is not defined anywhere so we have to intuit what it might be from other rules.

For you, and me in this case, resolving an effect has to change the game state in someway. For Mockingbird it doesn't have to change the game state, just be legal. Both of these options can be equally argued from the Gonk example. For me because his ability is so similar to the Focus rules that why I come down on the side of an effect having to change the game state to be resolved.

Also: Vader tells you to remove 1 green token, bringing up spurious and flat out wrong examples does not help your (and my) case at all.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

Exactly, this is the point. Resolving an effect is not defined anywhere so we have to intuit what it might be from other rules.

If resolving an effect isn't defined, why is there a specific point made about it? Why, then, would there be an example of how to resolve an effect?

Effects change the game state in one way or another, actively, or passively. Correct?

Therefore, in order to resolve, something must have changed. Otherwise, they are not effects at all. They are nothing.

Having read the Rules Reference several times, nowhere does it say you CAN spend ANY token for zero effect. However, there are a few examples of when you can/can't spend tokens or activate abilities.

As we know, you cannot spend a focus to alter anything, if there is nothing to alter.

We also know, you cannot spend a target lock after using Fire Control System.

The Rules Reference says you CANNOT pay a cost for no resolution. For there to be a resolution, as I have said, SOMETHING needs to have changed.

So, you are also saying that, as Lando Calrissian (Scum), if I have a benefit to being stressed, I can reroll ZERO blanks, in order to take a stress?

Changing the game state is also adding or removing tokens.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

Exactly, this is the point. Resolving an effect is not defined anywhere so we have to intuit what it might be from other rules.

For you, and me in this case, resolving an effect has to change the game state in someway. For Mockingbird it doesn't have to change the game state, just be legal. Both of these options can be equally argued from the Gonk example. For me because his ability is so similar to the Focus rules that why I come down on the side of an effect having to change the game state to be resolved. 

Also: Vader tells you to remove 1 green token, bringing up spurious and flat out wrong examples does not help your (and my) case at all.

I agree with this completely and I appreciate the understanding. It's good to be able to look at the issue, disagree on a specific point, but still recognize the perspective of the other party. Just because interpret the word "resolve" differently doesn't mean it needs to be an argument, it just means we need FFG to say which is correct.

2 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

So, you are also saying that, as Lando Calrissian (Scum), if I have a benefit to being stressed, I can reroll ZERO blanks, in order to take a stress?

Yes, that would be my (and I suspect our - including MockingBird) opinion currently. "All blanks" includes "zero blanks".

1 minute ago, jftanner said:

Yes, that would be my (and I suspect our - including MockingBird) opinion currently. "All blanks" includes "zero blanks".

And, isn't this one of the reasons the game was changed, and the resolution clause was added?

Really need to stop thinking in terms of zero being active unless it is specified, like with the new First Order upgrade card. Zero was supposed to be there, so it was added to the card. If it wasn't, it would have said, "Pick ANY Initiative..." or "Pick from all Initiative levels..."

You can't reroll zero dice, or alter zero dice to gain a benefit because nothing is resolved, the only change being a beneficial token added or a non-beneficial token being removed. That is why you can't pay a cost to active something that does something else, if you can't do the thing in the first place.

Here, I'll give you 2 grand once you've finished painting my (non-existent) motorbike. What? You can't finish painting it, because you can't start painting it? Sorry, no 2 grand for you.

1 minute ago, Damo1701 said:

Here, I'll give you 2 grand once you've finished painting my (non-existent) motorbike. What? You can't finish painting it, because you can't start painting it? Sorry, no 2 grand for you.

If you worded it the same as Ten "I'll give you two grand once you've finished painting all of my motorbikes." and you had none I'd tell you "you owe me $2,000."

3 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

You can't reroll zero dice, or alter zero dice to gain a benefit because nothing is resolved, the only change being a beneficial token added or a non-beneficial token being removed.

I understand that you believe this but it is not stated in the rules so let's agree that a clarification from FFG would be wonderful weather it ends up going the way we think it will or not. More clarity is good for the game.

With $2,000 you could probably buy an ok bike, maybe one that would need a little paint.

Just now, MockingBird ME said:

If you worded it the same as Ten "I'll give you two grand once you've finished painting all of my motorbikes." and you had none I'd tell you "you owe me $2,000."

No, I wouldn't, because you didn't start. In order to finish, you have to start! You couldn't start, because there was nothing there. So, all or not, you are still out of luck on the cash front. No starting means no finishing, which is elegant enough to bring this to a close.

No results required to trigger? No triggering.

1 minute ago, MockingBird ME said:

I understand that you believe this but it is not stated in the rules so let's agree that a clarification from FFG would be wonderful weather it ends up going the way we think it will or not. More clarity is good for the game.

Really? It is stated in the rules. You cannot pay a cost, do nothing, and move on.

It's right there. In the Rules Reference, as clear as anything.

Do you remember how much "clarification" 1.0 had? Too much to keep up with in some cases. Nitpicking for the answer you want is not what I had experienced from the community.

4 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

No, I wouldn't, because you didn't start. In order to finish, you have to start! You couldn't start, because there was nothing there. So, all or not, you are still out of luck on the cash front. No starting means no finishing, which is elegant enough to bring this to a close.

Well actually the person you hired to paint you bike would need to buy paints and everything else before starting to paint, therefore they would have 'started' the process. If they then turned up to your house and you said 'ha ha I have no bike so you get no money' you would end up in small claims where you would have to pay cost of materials.

22 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

If resolving an effect isn't defined, why is there a specific point made about it? Why, then, would there be an example of how to resolve an effect?

Effects change the game state in one way or another, actively, or passively. Correct?

Therefore, in order to resolve, something must have changed. Otherwise, they are not effects at all. They are nothing.

Ok you want to go here, prove it. Prove that to resolve effects the game state must change.

The section on Gonk can be read in 2 ways,

1. his ability would not alter the game state, he cannot do it.

2. He doesn't have an inactive shield token to recover, he cannot do it.

Reading 1, my view point, means that Ten Numb cannot spend his stress to modify zero results as it doesn't alter the game state.

Reading 2, which I believe to be close to Mockingbirds reading, does not preclude Ten Numb from using his ability. It doesn't specifically allow it but nor does it deny it. If you remove this requirement to change the game state from resolving effects then Ten Numb absolutely can use his ability on zero results.

That's where we are with this, nothing explicitly states you have to change the game state with an effect, it's merely implied in other rules.

Quote

It's right there. In the Rules Reference, as clear as anything.

No it's not, again stop making up rules to prove a point.

Just now, Damo1701 said:

Really? It is stated in the rules. You cannot pay a cost, do nothing, and move on.

This is what we've been discussing for some time; we agree that it's stated in the rules. The rules as written give me the clear understanding that converting all zero results is paying the cost. I accept that the language could be interpreted differently and want clarification, I'm not sure why so many folks here seem so determined that this is cut and dry when there are multiple people advocating for the opposit interpretation.

1 minute ago, AramoroA said:

Reading 2, which I believe to be close to Mockingbirds reading, does not preclude Ten Numb from using his ability. It doesn't specifically allow it but nor does it deny it. If you remove this requirement to change the game state from resolving effects then Ten Numb absolutely can use his ability on zero results.

Good synopsis of the way I read that example, thanks!

1 minute ago, AramoroA said:

Ok you want to go here, prove it. Prove that to resolve effects the game state must change.

The section on Gonk can be read in 2 ways,

1. his ability would not alter the game state, he cannot do it.

2. He doesn't have an inactive shield token to recover, he cannot do it.

Reading 1, my view point, means that Ten Numb cannot spend his stress to modify zero results as it doesn't alter the game state.

Reading 2, which I believe to be close to Mockingbirds reading, does not preclude Ten Numb from using his ability. It doesn't specifically allow it but nor does it deny it. If you remove this requirement to change the game state from resolving effects then Ten Numb absolutely can use his ability on zero results.

That's where we are with this, nothing explicitly states you have to change the game state with an effect, it's merely implied in other rules.

Just now, MockingBird ME said:

Good synopsis of the way I read that example, thanks!

Because you changing how the rule is read. YOU are changing. not FFG, not your opponent, not even guys anywhere else. YOU are looking for ways to read rules to YOUR advantage.

"Cannot do it" is in both readings, regardless of the rest. What is so difficult about it? Please?

2 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Because you changing how the rule is read. YOU are changing. not FFG, not your opponent, not even guys anywhere else. YOU are looking for ways to read rules to YOUR advantage.

"Cannot do it" is in both readings, regardless of the rest. What is so difficult about it? Please?

No, YOU are changing it, not FFG, not your opponent, not even guys anywhere else. YOU are looking for ways to read rules to YOUR advantage.

Cannot do it is not in both readings, I even typed it all out to make it easier for you, what's so difficult about it please?

But seriously, Dalan Oberos, do you think he can use his ability whilst he has full shields?

2 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

No, YOU are changing it, not FFG, not your opponent, not even guys anywhere else. YOU are looking for ways to read rules to YOUR advantage.

Cannot do it is not in both readings, I even typed it all out to make it easier for you, what's so difficult about it please?

But seriously, Dalan Oberos, do you think he can use his ability whilst he has full shields?

Check the quote, check the text you wrote. You said it cannot be done either way. That's why I replied as I did.

If Ten Numb can alter phantom focus results, anybody can perform whatever phantoms they desire. I mean, unless every case is stripped out by the rules lawyers, they just will never be happy. There are two whole parts that deal with paying costs for abilities.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. at the end of the day, try pulling that stunt on the table, and you find yourself a new opponent. I'd rather play a game of toy spaceships the way the rules go, instead of how some other person wants them to go to benefit themselves. I've never used Ten Numb the way that is being advocated, and never would. The rules are very clear on that.

2 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

Check the quote, check the text you wrote. You said it cannot be done either way. That's why I replied as I did.

If Ten Numb can alter phantom focus results, anybody can perform whatever phantoms they desire. I mean, unless every case is stripped out by the rules lawyers, they just will never be happy. There are two whole parts that deal with paying costs for abilities.

What? If you read what I wrote and thought I was reffering to Ten Numb and not Gonk then I am starting to see where you're having issues with the rules.

In your fury though you seem to have missed my question, Dalan, can he use his ability whilst he has full shields. The rules are so clear and obvious about what resolving and effect is you should be able to knock that one out no problem.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

What? If you read what I wrote and thought I was reffering to Ten Numb and not Gonk then I am starting to see wher  e you're having issues with the rules.

In your fury though you seem to have missed my question, Dalan, can he use his ability whilst he has full shields. The rules are so clear and obvious about what resolving and effect is you should be able to knock that one out no problem. 

I would say that no, he can't. Because he cannot recover 1 shield. 1 does not include 0. If it said "all shields" then he could.

The argument isn't that you don't have to be able to do the effect, that part is very clear in the rules. You have to be able to resolve the effect The argument is whether or not changing zero results is a valid resolution for "change all results", if you don't have any results to change. So far, lots of folks are asserting that no, zero does not satisfy the "all" requirement, and therefore the effect cannot be resolved. However, I've set to see any rule that actually states this.

So I'm confused.

If I am stressed I have to paint a bike, and walk some dogs but then I get a focus? After that I do my homework?