2 minutes ago, GeneralZod217 said:

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?

I love you, you win this thread.

2 minutes ago, GeneralZod217 said:

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?

There are no bikes, dogs, or homework. But you do get to go outside and play.

(Bonus points for best comment in the thread.)

3 minutes ago, GeneralZod217 said:

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?

Are the dogs blue?

(Cookie for anyone who gets the reference)

9 minutes ago, GeneralZod217 said:

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?

No no no, you have to become strssed to piant the dogs if the bike is outside with your homework. Now if there is no bike outside it still counts, as zero bikes is a valid amount of bikes.

What really complicates it however is when there is allready 1 painted dog doing your homework. Then you need buy the bike.

Of course in the southern hemisphere you have to do it all in reverse.

Have I cleared that up for you?

This thread has gone south, north, west, and a bit high ever since I've last checked on it...

Just one interesting observation: If the " the GONK clause " from Paying Costs part of the RR really covers all cases of turning <eye> into meaningful die results, why was it, later on, necessary for the same RR to explicitly state it in separate subpoints that focus/calculate tokens cannot be spent for no meaningful result?

Why didn't these clarifications anyhow hint they are derived from " the GONK clause" ?

Then, why was this explicit clarification ever needed for the calculate, when the concept of "all" appropriate results isn't even in the scope of this token's functionality?

Then, furthermore, why didn't the same reasoning enforce a similar explanation be given for the evade token? There is no word on evade not being usable when there are no <blank> or <eye> results. Neither has this been underlined among the rules governing the use of force tokens.

Is it simply because this extra clause has been omitted being treated as redundant? Or is "dummy" use of evade/force actually possible and legal?

Then, finally, if the RR seems to be reasonably inconsistent in discussing the manner of turning nonexistent die results into new ones, how does that project onto a use case that is in no way even approached by the RR? And in this situation, is it much to ask from the devs to take one smoke break's time to write us a new post in the pinned thread to make things perfectly clear to everyone?

....

I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of you......

11 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

....

I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of you......

Mate, I'm not even trying to favour one or the other side. For all I care, intuitive, sleek, and consistent way to handle this manner is to treat Ten's stress just like we'd treat a focus. Except the card doesn't ask you explicitly to do just so, and then the RR we've got is kinda... buggy in coverage of this topic, leaving the community arguing around the manner for 4 pages already just in this one thread.

The only outcome I'm looking forward to is the manner being briefly but once and for all settled by the creators. Just as something isn't stupid if it's stupid and works, something isn't this smart if it fails in 50% of the times, and it looks like this issue has been a miss in the history clear rules explanations.

Heck, if someone got them to state out loud friggin Elusive cannot regenerate other cards' charges and that you really can Cracken' yourself a red action, then we might as well get a word on this thing here as well, alright? All I want is for the interpretation to have no room to wiggle.

1 hour ago, ryfterek said:

This thread has gone south, north, west, and a bit high ever since I've last checked on it...

Just one interesting observation: If the " the GONK clause " from Paying Costs part of the RR really covers all cases of turning <eye> into meaningful die results, why was it, later on, necessary for the same RR to explicitly state it in separate subpoints that focus/calculate tokens cannot be spent for no meaningful result?

Why didn't these clarifications anyhow hint they are derived from " the GONK clause" ?

Then, why was this explicit clarification ever needed for the calculate, when the concept of "all" appropriate results isn't even in the scope of this token's functionality?

Then, furthermore, why didn't the same reasoning enforce a similar explanation be given for the evade token? There is no word on evade not being usable when there are no <blank> or <eye> results. Neither has this been underlined among the rules governing the use of force tokens.

Is it simply because this extra clause has been omitted being treated as redundant? Or is "dummy" use of evade/force actually possible and legal?

Then, finally, if the RR seems to be reasonably inconsistent in discussing the manner of turning nonexistent die results into new ones, how does that project onto a use case that is in no way even approached by the RR? And in this situation, is it much to ask from the devs to take one smoke break's time to write us a new post in the pinned thread to make things perfectly clear to everyone?

So.... every time they talked about spending something to do something they said you can't do it to change 0 things....

This obviously means that something that was not specifically covered works differently.... right.

The rules cant list every possibly little tiny thing that's what the paying costs was for. However every time they talked about spending something they reiterated you can't spend it to do nothing.

That is the best part about this thread... the side saying you "can spend to change 0 results" has absolutely zero rules sections that apply, zero similar interactions that apply... like nothing other then "the rules do not say explicitly in this exact situation you can't do it... therefore I can do it!!!"

10 hours ago, Icelom said:

The rules cant list every possibly little tiny thing that's what the paying costs was for. However every time they talked about spending something they reiterated you can't spend it to do nothing.

The paying costs section doesn't cover the idea of any or all at all nor does it specify a die chance has to be made in order for an effect to be resolved. To your concept that they do mention that you need to have at least one changeable result in each of the green token and locks sections is actually a point against your idea. Thank you to @ ryfterek for pointing it out but it would have been a lot simpler, easier, more concise, and covered a larger number of potential issues if they had just included that detail that a change was needed, or attempted (in the case of rerolling dice), in the costs section but they didn't suggesting that it's not a universal rule and it not being universal is why they have to make a specific call out in focus, evade, lock, etc.

Quote

That is the best part about this thread... the side saying you "can spend to change 0 results" has absolutely zero rules sections that apply

There are plenty of pilots that do cool and unique abilities with, as you say, absolutely zero rules sections that apply to them. The golden rule clearly says cards can do things either not mentioned in the RR or in opposition to what the rules reference says.

10 hours ago, Icelom said:

"the rules do not say explicitly in this exact situation you can't do it... therefore I can do it!!!"

Here again, if you have a rule or card that says you can do something (as some number of us think is the case here with Ten's ability) all you need is for it to not be prohibited. We're not saying we can do something out of the blue with nothing giving us that ability just because there is no rule specifically against it, this is not an Airbud scenario. W e have a pilot card with a printed ability that says we can do a thing AND no rule saying we can't.

Everyone in this thread who has said they think Ten works my way and many who have said that he works yours agree that we could be wrong and some clarification would be welcome; not sure why you seem to be so against the idea of getting a clarification, these conversations on the internet are fine but no one wants to deal with them at the game table and if the rules as written cause that may happen they're written poorly and ought to be revised.

How about that?

Quote

DICE MODIFICATION (rules reference p. 9)
Players can modify dice by spending various tokens and by resolving 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.
• Spend: To spend a result, remove the die from the dice pool.
Additionally:
• Dice modification occurs during the respective Modify Attack Dice or
Modify Defense Dice step, unless otherwise stated.
• Although dice can be modified by multiple effects, each die cannot be
rerolled more than once.
• If an ability instructs a ship to spend a result, it cannot spend another
ship’s results unless stated otherwise.
• Canceling dice is not a dice modification.
• Rolling additional dice or fewer dice is not a dice modification.
• If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens.
◊ For example, an attack die cannot be changed to an (evade) result because
that result does not appear on that die

Zero results = the die cannot be changed.

So nothing happens. No change resolved, no stress spended.

Rules are clear.

4 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

The paying costs section doesn't cover the idea of any or all at all nor does it specify a die chance has to be made in order for an effect to be resolved. To your concept that they do mention that you need to have at least one changeable result in each of the green token and locks sections is actually a point against your idea. Thank you to @ ryfterek for pointing it out but it would have been a lot simpler, easier, more concise, and covered a larger number of potential issues if they had just included that detail that a change was needed, or attempted (in the case of rerolling dice), in the costs section but they didn't suggesting that it's not a universal rule and it not being universal is why they have to make a specific call out in focus, evade, lock, etc.

There are plenty of pilots that do cool and unique abilities with, as you say, absolutely zero rules sections that apply to them. The golden rule clearly says cards can do things either not mentioned in the RR or in opposition to what the rules reference says.

Here again, if you have a rule or card that says you can do something (as some number of us think is the case here with Ten's ability) all you need is for it to not be prohibited. We're not saying we can do something out of the blue with nothing giving us that ability just because there is no rule specifically against it, this is not an Airbud scenario. W e have a pilot card with a printed ability that says we can do a thing AND no rule saying we can't.

Everyone in this thread who has said they think Ten works my way and many who have said that he works yours agree that we could be wrong and some clarification would be welcome; not sure why you seem to be so against the idea of getting a clarification, these conversations on the internet are fine but no one wants to deal with them at the game table and if the rules as written cause that may happen they're written poorly and ought to be revised.

I was specifically responding to someone who said roughly that since they explained every other thing so that you cant spend to do nothing this must work the other way.

On 10/9/2018 at 5:55 PM, Icelom said:

I don't disagree that it needs a clarification.

I am not arguing against a clarification, as I have said previously.

But if I can't counter a ridiculous argument without being called out for "being against a rules clarification" then I guess I just give up.

13 minutes ago, Icelom said:

I am not arguing against a clarification, as I have said previously.

But if I can't counter a ridiculous argument without being called out for "being against a rules clarification" then I guess I just give up.

@icelom, I am so sorry; I mixed you up Damo who said was unhappy about the request for clarification siting that he believed 1.0 had to much.

2 hours ago, Arachneo said:

How about that?

Zero results = the die cannot be changed.

So nothing happens. No change resolved, no stress spended.

Rules are clear.

That doesn't clarify anything as no one is arguing that nothing happens. The argument is if nothing happening is enough to say an effect is resolved.

Good try though.

30 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

That doesn't clarify anything as no one is arguing that nothing happens. The argument is if nothing happening is enough to say an effect is resolved.

Good try though.

"If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens." - page 9 of the rules reference.

Nothing happens, effects don't resolve as that is something.

The effect resolving is something!

Come on ffg... just a quick post to the clarification thread you can do it!

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

Nothing  happens, effects don't resolve as that is something.  

You know... Isn't it that you can pretty easily take a Lock action and decide to lock once more onto the same object? Effectively not making anything happen in the state of the game? Should the lock action fail to resolve then? Should it e.g. block Dutch's ability from triggering? ?

5 minutes ago, ryfterek said:

You know... Isn't it that you can pretty easily take a Lock action and decide to lock once more onto the same object? Effectively not making anything happen in the state of the game? Should the lock action fail to resolve then? Should it e.g. block Dutch's ability from triggering? ?

I mean at least choose an example thats correct....

"A ship can maintain only one lock. If a locking ship already has a lock,
before the chosen object would be assigned a lock token, the ship’s former
lock token is removed." - page 12 of the rules reference..

So the first lock would drop off and then the new lock would be applied... so yes lots of things happen and the effect happens.

Why bother trying to post idiotic examples without even knowing or checking the rules?

@MockingBird ME don't like his post its unresearched/wrong and clouds the issue.

Touché.

7 minutes ago, Icelom said:

@MockingBird ME don't like his post its unresearched/wrong and clouds the issue    . 

Mate, put off some steam. Your joy is wicked if you take it from going so ballistic in here.

I straight out missed out on the detail that the ongoing locks are removed in all circumstances - not only if the one-ship-one-lock rule should be broken - not denying that. But it's rather harsh to question my all-around fluency in the rules.

4 minutes ago, ryfterek said:

Mate, put off some steam. Your joy is wicked if you take it from going so ballistic in here.

I straight out missed out on the detail that the ongoing locks are removed in all circumstances - not only if the one-ship-one-lock rule should be broken - not denying that. But it's rather harsh to question my all-around fluency in the rules.

If you think I am getting joy out of this you are very mistaken.

I am getting extremely frustrated, its a rules section the least thing people can do is check the rules before they post 100% inaccurate information that either confuses people who are trying to learn the rules or complicates rules more then they need to. In this thread I have dealt with people randomly changing the wording of rules, changing the wording of abilities, posting incorrect assumptions without checking the rules. If you are going to post something at least check it, before I post anything in this section I check the rules reference and quote the appropriate section and it drives me nuts when people don't bother to do this. So i am getting a little heated and that's frankly sad on my part because its an internet forum for a plastic spaceship game... I should probably just leave this place.

I like to think us x-wing players are above turning this into a politics and just randomly posting crap without any fact checking or accuracy.

Dare I say it's been 5 days of people arguing their points, and not really getting anywhere. I'm sure a few of you have submitted this to FFG, so maybe instead of beating this dead horse (or rusty bike) we should stop arguing! It's in your power to let this be.

1 hour ago, xwingMinty said:

Dare I say it's been 5 days of people arguing their points, and not really getting anywhere. I'm sure a few of you have submitted this to FFG, so maybe instead of beating this dead horse (or rusty bike) we should stop arguing! It's in your power to let thi  s be.

I'm going to paint a dead horse, turn it into a motorbike, make it do my homework, and then go outside.

17 hours ago, Icelom said:

"If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens." - page 9 of the rules reference.

Nothing happens, effects don't resolve as that is something.

The effect resolving is something!

Come on ffg... just a quick post to the clarification thread you can do it!

If you can show me in the Rules Reference where the game state had to change to resolve an effect then it's all cool. All the current example in the RR shows is that if you cannot do the effects, such as recover a token you haven't lost, then you cannot resolve the effect. What it doesn't show is what happens if you resolve all the effects but nothing changes or if you can only resolve some of the effects.

There needs to be a RR clarification on what resolving and effect actually means.

On 10/11/2018 at 3:45 PM, Arachneo said:

• If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens.
◊ For example, an attack die cannot be changed to an (evade) result because
that result does not appear on that die

Nothing is nothing, no token spended and no dice modification, no more effects.

Let's go with the example: You try to spend an (evade) result in an attack dice. You cannot change the result and the token is not spended.

Same for Ten. Clearly, Ten ability is a Dice Modification, so this rule applies. Nothing happens is just that, nothing. No token spended, no dice modified, no effects triggered.

Quote

If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens.

The scenario we're discussing no die is being changed because zero dice have been targeted.

wow. you guys are still at it?

i'm glad you're so dedicated. unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten about the bigger picture. that's it, i'm starting a new thread. please head over to "does all include zero?" if you feel like going further with this.