This came up the other day... I assume Ten has to roll eyeballs to spend the stress, but my friend interprets the card as saying he could spend the stress for no benefit.

While you defend or perform an attack, you may spend 1 stress token to change all of your <eyeball> results to (hits or evades)

This must have been asked before, but I couldn't find it in a search.

Thanks!

it has been discussed at length, yes. my opinion and what i think is pretty much the consensus is that he has to roll a focus result to be able to spend the stress. the best example from the rules reference is the part about paying costs. you cannot pay a cost for an effect that cannot resolve.

thanks!

This one is confusing, because it was ruled differently in 1.0

46 minutes ago, Hobbyist said:

This one is confusing, because it was ruled differently in 1.0

True. But in 1e, you could spend a focus token with no eye results. Most folks judging against Ten Numb spending stress without eyes are drawing from the Focus change that you can't spend focus without eyes (probably most relevant to Garven Dreis). The most analogous rule in 2e changed, and FFG has made it clear that you can't spend costs for no-effect, so the interpretation of Ten Numb changed as well.

The problem is that there is STILL a grey area.

Page 2 of the current 2e Rules Reference is in regard to "Paying cost" and the example given is GNK which specifically states 1. So if GNK does not have 1 (but instead has zero) then the effect can not be resolved. Ten Numb does not have a specific number associated with it's effect. So using the "Paying Cost" rule on page 2 of current Rules Reference does not apply.

The next argument made is on page 11 under "Focus." It state that "A ship cannot spent a focus token to change eyeball results to evade or hit results, if it does not have any eyeball results." This makes it pretty clear if one is spending a focus token. In the case of Ten Numb, you are spending a stress token.

It would be nice to have an OFFICIAL ruling on this at some point to remove any grey area. Because though these rules reference sections discribe similar situations, they don't describe situations that are the same as this one (Ten Numb spending a stress to change all (zero) eyeball results).

The problem with Ten Numb is that is should have been written as "1 or more" instead of "all." The world "all" is what keeps this card effect so "grey" at the moment.

3 hours ago, Sephlar said:

The problem is that there is STILL a grey area.

Page 2 of the current 2e Rules Reference is in regard to "Paying cost" and the example given is GNK which specifically states 1. So if GNK does not have 1 (but instead has zero) then the effect can not be resolved. Ten Numb does not have a specific number associated with it's effect. So using the "Paying Cost" rule on page 2 of current Rules Reference does not apply.

The next argument made is on page 11 under "Focus." It state that "A ship cannot spent a focus token to change eyeball results to evade or hit results, if it does not have any eyeball results." This makes it pretty clear if one is spending a focus token. In the case of Ten Numb, you are spending a stress token.

It would be nice to have an OFFICIAL ruling on this at some point to remove any grey area. Because though these rules reference sections discribe similar situations, they don't describe situations that are the same as this one (Ten Numb spending a stress to change all (zero) eyeball results).

The problem with Ten Numb is that is should have been written as "1 or more" instead of "all." The world "all" is what keeps this card effect so "grey" at the moment.

Other then not a single thing else in second edition let's you spend something for nothing.....

It's not really grey at all, when would his ability function differently from every other similar example. I think the gonk example clears it up completely. Gonk is just an example of the can't pay nothing rule, it's not the definition of the rule.

"Paying costs

A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved." - page 2 of the rules reference.

That's the rule, gonk is just an example for that rule.

Can we not do this argument again?

It's been done before, nothing has changed, rehashing it for another 4 pages will serve no purpose at all.

3 hours ago, Sephlar said:

The problem is that there is STILL a grey area.

Page 2 of the current 2e Rules Reference is in regard to "Paying cost" and the example given is GNK which specifically states 1. So if GNK does not have 1 (but instead has zero) then the effect can not be resolved. Ten Numb does not have a specific number associated with it's effect. So using the "Paying Cost" rule on page 2 of current Rules Reference does not apply.

The next argument made is on page 11 under "Focus." It state that "A ship cannot spent a focus token to change eyeball results to evade or hit results, if it does not have any eyeball results." This makes it pretty clear if one is spending a focus token. In the case of Ten Numb, you are spending a stress token.

It would be nice to have an OFFICIAL ruling on this at some point to remove any grey area. Because though these rules reference sections discribe similar situations, they don't describe situations that are the same as this one (Ten Numb spending a stress to change all (zero) eyeball results).

The problem with Ten Numb is that is should have been written as "1 or more" instead of "all." The world "all" is what keeps this card effect so "grey" at the moment.

that's funny. you want to claim all includes zero? please take that discussion in that thread.

i will agree that more clarity is always good, but as there are a ton of more examples of rules that are less clear, i can hardly see this as a priority. if you're keen on it, please submit it to FFGs support through here:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/contact/

all does not include zero RAW, but on the other hand, it's not exactly stated clearly anywhere. we can just go on other examples we have.