If it did require a non-zero focus icon result, it would have been worded something like:

If the attacker has rolled at least one focus result, he may return a focus token to physically pick up all [focus] results and rotate them to [hit] results.

(or: If the attacker has rolled at least one focus result, he may return a focus token to change all [focus icon] results on the attack dice to [hit] results.)

My point still stands. You cannot physically pick up a die result that does not exist. If there are no focus die results, there is nothing to physically pick up. Therefore you have not made a change.

This is becoming pointless discussion. Neither one of us is going to change the others mind, so its not worth talking about anymore. We'll let FFG figure it out with the FAQ.

Roy

Erhmagerd a forum bug… the forums don't like it when you are editing your post at the same time that somebody else is posting theirs..

drkjedi35 said:

drkjedi35 said:

Nevertheless, I'm going to give this one more try. See the part of your statement that I underlined. I agree with it. You have not changed any dice when you used a focus token with no focus results. However, nowhere does the "spending a focus token" section require that you actually change anything. It requires that you have a focus token, and that if you do have one and spend it the result is that you change all of your focus rolls to hits. Again, the question isn't "have you made a change?" as the underlined part is referring to. The questions are:

1. Did you have a focus token?

2. Did you "spend" the focus token?

3. Have all focus icons been changed to hit icons?

In the case where there are zero focus icons rolled, then changing all zero of them to hit icon results in nothing actually being changed. We agree to that point. My question is, where does it require that something actually be changed? It only requires that all focus icons change. If all = 0, then it requires that zero dice be changed so it actually requires you to not change anything.

Odd, I had it underlined… the forums made it giant and then double copied your quote. Sorry about that.

The only requirement to spending the focus token is having the focus token.

If a card ability says "all attack rolls are hidden from the attacker", would that prevent you from spending your token? No, it would not. If you spend the token and you find that there were no focus icons rolled, would that allow you to take back the spent token? No, it would also not. As long as you have the focus token you may spend it even if there is no legal target.

As I said earlier, we are not going to agree.

Roy

Roy, I agree. This is clearly an 'agree to disagree' situation. I disagree with you, but I do acknowledge that you make a valid point that is the sole potential wrench in my logic. But I just want to give you one last example of why I think this wrench is ultimately overcome by the logic. Either way, I'll gladly accept whatever the FAQ says when we see it. Example: In a series of True/False statements, you can pick up Nothing, you can change Nothing, Whereas the words infinite and something are undefined and unrestrained unknowns, Nothing is an actual entity, recognized mathematically as 0. I can roll 3 dice: True. The results are (in theory) Crit = 1, Hit = 0, Focus = 1, Blank = 1: True. I can reach my hand out over the table and convert F to H, or 1 to 0 and 0 to 1: True. If the result were C = 1, H = 1, F = 0, B = 1 I could still reach my hand over the table and convert F to H, where H remains 1 and F remains 0. I know you're talking physically, but real numbers represent physical actions whereas unreal and undefined numbers represent concepts and abstractions. And the fact is that I can physically change 0 dice. I can change all available results as defined by the ability (F) whether it be 0, 1, or 2 to an associated and predetermined alternate result (H). I can physically do 0, or Nothing. And in my mind, though possibly not in yours, this fulfills the obligations you highlight. I physically altered every (F) result available to be changed, or all of them, as represented by 0. But I'm done, I'll not make any further arguments. I just wanted to do my best to explain where I'm coming from. Again, I do see what you're saying, and recognize your point, and will gladly accept that I'm wrong if it turns out that way. I simply disagree.

dbmeboy said:

I would argue that you changed none of them so the answer is "no." If no change happened, you didn't change them.

Is your glass half empty or half full? It's all perception at this point.

Budgernaut said:

So which ones didn't you change? Are there still some focus icons sitting around not changed? True, you changed zero dice, but that still represents all of the dice that needed to be changed.

To bring in an example from another game (which may or may not really apply): in Magic: the Gathering there are cards that read "Destroy all creatures." These cards can be cast even when no creatures are on the battlefield and will successfully destroy all zero of them. This has nothing to do with any differences between how Magic defines "destroy" and X-Wing defines "change." In fact, in Magic rules you still have not destroyed anything, though you have destroyed all creatures. However, a card that reads "Destroy target creature," cannot be cast unless there is a creature to target.

Budgernaut said:

Clever response. I have never played with Garven, so I don't know which way to swing on this one. Can't wait for that FAQ.

It is clever, and actually the half full vs half empty is a good example. Of course, the answer to the proverbial glass is that it iis in fact both half full and half empty as those statements represent the same thing. In the same way, you can both change nothing and change all of something when those actions represent the same thing. Thank you for finding such a good illustration for me.

I know I wouldn't allow an opponent to spend a focus token if there were no dice to change. Seems very clear in the rules to me and extremely "gamey" to say you're spending it on nothing.

bullyboy said:

Perhaps I should be more clear on exactly what I do and don't think: I think you must have actually rolled either an attack or defense roll to spend a focus token. However, I do not see anywhere in the rules (very clear or otherwise) that requires any of those dice to come up with a focus icon in order to spend the token… it just doesn't have much of a result without any focus icons to change.

So I do think there need to be dice to change, I just don't think it actually has to result in any of them changing. Subtle, but significant difference.

Quite honestly, I can see the logic in both sides. What we really need is for FFG to provide a definitive answer to the question so we can move on.

By allowing Garven Dreis to move his focus token with even a "zero" roll is a fairly big boost to the ability over the interpretation where he can only move it if he rolls a "focus" during an attack/defense. So, this is a fairly important distinction where the Garven Dreis character is concerned. I'm not trying to quash further discussion, but in asking the initial question I have found in your answers that I was not missing something in the rules. At this point it's just an anomoly until someone with some official ruling power gives us the nod. Further discussion seems futile.

I side with those who say you can spend a focus to change all eyes to hits even when there are 0 eyes showing. Is it a "boost" to Garven's power? It makes a difference, but of course he's also giving up the ability to spend his focus on defense.

As a relevant example, consider the case of the Marksmanship Elite Talent: "Action: when attacking this round, you may change 1 of your [eye] results to a [crit] result and all of your other [eye] results to [hit] results."

So… can you not spend Marksmanship if you only roll one eye result (this directed at those who say focus can only be spent if you roll at least one focus)? You'd change the one showing eye to a crit, and then all remaining eyes (namely, zero) to hits. If you think you have to change at least one die to "change all of your other dice", then by your logic you'd have to roll at least TWO eyes to be able to use Marksmanship (i.e., one eye to positively change to a crit, and one or more others to positively change to a hit). No way.

Following the logic to (what seems to me to be) its inevitable conclusion, that also means you can spend marksmanship (and focus, and target lock) to change zero results. Yes, humans have faulty intuitions when it comes to zero, but the logic and language is clear.

I went ahead and submitted the question to FFG's Rules Questions link. Most likely, I'll just get an email back telling me to wait for the FAQ, but I figured we should make sure this is on their radar.

Not that it will make any difference to anyone, but I showed the involved wording to my wife (not a big gamer, but a speech-language pathologist) without telling her what I thought the answer should be. Her response was something along the lines of: "That is somewhat ambiguous, but I'd probably say he could spend the focus token." At least that's some back-up that normal English can support "all zero," not just gamer talk.

One more thought. If you think Garven can spend a focus token to change 0 [focus] results, you also believe that R5-D8's action can be used to discard a face-down damage card, even if you don't have any face-down damage cards. Would that have any effect on gameplay? I don't know, but your argument would apply to that situation as well.

My bad. I did not understand your example well enough.

Yes you are right. You may use R5 D8's action even if you do not have any face down cards. But you just wasted your action there.

In the same vein, a blinded "Dutch" Vander with R5-K6 may spend his Target Lock token to trigger R5-K6's ability to try to reacquire a target lock token and so be able to allow another pilot to acquire a Target Lock.

Budgernaut said:

Not necessarily, as there is a difference between discarding one of something and discarding all of something. "All" can include zero, "one" cannot. That said, the game is missing any rigorous definition of terms that would prevent you from taking the action even if it would have no effect.

MtG example again: that game specifically defines "target," and cards that require a target cannot be played if there is not a legal target for them (and will be countered by the game rules if the target becomes illegal). So a card that says "destroy target creature" requires a creature to be targeted to even play the card while a hypothetical card that said "choose a creature and destroy that creature" could be played even without a creature to target (because it only targets if it uses the word target… never mind that for other reasons that card would never be printed) and a card that says "destroy all creatures" can be played with 0 creatures. This game doesn't have any such definition of "target" nor does R5-D8's ability use the word in the first place, so it is somewhat unclear.

Basically, what the game needs is a clarification on requirements to use an action vs effects of an action. It does not logically follow that "action actually does something" or "action has a noticeable effect" must be a requirement to use it in the first place.

ArcticSnake said:

I want to make sure I understand this. So you're saying that "Dutch" Vander has already used his action and you're in the combat phase. Perhaps he target locked earlier to give a target lock to one ally, and now he wants to spend his lock, reacquire a lock, and then give that to a different ally. I don't think this is he same situation as Garven because you would still be attacking the opponent you target locked, but you wouldn't roll dice because of the critical effect. There is nothing that says you can't attack and roll zero dice. In fact, it is clearly in the rule book that some modifications may bring the number of dice you roll to a negative number, in which case you roll zero dice.

Focus is different because you spend the focus to change all [focus] results, but if you have zero [focus] results, you have none to change.

Realistically, I think the ruling will be that you can spend the focus token that way, but I don't like it. It becomes too gamey-tactical instead of dogfighting-tactical.

Not necessarily. I'm comparing the wording of both "spending your target lock" and "spending your focus".

Spending your target lock says: "If the attacker has a target lock on the defender, he may return his pair of assigned target lock tokens to the action token supply to choose any number of attack dice…"

Spending your focus says: "If the attacker has a focus token, he may return it to the action token supply to change all results…"

A blinded Dutch does not roll any dice to attack so you have no dice to reroll.

Since you did not roll any dice when attacking with a blinded Dutch, how come "to choose any number" can be zero and will allow you to spend your target locks while "to change all results" cannot be zero so you cannot spend your focus?

But hey, I also think that spending the focus token is not dogfighting-tactical, and I would be happy to accept whichever ruling FFG makes, I'm just trying to better my understanding of the rules.

Another, perhaps more clear-cut, target lock example. Say you've rolled straight critical hits but for some reason wanted to spend your target lock. Could you spend it and choose to reroll zero of your attack dice? I clearly think that you can.