Interrupt: When a focus token would be placed on a Character or Creature unit you control, damage that unit instead.

I was only thinking of this card's use for when your opponent is going to place a focus token on your unit. Is this also capable of being used anytime you would put a focus token on a unit yourself. For example, if I'm going to focus my Krayt Dragon to strike can I use Spice Visions to put damage on it instead of putting a focus token, thus being able to get a second strike out of him in the same engagement?

correct, it can also be used to say unfocus a resource chud such as bib fortuna after focusing him for a resource.

Wouldn't that be canceling paying the cost of producing the resource, and thus the unit wouldn't produce the resource?

I think the undead PM has you there, Boba

I think the undead PM has you there, Boba

the same goes for bib fortuna. spice visions doesn't interrupt the resource being spent, just as it didn't interrupt jabbas initial strike in the above example, it just changes the focus it cost to use the resource into a damage instead. had he been double focused or triple focused then of course spice visions doesn't help.

while I could be wrong on this, I'm pretty sure I'm not. matter fact, I'm positive I read a discussion on cardgame DB where someone was saying they didn't feel it was a worthwhile use of spice visions to unfocus bib for that reason.

Boba, you got it. Since Spice Visions is an interrupt, it simply interrupts normal game proceedings. You focus Bib to pay one resource and interrupt the focus hitting the card and turn it into a damage. The resource has been paid, Spice Visions made it change slightly.

Plus on Bib, it reduces the amount of focus tokens, therefore lengthening the time before you have to sacrifice him as per his text.

i don't know if i would waste spice visions on saving bib if he was already focused say 2 or even 3 times, but when i might do it is if say i need 1 extra resource to get out multiple things on a crucial turn, i might use him for a single resource along with all my other resources then unfocus him with spice visions and then you'd be able to use his 3 resources again to get more stuff out.

But isn't putting the focus token on Bib the cost of producing the resource? if you use an interrupt to negate something that's a cost, you don't get the effect.

I don't think it should stop it, but by the rules I think it might.

I think the undead PM has you there, Boba

No, I don't believe so. spice visions is saying rather than put a focus on something you damage it. Just like when you focus jabba to strike, then spice visions him and strike again. the interrupt didn't stop the initial strike from happening, just changed the "cost" to strike from a focus to a damage.

the same goes for bib fortuna. spice visions doesn't interrupt the resource being spent, just as it didn't interrupt jabbas initial strike in the above example, it just changes the focus it cost to use the resource into a damage instead. had he been double focused or triple focused then of course spice visions doesn't help.

while I could be wrong on this, I'm pretty sure I'm not. matter fact, I'm positive I read a discussion on cardgame DB where someone was saying they didn't feel it was a worthwhile use of spice visions to unfocus bib for that reason.

Just like putting a focus token on an attacking unit is the "cost" to strike. spice visions changes that to a damage rather than a focus. honestly, the card is very clear in what it does. " when a focus token would be placed on a character or creature unit, damage that unit instead" it gives no restrictions on when, and what circumstances it can be used, and simply says "when". so "when" a focus token is placed on a character or creature unit you control, for any reason, you get to damage that unit instead. it doesn't interrupt what it was doing our did, only the act of placing the focus token on it. that can be via a strike, via an opponent's tactics icon, via resource regen, via an event, via a unit ability, etc.

not really sure what else to tell you. the card does exactly what it says.

You're not negating paying the cost. You are just changing how paying the cost resolves.

Rule book says that if you negate the effects of paying the cost, the effect doesn't happen.

How is this different from if the cost is taking 1 damage, using "It could be worse" to prevent the damage.

Saej, is there any rules support for "changing how paying the cost resolves" getting around the fact that the cost isn't paid when the action resolves?

Focusing is not a "cost" of producing resources in game terms though. Nor is it a "cost" of striking.

In game terms, the "cost" of an effect is

1) The resource cost indicated on the card

2) X in this or similar statements: "Do [X] to do [Y]"

Rule book says that if you negate the effects of paying the cost, the effect doesn't happen.

I thought I'd saw something like this, but now I can't find it. Page or quote would be helpful, if you have it..