Say a ship in Torani's bullseye arc has no focus tokens or evade tokens. Can I choose to still discard all of them (zero) instead of taking a damage?

I'm guessing yes.

Currently, we have rules that allow you to spend tokens and abilities even if the result is zero and in other FFG games (thinking Destiny) you can choose to lose "all" of x even if you have zero x.

I was just wondering this as well. There is precedent for discarding 0, so it is possible.

We might need an FAQ for this...

Needs FAQ to be sure.

Yes. I assume the intent is that it only hurts you if you want to keep your tokens. otherwise it's a pretty bonkers ability.

1 hour ago, Ridge363 said:

I was just wondering this as well. There is president for discarding 0, so it is possible.

We might need an FAQ for this...

Specifically Garven Dreis and Keyan Farlander (and maybe others) that allow you to spend a token to change focus results. You are allowed to spend the focus (Garven) or stress (Keyan) even if there are zero focus results.

1 hour ago, AlexW said:

Specifically Garven Dreis and Keyan Farlander (and maybe others) that allow you to spend a token to change focus results. You are allowed to spend the focus (Garven) or stress (Keyan) even if there are zero focus results.

But those involve spending a token (which you have) to modify nothing. The question at hand is, when instructed to "remove all of its focus and evade tokens" to prevent the damage... can you remove a token you do not have?

I would say no, as you are not able to fulfill the requirements.

23 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

But those involve spending a token (which you have) to modify nothing. The question at hand is, when instructed to "remove all of its focus and evade tokens" to prevent the damage... can you remove a token you do not have?

I can't discard a focus token, or two focus tokens if I don't have any, but I should be able to discard all of my focus tokens since all of them includes the possibility of zero.

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Yes. I assume the intent is that it only hurts you if you want to keep your tokens. otherwise it's a pretty bonkers ability.

Best argument so far.

If zero tokens isn't an option then a ship that bumps, overlaps an obstacle, is stressed (and not Tycho), chooses to reposition, or chooses another action in general is punished with automatic damage which, frankly, we have enough things that cause automatic damage in the game (bombs, feedback array, hit results with the autoblaster weapons, and Darth Vader crew). We don't need a pilot that can fly around handing out damage just for having shot.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

But those involve spending a token (which you have) to modify nothing. The question at hand is, when instructed to "remove all of its focus and evade tokens" to prevent the damage... can you remove a token you do not have?

I absolutely understand the logic here (though I have a counter point below) but first I'll again point out that Destiny allows you to remove something you have zero of when given the choice. That doesn't mean it will be consistent but it is, at least, relevant.

I'll also add a counter point, too, which is that the important relevant part of Farlander's wording isn't "spend" but "all." Here's the last part of his card: ..."to change all of your focus results to hit results."

All can mean zero in this case.

28 minutes ago, ZealuxMyr said:

Best argument so far.

If zero tokens isn't an option then a ship that bumps, overlaps an obstacle, is stressed (and not Tycho), chooses to reposition, or chooses another action in general is punished with automatic damage which, frankly, we have enough things that cause automatic damage in the game (bombs, feedback array, hit results with the autoblaster weapons, and Darth Vader crew). We don't need a pilot that can fly around handing out damage just for having shot.

I'd actually prefer that to bombs:), but I know what you mean. That said, and I like the original post, I don't think interpreting intent or power level is really a valid way to defend a ruling.

I'm going with yes. If it specified any quantity of tokens the answer would be no but all of them? None is all.

2 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I can't discard a focus token, or two focus tokens if I don't have any, but I should be able to discard all of my focus tokens since all of them includes the possibility of zero.

This is the correct line I think.

7 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I'm going with yes. If it specified any quantity of tokens the answer would be no but all of them? None is all.

7 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

This is the correct line I think.

The debate encapsulated.

Truthfully I think that FFG opened up an unintentional can of worms with the spending of focus tokens to change zero focus results. As the game progresses discussions like this will happen more often.

10 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Truthfully I think that FFG opened up an unintentional can of worms with the spending of focus tokens to change zero focus results. As the game progresses discussions like this will happen more often.

Only if we're going to concede that logic plays no part in anything at all.

Spending a token to modify no dice, is not in any way the same as spending no tokens to generate an effect. If someone thinks those are the same things, I'm not sure how anyone can actually help them.

13 minutes ago, Slugrage said:

Only if we're going to concede that logic plays no part in anything at all.

Spending a token to modify no dice, is not in any way the same as spending no tokens to generate an effect. If someone thinks those are the same things, I'm not sure how anyone can actually help them.

The problem I'm having with the game, which I still think is great, is the sometimes bizarre but legitimate routines that are used to trigger an effect. Making an attack then deliberately missing to trigger an effect then getting the ordnance back with failsafe as an example.

When I started playing this game almost three years ago, there was the occasional comment about 'rules lawyers' and how they affected the game. The game is approaching a point where it's necessary to be both a rules lawyer and a logician. A rules lawyer to come up with these bizarre combos and a logician to explain them to your opponent.

Players complained about turrets, Biggs and other parts of the game as being NPE. I think some of these odd rulings, strange interactions and "doing something that does nothing to trigger something else" is going to provide more of an NPE in the future. In some ways it reminds me of what happened to the slot car craze.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, @Stoneface.

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

The game is approaching a point where it's necessary to be both a rules lawyer and a logician. A rules lawyer to come up with these bizarre combos and a logician to explain them to your opponent.

Meh, if they used consistent templating and clearly defined rules they'd solve 90% ot their problems.

10 hours ago, Slugrage said:

Only if we're going to concede that logic plays no part in anything at all.

Spending a token to modify no dice, is not in any way the same as spending no tokens to generate an effect. If someone thinks those are the same things, I'm not sure how anyone can actually help them.

Did someone argue A=B here?

Until this is directly addressed, you will have to come to a consensus in your play group as to how you want to resolve this, but reading the ability, IMHO if the ability requires that you (the target) perform A to avoid B, it doesn't matter why you can't perform A, all that matters is that you can't do it, so B will apply to your ship.

That means that this ability is most powerful when it will be used to force your opponents to take actions that they wouldn't have taken in order to defend against the automatic damage. In other words, your opponent is forced to take an evade or focus action, knowing that you are going to strip that token, rather than target lock, boost, etc., if they want to avoid damage. Even better if you pair this ability with a wingman who can strip those tokens before this ability triggers and still have the damage applied to your opponent.

My reasoning for this interpretation of the ability as written is that in math, ALL is defined "the complete set or group". A set or group is "a number of real objects that can be operated upon by mathematical functions." While most mathematical operations can be performed on zero, zero is not considered a real number, and therefore cannot be part of "ALL." Additionally, if you may simply void the ability by stating that you are discarding your zero tokens, what is the point of the ability to begin with? I can throw away imaginary things all day long. lol

Again, all of this is my opinion, so take that for what it's worth.

Fly casual.

This came up at our local store the other day (our TO plays almost exclusively scum) and the 4 or 5 players there came to the conclusion that you could discard 0 tokens to take no damage. It was viewed not as a token stripping effect but rather as a price you pay to keep your tokens, i.e. you are not paying tokens to reduce damage but rather taking extra damage to keep your tokens.

My main problem with that logic is that, under that assumption, my pilot ability is completely controlled by my opponent. As I understand it, resolving my abilities is my responsibility and privilege. If you don't want to accept the damage, you have to do something to avoid it. If you don't give your ship tokens to discard, you're going to take the damage. Might be OP, but that would hardly be a first. But is it OP?

the pilot cost is 27, stripped. This ability only works in the bullseye arc, which is essentially the range ruler in the front guides of the movement base. I have to line you up directly in front of my ship to trigger this ability. So by your interpretation, the points I spent and the skill I exhibited are void because you have the option to discard something you don't have? I will simply stop at saying I don't agree.

Fly casual.

That was just the ruling we determined at the gaming store I play at, not anything official or to be used as precedence at a national tournament. Also, I don't think it's fair to consider it's power as part of what it's ruling should be. It's not a question of is it too strong or too weak, merely what is the simplest and best accepted reading of the text.

By either interpretation, it is definitely controlled by your opponent in that they are the ones choosing. You give them a choice they have to make, damage or tokens, but ultimately it is completely out of your hands as its pilot, and you're going to have to come to terms with that. The cost of the ship is also irrelevant, it's just an ability you have that will trigger under X conditions. Likewise, the reward of your flying and skill is the bullseye arc, which denies all enemies in that line the use of their tokens. The pilot ability makes that arc more punishing certainly, as the effect hits all enemy ships, not just the one you shot at, but you have already earned a reward for your performance. But, that doesn't mean this is the end all answer. Find your TO, ask and come to an agreement. Once you've seen the arguments for and against, refine your position and you very well might have it your way.

The only real similarity that I know of is the end phase where ships must remove all focus and evade tokens. If a ship doesn't have one, the game is not stalled in some sort of limbo. You removed all that you had, and in some cases that will be 0.

So far, as I read it, there is nothing in the wording of the card that makes it mandatory to have a focus or evade token to chose the 2nd option.