The change to this card is absolutely ridiculous. (See picture)
I am going to always choose to lose something I don't have instead of suffering damage.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE CARD THEN?!
No one uses this card, apparently not because of the change. But it makes this card's ability pointless.
There is only one card like it that does this and even then it isn't as bad as compared to other card's abilities, ex. Dengar's double tab (in arc), Wedge's reduce defense by 1, Quickdraw's ability; lose a shield attack again.
Please someone give me a valid reason why this change had to happen.

The change clarified what most TO had already agreed upon.

Now as for being useless, Torani is meat to be equipped with VI and her ability comes into play against opponents who are below her PS rating of 10. Add Jostero nearby and an opponent has a though choice: lose all defensive tokens or take 1 damage and allow Jostero to take a free shot. It's not easy to pull off, but it works.

16 hours ago, choassassin said:

The change to this card is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not a change. It's how the card always worked. A lot of people just misunderstood it.

View it as a ghetto Hotshot Copilot that can effect multiple ships

It's not a change, it's a clarification on what mountains of precedent indicated the card clearly already said. It's a high PS ship, line up multiple shots on a tokened up target and they have to decide between an automatic damage and not having tokens for the next incoming shot. They can't spend them because the base effect of Bullseye disallows that.

On top of that in just a one on one it forces someone to either take damage or lose their focus before returning fire.

The ability is ONLY useful against an opponent with focus/evade tokens. So what? That's also true for Palob, Old Tetroch, Hot Shot Co-Pilot, Wes Jansen etc. The pilot ability is VERY strong, it's just not capable of blasting free unavoidable damage through an entire list for no cost beyond positioning, which frankly would be stupidly broken.

Whether or not the stats and dial make the ship viable is another question, but the ability is solid.

And let's not forget what it will do to some specific pilots and systems. Moldy Crow stacked up 10 focus on it? Is losing all that worth 1 damage? Omega Leader running with Juke and Comm Relay would be nice to make them decide to strip the evade or take damage. I know someone who uses Intensity to give Poe an evade then uses the focus to flip intensity back.. it would end that combo real quick.

It was never meant to be a guaranteed damage on a ship that didn't have a token. It is situational ability that can vary from useless, to game changing depending on who it is used against.

Dude, its an insanely powerful ability at PS8/10 as it is

Its "take automatic damage or lose those precious tokens" not "100% free damage if you know how to play bumperships"

She preys on tokened up targets, theres several abilities that do this but they usually revolve around stealing/removing the tokens outright instead of giving an option to keep them at the cost of a pound of flesh.

Can you imagine lining her up on a token-stacker that only has 3-5hp to begin with? Whether they take damage or lose the tokens they just got hit really hard. Giving her the ability to just nuke people automatically would be way over the top.

Also, note that this is taken from the clarification portion of the FAQ, NOT the errata/nerf section. This is just clarifying how the card has always been intended to work, not changing it at all.

I don't understand why people are upset at this clarification that didn't need clarification. Either people do not understand how to read, do not have logic, or both. I loved playing with "Torani"

Those that are upset of this "clarification" must not know how to effectively fly it and/or do not know how to play Xwing...

12 hours ago, nj1978 said:

I don't understand why people are upset at this clarification that didn't need clarification. Either people do not understand how to read, do not have logic, or both. I loved playing with "Torani"

Those that are upset of this "clarification" must not know how to effectively fly it and/or do not know how to play Xwing...

That's a little harsh.

FFG opened up this can of "zero is a valid number" worms with a previous ruling. For a lot of us this is neither intuitive or obvious.

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

That's a little harsh.

FFG opened up this can of "zero is a valid number" worms with a previous ruling. For a lot of us this is neither intuitive or obvious.

Well most other board or card game I played as always used 0 as a valid choice for "all". In MTG, discard your hand as a cost can be fulfilled even if you have no card in hand. And if you have a choice to discard your hand or take some dmg you can always discard an empty hand. When you need at least some, it always say discard at least X or do this thing. Exactly like X-Wing, when you look at C3P0

15 hours ago, nj1978 said:

I don't understand why people are upset at this clarification that didn't need clarification. Either people do not understand how to read, do not have logic, or both. I loved playing with "Torani"

Those that are upset of this "clarification" must not know how to effectively fly it and/or do not know how to play Xwing...

I'll also add: nothing is lost in issuing a clarification that, while in accordance with what most rules experts and TOs agreed, lots of people still had questions about it. You might even say, "How does Torani Kulda work?" was a... frequently asked question .

I think people got hung up on how this ship's ability is moot against ships that do not have focus tokens, but it can be money against ones that do have some tokens. It makes your opponent think twice about using focus or evade actions.

I see this as a counter to upgrades like Advanced Optics, Comm Relay and R5-P9, and even pilot who fly with Juke... etc. Could even been a Poe counter as well. Tons of opportunities., esp at PS10.

2 hours ago, muribundi said:

Well most other board or card game I played as always used 0 as a valid choice for "all". In MTG, discard your hand as a cost can be fulfilled even if you have no card in hand. And if you have a choice to discard your hand or take some dmg you can always discard an empty hand. When you need at least some, it always say discard at least X or do this thing. Exactly like X-Wing, when you look at C3P0

Hmm... I've never run into this situation in the games I've played. Never played Magic so I can't speak to that interaction. I do think that FFG has opened a door that should've remained closed. A Pandora' s Box if you will. There's going to be confusion between Zero and None (Null Set) with some of these interactions. Given their track record on card wording it's only going to get worse.

Edit. Look at the argument for "Flipping without Reloading" as an example.

Okay. Thanks for all the replies. I think I was rather just worked up that you can choose zero as an option, but it makes sense. Just in my area, everyone runs aces which would spend their tokens before Torani had the opportunity to attack and thus I feel makes her more or less useless unless in bullseye, which seems that not many people pay attention to enough.

54 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Hmm... I've never run into this situation in the games I've played. Never played Magic so I can't speak to that interaction. I do think that FFG has opened a door that should've remained closed. A Pandora' s Box if you will. There's going to be confusion between Zero and None (Null Set) with some of these interactions. Given their track record on card wording it's only going to get worse.

Edit. Look at the argument for "Flipping without Reloading" as an example.

I agree. This "zero is a valid quantity" isn't entirely logical to lots of players. That being said, FFG did make the ruling quite some time ago, so it's really nothing new.

In the case of Torani Kulda, my initial reading was if you had no tokens, then you'd suffer damage. But then I remembered that zero is still a valid number in X-wing, and it seemed to be a rather pointless ability. But if you somehow manage to pull a maneuver that lines up more than one ship in your bullseye arc, the payout can really be very good, because it works against multiple ships at the same time. And that's the balance.

7 hours ago, Parravon said:

I agree. This "zero is a valid quantity" isn't entirely logical to lots of players. That being said, FFG did make the ruling quite some time ago, so it's really nothing new.

In the case of Torani Kulda, my initial reading was if you had no tokens, then you'd suffer damage. But then I remembered that zero is still a valid number in X-wing, and it seemed to be a rather pointless ability. But if you somehow manage to pull a maneuver that lines up more than one ship in your bullseye arc, the payout can really be very good, because it works against multiple ships at the same time. And that's the balance.

I realise that zero as a valid number has been around for awhile. I still think FFG inked the cat with that ruling and it will eventually bite them in the keister.

I guess I'm just too old for some of this. What about another thread, I think it's "Flipping without Reload"? I think the wording is you can flip any number of equipped, discarded ordnance and receive a weapons disabled token. This was done to give Vynder an extra green die. Does the "zero is a valid number" argument still apply here? I say no simply because none of the ordnance was discarded to begin with.

What makes me crazy is the lack of boiler plating for the wording on upgrades and abilities. If it was consistent, then exceptions would be easier to pick up on. The way it is you begin to parse every card for non-standard interactions. Even then, when the upgrade can't be construed in any way but as written, they change it. Lightning Reflexes for example.

To paraphrase a really old Peanuts (cartoon) poster: "I love the game! It's the cards I can't stand".

Yeah, the issue is consistency. I get the clarification here and figured it was coming as the precedent was already set. But the issue then begins with keeping everything consistent. Why can't I flip 0 card face up with a Reload action (despite that my ordinance cards are already face up) if I can spend tokens on 0 dice (Keyan's ability to spend a stress on 0 focus results), or discard 0 tokens to avoid damage. It is consistent that I can. So then (other than a failure to see the complication of the 0 sum mechanic) can I not receive an Ion token to recovery 0 shields (because my shields are already full - absolutely no different than flipping up 0 cards in practice).

Now that being said their is a wording difference in my example, that being Reload says choose ANY number (0 being an option given the 0 sum mechanic) where as Pulsed Ray Shield states that you may recover 1 shield (up to your shield value). The argument however remains (in a 0 sum world) that "up to your shield value" is not stating that I must recover 1 shield for this to be a valid condition. Because of the wording on May (which I know is intended to provide the option of the trigger as opposed to Must, however its positioning in the syntax could be read as: I may or may not recover 1 shield (up to your shield value). So in this 0 sum world, I choose to recover 0 shields up to my shield value, still receive the ion token, blah blah blah.

Again I know the ruling in place on the shield recovery (provided in the FAQ on page 20) states that I can not pay the cost unless I have a shield to recover... this however is the type of patch work bandage that gets applied when there is a lack of consistency (which is what #Stoneface is trying to point out).

That same thing (not to diverge from the OP too much more) is present in the ruling on Lightening Reflexes (FAQp19). There is a precedent set already that the owner of multiple effect that trigger at the same chooses the order of resolution....except here. Now this one exception forces an order of resolution (at least in regard to interaction with Advanced Slam, and by derivative every other card that could trigger after executing a maneuver). It would seem now a change should be made to Kanan Jarrus's clarifications, as the LR/Slam interaction has set a precedent, but it too will (as it was not changed in the same FAQ) likely remain another spot exception bandage.

The card is 100% clear without the FAQ - the ability gives you a CHOICE that is all that matters

Choice A and B come with no restriction. You don't get "choose 0" as a choice - the "choose 0" argument, while true in the result, isn't what its about.

All you are given is a choice, choose which one you want to happen. If you have no tokens then the "remove all focus and evades" is still valid because there is nothing preventing that choice.

if you understand English, it undermines the entire card.

"Must" is an absolute " you must chose" either or damage or tokens.

Now if you have no tokens, you can not chose to remove them..

A ship in a bulls eye arch that has a token, yet chooses to not remove it takes one damage. pretty simple to understand.

Same ship with out a token, chooses to remove a token it doesn't have, and then takes no damage.

Simply put, you can not choose to remove what isn't there.

now FFG can make what ever changes they like it's their game. but they really need to do a better job at admitting their **** ups, and this was a major one.

4 hours ago, Anatak12 said:

if you understand English, it undermines the entire card.

"Must" is an absolute " you must chose" either or damage or tokens.

Now if you have no tokens, you can not chose to remove them..

2

Clearly you don't understand English that well, then.

At no point does it require that you have tokens to remove. To say that it does is adding things the card does not say – in this case your third line, which is fallacious.

7 hours ago, Anatak12 said:

if you understand English, it undermines the entire card.

"Must" is an absolute " you must chose" either or damage or tokens.

Now if you have no tokens, you can not chose to remove them..

A ship in a bulls eye arch that has a token, yet chooses to not remove it takes one damage. pretty simple to understand.

Same ship with out a token, chooses to remove a token it doesn't have, and then takes no damage.

Simply put, you can not choose to remove what isn't there.

now FFG can make what ever changes they like it's their game. but they really need to do a better job at admitting their **** ups, and this was a major one.

Its not at all a major one and I'm sorry but your understanding of English is incredibly flawed here.

The card reads must choose

The must refers to choose, it does not refer to removing tokens, it does not refer to taking damage.

You are given a CHOICE, you take a CHOICE. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing on the card restricts either choice but you MUST choose one effect.

11 hours ago, Anatak12 said:

Now if you have no tokens, you can not chose to remove them..

The problem is just because one of the choice is positive and the other negative people can't accept that you could choose the useless positive choice.

Change it this way in your so good understanding of english:

"You must choose all the apples or all the oranges to eat. I will eat the other."

Would you accept that someone choose to eat all the apple if there was no apple to eat. Yes you would, it would be stupid of them, but you would accept this choice.

Now if you word it like this :

"You must choose all the apples or all the oranges. I will eat the choice."

NOW you would not be happy that they choose the apple, but the choice is still valid.

The fact that it is a bad choice for you does not make it an invalid choice...

Edit: I'm fed up of people saying 0 is never a valid choice in real life. YES it is a valid choice, the fact that it may no be good for you does not make it something that is "impossible". This is a mathematically and logically valid choice...

3 hours ago, Kalandros said:

Its not at all a major one and I'm sorry but your understanding of English is incredibly flawed here.

The card reads must choose

The must refers to choose, it does not refer to removing tokens, it does not refer to taking damage.

You are given a CHOICE, you take a CHOICE. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing on the card restricts either choice but you MUST choose one effect.

You're missing Anatak12' s point. Logically, if you have no tokens, that option doesn't exist. It's not "Zero" but a "Null".

Proper English was not violated to have Torani's ability work the way it does.

Ship in the bullseye arc is explicitly given a choice. There is no mention whatsoever about conditions other than theyre in the arc and Torani just attacked someone.

"Suffer 1 damage" or "Discard all focus/evade tokens" are the choices. There is NOTHING stipulating that you must have a token in the first place. if it was worded "..or if there are focus/evade tokens present, remove all focus/evade tokens" then it would be requiring there to be tokens in the first place.

The only bad English is your understanding of it. If you try to add that you somehow require a token to begin with, in a game where we have multiple instances where 0 is a valid number, then you're just as bad as those English teachers that try to say "The author made the couch red to signify his rage" no Sharon it means the ******* couch was red....