When a ship with 0 agility (VCX-100, Decimator) defends while strained, does it remove 1 strain token after the first "defense" even it had no defense dice to start with?

Yup.

Rule Reference pg 32

Quote

Q: If a ship with agility 0 (such as the VCX-100) is subject to one effect that would cause it to roll 1 fewer defense die and another effect that would cause it to roll 1 additional defense die, does the order in which these effects are applied change how many defense dice it rolls?

A: No. Whichever effect is applied first, it rolls 0 defense dice. If the reduction is applied first, its defense pool becomes “–1 dice” (negative 1 defense dice), then the positive modifier is applied, bringing it back to 0. On the other hand, if the increase is applied first, the decrease subsequently reduces it back to 0.

Note that after modifiers are applied but before dice are rolled, there is a default minimum of 0 dice

Basically, the mod would give them -1 die for the modifiers, then once all modifiers are in place, if its below 0, it sets to 0. So the mod still happens. Range/Obstacle bonus would be taken away by strain.

Haha, actually right below that is the more direct answer.

Quote

Q: If a ship with agility 0 (such as the VCX-100) is strained and defends against an attack at attack range 1 (for which it would normally roll 0 defense die), does it remove the strain token?

A: Yes. Although it cannot be made to roll fewer than 0 defense dice due to the intrinsic minimum, the effect of “roll 1 fewer defense die” is applied (see Attack), and so the strain token is removed.

I'm glad that FAQ entry is there to completely nip any of this in the bud.

The way FFG re-worded the Strain rule to prevent Finn abuse almost sorta kinda leaves open the possibility for Strain to not be removed from a VCX/VT-49. "After a strained ship applies the effect to roll 1 fewer defense die this way, it removes 1 strain token." Since the ship would be rolling 0 dice either way, there's a valid interpretation that it didn't actually roll fewer defense dice.

I sure as **** wasn't going to be the one to argue the case, since I think it'd be a dumb and unfair result, but seeing that has been pre-empted by a really specific FAQ line, I'm not worried about kicking the hornet's nest anymore.

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I'm glad that FAQ entry is there to completely nip any of this in the bud.

The way FFG re-worded the Strain rule to prevent Finn abuse almost sorta kinda leaves open the possibility for Strain to not be removed from a VCX/VT-49. "After a strained ship applies the effect to roll 1 fewer defense die this way, it removes 1 strain token." Since the ship would be rolling 0 dice either way, there's a valid interpretation that it didn't actually roll fewer defense dice.

I sure as **** wasn't going to be the one to argue the case, since I think it'd be a dumb and unfair result, but seeing that has been pre-empted by a really specific FAQ line, I'm not worried about kicking the hornet's nest anymore.

Yup. I was even thinking about that potential loophole myself, and how I would argue that it's not applicable (due to the 0-6 dice caps)... but I'm glad that, this time at least, FFG included the FAQ entry to close that door.

5 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Yup. I was even thinking about that potential loophole myself, and how I would argue that it's not applicable (due to the 0-6 dice caps)... but I'm glad that, this time at least, FFG included the FAQ entry to close that door.

I think Finn was poorly worded. They should not have added "to your roll". Simply saying "add one blank result" would be enough to know that we do that as a modification during that step.

But also, even if you "roll no dice" you still "roll defense dice" as in you go though the step itself.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

But also, even if you "roll no dice" you still "roll defense dice" as in you go though the step itself.

I don't think that's where the potential hangup is, whether or not you roll dice. I think the potential silly thing is for rolling 0 dice to be fewer than... rolling 0 dice. "0 < 0" is a a nonsensical mathematical expression. It's kind of absurd to say that rolling the same number of dice either way is rolling fewer dice.

I mean, I think removing strain is correct for balance and consistency, and it's clearly been FAQ'd to remove any counterargument, but it's entirely a silly and absurd thing.

You didn't physically roll less than 0 dice, but you did apply the effect of the strain token, which is what you need to do to remove it.