Torani: Can I choose to discard focus and evade tokens even if I don't have any?

[muribundi 406]

I will trust this forum over any other forum for rule reference...

Rarely did the consensus end up wrong here.

There is also many back up reference in this game and many other game that All could mean Zero

There is also the problem that no one address that there is an and. "remove all of its focus and evade tokens" So according to your definition of at least having one, then you need at least one focus and one evade token, if you can't satisfy the condition then you take 1 dmg

 

[missedtrashday 7]

1 hour ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

A ship shot by Wes Janson has no tokens, does the game end in a draw?

No, because the card says may which means that it is not required to happen every time.

Fly casual.

[FourDogsInaHorseSuit 1,486]

Just now, missedtrashday said:

No, because the card says may which means that it is not required to happen every time.

Fly casual.

And I chose to do so, but you can't and then the game gets sucked into a black hole and everyone dies.

[sharrrp 444]

There are also plenty of other examples I could have given for "All" being zero but I didn't bring them up because they did nothing and that doesn't make a compelling scenario. Old Tetroch for instance, there's no reason to think you couldn't use his ability against a ship that doesn't actually have tokens, but it isn't capable of changing the game state so even if you weren't allowed it wouldn't change anything.

Yes, this card is unique in exactly how "all" is used so there isn't a PERFECT precedent but every single precedent we have points to being able to "remove all 0 tokens". It says REMOVE not SPEND and in X-Wing that is a night and day difference.

The ability makes your opponent make a choice: 1. Discard all tokens. Or 2. Suffer one damage. There is no cost to pay, just a decision to make. There is nothing in the rules to indicate the game should check for tokens before the choice is made.

If there's a debate (and clearly there is) then I guess we need a Frank mail and/or FAQ entry, but in the meantime frankly I see absolutely no RAW or even RAI argument for the damage being unavoidable.

[missedtrashday 7]

2 hours ago, muribundi said:

There is also the problem that no one address that there is an and. "remove all of its focus and evade tokens" So according to your definition of at least having one, then you need at least one focus and one evade token, if you can't satisfy the condition then you take 1 dmg

If anything I posted misled you to believe I thought that was how it worked, I am sorry.  I am pretty sure that most of us agree that the ability's wording means that it doesn't matter if you have focus tokens, evade tokens, or any combination of them, all tokens you hold are affected (as well as possibly no tokens).

@AlexW post of Sunny Bounder is certainly compelling.  Thanks for the redirect.  I am intrigued by the interaction of the HLC, Sunny's ability, and the use of the TL to do nothing more than re-label the dice from rolled to rerolled.

2 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

And I chose to do so, but you can't and then the game gets sucked into a black hole and everyone dies.

I'm assuming this is humor and you don't really think I'm that stupid.

2 hours ago, sharrrp said:

There are also plenty of other examples I could have given for "All" being zero but I didn't bring them up because they did nothing and that doesn't make a compelling scenario. Old Tetroch for instance, there's no reason to think you couldn't use his ability against a ship that doesn't actually have tokens, but it isn't capable of changing the game state so even if you weren't allowed it wouldn't change anything.

I think that this is going down the wrong rabbit hole.  There are plenty of places that you could trigger effects where they would have no real outcome.  Your post with the rule from focus was a perfect example.  You can spend a focus token even though there are no focus results showing on the dice.  My response was intended to point out that triggering an effect or spending a token when its original intended effect will not be applicable in order to activate a secondary effect is not the same thing as "all being zero".

So far as I can tell, the closest thing we have is the FAQ clarification for Sunny Bounder (Thanks again @AlexW).

Fly Casual.

[muribundi 406]

You missled because at the start of your argument you brought mathematics in it and said that in math, 0 is not a valide number so you can't choose an empty group. And in mathematics, to have an "and" be true, the two sides must be true.

If you want to choose the option, according to your logic, the two side of the "and" must be true. So you can't go 1 focus and 0 evade, yet according to your mathematics logic.

So you can't use "game logic agreement" for some of it and mathematics for the other as you see fit to try to prove your point...

If we go with game logic only, then sorry, all the previous game I played all accepted empty choice. In Magic: The Gathering, if you are offered to take X damage or discard your hand, if your hand is empty, discarding it is a valid choice. We also have many precedent in X-Wing that show that empty group is a valid concept. Destiny also have the same concept. When offered a choice, as long as you can complete it, your choice is valide. And we already know that for having none still satisfy the all requirement. 

[missedtrashday 7]

Sorry about that,

You are correct about game rules being unique, and that other rulesets aren't always applicable.

And to clarify, in math zero is a number (it can be plotted on a graph or number line), but it is not classified as a real number because it is actually the concept of the absence of anything.  Semantics, I know, and now I realize that it isn't applicable here.

I do math for a living and sometimes it bleeds into real life accidentally.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

Fly casual.

Edited November 9, 2017 by missedtrashday

[AlexW 2,902]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:54 PM, missedtrashday said:

.

If the ability is meant to be only a token stripping ability, for my play style, this will be just another card in my box of stuff I never fly because it's just too expensive to make that much of an impact in my lists.  Hopefully it will benefit someone.

It’s not just a token stripping ability, though.  The choice is there to, I think, provide some balance,   Realize that removing focus and evade tokens is only ever useful if Torani has a buddy that is assisting in the attack because the bullseye effectively negates that already (and I’d argue is the equivalent of a strong pilot ability by itself).   So Torani's ability means that when another ship has me in arc, I probably accept the damage over the token loss.  

[missedtrashday 7]

Very true, and with the enforcer title you might not shoot at it even if it is the proverbial sitting duck because that also makes the tokens unavailable.

I think I really want to see the dial now to evaluate how hard getting someone in bullseye is really going to be.  The ship has 8 total hit points, but with if someone gets in behind and you can't shake them, even 8 pts won't last long.  I might have to dust off the old tortoise and hare formation techniques if the dial is as bad as I'm predicting.

That too is a guess based on Scum's something good, something bad design.  I don't know anything but I'm expecting a dial somewhere between a Lamda and a Y-wing.  I think the only parts of the dials that have been revealed are that the 1 and 2 turns are red in the promo description and the 4 K is red in the picture (judge promo information accordingly).  That's a lot of red already, and I would guess that there aren't going to be more than 4 greens at best to clear it.  Could be brutal in a fun and challenging sort of way.

Fly casual.

[theBitterFig 11,598]

My Kimo dial guess: a mostly Defender with a red K, but greens a bit more like a Shadowcaster.  Red 1 and 2 hards are spoiled, probably white hard 3.  All the banks, with only 3-speed being green.  Top speed 4, but no speed 1, with greens in at least 2 and 3.  This way, Unhinged would only add the green hards (the same way R2 only adds green 2 hards on an ARC).

//

To stay more on topic, I personally come down in the "you can discard all tokens if you have none" camp.  As to removing tokens only being useful if you have a buddy, that's how Wes Jansen works, and his pilot ability seems costed a point higher than Wedge's.  I think if Torani was intended to do damage if there are no tokens to remove, they'd have phrased it like "... may discard all tokens.  If no tokens are removed from a ship, it suffers 1 damage." As written, there is sufficient evidence based on past rulings that "discarding none" is a valid choice.

[missedtrashday 7]

3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

My Kimo dial guess: a mostly Defender with a red K, but greens a bit more like a Shadowcaster.  Red 1 and 2 hards are spoiled, probably white hard 3.  All the banks, with only 3-speed being green.  Top speed 4, but no speed 1, with greens in at least 2 and 3.  This way, Unhinged would only add the green hards (the same way R2 only adds green 2 hards on an ARC).

I was also thinking defender.  As a pure guess though, I see a 1 straight instead of a 5 straight.  This feels like a ship that wants to advance slowly (if any of this guesswork pans out).

And on topic, without any further clarification, and with SB being the only precedent that's even close to the same situation, I have to agree.  I still say it feels a little funny to make that kind of leap when it affects my opponent instead of just my squad, but there are times when this game just works that way.

Fly casual.

[Androniq 2]

When they mean 'one or more', they write 'one or more' (as in case of C-3PO).