Rogue30 said:

I agree that the plot state rule change makes things more intuitive. And, yep, Host of the Bear says "Thanks!" to this rule change and the newest Agenda.

So, any chance someone at FFG who knows Java can update FFG's tournament software to handle the new, four result scoring system? I *think* that in its current state you can manually override score values so it can still be used with the four results system, but it would be a lot easier if the software went from understanding "W, D, L" (or does it use "T" for draws? don't remember off the top of my head) to understanding "W, M, D, L".

Rogue30 said:

Again, unless rulings were changed, not having a valid Initiative value to check did not result in discard.

Maester_LUke said:

What does this even mean? How can you not have a valid initiative value? I really am not sure how you are reasoning out what seems to be "if you don't have a revealed plot card, you cannot calculate total initiative - and if you cannot calculate total initiative, you don't have to discard the Host."

I could go through the logic for why the Host was continually discarded at the end of the round (unless you had at least +3 in initiative bonuses), but it's moot now with FAQ 1.6. But in the end, Luke, were you allowing people to Host of the Bear during setup? It shouldn't be, but your reasoning for why the card wouldn't be discarded at the end of the round would also apply to why it wouldn't be discarded before the first plot of the game is revealed, right?

ktom said:

Eh I'll throw him some support. I can see how, the setup Host of the Bear, this argument could be made. Unless I missed it in the rules, there isn't a declaration of what you initiative value is during setup. (I'm sure this is the point where someone points it out to me) You are making the assumption that the value is zero (granted it is a reasonable one). You could make a assumption that the initiative value is null, which would not be a numerical value so your initiative couldn't be lower that 2 since it doesn't have any value, or you could assume that the value is infinity, now a value but something way more than 2.

Let me restate, I'm with the group that believes initiative is at zero prior to first plot, but I don' t know why I assume that. (Again, waiting for someone to cite the rules to me and show me why I'm wrong....it's okay, I'm used to it)

ktom said:

Clearly a case of me conflating what I thought as an exception to the null = 0 logic. <steps back out of warpath>

Well sometimes null is actually no value (conceding that sometimes it has a value of zero) and I used that term to designate the concept of no value being different than zero. Maybe well call it value elephant. Okay know I'm really just procrastinating at work........

goshdarnstud said:

Not in the rules. On the card. Since Host of the Bear calls for a (continuous) comparison to total initiative, it creates the need for a calculation of the total initiative at all times that its text is active. We know from the Core Rule book that your total initiative is calculated by adding the initiative on your revealed plot card to any initiative modifier that you control. So the card creates the need and the rules provide the method.

The FAQ also gets into it by describing that when a card required you to know the value of a given cost and that given cost does not exist, the value is treated as 0. For example, if a card references the printed cost of an attachment and you want to look at "Risen from the Sea" when it is attached to a character, you treat the printed cost as 0 since there isn't a printed cost on the event-card-turned-attachment.

Granted, the FAQ only refers to costs when it outlines this "if you need to know the value of something, nil = 0" but it is a pretty solid precedent for everything else, including "initiative value of your revealed plot card."

Maester_LUke said:

Sorry, didn't mean to create a warpath. Just trying to figure out why you thought this was an exception to the "null=0" logic.

ktom said:

Other than it's Luke? lol.

Husemann said:

~ Ah, yes. The "if I can convince both of us it's true, then it's legal" ruling method.

ktom said:

And now I think you answered your original question of why he though there was an exception, because for while I love this game, THAT IS WAY TO LONG OF A FLIPPING ANSWER TO THE AVAILABILITY OF A CARD FOR SETUP!!!!!!! It's just too **** complicated to have to expect people to create that long of a thought train on a card. It would have been much simpler and user friendly to put one extra line on the card. "Host of the Bear not allowed during setup"

That's over-stating things, I think.

The thought train is really just: "Fact #1; I don't have a plot card until I reveal my first one. Fact #2; without a plot card to add into it, total initiative is going to be pretty low. Therefore, Conclusion #1; Placing Host of the Bear during Setup is a waste of gold so I'm not going to do it."

All the rest of that long explanation is like doing proofs in geometry. You're citing the rules and theorems, but it doesn't make the conclusion any more or less true.

ktom said:

I really wish I had a Facebook like button here.

Kennon said:

Shoot, how do you think I beat the newbies? REally they are my only wins......it's quite sad.

LetsGoRed said:

You have my email send me the Java I'll see if its a quick fix or not.

Oh wait... I see I fail the @FFG requirment ... doh!

ktom said:

Probably from the time before we extended that logic to apply to everything... I was thinking there was a time before that logic train you coupled together (card + rules + FAQ + extension) pulled out of the station that the Total Initiative wasn't an issue. ie. if there wasn't something to compare it to, you couldn't be found lacking. No worries, I'm just imagining things.

Looks like I'll be in Chicago the week after GenCon... anytime I can find to attend the Ktom Rules-Fu Fantasy Camp? (And by that I mean, just get in some games).

Maester_LUke said:

Ah. I got it. You were probably thinking of "scenario #2." See, there is another side to the "nil = 0" thing that confuses a lot of people. When a card effect asks for the value of a characteristic that isn't there (most commonly, something like a printed cost or printed STR), then "nil = 0." But when a card effect simply asks for the presence or absence of a characteristic (most commonly, something like a house affiliation or effect with an influence cost), then "nil = no comparison."

So cards like "Host for the Bear" which look for a total influence value greater than 2, nil = 0. But something like "He Calls It Thinking," which looks for Responses without an influence cost, does not assume everything has an influence cost of at least 0 (and thus could cancel nothing).

That little difference confuses a lot of people, when they bother to think about it.

Maester_LUke said:

I believe Tony will be on his honeymoon then, but Adam and I should be around. Just give a shout.

Question: Ktom...

Now so far the nil=0 and 0=nil in those cases makes it cummunative. After all 0 in a dictionary sense means the absense of a quantity. And nill is one of several names for 0. Anyhow take this scenario:

If Castamere has 0 power counters on it meaning X=0, does it still qualify as an income producing location if it produces no income?

Now using math logic... and the dictonary definition of 0, it does not. However what makes this interesting is:

1. A Game of Thrones does not always follow mathematical logic.

2. In this case the question would be moot since it may be defined as an income producing location because of the gold icon, if so I suppose we should pick another card or situation in which it is presence of something when quantity is a calculated value and is currently at 0. Another example is Blood Magic for cost 0 vs Paper Shield. (I think there was a ruling on this). I do apologize for the lack of LCG examples, but I actually don't think there are many if at all "X" values in LCG.

3. Now I know people disagree on this... but in the case of the Prince's Loyalist one can say the test is influence cost <= X. If it instead targeted something such as power on characters less than X... I think people would see that it logically made sense for it to be able to target characters with 0 power. At the same time something that targeted a character with power (does not say at least one, just characters with power on them...) would not affect characters with 0 power. I think what the argument here is not null=0 so much as whether or not influence cost is a trait attached to some character abilities sort of like searching for a trait like night's watch. But even then if a card targeted cards with 1 or less night's watch traits... this would target anything unless it was given the night's watch trait twice. (There is a reason why this would never in fact happen... but still I say if somehow it did this is the current logical path). Granted I'm a programmer so I'm viewing this using binary logic. If you take two tests: (X <= 2) and (X), and if X is 0 then: X <= 2 comes out as 1 (true) while 0 comes out as false. (After all the REAL argument against PL is that it is too powerful. Which I agree there.).

bloodycelt said:

"Cummunative"? This is a word? Or a typo I can't begin to decipher?

bloodycelt said:

How is this incompatible with what I said above? When looking for a quantity (eg: how much is the influence cost?), the absence of that quantity is treated as 0. Just like your dictionary definition.

However, when looking for a quality or characteristic , (eg: does this card have an influence cost as part of the cost to trigger its effect?), the absence of that quality or characteristic is not necessarily treated as 0 - particularly when a "yes/no" answer is all that is required.

Seriously, you're over-thinking. And what question are you actually asking here?

Typo meant: commutative. That is if Nil = 0 then 0 = nil.

Sorry my question is when looking for the presence of a qunatity not the amount, if the card has X for quantity and at that time X=0 like say Blood Magic. Does it count as having the quantity (in this case an influence cost of 0) or not having a quantity (having an influence cost). In this example: Can Paper Shield cancel Blood Magic if the player spends 0 influence on the card? If nil = 0 AND 0 = nil, then the answer would be yes Paper Shield could cancel Blood Magic.

bloodycelt said:

OK. This is a bit of a lesson in the difference between mathematics and logic, so most people are just going to want to skip this.

bloodycelt: You are applying mathematical logic in the wrong place here. For logical reasoning, just because nil = 0, it does not necessarily follow that 0 = nil. That is like saying that since all sparrows fly, everything that flies is a sparrow. We can tear apart the idea that the nil=0 relationship is commutative in all cases pretty easily. You did it yourself with Castamere, but look at a card like Bodyguard. It's printed cost is 0. So, if we follow the "nil=0 AND 0=nil" math, Bodyguard does not have a printed cost. It is 0, which is the same as "nil," which is the same as "not present." The math may be correct, but logically, it is not the case. The ink is on the card, so you cannot say the printed cost is "not present" or does not exist.

Mathematically speaking, when you start with "nil=0," you can assume that "0=nil." But when you are dealing with logical reasoning, a fact tells you the contrapositive, not the commutative. That is, in logical reasoning, if you start with "nil=0," you can assume "not 0 = not nil," but you cannot assume "0=nil" in all cases.

Said another way, "nil=0 AND 0=nil" is true and is the relationship you would use if your answer needs to be a number . But "nil=false AND false=nil" is not true. So you cannot use that commutative relationship when the answer you need is "true/false" or "yes/no."

So, looking specifically at the Blood Magic/Paper Shield example (or the Castamere/income providing location example), the answer in both cases is "yes, there is a influence cost/income providing location." There is an influence cost for Blood Magic. It is X. When defining the value of it, that value may be 0, but when simply asking (as Paper Shield does) whether or not an influence cost is present, you never actually get to defining the value. You see the "X," you know that "influence cost = true" and you move on. Same thing with Castamere. When the question is "is there an income bonus present on the card?" you see the "X," you know the answer is "yes," and you move on. You never actually get to the "nil=0" relationship until someone asks " how much is the income bonus on Castamere?"

Thank you. It would be quite helpfull if FFG spent at least a paragraph explaining the quantity check vs. presence check. Hell, I can cite several Programming Books that detail the difference between a binary test (example: x < 2), and a test for null (when a variable is not defined... presence if you will).