There has been a lot of discussion about this card, but I would like to know if FFG has given a specific ruling on it or not.

Does Hammerhorn Raiders raise the claim if the challenge is unopposed?

I haven't seen a ruling but I disagree with those proposing the multiply by zero argument. To me it's more additive than multiplicative. At least twice means it has to be more than defender's strength + defender's strength. That's my take anyway.

Counting "at least twice as much STR as the defending player" means A >= 2 x D (where A is attacker's STR and D defender's STR). Since the attacker wins the challenge unopposed, we know that A > 0 (attacker wins) and D = 0 (unopposed). A > 0 = 2 x 0, which means Hammerhorn Raiders' condition is fulfilled (and no, multiplying by 0 doesn't make demons appear out of your nose - dividing by 0 might).

I don't think I'm breaching any non-disclosure obligation sharing this, so here goes:

This question came up during the German localization process for the cycle, and it was confirmed by FFG that it does work during uo challenges.

I've always been baffled that this is even a discussion. I have never heard anything even remotely convincing that, somehow, "at least twice as much STR as the defender" loses all meaning when the defender counts 0 STR.

FFG has not given a "specific ruling" on this card in a public forum. They probably don't think they need to since, as Khudzlin outlines, the wording is pretty clear. FFG never exempts unopposed challenges from these kinds of effects without specific wording saying so.

For reference - "While Hammerhorn Raiders is attacking, raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 1 if you win the challenge by counting at least twice STR as the defending player." - AGoTCards.org

The argument is not, "Is 2 > 0?"

The argument is, "Does not declaring defenders return a Null value or a 0?"

2 * Null = Null

"Is 2 > Null?" returns Null - This nullifies the Hammerhorn Raiders effect if declaring no defenders returns Null.

This Null concept appears supported by text on page 14 of the Core Set Rulebook.

"Your opponent must declare at least 1 defending character in order to be considered defending against a challenge."

So this all boils down to semantics and the definitions of terms.

The meaning of defending player can be derived from several parts of the rules like:

"In addition, when a player you support is attacked by another player, if the defending player declares no defenders, you may declare any number of your own eligible characters as defenders to that challenge." - Core Set Rulebook pg. 16 (emphasis mine)

Obviously defending player refers to the player attacked and declaring defenders is not a prerequisite of being considered the defending player.

The process by which strength is counted is:

"Add the total STR of the attacking characters. This becomes the total attacking STR. Then add the total STR of the defending characters. This becomes the total defending STR." - Core Set Rulebook pg. 14

While you could argue that counting the strength of no defending characters should return Null, the entire concept of unopposed challenges is dependent on that not being the case. If it were the case, unopposed challenges could never be resolved due to the usage of Null in a comparison always returning Null and nullifying everything for which that check is a prerequisite.

So when you consider all the written rules, declaring no defenders does not mean that the defending player's counted strength is Null. Their counted strength is 0 and then the standard logic applies.

Is Attacking Player's counted strength >= 2 * Defending Player's Counted Strength [0]

Rewritten - Is APS >= 0? This will always be the case during an unopposed challenge in which the attacker counts at least 1 strength. Thus, Hammerhorn Raiders will always trigger during an unopposed challenge in which the attacking player counts any amount of strength.

This is just an elaboration on what was already said as there is logic behind why Hammerhorn Raiders might not trigger, but it is founded in the idea that having no defending players creates a Null value. It does not.

Edit: TL:DR - The rulebook says that counting no defending characters results in a defending strength of 0, not a null defending strength. Winning a challenge unopposed is dependent on a positive number for the attacking strength and all positive numbers are greater than zero. Therefore, Hammerhorn Raiders will always increase claim during an unopposed challenge.

Edit: TL:DR - The rulebook says that counting no defending characters results in a defending strength of 0, not a null defending strength. Winning a challenge unopposed is dependent on a positive number for the attacking strength and all positive numbers are greater than zero. Therefore, Hammerhorn Raiders will always increase claim during an unopposed challenge.

Correct. Since the attacking and defending STR in a challenge is the total of the effective STR of the attacking or defending characters, it can never be "null." The characteristic "total STR" exists, even if there is nothing to populate or contribute to it. An empty house is still there, so to speak.

Further, it should be remembered that you figure out who wins a challenge by comparing the total attacking STR to the total defending STR. If having no defenders resulted in a "null" defending STR, you could make no comparison to the attacking STR, and players could never win an unopposed challenge - let alone win it by 4 or more.

Because it is impossible to have a "null" total attacking/defending STR, it quite honestly never occurred to me that Khudzlin's "A >= 2xD" reasoning could be missing something from the argument.