Host of the Bear

[Rogue30 60]

Host of the Bear is discarded at the beginning of the round, right?

[ktom 598]

Well, it depends on your interpretation of how plots are cycled.

- According to the FAQ, plots are moved from the "revealed" state to the "used pile" at the end of the round. So, since your total initiative is defined as the total of your revealed plot card and any initiative modifiers, Host of the Bear is indeed likely to be discarded at the end of the round (unless you have 3 or more initiative modifiers).

- In practice, most people don't actually move their revealed plot card to their used pile until they reveal a new plot card. This was certainly the way it was done when Host of the Bear (which is a reprint) was first released in the CCG. 

Nate is probably going to need to weigh in on this one to be sure. Moving plot cards before a new one is revealed is something that has always had the potential to lead to funky situations.

[Staton 1]

 wait, when did that change? I thought it was they got moved to the used pile at the same time you revealed your new plot? I mean otherwise how would cards that stopped you from revealing a new plot work?

[ktom 598]

Staton said:

wait, when did that change? I thought it was they got moved to the used pile at the same time you revealed your new plot? I mean otherwise how would cards that stopped you from revealing a new plot work?

The FAQ entry saying that plot cards go to the used pile at the end of the round "unless prevented by a card effect" has been on the books for years. At least since Winter Edition in the CCG. As I said earlier, most people ignore it in practice.

[Staton 1]

 Wait, so then how did art of seduction work? because didn't it just say those people couldn't reveal a new plot card? so the old one should've gone away and not been replaced right?

[ktom 598]

Seriously, dude. You're like 5 years late on this.

Art of Seduction was one of those "unless prevented by a card effect" things.

[LetsGoRed 0]

My gut feel is that the Host of the Bear is not suppose to get bounced at round end, although the technical read of the FAQ would have it do so, and therefore needs errata or the FAQ has to be reworded.  Also, the FAQ and the language of the rulebook don't seem to be on the same page (yep, I made a bad pun). The rule book says:

Plot Phase, Step 1: Choose and Reveal Plot Cards

Each player simultaneously chooses and reveals
one plot card from his plot deck. Plot cards are
kept in three states: in the plot deck, revealed,
and used. When you reveal a plot card during
the plot phase, it moves from your plot deck to
a revealed state. When you reveal a new plot
card, place it on top of your previously revealed
plot card. (All plot cards under your currently
revealed plot card are considered your “used”
plots.) If this was the last card in your plot deck,
return all your previously played plots (except
the one just revealed) to your plot deck after your
revealed plot has taken effect.

The wording of that suggests that it is the state of being covered by the "revealed" plot that makes plots "used", although it doesn't say that explicitly nor rule out that they became "used" at an earlier point in time. 

The clean/intuitive approach seems to me to not have a plot become "used" until the new "revealed" plot is covering it, so were there any funky/unpleasant consequences caused by that that lead to the FAQ language?

[ktom 598]

LetsGoRed said:

The clean/intuitive approach seems to me to not have a plot become "used" until the new "revealed" plot is covering it, so were there any funky/unpleasant consequences caused by that that lead to the FAQ language?

No. My understanding is the the FAQ language came down to an aesthetic choice by FFG that actually ended up causing more problems than it clarified.

But you are correct. The intuitive situation doesn't jive and the literal reading of all available rules seems contradictory. I'm sure Nate will clarify this soon, now that Host of the Bear is back in the environment.

[Bolzano2 0]

If placed during Setup, is Host of the Bear discarded during Setup or at the beginning of the 1st plot phase?

Just wondering if the FAQ entry :

"Cards revealed during setup do not trigger card
effects."

is meant for triggered effects or any card effect. I would think it means any effect and that trigger - once again - do not mean triggered effect here.

[Slothgodfather 270]

 I would say we need to look at the first opportunity for passives to take effect.   And since there is passives within the first player action window pre-plot, I would say that yes - Host of the Bear revealed during setup would indeed be discarded pre-plot.  Unless you also had setup with +3 initiative.  

 

Or, this is a constant effect that is checked as soon as it's in play.  So they would still be discarded pre-plot, it just wouldn't give you an opportunity at a player action (as the first player) to reveal a plot as a pre-plot action.

 

Either way, it is not a triggered effect.   It is simply a card effect, passive or constant.  That's my take on it anyways.

[ktom 598]

Slothgodfather said:

I would say we need to look at the first opportunity for passives to take effect.   And since there is passives within the first player action window pre-plot, I would say that yes - Host of the Bear revealed during setup would indeed be discarded pre-plot.  Unless you also had setup with +3 initiative.

Your first opportunity to resolve passives is actually in the "begin plot phase" framework action window. After all, if all players "pass" pre-plot, you never actually start the "Step 1-6" sequence, where Step 4 would be passives.

No text is active during setup, except for those specifically mentioned in the rules ("Limited," "Setup," and attachment restrictions). So Host of the Bear can be placed during setup, but will be discarded as soon as the plot phase starts (unless, as Sloth says, you also place +3 worth of initiative bonuses during setup).

[orion_kurnous 0]

 Host of the bear are very strong, but its better if you dont use them in setup.

[livingEND 4]

CS rule book (page 7):

 

 

"Initiative Bonuses

Some cards have large copper diamonds with a +X value in their rules text. These cards raise the initiative value on your revealed plot, […]"

 

Note: The rule book distinguishes between the initiative on your plot (="initiative value") and the initiative gained by other cards (="initiative bonuses").

This leads to the conclusion that the initiative on your plot has to be considered as your initiative base value and not a bonus that has to be added to a base value of 0. As long as you have no revealed plot, your base initiative is therefore { }, the empty set. And because you cannot compare a non-empty set's elements with an empty set's elements (similar example here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=555324), Host of the Bear won't be discarded at the beginning of the first turn.

#

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ktom 598]

Nice theory, if it weren't for the following text in the core rule book:

"Your total initiative is the sum of your
revealed plot card’s initiative value and all initiative
bonuses provided by cards you control."

 

And host of the Bear looks at your total initiative. So the comparison is not to the "empty set" of the base initiative provided by the plot card, it is to a sum total of which the base initiative is only one factor. The comparison when you have no plot card is therefore not to an empty set, is allowed, and Host of the Bear is discarded (unless you happen to have +3 worth of initiative bonuses).

 

[livingEND 4]

ktom said:

And host of the Bear looks at your total initiative. So the comparison is not to the "empty set" of the base initiative provided by the plot card, it is to a sum total of which the base initiative is only one factor. The comparison when you have no plot card is therefore not to an empty set, is allowed, and Host of the Bear is discarded (unless you happen to have +3 worth of initiative bonuses).

a is element of the set A containing your plot initiative value, in this case is A={ }

b is sum of all elements of the set B containing all initiative bonuses provided by cards you control

Your total initiative c then is c= a+b. For this to be true, an a has to exist in A that can be legally added to b. But no such element can exist in A because A= { }. Hence, there is no possibility to add a scalar initiative value to a base initiative value that is an empty set.

--> even the total initiative has to be empty.

[ktom 598]

livingEND said:

Your total initiative c then is c= a+b. For this to be true, an a has to exist in A that can be legally added to b.

Why? By that logic:

 

"The total cash you have available to buy Christmas presents this year is the balance of your Christmas club account plus the money you have stuffed in your mattress. C = A + B"

"I don't have a Christmas club account, but I have $10,000 stuffed in my mattress."

"Oh, well, since you don't have a club account, A is an empty set. That means the total cash you have available to buy Christmas presents is an empty set, too. Holidays are gonna suck at your house, huh?"

 

So I don't follow your logic that "in A + B = C, if A doesn't exist, neither does C" at all.

 

But… don't take my word for it. Go ahead and send it in to FFG. Ask them if you can have a "total initiative" when you have no revealed plot card. (The answer is going to be yes.)

[livingEND 4]

ktom said:

So I don't follow your logic that "in A + B = C, if A doesn't exist, neither does C" at all.

 

Okay, I'll try to explain it in a more understandable way:

You have two equations and your task is to sum up both equations' solution for x.

(a)   2=3

(b)   x=2+4+3

Obviously, the solution for x in equation (b) is x=9 and there isn't a solution for x in equation (a). 

What's the sum of both solutions now? Well, that's a difficult question because you cannot calculate 9 + "no number"…

Conclusion: No solution for one of the equations implies no solution for the sum of solutions.

 

Your christmas example has nothing to do with the problem we are discussing but I cannot explain why without filling at least 10 complete pages. If anybody wants to look it up: It has something to do with group theory and 10.000$ in your mattress being rather an element than a transformation.

And yes, I'll send FFG an email. Let's see whether they have someone to understand the problem that is none.

[ktom 598]

livingEND said:

Okay, I'll try to explain it in a more understandable way:

You have two equations and your task is to sum up both equations' solution for x.

That would make sense if there were two equations, but since the definition is:

"Your total initiative is the sum of your
revealed plot card’s initiative value and all initiative
bonuses provided by cards you control."

Where is the second equation?

Your total initiative (T) is (=) the sum (+) of your revealed plot card's initiative value (I) and all initiative bonuses provided by cards you control (C1, C2, C3, etc.)

So, "T = I + C1 + C2 + C3 + etc…."

That's just one equation. There isn't a second equation for "I". It is a "look-up" value. This is a lot more like the Chirstmas club example than your "reconcile for X" example.

 

You seem to be basing your argument on the following from the FAQ:

"(4.19) Printed
Any reference made to "printed" be it cost,
STR, icons, etc. only refers to the referenced
item physically printed on the card itself. A
card like Summer Reserves (Scattered Armies
F119) does not have a printed cost or STR for
instance. Any card effect that looked for the
printed cost of a card without a printed cost
would fail to find any cost and would return a
null value, no item that could be referenced."

That is the basis of "null means no comparison" precedent in this game. But that only applies when you are doing a direct comparison to a specific, printed characteristic. That is NOT what is going on here. The "total initiative" calculation is not referring to the "printed initiative." It is referring to the initiative value. To get the value of a characteristic that is not there, you follow the precedent set in this entry:

"(3.1) The Letter X
Unless specified by a preceding card, card
effect, or granted player choice, the letter "X"
is always equal to 0. Further, any card without
a cost of the specified type is assumed to have
a cost of 0 for purposes of determining how
that card interacts with triggered effects that
need to count its cost."

Therefore, if you need a value for something that isn't there (like the initiative value on the revealed plot prior to revealing plots in round 1), you use 0.

[radiskull 39]

livingEND said:

Your christmas example has nothing to do with the problem we are discussing but I cannot explain why without filling at least 10 complete pages. If anybody wants to look it up: It has something to do with group theory and 10.000$ in your mattress being rather an element than a transformation.

Can you give me the short version?  I understand group theory very well.

And you can't add two equations.

[Khudzlin 734]

radiskull said:

And you can't add two equations.

Actually, you can. If A = B and C = D, then A + C = B + D. Not to mention livingEND wanted to add the solutions rather than the equations themselves.

[radiskull 39]

Khudzlin said:

radiskull said:

 

And you can't add two equations.

 

 

Actually, you can. If A = B and C = D, then A + C = B + D. Not to mention livingEND wanted to add the solutions rather than the equations themselves.

I know what he meant, but you're not really "adding" the equations, you're using the equalities to add the same thing to both sides, and then substituting.  "Adding equations" is just a convenient shorthand.

My point is that for work in higher mathematics, precision of language is paramount.  Hand waving and saying "I'm right for reasons that are far to complicated for your ordinary people to understand" doesn't speak very highly of your argument.

[ktom 598]

radiskull said:

My point is that for work in higher mathematics, precision of language is paramount.  Hand waving and saying "I'm right for reasons that are far to complicated for your ordinary people to understand" doesn't speak very highly of your argument.

Plus, if you need higher-order mathematics to explain the way something work in a fantasy card game, you're probably going a little too far down the rabbit hole.

[Bomb 66]

Plus, if you have no other cards in play with an initiative bonus, that too is an empty set which means you must have both the revealed plot initiative and cards in play with at least one initiative bonus to be able to have initiative. 

Therefore, like in some means of software development, if null is the value of a number field then that means they default to a value of 0 when it comes to summation.

Win.

[Khudzlin 734]

Actually, you do have an initiative value from the start, because the game is looking for a value rather than a printed value. Therefore, a missing value (the plot initiative) is taken as 0 and you only need initiative bonuses to have a nonzero initiative total.

[livingEND 4]

 I was a bit busy the last two days, so I couldn't answer to this thread, sorry.

"Further, any card without
a cost of the specified type is assumed to have
a cost of 0 for purposes of determining how
that card interacts with triggered effects that
need to count its cost."

Arguing with this sentence of the FAQ is impossible because we're looking at a case in which there is no card.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the null value of initiative should be 0. But as long as it isn't defined that way by FFG, it simply isn't. Without definition it acts in the following way: