Host of the Bear

[livingEND 4]

 lol…here's the link: http://imageshack.us/a/img688/5538/initiativeissue.png

 

[ktom 598]

livingEND said:

 But as long as it isn't defined that way by FFG, it simply isn't. 

OK, but what about the fact that TOTAL initiative is defined as a value? Why doesn't that default to 0 under FFG's rule of "when you need a value for a card effect (in this case Host of the Bear) and there isn't one, you treat it as 0"?

[radiskull 39]

 Your statement (5) is tautologically true in a set-theoretic framework.  Steps 1-4 are irrelevant.

FFG has specifically stated that (5) is false by direct ruling.

Imposing a group structure is not necessary (and not correct, if we're allowing FFG to modify the axioms of set theory).

[ktom 598]

radiskull said:

FFG has specifically stated that (5) is false by direct ruling.

Specifically, FFG has said that when a card effect needs a value and cannot find it, the value to use in resolving that effect is 0.

 

The card that needs the value here is Host of the Bear. So whether the "total initiative" value is calculated as 0 or "null" because there is no plot card or "required" base value is ultimately irrelevant. By rule, the value needed to resolve Host of the Bear's effect will be treated as "0" in either case.

(This, by the way, is why a card that says "kill a character STR 2 or lower" will work against a token-character like the Reinforcements, but "kill a character with printed STR 2 or lower" will not. The first looks for a value - which will always default to 0 if absent - while the second looks at a strict characteristic - which will not allow a comparison if absent.)

[dcdennis 39]

 You all are taking nerd to a whole new level.

[livingEND 4]

 Okay, got an answer from FFG. They explained that the base value of initiative should always be 0.

Now I am fine with that solution of yours.