Traitor

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Traitor, text from Wizards Limited Edition wrote:When the next character fails a corruption check, he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company. The character to be attacked is chosen by the player who does not control the traitor's company. The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10. Any resulting body check is modified by +1. After attack, this card is discarded and the corruption of the traitor is resolved normally (i.e. he is discarded or removed from play).
CRF, Errata (Cards), Traitor wrote:Card Erratum: Replace the last paragraph with "This card is discarded when a
character fails his corruption check." Two Traitors have no extra effect and are both
discarded with the next failed corruption check. Traitor cannot be revealed as an onguard
card. This is an attack with the same race as the character attacking, and a
normal prowess of ten plus the character's prowess. Characters facing a Traitor when
it is not their turn may not play resources, but may still tap for full prowess.
The errata is not correction of some glitches in original text. The idea of the card has been changed - an attack is created but character is no longer an attacking entity. However "This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check." causes that the card fizzles itself.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions" wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
I propose the following erratum:

When the next character fails a corruption check, he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company. The character to be attacked is chosen by the player who does not control the traitor's company. The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10. Any resulting body check is modified by +1. Discard Traitor card(s) after the attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm The idea of the card has been changed - an attack is created but character is no longer an attacking entity.
The character was never the attacking entity, just the traitor. The attack is "by" the Traitor card, which the CRF erratas to take on the race of the traitor.

I still support the proposal, which doesn't change the above.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Maybe. But for some reason a normal result of cc was originally postponed.
And even with CRF there is the reference to "the character attacking".
But because the same CRF paragraph says "but may still tap for full prowess" (as though tapping in strike sequence was made "for" and not in result),
and because after ICE errata Traitor is defunct, what ICE said about Traitor is not evidence of anything.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

I think the original card text is pretty clear actually.
Theo wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:22 am
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm The idea of the card has been changed - an attack is created but character is no longer an attacking entity.
The character was never the attacking entity, just the traitor. The attack is "by" the Traitor card, which the CRF erratas to take on the race of the traitor.
I disagree. The original text of the card makes it clear that the character who fails his cc is the attacking entity. The character is the Traitor. Why would a Traitor card be attacking? That makes no sense. The Traitor card spells out the details of how the corrupt character attacks his own company.

The CRF erratum is largely not needed:
"Replace the last paragraph with "This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check."
This is confusing and unnecessary and as Konrad mentions, causes problems. I have no idea why ICE issued this.
"Two Traitors have no extra effect and are both discarded with the next failed corruption check. "
This is a worthwhile addition.
"Traitor cannot be revealed as an onguard card."
Unless I'm mistaken, current on-guard rules don't allow for Traitor to be revealed anyhow if a character fails a corruption check, so this is not needed.
This is an attack with the same race as the character attacking, and a normal prowess of ten plus the character's prowess.
Unnecessary. Since the character is the one attacking, it is obvious he is of his own race.
Characters facing a Traitor when it is not their turn may not play resources, but may still tap for full prowess.
Again, not necessary, as these are the default rules which they are repeating. Only exceptions to the rules should be mentioned.

I would support a proposal which nullifies the CRF erratum in its entirety, and only modifies the original text with what is needed.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Annotation 23: When a character fails a corruption check, the standard effects of this
(i.e., the character being discarded or eliminated and his items being discarded) are
implemented immediately
and are considered synonymous with the failed check. A
card causing the corruption check may modify the standard effects of a failed check
(e.g. The Precious), but this timing would not be changed. Certain cards, e.g., Traitor,
which do not cause a corruption check, but specify an action that results from the
passive condition of a failed check, take effect as the first declared action in a chain of
effects immediately following the chain of effects that contains the corruption check.
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am I disagree. The original text of the card makes it clear that the character who fails his cc is the attacking entity. The character is the Traitor. Why would a Traitor card be attacking? That makes no sense. The Traitor card spells out the details of how the corrupt character attacks his own company.
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am I would support a proposal which nullifies the CRF erratum in its entirety, and only modifies the original text with what is needed.
Your desire would require modifying the Annotation 23.

Underlines mine.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am The original text of the card makes it clear that the character who fails his cc is the attacking entity.
What original text would you point to that you think indicates that the character is the attacking entity?
he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company.
This is not: "he becomes a 'traitor, and he immediately attacks a character in his company"?
The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10.
If the character were the attacking entity, why is the attack (created by the Traitor card) treated as dissociated in this sentence? This sentence is not: "The character gets +10 prowess for this attack."

No. The card creates an attack, and the card uses the traitor character to determine the created attack's prowess value. The implication of this is that it does not matter, for example, whether the traitor character was tapped or wounded.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Theo wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:04 pm What original text would you point to that you think indicates that the character is the attacking entity?
This...
When the next character fails a corruption check, he becomes a 'traitor,
... plus common sense. If the character is not attacking, what is happening? Speaking for myself, I largely play this game for the fun and adventure as well as my love for Tolkien, and I enjoy things making some semblance of thematic sense as well. I believe ICE also shared my feelings in this regard, despite their periodic failures to precisely detail their card texts and rules. If you are suggesting that the character in the company who just failed a corruption check is not the attacker, then who is? In terms of gameplay, the Traitor card attacking the company is nonsense. The traitor card represents someone else who is attacking.
Theo wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:04 pm
he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company.
This is not: "he becomes a 'traitor, and he immediately attacks a character in his company"?
Again, imprecise language by ICE, but I feel the intent is clear. What is the point of saying he becomes a traitor if the character is not the attacking entity? Furthermore, why would the character's prowess even enter into the equation if he is not the attacking entity? Why would the race be the same as the character if he is not the attacking entity?
Theo wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:04 pm
The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10.
If the character were the attacking entity, why is the attack (created by the Traitor card) treated as dissociated in this sentence? This sentence is not: "The character gets +10 prowess for this attack."
I don't know, it is their choice of language, but the alternative makes even less sense. Perhaps like you said, they did not want tapped/wounded status of the traitor to factor in, and they feared by saying "the character gets +10" would lead to additional problems.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:57 am Your desire would require modifying the Annotation 23.

Underlines mine.
I see. So your point is that the character is already discarded/eliminated prior to the Traitor attack taking place. This being the case, Theo would be right that the Traitor card is the source of the attack and not the character himself, because there is no longer a character in play to make an attack. Of course this makes for a poor gameplay experience as it doesn't make any logical sense. What a mess. I still believe ICE intended for the corrupted character to betray his company and attack, and only later had to try to "fix" the problem to comply with their subsequently published rules.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

If the character is not attacking, what is happening?
Thematically I would absolutely agree that this card signifies a character failing a corruption check to be responsible for trying to hurt a friend. I was speaking to the mechanistic side alone.

What do cards in hand thematically represent for riddling such that playing a game causes their discard but talking uses them to avoid a confrontation? I have no clue. Such is the MECCG life.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

BTW. Character who failed cc due to The Ring's Betrayal may be attacked by attack from Traitor.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm
Traitor, text from Wizards Limited Edition wrote:When the next character fails a corruption check, he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company. The character to be attacked is chosen by the player who does not control the traitor's company. The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10. Any resulting body check is modified by +1. After attack, this card is discarded and the corruption of the traitor is resolved normally (i.e. he is discarded or removed from play).
card(s) after the attack.[/b]
Why would the community want to consider and vote on an outdated version of the card? Should we also look at the first version of Traitor's errata that was removed and replaced. Or instead, maybe we should just skip outdated versions of Traitor and look at outdated versions of Bill the Pony's errata where he got 10 prowess, because that is more interesting.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm The errata is not correction of some glitches in original text. The idea of the card has been changed - an attack is created but character is no longer an attacking entity.
I don't see any suggestion in the Limited edition of Traitor that the traitor-character is the attacking entity. The Limited version of the card says "an attack is immediately made" not "he immediately attacks." And it says "the prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10" not "the traitor receives +10 prowess."

It is the Unlimited version (apparently not being discussed here) that suggests that the traitor-character is actually performing the attack by virtue of being able to be eliminated by the attack. Still, the later ICE rulings indicate that the traitor-character is not actually attacking themselves because special abilities of the traitor-character do not give bonuses to the prowess of the traitor's attack and the tapped/wounded status of the traitor-character does not modify the prowess of the traitor's attack.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm However "This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check." causes that the card fizzles itself.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions" wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
What? First, a card cannot negate its own effects. The cards are written to work within the rules--this fundamental to game design. Second, if you are going to quote the CRF Rulings by Term on "Passive Conditions," at least recognize that "The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so."

So no, Traitor does not negate ("fizzle") its own effects. The card specifically states what it does.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:21 pm
I propose the following erratum:

When the next character fails a corruption check, he becomes a 'traitor, and an attack is immediately made against a character in the traitor's company. The character to be attacked is chosen by the player who does not control the traitor's company. The prowess of the attack is equal to the prowess of the traitor plus 10. Any resulting body check is modified by +1. Discard Traitor card(s) after the attack.
Talk about "the errata is not correction of some glitches in original text. The idea of the card has been changed." This proposal would change how Traitor works: (1) the Traitor permanent-event would still in play during the attack, such that the Traitor's attack could now be canceled by an effect that discards the Traitor permanent-event, whereas before in the actual card text the Traitor permanent-event is already discarded. (2) The corruption of the traitor-character is no longer resolved after the attack, meaning that under the proposal the Traitor would no longer have their weapons and other items boosting their prowess for the attack's prowess calculation.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

the JabberwocK wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am The CRF erratum is largely not needed:
"Replace the last paragraph with "This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check."
This is confusing and unnecessary and as Konrad mentions, causes problems. I have no idea why ICE issued this.
Traitor discards itself so that the defending player cannot cancel Traitor's by discarding the Traitor permanent-event. The Unlimited card tex is similar to the Limited card with errata.
the JabberwocK wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am This is an attack with the same race as the character attacking, and a normal prowess of ten plus the character's prowess.
Unnecessary. Since the character is the one attacking, it is obvious he is of his own race.
The type of the attack is not specified in the Limited or Unlimited card text. And also, this ruling tells you how Old Thrush can work with Traitor.
the JabberwocK wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am Characters facing a Traitor when it is not their turn may not play resources, but may still tap for full prowess.
Again, not necessary, as these are the default rules which they are repeating. Only exceptions to the rules should be mentioned.
Characters cannot tap to initiate effects when it is not their own turn. Tapping against a strike is different because the character is not tapping for an effect, they are simply tapping as a result of the strike sequence rules, which no one pays attention to. Hence the ruling.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:57 am
Annotation 23: When a character fails a corruption check, the standard effects of this
(i.e., the character being discarded or eliminated and his items being discarded) are
implemented immediately
and are considered synonymous with the failed check. A
card causing the corruption check may modify the standard effects of a failed check
(e.g. The Precious), but this timing would not be changed. Certain cards, e.g., Traitor,
which do not cause a corruption check, but specify an action that results from the
passive condition of a failed check, take effect as the first declared action in a chain of
effects immediately following the chain of effects that contains the corruption check.
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am I disagree. The original text of the card makes it clear that the character who fails his cc is the attacking entity. The character is the Traitor. Why would a Traitor card be attacking? That makes no sense. The Traitor card spells out the details of how the corrupt character attacks his own company.
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:24 am I would support a proposal which nullifies the CRF erratum in its entirety, and only modifies the original text with what is needed.
Your desire would require modifying the Annotation 23.

Underlines mine.
Traitor explicitly overrides Annotation 23's requirements on "the standard effects" of a corruption check because Traitor states "if the traitor is not eliminated by the attack, the effects of the traitor's corruption check are resolved normally." Accordingly, the standard effects of a corruption check are specifically delayed until after the traitor's attack is resolved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:55 pm Traitor discards itself so that the defending player cannot cancel Traitor's by discarding the Traitor permanent-event. The Unlimited card tex is similar to the Limited card with errata.
Just that.

A defending player cannot fizzle Traitor's attack by discarding the Traitor permanent-event in response to its declaration.
Because Traitor permanent-event discards itself earlier. HOWEVER this does not cause a fizzling of the attack.

Double standards.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:35 pm (1) the Traitor permanent-event would still in play during the attack, such that the Traitor's attack could now be canceled by an effect that discards the Traitor permanent-event, whereas before in the actual card text the Traitor permanent-event is already discarded.
No.
Even if Ahunt would be discarded during facing an attack that it created, the attack would not be canceled, discontinued, or fizzled.
The same for Traitor or Earth-tremors.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:37 am
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:35 pm (1) the Traitor permanent-event would still in play during the attack, such that the Traitor's attack could now be canceled by an effect that discards the Traitor permanent-event, whereas before in the actual card text the Traitor permanent-event is already discarded.
No.
Even if Ahunt would be discarded during facing an attack that it created, the attack would not be canceled, discontinued, or fizzled.
The same for Traitor or Earth-tremors.
The attacks are not technically "canceled" but an attack created by a long-event or permanent-event are no longer in play and no longer need to be resolved if the corresponding event leaves play because the effects of a permanent-events and long-events only last until their cards are discarded. The attack by Traitor, Ahunt Dragons, etc. are all effects of long/permanent events. The attack leaves play when the corresponding event leaves play.

What this means in practice is that you do not have to target an Ahunt for discarding by Marvels Told in response to the Ahunt's attack being declared. You can wait and see whether the opponent plays any further hazards, like Velocity of Haste to give +1 strike, which would necessarily be played after creation of the attack has resolved. You can discard the Ahunt, thereby causing the attack to leave play, after Velocity of Haste is played.

If you disagree, point to some rule that suggests otherwise. However, if there actually was a rule to support your position, you would have already mentioned it.

The rules on long and permanent events are clear that all of their effects cease when they are discarded:
long-permanent-events.PNG
long-permanent-events.PNG (133.05 KiB) Viewed 3806 times
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”