Traitor and the Ring's Betrayal

[Olorin]

Does a character losing a ring become a Traitor if Traitor is in play? If the attack doesn't result in the characters demise, does he just stay with the company, like nothing ever happened? Does he get a my bad, and a pat on the butt?

Thanks.
Olorin

[marcos]

Does a character losing a ring become a Traitor if Traitor is in play? If the attack doesn't result in the characters demise, does he just stay with the company, like nothing ever happened? Does he get a my bad, and a pat on the butt?

Thanks.
Olorin

traitor triggers when a character fails a cc, so unless such ring bearer is loosing the ring by a cc, then he doesnt become a traitor. In case of ring's betrayal, yes, he attacks the company then he get a my bad

[Konrad Klar]

I have decided to revisit this thread, because I think that something important was overlooked by me (and probably not only by me).

Effect of Traitor is not triggered as triggered is an action caused by passive condition.
Rather it is effect that replaces normal effect of failed cc.
Similarly effects of Press-gang and Pallando the Soul-keeper are not triggered, as triggered are actions caused by passive condition; rather effects of the cards replace normal effect of discarding a character.

Hereby I am withdrawing my previous statements about "Traitor never working" and "Traitor self-fizzling" (applying to Traitor after ICE's errata).

[SuperNovice]

I think I'm confused.

From ICE Rules Digest #79
Dated 03-05-1998
From Ichabod
"The underlying mechanism for Traitor is that it is an effect triggered by a passive condition."

The definition of a Passive Condition is:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.

Is there a statement somewhere else that Traitor is not triggered by a passive condition? Or is the statement that it is not triggered by a passive event when a short-event triggers the CC? I'm not entirely sure how that distinction matters. What am I missing?

Traitor errata:
Card Erratum: Replace the last paragraph with «This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check.»

I don't follow how Traitor replaces the effect of a CC or how the errata imply that it does. (Unless it's one of the clarifying statement instead?). Doesn't it work in addition to? I always read the flow as:
- Corruption check is triggered
- Corruption check fails
- Traitor is triggered and starts a chain
- Traitor causes an attack
- Traitor attack is resolved
- Corruption check resolves and character is discarded or eliminated (assuming he wasn't during the attack)

The last step is different with Ring's Betrayal as the character is not discarded or eliminated but otherwise it should play out the same.

Is this chain of events incorrect?

[Konrad Klar]

Traitor METW-UE.png (371.03 KiB) Viewed 657 times

I was looking on text of Traitor from METW UE.
The last paragraph would not make a sense if the action from Traitor would not be replacement of normal effect of failed cc.
And I suspect that effect of Traitor as replacement of normal effect of cc was original intention and adding "this card is discarded" in first sentence in version from UE would match the intention.

But «This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check.» that replaces the last paragraph changes everything.
And I think breaks everything.
Because:

Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the
card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.

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.

Hereby I am withdrawing my previous statements about "Traitor never working" and "Traitor self-fizzling" (applying to Traitor after ICE's errata).

So now I have real reason for embarrassment.
"Traitor after last ICE's errata is self-fizzling" is stil alive. No matter whether the errata is applied to the version from LE or to the version from UE.

Sorry for confusion and thanks for paying attention.

[Bandobras Took]

Unfortunately, many cards don't work for precisely that reason. The rules on active conditions for discarding are, generally speaking, self-defeating when actually applied to card texts.

[Konrad Klar]

Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the
action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is
considered synonymous with the action's declaration, i.e., it is not a separate action.

In which cases it is self-defeating (and what has it to do with Traitor)?

[Bandobras Took]

Sacrifice of Form is playable on an attack against Wizard's Company. Wizard must be discarded at declaration. At resolution, there is no attack against Wizard's company because there is no Wizard's company, so card fizzles.

Miruvor must be discarded on declaration, at resolution, there is no bearer's company, because Miruvor has been discarded. Miruvor fizzles.

Ditto most "discard for effect" minor items.

Even the "return to hand" of Skin-Changer runs into problems, as it is a short-event that is not in play when it is supposed to cause an action.

Those are off the top of my head.

[Konrad Klar]

I agree with example of Miruvor. Affected object should be so described that it would have a chance to be valid both at declaration and at resolution.
E.g. "company of bearer/former bearer of X".

For Sacrifice of Form: if someone maintains that discarding of Wizard is condition, not main effect, then he will run into such situation (no "problem" because often such maintainers do not perceive the situation as problem).

For Skin-Changer: "return to hand" is not action "as stated on a card already in play". As such it does not follow of mechanics of actions caused by passive condition. It is mandatory action and it has the condition "If [Beorn is] still in play at the end of the turn". But not all conditions of actions not taken by player are passive conditions.

[dirhaval]

Off topic but with Traitor. Been wondering if Dark Quarrels cancels an agent Man attack. Could not find anything definite including
Orc Lieutenant, Orc, attack being cancelled too by Dark Quarrels; So I came to this topic to read the first post at the top Announcements that states various locations to find the answer. Lo! Dark Quarrels can cancel a crazy Boromir Traitor and by deduction cancel an agent Man attack too. Back to your specific topic.

EDIT: Oh, Boromir is a Dunadan. Should had said "Eomer."