Traitor

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:16 am
And if I provide some references, like e.g. reference to viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3450 , the fact may be barefacedly negated by you.
There is nothing to discuss in that reference. It is a modification to the rules on playing resources in the site phase and a modification to Annotation 24. Nothing in that reference has any bearing on understanding how Traitor's works -- it is not an automatic attack and annotation 24 does not apply.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:16 am I believe that if someone has radically different understanding of some things than I have, then any argument I make will look as not relevant for him.
Well, we are on the same page here. The difference is that my understanding of the rules is internally consistent with the other rules and also consistent with ICE's rulings, whereas your understanding of the rules is not.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:16 am
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:29 pm If you read The Wizard's Companion you would see that certain cards are playable when facing an attack created within resolution of a card (e.g., Rescue Prisoners) by virtue of strikes being dice rolls, which are targetable when declared. An attack is just one or more strike dice rolls, which work just like all other dice rolls. The amendment to Annotation 24 creates an exception that allows for declaration of cards that require a character or company to be "facing an attack," even though the attack is merely declared. There is no "inner chain of effects" needed -- it's just a dice roll.
Masterpiece.
At the moment when Rescue Prisoners is declared it is not even known how many strikes will have the attack that it creates.
Your statements are often ignorant of how the rules changed overtime, which causes many of your misunderstandings. When Annotation 24 was drafted, it was absolutely known how many strikes Rescue Prisoners would ever have -- two. Rescue Prisoners could only ever have the 2 strikes listed in the card text because the attack is declared and resolved without any possibility for the number of strikes to be modified -- modifying the number is not a modification to a dice roll. As such, there was no time to modify Rescue Prisoner's 2 strikes without the amendment to Annotation 24.

But then Annotation 24 was amended, allowing for the strikes to be modified and for other effects (e.g., those requiring a character/company to be facing an attack) to be played as discussed above.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Still, even before The Dragons, the attack from Rescue Prisoners could be canceled and it was not known at the time of declaration which characters will face the strikes (if the attack will not be canceled), thus it was not known whether e.g. Risky Blow would be usable.

I can understand that some statements was made with assumption that the Earth is flat. They can be valid as long the assumption is valid.
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: Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:05 am Still, even before The Dragons, the attack from Rescue Prisoners could be canceled
Wrong. You need to read the rules.

Under the original rules and under the original Annotation 24 (including through The Dragons), it was NOT possible to cancel the attack from rescue prisoners. If you even bothered to read the original Annotation 24 you would see the examples given. "You could play Risky Blow on the scout, if he were also a warrior, after playing Lucky Search in the same chain of effects, because an action can target a dice-rolling action declared earlier in the same chain of effects." A strike is a dice rolling action. An attack is not a dice rolling action. An attack that is merely declared cannot be targeted without the amendment to Annotation 24, which did not come until long after The Dragons was released.

And the amendment to Annotation 24 just lets the player declare and resolve card effects between the effects of another card (as an except the the order required by Annotation 24). It does not create "inner chains of effects" as you make believe.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:05 am Still, even before The Dragons, the attack from Rescue Prisoners could be canceled and it was not known at the time of declaration which characters will face the strikes (if the attack will not be canceled), thus it was not known whether e.g. Risky Blow would be usable.
Why say something that is obviously wrong? The player of Rescue Prisoners absolutely knows at the time of declaration whether their characters will face the strikes or if they will cancel the attack. And the player knows at declaration of Rescue Prisoners whether they can and whether they will play Risky Blow or not.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:29 am And the player knows at declaration of Rescue Prisoners whether they can and whether they will play Risky Blow or not.
If he will know whether warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, or will be eligible to face a strike.

I do not why Lucky Search says "this attack/strike cannot be canceled." if there was not even possibility of canceling such attack at the time of its release.
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 09, 2020 7:36 am If he will know whether warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, or will be eligible to face a strike.
This statement is lacking proper grammar, has idiomatic errors, and is divorced from the required context. The statement has no meaning.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:36 am I do not why Lucky Search says "this attack/strike cannot be canceled." if there was not even possibility of canceling such attack at the time of its release.
Did you read the rule I quoted above? "An action can target a dice-rolling action declared earlier in the same chain of effects." A strike is a dice-rolling action. A strike-canceling action can target a strike declared earlier in the same chain of effects. At the time (Limited, Unlimited, The Dragons), canceling the 1 strike was considered to "cancel" the attack. So it's correct for Lucky Search to say "this attack/strike cannot be cancelled."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:02 pm If he will know whether warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, or will be eligible to face a strike.
This statement is lacking proper grammar, has idiomatic errors, and is divorced from the required context. The statement has no meaning.
If a player will know that the warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, and that the warrior will be eligible to face a strike.
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 09, 2020 6:33 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:02 pm If he will know whether warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, or will be eligible to face a strike.
This statement is lacking proper grammar, has idiomatic errors, and is divorced from the required context. The statement has no meaning.
If a player will know that the warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, and that the warrior will be eligible to face a strike.
IF you would explain the result of the "if" statement, THEN I might understand the point you are trying to make.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Anyway, back on topic:
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:35 pm
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:35 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:33 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:02 pm If he will know whether warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, or will be eligible to face a strike.
This statement is lacking proper grammar, has idiomatic errors, and is divorced from the required context. The statement has no meaning.
If a player will know that the warrior will remain in play until Rescue Prisoners will resolve, and that the warrior will be eligible to face a strike.
IF you would explain the result of the "if" statement, THEN I might understand the point you are trying to make.
I am replying to your posts mainly because other may read this thread.

Congratulation to CDavis7M for passing amount of 2000 published posts!
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

It's not something I'm proud of. In fact, I wish I needn't have.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”