Weak-willed Orcs are the best escape artists?

[Theo]

Two of the prisoner-taking cards specify additional body checks that prisoners must make: Flies and Spiders, and Spells of the Barrow-Wights. Say an Orc/Troll is taken prisoner. It seems that the "Discard on a body check result of X (or Y)" actually helps them escape from prison (and thus help their player escape the negative marshalling point penalty)?

Is there no errata on this? How does this match "This effect represents the target running or slinking away from the attack" when there is no attack??

Statistically this would mean that characters discarded on a 7 or 8 are more likely to self-escape Spells of the Barrow-Wights before death / game end (11 to 10 ratio) than even those discarded on a 10 (which isn't even possible, as near as I can figure) (3 to 3 ratio)! What?? (Not to mention that non-Orcs/Trolls/Ringwraiths can NEVER self-escape from Spells of the Barrow-Wights...)

Ringwraiths returning to hand I could see as being more reasonable, since they are wraiths... tasty orcs not so much.

[rezwits]

I could also see, a world where the forces of darkness, aka minions, can't be taken prisoner. I mean the only fringe would be "Shelob's Spawn" ...

So to me, I wouldn't really worry too much, and be thankful, if that was my goal, for "minions" to take "minions" prisoner...

It's kind of a wash, the way I see things...

[Bandobras Took]

It fits with the intended mechanic, which is that you are punished more for getting a strong character imprisoned than a weak one. As for not making thematic sense, I don't think any of us would be here at this point if we felt the rules had to make thematic sense.

[Theo]

I found this:

>One of us was playing an Undead hazard strategy and he noticed that 'Spells of the Barrow-Wights' specifies that the attack mearly be sucessful. So, he targetted a Ringwraith with a detainment undead attack which succeeded and took the RW prisoner.
>
>Now, the second time the RW made a body roll, he rolled a 7 (maybe it was an eight). Anyway, according to the rules on a 7 or 8 the RW mount is destroyed and the RW is returned to your hand. Alright, if you *can* take a RW prisoner, does having him returned to your hand in this manner make any kind of sense?

Well, its the correct rules. I don't think it makes sense either. I'll ask ICE if they want to make a clarification about this. This isn't the only weird case either: does it make sense for an Orc to run away scared from jail?

I haven't been able to find any follow up. We can speculate as to whether this means ICE didn't see the need for a change, or whether Ichabod never asked.

[Theo]

I realized that Orcs and Trolls cannot be escape artists.

When taken prisoner, a character cannot take any actions (including healing or untapping) and cannot be affected by any cards except for those that specifically affect characters taken prisoner.

Any cards includes themselves. Orc and Troll characters are not cards that specifically affect characters taken prisoner. Their discard mechanic should be ignored.

Ringwraiths still seem to be escape artists. Maybe that's reasonable as wraiths.

[Konrad Klar]

Good catch!
I always read "Discard on a body check result of..." as how to interpret some result of body check, but if this is an action caused by passive condition, you are right.

[Konrad Klar]

Wait.
What if Muzgash has body lowered by 1 and result of bc is 8?
If "Discard on a body check result of 8" is an action caused by passive condition, the action will not happen.
bc has been performed (its result is not altered), then when it comes to execution of "Discard on a body check result of 8" Muzgash is not in play.

[CDavis7M]

Whether the effect is a passive condition or not has no bearing on this discussion about orc prisoners.

[Konrad Klar]

"Effect" (discarding of Orc/Troll character) is (or is not) result of passive condition, not passive condition itself.
If some passive condition, or other effect in play, would cause cc for all characters then characters off to the side would not be affected. They will not be affected at Council too.

EDIT: "of to the side" -> "off to the side"

[CDavis7M]

"Effect" (discarding of Orc/Troll character) is (or is not) result of passive condition, not passive condition itself.

I agree, the passive condition is the action occurring in the game that triggers some effect to occur.

If some passive condition, or other effect in play, ...

I don't see how you can make the first statement and then go on to say "passive condition, or other effect" since a passive condition is not an effect itself -- it's a condition for triggering effects. Saying "passive condition or other effect" suggests that a "passive condition" is an effect.

If some ... effect in play, would cause cc for all characters then characters off to the side would not be affected. They will not be affected at Council too.

My previous statement was "Whether the effect [[uses]] a passive condition or not has no bearing on this discussion about orc prisoners." Specifically, whether the Orc's card text effect uses a passive condition or not has no bearing on the MEDM prisoner rules. I mention this because other some of the recent posts suggested that use passive conditions somehow mattered.

[Konrad Klar]

I agree, the passive condition is the action occurring in the game that triggers some effect to occur.

I would say the passive condition is the effect occurring in the game that triggers some action to occur (as stated in text of card in play).

Saying "passive condition or other effect" suggests that a "passive condition" is an effect.

.
Yes. Exhausting a play deck, a company moving through certain region, result of some check, end of some phase are effects.
Not necessarily "results".

My previous statement was "Whether the effect [[uses]] a passive condition or not has no bearing on this discussion about orc prisoners." Specifically, whether the Orc's card text effect uses a passive condition or not has no bearing on the MEDM prisoner rules. I mention this because other some of the recent posts suggested that use passive conditions somehow mattered.

Lest's talk about problem, not about its cause.

If there is something other than effect that specifically refers to a card off to the side (whole class, or particular card) it does not affect the card off to the side.
Text of Spells of the Barrow-Wights specifically refers to particular character hosted by the card. It forces the character to make bc.

Now. If some result of the bc indicates that the character is discarded/returned to hand, then he is discarded/returned to hand.
However if result of bc itself does not indicate so, but some other effect (written on card in play, or otherwise existing in play) says that if result of bc was such or such, then character is discarded, returned to hand, something else, then it has no effect on the character off to the side.

In the second case the effect happens after bc has been performed and its result implemented.

Either "Discard on a body check result of..." is integral part of bc of some characters, or bc and "Discard on a body check result of..." are decoupled.

EDIT: "If something" -> "If there is something"

[Konrad Klar]

Of course MEDM prisoner rules do not mention passive condition, body check and other general topics.
Nonetheless some imprisoning cards may cause bc. And certain result of bc may be passive condition of other action.

[Theo]

I think I see what you're wondering, Konrad. There could be a difference between these two hierarchies of affecting:

1. [character ability] changes [body check rules] changes [body check effect]
2. [character ability] changes [body check effect] (via passive condition)

One might argue that hierarchy (a) is not a case of the character card directly affecting itself (needed to be prevented by prisoner rules), because it only affects the rule that then affects the prisoner.

I would still argue that it [would otherwise] affect the prisoner because the rule modification is scoped only for the prisoner's body checks; i.e., it would be a modification of the body check rules for that character.

[Konrad Klar]

I would still argue that it affects the prisoner because the rule modification is scoped only for the prisoner's body checks; i.e., it would be a modification of the body check rules for that character.

Any cards includes themselves. Orc and Troll characters are not cards that specifically affect characters taken prisoner. Their discard mechanic should be ignored.

So you have changed your opinion?

Why just not to say:
"Discard on a body check result of..." is not action caused by passive condition as it may appear for some player(s), but alternation of result of body check.
?

Effects that modify a character's body also modify the number an Orc or Troll would
be discarded on. A maximum to body applies equally to the discard number.
If an Orc or Troll could be discarded and eliminated by a result, discard them instead
of eliminating them.

seems supporting that.

[CDavis7M]

Everything (mechanics, timing, interactions with other cards or effects) works exactly the same whether the Orc's discard-on-body-check effect uses passive conditions or whether it is an effect that modifies the result of the body check.