Curunir vs Defender of Rohan

[Dictionary]

I've noticed that unlike most post-shadows cards, Saruman, Curunir does not make a companion "lose X and cannot gain X" as was done with many cards targeting fierce (Such as Prized Lagan). Since Aragorn, Defender of Rohan's text is a While clause, does this mean he would automatically re-instate hunter on a companion targeted by Curunir?

[Eukalyptus]

I'd say they null each other out. Aragorn gives the keyword, Saruman takes it away. If there is another case of gaining Hunter, that'd work unless Saruman takes it away again.

[Dictionary]

That's what I thought too originally, but now I'm hazy. The reason I ask is because, having read threads talking about similar topics (Roaming, fierce), I can see two patterns. Some users have said that the "Not" effect takes precedence, which here would be Curunir, while others have said that ongoing effects override single-use ones (Which would mean Defender of Rohan overrides Curunir). Some similar examples would be:

- Hollin vs Advance Scout (And the Cirith Ungol uruks)
- Bill Ferny, SSF vs Bearer of Quality

I assume this is why Decipher started the: "Loses fierce and cannot gain fierce" idea, but I don't know if Hunter even works the same way as fierce or roaming, the three concepts might not even be comparable.

[Ringbearer]

I am not a rules expert (cue Bib) but I would say gain/loses is a one time happening, while not makes it a continuous effect.

[mardukra]

I couldn't find anything in the rules regarding losing a keyword vs. gaining a keyword.

It would seem, though, that continuous effects keep checking for their trigger (eg. While Merry bears a weapon, he is strength +2.) as the effect ends the moment the trigger is gone. Comp. Rules 4.0
As you pointed out, Curunir does not prevent the companion from gaining the keyword so the continuous effect would continue to trigger.

[Dictionary]

To revive this old topic of mine, I'm inclined to agree with Mardukra, but I'm still hazy. Also wondering about other cards like Run Until Found and Still Twitching. Any more thoughts?

[Tbiesty]

I go with the ruling that any continuous modifiers in LOTR that cause something to "lose X" or be "not X", have the final say.

[Dictionary]

I go with the ruling that any continuous modifiers in LOTR that cause something to "lose X" or be "not X", have the final say.

So are you saying someone targeted by Curunir cannot become a hunter in any way until Regroup?

[Tbiesty]

Yes, I chalk this up to rushed/untested/unproofread cards that were Hunter block at the end of the Decipher print run.  Otherwise it may be the only card that causes a card to "lose" something for a duration of time and not prevent it from somehow being gained back. In the end, oversights were made. I'm confident if there was a Players Committe rules team (like for Star Wars CCG) this would be the clarification it would rule for rules consistency.

[Dictionary]

Yes, I chalk this up to rushed/untested/unproofread cards that were Hunter block at the end of the Decipher print run.  Otherwise it may be the only card that causes a card to "lose" something for a duration of time and not prevent it from somehow being gained back. In the end, oversights were made. I'm confident if there was a Players Committe rules team (like for Star Wars CCG) this would be the clarification it would rule for rules consistency.

Nice, I think I prefer reading him that way too - it's clear and it makes him more useful.