I’d probably use “subrule” instead of “subsection”, since the former has an actual formal definition.

noted

I don’t think the “helps … achieve” is sufficiently well defined to be useful for scoring. The rule should probably be worded along the lines of “take 2 Triumphs away from a Traitor if they gain one from reaching a target, but add 2 Triumphs to a Traitor if the opposing team gains one from reaching a target”.

You also need to track Traitors somehow (presumably they’re tracked by the Mastermind that appoints them, but the rule needs to say that.)

Finally, I think the requirement here should be “difference of 3 or greater” rather than “difference of 2 or greater” – that doesn’t matter at the current player count, but 5 vs. 3 probably shouldn’t lead to a Traitor appointment, whereas 5 vs. 2 should.

(Note that you can’t have the Traitor’s Triumphs change as part of the normal Triumphing action, as that may quite possibly be done by someone who doesn’t know who the Traitor is.)

There’s also a potential pooling issue here in that you can give away free Triumph points by sniping someone with the Traitor status just before you score, but I don’t expect that to be a problem in practice – a team with a 3-member deficit would struggle to score without their Traitor actively helping them.

Oh, we’re out of edit window.

I am fine with the general principle behind this, and would encourage you or someone else to submit a corrected version.  for this wording, though, as it breaks the scoring rule in two different ways (it requires players to make an impossible tracker update when scoring (they have to reduce the Traitor’s Triumphs rather than increase them, which they can’t do due to not ); and Traitor is an orphaned variable).

I like the concept and would vote for normally, but I’ll have to per the issues ais mentioned.

  The most elegant fix is probably to piggy back on the post saying which teams won. Make it the minority mastermind’s duty to apply the triumph changes, announcing the traitor if they have one. (If there’s categorically no traitor due to team participant counts, let either mastermind do it.)

Yeah, it’s unfortunate  

I’d enjoy a Traitor Reputation.