Ternary operation in setter VS Classic If

Currently working on modifying big mapping classes and some new rules have appeared making me wonder what is the best option here.

Imagine a classic mapping function like so:

yyy.setType(xxx.getType);
yyy.setSomething(xxx.getSomethigElse);
yyy.setThisAsWell(xxx.getThatAsWell);

And I now have a condition to check, what would be better? (knowing that I won't have future similar condition checking to do):

final Boolean isRuleApplying = xxx.getRule == RULE;
yyy.setType(
   isRuleApplying ? RULE_STUFF : xxx.getType
);
yyy.setSomething(
   isRuleApplying ? RULE_STUFF_OTHER : xxx.getSomethigElse
);
yyy.setThisAsWell(
   isRuleApplying ? RULE_STUFF_AGAIN : xxx.getThatAsWell
);

Or is it better to use the old if else?

if (xxx.getRule == RULE) {
   yyy.setType(RULE_STUFF);
   yyy.setSomething(RULE_STUFF_OTHER);
   yyy.setThisAsWell(RULE_STUFF_AGAIN);
} else {
   yyy.setType(xxx.getType);
   yyy.setSomething(xxx.getSomethigElse);
   yyy.setThisAsWell(xxx.getThatAsWell);
}

I feel that using ternary operation make it less maintainable and adds more complexity (checks everytime). But I wanted to get some other opinions.

Note: I have a bunch of try..catch so using if means duplicating those try blocks or adding an if in every block which kind of kills readability.