Seeds of Corruption

Okay, I don't know if there's been any discussion of this card, but, I have a question. My predator plays Seeds of Corruption. (If your prey gets the edge, put a counter on this card; during your master phase, if the number of counters on the card = the blood on one of your prey's vampires, take control of the vampire) I have a vampire in torpor with no blood on it. 1) Does he take control of this vampire? 2) Does he have to wait until the action of the card has been satisfied in some way? We, in our play group, were split two vs. two on this. This seems to be one of those cards that is over interpreted (if you will). To two of us, counters on the card *implies* that at least one counter must be on that card in order to use it. The action of the card--prey getting the edge--*must* have occurred before the card's other effect (taking control of a vampire) may even be considered. Any ideas?

vanv...@tc.umn.edu (Paul J. Van Voorhis) writes: >My predator plays Seeds of Corruption. (If your prey gets the edge, put a >counter on this card; during your master phase, if the number of counters >on the card = the blood on one of your prey's vampires, take control of >the vampire) >I have a vampire in torpor with no blood on it. >1) Does he take control of this vampire? He can, at his option, yes. >2) Does he have to wait until the action of the card has been satisfied in >some way? Once it has gone through unblocked, and all of the card-text requirements are met, no further waiting is necessary. >We, in our play group, were split two vs. two on this. This seems to be >one of those cards that is over interpreted (if you will). To two of us, >counters on the card *implies* that at least one counter must be on that >card in order to use it. The action of the card--prey getting the >edge--*must* have occurred before the card's other effect (taking control >of a vampire) may even be considered. It has zero counters, which is >= the amount of blood on one of your vampires. It says nothing about the number of counters being at least one, and has no errata to that effect, either. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | One single fact can ruin a http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | perfectly good argument. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <53auup$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >vanv...@tc.umn.edu (Paul J. Van Voorhis) writes: >>My predator plays Seeds of Corruption. (If your prey gets the edge, put a >>counter on this card; during your master phase, if the number of counters >>on the card = the blood on one of your prey's vampires, take control of >>the vampire) > >>I have a vampire in torpor with no blood on it. > >>1) Does he take control of this vampire? Well, you mean Form of Corruption, not Seeds, but close enough. Text reads: "Put this card in play. You may not play this card if you have a Form of Corruption card in play. Each time your prey gets the Edge, put a Form counter on this card. During your master phase, if the number of counters on this card equals or exceeds the amount of blood on a vampire controlled by your prey, you may burn this card to take control of that vampire. As above, and your prey burns 1 pool when you burn this card." >He can, at his option, yes. ...as long as he waits until his next master phase. >>2) Does he have to wait until the action of the card has been satisfied in >>some way? > >Once it has gone through unblocked, and all of the card-text requirements >are met, no further waiting is necessary. Exactly. Form has two working bits: If prey gets edge, then counter. this is a separate bit from if counters >= blood on vamp during master phase then burn to own vamp. If the case 0=0 happens, then the card's requirements are met and the card may be burned at next opportunity. >>We, in our play group, were split two vs. two on this. This seems to be >>one of those cards that is over interpreted (if you will). To two of us, >>counters on the card *implies* that at least one counter must be on that >>card in order to use it. The action of the card--prey getting the >>edge--*must* have occurred before the card's other effect (taking control >>of a vampire) may even be considered. There is no precedent for this reasoning, although I predict the rules team will scurry to their "A set may not equal zero" ruling on choose-a-set-of-Methuselahs effects (which, again, was lame) to support the interpretation that weakens Form -- one of the few decent cards in Serpentis after they were done hosing Phobia. >It has zero counters, which is >= the amount of blood on one of your >vampires. It says nothing about the number of counters being at least one, >and has no errata to that effect, either. perzackly. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods