With all these Shatter The Gate ideas I started thinking about counters remembering their text since shattered counters stay in play even if the Meth who played them is ousted. Vampiric Disease, Tegyrius Allegiance, et al. LSJ's ruling on Tegyrius counters is sound, though he had to double back when his first ruling was questioned groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/dc79355fe61285f7 . Well, what about Corruption counters? The ruling that the final counter used to steal the minion required the text to do so does not fit this logic. As long as even one counter on the minion had the text when placed it should remember it and be the counter 'used' when enough have gathered on the minion for it to be stealable, since (currently) the final counter does not care whether the others had the text or not.
Relevant text on Corruption, Venenation, Reformation, Contagion, Revelation of Ecstasy & Despair after the sentence placing the counter (same form used on Vampiric Disease, Shatter The Gate, Deploy The Hand, Tegyrius, etc):
If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or
exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that
ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion
to gain control of him or her.
Note: Reformation is only vampire.
I'd truly like to see Corruption counters given their text in the rules but even so, I do not see how they wouldn't be set off this way.
> Robert wrote:
> I'd truly like to see Corruption counters given their text in the rules...
>
Just as with my friends that believe that Maleficia and Striga need to be codified in the rulebook, I don't understand this logic.
You use some cards/text to put a corruption counter upon a target and you use some cards/text to trigger the Corruption counter(s).
Why is more text and/or more rules and/or more rulings needed?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
That is not my main point for writing this, Kevin. I do not mind if corruption counters are not in the rules, though I'd like them to be, I was only questioning the logic behind not allowing the counters to remember their text like all the other cards that give counters do. I'm not trying to make Weigh The Heart, Nerfititi and the like more playable in this regard, just asking a rules question which doesn't follow the logic of other rulings. Perhaps you've asked a rules question before, why? Since you don't see a reason for anymore "rulings needed". It isn't about you or what you feel, be more objective. I know you can, you've done it before. You've only quoted the part that bothered you and not the rest of the sentence which shows that I'm not pining for such a rulebook change. Out of context you try to make me a fool, just stop, unless you have a reasonable argument on why these counters should forget their text, unlike the others.
> Robert wrote:
> That is not my main point for writing this, Kevin. I do not mind if corruption counters are not in the rules, though I'd like them to be, I was only questioning the logic behind not allowing the counters to remember their text like all the other cards that give counters do.
>
Corruption counters *do* remember their text. The thing is that they have *no text* associated to them.
By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
Shatter the Gate(s) creates a permanent effect "A Methuselah with any shattered counters burns 3 pool during his or her untap phase."
Same thing with Vampiric Disease "Each time a vampire with a disease counter is in combat at close range with another vampire..."
And Tegyrius "Any Assamite with an allegiance counter is considered..."
No Corruption card create a permanent effect such as "Minions with a number of corruption counters..."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Robert wrote:
> > That is not my main point for writing this, Kevin. I do not mind if corruption counters are not in the rules, though I'd like them to be, I was only questioning the logic behind not allowing the counters to remember their text like all the other cards that give counters do.
> >
> Corruption counters *do* remember their text. The thing is that they have *no text* associated to them.
>
> By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
>
> Shatter the Gate(s) creates a permanent effect "A Methuselah with any shattered counters burns 3 pool during his or her untap phase."
> Same thing with Vampiric Disease "Each time a vampire with a disease counter is in combat at close range with another vampire..."
> And Tegyrius "Any Assamite with an allegiance counter is considered..."
>
> No Corruption card create a permanent effect such as "Minions with a number of corruption counters..."
>
To elaborate, Corruption etc. do two things: first they place a corruption counter, then they check the number of corruption counters on the targeted minion. The second effect is a one-time effect of the Corruption-action, not an ability of the corruption counter.
Correct.
We can imagine cards such as
"Bleed. If the bleed is successful, take control of a vampire who has at least X of your corruption counters ...".
Or "Strike: take control of the opposing if has at least X of your corruption counters ..."
Corruption counters are nothing but counters with a specific name (in this case, "corruption"). They have no effect by themselves.
> Corruption counters *do* remember their text. The thing is that they have *no text* associated to them.
>
This I will address.
> By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
>
This doesn't mean much since design intention is not always what comes out of the wording, hence updated reprints and errata.
> No Corruption card create a permanent effect such as "Minions with a number of corruption counters..."
>
They do seem to set a permenant effect that follows that form: "(If the number of your corruption counters) on the minion equals or
exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that
ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion
to gain control of him or her." I don't believe that it could be worded any simpler within that form. Also Pascal's examples are more akin to the text on Cave Of Apples than the others:
Any Follower of Set you control may put a corruption counter on an ally or younger vampire controlled by your prey as a action. If the action is successful and the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to gain control of him or her.
Within the same sentence (as per Pascal's clarifications) the Cave corruption counters cannot be used to take control unless the action itself was successful and the proper amount were there. The others leave instruction in what to do when there are enough, like what to do with a VD counter or a Hand counter, etc.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Corruption counters *do* remember their text. The thing is that they have *no text* associated to them.
> >
> This I will address.
>
> > By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
> >
> This doesn't mean much since design intention is not always what comes out of the wording, hence updated reprints and errata.
>
They have been reprinted many times, and the mechanics never changed.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > No Corruption card create a permanent effect such as "Minions with a number of corruption counters..."
> >
> They do seem to set a permenant effect that follows that form: "(If the number of your corruption counters) on the minion equals or
> exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that
> ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion
> to gain control of him or her."
>
Some aren't. See Revelation of Wrath and Weigh the Heart.
> Robert wrote:
> I don't believe that it could be worded any simpler within that form. Also Pascal's examples are more akin to the text on Cave Of Apples than the others:
>
> Any Follower of Set you control may put a corruption counter on an ally or younger vampire controlled by your prey as a action. If the action is successful and the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to gain control of him or her.
>
> Within the same sentence (as per Pascal's clarifications) the Cave corruption counters cannot be used to take control unless the action itself was successful and the proper amount were there. The others leave instruction in what to do when there are enough, like what to do with a VD counter or a Hand counter, etc.
>
Wrong. Cave of Apples indicates what happens if the action succeeds because Cave of Apples isn't an action itself.
Other cards are actions and apply only if the action is successful.
Basically, what you want isn't unifying the wording, but changing the corruption mechanics.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I agree with Robert's logic.
Corruption
Action
Follower of Set
+1 stealth action.
Put a corruption counter on a minion controlled by your prey. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion to gain control of him or her.
Is the "if" clause a permanent effect or does it resolve as part of the action? The text seems to create a permanent effect. The second sentence does not say "Upon resolution of the action, if the number of your corruption counters..." It doesn't say "...controlled by your prey, AND if the number..."
I did a scan of a few action cards that use "if" statements, they all put permanents into play. I didn't find any actions that had one effect, then a hypothetical second effect that is introduced with an "if" clause. Are there any?
As worded, these cards seem to create a permanent effect that their counters could remember. As Robert noted, it has been ruled that counters "remember" their effects, even if the card that gave them the effect is no longer in play. In the case of Contagion, for example, if the Contagion card is no longer in play, could a minion with >= corruption counters still be stolen during strike resolution in combat?
LSJ has ruled that the "if" clause is part of the card resolution itself instead of a permanent effect. That's fine, but I take Robert's point that the cards, as written, do not express that. They should have been rewritten with an "Upon resolution" clause.
FYI:
Contagion
Action
Daimoinon
+1 stealth action. Requires an Infernal vampire. Unique.
[dai] Put this card on the acting vampire. During each other Methuselah's untap phase, he or she burns 1 pool if this vampire is ready.
[DAI] As [dai] above, and once per combat, this vampire can put a corruption counter on the opposing minion as a strike. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds the capacity of that vampire or the cost of that ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion to gain control of him or her after strike resolution (ending combat).
> By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
>
> This doesn't mean much since design intention is not always what comes out of the wording, hence updated reprints and errata.
>
> They have been reprinted many times, and the mechanics never changed.
>
My reply was a general statement, however, Cave of Apples is the first one to change the wording and was the last printed (along with Despair which kept the original wording).
> They do seem to set a permenant effect that follows that form: "(If the number of your corruption counters) on the minion equals or
> exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that
> ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion
> to gain control of him or her."
>
> Some aren't. See Revelation of Wrath and Weigh the Heart.
>
And Nerfertiti and Cagliostro. Did you even read the original post? These cards do not have the text. I stated the 6 that do and why only one of the counters from them should set off the steal effect even if they are not the last to be placed, due to every other counter in the game remembering its text. Plus the fact that the last one doesn't care if the others had it, making them interchangeable for the effect since the wording uses the same form as every other card that gives counters does, and we know how to treat them because of it.
> Wrong. Cave of Apples indicates what happens if the action succeeds because Cave of Apples isn't an action itself.
> Other cards are actions and apply only if the action is successful.
>
Neither Contagion or Revelation of Despair are actions and their wording is the same as the others. Cave of Apples is the different one, and could just as easily been written the same way:
Any Follower of Set you control may put a corruption counter on an ally or younger vampire controlled by your prey as a D action. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to gain control of him or her.
> Basically, what you want isn't unifying the wording, but changing the corruption mechanics
>
What I want has nothing to do with it, I am objectively pointing out what seems to not logically follow what every other card that places counters does.
> Aaron wrote:
> LSJ has ruled that the "if" clause is part of the card resolution itself instead of a permanent effect. That's fine, but I take Robert's point that the cards, as written, do not express that. They should have been rewritten with an "Upon resolution" clause.
>
I would argue that, by default, all of the effects of an action card are "upon resolution". Any exceptions to this are due to explicit card text.
> Aaron wrote:
> I agree with Robert's logic.
>
> Corruption
> Action
> Follower of Set
> +1 stealth action.
> Put a corruption counter on a minion controlled by your prey. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion to gain control of him or her.
>
> Is the "if" clause a permanent effect or does it resolve as part of the action?
>
Resolves as part of the resolution. After that, the card is in the ash heap and has no effect whatsoever.
>
> Aaron wrote:
> The text seems to create a permanent effect. The second sentence does not say "Upon resolution of the action, if the number of your corruption counters..." It doesn't say "...controlled by your prey, AND if the number..."
>
?
It's an action card, which cardtext is triggered at resolution. Similarly, SchreckNET isn't a permanent constant untap.
> Aaron wrote:
> I did a scan of a few action cards that use "if" statements, they all put permanents into play. I didn't find any actions that had one effect, then a hypothetical second effect that is introduced with an "if" clause. Are there any?
>
Well, SchreckNET is put in play, but I'm sure you see it's "if" statement isn't constantly checked.
Otherwise: Vulture's Buffet's untap.
> Aaron wrote:
> As worded, these cards seem to create a permanent effect that their counters could remember. As Robert noted, it has been ruled that counters "remember" their effects, even if the card that gave them the effect is no longer in play. In the case of Contagion, for example, if the Contagion card is no longer in play, could a minion with >= corruption counters still be stolen during strike resolution in combat?
>
No. You need to strike with Contagion to use Contagion's cardtext.
This thread (a discussion between "LSJ" and "Aaron" ) shows there is a difference between a permanent effect (which doesn't involve "you"), and a usable-in-window effect (when wording uses "you").
> Aaron wrote:
> LSJ has ruled that the "if" clause is part of the card resolution itself instead of a permanent effect. That's fine, but I take Robert's point that the cards, as written, do not express that. They should have been rewritten with an "Upon resolution" clause.
>
Action cards all implicitely read "upon resolution".
Does Bum's Rush need "Upon resolution, enter combat with ..." ?
Does superior Govern need "Upon resolution, move 3 blood .." ?
Does Consanguineous Boon need "Upon resolution, call a Consanguineous Boon referendum and choose a clan. Successful referendum ..." ?
This is what action cards *do*.
Cave of Apples is different. Since it's a card in play, it couldn't read "You may put a corruption counter on a vampire. If the number of your corruption counters is ..." Indeed, this would mean having 2 different things happen:
a/ making an action to put a corruption counter possible
b/ permanently check if a vampire has enough corruption counters to be stolen.
The design of that card was clearly to limit the stealing to the resolution of one such action.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > By design, other cards are needed to interact with corruption counters.
> >
> > This doesn't mean much since design intention is not always what comes out of the wording, hence updated reprints and errata.
> >
> > They have been reprinted many times, and the mechanics never changed.
> >
> My reply was a general statement, however, Cave of Apples is the first one to change the wording and was the last printed (along with Despair which kept the original wording).
>
Cave of Apples is also the first permnanent that has the stealing part of the effect. It couldn't be written in two sentences, as I described right above.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > They do seem to set a permenant effect that follows that form: "(If the number of your corruption counters) on the minion equals or
> > exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that
> > ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion
> > to gain control of him or her."
> >
> > Some aren't. See Revelation of Wrath and Weigh the Heart.
> >
> And Nerfertiti and Cagliostro. Did you even read the original post? These cards do not have the text. I stated the 6 that do and why only one of the counters from them should set off the steal effect even if they are not the last to be placed, due to every other counter in the game remembering its text. Plus the fact that the last one doesn't care if the others had it, making them interchangeable for the effect since the wording uses the same form as every other card that gives counters does, and we know how to treat them because of it.
>
You're assuming "Corruption counters" have an effect, which is not the way to look at it.
If you assume "Corruption counters" have as much effect as Debauchery counters or Investment counters, it might be clearer. Then, some cards can interact with "corruption counters". Nakhthorheb is such a card. Revelations of Wrath is such a card. Corruption is such a card.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Cave of Apples indicates what happens if the action succeeds because Cave of Apples isn't an action itself.
> > Other cards are actions and apply only if the action is successful.
> >
> Neither Contagion or Revelation of Despair are actions and their wording is the same as the others. Cave of Apples is the different one, and could just as easily been written the same way:
>
> Any Follower of Set you control may put a corruption counter on an ally or younger vampire controlled by your prey as a D action. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to gain control of him or her.
>
As said prveiously, this would mean there is a permanent check on the number of corruption counters on vampires. This is not the case.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Basically, what you want isn't unifying the wording, but changing the corruption mechanics
> >
> What I want has nothing to do with it, I am objectively pointing out what seems to not logically follow what every other card that places counters does.
>
Not "every other card that places counters". Merely "every other card that places counters and that grants these counters a behaviour".
Palla Grande's "Debauchery" counters do nothing.
> Not "every other card that places counters". Merely "every other card that places counters and that grants these counters a behaviour".
>
> Palla Grande's "Debauchery" counters do nothing.
>
Yeah, that was assumed or you could just re-cite Nefertiti, Weigh The Heart, et al.
> You're assuming "Corruption counters" have an effect, which is not the way to look at it.
> If you assume "Corruption counters" have as much effect as Debauchery counters or Investment counters, it might be clearer. Then, some cards can interact with "corruption counters". Nakhthorheb is such a card. Revelations of Wrath is such a card. Corruption is such a card.
>
So could Goth Band with any counter on a master.
The only problem I have with that statement is that the formula is essentially the same as the other 'counters with effects'. LSJ's interpretation of the implied 'you' still feels arbitrary, or at least grammatically semantical.
I see the reasoning behind Cave Of Apples wording now, but it doesn't really change the initial discussion, makes it easier to deal with, actually, since it would have been the odd card out (other than the doling out of counters).
I do not have a pressing need or want for corruption counters to change the way they set off, it works just fine now and is less complicated. I just believe that there is a true discrepency between their effects and other cards that place counters effects.
> Robert wrote:
> Out of context you try to make me a fool, just stop,
>
This is disgusting hyperbole, I never tried to make you a fool, I didn't say anything out of line except that I didn't understand why this question needed to be asked. Learn to read.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
The question was asked because an indiscretion seemed prominent, but you jumped on a piece of the original post that had nothing to do with that, quoting a partial sentence to conveniently change the point at hand so you could condescend. Learn to be socially adept.
> Robert wrote:
> I do not have a pressing need or want for corruption counters to change the way they set off, it works just fine now and is less complicated. I just believe that there is a true discrepency between their effects and other cards that place counters effects.
>
I think cards that create counters and remain in play (Kanimana, Carver's, ..) are fully operational. In this case, counters do nothing, but the cards that created them describe how what happens to things with these counters.
The issue seems to be with cards that create counters, but are burned, and still have the counters do something (Vampiric Disease, Shatter the Gates, Tegyrius, ...)
These cards create an effect that remains after they're gone.
I don't think counters have memory.
I think players do.
Some effects kick in when there is a certain number of counters of a certain type.
Others say "Players remember! Henceforth, when we get a certain number of these counters in that place I'm telling you right now, this thing happens.
Never forget this, the same way you shalt not forget to pay for a Smiling Jack in play."
But the counters themselves only know their own name.
Tiago
> Robert wrote:
> The question was asked because an indiscretion seemed prominent, but you jumped on a piece of the original post that had nothing to do with that, quoting a partial sentence to conveniently change the point at hand so you could condescend. Learn to be socially adept.
>
Robert, stop putting your epithets on me. I was genuinely wondering why you felt the question needed to be asked. I'm not anymore, I'm just defending myself from your slime. Please stop.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
To me what is challenging about the text of Corruption is that it seems to put a permanent into play and then explain what the power of the permanent is. That is what I thought it meant the first time that I read it, and I would not have thought otherwise without having read the rules clarification.
Your reading of the card is reasonable, and obviously it is official. But as you have mentioned, there are many cards in the game, including those that create counters, whose effects are felt after they leave play or are played.
I say you can reasonably interpret the card both ways, but I think adding a "upon resolution" clause to the "if" statement" would have made the official reading clearer to the average reader (meaning me!).
(BTW, that was not me in that 2001 discussion! - I wasn't playing VTES then...)
It is a card that basically dumps a thing called a "corruption counter" then the various cards compare the counters to a condition (usually capacity). If that check meets the conditions then the player MAY gain the effect (usually stealing the minion).
The counters are just called "corruption counters", like there are "anarch counters", debauchery counters, and so on.
I agree it would probably be good to rewrite VD to read:
Vampiric Disease
Type: Master
Master.
Put a disease counter on any vampire. If there are no Vampiric Disease cards in play, put it in play; this card remains in play if there are any Vampiric Disease counters and remains even if this Methuselah is ousted. Each time a vampire with a disease counter is in combat at close range with another vampire, the second vampire gets a counter as well. An afflicted vampire cannot gain blood by hunting. When an afflicted vampire untaps, he or she burns a blood or, if unable, burns the disease counter. A vampire can have only one disease counter.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
I think the comparison between counters has come off all wrong. The only counters in the game that correlate to corruption's stealing effect would have to be derangement counters, given by Theron. If 6 derangement counters are on a 6 cap vampire with a discipline card and then the vampire loses the card they will or will not become Malkavian antitribu?
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Vampiric Disease
> Type: Master
> Master.
> Put a disease counter on any vampire. If there are no Vampiric Disease cards in play, put it in play; this card remains in play if there are any Vampiric Disease counters and remains even if this Methuselah is ousted. Each time a vampire with a disease counter is in combat at close range with another vampire, the second vampire gets a counter as well. An afflicted vampire cannot gain blood by hunting. When an afflicted vampire untaps, he or she burns a blood or, if unable, burns the disease counter. A vampire can have only one disease counter.
>
With better wording:
Vampiric Disease
Type: Master
Master.
Put this card in play and put a disease counter on any vampire. If there are no disease counters in play, burn this card. If the controller of this card is ousted, the controllers predator takes control of this card. Each time a vampire with a disease counter is in combat at close range with another vampire, the second vampire gets a counter as well. An afflicted vampire cannot gain blood by hunting. When an afflicted vampire untaps, he or she burns a blood or, if unable, burns the disease counter. A vampire can have only one disease counter.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
> Robert wrote:
> I think the comparison between counters has come off all wrong. The only counters in the game that correlate to corruption's stealing effect would have to be derangement counters, given by Theron. If 6 derangement counters are on a 6 cap vampire with a discipline card and then the vampire loses the card they will or will not become Malkavian antitribu?
>
Yes. [LSJ 20060209] .
It seems that the generic behaviour for counters put in play by crypt cards is:
if the crypt card leaves play, the counters continue to behave as the crypt card described. (Tegyrius, Theron, .. would still work. Nefertiti's counters would still do nothing)