Counters Remembering 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.

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.