Counters Remembering Text

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:

........what to do with a VD counter.......

I know a doctor in Pasadena that can help you with that!

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.