The "playing" vs "placing" of corruption cards is one issue. Probably better addressed in the other post:
http://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewto ... 145&t=3703
The issue of multiple copies of Icy Touch is a different issue.
Icy Touch wrote:The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Icy Touch wrote:If two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, and the second one is
discarded without effect.
This CRF statement is actually a complete sentence and it also describes how similar cards like Lure of Power and Traitor work, which also have similar CRF. This is explained in the ICE Digests below.
If 2 copies of Icy Touch are played on an attack (giving +2 prowess), and a character (on whom corruption was not played this turn) gets wounded, both copies will trigger (as a result of the passive wounding-condition) but only 1 copy will have effect (i.e., only 1 Icy Touch will be placed with the character, the other gets discarded). This failure of multiple effects is a consequence of the triggering of the passive condition and not a consequence of multiple corruption cards being played/placed with the same character.
As with Icy Touch, if 2 Traitors are in play and a corruption check is failed, both Traitors trigger (as a result of a passive condition) and will be discarded but only 1 has effect. If 2 Lure of Powers are in play and an influence check succeeds, then only 1 corruption check is made.
CRF rules on Passive Conditions:
Passive Conditions
- A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
- Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
- Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
- Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
- A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
Now, the 3 ICE Digests:
ICE Digest 79 wrote:From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>If two Rivers are played on a site during the M/H phase, when the
>resource player decides to tap a ranger to satisfy ONE are they BOTH
>then satisfied? It would seem so, because the conditions for both were
>met simultaneously. Compare this to Lure of Power (multiples go away
>when one is checked) and Traitor (same thing.)
No, you have to tap two rangers.
>Second part of the question: What is the underlying rule/mechanism that
>causes secondary Lures and Traitors to go away like this, and if River
>is not the same, why not?
The underlying mechanism for Traitor is that it is an effect triggered
by a passive condition. Since they are not numerical effects that
could be done cumulatively, they are both discarded, and the effect
only applies once.
River is different. It is an effect (the company can't do anything)
that can be cancelled (by tapping a ranger). If two are having an
effect on play, they must be canceled individually, by tapping two
rangers.
ICE Digest 80 wrote:
>From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>To: me...@tower.ml.org
>Subject: Re: METW digest 79: River Revisited
>Message-ID: <354DEC...@popmail.vnet.net>
>
>I guess I don't understand the subtle semantics. Could you help me
>better understand? Consider the text of River:
>
>Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn
>does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.
>
>(No mention of cumulative in the text.)
If it is assumed that in order to have a cumulative effect the card
must state it is cumulative, then two Fellowships would give a +1
to prowess. A card does not have to mention that it is cumulative
to have a cumulative effect.
Generally the opposite is true. If a card can't have a cumulative
effect on play, it will be unique or cannot be duplicated. Passive
conditions are a little different, since if there are two in play,
both will get triggered at the same time, for no extra effect. But
since River is a short-event, and not a card in play, it does not
work as a passive condition. Even if it did what would it be? "If
you tap a ranger, then you may do something during the site phase?"
But you can already do something during the site phase, so that
is meaningless.
>Order of play: my opponent plays two Rivers during the M/H phase. They
>are played and resolve seperately. They are short events, so once
>played they are discarded, they do not stay on the site (Wizard's
>Companion p 29) as a long event or permanent event would. The site now
>has a "memorized" condition, tap a ranger or you can't do anything here.
>Since there is no mention of a cumulative effect on River in its text
>the site shouldn't "remember" the need for two rangers to be tapped,
>only that "If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not
>tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase." If I tap a
>ranger, one ranger, that condition has been met. Since there is no
>mention of "cumulative" in River's text, he could play three on the site
>and it wouldn't matter: so long as I tapped a (singular) ranger I have
>met the "conditon" placed on the site.
This is all based on the fact that River doesn't say cumulative.
Since River is cumulative, the site should remember the need for
two rangers to be tapped.
And again, what river does is put an effect that you can't do
anything on a site. If you tap a ranger, it gets rid of the
effect. But if there are two such effects on the site, the
second one will still have an effect on play, until you tap
a second ranger.
ICE Digest 81 wrote:
From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>Ok, I follow you in that there is no "cumulative" text in the game; if
>two cards are not prohibited from being in play simultaneously then
>their effects are assumed to be cumulative. This still leaves the
>question of why Lure of Power is not cumulative?
Because that's the way passive conditions work. If two of the same
effect trigger at the same time, only one of them applies, but they
are both considered to have triggered for purposes of discarding
them.
>Traitors not having an effect I can see, mainly due to the resolution
>text on the card, but I still don't understand why a "duplicate" Traitor
>card goes away: why doesn't it wait for the next failed corruption
>check?
Because the next corruption check has already happened.
I'm still trying to work out how this all plays out. But I believe it hinges on the fact that the all 3 copies of Icy Touch are triggered by the same "
next character wounded." But when the triggered actions are declared in the following chain of effects, the "next character wounded (next character wounded after the last character wounded)" can't be determined for the later copies because it hasn't happened yet.