Lure of Power

[the JabberwocK]

If 2 copies of this card are in play at the same time, which takes place?:

1) The effects of both cards stack and the character makes a corruption check modified by -8.

2) The effects both take place separately and the character makes 2 separate corruption checks each modified by -4.

3) The first effect takes place and gives a -4 modification, and the second effect does not trigger and its card remains in play for the next character who makes an influence attempt.

Thanks

[Shapeshifter]

If two instances of Lure of Power are in play and are triggered, only force one check at -4,
and both are discarded

.

[the JabberwocK]

Wow, that's not the answer I was expecting.

Thank you my friend!

[Konrad Klar]

Word of CRF, but not something what could be concluded from text of the card.

The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.) must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4. Discard this card after the corruption check. 'But we must have power, power to order all things as we will...'-LotRII

Underlines an bold mine.

Here is set: "a corruption check", "the corruption check", "this card".
Here is no set: "a corruption check", "such corruption check", "this card".
Here is also no set: "a corruption check", "the corruption check", "Lure of Power".

The second set would mean that all copies of LoP in play react on cc from any copy of LoP.
The third set would mean that after cc from given copy of LoP an action is executed that discards a card(s) named Lure of Power.
In both cases a net effect would be the same.

Existing set indicates that particular cc is tied with discarding a particular copy of Lure of Power. This implies:

2) The effects both take place separately and the character makes 2 separate corruption checks each modified by -4.

[Bandobras Took]

Hmm . . .

Actually, I think I see ICE's logic here.

According to card text, you have to discard lure of power after "the corruption check."

Which corruption check?

"a corruption check modified by -4."

I don't know that a corruption check is in any way attached to the particular card that created it. The implication is to discard after "the corruption check created by this card," but that's not what's written.

[Konrad Klar]

Try to apply this logic to the Fate of the Ithil-Stone, or to the Into the Smoking Cone.

Playable on a company at Minas Tirith if the company discards (for no effect) a Lost Knowledge card it controls. Tap this card if the company plays a Palantír; this card never untaps. If this card is tapped, invert it on the playing surface (rotate it 180ř) if the company enters Barad-dûr and plays a Stolen Knowledge card during the same site phase. If this card is inverted, it can be stored at a Haven [H]-only if stored do you receive its marshalling points. If this card is stored, all Palantíri give one less corruption point. Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted.

Playable on a company with a sage during the site phase at a site where gold ring items are playable. Tap this card if the company plays a ring special item; this card never untaps. If this card is tapped, the company can discard (for no effect) a Lost Knowledge card it controls during its site phase at Mount Doom and invert this card on the playing surface (rotate it 180ř). If inverted, you can store this card at a Haven [H]-only if stored do you receive its marshalling points. If stored, all ring items give one less corruption point. Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted.

Then why not to tap all copies of Fate of the Ithil-Stone when some company with Fate of the Ithil-Stone plays a Palantir? Why not to tap all copies of Into the Smoking Cone when some company with Into the Smoking Cone plays a ring special item?

Which corruption check?

"a corruption check modified by -4."

And even why not to discard all copies of Lure of Power in middle of resolution of Word of Menace and Deceit (for example)?

[Bandobras Took]

Try to apply this logic to the Fate of the Ithil-Stone, or to the Into the Smoking Cone.

Playable on a company at Minas Tirith if the company discards (for no effect) a Lost Knowledge card it controls. Tap this card if the company plays a Palantír; this card never untaps. If this card is tapped, invert it on the playing surface (rotate it 180ř) if the company enters Barad-dûr and plays a Stolen Knowledge card during the same site phase. If this card is inverted, it can be stored at a Haven [H]-only if stored do you receive its marshalling points. If this card is stored, all Palantíri give one less corruption point. Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted.

Playable on a company with a sage during the site phase at a site where gold ring items are playable. Tap this card if the company plays a ring special item; this card never untaps. If this card is tapped, the company can discard (for no effect) a Lost Knowledge card it controls during its site phase at Mount Doom and invert this card on the playing surface (rotate it 180ř). If inverted, you can store this card at a Haven [H]-only if stored do you receive its marshalling points. If stored, all ring items give one less corruption point. Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted.

Then why not to tap all copies of Fate of the Ithil-Stone when some company with Fate of the Ithil-Stone plays a Palantir? Why not to tap all copies of Into the Smoking Cone when some company with Into the Smoking Cone plays a ring special item?

Because in this case, "the company" is the company on which the card is played.

In the case of Lure of Power, "the corruption check" is a corruption check at -4. So . . .

And even why not to discard all copies of Lure of Power in middle of resolution of Word of Menace and Deceit (for example)?

That might also serve to discard Lure of Power. This is one I'll chalk up to ICE failing to write what they meant, and then clarifying in the CRF how it's supposed to work rather than altering the card text to actually make it work.

[Konrad Klar]

Because in this case, "the company" is the company on which the card is played.

Ehm...
So if there are multiple companies with Fate of the Ithil-Stone, only Fate of the Ithil-Stone #2 reacts on playing a Palantír by company with Fate of the Ithil-Stone #2.
However "the corruption check." from Lure of Power #2 does not need to be a cc caused by Lure of Power #2. That may be any cc modified by -4*.
Right?

*) not sure whether cc caused by Lure of Power and additionally modified by New Friendship qualifies as "the corruption check."

[Bandobras Took]

That's how I read the cards, yes. And no, I'm not sure about a modified corruption check, either. That's what I meant about ICE wording Lure of Power poorly.

[Konrad Klar]

OK, thanks.

I could agree that any "a corruption check modified by -4." would fulfill subsequently specified condition "such cc".
I cannot agree that any "a corruption check modified by -4." fulfills subsequently specified condition "this/the cc".

I do not see any problem in text of Lure of Power. I see a problem in CRF entry for Lure of Power.
(Similar with Icy Touch and with So You've Come Back - something different would be concluded from texts of the cards and/or from general rules).