Some existing rules are ambiguous, and multiple reasonable conclusions---mutually exclusive with one another---may be drawn from them. In such cases I believe clarifications are appropriate to specify which conclusions were intended.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:57 amSome statements may be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. The statements deserve for "clarification" status.
Some statements may not be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. They may be even a reconstruction of intent of authors of the rules, but the rules themselves say otherwise. The statements deserve for "errata" status.
As far as I would expect, the two contentious points in my reasoning are:
* Can effects of cards already in play count as being played?
* Can an effect including “place with” or “place under” a character of a card already played count as the card played on the character?
To the first point, from existing rules:
.MELE wrote:Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played
Conclusion: yes, effects of cards already in play can count as being played. For some of the corruption cards the receiving of corruption and placement of card is not actively declared by a player, so I could envision someone contending that those effects might not be played; but neither are the effects of most passive conditions actively declared by a player, and those are specifically mentioned in the quoted rules section. I do not concern myself with whether or not all such effects are played, but only the possibility that some are.
To the second point, from existing rules:
From the preceding conclusion, effects can be considered to be played. The effect of placement of the card implies that there is there is a play of the card. Does "place with" or "place under" imply "place on"? They needn't in general. But it is indisputable that the play of the effect would have an effect on the character: the character receives corruption points.
Summary: there is an effect (character receiving corruption points and having card placed with/under), the possibility that the effect is considered played, the play of the corruption card, and the play of an effect on a character.
Second Point Conclusion: yes.
Further, in this case I think the ambiguity has already been resolved by ruling out alternatives, but indirectly enough that an explicit clarification such as the one proposed would be useful:
If the effect of these cards did not cause the card to be played on the character, the received corruption could signify nothing.MELE wrote:A character’s accumulated corruption equals the total corruption points of all cards played on him.
Of course, an alternative perspective could be that this rule also needs errata to include "placement"; I value interpretations with fewer necessary errata.