Can't take it with you

I'm thinking about the situation in which you had a poison pill in your hand and I'm laughing... XD

TwoRazorReign wrote:

For example: "I want coffee or tea" means one of these things is wanted, whereas "I want coffee and tea" means both of these things are wanted.

You've skipped over the word each, which means that you deal with each member of the group of two or more things individually. If you saw an honesty box saying "Pay $1 for each tea or coffee", people wouldn't generally interpret that to mean "Pick either tea or coffee, pay $1 for one of them, and don't pay for the other." The phrasing "each A or B" is somewhat less common than "each A and B" if you Google for both with common words, which suggests there are probably dialect differences, possibly just idiolect.

However, in V:TES, the same "each A or B" phrasing turns up on quite a few cards, with little to no confusion.

• No-one assumes that Nephandus takes less damage from either strikes or damaging effects, but that he has to pick one or the other. "Each strike or damaging effect made against the Nephandus by the opposing minion during combat inflicts 1 less damage. "
• I've never seen anyone think that they can burn only locations or equipment, but not both, with Revolutionary Council. "...each location or equipment assigned a point is burned."
• Dam the Heart's River works for your strikes and also for your other damaging effects: "each strike or damaging effect made against the opposing minion inflicts +1 damage."
• Exclusion Principle was reworded in the Anarch-as-a-sect ruling to "Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool for each ready Independent or Anarch vampire he or she controls.", which was presumably intended to keep the same overall effect as before, as the other changes were. (i.e. one Ravnos Indy + one Ravnos Anarch gets you 2 pool, as it would have done before when the Anarch was also Indy)
• Song of Pan presumably affects Kiasyd and allies, though I can't say I've ever seen the issue come up. "inflict 1 unpreventable damage on each Kiasyd or changeling ally you control who did not successfully bleed this turn."

Change to 'and' so it reads like this:

"Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool. Each Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location and retainer card he or she controls."

Nek minit:
"My 5 ravens are only retainers, not a retainer and location, therefore i don't burn pool".

jamesatzephyr wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

For example: "I want coffee or tea" means one of these things is wanted, whereas "I want coffee and tea" means both of these things are wanted.

You've skipped over the word each, which means that you deal with each member of the group of two or more things individually. If you saw an honesty box saying "Pay $1 for each tea or coffee", people wouldn't generally interpret that to mean "Pick either tea or coffee, pay $1 for one of them, and don't pay for the other."

That's not a good example. People generally drink either tea or coffee, so your sign is written with that foreknowledge in mind. Change the sign to "Pay $1 for each milk or cereal," and that sign would be very confusing and could mean a few different things the reader would have to interpret. This is where we are with "Can't Take it With You." VTES players don't generally choose equipment, locations, and retainers either as a group or separately, so there is no intuition to draw upon like there is in your example.

The phrasing "each A or B" is somewhat less common than "each A and B" if you Google for both with common words, which suggests there are probably dialect differences, possibly just idiolect.

Results of a Google search likely don't impart useful information and therefore are not suggestive of anything. I doubt there are idiomatic differences.

However, in V:TES, the same "each A or B" phrasing turns up on quite a few cards, with little to no confusion.

Trust me, this does create a lot of confusion, especially in a playgroup of all new players. The experience of someone who plays a lot of VTES and knows how the cards are supposed to work is much different that that for one who does not have that foreknowledge and is relying solely on card text

• No-one assumes that Nephandus takes less damage from either strikes or damaging effects, but that he has to pick one or the other. "Each strike or damaging effect made against the Nephandus by the opposing minion during combat inflicts 1 less damage. "

Probably better if this was changed to "Each strike and damaging effect." I've had to reread the card and think about what to do when a Nephandus was in combat against a Aid from Bats/Carrion Crows combo in the past (the question was, "am I supposed to choose which source inflicts 1 less damage"?)

I've never seen anyone think that they can burn only locations or equipment, but not both, with Revolutionary Council. "...each location or equipment assigned a point is burned."

That's because the first part of the card states it correctly: "allocate 2X points among one or more Methuselahs, locations, and equipment." "or" should be changed to "and" at the end of the card too.

Dam the Heart's River works for your strikes and also for your other damaging effects: "each strike or damaging effect made against the opposing minion inflicts +1 damage."

Again, it should be "and." If one were playing the Aid From Bats/Carrion Crows combo with Dam the Heart's River, the current "or" wording may make one pause and think if the effect applies to one or the other, whereas the change to "and" makes it clear clear that the effect can be applied to both.

Exclusion Principle was reworded in the Anarch-as-a-sect ruling to "Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool for each ready Independent or Anarch vampire he or she controls.", which was presumably intended to keep the same overall effect as before, as the other changes were. (i.e. one Ravnos Indy + one Ravnos Anarch gets you 2 pool, as it would have done before when the Anarch was also Indy)

That's your presumption. Reading that text, I would think you'd gain 1 pool. I wouldn't even pause and think about this one now that Independents and Anarchs are distinct. This should definitely be changed to "and."

Song of Pan presumably affects Kiasyd and allies, though I can't say I've ever seen the issue come up. "inflict 1 unpreventable damage on each Kiasyd or changeling ally you control who did not successfully bleed this turn."

Reading this card text, I may pause and have to think "do I choose one or the other" if I controlled a Kiasyd and a changeling ally. Change "or" to "and" and I probably would not have to pause and think about it.

"Pay $1 for each milk or cereal,"

in what world are you taking 3 cereal and 2 milk and walking out thinking youre only paying for milk? lmao

if it said "pay 1$ for each milk AND cereal" you could take 2 milk and 2 cereal and expect to pay $2

>"Each Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location, and retainer card he or she controls."

I have 2 locations, 2 retainers, 2 guns.
logically id say i pay 2 pool because i have 2 sets of (equipment, location, and retainer).

changing it to 'and' doesn't fix anything- id argue it makes it worse.

narpassword wrote:

"Pay $1 for each milk or cereal,"

in what world are you taking 3 cereal and 2 milk and walking out thinking youre only paying for milk? lmao

Right. But why would you ever write the sign like that? That's my point.

[/quote]if it said "pay 1$ for each milk AND cereal" you could take 2 milk and 2 cereal and expect to pay $2[/quote]

That's because you know that you eat milk and cereal together.

>"Each Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location, and retainer card he or she controls."

I have 2 locations, 2 retainers, 2 guns.
logically id say i pay 2 pool because i have 2 sets of (equipment, location, and retainer).

changing it to 'and' doesn't fix anything- id argue it makes it worse.

Then you misread the card. It doesn't say "each set of." It says "each."