Can't take it with you
No.Can't take it with you reads as follows;
Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool. Each Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location or retainer card he or she controls.
Would this card have the same effect if it was worded as follows?
Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool. Choose equipment, location or retainer. Each Methuselah burns X pool for each card they control of the chosen type.
The reason I ask, is because the group I have joined think the card causes each Methuselah to burn X pool for each equipment, location AND retainer.
Correct.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/Pwt8I_uj4GM/DmSZbjSFqwIJ
SPORE wrote:
> the new political action Can't Take It With You seems straightforward
> to me, but there was already a minor dispute. relevant text:
>
> Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool. Each
> Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location or retainer
> card he or she controls.
>
> while it seems (to me) to mean "burns 1 pool for each equipment,
> location _and_ retainer card...,"
Correct.
> it was pointed out that it says "or"
> and that this could be interpreted as being a term named by the acting
> methuselah.
Just as "and" could be interpreted as "count each card that that is a equipment,
location, and retainer".
> i call it, and i choose that each methuselah burns 1
> pool for each retainer, in addition to the gaining of the 1 pool.
> take that, sheldon and his raven spies!
>
> the text would probably be more like "choose either equipment,
> locations, or retainers: each methuselah burns 1 pool for each of the
> chosen card type he or she controls..." again, it may seem clear, but
> apparantly it needs this small clarification, so we can
> play.the.game....
You're right, it is clear.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
As for the original question, I can't understand why they didn't use 'and' instead of 'or' in the text. 'Or' is often ambiguous. 'And' is never that.
It's not ambiguous. The card simply does not do what it says.
Or, when used as a conjunction, is the wrong word to use. Per Merriam-Webster:
"used as a function word to indicate an alternative"
Definition of "and" for comparison:
"used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type"
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.
The card should be changed to replace "or" with "and."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- TwoRazorReign
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
- Posts: 739
- Thank you received: 170
From what I can tell damage dealing cards in VTES favor low damage or evenly spread damage. They made sure the game does not turn into Magic The Gathering by honoring this.
We can compare it’s damage potential to Anarchist Uprising and Ancilla Empowerment sure. Those cards hit everyone, but Can’t take it with you can hit just your opponents. From what I have experienced political decks don’t use that many retainers and equipment. Just seems a bit OP that political decks can punish everyone hard that does not use the same card types as them considering how “fair” the rest of the cards are.
I've searched every VTES card with the word 'or' in it and I can't find a single case where “or” is ambiguous. It would be great if we had some cards to compare.
So let’s just say I agree with your statement that it’s ambiguous. I think that should get fixed, do you know what is the procedure to get an official ruling and better yet errata?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Wannenburg
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Childe
-
- Posts: 6
- Thank you received: 0
I think a ruling needs to be made on the card effect before we assume it needs to change to "and".
I'd advise against it being changed to "and", because you don't want to stop people using card types. You want to encourage as many deck configurations as possible.
I have heard the argument that it has not been considered OP in the past. Well maybe that's because people have been using it wrong and fear being torn a new one by it. So they don't make decks that have lots of those card types.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Wannenburg
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Childe
-
- Posts: 6
- Thank you received: 0
Thank you.
I think a ruling needs to be made on the card effect before we assume it needs to change to "and".
A ruling has already been cited earlier in this thread. It has essentially be ruled so that "or" should be read as "and."
I'd advise against it being changed to "and", because you don't want to stop people using card types. You want to encourage as many deck configurations as possible.
I think you lost one game on a big effect and think a card should change. Perhaps play a deck that doesn't use so many permanents next time, and then maybe the person including Can't Take it With You in their deck will realize it's not such an efficient use of a card slot. Then you can resume your normal deck building preference thereafter.
I have heard the argument that it has not been considered OP in the past. Well maybe that's because people have been using it wrong and fear being torn a new one by it. So they don't make decks that have lots of those card types.
No, people have not been using it wrong. It has no effect against decks that don't have permanents in play. What people mean by "situational" is, if your prey does not have permanents in play, the card is worthless. There are many deck types in this game that do not rely on permanents. It mostly worked against you because someone guessed correctly that your deck did rely on permanents. That's on you, not the card.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- TwoRazorReign
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
- Posts: 739
- Thank you received: 170
TwoRazor said it already, but had you not had those 13 cards, the card would've done nothing. How much damage did it, at that time, do to other players? You had bad luck, is all.How is it situational? It’s listing 3 different commonly used card types that are cheap to spam. It hit me for 13 pool two week ago.

Oh, for sure. My mistake was assuming first hand that you haven't had a lot of games down.I can’t comment on your experience and assume that it’s the norm.

Can, but actually might. If you're sitting cross table to the only player playing a spam of locations and weapons, that's the target.We can compare it’s damage potential to Anarchist Uprising and Ancilla Empowerment sure. Those cards hit everyone, but Can’t take it with you can hit just your opponents.
It's a very unlikely risk you're taking when packing with equippables, that CTIWY (oh my god that name though) will ruin you, but just as well you'll have to prepare for Reckless Agitation, Banishment and Parity Shift in any deck, and for Ancilla/Uprising when you play 4+ minions. Vox Domini and Delaying Tactics both work wonders against any political actions. You should pack them in any case.
To be fair, you got super unlucky against that card, and I feel you. It's a disheartening experience. I've had dozens of similar moments, and practically every VtES game ends up with someone just having zero say on the turn they die. All I can say is that's VtES, and all you can do is get up and start bleeding again.

Ankha, above, is the highest official on rules. Your worry has been noted, it seems.So let’s just say I agree with your statement that it’s ambiguous. I think that should get fixed, do you know what is the procedure to get an official ruling and better yet errata?
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Foro
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Can't take it with you