Can't take it with you

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.

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

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."

you put 'and' in you make it a set.

the point is that changing it to 'and' doesnt make it LESS ambiguous.
you'll just get dingles who dont want to understand the card arguing things a different way.

'or' makes sense.

its not 'xor'

I'm really happy for you that it makes sense to you. Other people are experiencing confusion, including the original poster. The fact is, the use of "or" in VTES does not align with the usage of "or" as a conjunction in a list of items, as indicated according to most dictionaries. I tend to side with the dictionary rather than VTES convention.

it's not 'vtes unique' to talk in lists like that...

I'm really happy that you can argue semantics in nearly any card. it proves that no matter what you change you'll never be able to fit the full intended result on a single card without having 15 pages stapled to the back of it.

changing it to 'and' doesnt fix the issue.

narpassword wrote:

it's not 'vtes unique' to talk in lists like that...

Well stated...

I'm really happy that you can argue semantics in nearly any card. it proves that no matter what you change you'll never be able to fit the full intended result on a single card without having 15 pages stapled to the back of it.

So get weirdly defensive about it? I think you need to realize we are discussing some ridiculous card game about vampires that, like, 5 people still play. Can we just agree to disagree and move on?

changing it to 'and' doesnt fix the issue.

Okay. I disagree.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

• 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"?)

Just a nitpick on my side but Carrion crows is not a "damaging effect made against the Nephandus by the opposing minion". It is environemental damage and therefore is not reduced by Nephandus cardtext.

You can now continue to argue about cereal and milk OR about tea and coffee (and you know what, it means you can do both...)