Just a clarification on how the text of this card is worded. Since it
says "or" instead of "and," does this mean that the weapon in question
must fulfill only one of the conditions, or must it fulfill both? For
example:
1. I can obviously equip with a Saturday Evening Special, since it
costs no more than 2 pool (it in fact costs only 1) and it does no more
than 4 damage (it in fact does 1 damage).
2. Can I equip with a Bomb? It only costs 1 pool, satisfying the first
condition. It does not satisfy the second, since it does 5 damage.
3. Can I equip with a Submachine Gun? It does only 3 damage,
satisfying the second condition, but it does not satisfy the first,
costing 4 pool.
There are no weapons that cost more than 2 pool *and* do more than 4
damage, so this case never occurs.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Scott Halvorson wrote:
> Just a clarification on how the text of this card is worded. Since it
> says "or" instead of "and," does this mean that the weapon in question
> must fulfill only one of the conditions, or must it fulfill both? For
> example:
IANLSJ, but I fail to see the confusion. The card text is totally clear
and unambiguous.
"The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool *or* do more than 4 damage."
This sentence is clearly designed to exclude certain weapons. A weapon is
excluded if (A) it costs more than 2 pool; OR (B) it does more than 4
damage.
Thus, a weapon is excluded if it meets either condition (A or B). It does
not have to meet both conditions to be excluded. If it did have to meet
both conditions, then "and" would have been the proper conjunction.
If the card text were defined by inclusion, however, you would have to use
"and" to have the same meaning. Thus, CW *can* use weapons that do *not*
meet condition A, AND do *not* meet condition B. Thus "The weapon may
cost up to 2 pool and do up to 4 damage" means the exact same thing as
card text.
Basic logic: "not (A or B)" equals "not-A and not-B"
> 1. I can obviously equip with a Saturday Evening Special, since it
> costs no more than 2 pool (it in fact costs only 1) and it does no more
> than 4 damage (it in fact does 1 damage).
Indeed. It does *not* meet the exclustion requirements of "(A or B)", and
*does* meets the inclusion requirments of "not-A and not-B"
> 2. Can I equip with a Bomb? It only costs 1 pool, satisfying the first
> condition. It does not satisfy the second, since it does 5 damage.
No. It satisfies condition B. Therefore it *does* meet the requirements
of "(A or B)", and does *not* meet the "not-A and not-B".
> 3. Can I equip with a Submachine Gun? It does only 3 damage,
> satisfying the second condition, but it does not satisfy the first,
> costing 4 pool.
No. Submachine gun satisfies condition A. That is enough to satisfy the
propostion "(A or B)". It would not satisfy "A and B", but that is not
the requirement.
> There are no weapons that cost more than 2 pool *and* do more than 4
> damage, so this case never occurs.
No, but there are weapons that "cost more than 2 pool *or* do more than 4
damage", and these are excluded, by card text.
To restate your last statement in inverted fashion: All weapons cost up
to 2 pool *or* do up to 4 damage.
Am I confusing you yet?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Scott Halvorson wrote:
>
> Just a clarification on how the text of this card is worded. Since it
> says "or" instead of "and," does this mean that the weapon in question
> must fulfill only one of the conditions, or must it fulfill both? For
> example:
>> 1. I can obviously equip with a Saturday Evening Special, since it
> costs no more than 2 pool (it in fact costs only 1) and it does no more
> than 4 damage (it in fact does 1 damage).
>> 2. Can I equip with a Bomb? It only costs 1 pool, satisfying the first
> condition. It does not satisfy the second, since it does 5 damage.
>> 3. Can I equip with a Submachine Gun? It does only 3 damage,
> satisfying the second condition, but it does not satisfy the first,
> costing 4 pool.
>> There are no weapons that cost more than 2 pool *and* do more than 4
> damage, so this case never occurs.
Card text: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4
damage."
If the weapon fails to meet the restriction on card text, it cannot
be equipped with the card.
Bomb does more than four damage, so is excluded.
SMG costs more than 2 pool, so is excluded.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team