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. Which is broken, but there is no taking to them. I tell them, if that were the case, the word "and" would be substituted for the word "or".
Please confirm that they are idiots and need to go back to school.
Have a great day!
> Wannenburg wrote:
> 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. Which is broken, but there is no taking to them. I tell them, if that were the case, the word "and" would be substituted for the word "or".
>
> Please confirm that they are idiots and need to go back to school.
>
> Have a great day!
>
Your friends are right.
The word "or" is to be understood as "cards which are location, equipment or retainer"
Interesting. Another case of ambiguous wording.
I think your lads are correct. Each player counts their total equipment, locations, and retainers in play, then each burns pool equal to their total.
That's hardly a broken effect though. I rarely see anyone with more than 2-3 equipment in play, maybe 1-2 location per player, and 1-2 retainers, most often Raven Spy. And you risk helping your prey, hurting your allies, and weakening yourself.
If it were worded as you suggested, it would probably be played more often, since you could tailor it to your prey's board.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
Thanks for the reply.
narpassword and LivesByProxy
• An effect like this prevents decks to be built using many of those card types because it would be too dangerous. This effects the game negatively. The fact that you (LivesByProxy) rarely see anyone with more that those many cards in play is irrelevant to the games design. I do and I have.
• (LivesByProxy) Tailor away, pick one type and do that much damage, seems perfectly legit to me. It’s MUCH more likely that someone would have +- 4 location, 3 weapons and 3 retainers than have 10 retainers on the board. If in the metagame, players start using many of one card type then sure throw it in and punish them. Punishing everyone for many commonly played card types seems OP considering how slow good cards like smiling jack work. There is no single card effects in the game that does so much damage.
• It's a common!? Drop mic
The word "OR" should be treated like it is in the entirety of the English language.
If they wanted it to include ALL of those card types, the sentence would simply look like this;
Each Methuselah then burns 1 pool for each equipment, location *AND* retainer card he or she controls.
Timo
Why should it be understood as that?
> An effect like this prevents decks to be built using many of those card types because it would be too dangerous.
>
To be fair, you won't need to worry about that. As metas develop, situational cards like Can't take it with you will rotate out of use naturally. It is not exactly as bad as you think it is, as shown by roughly a decade of tournament play.
Your fear theoretically has grounds, but in reality the card is practically never used as other votes are mathematically and situationally speaking better. Anarchist Uprising and Ancilla Empowerment both have similar but much more reliable results.
So rest easy, and keep playing those employ and equip cards. Can't take it with you will not be the card that ruins your game.
> • It's a common!? Drop mic
>
Oh yeah! VtES prides itself with offering the best cards out as commons, and only the trickiest ones (and most unique stuff) are (were) rare. Thank Caine and Lilith both for Black Chantry migrating away from random distribution!
Govern the Unaligned is common, and has stood the test of time from 94, being labelled as mathematically the best card in the whole game since it's introduction.
So don't worry about card balance right now, and keep playing. You'll find a hilarious amount of hilariously overpowered and seemingly broken cards.
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.
"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
> Wannenburg wrote:
> 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.
>
No.
> Wannenburg wrote:
> 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
> LSJ wrote:
> 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.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Kraus wrote:
> 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."
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. All I can comment on is how it blew me a new hole in a game that I was crushing. I can’t comment on your experience and assume that it’s the norm.
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?
Thank you.
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.
> Wannenburg wrote:
> 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.
> Wannenburg wrote:
> 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.
>
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. There are plenty of situations where the card simply does nothing of value.
> I can’t comment on your experience and assume that it’s the norm.
>
Oh, for sure. My mistake was assuming first hand that you haven't had a lot of games down. Sorry about that. What kind of a game group are you playing in?
> 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.
>
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.
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.
> 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?
>
Ankha, above, is the highest official on rules. Your worry has been noted, it seems.
"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
> 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."
> 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...)
Ah, I think you are right. Bad examples. But fill in any damaging effect made by a minion for Carrion Crows (maybe superior Drawing Out the Beast? I don’t think you can use that against allies though...) and I'd make the same point about Nephandus' card text.
It looks like four things need to happen;
1. Slap whoever wrote the card.
2. Errata the "or" to "and".
3. Change the name to Can't take anything with you.
4. Ban the card.
Sorry location, equipment AND retainer decks. I tried. They don't take kindly to your type around here. Let's just stick to the least amount of deck compositions as possible and go down with the ship. Bless.
Or, none of those things need to happen (except for number 2), and you just simply need to be less predictable in your deck building. I'm telling you, the only reason why Can't Take it With You killed you that one time is because someone guessed that you like to include a bunch of locations, equipment, and retainers in your decks. Being that predictable in your deck building is going to kill you.
it's a card so overpowered that is included in only 2 decks on the twda, both in a single copy. I can say in my modest experience of play that I've never seen it played at all. (By modest I mean 14 years, +100 tournaments, more than 5 European Championship)
I understand that being ousted by a single 13pool blow burns but just run some poison pill and delaying tactics
Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy
So, what is that deck you're playing?
In all honesty stacking retainers and equipment on minions isn't a strategy in itself. Or, very rarely it is. If you're using all of your time stacking stuff on your doods, your first and foremost enemy is the time limit, not any single card that your opponents might play.
Of course you can go ahead and equip +bleed stuff, and even be successful in the main objective (ousting players), but even then a single source on a minion reaches a static bleed of 2 or 3 per minion. That is enough in almost any game.
Sure, some Murder of Crows + Pack Alpha Laibon stuff could work if you want to have your rushes from locations instead of Deep Song, but even then... how much do you really even need?
If you pack just enough stuff to win, you'll save both time (and could actually oust someone within time limit) and save yourself from dying to obscure things like Can't Take it with You.
Just trying to help you here.
"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
> Kraus wrote:
> In all honesty stacking retainers and equipment on minions isn't a strategy in itself. Or, very rarely it is.
>
Get into combat somehow. Play 10-15 Zip Guns. Borrow someone else's vampire (Spirit Marionette, Mind Rape etc.). Heidelberg the Zip Guns over. Wait until the vampire goes back. Oust them with a CTIWY or two. Repeat.
Sadly, the Zip Guns will be removed from the game when they're ousted, so you can't try to put them back into your library. wipes away a tear
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Kraus wrote:
> > In all honesty stacking retainers and equipment on minions isn't a strategy in itself. Or, very rarely it is.
> >
> Get into combat somehow. Play 10-15 Zip Guns. Borrow someone else's vampire (Spirit Marionette, Mind Rape etc.). Heidelberg the Zip Guns over. Wait until the vampire goes back. Oust them with a CTIWY or two. Repeat.
>
> Sadly, the Zip Guns will be removed from the game when they're ousted, so you can't try to put them back into your library. wipes away a tear
>
I actually had a thing that did this but with Talbot's Chainsaw. Spirit Marionette, Heidelberg them empty and give them the damned saw, and see them saw themselves to bits. If they decide to torpor the wielder, graverob.
Obviously it didn't work, but it was absolutely hilarious.
"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