pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficiently
similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived.
I invite the judge (to be assigned) to take this into account.
The common-sense definition of "to spend" implies that you have the
money being spent. "To lose" does not carry the same implication,
at least not as strongly.
More to the point, "spend X to do Y" implies that, if X doesn't
happen, then it can't cause Y either. This was explicitly used in
my favorite card game (Doomtown):
(card #1) Action: Sacrifice X. Gain Y.
(card #2) Action: Sacrifice X to gain Y.
(card #3) Reaction: Save X.
You must be able to do each thing, i.e. if you don't have an X
then you can't play any of these. On top of that, in #1, both
things are effects of playing #1, so you can usefully react with
#3; in #2, cause and effect is chained (sacrificing X is a cost
of gaining Y), so you can't usefully react with #3.
