Quote Originally Posted by Epistolary Richard
Capability1 requires A and not B or not C however appeared not to function as expected or cancelled itself it. The unit appeared where both B and C were present.
There are three ways to interpret "A and not B or not C", as far as I can tell:

1) "A and (not B or not C)". This would cause the capability to appear if and only if either A was true but B wasn't (and C would be irrelevant), or A was true but C wasn't (and B would be irrelevant).

2) "(A and not B) or not C". This would cause the capability would appear if and only if either A was true, but B was false (and C would be irrelevant); or C was false (and A and B would be irrelevant).

3) "A and not (B or not C)". This would cause the capability to appear if and only if A and C were true, but B was false (with nothing irrelevant).

If B and C are both true, none of these should apply, and the capability shouldn't appear. Either I missed a possibility, or I misunderstood Richard, or the game is seriously screwed up. This probably merits further investigation.

-Simetrical