Unit collaboration in 8th

Logan Frost wrote:

Transport permits embarking of Incuby OR Drukhari infantry:
Transport contains only Incubi? -> previous statement is true.
Transport contains only Drukhari? -> previous statement is true.
Transport contains both? -> previous statement is true.

Transport permits embarking of Incubi AND Drukhari indantry:
Transport contains only Incubi? -> previous statement is false.
Transport contains only Drukhari? -> previous statement is false.
Transport contains both? -> previous statement is true.

With AND you need to always embark both on none, with OR you can embark anything you want.

01010011 01101111 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100000 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110101 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101001 01110011 01110010 01100101 01100111 01100001 01110010 01100100 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101101 01101101 01100001 01110010 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101111 01101100 01100101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01110000 01100101 01110010 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101101 01101101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101100 01101111 01100111 01101001 01100011 00111111

Anyway, jokes aside, as long as your gaming group is okay with your interpretation I say go for it.

HAHAHAHA (ty google) thats funny.

@CurstAlchemist I concede.

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

I've been doing probability in maths, and or somehow does mean both (in maths)

wormfromhell wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

I've been doing probability in maths, and or somehow does mean both (in maths)

English isnt math.

If a waiter at a restaurant tells you that you can pick Soup "or" salad, you dont say "Math says i can have both, so i want both" he will tell you thats not how the world works and ask you again, maybe even laughing at you then you became rude and he gets the manager and then that guy tells you that you can only pick 1 and not both, but then says "you can pay for the other if you wanted both". Paying for the other in 40k would be buying another transport.

I honestly cant tell if your joking or truly trying to argue rules of English using math.

-takes programmer hat off, puts linguist hat on

Cambridge dictionary wrote:

When we connect two or more nouns using or, we use a singular verb with singular nouns, and a plural verb with plural countable nouns:

A banjo or a mandolin is what we need. (singular nouns)

I think more pictures or ornaments are needed in this room. (plural nouns)

The form 'Either... or' is used the way you are reading it, and is not what the index uses.

Cambridge dictionary wrote:

For emphasis, we can use either … or:

You can pay either by cash or by credit card. (the same as: You can pay by cash or by credit card.)

Incubi possess the Drukhari keyword.  There is just one reason for stating "Incubi or Drukhari" in our transport rules: they don't want us to put 5 incubi + any other thing in a transport. It is just incubi or any other thing, but not both. I guess that they playtested something and didn't like the outcome.. Maybe the new close combat plus our Power from Pain made Incubi almost a must-take vehicle upgrade for gunboats and wasn't funny (or fair) at all.

Edit: also, they may want us to try the Court of the Archon as intended. And incubi as pure mercenaries. Let's wait for Vect and the Dais (high hopes )

amishprn86 wrote:

wormfromhell wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

I've been doing probability in maths, and or somehow does mean both (in maths)

English isnt math.

If a waiter at a restaurant tells you that you can pick Soup "or" salad, you dont say "Math says i can have both, so i want both" he will tell you thats not how the world works and ask you again, maybe even laughing at you then you became rude and he gets the manager and then that guy tells you that you can only pick 1 and not both, but then says "you can pay for the other if you wanted both". Paying for the other in 40k would be buying another transport.

I honestly cant tell if your joking or truly trying to argue rules of English using math.

I know I had the same argument with my math teacher, but in the context of maths or programming, then OR means, one, the other or both. In English and in general tho, OR means one or the other, not both. What GW was trying to say, I really don't know.

This discussion seems somewhat silly. amishprn86 is right about the key factor, that the meaning in English is not the same as the logical definition.

In English, or can mean either the Boolean operator OR (inclusive OR), or it can mean XOR (exclusive OR). We really have no basis to be able to tell which one is meant in the context of the transport capacity of the Raider.

If it means OR then perhaps there will be non-Drukhari Incubi at some point - these would be able to be transported in a Raider!
If it means XOR then you can't have both Incubi and other Drukhari in the same Raider

I prefer the first option, but don't have any real reason to support that.

So the rules prevent Archons from transporting with Incubi, the main bodyguards of Archons?

Well, that's certainly a thing

wormfromhell wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

wormfromhell wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

I've been doing probability in maths, and or somehow does mean both (in maths)

English isnt math.

If a waiter at a restaurant tells you that you can pick Soup "or" salad, you dont say "Math says i can have both, so i want both" he will tell you thats not how the world works and ask you again, maybe even laughing at you then you became rude and he gets the manager and then that guy tells you that you can only pick 1 and not both, but then says "you can pay for the other if you wanted both". Paying for the other in 40k would be buying another transport.

I honestly cant tell if your joking or truly trying to argue rules of English using math.

I know I had the same argument with my math teacher, but in the context of maths or programming, then OR means, one, the other or both. In English and in general tho, OR means one or the other, not both. What GW was trying to say, I really don't know.

They question is, why would GW use Maths meaning? Its an English statement.......

Thats why i gave RL example.... b.c NO ONE uses Math definitions in common speech.

I teach karate, if i tell my students "You can practice Kicks "or" punches" everyone in the room will know what i mean, if 1 student says "in math it means bath" i would say them them "Is this math class?"

Here is another example that fits really well

In Chemistry and in Physics many of the symbols are the same but mean something different, if you are making a chemical compound and you try to use physics your gunna have a bad time....

Seriously guys, OR is not exclusive, in English as in Italian, and any other romance language I know of, is used to list possible options, you need to explicitly use an exclusive form to be exclusive, see my previous post.

Logan Frost wrote:

Seriously guys, OR is not exclusive, in English as in Italian, and any other romance language I know of, is used to list possible options, you need to explicitly use an exclusive form to be exclusive, see my previous post.

The problem here is that Incubi already have the Drukhari and Infantry keywords, so the only reason to use the Incubi keyword and the so "or" for Drukhari is to exclude other models from riding with Incubi.

Can't we just write GW and ask them?

But or is sometimes exclusive in English. The examples amishprn86 gave are examples of 'exclusive or' usage. The usage is ambiguous in the context for the Raider transport capacity.

@Imateria - either what you suggested, or they might add non-Drukhari Incubi at some point.

What i dont get is why they are arguing? It doesnt say <Wych><Kabal> it literally says "<Incubi> OR <Drukhari>" If it was meant to do either then it would just have said ONLY <Drukhari> models.

It was mention specifically b.c they wanted them to be separate.

Incubi have both the Incubi and Drukhari keywords, and are also infantry. You can take Incubi in raiders as Drukhari infantry along with any other Drukhari infantry. It looks like at some point in development the Incubi were going to be a 4th DE sub-faction but GW reversed that decision and this text slipped through the net. If Incubi didn't have the Drukhari keyword then they'd have to be separate. But you can choose which faction your units belong to and you can choose Drukhari infantry for your Incubi. There would need to be a specific restriction on either the Raider or Incubi datasheet to stop them from fraternising with other units in a Raider.

I suspect GW thought about having the Incubi become Ynnari or something and put that text in the raider datasheet to give them some transport capacity in their new army. But GW probably realised the DE needed them to actually kill stuff in CC so they never made the jump. Or maybe one of their temples will join the Ynnari at some point in the near future?

you people are nuts, somebody call and ask or(inclusively or(inclusiv... e.t.c.) exclusively ) listen to Demantiae he speaks sense, a human screw up over a change in design is far more likely than disallowing what were meant to be bodyguard units to not perform their role as bodyguard.

or maybe incubi just dont like travelling with those they view as lesser /shrug

Demantiae wrote:

Incubi have both the Incubi and Drukhari keywords, and are also infantry. You can take Incubi in raiders as Drukhari infantry along with any other Drukhari infantry.

Yes, Incubi are "Drukhari+Infantry". No, you can take them OR any other Drukhari Infantry.

Demantiae wrote:

It looks like at some point in development the Incubi were going to be a 4th DE sub-faction but GW reversed that decision and this text slipped through the net.

How do you know that? Telepathy and divination are psychic powers and as such are forbidden in The Dark City of Commoragh. I'll report this

Demantiae wrote:

If Incubi didn't have the Drukhari keyword then they'd have to be separate. But you can choose which faction your units belong to and you can choose Drukhari infantry for your Incubi. There would need to be a specific restriction on either the Raider or Incubi datasheet to stop them from fraternising with other units in a Raider.

"You can put 10 melons or other fruits in this basket". No, not melons and strawberries, melons OR strawberries. If not, why would I say melons or other fruits then? I'd say that you can put 10 fruits instead. We're talking about RULES, after all.

Demantiae wrote:

I suspect GW thought about having the Incubi become Ynnari or something and put that text in the raider datasheet to give them some transport capacity in their new army. But GW probably realised the DE needed them to actually kill stuff in CC so they never made the jump. Or maybe one of their temples will join the Ynnari at some point in the near future?

You insist in manifest your powers here, how dare you....



Listen, mates, don't try to bend reality, or English, or your own perception for the only sake of denying one simple idea: if they differentiated Incubi from other units in the rules for Venom and Raider transport capacity, they did it for a reason. The most simple one is that they don't want you to mix Incubi with other units. Neither the Archon. Can you put wyches+kabalites in a Raider? You can. Can you put Incubi+kabalites? No, you can put Incubi OR kabalites, not both.


...death by a thousand Occam razors.

This thread is becaming ridiculous.
May I suggest stop discussing grammar or logic rules and wait for GW to clarify the rules?
The miscomprehension of grammar of a language in not a native speaker of triggers me more than I care to admit, and I would like not to be banned.
Thanks.

Incubi are both Incubi and Drukhari. You can take your Archon as a Drukhari faction unit or an Aeldari faction unit. You can take your Incubi as an Incubi unit or a Drukhari unit. Occams Razor tells us that the most likely cause of this quandary is human error. Why would the DE index specifically disallow the mixing of these units? These units have been the bodyguard of Archons since DE became a thing. There's never been any reference, either rules-wise or fluff-wise to suggest that Incubi would never interact with other DE. This would be a DE faction anomaly that stands out as really dumb when other factions are not bound by such ridiculous restrictions.

As for being psychic? The ability to apply reason and common sense to a problem hardly betrays whatever psychic abilities I may or may not have. It displays that I can look at a problem with logic, not coloured by years of being trained (some might say forced) by GW to interpret every single thing GW ever writes as being literal to the Nth degree. Those days are gone. You don't have to see that word OR and knee jerk into instantly rejecting any possibility except that Incubi can no longer join Wyches in a Raider. Chillax a bit and bring some logic back to your perspective.

Here's a puzzle for you. Why does the Venom have the same wording as the Raider in regards to Incubi and transports? You cannot join an Incubi with anything in a Venom because it's a 5-man minimum squad. You can't mix any unit with any other in a Venom except a HQ choice and other HQ choices or Court models. Everything else is 5-man minimum or can't fit. so why does the Venom share the same wording? It's utterly redundant. Maybe it's because Incubi were going to be in Ynnari, but that would mean they had no transports because they'd no longer be faction Drukhari, they'd be faction Incubi and Ynnari. There's no enry for VenomsRaiders in the Ynnari list so the only way to get them is to include special rules as exceptions - thus the Venom and Raider entries say you can transport Incubi as well as Drukhari because Incubi in an Ynnari list as no longer Drukhari. This is why the Ynnari HQ's ahve an exception to allow them to use both Craftworlds and Drukhari vehicles. Otherwise Ynnari would have no transports at all. Incubi without transports are next to useless.

Come on people, use some logic. 8th ed is not about arguing the minutiae of the definition of the word or because GW refuses to address the uncertainty of their rules because they don't give a toss. The rules as written concept is way looser now than it used to be. What people are arguing makes zero sense. It's clearly an editing error that should have been removed. Or maybe they'll go ahead and add Incubi to Ynnari lists and then the rule would matter.

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

This case doesn't work because there is an implicit main condition that state: "you can only take 1"

But if I follow your logic, if it is said: "You can take 3 pieces of chicken sandwich or egg sandwich", must I take only chicken, or can I take 1 egg too?

There is a word in English to define an exclusive or. "Either"

dumpeal wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

When some tells you that you can take A or B, that doesnt mean both.

"You can have steak OR chicken"

This case doesn't work because there is an implicit main condition that state: "you can only take 1"

But if I follow your logic, if it is said: "You can take 3 pieces of chicken sandwich or egg sandwich", must I take only chicken, or can I take 1 egg too?

There is a word in English to define an exclusive or. "Either"

YES "LITERALLY" that means you "either" have the 3 pieces of chicken "OR" the egg sandwich, "not both"

The thing about eglish there are MANY words that have the same meanings.

Would you like to come also?
Would you like to come too
Would you like to come aswell

Having another word with the same meaning doesnt mean you forget the other words, the same is true for words with different meanings.

Also... its not "Incubi or Drukhair"

Its Venom: "5 Incubi or Drukhair"
Its Raider: "10 Incubi or Drukhair"

It literally says you can have max out incubi for that vehicles OR something else.

@Demantiae

We cant look at other armies for rules for our own. Ynnari is a different beast all together.

OK, @amishprn86, now I'm sure you are trolling, unless you seriously think you cannot embark a unit of 6 incubi in a raider, nor a unit of 6 infantry models.

It says 10 Incubi......

It is literally black and white "10 incubi"


Here is a pic of the rules
https://imgur.com/gallery/MXqt5