what shoudl i add to my lsit

So we've come down to either it means you can't transport Incubi with other units (just like their fluff) or GW accidentally put that wording on the transport and didn't fix it even though our transports already have errata.

Would be nice to have an actual answer.

If it can transport either Incubi or Drukhari Infantry models, but not both, as you seem convinced, then how about the fact that Incubi ARE Drukhari Infantry and the rule is not logically consistent with an interpretation of exclusive "or" as you interpret it? Because you will be putting Drukhari Infantry in there anyway. This will also affect other armies and units since our transports are not the only ones worded in a similar fashion where an exclusive or makes no sense.

Should probably mail GW about it if you want the official answer.

What i'm conviced of is that this conversation is overinterprating some non-sense that a rule-writer with the attention span of a 2 year old forgot to red-con in the index.
I know masochism is a trait of DE culture (both for players and in the fluff), but i don't see why we should actively seek in game limitations where there is only blatant mistakes and inconsistencies.

Mppqlmd wrote:

What i'm conviced of is that this conversation is overinterprating some non-sense that a rule-writer with the attention span of a 2 year old forgot to red-con in the index.
I know masochism is a trait of DE culture (both for players and in the fluff), but i don't see why we should actively seek in game limitations where there is only blatant mistakes and inconsistencies.

because we play against players with stronger armies that still want to gain further advantage and will contest this.

If you play in a Tournament and your list has been approved, your opponent has nothing to say about that rule.
If you play outside of a tournament and an opponent points out the "hey, that ambigous rule says you can't put Kabalites and Incubi in a raider", here's my advice : immediatly change opponent, you will not have a good time with that guy.
I truly hate people that pretend to care about the rules when they only seek to gain some in game advantage through nitpicking.

I could maybe, *maybe* see Incubi not playing well with other Drukhari infantry like Warriors and such.

However, this rule would also prevent them from travelling with the Archon who hired them, which seems ludicrous in the extreme.

The Shredder wrote:

I could maybe, *maybe* see Incubi not playing well with other Drukhari infantry like Warriors and such.

However, this rule would also prevent them from travelling with the Archon who hired them, which seems ludicrous in the extreme.

Yeah, it could make sense. But why allow Mandrakes to mix with Kabalites ?

Mppqlmd wrote:

Yeah, it could make sense. But why allow Mandrakes to mix with Kabalites ?

If you were a Kabalite Warrior, and found that you were sharing your Raider with 5 Mandrakes, would you really want to ask them to leave?

Well I did email GW, not gonna hold my breath on them actually responding. I would prefer to be able to put an HQ with the Incubi (especially an Archon who actually needs the close combat protection) but locally they don't allow Incubi to ride with other units do to the wording I just assumed it was that way everywhere.

@LordJohan can you provide some example of other similar transport restrictions? I went through the indexs that I have and didn't see any other examples that were it was A or B and one contained the other.

Seshiru wrote:

@LordJohan can you provide some example of other similar transport restrictions? I went through the indexs that I have and didn't see any other examples that were it was A or B and one contained the other.

The IG Taurox states that it can transport "10 Militarum Tempestus or Officio Prefectus Infantry models."

Unless I'm mistaken, the only Officio Prefectus models are Commissars.

So what you'd have is a transport that can carry a unit of infantry or some models to keep those infantry in line - but not both.


There's also the matter of transports using 'can transport 10 models' as opposed to 'can transport up to 10 models' - which would make the Chimera rather awkward as you'd need 12-man squads to ride in it.

It will also affect Craftworlds since their transports read Phoenix Lords or Craftworld Infantry. So the exclusive or will limit some armies more than us.

Well, let's hope we hear from GW to confirm. And that they somewhat care about Dark Eldar.

E: I think how this happened may be this: it originally read "incubi or <kabal>, <cult> or <coven> infantry" paralleling the CWE rule. But since this could be confusing with our multiple factions (you would have to take a coven raider for wracks, wych raider for wyches, and they can't switch transports freely) they decided to change it to "drukhari infantry" but didn't remove the "incubi" - thus leading to redundancy. Which, unfortunately, seems like some shop has decided to use against Drukhari players, despite how it contradicts the obvious intent esp. considering similar wording elsewhere, is illogically worded, and is unclear why this unneccessary complicated rule change from 7e is made.

I mean to be fair to GW, would you think that redundancy would read to restrictions? If I wrote "this limo can be used to transport presidents or other elected officials" I would not expect anyone to interpret that to mean both can't fit in at the same time if neccessary. They probably thought it's okay to explain it more for beginners.

You might ask that shop if they allow phoenix lords and their aspect warriors or MT units and their commissars in the same transport, and if they do, then why it's different for us.