Looking at unhallowed wind...

A 2 tray unit of reanimates can get unhallowed for 20 points total. Once the close range, they cam dump 2 panics a turn, start of actibation, rally, end of activation.

Maybe take Maro to ally in a thresher, and you can get a panic spam going.

Wonder if it would work. Id love to find a viable build for maro and reanimates, does panic make it work?

What is the sense of "or" on the card? I read it as, you can do this once, costing you an exhaust, and it can be it either the beginning or end, but not both. Of course, "or" is an ambiguous word in English, and I wonder if you're right that they really intended both time sequences as the possible time sequences for the card. Worth a clarification.

This was my panic list that I used for a while and got real enjoyment out of:

Wraiths [30] 2x2
Bull Pennon [3]
Unhallowed Wind [4]
Faces of the Fallen [2]
Total Unit Cost: 39

Reanimates [35] 3x2
Dispatch Runner [7]
Terrifying Heraldry [5]
Unhallowed Wind [4]
Total Unit Cost: 51

Reanimate Archers [18] 2x1
Combat Ingenuity [6]
Total Unit Cost: 24

Carrion Lancers [15] 1x1
Total Unit Cost: 15

Death Knights [55] 2x3
Shield of Margath [6]
Bull Pennon [3]
Column Tactics [4]
Total Unit Cost: 68

Could tweak it to try and fit Maro in here some where.

Oh man I've been reading this type of wording as you can either A or B but not both. Now I'm second guessing that.

Dead sprint has similar wording. How has everyone been playing it?

Does anyone read this as the rippers can make their first march a turn 2? Or is it only a march 2 OR a turn 1?

Same with the Ventala:

Same grammar pattern. Can they both shorten their march and turn?

Prince F on the other hand is much clearer:

Should we take this to mean that "you may A or B" without an exclusion implies you can do both A and B when possible?

34 minutes ago, QuickWhit said:

Oh man I've been reading this type of wording as you can either A or B but not both. Now I'm second guessing that.

Dead sprint has similar wording. How has everyone been playing it?

Does anyone read this as the rippers can make their first march a turn 2? Or is it only a march 2 OR a turn 1?

Same with the Ventala:

Same grammar pattern. Can they both shorten their march and turn?

Prince F on the other hand is much clearer:

Should we take this to mean that "you may A or B" without an exclusion implies you can do both A and B when possible?

Why have you asked this question in this thread? Hah.

Just now, Zaaik said:

Why have you asked this question in this thread? Hah.

Yeah, clearly this belongs in the rules thread... I'll go post this over there...

It’s an “or” effect. While not defined in the RRG explicitly, no logic argument is gonna be accepted where you define “or” as possibly being “and.”

I read it as you can only use that card once per activation, either before you activate, or after you activate.

But anyway! This sounds like we are talking about rules and not cool panic synergy armies and what tactics we can use to burn through your morale deck! Which I kind of got excited for when I saw this thread originally, hence my hasty list post

8 minutes ago, Church14 said:

It’s an “or” effect. While not defined in the RRG explicitly, no logic argument is gonna be accepted where you define “or” as possibly being “and.”

As an analyst I work with logical arguments every day. If I am looking for data where condition A OR condition B are true, I will still get results where Both are true. The results where both are true are the same results I will get if I look for condition A AND condition B. If I only want results where one or the other are true I have to define my search differently, by including an exclusion to both being true.

In English we usually imply an exclusionary either when we use the word "or". That's why I have always read this as you may either A or B, but not both. But I think there is a reasonable argument that the intent may have been you may do both.

Reverse argument: If the wording was "you may A and B" does it imply you have to do both?

1 hour ago, QuickWhit said:

As an analyst I work with logical arguments every day. If I am looking for data where condition A OR condition B are true, I will still get results where Both are true. The results where both are true are the same results I will get if I look for condition A AND condition B. If I only want results where one or the other are true I have to define my search differently, by including an exclusion to both being true.

In English we usually imply an exclusionary either when we use the word "or". That's why I have always read this as you may either A or B, but not both. But I think there is a reasonable argument that the intent may have been you may do both.

Reverse argument: If the wording was "you may A and B" does it imply you have to do both?

I could have phrased that better. My take on “or” in the context of these cards is more like:

You: “Turn left or right?”

Me: “Yes”

That isn’t an acceptable answer.

1 minute ago, Church14 said:

I could have phrased that better. My take on “or” in the context of these cards is more like:

You: “Turn left or right?”

Me: “Yes”

That isn’t an acceptable answer.

In this case, turning left naturally excludes turning right. So context provides the exclusion. In situations where you can do both such as the aforementioned cards (unhallowed wind, dead sprint, Ventala), context does not provide a natural exclusion.

I think we often imply the exclusionary "either" when we read the word "or" because we usually are given two choices that are contextually exclusive to one another.

Honestly though, I think your interpretation (which is the way we've been playing it in my group) is correct, simply because the game is created by English speakers and written in English, where the exclusion is usually implied but unspoken. That said, I wouldn't mind it being clarified by FFG so that rules lawyers can't make a reasonable logical argument that they can do both.

2 minutes ago, QuickWhit said:

In this case, turning left naturally excludes turning right. So context provides the exclusion. In situations where you can do both such as the aforementioned cards (unhallowed wind, dead sprint, Ventala), context does not provide a natural exclusion.

I think we often imply the exclusionary "either" when we read the word "or" because we usually are given two choices that are contextually exclusive to one another.

Honestly though, I think your interpretation (which is the way we've been playing it in my group) is correct, simply because the game is created by English speakers and written in English, where the exclusion is usually implied but unspoken. That said, I wouldn't mind it being clarified by FFG so that rules lawyers can't make a reasonable logical argument that they can do both.

It sounds silly to me, but yeah. Adding a definition of “or” in a living RRG would certainly put this to bed.

2 hours ago, QuickWhit said:

As an analyst I work with logical arguments every day. If I am looking for data where condition A OR condition B are true, I will still get results where Both are true. The results where both are true are the same results I will get if I look for condition A AND condition B. If I only want results where one or the other are true I have to define my search differently, by including an exclusion to both being true.

This isn't data analysis, and we're not trying to return a TRUE/FALSE result. Computer language is a poor way to write, or read, game manuals. We're humans, not machines.

In common language, "Do A or B" implies an exclusive choice. If my waiter asks me if I want fries or coleslaw with my sandwich and I say both, I can expect an extra $2.10 on my bill. If my boss says that, as a bonus, I can get cash or extra time off, I'm not expecting to spend my bonus cash on my extra day off.

Ok, the last example was obviously made up—my company is allergic to bonuses. But the point is there: we should not need to define the word 'or'.

Besides, do flesh rippers really need a buff?

2 hours ago, QuickWhit said:

As an analyst I work with logical arguments every day. If I am looking for data where condition A OR condition B are true, I will still get results where Both are true. The results where both are true are the same results I will get if I look for condition A AND condition B. If I only want results where one or the other are true I have to define my search differently, by including an exclusion to both being true.

So I would encourage you to think about 'or' in the logic flow of coding vs 'or' in this context. You can think of the logic flow as reversed. Your example is 'if A or B is true do C". Here It's more of a "C (being your action), choice do A or B.

The way you would look at this choice if you were going to program an opponent AI would be more:

for (Battlefield condition 1) do card option A

for (Battlefield condition 2) do card option B

1 hour ago, Church14 said:

It sounds silly to me, but yeah. Adding a definition of “or  ” in a living RR  G would certainly put this to bed.

I guess we're at the point when the colloquial meaning of words have surpassed their textbook definitions and we have to define what 'is' is.

or in a logic course implies that both can be true and the function still hold as true. Now I agree that the plain sense of most of these is one or the other and the plain sense of most language is exclusionary. My sense is that hallowed wind likely exclusionary and I’d they’d really intended both, they’d have used more words to make that clear. It is just from the standpoint of formal logic, or is inherently ambiguous, unless of course you’re writing in Latin which has two separate words for or (vel, aut) for precisely this purpose.

43 minutes ago, Xelto said:

This isn't data analysis, and we're not trying to return a TRUE/FALSE result. Computer language is a poor way to write, or read, game manuals. We're humans, not machines. 

This is an oversimplification. I'm using logic, which is much older than computers, but happens to be used in computer language. It's useful when we as humans interpret information differently in spite of what is considered common in a particular language.

43 minutes ago, Xelto said:

In common language, "Do A or B" implies an exclusive choice. If my waiter asks me if I want fries or coleslaw with my sandwich and I say both, I can expect an extra $2.10 on my bill. If my boss says that, as a bonus, I can get cash or extra time off, I'm not expecting to spend my bonus cash on my extra day off.

Ok, the last example was obviously made up—my company is allergic to bonuses. But the point is there: we should not need to define the word 'or'.

I addressed the common use of English in an earlier post... at the end of which I agree with you...

1 hour ago, QuickWhit said:

In this case, turning left naturally excludes turning right. So context provides the exclusion. In situations where you can do both such as the aforementioned cards (unhallowed wind, dead sprint, Ventala), context does not provide a natural exclusion.

I think we often imply the exclusionary "either" when we read the word "or" because we usually are given two choices that are contextually exclusive to one another.

Honestly though, I think your interpretation (which is the way we've been playing it in my group) is correct, simply because the game is created by English speakers and written in English, where the exclusion is usually implied but unspoken. That said, I wouldn't mind it being clarified by FFG so that rules lawyers can't make a reasonable logical argument that they can do both.

Also this:

13 minutes ago, flightmaster101 said:

I guess we're at the point when the colloquial meaning of words have surpassed their textbook definitions and we have to define what 'is' is.

Humans are... human... English sucks... Clarification wouldn't hurt. We will probably continue to play it out here as "you may EITHER A or B". But that doesn't mean someone I meet at a game store won't throw logic at me and claim it should be played differently. A definition of 'or' as an exclusionary statement in this game would prevent that.

43 minutes ago, Xelto said:

Besides, do flesh rippers really need a buff? 

No they do not.

47 minutes ago, QuickWhit said:

But that doesn't mean someone I meet at a game store won't throw logic at me and claim it should be played differently. 

Logic dictates that given the same variable set and values, the same conclusion should be reached.

To go back in the topic of a panic build, I think there are a number of things one can do to make a panic build off unhalllowed wind, though wraiths seem to combine a few more of those abilities than reanimates.

I've gotten a lot of value out of just faces of the fallen on wraiths. Haven't tried it in conjunction with unhallowed wind yet, but it's probably pretty good. It does mean I'd have to take trumpets off of them which would make me sad though...

I don’t play Waiqar, but I was just looking through wraiths last night, and I think they offer a lot of flexibility as a utility piece. If you’ve got a dangerous core to your list that pulls your opponents attention toward it, they ought to be able to sneak in and pick up some powerful flank bonuses for light but meaningful damage, then bring utility in terms of panic and morale tests. As with anything else that is squishy in the game, you really have to move them and Shepard them in well.

but then I’d see them as more meta dependent, helping you bust someone with only a few big units by forcing unconfirable morale tests on them, but succumbing to equally mobile MSU style lists.