This came up this morning in the tactics thread with regard to Unhallowed Wind. The presupposition was that you can put it on a 2x1 of reanimates and have them trigger it twice in one turn by dialing in a rally. Here is the thread where it came up:

Here is the card:

Should an exclusionary either be implied because it says "or" and not "and"?

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?

Dead Sprint to me means you can make their forced move increase by one (so speed 2) or turn that speed 1 into a bank.

Ventala I read it as you either decrease the speed by 1 or you can make it a bank.

If it implied you could do both, you'd see the word "and".

The lack of the word "and" here makes me come to the conclusion that you can only do one of the options provided.

29 minutes ago, Zaaik said:

Dead Sprint to me means you can make their forced move increase by one (so speed 2) or turn that speed 1 into a bank.

Ventala I read it as you either decrease the speed by 1 or you can make it a bank.

If it implied you could do both, you'd see the word "and".

The lack of the word "and" here makes me come to the conclusion that you can only do one of the options provided.

I think your interpretation is correct, though I don't think the word and would necessarily make it clearer if the opposite were true. And may imply that you have to do both if you do one.

The discussion being had in the original thread is around both logic and how the word "or" is typically handled in English, which isn't always the same.

@Church14 provided the common example of "you may turn left or right". You cannot do both because they are mutually exclusive. So context provides the exclusion. In situations where you can do both such as unhallowed wind, dead sprint, and the 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.

As the game is created by English speakers and written in English, where the exclusion is usually implied but unspoken, it's probably correct to imply the exclusion. 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 hours ago, QuickWhit said:

This came up this morning in the tactics thread with regard to Unhallowed Wind. The presupposition was that you can put it on a 2x1 of reanimates and have them trigger it twice in one turn by dialing in a rally. Here is the thread where it came up:

Here is the card:

Should an exclusionary either be implied because it says "or" and not "and"?

Yeah, I missed the phrasing on this, looks like you cannot panic-wind, rally, and then panic wind again.

Don't you spend inspiration before your activation?

If so, could you:

"Before your activation" exhaust unhallowed wind. Then, still before your activation, use inspiration to ready unhallowed wind. Hey, look at that, it's still before your activation, exhaust unhallowed wind a 2nd time to pop more panic.

"Before or After" to me means if you do it before you have chosen the timing state of the effect. Same thing if you choose after. If you choose "before" then rally to unexhaust it you have still chosen the 'before' timing state. The 'or' means 1 OR the other.

I don't think you can get the same effect twice in the same timing sequence. I need to look at the rulebook, but I thought there was something like that.

Probably best to assume all cases of "or" are intended to be "exclusive or", but you're correct that it's unclear. Good find, add it to the FAQ list! @oda204

Unhallowed wind is the only one I can imagine being ruled as having both windows available, the intent on the movement modifications seems fairly clearly exclusive.

For those that aren't aware, in english logic, "or" is actually equivalent to "and/or". Technically speaking, if someone asks you "do you want fries or salad?" you could answer "both" and be completely within the acceptable bounds of the question. Of course, you could also answer "yes", but that's much less helpful.

2 minutes ago, Bhelliom said:

 Unhallowed wind is the only one I can imagine being ruled as having both windows available, the intent on the movement modifications seems fairly clearly exclusive.

It would be cool if they ruled that this one was actually allowed. Might give me a reason to run a 2x1 of reanimates...

11 hours ago, QuickWhit said:

It would be cool if they ruled that this one was actually allowed. Might give me a reason to run a 2x1 of reanimates...

I dont know if it would even be that good. You start ready, use it, rally during you turn, and use it again, leaving it exhausted. Next turn it starts exhausted. You are really just stealing a use from next turn for this one.

Im more interested in the possibility of the inspiration double tap. That might make small block of reanimates viable. Even if they can do it, im not convinced that it is worth doing. I just really want to find a way to get them to work.

11 hours ago, Darth Matthew said:

I dont know if it would even be that good. You start ready, use it, rally during you turn, and use it again, leaving it exhausted. Next turn it starts exhausted. You are really just stealing a use from next turn for this one.

Im more interested in the possibility of the inspiration double tap. That might make small block of reanimates viable. Even if they can do it, im not convinced that it is worth doing. I just really want to find a way to get them to work.

2x1 as blockers for Reanimate archers. Sure, no blight. You also get 8 regenerating HP and can armor up. Throw in tactical drummer for a nice 4 armor figure that - with armoring up - really pins down those fast 2 threat units that try to rush your archers. It can also swing harder, earlier than lancers.

In an Ardus list, you can stick them with Profane Banner Bearer as a big dumb distraction to give both Ardus and Wraiths breathing room around archers.

Small reanimate units are also exactly as scary as large ones. The morale modifier doesn't scale with unit size, so in theory a small unit to flank is a good panic threat, but... Reanimates, flank...

Armoring up at 4 is also so much worse than 3, and carrion Lancers are superb blockers. I dunno.

47 minutes ago, Church14 said:

2x1 as blockers for Reanimate archers. Sure, no blight. You also get 8 regenerating HP and can armor up. Throw in tactical drummer for a nice 4 armor figure that - with armoring up - really pins down those fast 2 threat units that try to rush your archers. It can also swing harder, earlier than lancers.

Hmm I like this idea... Have you tried it? If so have you had much success controlling engagements such that you can armor up before they get into you?

8 minutes ago, QuickWhit said:

Hmm I like this idea... Have you tried it? If so have you had much success controlling engagements such that you can armor up before they get into you?

Success has been so-so. Initiative 4 armor up means that you have an easy time armoring up against long charges and can always armor up before non-hero archers fire. You get a miserable dead-zone in the 1-2 charge range where most cav and some infantry can reach you at initiative 3.

My response has has been to use the late shifts on the turns when we are out of charge range. That gives me a decent amount of freedom to try and control distances on the next turn.

It isnt perfect, but it’s a viable option if you like seeing as many skeletons as possible in games.

9 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Success has been so-so. Initiative 4 armor up means that you have an easy time armoring up against long charges and can always armor up before non-hero archers fire. You get a miserable dead-zone in the 1-2 charge range where most cav and some infantry can reach you at initiative 3.

My response has has been to use the late shifts on the turns when we are out of charge range. That gives me a decent amount of freedom to try and control distances on the next turn.

It isnt perfect, but it’s a viable option if you like seeing as many skeletons as possible in games.

I think I'm sold on trying this. Next game night I'm gonna run 2 2x1s of Reanimates with tactical drummer as blockers for some 2x1 archers with rank discipline. I really like the idea of that the drummers will be able to hang around and get value out of regenerate. Really curious if they will hold up enough better than carrion lancers to justify the 3 extra points...

I’m not prepping for anything right now, so I’ll take a stab at it again. I’ll be facing Daqan tonight though, so a spearstar may just roll over them...

1 hour ago, Church14 said:

I’m not prepping for anything right now, so I’ll take a stab at it again. I’ll be facing Daqan tonight though, so a spearstar may just roll over them...

Might be worth throwing some combat ingenuity archers in there to neutralize the spearstar. If the first unit it hits can just not get deleted (it will be at 19 effective HP if you can armor up before the first charge) you could potentially just blight the spearstar into irrelevancy for the rest of the game.

Let us know how it goes! I know I'm interested.

I can't believe there is a discussion on whether or means both or not. In a game where they use and, and they use or specifically. If or could be both why have the and verbage on some cards? Or is always exclusive or. The example of fries or a salad is because the restaurant wants your business and will charge you extra for the other one. You don't get both for free. If your friend owes you $25 he could say do you want cash or do you want another RWM expansion. You can't say both. There is a cost to both. These cards all say OR there is an additional cost to both. The card has a set price, so or is exclusive.

On 11/20/2018 at 8:13 AM, Curlycross said:

I can't believe there is a discussion on whether or means both or not. In a game where they use and, and they use or specifically. If or could be both why have the and verbage on some cards? Or is always exclusive or. The example of fries or a salad is because the restaurant wants your business and will charge you extra for the other one. You don't get both for free. If your friend owes you $25 he could say do you want cash or do you want another RWM expansion. You can't say both. There is a cost to both. These cards all say OR there is an additional cost to both. The card has a set price, so or is exclusive.

You are confusing an either or statement with or. Not saying that they didn't mean either or, but they didnt write it as exclusive. The fact that it exhausts makes it almost exclusive, barring an inspiration token or a rally dialed up.

My thoughts:

Unhallowed Wind:
The trigger timing is before or after so those are the two opportunities that you have available to use this card. Therefore, I do believe this is possible:

1. Choose to activate Reanimates
2. BEFORE - "Exhaust" Unhallowed Wind to provide a panic token.
3. ` BEFORE - Spend an inspiration token to "Ready" Unhallowed Wind
4. Activate your unit.
5. AFTER activation - "Exhaust" Unhallowed Wind.
6. Proc Terrifying Heraldry at end of turn for another panic token.

Also, looking through the rules reference, this seems to support my understanding.

83.7
"A “before” event occurs immediately before the specified event and cannot occur again for that instance of the event"
"An “after” event occurs immediately after the specified event and cannot occur again for that instance of the event."

So rule 83.7 dictates that you can only perform something once per trigger. Unhallowed Wind has two triggers but also an exhaust. If you are able to "ready" the card before the next trigger, you can use it.

Dead Sprint and Ventala:
Dead Sprint and Ventala are EITHER / OR. You can do one but not the other. This is because they have but a single trigger and therefore there is no other opportunity to use the card again.

Sadly, whilst they are written in English they do not follow the traditional English word structure. Not sure if that is an American-English thing or just a simple oversight during writing, which is more likely.

Errata:

Dead Sprint:
During your activation, you may either increase the speed of your first {march symbol} by 1 or treat it as modified by a {turn symbol}.

Ventala Skirmishers:
When you perform a {march symbol}, you may either decrease it's speed by 1 or treat it as modified by a {turn symbol}.