Another question about choosing elements from an army list

Be careful about the subject tribesmen "(7Hd or 3Ax)". Here because of the bracket you have a choice of either 7Hd or 3Ax, not both.

David Constable

Or is a funny word, either would allow you both, because in this case it is in brackets, the or applies to the contents of the brackets.
Those old enough will remember BODMAS in maths, it works like the brackets in that.
Or is an alternative, it can be used like either, and even whether (watch the spelling of that word). It is a horrible word to use in an army list, but it simplifies it considerably.

So "A or B or (C or D)" is different from "A or (B or (C or D))".

In my Compact Oxford Dictionary the word "or" occupies two pages, that would occupy two pages of A4 at probably 5 or 6 point if you typed it out. All for one word only two characters long.

David Constable

This is both an example of and an extension of the rant I had about the word “OR” here fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2093/army-list-options where I managed to upset Bob by saying it was madness PB taking the trouble to meticulously define a term to mean one thing and then use it in a different way.

The trouble here is that goragrad is correct from a Boolean algebra perspective and a common sense but Vic is right from a “way the rules are written” perspective.

Joe asks Has PB defined exactly how he is using the word "or"? The answer is Yes. PB does meticulously define the term “OR” and “/“ in the Army lists. Here ”OR” means “any combination of the options” (i.e. 4 x 3Bw or Ps” means any combination of 3Bw and Ps up to a maximum of 4 is allowed.). In contrast “/“ is the “exclusive or (XOR)” so 4 x 3Bw/Ps means one or the other not both (i.e. either 4 x 3Bw or 4 xPs NOT both).

Given this definition then Vic is completely right A or B or (C or D) is completely equivalent to A or B or C or D. If PB had meant differently he would have written A or B or (C / D). However, if the PB definition stands then why the parentheses? They have no meaning and they cannot imply anything if the earlier definition is adhered to.

However, from a Boolean algebra, and I suggest a common sense perspective (to make sense of the existence of the parentheses) then Goragrad is correct. A OR B OR (C OR D) is different to A OR B OR (C XOR D).

So the question here is did PB take the trouble to define the terms “OR” and “/“ and want them to be used in this way and accidentally used a few redundant sets of brackets or (exclusive i.e. either/or not both) did PB use the word “OR” to mean both “OR” and “XOR” depending on context in which case why define the terms in advance.

3 x horse archers (LH) or foot archers or slingers (Ps) or subject tribesmen (7Hd or 3Ax)
Is short for
3 x horse archers (LH) or foot archers or slingers (Ps) or subject tribesmen (7Hd) or subject tribesmen (3Ax)

It does not mean

3 x horse archers (LH) or foot archers or slingers (Ps) or subject tribesmen (7Hd/3Ax)

The army list descriptions is very clear, an “or” between two items means you can have some of each,  a “/“  Between two items means you must take all From either side of the “ /“

Notice other army lists where the "/" is used in the parens.
Later Hungarian
2 x German or Bohemian handgunners (Ps) or war wagons (WWg) or German or Italian pikemen (4Pk) or Bosnian archers (Ps or 3/4Bw).

Clearly player can pick 1 of Bosnian Archer and one of either 3Bw or 4Bw, but certainly not 1 3Bw and 1 4Bw

Here is a good one from the Western Sudanese

2 x yam fate-fate (4Bd) or yam assigiri (Sp) or yam mashi (3Ax) or yam baka (Ps/3Bw) or Zagi (Ps).
you can have 2 of either yam baka Psiloi or 3Bow but not 1 of each.

others
2 x household (3/4Pk)
2 x javelinmen
(3/4Ax)


compare this to other examples of the "or" in parens, where either can be chosen

Early Hungarian
2 x Croat foot (Sp or 4Ax)
others
2 x emergency reserves (7Hd) or nomadic levies (3Ax or Ps).

Here is another way to use the or to mean only one side or the other of the "or"

3 x cavalry (all LH or all Cv),  but the "subject tribesmen are not shown as "subject tribesmen (all 7Hd or all 3Ax)
 

Boolean algebra is out of place here as we're not processing a signal. A, B, C and D are not Boolean variables that we need to combine according to the text in the rules. We are not performing truth tests on them and trying to find out a global truth value.

That would be the behaviour of an "OR" logical gate. But here we don't have logical gates. We have the word "or".

If one goes to a party and someone says "We can offer you beer, or cider, or a hot drink (tea or coffee)", I wouldn't expect anyone to understand that guests can have tea, or coffee, but not both - that as soon as one guest gets a tea coffee is off limits, and viceversa, while beer and cider remain viable options.