Does anyone believe that Drazhar is the lost Phoenix Lord? I do and it would explain a lot about his mysterious past. Does anyone agree?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We had a conversation at GW Macclesfield and we all agreed

DRazhar?
The DE master of blades right?
What makes a pheonix lord?
'cos he can't use spirit stones.
And he hasn't founded an aspect temple afaik.

I fail to see which Aspect Drazhar would belong to.

I think the plan was for him to be hinted at being Arhra, the original Phoenix Lord of the Striking Scorpions, and i personally think that it is more than possible that Arhra and Drazhar are the same Eldar

Yeah the 3ed edition gossip was that he was Arhra: father of scorpions.

In the previous codex, Drazhar and the Incubi even had Mandiblasters, I think it's pretty clear. : )

The codex entry makes it seem quite possible

Enginseer wrote:In the previous codex, Drazhar and the Incubi even had Mandiblasters, I think it's pretty clear. : )

incorrect. They had tormentor helms which were a common wargear item in the codex. Basically a helmet with a mind-impluse splinter pistol built in.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Enginseer wrote:In the previous codex, Drazhar and the Incubi even had Mandiblasters, I think it's pretty clear. : )

incorrect. They had tormentor helms which were a common wargear item in the codex. Basically a helmet with a mind-impluse splinter pistol built in.

Which you have to admit is not too dissimilar at all to the Striking Scorpion Mandiblasters. Perhaps the Incubi were indeed founded by the Fallen Phoenix Lord, and it should be noted that Drazhar's stats are comparable to an Eldar Phoenix Lord, so either Drazhar trained under Arhra or is indeed the fallen Lord himself.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Enginseer wrote:In the previous codex, Drazhar and the Incubi even had Mandiblasters, I think it's pretty clear. : )

incorrect. They had tormentor helms which were a common wargear item in the codex. Basically a helmet with a mind-impluse splinter pistol built in.

Which you have to admit is not too dissimilar at all to the Striking Scorpion Mandiblasters. Perhaps the Incubi were indeed founded by the Fallen Phoenix Lord, and it should be noted that Drazhar's stats are comparable to an Eldar Phoenix Lord, so either Drazhar trained under Arhra or is indeed the fallen Lord himself.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I absolutely think there is a strong possibility that drazhar is the fallen phoenix. And yes, tormentors are similar to mandiblasters - but they are not the same thing.

It's a bit of a stretch to put such similar weapons (unseen in any other race or fighting group) down to coincidence.

Well they are the Same race, just with different Ideologies.

The new codex even flatly tells us that some think he is Arhra; and that yes Arhra founded the incubi.

This conversation reminds me of certain people claiming Hitler was a communist because 'Nazi' is a contraction for National Socialism...

Told you all didn't I? He IS the lost Phoenix lord!

There isn't any concrete evidence of that. But there is certainly enough proof to encourage wild rumours, useless speculation and a never ending thread on the subject that eventually leads nowhere.

My bad. I believe he is though. In my mind, maybe...

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Enginseer wrote:In the previous codex, Drazhar and the Incubi even had Mandiblasters, I think it's pretty clear. : )

incorrect. They had tormentor helms which were a common wargear item in the codex. Basically a helmet with a mind-impluse splinter pistol built in.

You weren't really suggesting that the similarity of two nerve-controlled, head-mounted pistols conferring the same bonus to two warriors who are already thought to have a common link is completely random?

Thanks for clearing it up Emperors Faithful!

Is he the Phoenix lord or not?!?

It's unclear.
He might be.
But being a Dark Eldar, it's unlikely.
But he also uses tactics and weaons similar to some of the aspects.
There is no argument either way so go figure.

But Dark Eldar were Eldar so it is quite likely. Also explain who is the lost phoenix lord then?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:But Dark Eldar were Eldar so it is quite likely. Also explain who is the lost phoenix lord then?

I don't think you're getting this.
There isn't any evidence pointing any particular way. It could be a guy no one has seen before. It could be Drazhar. It's unlikely though, because the Aspects were founded after the Fall and the Dark Eldar were only Dark Eldar after the Fall.
It is unclear.
It is, as they say in the crime solving business, a mystery.

Purple; there are two Concrete Facts to consider:

1) The founder of the Striking Scorpions(Arhra) left the Craftworld Eldar to join the Dark Eldar, and Founded the Incubi
So just being Dark Eldar does not mean that they do not have aspects(they have 1, of a sort)

2)Drahzar is a complete Mystery; He has never shown his face nor spoken a word, and no Incubi seemed to be missing when he showed up.
This tells us that he did not have to move up through the ranks of incubi, He just showed up one day, challenged an incubi temple master; and beat him down. He then makes no move to take over the incubi.

The last bit of what the second means could very well indicate that he is not Arhra; or if he is, he has no wish to lead them as their phoenix lord.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Purple; there are two Concrete Facts to consider:

1) The founder of the Striking Scorpions(Arhra) left the Craftworld Eldar to join the Dark Eldar, and Founded the Incubi
So just being Dark Eldar does not mean that they do not have aspects(they have 1, of a sort)

2)Drahzar is a complete Mystery; He has never shown his face nor spoken a word, and no Incubi seemed to be missing when he showed up.
This tells us that he did not have to move up through the ranks of incubi, He just showed up one day, challenged an incubi temple master; and beat him down. He then makes no move to take over the incubi.

The last bit of what the second means could very well indicate that he is not Arhra; or if he is, he has no wish to lead them as their phoenix lord.

It isn't known whether he did found the incubi. It is highly likely but still no actual evidence saying he did it afaik.
The 2nd piece just means he wanted to make his mark, like most Dark Eldar. He doesn't need to take over if everyone knows he could just kill them to death.

purplefood wrote:It isn't known whether he did found the incubi. It is highly likely but still no actual evidence saying he did it afaik.
The 2nd piece just means he wanted to make his mark, like most Dark Eldar. He doesn't need to take over if everyone knows he could just kill them to death.

Which goes against the grain of the greater Dark Eldar psyche. Most, having defeated a champion so effortlessly, would be more than happy to sieze control of that incubi temple. Given his ability, he could likely do the same to each and every incubi coven through strength of arms. The fact that he does not take control over any incubi unless directly leading them on the battlefield (just as Craftworld Phoenix lords do not control the aspects that they founded) is another score that he could very well be Arhra. We need a confession though.

A couple of things:

1. Drazhar has the exact stats of one of the phoenix lords from the eldar codex.
2. The Incubi are basically aspect warriors, they have shrines, focus solely on combat, and the klaivex like an exarch gives powers to their squad. Also I think the codex mentions them having statues to Khaine.
3. One of the theories of the other Incubi is that Drazhar is their founder Ahra, who was the original founder of the Striking Scorpions.

There still isn't any solid evidence.
There is lots of things hinting at it but only if you interpret them a certain way.

If he founded the Incubi then why did he slaughter them then?

He is a Dark Eldar. Dark Eldar don't particularly care for each other.
They would happily kill people if they thought it would furhter them or if they thought it was fun.

Drazhar remains a mystery then...but I believe he IS the lost Phoenix Lord

Brother Hestapheus wrote:If he founded the Incubi then why did he slaughter them then?

You just seem to be arguing around in circles. Until more evidence is published its just as likely Drazhar is Ahra just as much as the chance he isn't. Your speculation and personal opinion wont do anything to change that.

But I can still believe that

You can believe anything you want.

Having the statline of a Phoenix Lord doesn't prove he's Arhra though. Karandras has the statline of a Phoenix Lord (hurr durr) and he was Arhra's student.

Is Karandras not a Phoenix Lord then?

Yes, thus the "hurr durr".

I beg your pardon for being relatively inferior, but whats 'hurr durr?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I beg your pardon for being relatively inferior, but whats 'hurr durr?

It's meant to be the sound of a dumb person thinking afaik.

I am I being called stupid?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I am I being called stupid?

No. He is basically saying that you can't use stats to make a fluff judgement.

Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

I said 'hurr durr' for stating that the Phoenix Lord Karandras has Phoenix Lord stats. I was mocking my own stupidly obvious statement.

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

You didn't seem to mind all the other times!

I do apologize and I am sure you are highly intelligent

Rube wrote:I said 'hurr durr' for stating that the Phoenix Lord Karandras has Phoenix Lord stats. I was mocking my own stupidly obvious statement.

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

You didn't seem to mind all the other times!

Heh. I saw what you did there.

Zatsuku wrote:A couple of things:

1. Drazhar has the exact stats of one of the phoenix lords from the eldar codex.
2. The Incubi are basically aspect warriors, they have shrines, focus solely on combat, and the klaivex like an exarch gives powers to their squad. Also I think the codex mentions them having statues to Khaine.
3. One of the theories of the other Incubi is that Drazhar is their founder Ahra, who was the original founder of the Striking Scorpions.

Drazhr's armor is also different from that of the Incubi, a fact that's noted in the codex.

Purple; The most solid evidence of the Incubi being founded by Arhra would be the new Codex... Which outright States it in no uncertain terms.

Dark Eldar Codex Page 52, second paragraph, third sentence:

Some say he is Arhra, the fabled father of the Incubi incarnate

Kommissar Kel wrote:Purple; The most solid evidence of the Incubi being founded by Arhra would be the new Codex... Which outright States it in no uncertain terms.

Dark Eldar Codex Page 52, second paragraph, third sentence:

Some say he is Arhra, the fabled father of the Incubi incarnate

Funny that because it is uncertain.
"Some say"
Basically means it's a rumour.
If me and 200 people said that the moon was a giant cardboard cut out i could then say "Some say the moon is a giant cardboard cut out" that doesn't make it true it merely puts the idea out there.
I will admit there are hints for believing Arha is Drazhar or whatever it is we're arguing right now but not enough to comprehensivly say.

"Some say" that he taught an Ork Warboss ballet. All we know is, he's called Drazhar.

Emperors Faithful wrote:"Some say" that he taught an Ork Warboss ballet. All we know is, he's called Drazhar.

Top Gear references make everything better.

The new codex appears to confirm that Arha did indeed found the Incubi - something that was merely hinted at before now.

It also indicates that there are rumors that Drahza is Arha, but doesn't provide any further information either way.

No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

They mean some say he is Arha. Who is the fabled founder of the incubi. No that some say arha is th fabled founder of the incubi,

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

I bet he is Ahra

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

purplefood wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

But what they're arguing is that he may or might not be Arha. Not that Arha may or not be the Incubi founder.

Purple: RC Fail.

"Some say" is stating that he may or may not be Arhra, that Arhra founded the Incubi is fact, that drahzar may or may not be Arhra is still rumor.

Let me give you an example of how this works, but I will first preface my example with a few statements:
1) The following is an example of the above statement for illustrative purposes only.
2) My mother is jewish, the subject of the following statement is again for illustrative purposes.

"Some say I am Hitler, a man responsible for slaughtering millions of jews"

The first part is conjecture, rumor, or hearsay; the second part is historical fact.

He is one of the fallen Phoenix lords.

Well, thanks for clearing that up, Aherian Command. I am sure everyone who has posted in this thread will be relieved you arrived.

To everyone else - Jes and Phil, and everyone else at GW have left it deliberately open up to interpretation and conjecture. This is exactly the sort of conversation they are hoping to generate.

It is impossible for anyone to say whether he is or is not, because Jes and Phil have decided that no-one knows, either in W40K, or in the real world.

purplefood wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

Er...

No offense, but I think you've become so focused on arguing that you're not actually taking the time to read what you're responding to. You pretty much just said exactly what I did, but claimed that our statements were not in agreement.

Thank you for proving me right!

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Thank you for proving me right!

WE AREN'T! ALL WE PROVED WAS THAT ARHA IS THE FOUNDER OF THE INCUBI!!
GERGBRA!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

purplefood wrote:It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"

Klawz wrote:

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Thank you for proving me right!

WE AREN'T! ALL WE PROVED WAS THAT ARHA IS THE FOUNDER OF THE INCUBI!!
GERGBRA!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Slightly off topic and perhaps boring, but this reminds me of Mephiston in 2nd edition; lots of hints he was a vampire, and he had the exact same stat line and powers as a fantsy vampire. GW like to keep us guessing.

Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats not boring you know

Considering that Mephiston now has many things in common with a Keeper of Secrets, I'd say it's a nice change from the "OMG< Mephistoon id VAMPIRE!!!11!!".

Yeah, I have the 2nd edition angels of death codex, and warhammer fantasy bestiary book from around the same time, exact same profile and transfix power. Sneaky space vampire!
Why do you say more in common with a KOS now Nurglitch?

They are both awesome?

I don't get why people are so adament he is NOT Arhra.

The entry hints at it. He doen't even remove his armor and it has an old style.. and hes better then all the other incubi..

Seems pretty likely to me.

Shaman wrote:I don't get why people are so adament he is NOT Arhra.

The entry hints at it. He doen't even remove his armor and it has an old style.. and hes better then all the other incubi..

Seems pretty likely to me.

No one is insisting that he definitely isn't Arha. They're only stating that we don't know for certain - which is completely correct.

Bet he is

Good for you.

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Bet he is

Is this really necessary. You seem to be missing out why forum threads are made. To debate. Not making dead end statements. Try adding some content to your posts.

I was just suggesting my somewhat unwanted opinion

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I was just suggesting my somewhat unwanted opinion

But you don't say

Bet he is

You explain why.

Come Again?

You suggested your opinion but did not explain why you have that Opinion; therefore you added nothing to the discussion other than upping your own post count.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

purplefood wrote:It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"

Klawz wrote:

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Thank you for proving me right!

WE AREN'T! ALL WE PROVED WAS THAT ARHA IS THE FOUNDER OF THE INCUBI!!
GERGBRA!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

I noticed you bolded the "fabled" part.
I think the term "fabled" isn't merely saying that Arhra might have founded the Incubi. But, more along the lines of he's an almost "fairytale hero" (to the DE) or held highly in sort of a god-like sense.

Pen≥Sword wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

purplefood wrote:It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"

Klawz wrote:

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Thank you for proving me right!

WE AREN'T! ALL WE PROVED WAS THAT ARHA IS THE FOUNDER OF THE INCUBI!!
GERGBRA!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

I noticed you bolded the "fabled" part.
I think the term "fabled" isn't merely saying that Arhra might have founded the Incubi. But, more along the lines of he's an almost "fairytale hero" (to the DE) or held highly in sort of a god-like sense.

Debatable. (Teehee)

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I was just suggesting my somewhat unwanted opinion

Your opinion is appreciated. When you provide something new to further an argument that backs it up or adds something new to it in general. Just stating your opinion with no concrete proof or source to back that up as truth leads to contentless posts that only benefit your post count. Which devalues it even more as an arbitrary value that has little real meaning. And it detracts from any meaningful discussion. Which is what the background/any forum is for.

Back to the subject, did Ahra found the Incubi AND the Striking Scorpions?

Arha founded the Incubi. He also founded the Striking Scorpions.
It is said that Drazhar is Arha. This may or may not be true as their is little evidence either way.
That is what i meant to say. I'm sorry if i got confused and said otherwise.

purplefood wrote:Arha founded the Incubi. He also may have founded the Striking Scorpions.
It is said that Drazhar is Arha. This may or may not be true as their is little evidence either way.
That is what i meant to say. I'm sorry if i got confused and said otherwise.

Your post. I fixt it.

So Karandras isn't a true phoenix lord?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:So Karandras isn't a true phoenix lord?

No, he was the First Apprentice. However, his exarch armour is so imbued with souls that he is basically the equivalent. Arha on the other hand appears to be a single soul, sustained the good ol' Dark Eldar way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is assuming that Drazhar is the same person of course. If he isn't there is little to suggest Arha is actually still alive.

Yes and no. He wasn't the founder of the Striking Scorpions, but his Version of them, is drastically different from Arhra's that they could be seen as two different aspects

What?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you saying there are 2 types of striking scorpions?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:What?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you saying there are 2 types of striking scorpions?

No. Arha founded the striking scorpions we know operate on Eldar Craftworlds. However, he subsequently fell to darkness. After wrecking great ruin he fled/wandered off. Karandras, the first aprentice, kept the Striking Scorpions pure. Alledgedly, Arha went on to found the Incubi.

It's quite clearly stated in the Dark Eldar Codex that Arhra did found the Incubi, as has been shown previously.

As a side note, Arhra's Striking Scorpion's were probaly more bloodthristy, maniac killers, until Karandras took over, and calmed them down

statu wrote:It's quite clearly stated in the Dark Eldar Codex that Arhra did found the Incubi, as has been shown previously.

Objection!

Going by the exact RAW wording on the fluff Arha is never definitely shown to be the founder of the incubi.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

statu wrote:It's quite clearly stated in the Dark Eldar Codex that Arhra did found the Incubi, as has been shown previously.

Objection!

Going by the exact RAW wording on the fluff Arha is never definitely shown to be the founder of the incubi.

Objection!
It in fact says that he is fabled. I.E. famous.

Klawz wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

statu wrote:It's quite clearly stated in the Dark Eldar Codex that Arhra did found the Incubi, as has been shown previously.

Objection!

Going by the exact RAW wording on the fluff Arha is never definitely shown to be the founder of the incubi.

Objection!
It in fact says that he is fabled. I.E. famous.

King Arthur is the fabled warrior of England.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

statu wrote:It's quite clearly stated in the Dark Eldar Codex that Arhra did found the Incubi, as has been shown previously.

Objection!

Going by the exact RAW wording on the fluff Arha is never definitely shown to be the founder of the incubi.

Objection!
It in fact says that he is fabled. I.E. famous.

King Arthur is the fabled warrior of England.

Britain.
Fabled generally means famous for something although that person may or may not exist or have existed.

purplefood wrote:Fabled generally means famous for something although that person may or may not exist or have existed.

Yup. The comment regarding Arha seems to be calling into question whether or not Arha actually existed in the first place. But it also implies that if he did exist, then he's the one who created the Incubi.

And since we know that Arha existed (the Craftworld Codex tells us so in no uncertain terms), it follows that Arha did indeed create the Incubi.

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:Fabled generally means famous for something although that person may or may not exist or have existed.

Yup. The comment regarding Arha seems to be calling into question whether or not Arha actually existed in the first place. But it also implies that if he did exist, then he's the one who created the Incubi.

And since we know that Arha existed (the Craftworld Codex tells us so in no uncertain terms), it follows that Arha did indeed create the Incubi.

Ok so:
Arha is real.
He created both the Striking Scorpion aspect.
He was defeated by his apprentice who radically changed the Striking Scorpions.
He then buggered off and created the Incubi.
Drazhar may or may not be Arha.
There is a small amount of evidence for both arguments but nothing even slightly conslusive.
Is that all straightened out now?

purplefood wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:Fabled generally means famous for something although that person may or may not exist or have existed.

Yup. The comment regarding Arha seems to be calling into question whether or not Arha actually existed in the first place. But it also implies that if he did exist, then he's the one who created the Incubi.

And since we know that Arha existed (the Craftworld Codex tells us so in no uncertain terms), it follows that Arha did indeed create the Incubi.

Ok so:
Arha is real.
He created both the Striking Scorpion aspect.
He was defeated by his apprentice who radically changed the Striking Scorpions.
He then buggered off and created the Incubi.
Drazhar may or may not be Arha.
There is a small amount of evidence for both arguments but nothing even slightly conslusive.
Is that all straightened out now?

Seems to be

purplefood wrote:Ok so:
Arha is real.
He created both the Striking Scorpion aspect.
He was defeated by his apprentice who radically changed the Striking Scorpions.
He then buggered off and created the Incubi.
Drazhar may or may not be Arha.
There is a small amount of evidence for both arguments but nothing even slightly conslusive.
Is that all straightened out now?

Thank Christ. It's over. It's finnally over.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

purplefood wrote:Ok so:
Arha is real.
He created both the Striking Scorpion aspect.
He was defeated by his apprentice who radically changed the Striking Scorpions.
He then buggered off and created the Incubi.
Drazhar may or may not be Arha.
There is a small amount of evidence for both arguments but nothing even slightly conslusive.
Is that all straightened out now?

Thank Christ. It's over. It's finnally over.

So can this thread die now?

It sure as hell was fun arguing though

Brother Hestapheus wrote:It sure as hell was fun arguing though

Please can we just leave this thread.
Let it die...

Bye thread!