Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

 Valena wrote:
Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

It was written in Matt Ward, and in general is just a worthless piece of gak that doesn't even add many unique rules, and makes out the Iyanden Eldar as incompetent idiots who didn't even listen to bloody Eldrad.

It's better if we just pretend the Biel Tan 2.0 Supplement doesn't exist.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Valena wrote:
Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

It was written in Matt Ward, and in general is just a worthless piece of gak that doesn't even add many unique rules, and makes out the Iyanden Eldar as incompetent idiots who didn't even listen to bloody Eldrad.

It's better if we just pretend the Biel Tan 2.0 Supplement doesn't exist.

If I could ignore it I would, but I'm planning a large online Eldar campaign featuring Iyanden Eldar. It's been in the works since last September and I only just now realized the implications of this new canon. So I'm looking for ways to rationalize it to my players. Otherwise, I may well end up glossing over that bit and either never mentioning it directly, or if it comes up I may defy what Ward wrote. I somehow doubt anyone would weep at the prospect of Matt Ward's canon being ignored.

I'd just not mention it and pretend whatever you thought beforehand is pure truth.

 Valena wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Valena wrote:
Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

It was written in Matt Ward, and in general is just a worthless piece of gak that doesn't even add many unique rules, and makes out the Iyanden Eldar as incompetent idiots who didn't even listen to bloody Eldrad.

It's better if we just pretend the Biel Tan 2.0 Supplement doesn't exist.

If I could ignore it I would, but I'm planning a large online Eldar campaign featuring Iyanden Eldar. It's been in the works since last September and I only just now realized the implications of this new canon. So I'm looking for ways to rationalize it to my players. Otherwise, I may well end up glossing over that bit and either never mentioning it directly, or if it comes up I may defy what Ward wrote. I somehow doubt anyone would weep at the prospect of Matt Ward's canon being ignored.

Just ignore it completely. That supplement was just terrible and turned Iyanden Eldar into incompetent idiots with the exact same goal as Biel-Tan, when they should be incredibly unique as the ghost-Eldar. I mean, I can easily buy Eldar being snobbish or over confident, that's their MO, but they would never shun Eldrad or any well known Farseer and their prophecies. Especially after the Fall and how Craftworlds exist because of Seers in the first place.

Make up whatever you want or maybe you could try to dig in the Black Library for old fluff on Iyanden. Anything would be better than the Supplement.

Much like ALIENS 3, the Iyanden Supplement never happened.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Just ignore it completely. That supplement was just terrible and turned Iyanden Eldar into incompetent idiots with the exact same goal as Biel-Tan, when they should be incredibly unique as the ghost-Eldar. I mean, I can easily buy Eldar being snobbish or over confident, that's their MO, but they would never shun Eldrad or any well known Farseer and their prophecies. Especially after the Fall and how Craftworlds exist because of Seers in the first place.

Make up whatever you want or maybe you could try to dig in the Black Library for old fluff on Iyanden. Anything would be better than the Supplement.

Much like ALIENS 3, the Iyanden Supplement never happened.

Though I mostly agree, there is one piece I like and have use for; the madness of Iyanna. It fits very well with a Warlock character who is going to be leading this campaign. That part I don't mind salvaging, but yes, most of the rest of what I read in that Codex was disappointing, but can be rationalized to some degree. Shunning the Prophecy is much harder to do, however.

 Valena wrote:
Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

Many don't believe because why should they? A Seer's say so is not a guarantee and on Iyanden where the dead are the most active and not going so peacefully into the Infinity Circuit, there'd probably be little evidence of such a god.
Despite that that a growing number of Eldar do believe as Iyanna's faction grows larger.

 Wyzilla wrote:
but they would never shun Eldrad or any well known Farseer and their prophecies.

But they had their own well known Farseer and their Seer Council saying that it was fine.

Honestly for the most part I liked the supplement. It had its poor spots that have been mentioned in prior comments but I liked the rising from the ashes theme the codex had. The eldar need more stories that offer hope for their race.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Valena wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Valena wrote:
Is it just me, or does the supplement codex seem to imply that the Iyanden Eldar do not believe in the Prophecy of Kysaduras? How does the Craftworld with the strongest connection to their dead not believe in the birth of the God of Death?

This just makes no sense to me, so I'm looking for any insight you guys can provide.

It was written in Matt Ward, and in general is just a worthless piece of gak that doesn't even add many unique rules, and makes out the Iyanden Eldar as incompetent idiots who didn't even listen to bloody Eldrad.

It's better if we just pretend the Biel Tan 2.0 Supplement doesn't exist.

If I could ignore it I would, but I'm planning a large online Eldar campaign featuring Iyanden Eldar. It's been in the works since last September and I only just now realized the implications of this new canon. So I'm looking for ways to rationalize it to my players. Otherwise, I may well end up glossing over that bit and either never mentioning it directly, or if it comes up I may defy what Ward wrote. I somehow doubt anyone would weep at the prospect of Matt Ward's canon being ignored.

Just ignore it completely. That supplement was just terrible and turned Iyanden Eldar into incompetent idiots with the exact same goal as Biel-Tan, when they should be incredibly unique as the ghost-Eldar. I mean, I can easily buy Eldar being snobbish or over confident, that's their MO, but they would never shun Eldrad or any well known Farseer and their prophecies. Especially after the Fall and how Craftworlds exist because of Seers in the first place.

Make up whatever you want or maybe you could try to dig in the Black Library for old fluff on Iyanden. Anything would be better than the Supplement.

Much like ALIENS 3, the Iyanden Supplement never happened.

Considering that there wasn't "Any" fluff in the older set for Iyanden, it's still better then most.

Not to mention their own Farseer was saying it wasn't going to end that way, and that things would be fine, and of course it's still canon.

Give Valedor a read if you're doing anything at all to do with Iyanden. It's easily one of the best books BL have produced in years.

On topic though, Iyanden was huge and extremely diverse. Pride and self-interest featured heavily in the Venn Diagram of Iyanden Philosophy (which drove Iyanden and Biel-Tan apart).

After the Triple Woe of Chaos, Tyranid and Ork assaults, the population was gutted and what is left is the confused remnants of a huge, proud and diverse culture.

Differences of opinion are commonplace, and Iyanden is far from unified in purpose and belief in today's world. You can easily reconcile the supplement and the other interpretations/sources in this way because the goals, mannerisms and intentions of Iyanden vary depending on which Iyandeni Eldar you are talking to.

Xyptc wrote:
Differences of opinion are commonplace, and Iyanden is far from unified in purpose and belief in today's world. You can easily reconcile the supplement and the other interpretations/sources in this way because the goals, mannerisms and intentions of Iyanden vary depending on which Iyandeni Eldar you are talking to.

See, this is exactly what I was thinking. But what I don't like about the way the Iyanden codex was written was how it seemed to speak in absolutes, which is a huge no-no in my opinion. It seemed to state that absolutely, all Iyanden Eldar rejected the belief in Ynnead unless they followed Iyanna's faction of crazy genocidal doomsday seers (Which, for the record, I still dig).

I just don't want this to turn into one of those things where players will go, "Oh, if you believe in Ynnead but you aren't one of Iyanna's followers you're breaking lore." Though who knows, maybe the impression of absolutes I got from the book is totally wrong and I'm the only one who saw it that way. I'm hoping that it's the case.


I do have Valedor sitting on my phone, but I haven't gotten a chance to delve into it much. I'm approaching this from an outside-in perspective. Trying to sink my teeth into the overarching lore and timeline before getting into the details, but it's all part of the plan.

 Valena wrote:

Xyptc wrote:
Differences of opinion are commonplace, and Iyanden is far from unified in purpose and belief in today's world. You can easily reconcile the supplement and the other interpretations/sources in this way because the goals, mannerisms and intentions of Iyanden vary depending on which Iyandeni Eldar you are talking to.

See, this is exactly what I was thinking. But what I don't like about the way the Iyanden codex was written was how it seemed to speak in absolutes, which is a huge no-no in my opinion. It seemed to state that absolutely, all Iyanden Eldar rejected the belief in Ynnead unless they followed Iyanna's faction of crazy genocidal doomsday seers (Which, for the record, I still dig).

I just don't want this to turn into one of those things where players will go, "Oh, if you believe in Ynnead but you aren't one of Iyanna's followers you're breaking lore." Though who knows, maybe the impression of absolutes I got from the book is totally wrong and I'm the only one who saw it that way. I'm hoping that it's the case.

Oh don't get me wrong, the supplement could have been written a lot better, and done a lot more to show that there are differences of opinion and so on. In a way it's a shame that readers have to take it upon themselves to reconcile this sort of thing, but on the other hand it does have the (unintended, I would guess) benefit of getting you thinking about the whole thing in a "bigger picture" sort of way and in my opinion at least we can get a lot more out of trying to get conflicting interpretations to work together with 40k lore than we do with just running one source as gospel.

In this case, knowing that there are conflicting stories on what the mindset of the Iyandeni helps bring a sense of scale into it; it really is a (ruined) civilization and of course on that scale there is room for all sorts of ideas.

 Valena wrote:

I do have Valedor sitting on my phone, but I haven't gotten a chance to delve into it much. I'm approaching this from an outside-in perspective. Trying to sink my teeth into the overarching lore and timeline before getting into the details, but it's all part of the plan.

Probably the best way of looking at it I think. Valedor is really up-to-the-minute stuff and throws you right into the moment, so getting a firm grasp of where the setting is coming from is a good plan.

Xyptc wrote:
Oh don't get me wrong, the supplement could have been written a lot better, and done a lot more to show that there are differences of opinion and so on. In a way it's a shame that readers have to take it upon themselves to reconcile this sort of thing, but on the other hand it does have the (unintended, I would guess) benefit of getting you thinking about the whole thing in a "bigger picture" sort of way and in my opinion at least we can get a lot more out of trying to get conflicting interpretations to work together with 40k lore than we do with just running one source as gospel.

In this case, knowing that there are conflicting stories on what the mindset of the Iyandeni helps bring a sense of scale into it; it really is a (ruined) civilization and of course on that scale there is room for all sorts of ideas.

This is a really good way of looking at this. Thanks for sharing! Ultimately 40K remains a universe of vibrant possibilities and harmonious and conflicting mentalities. Anything and everything can happen, at any time, anywhere. That's what I really love about this IP