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.

Here we need to discuss RaI or HYMPI because the RaW doesn't exist to cover the situation.

Personally, I'd go for the quick and easy solution and treat the eagle just as a Ridden Monster.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The point of YMDC is to find the RAW reasoning. If that fails, HYWPI is given instead of help people out.

The only place where it tells us explicitly what the purpose of YMDC is this;

WHFB You Make Da Call
Want to discuss Fantasy rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative

So again; you can't tell someone not to use HYWPI because no official source (tenets/description) says that one is trumped by another . At best that's HYWPI of the rules of YMDC

HYWPI is pointless in a rules discussion as it has zero actual value and can greatly vary among players. As HYWPI is fully subjective, there is no point in discussing it and therefore, it's an emergency solution for cases where RAW isn't clear.

RAW only has one possible solution and can be discussed by properly providing rule quotations and logical argumentations.

Therefore, coming from a HYWPI perspective is a waste of time for all participants.

 Sigvatr wrote:
HYWPI is pointless in a rules discussion as it has zero actual value and can greatly vary among players. As HYWPI is fully subjective, there is no point in discussing it and therefore, it's an emergency solution for cases where RAW isn't clear.

RAW only has one possible solution and can be discussed by properly providing rule quotations and logical argumentations.

Therefore, coming from a HYWPI perspective is a waste of time for all participants.

well that's just HYWPI

in all seriousness when talking about interpretations of unclear rules its more useful than straight up RAW, specifically when special rules are made obsolete by options due to vagueness

As logn as you actually mark your post "HYWPI", there is no issue discussing it here - it just cant really be argued with, same as any opinion it always has the fallback of "but thats how I would do it", as opposed to any written answer.

The main issue comes when a HYWPI argument is presented as RAW.