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.

 Kriswall wrote:

ninety0ne wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It would be significantly stranger, from a fluff perspective if a Phoenix Lord could give, say, a Unit of Dark Eldar Wyches a power normally reserved to Shadow Spectres.

I'm really not trying to be snarky with this but you brought up the fluff part


Im only looking at statistical incidence of a rule type. In this case its an outlier, and I dont trust outliers as representing intention in a large population

I definitely see what you're getting at. You'd like this rule to work the same way as all the other Exarch Powers. Then again, what is the population of Forgeworld written Exarch Powers? Let me check... one? Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only Forgeworld written Exarch Power. I might be mistaken, but hopefully my point is conveyed. A different set of authors wrote these rules versus the set who wrote Codex: Eldar. The rule is written concisely and with zero ambiguity. It is very likely that the rule works exactly as intended. To assume that the rule was written incorrectly and that a Shadow Spectre Exarch Power that enhances the Unit and not the Exarch himself should apply to non-Shadow Spectre units seems a little... I don't know. Presumptuous? There is a presumption being made that the writers didn't know what they were doing or that they aren't allowed to write rules differently than other authors.

yes I'd really like a set of rules that spanned an entire universe that were: adequately tested, balanced to other sets, and consistent. I think we all agree thats not the case
I dont think theres any presumption on my part given forgeworld does not have the degree of credibility that even GW has in my mind. I mean the model were discussing was rewritten for 6th/7th, then re issued 6 months later because the revision draft was considered bad. I'd agree with you in a world where we, the hobbyist/player, were given rules with adequate assurance and testing. We don't live there hence my OP and responses in this thread so far.

ninety0ne wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

ninety0ne wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It would be significantly stranger, from a fluff perspective if a Phoenix Lord could give, say, a Unit of Dark Eldar Wyches a power normally reserved to Shadow Spectres.

I'm really not trying to be snarky with this but you brought up the fluff part


Im only looking at statistical incidence of a rule type. In this case its an outlier, and I dont trust outliers as representing intention in a large population

I definitely see what you're getting at. You'd like this rule to work the same way as all the other Exarch Powers. Then again, what is the population of Forgeworld written Exarch Powers? Let me check... one? Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only Forgeworld written Exarch Power. I might be mistaken, but hopefully my point is conveyed. A different set of authors wrote these rules versus the set who wrote Codex: Eldar. The rule is written concisely and with zero ambiguity. It is very likely that the rule works exactly as intended. To assume that the rule was written incorrectly and that a Shadow Spectre Exarch Power that enhances the Unit and not the Exarch himself should apply to non-Shadow Spectre units seems a little... I don't know. Presumptuous? There is a presumption being made that the writers didn't know what they were doing or that they aren't allowed to write rules differently than other authors.

yes I'd really like a set of rules that spanned an entire universe that were: adequately tested, balanced to other sets, and consistent. I think we all agree thats not the case
I dont think theres any presumption on my part given forgeworld does not have the degree of credibility that even GW has in my mind. I mean the model were discussing was rewritten for 6th/7th, then re issued 6 months later because the revision draft was considered bad. I'd agree with you in a world where we, the hobbyist/player, were given rules with adequate assurance and testing. We don't live there hence my OP and responses in this thread so far.

Please don't take offence to this, but the rules don't care whether or not you think Forgeworld has as much credibility as "GW". I use quotes because Forgeworld IS a part of GW just like Black Library and all it's myriad Dataslates are a part of GW. It feels like you've made up in your mind that one author is inherently better than another author because of which part of the company his desk happens to be in.

I want my rules to be written in such a way that they are unambiguous and clear. Is this rule unambiguous and clear? Yes it is. If every rule were written like this, I'd be ecstatic. Are they? Of course not. If anything, Forgeworld authors do a much better job of writing clear and unambiguous rules than the "primary" pool of authors.

Wanting this rule to work like other Exarch Powers doesn't mean that it does or is supposed to. RaW is clear in this case. Play it how you like, but understand that you're likely going against authorial intent and implementing a house rule. That's ok. You're allowed to do this. It's only a game. Fly free, my friend.

 Kriswall wrote:
This isn't a broken rule, so your snark about the Psychic phase isn't applicable.

The rule clearly requires Irrilyth to be in a Unit of Shadow Spectres for Shadow of Death to have any effect. RaW isn't vague or ambiguous.

If you believe that the intention was to allow Irrilyth to use the rule alone or in other Units, that's fine. If you let your opponent know that the rule says one thing, but that you will be playing it a different way, that's fine.

If you simply read the rule and then play it a different way without really pointing out that you are purposefully not playing it the way the rules tell you to... Well, that could easily be misconstrued as deceptive. If I found that an opponent was doing this, I'd ask them to be more specific about house ruling something in the future. I would want this exchange to occur...

"Hey, rule A says to do B. I think it makes more sense to do C instead. Are you ok with that?"

Without this exchange it is, at best, unintentionally deceptive; at worst, intentionally deceptive. Either way, the opponent has been mislead into thinking you're playing the rule as written.

It's just good sportsmanship to unambiguously point out any house rules you'd like to use.

I would argue that it is a broken rule when looked at from a RAI/fluff point of view, which is actually more important than RAW to many people. Did you make this same argument last edition for Wraithguard not being able to shoot? RAW cleary stated that you had to check LoS from the eyes, which Wraithguard don't have. In this example the game is not brought to a grinding halt as it is with the current RAW Psychic Phase, and it certainly would not be the first instance of a model with a non-zero balistic skill that couldnt shoot. However, most people came to the logical conclusion that the RAI was more important than the RAW in that case, and allowed them to shoot. I (and many others) have come to the same conclusion with Irrilyth. He was cleary intended to be a Shadow Spectre, as he is the Lord of that Aspect. Also, Your fulffy example of him only "inspiring the squad" really doesnt work when you consider that a solo Exarch would benafit from his own rule. In Fact, a Phoenix Lord is just an Exarch who donned that specific Aspect's Phoenix Armour.

As said above, I read this rule aloud every time I run the Phoenix Lord, and explain how I interpret it. There is no deception. Please stop spewing gak like that, I have already explained that is not the case. At best, these remarks are begining to sound unintentionally rude; and at worst, malicious. From my point of view, the real donkey-cave here is the person who cries RAW and tries to argue that Irrilyth is not a Shadow Spectre (or that Wraithguard couldn't shoot last edition) in order to try and gain an advantage over a person who is using a mediocre HQ in a fluffy list.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This isn't a broken rule, so your snark about the Psychic phase isn't applicable.

The rule clearly requires Irrilyth to be in a Unit of Shadow Spectres for Shadow of Death to have any effect. RaW isn't vague or ambiguous.

If you believe that the intention was to allow Irrilyth to use the rule alone or in other Units, that's fine. If you let your opponent know that the rule says one thing, but that you will be playing it a different way, that's fine.

If you simply read the rule and then play it a different way without really pointing out that you are purposefully not playing it the way the rules tell you to... Well, that could easily be misconstrued as deceptive. If I found that an opponent was doing this, I'd ask them to be more specific about house ruling something in the future. I would want this exchange to occur...

"Hey, rule A says to do B. I think it makes more sense to do C instead. Are you ok with that?"

Without this exchange it is, at best, unintentionally deceptive; at worst, intentionally deceptive. Either way, the opponent has been mislead into thinking you're playing the rule as written.

It's just good sportsmanship to unambiguously point out any house rules you'd like to use.

I would argue that it is a broken rule when looked at from a RAI/fluff point of view, which is actually more important than RAW to many people. Did you make this same argument last edition for Wraithguard not being able to shoot? RAW cleary stated that you had to check LoS from the eyes, which Wraithguard don't have. In this example the game is not brought to a grinding halt as it is with the current RAW Psychic Phase, and it certainly would not be the first instance of a model with a non-zero balistic skill that couldnt shoot. However, most people came to the logical conclusion that the RAI was more important than the RAW in that case, and allowed them to shoot. I (and many others) have come to the same conclusion with Irrilyth. He was cleary intended to be a Shadow Spectre, as he is the Lord of that Aspect. Also, Your fulffy example of him only "inspiring the squad" really doesnt work when you consider that a solo Exarch would benafit from his own rule. In Fact, a Phoenix Lord is just an Exarch who donned that specific Aspect's Phoenix Armour.

As said above, I read this rule aloud every time I run the Phoenix Lord, and explain how I interpret it. There is no deception. Please stop spewing gak like that, I have already explained that is not the case. At best, these remarks are begining to sound unintentionally rude; and at worst, malicious. From my point of view, the real donkey-cave here is the person who cries RAW and tries to argue that Irrilyth is not a Shadow Spectre (or that Wraithguard couldn't shoot last edition) in order to try and gain an advantage over a person who is using a mediocre HQ in a fluffy list.

I don't appreciate being called an donkey-cave. Name calling is typically the sign of a weak argument.

Irrilyth ISN'T a Shadow Spectre from a rules perspective. This isn't a fluff forum. It's a rules forum. If you want to ignore the rules and play it your way, that's totally cool. Make a house rule. Just don't say the rule is broken. The rule is well written and unambiguous. It has no internal conflicts and can be followed with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. RaI is never knowable since we aren't the authors. RaW is knowable and in this case is totally clear.

I do love how you think someone who wants to follow the actual rules and not give you extra abilities that the rules don't allow for is an donkey-cave. I expect all my opponent's to follow the rules by default. In the case of ambiguous or broken rules (such as the Wraithguard issue), I expect my opponent and I to come to a reasonable agreement before the game. This isn't an ambiguous or broken rule. If an opponent asked to play it your way, I might say yes and I might say no. Entirely depends on what kind of player he is and how forward he's being.

"This rule does A, but I think it would be cooler if it did B. Do you mind if I house rule it and play it differently?" "Doesn't look overpowered. Go for it."
"I'm going to read this rule out loud and then tell you I interpret it such that it does B." "Um... it doesn't do B. Play it correctly."

 Kriswall wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This isn't a broken rule, so your snark about the Psychic phase isn't applicable.

The rule clearly requires Irrilyth to be in a Unit of Shadow Spectres for Shadow of Death to have any effect. RaW isn't vague or ambiguous.

If you believe that the intention was to allow Irrilyth to use the rule alone or in other Units, that's fine. If you let your opponent know that the rule says one thing, but that you will be playing it a different way, that's fine.

If you simply read the rule and then play it a different way without really pointing out that you are purposefully not playing it the way the rules tell you to... Well, that could easily be misconstrued as deceptive. If I found that an opponent was doing this, I'd ask them to be more specific about house ruling something in the future. I would want this exchange to occur...

"Hey, rule A says to do B. I think it makes more sense to do C instead. Are you ok with that?"

Without this exchange it is, at best, unintentionally deceptive; at worst, intentionally deceptive. Either way, the opponent has been mislead into thinking you're playing the rule as written.

It's just good sportsmanship to unambiguously point out any house rules you'd like to use.

I would argue that it is a broken rule when looked at from a RAI/fluff point of view, which is actually more important than RAW to many people. Did you make this same argument last edition for Wraithguard not being able to shoot? RAW cleary stated that you had to check LoS from the eyes, which Wraithguard don't have. In this example the game is not brought to a grinding halt as it is with the current RAW Psychic Phase, and it certainly would not be the first instance of a model with a non-zero balistic skill that couldnt shoot. However, most people came to the logical conclusion that the RAI was more important than the RAW in that case, and allowed them to shoot. I (and many others) have come to the same conclusion with Irrilyth. He was cleary intended to be a Shadow Spectre, as he is the Lord of that Aspect. Also, Your fulffy example of him only "inspiring the squad" really doesnt work when you consider that a solo Exarch would benafit from his own rule. In Fact, a Phoenix Lord is just an Exarch who donned that specific Aspect's Phoenix Armour.

As said above, I read this rule aloud every time I run the Phoenix Lord, and explain how I interpret it. There is no deception. Please stop spewing gak like that, I have already explained that is not the case. At best, these remarks are begining to sound unintentionally rude; and at worst, malicious. From my point of view, the real donkey-cave here is the person who cries RAW and tries to argue that Irrilyth is not a Shadow Spectre (or that Wraithguard couldn't shoot last edition) in order to try and gain an advantage over a person who is using a mediocre HQ in a fluffy list.

I don't appreciate being called an donkey-cave. Name calling is typically the sign of a weak argument.

Irrilyth ISN'T a Shadow Spectre from a rules perspective. This isn't a fluff forum. It's a rules forum. If you want to ignore the rules and play it your way, that's totally cool. Make a house rule. Just don't say the rule is broken. The rule is well written and unambiguous. It has no internal conflicts and can be followed with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. RaI is never knowable since we aren't the authors. RaW is knowable and in this case is totally clear.

I do love how you think someone who wants to follow the actual rules and not give you extra abilities that the rules don't allow for is an donkey-cave. I expect all my opponent's to follow the rules by default. In the case of ambiguous or broken rules (such as the Wraithguard issue), I expect my opponent and I to come to a reasonable agreement before the game. This isn't an ambiguous or broken rule. If an opponent asked to play it your way, I might say yes and I might say no. Entirely depends on what kind of player he is and how forward he's being.

"This rule does A, but I think it would be cooler if it did B. Do you mind if I house rule it and play it differently?" "Doesn't look overpowered. Go for it."
"I'm going to read this rule out loud and then tell you I interpret it such that it does B." "Um... it doesn't do B. Play it correctly."

I never called you a donkey-cave. You might want to read my post more carefully. False accusations are generally a sign of a weak argument.

Yes, Irrilyth is not a Shadow Spectre in the current rules, just as Wraithguard could not shoot in the previous set of rules. Both of these rules are equally silly, and have been worked around by a significant number of players. The rule failes to adress why an Exarch would be able to take greater advantage of a special rule than a Phoenix Lord of the same Aspect. You have also failed to adress this. Clarity of intent is important to a lot of people.

I dont have a problem with people that follow the rules in general. The donkey-caves I described are the ones that lawyer their way into the conclusion that "Irrilyth, Phoenix Lord of the Shadow Spectres" can not benefit from his own Shadow Spectre Exarch Power because he is not a Shadow Spectre. (Or, again, the people that tried to claim that Wraithguard could not shoot because they have no eyes)

I think that you are failing to understand that RAI is a very important concept to many people. When there is a written rule that is obviously an outlier, we turn to the fluff to see if it makes sense or not, just as we did last edittion with the Wraithguard.

Wraithguard have no eyes and can not shoot > fluff describes wraithguard shooting > Wraithguard must be allowed to shoot.
Irrilyth is not a Shadow Spectre and can not use his rule > fluff describes Irrilyth as a Shadow Spectre > Irrilyth must be allowed to use his rule.

Yes, intent is never 100% known, but in this case, it is pretty clear.

This all goes back to what I was originally trying to tell the OP:
People on this website will give you the impresion that RAW is the most important factor, and that that there is no other way to play. From my personal experience, most people are not like this in real life, and will have no problem if you wish to play the rule the way you believe it to be intended.

Irrilyth CAN use his rule provided he is with a unit of Shadow Spectres... which is where one would expect a Shadow Spectre Phoenix Lord to be if you're playing your army by the fluff. No one is "lawyering their way" into saying the rule has no effect if Irrilyth is anywhere other than in a unit of Shadow Spectres, unless you call reading a clearly worded rule to be "lawyering".

I appreciate your stance that in a game by game basis, most people will let you bend a rule here and there to facilitate a fun game. In my experience, this is true. However, don't expect this in a tournament setting, and don't expect this in a forum dedicated to hashing out rules as written.

Fluff/authorial intent arguments tend to go nowhere as we can literally NEVER know the mind of the author unless he's one of your gaming buddies. To me it seems most likely that Irrilyth is intended to inspire a unit of Shadow Spectres to higher levels of performance in a way that wouldn't work on say, a unit of Guardians. To you, it seems most likely that he should be able to inspire literally ANY battle brothers unit to the same thing. Tomato, Tomahto. We disagree on authorial intent and there's literally nothing either of us can do to convince the other short of getting the author involved.

OP... to mirror the sentiment above... just talk to your opponent. Tell them you don't think the rule makes fluff sense and see what they say. In a casual setting, it'll depend on the player and what kind of gamer they are. In a competitive and more structured setting (along the lines of a tournament), expect a no. The rules aren't vague or ambiguous in this case, and most structured game play doesn't allow for non TO approved house rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
People on this website will give you the impresion that RAW is the most important factor, and that that there is no other way to play. From my personal experience, most people are not like this in real life, and will have no problem if you wish to play the rule the way you believe it to be intended.

Umm... yeah. So, this is a forum dedicated to figuring out how rules actually work. You can make up whatever house rules you want. That's why we have the acronym HYWPI. It lets people know that this isn't necessarily game legal, but it's how you would play it. Generally, what we ask here is to mark your comments as being related to one of three things...

1. RaW - Rule as Written - What is actually written on the page. Even when this creates strange or counter-intuitive situations, it's still considered the "correct" thing to do. RaW can be proven correct using rules citations.
2. RaI - Rules as Intended - What you think the author actually meant. This is most useful when a rule is written in an ambiguous way or in a way that creates an internal conflict. RaI is always a best guess and can never be proven correct short of asking the author.
3. HYWPI - How You Would Play It - This is just you telling me what your house rule is. It can be interesting and can provide guidance to others looking for house rules, but has no real bearing on trying to interpret the actual rules.

It seems like you're saying "I believe there is an apparent conflict between RaW and RaI, so this is my HYWPI". I'm saying "I don't believe there is an apparent conflict between RaW and RaI, so I'll stick with RaW". Either way, RaW is crystal clear in this instance.

You keep saying that you see no conflict between RAI and RAW but you have yet to adress the fact that a solo Exarch would retain the use of his rule while as it stands the PL would not.

My posts have been marked as RAW, RAS, and HYWPI. If you need help navigating the thread to find them, let me know, i'll repost the quotes.

What I am saying is that the RAW is in such obvious conflict with the RAI, that it is rather worthless. Just like the Wraithguard issue.

extremefreak, a solo Exarch is still a member of a Shadow Spectres squad.

We don't know what RAI are becaus we are not the authors.

Fluff-wise it would make sense as the Phoenix Lords are the oldest Exarchs of their Path (Karandras being the exception of course), so fluff-wise, Irillyth is a Shadow Spectre. Rules, however do not support it

Because you've yet to show proof that they intended that he work like the solo Exarch instead of how the rule is clearly written. All you have is your opinion, nothing more.

Woooooosh!

You guys! I'm not arguing the RAW! I am merely pointing out that there is a large enough discrepancy between the fulff, and RAW to call the RAI into question. Given this, many people in the real world will not have a problem with the OP playing this as he believes the rule was intended.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Woooooosh!

Yes, my statement went right over your head. You have no support for your claims that what is a clearly written rule was intended to be something else. All you have is your personal opinion that you're trying to pass off as something more.

 Ghaz wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Woooooosh!

Yes, my statement went right over your head. You have no support for your claims that what is a clearly written rule was intended to be something else. All you have is your personal opinion that you're trying to pass off as something more.

The Fluff backs me up 100%, which is a pretty big deal to many people. (maybe not you)

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Woooooosh!

You guys! I'm not arguing the RAW! I am merely pointing out that there is a large enough discrepancy between the fulff, and RAW to call the RAI into question. Given this, many people in the real world will not have a problem with the OP playing this as he believes the rule was intended.

We need to just call this. Everyone agrees how RaW works. It seems you're just arguing opinion at this point. Discrepancies between fluff and RaW occur CONSTANTLY. We ignore them. If we were to play the game by fluff and ignore rules that cause a fluff contradiction... well, I should only need about three Chaos Space Marines to wipe out a couple of Platoons of Guardsmen. A Space Marine Chapter Master should have no problem killing 100 Orks. Regular Space Marines should be able to take a Lascannon blast to the shoulder and keep moving. The rules give us a way to play a tabletop game. What they don't do is faithfully translate fluff into a rule set. If you need them to, feel free to house rule things, but be aware that for every person who is happy to "Forge That Narrative", there is another who'd really just prefer you stick to the rules.

Seems as if people need to read the dakka guide
Intent Arguments



"While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent."

Holy gak. MEGA WOOOSH! Peace people. I'm out.