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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.