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.

My Eldar codex seems unclear to me the way it is written here:

"For each Farseer in the army, you may include a squad of 3-10 Warlocks (see entry below). This unit and the Farseer are a single HQ choice."

...

I understand they only take up one HQ Choice, but are they individual or separate? Must the Farseer remain with the Warlocks? Or is it just understood that they are an inseparable unit because of what the rulebook says about , like a Space Marine Command squad, which I understand to be one unit with a Captain, but their wording isn't explicitly clear about that, either. The 40k rulebook has a vague entry about Retinues, which says they are called a retinue, bodyguard, or "something similar."

They should write in the codex that the HQ and extra unit are inseparable and count as one unit, to avoid confusion.

Should it just be assumed if taking one unit allows an optional unit to be taken that doesn't count against the force organization chart, that it counts as a "retinue?" I guess the only other unit that does this are transports.

Thoughts?

It is not a retinue, so you do not have to have a warlock+farseer unit unless you want to

Warlocks do not have the IC rule, so must stay with each other, same as any other unit.

Space marine command squads, in the 5th edition book, are NOT retinues.

Space marine command squads, in the 5th edition book, are NOT retinues.

They're NOT? Seriously, a lot of people I know at my local store play them this way, with wound allocation in CC, etc, even in tournaments.

Heck, I thought they were. If that's true, I've been playing them wrong in my Imperial Fists army.

They are (I think) still retinues for BT.

SM command squads are not.

Warlock squads are not a retinue.

Think of it this way.
You need to buy the farseer to unlock the choice for the warlock squad.

The Farseer does NOT need to be deployed with it or join it, but if he DOES join it, he is also free to leave it at any time during his movement phase.

Sure enough specifically nominating something as being a retinue is pretty rare in 5th ed Codices, in fact I have yet to find any that are explicitly called a retinue.

How do you know if something is a retinue ?

Having determined if it is a retinue, what difference does it make ?

If something is a Retinue, it will have it stated.
(Hint, no 5th ed codices use it - but the relic rule is in the rulebook).

What difference does it make?

An IC that is joined to a retinue may not leave it as long as any of its members still live (5 man squad - if so much as one guy survives the game, the IC MUST remain with the squad and cannot leave it)

The Warlock squad is not a retinue. The farseer (or any other ICs) may join with it and leave (in subsequent turns) when they wish to.

But see in the Witchhunter Codex the Inquisitors weren't compelled to stay with what was specifically called a retinue, old codex granted but as we've seen that is the only place they are anyway.

Well, it was confusing for me, because in the OLD Eldar Codex I used for years it read that the 3-10 Warlock squad was a retinue, and had to run with either a Farseer, or be detached to a squad, and precisely "could not move on their own". I guess it makes sense with the new codexes to eventually do away with this rule, but the idea of protecting IC's in CC with wound allocation is useful. Too bad you can't do this with the newer Codexes.

Yeh it looks to me like Retinues as a specific regulated formation are pretty much redundant with the odd special character who has a band of hangers-on being dealt with by special rules

chromedog wrote:Think of it this way: You need to buy the farseer to unlock the choice for the warlock squad.

Exactly so, just like any other choice that is only available after you've bought something else. Dedicated transports would be the most common, I guess - the squad you bought it for doesn't need to have anything to do with the transport at all during the game. Or Imperial Guard Infantry Platoons that can fill up with all manner of squads once you have the requisite PCS + 2 Infantry squads - none of those squads actually has to stay together (their deployment special rule might modify this in some cases, but only for deploying).

Magpie wrote:But see in the Witchhunter Codex the Inquisitors weren't compelled to stay with what was specifically called a retinue, old codex granted but as we've seen that is the only place they are anyway.

Actually, the Inquisitor was required to stay with the henchmen. C:WH, page 15, form a single unit. Page 25, Inq loses IC ability (ie has no way to leave the unit) and only regains it when all the henchmen die. It was a true retinue per the main rulebook. Warlocks in the current Eldar codex are not a retinue.

don_mondo wrote:

Magpie wrote:But see in the Witchhunter Codex the Inquisitors weren't compelled to stay with what was specifically called a retinue, old codex granted but as we've seen that is the only place they are anyway.

Actually, the Inquisitor was required to stay with the henchmen. C:WH, page 15, form a single unit. Page 25, Inq loses IC ability (ie has no way to leave the unit) and only regains it when all the henchmen die. It was a true retinue per the main rulebook. Warlocks in the current Eldar codex are not a retinue.

Ah yes I see that now, always have trouble reading the older style Codex. I see to that in WH you could field you Inquisitors along with regular SM, sad they took that out.

So certainly the criterion seems to be the lack of ability to leave the unit, so Mordrak is as close as we get now.

Couldn't the Tyrant Guard be seen as a retinue of a sort? AFAIK the only difference between the TG and a regular Retinue is that the HT does not have to be attached to them. However, once joined, the HT cannot leave, is part of the unit including for assault, and the whole group is 1 KP instead of 2.

Happyjew wrote:Couldn't the Tyrant Guard be seen as a retinue of a sort? AFAIK the only difference between the TG and a regular Retinue is that the HT does not have to be attached to them. However, once joined, the HT cannot leave, is part of the unit including for assault, and the whole group is 1 KP instead of 2.

An IC and his retinue is 2 KP's so that is an argument against it being a retinue. Also an IC becomes an IC once his Retinue dies and the Tyrant doesn't.

And Tau commanders get a retinue.

I will point out, that in the last Dex, TG WERE a retinue.

And ? they arent any more
The HT is *never* an IC - requirement number 1 of a retinue
He is not compelled to join them
He is not an IC when / if the last TG dies

they are two seperate units. the farseer is an independent character and the warlocks are infantry. so the farseer can join them if he/she desires.

the recent FAQ cleared this up.
LINK

nosferatu1001 wrote:And ? they arent any more
The HT is *never* an IC - requirement number 1 of a retinue
He is not compelled to join them
He is not an IC when / if the last TG dies

Where does it say that a retinue requires an IC?

Magpie wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:And ? they arent any more
The HT is *never* an IC - requirement number 1 of a retinue
He is not compelled to join them
He is not an IC when / if the last TG dies

Where does it say that a retinue requires an IC?

The fact that it's in the IC rules boxout.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And ? they arent any more
The HT is *never* an IC - requirement number 1 of a retinue
He is not compelled to join them
He is not an IC when / if the last TG dies

All of which is why I really don't understand the 1 KP FAQ................................ But oh well, that's just me.

Magpie wrote:
Where does it say that a retinue requires an IC?

Location, location, location. Where are the retinue rules. Page 48, main rulebook, in a box titled:
INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS JOINING & LEAVING UNITS

Other than old edition Tyrant Guard, are there any other instances of a non-IC having access to a retinue?

Edited for mistake

Happyjew wrote:Other than old edition Tyrant Guard, are there any other instances of a non-IC having access to a retinue?

Well that all comes down the the definition of the retinue.

Despite the view of my learned friends above which I fully respect and ask them to do same for my view point.

In the only section in the rule book that covers retinues the stipulation seems to be that any character that comes with a special unit they cannot leave until they die is a retinue.
This could be viewed as the situation that applies to Mordrak.

As previously mentioned tho' I really think this is to cover the older 4th ed codices as most other "retinesque" units and characters have a special rule that lays down the way that group of people operates.

"In the only section in the rule book that covers retinues the stipulation seems to be that any character that comes with a special unit they cannot leave until they die is a retinue.
This could be viewed as the situation that applies to Mordrak. "

That isnt the stipulation, however. You have to start off as an IC, otherwise you dont get to look at this section

In your opinion Nos, not mine. Move on

Magpie wrote:In your opinion Nos, not mine. Move on

It's not an opinion, it's how the rules work.
You need permission to look at that section. You're not an IC so you don't have it.
Context is everything. Location is everything.

- crickets -

This is why I mentioned old Dex HT/TG. For a while, that was the current Tyranid codex. HT were not IC's, however, TG were specified as a retinue.

Magpie wrote:In your opinion Nos, not mine. Move on

No, in how the rules are worded. You can play it differently, just understand yours is a houserule, explicitly contradicted by the Mordrak KP situation as repeated to you in the FAQ