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.

From the Farseer entry, it says, iirc, that a Farseer is a Warlock lost on the path of the Seer. Well, in the Warlock entry, it states that Eldar become warlocks by returning to their old aspect warrior shrine and obtaining the Warlock mask from an Exarch.

FOllowing that logic, are all Farseers former aspect warriors?

Given that the craftworld Eldar still number in the billions or low trillions if it was possible someone should have done it. But considering that farseers are expected to fight and help the autarchs plan battles I'd say they would be required to have some combat experience just to preserve a valuable asset like the seers.

I guess we'll have to see if the entry holds true in the new Eldar Codex. But I don't ever remember seeing this, will have to check it when I have the book handy later. It certainly doesn't seem right - each path is usually its own self-contained way of life, and so I don't see why an Exarch of a particular shrine would have Seer goods for a different Path.

Let's say someone was once a Warp Spider, and now wants to become a Seer. But uh-oh! The Warp Spider Exarch doesn't have any Seer masks left. What then? Do they borrow it from the nearest Dire Avenger shrine...?

In particular I can't see this holding any weight on Iyanden, where Seers are more highly valued even than other Craftworlds and so it's entirely likely that many of their Seers were never Aspect Warriors at all.

I always assumed there were other levels on the path of the seer.

So Warlock is someone on Path of the Seer who has been on Path of the Warrior.

Farseer = Exarch equivilant

Then someone who is just on the Path of the Seer (just a Seer perhaps?) That because it's not war related hasn't been mentioned in the fluff.

Less speculation and more research reveals the following:

Warlocks are Seers who have once trodden the Path of the Warrior. It is their previous experience as warriors that enables them to control their destructive impulses in battle. The enclosing helmets that are worn by Warlocare kept in the shrines of the Warrior Aspect. A Warloock can only don his warrior-seer self by returning to his old shrine and receiving the helmet from an Exarch as part of the blood ritual of the Aspect Warrior.

p. 18, 2nd edition Eldar Codex

One could skip the warlock path by becoming a spiritseer or bonesinger, eventually becoming a farseer.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
One could skip the warlock path by becoming a spiritseer or bonesinger, eventually becoming a farseer.

Bonesingers are an Exarch equivalent for the Eldar craftsmen. They do not become Farseers. This is given by the BL novel Path of the Seer. The same book does have a battle and it is mentioned that those Farseers without experience in the Path of the Warrior remained behind in the command centre instead of going into the field. So it seems having warrior skills is not strictly necessary to become a Farseer. It may be that on the battlefield we just see those Farseers that have had experience before.

Well, I was correct on the Warlock entry, as Iracandus shows, but I was wrong on the Farseer. I thought it said something to the effect that Farseers were Warlocks stuck on the Seer path, but it doesn't say that;

"Just as Eldar who are trapped on the Warrior Path become Exarchs, so Seers who progress too far along the Witch Path become Farseers." 4th Ed, pg 26

So, I suppose many Farseers progressed from Warlocks and are thus former Aspect Warriors. Just and plentiful, I assume, are Farseers who trod a different Seer path.

Thanks for the insight, mates!

EDIT: Though, I suppose according to the "Path of the Warrior" novel, every Farseer we put on the battlefield would, indeed, have been a former Aspect Warrior. Guess that does answer my question.

 shamikebab wrote:
I always assumed there were other levels on the path of the seer.

So Warlock is someone on Path of the Seer who has been on Path of the Warrior.

Farseer = Exarch equivilant

Then someone who is just on the Path of the Seer (just a Seer perhaps?) That because it's not war related hasn't been mentioned in the fluff.

Almost true, the path of the Seer and the path of the warrior are separate. Some seers have purely civil roles and normally serve as guardians when conscripted, though exceptions may exist for medics and bonesingers, A Warlock is a serr with combart skills or more accurately combat magicks, some may have also been on the path of the Warrior but not all. However all paths have a status for those trapped on the path, exarchs are the best known as they are the ones most likely to be encourtered on the battlefield, a Farseer is an exarch of warlocks. Other type of lock-in exist like the 'doomed' Bards of Twilight. Perhaps some of those locked into civil paths cant even function as guardians.

 Orlanth wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
I always assumed there were other levels on the path of the seer.

So Warlock is someone on Path of the Seer who has been on Path of the Warrior.

Farseer = Exarch equivilant

Then someone who is just on the Path of the Seer (just a Seer perhaps?) That because it's not war related hasn't been mentioned in the fluff.

Almost true, the path of the Seer and the path of the warrior are separate. Some seers have purely civil roles and normally serve as guardians when conscripted, though exceptions may exist for medics and bonesingers, A Warlock is a serr with combart skills or more accurately combat magicks, some may have also been on the path of the Warrior but not all. However all paths have a status for those trapped on the path, exarchs are the best known as they are the ones most likely to be encourtered on the battlefield, a Farseer is an exarch of warlocks. Other type of lock-in exist like the 'doomed' Bards of Twilight. Perhaps some of those locked into civil paths cant even function as guardians.

Please read the earlier posts as what you have posted is inaccurate and wrong.

Warlocks per the 2nd edition Eldar Codex by definition must have formerly gone through the Path of the Warrior. Farseers are not the exarchs of Warlocks. They are the trapped Seers, of which Warlocks are one type but not the only type.

A good chunk of the misconceptions and errors come about because people are pulling things from thin air or relying on faulty memory and thus producing a mess of half-truths.

Iracundus wrote:


Please read the earlier posts as what you have posted is inaccurate and wrong.

Warlocks per the 2nd edition Eldar Codex by definition must have formerly gone through the Path of the Warrior.

2nd edition is outdated in so many ways. In second edition your Farseer could have a bolter, refractor field, ten jokaero digilaser lasers and a vortex grenade.

Iracundus wrote:

Farseers are not the exarchs of Warlocks. They are the trapped Seers, of which Warlocks are one type but not the only type.

Which actually is what I was saying. Farseers are to warlocks what Exarchs are to aspect warriors. The current (for the next two weeks) codex says as much.

Iracundus wrote:

A good chunk of the misconceptions and errors come about because people are pulling things from thin air or relying on faulty memory and thus producing a mess of half-truths.

Seeing as its a fictional universe created by a changing committee of writers that changes its mind to fit marketing trends its unwise to get doctrinal over information from very old codexes as firm canon.

 Orlanth wrote:

2nd edition is outdated in so many ways. In second edition your Farseer could have a bolter, refractor field, ten jokaero digilaser lasers and a vortex grenade.

Wrong again. Bolters were not an option. Nor were refractor fields since Farseers already had rune armor.

Digi-lasers and vortex grenades were not race specific items.

Over and over again your statements are just wrong and full of errors. Please fact check before you post.

Old background is still intact unless overruled.

Iracundus wrote:

Which actually is what I was saying. Farseers are to warlocks what Exarchs are to aspect warriors. The current (for the next two weeks) codex says as much.

And what you said is wrong. Farseers are to Seers what Exarchs are to Aspect Warriors. You fail to grasp this difference. All Warlocks are Seers. All Seers are not Warlocks. All Farseers are trapped Seers. That does not mean all Farseers are trapped Warlocks. Get the difference?

Also unless you can produce a quote from the new Codex showing otherwise, I don't think you have any evidence to argue any new change otherwise.

Iracundus wrote:

Seeing as its a fictional universe created by a changing committee of writers that changes its mind to fit marketing trends its unwise to get doctrinal over information from very old codexes as firm canon.

When the old background has not been changed, there is no reason to suppose it has suddenly become invalid.

Just because something hasn't been mentioned in awhile doesn't mean it no longer happened. The Gothic War hasn't been mentioned in detail since BFG or a passing reference in the old Necron Codex. Does it mean suddenly it has been wiped from the 40K universe and never happened? No.

Just because it is a fictional universe doesn't mean you can just say literally anything. A fictional universe has to remain at least mostly internally consistent else the whole thing ceases being a setting/universe and just becomes nonsense.

Well, I'm sure not all Craftworlds do it the same way. But the pieces of fiction I've read on it do talk about the "war mask" that the Eldar put on when they're supposed to help their Craftworld in battle. It's apparently some sort of ritual and often represented by the helmet they wear in battle. It's what allows them to kill enemies without having to think about it until they take the mask off.

I'm sure a Warlock with the psychic powers and all would receive more training in it than your basic Guardian with a shuriken catapult.

Spetulhu wrote:
Well, I'm sure not all Craftworlds do it the same way. But the pieces of fiction I've read on it do talk about the "war mask" that the Eldar put on when they're supposed to help their Craftworld in battle. It's apparently some sort of ritual and often represented by the helmet they wear in battle. It's what allows them to kill enemies without having to think about it until they take the mask off.

I'm sure a Warlock with the psychic powers and all would receive more training in it than your basic Guardian with a shuriken catapult.

Please read the thread. There is an exact quote from a Codex on this very topic.

 Super Ready wrote:
Let's say someone was once a Warp Spider, and now wants to become a Seer. But uh-oh! The Warp Spider Exarch doesn't have any Seer masks left. What then? Do they borrow it from the nearest Dire Avenger shrine...?

I have always thought that Warlocks (and other possible combat-related seers) get their Ghosthelms from their mentors, probably crafted by bonesingers. It is then merely stored inside an Aspect shrine and retrieved in times of war. At this point, the shrine's Exarch would also assist in the proper rituals preparing for war just as he does with warriors (wearing the warrior-mask which is a spiritual thing).

I suppose it could also be possible that seers keep their Ghosthelms with their personal property and the visit to an Aspect shrine is needed only for the spiritual mask. On the other hand, in Path of the Warrior the SScorpions seem to put their physical armour and spiritual masks on at the same time, so maybe they are not separable.

But do non-combat seers need Ghosthelms at all? Are they safe from the Perils of the warp inside the Craftworld?

Going from path of the seer: The warlocks have there own armory, and the ritual are very similar to putting on aspect warriors armor. With the weapons and armor being psyco-sensitive, the user automaticly adepts his/her style to that of the weapon from there old aspect.

I'm sure you can go on to become a seer without prior aspect training, but if you are unable to put on your Warmask, you will not be doing any fighting.

 Halmyr wrote:
Going from path of the seer: The warlocks have there own armory, and the ritual are very similar to putting on aspect warriors armor. With the weapons and armor being psyco-sensitive, the user automaticly adepts his/her style to that of the weapon from there old aspect.

I'm sure you can go on to become a seer without prior aspect training, but if you are unable to put on your Warmask, you will not be doing any fighting.

All eldar eventually here the call of Khaine, think of it like elf puberty.