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.

So how do you think the rules state the separation (or lack thereof) of the farseers and warlocks being autonomous to each other, even though they share the same HQ choice?


The rules:

Eldrads entry:


Warlock entry:


Warlock entry:

Farseer entry:


The rulebook entry:


I have seen many argue that it was not the designers intent for farseers and warlocks to be separated from each other (i.e. not a retinue)  but if this was a simple case of  "Oops! We forgot to add that this was a retinue for a farseer" then that simple omission/error would not have taken place in four separate places.

The apparent "mistake" in intent by the designers is very very .... consistent. Unlike how the space marine codex has worded their command squad retinues. If you take that very literally, then they can indeed be a seperate unit to the IC. Not many people would play it that way though as it is very unclear and very unsporting to go against historical convention.

But this case isnt as convoluted or as ambiguous as the SM example. There are four different places where it implies that the farseers and warlocks are in fact seperate units. There is no disingenuous interpretaion involved to come to this conclusion.

Yakface wanted a poll to see what the popular consensus believes. So I am asking you all to vote.

Sure, I think the rules support having a separate unit of Warlocks. But why have a unit of Warlocks without a Farseer?

I think you forgot the most important "excerpt" under the Farseer entry in that it allows one access to a warlock unit. Additionally, it states that both count as a single HQ choice. If the Farseer was "joined" by a retinue of warlocks it would not be necessary to state that "both count as a single HQ choice" as retinues with characters are a single choice.

Posted By bigchris1313  on  12/12/2006 7:00 PM

Sure, I think the rules support having a separate unit of Warlocks.  But why have a unit of Warlocks without a Farseer?

Well you have to have a farseer, as that is compulsory to taking the warlocks. Very clearly stated in the rules.

Posted By nikeforever22  on  12/12/2006 7:02 PM

I think you forgot the most important "excerpt" under the Farseer entry in that it allows one access to a warlock unit. Additionally, it states that both count as a single HQ choice. If the Farseer was "joined" by a retinue of warlocks it would not be necessary to state that "both count as a single HQ choice" as retinues with characters are a single choice.

yeah I forgot that inclusion and was giving that in response to big chris just as you were posting. Darn quick reply. Post edited above to include it.

[edited to add quotes for clarity and to respond to nikeforever]

Hellfury: I believe your addendum is pretty clear. Thanks for adding it.

The Farseer allows one to "include" a squad of Warlocks. It does not say anything about a retinue, accompanied by, and/or joins. Again, per the BGB, the character and the retinue count as a single HQ choice. The last sentence is there to clarify that 1 Farseer and the unit of warlocks, although separate, count as a single HQ choice - rather than 2.

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/12/2006 7:02 PM
I think you forgot the most important "excerpt" under the Farseer entry in that it allows one access to a warlock unit. Additionally, it states that both count as a single HQ choice. If the Farseer was "joined" by a retinue of warlocks it would not be necessary to state that "both count as a single HQ choice" as retinues with characters are a single choice.

FYI, every retinue/bodyguard unit in the game states that the retinue/character count as a single HQ choice.

Thanks for writing up this poll Hellfury, but my question was really about how people were going to actually play with the new codex, where as the way you have written up your question it appears (to me, at least) as more of a RAW question.

The RAW are clear here, the Farseer and the Warlocks are seperate units. I'm curious as to whether most players will actually follow this rule or whether they will assume it is a mistake and continue to play them as a single unit.

 

On a tangent, I think GW should make nearly all bodyguard units function this way in the future (allow the IC to leave them). Since they are a single HQ force organization choice you still roll once for both of them to come in from Reserves, and since IC's fight seperately from their units anyway in CC there really isn't much reason (IMO) to continue to force ICs to stay with their retinues if they don't want to.

Obviously in some cases where the bodyguard religiously protects their IC in the fluff (like Tyrant Guards or Ethereal guards) exceptions could be made.

 

 

 

Posted By yakface on 12/12/2006 7:35 PM

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/12/2006 7:02 PM
I think you forgot the most important "excerpt" under the Farseer entry in that it allows one access to a warlock unit. Additionally, it states that both count as a single HQ choice. If the Farseer was "joined" by a retinue of warlocks it would not be necessary to state that "both count as a single HQ choice" as retinues with characters are a single choice.

FYI, every retinue/bodyguard unit in the game states that the retinue/character count as a single HQ choice.

Thanks for writing up this poll Hellfury, but my question was really about how people were going to actually play with the new codex, where as the way you have written up your question it appears (to me, at least) as more of a RAW question.

The RAW are clear here, the Farseer and the Warlocks are seperate units. I'm curious as to whether most players will actually follow this rule or whether they will assume it is a mistake and continue to play them as a single unit.

 

On a tangent, I think GW should make nearly all bodyguard units function this way in the future (allow the IC to leave them). Since they are a single HQ force organization choice you still roll once for both of them to come in from Reserves, and since IC's fight seperately from their units anyway in CC there really isn't much reason (IMO) to continue to force ICs to stay with their retinues if they don't want to.

Obviously in some cases where the bodyguard religiously protects their IC in the fluff (like Tyrant Guards or Ethereal guards) exceptions could be made.

But thats where the assumption is being made, that this is a "body gaurd/retinue". It is not. it is a "warlock unit".

Simple as that.

I agree about how they should act in the future. If the bodygaurd is a scoring unit but not the IC, what the poiint in being forced to merge themtogether as a single entity, even though they quite clearly arent?

That said, I dont think clear concise FAQ's are based on assumptions entirely. If that was the case than I would be playing 40K very differently than I am now and so would everyone else. That is to say none of us if we were to meet, would know what the hell game the other person was playing.

Wow, it is really interesting because I was just reading up on this today in my eldar codex, I never read the previous eldar codex (didn't have an army and wasn't interested in starting one until the new codex came out)

I read it the RAW way without a second thought. I am actually glad that this came up because my guess is that if I were to drop that on the table in two separate places people would give me crap for it.

Now... Am I wrong in thinking that they would come on as reserves separately with separate die rolls? I don't see why you would make one roll for both units.

They should come in at once. Theyre both a single HQ choice. I could be very wrong though.

As I noted in my post above, only a single Reserve roll is made per FOC unless specified otherwise, even if the units that make up that FOC don't form a single unit (just like with an IG platoon). Page 81 of the rulebook makes this clear.

I see what you are saying Yak, but it notes that having the Farseer allows a UNIT of warlocks, why would it not be a separate unit?

Again, it doesn't matter if it is a separate unit. You roll for each FOC slot, not each unit.

Reserves are rolled on a per unit basis, just ask any IG player about that one. That one thing makes the whole non-retinued HQ a major bummer. Its worse for the Autarch, but if you were running a mounted Warlock retinue and escalation came up, their fortune caster would have to deploy on the table without them. Same exact thing happens in an all mechanized force with the Tach. Its dome as hell, but thats how the rule is structured.

Posted By Phazael on 12/13/2006 9:25 AM
Reserves are rolled on a per unit basis, just ask any IG player about that one. That one thing makes the whole non-retinued HQ a major bummer. Its worse for the Autarch, but if you were running a mounted Warlock retinue and escalation came up, their fortune caster would have to deploy on the table without them. Same exact thing happens in an all mechanized force with the Tach. Its dome as hell, but thats how the rule is structured.

Phazael, as previously stated in this thread (repeatedly), Reserves are rolled for per FORCE ORG slot, not per unit.  See page 81 of the rulebook.

Also, in regards to HQs who want to attach to squads from different Force Org slots (like a jump pack chaplain and an assault squad), and squads who want to ride in non-dedicated transports (like Fire Dragons in a Falcon) in games where said units start in Reserve, you should read the current rulebook FAQ.  They made it a little nicer- ruling that you still have to roll separately, but they are allowed to attach or embark before coming on the board as long as they successfully rolled to show up on the same turn.

Right, see what you are saying. I was figuring that they would be two slots not one.

The answers don't match the question?

The way the answers are formed the question should be "Are farseers and warlocks separate units?" That would then make the answers make sense?

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/13/2006 9:38 AM

Posted By Phazael on 12/13/2006 9:25 AM
Reserves are rolled on a per unit basis, just ask any IG player about that one. That one thing makes the whole non-retinued HQ a major bummer. Its worse for the Autarch, but if you were running a mounted Warlock retinue and escalation came up, their fortune caster would have to deploy on the table without them. Same exact thing happens in an all mechanized force with the Tach. Its dome as hell, but thats how the rule is structured.

Phazael, as previously stated in this thread (repeatedly), Reserves are rolled for per FORCE ORG slot, not per unit.  See page 81 of the rulebook.

Also, in regards to HQs who want to attach to squads from different Force Org slots (like a jump pack chaplain and an assault squad), and squads who want to ride in non-dedicated transports (like Fire Dragons in a Falcon) in games where said units start in Reserve, you should read the current rulebook FAQ.  They made it a little nicer- ruling that you still have to roll separately, but they are allowed to attach or embark before coming on the board as long as they successfully rolled to show up on the same turn.

I stand corrected on the first point, as I thought it was a transport specific rule originally.  The second point remains, as it pertains to escalation.  If you play Omega and your force is mechanized, your Tach or Seer are going to be standing alone on the table like retards.

Posted By DaIronGob on 12/13/2006 12:03 PM

Poll Question:
Are farseers and warlocks a single unit?
Poll Choices:
No, there is absolutely no reason why farseers and warlocks are considered seperate units.
Yes, it is very explicitly implied in three seperate places that farseers and warlocks are seperate units.

The answers don't match the question?

The way the answers are formed the question should be "Are farseers and warlocks separate units?" That would then make the answers make sense?

Yeah I noticed that after I hit "post".

I cant change it though. It wont let me.

The poll is flawed because of it.

I am just glad I am not going crazy! I thought everyone that was answering was seeing something different than me!

As it stands Eldar players can seperate their Warlock Squads from the Farseers.

However knowing GW as I do, I am going to say that this is another classical GW wording balls up, in that GW intended  that the Warlock squad and the Farseer be a single squad ie Individual Character and retinue.

And with out a shadow of a doubt I know that this is exactly what will be comming out in the next FAQ.

Its kind of odd how GW intended for them to be a single unit when they make four different references to them being the exact opposite.

Thats GW for you, they never change, remember polymorphine when it first came out - what a nightmare..... GW eventually fixed that one. Add to that 3rd ed Spirit Seer's who were independant characters and immeadiatly assigned to Aspect Warrior Squads namely Howling Banshees and Scorpions to give both WS5  &I6, that too got corrected eventually (damm that was the best scew up GW ever did, many an Eldar player thanked GW for that one).

So seeing Warlock squads made/corrected to Retinues for Farseers is garenteed.