[Davesnothereman]

I posted a few questions in the Rules forum about Far Seers being IC.....Anyway the outcome was...if you read the old codex entries...An archon with his retinue is not an IC. Does anyone play this way? He has no need to be in BTB contact. Heck, drazzar's jump in front rule is stupid if this is the case. He becomes a hidden agonizer with a better "I" and "WS".
Maybe I am just SLOW to learn. If so, be kind.

 

[Lost Nemesis]

I posted a few questions in the Rules forum about Far Seers being IC.....Anyway the outcome was...if you read the old codex entries...An archon with his retinue is not an IC. Does anyone play this way? He has no need to be in BTB contact. Heck, drazzar's jump in front rule is stupid if this is the case. He becomes a hidden agonizer with a better "I" and "WS".
Maybe I am just SLOW to learn. If so, be kind.

Well. It is a debatable issue, one that I haven't been able to truly find an answer for.

If you read the codex, word for word... then you are absolutely right, and they are not IC's when with a retinue.

However, I believe most people play using them as IC's, anyways.. as that's what people have come to expect.

I do hope someone has a true and clear answer to this, with a valid argument/reason... not just saying "because."

 

[Bugs_n_Orks]

in the rule book it addresses this point pretty clearly in the character section i think. IC's that take a retinue are no longer IC's for movement and shooting, ie: they cant leave the retinue, and they're just another squad memeber when it comes to casualty removal, but in CC they still count as a separate unit, so need base contact and can be picked out from their squad.

 

[Davesnothereman]

The DE codex specifically states that while they are in the retinue they do not follow the IC rules. This I know because I read it last night. The other part, I am hosed on this right now since I am at work and can't re-read the IC section of the bgb. Reading a newer codex like SM, BT or bugs will show how the verbage has changed from 3rd to 4th when it comes to the standard IC line under Marshall or Chaplain. It may say something different. Once again, I don't have access to that info.

Eldar Farseers are not IC if they have a warlock body guard. It is black and white.

 

[Ostsol]

It is not so black and white. That "unless accompanied by a bodyguard" clause was simply the 3rd edition way of preventing ICs from leaving their retinues. In general, the rules did not really do anything special to differentiate ICs from their squadmates. Both of those matters are now quite different.

I'd argue that the definition of all special rules as described in the codices are now overridded by their respective entries in the new rulebook, except where such a companion entry does not exist and where the respective FAQ (if any) says otherwise.

 

[Davesnothereman]

The newer codex for SM and BT actually spell out how a IC will work with their respective retinue. Which includes how they are treated in CC. The older codex do not. Some, I think Chaos, have the character remain an IC even with a retinue. It is all based on what the little blurb below the HQ coice says. I thought is was an interesting idea. I guess I just got excited.

 

[Neferata]

Well, the codex specifically states that the archon 'counts as an independent character UNLESS accompanied by a command squad." Until the re-word it, that is exactly what it means. I'm not trying to be a jackass, but you cant look at a rule and say "well, what the actually MEANT by that is..." Until they release an FAQ stating what they really meant, then it means what it says (sorry if thats a bit confusing).

Now, if an archon were to join a hellion, jetbike, or grotesque squad, then they would still always count as an IC, as those units do not qualify as retinues. I say, if you take a retinue (i.e. warriors or incubi or a mix thereof) for your achon/dracon, then they DO NOT count as an independent character.