Librarium Online Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I just had my behind handed to me by 2000 points of Ulthwe'. BTY 1000 of that was wraith lords and council. I guess it was not that bad since it took 5 turns to phase. Anyway...

Two questions

1. Are Farseer's IC's. Most other 3 wound guys are....

2. Fortune and rune armor. Rune armor is an invulnerable save. But the stupid last line of the entry in the Eldar codex say "rune armor save". SOOOO this dude was rerolling all his invulnerables save because "Fortune" allow his unit to re-roll armor saves. Dirty?

What is the deal? Thanks for the help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
There's a bit of an oddity about Farseers. . . They're normally independant characters, but when in a Seer Council the matter gets wierd. You see, for the purposes of the Ulthwe Strike Force, the entry for the Seer Council apparently replaces the entry for Farseers in Codex: Eldar. In the entry for the Seer Council, it makes no mention of the Farseers being independant characters. As such, it does seem that they are only independant characters when not in an Ulthwe Strike Force army.

EDIT: As for the bit about re-rolling invulnerable saves, the rules are a bit ambiguous about this. On one hand, one could say that normal saves are terms armour saves and that invulnerable saves are a separate type of non-armour save. However, on at least one occasion the rulebook does use the term "invulnerable armour save" in reference to invulnerables saves, implying that they are a type of armour save.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
1. The Eldar codex states...Unless the Farseers are accompanied by a warlock bodyguard then they are an independant character.

2. Eldar FAQ states Fortune applies to invulnerable saves also.
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
Jakel said:
1. The Eldar codex states...Unless the Farseers are accompanied by a warlock bodyguard then they are an independant character.
as tehy said, Ulthwe does not use the codex entry for a farseer, it is replaced by the Seer council, on the other hand, clearly in the seer council he is accompanied, wo however you clice it, they aint ICs in a seer council, certainly in close combat, it would be bizare not to carry hits over

2. Eldar FAQ states Fortune applies to invulnerable saves also.
[/quote]
True
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Well, Jakel is correct, though, in that even a vanilla Farseer with Warlock bodyguard also loses his IC status. It must make it a real ***** to kill him in close combat. . .
 

·
Advocatus Diaboli
Joined
·
4,571 Posts
Ostsol said:
Well, Jakel is correct, though, in that even a vanilla Farseer with Warlock bodyguard also loses his IC status. It must make it a real ***** to kill him in close combat. . .
Independent characters with a retinue still count as a separate unit for targeting in close combat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Normally that is true. An independant character is always an independant character regardless of the squad he is attached to. However, this case is an exception. The Eldar codex specifically states that the Farseer loses his independant character status if accompanied by a Warlock bodyguard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Independent characters with a retinue still count as a separate unit for targeting in close combat.
The eldar codex states that if he has a warlock bodyguard he is no longer an independant character. He is not an IC with a retinue like in most other codexes, he loses the IC status. There is no change in this in the Eldar FAQ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Eh. . . Actually, I'm going to have to retract my agreement. . . Looking some of the other codices from the 3rd Edition ruleset, they all say their respective ICs lose their independant character status when accompanied by a bodyguard. I didn't notice that before. It appears to have been the standard 3rd Edition way of preventing ICs from leaving their retinues.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
301 Posts
Ostsol said:
Eh. . . Actually, I'm going to have to retract my agreement. . . Looking some of the other codices from the 3rd Edition ruleset, they all say their respective ICs lose their independant character status when accompanied by a bodyguard. I didn't notice that before. It appears to have been the standard 3rd Edition way of preventing ICs from leaving their retinues.
I concur, after looking at.

  • Dark Eldar
  • Eldar
  • Orks
  • Blood Angles
  • Dark Angles
  • Chaos Space Marines (old one)
  • Space Marines ( old one)
  • Space wolves
  • Necron
  • Tau
I supose that in a technical, fully logical reading of the rules, he dose lose the independant character status, but logicly most IC's would end up getting this little bonus as well.

Well actually, everybody pretty much can logicly loose their IC status by taking a "bodyguard", "Retinue", "Honor Guard", whatever. Well, actually, every army thats in need of an update.
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
I believe the point is mute as we are talkign about a seer council, in which the farseers can not be taken singularly and are never ICs but yes, for standard codex eldar, as with other codecies, a HQ loses its IC status if it has a retinue/bodyguard, I believe this is to stop the IC leavuing his retinue/bodyguard, however clearly the close combat rules would consider them as seperate units
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top