Eldar Rumour Titbits

[Tyrendian]

No, Warlocks are specifically people on the path of the Seer who have previously been Aspect Warriors and have a War Mask. That aside, in practice there doesn't seem to be any fluff limitation on a Farseer's ability to use damaging powers if they were never a Warlock.

well, Thirianna from the Paths series did have her War Mask, being a former DA, and I do assume the other Warlocks have one too - out of sheer necessity... going into battle without one is a singularly bad idea after all, especially for a psyker... But it is more or less explicitly stated as well that Farseers are guys/gals who got "stuck" on the Path of the Seer, later to turn to crystal. So... can one tread that path without a War Mask? I can't recall a reference to anything like "junior" Seers that are no Warlocks...

[Mr Mystery]

Mr. Mystery agreeing with a bit of Eldar wishlisting? Well tickle my something-something-cooky-colloquialism!

Hey, I'm not down on Eldar or their players. Just the serial whiners! Wanting more or less set psychic powers for Warlocks is very different to demanding S6, Ap1 armourfleshrendshredbane weapons for 5 points on a unit that makes TH/SS Terminators look like emanciated five year old girls!

[Warpspider89]

hm... two points more toughness than a Riptide though? I'd rather expect Guard being T5, Lords T6 and Knights T7... hopefully with some sort of invuln save! Oh, and immunity to poison or something, like the Tomb Stalker has... poisoning a solid block of wraithbone is just stupid... although that particular argument could easily be made for C'Tan or Daemons as well...

Why should a Tau battle suit be the benchmark that determines the characteristics of an eldar unit that has been around before the first tau codex even existed.

[Andersp90]

No, Warlocks are specifically people on the path of the Seer who have previously been Aspect Warriors and have a War Mask. That aside, in practice there doesn't seem to be any fluff limitation on a Farseer's ability to use damaging powers if they were never a Warlock.

No, Tyrendian is right.

[url]http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Farseer[/url]

A Farseer is a former Warlock who has become lost on the Path of the Seer, much like the Exarchs who have become lost on the Path of the Warrior.

[url]http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warlock[/url]

Warlocks are Seers who have walked down the Path of the Warrior and it is their previous experience as warriors which allows them to control their destructive impulses in battle.[1] Their previous experience in combat allows them to develop their combative psychic powers.[3]

You could also go read your Eldar codex if you have one.

[Mr Mystery]

Wraithbone. A slightly rubbish material when you make a grav tank, titan or even Capital Ship several miles long. Suddenly well good when made into a skinny humanoid shape....

Never got that dichotomy.

[Koremu]

No, Tyrendian is right.

[url]http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Farseer[/url]

That's not a primary source. Certainly in the second edition Eldar Codex, it was explicit that "Warlock" was only one of a number of sub-paths within "The Path of the Seer" (in the same way that each Warrior Aspect is a sub-path within the Path of the Warrior), and that a Farseer is any Eldar who has become lost upon the Path of the Seer.

Warlock is in some respects more like Autarchs - their path is affected by previous paths they have studied in life. In this case, Warlocks are Seers who have previously chosen to tread the Path of the Warrior.

[DarkLink]

While I don't necessarily agree with you, I do find it pretty hilarious that one of those Tzeentch psychic powers actually gives you more chaos gifts. Its an endless loop of random haha.

Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic about random tables and gifts and warpstorms being cool. Every once in a while something cool happens (Cultist got lucky and killed a Dreadknight, and turned into a Deamon Prince or something, I forget exactly what and I'm not even sure if that's possible), but most of the time it's just a massive pain in the neck.

[Archon Charybdis]

Hey, I'm not down on Eldar or their players. Just the serial whiners!

Fair enough, and you can at least understand why Eldar players in particular might be more upset or at least have more to lose than others at the prospect of random powers, right? As long as I've played them, Eldar have been an army centered on the Farseer as a force multiplier (outside of the fairly rare Farseer-free build). Partly it was as a crutch for mediocre units, but it is very fluffy and gives the army an interesting theme as the buff/debuff army. The Farseer as a lynchpin of your army design and battle plan is pretty integral to the Eldar army identity and effectiveness, and a lot of people are concerned if that changes the army may be the worse off for it--left bland and mechanically not unique.

[bfmusashi]

That's not a primary source. Certainly in the second edition Eldar Codex, it was explicit that "Warlock" was only one of a number of sub-paths within "The Path of the Seer" (in the same way that each Warrior Aspect is a sub-path within the Path of the Warrior), and that a Farseer is any Eldar who has become lost upon the Path of the Seer.

Warlock is in some respects more like Autarchs - their path is affected by previous paths they have studied in life. In this case, Warlocks are Seers who have previously chosen to tread the Path of the Warrior.

That's what the quote said....

[Koremu]

That's what the quote said....

No, the quote said all Farseers were former Warlocks, which is not necessarily the case.

All Farseers are Seers who are lost on the path, but not all were ever Aspect Warriors (or, if they were, necessarily became Warlocks).

There are other forms of Seers than just Warlock, is the point.