PDA

View Full Version : Craftworld Eldar: Seer Council exclusive to Ulthwe?



Hendarion
30-10-2010, 09:12
Where is this stated in the fluff? I'm pretty sure it's one of those fanon interpretations that's popped up in response to MEQ saturation.
As I said, the Craftworld-Codex from 3rd Edition and the Eye of Terror Codex specify that Ulthwé is ruled by a council of seers, lead by Eldrad Ulthran. No other fluff I know is speaking about a council of seers to rule a Craftworld and bringing that entire council to battle. Biel-Tan for example is oppositely is said to be ruled by the Aspects.


The strength of Ulthwé is ultimately its Seer Council. During times of major conflict, the Seer Council take a far more active role on the battlefield, divining the most influential warzone in which to add the might of their Craftworld and opening Wraithgates to allow their brethren to effect one of the lightning raids which characterise Ulthwé's military actions.
It doesn't speak about some random Craftworld, but explicitely being Ulthwé that is characterised that way.
The Eye of Terror Codex and the Craftworld-Codex are both kinda restrictive about it. Only Ulthwé was allowed to field a Seer-Council. No other Craftworld.
All the Craftworld-specific lists then had been made available to be built in 4th edition in a single Codex. Each player could more or less build the Craftworld he wanted to. And that is where suddenly Jetcouncils popped up. But that doesn't mean that just because they are on jetbikes, that this would be Saim-Hann. The Council was ever since defined for Ulthwé. Further more the Seers on Saim-Hann are part of a rider-clan as basically all Eldar of Saim-Hann. It would make much more sense if these Seers ride on jetbikes along with their clan-mates (ie. Guardians) instead of forming a cross-clan-Council.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 11:56
As I said, the Craftworld-Codex from 3rd Edition and the Eye of Terror Codex specify that Ulthwé is ruled by a council of seers, lead by Eldrad Ulthran. No other fluff I know is speaking about a council of seers to rule a Craftworld and bringing that entire council to battle. Biel-Tan for example is oppositely is said to be ruled by the Aspects.

Biel-Tan is influenced by its warriors but certainly not entirely ruled by the Aspects. They are a powerful faction but they are not the sole rulers. A political faction As evidence:



Whereas in many craftworlds the Farseers hold sway over important decisions, on Biel-Tan a warrior council, referred to as the Court of the Young King, appears to be at least the equal of the Farseers...A strong and dynamic political faction, it is often the Court that makes the decision to go to war or negotiate as they see fit. Index Xenos: The Swordwind, WD 302



It doesn't speak about some random Craftworld, but explicitely being Ulthwé that is characterised that way.
The Eye of Terror Codex and the Craftworld-Codex are both kinda restrictive about it. Only Ulthwé was allowed to field a Seer-Council. No other Craftworld.

Not true about claiming only Ulthwe has Seer Councils:



Each of these army lists reflect some part of the character of the craftworld to which they belong and contain special rules, changes to the Codex: Eldar army list and new unit types. Although these variants have been presented as specific craftworlds, this is simply because these are the most renowned examples of armies of their type. There is no reason why you couldn't field an army from another craftworld using these army variants, as all Eldar sometimes use different formations to that of the Guardian oriented one embodied by the army list given in Codex: Eldar.

For example, the Saim-Hann Wild Riders, an army composed almost entirely of skimmers and jetbikes, can be used to represent the Wind Rider hosts often employed by other craftworlds. Similarly, on occasion other craftworlds have had to resort to using large numbers of their Wraithguard and Wraithlords (as detailed in the Iyanden Ghost Warrior army). p. 2, Codex Craftworld Eldar.

It is thus perfectly justifiable to field a Seer Council from Alaitoc or a Wind Rider Host from Iyanden or a Spirit Host from Biel-Tan. Just because the major Craftworlds are the most well known for certain things doesn't mean they are not known to field other formations, just as while the Black Templars and Blood Angels may be better known for CC they are still capable of fielding heavy weapon formations. Catachans may be known for jungle infantry but if someone tried to field a Catachan tank regiment that is not unfluffy either.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:22
Still the same "allowed entries to field" against "craftworld X is classified to field Y". Ofc GW will allow each Craftworld to field every possible list. But that won't be fluffy. Am I talking against a wall here? It's just your personal hate, is that possible?
Seriously, I'm bored of your attitude to disagree with me just in order to disagree.

NightrawenII
30-10-2010, 12:22
It is perfectly justifiable to field a Seer Council from Alaitoc or a Wind Rider Host from Iyanden or a Spirit Host from Biel-Tan. Just because the major Craftworlds are the most well known for certain things doesn't mean they are not known to field other formations, just as while the Black Templars and Blood Angels may be better known for CC they are still capable of fielding heavy weapon formations. Catachans may be known for jungle infantry but if someone tried to field a Catachan tank regiment that is not unfluffy either.
I wanna disagree here.
In all honesty, this is another example of GW's *laziness*, when it comes to canon.
The problem is that game-factions are connected to themes. Iyanden theme is Army of Dead, Catachans theme is jungle warriors etc. etc.
Doing something because you can, while not adhering to the theme, is not plausible at all.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 12:25
I wanna disagree here.
In all honesty, this is another example of GW's laziness*, when it comes to canon.
The problem is that game-factions are connected to themes. Iyanden theme is Army of Dead, Catachans theme is jungle warriors etc. etc.
Doing something because you can, while not adhering to the theme, is not plausible at all.

The armies are not JUST their archetypes. That would be tantamount to demanding Black Templars or Blood Angels field only Assault Marines and that anything else would be unfluffy. Themes and archetypes are not straitjackets.

The fact of the matter is none of these formations have ever been entirely restricted to that one archetype Craftworld. Go to Apocalypse and see the sections under Wind Rider Host and Spirit Host. Go further back to Epic, and see the complete lack of restriction on such formations. Sure, the different major Craftworlds got rules that nudged in the direction of the archetype, but one was still free to make an army that was different. One of the Epic battle reports featured a heavily mechanized Alaitoc army with an Alaitoc Wind Rider Host fighting against Imperial Guard. It has never been canon that the armies were restricted to only their archetype.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:27
but one was still free to make an army that was different.
Of course! Else GW would lose customers. That doesn't mean though that a Craftworld that relies on Aspects would start to do the unthinkable and rise their dead to form a wraith-only-army. They won't. Never. No. It is not fitting the fluff. It simply isn't.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 12:32
Of course! Else GW would lose customers. That doesn't mean though that a Craftworld that relies on Aspects would start to do the unthinkable and rise their dead to form a wraith-only-army. They won't. Never. No. It is not fitting the fluff. It simply isn't.

GW has explicitly stated otherwise in the Craftworld Eldar Codex that you keep trying to deny. Your mistaken statements are also explicitly contradicted in the GW Epic supplement Swordwind which describes the Biel-Tan specifically. In the Baran War, they DO field an army of the dead for a significant stage of the campaign.



Mauryon called forth the Spiritseers and Bonesingers which he had ordered accompany him from the craftworld. With them they carried the humble beginnings of wraithbone, a few component psycho-plastics, nothing in and of themselves, but it was all that the powerful Seers would need to begin fashioning their intricate constructs.

From the broken tombs, from the scattered bodies and the partly buried wraithbone cores which lined the barrows the Seers plucked all the spirit stones they could find. The Seers muttered words of comfort and forgiveness as they went about their task, for this was sacrilege to them, an affront to the peace of death – an atrocity, some might say – but such was Mauryon’s command.

Alongside them, the Singers’ voices boomed out as the wraithbone shells of great walking machines sprung upwards and were one by one assembled into silent, motionless ranks in front of the gloating Mauryon. Here and there the line was broken by the outline of a true giant, twice the size of a man, towering over the rest of these automatons.

Into these same husks were placed the spirit stones taken from the barrows, and as the deathly Banshees danced and wailed about them, these tired and reluctant spirits were slowly coaxed from their slumber and brought once more to life inside their new wraithbone bodies.

Larger than anything Mauryon could have hoped to get out of the solitary gate available to him, now before him stood Wraithguard and Wraithlords. As Mauryon and his army emerged once more from the barrows, an army of the dead now walked alongside them…

p. 63, Swordwind
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1320010_Swordwind_Part_3_-_Baran_War.pdf


Biel-Tan fields the equivalent of a Spirit Host above. It is thus entirely appropriate to portray similar such instances of using the dead for Biel-Tan or indeed any other Craftworld that has ever done so in its history.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:36
You aren't reading my words entirely. Spirithost is not the same as a Wraith-only-army. A Spirithost is a part of the force.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 12:42
You aren't reading my words entirely. Spirithost is not the same as a Wraith-only-army. A Spirithost is a part of the force.

We were never talking about a Wraith only army. Not even the Iyanden archetype fields a pure Wraith-only army. There are still living Eldar in such a force.

The Craftworld Eldar Codex described and showed the archetypes, and also specifically stated they could be used to represent specialized variant formations from other Craftworlds. You attempted to deny that source and still tried to argue that it was unfluffy.

The Baran War shows such a counterexample where Biel-Tan departed from its archetype of heavy Aspects and fielded a force that would have fit in more in the Iyanden archetype.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:43
That doesn't mean though that a Craftworld that relies on Aspects would start to do the unthinkable and rise their dead to form a wraith-only-army.

We were never talking about a Wraith only army.
Now that proves me right. You are not reading my entire words. Thanks.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 12:45
Now that proves me right. You are not reading my entire words. Thanks.

You might have been but that does not mean "we" as in the others in this thread that was the antecedent of the "we" used in my post. You will find that no other poster above mentioned a "wraith only army". In any case, you are still dodging the point by trying to invoke minutiae, which is namely: it is entirely within the background to depart from the classic archetypes of the Craftworlds as there exist such examples within the background.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:48
Then why do you discuss about something else than I do? That is idiotic. I'm saying a wraith-only-army is not fluffy for certain Craftworlds and you say "no, that is not right", but you speak about something different.
Please, spare us of that rubbish. Seriously.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 12:51
Then why do you discuss about something else than I do? That is idiotic. I'm saying a wraith-only-army is not fluffy for certain Craftworlds and you say "no, that is not right", but you speak about something different.
Please, spare us of that rubbish. Seriously.

It was you that drifted off topic into "wraith only" armies.

The original topic if you bother to read previous posts was about the supposed exclusivity or non-exclusivity of such formations as Seer Councils etc.. to various Craftworlds. If you are going to respond to this particular post I suggest you actually respond to the content and topic of the original thread and stop digressing.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 12:59
I already did. I made other examples which you tried to make invalid by posting various quotes of fluff, though you didn't even address the thing I had made my point for.
Yea, ofc Craftworlds do not only always use one way of battle. I already said that previously and yea, they have a *preferred way* (which basically says exactly the first part of this same sentence). But a Seer Council brought to battle is what *defined Ulthwé's way of battle*.
That's exactly in my quotes. That is said. So if it *defines Ulthwé*, it does *not* define Saim Hann. I already said that earlier. It's stamped black on white. The army-lists of these books ofc should be able to be used by *any* player since GW doesn't want to lose profit. But that has nothing to do with fluff, but is a game-design-decision.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 13:07
I already did. I made other examples which you tried to make invalid by posting various quotes of fluff, though you didn't even address the thing I had made my point for.
Yea, ofc Craftworlds do not only always use one way of battle. I already said that previously and yea, they have a *preferred way* (which basically says exactly the first part of this same sentence). But a Seer Council brought to battle is what *defined Ulthwé's way of battle*.
That's exactly in my quotes. That is said. So if it *defines Ulthwé*, it does *not* define Saim Hann. I already said that earlier. It's stamped black on white. The army-lists of these books ofc should be able to be used by *any* player since GW doesn't want to lose profit. But that has nothing to do with fluff, but is a game-design-decision.

You did more than just try to say it defined Ulthwe. You tried to claim no other Craftworld fielded Seer Councils:



The Eye of Terror Codex and the Craftworld-Codex are both kinda restrictive about it. Only Ulthwé was allowed to field a Seer-Council. No other Craftworld.

THAT is your quote. Such a claim is disproven by the GW foreword which shows other Craftworlds do have such formations, merely that the "specific Craftworlds" are simply the most renowned examples of their type.

It has to do with fluff because GW specifically said that other Craftworlds can and do use such variants. That is a fluff decision because it shows such formations exist in the background for other Craftworlds. It is therefore not valid to claim it is "unfluffy" for them to field such variants. Fielding less common variants of an army apart from the main archetype doesn't suddenly render something against the background. Being "fluffy" doesn't mean one has to play the most common archetype.

The Baran War example also clearly shows an extended example of such a departure in a fluff based context.

It is not valid to simply arbitrarily dismiss GW sources that contradict your position as "game design decisions" that have nothing to do with the fluff. You are trying to cherry pick the evidence to suit your conclusion and just trying to exclude those sources that contradict it.

Hendarion
30-10-2010, 13:14
You are trying to cherry pick the evidence to suit your conclusion and just trying to exclude those sources that contradict it.
Haha, welcome to the mirror-world.
Bring some fluff that says that the rider-clans of Saim-Hann field a clan-intermixed Seer Council instead of using their seers to support the clan-riders. Can you find something? And please, not again that game-design-thing again, it is a rather lame way to make all people allow to field whatever they wish, no matter if it contradicts other given fluff of the very same book or other books.

Edit:
But I guess since neither of us both will give in or will be able to *prove* his point based on pure fluff, I guess we can simply stop that discussion. You may (and probably will) respond, but I'll ignore it in order not to risk the close of this topic any further as we had caused the close of the other topic few days ago in the fluff-section.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 13:21
Haha, welcome to the mirror-world.
Bring some fluff that says that the rider-clans of Saim-Hann field a clan-intermixed Seer Council instead of using their seers to support the clan-riders. Can you find something? And please, not again that game-design-thing again, it is a rather lame way to make all people allow to field whatever they wish, no matter if it contradicts other given fluff of the very same book or other books.

Again all you're doing is just trying to dismiss the quoted source because it explicitly contradicts you. It is still canon and valid no matter how much you try to arbitrarily brush it aside. GW defines the 40K universe, not you. By saying other Craftworlds have such formations, that is as much a fluff decision and statement as anything else because it confirms the existence of such formations in other Craftworlds as not being just limited to the specific 4 named. That is a statement about the 40K universe's background and not just about rules. The Seer Council is one of the formations among those in the Codex and is therefore included in such a statement.

You try to claim it contradicts other fluff but I have given the Baran War example as yet another fluff example supporting such variation. Likewise Apocalypse formations again only mention that the Wind Rider Hosts of Saim Hann and the Spirit Hosts of Iyanden are more noteworthy or famous than others, which means other craftworlds have them as well.

You tried to restrict others from using Seer Councils by claiming it is against the fluff and that only Ulthwe used them, and that no other craftworld did. Such an absolute claim about specialized formations has been shown to be untrue from GW's own statements, and it is disingenuous to try and make up excuses to dismiss GW's statements as invalid just because they disagree with yours.



But I guess since neither of us both will give in or will be able to *prove* his point based on pure fluff

I already have by showing fluff counterexample from the background section of the Epic Swordwind supplement depicting the Baran War. It is pure fluff background directly supporting the statement in the Craftworld Eldar Codex which you keep trying to dismiss as having no links with the fluff. You have just chosen to conveniently ignore it while then claiming there is no proof. Other readers are free to check the evidence for themselves (link is on the previous page).

Razhem
30-10-2010, 14:12
Seer Council = Ultwhe

Anything else is just adamant wishful thinking.

Iracundus
30-10-2010, 14:15
Seer Council = Ultwhe

Anything else is just adamant wishful thinking.

See above for the evidence otherwise from GW sources. Being renowned for something is not equivalent to being the only one with it. Also if you're going to dispute something, please provide some evidence. Simply giving a personal opinion is not evidence in and of itself.

carlisimo
31-10-2010, 07:26
Craftworlds are big. There's bound to be a lot of variety in their armies.

I'd say a seer council is likely to lead a craftworld army whenever the mission is based on their visions or something daemon-related. On a normal mission to clear a maiden world of invaders it wouldn't make much sense. If the maiden world has an ork infestation and the seers have identified a dangerous ork who must be killed before he becomes important, then seers would get involved. Whether it's one seer or several depends on craftworld politics, the expected danger (in terms of psychic powers), etc. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent council like Ulthwé's, just one to run the military campaign. On the other hand, it hasn't been explicitly stated that other craftworlds don't have councils with several seers on them.

Let's not take the craftworld archetypes too far. But I'm biased. Most of us who started during 2nd edition thought the 3rd ed. Craftworld codex was ridiculously narrow and limiting. I would've switched armies if that had continued.

TheLaughingGod
31-10-2010, 07:36
OK, there's a couple problems here. You're failing to understand what a "Seer Council" is. It's only ever had rules in Craftworld Eldar and Eye of Terror (Technically it has an Apocalypse formation too). It is the ruling body of the Ulthwe Eldar, a number of Farseers (and I would presume Warlocks) who guide the fate of Ulthwe and wage war against the enemies of the Eldar. It appeared in game as Several Farseers and a number of Warlocks. Specifically it was characterized by having the Enhance power, be lead by Eldrad and not allowing Jetbikes.

However, what is contemporarily known as a "seer council" or a "jet council" is infact, no more than a Farseer and his Warlock Bodyguard. This has existed since 3rd edition formally, and even in 2nd Edition Warlocks were used with Farseers. Every codex Eldar has allowed a large number of Warlocks to be taken (Indeed, in 2nd Edition you could make an army of nothing BUT Warlocks) they've been split between guarding Farseers and being divided off into other units of Eldar. Currently it's set so you can purchase them as a bodyguard unit or a unit upgrade for Guardians.

Let's look into Warlocks shall we? The fluff states that Warlocks are Seers who traveled the Warrior Path once before and can now channel that martial training into destructive psychic might when the Craftworld goes to war. They fight along side other Eldar and accompany Farseers into battle. By the very nature of the Eldar, each craftworld must have Warlocks and Farseers. The only craftworld that has ever denied Warlocks and Farseers jetbikes, is the two Ulthwe lists. Saim-Hann has only ever had ONE list, Craftworld Eldar. Wild Rider Kin could not be joined by a Warlock. Saim-Hann has seers, so where do the Seers go? On jetbikes, obviously. After all, the Seers are part of the Clans, it even says so, but they are not attached to the Wild Rider squadrons, so they must be in a squadron to themselves.

Anyways, this whole debate is ridiculous. Hendarion is completely misreading the fluff. It would be like if I told you that Dark Angels are the ONLY ONES who field Terminators. Or that White Scars are the ONLY CHAPTER to have Librarians on bikes. They might be KNOWN for a specific tactic, but ALL Craftworlds are capable of, and have fielded all Eldar formations.

Again, for clarity:
Seer Council: Ruling body of Ulthwe, a unit of multiple Farseers and Warlocks who are not allowed Jetbikes and have the power "enhance"
Warlock Bodyguard: Farseer bodyguard, a unit of Warlocks which may join a Farseer or act alone.

Zweischneid
31-10-2010, 09:36
I'd have to agree with TheLaughingGod.

Reading the background conservatively, their'd arguably be only one "Seer Council", which is the ruling body of Ultwe and consists of mutlipe powerful Farseers, necessarly including Eldrad as he's a major part of ruling Ultwe in the first place. (though I see no background restriction, why that particularly Seer Council, including Eldrad, might not be able to ride Jetbikes or any other vehicle available to the Eldar.

What 40K gamers have increasingly come to refer to as Council (jetbike or otherwise) is just a single Farseer + company. It is a formation common to all known Craftworlds.

Problem solved.

AndrewGPaul
31-10-2010, 09:45
Craftworlds are huge, with correspondingly large populations. I can't think of a good reason why any Craftworld couldn't put together an army represented by any of the Craftworld Eldar army lists on the scale of a 40K (or Apocalypse or Epic) army.

TheLaughingGod
31-10-2010, 10:10
Craftworlds are huge, with correspondingly large populations. I can't think of a good reason why any Craftworld couldn't put together an army represented by any of the Craftworld Eldar army lists on the scale of a 40K (or Apocalypse or Epic) army.

I believe this point is made in one of the Codices/Apocalypse books.

All the Craftworlds are capable of using every unit from the Codex. Some are known for using certain units more than others, but they're all capable of fielding Spirit Hosts, Wind Rider Hosts, Aspect Assault Waves, etc.

Razhem
31-10-2010, 11:10
See above for the evidence otherwise from GW sources. Being renowned for something is not equivalent to being the only one with it. Also if you're going to dispute something, please provide some evidence. Simply giving a personal opinion is not evidence in and of itself.

Explain what? I only have to look at the whole Ultwhe section on craftworld eldars and eye of Chaos for my evidence, you have to nitpick into liberal interpretation territory because people are telling you that Saim Hann doesn't make sense to be packing a full on seer council. If you want to do it, more power to you and maybe the option will come, but if it appears in the future, it will be a fluff rewrite, not something that was always there you stubborn man.

Iracundus
31-10-2010, 12:45
Explain what? I only have to look at the whole Ultwhe section on craftworld eldars and eye of Chaos for my evidence, you have to nitpick into liberal interpretation territory because people are telling you that Saim Hann doesn't make sense to be packing a full on seer council. If you want to do it, more power to you and maybe the option will come, but if it appears in the future, it will be a fluff rewrite, not something that was always there you stubborn man.

So in other words you didn't bother looking at the evidence and are still unable to cite explicit evidence otherwise. I had explicitly quoted evidence earlier that disproves your point.

There was no "liberal" interpretation because the Craftworld Eldar Codex explicitly says other Craftworlds all can field the formations detailed within the Craftworld Eldar Codex. The "Seer Council" is a formation contained within the Craftworld Eldar Codex, therefore other Craftworlds can field the Seer Council.

If you're going to try and talk or debate a topic, it is helpful to read what others have written or to examine the evidence presented by both sides. Your points were already all previously addressed.

Once more:



Although these variants have been presented as specific craftworlds, this is simply because these are the most renowned examples of armies of their type. There is no reason why you couldn't field an army from another craftworld using these army list variants, as all Eldar somtimes use different formations to that of the Guardian-oriented one embodied by the army list given in Codex: Eldar.

For example, the Saim-Hann Wild Riders, an army composed almost entirely of skimmers and jetbikes, can be used to represent the Wind Rider hosts often employed by other craftworlds. Similarly, on occasion other craftworlds have had to resort to using large numbers of their Wraithguard and Wraithlords (as detailed in the Iyanden Ghost Warrior army). p. 2, Craftworld Eldar Codex

Key points to note in the above is that it says the examples in the Codex are just the most renowned examples, not that they are the only examples. That is a huge difference. Likewise it even gives examples of using the lists to represent variant formations like Wind Rider hosts, which are used by ALL Craftworlds. This has always been there. Spirit Hosts and Wind Rider hosts have been available to all Craftworlds to field since Epic 2nd edition, which dates from the 1990's and far precedes the Craftworld Eldar Codex.

There is no "liberal" interpretation at all as it is all laid out there by GW.

Other sources such as Apocalypse further confirm the non-exlusivity of such formations, as already previously quoted (Ref: Spirit Host & Wind Rider Host, p. 144-145, Apocalypse). Further fluff background support is given by the Epic Swordwind supplement in the fluff and background section (link on previous page, or available from GW website via Googling for Baran War).

There are a multitude of sources and so far all the other side has been able to do is ignore them, pretend they don't exist, or invent excuses to disparage and invalidate these sources. If there are any actual sources supporting their claim of exclusivity, they haven't yet been able to quote them.

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-10-2010, 12:51
How exactly can it be a fluff rewrite to say that Saim Hann is capable of fielding multiple Farseers/Warlocks?

Sure, the overall governing structure of Ultwhe is different from Saim Hann, but that will have little difference on what sort of troops they are able to field. Especially given the tiny size of a 40k game. At that scale claiming anything you can make from the Eldar codex is unfluffy for Craftworlds numbering millions of Eldars are simply ridicules.
We are simply told that certain craftworlds have certain preferences for how they operate, but that doesn't by any mean that it's only like that.

Basically it comes down to the simplistic way 40k armies are usually "themed". If there is a couple of lines hinting at something everything in said army must be totally dedicated to that otherwise it's unfluffy:rolleyes:

Pure nonsense of course but the fact that any army could do virtually everything and appear in every variation does make it more difficult to differentiate them so the tiny differences and inclinations is usually exaggerated disproportionally.

Lothlanathorian
31-10-2010, 13:24
I'd have to agree with TheLaughingGod.

Reading the background conservatively, their'd arguably be only one "Seer Council", which is the ruling body of Ultwe and consists of mutlipe powerful Farseers, necessarly including Eldrad as he's a major part of ruling Ultwe in the first place.

My only disagreement here is, well, the only thing Eldrad is a major part of is a Blackstone Fortress. He kinda dead, b.:p

Flame Boy
31-10-2010, 15:34
I was under the impression that Ulthwe was the one Craftworld that would regularly take to the battlefield to help direct armies, due to the trend for Ulthwe eldar to be more inclined to develop their psychic talents over other Craftworld Eldar. This would probably be because they naturally get more eldar likely to have walked the prerequisite paths, so the council of seers would be able to raise more warlock bodyguards.

However, this doesn't mean another Craftworld couldn't have their council of seers suddenly decide to round up a bodyguard and go help the war effort, merely that the Council of Ulthwe are more likely to assist in the military sense, as I understand most if not all craftworlds would have a seer council, but I would imagine from the background provided that they don't often take the the battlefield en masse. Their influence seems more political than military from my understanding, though the background seems to be coated heavily in handwavium here.

As the rulebooks say, the scale intended for standard 40k games would mean these background issues are a moot point anyway. For example, even at it's weakest, I'm fairly sure Ulthwe could field a sizable Aspect Warhost, it would just be heavily reinforced with standing Guardian forces in larger conflicts.

eldargal
31-10-2010, 15:54
I think you are reading too much into that quote, Hendarion, let me illustrate with a different example:

One of the great strengths of the British Empire was its Royal Navy.
There are other Royal Navies, and other navies, it doesn't denote exclusivity. What I read the Ulthwe quote is saying is that is Seer Council is larger, more experienced and goes to war as a cohesive unit more often than other Craftworlds. Like the Royal Navy of the 18th-19th centuries it was the biggest and best of its kind, but not unique.

Other Craftworlds may never send its Seer Council to battle, given the value of its members, others may do so rarely.

Edit: While I fully admit the canonicity is dubious, Biel-Tan deployed 'Seer Councils' in the first Dawn of War.

Mudkip
31-10-2010, 16:10
A formation of Farseers and Warlocks from Iyanden is not necessarily a Seer Council in the sense that Ulthwe understands the term. Just as Biel-tan can field a "wind rider" host if necesary, but they won't be a "Wild Rider" host in the way that Saim Hann does it with their clans and such. However that does not prevent Biel-Tan from fielding a very similar force.

So to sum up, the Seer Council as the Ulthwe understand the term may very well be culturally unique. However every other craftworld is capable of fielding a similar battlefield formation of Farseers and Warlocks.

Inquisitor Engel
31-10-2010, 16:15
I'm siding with Iracundus on this one.

From an in-universe perspective, wouldn't it make sense to send Aspect Warriors as an army if it were feasible to not include your citizen levy? If you were told to go kill some Speed Freakz, wouldn't taking YOUR fastest units make more sense?

To say that Iyanden won't deploy a jetbike-heavy army when they have to or that Saim-Hann won't send in their Aspect Warriors when they're better suited to the task is just silly.

From a rule perspective: NONE of the "theme" Craftworld armies EVER contained units of just that type in any reasonable army. Iyanden HAD to have Warlocks and in order to have any chance of actually winning you needed to balance it out a little. Biel-Tan needed vehicles and weapon platforms if they didn't want to get their side of the board outflanked.

The themes were the starting points for armies to be built around, not exclusive armies.

Archangel_Ruined
31-10-2010, 16:58
Well, no. If you need to kill a fast enemy the best tactic is to make them attack a static, entrenched position, it's all about maximising your strengths whilst negating theirs. I agree that most craftworlds have the ability to field whatever they like at 1500pts or even at apocalypse levels, it's a skirmish and they'll have enough of whatever you want for your force. If you play epic things get a little different, there a fluffy army really should represent a particular craftworlds strengths, be that wild riders, spirit hosts or citizen militia with psyker support.

Hendarion
31-10-2010, 18:27
I think you are reading too much into that quote, Hendarion, let me illustrate with a different example:

There are other Royal Navies, and other navies, it doesn't denote exclusivity. What I read the Ulthwe quote is saying is that is Seer Council is larger, more experienced and goes to war as a cohesive unit more often than other Craftworlds. Like the Royal Navy of the 18th-19th centuries it was the biggest and best of its kind, but not unique.

Other Craftworlds may never send its Seer Council to battle, given the value of its members, others may do so rarely.

Edit: While I fully admit the canonicity is dubious, Biel-Tan deployed 'Seer Councils' in the first Dawn of War.

Maybe. But I'm not joining this discussion for quite some time anymore. Maybe that all is true, until now I've never imagined Saim Hann to take the rider-clan-based Seers and put them into a cross-clan-council. But actually that doesn't make the opposing side false or me being right. Still, I really dislike someone playing one Craftworld and fielding it the way that another would or making a mix of both, because it just doesn't feel right at all. But whatever. I'm not gonna argue any further.

drmarco
31-10-2010, 18:59
Bottom line - Iracundus calmly, and rationally answered your initial query of 'Seer council exclusive to Ulthwe?' by citing that while that is a common 'stereotype' of the Ulthwe forces, both the rules and canon fluff have cited that it is inevitable that craftworld forces sometime deviate from the stereotypes associated with them.

What this boils down to is the difference between 'fluff' and 'stereotype'.

In a game that is a microcosm of warfare between various species/races/organisations it makes sense to have these stereotypes. They become interesting narrative variations rather than the 'vanilla' nature of undifferentiated forces.

But to contradict the codex ruling and cited fluff examples of deviation from 'standard' army compositions makes your stance that 'stereotype= the totality of military strategy a craftworld can utilize' a bit myopic...

Not wanting this to devolve to a flame, but while fluff may help set the scene and encourage 'theme', it would be unwise to start turning your nose up at someone bringing an Ulthwe painted Wraithwall or an Iyanden coloured jetbike heavy list, citing 'that's unfluffy'...when what you'd really mean is 'that's atypical'...

Marco

drmarco
31-10-2010, 19:05
OK, there's a couple problems here. You're failing to understand what a "Seer Council" is. It's only ever had rules in Craftworld Eldar and Eye of Terror (Technically it has an Apocalypse formation too). It is the ruling body of the Ulthwe Eldar, a number of Farseers (and I would presume Warlocks) who guide the fate of Ulthwe and wage war against the enemies of the Eldar. It appeared in game as Several Farseers and a number of Warlocks. Specifically it was characterized by having the Enhance power, be lead by Eldrad and not allowing Jetbikes.

However, what is contemporarily known as a "seer council" or a "jet council" is infact, no more than a Farseer and his Warlock Bodyguard. This has existed since 3rd edition formally, and even in 2nd Edition Warlocks were used with Farseers. Every codex Eldar has allowed a large number of Warlocks to be taken (Indeed, in 2nd Edition you could make an army of nothing BUT Warlocks) they've been split between guarding Farseers and being divided off into other units of Eldar. Currently it's set so you can purchase them as a bodyguard unit or a unit upgrade for Guardians.

Let's look into Warlocks shall we? The fluff states that Warlocks are Seers who traveled the Warrior Path once before and can now channel that martial training into destructive psychic might when the Craftworld goes to war. They fight along side other Eldar and accompany Farseers into battle. By the very nature of the Eldar, each craftworld must have Warlocks and Farseers. The only craftworld that has ever denied Warlocks and Farseers jetbikes, is the two Ulthwe lists. Saim-Hann has only ever had ONE list, Craftworld Eldar. Wild Rider Kin could not be joined by a Warlock. Saim-Hann has seers, so where do the Seers go? On jetbikes, obviously. After all, the Seers are part of the Clans, it even says so, but they are not attached to the Wild Rider squadrons, so they must be in a squadron to themselves.

Anyways, this whole debate is ridiculous. Hendarion is completely misreading the fluff. It would be like if I told you that Dark Angels are the ONLY ONES who field Terminators. Or that White Scars are the ONLY CHAPTER to have Librarians on bikes. They might be KNOWN for a specific tactic, but ALL Craftworlds are capable of, and have fielded all Eldar formations.

Again, for clarity:
Seer Council: Ruling body of Ulthwe, a unit of multiple Farseers and Warlocks who are not allowed Jetbikes and have the power "enhance"
Warlock Bodyguard: Farseer bodyguard, a unit of Warlocks which may join a Farseer or act alone.


Also - TLG; while I tacitly agree, I think I'd have to caveat that the differentiation of 'Ulthwe Seer Council' and the more casual concept of a 'seer council' is purely arbitrary. If one creates a list of 2 farseers with attendant bodyguards and wishes to represent that as an 'Alaitoc seer council' who have gathered to address a threat to the webway, is this any less valid than the standing 'Ulthwe' rulers?

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more...this is an argument for the sake of it, and should probably be treated as such.

Marco

IJW
31-10-2010, 19:13
I seem to remember having been through this conversation quite a few times before, regarding different codices. :(

40k battles are tiny. They are effectively an HQ and their extended bodyguard.

Compared to the resources that Craftworlds have, any normal-size list you can put together with the 4th ed codex could be fielded multiple times over by any Craftworld.

Like drmarco says, don't confuse atypical with unfluffy.

carlisimo
31-10-2010, 19:55
I was under the impression that Ulthwe was the one Craftworld that would regularly take to the battlefield to help direct armies, due to the trend for Ulthwe eldar to be more inclined to develop their psychic talents over other Craftworld Eldar.

Key word is "regularly." To say that no other craftworld ever does it is a bit of a stretch.

Whenever two seers decide to lead an army because they need that much psychic capacity, you've got a seer council (lowercase, if that makes people happier).

SgtTaters
31-10-2010, 21:47
40k battles are tiny. They are effectively an HQ and their extended bodyguard.

Yeah, the Eye of Terror battle reports were done in that style.

I think of a 40k battle as the Climatic scene in the movie, the hero's final push, the villain's last laugh, the decisive stroke that decides the War.


Still, I really dislike someone playing one Craftworld and fielding it the way that another would or making a mix of both, because it just doesn't feel right at all.

Craftworlds are huge, they're all capable of fielding great variety in armies. The Big Five all have space fleets and titan clans, a dozen aspect warriors or a trio of wraithlords is a teeny tiny resource in comparison.

I like seeing jetbikes in colors other than red, I think Farseers look great in white+green robes, some of the nicest wraithlords I've seen were red n' white.


But whatever. I'm not gonna argue any further.
Well I hope you changed your wrong opinion to the right one then lol.

Irisado
31-10-2010, 22:03
There are two significant points to add here from my perspective:

1. I completely agree with Iracundus, and others who have supported his argument, that all Eldar craftworlds have access to all unit types. The third edition codices proflagated a myth that all Eldar craftworlds were very different from one another, and had to use certain units, in order to be considered to be from that craftworld (see my article on background army composition and the Eldar for more information on this subject). No other Eldar codices or rules from other editions have supported this line of thinking, so, in my opinion, it is these codices which give a false impression of how Eldar background and army composition works, and they should be treated with caution when evaluating craftworlds as a result.

As a result of this, a unit of Warlocks led by a Farseer is feasible for any Eldar craftworld (unless you have some fan made background for your own craftworld to explain why it would not be possible). Whether other craftworlds would call it a Seer Council is open to question, but this is a trivial issue within the parameters of this debate.

2. Even if you (impersonal usage) believe that the third edition Eldar codices should have their background taken to the letter, you run into the problem of the fact that the third edition Seer Council cannot be replicated any more (it's not possible to take two Farseers in the same unit any more), rendering the whole debate somewhat moot if you take this perspective in any case, in my opinion.

Joustarr
01-11-2010, 02:17
Can anyone name a craftworld without farseers or warlocks?

Bergen Beerbelly
01-11-2010, 02:28
Like I said in a different thread. Irrefutable evidence of EVERY craftworld having a Seer Council came from the Space Marine/Titan Legions game.

It is the EXACT same history as the 40k game and the same universe. As a matter of fact, the battle for Golgotha where Commisar Yarrick was captured by Ghazghkull Thraka was actually an Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions battle report that can be found in the supplement Space Marine Battles.

Anyway, in the Space Marine/Titan Legions game ANY eldar force can have a special card called a Warlock. If you counted it in 40k it would be a squad of five Warlocks, but in Epic it is one square base with five Warlock models on it. They didn't used to differentiate between Warlocks and Farseers so you can see on the card some of the abilities of Warlocks and Farseers in 40k such as Eldritch Storm.

They also had cards for the Saim-Hann Wild Riders, Black Guardians of Ulthwe, Iyanden Ghost Warriors, Alaitoc Scouts, and Biel-Tan Dire Avengers. However, Warlocks were available to EVERY craftworld as were Spirit Hosts.

The Warlock card in that game is the exact same thing as a Seer Council in 40k. So there is very much evidence of EVERY craftworld having them.

Joustarr
01-11-2010, 02:36
So there is very much evidence of EVERY craftworld having them.

Just as I thought. Probably the same for aspect warriors, jetbikes, and wraithguard. Rangers don't live on a craftworld, but that doesn't mean they can't join craftworld armies. Therefore each craftworld should have a bit of everything.

Bergen Beerbelly
01-11-2010, 02:44
Yes, absolutely. The game was set up so EVERY craftworld had a bit of everything, just that some were more apt to use certain types because of the situations they found themselves in. So for instance, Spirit Hosts of Eldar Wraithguard are also available to every craftworld, not just Iyanden.

Though if you wanted to represent the Iyanden Ghost Warrior army there was a free card you could get that would have 4 stands of Wraithguard (or 20 Wraithguard if it were 40k)

Joustarr
01-11-2010, 05:57
Since the publication of Codex: Eldar 4th ed, no eldar armies get seer councils as they were presented in 3rd ed, not even Ulthwe. However there is a farseer entry in the codex.
I suggest people read the codex, particularly the part about the eldar path and seers. Wider reading is also advised, I recommend the 2nd ed Codex: Eldar, and the 40k compilation / WD 127. Epic publications are also advised, though I don't know much beyond the renegades suppliment for 2nd ed epic, perhaps Mr. Beerbelly can help there?

Hendarion
01-11-2010, 07:30
All of you know that the entire discussion is long gone over, right? Just to point it out once more.

TheLaughingGod
01-11-2010, 07:31
All of you know that the entire discussion is long gone over, right? Just to point it out once more.

I don't think we saw your formally redacted statement, Hendarion.

Hendarion
01-11-2010, 07:33
And I don't think I need to give any.