[Archive] Why Warlocks cant become Farseers

Gar Shadowfame:

because there are sources in eldar codex that suggest that farseer is name of “exarch” member of the seer path, and warlock is separate path i strongly belive that warlock who cant change the path, according to the current fluff can only be referd to as “lost upon the path”.

Eldar codex suggest there are other names for different path walkers, “Crystal Seers” and “Bards of Twilight”.

references to this thesis are in codex:eldar (present one) p.9 , codex:crafworld eldar (previous edition update) p.22

Now, i kindly ask moderators to not overuse his/her powers, “i am bored” aka “i was wrong i dont want to admit it” is seriously wrong reason to lock a thread AFTER someone was called “ignorant and stubborn”. So please take this advice that moderation is responsibility not power.

Thommy H:

What an excellent idea this thread is. You never cease to amaze me, Gar.

Gar Shadowfame:

I’m glad i made your day Thommy, but thats what friends are for :slight_smile:


sigh The reason the thread was locked Gar, as you well know, was to stop it degenerating into another argument rather than a constructive discussion, which is what it had ceased to be. Please see when it is time to drop something and move on.


Totally off-topic… but that’s where this was destined to go I think ;)  

Look, I’m not an admin I’m just a regular… so as one of the masses, please guys, keep it civil and friendly.  We don’t have to agree, but get past it, everybody.  Have disagreements to your heart’s content, but for goodness sake let people have their say without bullying or belittleing them.  

I’ve been in the hobby since the late 80s and am just as productive and have just as much fun with the hobby without being on CDO. The only reason I visit CDO, joined as a member and choose to stay involved is because the community by-and-large is very friendly and supportive and it makes me want to be part of it - but that community needs all of us to want to continue the friendly and supportive atmosphere.

OK, so now that I’ve opened my big mouth I’m prepared to get a foot in it :wink:

Gar Shadowfame:

i merely posted page references to support what i say, and i hear its boring, i am ignorant, someone take interest in eldar for 10 years so whatever he says is ok but codex is misunderstood by me. c’mon

i’ve no problem with u Nico, but friendlines at the price of truth is bad bargain to me


It seems to me that this is something that could easily be solved with references to prove it one way or another.

Rather than rely on recollections, if anyone is really concerned about this please quote a reference that you believe 100% solves this one way or another.

If there is no such evidence then there is no ‘correct’ solution and it’s just one of those things they’ve left obscure.

Let’s keep this civil gentlemen.  It’s a game about toy soldiers and nothing to get too upset over. :wink:

For reference Gar, sometimes the staff lock threads to prevent them getting overheated.  Normally if we don’t it turns out badly for someone.


�?oFarseers: After a number of years Seers usually pass on to some other life to continue their exploration of the rich possibilities of the Eldar Path. However, a Seer can give up the endless cycle of the Eldar Path and instead become a Farseer. Once an Eldar becomes a Farseer he is trapped upon the Witch Path and unable to change his future role…�?� (from �?oWarhammer 40000 Compilation�?� (1991), p53)


And, for context,

(under Seers),

�?o… Only Eldar who have passed through many stages of the Eldar Path are likely to feel sufficiently confident of their mastery over their own minds to develop their psychic powers in an open way.The Eldar are known as Seers and they are said to follow the Path of the Seer or the Witch Path.�?� (from �?oWarhammer 40000 Compilation�?� (1991), p52)


�?o…however, Seers who have previously fought as Aspect Warriors can and do fight on the battlefield and are known as Warlocks.�?� (from �?oWarhammer 40000 Compilation�?� (1991), p53)

Gar Shadowfame:

references to this thesis are in codex:eldar (present one) p.9 , codex:crafworld eldar (previous edition update) p.22

Hashut’s Blessing:

Gar Shadowfame: As has been said and I said, the thread was locked because things were getting heated. In fact, AGPO had locked it at the same time as both Hammerhand and myself posted, which is why I made another post to say that it had been locked. My comments were based on what was happening and had nothing to do with it being locked.

It was locked because people were bordering on uncivility and we would rather people kept friendly than argue in circles with no resolution.

As such, I would like to request that you don’t accuse the staff of overusing the powers, please.

It seems like you still have bad feelings about some of the comments, but I had asked you to consider the way that you were putting your message across and how you were being unyielding to the facts put across, not considering any compromise. I acknowledged your points and replied to them and even used the facts that you had given as part of my argument, proving that you weren’t wholly incorrect.

Regarding you citing your first post in response to Fallen246, neither of those have made Fallen246’s comments null or void and the citations don’t conflict with his either, but they also don’t explicitly prove your original point: Warlocks and Farseers aren’t part of the same path. However, Fallen246’s point out that the Witch Path is a synonym for the Path of the Seer.

Final note: The thread was locked because of the negative tone of the conversation and lack of constructive debate. Re-opening the same topic the same day isn’t really something to be done, unless new light can be shed or the conversation can be kept civil and beneficial, rather than detrimental. You have to understand that it was not due to a disagreement with you, but the tone of the WHOLE topic’s posters.

Also, I think it prudent to ask you to have a brief pause when you read this and take it in its intended context as it feels like you are beginning to bear a grudge against the staff, especially sinc eyou are trying to tell us how to do our job/control ourselves within it (Comments demanding a thread to be locked, implying locking of threads due to immaturity [note: none of the staff’s comments were proven to be wrong either], implying that people’s comments were meant offencively instead of as observations about the inability to compromise

Gar Shadowfame:

witch path is same as warrior path, wide variety of aspects

Thommy H:

Isn’t that what we’ve been saying?

Gar Shadowfame:

warlock is unable to become farseer, farseer is name of seer exarch,

till now only name for eldar who cant change paths is “lost upon the path”


Description of Farseer, page 26 current codex:
The path of the seer is the most dangerous and convoluted path of all, for psykers are intimately connected with warp space.  Too proceed too quickly along the witch path would be to invite the most heinous damnation…Just as eldar who are trapped on the warrior path become exarchs, so seers who travel too far along the witch path become farseers.

OK, from this, the path of the seer and the witch path are one and the same thing and seers who are trapped on the witch path become farseers.

Description of Warlock, page 27 current codex:
The most aggressive of all the witch paths is that of the warlock.  WARLOCKS ARE SEERS who once trod the path of the warrior…

And there we have it.  Your hang up is of the witch path or paths. just as easily as there is a warrior path or paths - regardless of which warrior path the eldar takes, he still becomes an exarch when he gets stuck on it; banshee, avenger or scorpion - he is still an exarch.  Warlocks are on the witch path, it might be a warlock witch path but it is a witch path - which can also be called the path of the seer. It quite explicitly states in the description of the farseer, a seer who gets stuck on the witch path becomes a farseer and your argument is smacked right out of the ground with the three words on the next page - WARLOCKS ARE SEERS.  

So, Warlocks are seers on a witch path, if they go too far down their particular witch path they become Farseers.  Now please end this nonsense.

Gar Shadowfame:

this are abreviated entries!

read pages i quoted


Sensing thread lock in 10… 9… 8… etc…

People interpret the fluff in any way they want - that’s the way its been constructed, to let people put their own fluff in it. Think of it how you like, use it how you like. Let GW and the Black Library fill in the gaps and create new content for it, like they’ve been doing since 1983. Something is only canon until the next codex, or next book, that redefines it comes out. So, by that token, quoting a very old codex like Craftworld Eldar, is very shaky ground. Especially with all the Eldar novels and other stories that have come out in the mean time.

Even if you are right, you’re only right as long as that aspect remains unchanged in the current codices. There may be nothing that supercedes it.

So what is “truth” in this regard? Am I right when I say that Slann were foot soldiers as well as mage priests, even though that aspect has been dropped long ago? Am I right when I reinterpret the “Greater Good” of the Tau as Nazism? Only in that the fluff allows me, the player, to build upon the fluff to deepen my interest in it and let me do my thing.

Really, is it worth getting your panties in a twist? /shrug


this are abreviated entries!
read pages i quoted

Gar Shadowfame

Read page 9 of the current codex several times, it neither backs you up nor contradicts what I have said. If you are talking about crystal seers, what does this prove or disprove? nothing. the doomed bards of twilight are obviously artists who are stuck on the artists path, crystal seers could well be a specific type of farseer - it doesn't say because it's not pertinent to the game.

As for my quotes, They are not abbreviated, they are verbatim extracts from the current codex, I'm just not going to type out the whole damn paragraph when what I typed is all any reasonable person needs - warlocks are seers on the witch path, seers who get stuck on the witch path become farseers - no interpretation, no truth bending, no reading between the lines, no ifs, buts or maybes, just plain old straight up Black and White from the designers pen. Abbreviated or not it is still the 100% truth and categorically backs up the argument as grim has asked for.

Time to stop arguing Gar, no one wants you to admit you are wrong or make a public apology or do a silly dance or anything like that, just stop making ridiculous arguments even though the current codex quite explicitly contradicts your entire thesis, and you have nothing to back up what you are saying. read page this and that is not a reference.


Woah woah woah, everybody chill out, calm down, take a seat.

I know I probably am in no position to be saying this, since my comments were at the beginning of this… uh… “heated discussion”, but I think we’re all taking this far too seriously. And, quite frankly, I think that’s a bit silly. In the interest of civility, we should just agree to disagree, shake hands, and walk away from this argument.

For any flaming/ill-will/ire I have created/attributed to, I would like to apologise for. I really like this forum, I feel I get along with the members despite any differences in opinions Cough big hats Cough masks cough and this kind of discussion is not what I enjoy being part of.

And to close, slightly off topic, if GW was to make a new model called a Warseer, I think that would be really rad.


It seems to me that we have reached the conclusion of this between Gar’s and Hammerhand’s quotes.

If Warlocks are on the witch path the only end conclusion of them being stuck on it is that they become farseers??  Am I right?  If there is no other way out of being stuck on it, it’s inevitable is it not?  There are no exarchs?

But not all seers are warlocks, this is another route onto the path, what Gar said about  “Crystal Seers” and “Bards of Twilight”.