>I wouldn't advocate taking away truesight, but if it was
>taken away...
>


>You would not be powerless to retrieve. You have svirfs,
>and you have assassins, and certain thieves too can reveal
>invisible without using magic. Granted, not all the time,
>but equally I can't see many enemies sitting around simply
>so that they can keep their guardian invis.

Few things here. First off, they also have bards and a certain legacy which would let them get by without using magic. However, the vast majority of Ragers are warriors without the ability to see invis. When they don't have their head, there are usually even less of them which makes it less likely they'll have someone able to do anything.

They were given truesight at a cost during the time of Empire. Ragers would fight one or two pairs of Centurions, then Imperials would do walk up, cast invis on the next pair, and laugh at the Ragers. It royally sucks when a level 11 mage using invis can prevent a group of hero Ragers from raiding. Admittedly it wouldn't be as bad today since there are no Centurions. It would be easier to sneak up and attack before someone made the guard invis. Gre is exaggerating.

>but equally I can't see many enemies sitting around simply
>so that they can keep their guardian invis.

I wouldn't put it past anyone on this game. If I had an evil leader-type and I knew I could prevent a retrieval this way, I would order some applicant or young member to sit there and do that until I commanded otherwise. Do you remember when people used to literally stand over the cabal item, and pick it up when the opposing people tried to flee past the guard?

Hutto