PDA

View Full Version : on recent trends in Craftworld Eldar aesthetics:



self biased
22-03-2011, 03:54
It would appear that things are getting a little bit more beautiful and strange with some of the more recent eldar aesthetics. between the Hornet (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/ELDAR-HORNET.html) and the Lynx (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/ELDAR-LYNX-WITH-PULSAR.html), the humble falcon looks positively obtuse and nearly Imperial in its clumsiness. Boxxy, even.

One only has to look at the new Fire Prism turret to see the direction that's being headed in and I, for one, welcome our new overlords. While I once derided the Hornet and Lynx as being too strange, i've come to the conclusion that some of the eldar aesthetics aren't too strange enough and want to see something weirder.

edit: apparently, this is my 1337th post. surely this is a sign of divine providence.

MikeyB
22-03-2011, 03:55
100% agree there dude! More organic "grown" looking vehicles the better!

self biased
22-03-2011, 04:07
don't get me wrong, the Falcon was a triumph when it was released. next to the FW stuff these days, though it is actually starting to look dated. I'm sorry, Jes, it's not you, it's me, but... I don't think this is going to work out for the good between the two of us.

ForgottenLore
22-03-2011, 04:17
When I first started 40K I considered going with Eldar but decided against it because something about the tanks just looked...off to me.

These new ones don't.

MajorWesJanson
22-03-2011, 04:26
The thing with the falcon and wave serpent is that they start with nice curves in the front that flow into each other, but the rear is more boxy with rather flat panels. The rounded block is more of a Tau aesthetic.

The FW ones keep the flow going, with curve blending into curve, even in the rear.

Spell_of_Destruction
22-03-2011, 04:27
I agree that the Falcon was amazing when it was first released but is starting to look a little dated now.

Is it much of a surprise? It was released in 1997.

I don't think it needs too much work - a new turret and a more organic look to the hull (while retaining much the same shape) would do it.

Hellebore
22-03-2011, 06:27
I never liked the falcon's turret when it came out, too square. I can sort of understand the square rear though, because it needs an assault ramp for the models to come down and it would be hard to make a curved rear with a curved assault ramp. It could be possible now though.

I personally don't like the hornet. I think the cockpit sits up too far. I really like a sleak low silhouette on eldar models, which is why the falcon, fire prism and wave serpent turrets look bad, they break the low swept look of the tank hull with this big bulge on top. Especially the oversized fire prism turret with its 'worse than a battlecannon but twice as long' barrel.

Hellebore

ehlijen
22-03-2011, 07:25
Nothing conveys 'this thing carries stuff' more readily than a box though, and the falcon is a transport in addition to being a tank.

Poseidal
22-03-2011, 09:00
It's ironic in a way, as towards the end of 2nd and through 3rd Eldar were moving somewhat away from the 'Organic' look CWE had at the end of Rogue Trader.

chromedog
22-03-2011, 09:02
Those of us who prefer the Falcon styling over the newer lawn dart will wave from our side of the fence.

Can't wait to see what FW would have done with the Falcon mk1 then. You want boxy, I'll raise you a door wedge.

Seems to me they've only got where they are by building on JGs work (standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were).

Iracundus
22-03-2011, 10:18
It's ironic in a way, as towards the end of 2nd and through 3rd Eldar were moving somewhat away from the 'Organic' look CWE had at the end of Rogue Trader.

This was mirrored in one of the sculptor design notes for the BFG Eldar Corsairs.

I think it was an attempt to try and show the Eldar to be more clearly high tech to players, by moving them away from the organic bony ribbing style (of Space Fleet Eldar spaceships) and the relatively blank wedge shaped Space Marine Epic Eldar tanks. The various equipment/electronic blisters and random small fins or antenna fins are such attempts at "high tech detail" to offset them from the bolts and rivet style of the Imperium.

If you look up the old Epic Eldar vehicles, they are more abstract or "alien". The old Wave Serpent for example is more like a Space Fantasy version of an ancient galley's prow, complete with eyes and waves painted on it. A version of it appears in the background of the 2nd edition Eldar Codex. GW may have perhaps felt designs like that were too fantasy like or too weird for players in general.

Achaylus72
22-03-2011, 10:27
I love the Falcon and Wave Serpent.

Wave Serpent is boxy because it a Armoured Personel Carrier, but gotta love the Forge World Stuff, they are very sexy ships.

Hendarion
22-03-2011, 10:35
I think what really gives a more "Eldary" feel are the Forgeworld-MKII-upgrades. The full-kits actually cost not much more than the normal GW-kits, but they look a lot better. And we see on the new Prism/Spinner, even GW seems to think a bit that way.

eldargal
22-03-2011, 15:33
I can't agree, I love the Falcon model I still think it is one of the most graceful and elegant kits GW have put out. Having said that, I love the FW stuff and the new Fire Prism as well. The aesthetic is very consistent between GW and FW kits, and while I do like adding variety by using FW upgrade parts I like the original turrets too.

Obrimos
22-03-2011, 16:22
The new Forgeworld Eldar Tanks are all superb in their design. The Falcon Mark 2 upgrade kit was a good start but the changes were not radical enough, yet.

While I like the new GW Fire Prism model, I think the turret still seems off. It doesn't fit the chassis. It still looks clumsy.
I'd rather see a modification like proposed by FW Warp Hunter and Lynx, that is, big guns integrated into the chassis and getting rid of the turrets. This allows for a lower profile and does not disturb the flowing lines of the chassis.

Fixed weaponry also fits the Eldar, since they are so mobile they have little use for tactical use of turrets like IG. Also it would really help to hide the vehicle from enemy fire.
If you have to have mini-turrets for close range defense you'd have them below the chassis, like the TL catapults.
The only exception is ouf course a AA-defense platform like the Firestorm variant. You will definitely need a turret there. Still it could look better and more embedded and less extended (like Landraider h.Bolters).

So yes, I relish the new designs. Keep them coming. We need to look more different from SM vehicles. Less boxy more organic and slender. Protoss inspiration welcome.

Hendarion
22-03-2011, 16:34
Fixed weaponry also fits the Eldar, since they are so mobile they have little use for tactical use of turrets like IG.
I can't agree with that at all. If you have a super fast vehicle, then you surely do not want only to be able to shoot at the things in front of you. Because then you very fast will be too close, will have to change direction and then... can't shoot at it any more. Even worse if your target moves, you will always have to drive towards it instead of driving to your target-destination and shoot it with a rotatable turret. No, that can't be right.

Obrimos
22-03-2011, 17:44
@ Hendarion:
If you want to drive directly into the enemy lines...yes, you'll absolutely need a turret. However, that is not how Eldar tanks should be used in my opinion. Driving fullspeed into enemy lines should be death to any vehicle (Eldar or else).
Except for the Landraider with his potent back armour.

Grav-tanks should be used like helicopters. Hide behind cover unseen, then lift off for a second, shoot and go down into cover again. The rules don't allow it at the moment because the meta doesn't work like that but it was possible in 2nd and it made an awful lot of sense.
So, if you fight from a distance and have an extremely finetuned Eldar grav-field control system, you don't need a turret.

The speed of the tank is only useful for quick repositioning, evasion and pursuit.
But the vulnerable backside and elongated forms indicate long range use of Eldar tanks (Serpent excepted).

You wouldn't rush a Fire Prism or Falcon deep into the enemy lines only to take benefit of weak Leman Russ rear armour, would you now? The chance of loosing that tank in return would be too high.

Back to topic:
Interesting to see, that a lot of the aesthetics of military vehicles is determined by their intended use. Form follows function after all, it seems.

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-03-2011, 18:57
Driving straight into enemy lines are not the only use for a turret. Wouldn't that be when you need the turret the least as there will be plenty of targets right in front of you? It's as soon as you start to want to do any sort of manoeuvring that you want a turret. The ability to move in one direction but shoot in a different direction would be absolutely crucial to the sort of high speed warfare Eldars seem to prefer. Darting from cover to cover, exploiting there speed and ability to outmanoeuvre slower enemies.

I think the only reason why you would want fixed weaponry is that it makes it easier/cheaper to manufacture said armoured vehicle. And since that sort of economic thinking doesn't really seem to be a factor in 40k (in general) or with Eldars in particular I don't see why they (or anyone else really) should get stuck with second rate equipment.

blackraven
22-03-2011, 19:09
couldnt agree more! i have 6 of the new fire prisms but ive magnetized the weapons to be either fire prisms or falcons.... lets face it the new fire prism is a work of art

Raibaru
22-03-2011, 19:11
I somewhat agree with the above. A turret on a skimmer that can fly through the air much like a helicopter would, but at much higher speeds doesn't seem the right platform for a turret capable of a 360 degree firing arc.

I could see a 90-180 maybe much like support weapons on modern helicopters.

But all that said, the FW kits are quite impressive. But a lot of the range for GW looks dated. Even the new Wraithlord I'm not a huge fan of to be completely honest. But the falcon and vyper are 2 kits in need of an update.

I'd sooner ask for those then guardians personally.

Lexington
22-03-2011, 19:53
I like 'em all, myself. Except for the Wave Serpent, which is ugly in both GW and Forgeworld varieties.

Really, for me, all of these tanks communicate their roles quite well, yet reflect the same shapes and concepts so brilliantly conceived by Jes Goodwin in his Falcon design. The APCs have he space to perform their roles while still looking graceful, scout vehicles like the Hornet are all curves and business, while the super-heavies - and, I dunno, what to call the Lynx, a semi-heavy? - exist entirely to give mobility and support to their weaponry.

There's a melding of form and function to Eldar vehicles that's almost a guilty pleasure. Those of us who play other factions can only wish we looked so good. ;)


It's ironic in a way, as towards the end of 2nd and through 3rd Eldar were moving somewhat away from the 'Organic' look CWE had at the end of Rogue Trader.
Heh, yeah, what a mistake that was. Epic 40,000 was a disaster for the company overall, but the design work on bringing the model ranges up to the design standards of the era was something that, thankfully, stuck around in future releases for the license as a whole. The one exception, however, were the Eldar Titans, which may be the most ill-conceived models ever released for GW pointy-ears of any variety. For those who are unfamiliar with them, feast your eyes upon these (http://www.pollywog.com/images/epic/blisters/Eldar%20Phantom%20Titan%20Box.JPG) terrible monstrosities (http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Limited_Release_-_Epic_Eldar_Titans.jpg)! Weep with joy that they were scrapped almost immediately after release, and never had an iota of influence on the Eldar's future aesthetics!

Hendarion
22-03-2011, 20:20
@ Hendarion:
If you want to drive directly into the enemy lines...yes, you'll absolutely need a turret. However, that is not how Eldar tanks should be used in my opinion. Driving fullspeed into enemy lines should be death to any vehicle (Eldar or else).
If you want to outflank an army, you won't be able to shoot at it while doing so unless you have a rotatable turret. So why exactly would Eldar who outflank all the time "swiftly" not use rotatable turrets?

About these epic-titans: I got them. And boy... they are ugly, dunno what made me buy them back then. And worst is, nobody wants them, can't even sell them.

Endobai
22-03-2011, 21:07
While I like the new GW Fire Prism model, I think the turret still seems off. It doesn't fit the chassis. It still looks clumsy.
I'd rather see a modification like proposed by FW Warp Hunter and Lynx, that is, big guns integrated into the chassis and getting rid of the turrets. This allows for a lower profile and does not disturb the flowing lines of the chassis.

Fixed weaponry also fits the Eldar, since they are so mobile they have little use for tactical use of turrets like IG. Also it would really help to hide the vehicle from enemy fire.



Disagreed. Turrent has important part to play in combat - that is why so far noone managed to replace it with something else.
This 'else' would most likely mean a smaller, automated, but still a turrent.

Turrent reduces one, key weakness of every armoured vehicle which is more vulnerable rear section, not to mention simple fact that it is easier, quicker and consumes less energy to move a turrent rather than an entire vehicle to face an enemy.

Turrent adds to tactical agility of any armoured vehicle of medium and large size.


Main weapon mounted on chassis is good for support vehicles such as infantry support or long ranged self-propelled artillery.
It is also cheaper to produce and most important allows other improvements exploiting reduced weight of the entire vehicle which can be spent on heavier armour, better weaponry, additional transport capability or so basic alterations such as greater speed, better communication equipment (with addittional crew member/-s to use it) and so on.





Another question is presence of additional crewmember/-s with decent observation capabilities at his/her disposal which can be provided in a number of ways, but usually also includes eyeballs as the 'backup' targeting 'equipment'.


In a multipurpose main battle tank - for Eldar that would be rather Prism than Falcon (which works as an infantry tank with transport capabilities) - second crew member is still an important asset. While driver can control sizable part of firepower, gunner is only supposed to target and destroy the enemy and can act as a commander of one tank or an entire unit of them.

Even Eldar would struggle with too many tasks to perform at the same time so any Eldar MBT requires presence of at least two crew members.

theJ
22-03-2011, 21:25
It's as soon as you start to want to do any sort of manoeuvring that you want a turret. The ability to move in one direction but shoot in a different direction would be absolutely crucial to the sort of high speed warfare Eldars seem to prefer.


True, but have you taken the anti-grav engines into account?
Turrets are very useful for tracked vehicles, since those are forced to face a certain direction before moving, and would as such be unable to fire freely while moving.
The Eldar vehicles, being grav-tanks, however, shouldn't really need to do this. A grav-tank should be fully capable of driving sideways (strafing, for those who play FPSs), keeping the gun pointed at the enemy anyways.... essentially using the entire vehicle as a gunturret. An added bonus of this is that they'd be able to keep that lovely front armour pointed towards the enemy at all times as well.

Really fits in well with the whole "superior mobility" schtick the Eldar has going on, even before you take speed into account.

Obrimos
22-03-2011, 21:48
If you try to outflank an army while being visible, you won't succeed. The enemy will simply readjust their front armour reform the gunline, maybe retreat a bit and you end up on the front again.
The only effective flanking manouver in real life is an invisible one.
Which means no LOS involved and no scanning.

There is of course a difference between real life and game mechanics, when it comes to 40k. 40k is not a simulation. And tanks can't fire when they go full speed (which they can in real life). So technically, shooting while flanking is impossible. Also, if it was possible ingame, you could simply turn the whole chassis when you finished your manouver and then shoot.
Rules for turning vehicles have also been abolished. Vehicle micromanagement is unwanted, since it slows down the game significantly. With current vehicle rules, I guarantee, you won't miss your turret a lot.

In 2nd edition the Turret made a whole lot of sense for agressive Eldar payers. Now it doesn't.

Also, the question is not if turrets are effective or not. The question is, if turrets are effective and thus it would be sensible for Eldar to have them on their tanks, how would they look aesthetically?

Aethernaut
22-03-2011, 22:04
The Falcon is still one of my all-time favorite GW models, and I think the vyper holds up just as well as a design. Seriously, think of some of the other models from that era in comparison, and how now, even people who don't like the falcon are mostly saying things like "looks a little dated." I think the Falcon and Vyper have aged pretty well, they still look better than the GW Wave Serpent IMO.

I wasn't convinced by the new Fire Prism when I first saw pictures of it, but it has grown on me quite a bit. It looks strange and alien in a very stylish way, and that's as "Eldar" as it gets. Got one painted up and I love it. I think it's a win for the GW Eldar range.

The FW attention that the Eldar have been getting lately is really nice too. I've been impressed by all the kits I've seen so far. The Lynx in particular is gorgeous, and the Phantom is coming out soon too. Good times. :) I think the FW design aesthetic for the Eldar outshines the GW one in many ways, but overall I'm happy with the way things are going visually on both fronts.

Ah, those epic Eldar titans sure take me back... (aargh The chicken walker-thing. Why??)

Thoras
22-03-2011, 22:06
couldnt agree more! i have 6 of the new fire prisms but ive magnetized the weapons to be either fire prisms or falcons.... lets face it the new fire prism is a work of art

Interesting, have you got any pics of these modified fire prism falcons? Been thinking of doing similar myself.

theJ
22-03-2011, 22:08
Yeah, the 'new' Fire Prism did feel weird at first, but I got the impression it just had to do with the way the picture(s) were taken..?
Feels like that in a lot of cases, tbh (even the Stormraven ended up not being entirely horrible once you saw it IRL).

blackraven
22-03-2011, 23:06
Interesting, have you got any pics of these modified fire prism falcons? Been thinking of doing similar myself.



not yet but i will have pics soon and maybe a quick guide

Threeshades
22-03-2011, 23:46
Personally i think the Hornet and the Lynx are butt-ugly. Sure they are more slight in body mass, but I take the falcon design over them any day.

But the Type II Cobra and Scorpion do make the falcon look somewhat chubby and old fashioned. But I dont think it needs an update. Maybe a new turret would do it good, but that's all it needs.

self biased
23-03-2011, 19:47
if you had said that to me two weeks ago, threeshades, i would have completely agreed with you. after seeing the finished Lynx painted, however, there's some kind of utterly alien grace to it. I think that overall the cockpit (or Flight Deck if you prefer) of the Hornet sits a little high, but the overall model is awesome.

while the falcon and viper are showing their ages (not to mention the garden variety jetbikes), they're by no means poor models.

scarletsquig
23-03-2011, 19:56
Falcon is still good, I really like it.

There's a lot of other really goofy looking models that need dealing with in the eldar range long before it's worth even thinking about remaking the falcon. I'd rather see jetbikes and a complete new range of Jes Goodwin plastic aspect warriors first. I still think the first bunch of aspect warriors he made for 2nd edition look far better overall... even the 4th edition sculpts, (while an improvement on the horrible 3rd edition ones) still look kinda "chunky" due to metal being using instead of plastic... banshees especially would be much better off in plastic with thin swords.

I do really like the style of the new fire prism though, it looks a lot more alien... the older metal hybrid prism looks almost imperial in comparison

Eldartank
23-03-2011, 23:27
It would appear that things are getting a little bit more beautiful and strange with some of the more recent eldar aesthetics. between the Hornet (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/ELDAR-HORNET.html) and the Lynx (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/ELDAR-LYNX-WITH-PULSAR.html), the humble falcon looks positively obtuse and nearly Imperial in its clumsiness. Boxxy, even.

One only has to look at the new Fire Prism turret to see the direction that's being headed in and I, for one, welcome our new overlords. While I once derided the Hornet and Lynx as being too strange, i've come to the conclusion that some of the eldar aesthetics aren't too strange enough and want to see something weirder.

edit: apparently, this is my 1337th post. surely this is a sign of divine providence.

Wow, those are awesome looking. Incidentally, they sort of look more like fighters than tanks.... ;)

Zaonite
24-03-2011, 00:16
I think the Falcon is an amazing model for it's age.

The forgeworld superheavies look low and sleek. This is what I'd do to the falcon, make it lower in profile and pull the wings at the front slightly closer together.

Although I don't think the Wave serpent looks out of place.

Thoras
24-03-2011, 14:36
I think the Falcon is an amazing model for it's age.

The forgeworld superheavies look low and sleek. This is what I'd do to the falcon, make it lower in profile and pull the wings at the front slightly closer together.

Although I don't think the Wave serpent looks out of place.

The problem with the Falcon (at least for me) has always been the turret. You have this curvy, sleak and graceful tank, toped with a little box with two guns strapped to the side of it.

They've proven then can 'do it right' without doing any major work to the main body of the vehicle, i'd love to see a new falcon, maybe with some other Falcon variant options as part of a new kit to bring all the Eldar tanks into line.

Like several people have said though, i guess there are bigger fish to fry right now when it comes to CW:E.

eldargal
24-03-2011, 14:42
Out of interest, what do people dislike about the Wave Serpent? Personally I've always loved the more elongated hull and the juxtaposition of the more angular fins to the front of said hull.

As to Jetbikes, I agree, they definitely need a revamp before the Falcon. Although if you put spare Dire Avenger heads on the pilots you improve the appearance 100% in my opinion.

Poseidal
24-03-2011, 14:47
The turret. I prefer the old forge world style turret.

Iracundus
24-03-2011, 14:54
The turret. I prefer the old forge world style turret.

The FW version with gems and central wave projector also gave a smoother profile than the GW version with its angular fins. The GW version gave a feel of being a kit quickly slapped together as the angular fins are a lift from other Eldar aesthetics. The fins do not look aerodynamic and look to create drag. The FW turret had smooth curves whereas again the GW version is angular and boxy by comparison.

Poseidal
24-03-2011, 15:32
Yes, I overall preferred that Wave Serpent. I think it looked more like the EPIC one at the time.

razormasticator
24-03-2011, 15:43
I think the Wave Serpent is pretty damn sleek. and depending on the weapon load out for it, downright sexy.

eldargal
24-03-2011, 15:45
Your not referring to those old Wave Serpents with the big ships prow and nowhere for the troop compartment to go, are you? Each to their own but those are absolutely hideous in my opinion.

Poseidal
24-03-2011, 16:00
I mean this one:

Wave Serpent (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/poseidal/fwWS.jpg)

There's an older Armourcast (I think) one, which looks sort of trireme like which has sort of been resurrected as the Dark Eldar raider.

Hendarion
24-03-2011, 16:06
Actually... I have no idea what that thing in the middle front shall be. It looks like some scarab or other insect. But it doesn't seem to fulfil a purpose. Actually I did like the first WD-Wave-Serpent-self-made-kit. THAT was awesome with those huge armour-plates. You know, that thing: http://www.agisn.de/assets/images/W_Serp_1_Final_sm.jpg (tank from http://www.agisn.de/html/eldar.html)

razormasticator
24-03-2011, 16:18
Your not referring to those old Wave Serpents with the big ships prow and nowhere for the troop compartment to go, are you? Each to their own but those are absolutely hideous in my opinion.

I am talking about the current kit.

eldargal
24-03-2011, 16:20
Oh, thank god.:p Yes that one is quite nice.


I mean this one:

Wave Serpent (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/poseidal/fwWS.jpg)

There's an older Armourcast (I think) one, which looks sort of trireme like which has sort of been resurrected as the Dark Eldar raider.

Threeshades
24-03-2011, 17:28
I mean this one:

Wave Serpent (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/poseidal/fwWS.jpg)

There's an older Armourcast (I think) one, which looks sort of trireme like which has sort of been resurrected as the Dark Eldar raider.

These babies. (http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2009/3/8/22271_md-Armorcast,%20Copyright%20Armorcast,%20Eldar,%20Rog ue%20Trader,%20Wave%20Serpent.jpg) (I wonder how those could transport anything)

I think they should do something with that look, maybe make a new vehicle of it. It's actually pretty neat.

And before somebody goes belligerent: No, I dont mean reusing the exact same thing, but the general design, modernized. I think it has a lot of potential.

Zaonite
24-03-2011, 17:41
Wonder if FW will resurrect the Storm Serpent from epic and scale it to Apoc?

A warp gate on a ship? That's gotta look epic :D

Hendarion
24-03-2011, 17:47
According to Forgeworld this is very unlikely to happen.

BigBarryJazz
24-03-2011, 18:36
These babies. (http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2009/3/8/22271_md-Armorcast,%20Copyright%20Armorcast,%20Eldar,%20Rog ue%20Trader,%20Wave%20Serpent.jpg) (I wonder how those could transport anything)

They didn't transport anything, did they? I honestly can't remember. As far as I can recall they were basically mobile force field projectors which they could fire at the enemy. Falcons were the main troop carriers.

With regards to aesthetics, the current falcon and vyper still look pretty sleek in my opinion and are a far cry from the rather blocky vehicles in the original Epic game.

Hendarion
24-03-2011, 18:41
As far as I can recall they were basically mobile force field projectors which they could fire at the enemy..
Dunno if they did that, but THAT is a GREAT idea for a new vehicle. Mobile cover. Make it two small ones and between them (6-12" distance to create it) is a holofield projected or an energy-shield.
Sorry for highjacking this into a short wishlist :p

Bergen Beerbelly
24-03-2011, 19:37
They didn't transport anything, did they? I honestly can't remember. As far as I can recall they were basically mobile force field projectors which they could fire at the enemy. Falcons were the main troop carriers.

With regards to aesthetics, the current falcon and vyper still look pretty sleek in my opinion and are a far cry from the rather blocky vehicles in the original Epic game.

Yup, that version of the Wave Serpent could transport 2 stands of troops which would be the equivalent of a ten man/woman squad of Howling Banshees or Harlequins.

That was the actual point of the origional Wave Serpent. It would carry troops to battle, being protected all the way into the fray by the energy field, which it would then fire off as a weapon. The energy field would then knock everything in front of it around and out of formation, and the troops inside the Wave Serpent would then charge in to the now disrupted enemy line and kill everything. Wave serpents were the ultimate line breaker tanks.

I wish they would have kept the rules for the Wave Serpents from Epic for the 5th edition 40k. It would have made it the best troop transport EVER. :evilgrin:

Zaonite
24-03-2011, 19:37
The Storm Serpent had the same chassis as the Cobra/Scorpion, but it had a warp gate built into the hull. This allowed units to enter play, not from the board edge but from the portal on the Storm Serpent! Oh well...

Back to the aesthetics.... I agree that the older FW turrets looked a lot better than the blocky ones in the standard kit. Just the turrets mind!

I'd love to see those new Jetbikes soon too. How old are the current ones? Not bad by any means but I've been holding out on buying any since I saw that WIP way back when.

I have seen one or two people ragging on the new Fire Prism. I thought that it looked ridiculous when I first saw it, and then I saw an actual model at the Hall of Miniatures at Warhammer World... sooo nice up close! The turret looks sleeker and more organic.
Wery wery nice indeed.

Hendarion
24-03-2011, 19:50
If you don't like the blocky GW-serpent-turrets, check out a really small and really easy conversion to make it look more Eldar-like - below is the link to my painting-log.

Sildani
24-03-2011, 21:24
I really like the Lynx. It's curved from nose to tail with no "block" at the rear, like the Scorpion and Falcon have. It's my one complaint with the Scorpion II really, huge thin wings in front and then this large hull piece containing cockpit, intakes, engines and the turret ring. Looks a little unbalanced.

Adapting the Lynx's aesthetic would be really difficult, and for that I will always have praise for Jes Goodwin. He took a box and wrapped a jet fighter around it, and from that we got the Falcon. Without it, I wouldn't be in this game. And so it pains a little to say it really needs tweaking, simply because the art of sculpting and injection molding has advanced and more could be done to it now.

I can't get away from the box - the troops need somewhere to go - but I think the box's exterior could be reshaped to be more curved, and the front wings could be made a bit "sharper". The turret needs to be completely rethought, with the weapons better integrated - not necessarily poking out of the front like on the Prism, but not tacked on to the sides like on the current kit either.

Woodsman
24-03-2011, 22:33
I love the whole eldar aesthetic - yeah there's the odd small adjustment - the type 2 falcon is good.

I'm just wondering when we'll get something that doesn't have the same two pronged frontage look. I like the vyper and the BFG stuff be nice to see something a bit different along those lines.

Iracundus
25-03-2011, 00:05
Yup, that version of the Wave Serpent could transport 2 stands of troops which would be the equivalent of a ten man/woman squad of Howling Banshees or Harlequins.

That was the actual point of the origional Wave Serpent. It would carry troops to battle, being protected all the way into the fray by the energy field, which it would then fire off as a weapon. The energy field would then knock everything in front of it around and out of formation, and the troops inside the Wave Serpent would then charge in to the now disrupted enemy line and kill everything. Wave serpents were the ultimate line breaker tanks.

I wish they would have kept the rules for the Wave Serpents from Epic for the 5th edition 40k. It would have made it the best troop transport EVER. :evilgrin:

The old Wave Serpent with that bow wave of force caused some rules problems in 2nd edition Epic. The little template had to be kept in front of the model, which caused finicky practical problems of trying to figure out if units on higher ground had LOS over the wave or not, especially near the sides of the Serpent where the template height decreased. The wave also provided less protection than perhaps originally intended as indirect fire weaponry could lob shells over the wave to hit the Wave Serpent directly. Titans with their higher weapons could also theoretically fire directly on the Serpent, bypassing the wave entirely. Meanwhile infantry and vehicles in front of the Serpent were totally out of luck as the wave was completely impenetrable to any weaponry that could not fire over it.

During that era of Epic, the Falcons were the main all purpose Eldar tank and transport vehicle, and were easily more available in numbers than the Wave Serpent which came in pairs. The Wave Serpent therefore was more a sideshow gimmick than a reliable way of transporting massed infantry.

silverstu
25-03-2011, 00:07
I think the falcon, bikes and vyper are impressive given the restrictions on design at the time, I'd be intrigued to see what Jes would do with them if given the chance to revisit them. I love the more eldritch look of the new prisms and the forge world tanks. I'd like the falcon to be longer and sleeker and having seen the quality of the DE I think the designs would be a lot more sophisticated. We can at least expect new bikes in the future- something I'm really looking forward to. I'd also assume that Jes had some input into the new forgeworld tanks, although I did hear he had fallen out with them over some design work they had "borrowed" form him in the past..

Sildani
25-03-2011, 06:12
True, I heard they all made amends since.

Hellebore
25-03-2011, 06:38
I don't like the plastic wave serpent in the slightest. GW transfers all these imperial vehicles faithfully into plastic and yet when it comes to the eldar wave serpent all we get is some random vanes and the complete lack of the bridging piece between the wings. That bridging piece was a nice simple and effective way of changing the silhouette of the vehicle whilst also showing the field generation working across the entire front of the vehicle (instead of only the sides of the wings).

I much prefer the FW version. The plastic GW one looks horrible and smacks of laziness. Horrible turret and badly constructed aesthetics for the front of the vehicle.

The great thing about the Jes vehicle design was everything flowed together reasonably well. The FW model managed to continue the lines along the model with prow bridge whilst the GW plastic one completely breaks the flow with those stupid vanes sticking out the sides.

Hellebore

Iracundus
25-03-2011, 06:46
The great thing about the Jes vehicle design was everything flowed together reasonably well. The FW model managed to continue the lines along the model with prow bridge whilst the GW plastic one completely breaks the flow with those stupid vanes sticking out the sides.

Hellebore

It's the seizing upon of one particular detail and then taking that as the key defining of the faction. In the plastic Wave Serpent case, it is the vane detailing. For the terrible E40K revisions of the Eldar Titans it was ridge/ribbed armor plates.

SgtTaters
25-03-2011, 07:34
the humble falcon looks positively obtuse and nearly Imperial in its clumsiness. Boxxy, even.

No, the Falcon is still a fantastic sculpt, especially compared to the Hornet. You are preaching nega-aesthetics, so I will preach some truth to counteract it.

The Hornet is a bad design compared to the Vyper, I compare them because they are both the same idea except executed by artists of very different levels. The hornet is an alright design as a standalone sci-fi thing, if it was from Not-40k the sci-fantasy battle game I would be fine (the covenant would love it in Halo) with it but nope it's an Eldar model for the 40k world. It doesn't look like an Eldar vehicle, it looks like a knockoff of one. There is no stylishness to a chub pod with guns on the side and it's back fins have flimsy attachments.

A Falcon's wings enhances the mass of its body, the craft has the weight and power of a bird of prey (a creature that is basically a flying pair of talons), hence the name.

The hornet on the other hand, the contrast between its wings and body brings out the body's fatness and the wings flatness. Its twin side gun arrangement has none of the art of the warwalker for it does nothing for the silhouette and only serves to make the body look more fat.
The Falcon avoids this by having a flattened top that echoes the angles of its wings. Its also got a higher wings to body ratio. It also doesn't do a weird "let's stick on some squares with a pipe" back fin. The mass of the main body is also broken by two intakes, and in the rear two jets while the hornet's fatness is called to attention by its single jet engine.
The falcon's turret works because it has the same combination of curves and edges that the Falcon body has. The offset gunner's seat also makes us mentally connect it to the driver's seat offset in the opposite direciton, like adjacent puzzle pieces.

The Vyper jetbike doesn't have wings in the front because it would make it too front heavy, instead the wings go on the back to stabilize the flight of the arrow-like front. It has an underslung and swivel mounted heavy weapons arrangement that adds a cool assymetry. A vyper has a very interesting silhouette from any angle you look at it, the name Vyper echoes in its sleek curves that end in wicked fangs (spin one around in your hand, EVERY ANGLE has this feeling! It's a super damn great design)

A Falcon actually resembles a Falcon, was inspired and informed by the real life aesthetics of a raptorial bird.

The hornet looks nothing like a hornet, if the guy who designed it seriously was trying to base the aesthetics off of one, well damn his brain is pretty borked. I think I know why the hornet turned out this way though, the guy was just thinking "I want an armored thing with two big guns!" so he designed it around rules, while the Falcon and the Vyper were designed to look really damn cool and be iconic of Eldar design first, with fitting rules following.


The Hornet DOES look good from the back though
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/hornet3.jpg

But then I think "the top should be flattened, not have a hump there, they should cut off those rear fins..." and I realise "oh hey that would just make it a Falcon hahah". If the designer was better, he would have refined the hornet design to look this good from more angles.

I don't like the hornet, I'd never buy one. If I really wanted I'd probably just convert a vyper to have more gunner protection. I won't go out of my way to criticise someone for liking it though in real life, but if you're gonna say it looks better than a Falcon on the internet, I will respond because you are objectively wrong and have misinformed taste.




The Lynx is honestly a weird design so I can't really say anything bad. It sort of feels like a 16bit shooter craft. Feels piratey ("yarr it's a gun with jet turbines!")

Hendarion
25-03-2011, 07:37
I can't get away from the box - the troops need somewhere to go - but I think the box's exterior could be reshaped to be more curved, and the front wings could be made a bit "sharper".
Reading that reminds me of this build:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oqCnVxdb5_M/TDyE8ThAdXI/AAAAAAAAAJY/HP0ZCJBCNx0/s1600/IMG_0129.JPG
That is such a small, but such a pimp change. Makes it look much more agile and faster.

@SgtHaters*:
Would you like the Hornet more if it was called Lobster as that name would fit the design perfectly? Or would you like the Wasp more if it was called Rooster (which fits both the design of the look AND the rules)? The naming of Forgeworld models might not be that much fitting, but the design itself is still great. You don't like it? Well, happens. But saying it is not Eldar is wrong, because:
1) It clearly is, given all aspects of design the Falcon and Scorpion use, seing them reused in the Hornet. Actually the Vyper fits these designs much less than the Hornet.
2) GW defines what is Eldar-design, not us. Or would you speculate that the new Dark Eldar Raiders MKII or Reaver Jetbikes are not Dark-Eldar-design, because they do not look like the old ones? Or maybe Rhinos and Razorbacks or Predators or LandRaiders?

spekkiebig
25-03-2011, 07:57
I still love the basic falcon/wave serpent design. The Forgeworld MKII kits only enhance the design further. I really don't see a reason for a complete new design for the both of them. For me, even after 14 years, the falcon is still one of the best looking models GW produces.

MakWiesel
25-03-2011, 09:34
I love the Eldar vehicles from ForgeWorld with the exception of the Lynx. Looks like a Scorpion that got its tail blown off to me. The Hornet is certainly different but hey a Ford Mustang is not exactly the same as a Lamborghini either- I think we need to open our minds a little to some variances- look at an Abrams Tank next to a Bradley- they do NOT match well... not like say the German Leopard and Marder IFV did...

But the trend to expand on the Eldar style is good news I think- I welcome the opportunity to face Eldar players with a variety of tank styles or with all one type that their craftworld produces in exclusion of all others... it opens up a lot of room for flavor. I recently bought 2 of the ancient wedge-style falcons to give APCs to me Exodites- they are NOT Wood Elves after all- even if their equipment is older-model stuff they still surpass the Imperium's technology.

My only concern is going too organic. Lean too far towards Geiger and you get Alien or a Tyranid appearance. I'd hate to see it go that far...

xerxeshavelock
25-03-2011, 11:16
Anyone remember the old Epic Falcons? While I do approve of the new vehicle styling they did look good, especially in formations. Would like to see the design brought up to date as they did with the old Marine stuff.

MaliGn
25-03-2011, 13:07
Going back to turrets briefly, wouldn't they make more sense being on the bottom of an anti-gravity craft? modern helicopter gunships have the guns underneath, so why wouldn't the Eldar do the same, sure there are shuri-cats etc underslung, but why not the main armament too?

Iracundus
25-03-2011, 14:01
Going back to turrets briefly, wouldn't they make more sense being on the bottom of an anti-gravity craft? modern helicopter gunships have the guns underneath, so why wouldn't the Eldar do the same, sure there are shuri-cats etc underslung, but why not the main armament too?

Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar vehicles share certain common features such as the characteristic ribbing on their undersides. This is more than purely aesthetics as the Dark Eldar Codex (on p. 44) describes how the Raider is held aloft by anti-grav ribbing. This ribbing therefore seems integral in some way to the anti-gravity mechanism as used by the Eldar. Perhaps the installation of a turret or too much other stuff would either interfere with this or reduce the amount of ribbing below that necessary to support the craft.

razormasticator
25-03-2011, 14:13
I for one love the Eldar design aesthetic, always have. I think the Scorpion, Wave Serpent, Hornet, Lynx, Cobra & Warp Hunter are all gorgeous.

All have very Eldar Traits and qualities about them.

Sildani
25-03-2011, 14:34
Reading that reminds me of this build:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oqCnVxdb5_M/TDyE8ThAdXI/AAAAAAAAAJY/HP0ZCJBCNx0/s1600/IMG_0129.JPG
That is such a small, but such a pimp change. Makes it look much more agile and faster.

Yes, that's brilliant, and would only require changing the top hull piece and making those wings.

@Hellebore: perhaps when the Eldar are redone GW will gift us with an entirely new Wave Serpent hull. Crazier stuff has happened - look, the DE are viable!

oldgamer56
25-03-2011, 17:31
Reading that reminds me of this build:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oqCnVxdb5_M/TDyE8ThAdXI/AAAAAAAAAJY/HP0ZCJBCNx0/s1600/IMG_0129.JPG
That is such a small, but such a pimp change. Makes it look much more agile and faster.

I am actually not a fan of the winglets on the back. To easy to tear of zooming around trees and stuff.

Back in the late 70s, someone at the US Infantry school noticed the extra racks that the Israelis had added to the sides of their M113s for carrying extra stuff and possible RPG standoff. So they whipped up a couple sets and tested them. They were ripped off in the first stand of trees they came too. :rolleyes:

Like the sleeker look, Think the MK 2 is the way to go. Wish GW would mass produce in plastic refit kits, the FW ones get expensive for large forces.

What we really need is a Eldar assault equivalent of the Land Raider in terms of protection and forward assault, yet retaining the eldar look.

The Venom may work as a stopgap, but limited in troop capacity.

Was even toying with a piece of wargear that allowed Eldar DA, HB and SC to jump off the back ramp at high speed and assault. Something like a drag chute with stabilizer that releases or collapses when they hit the ground (think jump packs in the Star Trek). Would allow the Wave Serpent or Falcon to go Flat Out for protection, yet get troops into the battle quicker. Maybe only restrict to Howling Banshees, who need to get into contact faster than anyone else.

Obrimos
25-03-2011, 23:35
Creating an Eldar assault vehicle should be easy designwise.
Just put the ramp on the bottom side of the hull and not in the back.

Think about the Millenium Falcon from Star Wars.
It also has two wings, a gun turret and a frontal ramp at the bottom.
Would also work perfectly for a Falcon.
Maybe it would even help us to get a less vulnerable backside, so we could play more agressive.

Still not much of a change. Might even be a conversion of mediocre difficulty.

Underslung turrets are a bad, bad idea, if they are not for close range defense.
Yes, many helicopters have those, but I'm still not convinced.
Undrslung small turrets for shurikencannons I can imagine but underslung pulselasers and brightlances I cannot.

Poseidal
26-03-2011, 09:48
The Lynx is honestly a weird design so I can't really say anything bad. It sort of feels like a 16bit shooter craft. Feels piratey ("yarr it's a gun with jet turbines!")

!!!

I just realised: The Lynx is a Vic Viper.

Albeit fitted with a gigantic cannon, and wings slightly clipped.

Hellebore
26-03-2011, 10:38
Had to google to find out what you meant.

http://ui30.gamespot.com/893/02vicviper03_2.jpg

Bears a more organic resemblance.

I like the Lynx, but don't like the hornet. The hornet's cockpit is oversized compared to the rest of the vehicle and sits too high on the vehicle. The lynx has the nice flat silhouette that eldar vehicles IMO should have.

Hellebore

Sildani
26-03-2011, 11:55
!!!

I just realised: The Lynx is a Vic Viper.

Albeit fitted with a gigantic cannon, and wings slightly clipped.

Huh! I knew there was a reason I liked it.

MakWiesel
26-03-2011, 14:25
That build with the winglets is very nice, I had to look about 5 times before I realized wht the front end looked different. I really like the MKII flare at the back of the tanks- I think it completely redefines the aft side of our tanks and I planned to get the FW bits to retrofit all my tanks- then I realized they can't be grafted on- they're part of the hull so they have to be put in on the original build... not sure how to do that now other than sculpting new tails on my birds one by one.... considering I have 22 of them that is NOT an appealing option...

As for the turret- I agree the older FW turrets for the Wave Serpent were slick. Harder to swap out weapons though...

Nobody's mentioned it but I prefer the FW Night Spinner to the GW one. I LOVE the new Fire Prism, but I don't like the shadow weavers mounted down low and up front like that- doesn't say "artillery" to me....

Also the AAA tank... has anyone seen this done in a way that looks like the turret wouldn't just fall off? I LOVE AAA tanks and really, truly believe in their value as an asset to an armored force. I can't stand the thing they made, though. Would love to see it redone...

self biased
28-03-2011, 21:13
Reading that reminds me of this build:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oqCnVxdb5_M/TDyE8ThAdXI/AAAAAAAAAJY/HP0ZCJBCNx0/s1600/IMG_0129.JPG
That is such a small, but such a pimp change. Makes it look much more agile and faster.

my god, it's full of stars. were those winglets crafted or do they come off of some other kit?

sgtTaters: in a way, you prove my point for me. The Falcon is a remarkable kit, and when it was released it was graceful and exotic. the trend in the last few FW eldar kits have been making things more exotic and graceful. while i agree with you that the hornet could stand to be a little more on the flat side, just in terms of stylization, there's progress.

as i've said before I was a Lynx hater when i first saw the prototype. now i stand a convert.

djhowitzer
28-03-2011, 22:38
i am liking the look of the new forgeworld models. if only i had the cash to buy some.
also, here is hoping a tempest model is released. ok, so the super heavy flyer is the business, and put a farseer in it and it becomes a true terror, but it costs a fortune. also, it has a transport capacity of 30 but you can only disembark one squad a turn. and that is no good at all

self biased
29-03-2011, 03:07
with all due respect, the tempest is an undergunned scorpion. i could see it being a falcon with a twin-linked pulse lance or somesuch, and that'd be cool. the eldar could use more MBTs.

TimLeeson
29-03-2011, 04:05
I like the new direction myself. Eldar themselves arent very alien-looking visually, so this new technological direction certainly makes up for that (for me). I'm half-tempted to buy one of the new vehicles and I rarely ever like vehicles in general too :)

djhowitzer
29-03-2011, 22:29
with all due respect, the tempest is an undergunned scorpion. i could see it being a falcon with a twin-linked pulse lance or somesuch, and that'd be cool. the eldar could use more MBTs.

maybe we are thinking about different things? in space marine - nearly 20 years ago now - the tempest was a super heavy transport with a honking great shuriken cannon on it. my vision of an updated version would be a shuriken weapon similar in effect to a vulcan mega bolter (say heavy8, twin linked, rending, pinning) plus some small guns and a cavernous troop bay

djhowitzer
29-03-2011, 22:33
on research, it seems my memory may be faulty. but my vision of what the eldar need remains the same