3rd edition models

My one concession on the 3e models is that I rather like the Raider and Ravager. I'm not sure I prefer them to the current version but I don't actively dislike them as I do pretty much every other model in that range.

I always liked the third edition splinter rifles more than the more recent ones, as they were more alien when compared to actual firearms (despite being somewhat square).  The 5th edition versions remind me of super soaker water guns, with that rear pressure vessel inline with the barrel.  I also liked the older "warp beasts" over the current kymarea (which looks like a tyranid and a flesh hound had puppies together).

The third edition kabalites themselves had potential, but only after you threw out the heads.  The castings themselves were bad though and needed lots of heavy mold lines removed.  I used their arms/torsos and legs in tons of projects; mixed and matched with everything from gnoblars, to IG, to wood elves.

I also converted my metal taloi into venoms which worked out pretty well.  They already have the engines, grav plates, a wired in pilot/gunner (who looks like a modern wrack), and 2 splinter cannons. They also come on a flying base.  All I did was remove the arms and replace them with raider sails to form wings.  I also removed the front cowling and put those spiked rails from the raider kit around them to form troop compartments.

I'd put up a picture but I put most of my DE stuff in storage over the past few months

With regard to the heads, I really wish GW would drop the cone-head look entirely.

Their heads obviously aren't cone shaped (so they serve no practical purpose, unless they need the extra room to contain a stupid amount of hair), and they certainly don't look remotely stylish or threatening.

I like the Eldar come helmets, myself.

I also like the helmets. They've been an integral design element for Eldar for as long as there have been Eldar, so I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere.

There's also a historical precedence for helmets shaped that way. It doesn't mean you ought to like them, just that it isn't completely random.

Calyptra wrote:

There's also a historical precedence for helmets shaped that way.

Could you elaborate on this?

Maybe this?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bascinet

Obviously not as pointy as 3rd ed dark eldar, but you can see where GW got the idea for both the rogue trader eldar helmets and MK VI Corvus armor helmet.

I remember reading an interview some years ago where some old school GW folks admitted beakies were simply a failure to effectively sculpt and cast a proper helmet.  When you look at the proportions and "artistry" of the rest of the rogue trader era models it's not hard to imagine that.

The cone helms on elves were (in my opinion) just a way to distinguish them from their human counterparts and give them some sense of otherness.  If I'm not mistaken they borrowed this particular attribute from Tolkien.  By third edition, GW still hadn't broken the analogue between fantasy and 40k entirely (this was back when the hrud were just space skaven, and squats still existed in epic but not in 40k).  These helmets were just a more over the top version of the dark elves'.

It's the blades though that really made the old kabalite helmets absurd.  The fluff on them sort of made sense, as it stated that the blades and spikes made them more effective in close quarters, and therefore gave them a higher weapon skill then their craftworld cousins.  There is actually some precedent for that (WWI German Pickelhaube helmets).   Realistically though these guys would embed their headgear into virtually anything they took cover behind.  I shudder to think what would happen when a boat full of kabalites crashed.

I'm also forgetting the fact that in combat, having an 18" (often brightly colored) cone standing straight up on your head announcing to the world where you are, is possibly the worst thing you could ever do.

Scrz wrote:

Maybe this?

Spoiler:

Obviously not as pointy as 3rd ed dark eldar, but you can see where GW got the idea for both the rogue trader eldar helmets and MK VI Corvus armor helmet.

Two points:

Firstly, I still don't see why they need to be cone-shaped. I can get behind the above designs, but the DE ones are just stupidly tall. Frankly, I'm surprised they don't all have horrible neck/spine injuries from wearing the things.

Second, what's the point of basing them off that shape if you ignore the entire purpose of making them that shape in the first place?  Ignoring for now that this is the 41st millennium and not medieval Europe... Actually, no, let's not ignore that. Do you see any army guys wearing that sort of helmet into warzones? No. Not even during WW1. But, apparently this really advanced race thousands if years in the future uses technology that is already obsolete. No wonder virtually every weapon just ignores their armour. I guess we should just count ourselves lucky that they aren't using bows and arrows.

Anyway, back to my original point - helmets were shaped like that so that blows would glance off them. So, what did GW do? Put a load of spikes and nodules on them of course! This completely undermines having the helmets that shape. Even if they do meet someone carrying around medieval swords, all those spikes and such will actually catch the blows (thus preventing them from glancing off). So, once you add those, there's literally no point whatsoever in keeping the helmets that shape (not that there was much point to begin with).

Oh, one final thing. You know how the force on an object is proportional to the distance from the pivot? Well, I can't imagine something heavy hitting the top of a warrior's helmet would do wonders for his neck.

The Shredder wrote:

Second, what's the point of basing them off that shape if you ignore the entire purpose of making them that shape in the first place?  Ignoring for now that this is the 41st millennium and not medieval Europe... Actually, no, let's not ignore that. Do you see any army guys wearing that sort of helmet into warzones? No. Not even during WW1. But, apparently this really advanced race thousands if years in the future uses technology that is already obsolete. No wonder virtually every weapon just ignores their armour. I guess we should just count ourselves lucky that they aren't using bows and arrows.  

If you're looking for historical and logical accuracy - you're playing the wrong game.

We have dudes on bikes with daggers and clubs assaulting into close combat against dudes with laser guns - and winning.
40k is about the feels, not the logics.

Thor665 wrote:

If you're looking for historical and logical accuracy - you're playing the wrong game.

We have dudes on bikes with daggers and clubs assaulting into close combat against dudes with laser guns - and winning.
40k is about the feels, not the logics.

Sorry, I didn't realise that history and logic were only relevant when defending coneheads.

The Shredder wrote:

Sorry, I didn't realise that history and logic were only relevant when defending coneheads.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was only saying that designers' choice to use helmets like that wasn't completely random, not that they are, or were, remotely a good idea.

Here's some more examples, by the way.







By the same token, the oversized greaves and shoulder plates worn by Space Marines would severely inhibit movement; in many cases, I don't think the Marines would even be able to stand upright. But changing them would make them look less like Marines.

My point is that these are defining aesthetics, easily identifiable from across the table and reinforced by decades of tradition. Eldar without tall helmets would look less like Eldar; Marines without greaves that would prevent them from standing upright or running in would look less like Marines. I think it's understandable if you dislike them, but I don't think they're going anywhere.

Isn't it obvious Dark Eldar don't do 'functional armour'?
"Sure if you sneeze too hard you'll rupture it, but DAMN do you see how many spikes I stuck to it?"

The Shredder wrote:

Sorry, I didn't realise that history and logic were only relevant when defending coneheads.

I don't think I was saying that, I will clarify that I wasn't.
I was saying that it is silly to argue that "nonsensical wargear" is a reason to change a design concept - because literally every single model in the game is coated in nonsense.
That's the look of the game line.

From laughably oversized weaponry, to utilizing assault, to taking off protective helmets, to riding a mount to battle a giant flying robot baby carrier.

Eldar helmets are not even close to being the silliest thing in the game, and even if they were that still wouldn't be a valid issue with it.

You issue with them is "you don't like the look of them" that is a fine and valid issue. I shre that opinion with many models in the entire line.
But suggesting they are nonsensical really isn't an issue at all if you want to play 40k.

Thor665 wrote:

I don't think I was saying that, I will clarify that I wasn't.

You didn't say it - it was the fact that you apparently had no issues with posters bringing up historical accuracy as a reason for the helmets being that shape, and only chose to intervene when I pointed out the flaws in that reasoning.

Thor665 wrote:

I was saying that it is silly to argue that "nonsensical wargear" is a reason to change a design

Hence why I didn't. I just pointed out that historical precedent doesn't work in this context because, amongst other things, all the bells and whistles would invalidate the entire purpose of using that shape of helmet.

I don't want them to change coneheads because they're impractical, I want them to change coneheads because I think they look bloody awful.

The Shredder wrote:

Second, what's the point of basing them off that shape if you ignore the entire purpose of making them that shape in the first place?

I was responding to this.
My apologies if it felt too focused on you and not on the generic question of historical value to 40k designs.

To clarify - I am fine with them making a chainsaw sword and basing it off sword designs even though it is vastly impractical and silly and ignores the point of most sword designs because I think that is the design concept of 40k. Same with helmets, pauldrons, guns, et al. That's the point I was trying to make.

Thor665 wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Second, what's the point of basing them off that shape if you ignore the entire purpose of making them that shape in the first place?

I was responding to this.
My apologies if it felt too focused on you and not on the generic question of historical value to 40k designs.

To clarify - I am fine with them making a chainsaw sword and basing it off sword designs even though it is vastly impractical and silly and ignores the point of most sword designs because I think that is the design concept of 40k. Same with helmets, pauldrons, guns, et al. That's the point I was trying to make.

Fair enough.

My problem with the DE helmets is that they don't seem practical *or* visually appealing. I can get behind stuff that's impractical but looks cool, but (as I said) I think the conehead helmets look bloody awful. I don't know what threatening image they're supposed to invoke, but all I can think of is that they got them cheap from these guys:

Spoiler:

Well not to step too much further into it but - Cone shapes are actually pretty easy to make with metal (especially softer alloys), which is why some early metal working civilizations used them for virtually everything.  It's much, much harder to make a true spherical shape like a bowl.  Even into World War I, most (demi)spherical helmets were made out of leather.

It also made sense in some periods for leaders to wear tall headpieces to identify themselves in block of troops.  Even during the roman empire, officers usually had distinctive, often plumed helmets.  The advancement of accurate ranged weaponry made this less and less desirable.

And ya 40k is mostly style and a very little bit of realism; I get that.  8 foot tall men wearing 400 pounds of ceramic armor that usually stops light tank rounds, painting themselves bright yellow before sneaking onto the battlefield - I get it, it's silly in general.

I just always hated those helmets, and found it hard to imagine those wiry little guys trying to keep their balance while wearing 25 pounds of cone and blades on their heads that extended a full half of their height again off their shoulders.

The models I like the most from 3rd edition are Asrubael Vect, Heamonculi, the Jetbikes, the Raider and especially the Warp Beasts.
I also like the Wyches, though they look more like I'd imagin Bloodbrides today: Flashy. While our current Wyches wear simple and practical gear for the most part, theirs back then was obviously dercorative before everything else.

I don't really like the old Warriors (they looked too small and skinny to me), but I think it was a nice feature that you could attach rows of spikes pretty much everywhere you want. If Trueborn had been a thing back then, that would have been the way to distinguish them from the basic Warriors.

The models I don't like are the two Archons (a massive Power Claw is a pretty un-dark-eldar-y weapon, and the female one's massive shoulder pads make her look like she's trying to compensate for something), the Incubi (skinny body, oversized shoulder armor and boring looking weapons) and the Grotesques (they looked too much like zombies - borring).

I loved the 3rd edition models when they were new because, well, I was 13, but they've aged really poorly compared to others released around the same time. The Incubi are especially bad, I think- their bodies just look like pipe cleaner dummies or crude maquette mockups that weren't properly finished.

I do love the old Reavers, though! The new ones are good too- things like underslung weapons, a less chunky/more aerodynamic design, and those wonderful bubble helmets- but the old ones just looked nasty, with the more barbed blades, the one sideways chassis in each group of 3, and the S&M looking goggled helmets are so much better than the "bald + ponytail" look of the new set's bare-headed riders.

I agree with both of you about the old school reavers.  They were always more angular and dangerous looking than the newer ones, which really fed into the idea that they were designed to slice through enemy infantry without even slowing down.

I just got done converting an old batch of 10 reavers into corsair cloud dancers by removing the front cowlings and replacing them with heavy weapons.  The grav plates and engines are all on the bike chassis itself, so I really don't know what the cowlings did besides maybe spearing people.  The rider's arms leave something to be desired though, and may go when I can get my hands on some shuriken pistols, but otherwise I'm pretty happy.

In regards to the helmet shape, I tend to put it down to the fact that they need a place to put all the technical systems in the helmet. Either that or a place to store their hair. DE love odd hair styles and many seem to have a lot of hair, so they need a place to keep it. Also, probably just because it looks cool. You'd be laughed at if you were an Archon and you issued your Kabalites round helmets. They just wouldn't fit in with the grand scheme of Commorrite fashion!

Commorrite fashion is ever changing, however, so who knows? Round helmets might be the next big craze.

Being aliens, they have alien tastes, far more sophisticated than our primitive minds could comprehend.

Cavash wrote:

Commorrite fashion is ever changing, however, so who knows? Round helmets might be the next big craze.

The Iron Thorn's Trueborn apparently wear Reaver helmets...

I always thought that looked strange, though- I kind of prefer the method they use in the same book for the Flayed Skull, where their helmets are bone instead of red, the bare-headed ones have more elaborate facial tattoos, and a sprinkling of them have Reaver sensory deprivation helmets, or that one from the Wych sprue that looks like a Reaver helmet with a targeting display over one eye. More visually pleasing on the tabletop, and easier on the bits ordering

Definitely to each their own, though! It seems tricky to make a Dark Eldar army truly stand out as its own thing, but there are so many ways to go about it...