Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's as if the Dark Eldar don't have the rigid discipline and training of their more noble brethren!

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think GW finally got a key part of the model right in their heads, which is for gaming. The separate legs & torso makes a 3-part assembly which makes for an inherently weak model foundation. Make the legs & torso a single strong part, and the unnecessary breakage from handling drops dramatically. It's a good compromise between the durability mono-pose and the customizability of multi-part models.

A lot of my stuff (Eldar, IG, SoB, Inq) is 1-piece metal from 2E, and I really like the weight and durability.

What are you doing with your models? Weapons and fine parts can break with normal handling, but unless you're throwing them around the room the legs and bodies shouldn't be coming apart. I think your comment applies to WHFB models, where the need to rank them up limits the scope for posting them - it's actually better to have the legs and torso all in once piece. Orks and Marines have separate torsos and legs, and this adds a lot to their posability - I wouldn't want to lose that, but the current plastic Eldar definitely come in too many pieces. I've never seen this as an issue of durability though. Maybe use stronger glue?

Scottywan82 wrote:

Nvs wrote:I'm 110% with you Phototoxin. They're no longer the same aspect warriors. Now they're just some mish-mash between a banshee and a scorpion. Even though that's all they were in the past too, the background they had to make them 'evil striking scorpions' was probably the best thing the old DE had going for them.

Now they may as well be some new aspect the Eldar came up with to worship demons and it fell out of favor during the fall.

They've effectively thrown out the whole Karrandras vs Arhra, Striking Scorpions vs Incubi angle. I mean why in the world was Arhra the original striking scorpion exarch? Nothing carried over between the 2.

Except the heavy armor and brutal close-combat focus?

Oh you mean they don't have mandi-blasters?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... the argument was from a background point of view. The old models portrayed that feeling very well. The new ones have nothing in common with the old ones.

I love those flying bases on the bikes. I don't know how many times I have busted off a plastic nub from the current GW bases inside a Devilfish or a Piranha; they look stronger, and I love the ability to tilt the model. Those DE models are awesome too. And even just a little converting should solve any problems with the limited options for posing the arms.

necrongod wrote:i've said it too much so im gonna say it again: the new incubi are not half as good as the old ones.

Several posters seem to be advocating a point along these lines; just to be clear, when you say "the old ones", you mean


These?

And when we say "the new incubi" you mean these?

JOHIRA wrote:I don't like the horns because I think they look silly. ... The incubi are already imposing models. They don't need to play a round of "who has the tallest hat" to be more scary.

Uh...

Rose-colored glasses and all that.

My FLG had a box of Wyches, Warriors, Raider and Reavers come in along with the codex (not a black box, these were complete retail boxes) but he is not allowed to let me buy them till November 6.

I'm going to take a notebook down there tomorrow night and start messing around with lists. I'd also be willing to write down anything else that someone might want to know.

Buzzsaw wrote:

necrongod wrote:i've said it too much so im gonna say it again: the new incubi are not half as good as the old ones.

Several posters seem to be advocating a point along these lines; just to be clear, when you say "the old ones", you mean


These?

And when we say "the new incubi" you mean these?

JOHIRA wrote:I don't like the horns because I think they look silly. ... The incubi are already imposing models. They don't need to play a round of "who has the tallest hat" to be more scary.

Uh...

It's someone's opinion on what equates to being an art piece. Showing GW's pics of the old ones compared to the new ones doesn't really accomplish a whole lot,as I think most of us can agree that the paint job on the old models is pretty gak compared to the paint job done on the new ones. I can see where some people who actually spent some time painting the old Incubi and didn't just dry brush them and paint a couple of details would like their aesthetic better.

Buzzsaw wrote:Several posters seem to be advocating a point along these lines; just to be clear, when you say "the old ones", you mean

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/148577-Classic%20Incubi.html
These?

And when we say "the new incubi" you mean these?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/148579-De%20Incubi%2C%20DE%20Incubi.html

To be fair, the worst thing about those models are the stick-like abdomen and lack of a proper pelvis, rather than the distinctly Incubi aspects of the model.

Worst thing IMO with those old models was those shoulders...I know eldar (even dark eldar) are about ...but those just look awkward and highly impractical.

Sure some may argue why have any shoulder thingies at all? But at least the new ones are:

1. Facing upwards, so far less likely to break off in the thick of a melee (they also would theoretically protect the wearer from blows from behind - a practical application of armour)

2. Covered in spikes, gives that viscious and sadistic nature of the dark eldar so much more that just perfectly smooth shoulders (more akin to the noble eldar imo)


I must agree with the evaluation that the old models look very stick-thin, almost skeletal. And don't start me on those damn hats...lol I'm also not sure about the new horns, but hell, its alot better than a bloody christmas elf hat gone wrong!

Tailgunner wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think GW finally got a key part of the model right in their heads, which is for gaming. The separate legs & torso makes a 3-part assembly which makes for an inherently weak model foundation. Make the legs & torso a single strong part, and the unnecessary breakage from handling drops dramatically. It's a good compromise between the durability mono-pose and the customizability of multi-part models.

A lot of my stuff (Eldar, IG, SoB, Inq) is 1-piece metal from 2E, and I really like the weight and durability.

What are you doing with your models? Weapons and fine parts can break with normal handling, but unless you're throwing them around the room the legs and bodies shouldn't be coming apart. I think your comment applies to WHFB models, where the need to rank them up limits the scope for posting them - it's actually better to have the legs and torso all in once piece. Orks and Marines have separate torsos and legs, and this adds a lot to their posability - I wouldn't want to lose that, but the current plastic Eldar definitely come in too many pieces. I've never seen this as an issue of durability though. Maybe use stronger glue?

I'm just playing them, and some times, accidents happen. Less breakable is better, because I'm in it for the long haul. I've had enough stuff break in the past that I just don't want to deal with the whole re-glue and re-touch nonsense.

Posability isn't a big deal, as long as there's some variety to work with. The "obvious" poses for legs + torso can be handled in the default sculpt, and being plastic, you can always recut and convert if needed.

I already use Testors gel, because it's the strongest plastic cement available.

Again, it's not that my stuff comes apart, but why not build stronger just because you can.

Ya know, I've been looking at the Dark Elf Dreadlord/Noble minis and not exactly feeling inspired, but those Incubi will make a beautiful stand-in.

Whatever1 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:

necrongod wrote:i've said it too much so im gonna say it again: the new incubi are not half as good as the old ones.

Several posters seem to be advocating a point along these lines; just to be clear, when you say "the old ones", you mean

<Snipped for Brevity>
These?

And when we say "the new incubi" you mean these?
<Snipped for brevity>

JOHIRA wrote:I don't like the horns because I think they look silly. ... The incubi are already imposing models. They don't need to play a round of "who has the tallest hat" to be more scary.

Uh...

It's someone's opinion on what equates to being an art piece. Showing GW's pics of the old ones compared to the new ones doesn't really accomplish a whole lot,as I think most of us can agree that the paint job on the old models is pretty gak compared to the paint job done on the new ones. I can see where some people who actually spent some time painting the old Incubi and didn't just dry brush them and paint a couple of details would like their aesthetic better.

It's the paint job that's the critical issue here? Sure it's not, maybe...

AlexHolker wrote:
To be fair, the worst thing about those models are the stick-like abdomen and lack of a proper pelvis, rather than the distinctly Incubi aspects of the model.

iLLiTHiD wrote:Worst thing IMO with those old models was those shoulders...I know eldar (even dark eldar) are about ...but those just look awkward and highly impractical.

Sure some may argue why have any shoulder thingies at all? But at least the new ones are:

1. Facing upwards, so far less likely to break off in the thick of a melee (they also would theoretically protect the wearer from blows from behind - a practical application of armour)

2. Covered in spikes, gives that viscious and sadistic nature of the dark eldar so much more that just perfectly smooth shoulders (more akin to the noble eldar imo)


I must agree with the evaluation that the old models look very stick-thin, almost skeletal. And don't start me on those damn hats...lol I'm also not sure about the new horns, but hell, its alot better than a bloody christmas elf hat gone wrong!

By the by, can anyone seriously look at the new models against the old models, and think that the "tallest hat" are more pronounced?

Not to derail my snark, but I would point out there is a genuine question in my initial post: I am unfamiliar with the previous Dark Eldar line, so the picture of five Incubi I have up there is from GW's website, pulled up through a google search. I'm honestly not sure that when people say "the old Incubi model" that's what they mean.

Perhaps it's just my own twisted mode of thinking, but does anyone else think that these might look awesome with the blank-faced jetbike heads?

Just to clarify I like the new minis better than the old ones but I think there should have been some striking scorpion-ishness to them.

I personally think they'd look pretty nice with the mask helmet that comes with the new Dark Eldar warrior kit.

But then again, I have a thing for masks...

I really have no idea what some of you guys are thinking. Especially necrongod, who feels the need to express how he thinks the new incubi are worse than the old ones over, and over, and over...I just don't see how. It's unfathomable. I could open Pandora's Box and learn all the secrets of the universe and still not understand why the hell someone would prefer the old gakky models over the new blinding hotness.

But that's just my opinion I guess.

Agreed with Sidstyler. The new DE look much better than the old ones.

Sidstyler wrote:I really have no idea what some of you guys are thinking. Especially necrongod, who feels the need to express how he thinks the new incubi are worse than the old ones over, and over, and over...I just don't see how. It's unfathomable. I could open Pandora's Box and learn all the secrets of the universe and still not understand why the hell someone would prefer the old gakky models over the new blinding hotness.

But that's just my opinion I guess.

+1

just on the side, from another forum..
For models that would settle as warp beasts, something like the Warriors of chaos hounds could be used right without any conversion? As there is no overlapping from the fantasy - 40k range? But what about using Chaos Spawn as the Clawed Fiend? Is it allowed to just use a model from another team to represent it like that?

WYSIWYG?


*also, on the side, howd this go for a haemy conversion？ What do you guys think?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440102a&prodId=prod1050096

Maybe someone should take the old heads/SS heads, add some bitz, and stick them on the new bodies! Evil SS!

kanelom wrote:For models that would settle as warp beasts, something like the Warriors of chaos hounds could be used right without any conversion? As there is no overlapping from the fantasy - 40k range? But what about using Chaos Spawn as the Clawed Fiend? Is it allowed to just use a model from another team to represent it like that?

WYSIWYG?

Sure, as long as it's obvious what it's supposed to represent.

*also, on the side, howd this go for a haemy conversion？ What do you guys think?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440102a&prodId=prod1050096

I think that's an incredibly ugly miniature, in a bad way. If it was me, I'd go for something like this as a basis instead.

Nvs wrote:I'm 110% with you Phototoxin. They're no longer the same aspect warriors. Now they're just some mish-mash between a banshee and a scorpion. Even though that's all they were in the past too, the background they had to make them 'evil striking scorpions' was probably the best thing the old DE had going for them.

Now they may as well be some new aspect the Eldar came up with to worship demons and it fell out of favor during the fall.

They've effectively thrown out the whole Karrandras vs Arhra, Striking Scorpions vs Incubi angle. I mean why in the world was Arhra the original striking scorpion exarch? Nothing carried over between the 2.

They address your concern in the fluff section, and Arhra's section (Drazhar).

But I can't imagine you wouldn't have read the codex before you decided to attack the writing, right? That would just be silly.

I'm sure those scorpion hats looked awesome on paper, but they look completely slowed imho.

The shoulderpad thing I can understand, huge shoulderpads were all the rage back in the day for some godawful reason...

Is there any information about new models for Grotesques or Haemonculi,
or even models for Wracks?

Buzzsaw wrote:
[pics cut by JOHIRA]

JOHIRA wrote:I don't like the horns because I think they look silly. ... The incubi are already imposing models. They don't need to play a round of "who has the tallest hat" to be more scary.

Uh...

Whoa, sorry. I didn't realize anyone had noticed what I said, much less replied to it. I feel honored to receive your notice, sir!

Now yes, when you put the two pictures side by side the new Incubi are by every technical measure superior to the old ones. But there are two things that make the old helmets less silly in my opinion: First, the old helmets are tall because they have a gun in them. You're welcome to argue that having a gun mounted on your head is silly, but the point is the added height is there for a reason. It's not just decorative. Secondly, yes, the helmets are tall, but they are the tallest thing on the old Incubi (apart from the halberds, of course). On the new Incubi between their horns and their back vanes they have decorations extending up to 1.5 times the hight of their head. I don't care for it.

But even taking all of that into account, I think your quoting of my post is invalid because I never said the new ones are not as good as the old ones. I said I thought the horns on the new Incubi are silly. And I'm going to stand by that. This is not a zero-sum game where if I don't like one thing about the new I must hate it in comparison to the old. The new Incubi are generally extremely nice models. They just get silly with the headgear, IMHO. If I played DE I'd personally try to cut off the horns and either replace them with backwards-pointing horns, or some kind of slick helmet vane or stylized dreadlock thing. In fact, that could be a really cool way to allude to the rumours of their founder having been Ahra.

wuestenfux wrote:Is there any information about new models for Grotesques or Haemonculi,
or even models for Wracks?

Only that a next wave will concentrate on the Haemuculi units. No details as always.

Kroothawk wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Is there any information about new models for Grotesques or Haemonculi,
or even models for Wracks?

Only that a next wave will concentrate on the Haemuculi units. No details as always.

That would be absolutely great.

Just picked up the codex today and I have to agree that it is the Haemonculi and their creations that interest me the most.

Generalstoner wrote:Just picked up the codex today and I have to agree that it is the Haemonculi and their creations that interest me the most.

Indeed, the Haemonculi coven eventually provide some strong builds thanks to pain tokens (and arcane wargear?).

JOHIRA: More or less silly than the horned helmets of Chaos Space Marines?

I guess Predator-style dreads would have been cooler than horns, though. But in any case I like the look they went for and they're by far my favorite models out of the new range. I wish I bought more than one box, but that's what tax time is for right?

I just wish there were at least one-two more poses, but considering that there are only 3 mandrake poses I'd say that's a very minor gripe.