# Unimpressed with the new DE?



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

With all the DE threads and the drooling going on, I feel I have to say that I am less then impressed with them. I didn't like to old ones, and the new ones just don't catch my eye. They are not as bad as the Tau, (god I really dislike the Tau models) but they are ugly to me.

The raider looks like the little skimmer from return of the jedi ,only it is missing a large butthole with teeth sunk in some sand underneath it. 

The warriors are going to be like little diabetes testers, always pricking your fingers when you pick one up because of those sharp spikes on the shoulders and helmets. That and the poses are all about the same, spread legs and all weapons are in the right handed position. Not much going on with them.

The wyches at least look more fluid and fast but they still look goofy with the heads they have pictured. The hair styles look like crap.

I do like the model for lelith hesperax. It is pretty damn cool looking. I can't find a fault with it.

The reaver jetbikes are ok but I would have to cut the bottom front blade thing off along with the rear stabilizer/blade thing. They really don't do anything for me.

I also saw a picture for another model that looked like it had parachute pants made out of concrete. It looked dumb. I can't remember the name of it though.

If I am alone on this, so be it, but I just had to voice my opinion. Peace out.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

to each their own. they fit my tastes perfectly, and its made me order in, at the very least, a box of bikes, the archon, some incubi, and the Dex. I will be getting my core after, since Im not in a rush to play them, but I am in a rush to get them bought and built properly


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I prefer the new models to the old but they still don't inspire me to play DE. The models i like the most are the mandrakes (parachute pants) but considering that the previous models look like rejects from a fetish convention they had to be an improvement. I can't help but feel like i've seen the faces of the mandrakes before, maybe it's just the black skin white hair making me think of DnD Drow. These models seem to have stolen a lot of ideas from across the board. Starwars vehicles, Lotr characters, dnd models..where will it end?


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

the raiders have always had a starwars ish reference. the Mandrakes with their black skin in the pic DOES seem 'drow'ish but remember, the models dont HAVE to be black.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

TBH, most of them just look like infant safety hazards to my; the only one I really like is the jetbike.


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

well the only real fault I see in the new dark eldar is all the spikes. I mean come on having a unit of harad all with pikes and pears in war of the ring wasn't a bad enough glove of nails for your hand now these guys?


----------



## Evil beaver2 (Feb 3, 2009)

Dont mind most of the models, though running poses for the warriors would make them look a lot better. The one thing I really like is the new jetbikes and the incubi are pretty good too. Gotta agree that Im not a fan of the new raider/ravager though. They could have made it a lot better if they had stuck with the overlapping spiky front plates like the old ones had. 

Dont see a problem with all the spikes though like some of you do, really would you like dark eldar with no spikes, cause those wouldnt be dark eldar.


----------



## Evil beaver2 (Feb 3, 2009)

Dont mind most of the models, though running poses for the warriors would make them look a lot better. The one thing I really like is the new jetbikes and the incubi are pretty good too. Gotta agree that Im not a fan of the new raider/ravager though. They could have made it a lot better if they had stuck with the overlapping spiky front plates like the old ones had. 

Dont see a problem with all the spikes though like some of you do, really would you like dark eldar with no spikes, cause those wouldnt be dark eldar.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Well, they had to change things up to cause long-time players of the Dark Eldar (like me) to have to buy at least some new models to stay current with the army. The Incubi, for instance... I'm sure there's little enough in common with the original Incubi as to make the old models pretty much unfieldable.
It sucks, but there ya go...
Kinda like how GW decided to stop supporting their own army-builder disks. I wasted a chunk of change there.


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

The Archon reminds me of Sauron xD


----------



## LuLzForTheLuLzGoD (Apr 3, 2010)

If you dont like the models dont buy them?


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Only one of the models interest me, the mandrakes. I wanna get one to convert it for my chaos army as a caster, just replace the scythe with a staff and a little extra green stuff and it should be good.

The rest of the models are nice. Love the incubi and the Archon is a vast improvment over the previous model. The owner of my FLGS has basicly reordered his whole DE army because of these new models. The jetbikes are sweet as hell.

Until I see the codex the models aren't enough to make me want to collect the army for playing.


----------



## Inquisitor Malaclypse (Dec 6, 2008)

i could care less about the playing Dark Eldar with Dark Eldar minis.

i like the new models, but don't intend to buy/collect them.

i do intend to get the codex and see if i can come up with a decent list to use with Dark Eldar models.

think on it:

Lilith = Jain Zar
Wyches = Banshees
Mandrakes = Striking Scorpions
Dark Eldar Reavers = Guardian Jet Bikes

and so on, and so on....

and whilst i like the new Raiders better than the old ones, i don't want to buy any. like i said, i think of it as a new rules set to use instead of the aging Eldar codex.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Hi,

My name is Games Workshop. I am pleased to anounce that after 12 years we are going to rewrite the Dark Eldar Codex! On top of this we will be resculpting new and improved Models for the Dark Eldar army! Here is an image of a Chaos Incubi:










I mean Dark Eldar Incubi....

I believe this is how these models came to be

We first need a body... well lets use some eldar. (Static eldar body pose)








Lets...uhhh toss on something else eldar on the back side...








Hmmm we need a weapon... Lets take a concept from Fantasy








Now we need faces.. Naa we are to lazy slap them with some helmets








Yup there we go! an all new and improved model!

Im not a DE fan nor do I completely hate the new models but at the same time this is the process that ran through my head when I saw these.

But on the plus side because of these great Chaos Incubi I will be converting them into my Nurgle Chosen!

Chaosftw


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

The only model that has really unimpressed me would be the urien rakarth model. Looks shit compared to the old one.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

they are nice and fluff i think and probbly might as well be painted red with all your own blood. But i do like the reavers (always loved jet bikes) and Leith but the Raider just looks off.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

I agree with the OP, the new models look terrible.

The old Raiders were so much better than the new ones.

The new Warriors do look better than the old ones though, but that really isnt saying much.
You could put a lump of dog turd in a cookie mold and it would look better than the old Warriors.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

All I can say is if you don't like em I don't give a purple monkey dishwasher, GW is not forcing you to buy them, they never do I don't care how much you complain about thinking they do - are you a robot - NO! Therefore if you don't like don't buy them, if you do you're a hippocrite then aren't you.

I for one love them and can't wait to see what they do with the rest of the range.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

They look like skinny chaos warriors.


----------



## Medic Marine (Jun 28, 2009)

Unforgiven302 said:


> With all the DE threads and the drooling going on, I feel I have to say that I am less then impressed with them. I didn't like to old ones, and the new ones just don't catch my eye. They are not as bad as the Tau, (god I really dislike the Tau models) but they are ugly to me.QUOTE]
> View attachment 8456
> View attachment 8457
> 
> ...


----------



## countchocula86 (Sep 1, 2008)

I agree that the models definitely lack some dynamism. It would be nice to see some more unique and energetic poses.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

countchocula86 said:


> I agree that the models definitely lack some dynamism. It would be nice to see some more unique and energetic poses.


well the Wytches seem to have more Dynamic poses.

the incubi, do need to do more then just stand there, but they still look great while standing there.

The warriors are not exactly made for CC, I dont see why they would need to be more dynamic when half the time they are on their raiders shooting off.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I think they look absolutely awesome! Nothing worth complaining about in my opinion, but that IS my opinion...


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

Blue Liger said:


> All I can say is if you don't like em I don't give a purple monkey dishwasher, GW is not forcing you to buy them, they never do I don't care how much you complain about thinking they do - are you a robot - NO! Therefore if you don't like don't buy them, if you do you're a hippocrite then aren't you.
> 
> I for one love them and can't wait to see what they do with the rest of the range.


Easy Blue! I simply posted that I was one of a minority that didn't care for the DE, both old and new. It is my opinion, (and others might share the same opinion as myself) and if you don't agree, there is no reason to get upset (or at least sound upset.) I think we all know that each person can make choices for themselves, and on that note, we are also allowed to voice our own opinions too. Don't come down hard on me (or others) who are not impressed with the new edition of models, it simply is what it is. We have just as much right to say what we like as you do. 

I was looking forward to the new releases with the anticipation of being impressed with all new models and a hopefully a new look. If they did do a good job on the models, and make them appeal to me, I might have gone and started an army of them. Unfortunately for me, they didn't make the models all that appealing in my eyes.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Is that the head off of the Chaos Lord fantasy box I see on those Incubi? I agree, the old raider looks so much better. The sharp ends were good because that's what you imagine the Orks built them for, cutting through people, rather than the new Star Wars blunt-front model. And where are the tracks on it like on the old one? Definitely needs to come with all the other weapons in the Codex too like Big Shootaz, Rokkit Launchaz, and a Skorcha wouldn't go amiss.

Midnight

EDIT: Hang on, these are DARK ELDAR?


----------



## nightfish (Feb 16, 2009)

I think I wanted to do more with the Archon personally. Metal model with two head options isnt that good tbh.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

To each his own.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I agree, when I first saw them, I thought they were pretty awesome. But now, after seeing them a lot more, the Incubi just look dumb. their poses are so stupidly static. The old raider was so much better. and I really dont like the new warriors.


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

When I first saw the raider the first thing i thought of was jabbas barge from RotJ, bit lazy by the design team, as they have virtually completely copied it. 

I'll be honest DE have always been a "meh" army to me anyway, maybe because I like craftworld eldar, they are never going to be popular like other armies, and considering we now live in the "Plastic" age there seems to be to many metals

Less than a month and they'll die a death unless there is serious codex creep


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry but some of you just need a quick reminder exactly how shite the old range was im not saying your opinions are wrong , well unless you think that anything from the old range is better than the new range, in which case you need your bumps read 
http://kofler.dot.at/40k/dark.html
there is not one model in that range i would choose to own, you might not like the new range, each to his own( i hate tau for example) but its hands down better than what was there before.
On a related note i cant really understand why the raider is getting singled out, yes its out of ROTJ but that was the inspiration for the first one and in all honesty they are almost identical apart from the big stupid fin on the back has become a sail and moved to the middle of the vehicle,the major difference is that the new one looks like it was designed by eldar ,were as the old one (as midnight pointed out) looks like it was chucked together by orks. 
The new stuff looks how i imagined the range would have looked and should have looked if GW had given the project to Jes Goodwin originally, unfortunately i think he was refining the marines and tyranids so it was given to Stevie Wonder to design.
They look like Eldar and they look like a corrupt and dark version, they have honoured the original designs to a point, but improved on them and refined them and made the range cohesive.

dont anyone rep me im at the magic number 666


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

actually I love the old Warriors!


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Blue Liger said:


> GW is not forcing you to buy them, they never do I don't care how much you complain about thinking they do - are you a robot - NO! Therefore if you don't like don't buy them,


Does not compute....critical system error....GW failsafe mode enabled......

This User has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down, if the problem continues to occur please contact your local big mek.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> actually I love the old Warriors!


You may love them and cherish them but they are terrible and were until very recently the poorest plastic kit in the 40k range.


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> dont anyone rep me im at the magic number 666


BUAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! +1 REP to you!!! 

(for all those donkey who aren't alive because of you... )


----------



## mahavira (Jan 10, 2010)

There are a grand total of 2 of the old models that I don't think were abominable: Lilith Hesperax and Kruellagh the Vile, and I only think that because they were both easy to convert to fantasy Witch Elves. With the exception of the vehicles (I don't mind that they ripped off Jabba's barge, but that doesn't mean I like it either) I like all the new models, though my disinterest in the army itself for 40K means I'm mostly getting them for conversions (or not even bothering to convert for the archon, just find him a square base and you have a dark elf dreadlord on foot). I can understand not liking the new models (to each his own) but to paraphrase Bitsandkits, preferring the older models is a sign you are off your meds.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

mahavira said:


> There are a grand total of 2 of the old models that I don't think were abominable: Lilith Hesperax and Kruellagh the Vile, and I only think that because they were both easy to convert to fantasy Witch Elves. With the exception of the vehicles (I don't mind that they ripped off Jabba's barge, but that doesn't mean I like it either) I like all the new models, though my disinterest in the army itself for 40K means I'm mostly getting them for conversions (or not even bothering to convert for the archon, just find him a square base and you have a dark elf dreadlord on foot). I can understand not liking the new models (to each his own) but to paraphrase Bitsandkits, preferring the older models is a sign you are off your meds.


as someone whos played dark elves and even thought about getting back into them from these models, the whole dreadlord on foot being an archon I am still tempted to do.

Along with a mandrake as a sorc


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

There, bits, back to 666z


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I am just so happy that De have been revived. Thanks to Bitsandkits for reminding us. I had a look through that page and it hit home. The old models did let the side down badly. I won't be buying the new de, but i look forward to seeing the army on the tabletop. The greater the variety of opponents the better the gaming experience.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> You may love them and cherish them but they are terrible and were until very recently the poorest plastic kit in the 40k range.


Care to elaborate? I don't keep track of all the new releases, but I'm sure I would have heard if something *that* bad came out 

Some of the new Daemons or Nids?


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

maddermax said:


> Care to elaborate? I don't keep track of all the new releases, but I'm sure I would have heard if something *that* bad came out
> 
> Some of the new Daemons or Nids?


hes talking about the OOOOOLD Dark Eldar warriors. which were some of the poorest Plastic work still on the table till now


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

maddermax said:


> Care to elaborate? I don't keep track of all the new releases, but I'm sure I would have heard if something *that* bad came out
> 
> Some of the new Daemons or Nids?


I didnt mean something had been released that is worse, i meant that there own new range of warriors has made the poor old minis out of production.
I actually really like the new deamons, the Crushers are fecking awesome, quite like the horrors too, to be fair i have been happy with pretty much all plastics for the last two years, i think the one im not too keen on in recent memory is the Ork Stompa, i love that it exists, i love the size, i love the detail and the Orkyness of it , i just hate the upturned flower pot design, i have never liked the gargant look and never will i guess,


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> hes talking about the OOOOOLD Dark Eldar warriors. which were some of the poorest Plastic work still on the table till now


thats what i was getting at.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

nightfish said:


> I think I wanted to do more with the Archon personally. Metal model with two head options isnt that good tbh.


Ya, if they wanted metal, seems like thay'd have two or three variants... like the Autarchs.
Or better yet, something plastic like the Space Marine Commander with lots of bits on the sprues to choose from.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

You could probably make one badass Archon out of the incubi, reaver, and warrior sets.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

the archon is being made so the head or arms from pratically ANY other kit will fit on him. it seems like ALOT of the models have this in mind. I think the only exception might be the Mandrakes, because they are just sick so who would want to convert those beauties?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

its like I said before


Stella Cadente said:


> yeah they are utterly shit compared to the current models, and nowhere near as amazing as all the models they have made recently, like space marines with blood drops on armour, and space marines with runes on armour, when you compare them to those extremely flat simple models these dark eldar are nowhere in the same league.
> 
> they should of just sculpted more space marines, they do amazing jobs on them, adding so much boring detail to already boring models is such an art.


you just can't please dark eldar players, they've been moaning for years at there models being shit, and now that new models have come out the old ones are suddenly masterpieces in sculpting and the new ones are shit and boring and silly looking.

if you want the stupid looking old style just cut up some knives and glue them onto every single part of the models


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> you just can't please dark eldar players, they've been moaning for years at there models being shit, and now that new models have come out the old ones are suddenly masterpieces in sculpting and the new ones are shit and boring and silly looking.
> 
> if you want the stupid looking old style just cut up some knives and glue them onto every single part of the models


Stella, your straight fowardness has always done you credit. still does. just some people need that extra reminder of what CAN be done in terms of available modding since they are too silly to actually read all the options truly available.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Im not sure what people were expecting when the new DE models came out? New ranges will virtually always contain something to link them back to the old range, and there is certainyl a lot to like with the new range. But each to thier own I guess.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> its like I said before
> 
> you just can't please dark eldar players, they've been moaning for years at there models being shit, and now that new models have come out the old ones are suddenly masterpieces in sculpting and the new ones are shit and boring and silly looking.
> 
> if you want the stupid looking old style just cut up some knives and glue them onto every single part of the models


Actually, I was more concerned at the lack of a codex; while the Dark Eldar old models weren't the best-looking things on the table, I didn't mind that so much as not being able to compete properly with a waaaaaaay outdated codex that didn't include the power creep endemic to the later codices.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> the archon is being made so the head or arms from pratically ANY other kit will fit on him. it seems like ALOT of the models have this in mind. I think the only exception might be the Mandrakes, because they are just sick so who would want to convert those beauties?


Guess I've somehow overlooked that on the GW site...
I must be missing that descritpive text, and assumed that it had only a switchable head.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Im pretty sure it was mentioned in the whats new introduction of the Archon. or somewhere... can someone scour the net and find it? im passing out soon so I wouldnt find it if it was right infront of my face.


----------



## DonFer (Apr 23, 2010)

It's just a matter of personal taste. Nothing more. And that is one point people will always have problems to agree with. That is the reason some people buy a Viper and others a Ferrari.

Personally I think the new models are impressive and good looking. And for that matter I give extra credit to GW for the effort.


----------



## reubiedoo (Mar 21, 2009)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=13000014a

I think this infers - but I don't think conclusively - that you can convo with the plastic arms.

I have to say, I HATE the fluff of the DE, but I LOVE the potential gameplay and style of the army. If you don't like all the spikes, convert with Eldar bits.

Personally, I am planning to buy the codex, and if it is any good (for me), make an exodite/ pirate force using bits of Craftworld models if neccessary. Paint 'em a nice clean scheme, or camo; voila.


Just look at the variety people produce from ranges like the CSM or SM or Tau ranges in terms of conversion and paint schemes. 

I can't believe a little bit of work wouldn't solve anyone's problem with these models.

IMO they are sleek, and distinctly NOT Chaotic.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

reubiedoo said:


> http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=13000014a
> 
> I think this infers - but I don't think conclusively - that you can convo with the plastic arms.
> 
> ...


finally someone who isnt comparing the new DE to chaos just because of some horns


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

This OP is kwaaaaazy.

This is the single most impressive release GW has ever done.

Back a few years ago, NOONE would have thought GW was going to even TRY rehashing the utter soup of fail that was the DE model range. I bet 70% of players thought DE were gonna go "squat".

And behold. They took something that you have to be EXTREMELY creative to see anything visually appealing from and turned it into some of the most inspiring and strongly identifiable models in WH40K yet.

Before these were announced I don't think anyone thought they were going to be able to do this, but they did. Keeping the DE identity without making a second set of junk minis.

I have never been one for jumping on band wagons, but this is one model range I can't withstand not to have a dip in. I'm liking pretty much everything I've seen except the Wyches. (I don't think Wyches can ever look cool)

Just imagine the % of improvement. Then /boggle as you realize the amount of work done on this.

Now, SW _was unimpressive._ But that's a whole different story.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> This OP is kwaaaaazy.
> 
> This is the single most impressive release GW has ever done.
> 
> ...


SW was not unimpressive. they were not the total awsomeness of the new DE, but they were not unimpressive: my point is, there is only so much you can add to Space marine power armor and Terminator armor, since the Space Wolves ARE still space marines. 

As for Dark eldar, they are a completely alien race, the only race they might share even an iota of design with is Eldar, which the new models clearly do yet dont at the same time, how it should be for them. Design wise, Im not a huge fan of the Eldar curves, but the models on a skilled design level are still some of the best. These dark eldar took that skill and upped it.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> SW was not unimpressive. they were not the total awsomeness of the new DE, but they were not unimpressive


OK, I'm gonna play my "all redundant SM releases are unimpressive" card 

Redundant = released on a higher frequency than other races.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> OK, I'm gonna play my "all redundant SM releases are unimpressive" card
> 
> Redundant = released on a higher frequency than other races.


that I cant argue with. SM releases ARE very redundant, doesnt make them unimpressive.

SM releases would be the normal, like "they look nice, they are SM" since it happens all the time. the details on the SW models are what I found impressive, I wasnt looking at the make of them as SMs. (please note: its been just as long as the DE for the SW Dex.)


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> (please note: its been just as long as the DE for the SW Dex.)


yes, but who's to say we even need an SW dex?

The only SM chapter to be so different from the UM plug & play is BA and DA.

Everything else could just be addendum to the vanilla codex, with a small ziplock bag of different plastic heads as the 'big model release'.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> yes, but who's to say we even need an SW dex?
> 
> The only SM chapter to be so different from the UM plug & play is BA and DA.
> 
> Everything else could just be addendum to the vanilla codex, with a small ziplock bag of different plastic heads as the 'big model release'.


Space wolves are quite different from the Smurfs, sorry. the space wolves, fluff wise, are by far the MOST different from ultra smurfs. they always have been. Gameplay wise, they are different too, including from the old addon dex. Learn and read before you start talking shit out your ass. BA, DA, Wolves and Vanilla, for over 10 years now have been the different Dex's, and though they have changed a tiny bit, they have not changed that much.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> yes, but who's to say we even need an SW dex?
> 
> The only SM chapter to be so different from the UM plug & play is BA and DA.
> 
> Everything else could just be addendum to the vanilla codex, with a small ziplock bag of different plastic heads as the 'big model release'.


You're insinuating that the Blood Angels, who are distinctly a by-the-codex army despite their differences are different enough to warrant a codex, while Space Wolves aren't? I want what you're on.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> Space wolves are quite different from the Smurfs, sorry. the space wolves, fluff wise, are by far the MOST different from ultra smurfs. they always have been. Gameplay wise, they are different too, including from the old addon dex. Learn and read before you start talking shit out your ass. BA, DA, Wolves and Vanilla, for over 10 years now have been the different Dex's, and though they have changed a tiny bit, they have not changed that much.


Lore difference =/= rules difference.

Rules difference in the SW's case is not huge. As I said, a few in-vanilla codex pages would cover them just fine.

This is also true for the Black Templars, which also have their own book.

What is more important? Efficiency in releases and upkeep, or pleasing more people than you can handle? (Because obviously they can't)


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Lore difference =/= rules difference.
> 
> Rules difference in the SW's case is not huge. As I said, a few in-vanilla codex pages would cover them just fine.
> 
> ...


your an idiot. BA and DA are actually far CLOSER to the Vanilla Dex then Space Wolves. 

Where do you base your thoughts that SW are like the Vanilla Codex more then BA or DA, because BA have alot of Jump Troops? because DA can take a special commander to give them Terminators or bikers as Troops? which by the way SPACE WOLVES HAVE ASWELL currently?

LORE wise, SW are far different. 

GAMEPLAY wise, SW to an onlooker might look abit similar, but the way they are meant to be played is VERY different, they are by far the most different out of ALL the space marines. EVERY unit in the SW dex is different to the SM vanilla dex, the closest being our Grey Hunters, and even they are different to Tac marines.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

The difference is that the special rules of BA and DA are more encompassing to explain in a short space. Look at the 3 respective codexes. BA / DA have more rules pages.. SW have more fluff pages. BA have certain 'vanilla' units they can't use (Stern/vanguard) , DA have three very distinctly different FOC 's/ playstyles.

Doesn't really matter. IMO, they could all be put in the same book.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> The difference is that the special rules of BA and DA are more encompassing to explain in a short space. Look at the 3 respective codexes. BA / DA have more rules pages.. SW have more fluff pages. BA have certain 'vanilla' units they can't use (Stern/vanguard) , DA have three very distinctly different FOC 's/ playstyles.
> 
> Doesn't really matter. IMO, they could all be put in the same book.


Vanilla scouts and SW scouts = completely different.

SW dont get Vanguard or Sternguard either.

SW dont get thunderfire Cannons or the assault terminator.

BA have more rule pages because they have to encompass ALL the Vanilla units and the new variations of units they already had. in other words, their rules are bigger because they dont lose much from the Vanilla Codex compared to SW, and in turn gained about the same in completely "new" units that SW did.

As for the fact DA have 3 different FoC... You can take Canis to put Fenrisian Wolves as troops, you can take Logan to make Wolf Guard troops. and you can take neither to be completely normal... last I checked thats 3.


----------



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Doesn't really matter. IMO, they could all be put in the same book.


The reason GW put these armies (BT, BA, DA and SW) in seperate codices are because each of these Chapters curve of from the teachings of the Codex Astartes (CA) in some way or form. The "'nilla" Codex should be viewed more accurately as the book for Codex Astartes Space Marines. Notable Chapters in the CA book such as Salamanders and White Scars have specialities (or a motif for better word, that defines the army, Sallies have a fire and hammer motif, and the Scars a lightning strike force or fast moving units), but predominantly adher to the CA. It needs to be noted *again* that the reason that the Ultramarines are always represented in a Codex about the Codex Astartes Chapters is that the Ultramarines are the best example of a Codex Astartes Chapter because they do follow the Codex Astartes so closely, given the Imperial Fists follow very closely behind them.

The 'specialist' Chapters, as I like to call them are all justified for having seperate books, due to each Chapter being variably unique.

Firstly, the Black Templars are not a Codex Chapter. This is seen in their chapter numbering in the several thousand (it is stated in numerous sources that due to the depolyment of the Black Templars it is impossible to determine their true Chapter strength, but estimates but it higher than the doctrined CA's 1000) rather than the limit of 1000, given by the CA. They also do not have the 10 Companies as outlined in the CA, but rather have Crusades, all responsible for their own recruiting and maintenance. They also do not make use of Scout squads but their Neophytes train in Crusade Squads under a partnered Initiate. As well as being known to be fanatical in their devotion to the Imperium, it is impossible to represent these traits using Codex: Space Marine.

Second, the Dark Angels are not a Codex Chapter. This is noted in that their 1st and 2nd Companies are not fitting with the rulings of the CA. The 1st Company, or Deathwing, is almost entirely consisting of Terminators (bar the Dreads and Land Raiders) and the 2nd Company is entirely consistent of bikes and Land Speeders. There is an Inner Circle consisting of Masters, Chaplains and Librariana, which is also a Chapter deviation. The remaining Companies adher to the outlines of the CA. As the DA codex is now it allows a player to be able to field these different Companies, something Codex: Space Marine cannot do.

Third, the Space Wolves. In all honesty this Chapter above the others is most justified to having it's own codex in my opinon. The Space Wolves openly resist the central command structure of the Imperium and do not adhere to the CA. They have 12 Great Companies and each of these can range from having up to 150 to 1000 members. Each Great Company is made up of packs, these squads beginning with 15 members as Blood Claws, and as these packs move up the ranks they are not reinforced. They are a superstitious chapter and only in rare circumstances will use advanced technology. They are known as a very feral chapter who stick close to their own. Such a chapter cannot be done justice being portrayed in the current Codex: Space Marines.

Finally, the Blood Angels are a special exception of the above. They are a Codex Astartes chapter though they are very unique due the hazardous state of their geneseed and the dire consequences of that instability. They also have the Death Company who are a collection of chapter members who have fallen to the black rage, and the Sanguinary Guard, who trace their origins back to the bodyguard of their Primarch and are a seperate attachment of the Chapter's veterans. Both the Death Company and Sanguinary Guard are outside if CA doctrine. The predominant issue for BA to have a seperate codex is their unique units and the strong emphasis on close combat fighting, the extent of which cannot be portrayed through Codex: Space Marines.

These Chapters have to many unique features in their layout, doctrines and units to be simply represented as a single page of rules in a single codex. GW has made these Chapters seperate codices as they feel that is justified that each of these unique Chapters be represented in their own Codex.

Now I have kind of gone on a rant here, but I truly cannot see how someone can claim that there is no justification for certain Chapters to get a seperate Codex. If, for example, GW had produced Codex: Chaos Space Marines (focusing on Black Legion), with a C:Emperor's Children, C:World Eaters, C:Thousand Sons and Ceath Guard, by your reasoning, C:TS and CG are justified to have seperate codices for a, b and c reasons, but C:EC and C:WE aren't all that different from C:CSM and can easily be represented fairly, in fluff and rules, by a single page of rules?

I don't often get annoyed at peoples opinons, as each to their own, but this just got to me, and I find it very hard to comprehend your reasoning on your thoughts.

Grish


----------



## Holmstrom (Dec 3, 2008)

Adding my two cents, I agree with Grish on this one. I see it as entirely justified that Chapters which deviate enough from the Codex Astartes deserve their own Codex.

Furthermore, compressing such Chapter specific rulesets to a mere 'blurb' in the Space Marine Codex would be an injustice to the rich lore and tactical mindset associated with these specific Chapters. Even if you include the Codices in their entirety in to one massive Space Marine rulebook, the price would undoubtedly skyrocket to an unacceptable point. When people complain about stand alone codex pricing as-is, throwing them all in to one large tome would cause a text book example of a shit storm. Someone who wants to just play the Space Wolves wouldn't want to buy all of the other Codices because the average Marine player, in all likelyhood, doesn't play more than one or two of the Chapters in question.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

even a dark eldar topic comes down to another "nobody gives a shit fest" about SPESS MAHREENS.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

I personally LOVE the new models, but I respect your views. I just really dislike the new plastic Daemon Prince. It looks awful!


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

While I like the looks of most of the new DE, I probably won't go hog wild buying new stuff. As I don't field Incubi, the new ones (kinda a cross between a metal Bloodletter and a Ushabti) aren't gonna be in that mix. It'll depend on what the codex does with the other units as to whether I'll be buying any or not. I may buy one raider to replace my Wyche ride (I'll have to put on a larger sail so it'll fit in with the rest of the fleet. Yes, I was watching RotJ while I was building the first one and couldn't resist.) I kinda hope they make the Hellions worthwhile, as I can see some potential in those models. I've got so many warriors (including a lot I haven't assembled yet) that I don't think I'll get more than 1 box for bitz. Maybe as part of the archon's retinue?
I'm rather upset at the thought that an archon may no longer get to ride a jetbike, as I have the female archon model on foot, on a skyboard (2) and on a jetbike. It'd be a shame to demote her to a mere squad leader.
Like I said, codex first, then see what models I need/want. Except for the incubi and archon, I like what I see. Now if only they keep their fluid playstyle...


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

The New Models, espicialy the Incubi and Plastic Wyches, have swayed me to build them as my new Army. The Razor Wing fighter sounds wicked awsome for me to field, a Army with Fighter Jets to bomb my opponetts, like moder real wars that we have today.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

> The New Models, espicialy the Incubi and Plastic Wyches, have swayed me to build them as my new Army.


Though I agreed with you on first glance with the Incubi, if you read the descripition it says that they are 5 metal models, with only 3 moulds used. You have 2 of the same mould, 2 of another mould, and then a fifth. Therefore, they'll all look pretty much the same. 

I would start DE if it weren't for the prices. I would love to have a jetbike army now that they're Troop choices, but $41 for 3 is out of my prce range. Shame too, because the models look awsome...


----------

