The Eldar's almost complete lack of wargear variants (and why it confuses me)

[Evil Eye]

(This was originally intended for the spicy 40K takes thread but it doesn't actually seem like a spicy take in retrospect as much as a simple pondering...)

The Eldar have been one of 40K's most consistently good ranges IMO. Very few models in the line have been outright duds, with the only ones I can even think of that seemed bad, or at least not to my tastes "at the time" (as opposed to getting outdated) being the new plastic Maugan Ra, which IMO suffers a touch from the curse of "GW Centrepiece Sydnrome"- big silly base and Flanderizing elements of the design, notably the grim reaper aspect (a shame as Maugan Ra was always my favourite Phoenix Lord) and the plastic Death Jester, which to be fair is very similar to the previous gen model in overall design but whose more exaggerated pose and tactical ruin just don't do it for me. Most of the range is pretty good, with a large amount of exceptional models. Even the really old kits have IMO held up well aesthetically even if the actual molding is a bit worn down; I maintain the Falcon and Vyper (the oldest 40K kits GW still makes!) are amazing designs and if we got a new version of either I'd hope the designs were mostly identical, just CAD-sharpening the molding and adding far more options.

However, that did set off a bit of a thought.

See, almost every single faction in 40K has quite a bit of variety between subfaction stylings (beyond mere colours). Space Marines of course, the Imperial Guard, all forms of Chaos, the Orks etc. Even the Tau are often depicted with drastically tweaked wargear, vehicles etc in spite of the collectivist philosophy they have. Heck, the TYRANIDS have quite a bit of it despite being vectors of one enormous superorganism due to their super-evolutionary status. Off the top of my head the only factions that don't have much room for variety are the Necrons (although Lords might be very different from one another, the rank and file are literally soulless), the Sisters of Battle (mostly due to being in pewter prison for so long!), and bafflingly enough, the Eldar.

This seemed really, really weird to me. The Craftworlds are totally self-sufficient from each other and each place a very high value on following their own individual paths. Furthermore, artistic expression and wargear design are almost the same thing in their culture. And yet the Eldar have the least amount of aesthetic variation between subfactions aside from colours, with even conversion guides/studio kitbashes being rare. The only examples I can think of are cases where older models were replaced with very differently designed ones (see the FW Cobra and Scorpion Type 1 and Type 2 and the plastic Fire Prism/Night Spinner vs the metal hybrid or FW), which isn't _quite_ the same, and fictional examples? Near none. Which seems strange to me. Logically, a Biel-Tan Falcon should be completely different from an Ulthwé falcon. Both are carrying out the same role and IIRC have some cultural significance behind naming, yes, but one Craftworld's interpretation of how to best to shape a Falcon, both functionally and spiritually, will be drastically different from another.

Is there a fluff reason why every single Craftworld uses the same "STC" for their vehicles, armour and weapons? The IRL reason is of course because GW can't justify a billion variants for kits, but you'd still expect conversion guides or fluff only stuff? Again, to me at least the Eldar seem like the kind of race where no two armies would look even remotely alike, and whilst Jes Goodwin's aesthetic is extremely strong, you'd expect more people making tweaks to make their Craftworld more unqiue?

[Lexington]

I actually kind of don't know that the "every subfaction is visually different" idea holds up across the ranges. Imperial Guard may have different uniforms, but most of their weaponry stays the same, and a Valhallan Chimera's not usually depicted as too different from a Cadian one. The non-God-aligned Chaos Legions tend to be shown as having fairly similar wargear, and weren't even too different from Space Marines before Primaris hit. Even Orks, which should be the extreme of heterogeneous gear, don't tend to  have weapons or vehicles that stray too far from the baseline in most depictions.

I guess it's true, tho, that Eldar have had fewer known inter-factional variances than others. Nothing like a Necromunda-pattern Lasgun or similar things. Two reasons for this come to mind. First off, the Eldar designs were just so good from the beginning, they've not warranted a whole lot of revision since, though there's been at least a bit of variation over the years. Secondly, Eldar designs are very, very specific in their design language, and small variations can throw that off - it's part of why doing appropriate Eldar conversions can be so damned hard. Jes Goodwin really bottled some lightning with their original design, way way back.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Much of their weaponry dates, I would imagine, from before the Fall.  They are legacy designs that gave service during the War against the Necrontyr and were so well-made to their purpose that the crafters haven't felt a need for much in the way of improvement.  The only exceptions are Aspect gear, but the Founding Phoenix Lord of each Aspect type crafted the wargear for the shrines specifically for that fighting style.  Those wouldn't change because the designs are holy relics whose features were dictated by a high priest or prophet.

[Tyriks]

Craftworld Eldar are also very big on tradition, so I would imagine that makes it easier to justify.

[apologist]

18 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

See, almost every single faction in 40K has quite a bit of variety between subfaction stylings (beyond mere colours). [except] the Eldar. This seemed really, really weird to me. The Craftworlds are totally self-sufficient from each other and each place a very high value on following their own individual paths. Furthermore, artistic expression and wargear design are almost the same thing in their culture. And yet the Eldar have the least amount of aesthetic variation between subfactions aside from colours, with even conversion guides/studio kitbashes being rare.

A very interesting topic; thanks for bringing it up!

+Out-of-universe +

Some of the out-of-universe reasons are fairly clear:

• A consistent aesthetic makes things more recognisable and commercial
• Resources – it's not commercially sensible to have two kits cannibalising each other

...while others are slightly less obvious. Of those, the two I'd focus on are interchangeability and, oddly, the distinctive curves curves.

Interchangeability  Eldar models were for a long time quite unlike anything else in 40k. Prior to ~4th edition, there was a period where many of the other factions could quite happily swap weapons and so forth between them – ork guns were used in Chaos Marine conversions, Imperial Guard and Space Marine weapons were interchangeable and so on. Even Tau equipment had some similar straight lines and techy bits that allowed for relatively straightforward conversion work. Beyond this, most factions had at least some nod to real-world designs, so third-party or real-world military model ranges could also happily be raided. Not so the Eldar. Until the release of the Dark Eldar (and, very recently, the Corsairs), there were few parts that you could kitbash (i.e. simple parts swaps) and get something that didn't look odd. As a result, it was more challenging to convert figures and get something looking distinctly Eldar. 

Clean curves  The Eldar's weaponry and equipment is full of smooth, organic and consistent curves that sit oddly with other factions. It's part of what makes them so instantly recognisable, but it also means that it's hard to find things that fit in. Those few third-party kits that might fit in (things like Guyver kits) tend to stand out slightly. Being full of clean lines and curves, it's also much harder to convert things successfully. A flat sheet of styrene – or even cardboard – can be used to make the blocky tanks and buildings of most 40k factions, but to get the distinctive shapes and curves of Eldar is much more challenging. In fact, about the only example of an Eldar conversion guide was how to make a Wave Serpent turret using a plastic spoon.

+++

+In-universe +

The other part of the question relates to the in-universe question. Taking the above into account, there's nothing that suggests that Craftworlds wouldn't have distinctive aesthetics, but is there anything in the lore that might explain it? 

'The only [...]fictional examples? Near none. Which seems strange to me. Logically, a Biel-Tan Falcon should be completely different from an Ulthwé falcon. Both are carrying out the same role and IIRC have some cultural significance behind naming, yes, but one Craftworld's interpretation of how to best to shape a Falcon, both functionally and spiritually, will be drastically different from another.

Is there a fluff reason why every single Craftworld uses the same "STC" for their vehicles, armour and weapons? [...] Again, to me at least the Eldar seem like the kind of race where no two armies would look even remotely alike, and whilst Jes Goodwin's aesthetic is extremely strong, you'd expect more people making tweaks to make their Craftworld more unqiue?'

 

+Edit+ Weird formatting that I can't seem to fix - sorry! Original quote above, in italics; my reply below:

Quote

 

There's no single 'canon' answer, I don't think, but the following points are how I'd answer:

• Culturally, the Craftworld Eldar are defined by their rigid life-structures that aim to keep their souls safe from the predations of Chaos. That in itself breeds a conservative approach to existence; one that is only heightened by their risk-averse, long-lived nature. 
• The Eldar are an ancient species that had endless millennia to refine and perfect their technology. The equipment they have now is the apex of their technological pursuit – albeit passed through the filter of self-censorship (see above). 
• There is a decent amount of communication between the remaining Eldar Craftworlds. They're not centralised like the Tau, but in concert with the points above, communication will help to 'steady the ship' on overall Eldar cultural movement and technological progression.
• The Eldar have a highly ritualised society that owes much to mythic cycles. Having lived alongside their gods and – in most cases being aware of former incarnations, it's reasonable to assume that their technology is heavily influenced by this. Where a human might make a weapon's form follow its function, or add their own personalisation; Eldar craftspeople might well start from an image of 'the Axe of so-and-so'. Thus, an axe with the same appearance might have very different capabilities – to the Eldar, it's more important that it's in the image of that particular axe, rather than being distinctive.

Having said all that, I do agree that it'd be lovely to see some more distinction between Craftworlds. We got a little of it with the Ulthwé specific heads for Black Guardians, but having Craftworld sprues akin to the Chapter upgrades would be lovely (same goes for ork klans, for example).

Edited September 14, 2022 by apologist
Formatting error

[The Yncarne]

In the real world, I think the STL community fills my desire for different aesthetics. I also agree with apologist's resources take.

Then again, I think the drukhari and craft world factions have too many unit options which also prevents greater model diversity within the factions.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I have always wished that the various craftworlds/kabals/etc had more to differentiate them than just color. Different marine chapters may use all the same basic weapons and tanks, but they also have visually distinct identities above just their color. Maybe stripped down all the way, they are just red or blue, but they also have things like pelts and fangs for Space Wolves, chains and tabards for Templars, or more ornate armor for the Blood Angels, or almost completely different grey knights (who I guess are kind of outliers, similar to the harlequins).
I don't think it would be too hard to integrate that into the design language a little bit for the various Aeldari factions. Particularly for the Ynnari, who so far they have only said "the helmetless heads are for ynnari", but I don't actually know what the background reason is.
Also, in game, it's a little baffling how marines can get 800 variations of bolt gun for tacticals, intercessors, infiltrators, incursors, master crafted versions for all the characters, etc, but there is not even a master crafted equivalent for the Aeldari factions. An Archon has to just use a basic ass splinter pistol unless he takes a relic, whereas a marine at the very least will often have a plasma pistol option.

[Evil Eye]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone!

Apologist I think answered most of my questions, and made some very good points. Aside from simple "rule of cool" of course, I will say that I still feel like it would be very easy to justify (officially or otherwise) Craftworld variations of vehicles/weapons or whatever. Specifically, whilst their technology has been passed down from before the Fall, it is more kept the way it is because of "sacred tradition/keeping alive the ways of our ancestors" (and also because it could be argued it would be very difficult to actually improve it at all) rather than the Imperium's "innovation is heresy" attitude, in an interesting Eastern vs Western philosophical divide. Combined with the fact that, whilst the construction techniques are rooted in ancient tradition, and the Craftworlds are in contact with each other, those traditions have evolved and diverged between Craftworlds to some degree, and this is an accepted part of Eldar culture- "There are many paths we walk, and as long as the path is carefully disciplined and in pursuit of the preservation of our race and culture, it is valid" is definitely something I've noticed with Eldar fluff. Again, compare it to the Imperium where you will get variants of creed, and thus design, but these are the results of cultural schism rather than evolution.

What I'm trying to say is that whilst total radical departures from Eldar design might be rejected wholesale, if two Craftworlds pursue the same goal but very differently according to their particular subcultures and end up with the same basic role being fulfilled by two very different designs that are still recognizably Eldar, then whilst the Craftworlds might disagree with the others' choices (or alternatively might admire them but not adopt them as they do not fit their style of warfare) they would certainly not go to war with each other over it in the way the Mechanicus might if a pattern of Leman Russ was sufficiently different it qualified as techno-heresy. So a Biel-Tan Wave Serpent might have much heavier weaponry and (comparably) tougher construction to the point where it's more a fast tank that can also deliver troops to the front line, whilst a Saim-Hann Wave Serpent would have lighter weaponry and be optimized for speed, being more of a troop transport first and a fighting vehicle second.

Whilst canonized as a "Type 1 and Type 2", I like the idea that the refreshed designs of FW Eldar Super-Heavies are actually just variations in this manner intended for different purposes. So the "Type 1" Cobra...

Trade some speed and firepower for better protection and the ability to traverse the turret. Meanwhile the "Type 2..."

Is faster and mounts a more powerful gun but is a bit flimsier and has to pivot the whole tank in order to aim (less of an issue with a skimmer admittedly).

If you take this approach to most Eldar tech, and also apply the caveat that the Imperium won't have recorded all Eldar weapons and certainly won't understand the difference between them all you can theoretically get endless variety. Case in point, the Night Spinner. Though they represent the same unit on the tabletop I like the idea the old FW kit is a long-range artillery piece/bombardment vehicle, allowing the monofilament webs to gently float through the air and cut anything underneath to ribbons. The plastic kit meanwhile (which actually can't aim upwards to an angle necessary for bombardment but IMO looks cleaner) actually represents a totally different application of the Night Spinner, being a self-propelled assault gun which launches webs of the filament more "directly" and with far more force, meaning whilst range is reduced, even Terminators will be reduced to salsa if they get in the way.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Simply put, cultural and doctrine differences could feasibly justify some design variations even if they all followed the same unifiying "look" (even if I really wanna see more people do "organic" Eldar styled after the DOW3 trailer).

The real question being, though, when does the poor Firestorm return?