Background Image

[poll] How An Eldar Should Look Like (in Terms Of Figure).

Discussion in 'Eldar' started by Zavalus, Jul 25, 2014.


What would like the Eldar to look like?

  1. In line with 'Xenology'.

  2. Slim, but athletic.

  3. Humans with pointy ears.

  4. Buffed.

  1. Zavalus Zavalus Well-Known Member

    Believe it or not, but there are actually people who give a shit :) 'Xenology' is a background sourcebook after all :)
  2. Feanor Feanor Preacher

    Yeah, love their art it really captures the feel of the various factions.
  3. Captain Warlock Fitzford Well-Known Member

    I'm getting really sick of people taking xenology as ultimate canon, it is not.

    Anyway, I voted for slim, but athletic, which I would still categorize as "humans with pointy ears".
  4. FabricatorGeneral Unbihexium Forum Beta Tester

    All I care about is functional looking anatomy. If they're built as though there are actual bones, joints, organs and muscles in there and not fairy dust then I'm happy. Don't want the Arnie look though, clashes with the faction aesthetic too hard and only Maugan Ra can pull that off. Pointy-eared humans is too unoriginal and lazy. Gonna go with slim then since it looks most reasonable.
    Plenty of people care. Why? Two words: Erogenous. Ears.
    marculario and Dakka-Face like this.
  5. Kudzu Kudzu Cipher

    I've always liked a more alien look to Eldar (and WHFB elves). It gives that feel of almost human but subtlety off, the pretty humans with pointy ears look just seems like a cop out to me.
    Zavalus likes this.
  6. Zavalus Zavalus Well-Known Member

    True, it's not canon. The only thing that is canon, is the text from current Codices and Rulebooks. Anything else is just an individual author's view on the Warhammer universe. At least that's what I've been told by GW in an e-mail a few years back. I'm, actually, fine with that, as it makes the canon very general and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

    'Xenology' is just that. An interpretation of the canon. And you're right. Some people tend to forget that. Still, there's nothing wrong with liking (or disliking) 'Xenology'.

  7. So its fine for me to dislike TAU WITHOUT HOOVES? I think sources need to be judged as a whole source without being cherry picked for parts, though by and large I agree with you.
  8. Zavalus Zavalus Well-Known Member

    Nah. I've learned not judge anything as a whole. Otherwise I couldn't watch any movies or read any books ;)

  9. Touche, I suppose, but I find Xenology particularly egregious and prefer to discount it in its entirety. Small defects, as you say, can be overlooked.
  10. Zavalus Zavalus Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying that small defects can be overlooked. It's pretty obvious you can do that with little or no effort :) But cherry-picking has that one redeeming virtue, that the cherries are tasty :) And you don't get to complain about how the tree or the leaves taste :)

    Also, not everyone has to like cherries :)

Share This Page