then your pretty safe shopping in eldar fashion district. winning!

The initial dagger redesign was very un-Eldary, but the second was good.

Loved the chainsword redesign, even if it should have been shorter.
However, your logic is sadness. For starters, if you are trying to use a Chainsword to hack through a SM's Power Armor breastplate or pauldron or leggings, you are doing it wrong. That is what Power Swords are for. Chainswords are meant for lightly armored targets, as it is the motion of the sword's teeth that provide most of the cutting power(AKA a chainsaw, if you have ever used one in real life). All you have to do is touch your enemy. The rotating teeth will tear deep gouges in them. However, they can still be used even against more heavily armored targets, because joints are more lightly armored(A concept you do not seem to understand) as having them heavily armored would make them bulky and thus limit mobility. Physics.
tl:dr Chained weapons cut primarily through the motion of their teeth, not the force put behind them.

Thuldarn
6th Ed Striking Scorpions only have Strength 3(Their Scorpion Chainswords add +1 Strength but that does not mean that a SS' own natural Strength is 4) and wear Heavy Aspect Armor, not Power Armor, which Gav Thorpe should be ashamed for claiming with absolutely no modern lore to back him up.
Don't use information that's been outdated for nearly a decade.

The SS Strength topic also ties into something else you(Zavalus) brought up when complaining about lore and fluff and how you prefer 'realism' when talking about some poison and acid. Their descriptions said they make it easier to wound/kill things. Game-wise(AKA Mechanically), increasing your Strength makes it easier to Wound your target, which kills them.
Conversely you could decrease their Toughness, but balance-wise, raising your Strength 1 point may be more/less dramatic than lowering an enemy's Toughness 1 point.

The basket on the Chainsword: Chainswords are meant for cutting and face-punching lightly armored targets, so they have blades and face-punchers.

Also, your whole fallacy of thinking Eldar don't have the strength to do anything, at least in the sense of them being pit against SMs/CSMs/Orks. A SM being stronger than an Eldar is not going to magically prevent that Eldar's Chainsword from chewing through the joints of his Power Armor. Strength is only a factor in a test of strength. By deflecting and dodging a SMs blows, AKA making use of their speed advantage, an Eldar can negate the difference in Strength.
tl:dr Strength vs Speed/Finesse


Your Diresword looks like it could be a 2-handed variant, although, you should be aware that the handle for the original is probably bigger than JUST fitting a single hand on it, so the blade could be longer than you are imagining it to be. Most swords can fit both hands on the handle. 2-handed weapons are called that because they typcially REQUIRE you to use 2-hands, and generally have a handle that can fit both hands and then some. As for the weapons being flimsy and breaking, these aren't made out of something lame and weak like steel or titanium or whatever. They're made of Wraithbone. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Wraithbone Maybe you've heard of it? Come to think of it, have you ever heard of the Eldar before this game?
tl:dr Your Diresword is long, skinny and pretty. Their's is pretty. You need to study Eldar more.


Your 2nd Witchblade redesign is great. I agree their's looks rather impractical. A good shot or strike from an enemy could simply split that gem and then you have half a sword, further missing whatever benefits that Stone provided. They should completely connect the two halves of the blade and simply have the Stone be in the completed blade's central line, as well as remove the large and completely unnecessary gap of blade-lessness where the Power-field pack is. All that empty space does nothing but make the weapon longer and potentially unwieldy. Then again, they may have done that simply TO make the weapon longer so it would look like it needed 2-hands, which is lame.
tl:dr Your 2nd Witchblade is nice. As for theirs: Don't give me a 2-foot handle, 1-foot waste-of-space and 3-foot blade. Give me a 2-foot handle and 4-foot blade.


The sleeker spear is far more Eldar in appearance. However, the flares on the shaft are still valid as you are only looking at things from the perspective of a heavy Ork or SM/CSM charging at an Eldar that would for some reason be stupid enough to stand in their way and try to spear them, instead of avoiding their charge and lopping something off with the powered blade of the spear. Then, while in actual combat, it could be both beneficial and detrimental. You'd not have to worry about spearing too far through someone and having to spend more time withdrawing your weapon from their body(especially if they fell towards you), however, you could not spear two enemies nearby one another. On the other hand, with the prongs, if you were going fast, say, on an Eldar Jetbike, and you speared an Ork or SM/CSM, you'd have a much greater chance of knocking them off their feet.
tl:dr Your spear is by far the better one but the wings are still viable even in the 41st millennium, with intelligent use.


And this, just because I caught it while browsing back through quickly,
Overlord Kharnohn asked
EDIT: Why the frick does it have camo striping? not only is it bad camo striping, it's completely negated by the gems....
You must be new here(AKA illiterate). Did you not read its description, which explicitly says that guns only exists BECAUSE it was designed with camouflage in mind?

Also more:
Good lore should ideally expand upon existing lore and bring greater depth to the subject in an elegant and logical way while remaining consistent with it's essential core principles and aesthetics.
Unless this new 'Good' lore is meant to replace old lore because the old lore was bad, AKA replacing old lore with new lore. As for why someone might think old lore is bad; maybe they looked back at it and realized in the grand scheme of things, it was just bad. Hell, Matt Ward completely changed the Necrons. Why can't the Eldar lore be changed? Oh wait. It was. Strength 3 Striking Scorpions wearing non-Power Armor.

OVERALL tl:dr Your designs are nice(Your armor designs much better than EC's in my opinion) even if your understanding of both real world physics and game-world mechanics are a little off.

Best redesign so far IMO.

Yeah, sort of like medieval warfare, you didn't try to hack through a knight or heavy infantryman's thick armor with a sword. You tried to target joints and weakspots with it, or bring a mace or halberd to wreck that armor.

Doesn't long, skinny and pretty fit the Eldar more than just pretty?

So your troops wear very bright colors, have bright gems/stones on them, some flashy lights on some, and are all mostly speed, LET'S MAKE GUNS BASED ON CAMO HELL YEAH!

Now Dark Reapers (which are probably the only ones using this weapon) like to sit back and snipe, so this camo for them is RIDICULOUS. Dark Reapers are PROBABLY (depends on how bE does the colors for the aspects) going to be mostly dark and black, and this weapon is bright as the damn sun! Add to the fact that it doesn't seem camo is going to be too much of a thing in this game and well.....
Adding camo to Eldar weapons that weren't for outcasts and rangers is dumb.

Here we go again...

@Zaeryn -
1) Actually, I did use a chainsaw in real life, and, believe me, you need some physical strenght, to keep the proper edge alingment if nothing else. 'Just touching' would tear the weapon from your hand. Physics. Note how chainsaws are two-handed and have large grips. There's a reason for that. Take my word for it.

2) And yes, I do understand that every suit od armour has weak spots. But you do not design a melee weapon based on an off chance you'll hit a gap in the armour plates. Hence, the sharp tip on my re-design. Is the original chainsword viable against heavy armour? Sure, it can be. But it's like you said, you have to hit a weak spot. My re-design is making thrusts a viable option as well and has an added benefit of expanding the existing lore, since a thrusting weapon resembles more a scorpion's sting.

3) I never said Striking Scorpions wear power armour. I'm not that good with armour design, so I won't play smart there. The armour re-designs I'm doing are just for fun, since there are no more melee weapons.

4) I never complained about lore and fluff. These are the reasons I love the Warhammer universe. The situation you're bringing up concerned treating TT mechanics as part of lore. And that's a totaly different subject alltogether, suited for a separate thread.

5) The only weapon meant for face-punching are knuckle dusters. Don't make up things to fit your reasoning. Swords are meant to cut and thrust. The baskets around the hilts were there to protect your hand from opponent's blade sliding along yours. And that's it. Also, believe me when I'm saying this, punching someone while holding a sword is uncomfortable as phuck and it leaves you completely exposed. You don't do this kind of stuff, unless you're starring in a movie.

6) I'm not saying the Eldar are weak. I agreed earlier, that they are as strong as a well-trained human. And I can agree that they are considerably faster and more agile. No argument there. But I refuse to assume that the Eldar always hit the weak spots. In any melee combat most hits will go against the armour. And, as I said above, you need strenght to keep the chainsword in your hand and keep the proper edge alignment. This would be even more important when trying to chew your way through an adamantine piece of power armour.

7) The Diresword - sorry, but no. Most swords have either hilts for a single arm or are fully two-handed. What you're talking about are longswords or bastard swords, which had some popularity in the renaissance, but not much before or since. Well, unless we're talking about movies or games.

8) I never said the original Diresword was flimsy. Quite the contrary, I wrote it looks crude and resembles a cleaver. Also, I'm not saying the blade could brake by itself, but when you make a wavy edge on a sword, you create a weak spot in the blade and the force you will receive while parrying or being parried will focus on that point, instead on the whole lenght of the blade. You seem to be assuming wraithbone is nigh on indestructible. Fine by me. But bear in mind, I did the re-designs with realism in mind, so I assumed the even distribution of force is still a factor in the weapon design.

9) Yes, I've known about the Eldar before this game. Please, stay on the issue, not on the person. Depreciating me is not the way to get your arguments across.

10) The spear wings - you don't need the wings for 'lopping something off'. Also, if you're afraid of your spear going too far through your opponent, you're not using it right.

11) You're saying my understanding of physics is a little off and then you write about using spears as lances while riding a jetbike? A short history lesson - while on the battlefield, european knights wore a hook under their arms. These were there to attach the lance to the breastplate, since the force upon impaling the opponent while riding a horse was so great, that it would break your arm. Now you're suggesting switching horses to jetbikes (increasing the acceleration) and humans to Space Marines or Orks (increasing the mass).

Force = mass * acceleration. F=ma. Also, here's the Newton's third law of motion:
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

If at this point you're still not seeing where I'm going with this, do a little experiment. Get a broomstick and a barrel of water, get in your car and try to impale the barrel with the broomstick, while driving. Should be quite educational.

12) I think my understanding of real world physics is sound. As for the game mechanics... what game mechanics? EC's? Or TT's? Whatever the case, I don't really care about game mechanics, so you're probably right there.

13) And finally, thanks for taking your time to comment. I really do appreciate it, despite debating pretty much all of the criticism. I wrote this on this forums a few time already, so bear with me, but Americans have a nice saying: "stay on the issue, not on the person". We have a nice one back here in Poland as well: "your views are forged in the fires of discussion". Put them both together, and you'll know I'm dead serious, when saying I appreciate the critique

EDIT. @E-50_Panzer - You'd be suprised what kind of armour you can pierce with a well placed sword thrust. But, you're right, maces and halberds would be far more efficient.

Please don't wall of text me for what I'm about to post

The wings would be used like the two side blades on those Asian daggers I can't remember what there called though .

And have you ever thought that it's not a wavy blade but the soul in the blade striking out at someone ?

I guess you could use spear wings like that if they were straight not curved. Still, it seems a little unpractical compared to making an ordinary thrust.

As for the wavy edge - soul or no soul, you won't do much when your sword is broken.

The blade is like a glass tank filled with water ie the soul wich is making that weird wavy line tho I do like your redesign .

Now this is a very interesting concept.