I agree to a certain extent but I do think there are some decent proxies out there which might not be 'the' style but are still in a style that is in keeping with the feel of the background.  For example, I could see someone using the Kraytonian grav tanks as an alternative to typical Eldar patterns.  They are oddly angular and at the same time sort of sleek, with clean lines.  It's not typical Eldar styling but it could work.

==
Edit:  Sorry, mean the Kraytonian grav tanks, not Andrayada.

_________________
Neal

Yeah, tell me about it. I loved that show!

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

In fact the fluff supports a range of vehicles with different aesthetics -- GW evidently wanted to leave open the option of different miniatures ranges for the different craftworlds... so The Krayton design aesthetic seems entirely fluff-legit, if tournament-illegal.

So too the Arcadia-(and Komsomolets) pattern armored vehicles.

Good to see that they are doing this (maybe a positive sign for Epic), but to be my usual cynical self this probably a move to help get rid of stock.

Well, that's one way of looking at it, but I think the more correct version is to say that GW decided to fully revamp the eldar vehicles so that they would look good in 40k. Therefore, they made new epic minis to match. In order to appease all the older epic players that had (literally) hundreds of old style falcons lying around, JJ inserted that bit into the fluff. That's what you call retconning.

A similar issue cropped up in BFG when the SG sculpters couldn't be bothered to even try to match the stylistic details of the ships that GW-proper had made (as seen with the SM escort, Ork battleships, and Craftworld cruisers). Instead, they just wrote the fluff to justify the mismatch, and it has always bothered me.

But that's all neither here nor there. In the end, we all have our own view of how things ought to be. I don't expect everyone to have the same OCD I have.

I disagree on the craftworld spaceships, that I thought was an intentional harking back tot he spacefleet design of Eldar.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well, I don't think they even did a good job doing that:

compared to this

The small, repetitive detail on the older model conveys a sense of scale, whereas the SG model seems to be trying to get away with have as little detail as possible. The detailing it does have doesn't really sell the supposed size of the vessel.

Well my thought on that is which Falcons ?   The SM1 & 2 "wedge" or the E40K/E:A "cresent" ?  Or what about the Russ ?  The SM1 Mk.1 ?  The SM2 Mk.2 ?  The E40K Mk.3 with 5 varients ? Or the F/W Versions ?  The same can be said for most Epic models ... So IMO, its a big galaxy ... So there should be room for other [proxy] versions from other companies, that make something I may  like better.  IMO, the E/W 1/2 Track will make a good Rhino. Put a turret on it, it would be a Chimera ... And the list goes on ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

BFG models are supposed to be designed that there is no way to judge how big they are compared to other GW models.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/