Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ChrisWWII wrote:I like to try and think basic debating rules apply even for a fictional universe. Citing sources is important, no matter what the debate.

Yeah this is a good point.

I would agree with you, but then I wouldn't be a jerk. Childing aside, you will not find a universe in print that has more contradictory fluff and background anywhere else than in 40K, just ask CS Goto and anyone who has written a codex.

Cool tech, badass heroes, deadly aliens and reshaping reality with your brain by tapping into a alternate universe where thought is made manifest is the unifying theory of 40K.

My two penn'orth: Suspension of disbelief.

It's part of the package of things you "let go" in order to enjoy the gaming experience. There are lots of things about 40k that are unrealistic but which, if implemented in a realistic way, would make the game very boring.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the weapons in 40k are unrealistically weak in comparison with today’s weapons (though more likely to hit). I’m not in the military, but I can’t imagine that a standard issue modern assault rifle has a maximum effective range of <50m, nor that a typical soldier would have a 50% chance of ignoring a hit from such a weapon. Nevertheless, the game would be very dull if a unit of guardsmen with lasguns could bring down a 10-man squad 72” away with a quick burst of shooting. We accept it because it makes the game interesting to play and makes tactics at this scale relevant.

Similarly, we like models that look interesting, and the focal point is the face. Bare headed models are more striking.

It’s the same thing that makes us accept everyone speaking English in the Star Wars world, or that all aliens in Star Trek are basically humanoid with funny faces. It’s something you “buy into” that makes the story easier to tell and more entertaining.

I think Star Wars has just been translated from Long-ago-far-away-ese to be more easily digested by the American public.

Some of us are less able to suspend our disbelief.

I assume the battlefields of the far future will require secure communications, and be hazardous with poison gas, so the use of a helmet is highly recommended.

Kilkrazy wrote:Some of us are less able to suspend our disbelief.

I assume the battlefields of the far future will require secure communications, and be hazardous with poison gas, so the use of a helmet is highly recommended.

well the helmetless SM sergeant head has a communication device and space marines have organs to deal with poisonous gases, or use filtration devices when helmetless

Why do any SMs wear a helmet, if they don't need them?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do any SMs wear a helmet, if they don't need them?

Marines in the novel usually wear helmets to my knowledge,expect SW due their senses.

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that apparently, because some space marine models are depicted without a helmet, some people take this as proof that said marines don't wear their helmet, ever.

We don't do this with ANY other modeling convention. The guy who is standing at parade rest isn't assumed to fight that way. The assault marine isn't assumed to always be touching the ground. The guy with a holstered pistol isn't assumed to leave it in the holster the entire game.

While it is certainly possible that some marines fight without their helmets ALL THE TIME, why in the world wouldn't almost everyone assume that the model depicted a marine at a particular INSTANT when he was helmetless?

I just can't imagine how people who reason this way function in the world. Do they assume that the people they see in cars on the road live in those cars, and never ever get out? Do they assume that the girls in bikinis on the beach walk around in bikinis all the time (ok, that might actually be awesome)? Do they assume that because you eat steak and eggs one day, that is the only type of food you ever consume? Do they look at family photos and assume that all all times, you have a 3' tall person and a dog situated on your couch?

I can't believe that people even feel the need to argue why a particular marine might be in a battle without a helmet. Why would you even assume that the marine even spent the entire battle helmetless? Real soldiers occasionally put down their weapon, and no one assumes that indicates they are going to fight with their fists for the rest of their career.

Aaaaaaaaah.

Tl;dr, put'cher helmet on!

Da Butcha wrote:I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that apparently, because some space marine models are depicted without a helmet, some people take this as proof that said marines don't wear their helmet, ever.

We don't do this with ANY other modeling convention. The guy who is standing at parade rest isn't assumed to fight that way. The assault marine isn't assumed to always be touching the ground. The guy with a holstered pistol isn't assumed to leave it in the holster the entire game.

While it is certainly possible that some marines fight without their helmets ALL THE TIME, why in the world wouldn't almost everyone assume that the model depicted a marine at a particular INSTANT when he was helmetless?

I just can't imagine how people who reason this way function in the world. Do they assume that the people they see in cars on the road live in those cars, and never ever get out? Do they assume that the girls in bikinis on the beach walk around in bikinis all the time (ok, that might actually be awesome)? Do they assume that because you eat steak and eggs one day, that is the only type of food you ever consume? Do they look at family photos and assume that all all times, you have a 3' tall person and a dog situated on your couch?

I can't believe that people even feel the need to argue why a particular marine might be in a battle without a helmet. Why would you even assume that the marine even spent the entire battle helmetless? Real soldiers occasionally put down their weapon, and no one assumes that indicates they are going to fight with their fists for the rest of their career.

Aaaaaaaaah.

WYSIWYG

Oi! If the model depicted what they're always doing some of my marines would in trouble...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

hey, its a good book alright! (Practicin' to be chaplain he is)

The only unhelmeted model I have that is a full marine is the special weapons gunner... but then he's a pyro and the wielder of the plasma gun and we all know they're mostly a bit off in the 'ead anyway.

Bare heads on a Space Marine is not necessarily stupid.

It is folly for a SM to wear his helmet in the refrectory, shower or bed.

Bare headed SM's are not nearly as stupid as a helmeted SM who doesn't wear PA.

That really would be silly.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do any SMs wear a helmet, if they don't need them?

No i was saying that for the reasons that you presented as the use of helmets are not good examples for space marines, the whole 'better covering of PA' is a better example.

THey dont wear helmets so that they can smell the enemy!

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do any SMs wear a helmet, if they don't need them?

No i was saying that for the reasons that you presented as the use of helmets are not good examples for space marines, the whole 'better covering of PA' is a better example.

OK, reasons for wearing a helmet.

1. Defence against wounding by shrapnel, falling debris, acid splash, and so on.
2. Protection from blast injuries.
3. Provision of a safe atmosphere free from toxins diseases, asphysiating gas and vacuum.
4. Protection from sonic weapons.
5. Provision of communication devices and Head Up Display tactical information.

If SMs get all of this from their bare head, there is no point wearing a helmet.

Reasons against.

1. Too heavy.
2. Obstructs the sense of smell and peripheral vision.

Kilkrazy wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do any SMs wear a helmet, if they don't need them?

No i was saying that for the reasons that you presented as the use of helmets are not good examples for space marines, the whole 'better covering of PA' is a better example.

OK, reasons for wearing a helmet.

1. Defence against wounding by shrapnel, falling debris, acid splash, and so on.
2. Protection from blast injuries.
3. Provision of a safe atmosphere free from toxins diseases, asphysiating gas and vacuum.
4. Protection from sonic weapons.
5. Provision of communication devices and Head Up Display tactical information.

If SMs get all of this from their bare head, there is no point wearing a helmet.

Reasons against.

1. Too heavy.
2. Obstructs the sense of smell and peripheral vision.

right we all know that space marines have in plants

theres an exstra lung for filtering pousnes gases and for low oxegen enverments

the sonic weapon bit is bull thay have aterfishal ears that look like normal ears as well wich is all so a coms device


and my info for this is form the lexicanum web site

Can the extra lung cope with breathing a zero oxygen environment?

No.

What about all the other points?

Marines with no helm are the most powerful! it takes a manly man in order to not wear a helmet!!1
those guys just walk up to the enemy and just slaps them out of the way.

They are the oldest ones, so they have the biggest ears.

They do not wear helmets because their ears are too large to fit comfortably.

Space Marines have implants Fall

If they had inplants - actually they could have oxygenating plants (a bit like you have in ponds and aquariums) so that is how they breath in zero oxygen environs.

That or Oxy-gum, like Marine boy

oh yes Space Marine boy uses Oxy-gum.

all makes sense now!

Marine Boy, what a great programme that was!

I really dislike painting skin, but I do it anyways. That's why I like mutations, it can sorta cover up with different skin tones.

Plus, bare heads give rise to so many things... such as camo facepaint.

CSM helmets and SW helmets look cool, and can give some personality on their own.

SW don't wear helmets because:

1. They have awesome senses.

2. Their hair doesn't fit.

3. Becasue it LOOKS AWESOME!

4. They are protected by their beards.

And since I play mostly SW and CSM... I don't get many 'boring' plain heads or helmets in my kits.

In my opinion not wearing a helmet is not wise, cause of all the firepower the enemy got. Just imagine a new just promoted high rank space marine goes into battle and decides to take of his helmet like the others walks into the figth and in a few seconds HEADSHOT

But on the other hand without their helmets they can spit acid.

I find that in a game one can not apply real world logic. So the pros and cons work in real life I agree fully, going into battle as protected as possible is always good. Going into battle unprotected, not so wise.

I for one have not yet done a bare faced marine, however I find the points for it to be acceptable. It adds character, soldiers don't always have their helmets on, battle damage hinders its function, it separates the commanders from the grunts, not that a red stripe or a red helm doesn't. However if you want to paint bare faces then play as the Orks or as the IG. None of them wear full helmets ever.

There are some poisons that even a marine's enhanced physiology cannot cope with - having a closed-air system would be required for this, and also, as has been mentioned, if the marine is fighting in a different-pressure environment (such as in space or under water).

Also, remember the old rules for 40k where marines benefited from the different vision modes and other functions of a helmet? Auto senses (with the ability to see through smoke and in low light/darkness), and protection from sudden extreme light or sound. Automatic updates for status of squad members, head-up displays etc. There are examples of all of these and more from many sources.

Not to mention the protective qualities of a helmet - really, in this situation, I can't imagine any situation where a non-helmeted head would be advantageous.

So, in conclusion I would say non-helmeted heads are for:
1 - modelling purposes
2 - chapters/legions who want to smell the enemy or see them with their own eyes when they kill them, because they are funny like that! We've seen examples of that with the SW, and one with the BA where the marine discovers what the penalty of that choice is when fighting the Night Lords in Soul Hunter.

The same argument applies to other armies like Tau. If they need the their helmets to see, then why the gak do they take them off?

Its because theyre so bad ass a headshot wouldnt kill them, they would just catch the bullet with their teeth and spit it out as fast as it came in killing whoever shot them, duh

SanguinaryGuard wrote:Its because theyre so bad ass a headshot wouldnt kill them, they would just catch the bullet with their teeth and spit it out as fast as it came in killing whoever shot them, duh

And that's why we use lasguns!

Pacific wrote:There are some poisons that even a marine's enhanced physiology cannot cope with - having a closed-air system would be required for this, and also, as has been mentioned, if the marine is fighting in a different-pressure environment (such as in space or under water).

Also, remember the old rules for 40k where marines benefited from the different vision modes and other functions of a helmet? Auto senses (with the ability to see through smoke and in low light/darkness), and protection from sudden extreme light or sound. Automatic updates for status of squad members, head-up displays etc. There are examples of all of these and more from many sources.

Not to mention the protective qualities of a helmet - really, in this situation, I can't imagine any situation where a non-helmeted head would be advantageous.

So, in conclusion I would say non-helmeted heads are for:
1 - modelling purposes
2 - chapters/legions who want to smell the enemy or see them with their own eyes when they kill them, because they are funny like that! We've seen examples of that with the SW, and one with the BA where the marine discovers what the penalty of that choice is when fighting the Night Lords in Soul Hunter.

What happened to the BA, if you dont mind me asking?