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.

ccs wrote:

So if GWs trying to make me think that in the far dark future there's only Marines to be played?
They're failing hard.

I mean, based on what dakka says, GW failing at it is pretty much irrefutable proof that it's happening lol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When they introduce giant slabs of armour, but they've all got heads poking out, it does seem a little odd to me.

No one seems to mind this slab of armour with a head sticking out so much though. Helmet or no helmet is always an artistic choice, because these models aren’t representing real life combat units.

 Flinty wrote:


It’s a bit like the research that proved you lose more heat through your head than any other part of your body, proven in experiments where the subjects were fully clothed, but not wearing a hat

My understanding is that the whole losing the most heat out of your head thing only actually applies to babies and is only because they're heads are so massive compared to the rest of their bodies.

Andykp wrote:
No one seems to mind this slab of armour with a head sticking out so much though.

He has a reinforced skull.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Flinty wrote:


It’s a bit like the research that proved you lose more heat through your head than any other part of your body, proven in experiments where the subjects were fully clothed, but not wearing a hat

My understanding is that the whole losing the most heat out of your head thing only actually applies to babies and is only because they're heads are so massive compared to the rest of their bodies.

Both are true, in an adult your brain generates more heat then any other part of the body (though the liver also has a fair go) and with only your skull in the way radiates more heat then the rest of you. However the head is a much smaller percentage of body mass for an adult compared to a baby. A baby's head to body ratio is 1 in 4 with an adults being 1 in 8. As such babies have real problems regulating body temperature through such a large part of their body (as well as being in the midst of having to learn how to do it at all!) So it's true for both ats and babies but a much bigger issue for babies.

As for helmets vs none. I enjoy painting faces but I'm rubbish at it and it takes me ages to get a half decent face. As such it's helmets generally but bare heads for Sgts and Characters. I also find it really helps in squads as a quick visual aid if the Sgt has little else to distinguish them.

For my part, I dislike the helmetless trend for the same reason as stuff like boob armour; it breaks my immersion. To some extent warping the plausible to make cool models is not only fine but desirable, but there's a point which breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Part of it is the vulnerability of going into battle without a helmet, part of it is how obviously it is done for a real-world reason. When there is a (reasonably clear) in-game reason for a character to not be wearing a helmet (or if the helmet is on the mini such that it could plainly be put on once fighting starts) it brings it into line for me, but just... no helmet?

That said, I understand people like it and narrative suspension is different for each person. Ultimately I can deal with it, what bugs me is when we aren't given helmeted options at all, or very limited ones, for models that should clearly be wearing them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For my part, I dislike the helmetless trend for the same reason as stuff like boob armour; it breaks my immersion. To some extent warping the plausible to make cool models is not only fine but desirable, but there's a point which breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Part of it is the vulnerability of going into battle without a helmet, part of it is how obviously it is done for a real-world reason. When there is a (reasonably clear) in-game reason for a character to not be wearing a helmet (or if the helmet is on the mini such that it could plainly be put on once fighting starts) it brings it into line for me, but just... no helmet?

That said, I understand people like it and narrative suspension is different for each person. Ultimately I can deal with it, what bugs me is when we aren't given helmeted options at all, or very limited ones, for models that should clearly be wearing them.

It's definitely an upside to Drukhari.

"No helmet? Are you insane?!?"

"Well..."

At least boob armour is armour. A bare bonce is likely to get shot!

But, the more I think about this, I realise it could be much worse. Anyone remember that line of minis from a few years back that was basically "What if Space Marines, but women, and also no armour on their entire chest/stomach area!"?

Like full-on Terminator-style warriors, but also somehow with exposed midriffs and bikinis tops?

I don't know if they're still sold - really only the not-Dreadnought from that line worked as a concept as it was a pseudo-Penitent engine - but boy, you look at that and suddenly massive not-Squats in huge suits of armour with their foreheads baking in the sun doesn't seem so unreasonable.

ccs wrote:

Ah, what would the world be (except better) sans you SM/GW haters.....

Maybe your unaware of this, but - in addition to CSM & Horus Heresy - GW seems to be trying to sell me on Nu-Squats atm. And every now & then they also mention Demons. Seens about every day or three I get a GW email hyping them.
When I walk into the FLGS shop? I see the GW shelves pretty well stocked with plenty of non-SM/CSM offerings.
When I look at what's being played on the tables? Or at our escalation league roster? Again, plenty of non-Marine forces....

So if GWs trying to make me think that in the far dark future there's only Marines to be played?
They're failing hard.

I see someone has taken the internet a bit too seriously today. One little tongue and cheek answer and now I'm a hater. Better burn my CSM and Horus Heresy stuff I guess. I sure do hate GW when I buy their products at my local stores. I'm not sure if I should be happy that a throw away line got under your skin that much or sad that the comment was apparently some sort of affront in your eyes. Honestly world may be better if the blowhards calmed down instead.

Helmetless minis have been part of the 40k aesthethics since the early days.

I really dont inderstand this so called debate.

Is like debating about the correct colour for the minis bases (hints: there is none, paint them as you see fit).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
As an Orks and Lotr player I wonder what's the matter with painting faces? And as a DG player I'd say usually helmets have more details to paint than a face, but I still prefer helmets on my Marines. Even gave one to the derpy caster from Dark Imperium though it was a real pain to get it under that coat.

Ork faces are trivially easy to paint compared to human/marine faces as they have much harder details and eyes are just red.

Vatsetis wrote:
Helmetless minis have been part of the 40k aesthethics since the early days.

I really dont inderstand this so called debate.

Is like debating about the correct colour for the minis bases (hints: there is none, paintedcas you see fit).

The only real colour for bases is Goblin Green. Everyone knows that.

And to get back on topic, I like everyone to have a helmet with them. It's part of their kit just like their weapons and boots. I also don't have guardsmen who go shoeless for instance.

Do guardsmen have a shoeless option in their kits??

Vatsetis wrote:
Do guardsmen have a shoeless option in their kits??

No, but it should be easy enough to convert up. And it was a complaint about some of the Empire state troops at some point.

So why would any body have an issue if some one else took the effort to convert his IG models to be barefoot in an homage to the hobbits??

Is this offensive innany sense??

Well maybe it is that immersion thing, I general do not get. If someone models is table and his models to be walking in a permafrost or magma place, his opponent models running around barefoot could break it. Could be the extension of that whole paint or don't play thing.

 Jidmah wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
As an Orks and Lotr player I wonder what's the matter with painting faces? And as a DG player I'd say usually helmets have more details to paint than a face, but I still prefer helmets on my Marines. Even gave one to the derpy caster from Dark Imperium though it was a real pain to get it under that coat.

Ork faces are trivially easy to paint compared to human/marine faces as they have much harder details and eyes are just red.

It's still just skin color + wash + drybrush + eyes. If anything Orks need more steps as you have teeth and a mouth that you can't ignore. With humans the mouth usually is small enough to just use a wash.
Compared to a helmet where you can have cables, grill, Eye lenses, additional spikes/ tentacles and the base colors. Yes, often you can get away with base + lenses, but not for Marines. And silly Guardsmen have helmets and still faces

"eyes" is the hard part and is the sole reason for most people to favor helmets for other armies.

Ork eyes are just "fill this hole with red paint", and teeth and mouth are trivially easy to paint well even for untalented noobs like me. Ork heads are also much larger than human or marine heads.

 Jidmah wrote:
"eyes" is the hard part and is the sole reason for most people to favor helmets for other armies.

Ork eyes are just "fill this hole with red paint", and teeth and mouth are trivially easy to paint well even for untalented noobs like me. Ork heads are also much larger than human or marine heads.

I guess it's a me problem then - I'm painting my Orks with human eyes
But overall for me how hard something is to paint is mostly dependant on how many steps it takes. That's why I find DG extremely tough to paint because you have all these little details that each need 3 steps so you end up with 35 colors on one Plague Marine. On the other hand I painted 50 Giger-Aliens during the last weeks which for me were the easiest models ever to paint as they're all just one color. It took longer to paint their bases than the actual models.

Vatsetis wrote:
So why would any body have an issue if some one else took the effort to convert his IG models to be barefoot in an homage to the hobbits??

Is this offensive innany sense??

I think that I was a little unclear in how I phrased things. What I meant to say is that what I like applies to my own army. If someone else is playing the Imperial Nudist chapter of Space Marines who wear nothing except for their outsized shoulder plates, that's up to them. Of course, I don't like playing with overly sexualised figures like some of the third party things on offer but that's for other reasons.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"eyes" is the hard part and is the sole reason for most people to favor helmets for other armies.

Ork eyes are just "fill this hole with red paint", and teeth and mouth are trivially easy to paint well even for untalented noobs like me. Ork heads are also much larger than human or marine heads.

I guess it's a me problem then - I'm painting my Orks with human eyes
But overall for me how hard something is to paint is mostly dependant on how many steps it takes. That's why I find DG extremely tough to paint because you have all these little details that each need 3 steps so you end up with 35 colors on one Plague Marine. On the other hand I painted 50 Giger-Aliens during the last weeks which for me were the easiest models ever to paint as they're all just one color. It took longer to paint their bases than the actual models.

I agree on the death guard details, but to me most of the details are just more effort, not actually harder to paint. The difficult part of DG to me personally are the flesh scars on weapons, smoke clouds and painting the inside of cloaks.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
So why would any body have an issue if some one else took the effort to convert his IG models to be barefoot in an homage to the hobbits??

Is this offensive innany sense??

I think that I was a little unclear in how I phrased things. What I meant to say is that what I like applies to my own army. If someone else is playing the Imperial Nudist chapter of Space Marines who wear nothing except for their outsized shoulder plates, that's up to them. Of course, I don't like playing with overly sexualised figures like some of the third party things on offer but that's for other reasons.

New thread topic:

The Imperial Nudist Chapter of Space Marines: helmet covering crotch or no helmet covering crotch?

Helmetless Marines have been a thing since the Rogue Trader cover, and the Marines in the 2nd Ed starter set had helmetless Sgts. So it’s been immersion breaking for some since the start?

I think that having a few human face shows that these are not robots and makes pointing out Squad leaders easy on the tabletop - and at the end of the day 40K is a tabletop game. There are other ways to show squad leaders etc, but a bare head is easy!

A lot of my old marines have sergeants and the like without their helmets, making them easy to identify when on the board.

Nowadays, I prefer to keep their lids on and just somehow paint them (usually the helmet) in a way that they're easily distinguished.

While there is a sense they're better protected that way, for me it's more the Stormtrooper effect - they feel more menacing, cold and distant with the helmet on.

I also just like to jibe GW when I see yet another angry marine because someone took his helmet away.

Nowadays, I prefer to keep their lids on and just somehow paint them (usually the helmet) in a way that they're easily distinguished.

That is actually the official way GW noted the space marine officers standing out with their helmets on.

That Lieutenants helmet looks a lot more fiddly to paint well than a face! YMMV

For inexplicable reasons, I've wrecked more than a few models by somehow giving them melted faces. (I mean shake your paints, thin coats etc, it just never seems to be an issue except when its the focal point of the whole model.)

But equally, when you get it right, I think it adds a lot of character.

Personally, I think helmets both make more sense and look cooler for the vast majority of Marines. The main exceptions IMO are:

* Psykers, where an open head helps to signify that their powers come from their mind, and where you can use glowing eyes to make it clearly special.

* Space Wolves, which have always felt more individualistic to me than most Marines. When I had an SW army, all the models went bareheaded apart from the Lone Wolves, who wore a helm to signify their shame.

* Hooded models. While you can have hoods over helmets, it's always looked weird to me, plus you can do some nifty things with putting the eyes entirely in shadow to make them imposing, which doesn't work so well on helms.

* Certain special characters with a well-defined unhelmed look.

Other than these cases, every Marine I do (including CSM, Grey Knights, Deathwatch etc) has a helmet.