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.

I'm not sure if this will end up being productive or not. However, every damn time this comes up in a thread, usually Imperial related but not exclusive, it's the same tired junk over and over again.

Do people really not understand that this issue is entirely a matter of aesthetics and is therefor entirely subjective? Every time I see a new post in a thread decrying helmetless faces and then the listed reasons as to why it's "silly" and not realistic all I can think of is the numerous cutscenes and aminations I've seen of bullets wizzing clean through space marine helmets as if they're not even there. Heck I remember seeing lots of unhelmeted models when I first began my hobby interaction years ago, and back then the common excuse was "it's a matter of those who can paint faces and those who cannot."

There are lots of reasons why someone likes one view over the other, why does it have to keep coming up over and over again? Is the helmet issue really that big of a deal for folks? It's gotten to the point I build helmetless models just to tick people off...

I think your post answers your own question

However, I think the nature of the Interweb blows it all out of proportion. People have preferences, but you can't be seen to be wrong or ignorant on the interweb and its easy to take umbrage at a statement made by someone you will never actually meet, so it becomes a hill to die on, unfortunately.

The only real way forward is to try and help keep people calm and reasonable, as hard as that can be sometimes.

 Flinty wrote:
I think your post answers your own question

However, I think the nature of the Interweb blows it all out of proportion. People have preferences, but you can't be seen to be wrong or ignorant on the interweb and its easy to take umbrage at a statement made by someone you will never actually meet, so it becomes a hill to die on, unfortunately.

The only real way forward is to try and help keep people calm and reasonable, as hard as that can be sometimes.

I understand.

On a related topic, are there any current kits that do not make enough helmeted heads vs. no helmet heads, which would in turn cause a person to not be able to fully kit out a squad one way or the other? It seems to me that there usually is always enough heads to do them up the way you want.

 Togusa wrote:
why does it have to keep coming up over and over again?

....he asks as he brings it up. Again.

Myself: Anyways, doesn't matter to me. If a model has an option of heads/helmets I use the one I like the look of best. Or the one that best fits the look I want the model to portray. Maybe just whichever I'm in the mood to paint....
Sometimes, especially with old solid cast pieces, I need to do a head swap to get the desired look.

Others: I honestly don't give it any thought.
If I did I'd assume either A) they aproach it like I do, or B) they didn't think about it at all & just stuck a head on/never considered modding the piece.

Honesty the main reason I go all helmet is to not have to paint faces. The armor is way easier haha. Though I personally do like the helmets better on most models.

Anyone trying to force the helmet for muh realism is full of it. Dudes are running around with chainsaws, fighting sentient mushrooms. Though on that note even in real life, everyone doesn’t have full kit on all the time every time. We’d drop just about everything but water and ammo during some patrols in Afghanistan because the mountains were just that rough.

ccs wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
why does it have to keep coming up over and over again?

....he asks as he brings it up. Again.

Myself: Anyways, doesn't matter to me. If a model has an option of heads/helmets I use the one I like the look of best. Or the one that best fits the look I want the model to portray. Maybe just whichever I'm in the mood to paint....
Sometimes, especially with old solid cast pieces, I need to do a head swap to get the desired look.

Others: I honestly don't give it any thought.
If I did I'd assume either A) they aproach it like I do, or B) they didn't think about it at all & just stuck a head on/never considered modding the piece.

Most seem to not care. But I've had a few run ins with folks to refused to play a game because my Sergeants and Captains didn't have helmets on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Honesty the main reason I go all helmet is to not have to paint faces. The armor is way easier haha. Though I personally do like the helmets better on most models.

Anyone trying to force the helmet for muh realism is full of it. Dudes are running around with chainsaws, fighting sentient mushrooms.

This is my feeling. I'm not a good painter, so the less work I have to do the better.

 Togusa wrote:

Most seem to not care. But I've had a few run ins with folks to refused to play a game because my Sergeants and Captains didn't have helmets on.

Seriously?
They're nuts.

Personally most of my Marines are helmeted. I have a couple old metal models who are un-helmeted mostly for the sake of retaining the original cast. I prefer the look of an all-helmeted army for them, and they're supposed to be using their auto-senses in battle anyways.

My CSM are probably all-helmeted except for the odd Berzerker or metal Terminator.

All my Tyranids are unhelmeted.

I sense for the way you worded the original post that those who really care about helmets won’t comment much.

I am in exactly the same camp as you, it doesn’t matter, it’s a game and the helmet-less look is a hollywoodism that I like the look of. So most my sgts and characters don’t have helmets. Not all but most.

No one complains about ORKS not wearing helmets, but soon a space marine takes his off it ruins suspension of disbelief. Fine if they want to model their's with all helmets but don’t try and dictate to others.

Sisters of battle I always preferred helmets but just because they looked ace, but now I like the shaved head look, never liked the bob.

I prefer helmets for standard troops, but some of my sergeants and heros get a cool looking head without helmet so they are easier to spot and because it is "cool"

Brickfix wrote:
I prefer helmets for standard troops, but some of my sergeants and heros get a cool looking head without helmet so they are easier to spot and because it is "cool"

This ^^^^

I always model with skidlid when the option is there, because I hate, and suck at, painting flesh tones.

However, the original reason for Command Models being lidless was of course to make them more visible on the tabletop at a glance.

 Togusa wrote:
Do people really not understand that this issue is entirely a matter of ascetics, and is therefor entirely subjective?

I am 100% sure that this is not a matter of "severe self-discipline and abstention from all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons."

It might be a matter of aesthetics, and said aesthetics might matter to certain people who follow an ascetic lifestyle, but I'm fairly sure such people wouldn't be collecting Warhammer 40k.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

However, the original reason for Command Models being lidless was of course to make them more visible on the tabletop at a glance.

Hey, that's what ye olde back banners are for!

 Togusa wrote:
Most seem to not care. But I've had a few run ins with folks to refused to play a game because my Sergeants and Captains didn't have helmets on.

Well, that's bizarre. But look at it this way: Anyone who refuses to play a game with you because of how you've personally decided to model your units probably wouldn't be any fun to play with in the first place. Be glad that they "weeded themselves out" by personally announcing their lack of respect for other people's decisions for their own armies. I don't think that you lost anything from not playing them. They don't sound like much fun anyway.

Helmets for everyone, all the time. Unless there's no other options, like given pre-assembled models or old old Stormtroopers who only have beret-heads.

I used to do helmets for the rank and file, helmetless for the experienced troops so you know they're badass...

...but then a friend convinced me to do it the other way around - no helmets for the rank and file because they are younger, less experienced, and more impetuous, and helmets for the veterans and heroes, because they have been through some gak, know how to survive, and are smart enough to understand the value of a helmet.

I love Helmets and I love helmetless...

They both have a place in my armies.

Could give 2 gaks if anyone likes it or not, I build the army for myself and what I want it to look like.

If you don't like it cool, if you do cooler.

Always helmets, so I don't have to paint eyes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Most seem to not care. But I've had a few run ins with folks to refused to play a game because my Sergeants and Captains didn't have helmets on.

Well, that's bizarre. But look at it this way: Anyone who refuses to play a game with you because of how you've personally decided to model your units probably wouldn't be any fun to play with in the first place. Be glad that they "weeded themselves out" by personally announcing their lack of respect for other people's decisions for their own armies. I don't think that you lost anything from not playing them. They don't sound like much fun anyway.

I tend to agree. In my neck of the woods there are a couple of people who have been so toxic, that everyone else preschedules their games. On Gameday, the toxic boys show up, and can't get a game in with anyone else because of it and they get salty and refuse to play each other, ironically complaining behind each others backs about how toxic they are when playing the game. One of them decided to jump into HH, and I laughed so hard when he posted his all Dreadnought army "painted neutral grey" so that he can pick and choose the best of the dreadnought chapters on a whim. Totally called it.

Some hobbyists are just like that I guess.

Just let them stew in their own toxicity, they're doing you a favour by self-quarantining.

My Guard are all sealed up in Hostile Environment sets, but before I did a mass-conversion I had the odd helmet-less guy. Same with my Marines, around 1/4 are lacking helmets. For all your opponent knows, the guy took a hit and discarded his broken helmet just before the battle.

I generally prefer helmets because I think that they look cool, though some of the CSM heads are really cool with the snarling grills. Also, about painting skin tones, if you play Chaos, you can paint their skin all kinds of strange colors, due to Chaos corruption.

 Togusa wrote:
I've had a few run ins with folks to refused to play a game because my Sergeants and Captains didn't have helmets on.

X

I always go full helmet, and mask if that is an option. I prefer a collective anonymous look to my armies over those with individualized models

I could have sworn I once read some lore that tried to explain away the helmetless thing for marine leaders by saying they had a small force field projector built into the neck of the armour, that produced a field about the strength of a normal helmet. Like a smaller and weaker iron halo. It went on to talk about one reason for this being to tempt snipers into revealing their positions.
Maybe it was just some author getting mixed up with an iron halo.
Either way, it's at least a good enough head-canon for me to handwave the issue away.

Arson Fire wrote:
I could have sworn I once read some lore that tried to explain away the helmetless thing for marine leaders by saying they had a small force field projector built into the neck of the armour, that produced a field about the strength of a normal helmet. Like a smaller and weaker iron halo. It went on to talk about one reason for this being to tempt snipers into revealing their positions.
Maybe it was just some author getting mixed up with an iron halo.
Either way, it's at least a good enough head-canon for me to handwave the issue away.

It's dumb but better than nothing. If anyone has a source that'd be great.

I am aghast...AGHAST I SAY... that you would consider not wearing your Emperor-blessed uniform headpiece. All good guardsmen always wear their helmets and hats (you heard me).

This is of course a completely tongue-in-cheek answer. Do whatever you want. If you want to model them without heads at all, knock yourself out (but not literally, please).

I think you shouldn't get 10VP if you go helmetless.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

However, the original reason for Command Models being lidless was of course to make them more visible on the tabletop at a glance.

Hey, that's what ye olde back banners are for!

Which is why said banners should not count for line of sight purposes. Nobody needs to die because they caught it in the heraldry.

I love back banners on Marines, and I like to leave my unit sergeants helmetless to make them easier to pick out of an otherwise mostly identical unit.

Both, both are good for different reasons.

PS what about masks?