I think if headshots were really the big, bad bogeymen that some people in this thread make them out to be then the last Space Marine scout would have probably died in the 31st Millenium and all of the other Chapters would have long since gone extinct through attrition. From a mechanical perspective it is incredibly easy to construct an antagonist that can make headshots with incredible predictableness, but then I suppose you need to really sit down and consider the implications of what you are doing to your own game and the cognitive dissonance you are going to create viz a viz what happens in your versus what happens in the source material. And, of course, you need to think even harder about the gaming environment this sort of behaviour will engender - some players will retaliate by doing their utmost to be unsurprisable initiative winners who are likewise optimized for headshots.

Frankly, I am never going to play a Space Wolf because of how incredibly unattractive they are. Wolf Senses is the biggest point that has me resolved never to play one, because of the tremendous advantage to wearing a helmet and the tremendous lack of incentive to not wearing one. I am in all honesty quite glad I do not and will never have occassion to play with many of you because the heavy simulationist impulses towards aggressive punishment for in-character but disadvantageous choices is utterly appalling.

Also, please direct you attention to any picture of a Space Marine with his helmet off and you'll notice something:

Yep, they all have HUGE FREAKIN' SCARS ON THEIR FACES!

All of them.

Show me a Space Marine without scars on his face and I'll show you the water-boy.

Point is, they either get these scars due to not wearing helmets frequently, OR something that would have taken their heads off instead destroys their helmet and leaves them mostly uninjured... except for a large scar.

No matter how you look at it... Space Marine must get hit in the face A LOT. Therefore, it must be a standard practice to not wear your helmet all the time.

I think a renown bonus for going the whole mission without wearing a helmet is in order, as well as +2 cohesion points if you're the squad leader. Otherwise, no other benefits.

SpawnoChaos said:

The scars are the result of burning many fate points. Thus in my game: 1 temporary fate point.

Besides it just occured to me that it isn't so much rank that should add to cohesion but the leader's renown ranking. Therefore I suggest as a house rule:

+1 Cohesion for Distinguished Leaders

+2 Cohesion for Heroes as Team Leaders

Alex

KommissarK said:

I personnally am a proponent of encouraging it (not wearing a helmet etc) for role playing purposes and would probably avoid trying to put rules around it precisely because it would benefit the character in game play. I would prefer rewarding role playing vs giving the player an in-game reason to do it. I would be afraid they are doing it for the wrong reason (+10 Command vs because his character is claustrophobic)

Since the biggest issue against going open-topped is vulnerability, what if a Space Marine without a helmet simply adds his Fellowship bonus to his Toughness bonus against hits to the head (and only to the head)? It would also make the Fel bonus of the Space Wolves a bit more attractive for non-leader types.

Darq said:

I guess part of my issue is that, as a GM, I'm not a fan of seeing players "falling on their sword" for the sake of roleplaying. It just comes across as being so smug, sort of a "I'm better than that guy over there because I've handicapped myself." If they're going to try and give that much character, to their characters, then I would try to give some form of an effect (beyond whatever negative effect they are asking for). In the case of going without a helmet, the only real case I could see with a space marine, is utter bravery/faith in the Emperor's protection. Or damage, but that would occur during a mission. I would probably reject the idea of claustrophobia, as I imagine such petty fears are expunged from the mind during a marine's hypno-indoctrination.

My goal is to encourage the option a helmetless leader (note that the suggested house rule is only an option for the squad leader), as I do see it as being the case in the 40k fiction, not just some form of propaganda or artists taste. Also, I want to provide some incentive for exploring squad mode abilities (which my players are new to). Once again, if the bonus is to cohesion, is +3 too much, too little?

Or rather, suggestions I've seen:

Extra fate point

+ Cohesion

+ Renown

To be honest, I would probably avoid the renown bonus, as there is already an oath that serves this purpose, and this rule could be abused to get stupid high renown early on. And, given that the current leaning on mission requisition is the high end (as that table refers to an individual character, meaning FS is like 50+ req per character), this means the really cool toys a bit too early for my liking.

Extra fate point isn't bad, it just seems like it would be forgotten. Also, can it be burned?

Heres another idea:

If a marine opts to remove his helmet, each time he uses a fate point, it can potentially be used as a demeanor, for the purposes of improvements (of course, with good roleplaying).

Or perhaps limit it to a one extra use as such, or allow them to activate both personal and chapter demeanor once each per session.

The problem I see with giving extra renown/cohesion/fate points is that there may be confusion on how they interact if the player decides to put his helmet back on. Especially if a player 'forgets' to reduce them when he removes his helmet.

What about giving a bonus to the unhlemeted guy for friendly interaction tests outside of combat, or penalties for wearing the helmet ?

These can be explained by people being more at ease when they see a face instead of a helmet.

Bilateralrope said:

I have to say I like this suggestion. Perhaps make charm tests difficult if not impossible with an iron face still on?

Decessor said:

**** near every inspiring Chaplain wears a helmet, one with a skull mask at that, so I don't think that this would be very appropriate.

Ah but do chaplains use charm? I'd be more inclined to say they use command or intimidate.

Decessor said:

Inspire is a use of Charm (or Performer). I'm certain they have use for both Command and Intimidate too, but their primary battlefield duty is based upon Charm.

Since by definition anyone wearing a helmet is a faceless mook, I propose that a character can only spend fate points when bare headed.

HappyDaze said:

Ah, I had forgotten the Inspire use. I'll bear that in mind.

HappyDaze said:

Vary the helmet penalty depending on who the character is trying to interact with and the surrounding situation. For example:

- Penalties for interacting with other Space Marines should be rare, if not non-existent.

- If you're trying to interact with a guardsman, the helmet shouldn't be a problem on a battlefield, but will be a problem in a formal setting.

- Wearing a helmet while trying to interact with a child is going to cause major problems, especially if the child is already scared.

AluminiumWolf said:

So your saying that a Space Marine should lose access to their fate points if they have to fight in:

- Low/no oxygen atmospheres. Such as on a Xenos world where the Xenos don't need as much oxygen as a Space Marine, or they all use sealed suits. Then there are the Necrons, if they need to oxygen I will be very surprised.

- Regions with toxins in the air. These could be permanent (Some hive worlds are very polluted), or could be the result of someone trying to gas everyone (probably to drive off the guard).

- Hard vacuum. Remember that we are talking about Space Marines here and 40k is a setting where ship to ship boarding actions happen.

- Deep in a planets ocean. Like one of the combats mentioned in the Space Wolf codex.

They can maybe get away with a transparent breather mask or a bubble helmet with interior lighting so you can see the face.

Basically, to not be a mook the audience needs to be able to identify you instantly, even in a melee, or in space, or underwater, whatever.

Can you imagine the difficulty telling characters apart when they are all wearing black armour and a full face helmet? People had trouble seeing who was who in the Transformers movies, and Marines are more similar than that.

Ponder, if you will the big fight at the end of Thunderball:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiF5LskmetA

We can tell the goodies from the baddies because the goodies wear orange and the baddies wear black. We can identify Bond because he has a different backpack (or later no backpack) and wears a wetsuit with no legs. We can identify Largo (the head badguy) because he is the only guy on his team with blond hair.

You get the same thing in mecha anime - the principles, the characters with fate points, will usually pilot a visually distinctive mech so we can tell who they are. Often this takes the form of colour coding - you get the blue mech and the red mech etc. often with people piloting mecha the same colour as their hair.

So, you can MAYBE spend fate pointsif you are wearing a helmet if your Marines armour is painted bright red, or if your helmet has a distinctive crest, or if your armour is covered in purity seals.

They can maybe get away with a transparent breather mask or a bubble helmet with interior lighting so you can see the face.

Interior lighting ?

You mean you want the players to ruin any night vision they have and make their position really obvious any time they are in the dark ?

Do you want the players to be worried about a leak the first time they get hit in the head ?

Do you have a problem with player characters being intelligent ?

Do transparent breather masks even exist ?

Basically, to not be a mook the audience needs to be able to identify you instantly, even in a melee, or in space, or underwater, whatever.

Who are the audience here ?

If it's the players and gm, then your argument doesn't make any sense because they can tell each other apart through metagaming. Their characters can tell each other apart because their helmets include a display that shows where each one of them is.

Your arguments only make sense if we assume that the NPCs are the audience. How do you justify this assumption ?

Can you imagine the difficulty telling characters apart when they are all wearing black armour and a full face helmet? People had trouble seeing who was who in the Transformers movies, and Marines are more similar than that.

How easy is it to tell one space marine from another by their faces ?

Especially in the midst of combat.

For the average NPC, I'd expect the chapter insignia and weapons loadout to be more distinctive between Deathwatch members than each Space Marines face.

Ponder, if you will the big fight at the end of Thunderball:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiF5LskmetA

We can tell the goodies from the baddies because the goodies wear orange and the baddies wear black. We can identify Bond because he has a different backpack (or later no backpack) and wears a wetsuit with no legs. We can identify Largo (the head badguy) because he is the only guy on his team with blond hair.

You get the same thing in mecha anime - the principles, the characters with fate points, will usually pilot a visually distinctive mech so we can tell who they are. Often this takes the form of colour coding - you get the blue mech and the red mech etc. often with people piloting mecha the same colour as their hair.

These arguments all depend on who you believe the audience is.

So, you can MAYBE spend fate pointsif you are wearing a helmet if your Marines armour is painted bright red, or if your helmet has a distinctive crest, or if your armour is covered in purity seals.

What about being the guy with a jetpack ?

Or the guy with the giant heavy weapon ?

Or the guy with the medical tools ?

Or the extra mechanical limbs ?

Or the guy with more blue on his armour and a strange sword/staff ?

Or the tactical marine, who doesn't have any class specific gear ?

The audience are the gods of Destiny, whose attention you must catch if you are to do Great Things.

:-)

Sure, it is a bit meta, but I don't think anyone can deny that in 40k the more likely you are to have a name and be one of Fates Chosen Few the less likely you are to wear a helmet. So it seems obvious to me to link the mechanic that makes your character stand out from the rest to their head wear.

Penalizing the guys in helmets seems wrong. The solution is more carrot and less stick.

Since the main issue with removing the helmet is one of vulnerability, I'll (again) suggest having a Space Marine without a helmet resist damage to his head with his Toughness bonus (adjusted for Unnatural Toughness) plus his Fellowship bonus. Now he's considerably less vulnerable to head shots - and his courage curiously makes him less vulnerable to head shots from high Penetration attacks.

I'm not sure why this is a big dichotomy. I mean, it's not like we have "Marines who hold their Bolter vs. Marines who stow their Bolter" discussions, where we bring up all the reasons why Stowed Bolter Marines need game specific advantages to allow them to function in the game on a level playing field.

Yes, GW does produce Marine miniatures without helmets. They also produce ones with their Power Swords held point down in the ground, and ones that kneel. Is someone arguing that there are Marines that walk around on one knee at all times?

You have your helmet on. You want to take it off for a particular reason. Maybe you want to make an Inspiring speech to a group of Guardsmen, and you feel that highlighting your common humanity will help. Maybe a genestealer just cracked the helmet and your autosenses are down. Maybe you want to taste the spoor of the enemy, so that you can better track him. Maybe you want to devour the flesh of the foe, to learn his secrets.

Then you put your helmet back on.

We don't reward the guy who chooses not to reload his bolter. We don't reward the guy who chooses not to draw his chainsword. We don't reward the guy who decides to do the mission in a bodyglove instead of his power armor. You get a high-tech, advanced, revered piece of equipment and you choose not to use it? OK, stupid.

This is in no way intended to slight the Space Wolves. I love them,and I feel like they got the big shaft from FFG. A solo mode ability that only functions with your helmet off? Lame. However, I think that would be MUCH better served by creating a new Solo mode ability than by creating fake helmet rules. Even though a LOT of Space Wolf miniatures are depicted sans helmet, we know that they DO get helmets (even cool "Wolf-face" ones), and it should be blindingly obvious from the sculpts of kneeling Marines, posing marines, running marines, standing marines, and jumping Marines, that the particular activity depicted on the sculpt isn't exactly what the marine is doing ALL THE TIME.

I am not keen on helmetless Space Marines anyway. I actually don't find it iconic. The iconic Space Marine is the one wearing their helmet. The helmet is as much part of their image as any other part of their armour. None of my Space Marines have bare heads (aside from the sergeant from a squad from the latest boxed set... and thats because he is modelled with a bare head already attacked to the body. The fact that it makes them less individually distinctive, makes them look less human? That's a good thing. They are the Angels of Death, not Bob and Frank and their Space Marine friends. Obviously that matters more in pictures, models and stories (frankly I think a Space Marine's actual face should never be shown in a film), but I wouldn't want to encourage players to go bare-headed in a combat zone. If they choose to, fine, and if they are involved in some social situation, yes, but not in combat.

borithan said:

Yes, the original MK6 beakie helmet. MK7 is for late-comers.

borithan said:

And again it shows that the 40K universe allows for multiple interpretations, none of them being "the right one". You got your views, I got mine; it's all good. :-)

Alex

I don't want to sound rude on this, but could we shift this discussion from "should helmetless be considered in-universe," and shift it over to "what is a balanced benefit for losing 8 AP on head slot"?

I get that this is a somewhat hotly debated topic, but for those of us considering a benefit to removing ones helmet, it would be nice to actually discuss mechanically what would be a fair amount.

Once again, I put forth that it should be available to squad leader only, and offer a cohesion boost.

This boost should be lost if the leader puts his helmet back for "cowardly" circumstances (as determined by GM). In other words, putting it on to survive in a vacuum is acceptable.

This option should not be allowed during missions where more than 25% of the time is spent in "unsafe" environments (hard void, acidic/toxic atmospheres).

The idea here is that the squad leaders bravery impresses the squad, and thus improves cohesion, making them work better due to the respect given to their leader.

I would suggest +3 cohesion for this.

Also, realize, that this is purely an option, and in its goal, its supposed to be interchangeable with, not superior to, wearing a helmet. Do you want stronger defense/survivibility, or do you want greater sense of leadership?

KommissarK said:

You will likely not get any consensus though. For example, I favour the interpretation of a display of heroic courage instead of as a mark of heroic leadership.

Part of the reason is that I consider DW to revolve largely around heroism, glory, fame. Players will want to climb renown ranks fast to get access to the good stuff. Thus renown bonuses are bound to provide major motivation from a gaming mechanism pov.

As a player I wouldn't want to take off the helmet for 3 Cohesion. Better to skip on an additional activation of an ability and be just more conservative wrt cohesion expenditure instead. Otoh, if taking off the helmet means that I might get have a plasmagun earlier than the others... hmmm... <g>

Alex

The audience are the gods of Destiny, whose attention you must catch if you are to do Great Things.

In other words, your 'audience' doesn't exist. Not really a surprise when your idea made the smart meta-gaming move a dumb in-character move. Especially when faced with criticism you decided to make it an even dumber in-character move.

Sure, it is a bit meta, but I don't think anyone can deny that in 40k the more likely you are to have a name and be one of Fates Chosen Few the less likely you are to wear a helmet. So it seems obvious to me to link the mechanic that makes your character stand out from the rest to their head wear.

I'll dispute that because I haven't seen any proof that they go regularly without helmets. The models don't count because their appearance is fixed, meaning that if we take the lack of helmets from there, we also have to take other things like Brother-Sergeant Cloten mentioned. Pictures don't count because some of them have been modified for propaganda* (helmet-less marines look more heroic) and I don't know how to tell the edited ones from the accurate ones.

So that leaves the novels and flavour text from rulebooks. What do they say about Space Marines going around without helmets ?

Then we have Terminator Armour. It only gets worn by Space Marines who have proven themselves. If the Space Marines that have earned the right to wear it are meant to be going around without helmets, why does it come with a helmet ?

* Such as the covers on the Caiphas Cain books.