AluminiumWolf said:

For that matter if you take out the faceless mooks the ratio is even higher.

Course, pretty much by definition anyone wearing a helmet is a faceless mook.

I'd go so far as to say that you can't spent fate or fortune points if you are wearing a helmet.

I think it is fair to say the rules as they stand don't do a good job of emulating their own artwork.

Howdy!

The rules for the Space Wolf solo ability only work without a helmet. I celebrate the mission focus that has a PC removing his helmet and taking a risk to help accomplish the mission. I am not talking about a cavilier disregard for sanity. My disgust is with the "nasty GM's" that feel they should punish the PC for taking this risk.

I'm sure every group has its own definition of fun, and it will drive or kill their game.

LeBlanc13 said:

Absolutly not - the GM isn't role playing, he is supporting the role players. The GM's one and only job is to make sure the group has fun. If your group prefers ultra-deadly "realism" then more power to you. I was simply sharing my experiences. So realistically, the best alternative is nuke um from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

So realistically, you could never beat the tyrannids - 1 nid gets through the planet is toast. All they have to do is hide until the Space Marines go away and then make more nids. Co-opt the population and breed. No frikkin way they could realistically wipe them all out, or stop them all from landing on the planet. So best option is hoist anchor and leave.

Realistically taking dozens of years to make new Space Marines, they would die out after a couple of generations. They die a lot quicker than they get made.

Realistically it would be a lot more ecconomically feasible, quicker to field and be more effective to mass produce Predators instead of Space Marines and field them with regular human crews.

Space Marines are heroic fantasy characters, they certainly aren't realistic.

major shultz said:

I applaud them doing that too, but the point is that there actually be a risk. Playing it 'because it's awsome' is right up there with 'women in chainmail bikinis'. Looks cool. Totally impractical.

And, actually, the point of being GM is to be the consumate role player, since you have to be dozens of different people in the duration of a single session. How well you do it is part of what makes a game interesting and how belivable these characters are.

If we are playing Chainmail Bikini Babes the RPG we would expect wearing a chainmail bikini to be a good idea.

In 40k we would expect not wearing a helmet to be at least an option, and one that looks more attractive the harder you are.

Anyone who isn't blind knows Marines don't wear helmets quite a lot of the time. Like 40% of the time.

Ahh, c'mon guys, Marines helmets are bad ass looking. I wish they made ones I could buy at Toys R Us, but instead all thats available is crappy clone trooper helmets and the "If you wear it you must be in the under 7 year old crowd" Transformers heads. As a 40K nutjob, I always keep my marines in full armor EXCEPT when they are heroes or Seargents etc... to be able to tell the difference on the table top. I have 4 space marine armies and I have decided that I can accept the fact that the Sgt or Hero has better stats (ie, more experience in the field than the squad he's leading, so he chooses to go un-helmeted. It used to bug me, but I have made peace with that. It would bug me if I was playing on a ,say, airless rock because, I dont care if you're the Emperor himself (Ave Imperator), you die in the void. But I realize that the models are only representational. I almost wish I could have (I could do this, but I don't bother) seperate heads or seperate models for the helmetless guys for when they would be fighting with their helms and when they wouldnt. Pretty dumb and expensive idea, but I'm an obsesive/compulsive so I guess the feeling is natural for me.

Taking this light hearted thread seriously for a minute, I guess the stats are there for guys who don't want to wear there helmets, if they get plugged in the head, they kinda asked for it. OR you could do what just about every 40k author has done in novels is have a reason for them to lose the helmet during the game. Kinda like the way Kirk lost his shirt in every Star Trek episode (i exaggerate too). It happened enough that it made a great joke in Galaxy Quest.

A marine character seems to always take a shot to the helmet or a bash that splits the helm, making it next to useless and he loses it. In the heat of battle, I guess you would be better off using your own eyes rather than a broken HUD.

You could always make your own penalties or trade offs for dumping the helmet. Like having no built in auspex, no range finder, harder to hear the vox bead, etc.. but increased peripheral vision, or anything else that would be a bonus to dumping it.

I know I'm way over anylizing this, but I thought it was funny how many people responded to this and how there seem to be the "no helmet" camp, and the "wear your **** helmet" camp.

cheers

OOps, double post.

BaronIveagh said:

Well, I don't know about you but I come from the 80s school of action movies with Arnie, Sly, Bruce, Mel, etc. And that school of script-writing agrees that real firefights are dull and spice things up heroically.

So yeah, I find real firefights not the stuff that I want to simulate. To me it seems like hunkering down behind cover endlessly, taking shots at the enemy while minimizing one's own risks and calling for close air support or comparable in order to gain local fire superiority.

My preferences are clear, there can be no debate about it. :-)

BaronIveagh said:

So what? If that's what I want, it's going to happen. And I'll make it so that it is practical, end of story.

Alex

My somewhat simplistic view comes in two parts.

Firstly, any loyal Imperial artist worth his salt who is depicting a specific Marine, rather than a generic one, will render the image (whether statue, painting or whatever) without a helmet, even when depicting a combat where the Marine was categorically wearing one. It's artistic licence. Simmilarly the Marines will always be in full heraldry rather than in disruptive pattern or area-apropriate colours. It also looks more striking. This is reflected in the artwork for the games and the models for the wargames..

Secondly, the armour represents the Marine's uniform for both combat and any situation where a modern soldier would be in dress uniform, but the helmet is not a requirement. Thus, when not in combat and in a safe environment most Marines will avoid wearing the helmet. The suits, as pointed out in an asside in one of the Cain books, are centuries old relics, and have a tendency to have the lingering aroma of centuries of body odour inadiquately filtered by centuries old air scrubbers.

Lets look at that paragon of future combat simulation.

Gears of War.

A helmet didn't save either carmine brother and yet the helmetless Dom and Markus live to fight another day. Plus it also reinforces that chainblades on bolters are cool.

Decessor said:

And we have a winner!!

Sensible of not...

Gamey munchkin / haughty roleplayer or not...

Grimdark / Brightlight or not...

Simple fact is we know from the TT game that marines, especially heroes and leaders, go into battle without their helmets.

Why?

Well...because its made of awesome!

This is roleplaying so someone who follows what the cool marines do, deserves recognition...renown rewards do it!

Going without a helment is risky, dangerous even, but oh so Astartes!! Reward the player i say!!!

Luddite said:

That's not a fact, however. Just because the model isn't wearing a helmet because then you can tell it's a heroic person, doesn't mean that in the actual battle that would be occurring in the fluff that your toy soldiers are representing that they wouldn't be wearing a helmet.

When people start making "Hello Kitty" Marines and the like, I think the only "fact" is that the models aren't really 100% true representations of what is in the fluff.

MILLANDSON said:

It's still all a matter of personal interpretation though. I stick to mine. :-)

Alex

Luddite said:

That´s because leaders and heroes are personalities and should stand out from the masses, even when the viewer is one meter or some feet (for the non-metrics) away and can´t see all the nifty details on the armour. That´s arts and has nothing to do with lore/fluff, or reason. Similar goes for artworks. A helmetless face shows a being with thoughts and feelings.

In an RPG a figure gets personality due to a player roleplaying it. With miniatures and artworks this is impossible, both are inanimate, so if you want to show personality you need other means to do it. A face that´s not obscured by a helmet is an effective means to get it done.

If one of my players goes without helmet, I´ll show him that this is actually dangerous and that helmets not only exist because some artificer got bored. If he gets though that, his character is a baller, if not, he´s just fool with bullet through the head. All within the limits of reason ofc. But if someone is a good marksman an shooting at him, he´ll go for the head. Especially meanies like Chaos Space Marines.

The reason why some Marines do it, is exactly that it´s dangerous, if it wouldn´t be, they wouldn´t do it.

I'm playing a Librarian at the moment, I typically will be playing the game without a helmet on as soon as I get my psychic hood because in my mind it'll be a lot more comfortable etc for the Librarian to use it that way. If the hood itself confers armour (as it's made of the same plating then fine) is entirely up to the GM. I am aware that IC I lose anything like a heads up display, good job I'm a telepath. My point being, I'm in character; not lacking in sanity.

In moments where it would be suicide not to wear a helmet myself and the GM have ruled that I must make a full action if I wish to put my helm on and reconnect my psychic hood to the helm jacks (1/2 action removes wires and puts helm on another 1/2 to reconnect wires) this is assuming the hood plugs in and isn't permanently attached. I guess my point is that not everyone who doesn't wear a helmet does it because it's "well hard" or enables them to use their "ability of win" as a GM I wouldn't penalise someone if they had a really good reason for it. At the same time, I wouldn't spare them the pain of a headshot if it does hit home by a well trained opponent. Especially if like me they may have psychic powers to deal with it...

King Jareth said:

I might point out taht, IIRC, he takes his helmet off just in time to be sniped, as a crowning moment of irony.

Well, I don't wear a helmet but I do sleep with my back banner on.

Well, I don't wear a helmet but I do sleep with my back banner on.

BaronIveagh said:

I actually had a look and Carmine doesn't take his helmet off, he has a jam in gun and he shows Lt. Kim when a sniper shoots him in the head through his helmet after Dom remarks earlier he can see "snipers better" without a helmet on, which Marcus rebukes him on.

ConstantineRoth said:

In Gears 2 Dom has a conversation with the other Carmine brother about why they dont wear helmets, I think thats where he says he can see snipers better.

P.S. Carmine must die.

Personally even in the TT game I model everyone (except scouts) in helmets. Partially because I HATE painting faces, but mostly because I can't get over the idea of "Hey, that guy not wearing a helmet must be important... *several dozen lasrounds plow into Captain soandsos exposed skull*"