Why is it that Champions, Commanders, Generals, Seargents, basically all soldiers that actually matter, never wear helmets and wield pistols instead of a rifle?
this is not even a Warhammer only thing, star wars does this as well.
Having a face makes you human. Being faceless makes you inhuman.
Wielding a sword has very old connotations with nobility and leadership. A pistol is an extension of this in that is makes clear that the individual's primary function is not the drudgery of general fighting.
It's about humanization. Not wearing a face-concealing helmet means the audience can see their face, expressions etc. and can more easily sympathize with the character. Now, if a character has been sufficiently developed you might be able to get away with them wearing a complete helmet, but otherwise they tend to become faceless peons that elicit no emotion from the audience, regardless of their predicament.
Regarding the pistols, this may be a hold-over from the trenches of WW1, where (at least early on, I believe) frontline officers were equipped with a pistol instead of a rifle. I'll have to look up what the reasoning behind it was.
there are alot of helmet wearing characters through all kinds of media. be it the Masterchief, Isaac Clarke or even Darth Vader.
KOTOR made the argument that energy shields could block ranged attacks while swords went right through them. I don't know if the same kind of thought process extends to 40k, but I think that was a pretty decent way of explaining swords in Star Wars.
Not wearing a helmet makes it easier to recognise them and see their emotions. The pistol thing is based on real life, since around WW1 officers were issued pistols instead of rifles for self-defence/executing their men.
Darth Vader is kind of an exception because he needs the helmet to survive. except vader, anyone else in the SW Universe who matters don't wear armor.
Why wouldn't Anakin and Obi-Wan wear armor during their missions?
or if you want to pull that limited-movement-argument; what about pic related
Designed to make him look more intimidating/inhuman
A faceless cypher for the player to project on.
Haven't played Dead Space, Im afraid, but I do know the helmet comes of pretty frequently in 2 and 3.
>Space Marines are all male because of "lore"
captains and other characters usually have forcefields that protect them as good if not better then helmets. i know space wolves have good enough senses to have the helmet be a burden at times. while a helmet might help if stuff falls or other environment particles the enemy might be going for your head anyway.
it's also more heroic like others have said.
>Now, if a character has been sufficiently developed you might be able to get away with them wearing a complete helmet, but otherwise they tend to become faceless peons that elicit no emotion from the audience, regardless of their predicament.
Good example of this is Iron Man. He wears a face-concealing helmet in his action scenes, but his face is visible for most of the movie so you've had enough time to connect the helmet with the personality inside of it.
The reasoning officers usually had a sword, pistol or SMG instead of a musket/rifle is because their job is to lead. All of those weapons are in general lighter than a full size infantry weapon and are only there to defend themselves with if necessary.
the way that orks are presented was pretty unique at the time it came out.
also, they were the one coloring orks green.
Helmets are faceless, and therefore helmeted characters are interchangeable.
A pistol is more dynamic in use because it can be fired with the arm dramatically extended, and it leaves a hand free for other actions. The smaller size allows the character to move more actively and creates an impression of skill and versatility when used against enemies with larger weapons.
A rifle requires both hands and is larger, creating an impression of lower skill because the character is unable to do two things at once and relies on powerful equipment to make up for personal mediocrity. The rifle is held close to the body in a stiff, non-dynamic pose which can only really shift between the hip and the shoulder, creating an impression of limited function and slow movement.
>know space wolves have good enough senses to have the helmet be a burden at times.
and people wonder why we hate spess wolfitywolves, fuck that is some mary sue levels of bullshit
40k's reasoning is that powered armor can be strong enough to survive sustained fire from small arms without adversely affecting mobility, and that melee weapons can be equipped with power fields which cause atomic bonds to break down on contact with the weapon, allowing them to cleave through said armor like paper.
Some wear helmets, some dont. No helmet is a way to differentiate them from rank and file.
As for pistols, thats what officers in the military carry. They also carry an m4 (in my experience), but a sidearm is an accoutrement of rank. There are reasons for this but Im typing on a phone, so you'll have to google it yourself.
It never says that they've got eyesight or hearing better than the helmet's auxpex, mind, the helmet's filters just take the smell out of everything. It's less that the helmets are bad and more that they have skewed priorities.
not really. fluff wise it's to make the wolves more like beasts who pretend to be able to control themselves.
most marines can spit acid, taste different poisons, track by taste and their skin can adjust to different conditions. it doesn't come up in tabletop or books because marines are for smashing through things not gradually going through things. it gets better for chaos marines who gradually become more daemonic. there's also sorcerers/psykers who don't need helmets due to warp shit.
Personally I only model guys with helmets if they are meant to be fighting on the front lines.
This is true for non yiffs as well. In Brothers of the Snake, the helmets auspex are actually inferior to the space marines natural hearing, but provide valuable tactical and targeting data. They wind up removing their helmets to kill a chaos daemon thats invisible to sensors.
At least, I THINK it was brothers of the snake? It was definitely dan abnett.
WH40K combat is really late 1800s - early 1900s combat with a futuristic aesthetic. It was standard for officers to carry a sword or similar status symbol, which could not be used in conjunction with a rifle. Also, the only time officers would be fighting was when the fight was in close quarters, where a pistol or SMG was superior.
Pistol thing is because leaders were not meant to be at the front. The sword is also a holdover from days when Calvary mattered and people signaled by pointing their swords.
When you need to signal using a sword, rifle is just cumbersome.
Unless the helmet is uniquely identifiable, a helmet tends to make a character part of a uniform mass that prevents them from properly standing out.
Also, a helmet will often restrict vision, hearing, and other senses - an officer has to weigh the risks to his personal safety compared to the fact that as an officer, he must be aware of his surroundings and be able to react properly.
Man they fucked up aquila armor so bad in that game, or at least the helmet. Looks terrible.
Well, I slap helmets on my Sergeants for my Guard (Officers still only wear that bitchin' cap, though).
As for pistols, well, I do like that extra hit it provides me when things go south...