Hellions

id rather stick mandrakes in a venom and make it a weird gunboat...Mandrakes are best at shooting in my opinion.

Haven't read all of these comments by I've seen a lot of hate for the Hellions from DE players. I haven't played any of the recent editions of 40k ( just getting back into the hobby now) but to me it looks like the reason why people are hating on these guys is due to a crutch DE players fell on with running them with a character who longer exists in the rules. It looked like that Baron guy turned Hellions into a primary go-to for smashing the enemy the in the face. There are two types of units in 40k - the ones you pick to do a job and do it well (hammer & shield termies, demon prince combat monsters, Venom poison gunboats) and then there are your secondary units, your substitutes, your hole pluggers. Hellions are the second of these. You don't take them to smash the enemy in the face, you have grots or incubi for that. So what do you take them for? They have a unique role in the army in that they have a +1 strength weapon (can't remember if incubi do too, I'm still learning!). Combine that with furious charge which they will get in later turns and you have strength 5 assault troops!

You don't use your hellions to spearhead an assault unless it turn 5 or 6 in which case you should have a pristine squad ready to do just that. Early game you use their speed to grab objectives and to babysit your back field whilst your more aggressive units do their work. To use sporting analogies (an odd thing in a hobby filled with people who often have no interest in sport!) hellions are your sweeper (if you know football - real football, soccer), they're your quarterback (if you know usurper football). They sit back lending weight of fire against anything that threatens you in the back field. They can and should assault anything that breaks through and causes trouble. As you advance forward they lend support in midfield to keep you in control of the game. And at the end when you need to strike at objectives or you need to make that final push these guys run through the middle of your forward units and score that touchdown for you!

I'm a firm believer in the concept of units having two roles in the game - an early role and a late game role. Early game hellions are your reserve and your failsafe. Late game they can win it for you. Don't use them as assault troops or even close support, they're not built for that. Instead of trying to shoehorn each unit into a role you think they should serve look at them and consider how you might best use them based on their stats. Weaker units will often have lesser roles they're stats lend themselves too that you might not have considered till you sat down and thought about them. Same can be said for current wytches too - they have a role to play now that is different from the haywire grenade tank busters they were used for in past editions.

Quote :

Early game you use their speed to grab objectives

they are not fast. They are jump troops.
Reavers are fast, more durable, better in melee, can get anti-tank AND occupy the same slot.

@Demantiae that's all well and good, but reaver just do all those things so much better. Why take hellions when you can have T4 3+ jink ignore dangerous terrain, rending hammer if wrath and 48" movement. For 3pts more per model?

Reavers are better yes. That's why you use them vs priority targets and why they become priority targets for the other guy. They might not make to turn 5 or 6 to take that last objective. That 5 or 10 man hellion squad might though. I'd never say take hellions over reavers, but you don't take reavers to play sweeper you take them to be your wingers, to get in the other guys face and cause trouble. Whilst they're doing that your hellions (if you take them) are floating around the centre board waiting to be called into action. In low points games you probably can't afford to squeeze hellions in. In larger games you need some sort of reserve unit. It's all well and good throwing a bunch of reaver squads into combat but you have to put them in harms way for much of the game to get the best out of them, they might just not survive. I noticed a thread on here by a guy wanting advice on how to keep his reavers from being blown up by turn 2 in every game. They're a target priority but hellions aren't. If you can win your games by throwing reavers down the table then awesome, you don't need hellions ever. But if you need something to fall back on then I think hellions are that unit. You don't leave a reaver squad in the corner babysitting an objective that's just a waste of points. But a small hellion squad that on turn 4 or 5 can hit hard with strength 5 to finish off some cover camping infantry protecting your last objective might be just what you need when your last reaver died a heroic death finishing off that last leman russ.

I'm just getting back into this as a hobby so forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like a lot of these "is this unit worth it" debates revolve around comparing an under-par unit to a pretty solid unit in a role where one is clearly significantly better than the other. Hellions don't compete with reavers or incubi or grots in close combat, they're just not as good. But you wouldn't hold any of those back for the final turns because they need to perform sooner rather than later. Hellions suck turns 1 and 2, but once you get furious charge and have thinned out the board a little they can potentially shine. If you really need to you can stick a 5 man babysitting squad in a spare raider and boost them down the table for the end game. Just don't write them off because they're not an A+. That's ok, A+ units will either bag you an easy victory (if everything goes to plan) or die horribly (if you make a mistake or get unlucky). Ok units get ignored on the table. Ok units that become good late game can be your pocket ace when you need it.

Demantiae wrote:

They're a target priority but hellions aren't.

And that should be an eye-opener.

Demantiae wrote:

Reavers are better yes. That's why you use them vs priority targets and why they become priority targets for the other guy. They might not make to turn 5 or 6 to take that last objective. That 5 or 10 man hellion squad might though. I'd never say take hellions over reavers, but you don't take reavers to play sweeper you take them to be your wingers, to get in the other guys face and cause trouble. Whilst they're doing that your hellions (if you take them) are floating around the centre board waiting to be called into action. In low points games you probably can't afford to squeeze hellions in. In larger games you need some sort of reserve unit. It's all well and good throwing a bunch of reaver squads into combat but you have to put them in harms way for much of the game to get the best out of them, they might just not survive. I noticed a thread on here by a guy wanting advice on how to keep his reavers from being blown up by turn 2 in every game. They're a target priority but hellions aren't. If you can win your games by throwing reavers down the table then awesome, you don't need hellions ever. But if you need something to fall back on then I think hellions are that unit. You don't leave a reaver squad in the corner babysitting an objective that's just a waste of points. But a small hellion squad that on turn 4 or 5 can hit hard with strength 5 to finish off some cover camping infantry protecting your last objective might  be just what you need when your last reaver died a heroic death finishing off that last leman russ.

I'm just getting back into this as a hobby so forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like a lot of these "is this unit worth it" debates revolve around comparing an under-par unit to a pretty solid unit in a role where one is clearly significantly better than the other. Hellions don't compete with reavers or incubi or grots in close combat, they're just not as good. But you wouldn't hold any of those back for the final turns because they need to perform sooner rather than later. Hellions suck turns 1 and 2, but once you get furious charge and have thinned out the board a little they can potentially shine. If you really need to you can stick a 5 man babysitting squad in a spare raider and boost them down the table for the end game. Just don't write them off because they're not an A+. That's ok, A+ units will either bag you an easy victory (if everything goes to plan) or die horribly (if you make a mistake or get unlucky). Ok units get ignored on the table. Ok units that become good late game can be your pocket ace when you need it.

Sorry but all the above seems to rely on having an opponent who doesn't have a brain. Hellions don't have to be a target priority. They're T3 with a 5+ save. They can be destroyed by an afterthought, let alone any serious concentration of firepower. Unless you can hide them completely out of LOS (not easy with their models) literally anything that targets them will either wipe them out, break them or reduce their numbers so much that they are not any kind of threat.

Oh, and they don't have plasma grenades so in the unlikely event that they actually survive to the latter stages of a battle they will attack the cover camping infantry on an objective, get shot up by overwatch, done over in assault and then strike last with their awesome 2 S5 attacks.

Also, they're jump infantry so they can't go in a Raider as you suggest.

With the possible exception of Wyches, they are without a doubt the worst way to spend points in our codex.

Demantiae wrote:

... but you don't take reavers to play sweeper you take them to be your wingers, to get in the other guys face and cause trouble... You don't leave a reaver squad in the corner babysitting an objective that's just a waste of points

Your basing your entire argument on the above premise.

Here's an example of what an average game for one my reaver squads looks like.

Turn 1: screen ravager with night shield so that it doesn't have to jink. Identify nearby mysterious objective in movement phase and allow ravager to shoot without granting cover to its target. Use assault move to screen ravager again.

Turn 2: use turbo boost to score isolated objective marker (maelstrom mission).

Turn 3: use turbo boost to block movement of enemy unit. Draw fire away from some other units (take a few casualties but T4, 3+ cover and 5+FNP make it barable).

Turn 4: use turbo boost to contest an opponents objective.

Turn 5: assault nearby objective secure unit, tanking overwatch for my depleted incubi squad.

Its the 48" movement of reavers and their ability to move in all phases of the game (bar psychic) that is their real value. In my opinion charging them headlong into your opponents army is a waste of points.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

If you really need to you can stick a 5 man babysitting squad in a spare raider and boost them down the table for the end game.

Also, they're jump infantry so they can't go in a Raider as you suggest.

They can. Jump infantry is bulky, but not prohibited from embarking, so you can actually fit 5 of them in a Raider.

Rokuro wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

If you really need to you can stick a 5 man babysitting squad in a spare raider and boost them down the table for the end game.

Also, they're jump infantry so they can't go in a Raider as you suggest.

They can. Jump infantry is bulky, but not prohibited from embarking, so you can actually fit 5 of them in a Raider.

They are prohibited, as are all units with jetpack or jump pack descriptor.

Transports:

Quote :

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.

Demantiae wrote:

I'm just getting back into this as a hobby so forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like a lot of these "is this unit worth it" debates revolve around comparing an under-par unit to a pretty solid unit in a role where one is clearly significantly better than the other.

That's the problem. No matter what Hellions do, something else does it better for the points. So why take them?

Jimsolo wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

I'm just getting back into this as a hobby so forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like a lot of these "is this unit worth it" debates revolve around comparing an under-par unit to a pretty solid unit in a role where one is clearly significantly better than the other.

That's the problem.  No matter what Hellions do, something else does it better for the points. So why take them?

Heres hoping for book dlc right riiiiiight?

Mushkilla wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

... but you don't take reavers to play sweeper you take them to be your wingers, to get in the other guys face and cause trouble... You don't leave a reaver squad in the corner babysitting an objective that's just a waste of points

Your basing your entire argument on the above premise.

Here's an example of what an average game for one my reaver squads looks like.

Turn 1: screen ravager with night shield so that it doesn't have to jink. Identify nearby mysterious objective in movement phase and allow ravager to shoot without granting cover to its target. Use assault move to screen ravager again.

Turn 2: use turbo boost to score isolated objective marker (maelstrom mission).

Turn 3: use turbo boost to block movement of enemy unit. Draw fire away from some other units (take a few casualties but T4, 3+ cover and 5+FNP make it barable).

Turn 4: use turbo boost to contest an opponents objective.

Turn 5: assault nearby objective secure unit, tanking overwatch for my depleted incubi squad.

Its the 48" movement of reavers and their ability to move in all phases of the game (bar psychic) that is their real value. In my opinion charging them headlong into your opponents army is a waste of points.

Fair enough. I was speaking theoretically but you're right. Looks like a good use of reavers there, I'll remember that.

My applogogies, it seems I have arrived late to the party. But I would like to kick this horse you have left for dead a little bit as well.

My take on hellions is that they are best played the way they commonly appear in the fluff. Hovering close to raiders / ravagers and intercepting boltershots with their faces. A full squad of 10 can easily give cover to at least two backfield ravagers, maybe three if your opponent is not bringing pie plates.
You can also use them to, 'around your deployment, a perimeter create' if you are worried about flamerpods making a BBQ party out of your marina.
They then hang out in your backfield as a reactive unit. Meaning trying to stop your boats from being charged or distracting anything the opponent might deepstrike or outflank into your backfield. If they survive, they can grab an objective in the late rounds.

So why not do this with reavers or beasts? For beasts the issue is that the models won't obscure your boats enough to grant a save. For reavers the issue is a bit more complex. If you are fielding hellions in games less than 1850 pts, or if you are running them instead of some other choice with the vanilla FOC, then you are probably going to hava a bad time. But in bigger games and with 6 FA slots ( or as a part of the formation ), you can afford to think a little different. What the hellions do then is mess with your opponents target priority. If you block with reavers, shooting them down should be a priority, because you are going to ram those bikes up his nose in a round or two if he does not. Hellions migh be left alone to let your nightsielded ravagers fire at full BS with a 4+ cover. If he wants to shoot them with small arms, he would often have to commit the shooters to the mid field in order to get in range. They might get creamed but at least those massed boltershots did not down a ravager, and he has just presented you with fresh victims. A squad with only 3 or 2 hellions left should still give a cover save to at least one boat.
I enjoy the mindgames part of playing dark eldar so it is not always about the stats for me.

I hope this helps someone.
Sorry for the threadomancy and wall of text.

Scrz wrote:

My applogogies, it seems I have arrived late to the party. But I would like to kick this horse you have left for dead a little bit as well.

My take on hellions is that they are best played the way they commonly appear in the fluff. Hovering close to raiders / ravagers and intercepting boltershots with their faces. A full squad of 10 can easily give cover to at least two backfield ravagers, maybe three if your opponent is not bringing pie plates.
You can also use them to, 'around your deployment, a perimeter create' if you are worried about flamerpods making a BBQ party out of your marina.
They then hang out in your backfield as a reactive unit. Meaning trying to stop your boats from being charged or distracting anything the opponent might deepstrike or outflank into your backfield. If they survive, they can grab an objective in the late rounds.

So why not do this with reavers or beasts? For beasts the issue is that the models won't obscure your boats enough to grant a save. For reavers the issue is a bit more complex. If you are fielding hellions in games less than 1850 pts, or if you are running them instead of some other choice with the vanilla FOC, then you are probably going to hava a bad time. But in bigger games and with 6 FA slots ( or as a part of the formation ), you can afford to think a little different. What the hellions do then is mess with your opponents target priority. If you block with reavers, shooting them down should be a priority, because you are going to ram those bikes up his nose in a round or two if he does not. Hellions migh be left alone to let your nightsielded ravagers fire at full BS with a 4+ cover. If he wants to shoot them with small arms, he would often have to commit the shooters to the mid field in order to get in range. They might get creamed but at least those massed boltershots did not down a ravager, and he has just presented you with fresh victims. A squad with only 3 or 2 hellions left should still give a cover save to at least one boat.
I enjoy the mindgames part of playing dark eldar so it is not always about the stats for me.

I hope this helps someone.
Sorry for the threadomancy and wall of text.

I've bolded the important part. What you're saying is that your opponent is shooting the Reavers because they're a threat. As in, they can actually do something to him if he doesn't kill them. And, with T4 and 3+ Jink, they can tank quite a bit of firepower - maybe even draw some Ignores Cover weapons away from the Ravager.

With regard to the hellions, the reason people ignore them is because they don't do anything. If the Ravager fails its cover save or gets torrented down, then what are they going to do? Maybe kill a couple of guys before being mowed down by basic weapons?

Furthermore, you also state that they'll protect Ravagers from bolter shots with their faces. Do you also plan to protect Land Raiders from Bolter shots?

Anyway, I strongly suggest you read this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/11/disadvantages-only-make-my-units-stronger/

I said raiders / ravagers, ravagers are rear armor 10 still? And "bolter shots" were meant for illustrating massed small arms fire and not to be taken literally. Although "bolter shots" from a heavy bolter could damage a ravagers front armor if you want to be pedantic.  

Also note, I'm not suggesting you take hellions instead of reavers.
Yes they will be ignored because of the low threat level. But they can still accomplish things.
And if one ravager is shot down, you should have one or two more in a 1850+ list.
I have read that article, and although some units indeed are close to useless, I think it is a defeatist point of view to think that because a unit does not have the best stats, you can not use them for anything. Just because the autor of that article is unable to think outside his statbox does not make his rant true or fact in any way. To be absolutely clear though I agree with most things that has come up in this thread. I don't think hellions are good at CC or the best at shooting. They can do both, but rather poorly. If you need them to kill their points worth or more to be considered, they won't be considered. I don't think their weakness is a blessing in disguise. It does not make them strong. It gives them very limited usefulness. I would not recommend using hellions, but if you want to, then this is my suggested use.

We probably won't agree on this, but if feels like you did not get my point so let me present you with a concrete example and let me know what you think. Bear in mind this is for high point games only. <- I can't stress that enough.
BTW I can't really talk about maelstrom games, because I haven't used them in one yet. But I imagine I would go with reavers all the time there.

Anyhaps imagine this common scenario:
Often the table is set up with a big BLOS piece of terrain in the middle. I have my ravagers with hellions to the left and the reavers to the right. He needs to move up in order to get in range to shoot at one of them forcing him to decide which units to move to the left or right in order to draw line of sight to either my reavers or ravagers. If I was blocking the ravagers with reavers and had another squad of reavers on the side, he would not have to think too hard.

Or an outflanking war walker comes to multilaser you in the bunghole. A bubblewrapped ravager still gets his save and you can throw the hellions in his face and hope they die slowly while you reposition your backfield. With hit and run they might escape with a couple of guys left to hide on an objective. ( don't take the multilaser to literally. )
It might not always work out though. But it's something to consider... and then probably reject.

Scrz wrote:

Also note, I'm not suggesting you take hellions instead of reavers.

Except that this is exactly what you're suggesting. If you take hellions then, for all intents and purposes, it's in place of a Reaver squad. They occupy the same FoC slot, cost similar points and basically fulfil similar roles (or would do, if Reavers weren't so much better).

Scrz wrote:

Anyhaps imagine this common scenario:
Often the table is set up with a big BLOS piece of terrain in the middle. I have my ravagers with hellions to the left and the reavers to the right. He needs to move up in order to get in range to shoot at one of them forcing him to decide which units to move to the left or right in order to draw line of sight to either my reavers or ravagers. If I was blocking the ravagers with reavers and had another squad of reavers on the side, he would not have to think too hard.

And this is exactly what the article was talking about - you're trying to mess with your opponent's target priorities by including bad units in your army.

Scrz wrote:

Or an outflanking war walker comes to multilaser you in the bunghole. A bubblewrapped ravager still gets his save and you can throw the hellions in his face and hope they die slowly while you reposition your backfield. With hit and run they might escape with a couple of guys left to hide on an objective. ( don't take the multilaser to literally. )

But, if you were bubble-wrapping with Reavers instead of hellions, then you can throw them at the War Walker and obliterate it with S6 rending HoW hits.

Scrz wrote:

It might not always work out though. But it's something to consider... and then probably reject.

As you said earlier, I don't think we'll agree on this point. If I include a unit in my army, I want that unit to be able to do something by itself. And, this is even more true when said unit is competing with a similar unit that can and will do something useful.

To put it another way, imagine this scenario - you're facing an opponent with enough Ignores Cover (Tau, IG, Eldar or somesuch) weapons that trying to block your ravagers with bodies is pointless. If you're using Hellions, then you've basically got dead-weight in your army. However, if you're using Reavers, then they're still a threat and may even draw some Ignores Cover fire away from your vehicles.

I guess I just feel that Reavers give you far more options - you can threaten with them in melee, you can use them to give your vehicles cover, you can jump across the table to get linebreaker or capture an objective, you can harass the enemy with JSJ (still using them as cover), you can try and draw fire to tank wounds on their T4 3++, you can faff around in cover with no danger, etc.

With Hellions, you're trading all mobility, survivability and combat potential for... what? A tiny point reduction? To me, it seems a bit like giving IG players the option of a 20pt price drop on their Leman Russ tanks, in exchange for removing the main turret and bringing their armour down to AV11. They're cheaper, but they've lost all functionality in the process.

Oh well, if we ever play each other, you can use your hellions and make me look like an idiot.

Reavers are the business allright. There are a couple of ways to field hellions without replacing reavers though. If you take the formation or don't have enough reaver models to fill 6FA slots in a 2000pts game. If you use the realspace raider FOC.
I would never think about bringing hellions until I run out of reaver models. I only have 12 at the moment so it happens some times. I was only offering the only real potential use for them that I can think of, if they were to be included.