Scourges and hellions after the FAQ - thoughts and feelings?

So how does everyone feel about scourges and hellions now? I feel trueborn might now serve a purpose, but I will miss the protection and the +3 move for hellions!

9 dark lance raiders, you hadn't yet lived!

Can we just take a moment to reflect on the fact that the game isn't even a month old yet and I already have to tape a stack of looseleaf to the back of my book. What they did to Scourges and Hellions to me isn't nearly as important as why, and how quickly this "issue" was addressed.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Can we just take a moment to reflect on the fact that the game isn't even a month old yet and I already have to tape a stack of looseleaf to the back of my book. What they did to Scourges and Hellions to me isn't nearly as important as why, and how quickly this "issue" was addressed.

Melodrama...

stack of loose leaf to the back of the book - you mean all 2 pages for the Index Xenos 1?

Why they did it - because it clearly was a freaking oversight and no one can say with a straight face that the intent was for scourges and hellions to ride in raiders and venoms. You know - like EVERY OTHER faction in the game?

And the stack of looseleaf in the back of my rulebook mind you.

Anyway, the real question is why was the Hellion/Scourge an oversight?

Because this edition is a rushjob.

Look how much errata came out in just a couple weeks on the shelf. No edition is perfect, but dear lord. This would be forgivable, or even expected, if this was the old GW. But this is the "new GW" and this was the edition we were asking for. This is the most balanced, most playtested version of the game. Apparently during the past two and a half vaunted years of playtesting no one thought to put Hellions or Scourges in a transport. So here we are having to amend our army lists and indexes. What's worse they're already talking about round 2.

Like many things - playtesters build up a presumed knowledge base through the process - and players have the same in built bias and knowledge. We all assumed they could not because in all 7 prior editions you couldn't... then someone read it without that bias and saw it was not limited anymore! Huzzah! So no - it was likely never play tested because the play testers KNEW you could not do it. The rules writers KNEW you could not do it - they just worded the rule in such a way that the assumed knowledge was factored in. Its bad writing for sure but that doesn't mean it was not playtested.

The same goes for Shadow Spectres in Wave Serpents. FW named them Jet Pack - not Jump Pack - which means the wave serpent rule of no jump pack is not applicable. Is this correct? No - but assumed knowledge is applied from past experience

That's lazy writing, pure and simple. It's also a clear indication that no one who plays competitively actually looked at these rules because the first objective of anyone with a competitive mindset is to break them as hard as possible. Look how long it took me to find the Razorwing Flock list, and I'm just some rando. If Andrew Gonyo or someone was playtesting this it would be a much tighter ruleset.

You seem to have some kind of disconnect between play testers and rules writers.

The play testers provide feedback on rules and the writers can chose to apply those suggestions or not. Playtesters don't equal tight rule set

I have no doubt that the playtesters mentioned it at some point - but the rules writers could have easily (and poorly) chosen to ignore it because "everyone knows you cant do that!"

So then we have 2 scenarios: The playtesters did not mention it or discover it because they didn't approach the game with a competitive mindset, or they did mention it and the rules writers did not follow through. So either they had bad playtesters or bad rules writers. I'm going to say probably both, because you're not the only one with ties to the ITC, and because the way Mike Brandt is talking about everything the competitive groups in this area comes up with indicates he had no freaking idea just how hard you could break the ruleset.

TeenageAngst wrote:

So then we have 2 scenarios: The playtesters did not mention it or discover it because they didn't approach the game with a competitive mindset, or they did mention it and the rules writers did not follow through. So either they had bad playtesters or bad rules writers. I'm going to say probably both, because you're not the only one with ties to the ITC, and because the way Mike Brandt is talking about everything the competitive groups in this area comes up with indicates he had no freaking idea just how hard you could break the ruleset.

Isn't there a thread for this already?

To steer this thread back on topic: hellions are still usable and I have had good games with them (running them in boats sounded stupid to me, so I never did). They are quite a big target when you field them in 10 man squads, so don't. I either take 2 squads of 5 or one of 7-8.

Tactic:
I hide them patiently in a ruin or crater in the back for a few turns. Then use them to hunt elite choices that has strayed from the pack, and harrass their flanks with them. I use the +1, +1 attack or the movement one on them. They are excellent at stopping enemy advancement towards objectives, as you can hide them behind los blocking terrain and rapidly advance right in the face of troops that comes near eniugh. Just don't expect them to survive in drawn out combat, and use hit and run when you can. When used right, they can survive for 4 turns.

I could see using the Hellions in tandem with the birds to add some extra punch wherever needed. Scourges I think are fine if you shove them in a bunker or use their deep strike heat lances to murder some vital targets. I'd suicide Scourges to cripple a Knight for instance.

Trystis wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

So then we have 2 scenarios: The playtesters did not mention it or discover it because they didn't approach the game with a competitive mindset, or they did mention it and the rules writers did not follow through. So either they had bad playtesters or bad rules writers. I'm going to say probably both, because you're not the only one with ties to the ITC, and because the way Mike Brandt is talking about everything the competitive groups in this area comes up with indicates he had no freaking idea just how hard you could break the ruleset.

Isn't there a thread for this already?

There's a thread for rants.

Mr Angst is presenting a reasoned and logically sound argument, Mr Massaen is responding with equally sound points and they are hashing their way towards a conclusion that both sides can support.

Onto the threads topic.

Scourges got a small bit of extra protection from the Raiders and better survivability with a small movement buff from a Venom. Ravagers were debatably better though, with their ability to move and shoot without penalty. But that was overtly expensive.

I only ever took them for their Deep-Striking Dark Lances. Land on top of or in Terrain, open fire on something. Either die the next turn or keep shooting, try to put them somewhere they won't have to move from and put other threats on the board to keep the opponent from being able to focus down the Scourges without fear of retaliation. Dark Lances were the gun, and no other option. Haywire Blasters don't do enough, and Heat Lances are overpriced, + they don't mesh well with the Deepstrike.
(Gain buff if within 9", must deploy more than 9" away". Blasters were a possibility, but Blasterborn in a Venom are more survivable, mobile and only a little bit more costly.

Hellions in Raiders just felt clunky. It didn't do much other than give some protection from Alpha Strike.

Hellions in Venoms could have been fun though.

I don't think we really lost anything from this change.

They went back to their original rolls.

Scourges for DSing special weapons
Hellions for Fast melee units that can screen and do a bit of good damage

This ^^

Indeed.

Good decision on GWs part imo. Scourges are now not better than trueborn in every way anymore.
Hellions in Transports felt very gamey anyway.

Aren't hellions a bit squishy for a screen?

Flocks are out best Screen units for sure, but if you wanted something that will get into CC and still able to do damage while keeping a Raider alive, IMO Hellions are that unit.

Yeah, flocks are great at absorbing damage but utter crap at inflicting it! Hitting on 5+, even with re-rolls is still only 0.55 hits per attack and then you need a 6+ to wound virtually anything and no AP. Hellions at least can cause a bit of damage.

Forgive me for perhaps sounding a touch idiotic here, but what tactical purpose does a screening unit such as flocks provide? Genuine question, because I've never used such a unit.

As for the Hellions, I vastly prefer them as sideline harassers that hunt down vital targets for me to destroy. Not used them for screening, as indicated prior.

1) DS protection
2) Charging Protection
3) Character Protection
4) LoS blocking
5) Movement stopping
6) Overwatch soaking
7) Charge Tanks/Other units to stop them from shooting

If any of that doesnt make sense, let us know and we will be happy to give examples.

Fair enough.
I know hellions can dump wounds on stuff that has an average or worse AS, but i was thinking any stray small arms would just shred T3 hellions that are standing out front, ie. screening.

amishprn86 wrote:

If any of that doesnt make sense, let us know and we will be happy to give examples.

Thanks, that's actually pretty darn informative! Hadn't considered the need for DS protection...

At least Hellions were good for two weeks
Scourges are still fine, I think the Splinter cannon option just got rubbish again though - just bring more Scourges if transport capacity is not a consideration.

Truth to be told, I love hellions and will use them still,
But I really liked the vision of the hellions jumping of the transport zooming around it killing things, but jumping back in when things got scary.