Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Default is heavy bolter, while I have the option for multi-melta or a heavy flamer

Heavy Bolter seems like it would allow the vehicle to provide some limited support in the event that I cannot close to the Inferno cannons range, but that isn't a lot of firepower on its own.

Heavy flamer fits the "Kill it with fire" theme, but that's 9 points up and a very short (8" !) range. Hits reliably, though, which is nice at what would normally be a 4+.

Melta weapons seem like they're taking an off-edition, so probably not viable (and it costs 12 points over the bolter anyways).

Thoughts? Any experiences on the table so far make you think one way or another?

Heavy Bolter usually compliments the turret weapon better (Multilaser or Autocannon), so I would default to that.

If you are planning no matter what to be as close as possible, you could get away with the Heavy Flamer. However, you may never get a shot off, whereas the 36" range on the Heavy Bolter will get you a couple of rounds of shooting at least.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Heavy Bolter usually compliments the turret weapon better (Multilaser or Autocannon), so I would default to that.

If you are planning no matter what to be as close as possible, you could get away with the Heavy Flamer. However, you may never get a shot off, whereas the 36" range on the Heavy Bolter will get you a couple of rounds of shooting at least.

Neither hellhound nor any of it's variants have multilaser or autocannon so not sure what you are going over there. And with all the T1 deep strikes, fast moving etc the short range is less of an issue than before. Especially for vehicle that needs to be within 16" to be of use anyway. Also due to the range of the main weapon you WILL be moving so heavy bolter is quaranteed -1 to hit.

The heavy flamer is good to keep close combatants at bay with overwatch, and to wreck deep strikers up close.

Melta makes it threatening to tough stuff. Unreliable, but still scary for the enemy.

I don't see the sense in taking the heavy bolter. What does it really add? If you happen to be outside flamer range, advance.

Just curious, is there a reason to run a helhound over a leman russ after the russ buffs?

It's a fast attack option instead of heavy support (read: you can run both), and it still has a strong auto-hit weapon. I don't know much more about it though. I'd also assume it's cheaper?

HBolter; it's helpful in too many circumstances , such as adding that little extra bit of spittle at an objective camper 30" away on the last turn, while being valid in the other problem spaces of the HFlamer.

Even with the Catachan doctrine you're over-investing in the close assault aspect which, as it's a guard vehicle, is asking for trouble.

While the MMelta is nice, the question you should ask is "Do I want 1 mmelta on a hellhound, or save toward 2 MMeltas on a Leman Russ" with consequent considerations of durability, and access to tank commanders.

But keep in mind I play Cadian, and am convinced the HBolter is the new king of weapons

It depends on what you're using it for.

If you intend to pop them in close using the Tallarn doctrine, rush them in and let them blow up you might want to keep them cheap.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Heavy Bolter usually compliments the turret weapon better (Multilaser or Autocannon), so I would default to that.

If you are planning no matter what to be as close as possible, you could get away with the Heavy Flamer. However, you may never get a shot off, whereas the 36" range on the Heavy Bolter will get you a couple of rounds of shooting at least.

Neither hellhound nor any of it's variants have multilaser or autocannon so not sure what you are going over there. And with all the T1 deep strikes, fast moving etc the short range is less of an issue than before. Especially for vehicle that needs to be within 16" to be of use anyway. Also due to the range of the main weapon you WILL be moving so heavy bolter is quaranteed -1 to hit.

I read Hellhound as Chimera. It was a long day at work.

The hellhound is incredibly points efficient, but upgrading the hull mount messes with that. The flamer option is redundant with the 16" autohit flamer already on the thing. I've used the multi-melta as a nasty surprise, but then the thing draws too much fire since at that point it's a threat to everything on the board.

Better to stick with the heavy bolter and target the flyers and lighter armored targets while your opponent focuses on that leman russ in cover.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
The hellhound is incredibly points efficient, but upgrading the hull mount messes with that. The flamer option is redundant with the 16" autohit flamer already on the thing. I've used the multi-melta as a nasty surprise, but then the thing draws too much fire since at that point it's a threat to everything on the board.

Better to stick with the heavy bolter and target the flyers and lighter armored targets while your opponent focuses on that leman russ in cover.

I second that, the Hellhound is going to be a shock unit that is either going to be 1. A huge distraction 2. Piling in to tie up an enemy and keep them from shooting 3. Both of those things, plus a reliable mortal wounds "missile" so you will want to keep it cheap and buy more hellhounds ( I run 3 in my brigade)

The real head-scratcher, I think. Is whether one should invest in track guards for it.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
The real head-scratcher, I think. Is whether one should invest in track guards for it.

I personally don't believe in investing in them. Hellhounds tend to get pinned down pretty quickly and the track guards don't do much for them once they start degrading. I feel likewise about most the upgrades except may the pintle mounts. Even then I haven't tried them.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
The real head-scratcher, I think. Is whether one should invest in track guards for it.

I personally don't believe in investing in them. Hellhounds tend to get pinned down pretty quickly and the track guards don't do much for them once they start degrading. I feel likewise about most the upgrades except may the pintle mounts. Even then I haven't tried them.

But, more than any other vehicle, it needs to get up close. The vehicle is just as effective offensively when degraded, as long as it can still get up close. Hence, track guards.

With 12" of movement, I've never had them take more than a turn or two to make contact with that 16" flamer. I've been noting how my hellhounds perform in games (to verify that they are getting me my points during the game)

I'm found some trends:

1) They tend to get stuck in early since they are so damn manuverable

2) If your opponent has flyers you will get one beautiful flamer kill before they focus on Hellhounds as a top priority.

3) They don't often live to the end of the game, but it takes almost twice as many points to kill them.

4) Packing a hunter-killer missile just makes them a target, even after the dumb thing misses

5) Don't ever, EVER, leave them in your own lines

It might depend how many you have. One or two might die quickly. Three or four (how I have used them) means a couple survive long enough to value still being able to move.

I use a traditional squadron, 2 hellhounds backed by a devil dog. I put them on flanks to give them space and have Leman Russ in the back. My meta has adjusted to them, but noone wants to waste lascannon shots on a 100pt model while the 170pt Leman Russ is still alive. The problem behind the hellhounds is that they have a 16" range. Once you roast something it's pretty easy to get boxed in.It takes a couple turns to chew through the armor, but they'll do it

As always, it depends.

If you're running them under Tallarn, the heavy bolter is a no brainer. MM is just expensive and still only hits on a 4+, but move and shoot heavy bolters allows a hell hound to be flanker and play with mid range shooting.

Under Cadian... I guess heavy bolter as well, allowing you the option to stand and more accurately shoot the HB. Really, Cadians love russes and basilisks an awful lot, so probably don't want to load up on hellhounds in general. Any way, since there is no real benefit, I'd go cheap to just drop an inferno cannon.

Under Catachan, I go heavy flamer and I've never looked back. I run two, and I'm looking hard at a third. Here's why: 8" range on a movement 12" vehicle gives it a great threat range, and under catachan, shooting the heavy flamer once does the same hits as shooting the heavy bolter nearly three times while stationary, or over four times when moving. So you're trading a small amount of damage over more turns for more damage at once. Also... close range isn't always a bad thing. I've used the hellhound to charge enemy transports or shooting units, preventing them from shooting the next turn. Oh, and even if they do kill it, it pops for d3 mortal wounds on a 4+ (which I reroll with a CP).

My experience has been rather simple. If you're using Tallarns, take the multi-melta or heavy bolter, as you won't suffer the -1 to hit from moving and shooting heavy weapons. If you're NOT taking tallarns, don't waste your time with anything but the heavy flamer. With a 12" move and solid durability, you really should not have much issue getting hellhounds close. Make it painful for your opponent to charge them.

My favorite tactic: driving Inferno Cannon Hellhounds with heavy flamers straight into the enemy lines, watching as they charge melee units through the painful overwatch, and then watching the hellhounds blow up half the time (or more with command reroll) for mortal wounds to everyone around it.

Either way.. keep the inferno cannon hellhounds away from your other units since they blow up 50% of the time.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
My experience has been rather simple. If you're using Tallarns, take the multi-melta or heavy bolter, as you won't suffer the -1 to hit from moving and shooting heavy weapons. If you're NOT taking tallarns, don't waste your time with anything but the heavy flamer. With a 12" move and solid durability, you really should not have much issue getting hellhounds close. Make it painful for your opponent to charge them.

My favorite tactic: driving Inferno Cannon Hellhounds with heavy flamers straight into the enemy lines, watching as they charge melee units through the painful overwatch, and then watching the hellhounds blow up half the time (or more with command reroll) for mortal wounds to everyone around it.

Either way.. keep the inferno cannon hellhounds away from your other units since they blow up 50% of the time.

this guy gets it!

 Captain Joystick wrote:
It depends on what you're using it for.

If you intend to pop them in close using the Tallarn doctrine, rush them in and let them blow up you might want to keep them cheap.

Yeah, that's where I'm at. I generally go for cheap and cheerful for guard, so heavy bolters for me.

Hm, I suspect Tallarn is more in tune with how I'd want to run it, which implies Heavy Bolter (generally). Which helps, as with my current 1.5k list, I can just about squeeze in regular Hellhound with the HB if I drop a few knick knacks (HK missiles). Now to figure out what the last 3 points go to...

Captain Joystick wrote:The real head-scratcher, I think. Is whether one should invest in track guards for it.

I would if I could, but not at 1.5k. Currently it seems like a better idea to just take another tank.