Blasterborn

After some playtesting, I have found that where blasterborn were previously pretty good, they seem kinda lackluster now, I don't know what it is, but they just feel so inferior to alternatives (Most notably haywire scourges)

Just wondering what you guys think of them as they are now?

Hm, 5 trueborn in a venom, with four blasters? I think, they really suck, when they are, where they have to be.
Maybe use them to deep strike a nice, Landraider-sized target...
Against Terminators they should perform pretty well, well, as well.

Haywire scourges are better against vehicles, tis true. Blaster born are better against everything else.

Yeah but then again, "everything else" is basically everything with a wounds value (which is usually not an issue for DE)

I think they are far too expensive now you have to take them in 5's. They obviously have to be in a Venom and the fact you can't nightshield the Venom and the sensibility in taking 4 blasters, as your squad is 5, makes them far too pricey for the risk of getting popped before you can even get a shot off.

I would say the breakdown is that if you used to take them in squads of 4 in Venoms - you're probably still going to find them solid.
If you used to take them in squads of 3 (as I did) - you will find them less functional.

I do think they are fine in competition to Scourges as what each one does is different, and I also don't think there is much value in spamming Scourges while there is value in spamming Blasters.

I can still easily see them as part of a competitive force build though, in fact I'm pretty sure that 2nd place finish at 11th Co. GT by a pure DE list featured Blasterborn, and that hardly surprised me. They are hardly a bad unit by any stretch - they do their job well. Just a little more expensively.

ShadowcatX wrote:

Haywire scourges are better against vehicles, tis true. Blaster born are better against everything else.

Anterzhul wrote:

Yeah but then again, "everything else" is basically everything with a wounds value (which is usually not an issue for DE)

I apologize for getting off topic.

AV 11
Blaster
Wounds: .44
Glances: .11
Pens: .33 (.167)

Haywire
Wounds: .55
Glances: .44
Pens: .11 (.037)

AV 12
Blaster
Wounds: .33
Glances: .11
Pens: .22 (.11)

Haywire
Wounds: .55
Glances: .44
Pens: .11 (.037)


The numbers in parentheses represent the probability of getting "good" values on the Damage Vehicle chart. I decided to make Stunned, Immobilized, and Vehicle Destroyed "good" results. You may choose whatever values you like, but I chose these values because I consider the vehicle as good as dead, at least for a turn, if I get any of these values. Therefore, I choose to equate getting any of these values as dealing 3 hull points of damage.

If we multiply the number in the parentheses by 3, and then add this value to the "wounds" value, this is the total value of the weapon (again, this depends on what you consider "good" pen results, and who you're playing against).

So the total value would be Wounds - Parentheses + Parentheses*3

Therefore my total values would be:

AV 11
Blaster: .774
Haywire: .624

AV 12
Blaster: .55
Haywire: .624


I didn't account for point cost of units, so you'll have to do that on your own, but I think if you can determine your need for anti-tank, you can then decide if you want Blasters or Haywire. I think you should only take Haywire Blasters when, against your targets, they perform much better than blasters, OR you have a need for a unit that can reliably strip a hull point or two. Most often, the latter reason is why I find myself taking Haywires.

I don't think I said anything new here, but at least the math is there to show why.

Thor665 wrote:

I would say the breakdown is that if you used to take them in squads of 4 in Venoms - you're probably still going to find them solid.
If you used to take them in squads of 3 (as I did) - you will find them less functional.

I do think they are fine in competition to Scourges as what each one does is different, and I also don't think there is much value in spamming Scourges while there is value in spamming Blasters.

I can still easily see them as part of a competitive force build though, in fact I'm pretty sure that 2nd place finish at 11th Co. GT by a pure DE list featured Blasterborn, and that hardly surprised me. They are hardly a bad unit by any stretch - they do their job well. Just a little more expensively.

Cannot take 3 or 4 of them anymore. Min 5 models (from Kabal upgraded at Trueborn).
That's sad, I know.

I think they are pretty good if you are thinking about a WWP. 4 Blasters+DraconEM+ArchonAM sounds good to me. Or even 4 Blasters+DraconBlasterPistol+HekaEM is quite good.

Anyway, first of all, think about all AT choices. Then, you can "close the circle" with Blasterborns, if u want.

PS: I wanna try WWB 4 Shredders. 4 Shredders+plasma greneade is a good saturation upon all disembarked units.
And even for Ts3+ CM (you can invest in 9 Trueborns with 2 Splinter Cannons AND 4 Shredders, in a Raider with splinter Racks and a QG with WWB. Even against rear of the veichles 4 Shredders+EMgreneade still good)

I'm starting to wonder if a unit of scourges with heat lances wouldn't be a decent alternative to blasterborn when coupled with a Webway Portal. Currently my big anti-tank unit preference has been 5 trueborn w/ 4 blasters and a WWP archon w/ blaster/haywire to drop down behind enemy lines. But 5 scourges w/ 4 heat lances and either a WWP archon or WWP haemonculous if you are already bringing a coven formation (grotescurie anyone?). I think pros and cons more or less balance out to the point where it depends most on your meta and what types of armor you are up against (super heavies, mech infantry, av14, etc.)

My 2 cents....

Cerve wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

I would say the breakdown is that if you used to take them in squads of 4 in Venoms - you're probably still going to find them solid.
If you used to take them in squads of 3 (as I did) - you will find them less functional.

I do think they are fine in competition to Scourges as what each one does is different, and I also don't think there is much value in spamming Scourges while there is value in spamming Blasters.

I can still easily see them as part of a competitive force build though, in fact I'm pretty sure that 2nd place finish at 11th Co. GT by a pure DE list featured Blasterborn, and that hardly surprised me. They are hardly a bad unit by any stretch - they do their job well. Just a little more expensively.

Cannot take 3 or 4 of them anymore. Min 5 models (from Kabal upgraded at Trueborn).
That's sad, I know.

I know - that's why I said *used to* when I mentioned those. You used to be able to.

Hellstrom wrote:

I think they are far too expensive now you have to take them in 5's.  They obviously have to be in a Venom and the fact you can't nightshield the Venom and the sensibility in taking 4 blasters, as your squad is 5, makes them far too pricey for the risk of getting popped before you can even get a shot off.

Taking Trueborn to get 4 Blasters is only 7 points more expensive than it used to be.
What were you using them for that makes them terrible now?

Thor665 wrote:

I know - that's why I said *used to* when I mentioned those. You used to be able to.

What were you using them for in units of 3?

I was running them as Blasterborn in units of 3. I found 3 to be an acceptable number to get results at a price I was willing to pay. i found 4 too expensive to work in most of the time with other tools I found valuable. Now the 4 selection is a bit more expensive again, albeit with an ablative body I suppose, not that it helps in explosions but it would help if I hop them out - as I do fairly often.

Really, they just suffer now that I have the newly priced and re-org'ed Razorwing as an option for similar points.

Even as I say that I realize that, yes, my old Trueborn slots have basically become 1 Scourge slot and 2 Razorwing slots pretty much every time.

Maybe OOT, and eventually apologize for that, but i'm testing trueborn with 2 DL instead of playing 4 blasters, and it is working well for now. Don't you think it could be a good alternative?
Mario

Khordajj, the thing with your math hammer is that it does not seem (at least to me) to address all factors I would consider. With Blasterborn, I have a venom (you pretty much need it to get your blasters in range) and it shoots too. Maybe it doesn't do AT, but there is still some value for its shooting, especially if the Blasterborn are unwrapping a transport. On the other hand, the venom will probably be exploded and, when that happens, the Blasterbon are hit by the explosion and then they lose most of that mobility. Scourges don't have the extra hitting power from a tranasport, nor do they have it's ability to protect them (sort of) from fire. On the other hand, they have their own unique armor as well as the fact that they never lose their enhanced mobility. I think in debating which unit outperforms the other, you can't simply ignore these factors.

Malevolent-Storm wrote:

Khordajj, the thing with your math hammer is that it does not seem (at least to me) to address all factors I would consider. With Blasterborn, I have a venom (you pretty much need it to get your blasters in range) and it shoots too.  Maybe it doesn't do AT, but there is still some value for its shooting, especially if the Blasterborn are unwrapping a transport.  On the other hand, the venom will probably be exploded and, when that happens, the Blasterbon are hit by the explosion and then they lose most of that mobility.  Scourges don't have the extra hitting power from a tranasport, nor do they have it's ability to protect them (sort of) from fire.  On the other hand, they have their own unique armor as well as the fact that they never lose their enhanced mobility.  I think in debating which unit outperforms the other, you can't simply ignore these factors.

I was comparing Blasters to Haywire Blasters, and their damage alone. I wasn't considering Trueborn vs Scourges.

Comparing our different types of infantry that perform anti-tank is worth its own thread.

Ah okay. Agree it would be its own thread.

Yeah, my experience is basically equal to what Thor states; they lose out in favor of razorwings and scourges who (while blasterborn got more expensive) got better when building an army (considering FOC slots, models/weapon, points, etc.)

Also I find that scourges have more to offer than trueborn after they disembark: more move (HUGE threatbubble with HWBs) and ghostplate armor, so essentially double survivability against (usually AP5) smallarms fire.

As for the DL trueborn, im considering "pseudo ravagers": raider with DL with trueborn with 2DL, raider can jink and trueborn still get to fire

Amornar i really like the heat lances because you will drop them so you probably will be geting an av 10 soh even with no melta range this will glances on 4s an pen on 5+ and this pen is ap1 and if you get on melta range they will blow the thing up with no need for an archon that will make them expensive. i know that the heat lance dont have the range o HWB and the safety of it but i like to play with the hammer stronger and if after the first turn they still there but on smaller number the heat lance have more chances of wrecking a tank than HWB.

And the Blasterborns they are as good they were before i never liked to put just 3 kabalite, and the transports coming with ds they can be play like scorge that have and av 10 much more expesive then the scorges but 'harder killing'
sry for my poor english