Blasterborn?

I'm curious as to the general opinion on Blasterborn in this edition/codex.

1) Are they still worth using?

2) If so, is it worth using more than one squad?

3) Which transport is best for them?

4) Should they start on the field, or deep-strike in? And, if the latter, should it be normally or with an attached Blaster-Archon with WWP?

Every time I've looked at putting them in a list I find a reason to take them out again - usually scourges.

It's around 180 pts for what I'd consider as the bare minimum for a squad (slightly less with a raider perhaps), which is 4 blasters and a dual cannon venom transport, and that's a big step up from 120 for a scourge squad. In fact i could buy a venom with dual cannons and the scourges for only 5pts more.

If I were to take them, it would be as part of a fluffy list going ultra-elite, I'd probably put them in a dissi raider with a blaster archon and go hunting nasties they'd be pretty sweet against a deathwing list or similar, or anything nurgle. I'd probably also look at taking a raider full of incubi in the same list (think super-rich archon and his hunting party, leave the boring warriors at home or just take a few as bait) Big court of the archon too (or possibly two!)

EDIT: Just qualifying that first line - scourges have better armour, which means they get a save against bolters etc, whereas the trueborn need a transport to be in any way survivable (and even then they'll probably all die if it explodes). They're also more mobile so when the transport for the trueborn does explode, they'll be stuck walking whereas the scourges are still mobile. Trueborn also get no protection against S6 AP5 stuff, whereas scourges always have their invun, even if it is pretty ropey.

Trueborn do have a few advantages it's true, more attacks, better leadership, erm, now I'm struggling to think of any others! They're even hampered in combat terms vs the scourges because they don't bring grenades.

I wasn't sure of their cost effectiveness in the last edition, so the fact they have gone up in price and, as The_Burning_Eye says, we now have the choice of Scourges, I just don't see them as competitive in 7th.

The only way they have improved, is by virtue of a WWP Archon, but this makes them so expensive and just as squishy as ever, I just don't see how the cost of the unit justifies the job they can do.

Running them without a WWP Archon has the same issues it's always had, in that you need to take more than 1 unit to give any real chance of them making it across the table, flatting out, without being concentrated and popped. The issue with our 7th ed codex, is that mostly you aren't taking anything else that is flatting out across the table, unlike in the last edition. You used to have several Wyches and Trueborn all flying across the table turn one, now you are looking at 2-3 raiders at most, if you decide to throw your Trueborn forwards.

In conclusion, I think they have got more expensive and less in balance with the new codex. Not viable unless you are desperate for extra AT and can't find room anywhere else.

I run them in a raider with a night shield. Here is why. 1 I haven't gotten much use out of the scourges since opponents tend to shoot them the turn they come in or turn 1. In a raider it gives the blasterborn some survivability. In short yes they are worth it if you are going pure DE.

One benefit Trueborn have over Scourges is that they come out of our Elite slot, rather than compete for our precious Fast Attack. I don't consider it worthwhile to trade ObSec for more FA slots from the Realspace Raiders Detachment, so between Scourges, Reavers and the Razorwing, I'm already hard-pressed on what to include there.

Trueborn may be less cost efficient than last codex, but they allows us to field more anti-tank from a slot that has little in the way of competition - Grots being the only other thing I would take there (and I'd much rather run them from the Coven supplement, points allowing) - and we always need more anti-tank.

Additionally, Blasterborn are effective against a larger variety of targets than that 120pt Haywire Scourge squad. And that versatility is arguably what you're paying for with Blasters.

Since I mostly play in a small, friendly group where we generally know in advance what armies we will be playing, I only take Blasterborn if I'm facing Tau, Mech Guard, or Grey Knights. And I always try to fit in Ravagers and Scourges as well too. But if I'm not facing one of those three armies, I don't take Blasterborn as they are quite expensive and their range isn't that great. Those points are then spent on running a Grotesquerie or more Venoms, which I feel both have more utility against a wider array of opposing armies.

My blasterborn turn out to be heroes whenever I come against dreadknights or riptides. I'm always disappointed when I try to use them against vehicles though as they always end up significantly less effective than scourges or allied fire dragons.

They're good versatile units overall, but I haven't fielded them in a while because lately I've tend more towards giving each unit very specific targets to excell against.

When I go blasterborn I normally take an archon with shadow field,  WWP and blaster to run with them. The archon can tank shooting with his shield and makes them considerably more survivable (especially now that it only shuts down at the end of the phase). Basically 40pts to almost guarantee the squad gets more than one shooting phase. The webway portal allows them to land in such a way that they can snipe models from squads, and minimise return fire (by only being able to see their intended target). I'm toying between adding ablative wounds to the squad, but so far I prefer the small footprint.

However, recently I have been using blaster scourge to similar effect.

To be honest, I liked the 5th edition Trueborn with Shard Carbines a lot more, but Blasterborn have always worked for me so far.
I would take two squads in Venoms, if I had enough models (only 5 so far), but only in larger games.
I decide which units I deepstrike depending on what my opponent brings, i.e. what I don't want him to know from where it is going to hit him.
I never really found Blaster Archons very attractive. Too many points for just one additional Blaster. The Blastweaver sounded like a fun combo, but it isn't very cost efficient either.

Rokuro wrote:

I never really found Blaster Archons very attractive. Too many points for just one additional Blaster.

Out of interest, which of our HQs do you use (or consider good value)?

The Shredder wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

I never really found Blaster Archons very attractive. Too many points for just one additional Blaster.

Out of interest, which of our HQs do you use (or consider good value)?

My most successful character so far is a Succubus with Archite Glaive and Armour of Misery, joined to four Grotesques. Next is a Haemonculus with Helm of Spite and variable (i.e. magnetized) weapons.
I do have an Archon with Agonizer and variable ranged weapon too, but he didn't get much use, since his court is not complete yet. I did try the Blaster-WWP combo with him and Blasterborn, but his additional shots didn't really make a difference and the lack of a Venom slowed the unit down. On the plus side, my opponent (Chaos Space Marines) was hesitant to get into close combat with him.

I use blasterborn with an archon armed w/ a blaster and webway portal riding in a dark lance raider. Sometimes, if I have the points I will upgrade the squad to have a draco with hwg. I find it performs quite nicely against multiple targets. I used them in a tournament this weekend and they preformed well. There is something about dropping 6 str 8 weapons (including the raider's DL) anywhere on the board makes me happy. Plus if a knight shows up it will be one of our best units to take it out.

If only heatlance-born were a thing (I'd also kill for dark lance options on venoms...). I think they'd perform more consistently against armored targets while still packing a good punch for monstrous creatures and the like.

Fire dragons just do the job too much better than blasterborn. The last time I dropped my 5 lance shots and haywire grenade into a wave serpent I only did 2 hullpoints. Blasterborn themselves don't even average one hullpoint per round of shooting on waveserpents.

lessthanjeff wrote:

If only heatlance-born were a thing (I'd also kill for dark lance options on venoms...).  I think they'd perform more consistently against armored targets while still packing a good punch for monstrous creatures and the like.  

Indeed. I really wish our troops had a melta option.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Fire dragons just do the job too much better than blasterborn.  The last time I dropped my 5 lance shots and haywire grenade into a wave serpent I only did 2 hullpoints.  Blasterborn themselves don't even average one hullpoint per round of shooting on waveserpents.

Not really surprising, given how crap darklight weapons are.

In fact, I swear I'll reach through my moniter and throttle to death the next marine player who utters the words "But Dark lances are amazing - they count AV14 as AV12!"

Predictably, they always seem to forget the rather glaring issue with that - which is that Dark Lances are abysmal against AV12.

I always take 1. Raider, 5 Trueborns with 4 Blasters.

But I also Have a 4man Medusea Unit in a Venom.

I then have an Archon with a Blaster/WWP I have the choice now If I really need Flamers or AT no scatter DS.


I feel having 1 Unit in a Boat is a good thing. But yes with 120pts for Scourges that can DS also I stopped Using 3 units of blaterborns in Venoms and Now just have 1 Unit.

I do Now is Splinterborns, 2 SC in a Venom, this is a total of 24 Shots if I dont move, If Im within 12" and moved it is 26 shots.

Played a game last night, missed with all my freakin dark lances... It was insane. It was like turn 4 and I shot my ravager (3DL), 2 more raiders (2 more DL), and 2 blasters from my 5 man warriors squads and they all missed against a 1 hull point storm raven. Dark lances are cursed. The lack of twin linked makes them severely insufficient. And the fact they are jinking half the time. Hell I forgot but even my razorwing failed to hit the damn thing.

That's amusing - my last game was almost exactly the same - virtually every Dark Lance shot missed. Of the few that hit, I don't think any of them rolled higher than a glance. Still managed to win the game, though.

Admittedly, it was because it was a 2v2 that ended up more like a 2v1.

Regardless, I agree about twin-linked. Though, Dark Lances would still be a crap weapon (just slightly less pitiful). We're really in need of a way to mass S6-7 shots, and the ability to take real meltaguns on our infantry (without needing to ally in another, much better army).

My ravager managed three ones in my last game on the only turn it got to fire at full effect. Much as I'd love them to be twin linked though, I really don't struggle in most of my games. I much prefer heat lances to melta guns, the extra range on the melta effect is huge, and there really isn't much difference against heavy armour (S6 and melta vs AV12 means an average roll beats it by one, just as S8 vs AV14 sees an average roll beat it by one) and the WWP lets them get exactly where they need to be.

I tried blasterborn for the first time in my last match, a unit of 5 with 3 blasters in a night shield raider.
They did really well, killing a Predator Baal, a unit of Attack Bikes and drawing a lot of fire.
For sure they compete with Scourges, but being inside a Raider that jink at 3+ make them really sourvivable... and if my enemy want to concentrate all is fire on a elite slot of 5 man for me is totally ok.

I ran my competition list against my buddy who has about 10 games under his belt. So I gave him a 500 point handicap. My list was 1500pts and he ran with 2000 points of grey knights. It was just kill points, but I won 8-6. It was frustrating because nothing worked like I wanted to that game, but I think it was because of the giant points gap. Haha. I really wanted to see put my list to the test tho.

What I had in my list:

Archon- SF, agonizer
x4 incubi -1 Klaivex in a venom with archon
x5 scourge - 4 hwb
x5 scourge - 4 hwb
x5 warriors - blaster in a venom
x5 warriors - blaster in a venom
x10 warriors - in a raider with NS and splint racks
x10 warriors - in a raider with NS and splint racks
x1 ravager - triple lance
x2 razorwings

His list:

Draigo

x5 pallies
x5 interceptor
x5 termies
x1 dreadknight
x5 strike squad
x1 storm raven
x1 land raider
x1 tech marine

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I much prefer heat lances to melta guns, the extra range on the melta effect is huge, and there really isn't much difference against heavy armour (S6 and melta vs AV12 means an average roll beats it by one

I find that the lack of strength really hurts their reliability, and also makes them virtually worthless outside of melta range. I mean, it's all very well to look at 18", but it might as well be 9". S8 AP1 is effectively a better Dark Lance against AV10-12. S6 AP1... ugh.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

and the WWP lets them get exactly where they need to be.

Hence why I'm far less bothered about the range.