Blastweaver?

1 empty fast-attack Starweaver: 70 points
1 Archon with a Blaster: 75 points
5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters: 115 points
________________________________________

5 Blaster and 6 Shuriken shots: 260 points


On the upside, it is basically an upgraded Blasterborn-Venom. It also allows a Blaster Archon to add his firepower to an already powerful tankhunter unit, instead of "degrading" him to an AT weapon carrier in his squad.

On the downside, a Blastweaver costs 25 points more than a Raider with the same passengers, and 90 points more than a Blasterborn-Venom. That comes pretty close to deathstar territory.
Also, it trades 12 Poison shots (or 1 more lance/3 dissie shots) for 6 shots that pseudo-rend against infantry.
And it requires taking Harlequin allies, of course, but that's usually not considered a bad thing.


Do you think that's worth it?

On the basis that I don't think blasterborn are a cost-effective option in our codex, I'd say no, it's not worth it.

Very expensive and still very fragile. I wouldn't take it.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Very expensive and still very fragile. I wouldn't take it.

It can get a 4++ save instead of a jink save though (and still fire at full BS afterwards). Once per game, at least.

I'm not really seeing the advantage over a Raider.

4+ not 3+ ..... Raider is better. AND Trueborn are inefficient.

At least the weapon ranges are more similar than with a Venom

I think you get more out for your Starweaver when you field it with a CC unit (Troupe+SS, Incubi, maybe even a 3man Grot squad, Troupe+Succubus, ...), you want to get close because of the weapon range, if if you're that close, why not drop a CC squad that distracts from the Weaver, so you can fire a second turn?

I see the uses/synergy ... but personally I won't use a unit like that, if I field an Archon, I go for CC. It's just more fluffy imo, but I never play very competitive.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

On the basis that I don't think blasterborn are a cost-effective option in our codex, I'd say no, it's not worth it.

I'm still new to tabletop, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I thought Blasterborn were still a really good option. What changed in the new codex to make them no longer cost-effective? I'm glad I read this as I was planning to run some.

I think it's due to us having better special weapons squads now, such as the scourges - which are more cost effective, stronger saves etc.

That and the Trueborn min squad size is now 5 and not 3.

Caldria wrote:

I think it's due to us having better special weapons squads now, such as the scourges - which are more cost effective, stronger saves etc.

That and the Trueborn min squad size is now 5 and not 3.

That's kind of like comparing Sternguard to Devastators, or Chosen to Havocs, imo. Trueborn are a special weapon squad, Scourges a heavy weapon squad.
Sure, you can give Scourges Blasters, but if you want to make the most out of their anti-tank potential, why not just give them Haywire Blasters instead?
If there is no tank in range, Blasterborn can also kill MEQs, even instakilling Space Marine ICs. Haywire Scourges can't do that. They also can't embark on vehicles, as I had to find out. And they take up a fast attack slot, while Trueborn don't have much competition over elite slots.

That's very true - I myself only go with haywire scourges.

Maybe it's just the combination of being forced to take 5 min squad and having 4 blasters on 4 T3 5+ models. But you are correct, in that nothing really competes with them in the elites slot. Although I've also never found I was struggling in fast attack either with the Realspace Raiders detachment.

Heavy Support is where I thought I was gonna struggle to fit things in, but Ravagers get those spots every time - as I always take my talos/cronos from the coven formations.

The only time I've used blasterborn though is in a raider with archon with shadowfield, blaster and webway portal. They're certainly not a bad unit by any stretch of the word - I think maybe most people tend to prefer spreading their blasters out over warrior/venom units, or having their darklight shots in something like a ravager.

Rokuro wrote:

If there is no tank in range, Blasterborn can also kill MEQs, even instakilling Space Marine ICs.

You mean there are SM characters that aren't T5 or Eternal Warriors?

They must be on the Endangered Species list by now.

The Shredder wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

If there is no tank in range, Blasterborn can also kill MEQs, even instakilling Space Marine ICs.

You mean there are SM characters that aren't T5 or Eternal Warriors?

They must be on the Endangered Species list by now.

Well, some people still use Captains, Librarians and the like instead the special characters. Especially on the Chaos side.

Rokuro wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

If there is no tank in range, Blasterborn can also kill MEQs, even instakilling Space Marine ICs.

You mean there are SM characters that aren't T5 or Eternal Warriors?

They must be on the Endangered Species list by now.

Well, some people still use Captains, Librarians and the like instead the special characters. Especially on the Chaos side.

Oh, indeed - but I've only ever seen them used on bikes.

The Shredder wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

If there is no tank in range, Blasterborn can also kill MEQs, even instakilling Space Marine ICs.

You mean there are SM characters that aren't T5 or Eternal Warriors?

They must be on the Endangered Species list by now.

Tigurius has learned to fear Dark Lances - hurrah for important characters with no invulnerable and T4

Shrike is also not an eternal warrior (as I found out to my cost when he was targetted by a vendetta).

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Shrike is also not an eternal warrior (as I found out to my cost when he was targetted by a vendetta).

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm generally pretty astonished by who does and doesn't get Eternal Warrior. Rather than an actual fluff-related reason, it seems like a tack-on to any character that GW wants to be beefier. For example, Drazhar gets it, makes sense, he's possibly an ex-Phoenix Lord. Urien Rakarth, the guy who dies just for funsies and has come back so many times he's mutated horribly? Nahhhhhh. Eternal Warrior wouldn't make sense as a USR for someone who's a warrior eternally. That would be absurd.

SweaterKittens wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Shrike is also not an eternal warrior (as I found out to my cost when he was targetted by a vendetta).

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm generally pretty astonished by who does and doesn't get Eternal Warrior. Rather than an actual fluff-related reason, it seems like a tack-on to any character that GW wants to be beefier. For example, Drazhar gets it, makes sense, he's possibly an ex-Phoenix Lord. Urien Rakarth, the guy who dies just for funsies and has come back so many times he's mutated horribly? Nahhhhhh. Eternal Warrior wouldn't make sense as a USR for someone who's a warrior eternally. That would be absurd.

Commander Dante was always a bugbear of mine as he was supposed to be the oldest living Space Marine but died, literally, every single time he was fielded, due to ID. At least they fixed him now.