Blasterborn vs Ravager

So I've been a fan of running a 5 man Blasterborn squad + WWP Archon in a raider for a while now but seeing a lot of Ravager love as of late has got me thinking.

The above mentioned squad pumps out 6 lance shots (4 for the Blasterborn, 1 for Archon, 1 for Raider) at 300 points where 2 Ravagers + Night shields could pop out the same amount of shots for 20 points less, without dealing with reserve shenanigans. Granted the Ravagers will most likely be firing into front armor where the WWP lets the Blasterborn get to the rear with ease, but the Ravagers have a higher chance of survival since they can sit in the backfield and snipe at things as opposed to being the massive firemagnet that comes with deep strike.

What are your thoughts on the viability between these two units?

I see Dark Eldar having three viable units for killing tanks at range:

1) Ravagers
2) Scourges
3) Trueborn

Ravagers tend to be the preferred option due to being able to act at full effect in turn one.

Scourges are a good suicide squad option to take out key targets.

Trueborn are decent, but are hurt by the passengers suffering the effects of Jink. With that ruling they either lose firepower if they Jink, or mobility if they sit in cover.

With 300 points you could have 2.5 units of Scourges, which are more likely to destroy the tank you are picking on than the Trueborn and Archon. If you aren't Jinking the survival odds are probably similar too. Or as you point out two Ravagers and some spare points.

Ravagers take up your heavy slots, freeing up the rest for other unit types. If you plan on using our other heavy options, they are normally best taken with the appropriate Coven list.

I basically agree with Kantalla, except that I don't think blasterborn are really decent in the current meta. Blasterborn are overpriced. That tax was acceptable back when we were limited to 1 force organization chart/detachment because we had to come up with ways to get as many darklight shots as we could into a limited number of heavy/FA/troops/elite slots. But now that we're able to take multiple detachments/formations, there is no reason to pay the inefficiency tax on blasterborn when you could just organize your list into multiple detachments and add more ravagers or scourges.

Ravagers are the best all-around choice of the 3, because S8 AP2 lance weapons are effective against pretty much every unit in the game.

Scourges with haywire blasters are more specialized, very reliable against AV12+ vehicles, but not really effective against any non-vehicles.

These are, in my opinion, our only 2 legitimate options for primary anti-tank, except in the most esoteric of lists.

The other huge issue with relying on WWP Blasterborn & Blastarchon is that they'll get completely rekt against interceptor heavy lists, such as against Tau, as they'll die before they even get to shoot.

They also actually need to successfully pass their reserve roll, and if you fail on turn two, you have literally lost 2 turns of anti tank shooting that you desperately need. These 3+ rolls aren't exactly reliable, and they get even less reliable with the new Death From The Skies rules if your opponent brings any flyers and you don't, which you won't, since our Flyers are trash.

In the best case scenario, they DO show up on turn two, where you need them and kill something before dying, whereas Ravagers, at less than half the price, can start working on turn one, and have more survivability with 11/11/10 & longer engagement ranges.

Why is it even VS? Blasterborn are complementary unit. You have to take  at least 2 Ravagers, cause you need to fire first turn at something, usually. They are mainstray, while mentioned WWP blasterborn are impact unit.


They are "ok, i rolled reserve roll for them. This thing has to die" - and you move your main antitank AND blasterborn to make it so.

So im with other guys, you cant RELY on them, but you can make a list where they can be valuable addition. They will come, sooner or later, untill then you are still playing game. Opponent is moving and spreading stuff, going for objectives. Stuff dies, yours and opponents.Then they appear and everyone is trying to kill the key target.

If you are taking 300 pts unit they have to make a difference, otherwise it is surely smarter to just take more damaging cost effective stuff.

What i like most about them is except for interceptor they will always do some damage, cause you can chose where you want to deploy them most favorable, at target without cover or rear facing. Such is not the case with other units. That is their value, definately not their cost effectiveness compare to other units.

Azdrubael wrote:

So im with other guys, you cant RELY on them, but you can make a list where they can be valuable addition. They will come, sooner or later, untill then you are still playing game. If you are taking 300 pts unit they have to make a difference, otherwise it is surely smarter to just take more damaging cost effective stuff.

It's basically almost ALWAYS smarter to take other stuff, specifically because of cost, surviveability, and range. At 300 points, you can get 2 lance ravagers and almost have points for another venom. To start, that gives you 1 extra lance shot total, and an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN OF SHOOTING!

The extra turn cannot be emphasized enough. That tense "ok, gotta kill this thing" moment you were talking about may not even exist if you have a proper alpha strike. In an edition of the game that allows us to take multiple detachments, there is no reason to purchase the 3rd place AT option. You can just arrange your army into an additional detachment most of the time, and take more ravagers/scourges.

Just to clarify my earlier post, I do think Trueborn in a Raider are a decent option, but mean without an Archon for precision deep strike. Taken without the Archon they are a slightly inferior Ravager, whether starting on the table or deep striking in.

I will agree with Betray's point about not taking the third choice anti tank option, unless somehow you have no fast or heavy slots available.

The vs part stemmed from me slightly tweaking my army lists and the blasterborn are on the list of units that haven't been performing all too well (coincidentally next to the ravager)
That being said having used them for quite some time I can say they definitely have their use - killing backfield armor. Wyverns, Onagers, whirlwinds, defilers, and anything relying on directional cover or >36 range is better dealt with by the prescision deep strike
But how often do we really see these units...

I wouldn't exactly call a deepstriking raider a precision strike unless you include a WWP HQ, and A unit of Heatlance scourges are both more likely to kill that unit and are either cheaper, assuming your trueborn take a ride, or more survivable if they don't.

Quote :

It's basically almost ALWAYS smarter to take other stuff, specifically because of cost, surviveability, and range. At 300 points, you can get 2 lance ravagers and almost have points for another venom. To start, that gives you 1 extra lance shot total, and an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN OF SHOOTING!

Aslo it gives opponent entire extra turn of shooting at you. I dont play alpha-strike, i like beta strike more. I know well enough advantages and disadvantages of expensive units. You can play them, you just cant play them like you would play cheap units.

Expensive units are usually more expensive then double the cheap unit for the same thing. But you play them if you want some unique thing they bring.

And stop this optimisation discussion already, you cant outoptimise and win purely with power of list with DE, we both know that. Maybe against some armies, but gone are times of beastpack and multiple venoms + couple of ravagers. You can take more ravs and more venoms, but so what? Armies that screw venoms and ravagers will as likely eat more of them.

Azdrubael wrote:

gone are times of beastpack and multiple venoms + couple of ravagers.

Man do I miss my old beast pack!

Anyway on AT units I find the ravager is cool, scourges are too. Blaster born not so much, overpriced IMO and if you can ally, firedragons are just sooo much better.

I play vs SM free parking lots often and the #1 unit in my army for wrecking multiple tanks is hands down reavers with CC and a HL if you have a spare 10pts.

For 1 pt more than a lance ravager you can have 6 reavers with 2 CC.

Azdrubael wrote:

And stop this optimisation discussion already, you cant outoptimise and win purely with power of list with DE, we both know that.

That's no reason to stop optimizing. You can still use an optimised list in an unorthodox way, while still having a list that gives you more hullpoints/firepower/units/options because you chose to be hyper-efficient in your purchases.

With the rules we currently have, every single skimmer has the option to deep strike. So if you have an anvil unit that can survive until turn 2, you can take every skimmer in a hyper-optimised list and put them into deep strike reserve, deep striking ravagers and whatever else you want for a beta strike.

The fact is, though, DE aren't good at the planned beta strike. We simply don't have the appropriate formations and rules for it. We have no reliable first turn deep strike, no reserve manipulation for second turn deep strike, no units that are both cheap and tough to survive a turn without us getting tabled, etc. You have to balance what you think you'd lose to enemy firepower against what you're likely to lose to deep strike mishaps, on top of the possibility of being tabled, then decide if such a plan is prudent.

But such a plan is almost ALWAYS on the table, even if you don't specifically plan for it. There are TONS of armies with which players field no barrage weapons at all. In such cases, you don't even need an anvil. 1 LoS blocking terrain piece can be good enough to get you to turn 2 against a lot of armies. In these cases, you can choose to beta strike, but it's very situational. That's why one of the first questions I ask an opponent is if they have any weapons or ways of attacking models outside of their line of sight, such as barrage weapons. I don't like to shoehorn myself into a strategy that I can't get out of if the winds of destiny put me in a position that is bad for that strategy. Remain flexible. Remain fluid. Having an optimised list allows you to do just that.

Bruce Lee wrote:

Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now, you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

Nah. Burn it all down and force them into the uncomfortable position of playing YOUR game. You'll have the most experience in those odd scenarios and thus be able to force your opponent into sub optimal positions that they will not realize are suboptimal.

However, this school of thought is reliant on trading down, and unfortunately that means that often regardless of your opponents list (Excepting the Baronial Court, Just Corpsethief Claws, and Riptide Wing lists) you'll find games coming down to 1 or 2 models or even 1 or 2 POINTS on each side. In the end Betray and I agree as Betray's point is the central ethos of this approach, if you're wasting points then in the end you're going to be losing that final trade as the points you need in that last moment were tied up somewhere else.