Is a 4 man blaterborn squad more effective then a 10man warrior squad?

So first off it depends on what your playing, lots of lightly armoured you want warriors but MEQs...
A 4 man blasterborn team with venom comes to a similar price to a 10 man warrior team with a cannon in a raider and the most comman army to play is usually a MEQ so my question is:
"What is more effective at killing marines?"
I am not a fan of mathammer as the dice never falls that way, what do you lovely denziens think?

Considering the target I'd go with the Blasterborn, fewer shots perhaps but the wounding on 2's and denying armour saves is golden, plus there is a large number of shots coming from the Venom too. Sure you get more shots with the Warriors but you're only wounding with 50% of what hits. Sure you can improve this by taking splinter racks but still only 50% and then they get that armour save.

I would like to go with:

Other - 3 blasterborn in venom.

Although usually I would run with the warriors. I prefer to use them as a poison platform rather than an AT platform if I am going to run such large squads. Better use of points IMO.

Cheers!

well lets see mathhammer wise

Trueborn nets 2.219 (4*.666*.833) marine kills while the venom comes in at a respectable 1.330 (12*.666*.5*.333), so in total you get 3.549 dead marines

10 Warriors w/ Blaster and Splinter Cannon in Raider is abit different, so Ill break down each weapon. So the Splinter Cannon gets .665 kills (6*.666*.5*.333) standing still, or .443 kills (4*.666*.5*.333) on the move. The rifles come out with .887 kills (8*.666*.5*.333) at max range or 1.774 (16*.666*.5*.333) rapid firing. Add together with both the Blaster and Dark Lance with come to .554 (1*.666*.833) for both. And we have a total kill of 2.66 kills standing (.665+.887+.554+.554) and 3.325 (.443+1.774+.554+.554) in rapid fire range.

Overall I would bet they would be similar, and if you are looking at it strictly against MEQ, I would suggest the Warriors. Reaon being is even though the Blasterborn put out alittle bit more wounds, cover really hurts their capacity. On top of that the Warriors are also scoring and more survivable through bodies. The Warriors are the clear win strictly against MEQ only targets.

How about 2 Blasters and 2 SC in Venom? That give You 4 SC and 2 Blasters. Oh and it would be 10 points cheaper than 4 Blasters.

Interesting thoughts from all, for the sake of argument, lets say that there are no objectives and its a simple annihilation game. Also with regards to cover, the mobility given by both vehicles can often get around this, any thoughts?

again depends on how you play cover. Around here we play area terrain which means as long as half the unit is standing in some sort of terrain, the are granted a coversave. So you could go a complete 360 around them with a venom and it would not matter. Cover is still Cover. Hence Still Warriors win in my book for being just as deadly with almost no modifiers, and more bodies to stay around longer.

Also, big question, is the enemy army meched up - because if the unit is expected to kill both the vehicle and the Marines inside there's really no question.

I'd say advantage to the warrior squad, the mathammer comes out pretty even, but let's look at it this way, assume the marine shooting kills 2-3 models. Trueborn are no more hardy than kabalites, but 3 casualties drastically affects their ability to put out damage, whereas the same casualty numbers for a full squad of kabalites has a much smaller impact on their shooting prowess.

@Shadow's revenge- we tend to play that cover is intuitive, if 50% behind the cover from an arc from the shooter then they get the save, if perpendicular or behind they do not as there is no cover between them and the shooter.

But as an all around unit, AT and Ainf potential is it not fair to say that the blasterborn have the edge where the benefits far outway the cons?

Skari summed it up nice afaic

I also like what Skari said, I often use a mix of warriors and blasterborn but usually 4 blasterborn to optimise the AT potential, just out of curiosity you say 3 is a better use of points then 4, why is this? Might try it.

4 is always better than 3 ofc!!!

But when you look at the mathhammer, 4 and 3 really isnt much of a difference, and I find that when you are trying to free up points, I find the first thing to go are that extra blasterborn. basically I always start with 4 and maybe drop to 3 to free some points up