Lion's Blade vs Gladius?

I faced Tactical Doctrines the other day and it made almost no difference whatsoever. Overwatch bonus for me were I to do either of them, but that's pretty much solely because I think it's a more interesting bonus (while it's completely useless against a lot of armies, it would be very handy in my gaming group). I could play 'red successors' and do either as play tests I suppose since I have a ton of models but rules have never been what attract me to an army.

I don't think this:

Xabre said:

'it doesn't matter if it's worse, I play Dark Angels, damnit!'

Click to expand...

only applies to DA players, but rather to everyone who's ever had a favourite army from GW (the company that cares not for your collection, but rather for their collection of unsold kits in the warehouse...like all good companies should really). I'll play BA 'till I die/give up completely on the hobby, whereas there were three prominent BA players on this site who eBay'd their armies the moment the new 'dex hit.

Ultimately (and pulling us back on topic) I feel that people will choose the DA version for DA models more frequently because, and I might be wrong, most people don't like using another Codex to run their army. This is something that you do with a skill and attention to detail that constantly has me dumbfounded in all honesty. It...irks me, as I'm sure you know, to have to play my army from different rule sources to get the 'feel' right. After talking about this at fair length in my gaming group (that consists of ~8 consistent people and ~12 'here and there' folk) the general consensus is the same. It seems a lot of people are really hung up on getting their 'fairness' out of the rulebooks as opposed to out of agreements between people who just want to play an awesome game instead of rotfstomping their opponents all day, 'erry day.

tl;dr the SM version has way swanky rules but I think if I were to do either I'd still........wait for BA to get their own version of the demi-company :laugh:

Totally meant it as a compliment man, it's opened my eyes up to new possibilities :drinks:

GW definitely put out the same thing twice (which was indeed quite silly to do), and BA actually got the demi-company first in the Shield of Baal books but damn is it stupid and useless. I don't even want to admit they exist. I guess if you had all the assualt marines the 16 FA slot on is OK, and there's some fun to have in the WD Formations that were released if you have three Stormravens, but Formations I think will be a passing craze. There's already wicked restrictions on army building at most tournaments because some combinations are just broken, and the game is getting way too convoluted to follow unless you keep your blinders on and just focus on a couple armies that you play/face regularly. Even in my casual games people are starting to limit the amount of detachments/formations brought to the table because it can be so ridiculous. I get what GW is trying to do, but Formations don't need so many game altering rules to be used. They just need to be different ways of running legal groups of units or models that fit other aspects of the fluff for that army.

With Formations you can cherry pick the best units from every army almost in the exact same way that an Unbound army works, and technically you can play an army of Formations as Unbound and they still get their special rules. What's the difference between an Unbound army and an army comprised entirely of Formations? Special rules.

...and people have problems with Unbound armies :wink: :laugh: