Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

Lion's Blade vs Gladius?

1199 Views 7 Replies 3 Participants Last post by  MidnightSun
This will probably cause a lot of flak, as I've seen it in other DA-centric groups, but I'm very curious.

For the most part, the Lion's Blade and the Gladius are identical FOR MEQ units, especially for the 'OMGFreeTransportHAXORS!' lists that are showing up everywhere.

Now, that's not the case once you actually want to design a creative list, with Deathwing Forces, or Conclaves, etc etc. However, when you consider that most of the Auxillaries are Formations, which means Battle Brothers all the live long day....

The Lion's Blade can technically run cheaper, because you only need one scout squad as the cheapest Auxiliary.

The Gladius needs three Scout squads for their alternative, however you can drop the Assault Squads in favor of something as simple as a single attack bike.

(Edit // Did the math: There's about 70 points in favor of Lion's Blade to run the bare-bones Demi Company).

However, if all you're doing is running the razorspam lists... is Lion's Blade truly the best choice? The 100 points? I feel like the Gladius is far better, with tactical doctrines being more flexible than the Overwatch bonus, not to mention ALSO getting an additional chapter tactic to go with it.

I'm curious other people's opinions. The DA players will just immediately say 'it doesn't matter if it's worse, I play Dark Angels, damnit!' And since I play Thousand Sons, I totally understand using a mediocre rules set. But at the same time... there's almost NO difference in the two lists...
1 - 3 of 8 Posts
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:

'it doesn't matter if it's worse, I play Dark Angels, damnit!'
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:
See less See more
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:
See less See more
Yeah, just sweet and recently increasingly potent 'special rules' that could (given the current state of mono-unit Decurion style Formations) easily be an Unbound army based on the user's model collection and taste while still maintaining said 'special rules' since they aren't Command Benefits.

That was a convoluted sentence, but my coffee-addled mind isn't getting it out much better. Either way this is a bit of a digression from the topic at hand.

Were you to us the SM book to field a green-wing DA army, what Chapter Tactics would you use? Imperial Fists seem the most likely to me, but that's because they seem similarly grim and stoic to me. Plus Bolter Drill and Grim Resolve seem kinda like two sides of the same coin.
1 - 3 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.