MrKittens

This is the major downside for Guild Guard: you need three to make them dependable, which makes them a 12 point unit. For 12 points, I expect a lot more. They're pretty bad.

Ah, thank you, Wopr. I am delighted to have been wrong. When I saw my post quoted, followed by your comment about scrubbery, I inferred you made a connection between the two. While there's no way to know how many other people made the same inference, perhaps seeing that happen will be useful to you in the future. Regardless, yes, I did apparently make a mistake, and I own that. Back to discussing!

Dear sir or madam, I offer you a forceful request: when addressing those with whom you disagree, do not preface your rebuttal with an insult. You embarrass both yourself and your partner. As to myself, I am insulted that, before offering even the slightest insight, you have attempted to belittle me. This is inappropriate behavior, whether you are on an internet forum or in a room with someone. Please do not do that again. As to your rebuttal itself, I propose that you have posted only your own, singular experience. This does not offer anything to a discussion regarding Lucius' relative strengths, in comparison with our other Masters. Technically, any one of us could win with a Master whose card was wholly blank; the question, then, would become not how one did so, but how much better you would have done with a better-designed and streamlined Master. To wit: virtually everything you posted regarding your Lucius game sounds like something McCabe would have done just as well or better, while also giving powerful bonuses to his crew which Lucius needs to fish for circumstantially. As I said above, I have not played him; his kit does not appeal to me at all (though there are Masters who are downright powerhouses whose kits don't appeal to me, I am speaking wholly to taste in this regard). But, others post that they have, and have found him wanting. I am willing to discuss issues of worth and balance (you may recall I ended my then-quoted post by asking if I was missing anything... your post did not answer this question), but for all of us to do so, such discussion would have to be more intellectually honest (giving a mini-batrep where Lucius does virtually nothing, and citing it as comprehensive evidence), and if not polite, at least civil (do not insult your partner).

I'm... not sure what Lucius adds to the Guild's repertoire that other Masters don't. I haven't played him, certainly, but looking him over confuses me. If you want a Master that helps churn out Scheme Markers, McMourning is great, and also is a melee beast, and gives access to arguably the best support minion in the game, Nurses. If you want someone to administer extra AP, take McCabe, who's also got a plethora of stymying and buffing talents at his disposal. Both of these other Masters seem to do Lucius' schtick more consistently, easier, with a better Plan B (combat or evasion), with fewer demands. I started following this thread, hoping to see something come to light in the discussion to prompt me to give him a shot, but I just don't see it. What tempts people back to our resident bureaucrat that they don't also find in our other Masters, but better?

Ah, apologies! How very embarrassing, I must have missed that. Never mind, and carry on! Though I still want to try that one.

Having just picked up McCabe myself, a friend of mine pointed out an interesting interaction I'll have to try, and I'm wondering if anyone's given this a whirl: Pale Rider and the Glowing Saber. The Rider's pseudo-Crit Strike caps out at 2, but the Saber's doesn't... and it will just keep eating all the Rams its given. Starting turn 3, when the bulk of melee often tends to start happening, the Rider is swinging for Ml 6, 4/6/7. It only goes up from there. Did anyone catch this before now, or is my friend the first one? I was really surprised when I heard it.

Apologies, repost.

My biggest problem with him is that the reason one takes him is inert; you don't "do" anything to get virtually every drop of utility out of him. Sure, sometimes he'll knock off a couple of wounds, maybe apply Slow once or twice. But, for a 9 Stone model, that's pretty much nothing. You're taking him for the stuff that doesn't happen on his turn, and I find that unsatisfying, whether he's worth it or not. Power without gameplay is poor design. I agree that an upgrade made specifically for him would go a long way to making him interesting. Maybe something where, if a Guardsman model dies in a certain aura, he can cast a spell to summon a basic Guild Guard to replace them? This would make him not that far off from Toshiro, his closest analogue... tough, doesn't do that much damage for his cost, sits in the middle of his chosen models handing out buffs, and propagates his ability to use them over time. You'd have Something To Do on his activation, but would keep his focus.

Fantastic, thanks! I've played Guild-like factions my whole life, so I never had any experience with the deader end of the spectrum. I'll look these guys up today!

The Night Spectre is certainly the direction I was looking, but I'd been hoping to put my greenstuffing skills to the test; while I'm glad folks're finding the idea helpful, I don't suppose anyone knows of a line that does characterful, unadorned skeletons? The WHF box I found on Ebay had mostly line infantry, standing facing forward like troops.

Hello all, I have a slightly odd question for everyone: Where can I buy some cavorting Human skeletons? I have decided recently to model together two large bases, and assemble my version of Sonnia's fire wall; that way, whenever she creates one, I'll have a cool model to put on the board, instead of just a couple of blank 50mm bases. Keeping with her theme of burning skeletons, I've started looking at various minis lines for completely bare-bones (haHA!) skeletons, unarmed or armored, preferably dancing or cavorting about, as one would be likely to do if one were on, say, fire. I've had very minimal luck. Either the skeletons I've found were adorned in some fashion, completely static, or both. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm looking for about 5-ish, and will of course post pictures if asked.

When I play Chuck, I take a Watcher, and dedicate its first few Turns to Line in the Sand. It gets even announced ALitS for free, pretty much, and after it gets Programmed Directive (I usually want Hydraulics for something fightier), it can crank out centerline schemes nonstop. If my opponent wants to dedicate resources to tracking it down, let them! Watchers are only four points, and I wasn't going to use that Upgrade anywhere else. My perspective is that Chuck starts games with 3 VP, and acquires from there, just from this.

Hello folks, I started a game the other day in a rush, a friend of mine and I got pressed for time at our LGS, and so we forgot the phase of the game wherein one declares faction before list assembly. Had we done this part, I suspect when my friend said, "Outcasts," I would have remembered that he owns Von Schill, and would not have taken Sonnia. He took Von Schill. I took Sonnia. Additionally, I've been trying to figure out what my favorite Sonnia addition is, and I took Papa along. I looked at his Pulses-and-Blasts-immune crew, looked at mine, and sighed. I can't recall the last time I've felt quite so countered in this game. I'm wondering if people also would like to share their experiences in having felt like a big ephemeral "Off Button" was pushed on what they took, and also how one might anticipate such a repeat performance to obviate it.

I'm not sure that's quite fair; some Masters are, even without their crews, just better or worse at some Schemes. For example, Plant Explosives is incredibly easy for Lucious: he has a gun (or, an employee of his does, anyway) that fires Scheme Markers, and ignores LoS. You get this one for free with him! Sure, that Luna Bomb being discussed on the McCabe thread makes him pretty good, too, but Lucious gets an A+ for Plant Explosives. On the other hand, if Assassinate is in the Scheme Pool, I'll never take Lady Justice. She does effectively nothing unless she is fully in the thick of it, hitting and charging (and being hit and being charged) every single turn. While she's a solid slugger, she offers nothing else to her crew other than sitting right where you can fork over your precious VP to your opponent. Bad choice, there. Sure, you can take Guardians and/or Frank to shore up this weakness, but why would you try to compensate for a drawback you put in place yourself, when you can simply not hamper your choices in the first place? It's better to just not take LJ when Assassinate is in the pool. These are the kind of things we can consider with this thread and spreadsheet (threadsheet?). Also, regarding crew selections skewing some Masters' ratings, consider this: I don't think it's particularly provocative of me to say that some models work better with some Masters than others. Witchling Stalkers, for example, are great with everyone, but particularly so with Sonnia. Thus, one can expect some presence of Stalkers in a Sonnia list. When regarding the ratings of some Masters, perhaps we use the thumb-rule of mentally slotting in models that Master usually takes, synergizes well (and typically, and/or best) with, and who enables that Master to generally do what it does best. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise?

While I still think this conversation has gotten the forum to a point where we can functionally discuss the game, I do feel compelled to chime back in to point something out: on the one hand, you adhere to the relativist perspective of keeping in mind how you want to play, and what you want to get out of a game; this is fine. But, at the end of your assertion, you change directions to using objectivist terminology... specifically, "Any attempt at 'analysis'... is nonsense." I encourage two things: First, to not call your fellow forum-users nonsensical; while you may disagree with what I have to say (that's fine), I think I can, at the very least, make a sensible argument. Second, there's some conflicting messaging around asserting that one should construct what one wants to get out of the game, and then immediately afterward say that disagreement with your position is simply untenable. Consider a reframing: "Discuss point A all you like, but remember, disagreeing with me on point B is wrong." That's all I have to say here, but if you feel likewise compelled to reply, we should perhaps consider taking this to IMs. Either way, I hope you enjoy your day!