Malifaux Masters: A Tier List

[Calmdown]

I know a lot of people hate tier lists. But a lot of people don't!

As has been recently made evident in another post, a lot of people define Tier lists according to the strength of the players in their local meta playing certain masters, rather than objectively assessing the masters and crews on their own merits.

As this hasn't been discussed for a while, I just thought it'd be interesting to write out what I currently consider to be the Malifaux Master tier list and see what people think themselves too.

Tier 1+

Hamelin

Tier 1

The Dreamer

Kirai

Tier 2

Pandora, Lilith, Somer, Collette, Sonnia, Collodi, Ophelia

Tier 3

Zoraida, Viktorias, Leveticus, Lady Justice, Hoffman, McMourning, Marcus, Von Schill, Kaeris

Tier 4

Rasputina, Ramos, Perdita

Tier 5

Seamus, Nicodem, Molly, Lucius

Edited February 29, 2012 by Calmdown

[Orboros]

Even if i hate Tier lists, this roughly reflects my thoughts and experience regarding power levels..

[Cunning]

I assume you're ignoring avatars here?

[Calmdown]

I assume you're ignoring avatars here?

Avatar is part of what puts the master in his Tier.

The only Master that really changed tier with Avatars was Sonnia imho (hence her higher Tier). Hamelin's avatar simply cemented his position in Tier 1, and very few other avatars make enough of a difference to change Tiers.

You could argue Ramos and Seamus into Tier 4 maybe, Ramos maybe even into tier 3, but at the end of the day they still have 2 stones and have to spend time and SS turning into an avatar. If avatars didnt exist I'd put Ramos and Seamus even further down the list.

[mythicFOX]

Think you missed Levi off your list.

I'd probably say;

Tier 1

Hamelin, The Dreamer, Kirai,

Tier 1.5

Pandora, Collette,

aZoraida*,

Tier 2

Lilith, Viktorias, McMourning,

Collodi,

Marcus, Ophelia, aSonnia, Hoffman

Tier 3

Somer, Vonshll, Kaeris, Lady J, Perdita,

aRamos, Seamus,

Levi

Tier 4

Molly,

Rasputina

, Lucius, Nicodem

I've marked in bold the one's I'm familiar enough with to hold an meaningful opinion, the others are more speculative. I'll also say I'm factoring avatars in only where I've marked them with an 'a'.

A lot of this comes down to where you draw the boundaries.

*Mostly as a result of the Zoraid Collodi synergy, without Collodi I'd move her down a space.

[Calmdown]

Yeh I'm going to move Ramos up a tier in my list I think, actually. I did miss Levi.

We're pretty much in agreement on the tiers really, if you let the granularity be fuzzy.

[Dumb Luck]

In reference to Calmdown's tier list ...

"We Gremlins are decent now!"

Ahem. Yep. Pretty solid assumptions.

[Cunning]

In reference to Calmdown's tier list ...

"We Gremlins are decent now!"

Ahem. Yep. Pretty solid assumptions.

Yep, it's just you that's a bit poo. ;-)

Edited February 29, 2012 by CunningStunt

[Spiku]

I saw the title of the thread, and rolled in to do some blow ups, and then I see it is Ian writing it?

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

How is this defined, and what is the objective criteria for judgement in your judgment/judgement to qualify your judgment. Is this in isolation of the models themselves, in respect of strategy/scheme synergy and their capacity to deal with those they encounter, is it based on standard meta match ups and options compared to what each master is likely to face and further to that then based on masters on their singular merit/as compared in fixed master settings/set to specific soulstone bands or across all options available in a comparative fashion?

Also tables. Tables everywhere!

Edit: My tier list, with as much justification provided as Calm Down's:

God Tier: Ophelia

Top Tier: Peaches

Mid Tier: Som'er

Low Tier: Everyone

Bottom Tier: Your mum's face

Edited February 29, 2012 by Spiku

[Dumb Luck]

I support Spiku's list.

[Cunning]

Here's a tier list for you

Tier 0: My Lilith

Tier 1: Jo's Lilith, Levi, Ramos

Tier 2: Everyone else's Lilith

Tier 3: All other masters

[Calmdown]

How is this defined, and what is the objective criteria for judgement in your judgment/judgement to qualify your judgment. Is this in isolation of the models themselves, in respect of strategy/scheme synergy and their capacity to deal with those they encounter, is it based on standard meta match ups and options compared to what each master is likely to face and further to that then based on masters on their singular merit/as compared in fixed master settings/set to specific soulstone bands or across all options available in a comparative fashion?

It's defined by the relative power level of each master. You should know all of the criteria that define what it is relative to.

[Kuwanger23]

So by looking at this tier are you saying that if we take a group of players all with the same skill lv and give them each a different faction that Resurrectionists would be the worst faction?

[Calmdown]

So by looking at this tier are you saying that if we take a group of players all with the same skill lv and give them each a different faction that Resurrectionists would be the worst faction?

That's kind of tough to define.

Guild have nothing in Tier 1.

Arcanists have nothing in Tier 1.

Rezzers have the most in Tier 5.

I think the only clear conclusion in my opinion is that Neverborn and Outcasts are the top factions overall, but that's not really the point of this thread. Masters within factions vary wildly in power level, eg the difference in Kirai and Nicodem. You could argue that Rezzers are a top tier 'faction' because they have one of the best masters in the game, you could also argue that overall they're worst because the bottom Tier is pretty much made up of Rezzers.

[Spiku]

I actually don't; you have to remember I am largely ignorant of what the other masters do and I have nowhere near your experience with both players and masters.

Most of the sorts of tier lists I will see will be ones for either fighting games, or dota games. I'm sure you can respect that for something like LoL there are a several different ways of constructing a tier list based on what you are playing or how you are playing, along with the environment you are in (our solo tiers, elo bracket tiers, synergy tiers given that some work well with any, but do not come near to matching specific combos). For fighting games a tier list usually only falls within two types; ones that tally the match ups between every character in the cast, those that look at how much "free" damage you can output compared to the risk you face (making the opponent guess > statistical match ups) bugger, also those that look at the tournament meta and what will place high against the likely pools... forgot that.

tl;dr

I'd still like to know your criteria, and you're jealous of my tier list

[karn987]

I honestly don't understand the obsession with attempting to categorize Masters & Crews based simply of a perceived level of power when everyone's perception is inevitably warped. It serves no purpose but to inflate peoples egos and cause flame wars.

+1 for Spiku's list, it may just as well be that.

Edited February 29, 2012 by karn987
Left the stove on.

[Lucidicide]

I think 6 tiers are a ridiculous number and implies more imbalances in the game than there really are.

[Kuwanger23]

How about if you each of those players couldn't take their "best" master? Then we would only have what has been defined here as bottom tier casters. And though I am new to the game and can only really compare it to how most other games work, you can't just rely on one caster/master to do everything for you. Certain masters have certain strengths and weaknesses. Even if the weaknesses are few and far apart. For example eAsphyxious in warmachine was considered the best caster and probably was best over all before his 2 cuddles. However he had trouble with certain things like high defense. As a matter of fact the tournament scene changed how their lists were made up just to account for his one weakness. So though Karia may be out "best" Master if whatever her weakness is is exploited then she would be shut down.

So I guess what I am asking is their people who have listed the factions in order of strength around here? I hear a lot of talk about how Neverborn is the best. But I come from a game where though legion and cryx are considered to be the best it still comes down to who the better player is that wins the tournaments. Not the faction. I am just secretly hoping that this game works the same way and that all factions are competitive. I certainly don't want to get into a game that is unbalanced or that when you see a certain master on the other side of the board you are thinking I may as well just not even flip cards and go get lunch. I am sure from all the positive things I hear that this is probably not the case. I guess I just worry too much lol.

[Spiku]

Karn: If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all. There's no need to stoke the flames while praising my awesome tier list ;3

Lucidicide: I think it shows more balance to have multiple layers of division. Wouldn't it be more worrying if it was G-tier, good tier, okay tier, bad tier, and then many masters were at the bottom, rather than a mixed spread? I accept that he hasn't defined the tiers to say just how much better or what situations make something worse/better, but I don't feel having a lot of levels detracts.

Or do you mean you feel it is more: 1: Best, 2: Better than average, 3: Good, 4: Molly?

Kuwanger: It's slightly different in Malifaux. All games will come down to player skill until you get to the highest skill region, then it is down to how they like to play and what they feel like bringing, then it is down to the game setting, or luck of the draw and a certain amount of psychology on what you think they expect you to take, and what you know they play, or want to play, or don't know about them. I think it is generally accepted that neverborn have the best options for good reason; the nature of The Stitched, the twins in multiples, Collodi being able to get all the VPs for destroy evidence on turn 1, all before looking at masters. That's a rather big consideration.

All FACTIONS are competitive, there is no question of that. Just because something is "the best" does not mean that it is insurmountable, or that you will necessarily have to worry about it in a casual environment. I played sisters of battle in 40k during 4th edition and won all but 2 games out of over 200 played (2 draws), because I just played at the local store and with friends.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Spiku

[Lucidicide]

I feel there is only a need for 3 real tiers. There's your average (which is almost everyone). I've been playing this game a long time with a variety of people, and for the most part all Masters have been broken and/or weak in that time. There are some Masters that are slightly better, and there are some that are slightly worse.

Imagine you read this thread and wanted to play Nicodem. You'd figure you have almost no chance in the game, and that's just not accurate.

[Spiku]

Luci: It's a shame really, but there really isn't much of an alternative way to express it unless everyone includes the clause "For those of you who do not play malifaux, the nature of the VP system means that you will have a chance (don't lead a crew as Molly.)"

I don't think anyone who plays Malifaux, or who is familiar with it, would say anyone (who isn't Molly) is just a loss, or so bad as to be unplayable. There exists a discrepancy in their effectiveness in a variety of areas which may average out with the tiers as described, but really it is no different than people saying they don't want to get into 40k, because they hear that Grey Knights and Space Wolves are broken.

It is not really fair to quash legitimate discussion just because people who are not familiar will make judgements on something they don't know about, because someone they don't know, said something is not as good as something else they don't know about.

[Lucidicide]

Luci: It's a shame really, but there really isn't much of an alternative way to express it unless everyone includes the clause "For those of you who do not play malifaux, the nature of the VP system means that you will have a chance (don't lead a crew as Molly.)"

I don't think anyone who plays Malifaux, or who is familiar with it, would say anyone (who isn't Molly) is just a loss, or so bad as to be unplayable. There exists a discrepancy in their effectiveness in a variety of areas which may average out with the tiers as described, but really it is no different than people saying they don't want to get into 40k, because they hear that Grey Knights and Space Wolves are broken.

It is not really fair to quash legitimate discussion just because people who are not familiar will make judgements on something they don't know about, because someone they don't know, said something is not as good as something else they don't know about.

What is the legitimate discussion? I'm mostly just reading lists. You asked for clarification on how to judge it and got a "you know" answer. The only people having a discussion are people not posting the lists.

Besides which, I didn't say you couldn't list. I said that breaking them out into so many tiers with little or no explanation implies huge imbalances, which is inaccurate and discouraging. I'm comfortable with tiers of power, but they need more explanation than is so far present.

[Fetid Strumpet]

+1 to Spiku.

[Spiku]

I feel that any discussion aimed at forwarding the game is legitimate; certainly I have been currently dismissed because Calmdown assumed I was trolling, which was a fair assumption given the table flip, and tier list including your mum's face, but that's not a fair way to judge just yet; Calmdown will inveritably weigh in with his opinions again in time.

But yeah, I feel that moderated discussion on perceived power with full explanations of why, and responses that are equally detailed, provide useful information for the game. Errata and changes are only found through play, and this provides a report on the opinions contained therein; Wyrd can't be everywhere.

Certainly people will kick up a fuss; I know I don't agree with Mythic's placement of Som'er because I play him, and Tiny would switch Ophelia and Peaches in my tier list and call it his dating list, but if there is dissection I consider it legitimate. I don't consider just going "this is a bad topic, and you are a bad person" to really be legitimate, but that's because I have a legitimate discussion tier list with Ophelia at the top, fluff and mechanics below, and your mum's face at the bottom

Buuuuuut I'm no longer really contributing by discussing it, so I'ma stop blowing wind everywhere and wait to see if Calmdown will be responding, or is just sitting back singing trololololol at Jo

[nilus]

Without any discusion of how you arrived at these assumption, they dont come off as objective. In fact they just seem to reflect the UK meta. Which some could debate have a bias towards certain factions.

Dont take this as a direct attack against your list. I think all rankings are bias and there really isnt such thing as an objective evaluation. There are to many undefined variables to consider.