Ignithas

One player winning one tournament with one master doesn't automatically too strong, but if the tournament is high profile it is an indicator, because the player basically played with a handicap. 3 players being in the top half of a tournament is usually meaningless information. In games that are very skill intensive, if a list is too strong and popular, there are usually a lot of people that do well with it and a lot of people that aren't, because the worst players gravitate to lists that are pereceived to be the best. This is why % of the field and win rates across the board aren't the best tools to rate popular lists. Having one master being a large part of the meta and winning tournaments after tournaments usually signifies balance problems, because the meta can't adjust to the master. Balance should be always determined by the current GG. If Tara needs Corrupted Idols to be good, then she should be buffed if it isn't and nerfed if it is. Otherwise she is a balance problem in and on itself. From a faction balance perspecitive the 8,8,8,0 would most likely be broken. Even if there isn't a master that completely shore up the weakness (for example x/x/x/4, it would still be really bad designed. If I only play 1 master it depends on what my skill level, goal and the meta is. If I want to win the tournament and am not ahead of the competition, I take the list that gives me the most polarized results in the field. So for example if most people are taking lists that are extremly good at the 4th scheme, taking the 8,8,8,0 would probably be the better choice, even if I lose the one scheme 100% of the time. If I am confident that I will win against players even if I play a 6 list and my oponent an 8, then the 6,6,6,6 is the better choice. So in short, better players usualls gravitate towards "balanced" lists, while worse towards polarised ones to have a chance against players that play better than them. The overall rating is only important if you don't play another master that shores up the weakness. For the faction balance the 7,7,7,1 is meaningless if there is a 8,8,8,0 and a 6,6,6,6 in faction. Balance should always be determined in relation to the current GG and balance changes should be made accordingly. While this would be good if you want to balance the masters, faction balance most likely would suffer through such a design approach.

Tournament data doesn't give you the full picture, but a large part of it. Someone winning a high calibre tournament is the result of skill, luck and the power of the minis you are using. From one tournament it is often hard to pinpoint what the reason of the success is. But you usually get a meaningful patern very early. Who are the players that perform very consistently? What factions are they playing? What masters do they take into what schemes? What masters do they take into which factions? Are other people able to recreate the success? If you have one player dominating events with one faction or master it is important to talk to the community to understand if it is a probem. What counters have other factions against it? If both player have a similar understanding of the game, how can I have a positive matchup against the playing pattern? Usually succesfull players are eager to answer those questions. Especially if a person is extremly strong with only one master, there are probably not enough counters in the game to deal with it. I don't think it matters if Tara is too weak because of the removal of corrupted idols, the direct nerfs or the indirect ones. Important is the end result. I think it is important to understand her role within the faction. If you have access to all masters, what masters would I commit into what schemes/matchups/terrain. If the answer for Tara is that I only take her because I don't have time to learn more than one master, then game balance failed in my opinion. Especially in a tournament setting, one master that is ok in all games seem lackluster, if masters like dreamer are very strong in all games.

I know that the most efficient build is relative. But from what I gathered using out of keyword characters was the only way to midigate the weaknes of having no good beater. This on paper should affect a lot of matchups. If Hannah was used that way by the most succesfull outcast players I would consider it as a nerf. If it wasn't used that way, then it was a clarification. If it was used by the most succesfull outcast players and was played out of keyword, then I would argue that it was a nerf to all masters that realistically fielded her. In my opinion you should look on tournament results to analyze this. To understand if it was a nerf you need to know if the tournament players played it that way or not. To understand if it was a big hit you look at how those tournament players played her. To understand if Tara is balanced you have to look at the matchups she was or wasn't picked in. And to understand if Outcast is balanced you look at the win rates. I personally think that balanced factions are more important than balanced masters. So if Tara doesn't get picked often but Outcast is in a good spot, I think that this would be a good outcome to the gaining grounds changes.

If the consensus on Hannah was that he could do the thing and the most efficient Tara builds used out of keywords characters that are now weaker, then I disagree with that. They are nerfs to Tara, because it directly impacts her power when fielding her competitivly.

I bought some stuff for Cult and Empire and I really like the rules and models.

I highly disagree with that. Niche models are justified because you can bring your whole faction to a tournament and pick the crew that is best suited for a given task.