what makes a good master

[izikial]

I like alot of master and I'm talking about alot of them, but there is no faction that I like all of its masters, this is a little annoying as I don't feel tied to any faction, but that's also a good thing.

This got me thinking about what I look for in a master and interested in what others look for, so I'm going to do some pros and cons for what I look for and I look forward to seeing what you guys like

Pro

Underpowere/underplayed (I like being different)

Can do damage but not focused on it

Provides utility

Has obvious crew synergy's but not stuck to them

Buffs rather than debuffs

Is a game changer (not just 1 dimensional)

Is male (not sexist I just like to see my self in the masters role and I'm not a girl)

Prefers big guys to small guys

Cons

Clumpy ball crew

Bland appearance (for master and crew)

Summoner

Lacks range

Overly gimmicky (most of gremlins)

Relys on a condition (sometimes specific to the master)

So all in all I don't think my perfect master exists yet, but there are alot who hit almost all my boxes

Closest are zoraider but male or Wong not as a gremlin

[Myyrä]

There are several masters that at least come close to fulfilling your list. The ones that popped to my mind are:

Tara: Fits very well, but isn't male.

Lucius: Doesn't focus on big guys.

Marcus: Fits well, but probably isn't underpowered or played.

Yan Lo: Relies on a condition, summons a bit.

Shen Long: Relies on conditions and lacks range (his crew doesn't have to lack range though), not released

McCabe: Seems like perfect match, unless you don't like the minis or count him as overly gimmicky

[Kogan Style]

I too would say McCabe, although I would say the title of this thread is mis-leading, it should be "I like playing this way - who is the closest to my style?"

[izikial]

I'm not asking who I should play, I'm fine with who I like I'm asking what is it about masters that you look for, I'm just interested to se what appeals to people

[Phinn]

Pros

• Randomness - I think the game is more fun, when it's less predictable.
• High risk, high reward - Actions that kick you in your bum 75% of time, but when the alignment of dark forces is juuust right... something magical happens, something that you will remember long time after you forgot, if you won or lost that game.
• Comicality - One word... Gremlins.
• Versatility - Actions with multiple triggers.
• Movement tricks
• Utility/Support Masters
• Crews with strong theme - It makes the game much more immersive for me.
• Little bit of summoning
• Abilities that "break" rules - Abilities like From the Shadows.

 

Cons

• Masters with repetitive playstyle - Excessive summoning, heavy shooting...
• Crews that hold hands for the most of the game.
• Models that are boring, but people play them because they are potent.

[SpectreEliteGaming]

I'm really only interested in playing Masters that are hard to counter, can perform reliably and consistently in a tournament setting within their strongest strategies, and have even to favorable match-ups against all other crews. Fortunately, it seems that (almost?) every faction has one or more crews that fit the bill but I put personal bias and favoritism on Outcasts, Neverborn, and Guild - in that order.

Not big on book-keeping either...

[SpiralngCadavr]

Izikial, I'd suggest Mei Feng as a decent buffing piece, with some strong damage, that can support a small crew (which only needs a couple pieces to get much synergy) and doesn't get a ton of attention.

 

My list-

+

Strong thematic crew with at least a bit of variety and ideally at least one thematic piece around the 4-5point range for line troops

Support with at least one decent attack

Positioning or activation tricks

Summoning or another way of fighting attrition (ex: healing or solid defensive buffs would fit here)

A cool henchman

 

-

Overreliance on limited suits

Too melee-focused (there are plenty of strong melee henchmen)

[izikial]

i agree with the suites thing spiraling, im not keen on things like misaki and lcb who are possibly amazing but very suite reliant 

 

laika, you seem to have a very similar out look to me but with a much more gremliny bend on it

 

specter, i don't like hyper competitive for 2 reasons, 1 they are taken more often and i hate mirror matches or seeign soem one els play my favorit master. 2 is that if i win on a week master then i feel great and if i lose then oh well i tried, if i win on an op master i dont feel happy about it and if i lose i feel week and silly

 

but this diversity is what makes the game good and keeps it intresting

[moxypoo]

I tend to choose masters entirely based on whether I enjoy how they play (although having an awesome model doesn’t hurt!).

 

Coming from a background in Magic the Gathering, I like to group masters into three categories.

1. Aggro.  Aggressive masters tend to focus on putting lots of damage on the enemy crew.
2. Control.  These masters focus on altering the flow of the game through buffs or debuffs or (in)directly controlling enemy models.
3. Combo.  These masters have an unorthodox playstyle or use convoluted combinations to create dramatic, powerful effects.

Obviously, all masters will be a combination of those three categories, though I would argue that each master has one predominant category that he/she/it fits into.  Some masters can probably even change their predominant category depending on which upgrades they take (Yan Lo comes to mind here).

 

I tend to enjoy combo oriented masters the most, with control being my second favorite class.  I like playing very unorthodox playstyles and setting up situations where it’s extremely difficult or impossible for my opponent to win as opposed to killing all their models.

[SpectreEliteGaming]

I take a very MtG approach to this game, as well. I tend to play a control style with an aggressive twist because straight up control (blue, white-blue), though effective, is boring as hell. I am more of a black control and (especially!) disruption type player. I love messing with my opponent and agitating the hell out of them - but, you know, in a nice way. In comparison, I see playing straight aggro (RDW, All-in Red = Misaki, Viks) is a gamble at best and is very risky.

When I try to wrap my head around masters I decide what "deck" they are like in order to guide my mindset (rather than just finding the master that suits me, adopting different mindsets allows greater understanding and variation).

So like my main crews Leveticus (suicide black) and Jack Daw (mono-black discard) compared to the Viks (All-In Red) and Somer (Legacy Goblins... but shittier ).

Then you "splash" colors with different crew selections - (ie. Need aggro? Splash Red with Howard in your Levy crew). Dunno if this helps but hopefully someone sees where I am coming from. Its not so much a rigid framework as it is a guide to keep you thinking in mindset so you don't stray to far from the game plan (I am "supposed" to be controlling with fear but I reeeeeally want to run over and help kill another model with my Hanged - too bad! Make good choices and do what you're supposed to do!)

-------

Also, not all extremely competitive masters are common. Zoraida and Lynch are both extremely competitive but don't see that much play (maybe).

Not everyone just plays Levy and Dreamer (though they should )

Furthermore, if you read forums/listen to podcasts/twitter you are bound to see lots of talk about some popular masters. Not all players use these mediums and I would like to suggest that the "common" masters are not as common as it seems (okay, maybe in the case of dreamer and the viks, but still...) Its just that people like myself and Hateful Darkblack have big mouths so it looks like "oh, well eveeeeeeeryoonnnneee is playing Levy."

Play what you want to play - not what others are not playing. You are not being different for choosing an unpopular master. You are not a unique snowflake. Someone DOES think on a similar train of thought and WILL eventually choose the same masters as you and you WILL face off in the dreaded identical mirror match eventually if you play enough. Would you rather do it with a crew you adore (even if it is "popular") or one you chose to be "different."

Just hope its not something utterly ridiculous like JDx2, Colettex2, or Lynch x2.

[Bengt]

My thinking goes something like this when considering Masters, in approximate order of importance.

1. I have to like the models. Both the Master, their thematic crew, and a number of synergistic models.

2. I want a variety of play styles and I paint really really slow. I.e. I would like to have one each of beatstick/summoner/control/support/whatever Master before I double up. Release order can throw a wrench in this.

3. I already have models that would be effective with the Master. This can go both ways, i.e. buying a crew box for the non Master models would still add that Master to the stable, perpetually at the back at the painting queue. 

4. The fluff. This is not that important, but can influence me. Both themes and the literary qualities of that particular Master's stories can sway me one way or the other.

[Kogan Style]

Sorry Izikial, I misinterpreted your post! My considerations which have led me to play with certain masters are:

 

1 - Toolbox: I like masters who can do a variety of things with their AP, so if I need to Melee, they can do that, if I need ranged output, disruptive tactics, etc... they can do all of those to some degree. I want options when I activate.

 

2 - Debuffing: I like to pressurize the opponents models with conditions, slows, paralyses, lures etc... anything that makes their models or positioning sub-optimal is what I look for in both master play style and the models that will go into their crew.

 

3 - Movement Tricks/unpredictability: I like being able to surprise my opponent about where a model will end up, or where their model will end up vs what they expect. I also like to have move tricks that will dig me out of a hole the opponent has tried to put me in!

 

4 - Card draw/Hand destruction: Relatively new for me, but listening to podcasts has brought this topic out more and its something I have been sub-consciously aware of but never before actively seeking. The ability to either cycle your hand or force the opponent to waste control cards is something I look for in models.

 

 

I tend to steer clear of Masters who are pretty one-directional or who are all about supporting each other to be effective. 

 

Can you work out my favourite three Masters???

 

 

 

 

 

They are (in no particular Order): Seamus, Molly and Jack Daw!

 

They all debuff, can all deal damage if they need to (on one particular model) and additionally Molly and Seamus can summon which can be very handy! 

[Kadeton]

The main thing that gets me to try a new Master is interesting mechanical combos. Pretty much anything that makes me go "Ooh, I hadn't thought of that. That's nasty."

 

I favour Masters that are aggressive and dangerous - when there's something standing between me and victory, I prefer to make an example of it so that its friends learn to stay out of my way.

 

I like strong crew themes, especially ones which avoid the gender-based stereotyping shown in so many games. I generally won't play all-male crews, and prefer female Masters.

 

Most of all, I like variety. I have 28 Masters at this point. My preferences are not as strong as my desire to try new things.

[izikial]

I'm surprised by the lack of people saying they like raw damage, I tend to use my crew for damage, but the number of damage masters is verry high compared to what people are saying.

I played magic and fined It a realy good thing to use as a comparison, really helps new players

I have to ask, what do people like about summoning, I don't see it as fun my self, I don't minde levi/hamlin summoning that just happens, but not dedicated summoners

[Kogan Style]

While i don't like playing Nicodem, I do like to have some summoning. I find that in a game of AP attrition having my opponent think they can use their AP to complete schemes only to find a new model in their face which they now need to deal with is a great! Fits with my pressure game style plus the AP you'll lost because of the opponent killing your model can be mitigated by bringing another model back.

[izikial]

It just feals boring and cheaty to me, now that is probably just me but the amount of issues made by summoning master and the amount of forum posts about how some one cant get past a summoner it just feels underhanded

[Patzer]

I like the different kind of summoning like Hamelin, Sonnia, Molly, and Levetiucs have. A simple summoning mechanic isn't heaps of fun, but its darn good. I have faced Nicodem, Ramos, and Dreamer one time too many to underestimate simply how good summoning is. However, its far from an auto-win. If you play against a dedicated summoner (like Nico or Dreamer) the best thing you can do is to attack important models or the master. Then your opponent needs to spend those high cards on defence instead of summoning Hanged that you then have to deal with. Another important aspect you have to take into account when playing against summoners, is it called for or could my opponent spend his AP on better options? Summoning is strong, don't get me wrong some of the best in the game are summoners, but there are heaps of ways of getting around it.

 

So, that was bit of a rant about summoning... Onto the topic of the thread. I like a lot of different masters, especially those who got a lot of control to their game or can influence large areas of the board. An example of the first could be Hamelin or Collodi, the second could be Pandora or Leveticus. The first group can deny and take away a lot from the opponent, while the second can wave their finger and say "you are dead meat if you get into my range".

 

Master I don't like to play are mainly melee beaters (Mei Feng). I don't have any master that I hate to face. Maybe Ophelia, but I have gotten around her filthiness of late.

[Kadeton]

It just feals boring and cheaty to me, now that is probably just me but the amount of issues made by summoning master and the amount of forum posts about how some one cant get past a summoner it just feels underhanded

 

I wouldn't say it's underhanded, just requires different tactics to deal with. A lot of new players go for simple, hitty crews that easily get overwhelmed by summoners.

 

I suspect there's also a bit of label-based bias, as well. When someone gets stomped by damage (by Rasputina, Lynch or the Viktorias, for example) they tend to complain just about that Master instead of complaining about "nukers" or whatever. When they get beaten by a Master who can summon, though, that somehow gets added to all the other complaints about summoners - effectively making the complaints pile against "summoners" much larger than the complaints against any other (individual) Master.

[Math Mathonwy]

I like reliability. No over-reliance on certain suits, no insane swingyness.

I like mobility. Slow plodding, especially if the Master is a buffer, is not as interesting as a highly mobile Master. Movement offers a tremendous amount of choice so being fast is awesome. Which brings me to my next point.

I like options and meaningful decisions. Meaningful as in not offering a clear-cut "best move" but rather a slew of options.

I like good defenses simply because it's annoying when a Master dies unexpectedly.

I like underdogs because challenge is good and tight games where I play good are the best.

[Patzer]

I like underdogs because challenge is good and tight games where I play good are the best.

 

By underdogs are you referring to masters that aren't played a lot in your meta, or are you referring to "lesser" masters?

[Uruk]

I like:

 

mobility: gives the possibility to choose fights, a faster/better positioning on the field, chance to put pressure on the opponent, more strategic options and flexibility during the game etc etc

 

close combat high damage output: the more, the better, especially in melee. Standing toe to toe is the essence of combat to me. Having a high dmg output is not essential in an objective game, but is more than welcomed; gives pressure to the opponent, takes out threatening pieces and gives my opponent another factor to be worried about. A cleaved head no longer plots.

 

debuff: not much, just enough to annoy my opponent; disturb, distraction, some dirty tricks before I charge you in close combat. Fair play? maybe next time.

 

glass cannon: that's it, I don't like shiny plates armor or high defense values...attack is the best form of defence; this thrills me, my opponent can kill me easily and here's where skills must come into play if I want to stay alive.

[bertmac]

Speed, versatility and some staying power, options for range and melee and not too suit stone or card intensive. Don't care about gender although all but one of my masters is female i only own 6 and one of those i got for the rest of the crew.

[dancater]

I have a horribly expanding range of Masters which sadly does not work in conjunction with what appears to be my horribly contracting resource of gaming time .

 

But my best Masters have:

 

Pros:

• Unusual mechanic, something which is different from the standard smash face technique
• Crew variety while retaining synergy, I like characterful crews but also value forces which can look different from one clash to the next and aren't made up of 75% auto-include models
• Cool looking crew with fluff which simply inspires me
• Cross faction model access, not an essential but difinately something which appeals and the reason I have many dual-faction masters
• Durability, I vastly prefer the tougher (or hidier) masters who live on a bit then the glass cannon types
• I tend to be a fan of the counter-culture "against the man" masters
• Love the fun so the Gremlins generally get an easy ride

Cons:

• Well first the mirror image of the points above...
• Do not like crews which have a flavour which makes me uncomfortable, this is a weird one, certain masters have dark traits which I'm comfortable with and fit in my idea of monster, zombie, lord of evil world domination. Others I plain don't like, in particular I am uncomfortable around sexual violence and gender violence even if it is only pretend, makes no sense on a logical level but that is just how it is, you kill everyone and I'm fine with it, you target women and I'm out.

But honestly I think its about 25% masters I always want to play and love, 50% masters I think are cool and will play at a pinch, 15% masters I might play one day and own as much for their cross synergy with other crews and factions and 10% masters I don't expect I'll ever play and doubtfully own.

 

My favorite Master has always been Collette, I also love Lucius, McMourning, Rasputina and I think Marcus would round out my top five. I will qualify this with the fact that the moment Wong comes out as a crew box he will be competing for my top slot, he's the glowy wonder of Malifaux, between him and Collette it will probably come down to which new 2E plastics I love the look of more.

[izikial]

on the gender topic i find female masters tend to be the more fight masters and males ones the more supporty, that's only a tendency, not a hard and fast rule. so most people who like fights damage masters will have female ones

 

i dont like debuffign as it anouyes my oponant, and i agree that annoyance lets you find chinks in there armour, but i would prefer my best to beat there best rather than making them think about to much to make the right call, i also hate when some one says " that super damage matur neph is about in combat, how about i use my nurse to stop it attacking, ha" it just makes my game less fun wial not really making there's any more fun.

 

im the kind of person that prefers you to kill my model and be done with it rather than make it useless all game

 

i prefer the more support master to the damage ones as i find them more consistent and more of a puzzle

[Vorschlag]

Pros:
Appearance
Personality
Interesting Fluff 
Fluffy crew is effective and fun to play
Capacity for conversions on Master or fluff crew
Has complex or semi complex play style
IS not ten thunders

IS not an outcast
IS not Mah Tucket

Cons:
Wild West theme. (just not my thing)
Ten Thunders.
Outcasts.
Mah Tucket.
Uninteresting fluff.
Uninteresting play style.
Uninteresting models.

I'm a "fluff-ball" player, I bought into Malifaux because it was a story based games, thus I see power gamers as a lesser species in this game, Every master and crew I play is either based in theme or can have a functional story built around the encounter.

I dislike running a Master with another Masters crew unless I can develop a really good fluff story for the encounter I.e I will not run illuminated or depleted with Lucius or run a kin heavy crew with Somer.
Thankfully most the players we have locally like to keep things fluffy or semi fluffy anyway plus most fluffy crews are powerful enough to be competitive or semi-competitive without bs lists.