Loved/unloved Masters

[daniello_s]

I have seen this thing on few occasions - some Masters are adored and some are... well just are

The main argument is either 'why take X when Y or Z are doing it better, faster, etc' (i.e. Yan Lo vs other Resser Masters) or 'X doesn't fit into the Strategy and Schemes available so it is better to take Y or Z' (i.e Viks when Assasinate is in the pool or when opponent declares Ressers as his faction).

So where really is the problem? Is it because some Masters are, I won't say overpowered, but let's say better 'equipped' with their abilities/actions than others or because players are way to lazy to use those less fortune Masters and go for easy-picks?

As Outcast player (Viks, Levy and soon Tara as well) I'm aware of the fact that often Levy has bigger chances to in the game and almost guarantee me VP points but still I pick Viks instead because having fun from the game is very important to me, almost as important as having 10VPs scored at the end of the game

What do you think?

[MasterDisaster]

I definitely think certain masters excel in areas that others definitely do not. For example, most of the Masters I play prefer to be in close proximity to their crew so when reconnoiter comes up I die a little inside as I really have to think outside the box. I think it's down to the players for the most part. It's easier to pick Colette for a marker heavy scheme pool and Raspy for example because you know you're going to bag those all important VP more easily. Sometimes I just say balls to it and pick the Master I want to play and do the best I can to bag as many VP as I can whilst denying VP as much as possible too. This may very well cost me the game but I'm not going to force myself to play a master I'm not in the mood for just to try and make the game an auto-win. 

 

You mention Yan Lo as an example and I'm one of those that think he's not that great, everything he does can be done better by other Ressers or 10T masters. But thats just my personal opinion on him.

 

I'd like to know what others think on this subject though. 

[daniello_s]

So if Yan Lo can be swapped easily for other Master who does job better would than mean that Yan Lo is, blantly saying, weak and needs some update just to make him competitive to other, stronger Masters or other Masters are too strong and overshadow weaker ones?

Is there under-balance within factions?

[zFiend]

In my personal opinion there are few masters in the game that got through the beta in a state they shouldn't be in. Then there are a few masters that are a bit above the power curve compared to some, then there are some masters that are okay and only a very few subpar masters. 

 

But the balance is mainly between a bit over the curve and okay, so this game is really well balanced for most part.

 

And before this starts a war. These are just my own personal opinions. 

[PraetorDragoon]

I think it does quite a bit depend on who plays it and how it's handled by the player. While I am sure there are differences in power level between certain masters. (I refer to the Tier list thread) I think they are pretty close together. But it's for sure that at certain combinations, certain masters preform better (and preform worse under other conditions)

 

So I would say loved/unloved masters is more of a personal opinion, but because of the internet, these opinions tend to be expressed and spread more easily. 

[daniello_s]

Don't get me wrong - I think Malifaux itself is very balanced as a game. Just I don't think there should be a place for situation where certain Masters are almost instantly discarded when factions are announced and Strategy and Schemes are flipped. IMO this kind of stuff kills a game a bit.

[Dirial]

Don't get me wrong - I think Malifaux itself is very balanced as a game. Just I don't think there should be a place for situation where certain Masters are almost instantly discarded when factions are announced and Strategy and Schemes are flipped. IMO this kind of stuff kills a game a bit.

 

Well, I only play Guild, and I think that the 7 Guild Masters aren't equally strong in every scenario, I don't think that I would discard any one of them in any Strategy-and-Scheme combo.

 

Is there a combo you wouldn't field a certain Master? (Aside from zFiend's dislike of fielding Yan Lo, ever.)

[Jewomie]

There are certainly masters that I don't play, but it's because I either don't like their mechanic (Collodi, Kirai, Dreamer) or because I'm not a fan of the aesthetic of the crew (raspy, Pandora, Hamlin)

That being said... I started this game to play cowboys and kill zombies... so as Dirial mentioned, I don't think I would refuse to take any of the guild masters. Though depending on how seriously I felt like taking the game, I may opt to not run Hoffman in something like reconnoiter or I may default to McCabe when my opponent plays someone fast and slippery like Viks or Misaki.

[LunarSol]

I think the ability to perform at a distance is a pretty major factor here.  The safety and tactical flexibility of space its huge, whether its for dealing damage like Perdita, summoning swarms like Ramos, controlling the actions of others like Collette, or simultaneously doing all of the above like Levi; the ability to do what you do from a distance makes a big difference, at least when it comes to separating the top tier from the middle.

 

What drops a Master below the middle tier?  That's a little harder to say and probably a little easier to discuss on a case by case basis.  Some of them just don't do enough while others have mechanical or thematic redundancies (I feel Yan Lo suffers from quite a few of these factors).  To this end its probably difficult to answer without a better idea of what the underused pile consists of.  There's probably a bottom 10, but I'm not sure who all makes that cut.

[tomjoad]

From a background standpoint, Yan Lo is one of my favorite masters in the game. Still, I have completely abandoned playing him because I just never feel as though he's doing anything beneficial for me. Misaki or Shenlong or anybody else has always been preferable to him. I don't know if that's because he was my first master, so I just wasn't as good when I was using him, or if it's because he legit stinks.

 

The good news is, if he actually does stink as bad as we think he does, Wyrd can make an upgrade for him, as they have done for Tara, that makes him more playable in the future. If I'm wrong about how bad he is, then I just need to get better and try him again.

 

However, I don't think it's BAD for Yan Lo to be as bad as he is (or seems to be, or whatever). Not everything can be good; we all know this. Try as they might, not every master/model/faction can be equal in a holistic sense. It would take years of testing, and the game would probably not even be any better off for it. Some things are just worse than others, and some things are better. If everything was the same power level as Perdita, and that was it, then what would be the point? What would we debate? What would be the mystery of the game for us to unlock? Wyrd have done a great job of making sure there's no Tau-Eldar level overpowered crews, and even Yan Lo is not One With Nothing levels of terrible. Yan Lo is still reasonably fun to play, his thematic crew is awesome, and even if he stinks, Yin and Toshiro and Izamu can steal a game for you often enough. I don't have a problem with any of that.

[Inquisitor Wall]

I certainly think that there are some masters that are more straight forward, or clear in the way they function and get things done.  I also find that crew selection will vary greatly based on the master that has been chosen. I primarily play Ten Thunders, so when I choose Misaki as my master, I don't really care what the other models in my crew are, as she typically doesn't benefit/gain support from others.  When I play Yan Lo, I always take at least a couple ancestor models, as he is designed to work well with them.  Both masters provide a very different game experience, and I choose the one I want to play based on a number of factors, but I find they with their crew are capable of achieving most strats/schemes very well.  

 

I do find that there is a mind set that since a master can consistently do something well, they are automatically better than others in every situation.  In a game that is so diverse in victory conditions as Malifaux in every game you play, there will be times when one master may appear better, but that will not always be the case. 

[Dirial]

Personal preferences play a huge role as well. Everybody talks about Dita, and I find her very strong and like her playstyle, but if I really want to win, I still prefer Sonnia in most Strategies. MasterDisaster doesn't get Sonnia and never wants to use her again. Preferences.

[Math Mathonwy]

I can't think of a battlefield/opposing faction/Strategy/Scheme pool combination that would lead me to take Lady Justice, Yan Lo, or Misaki in favour of other options if I had access to all the minis in the Faction while I was in the finals of a big tournament and wanted to win. It would need to be a really weird battlefield for me to choose Mah or Ironsides but I suppose those might be possible.

[SpectreEliteGaming]

What I did when getting into M2E was looked at all the masters in each faction and narrowed it down to the three I would play in each faction (ressers is the only faction where I got as high as 5 - no yan blow or tara).

The only reason I didn't play arcanists is because I felt they were the most boring looking faction. If I could go back and start again I'm pretty sure Collette would be my main w/ marcus, ramos and raspy supporting.

I decided to go with Outcasts because 1: each master is so different then the others (besides the redundancy of misaki) 2: I can use a lot of the models in other factions 3: I felt pretty confident levy was one of the strongest masters in the game and complicated enough to keep me interested.

I play Levy and Daw pretty much only - sometimes Von Schill or Tara - I wouldn't even consider the others.

Different strokes different folks. But even then - I am expanding into Tara (post bk3 patch ) and Hamelin... M2E is still so new a lot pf people haven't figured it out yet. Who knows what next years tournament meta (wong) will look like (ulix) until we see what the rest (somer) of the masters will look like on the table (ophelia).

Also, maybe screw outcasts, I'm going gremlins.

[StuffedKiwi]

This might seem like an aside, but I really like what Wyrd have done by adding new -- and, in general, more sophisticated, more complex -- Strategies with this year's Gaining Grounds. I think the original Strats are great, too, especially when we're at the stage of just getting to grips with the game, it's mechanics, our first sets of models, etc. But in general, so far, I prefer each of the Gaining Grounds Strats to its original equivalent (Interference over Reconnaissance, Head Hunter over Reckoning, etc.).

But what I like most about adding new Strategies is that the whole equation of which models are 'best' for any given situation needs to be recalibrated all over again. I think what this opens up is the possibility for future new Strats that might suit some of the currently less popular (considered underpowered or whatever) Masters.

In other words, if things really are, or become, unbalanced -- and like most of the responders here and in others similar threads, I don't really think they are, in any problematic ways -- then Wyrd actually already have a possible mechanism for balancing that, which is the introduction of new Strats (and possibly, though this hasn't happened yet, Schemes too) for which the currently unpopular models might turn out to be highly useful. And that seems a much more productive way to keep the game fresh and interesting (and balanced) than fiddling with the already-published rules governing specific models.

[Shadowdragon]

Each master has a particular play style that favours particular players and schemes/strategies. That's kind of the point, no master should be good for everything and everyone. If you use one master for a particular scheme/sttrategy combo, and another master for another scheme/strategy combo then that's exactly what you're supposed to be doing, just like it is with every other miniature in this game.

[MasterDisaster]

Personal preferences play a huge role as well. Everybody talks about Dita, and I find her very strong and like her playstyle, but if I really want to win, I still prefer Sonnia in most Strategies. MasterDisaster doesn't get Sonnia and never wants to use her again. Preferences.

 

Screw Sonnia!

 

I love her models, fluff and the theory behind her but in practicality she always ends up being an auto-lose for me, I just cannot get my head around her. If I want a chance of winning a Guild game I reach for Hoffman, Perdita or McCabe. Sonnia just doesn't want to click with me and I can't get on with her for the want of trying. 

[Dirial]

Screw Sonnia!

 

I love her models, fluff and the theory behind her but in practicality she always ends up being an auto-lose for me, I just cannot get my head around her. If I want a chance of winning a Guild game I reach for Hoffman, Perdita or McCabe. Sonnia just doesn't want to click with me and I can't get on with her for the want of trying. 

 

Friend of mine has the same problem with Lilith. She is supposed to be super strong, but he just doesn't get her.

[Math Mathonwy]

Friend of mine has the same problem with Lilith. She is supposed to be super strong, but he just doesn't get her.

To be fair, Lilith is super tricky - her decision making space is gigantic. If I had to choose the most deceitfully complex Master in the game, she would likely get my vote.

Sonnia OTOH is simple. Blast stuff dead. Put up some Flame Walls. Win games.

.

.

.

(I really like Sonnia and think that she is surprisingly versatile)

[daniello_s]

Each master has a particular play style that favours particular players and schemes/strategies. That's kind of the point, no master should be good for everything and everyone. If you use one master for a particular scheme/sttrategy combo, and another master for another scheme/strategy combo then that's exactly what you're supposed to be doing, just like it is with every other miniature in this game.

Can't afree with the above.

Each master should be good enough to fulfill each strategy/scheme with the help of the rest of his crew. When you want to play a game but certain strategies/schemes make your master a cripple then there is something wrong. When you buy a car would you like to hear that the one you picked is good for short journeys and city but sucks for long journeys and you need to buy another one as well which is suited for long trips but isn't too good for shorter trips/city?

[Math Mathonwy]

Can't afree with the above.

Each master should be good enough to fulfill each strategy/scheme with the help of the rest of his crew. When you want to play a game but certain strategies/schemes make your master a cripple then there is something wrong. When you buy a car would you like to hear that the one you picked is good for short journeys and city but sucks for long journeys and you need to buy another one as well which is suited for long trips but isn't too good for shorter trips/city?

But that really wasn't the design goal behind the Masters. You announce a Faction and only choose the Master after having seen the Strategy, Schemes, terrain and opposing Faction.

In Malifaux you play a Faction, not a single Master, by design. You may go against that design but it isn't optimal.

Now, I'm pretty sure that all Masters can, with proper crew choices, win in any Strategy but some certainly have an enormous edge over others in set ups.

Some Masters are more versatile than others, though. For example, Marcus can do basically anything but I would still rate Ramos as being the better choice for Reconnoiter because his Summoning works very well in that Strategy.

[Sybarite]

Pretty sure one of the goals of 2nd ed was to make it matter less which master you pick for a strategy. I remember devs talking about that anyway because in 1st ed some masters were shit at some strategies and they wanted to change that.

[Math Mathonwy]

Pretty sure one of the goals of 2nd ed was to make it matter less which master you pick for a strategy. I remember devs talking about that anyway because in 1st ed some masters were shit at some strategies and they wanted to change that.

This is true. M2E's Masters are more versatile than M1E's. Though I believe that more emphasis was put in avoiding autoloss situations in a Master vs Master match-ups (some specific match-ups in M1E were really ugly).

That said, I still don't think that Molly or Brewmaster would be a number one choice for Reckoning for anyone

[MasterDisaster]

This is true. M2E's Masters are more versatile than M1E's. Though I believe that more emphasis was put in avoiding autoloss situations in a Master vs Master match-ups (some specific match-ups in M1E were really ugly).

That said, I still don't think that Molly or Brewmaster would be a number one choice for Reckoning for anyone

 

Exactly this.

 

Every Master can achieve every scheme and strategy out there. It's just some are slightly better at some objective than others. For example Viks are better at Reckoning than most due to their high damage output and speed however given their lack of a high SS cache, reliance lots of upgrades and general need to stick fairly close together their crews tend to be smaller making them not as good as say Ramos or Nico at Reconnoiter who can summon to fill the quarters they want to dominate. The Viks can still do the strategy pretty well but they aren't as good at it because they lack the tools other Masters use to excel at that particular strategy. 

[SpectreEliteGaming]

@daniello_s: "Good enough" is never good enough when you can have "great" instead.