new player first crew

[guyverlord3]

I am about get my first crew. I am split between the following 3 

Rasuptina core box

Tara Core Box 

Dreamer Core Box

Each for different reasons.

Rasputina

I like the idea of giant snow golems and beast smashing on people. Also it looks nice

Tara

Really like the cthulhu feel she has to her crew. Would love to paint it up and wield that around -Really leaning toward this box

 

Dreamer

Creepy crew that looks cool. 

 

Each crew I am looking at is just how they look. On each of the crews how hard are they to pick up. I read that Tara is pretty hard, but pretty rewarding if you get her down. 

 

[Shakyor]

So okay:

Rasputina: Honestly, this saddens me, I would stay away from her unless you really dig the models. She is super weak - probably one of the three weakest masters in the game - and somehow manages to fuse this with a boring and frustrating playstyle for both. She is also not flexible at all. 

Tara: I have her, even though I dont play outcasts, because I love her so much. She got a big nerf and is not really that strong anymore, but she is super fun. But she is very hard and unforgiving, really feels like playing 3d chess. The only thing which makes me hesitate is that she is a very pool dependet master. I always recommend an allrounder for the first master so you dont get punished by having to play that master in bad schemes and pools. 

Dreamer: Well Dreamer....sigh... He is really really cool. Super unique, and very Malifaux. I actually also considerd him when starting. That being said, everybody does so. My local playgroup has 6 Dreamer Crews and other playgroups look similiar. So if Individuality is important to you, Dreamer is not gonna deliver. However, he is super strong. In my opinion he is actually OP and the strongest master in the game right now. He is also super versatile and can play everything, while still maintaining a unique playstyle. So yeah - on a lot of metrics is a really choice. He is also super simple to play - so in a lot of way he is the best beginner crew in malifaux. I just dont like what he seems to do to the malifaux hobby as a whole. 



What I would consider a little bit if I where you is that a big part of malifaux eventually is actually picking your crew according to the scheme/strat pool, for which you will probably want additional masters, most likely within the same faction. So I would also look a little how much you like the faction as a whole, but dont necessarily make this the number one argument.

[guyverlord3]

13 minutes ago, Shakyor said:

So okay:

Rasputina: Honestly, this saddens me, I would stay away from her unless you really dig the models. She is super weak - probably one of the three weakest masters in the game - and somehow manages to fuse this with a boring and frustrating playstyle for both. She is also not flexible at all. 

Tara: I have her, even though I dont play outcasts, because I love her so much. She got a big nerf and is not really that strong anymore, but she is super fun. But she is very hard and unforgiving, really feels like playing 3d chess. The only thing which makes me hesitate is that she is a very pool dependet master. I always recommend an allrounder for the first master so you dont get punished by having to play that master in bad schemes and pools. 

Dreamer: Well Dreamer....sigh... He is really really cool. Super unique, and very Malifaux. I actually also considerd him when starting. That being said, everybody does so. My local playgroup has 6 Dreamer Crews and other playgroups look similiar. So if Individuality is important to you, Dreamer is not gonna deliver. However, he is super strong. In my opinion he is actually OP and the strongest master in the game right now. He is also super versatile and can play everything, while still maintaining a unique playstyle. So yeah - on a lot of metrics is a really choice. He is also super simple to play - so in a lot of way he is the best beginner crew in malifaux. I just dont like what he seems to do to the malifaux hobby as a whole. 



What I would consider a little bit if I where you is that a big part of malifaux eventually is actually picking your crew according to the scheme/strat pool, for which you will probably want additional masters, most likely within the same faction. So I would also look a little how much you like the faction as a whole, but dont necessarily make this the number one argument.

So what are some good started master that has a good core box. Dreamer is pretty heavy it sounds like. So would like to stay away from something everyone has. 

[Shakyor]

Honestly there are a lot, what is important to you besides aesthetics (as I wont be able to judge this for you - not because it is not important.) 

Also as I said, Tara is really cool if you can see yourself eventually picking up another master to compliment here. But even if not - she really is not a bad choice at all!

 

 

[Adran]

Welcome.

Rasputina is a fairly 1 dimensional crew, and as such can struggle in a lot of games. She can do well in several games as well, but a lot of her crew is low in the mobility department, and Malifaux can be a very high mobility game. You can make her a more mobile with other models, but it can take some doing.

Both Dreamer and Tara are summoning crews, so you will almost certainly need to look to buy other boxes very soon. As such they are possibly slighty more expensive crews to start because you want access to more models.

Whilst 1 model of Taras crew was nerfed recently, it was a relatively small nerf. It came at a time when the scheme and strategies also changed to ones which don't go so well with her (Gaining grounds 1) which I think had over focused some player on the change. Also one of her summons doesn't yet have a model, so that makes a big difference to her options (depending on your and your groups views on Proxies).

Dreamer is a slightly complex play style, and strange in that one of his abilites alters your deck.

If you have a group of players locally it might be worth finding out what they play. If they have  a crew you're interested in, you might eb able to try it out and see what its like.

Picking a crew you like the look and sound of is best. The game is one that can take a little bit of time to learn the basics, so don't expect to win against experienced players your first few times.

[Jesy Blue]

You probably don't want to start with dedicated Summoners, like The Dramerer & Tara, as they don't play right until you have the whole cast crew to summon from.  Not saying you can't, it's just harder. 

And all the talk around strongest crews and weakest crews and nerfs.... that only matters if your looking to start playing tournaments.  If you wanna start playing the game with a bunch of friends, then play the crew YOU think is the coolest!

I started with Viktoria, because bad ass mercenary for hire women with katanas was cool!  The person I started the game with played Perdita, because a family of six shooting monster hunting federale is cool!

So, be cool, guyverlord.... be cool.

[touchdown]

Summoners tend to be more complex so they will be harder to learn but if you think something is cool, you're more likely to find the learning process fun. I also think people are over stating the Tara nerf except with regards to one strategy out of 4. Recover Evidence breaks her core mechanic, but I think she's fine for the other 3 in casual play.

When I first started playing the thing I noticed quickly is that I wish I had a second master to have a 2nd playstyle. So I'd look at Arcanists, Outcasts, and Neverborn and find a 2nd master you also think is cool and then go with master you like in that faction.

[Regelridderen]

I don’t buy the notion, that ‘summoners are more complex’. Playing Pandora or McMourning is infintely more complex than the Dreamer, trying to maximize synergy between models vs simply replenishing resources. 
 

The simple masters in the game, are the ones brandishing a big sword and just wants to Duke it out. 
 

So I wouldn’t let that scare you from choosing a master. Instead go with the one that makes you want to paint the most. Get the full keyword, learn how to play it - and expect to lose the first games. Then branch out and just have fun. 

[Shakyor]

6 minutes ago, Regelridderen said:

I don’t buy the notion, that ‘summoners are more complex’. Playing Pandora or McMourning is infintely more complex than the Dreamer, trying to maximize synergy between models vs simply replenishing resources. 
 

The simple masters in the game, are the ones brandishing a big sword and just wants to Duke it out. 
 

So I wouldn’t let that scare you from choosing a master. Instead go with the one that makes you want to paint the most. Get the full keyword, learn how to play it - and expect to lose the first games. Then branch out and just have fun. 

I agree 100% and would even go a step further. With the notable exception of Tara all the Summoners are - probably (maybe i missed one) - the easiest within their faction. Certainly at the lower end of the complexity spectrum. 

Summoning is an action that is usually so overtuned that it requires absolutely zero consideration. Also it makes other areas such as positioning or managing resources less decision intensive. Playing against summoners can be interesting, but honestly, playing them is mostly super simple. You present questions and wait for your opponent to find answers.

[RisingPhoenix]

3 hours ago, Adran said:

Whilst 1 model of Taras crew was nerfed recently, it was a relatively small nerf. 

Yeah, all it did was take the centerpiece model of the entire crew, turn off his ability to use one of his signature abilities (Buffering), which in turns makes her entire mechanic of making enemy models fast extremely difficult to use, and make enabling Tara's summoning far more card intensive, and remove the only decent beater the crew had since Talos is a defective pile, and make scoring far, far more difficult for her.  

*sigh*

I do not recommend Tara.  She's been nerfed into the ground.

[guyverlord3]

Thanks everyone. I think I am going to pull the trigger on Tara. Just need to figure out what else to get. Already have a painting ideas for her and her models. Maybe a Scion of the Void or  a few more wretches. Not sure. 

[Adran]

6 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Yeah, all it did was take the centerpiece model of the entire crew, turn off his ability to use one of his signature abilities (Buffering), make enabling Tara's summoning far more card intensive, and remove the only decent beater the crew had since Talos is a defective pile, and make scoring far, far more difficult for her.  

*sigh*

I do not recommend Tara.

Aionius lost a suit and added a target number to 1 action so it didn't automatically trigger.  That's not a huge change.

Its going from automatically succeeding to needing 7 crow on a henchman for that action.  Weaker, but not a total failure.

I assume the other nerf you are talking about was Hannah, who wasn't actually changed. You were just told that she couldn't do 1 thing you did with her. Plenty of people already thought she couldn't do that. 

Gaining grounds will change again, and the next set may well suit her more. It may have been three big hits to the way you played her all at once, but to a new player it's probably only 1 change. 

1 minute ago, guyverlord3 said:

Thanks everyone. I think I am going to pull the trigger on Tara. Just need to figure out what else to get. Already have a painting ideas for her and her models. Maybe a Scion of the Void or  a few more wretches. Not sure. 

Wretches are rare 3, so you can never have more than 3 on the table. I've lost track of what us packaged with what, but I found the scion useful, as is Aionius.

I hope you enjoy the crew. 

[Regelridderen]

19 minutes ago, guyverlord3 said:

Thanks everyone. I think I am going to pull the trigger on Tara. Just need to figure out what else to get. Already have a painting ideas for her and her models. Maybe a Scion of the Void or  a few more wretches. Not sure. 

Get the app. The full keyword options and get them painted, then you’re set for having fun.

[RisingPhoenix]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Aionius lost a suit and added a target number to 1 action so it didn't automatically trigger.  That's not a huge change.

Its going from automatically succeeding to needing 7 crow on a henchman for that action.  Weaker, but not a total failure.

You mean the 10 stone centerpiece of the crew lost the ability to generate pass tokens (literally 7 cards in the entire deck do it, including the red joker), which makes Buffering entirely worthless, and impacts the entire crew's ability to score by taking multiple actions in a row at the end of the round.  As well as having a 50% chance to fail, putting even more card demands on a crew already strapped for them, and making the summoning more card intensive - in a crew that could definitely run into card problems before this.  

Yes that's a thing.  That's not, shall we say, a good thing for Tara.  It's a thing Wyrd needs to fix.  

Quote

I assume the other nerf you are talking about was Hannah, who wasn't actually changed. You were just told that she couldn't do 1 thing you did with her. Plenty of people already thought she couldn't do that. 

Ah right, I forgot the FAQ changed nothing!  That's why in GG0 Ricochet could hit the target model to turn it into a super critical strike (affected by Focus).  We were just all playing ricochet wrong, the Nekima FAQ taught us much.

Hey, Talos is still a piece of crap, they could fucking fix that.  Nope.  Having two of her big models be crap is an actual serious issue.

[Nagi21]

13 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Hey, Talos is still a piece of crap, they could fucking fix that.  Nope.  Having two of her big models be crap is an actual serious issue.

Get in line behind literally ALL of non-dreamer NVB then...

[Maniacal_cackle]

17 hours ago, guyverlord3 said:

Thanks everyone. I think I am going to pull the trigger on Tara. Just need to figure out what else to get. Already have a painting ideas for her and her models. Maybe a Scion of the Void or  a few more wretches. Not sure. 

Good luck! Crews that you like are pretty important. Unless you're playing super cutthroat competitive games, you can make pretty much any crew work if you play enough

I also suggest hopping in the Outcast forums, they'll have some good recommendations on what to buy next! The Midnight Stalker for example is commonly cited as a good versatile Outcast model.

[Ignithas]

On 6/18/2020 at 8:14 PM, Adran said:

Aionius lost a suit and added a target number to 1 action so it didn't automatically trigger.  That's not a huge change.

Its going from automatically succeeding to needing 7 crow on a henchman for that action.  Weaker, but not a total failure.

I assume the other nerf you are talking about was Hannah, who wasn't actually changed. You were just told that she couldn't do 1 thing you did with her. Plenty of people already thought she couldn't do that. 

Gaining grounds will change again, and the next set may well suit her more. It may have been three big hits to the way you played her all at once, but to a new player it's probably only 1 change. 

Wretches are rare 3, so you can never have more than 3 on the table. I've lost track of what us packaged with what, but I found the scion useful, as is Aionius.

I hope you enjoy the crew. 

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.

[Adran]

1 minute ago, Ignithas said:

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 don't believe the consensus was that she could do it in the first place. The poster thought that she could, but others had argued that she couldn't. and in general, from the posts I read here, the majority didn't play her as able to do it.

I don't know what the consensus on most efficient builds are, and I argue that there isn't such a thing really because it is dependent on Mission, and Opponent and Table. (I don't pre-build lists, I make up my list for every table fresh each time, but I know not everyone does this).

You can view a change that makes Tara's potential worse is a nerf to Tara. Any change to any model that makes it worse then becomes a Nerf to all models that might hire it, which can be hard to explain. So this "nerf" to Hannah makes every single outcast master worse, because they all can hire Hannah, and she probably was considered for a lot of lists.

As I said, there were 3 hits to Rising Phoenix on they way they played Tara. To many Tara players there were only 2, and if you're not playing at tournaments you might not play Gaining grounds 1 but rather than the rule book strategies and schemes, so not notice that. And the change to buffering is a big hit if you have focused on that style. If you play Tara differently, it might only be a minor change that rarely matters to you.

 

[Ignithas]

On 7/3/2020 at 3:05 PM, Adran said:

I don't know what the consensus on most efficient builds are, and I argue that there isn't such a thing really because it is dependent on Mission, and Opponent and Table. (I don't pre-build lists, I make up my list for every table fresh each time, but I know not everyone does this).

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.

On 7/3/2020 at 3:05 PM, Adran said:

You can view a change that makes Tara's potential worse is a nerf to Tara. Any change to any model that makes it worse then becomes a Nerf to all models that might hire it, which can be hard to explain. So this "nerf" to Hannah makes every single outcast master worse, because they all can hire Hannah, and she probably was considered for a lot of lists.

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.

 

On 7/3/2020 at 3:05 PM, Adran said:

As I said, there were 3 hits to Rising Phoenix on they way they played Tara. To many Tara players there were only 2, and if you're not playing at tournaments you might not play Gaining grounds 1 but rather than the rule book strategies and schemes, so not notice that. And the change to buffering is a big hit if you have focused on that style. If you play Tara differently, it might only be a minor change that rarely matters to you.

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.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Ignithas said:

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.

I'm not even sure you could argue Obliteration don't have a good beater. The Nothing beast is a fine beater. The Void hunters do well for their cost and can be summoned. Tara does well as a beater (You just have to remember her damage is from 5 attacks not 3 attacks when you compare her to other masters). Scion can be a good beater within the keyword if you want to play to its strengths.  There are also plenty of versatile beaters in faction you can look at.

If you were using Hannah incorrectly, then she may have been the best option as a beater. But she certainly wasn't the only option.

As far as I can tell, and have said, the majority of players didn't play Hannah that way. You can look at the Von Schill and Tara tactic discussions on the Forums here, and using Hannah to copy a charge isn't mentioned.

Looking at tournament results is useful. but is not the be all and end all in this sort of circumstance. There is no central pool of results to look at, or was to know who picked what master for what game. (I don't know how much the app has changed it this edition in terms of Wyrd having more data to look at, but I don't play using the app.so its certainly not got any data from me).  Tournament lists are not created equally. People have biases. Even with the App data, it doesn't give a large enough picture to be statistically significant, and it doesn't tell you everything about the game (for example the terrain can make a huge difference and this isn't recorded). Many Malifaux players play the "hot" lists. Lots of the best players make the "hot" lists work because they devised them and know how to use them, and the average player doesn't use them with the same skill level, and understand the list as well as the player that devised it. You can Look at Nekima and Kharnmage. He had great success with his list, but very few people have been able to get similar success levels. I think that was because his understanding of the list, and how it dealt with a wide range of tactical issues, was much better than a lot of the people that tried his list. Is that a case of the list was a problem, or just that the player was a better player?  I've seen,  over 10 years of playing this game, top players winning regardless of the faction they choose, much more than I've seen poor players winning big events because they just happened to have the best list.

 I don't have any data that isn't anecdotal, but Tara was often complained about as the Outcast pick for corrupted idols. Now at the same time as the errata happened, corrupted idols was removed from most tournaments. It is not easy to then look at the drop in Tara games played, and decide if this is because of the changes to Aionius, (or even the change to Hannah in some meta) or just the removal of her "best" game from the pool.

If she doesn't have a stand out game to use her for, do you still practise with her for any games? Personally I would go yes, but I don't think everyone is the same as me, and if she is just average in all the games and you know you are only going to play 2 or 3 masters there is less reason to select her as one of those masters. If you are only going to play 1 master you probably want that master to do ok/well in all games, but if you are going to play 2 or 3, then you want them to have games when they are very good, and don't mind games where they are poor, because you just won't pick them for those games.

 

Overall I think Outcasts are in a good spot balance wise. But then I don't think the gap between the best faction and the worst faction is very large at all, and in most games player skill is the determining factor.

[Ignithas]

4 hours ago, Adran said:

Looking at tournament results is useful. but is not the be all and end all in this sort of circumstance. There is no central pool of results to look at, or was to know who picked what master for what game. (I don't know how much the app has changed it this edition in terms of Wyrd having more data to look at, but I don't play using the app.so its certainly not got any data from me).  Tournament lists are not created equally. People have biases. Even with the App data, it doesn't give a large enough picture to be statistically significant, and it doesn't tell you everything about the game (for example the terrain can make a huge difference and this isn't recorded). Many Malifaux players play the "hot" lists. Lots of the best players make the "hot" lists work because they devised them and know how to use them, and the average player doesn't use them with the same skill level, and understand the list as well as the player that devised it. You can Look at Nekima and Kharnmage. He had great success with his list, but very few people have been able to get similar success levels. I think that was because his understanding of the list, and how it dealt with a wide range of tactical issues, was much better than a lot of the people that tried his list. Is that a case of the list was a problem, or just that the player was a better player?  I've seen,  over 10 years of playing this game, top players winning regardless of the faction they choose, much more than I've seen poor players winning big events because they just happened to have the best list.

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.

4 hours ago, Adran said:

uch more than I've seen poor players winning big events because they just happened to have the best list.

 I don't have any data that isn't anecdotal, but Tara was often complained about as the Outcast pick for corrupted idols. Now at the same time as the errata happened, corrupted idols was removed from most tournaments. It is not easy to then look at the drop in Tara games played, and decide if this is because of the changes to Aionius, (or even the change to Hannah in some meta) or just the removal of her "best" game from the pool.

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.

4 hours ago, Adran said:

If she doesn't have a stand out game to use her for, do you still practise with her for any games? Personally I would go yes, but I don't think everyone is the same as me, and if she is just average in all the games and you know you are only going to play 2 or 3 masters there is less reason to select her as one of those masters. If you are only going to play 1 master you probably want that master to do ok/well in all games, but if you are going to play 2 or 3, then you want them to have games when they are very good, and don't mind games where they are poor, because you just won't pick them for those games.

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.

[Adran]

31 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

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?

I don't know what the current tournament data Wyrd gets is.

If you look for tournament results as a member of the public, you generally get factions and end results if you're lucky, and with a bit of effort you might get the game scheme and strategy pools. If you're really into it, you might be able to get access to the round pairings if the organiser uses a program like Bag O'Tools. You don't get masters picked on either side, and you don't get crew lists unless you can persuade people to give tournament reports somewhere. This is no where near enough to get a large part of the picture.

If player x wins1 event with master Y, it doesn't mean that the master is automatically too strong, but a lot of people may copy them, especially if they go on popular podcasts explaining their list.  You might then get to the next event and you see that 3 of the top half used master Y and think there is something to this, and rarely do people look to see how many people actually picked master Y (it might have been 6 people and the other 3 are all in the bottom half of the table). More people then take this to show that Master Y is good, because it has a proven track record of doing well and can win events, so they practise and play with it. Y wins more events because a lot of people are now using it. People look to see which master wins, and rarely look to see how many of that master were used.

Was this a meaningful Pattern to show Y is too strong? I would argue that no it wasn't.  But it is often the argument used that master Y is too strong.  (You can certainly tell me that even in my example the data is there to support the view that Y isn't too strong, because only have the players with Y are appearing in the top half, and you'd be right, but I don't believe people typically analyse this to that extent). So I don't believe tournament results are actually a large part of the real picture, and don't give a meaningful pattern,  because there aren't enough results and the methodology to get the samples is flawed in the first place.

54 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

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.

Yes, and no. If a master is too weak (or too strong) then it is good to do something to change that. But answering the question of "Why Tara is too weak" is important to making sure you make the right change. She may be too weak at the moment, but if GG2 comes out and re-introduced Corrupted idols, or something similar, then all of a sudden she is strong again.  If that is the case, then you might not want to actually change the power of any of her models, because whilst she isn't doing very well in GG1, she will do well in GG2.

Balance is a hard thing to give in a game like malifaux because it can mean so many things.

If we rate every master out of 8 for 4 strategies (the estimated points scored in the game if you are playing an equally good opponent) we ought to get a ranking. If two masters both have a total ranking of 24 (out of 32) are they equally balanced?

What if the scores were 6,6,6,6 for master A and 8,8,8, 0 for master B. Are they still balanced?

I would say that from a tournament point of view if you could only use 1 master, and you are going to play 4 round events, you should use the first master, because they have a chance of winning 4 games (if you are actually a slightly better player than your opponents), whilst the second master is likely to win 3 and lose 1 (Because you need to be a significantly better player to make up the difference in game 4).  But if you are playing a faction (and you have the time to learn multiple crews), then you would want to be able to play them both, and end up with a "faction balance rating" of 30.

If you then had master C that was rated 7,7,7,1 it only has a rating of 22, so that is worse than the previous 2 masters, but is actually likely to do better against master A 75% of the time even though it has a lower overall rating.

And this is before you add in complications like gaining grounds changing the 4 strategies completely every year (aprox) so a crews power balance will be different from Season to season.

 

It sounds like you want each master in a faction to be "best" choice 1/8th of the time, and second best choice 1/8th of the time and so forth to be perfectly balanced. But unless you have the money and the time to be as good with each of the 8 masters as you can be, you will probably find you don't want to bring all 8 masters, and you pick a group of masters so you have each of the 8 times covered by a master that is in the top 3 within faction of dealing with it. You might be able to do that in as few as 3 masters.

 

 

[Ignithas]

17 hours ago, Adran said:

If player x wins1 event with master Y, it doesn't mean that the master is automatically too strong, but a lot of people may copy them, especially if they go on popular podcasts explaining their list.  You might then get to the next event and you see that 3 of the top half used master Y and think there is something to this, and rarely do people look to see how many people actually picked master Y (it might have been 6 people and the other 3 are all in the bottom half of the table). More people then take this to show that Master Y is good, because it has a proven track record of doing well and can win events, so they practise and play with it. Y wins more events because a lot of people are now using it. People look to see which master wins, and rarely look to see how many of that master were used. Was this a meaningful Pattern to show Y is too strong?

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.

17 hours ago, Adran said:

Yes, and no. If a master is too weak (or too strong) then it is good to do something to change that. But answering the question of "Why Tara is too weak" is important to making sure you make the right change. She may be too weak at the moment, but if GG2 comes out and re-introduced Corrupted idols, or something similar, then all of a sudden she is strong again.  If that is the case, then you might not want to actually change the power of any of her models, because whilst she isn't doing very well in GG1, she will do well in GG2.

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.

17 hours ago, Adran said:

If we rate every master out of 8 for 4 strategies (the estimated points scored in the game if you are playing an equally good opponent) we ought to get a ranking. If two masters both have a total ranking of 24 (out of 32) are they equally balanced?

What if the scores were 6,6,6,6 for master A and 8,8,8, 0 for master B. Are they still balanced?

I would say that from a tournament point of view if you could only use 1 master, and you are going to play 4 round events, you should use the first master, because they have a chance of winning 4 games (if you are actually a slightly better player than your opponents), whilst the second master is likely to win 3 and lose 1 (Because you need to be a significantly better player to make up the difference in game 4).  But if you are playing a faction (and you have the time to learn multiple crews), then you would want to be able to play them both, and end up with a "faction balance rating" of 30.

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.

17 hours ago, Adran said:

If you then had master C that was rated 7,7,7,1 it only has a rating of 22, so that is worse than the previous 2 masters, but is actually likely to do better against master A 75% of the time even though it has a lower overall rating.And this is before you add in complications like gaining grounds changing the 4 strategies completely every year (aprox) so a crews power balance will be different from Season to season.

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.

17 hours ago, Adran said:

It sounds like you want each master in a faction to be "best" choice 1/8th of the time, and second best choice 1/8th of the time and so forth to be perfectly balanced.

While this would be good if you want to balance the masters, faction balance most likely would suffer through such a design approach.