Non-competitive masters?

[swingjunkie]

I like playing games for fun, but there's a big part of me that likes to win. I hate going into games already behind the 8-ball, so is there a master/crew who just doesn't really cut it at current? I heard bad things about at least one master (I think it was Nicodeam?). Anyone?

[osoi]

Marcus is usually toted as being harder to get the most out of than other masters but there are certainly some bad matchups between Masters, but this is alleviated in the way you hire crews (including choosing your master) after you know what faction you are facing and have sorted out strategies and schemes.

You dont have to wipe your opponent out to win and likewise you can still win even when you have been wiped out, its just important to complete your objectives.

Nicodems only real bad matchup is Lady j as she really nukes undead but he can still compete against her (he can suffer a little against people who dont bring along living or undead models a little as they dont dont drop corpses but he can still generate a lot, he is an Undead Master)

[pigi314159]

Let me reiterate the strategies train. Focus on what master is best at accomplishing the strategy you got. Kirai for instance, while not necessarily the best at killing everything (although I would argue not the worst for killing strategies either), is excellent for point based objectives. And the counter point, Rasputina and Von Schill are pretty terrible if their strategy involves walking across the board. However, they are both relatively scary when it comes to killing things.

The game is more about match up and accomplishing strategies than straight up 1v1 killing power.

[Ratty]

Best thing to do if you want the best chance of winning is to choose 2 masters from a faction that have complimentary styles and preferably have a bit of minion overlap.

EG.. Seamus - Kirai, Lady Justice - Sonnia Criid, Pandora - Zoraida, Ramos - Collette.

Outcasts don't have an awful lot of overlap, though Vik and Von Schill combined can give you good Strategy coverage. So don't try to get a Master that can do a bit of everything, choose two Masters that can deal with everything well.

[WUWU]

I agree with the above, a lot of the games balance comes with choosing strategies and schemes that works well with the crew you select. In Malifaux you don't select your crew until the strategy (or scenario, as other games refer to it) is revealed.

But to get with the down and dirty of your question... Marcus is probably the worst master in the game, followed (imo) by Ramos, and Somer Teeth Jones. Everyone else is balanced really well, with Pandora, Perdita, and Hamelin tipping the scales to slightly over powered.

[Necromorph]

I was talking about this with some of my friends and we came to some different conclusions.

1- In a purely competitive setting certain masters, and for that mater, certain factions tend to be less competitive than others.

2- It seems to us that when many of the masters were designed, they were not balanced against each other properly (I know there are some masters that are the counter to others, but I'm talking in general). You can look at one master, say Lilith, a very strong master, and compare her to Marcus, considered one of (if not the) weakest master. In short, it seems like some masters are just flat out worse than others. Yes yes, I know there is danger in comparing masters that fill different roles within their respective crews, but in general terms, I doubt many would argue that Marcus is better than Lilith, for example.

3- This ties in with 2, but it seems like in an attempt to make more unique masters, some of them were designed to spread their influence/specialities too thin. Most competitive masters have 2 things they're good at. Viks-Speed and Melee, Lilith- Melee and Manipulation, Perdita- Ranged Dg and Support, Levi- Ranged Cast and Summoning, etc, etc.

However, there are some masters that have their abilites spread too thin. Seamus, Ramos, and Marcus were some we talked about. Now aside from Marcus, I've seen people do great things with Seamus and Ramos, but they are at a disadvantage because they fall into the "jack of all trades, master of none" category. Seamus has strong Ranged, but can only fire once. Decent Melee, but not great. Some summoning, and some manipulation. He doesn't, however, do any one of those things exceptionally well. Ramos has a focus on summoning, but his spells are very difficult to cast (pre toolkit). He has 1 offensive spell, 2 support spells, and a melee trigger, etc.

The more roles a masters' design trys to get them to fulfill, the less focused their efforts can be, then less cohesion they have with their crew, and the harder it is to use them efficiently. Often, and unfortunately this results in players picking one or "the best" section of their abilities and spamming the crap out of them to varying degree's of effect. This can lead to the masters being used in a way that ends up being one dimensional.

Though, I would like to add that the book 2 masters did a good job of balancing the master selection for each faction to by giving them some variety without any of them feeling overpowered or lacking balance (though Hamelin could be argued for and against, lol).

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Marcus may probably struggle with the moat strategies, but I personally don't think he struggles that bad. He takes a lot more finesse.

Somer and Ramos are not weak, might not be top but their weaknesses stem from the meta they face. To add to everything that has been said weak masters are probably most dependent on your meta. Lady J is going to rock in a heavy resser meta, but may struggle more in a heavy arcanist crew. Know thy meta. I face a heavy neverborn and guild meta, which I belong to both factions.

If you plan to play semi competitive you might want to know ypur meta, like our meta enjoys the faction selection rule and has tourneys using that rule, your meta might like fixed master sideboard, so 2 masters might not help as much as everyone above said. Find this out and then come back to this question you will probably get a better response. Otherwise, pick a faction than ask what is the most competence master in the faction, for example,

Guild Perdita.

Resser Seamus/Kirai

Arcanist Collette

Neverborn Lilth

Outcast Viks w/ von schill.

[CannonFodder]

if your just starting off avoid master with speed 3. Its a good general rule since faster models can always just avoid them.

there are some master who I don't usual recommend as first masters like Colette because she's got a play style avoiding main force and pulling pieces off and killing it. with a lot of shenanigans. but if you think the style is something that you like and you are willing to have a steep learning curve go ahead. I think that list is pandora, colette, Leveticus, and not sure but Halemin also. each of these sort of play differently than the rest.

Marcus I think is weaker at the start but long term will have more and more beast to work with.

after that the rest I think are mid range on quality and ease of learning curve.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Avoid walk 3???? Really PANDORA speed three arguably fastest master. Walk 3 doesn't tell you anything to be honest. Raspy especially with snowstorm can move at more walk 5. Also it is not always the master's speed that makes them weak or harder to learn.

If you don't mind a steep learning curve don't worry about avoiding those masters. The game itself is a bit different and probably a higher learning curve than warmahordes and warhammer. If you play war games think of what style you like describe it and we could probably match you to a faction/master.

[CannonFodder]

I missed that pandora was speed three, but as I said she is a special case and in order to get her mobility up there you needs to figure out how to player. Again she plays very differently from any other master I know of.

As for Speed 3 in general, my first 2 crewswere Raspy and Ramos, and I'll admit I wish I started with different masters. Also I don't play with proxies, so I consider Snowstrom off limits. I don't mind if someone else play, but I usually wait.

[Mentat_Canis]

Most People rip on Marcus who I have recently picked up because I like the beasts and you just have to play him as a pack leader to do the best with him. He is all about hitting a running I mean he is really fast can hit just fine when you want him to. I will say from what I have seen I think that Ramos is actually worse them him but I personally don't like Ramos.

I saw someone say som'er teeth ya play against someone who knows how to play and when you never have a control hand and all of his minions just destroy you its a different story.

As for the original opp I do not believe that there is a non-competitive Master out there. Yes some are better then other Pandora, The Dreamer, Collette and others you can put in. But the "Bad" masters I have enjoyed playing with Marcus and any of the non-power masters.

In short I think there are no Necrons in this game.

[Buhallin]

Marcus' strength lies in his flexibility for crew selection a lot more than it does his ability on the table. I'm not sure if a lot of players just don't appreciate this, or if they don't utilize the random elements where he can really shine (special terrain/events, especially), but I think he's great to have in the toolbox. He's certainly not as general as Rasputina or Colette, but when you flip a Bog or Rubble he's golden.

As to the masters in general... What Necromorph calls lack of focus I call flexibility And even then, I disagree with his core statement. Just because Seamus splits his actions between a ranged attack and an Undead Psychosis doesn't make him any weaker or harder to use. I don't really think any master in the game is "Walk up, use X, use X, win".

I'd also reiterate Mr. B's disagreement with CannonFodder on the speed issue. Raputina projects force like no other master in the game, regardless of her speed. Combined with her options for constraining movement, her control of the flow is excellent. She may not be an ideal choice for fast strikes, but that's why we've got Colette and Marcus

[CannonFodder]

I don't want to start an argument but I think some people confuse the issue of good Master vs good first master. I agree raspy can deal a ton of damage, but Raspy does have a weakness in her speed and if has a need to move she feels like she is stuck in tar. Which if you are starting to play and you just have 1 master to start she is not the best choice. Masters with 3 SPD (pandora exception) I find are destroyed by Jack Daw. Once he gets in base contact, you can just have your master turn into a paperweight. When getting into the game I find players prefer having something more mobile to start with because they feel they are doing stuff. Some masters are very techy and have a more difficult learning curve, again i usually recommend something a little more straight forward because if you have to learn the game while learning a difficult master some people get frustrated.

That is the reason i recommend more mobile models with less tech as their first.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I agree with what you are saying cannon fodder on the challenge aspect, I just don't think people should limit their first crew because it may be too technical. Your assessment is fair, most 3 speed masters are a little more technical than others.

I just prefer to tell people to go with what they like, and go for it. Then gentlely warn them it is a little harder to learn that crew.

I also don't proxy unreleased models and don't really see using able storm.

[Necromorph]

As to the masters in general... What Necromorph calls lack of focus I call flexibility And even then, I disagree with his core statement. Just because Seamus splits his actions between a ranged attack and an Undead Psychosis doesn't make him any weaker or harder to use. I don't really think any master in the game is "Walk up, use X, use X, win".

I didn't say Seamus, or Ramos, or Marcus (all just examples ofc) was bad. What I'm getting at is that it seems like in an attempt to make the masters flexible they kind of crippled some of them, or stretched them too thin. I love Seamus, and I have a good friend who plays him, but to me he seems like he just has too much going on. If he really needs to get something done, you need a red joker or some good luck with ss to pull it off, because he isn't capable of consistent dg output, and I don't know how many times I've seen him miss with that cannon of his and then shrug at a wasted action.

Some might say more straightforward masters like Perdita or the Viks are "predictable" because they only have limited areas that they excel in. However, that is where the crew comes in, to fill in the gaps, and allow those masters to focus on what they do best. With more "flexible" masters, their crew can only do so much, and when it's time for them to pull their weight, it seems like they can't get the job done because they can't do enough of what they need to do (dg, manipulation, get from point A to point B, etc).

To me it looks like when Marcus (again as an example because he takes a lot of flak) was playtested they said, "Well we don't want him to have too much melee dg AND beast support abilities." So they compromised...and it feels like they compromised too much...his dg is sad (sure it can be buffed...to what the Viks do normally....and there's 2 of them), his one "trick" with alpha is action-heavy, and his beast synergy is decent but nothing to write home about. He seems like a really fun master, and has a lot of cool crew selection, but he just doesn't seem to shine to me.

As Biggles said though, it depends a lot on the meta, the league/tournament rules, and playstyle preference. In other words, you could have a very skilled player with say, Marcus, playing against new to average players at a LGC and totally running train on the whole group. If you get him in a "all things equal" situation with another skilled player who plays a "top 10 master"...he might not do so hot...but again, the meta will play a factor.

Basically I guess what all this ranting comes down too is this. When I'm looking through the books and reading up on all the masters and their crews, I see some masters and say, "How the hell do they justify making X master so blatantly powerful and Y master so blatantly underwhelming." It's like, if you play X, you will have an easy time against many crews, and might have to try occasionally. If you play Y, you will almost always be fighting an uphill battle to win, unless you happen to come up against the occasional master you actually counter for whatever reason.

[Calmdown]

People who stick to the argument tbat every master is even approaching equal are very naive; Malifaux is no different than any other game in that regard. Some masters, and some models, are just weak compared to others and that's the way it is. Ill bold this next bit because a lot of people forget it when talking game balance theory; assuming equal skill there are some masters that are just outright better. Of course a great player running Marcus can beat a bad player using Dreamer, but that doesnt make Dreamer balanced.

That said, Malifaux's 'tiers' are a lot closer together than most games ive seen and no crews autowin in the style of <insert 40k army that gets first turn and shoots opponent to bits>. Everything takes skill and a bit of luck. And even playing a bad crew, if you dont lose too hard, can be a lot of fun if you accept thqt your crew sucks and see what you can manage. In a tournament though, stick with the big guns.