Is this game well balanced?

[ispep]

And that's what matters to me, anyway. Even if ispep produces the absolute perfect quantization of model ability, in a spreadsheet that would take up my entire wall were I to print it, it doesn't mean squat to me - what matters is whether my players can go into a tournament and feel like they've got a shot when the guy across from them says he's playing (Guild/Rezzers/Arcanists/Neverborn/Outcasts), and it's not a "I'll spend more time pulling models out than I will pushing them around the board" situation.

At no point have I said that Malifaux isn't fun, or that it needs 100% balance to be fun. But if it isn't 100% balanced, then it isn't balanced. The thread title is not "Is this game fun to play" it is about the balance of the game, and the game is not balanced.

[LoboStele]

At no point have I said that Malifaux isn't fun, or that it needs 100% balance to be fun. But if it isn't 100% balanced, then it isn't balanced. The thread title is not "Is this game fun to play" it is about the balance of the game, and the game is not balanced.

TBH, that's just a silly argument. NO game is 100% balanced. Even someone else pointed out earlier that even Chess is unbalanced because one person gets to go first.

When someone asks "is it balanced" I don't think they are asking if it is 100% balanced, as that's simply unattainable. I suspect what they are asking is if the game is more or less balanced than other game systems.

[jmp_mydog]

Personally I don't like chess, having perfectly evenly matched pieces is boring to me. Checkers is the same way. Games shouldn't be determined by who goes first.

I like randomness. I like my games to play out differently every time. I like to have fun.

Malifaux is a game that breaks most of the preconceptions of what a mini game is. Being able to win a game with no models left on the table is pretty cool. Seeing the look on your cut-throat opponent's face when they think they "PWNED you" only to realize you won based on strategy is priceless.

A game that has random missions, effects as well as player chosen win conditions doesn't need to be "balanced" in any of the multitude of potential scenarios some crews/models may gain significant advantage while others may gain a disadvantage. That is the beauty of the system.

I quite playing 40K and Warmachine competitively because I don't like to know the outcome of a game after the first turn. The same thing with Magic the Gathering, I don't like sitting down across from my opponent knowing this is a bad match-up and losing before the game begins. I still enjoy those games and play them casually but most events aren't my cup of tea.

With Malifaux yes you still may have some bad match-ups however you have the flexibility to make adjustments. Before you build a crew you know your mission, where you're fighting, what faction you're facing and any special events/terrain. After that you can pick schemes to help offset bad match-ups. That gives you a huge amount of flexibilty to have fun and still have a chance at winning.

Recently I played a Nicodem crew against Lady J in "Shared Slaughter" with a Graveyard as the special terrain. While the graveyard gave me a huge advantage in building more models it also balanced out by giving my opponent a ton of slaughter points.

In a vacum or by crunching numbers the game doesn't appear balanced. However there are so many random factors that influence an encounter, statistics don't really have a bearing.

For players that don't use the full system and just play the same masters and crews beating the hell out of each other, no the game will never be balanced. For players looking for a depth of strategy and skill-testing circumstances I think balance is irrelevant.

[Hookers]

TBH, that's just a silly argument. NO game is 100% balanced. Even someone else pointed out earlier that even Chess is unbalanced because one person gets to go first.

When someone asks "is it balanced" I don't think they are asking if it is 100% balanced, as that's simply unattainable. I suspect what they are asking is if the game is more or less balanced than other game systems.

+1

It just has to be closely balanced enough that skill determines the outcome. The first turn advantage in chess is almost nonexistent with inexperienced, unskilled players. Chess has got it down to 52-56% win percentage for White. That is pretty damn close and is the game that everyone idolizes for being perfectly balanced. It is not perfectly balanced. Perfect balance is impossible.

[Buhallin]

At no point have I said that Malifaux isn't fun, or that it needs 100% balance to be fun. But if it isn't 100% balanced, then it isn't balanced. The thread title is not "Is this game fun to play" it is about the balance of the game, and the game is not balanced.

The problem is that you're using a definition for balance which most of us think is, to put it mildly, flawed. At best it's irrelevant; at worst it's completely impossible for any game to meet it. Even Go and Chess fail, because the side that goes first have advantages.

I think everyone has conceded your point that individual models are probably not balanced, but it does not necessarily follow that the GAME is not balanced. Even if you balance in a vacuum, once you leave that vacuum the conditions change and your perfectly-established balance falls apart.

[Hatchethead]

+1

It just has to be closely balanced enough that skill determines the outcome. The first turn advantage in chess is almost nonexistent with inexperienced, unskilled players. Chess has got it down to 52-56% win percentage for White. That is pretty damn close and is the game that everyone idolizes for being perfectly balanced. It is not perfectly balanced. Perfect balance is impossible.

And chess is 100% symmetrical beyond the White first move advantage. Heck, if that's not balanced, what hope does any other game have of striking a true balance?

I'm diggin' this thread. Questions surrounding balance are easily the most common questions I field as the officially unofficial Henchman at my FLGS. The majority of potential players are coming from WM/H, so it often turns into a lengthy discussion comparing the two games. Whereas WM/H focuses on caster kill over objectives (generally), Malifaux is distinctly reversed, and the balance methodology reflects that. More often than not players are relieved to hear there is more to the game than "killing the King in chess", and the reality of it attracts more players than it repels, at least in my experience.

That said, I'm also honest about what is required of a player who wishes to be "competitive". Multiple crews within a single faction, time spent researching opposing crews and their shenanigans, knowing inside and out which Masters/Henchman excel in specific circumstances ... it goes well beyond constructing the ultra, uber all-comer list to end all lists. Players who approach Malifaux with that mindset eschew the balance methodology and will often be soundly thumped.

[Math Mathonwy]

All you need are two crews. The benefit you get from having more than that decreases exponentially.

But not any two crews, mind. If you don't have Colette for the Arcanists, you are in deep problems in many match ups and scenarios. If taking Marcus as your second Arcanist Master is a liability, then I'm not sure that the game is truly balanced in a meaningful way even if faction vs faction produces acceptable results.

Also, people keep saying that there is a time and a place for every Master yet suggesting using only two in a faction seems contradictory.

Like I said there are certainly unbalanced aspects of the game. As mentioned above, alp bombs are problematic. It would be a relatively easy balance fix in my opinion: either make them a point more or take a random ability off their card. Why a 3 point model needs an ability like tarnkappe I will never know. Nekima giving everyone a mask is borderline game breaking for multiple reasons. If it were up to me I would redesign Hamelin from the ground up. Great concept, great model, great fluff, everyone loves him, but no one loves playing with or against him. Some of the new gremlins should probably cost a point more, but that might have been trying to compensate them for their previous lack of raw firepower. Regardless, those examples slightly tip the balance in some areas, but they aren't autowins, don't complete any objectives any easier, and can be overcome with experience. Most of the skill in the game comes from knowing what your opponent is capable of, likely to do, and how to be a step ahead and that comes mainly with experience.

To be fair, there are autowins in that certain match-ups in certain scenarios mean that one side has a gigantic advantage (Slaughter being the obvious example, but there are others). And it might not be readily apparent at the picking level (i.e. not as obvious as "never take gremlins against Outcasts) so picking the "wrong" Master might be simply a toss-up. And, again, you might not own the specific countering Master needed if you only have two per faction.

I agree that on a more micro level there certainly are pretty obvious imbalances in the game (Alps being an excellent example).

[LoboStele]

But not any two crews, mind. If you don't have Colette for the Arcanists, you are in deep problems in many match ups and scenarios. If taking Marcus as your second Arcanist Master is a liability, then I'm not sure that the game is truly balanced in a meaningful way even if faction vs faction produces acceptable results.

Really? Is that what folks are seeing in the tournaments with the Arcanists? I won a tourney back in March playing Rasputina 2 rounds and Ramos 1 round.

I'm not disputing it necessarily, and certainly Colette's crew excels at certain things. But I've found Ramos' crew can be deceptively fast, and does well at claiming objectives simply by way of killing nearby enemy models easily, and then claiming the objective. Also, with the advent of Snowstorm, Rasputina really climbs the ranks on a couple of objectives, like Claim Jump or Escape and Survive.

Sure, having Colette may be the EASIEST, but that just means you don't need as much player skill to be successful, at least from my point of view. I'm not saying Arcanists will win tournaments all the time without Colette, but I don't think it's a 100% hard-and-fast rule that if you don't have Colette, you can't be competitive.

[Magno]

Well, what defines balance?

To me, it's a question of whether two players can go into a relatively competitive environment, and have their chances of winning defined largely by their skill; that their pre-game choices don't cripple them, or give them a huge advantage.

In Malifaux, what are those pre-game choices? Faction - that's it. So if I go into a Malifaux tournament having chosen Arcanists, am I screwed? What if I picked Guild, am I guaranteed a top-tier finish? Not even close.

This is what I was saying before - some players seem very unwilling to accept Malifaux's approach to balance.

........

The thing I can't figure out is why some people are so unwilling to accept this. .....

Ok, this is a solid argument for balance. But what may be throwing people off here is that people don't necessarily invest in Malifaux on a faction basis, they invest on a Master basis, especially since many masters have prepacked lists (or lists that are very limited/highly themed).

If the salesmanship of balance is per faction, then the selling of the game's products with the intent to take part in events and/or to be competitive, should be advertised as faction based.

But many people don't buy into Malifaux like this. Maybe some folks have a particular faction they buy 100% (me Rezzers), but buy single Masters otherwise.

People are probably unwilling to accept the "balanced by faction" argument because it doesn't match up with their consumption habits or the freedom that Mailfaux allows for folks to purchase certain themes; e.g., constructs, spirits, etc..

[Magno]

Also, many folks are touting that the game is strategy based, thus we need not worry about whether a crew can kill. Although only one strategy is all out blood bath, MOST strategies and schemes involve the destruction of opposing models. So the balance of the game is still weighed heavily by crews abilities to kill and/or survive which lends credence to some folks insisting that if there were a metric or supporting data, you could discuss the balance of the crew and/or faction.

[cerealkiller195]

Malifaux is a weird beast, people claim faction to faction is balanced but is the game pitched this way to new players? As a skirmish game that start up is higher than most other skirmish games.

Should a player be at a natural disadvantage because he cannot afford multiple masters/playstyles? Let's say its not even a money issue should he be at a disadvantage for only playing 1 crew that he likes and not expanding in his faction? In most other games this doesn't happen as blatantly.

With that said do I enjoy malifaux? Yes I do greatly! Its one of the 2-3 games that I consistently play multiple times a week. Are there macth ups where you will be against the wall? Yes and pending on how skilled a player is they will be able to still pull something favorable out in their favor.

[Buhallin]

But many people don't buy into Malifaux like this. Maybe some folks have a particular faction they buy 100% (me Rezzers), but buy single Masters otherwise.

People are probably unwilling to accept the "balanced by faction" argument because it doesn't match up with their consumption habits or the freedom that Mailfaux allows for folks to purchase certain themes; e.g., constructs, spirits, etc..

And all this is fine.

But it doesn't make the "This game is unbalanced" claim true. If I have a mortal fear of black horses and so refuse to play with my knights in chess, that doesn't make chess unbalanced. You can choose not to like the restrictions imposed on you by the game, but I don't see how you can really refuse to accept that it's balanced within its design, just because you don't like the design.

The game is meant to be played a certain way, designed towards that and balanced with the expectation of that. Changing the game, for whatever reason, changes the balance. Are your balance complaints true if you assume fixed crew master kill? Sure they are. But what do you expect Wyrd to do about it? That's not the game they made, and it's not likely to be any time soon.

[Buhallin]

Malifaux is a weird beast, people claim faction to faction is balanced but is the game pitched this way to new players? As a skirmish game that start up is higher than most other skirmish games.

I don't think this is the case. Comparing a standard game size, Malifaux needs probably a box set plus a few extra models - guess maybe $80. Even ignoring potential for overlap, getting a second crew would be another $80. That gives you two crews, which gives you flexibility in the faction. That's not an unreasonable start compared to most others, including Warmachine, and you've got a lot more variety of play instead of just a single list.

Should a player be at a natural disadvantage because he cannot afford multiple masters/playstyles? Let's say its not even a money issue should he be at a disadvantage for only playing 1 crew that he likes and not expanding in his faction? In most other games this doesn't happen as blatantly.

Sure it does - it happens just as blatantly. Heck, probably more so. If I happen to like the look of Necrons, I'm hosed. If I want to run Flameguard themes, they were at a distinct disadvantage (trust me, I know) compared to something like Zealots (note: back in Mk I). As I mentioned above, if all you like is the look of Protectorate warjacks but don't like the Choir or other infantry, you're in trouble. If you're a Spartan Games player who likes the smaller ships, and expects his points in Cruisers to equal your opponent's points in a single Battleship, you're in trouble.

This really isn't unique. Every tabletop game I know of has the potential to let you pick a subset or theme that won't be as competitive.

[Ratty]

For those that argue that the game is vastly unbalanced at single master level. These are the results from a recent tournament. Looking at the quality of the paint jobs all the players look like they are long term gamers so I don't think it's down to luck or people getting used to their crews.

1. Sonia Criid

2. Ophelia/Somer

3. Hoffman

4. Seamus

5. Seamus

6. Von Schill

7. Colette

8. Pandora

9. Dreamer

10. Somer

[Magno]

If the game is opined as "faction balanced", then the game should be advertised as a faction investment. If organized events are to be sold as "faction balanced" then why not force players to play the whole faction? (With book three coming out, this will be impossible in 4round or less events, but you get the idea).

Also, other folks in this thread are going off about that Malifaux is so different from other games in it's balance. Ok, great. But folks like myself and Paradox are taking that argument and wanting more action on it, i.e., if Malifaux is different, then why run organized events just like most other systems?

[Buhallin]

If the game is opined as "faction balanced", then the game should be advertised as a faction investment. If organized events are to be sold as "faction balanced" then why not force players to play the whole faction? (With book three coming out, this will be impossible in 4round or less events, but you get the idea).

Because forcing people to buy specific models is a bad thing. There's a vast difference between "You'll have a hard time being competitive if you only buy Marcus" and "You cannot enter unless you own all 4 masters for your faction."

More importantly, the whole point of Malifaux is that you can pick and choose the right models for the job. Forcing people to play all 4 goes against that just as much as forcing them to play 1. You actually reduce it back to master balance, because you remove the choice.

Also, other folks in this thread are going off about that Malifaux is so different from other games in it's balance. Ok, great. But folks like myself and Paradox are taking that argument and wanting more action on it, i.e., if Malifaux is different, then why run organized events just like most other systems?

Because people want organized events just like most other systems. That should be rather obvious from all the concern and discussion over whether or not Malifaux is balanced for tournaments - people care about that because they care about tournaments.

Can they do more detailed, story-driven events? I certainly hope so. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game balance we're discussing.

[Necromorph]

@ Hookers

Gotta agree with Math on this one here. Yeah, you only need 2, but you have to pick the right two that compliment each other and pick up for each other's weaknesses. They also would likely have to be from the same faction, which, isn't always the case with many players, especially new ones.

Also, the reason the argument isn't going to be concluded isn't because people like myself, Magno, Paradox, etc are some stubborn brutes who are completely uncompromising in our views. There are lots of aspects of the game and if certain players focus on different aspects, then their views of what blanace is are going to be shifted in one direction or the other.

@ Ratty

Interesting, but it really isn't the end-all of the argument. "Look, some people with lower teir masters did well in A tournament." Sure, it proves that yes, played in the right group and under unpredictable cricumstances (i.e. the Strag/scheme system of malifaux) less competitive masters CAN win. Does it mean that they will win often, or even place well in more than one tournament? Nope. To use tourney results as a means to break the argument we'd need to have lots of tournament results from a huge sample of meta's...all compiled into one database and then add up all of the other factors like matchups, strats flipped, schemes chosed, crew comp, etc...malifaux design makes that a bit tough to pull off with all of those variables.

Nothing against the people that won ofc, and I'm sure they're awesome players. I don't want to seem rude either ratty, because I have mad respect for you, but one tourney result really doesn't prove much in the grand scheme of this debate.

[Ratty]

@ Ratty

Interesting, but it really isn't the end-all of the argument. "Look, some people with lower teir masters did well in A tournament." Sure, it proves that yes, played in the right group and under unpredictable cricumstances (i.e. the Strag/scheme system of malifaux) less competitive masters CAN win. Does it mean that they will win often, or even place well in more than one tournament? Nope. To use tourney results as a means to break the argument we'd need to have lots of tournament results from a huge sample of meta's...all compiled into one database and then add up all of the other factors like matchups, strats flipped, schemes chosed, crew comp, etc...malifaux design makes that a bit tough to pull off with all of those variables.

Nothing against the people that won ofc, and I'm sure they're awesome players. I don't want to seem rude either ratty, because I have mad respect for you, but one tourney result really doesn't prove much in the grand scheme of this debate.

I totally agree it doesn't close any arguments. It's a one off tournament. But it's a piece of evidence which this thread has been lacking. The Adepticon tournament was won by the Viks (it was open faction and I think he used Leveticus one round, but the other 3 were the Viks). People keep saying that only a sub-group of Masters are competitive at tournament, so far I've seen no evidence of this. I have seen evidence to the contrary.

[Magno]

So round and round we go.

Because forcing people to buy specific models is a bad thing. There's a vast difference between "You'll have a hard time being competitive if you only buy Marcus" and "You cannot enter unless you own all 4 masters for your faction."

I'm not advocating that you have to play all 4 current masters,but even if I did, and the game is still maintained and sold as faction balanced, then that's being a little more open and honest with how you should be prepared for investing into the game.

If you're gonna play casually, then get whatever crew you want.

If you're gonna go competitive (because the only events we hold are 1 vs 1 competition) then be prepared to buy at least two masters.

More importantly, the whole point of Malifaux is that you can pick and choose the right models for the job. Forcing people to play all 4 goes against that just as much as forcing them to play 1. You actually reduce it back to master balance, because you remove the choice.

Again, before this goes too far off on one tangent, my argument is that if you're gonna sell this game as faction balanced while condoning (exclusively at this point) 1 vs 1 competitions, then its in the interest of this purported faction balance that players use different masters per tournament. Otherwise, all we've done is added a new randomness factor, I could (and have) gone through whole tournaments with the same master simply because the match-up dictated the advantage to me. It does, hear me again, DOES help balance insofar that you can avoid a poor match-up if you have the option to change your master in between matches, but this is really nothing more than another paper-scissor-rock decision and not true balance (because balance should leave the outcome of the game determined by the events within the match, not from the set-up, and not from ancillary conditions pre-match). It can be fun, but you really don't want to pin that much on a master decision. And yes, I say master because the game is force centered on the master and many masters have limited choices of models they can select.

So because, individual games do not have true balance, then tournaments should not be the summation of isolated individual games. Tournaments should then adhere to the "faction" balance and have linked strategies, or consequences that determine who your next master is, etc..

Because people want organized events just like most other systems. That should be rather obvious from all the concern and discussion over whether or not Malifaux is balanced for tournaments - people care about that because they care about tournaments.

Can they do more detailed, story-driven events? I certainly hope so. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game balance we're discussing.

I know people want organized events and tournaments, and because there has and likely always will be discussions on balance, then either;

A. Balance needs to ensured in the interest of 1 vs 1 tournaments; i.e. Master balance

B. A new competitive format needs to be pursued to accommodate the uniqueness of Malifaux.

[Magno]

People keep saying that only a sub-group of Masters are competitive at tournament, so far I've seen no evidence of this. I have seen evidence to the contrary.

But who has this data? The evidence used here is far from convincing. If I pull the results of one tournament with the top three players having played Marcus, does that mean that Marcus is broken?

So the winning player played Vikis 3 times and Leveticus once? I could swing this evidence both ways;

1. Faction balance is had because the winner used multiple masters

2. Faction balance is a myth because the winner used one master 75% of the time.

We'd need data from all over the country/world, for a good chunk of time to make the case cemented one way or the other.

Once you've compiled enough data to create normal distributions (or simply normalize a given trait) of all the "random" factors; i.e., equal number of games a master has seen with good and bad players, equal number of games each master per strategy, etc.. The data would be hard to filter out individually. Then if you were to see the distribution leaning one way or the other per master, per faction, we'd know for surz.

But until then, everyone is just gonna have to keep practicing their debate skills.

[Ratty]

Well yes if you choose your Master and Crew on a whim not taking into account Strategy and opponents Faction yes you will probably get hammered by the opponent. If your on a really densely packed board, have Reconnoitre and are playing against Outcasts and choose to take a Gremlin gun line, you deserve to lose as you have made bad decisions, the same as if you choose the wrong Scheme.

If I choose a badly designed army in any game, then I deserve to lose. I can't think of any game where you can choose anything throw it on the board and hope to win.

The game is balanced on the fact you have a tool box, Your 2 or 3 masters, and some minions and you choose your force knowing the Strategy, you opponents faction and the terrain.

So because, individual games do not have true balance, then tournaments should not be the summation of isolated individual games. Tournaments should then adhere to the "faction" balance and have linked strategies, or consequences that determine who your next master is, etc..

So the game is balanced around choosing your crew knowing the Strategy, terrain and opponents faction.... So this makes you think forcing your players to play X Master is the way to go.... IE removing the balancing factor..

So the winning player played Vikis 3 times and Leviticus once? I could swing this evidence both ways;

1. Faction balance is had because the winner used multiple masters

2. Faction balance is a myth because the winner used one master 75% of the time.

It is more probably a mix of the two.. The Masters are more or less balanced, so he took the Master he was most confident and skilled with for 3 of the matches. One match came up that was a bad match-up so he mitigated it by swapping Masters...

Just what the game is setup to allow.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Ratty

[Ratty]

The other thing is the game doesn't make any secret that it's balanced at faction level. If you download Gaining Ground you can see the official format is faction based. If you read the rules the setup for the game is

• CHOOSE FACTION.
  
• SETUP BOARD
  
• FLIP FOR SETUP POSITION
  
• FLIP FOR STRATEGIES
  
• CHOOSE CREW
  
• CHOOSE SCHEMES
  
• PLAY GAME
  

Choosing your Crew is really far through the game setup. Choosing Faction is right at the start.

Yes people say all you need to start playing is a box set the RM and a deck of cards.. And this is true. That's all you need to play. They don't say it's all your need to be competitive at tournaments. Even a cursory glance over the rules tells you that that is not the case.

Games Workshop say that Battle for Macragge is all you need to play. Is this true, kind of..... However if I walked into a tournament with the models from BfM stuck together and expected to do well I would be laughed at.

[Necromorph]

But who has this data?

Again, yes, since Mali has no official way of recording competitive outcomes (oh god, I hate to bring this up again, but like infinity....and by no means is that system of recording scores perfect or unable to be manipulated, but it's something at least) then we have no way of knowing "how" x person wins a tournament. Are they a top 1 percentile player skillwise, did they have easy matchups, were y and z(strats, terrain, etc.) factors predominately in their favor, etc? We just don't know, and the sheer amount of factors that malifaux presents makes it difficult to measure accurately even if we did have some global tournament ranking system.

I do, however, agree with you Ratty, that players' choices pre game are a big factor, and can mitigate some of the foolery. Hell, every time someone chooses holdout when I'm using Kirai it just brings a big ol' smile to my face. It's not everything though, and good choices can backfire if you can't know what your opponent will bring. "Well I know they're playing X faction, so I'll take Y master...I'm confident that Y master can handle 3/4 of the masters in thier faction. Oh, sh*t, they just put Z master on the table, and that was that 1 master out of that faction that I can't deal with using Y master...boned."

Wow...that example is horribly constructed, but try to make some sense of it...at least from my end. I'm not saying that's how it will always be, but it happens. The other side of it is if someone only has 2 masters. "Oh, but if I played that 3rd master from my faction I could match up against more people...well I don't, so whenever I face x, y or z I'm gonna get owned most of the time." This is forcing people to buy masters they may not be interested in just so they can have a safety blanket against x, y or z, not a good approach IMO.

[Ratty]

I do, however, agree with you Ratty, that players' choices pre game are a big factor, and can mitigate some of the foolery. Hell, every time someone chooses holdout when I'm using Kirai it just brings a big ol' smile to my face. It's not everything though, and good choices can backfire if you can't know what your opponent will bring. "Well I know they're playing X faction, so I'll take Y master...I'm confident that Y master can handle 3/4 of the masters in thier faction. Oh, sh*t, they just put Z master on the table, and that was that 1 master out of that faction that I can't deal with using Y master...boned."

I don't think it comes down to that though. There are only a few really bad match ups in the game. Those can definitely be avoided, eg. don't take Gremlins against Outcasts. Yes you can still end up with sub optimal pairings, but if you design your crew to complete the Strategies and have a backup plan for what you will do if you get that one bad matchup, the worse your going to get is a 60%-40% matchup which is easily overcome by skill.

[Hookers]

But not any two crews, mind. If you don't have Colette for the Arcanists, you are in deep problems in many match ups and scenarios. If taking Marcus as your second Arcanist Master is a liability, then I'm not sure that the game is truly balanced in a meaningful way even if faction vs faction produces acceptable results.

I plan on picking up Arcanists next. I will be using exclusively Marcus and Colette. I see no problems with this. I will let you know how I do, but I anticipate being every bit as competitive as with my other two factions.