Math Mathonwy Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I find it really funny that a lot of people still consider Marcus weak. Imho even in Book 1 times, he was more useful in most scenarios than the other two Arcanist masters. He is more mobile than Rasputina/Ramos and mobility is king in this game. But with Marcus you need to play different (very objective focused) which isn't as streightforward as say, Tina's style. The idea of "objective tiers" is nonsense - even if it were possible to remove luck and player skill from the comparison, that comparison is still based on various players' subjective opinions of the Masters involved. As for "with the right player behind it, even the worst model can perform well," I'll believe that when someone wins a major tournament with a Molly crew. Your first paragraph contradicts the second. "There are no objective tiers but these certain models are objectively worse than others". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q'iq'el Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Your first paragraph contradicts the second. "There are no objective tiers but these certain models are objectively worse than others". Answering for Kadeton here, but at best this is an indirect contradiction. The posters pointing out the Calmdown's tiers suggest some clear power-level difference between masters, which isn't all that apparent in Malifaux, were right. That's exactly what the tiers suggest and that's exactly what doesn't come out in practical experience of many players. The tiers suggest not only problems with particular rules or synergies, but systemic imbalance in the game. That's why I've said on the side that I see only two tiers in Malifaux - "quite balanced" and "needs some more work". Dreamer and Hamelin may need some more work and so may Molly, but it doesn't make systemic imbalance and it doesn't mean the masters can be divided into tiers clearly. To sum up, saying Molly is weaker and needs some more work is not the same thing as saying she is systemically condemned to some lowest tier, which cannot be helped without fixing the entire game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 How is this possible with a Tier 5 model? What you should ask yourself, is if I was playing a master that was higher tier, would I have won the tournament instead of coming second? I havent posted the final report yet, but the answer is almost certainly yes. Nicodem with bad luck could only manage a draw. Had I been playing Kirai and had a bit of bad luck, I still would have likely not lost her because she has a proper defense mechanism and the main resason I lost is that Nicodem can't take a hit. So you can look at it as "Tier 5 managed second, that is great!" or you can look at it as "Only managed to get second thanks to master being Tier 5". I look at it the second way, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiku Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I look it as "You fought weaker/new players and got a high VP yield for it" =3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundwave Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) How is this possible with a Tier 5 model? I enjoy reading this thread and I'd be a tad saddened if it'd be assimilated by the already sort of infected tier-list. It's not like it's constructive anyways. Anyways, keep the batreps coming, CD, always enjoyable reads. Edited March 5, 2012 by Soundwave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I look it as "You fought weaker/new players and got a high VP yield for it" =3 Don't push it Two of the top 10 ranked players in the UK is hardly easy players, tbh. If people would listen to me regarding tournament formats rather than sticking doggedly to VP difference as a differentiator, the "noobapult" (as mythicFOX calls it) wouldn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancor709 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 What you should ask yourself, is if I was playing a master that was higher tier, would I have won the tournament instead of coming second? I havent posted the final report yet, but the answer is almost certainly yes. Nicodem with bad luck could only manage a draw. Had I been playing Kirai and had a bit of bad luck, I still would have likely not lost her because she has a proper defense mechanism and the main resason I lost is that Nicodem can't take a hit. So you can look at it as "Tier 5 managed second, that is great!" or you can look at it as "Only managed to get second thanks to master being Tier 5". I look at it the second way, personally. And I think that last sentence is where a lot of disconnect comes from. I love nicodem favorite master to play and one I do best with personally. Doesn't mask the fact he has some flaws that keep him from being consistant. My argument is more those flaws can be mitigated however purely vaccum objective master on master all else being equal nicodem is below the power curve. Doesn't mean yiou can't win with nicode I do it a lot and have a ton of fun with him. What it means is nicodem needs a lot to go right every turn in order to pull those wins and he is very hard to get a large point differential with. Because the universal truth of nicodem is his crew is lightyears better when he can get the buffs up and he can't take a punch. So your opponent will focus on killing nicodem and playing cleanup. Again mitagable but hardly constant. The truth is once nico goes down your fundamentally at a disadvantage of greater proporton than if you kill off your opponents master. The difference is I love the challenge of playing the defensive game and keeping nicodem safe and he just works with my brain more than any other master. But doesn't change the fact nicodem in a fixed master environment is difficult to win constantly with. The "luck factor" with nicodem is high and for many competitive players that much "luck factor" will neverbe constant. Its why when badluck happens draw is a great result where a more consistant master is less affected by luck thus could still pull a win with player skill where nico will be fighting for a draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 And I think that last sentence is where a lot of disconnect comes from. I love nicodem favorite master to play and one I do best with personally. Doesn't mask the fact he has some flaws that keep him from being consistant. My argument is more those flaws can be mitigated however purely vaccum objective master on master all else being equal nicodem is below the power curve. Doesn't mean yiou can't win with nicode I do it a lot and have a ton of fun with him. What it means is nicodem needs a lot to go right every turn in order to pull those wins and he is very hard to get a large point differential with. Because the universal truth of nicodem is his crew is lightyears better when he can get the buffs up and he can't take a punch. So your opponent will focus on killing nicodem and playing cleanup. Again mitagable but hardly constant. The truth is once nico goes down your fundamentally at a disadvantage of greater proporton than if you kill off your opponents master. The difference is I love the challenge of playing the defensive game and keeping nicodem safe and he just works with my brain more than any other master. But doesn't change the fact nicodem in a fixed master environment is difficult to win constantly with. The "luck factor" with nicodem is high and for many competitive players that much "luck factor" will neverbe constant. Its why when badluck happens draw is a great result where a more consistant master is less affected by luck thus could still pull a win with player skill where nico will be fighting for a draw. Exactly. Some people confuse "can be made to win via skill/luck" with a master being good in actuality. And that's why they get upset when you put Nico in tier 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math Mathonwy Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Answering for Kadeton here, but at best this is an indirect contradiction. The posters pointing out the Calmdown's tiers suggest some clear power-level difference between masters, which isn't all that apparent in Malifaux, were right. That's exactly what the tiers suggest and that's exactly what doesn't come out in practical experience of many players. The tiers suggest not only problems with particular rules or synergies, but systemic imbalance in the game. That's why I've said on the side that I see only two tiers in Malifaux - "quite balanced" and "needs some more work". Dreamer and Hamelin may need some more work and so may Molly, but it doesn't make systemic imbalance and it doesn't mean the masters can be divided into tiers clearly. To sum up, saying Molly is weaker and needs some more work is not the same thing as saying she is systemically condemned to some lowest tier, which cannot be helped without fixing the entire game. You have a very different idea of tiering than what is usually meant with the term. It doesn't mean that a lower tier choice always loses to a higher tier choice. It just means that, all other stuff being equal, the higher tier choice has an advantage - in other words, things won't end up with a 50-50 spread of wins over a large number of games. If the choices are on the same tier, an approximately 50-50 spread is to be expected. If, OTOH, "all other things" are not equal, then these other things can end up making the results whatever depending on their power. Skill is most obvious, but terrain, strategy and so on can also play a big part. In a single tournament, these "other things" are never equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulG Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 What you should ask yourself, is if I was playing a master that was higher tier, would I have won the tournament instead of coming second? I havent posted the final report yet, but the answer is almost certainly yes. Nicodem with bad luck could only manage a draw. Had I been playing Kirai and had a bit of bad luck, I still would have likely not lost her because she has a proper defense mechanism and the main resason I lost is that Nicodem can't take a hit. So you can look at it as "Tier 5 managed second, that is great!" or you can look at it as "Only managed to get second thanks to master being Tier 5". I look at it the second way, personally. Eh, I'm not sure that's the best question to ask. That takes into account your personal skill as a variable as well. For instance, if this were the objective measure Hamelin and Colette would near the bottom for me, because I never play them. and they have a steep learning curve. I feel that the issue with tiers is that so much of Malifaux is (supposed to be?) contextual, causing large fluctuations in people's experiences and allowing people to have different observations. The alternative for such confusion on tiers is bias and/or maliciousness. I don't think anyone is malicious, and bias requires we accept that people on a wide scale favor masters they constantly lose with while maintaining a delusional amount of self-confidence. The other issue is that when you tier something like this you wind up with a Rank-Ordinal number system, where the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 and the difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 are not the same thing, So you (should) wind up with the phenomena that different faction declarations, strategies, and terrain impact the objective tiers of masters in some fashion. Masters may move up and down tiers, -and- the difference between tiers should change based on that information. The hard part is that different masters would change different amounts. The other issue is that non-Book 2 masters change WIDELY based on what minions you take with them. McMourning with 3 Night Terrors is much better at running objectives than McMourning with anything else. You can assume "optimal list for the strategy" but then you have another variable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravenborne Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 What it means is nicodem needs a lot to go right every turn in order to pull those wins and he is very hard to get a large point differential with. This I think is a critical point. Trying to get a full 8 points with him is extremely difficult in a competitive Malifaux environment. ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ---------- And to state further, its part of what makes a weaker Master. My goal here by the way is not to taunt or defend any one Master, its to get people thinking about the exact qualities a Master needs to make it more competitive, and the qualities of Master's that make them a little too good. Only with that type of analysis will future changes bring the game into better tournament balance. Sorry to derail the thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 This I think is a critical point. Trying to get a full 8 points with him is extremely difficult in a competitive Malifaux environment. ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ---------- And to state further, its part of what makes a weaker Master. My goal here by the way is not to taunt or defend any one Master, its to get people thinking about the exact qualities a Master needs to make it more competitive, and the qualities of Master's that make them a little too good. Only with that type of analysis will future changes bring the game into better tournament balance. Sorry to derail the thread... Actually, the conditions for a good master - and model - in Malifaux are pretty simple: Maneuverability. No matter what else your model does, if it can't maneuver effectively, it has to be very good in some other area to be viable. A model can be weak in any number of areas but if it is weak in maneuverability, it is pretty much instantly relegated to the naughty corner. That's maybe a bit more specific than the scope of this thread, but it is pretty much the main thing that holds Rezzers (and Guild) back from being better factions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 But being purely mobile doesn't really seal the deal however. If all your crew is is mobile you run into the issue that if you have no threat the other crew will still take you apart. It is one of the best features in the game however, I definitely agree with you there Calmdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewomie Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 But being purely mobile doesn't really seal the deal however. If all your crew is is mobile you run into the issue that if you have no threat the other crew will still take you apart. It is one of the best features in the game however, I definitely agree with you there Calmdown. I agree with you Strumpet. I learned this last night with my frist game using Collodi... he can haul ass across a table... but aside from that, i found him lacking. Nothing to soak up damage, nothing to *really* dish it out. Granted he's only a henchman, but Calmdown did extend the comment towards all models. I also agree that without the modility, models need to have something going for them... and in a big way. I do feel like the guild and Resurrectionists are coming around though. Hoffman and lucius added some movement for sure, and rogue necro mcMourning, and things like the night terrors added some mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchethead Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I've always contended that movement shenanigans separate the good for the bad and the great from the good. If you look at the masters widely considered to be bent, the point of contention is often (not always, but quite often) traced back to extreme maneuverability. The reverse is also true. Masters often lumped into "the bottom tier" usually suffer from limited mobility. With so many of Malifaux's strategies and schemes reliant on speed and placement, it's not a shocking revelation, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I find it odd that you didn't have much success with Collodi, Now I'l admit I'm not the greatest player in the world, but I remember a game where I was playing against Zoraida with Kirai and a Shikome, 2 Gaki, and Datsue-ba all went after the Puppet hit squad and after a few turns Collodi escaped unscathed down permanently only 2 puppets, and the Shikome, and both gaki were gone, and Datsue-ba was down to 2 wounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravenborne Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Dead Masters have no movement, so speed can't be the only requirement. How about Defense? Offense? How do they affect the rating of a Master? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Dead Masters have no movement, so speed can't be the only requirement. How about Defense? Offense? How do they affect the rating of a Master? Speed can stop you being dead in the first place. Speed can let you hang back and get involved only when you need to, or it can get you out of trouble you got in to. Speed can ensure you can commit to fight in one area, and still shoot out to grab an objective in another later. And so on. It's by far from the only requirement, but a low speed is crippling. For example, against good player, Nicodem will often enter combat on the "engagement turn" having had to spend 1ap on movement, which is a big deal, and once he's committed he's not getting out until the fight is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewomie Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I find it odd that you didn't have much success with Collodi, Now I'l admit I'm not the greatest player in the world, but I remember a game where I was playing against Zoraida with Kirai and a Shikome, 2 Gaki, and Datsue-ba all went after the Puppet hit squad and after a few turns Collodi escaped unscathed down permanently only 2 puppets... It may have been that i was working only with Collodi himself, and it was my first game. My other issue was i kept blocking my own exits with other puppets. So i will admit to user error being a large factor. Speaking crew wise, my biggest problem was nothing could soak up damage but Collodi. Everything else was killed on is a single hit. If i ran him with zoraida she could summon dolls that could warp to collodi. but on his own, the crew goes out very quickly. i wrote up a battle report you can read if you'd like... it's riddled with errors and stupid moves both on my part. anyway, back on topic... More or less, i'm down with the speed argument... but there are ways to make use of the slower models. it could be a huge advantage in holdout/breakthrough matchups when you can spend more activations buffing in preperation for the impending attack. just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy in Suit Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I really think a 'Shared Holdout' type Strategy should be added to fixed master events - really helps out the more static crews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiku Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I adore the idea of shared hold out as a gremlin player. Without spending the time to think about it, I would imagine I am automatically top 3 for that scenario. There have been a fair few games I have ended by flying Avatar Som'er 24"+, with 5+ piglets with him using Root Around to become significant, into the enemy deployment zone. Not least of all the fact I can have gremlins mid field and just 15" run them =D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy in Suit Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Forgot to specify, it wouldn't be a Turn 6 thing - whoever had more minions in the enemy turn each closing phase starting with turn 3 gets a VP - sort of an escalation, if you will. The pig toss would be good for a point - but then you will probably lose your piggies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancor709 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Speed can stop you being dead in the first place. Speed can let you hang back and get involved only when you need to, or it can get you out of trouble you got in to. Speed can ensure you can commit to fight in one area, and still shoot out to grab an objective in another later. And so on. It's by far from the only requirement, but a low speed is crippling. For example, against good player, Nicodem will often enter combat on the "engagement turn" having had to spend 1ap on movement, which is a big deal, and once he's committed he's not getting out until the fight is over. You've hit something here. And this manuever inequality is a by product of book 2 radically speeding up masters and general forces. Perhaps the intended battlefield needs more sever ground, as this would slow some crews down to more a resser speed and by virtue of many of the ressurectionists models having the ability to ignore sever. The fact that speed is life in this game is another natural advantage of the more rawly competitive masters. If I'm quicker than you I dictate where battle will occur and by that virtue I have the perpetual advantage. Speed alone is a huge advantage particuarly when the movement inequality for some masters is nearly 3" a base action. And having to take models to use there aps to move a model at greater than a snails pace to average is a hard sell on equality because the naturally fast crew will be able to spend points on models who can use aps to eat your slow crew. So i think you have a highly valid argument that manuever as you put it or speed is life in this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_mun Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I've found one solution to the speed disparity. Rarely they can bring everything at one stroke, so between that uneven approach and Rotten Belles drawing out the first elements I can cut them down piecemeal. so far it's worked well against the Arcanists, but I have to check against the other masters to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiku Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Guy: depends on initiative =3 I mean companioned som'er can pull all those pigs a good 20" away, and then after that I've still got access to more mosquitoes =D Gosh Dreamer would be annoying with that. Dump entire crew, hope for best. Edited March 6, 2012 by Spiku Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.