Talk:The Master (Terror of the Autons)

A Theory
I have an interesting theory. The Master of Tersurus (Spelling?) was to be the 13th incarnation, correct? Since he had used up twelve regenerations, that would make him the 13th Master (He doesn't have to regenerate to become his original self). Therefore, does that make Delgado's Master the 12th?

If so, then listen to what I've come up with:

Roger Delgado: 12th Master

Tersurus: 13th

Tremas: 14th

Unnamed version seen in beginning of the film on Skaro: 15th (*May be Tremas; making it still 14th)

Posessing Morphant/Skaronian Snake-thing: 16th/*15th

Bruce: 17th/*16th

Version that fought in Time War: 18th/*17th

Proffeser Yana: 19th/*18th

Harold Saxon: 20th/*19th

How's that sound? Note that there may have been unrecorded versions, eg. versions between Delgado and Tersurus (Making the UNIT years Master not the 12th), or versions between Tremas and the version executed on Skaro (Making said version higher than the 15th/14th). It's all very confusing, but I hope this will help put versions of the Master in slightly better perspective. Sorryaboutthatchief 05:25, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Naming
Should This be changed to "The Master (Roger Delgado)" ? Quark16 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That would just make it even more out-of-universe. -<Azes13 16:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --Tangerineduel 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its a better idea .. "The UNIT years" sounds very silly to me ... Quark16 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a vague name, but The Master (UNIT years) is an in-universe article, every other character is written in-universe, no characters are identified by the actor playing them as, for instance they are not playing them in ever instance of the Master (UNIT years), their likeness is featured in those stories but the actor is not. --Tangerineduel 03:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Master (UNIT years) is an inaccurate name. About half of the twentieth century, and the begginning of the twenty first century could be considered "UNIT years", in universe, as UNIT still existed. This name could describe any incarnation of the master that came to Earth while UNIT existed. Also, this Master did not only exist in the "UNIT years." He has been in episodes, such as Frontier in Space, and Colony in Space, that take place in the future, in a time when UNIT may not exist.Icecreamdif 21:51, September 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * See Tangerinduel's explanination above and the title UNIT years refers to the earth based episodes, which out weighs the space bounded stories (Two space stories as opposed to the six earth bound stories) Bigshowbower 07:01, September 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the title is supposed to be from an in-universe perspective, then this title is wrong. In-universe, the Master did not only exist when he encountered the Doctor. He was a timelord, who travelled through time, and occasionally visited the "Unit years." This title claims that this Master only existed in the "UNIT years," which is wrong.Icecreamdif 02:43, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true. Going by his appearance he first meets the Doctor in The Dark Path or there abouts. The UNIT years title is a thematic title and represents his motivations and characteristics during a set period of time as we don't have another thematic hook to wrap up the article under. --Tangerineduel 04:02, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

UNIT years doesn't really work as a name for him. He has been in a few episodes that UNIT wasn't in (Frontier in Space, Colony in Space, The Sea Devils). UNIT has actually been in all of John Simm's episodes (discounting his cameo in Utopia), so technically UNIT years would apply more to John Simm's Master than Roger Delgado's Master. Also, the Master obviously didn't spend all of his time stalking the Doctor. Apart from when the Doctor stole his dematerialization circuit, the Master was presumably wandering throughout space and time, commiting evil deeds elsewhere in the universe. Since this wiki is in an in-universe perspective, the fact that we only see him when he encounters the Doctor does not matter. Gowron8472 21:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

12th Master
I think it's pretty clear from in-universe sources that this is the 12th incarnation of the Master: In The Eight Doctors, this Master regenerates into the Tersurus Master. In The Keeper of Traken, we find out that the Tersurus Master is his 13th incarnation. Hence the previous incarnation (UNIT Years) must be his 12th. I propose that the intro to this page be edited to reflect this fact. Thoughts? Any reasons for/against? Aliyoda 18:12, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's in the Legacy of the Daleks that the Delgado Master is turned into the Terserus Master, he doesn't regenerate, just gets scarred. In the Eight Doctors he just has a generic Earth Arc appearance. He is the 13th incarnation of the Master. Hope that helps, check the forum post on it for more info. --Revan\Talk 18:15, September 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Legacy of the Daleks is what I meant. Don't know why I said The Eight Doctors. From what I recall, I was pretty sure that he regenerated, but I may be wrong. If that's the case then I repeat my initial proposal but instead change "12th" to "13th".
 * And where can I find the forum?
 * Aliyoda 18:18, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * The forum post was the whole reason that this page was merged with the Terserus Master page, yet for some reason I can't find it. You can find the forum on the drop-down at the top of the Wikia Activity page and the page should be found in "Panopticon". --Revan\Talk 18:24, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'd stay clear of trying to pin down the incarnations of the Master. As The Five Doctors showed, Time Lords can be "given a whole new cycle" and without the absolute clarity of say, the Doctor, we shouldn't try and force things.-- 18:25, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I've searched the forums, and I can't find one on the Master which mentions this. And do we not count the statement made by the Master himself in the Keeper of Traken, "As you know, I'm nearing the end of my 12th regeneration" as definitive? Or do you mean that this "12th" regeneration could be the 12th in "a whole new cycle"? Aliyoda 18:30, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I suppose on the other foot, there's no proof that he got a new cycle and it seems unlikely. Yes, I think we could say he's the twelfth, though I would get an exact reference to keep everyone happy. By this I mean, get the DVD and make a note of the exact second in which he says that line, then add it here or as a reference. This is obviously a disputed fact, meaning it is true, but people need a nudge to believe it. Can you do that?-- 18:34, September 8, 2011 (UTC)