In a game where every player rolls blank dice - every time, and nobody deals damage... it can only be decided by asteroid death and flying off the map. In such a game, the dice would not be a factor at all. Unless a player ate several and died.

I think that's a very good overview, Ghaerdon, and strongly illustrates the point that recognizing, knowing, and understanding the meta is NOT the same as net-decking, or not flying what you want. I think the Paul Heaver situation demonstrates this perfectly. His knowledge of the meta (which included a knowledge of peoples tendency to net-deck) allowed him to make something different and interested to him.

Knowing how to play the meta-game is not about playing what is IN the meta, it's about understanding what others play so you can make something good for yourself.

If you roll blanks for an entire game, that will be the primary factor in who wins and who loses.

Such a thing is statically impossible.

To imply that you can somehow circumvent the dice through other mechanics for the entire game is somewhat naive.

No not really, if I prevent the other guy from rolling any attack dice, then I've circumvented the dice quite nicely. If I just control how many dice he gets to roll, and how many I get to roll, it has an factor. Such as getting primarily range 1 shots on him while making him roll mostly range 3 shots and though asteroids.

Using Focus, TL and Evade, Predator, Outmaneuver, ect... also allow me to circumvent the dice by changing the outcome or just giving me more chances to get a favorable one.

If YOU prevent the other guy from rolling any attack dice? What if he does the same? What if you BOTH are running the slipperiest, arc-dodgingest list possible?? The fact of the matter is that without the dice, the best you can get is a draw (and a VERY boring game!)

The dice are not the only factor, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, they are the deciding factor. PERIOD. END OF LINE.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I HOPE to never be in someone's firing arc, and constantly able to "mitigate" the dice rolls. The fact of the matter is that I have absolutely no influence once those dice are rolling across the playing field from either my opponents hand or my own. That is the one thing that none of us has a chance of controlling, and thus it is a major part of this game.

If you and I met on the field of battle and our goal was to play keep away - running away and dodging arcs, then yeah - the dice never come into play, BUT neither one of us wins.

You had mentioned earlier that it was a statistical impossibility to roll blanks for an entire game. It's an IMPROBABILITY, but definitely not an impossibility. I've seen games that it has happened. I've unfortunately been THAT guy who rolled nothing but crap rolls for an entire game (it was a short game). Had the game gone longer, maybe my LUCK would have changed. But in the first 3 turns, it happened that my entire list was destroyed. Granted, this was a one-off for me, and it hasn't happened since, but it can happen. We all do our best to try and ensure it doesn't happen, through maneuvering and picking the list that we hope is strongest. The fact of the matter is, that when you strip that away, you're left with a bunch of 8 sided die that roll for or against you.

Now after this entire diatribe, am I saying that dice are the ONLY factor?

No, of course not. But without one of us rolling dice, no one can win.

I have been cool. Making an off-handed remark doesn't mean I'm no longer cool.

Keep it cool refers to the civility of the conversation, not just your personal state. I suppose, keep it civil would be more clear.

No, of course not. But without one of us rolling dice, no one can win.

Some people seem to be having issues with accepting degrees here.

Are dice a factor? Yes of course they are.

Are they the only factor? No, not unless you do nothing but joust.

Are they the primary factor? No, because it's been shown time and time again that position, maneuvering and action choice are all major factors in this game.

There's plenty of room for dice to be a factor without making them The factor.

If YOU prevent the other guy from rolling any attack dice? What if he does the same? What if you BOTH are running the slipperiest, arc-dodgingest list possible?? The fact of the matter is that without the dice, the best you can get is a draw (and a VERY boring game!)

Technically not possible, as ONE of you is going to have initiative.

The dice are not the only factor, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, they are the deciding factor. PERIOD. END OF LINE.

No one is disputing this, but the point is, that is true of ANY of the factors in the game.

If dice and list are equal, player skill is the deciding factor. PERIOD. END OF LINE.

If dice and skill are equal, list is the deciding factor. PERIOD. END OF LINE.

Again, just because something CAN be the deciding factor (everything else being equal) doesn't make it the primary factor of the game overall.

Using that argument we could say that in checkers, going first is the primary factor, because skill level and foreknowledge being totally equal, going first is what will determine the game. Technically true, but not actually very useful in analyzing how a game works.

You had mentioned earlier that it was a statistical impossibility to roll blanks for an entire game. It's an IMPROBABILITY, but definitely not an impossibility. I've seen games that it has happened. I've unfortunately been THAT guy who rolled nothing but crap rolls for an entire game (it was a short game). Had the game gone longer, maybe my LUCK would have changed. But in the first 3 turns, it happened that my entire list was destroyed. Granted, this was a one-off for me, and it hasn't happened since, but it can happen. We all do our best to try and ensure it doesn't happen, through maneuvering and picking the list that we hope is strongest. The fact of the matter is, that when you strip that away, you're left with a bunch of 8 sided die that roll for or against you.

He said it was statistically impossible, which is different from being actually impossible. It is statistically impossible, which means it's not going to happen enough for any of us to see it in our lifetime, at least in a game with more than just a few roles. Which is true. Technically it is possible to flip heads 500 times in a row, but it's statistically impossible. I can say with reasonable certainty that you will never see someone roll all blanks for an entire game if they are rolling more than a trivially small amount of dice.

No, of course not. But without one of us rolling dice, no one can win.

While that is true, it doesn't make dice the primary factor in the game, which is what I think most people are arguing against. Everyone admits it IS a factor, and that it CAN overshadow other factors, just that it isn't the primary factor in the game.

You had mentioned earlier that it was a statistical impossibility to roll blanks for an entire game.

As was pointed out, I said statistical impossible, which it is. Even in the game you mention, I find it hard to believe you didn't roll a single focus or evade even in those 3 turns. It may not of been enough to change the outcome of the game, but it's still different then rolling nothing but blanks.

Had the game gone longer, maybe my LUCK would have changed.

"In my experience there is no such thing as luck." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

In games like this, that is also true. Luck is just what we call random chance when it goes our way, and unlucky when it doesn't.

Wow, this thread has really degenerated into something silly.

Hokey dice gods and trust in luck are no match for a good understanding of probability distribution at your side, kid.

We're just getting into Potato Po-Taht-O territory here.

I concede - it isn't the PRIMARY factor. Nor is anything else. They are all just factors. The fact is, you win some, you lose some. Sometimes the dice are the deciding factor, other times, superior skill or list is the factor. Any single factor can upset the others.

Now that is said, perhaps we can TRY and steer this back on topic of the Meta, rather than the outlying factors..

Now that is said, perhaps we can TRY and steer this back on topic of the Meta, rather than the outlying factors..

That would be nice, but might be too late.

That said, I agree with the OP back a few pages now.

Netlisting in X-Wing isn't nearly as effective as it with other games. You can't just plop a HSF or Bloody Daggers on the table and expect to win. Even worse would be trying to do that with a howlswarm.

Sure if you know the ships well you can figure them out, perhaps even play well, but you'll do better if you understand the how and why of the list.

I think a very abstract understanding of the meta should include an idea of what sort of lists are more or less risk averse/prone.

Tons of TIEs expand the amount of dice-rolling, and so mitigate the influence of luck by rolling so many of them that the results will approach the mean. An HSF list puts a lot of eggs in one basket and is therefore more risk prone. On the other hand, a list that relies on maneuvering and skill (flankers) tries to make it more of a game of skill and strategy than one about random factors.

Hokey dice gods and trust in luck are no match for a good understanding of probability distribution at your side, kid.

And yet on the bell curve you can still land several standard deviations from the mean one way or another.

Yes, it can. But it's improbable. If you're rolling a lot of dice, who cares if you roll three blanks at one point? Also, how large is that standard deviation?

I think a very abstract understanding of the meta should include an idea of what sort of lists are more or less risk averse/prone.

Also it can include what are generally good and bad combos.

It doesn't matter how good you are, or how hot your dice are, 6 Rebel Operatives are not going to do well. Likewise lists like HSF, Biggs walks the Dog, Bloody Daggers, Howlswarm, the Doom Cow, ect... are all solid choices for understandable reasons.

I think a very abstract understanding of the meta should include an idea of what sort of lists are more or less risk averse/prone.

Also it can include what are generally good and bad combos.

It doesn't matter how good you are, or how hot your dice are, 6 Rebel Operatives are not going to do well. Likewise lists like HSF, Biggs walks the Dog, Bloody Daggers, Howlswarm, the Doom Cow, ect... are all solid choices for understandable reasons.

Very true. There is a rock-paper-scissors aspect to this game, and there are crappy lists. Both of these are non-random factors.

It seems like a general approach is to first know yourself. If you know you're not the best pilot around, you might be better off cutting your chops on a risk-prone/skill-mitigating list (such as HSF) where the dice might make up for your strategic failings.

Additionally, know your enemy. If your enemy is a bunch of unknown opponents at a tournament, you might not want to choose a list that is too specialized in the rock-paper-scissors aspect, but it more adaptive to diverse situations.

We're just getting into Potato Po-Taht-O territory here.

I concede - it isn't the PRIMARY factor. Nor is anything else. They are all just factors. The fact is, you win some, you lose some. Sometimes the dice are the deciding factor, other times, superior skill or list is the factor. Any single factor can upset the others.

Now that is said, perhaps we can TRY and steer this back on topic of the Meta, rather than the outlying factors..

Actually, understanding the primary factors in what goes into determining victory is pretty important to understanding the meta game.

Again, 40k is a good example, though Magic is a good example too. In both games the LIST or DECK is the most important factor to victory. In 40k dice come up second, and skill up third. I'm not sure about magic, but if I remember right I think luck was slightly more important than in-game skill, but I could be off. It's been awhile. In both games the meta is mainly important because you need the right list to have any chance of winning.

In X-Wing, if skill is the most important factor (which is a position I support), then understanding the meta and knowing your list well become the most important considerations. It's more important to build a list that can handle the meta THAT YOU CAN FLY WELL (and enjoy) rather than just trying to have the most optimal list. Pilot skill being the primary factor, you build your list around that.

It's an important distinction.

Looks like this is my thread for historical analogies. Luck and luck mitigation.

The Pacific War, Battle of Midway (1942):

The Japanese fleet had the best pilots, best training, and an unbroken string of victories that had created one of the largest empires on Earth. In fact, Japan had never lost a war in recorded history. Ever. The American pilots were... let's be nice and say "inexperienced". At least one squadron of American pilots actually got lost(!!) on the way to battle and didn't see Japanese ships at all.

The end of the battle would see the power of the Japanese fleet broken, and allow for the might of American Industry to win the war. How? 2 things. Good Intel, and luck. Lots of luck.

The American Military had broken certain Japanese Naval codes and were able to know when the Japanese Fleet would be where. So they used good positioning to ambush their opponents. And also luck.

1 bomb hit the Akagi. It hit her in the exact wrong spot. The damage mitigation tools were not simply not adequate to the job of keeping her afloat- and some of the near-misses did enough damage in exactly the wrong places to keep the Damage Control teams from being able to do their jobs. One hit, several misses, and the pride of the Japanese fleet was lost. It took 4 bombs to destroy the Kaga, and 3 to cause the destruction of Sōryū.

Lessons for X-Wing Players:

Less than a dozen hits, and 2/3 of the Japanese Carrier force was gone. A dozen hits- but so very many attempts to get those dozen hits. So many misses. Thinking about it in terms of green dice and red dice, the Americans rolled 100 misses with their red dice. and another 100 hits were canceled by the Japanese green dice. But eventually the greens failed exactly when the Red succeeded. And the battle was over.

Second Persian War, Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC):

You know this story because you've seen this movie. 299 Spartans hold off a quarter million Persians, yada yada, patriotism, ecetera, bravery, so forth, don't mention the slavery, and so on. The Spartans were killed to the antepenultimate man. Of the last 2, one had been blinded by battle, and so was excused from duty, and one eventually killed himself in shame for not having died with his comrades. This is not the important part of the story.

Roman/Syrian War Battle of Thermopylae(191 BC):

The Romans were marching from the North, and the Syrians wanted to hold onto their Greek possessions. Knowing what a mere 300 Spartans had managed to hold off, the Syrians fortified Thermopylae with 10,500 troops and waited. The Romans, also knowing what happened with those 300 Spartans began planning.

The Romans sent flanking forces into the goat paths in the middle of the night, and attacked from surprise. The Syrians in the pass itself did not know that something was happening to their flanks, and the Greek troops were out of communication with their flankers, and knew that they could not count on the success of their gambit. So the next morning, battle was joined in earnest.

In the initial skirmish, as each side used human lives to parry and feint, the flanking Roman troops broke through to the main body of the Syrian forces. Taking them unaware on a vulnerable side, the Roman forces were able to slaughter their opposition. At the end of battle, 200 Romans were killed, and took with them 10,000 Syrians. The Syrian army never recovered.

Lessons for X-wing Players:

The Syrians made a classic net-decking mistake, taking something that someone else had success with, and adopting it as their own. They neither practiced with the list, nor understood it's key mechanics. The Romans, on the other hand, by having a keen grasp of the local meta were able to obliterate their opposition. They understood their own strengths, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent's list. Attacking Thermopylae was a _solved problem_, and the Romans had enough knowledge to handle the Syrians with ease.

Note also- crucially- that the Romans did not rely on their gambit working. It wasn't a "trick list", which can be countered by pressing the right spot. Rather, they had several strengths, and that allowed them the tactical flexibility to try a high-risk, high-reward play. That paid off big.

We're just getting into Potato Po-Taht-O territory here.

I concede - it isn't the PRIMARY factor. Nor is anything else. They are all just factors. The fact is, you win some, you lose some. Sometimes the dice are the deciding factor, other times, superior skill or list is the factor. Any single factor can upset the others.

Now that is said, perhaps we can TRY and steer this back on topic of the Meta, rather than the outlying factors..

Actually, understanding the primary factors in what goes into determining victory is pretty important to understanding the meta game.

Again, 40k is a good example, though Magic is a good example too. In both games the LIST or DECK is the most important factor to victory. In 40k dice come up second, and skill up third. I'm not sure about magic, but if I remember right I think luck was slightly more important than in-game skill, but I could be off. It's been awhile. In both games the meta is mainly important because you need the right list to have any chance of winning.

In X-Wing, if skill is the most important factor (which is a position I support), then understanding the meta and knowing your list well become the most important considerations. It's more important to build a list that can handle the meta THAT YOU CAN FLY WELL (and enjoy) rather than just trying to have the most optimal list. Pilot skill being the primary factor, you build your list around that.

It's an important distinction.

Players make careers of playing Magic at a high level. Based on your previous statement that the ability to consistently perform at a high level in a game dictates that skill plays heavily into the equation, which I agree with, you can't say luck is the dominant factor after deck building.

"The META is Bigger Than You"

According to my doctor, apparently nothing is bigger than me.

Just a fun little ditty about an idiot, me, who tried to play winning lists from past tournaments. Beware, you simply can't just pick up a squad and play it. You have to learn it, feel it, fly it. Both times a Whisper and Han build, both successful at regionals, escaped me to noobs at our local Monday night. Lesson learned ... Play your own game. Fly what you know. Meta be damned.

+1

I tried a fancy list designed to combat phantoms with e-wings and Z-95s with assault missiles at the local summer kit tournament.

Terrible fail.

The next week at our casual game night I pulled my old tried and true list and presto-win-o.