I do not play dice games. They hold 0 interest for me. I play games that require thought, planning, spacial awareness, and skill.

You cannot play X-Wing unless you roll dice. So, you play DO play dice games.

The only people who call this a dice game are players who cannot hand their losses and balme them on the dice rather than the 6 or 7 other incredibly influential factors that make up 90% of the game.

Uh-huh. That's what we informed people call a fallacial argument.

The dice don't decide the game. The players do.

Yes, the players decide the game. By rolling dice.

Of course, this IS the 21st Century - maybe you prefer to use the app instead..?

I do not play dice games. They hold 0 interest for me. I play games that require thought, planning, spacial awareness, and skill.

You cannot play X-Wing unless you roll dice. So, you play DO play dice games.

The only people who call this a dice game are players who cannot hand their losses and balme them on the dice rather than the 6 or 7 other incredibly influential factors that make up 90% of the game.

Uh-huh. That's what we informed people call a fallacial argument.

The dice don't decide the game. The players do.

Yes, the players decide the game. By rolling dice.

Of course, this IS the 21st Century - maybe you prefer to use the app instead..?

And many other actions. You present it as the only thing players do, which is categorically false. Dice are merely one of many mechanics of the game, this one in particular used to register hits/crits/evades, etc.

Also in chess, there aren't any new players at high level events. Which is probably why there are dice in the game - it makes it accessible to new players. No-one would play a game like this if you couldn't win without years of study.

However, acting like the dice are the only factors in winning and losing this game is nonsense. Now while it is possible to roll all blanks all the time, you have to use altered dice to do it. In the real world, at some point you will roll hits/evades. Now, if you can outfly your opponent (which doesn't allow them any chances to roll any red dice) you will destroy them. So, while yes the dice definitely affect the game state in a big way, they are by no means the only, or even the biggest influence in winning and losing at this game.

@Ribann, why would you try to lower the player base of a game that you like enough to post in it's forum? Telling someone to go "play chess" is the antithesis of Flying Casual. Just relax, take a breath, and realize that these are tiny plastic toy spaceships.

I feel like people don't understand exactly what the meta is and how knowledge of it is useful, very much in the same way people don't understand the value of math in games like this.

In math's case, it doesn't decide the game, and knowing the math behind it doesn't break the game down into a simple numbers exercise. It is simple a tool in helping you make informed decisions. Knowing the drawbacks of unmodified dice and modified dice, the actual usefulness of particular upgrades and abilities allows you to fly any list you want better, make better decisions during the game, and maximize your choices both during list building and during actual play. Someone who knows the math is MORE likely to win with a given "unoptimized" list that they love in spite of inefficiencies, because they understand WHAT makes that list weak and what they need to watch out for.

Similarly, recognizing and understanding the meta-game has nothing to do with using net-lists, or popular lists (as some seem to be suggesting), and has everything to with enhancing YOUR ability to make a good squadron YOU like, and making it effective.

The meta-game DOES exist (I can't imagine why people are saying it doesn't). It is simply a description of what people are playing overall. By understanding the meta-game (what people are playing) you can better make a list YOU will enjoy playing.

The truth is, at any given time there are probably multiple lists you would enjoy playing, and within any given list there are multiple upgrades and combinations you might be interested in using.

By understanding what you are likely to see, and why, you can make an informed choice. Not by choosing a "popular" list, but by choosing a lest YOU enjoy, and making that list effective.

The disdain the terms "meta-game" and "math" often get on this board in entirely unwarranted. Neither area of knowledge are a way to limit or control your choice. In fact, the entire point of studying EITHER of these areas of gaming is to ENHANCE your ability to choose.

Learning never limits your ability to choose.

@Ribann, why would you try to lower the player base of a game that you like enough to post in it's forum? Telling someone to go "play chess" is the antithesis of Flying Casual. Just relax, take a breath, and realize that these are tiny plastic toy spaceships.

Dude, I'm not even being serious. People on these forums get way bent out of shape over every post I make.

Not trying to get bent. I guess I didn't hear the joking tone. I retract my suggestion if it helps you out.

The meta-game DOES exist (I can't imagine why people are saying it doesn't). It is simply a description of what people are playing overall. By understanding the meta-game (what people are playing) you can better make a list YOU will enjoy playing.

People play everything, thus the meta-game equals the game, making it a unnecessary and elitist term.

...and math is awesome...

Yes, the players decide the game. By rolling dice.

40k is a dice game, because once you have your list on the table, the dice are the primary factor to decide everything. That's why in 40k netlists are so popular, because you don't really need to put a lot of thought into it, just know how many dice to throw and when.

The same is not true of X-Wing, the dice are a factor but are not the primary factor in win/lose in this game. Anyone who says otherwise is simply justifying their losses.

I agree with Gecko. This is last competitive dice game I'll ever play.

Having said that, I still think and feel (for now) that the dice do return to the mean and the better pilot will create more opportunities for that to happen. It is unfortunate that the dice do not always reward great play. It's spirit crushing when it doesn't, but it is spectacular when it does!

The meta-game DOES exist (I can't imagine why people are saying it doesn't). It is simply a description of what people are playing overall. By understanding the meta-game (what people are playing) you can better make a list YOU will enjoy playing.

People play everything, thus the meta-game equals the game, making it a unnecessary and elitist term.

...and math is awesome...

Except that people DON'T play everything. We know this. We can see clear trends that adapt in response to external stimuli (like new releases or rules changes) in recognizable manners over time. We do NOT see a random distribution of ships.

Just like the math of the game, meta-game analysis isn't about recognizing the breadth of POSSIBILITY (with expose on a Phantom at range 1 I can do 6 damage! YAY!) but about recognizing PROBABILITY (over many games using expose will actually most likely do LESS damage than just focusing).

For several releases tie swarms were very common. By recognizing that you could better build a list you enjoyed that could still compete, because it knew taking on swarms was a very likely. But it also told us that EVERY list wouldn't be a swarm, so building a list that focused ONLY on swarms was a bad idea.

Likewise, in the current meta we can see that turreted ships and high PS Phantoms are likely to show up, and you can take that into account when list building, thus leading to a more fun game. Sure you COULD totally ignore the fact that a meta-game exists and just make a list you think sounds interesting without regard to what you are likely to see, but if you do that you have a good chance of not having as much fun at a tournament when you loose games purely due to the fact that you list cant handle Phantoms, or Falcons, or Swarms, or whatever the current meta favors.

People don't play everything. There are trends in what they play. Recognizing that fact does not harm your ability to build a list you like. It enhances it.

It's spirit crushing when it doesn't, but it is spectacular when it does!

The dice can cause issues, but if I didn't want some random factor in the game, I wouldn't play it. But just because there is a random factor doesn't mean that the dice are the only or even primary factor in win/lose.

Yes, the players decide the game. By rolling dice.

40k is a dice game, because once you have your list on the table, the dice are the primary factor to decide everything. That's why in 40k netlists are so popular, because you don't really need to put a lot of thought into it, just know how many dice to throw and when.

The same is not true of X-Wing, the dice are a factor but are not the primary factor in win/lose in this game. Anyone who says otherwise is simply justifying their losses.

You guys realize you are arguing semantics and personal definitions at this point, right? And that personal definitions like that aren't going to change? Nor are they even wrong?

Some of you consider "dice game" to be a derogative term for games that are primarily decided by dice in absence of tactics and/or strategy. Others of you consider the term "dice game" to refer to games that use dice as a conflict resolution mechanic.

You aren't arguing something that has a right or wrong answer at this point.

I'm saying that the dice determine who wins and loses

And I'm saying that Dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state that.

In some games, dice are pretty much all that matter, X-Wing is not one of them.

This is true, but someone that IS practiced and comfortable with a top tier build in the meta will have the advantage over someone playing an "old" build that they are comfortable with. But ya, it's totally possible to place han or whisper right in the enemy's crosshairs if you're not used to it I guess.

A few people here don't seem to understand what the metagame is.

What determines the victor of an X-wing game, or similar games? Three things. Your skill, your squad, and the random number god. The first two are the battlefields on which you compete, and they're called the game and the metagame, respectively.

The metagame (compound of meta-, Greek prefix for "beyond," and game) is the game outside the game, the squadbuilding aspect. It's rife with netdecking, which is copying winning lists believing they'll win for you, and accepting the "prevailing wisdom" without thinking about it for yourself. Doing this is assuming the game is all but decided on the squadbuilding field, that the random number god and the gameplay only have a minor influence. In an unbalanced game, this is true: take a broken squad and the game's pretty much in the bag from the start against an unbroken squad. Magic and Warhammer are notorious for this, and because those two are dominant, people assume they can win in the metagame with X-wing as well. It's ingrained.

FFG hates the game being decided in the metagame. They'd sooner overcost a card to the point of competitive unviability than risk breaking it (although mistakes do happen). They want the number of viable squads to be very broad, and each ship to be usable in a variety of different ways.

X-wing is a game that's been balanced well, and FFG are constantly balancing the old stuff in their new releases (other companies like Wizards of the Coast just render old releases tournament illegal) and adding new options to things that get stuck in a specific mold (like the B-wing). A few things are competitively weak but nothing is overly strong.

The problem with netdecking is that a large number of other people are also netdecking. In an unbalanced game, you usually have to netdeck to stand a chance. However, netdecking means that you're flying a squad everyone's seen before and everyone knows how to fight. The game's balanced, so if someone takes a squad that does something unexpected and goes up against your netdeck they A: know how you fly and how to beat you and B: you don't know how they fly and how to beat you. A good player can usually adapt well but that's still a disadvantage.

Secondly, and here's the major one: picking up the netdeck doesn't mean you know how to use it. This is the first aspect, game skill. Echo is very good, fly Echo like an X-wing and Echo is 35-40 points of dead. Fly the Falcon thinking "it's a turret I don't need to bother with maneuvers" and an opponent who knows how to fight Falcons will block you into the position he wants you in and focus fire you into oblivion with the rest of his team. A while ago I said on a thread that 8 TIE swarms (four Obsidians and four Academies) don't happen, they need Howlrunner and her firepower or some other buff. That list I just said didn't happen won the French National. By cutting out Howlrunner, the TIEs weren't shackled to Range 1 of each other and thus were safe from Assault Missiles and could break formation to cover the field in so many arcs the phantoms couldn't escape.

A list that varies from the herd flown well beats the Champion's squad flown badly. Thanks to the Random Number God, it can even beat the Champion's list flown well. That's not to say you should fly four Tempest Squadron pilots, but a little creativity can lead to your opponent fighting an unfamiliar beast while you're fighting something everyone's seen before.

I'll end with this:
Paul Heaver defied the TIE swarm metagame and went with something off the wall, two Adv Sensor B-wings, a Rookie and Biggs. Nowadays we call that XXBB but back then it was new and the odd flight patterns and behaviour of Adv Sensor B-wings that Paul Heaver had learned inside out threw people off balance. He became Wave 3 World Champion, beating the then very powerful Howlrunner Swarm.

The Champions aren't champions because they found The One List, they're champions partly because the Random Number God is on their side but mostly because they know their squad inside out and are very good at this game.

Make a good list, learn its intricacies and how to fly it better than anyone who copies it, and don't annoy the random number god. That's the path to success.

That, and making regular human sacrifices to the Random Number God.

And I'm saying that Dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses.

Based on what evidence?

The only objective observation here is what I'm proposing: dice get rolled and the value of the dice determine (ultimately) who wins and loses. I can test and measure that.

Saying the dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses needs to be qualified with evidence.

I think it's fairly easy to support based on consistent rankings and win percentages. In the game of Candy Land (for example) wins are spread evenly across players over time. You don't have "top ranked" players in Candy Land, or Shoots and Ladders.

In X-Wing you do, and it is very clear. We see excellent players win consistently across many matches, and can do so with a variety of lists. And unlike in some editions of 40k, win/loss percentages largely are NOT tied directly to a given list, but to the player, which gives further evidence that dice are not the primary factor in the game.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that dice are the primary factor in X-Wing. We see players who do well consistently, with a variety of lists, against a variety of opponents. Since the only consistent variable across those games is the player, it strongly suggests their skills are the deciding factor.

And I'm saying that Dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses.

Based on what evidence?

The only objective observation here is what I'm proposing: dice get rolled and the value of the dice determine (ultimately) who wins and loses. I can test and measure that.

Saying the dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses needs to be qualified with evidence.

Dice are like 10% tops. The players I hear complain about dice the most are the ones that are losing the most. But they have builds that have questionable upgrades and pilots, or they fly poorly, or they make bad decisions with actions/target priority.

The biggest part of this game that people ignore is the first couple of rounds of manuevering into combat. You'd be surprised how much of an effect that can have.

And to the topic, I'm a 'play what you know' kinda competitor. It's all rock-paper-scissors for match-ups anyway. Even if you lose on the match-up, victory is not guaranteed for the opponent. The game still needs to play out and knowing your squad's strengths and weaknesses can turn things around for you.

I'll end with this:

Paul Heaver defied the TIE swarm metagame and went with something off the wall, two Adv Sensor B-wings, a Rookie and Biggs. Nowadays we call that XXBB but back then it was new and the odd flight patterns and behaviour of Adv Sensor B-wings that Paul Heaver had learned inside out threw people off balance. He became Wave 3 World Champion, beating the then very powerful Howlrunner Swarm.

The Champions aren't champions because they found The One List, they're champions partly because the Random Number God is on their side but mostly because they know their squad inside out and are very good at this game.

Have you even watched the FFG Final with Paul and Dallas? It was SOOOOO close it could have literally gone either way. People tend to think Paul stomped all over TIE swarm with ease. That game itself is a true testament to the randomness of X-wing.

For example, Biggs one-shotting Dark Curse at the start of the match at range 3? Paul rolled 3 hits unmodified. Dallas rolled blank, blank, blank, focus. BAM. How much differently would the game have gone if THAT roll would have been any different?

I don't think anyone would argue that X-Wing doesn't have an element of randomness. Plenty of games are played equally well between both sides, and randomness decides who wins.

In smaller, but still significant amount of games one side plays slightly-to-moderately worse than the other, but still wins due to randomness.

And in rare cases one side plays SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the other, but still wins due to randomness.

But just because randomness is SOMETIMES the deciding factor in a game doesn't make it the PRIMARY factor in the game overall any more than rain is the deciding factor in war. It rain has decided battles, but in general other factors are more important overall.

The same is true in X-Wing. We see good players who win very consistently. We see evidence of skill levels. We see those players do well with multiple lists, at multiple events, and with multiple opponents. And they often do well even they aren't rolling as well as the competition.

Player tactical skill is definitely the most important factor in X-Wing, followed by list building, followed by dice.

I'll end with this:

Paul Heaver defied the TIE swarm metagame and went with something off the wall, two Adv Sensor B-wings, a Rookie and Biggs. Nowadays we call that XXBB but back then it was new and the odd flight patterns and behaviour of Adv Sensor B-wings that Paul Heaver had learned inside out threw people off balance. He became Wave 3 World Champion, beating the then very powerful Howlrunner Swarm.

The Champions aren't champions because they found The One List, they're champions partly because the Random Number God is on their side but mostly because they know their squad inside out and are very good at this game.

Have you even watched the FFG Final with Paul and Dallas? It was SOOOOO close it could have literally gone either way. People tend to think Paul stomped all over TIE swarm with ease. That game itself is a true testament to the randomness of X-wing.

For example, Biggs one-shotting Dark Curse at the start of the match at range 3? Paul rolled 3 hits unmodified. Dallas rolled blank, blank, blank, focus. BAM. How much differently would the game have gone if THAT roll would have been any different?

Yep. But if X-wing followed the same unbalanced metagame dominance as Magic then Paul never would have even got to the final tournament. Would have been Howl on Howl in a tournament of Howls.

Plus, Dallas's squad itself is a slight variant on the TIE swarm, with the flanker TIE.

Both game skill and the Random Number god are strong. X-wing is not decided before the match begins.

I can argue that dice aren't the primary factor in X-Wing.... easily.

However, don't confuse them not being the "Primary" factor, with them not being a factor at all. Dice are a significant part of the game. So is planning, distance estimation, actions, and squad design.

I propose this as evidence. If dice WERE the PRIMARY factor - then a mirror match of 4 Rookie Pilots, vs 4 Rookie Pilots with Stealth Devices.... the Stealth Devices would always win, because you have just tipped the dice in their favor.

Saying the dice aren't the primary factor in who wins and loses needs to be qualified with evidence.

That's quite simple. If dice where the primary factor then maneuvering wouldn't matter, and so all the issues people have with turrets and and now Stay on Target wouldn't exist.

But it's quite clear that most people who play this game at that level do in fact believe that maneuvering has a big impact on the game. That's pretty strong evidence that dice is not the primary factor.

I'll end with this:

Paul Heaver defied the TIE swarm metagame and went with something off the wall, two Adv Sensor B-wings, a Rookie and Biggs. Nowadays we call that XXBB but back then it was new and the odd flight patterns and behaviour of Adv Sensor B-wings that Paul Heaver had learned inside out threw people off balance. He became Wave 3 World Champion, beating the then very powerful Howlrunner Swarm.

The Champions aren't champions because they found The One List, they're champions partly because the Random Number God is on their side but mostly because they know their squad inside out and are very good at this game.

Have you even watched the FFG Final with Paul and Dallas? It was SOOOOO close it could have literally gone either way. People tend to think Paul stomped all over TIE swarm with ease. That game itself is a true testament to the randomness of X-wing.

For example, Biggs one-shotting Dark Curse at the start of the match at range 3? Paul rolled 3 hits unmodified. Dallas rolled blank, blank, blank, focus. BAM. How much differently would the game have gone if THAT roll would have been any different?

Oh, we're opening this can of worms huh? Ok, well first off, I like how you mention the biggs at dark curse shot, but how about the fact that biggs was range 3 BEHIND AN ASTEROID for that volley, and rolled so many blanks that he still died to about 5 ties. You can't mention one anamoly without the other. And Paul had the other x wing looking right at dark curse, that then had no shot because of a lucky roll, but that at least he had a plan in place.

Also, why do you think those two were in that game in the first place? Paul won a big vassal tournament as well earlier that DAY. Dallas was in the top 8 of the current vassal tournament I think. They are consistent. If dice are the be all end all, you can't be consistent. And they were playing the 2 top builds of the meta. Basically the falcon/phantom of wave 3, though the disparity between those 2 lists and everything else may have been a bit less than it is now.

The game being so close that one die roll could've maybe been the difference isn't exactly the same as "my rolls were terrible". That carries with it the connotation of an entire game, not 1-2 shots. Also I think there is some wierd barrel roll towards the end by one of the TIEs that may have been the difference. A failed gamble.

One last thing since this started out focusing on the first couple of rounds, they both flew more or less perfectly as far as where they chose to set up, which angle they planned to take, and put themselves in the best possible spot, like biggs behind the rock. The ties were able to stay in formation for the first 3 rounds of combat based on the angle they took. There is far more subtlety than people realize in this game. Dice are easy to blame.

I don't think you can either, but you also can't reasonable argue that they are NOT the primary factor in X-wing.

Do you not see how you contradict yourself in this statement?

You agree that you can't reasonably argue that dice are the primary factor, but then say that you can't argue that they're not...

If the meta is bigger than me here... But I'm big in Japan... Am I bigger than the meta in Japan?

X-wing is a miniatures game that requires skill to play and requires dice to win. You cannot win the match by rolling blanks. You can't. Your opponent can beat you by rolling hits (and crits) no matter what you do (yeah for turrets and soon SoT). You control less than half of the game... Accept that and fly on!

Also, the meta is whatever you think it is when you choose your list. There is no meta when the first ship hits the table...there is no meta during gameplay, you know, the part where we actually play the game.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that dice are the primary factor in X-Wing.

I don't think you can either, but you also can't reasonable argue that they are NOT the primary factor in X-wing.

...you don't think you can reasonably argue they are the primary factor OR that you can reasonably argue they are NOT the primary factor?

I...guess I can see a small opening there for that to make sense, if you want to argue dice are part of a group of primary factors.

I would disagree though. For the reasons I already posted, and wont reiterate beyond saying: across multiple games, against multiple lists, against multiple opponents, players have fairly consistent performance, which we often see improve in direct correlation to their experience level (up to a point).

Such situations of predictability strongly imply the primary factor deciding the outcome is that which is consistent across the events e.g. the player themselves.

Contrast this to many versions of 40k where lists tended to be the most consistent variable and players, no matter there experience level, were unable to significantly shift the chance of winning with any given list. Also contrast it to Shoots an Ladders, Candyland, and War, where you have a nearly perfect distribution of winners, indicating luck is the deciding factor.

We have a pretty compelling argument for player skill being the primary factor in the game. Not to the same level as, say, chess or Go. But it's definitely the big one.