The meta of chess has changed dramatically over the last 100 years and the game has evolved. Despite the fact that the deck and ruleset has been static. But even armed with todays knowledge of beneficial openings most top players still wouldn't get close to Capablanca's level. Despite the dice, this game can't be all that different.

I've been away from the thread for a bit, so let me try and catch up.

Slow changing meta - A slow changing meta represents critical thought (in my mind). Wild swings suggest that things weren't carefully play tested and that something is obviously broken. If suddenly everyone in the world starts playing a certain combination, that would be a wild swing.

Other games - I can't speak much to other games because I haven't played many games with this competitive nature. I can, however, speak to sports. The Fosbury Flop being a perfect example of a sudden and dramatic shift when someone discovered something so drastically better than what everyone else was doing that it quickly became the only method used.

We don't want that. We don't want the game to have such a huge hole in it, that when it's filled, nothing else is worth playing.

That means WotC's doing a better job than they did back in Scars and Zendikar but my point about MTG being a game where the metagame is in many ways far more the point of competition than the game itself stands. Do you dispute the general point?

I dispute the general point you made earlier that you can pretty much win at Warhammer before you start. I can't tell you how many times I've played the soopa meta tier 1 army, and blown half their army off the table turn 1 with my Imperial Guard. Is there an ebb and flow to certain table games where some armies are more OP than others; sure but thats not an absolute.

We don't want that. We don't want the game to have such a huge hole in it, that when it's filled, nothing else is worth playing.

Mathematically there probably is such a thing as a "strongest" build but that's fine, as long as it's not too much stronger than the rest.

Slow changing meta - A slow changing meta represents critical thought (in my mind). Wild swings suggest that things weren't carefully play tested and that something is obviously broken. If suddenly everyone in the world starts playing a certain combination, that would be a wild swing.

...

We don't want that. We don't want the game to have such a huge hole in it, that when it's filled, nothing else is worth playing.

That's plausible, but not necessarily the case.

I'm not convinced that the Phantom wasn't properly playtested or is over the top. I think what we're seeing is the result of (and reaction to) a hype that has little to do with the inherent qualities of the piece in question.

I agree with you that we don't want such a huge hole, but at the same time it's nice to see excitement. Just because you and I don't get particularly excited about the Phantom Menace and Falcon Strikes Back doesn't mean that our game is not usefully dynamic.

Slow changing meta - A slow changing meta represents critical thought (in my mind). Wild swings suggest that things weren't carefully play tested and that something is obviously broken. If suddenly everyone in the world starts playing a certain combination, that would be a wild swing.

...

We don't want that. We don't want the game to have such a huge hole in it, that when it's filled, nothing else is worth playing.

That's plausible, but not necessarily the case.

I'm not convinced that the Phantom wasn't properly playtested or is over the top. I think what we're seeing is the result of (and reaction to) a hype that has little to do with the inherent qualities of the piece in question.

I agree with you that we don't want such a huge hole, but at the same time it's nice to see excitement. Just because you and I don't get particularly excited about the Phantom Menace and Falcon Strikes Back doesn't mean that our game is not usefully dynamic.

I'm not saying the Phantom wasn't carefully play tested. I'm not speaking specifically about anything FFG has done. Of course anytime something new is introduced there will be a lot of variation in the game for a short burst of time. After a few months it will settle in and things will return mostly to where they were before.

I'm not saying the Phantom wasn't carefully play tested. I'm not speaking specifically about anything FFG has done. Of course anytime something new is introduced there will be a lot of variation in the game for a short burst of time. After a few months it will settle in and things will return mostly to where they were before.

I agree.

So, how does this mesh with our fast-moving meta?

A slow-moving meta might mean that that broken hole exists and there's no going around it, while we have a dynamic meta in which we're getting over the Phantom hype and Falcon knee-jerk.