To all the new players just randomly popping in on these forums, the meta isn't as bad as some people might suggest. The game is just changing a lot with lots of new ships and upgrades. Wave 5 and Rebel Aces will bring out many more changes.

Just try the new stuff, try your creative ideas, try the best lists, and try what is fun. Prior to Fat Han and the Phantom, players complained about swarms and XXBB lists, there were just less players in the game so not as many threads and opinions, among other things. Just stick with it, and if you are good at the game, you will win more than you lose.

This really IS a great game to get into. It rewards some cool skills that video games don't, as well as is more fast paced than many war games due to the cool flight path system.

Also, be glad that you dont need to purchase 3 Starter kits and 1 Tie expansion in order to create a competitive list. We are moving to a point where less ships on the board does NOT mean less chances to win. Sure, there are more ships to buy for a full collection, but for the casual players, you can create some great lists with 2 or 3 expansion sets.

I recommend not getting too bogged down by the meta hate, as the game is going tk have another drastic set of changes over the next couple months.

Star Wars is still at the core of the game, which is awesome. So...

Happy flying and...

May the force be with you.

I completely agree with all that is said here!

The funny thing about the meta is that it usually only applies to top end players of a competitive tournament. In the mid level and lower level tables, the meta is VASTLY different then on the top end, and usually much more 'new player' friendly.

If you are a new to the game and not participating in a tournament, then fly what ever you like and have fun with the game. Make sure to find like minded players who recognize that baby seal clubbing isn't all that much fun and they need to try new and different things.

I think the 'meta' discussions do not start to enter into the conversation until you want to step up to that next level and start taking the game a bit more seriously and competitively.

Yup, its very very important to remember that 'tournament play' is NOT *the* game.

Its a small aspect of the game. For every guy in your town who plays ultra competetively with a list designed to win a tourny there will be ten people who just want to have fun and make games up around stories or see if Han solo and luke can escape from six pursuing TIEs

Nowt wrong with playing in a tourny but dont be put off by posts saying 'only this list is viable', they mean only that list is viable to someone playing to win the prizes.

If you're playing with mates, the odds are they will not have micro scrutinised the odds of 'card x' and will just be playing with stuff they like the look of... just like you.

The "meta" is a term I hate, the posters above are correct. Outside of tourneys (and in my case, inside of them as well) fly what you want.

The game is very balanced and a well constructed list that doesn't play to the "meta" can do really well as no one expects it and probably won't know how to easily counter it.

Phantom this and Falcon that, blah, blah, blah.

Enjoy the game for what it is a great game with friends.

I do play in tourneys and I do play to win, but it is only a small part of the game and playing in our local league or with friends at the weekend flying my favorite iconic ships is why I play.

I got to a point where I was always trying to optimize and win. You know what, I started to hate the game. Now I play what I like, I do not play the meta and I find my enjoyment is greatly enhanced even when I lose.

I'd prefer learn the game tbh.

The game is very balanced and a well constructed list that doesn't play to the "meta" can do really well as no one expects it and probably won't know how to easily counter it.

How do you define "very balanced"?

Here are my observations. The balance is generally OK, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Out of 18 wave 4 Regionals, and 7 wave 4 Nationals tournaments (France, Nordic, United States, Australia, Germany, Poland, Netherlands), only 5 of the 16 ships have had their generic pilots represented in the winning lists:

• Z-95s
• TIE Fighters
• B-wings
• Lambda Shuttle
• Firespray

Of those 5, the Firespray and Lambda shuttle only made one appearance each, in the winning list in German Nationals. That's out of 25 highly competitive tournaments, so the sample set is plenty large enough. If you look at the conditional effectiveness of the generic pilots through wave 4 Regionals, it is clear that the first 4 in the above list are easily a cut above everything else in the game.

Edit: this is why I am building a full set of technical balance fixes for my House Rules, so that when playing casually you can take any ship, pilot, or upgrade, and not feel handicapped. It increases the squad building variety so much, and is so much more thematic when you're not just playing the same set of lists over and over.

But thats looking at a fraction of people who play after totally overanalysing a toy soldiers game (thats what it is) to maximise the statistics in their favour.

The majority of people dont play like that.

For most people just playing casually its incredibly balanced. In the scores of games ive played over the last few months by far and large the usual 'end' of the game is that the 'winner' has one ship left limping around with a single hull point remaining

total walk overs are rare, (i think we've had two)

If everyone was chasing the meta and playing in those lists you simply wouldnt be able to take part in most tournys as they would fill up within seconds of bookings opening.

Most people dont go to such pains to play a space fantasy wargame. A lot of people on this fourm do which makes it seem like everyone does but think about total sales of xwing vs tournament players or those stressed about phantoms and falcons on here,

But thats looking at a fraction of people who play after totally overanalysing a toy soldiers game (thats what it is) to maximise the statistics in their favour.

The majority of people dont play like that.

At the top end, the game is not very well balanced. If newer players haven't yet recognized that yet, then it speaks more to their experience, and not the state of the game itself. It makes for an even stronger argument for this, especially for casual play:

.. unless you think that new players taking 4x TIE Advanced with Cluster Missiles and then getting smoked is cool.

The point is, the game for what its designed to be... a beer and pretzles space fighter game to play with your mates is actually quite well constructed and balanced.

When you push it to its limit it might fall down a bit but find a games system that doesn have loopholes or a 'killer' army per edition that is fixed in the next only to find it creates its own new killer list

MJ, I wanna see those house rules when you are finished! Maybe you can propose these as changes to the game and get them into the hands of people at FFG!

A point i'd add to re-enforce the fact that 'tourny play' is *not* what the game is about or was designed to do is that in the core rules you are told you play a faction in the galactic civil war.. one player plays imperial, the other rebels.

The idea of rebel vs rebel (or the imperial opposite) creates game balance issues in itself as initially you have 'durable but slow' vs 'fast and fragile' as two sides of a coin.

Again, nothing wrong with tournament play but its probably a good idea to keep in perspective how small that proportion of people doing 'top end play' is.

I disagree that Rebel v Rebel or Imp v Imp creates a game balancing issue. I do agree it creates a cinematic issue and may not fit into the story of a battle very well. But this game is really quite balanced and mirror matches are part of that.

While I agree that the game is generally balanced, dismissing clear issues because it's a "beer and pretzel game" is disingenuous. Casual games can (and should) be balanced. Hyper competitive games in billion dollar industries (MLB, NHL, NFL) are often not. There is no correlation between competition level and balance. A balanced game can be played at all levels. A unbalanced game, generally, can't be.

A point i'd add to re-enforce the fact that 'tourny play' is *not* what the game is about or was designed to do is that in the core rules you are told you play a faction in the galactic civil war.. one player plays imperial, the other rebels.

The idea of rebel vs rebel (or the imperial opposite) creates game balance issues in itself as initially you have 'durable but slow' vs 'fast and fragile' as two sides of a coin.

Again, nothing wrong with tournament play but its probably a good idea to keep in perspective how small that proportion of people doing 'top end play' is.

This isn't my first game that I've played that can be played competitively. I plan to play this one casual. What happens here is exactly what happens in every competitive game. The specialist analyzers focus intently on top builds to win. They develop blinders to other perspectives. When another perspective is brought, they rationalize arguments as to why their perspective is the ONLY perspective, because the game to them IS the meta and winning tournaments. Its sad really. It makes them very poor teachers of the game when they can't feel like they can escape the "meta" environment. That is why threads like this are needed: the LEET players of the game create an environment that is not conducive to new blood. They wonder why the game isn't growing, and they don't understand that their lack of real leadership is the reason why the game isn't growing.

That said, I appreciate the TC's post!

MJ, I wanna see those house rules when you are finished! Maybe you can propose these as changes to the game and get them into the hands of people at FFG!

Ha, don't I wish! FFG's philosophy though is to avoid retroactively changing cards. They want the play experience out of the box to be the final "polished" experience. It's generally a very good policy, and makes sense for tabletop games, but it does mean that mistakes are much more difficult, or outright impossible, to fix.

You can see the example for my House Rules for TIE Interceptors here:

I will add, I am all for the tournament scene and building great tournament lists. However, I advocate some sort of creativity when list building.

Because honestly, the first time you play a Phantom(against a non turret) you will see just how good it is, and want to run it in all your lists. At this point, it is really the support ships and upgrades that allow for creativity. Do you want Phantom and 4 ties? Phantom + Shuttles? Phantom and Interceptors? All of these provide different play styles and counter certain lists in certain ways.

This is where I think the real fun of the game comes in for the tourney scene. In all games, there will always be cards/characters that are easier to win with than others. You can fight it all you want, or you can turn your need for creativity elsewhere, embracing what is good, and work to find new and creative ways to upgrade and support those good ships.

For new players, again, if you want to play a game competitively, it certainly helps to embrace the good lists. However, you don't HAVE to do EVERYTHING the same. Use your intuition and you will see what works and why. Play a few times with the base Tie Advanced and you'll see how much you don't win with it, and then try to understand why.

And honestly, it's usually those last 6 pts of a list that will make or break how good it is and how much fun you have.

A point i'd add to re-enforce the fact that 'tourny play' is *not* what the game is about

From where do you get this ?

The game is about what the players want to play and what the developers try to facilitate. And i see plenty of tournaments backed up by FFG, regular FAQs, even for competitive play. And i see a lot of players who enjoy playing tournaments.

The meta has one truth: Don't fly TIE Advanced - everything else is circumstantial.

And who knows, maybe the TIEA will see life again soon.

My theory? Play what you feel comfortable with, and you'll do fine. Sure, some lists work better against some lists, but that doesn't mean a thing if you don't feel comfortable with it.

My theory? Play what you feel comfortable with, and you'll do fine. Sure, some lists work better against some lists, but that doesn't mean a thing if you don't feel comfortable with it.

Might we say that it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing?

A point i'd add to re-enforce the fact that 'tourny play' is *not* what the game is about

From where do you get this ?

The game is about what the players want to play and what the developers try to facilitate. And i see plenty of tournaments backed up by FFG, regular FAQs, even for competitive play. And i see a lot of players who enjoy playing tournaments.

Read the thread, its evident. If i have not already said this in this thread then its in another.

The CORE GAME (yep, thats what it is about) says you pick a side in the galactic civil war and your opponent the other... thats not what happens in tourny play when a player plays rebels and his opponent plays rebels is it?

The ruleset does not equip you out the box to play tournaments, prep you for them or even mention them.

If you obsess about lists and tournaments its very easy to assume that everyone else does. The players on this forum will gravitate towards being overly 'tournament motivated' as its the 'official forums'.

But... clearly the vast majority of players.. and that is where FFG will make their money and market their product to dont play tournaments.

Tournaments require their own add on rules.. ergo the game is not aimed at tournament play. It's great that it can do that but if it were there would not be narrative scenarios in the core rules and every expansion.

Most people will have bought the game to play casually with friends and family.. that is certainly the case in my area where i know dozens of people who play xwing and no one who plays in tournaments, tournaments clearly exist as chimera games runs one every three months or so but they get what , twenty players...

If most people playing xwing were geared towards tournaments and the game pushed or directed you to the impression that this was 'standard play' then you'd find every tournament set up would be booked up in minutes.

The majority of people dont play like that.

For most people just playing casually its incredibly balanced.

So the game is balanced so long as people don't actually put any real effort into winning? Or just stay as bad players?

That's really not a ringing endorsement.

I'll quantify this somewhat in that as a few of you probably know I spent about five years running organised play and tournaments for Games Workshop UK, i even travelled abroad a lot to advise other countries on how to put on a good event.

While FFG isnt GW... wargamers are wargamers. While tournaments are a fun diversion for gaming companies they are *not* their bread and butter... home gaming is, home gaming is what they market towards.

I'm basing that on half a decade working in the marketing, community and events dept of the worlds biggest wargames company... if you know more about the industry than me then that cool and i apologise.

The majority of people dont play like that.

For most people just playing casually its incredibly balanced.

So the game is balanced so long as people don't actually put any real effort into winning? Or just stay as bad players?

That's really not a ringing endorsement.

no you're reducing an argument to the absurd and you know you are.

What i'm saying is that the game as a casual, simple wargame is fine. People want to play at a hyper competetive level for whatever jollies it gives them and thats fine but you have to understand that sometimes 'loose and fast' rules dont always hold up to super scrutiny and when pushed to their limit can break.

It why when we ran GW tournys we'd have grown men burst into tears at a refs decision that lost them a game as the rules to warhammer or 40k had ambiguity that had to be interpreted one way or another.

Given that at the moment the currrent 'the sky is falling' *wahhh* is that the phantom is too powerful and the only counter to it is too prevalent its hardly the biggest deal in the world is it. it's not like somebody gone and totally wrecked the game... it just means that *at the moment* someones only found one viable phantom counter and for a very small proportion of players this is making the game a little stale.

What i'm saying is that the game as a casual, simple wargame is fine.

I mostly agree, but I think the overwhelming majority of people will also agree that especially for casual play, it would be way better if you could fly squads like 4x Tempest Squadron Pilots + Cluster Missiles and not automatically get your face smashed in.