I started a thread about manuevering and a XXXY list based on thoughts from this thread. For all you peopel that want to talk tactics instead of list building, I'd love input. I'm trying to get insight in how to fly a Dutch, Garven, X,X list.

(Wall of text incoming.)

We have good evidence that players have become more reactive. We don't have the same kind of evidence that the game overall has become more reactive, though.

Let's assume that the underlying theory here is true - that the game is still fine, still perfectly balanced, and everything we're seeing is entirely due to players all being mindless internet drones who can't think their way out of the box the FFG forums put them in.

I think that's a mischaracterization of my point. I've been fairly clear that not all players have this problem, and I hope I've been clear that it's not a problem of people being mindless drones.

Suppose you're a player who thinks he's not very good, or who doesn't have a lot of time for list-building, or who just isn't particularly interested in list-building. (None of those things come with judgment attached.) And you play at your local store against a list that beats you handily and wins regularly, or you see it at a tournament you attend, or you browse a forum devoted to the game and see a lot of people talking about how powerful it is. So you try it out, and you win with it, and you pass it along to someone else and he or she also wins with it. And then suddenly you notice that you and about half of the people you know are all flying the same list--and why shouldn't you be? It's a winning list, and you want to win!

It's a sort of collective action problem, really. It's in all of our interest, as a group, to keep the game diverse--but it's in each of our interest, individually, to adopt the best list we have access to. And two important effects of this board are to (a) increase people's access to the current set of "good" lists, and (b) to enforce a particular perception of what a "good" list is. (Developing and sharing norms are two of the principal things that communities and cultures do, on a fundamental level.)

To jump back to an ecological/evolutionary analogy, we're currently in a valley in the fitness landscape. The problem comes in because (a) lots of people are unhappy with the current state, and simultaneously (b) people are unaware or have forgotten that there's no general reason to believe that we're in the most optimized possible state. There are almost certainly other stable metagames we could be participating in--they're just not easily accessible. Finding them requires that players stop focusing on what they should be flying (because that's necessarily yoked to the current metagame), and start focusing on what they could be flying.

Or, in other words, people are unhappy and they respond by saying "I hope someone does something," rather than by asking "What can I do?"

It's time for this "blame the user" stuff to stop. At the very least it's insulting, but when you go deeper it's an invalid argument. The developers have a responsibility to make more than a good game - they have a responsibility to make a game that is good even once the players - yes, even the mindless masses of the internet - are done with it. If they've created an environment that allows such a skewed perspective to dominate, that's their responsibility too.

I've been unhappy with this argument since it started emerging, and it took me a long time to figure out why, but I think this is it. "Blame the user" is a total cop-out by bad engineers who should have done better work, and try to pawn that bad effort off on users who are obviously just too dumb to avoid the error. It's just as inappropriate here, even by proxy.

Hopefully it's clearer now that this isn't what I'm doing. The game's designers are responsible for the elements we play with, and that means they're responsible to a substantial degree for the state of the game.

But that doesn't mean they're solely responsible, because they're not the ones telling us what to run. Additionally, their tools for dealing with this stuff are slow to arrive and not particularly suited to fine manipulation. (There are things they could do that would be quicker to respond but even more blunt--namely, restricting access for sanctioned events. Hopefully most people here agree that should be a last resort.)

So what I'm proposing is that we exert whatever control we have over the state of the game. What we can do (speaking as someone who is also bored with fighting Falcons) is to stop playing them . If you feel like the game is a boring exercise in rock-paper-scissors, then stop choosing rock, paper, or scissors and play something new. Pick something else you're interested in, build or find or ask someone for a list based around it, and try that instead.

That's what I meant, all the way upthread, when I mentioned the box the netdeckers are building for us. They're not bad people, and they're not doing it because they're bad or wrong or dumb, but what you have to remember is that it's a completely optional box. You don't have to play in that sandbox; the only thing that's at stake is your win-loss record, which means that all that's required is an internal adjustment of priorities. If an interesting game is important to you--and I think this thread is evidence that it's important to lots of us--then you can choose to believe that we have to wait for FFG to fix things or you can choose to believe that you have some power to decide whether the game will continue to be interesting, and you can exercise that power by choosing to play something that's interesting to you.

the only thing that's at stake is your win-loss record...

Which goes back to something I said before, this issue is largely only a problem for tournaments, or people preparing for them. Because in that case the win-loss record matters a great bit, and for many or even most, more important then interesting games.

If I'm at the LGS and see the other guy pull out a Fat Han, I have a couple options... I can ask him to play something else. I can also find someone else to play against if he won't change lists. I can pull out something that I think may be a counter to it.

If you're at a tournament the first 2 options aren't really options, leaving me only with one real option, play something that can win against lists like Fat Han and Echo/Whisper with ACD.

It is in some ways a self fulling prophecy, because if I expect to see Fat Han and Phantom lists at the event, I have to build a list to deal with them. The main reason I expect to see them is because I read the forms and know the meta.

So what I'm proposing is that we exert whatever control we have over the state of the game. What we can do (speaking as someone who is also bored with fighting Falcons) is to stop playing them . If you feel like the game is a boring exercise in rock-paper-scissors, then stop choosing rock, paper, or scissors and play something new. Pick something else you're interested in, build or find or ask someone for a list based around it, and try that instead.

^^^THIS!! Oh God Yes! This whole argument becomes sort of self-fulfilling doesn't it? The Falcon is Overpowered, so I should just play the Falcon. It won't end until we make it end.

As for picking something other than Rock, Paper or Scissors, might I suggest Lizard Spock ??

It's a sort of collective action problem, really.

...

To jump back to an ecological/evolutionary analogy, we're currently in a valley in the fitness landscape.

This is why I love Vorpal Sword !

That said, I'm trying to understand to what degree this particular complex adaptive system really depicts our situation. If it is true that the rock<paper<scissors model is an accurate one - in terms of expressed outcomes (the intersubjective construction) but not in terms of game fundamentals (the material base) - then why are we seeing such a dearth of people saying: "hey, I've got a list that is competitive against Falcon, Phantom, and Swarm!" Unlike a standard understanding of a complex adaptive system, we have an overarching system of communication that is allowing us to analyze the game holistically and draw conclusions.

Even without that overarching system of communication, one would think that the rocIk<paper<scissors aspect would generate its own failure (a peak, rather than a valley), as each of these archetype builds would deter one of the other archetype builds. I'm guessing that it's because of the sequential nature and a slowness to adapt. The Phantom deterred the swarm; the swarm being deterred allowed for the rise of the Fat Falcon, but the swarm remains deterred by the Phantom, because the Falcon failed to sufficiently deter the Phantom because of the Phantom's effectiveness against all other builds.

So where are the lizards and the Spocks?

Just want to agree with Vorpal's points there. We've always had to "react" to lists, at least in any competitive context. This has been, is, and will always be part of the competitive game.

I wonder if the fundamental change to the game that some see is largely a change in player base, rather than the introduction of certain ships or combos. I don't mean just the GW WAACers that some describe and blame. Instead, I suspect that the games original player base has simply gotten more skilled at all aspects of the game: list building, ship flying, and target priority. We're learning how to more properly value things and thus lists move to extremes that reflect these values (high attack, HP, dice mitigation). The new ships help us move in these directions, but they are not the cause.

EDIT: As an aside, why is a 4 AGL Phantom hard as nails and impossible to hurt, but Fel + SD is a vulnerable target that's always going to be automatically one shot?

This is primarily it. This is how metas evolve, as a finite and possible to understand number of pieces become understood.

Magic suffers form this problem, and they've decided to add yet another set to their rotation to increase number of pieces.

So where are the lizards and the Spocks?

I wonder if the Lizard and the Spock aren't talked about because the Fat Han is easy. By that I mean, how much of it is the path of least resistance. If Fat Han works and we all acknowledge that it does work and work well... Why put a lot of effort and chance of losing out at a tournament to on a build that you don't know will work.

I mean it may do well in your test games at the LGS but how many people figure it's just easier to take what they know works.

So where are the lizards and the Spocks?

I wonder if the Lizard and the Spock aren't talked about because the Fat Han is easy. By that I mean, how much of it is the path of least resistance. If Fat Han works and we all acknowledge that it does work and work well... Why put a lot of effort and chance of losing out at a tournament to on a build that you don't know will work.

I mean it may do well in your test games at the LGS but how many people figure it's just easier to take what they know works.

Because if it's so prevalent, doesn't it beg for people to come up with a counter that will work better than the 50-50 odds give by also fielding a Fat Falcon (cet. par.)?

doesn't it beg for people to come up with a counter that will work better than the 50-50 odds give by also fielding a Fat Falcon (cet. par.)?

Sure, and but it seems that's at least in part what's happening now. Lots of people looking for ways to beat Fat Han without flying Fat Han themselves.

That said, I'm trying to understand to what degree this particular complex adaptive system really depicts our situation.

Well, I think it's quite reasonable to accept the hypothesis that the metagame is a complex adaptive system. The degree to which I have a handle on what it looks like, of course, is open to question.

If it is true that the rock<paper<scissors model is an accurate one - in terms of expressed outcomes (the intersubjective construction) but not in terms of game fundamentals (the material base) - then why are we seeing such a dearth of people saying: "hey, I've got a list that is competitive against Falcon, Phantom, and Swarm!" Unlike a standard understanding of a complex adaptive system, we have an overarching system of communication that is allowing us to analyze the game holistically and draw conclusions.

Even without that overarching system of communication, one would think that the rocIk<paper<scissors aspect would generate its own failure (a peak, rather than a valley), as each of these archetype builds would deter one of the other archetype builds. I'm guessing that it's because of the sequential nature and a slowness to adapt. The Phantom deterred the swarm; the swarm being deterred allowed for the rise of the Fat Falcon, but the swarm remains deterred by the Phantom, because the Falcon failed to sufficiently deter the Phantom because of the Phantom's effectiveness against all other builds.

Suppose there is another build out there that interacts strongly with the three we're talking about (swarm, Phantom, and Falcon, which are almost meaninglessly vague descriptions but never mind that), or several such builds. If they're sufficiently remote from the local metagame--meaning "local" in terms of the fitness landscape, not real-world geography--we still might not see them.

That is, suppose there's a list out there with multiple Bombers and ordnance that has a 50/50 win/loss matchup against the swarm, a 40/60 matchup against Phantom lists, and an 80/20 matchup against Fat Falcons. It's not only unlike what's currently competitive, but it runs strongly counter to the norms we've built about what can be competitive: we all know that ordnance is inefficient and unreliable. So it would be hard to "see" that list in the current metagame even if it were very successful when it was run.

Alternately, suppose Phantoms and Falcons both represent "easy" solutions. (That is, almost every reasonably competent player has the skills to run them with at least moderate success.) Further suppose there's another set of lists that represent reasonable or favorable matchups against both of those, but this set of lists don't function well without some particular and unusual property of the player--some skill most people don't possess. That sort of interaction effect could be enough to bar those lists from the kind of positive feedback effect that brought HSF variants back to the fore.

Finally, it may be that there's a sort of time-and-energy budget in our ecosystem; we can only afford so many successful lists. If KineticOperator and others are right that the Phantom is narrowing things, I'd look for that bottleneck here: the Phantom has reduced the budget (or rather increased the investment required) to find a new successful list, particularly when the Falcon represents a high-efficiency fix (very likely to win, little effort required to come up with a successful combination of strategy and tactics).

A thought to add to the discussion...

A lot of people seem to think FFG needs to do something about this all. But how much of where we are now, is because FFG was trying to do something about the swarm?

Would Fat Han be such a big deal if with didn't have Phantoms? Lets say you were going to play in an event that didn't allow wave 4 ships, so no Phantom, no Z-95, but could bring 3-CPO. What effect would that have on the meta?

Lets go a step farther, lets say you knew that out of the 16 people playing 15 would be playing some version of a Fat Han/HSF, would you be able to come up with a list that could deal with all those falcons?

That said, I'm trying to understand to what degree this particular complex adaptive system really depicts our situation.

Well, I think it's quite reasonable to accept the hypothesis that the metagame is a complex adaptive system. The degree to which I have a handle on what it looks like, of course, is open to question.

I agree that it's a complex adaptive system. So, we might be meticulous in characterizing the agents within that system. In my view, the agents are players - not builds. That's because builds do not adapt themselves. That said, the build is the unit of analysis. I think we should also acknowledge - as you do - two levels of analysis; the global and the local meta. Also, that the global meta is not just the aggregate of all the local metas, because there are a lot of local metas that are inconsequential to the global metas. By this, I mean all those local metas that we don't hear from or are so casual that they don't have the same adaptive pressures that the tournament scene has.

Agents get their information from both the global meta as expressed (imperfectly) through this medium or Boardgamegeek, or wherever, and more reliably in their own experience in their local scene.

The global meta is the discourse about the games; not the actual games themselves. That's because (MJ's heroic efforts notwithstanding) we don't have an understanding of the broad sweep of games, only how those are reflected through imperfect media (ie. people griping on these boards).

Are you with me so far?

A lot of people seem to think FFG needs to do something about this all. But how much of where we are now, is because FFG was trying to do something about the swarm?

I don't know. I don't think the Phantom was a reaction to the swarm. I think the Phantom was introduced because they think it would be kewl .

I think that's a mischaracterization of my point. I've been fairly clear that not all players have this problem, and I hope I've been clear that it's not a problem of people being mindless drones.

Let's get the apology out of the way up front: Sorry that that came off directed entirely at you. It wasn't. I think (to be blunt) that you're far more dismissive to people these days than you need to be, but you're far better than some others. And yes, a great portion of the side you're on has come down simply to "everyone is mindless internet drones". I tend to reply to you because you're the most reasonable, and you get caught in the blast radius of the general response. Sorry about that.

Now, to substance...

Or, in other words, people are unhappy and they respond by saying "I hope someone does something," rather than by asking "What can I do?"

The game's designers are responsible for the elements we play with, and that means they're responsible to a substantial degree for the state of the game.

But that doesn't mean they're solely responsible, because they're not the ones telling us what to run. Additionally, their tools for dealing with this stuff are slow to arrive and not particularly suited to fine manipulation. (There are things they could do that would be quicker to respond but even more blunt--namely, restricting access for sanctioned events. Hopefully most people here agree that should be a last resort.)

So what I'm proposing is that we exert whatever control we have over the state of the game. What we can do (speaking as someone who is also bored with fighting Falcons) is to stop playing them . If you feel like the game is a boring exercise in rock-paper-scissors, then stop choosing rock, paper, or scissors and play something new. Pick something else you're interested in, build or find or ask someone for a list based around it, and try that instead.

You don't have to play in that sandbox; the only thing that's at stake is your win-loss record, which means that all that's required is an internal adjustment of priorities. If an interesting game is important to you--and I think this thread is evidence that it's important to lots of us--then you can choose to believe that we have to wait for FFG to fix things or you can choose to believe that you have some power to decide whether the game will continue to be interesting, and you can exercise that power by choosing to play something that's interesting to you.

This almost deserved patriotic music to be playing in the background

It's beautiful. Truly. And like so many beautiful things, I don't think it's the least bit realistic

I DON'T play Falcons often, and I don't play Phantoms often. I actually play aggressively and strongly against (as in playing the opposite, not building towards) the meta trends - I've never flown a swarm, etc. etc. And you know how much impact it's had on the overall meta? Pretty much zero.

Because the problem isn't what _I_ run, it's what everyone else runs. I can't tell a tournament opponent he can't fly Dash because I think it's stupid broken, or that Phantoms are off limits. Honestly, I'm not even comfortable doing that in a casual game - if something's in a game and valid for use, I feel like telling my opponent "I'm not going to play you if you fly that" is rude. Maybe that's a personal failing - maybe I should be more willing to only accept games from people who play what I want... but I suspect most people would look down at someone who went around telling people what they were allowed to fly.

Making an interesting game requires two players. Assuming I'm not going to tell my opponents what they're allowed to fly, I can only control half of it. Half a turret game is only slightly more interesting than an entirely turret game, and watching an X-wing try and chase a Phantom around honestly really isn't interesting at all. It's like trying to put a puzzle together with half the pieces missing - sure it's harder, but it's certainly no more interesting than working on it normally. Frustrating, yes. Hard, yes. Interesting? Not at all.

So again, I well and truly appreciate the optimism, but I don't believe we can change it. Been dealing with gamers for too long. People will play what they think wins, which will be a combination of what they read and what they experience. Even if I were inclined, I'm not going to convince people to start playing builds they feel are weaker just because I don't like turrets.

Edit: To add, I really don't think there's anything wrong with the idea that we can change it, but our views of the viability of the idea are determined by our view of the root cause. You think the issue is largely perceptual - that the Falcon and Phantom really aren't any better than anything else out there. I think the use of them is rooted in experience, that people might try them based on word of mouth but wouldn't stick with them if they weren't reliable. If the problem is perceptual, then getting people to try new builds will work, as they experience other viable options. If it's real, it won't.

You guys worry too much about lists and less on how to fly them.

No matter how well you fly 2-3 b-wings, i will kill them with whisper, even if you killed the rest of my list. That's the point, Duraham already posted about these "unwinnable" scenarios. People mocked him.

Nera Dantels and Flechette Torps. Throw her in with 2 more B's, and we'll see how well Whisper does..

Nera Dantels and Flechette Torps. Throw her in with 2 more B's, and we'll see how well Whisper does..

Assuming you can ever pull the trigger on them. Nera has the same donut hole problem that Dash does, but without the mega-mobility.

And even if you get the shot off, so what? You won't cost them an action, you won't stop the recloak, all you'll do is force them into a green maneuver, which the Phantom's decloak move still makes one of the most maneuverable options in the game.

Let's get the apology out of the way up front...

No apology necessary.

I think (to be blunt) that you're far more dismissive to people these days than you need to be...

Admittedly. I have a lot less patience with some of the nonsense that goes around here than I did even a few months ago.

I DON'T play Falcons often, and I don't play Phantoms often. I actually play aggressively and strongly against (as in playing the opposite, not building towards) the meta trends - I've never flown a swarm, etc. etc. And you know how much impact it's had on the overall meta? Pretty much zero.

Well, yeah. You're one person--one agent, to use Mikael's unit of analysis, in a sea of agents.

Because the problem isn't what _I_ run, it's what everyone else runs. I can't tell a tournament opponent he can't fly Dash because I think it's stupid broken, or that Phantoms are off limits. Honestly, I'm not even comfortable doing that in a casual game - if something's in a game and valid for use, I feel like telling my opponent "I'm not going to play you if you fly that" is rude. Maybe that's a personal failing - maybe I should be more willing to only accept games from people who play what I want... but I suspect most people would look down at someone who went around telling people what they were allowed to fly.

I don't think you should, actually; if you're going to beat the meta, or leave and drag it with you, you're going to (a) need target practice and (b) need to persuade people to come along with you, probably by blowing them up repeatedly until they get the point.

So again, I well and truly appreciate the optimism, but I don't believe we can change it. Been dealing with gamers for too long. People will play what they think wins, which will be a combination of what they read and what they experience. Even if I were inclined, I'm not going to convince people to start playing builds they feel are weaker just because I don't like turrets.

Edit: To add, I really don't think there's anything wrong with the idea that we can change it, but our views of the viability of the idea are determined by our view of the root cause. You think the issue is largely perceptual - that the Falcon and Phantom really aren't any better than anything else out there. I think the use of them is rooted in experience, that people might try them based on word of mouth but wouldn't stick with them if they weren't reliable. If the problem is perceptual, then getting people to try new builds will work, as they experience other viable options. If it's real, it won't.

It's not that I don't think Falcons and Phantoms are strong and reliable; it's that I don't think they're the only strong and reliable builds. Likewise, the problem is perceptual not because people perceive Falcons etc. to be very strong but that they perceive them to be the only choices that are strong enough to compete.

The only way to prove that would be to get a relatively large group of people to play non-standard builds successfully. So while it doesn't matter to the metagame that you don't play Falcons or Phantoms, it would matter a lot if you were playing other things and winning, and so is the rest of your local playgroup, and so am I and so is my local playgroup (when I find it), and so is Hothie and his group, etc.

I admit it's hard to prove, because what I'm proposing is essentially that there are builds out there that could participate in the metagame but aren't because no one--[/i]including me[/i]--knows for sure what they are. (I've got some ideas, but I'm not sure this is the right thread for that.)

But again, the only cost is that you'll lose some friendly games until you figure it out. And, at least if you enjoy experimenting with new lists more than you care about winning, that's not really a cost at all.

You guys worry too much about lists and less on how to fly them.

No matter how well you fly 2-3 b-wings, i will kill them with whisper, even if you killed the rest of my list. That's the point, Duraham already posted about these "unwinnable" scenarios. People mocked him.

To be fair, it's because he was wrong. Whether you'll kill my 2-3 B-wings with Whisper depends on which B-wings they are, how they're outfitted, which of us is the better player, and which of us has the better rolls--but not merely on the fact that you have Whisper and I have B-wings.

To be fair, it's because he was wrong. Whether you'll kill my 2-3 B-wings with Whisper depends on which B-wings they are, how they're outfitted, which of us is the better player, and which of us has the better rolls--but not merely on the fact that you have Whisper and I have B-wings.

Agreed.

The only way to prove that would be to get a relatively large group of people to play non-standard builds successfully. So while it doesn't matter to the metagame that you don't play Falcons or Phantoms, it would matter a lot if you were playing other things and winning , and so is the rest of your local playgroup, and so am I and so is my local playgroup (when I find it), and so is Hothie and his group, etc.

I admit it's hard to prove, because what I'm proposing is essentially that there are builds out there that could participate in the metagame but aren't because no one--[/i]including me[/i]--knows for sure what they are. (I've got some ideas, but I'm not sure this is the right thread for that.)

I don't disagree with this, but you say it like nobody's trying. We had zero Falcons at our last tournament, but a Phantom build rampaged through three rounds something like 288-12 before losing in the final match to an Etahn/Wes/Z-95 list flown by the guy who took second at our regional. Edit: To clarify, we had Phantoms, but nobody took the accepted solution to them, and the Phantom had a field day.

I think you're assuming that these other builds are out there, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's almost starting to feel faith-based. At what point does the faith break down? Will it ever be possible for there to be an actual problem, or will the solution always be sitting there just out of reach? You seem sure these other builds exist - is there anything to actually support that they do?

And just to tie it all the way back to the beginning - we're still talking builds. If the game were still about flight tactics more than taking the right abilities, we'd be talking about approach patterns, movement prediction, when to roll in and when to run away. But it's still, always, build selection.

No, if both are decent players, the whisper player will win. Dice don't amount for much in that match up, i had had that match up with entire pillow fight on my part, but ended up killing both in almost 20 minutes, just getting into the arc of 1 of them twice. No matter how you move, B's movements are too short to surprise a phantom.

And just to tie it all the way back to the beginning - we're still talking builds. If the game were still about flight tactics more than taking the right abilities, we'd be talking about approach patterns, movement prediction, when to roll in and when to run away. But it's still, always, build selection.

That might be more of an internet issue, than anything else. Without taking the time to take Vassal screenshots, etc., it can be somewhat difficult to illustrate the maneuvering necessary to deal with Phantoms, etc., whereas it's no trouble at all to push some ships around after a game in person ("if you'd moved like this , I couldn't have gotten behind Corran...").

Speaking for my own local player base, the post-game/post-mortem is an invaluable tool for honing flight tactics.

No, if both are decent players, the whisper player will win. Dice don't amount for much in that match up, i had had that match up with entire pillow fight on my part, but ended up killing both in almost 20 minutes, just getting into the arc of 1 of them twice. No matter how you move, B's movements are too short to surprise a phantom.

For B-wings vs a Phantom, it's not about surprise maneuvers so much as positioning overlapping fire arcs for area denial.

B-wings are adept enough at knife-fighting that a couple of them with FCS should pose a strong challenge for a Phantom. Three of them should be really difficult for Whisper to kill.

No, if both are decent players, the whisper player will win. Dice don't amount for much in that match up, i had had that match up with entire pillow fight on my part, but ended up killing both in almost 20 minutes, just getting into the arc of 1 of them twice. No matter how you move, B's movements are too short to surprise a phantom.

For B-wings vs a Phantom, it's not about surprise maneuvers so much as positioning overlapping fire arcs for area denial.

B-wings are adept enough at knife-fighting that a couple of them with FCS should pose a strong challenge for a Phantom. Three of them should be really difficult for Whisper to kill.

Well, yes, if you commit 100 points of B-wings to killing 40 points of Whisper, it WILL be tough on Whisper. Is that our new standard? If it can't win 40v100 it's balanced just fine?

Well, yes, if you commit 100 points of B-wings to killing 40 points of Whisper, it WILL be tough on Whisper. Is that our new standard? If it can't win 40v100 it's balanced just fine?

Not at all. My point was that Whisper vs two b-wings (44 points vs 48, say) is not an autowin for Whisper, and that--contrary to his position--I think that Whisper vs 3 b-wings is nearly an unwinnable scenario.

Builds are the most tangential thing we can talk about.

Talking about strategy inevitable turns into "I will do this, but then I will do this, but I will do this" ad nauseum. Hell, it's happening with talk about builds. A side effect of an increasing card pool, I guess.