So, what remains for us:

Rank speculation of how the meta is going to be affected by Wave 5. I do think that Nera from Rebel Aces + Roark might have some affect as a Phantom hunting duo, but I still have to test this theory.

Your thoughts?

While I'm not going to get down in the muck of this discussion again, I will point out that whatever change Wave 5 has on the meta will be very brief and will only be notable at a local level (where things will vary widely) There won't be any formal large tournaments and very few informal ones before Wave 6 hits.

instead of buffing weak and underplayed ships, of which there currently exist a huge list (TIEadv TIEint TIEbomber Ywing), wouldnt it be much more effective if we targetted the strong ships and bring them down instead? (ACD phantom / maxed out Falcon)

What I'm suggesting, if it's not clear, is that in order to make X-wing look like rock-paper-scissors, you have to either make your categories broad but overly vague, or specific but overly narrow (missing most of the lists that placed in major events). And that in turn means that it actually isn't clear at all that X-wing currently reflects an RPS.

Yes, I get that. You can make your categories so tight as to exclude reality or you can make your categories so broad so as to be meaningless. However, that sounds like you're trying to refute the theory on methodological grounds rather than empirical grounds. Surely that can't be the spirit of your argument.

The Phantom list is a list where a named Phantom with ACD+VI is the centerpiece of the list, just like the Fat Falcon probably takes up the majority of the list's points.

To a large extent, I agree with the constructivist position that much of this is in our heads. Because we can't know the specifics of another list while we're still building ours, we have a fuzzy idea of the list we're trying to counter. That fuzzy idea focuses on the centerpiece, and thus our attempts to counter that centerpiece is foremost on our minds. That's why there's no point in getting too precise with the definition of the type of list. It's kind of like the Justice Potter argument about hard-core porn:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Is that as analytically precise as we would like? No, but death-by-definition is not a useful counter-argument. The same goes for your definition of R<P<S. Sure, we want to try to be analytically precise if we want to really empirically see if that's the system we have, but none of us who could do such a project should make the time to do so. You and MJ have dissertations to write and I have classes to teach and papers to grade.

instead of buffing weak and underplayed ships, of which there currently exist a huge list (TIEadv TIEint TIEbomber Ywing), wouldnt it be much more effective if we targetted the strong ships and bring them down instead? (ACD phantom / maxed out Falcon)

Both are necessary. Banning ACD would make phantoms a lot more reasonable, but it wouldn't do anything to make the TIE advanced a viable option. It would still be worse than all of the other imperial ships, and there would be no reason to take it. Contrast this with the a-wing, which is now a much more competitive option independent compared to the other rebel ships instead of being ignored in favor of more b-wings and z-95s. A proper approach to balance would keep this in mind: get rid of ACD (and potentially nerf Falcons if removing the obsessive need to bring anti-phantom turrets doesn't do the job) and also buff the TIE advanced.

I REALLY think part of the problem is that we are all looking at the Nationals lists as what there is. Since then:

1) Rebel Aces is out

2) Rebel Transport has had more circulation

3) People have had more experience against Phantoms and figured out ways to beat it.

4) People get bored and want to play new lists

How dated is the info we are talking about here? I believe part of the problem lies in what forms the internet discussion on things. There is "net listing" (building lists from the internet discussion) that happens, but how often are there large enough events that alter the meta (even if to just reinforce it)?

What I'm suggesting, if it's not clear, is that in order to make X-wing look like rock-paper-scissors, you have to either make your categories broad but overly vague, or specific but overly narrow (missing most of the lists that placed in major events). And that in turn means that it actually isn't clear at all that X-wing currently reflects an RPS.

Yes, I get that. You can make your categories so tight as to exclude reality or you can make your categories so broad so as to be meaningless. However, that sounds like you're trying to refute the theory on methodological grounds rather than empirical grounds. Surely that can't be the spirit of your argument.

No, it's an empirical argument at heart: I don't think RPS says anything that's useful, because I haven't yet seen or come up with definitions that allow me to use that structure to determine anything about the game.

The Phantom list is a list where a named Phantom with ACD+VI is the centerpiece of the list...

Okay, but define "centerpiece". I can run Echo + VI + ACD for just 35 points, and obviously the other 65 points are important to how I fly the list, or to how I would address it if I'm the opponent.

...just like the Fat Falcon probably takes up the majority of the list's points.

You're on stronger ground here because there are lots of Falcon builds in the neighborhood of 60 points, and a 40-point limit on your escorts naturally limits the available diversity. But it doesn't relaly limit it enough: does a double Falcon build count as "Falcon" for the purposes of an RPS model? Is Han/Biggs/Tala Squadron meaningfully similar to Han/4x Bandit Squadron, and does either have much to do with how you'd fly or oppose Han/Corran?

To a large extent, I agree with the constructivist position that much of this is in our heads. Because we can't know the specifics of another list while we're still building ours, we have a fuzzy idea of the list we're trying to counter. That fuzzy idea focuses on the centerpiece, and thus our attempts to counter that centerpiece is foremost on our minds. That's why there's no point in getting too precise with the definition of the type of list.

My point, though, is that this "fuzzy idea" isn't enough to get real-world results. Even if you tell me I'm going to face a Falcon list, I honestly know very little about either what or how I need to fly to have a likely chance to win. If you tell me it's a Han list with a lot of upgrades, I know a little more, but it's still not really enough.

As a concrete example situated in even that relatively restrictive description, against a Han + 3x Talas list you should probably expect to see two different groups coming at you, with one used as a flanking element, and it's typically wise to kill the Falcon while your offensive strength is at the strongest point of the match. But against something like Han/Biggs/Tala list, you're probably looking at a single Range 1-sized grouping of ships, and Biggs is necessarily going to be your first target.

If I were building simply to oppose the Han/Biggs/Tala list, I'd probably want to bring some elements that punish the formation, and/or I'd want to load up with enough alpha-strike/jousting dice to confidently wipe Biggs out in a single pass. If I were building simply to oppose Han + PTL + Gunner + Threepio + Engine Upgrade + title, I'd want a mini-swarm for blocking as well as a harder-hitting element that can take a couple of punches from Han without falling over, and I'd probably want a Rebel Captive to help shut down his action advantage even further, and I might even want a Sensor Jammer to poke fun at his single, massively inefficient attack.

(And although I won't go into them in detail, hopefully it's clear that different tactical/maneuvering approaches would also be necessary to oppose each list.)

Is [Potter] as analytically precise as we would like? No, but death-by-definition is not a useful counter-argument. The same goes for your definition of R<P<S. Sure, we want to try to be analytically precise if we want to really empirically see if that's the system we have, but none of us who could do such a project should make the time to do so. You and MJ have dissertations to write and I have classes to teach and papers to grade.

Just to reiterate: it's not about verifying to an arbitrary degree whether we really have a rock-paper-scissors game, but about whether it's truly useful to picture the game as rock-paper-scissors at all. What I'm saying here is that it's possibly useful as a metaphor for explaining how people can break out of the trap that's been constructed (i.e., if it's all RPS then find lizard and Spock!) but not particularly useful as a way to prepare for a game or a series of games.

How dated is the info we are talking about here? I believe part of the problem lies in what forms the internet discussion on things. There is "net listing" (building lists from the internet discussion) that happens, but how often are there large enough events that alter the meta (even if to just reinforce it)?

I think the nationals data is pretty up-to-date, as the events are still happening.

I'm not writing (in) this thread in order to foment despair. Obviously the meta will change. Maybe with Rebel Aces already, and maybe with Wave 5. Of course, the turrets of Wave 5 might just reinforce the current meta, being turret heavy, or maybe they'll deter the Phantom enough so that it becomes a much rarer piece.

I'm hoping on deterrence to open the meta up more. I think talk of banning certain cards are non-starter propositions, regardless of how well argued they are. They've been published and it wouldn't be right of FFG to pull a bait-and-switch.

What I would like is for all or most ships to be viable without needing fixes such as they gave the A-Wing and they've all but promised for the TIE Adv. I do think that it takes interventions to make that happen, but that those interventions shouldn't be forceful or drastic.

The thing about complex adaptive systems, such as X-Wing or the economy, is that while it frequently does call out for intervention - because complex adaptive systems rarely give us optimal outcomes - you don't want your interventions to be heavy handed nor are the best solutions going to frequently come from silver-bullet single fixes.

I'm fairly confident that this is FFG's approach, but at the same time they're fallible humans who make mistakes. I do think that ACD was a mistake, but here it is and we have to live with it. Hopefully more turrets will reduce the ACD Phantom population, and then the TIE Swarm can bring down the turret-centered build, and then build using ships that are currently being overlooked can become more viable.

It's the circle of life, folks.

I am not sure we are at rock-paper-scissors, but there are certainly three "A-List" builds, those being Phantom and...., Fat Han and...., Tie swarm variants.

None of them are invincible, but when paired with a good player, they have a considerable edge and many lists cannot stand against them.

I actually think Rebel Aces brought some relief to the table. A-wings are now very viable both against Phantoms and Han, less so against a swarm I fear.

Dantels, used with the correct squad mates, can be lethal against all comers and will bring a wave 1 and wave 2 pilot to the fore as support.

Wave 5, for me will change little, it's all turret work, which is ho-hum for me. I do think that "Stay on Target" will be a game changer when people learn what it can truly do, but that one card shouldn't define a wave.

More thoughts later.

How dated is the info we are talking about here? I believe part of the problem lies in what forms the internet discussion on things. There is "net listing" (building lists from the internet discussion) that happens, but how often are there large enough events that alter the meta (even if to just reinforce it)?

I think the nationals data is pretty up-to-date, as the events are still happening.

Breaking news from last weekend, Spanish Nationals had 149 people, and according to Theorist http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/2014/10/02/tc-open-round-2-game-logs/ the winning list was:

Roark + Moldy Crow + Blaster Turret + Chewbacca Crew

Airen Cracken

2x Blue Squadron Pilot + Fire-Control System

That's 97 points, so there must have been another 3 points of upgrades floating around there somewhere.

Next week they will have the Top 32 squads listed at rojocinco.es

At the risk of exposing my own ignorance (I wasn't at GenCon and I don't really Vassal since I find the experience unfun), how have we seen the Decimator stacking up against the Fat Falcon?

It doesn't give us the number of attacks necessary to eat through C-3P0, but it can't be arc-dodged easily and (with Ysanne or others) seems just as tough for the Falcon to chew through. While it *could* lead to a big ship versus big ship slugfest, it seems as if it could also lead to less big ships--at least in timed matches.

Dash + HLC may be the counter to this though, I suppose.

No, it's an empirical argument at heart: I don't think RPS says anything that's useful, because I haven't yet seen or come up with definitions that allow me to use that structure to determine anything about the game.

Okay - if it's an empirical argument at heart, then we need to be serious about falsification. Thus far all I'm seeing is definitional falsification. If you can reject a broad-but-reasonable definition of R>P>S using broad-but-reasonable definitions of what constitutes Rs, Ps, and Ss, then you've got something.

Okay, but define "centerpiece"

The POS item in the list that's going to scare the crap out of me.

I know that at more subtle levels of understanding the holistics of a build (rather than the particulars of particular items within it), which you and MJ share, there's a huge amount of diversity. At the more rudimentary level of understanding/insight where I'm at - and the bulk of people playing the game - the R>S>P is about just the centerpieces - the thing we want to kill more than anything, because we're afraid of facing it in the end game.

And, while I'm sure the greater, more subtle, more holistic understanding is beyond my ken right now, us groundlings are looking at the championship-winning lists and seeing hardly anything but Fat Falcons and named Phantoms (Rocks and Scissors) and the occasional TIE Swarm (Paper).

So, if R>S>P is a bad model, do you have a better model that helps a n00b like me understand the meta more accurately? Because like-it-or-lump-it, my brain is going to understand the meta in the most helpful metaphor, even if the metaphor is frayed at the edges.

Another major negative to the constant RPS argument is that people start to replace aspects of the game with the metaphor and reinforces the notion that list building is more important than other aspects of the game.

For example, just a couple weeks ago someone complained when they brought a swarm against a Fat Han and they didn't win.

The game just isn't that simplistic.

Vorpal Sword:

Here is a way to explain "centerpiece" that I would be interested in seeing you address.

When building lists, it is much less useful to identify ships than it is to identify core win mechanisms. For example, an 8 TIE swarm primarily wins games by leveraging two mechanisms, action advantage and diffuse strength. To leverage the first, you ideally deny your opponent actions while taking all 8 of yours, providing you a qualitative advantage on your dice. The second is leveraged by providing your opponent a large number of possible targets, the loss of any particular one of which does not impact your effectiveness disproportionately (because none of the ships are individually more important than the others, and there are a lot of them).

A Super Falcon list has as two core win mechanisms. One, a reliable way to elude 2 damage per turn on a single ship regardless of the number of attacks. Two, a solid position game that allows you to maintain firepower while avoiding enemy arcs. When running Super Falcons you look for a way to maximize the first by reducing the number of attacks against your Falcon. This means optimizing your play so that the Falcon exactly one attack, no more no less, so that it has the largest relative value. I should note that this is as opposed to allowing those attacks against your other ships, if you can have ALL your ships avoid fire that is obviously better. You leverage the second by putting upgrades on your ships and flying in a way that allows you the most relative movement. Any list that uses these two core mechanisms is going to build and play the same, and will require the same counters on your opponents part.

All of the Falcon builds at Nationals share the same core mechanisms. Some are better, some are worse, and some matchups are better depending on what list you are running but they all seek to leverage the same thing in order to win. Your game against them will be decided based on how well your list denies them while leveraging your own mechanisms, and no matter which one of those you play against the experience will be very similar. Echo and Whisper share the same mechanism as well. Depending on your list one or the other of these are going to be a tougher nut to crack, but from a game play perspective they are nearly identical.

What we have lost are the ultra-high firepower lists (XXBB), the control lists (Ions, Convoy), the combo lists (like Dutch, Garven, Kyle), the sub PS-9 friends lists (multiple powerful individual ships that operate independently), and all the other less well defined archetypes. All we have left Super Falcons, Phantoms, and ultra-high PS friends lists. That's it for now.

I could go on more, but this is already long and sufficient to explain the main point. When building you identify your win mechanisms and any lose mechanisms (things that could be done that are especially dangerous to this list), then when playing the game you try to maximize the first and minimize the second. If the lists you face all share the same list of win and lose mechanisms, the games will all feel the same regardless of small individual variations. This is what people are feeling, even if they haven't managed to quantify it or put it into words.

If you're only counting 3PO lists as super falcon lists they really aren't as common. I've seen one out of 20+ tournament lists locally.

I don't think we really need a metaphore. With Rock, Paper, Scissors, it's absolute. There is no chance. Rock beats Scissors, but always loses to paper. When you have Fat Han, Phantom, and Tie Swarm, it's not a sure thing that one will beat the other. So, you can't really use the metaphore well.

I would say that those three are the strongest builds that we have seen so far at large events (at least up to Gencon). Phantoms were new then and all the rage. Many players loved Phantoms and how to use them. You could win against many opponents with a Phantom. No one had really developed ways to fight a Phantom. The easy fix for it was to use Fat Han with 360 fire. It was already a strong list, but it was also great against the latest toy that people were using.

It's been 2 months since then and people who are really into X-wing have been thinking of the overuse of Phantoms and Fat Hans. We've had Rebel Aces come out, as well as more people getting Rebel Transport. People have developed strategies to fight Phantoms that don't auto rely on Fat Han. I bet if you re-did Gencon today that you would find more variety in the lists played.

One thing I'm not sure on as I only play in my small pond of players is what people are really playing against these days. Is all you see Fat Hans and Phantoms? Is that what your local people are playing? If so, then perhaps your area is too much into the grips of "the meta". I'm sure it would change soon. Just beef up on strategies to beat Phantoms and Fat Hans and I'm sure you will do well.

Y-Wings are going to make a huge comeback with Experimental Interface. They will be the Lizards in this rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock meta.

I'll show you! I'll show you all!!!!!

It seems to be that anything that can pour on Stress can help break the meta. The Falcon can't be super manueverable if it's doing only green manuevers. Also, Phantoms will have a hard time if stressed, as well. There are a couple more things that help generate stress these days, even against a large ship (non flachette torpedoes).

I wanted to contribute to this thread, but the post that I was making was too long, so I made a seperate one:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/123979-boba’s-counter-meta-list-strategy/

It's a "Spock", including information on deployment, asteroid placement, strategies; all of them meant to work against elements of the feared "meta" and still work against standard lists. It's pretty long though, but it should prove constructive.

Have fun!

When building lists, it is much less useful to identify ships than it is to identify core win mechanisms.

Yes, this seems to help us understand all this more.

I don't think we really need a metaphore. With Rock, Paper, Scissors, it's absolute. There is no chance. Rock beats Scissors, but always loses to paper. When you have Fat Han, Phantom, and Tie Swarm, it's not a sure thing that one will beat the other. So, you can't really use the metaphore well.

This is death-by-narrow-definition and straw-man arguing.

We all acknowledge that skill and dice matter to some degree. Lately I've been a little pessimistic about how much they matter, but I know that I'm in a mood with a pessimistic bias these days. We can differ about how much the build-match-up will determine the outcome of the game.

However, I do think that you have to be willfully blind to believe that build doesn't matter at all. Presuming you're not willfully blind, then the niche discussion becomes what the basic outlines of the build ecology are. That's where I think we're having meaningful discussion in this thread, building on what was written in the earlier edition of this thread.

So there's plenty of room not to despair, even if the R<P<S is currently true. Now, I'm open to Vorpal Sword et al.'s argument about how that model does not capture the current meta, but thus far I've not seen anything overwhelmingly compelling; and I've certainly not seen a more compelling model.

So there's plenty of room not to despair, even if the R<P<S is currently true. Now, I'm open to Vorpal Sword et al.'s argument about how that model does not capture the current meta, but thus far I've not seen anything overwhelmingly compelling; and I've certainly not seen a more compelling model.

People will get better at fighting against Phantoms. New ships will help people not want to fly Fat Hans. New builds will triumph. Look at the Spanish Nationals that just happened. The guy who won didn't fly a rock, scissors, or paper.

Stress is something that can weaken Phantoms and Fat Hans. I think we will see more stress inducing lists.

I missed something. What is a lizard, and what is a spock?

I missed something. What is a lizard, and what is a spock?

Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock version from the Big Bang theory

I missed something. What is a lizard, and what is a spock?

Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock version from the Big Bang theory

oh, this explains why I don't get the joke

Here is a way to explain "centerpiece" that I would be interested in seeing you address.

When building lists, it is much less useful to identify ships than it is to identify core win mechanisms...

So I think my position is that RPS is an unhelpful guide to those core win mechanisms, and in fact can obscure them.

I think it might be worth taking the idea you've described one step further: a "core win mechanism" could be further broken down to at least one desired win state (e.g., my Han + Threepio + Falcon title is still on the board after your offense has degraded beyond the ability to meaningfully damage it), and at least one path to it (e.g., force an early confrontation with the escort fighters and position Han out of opposing firing arcs). More simply, you have to know how you're going to win and what it's going to look like when you do.

The critical point there is that the same desired state can have multiple paths. A double Falcon list might be pictured as having the same win state as a Super Falcon list, but gets there differently: the second Falcon is far less efficient than the Super Falcon's escort fighters, but you're paid back when your opponent is forced to leave one of the Falcons for the endgame.

So putting language to intuition now, here's what I'm perceiving as important differences among (e.g.) the Falcon lists at the US Nationals. Jeff Berling's double Falcons have the same win state as Paul's Heaver's Han/Biggs/Tala, and they also have the same path to that state even though they look different: each forces the opponent to leave a Falcon for (at least) second. But that's different from the two Han/4x Bandit lists, which actually have two possible win states (a swarm-style endgame and a Super-Falcon-style endgame), and presumably a path to each of those states. And both are different from Piqsid's Han/Corran list, which would prefer a Han endgame but would accept a Corran endgame.

You could instead group the Lando/Chewie list in with the Han/Corran list, if you feel like the Lando endgame is qualitatively different from the Chewie endgame. In either case, though, there were five Falcon lists in the US Nationals Top 8, but rather than belonging to a single group I'd separate them into three different "core win mechanisms" (although there's some overlap). Maybe Mikael is right and that's overly subtle, but at least to me it says important things about what kind of lists I can probably run effectively against each, and about how I'd have to fly my list in order to win.

What we have lost are the ultra-high firepower lists (XXBB), the control lists (Ions, Convoy), the combo lists (like Dutch, Garven, Kyle), the sub PS-9 friends lists (multiple powerful individual ships that operate independently), and all the other less well defined archetypes. All we have left Super Falcons, Phantoms, and ultra-high PS friends lists. That's it for now.

To me, though, this verges on the related but distinct question of why we're missing each of those archetypes. You're right that a lot of them are gone, and I think it's a combination of real ineffectiveness (e.g., control lists can actually beat many Phantom lists handily, but in my experience struggle to bring enough offense to take down high-HP lists like Falcon + Headhunters) with perceived ineffectiveness (e.g., no one thinks "sub-PS9 friends lists" can deal with lists that rely on Phantoms in the end state), and/or inertia (high-PS turrets are the easiest way to block positional win states).

Anyway, my point here is not to argue that the set of competitive lists is no narrower now than it was before the introduction of the Phantom; that would be really hard to do (although given the perennial ascendance of the swarm, not impossible).

I could go on more, but this is already long and sufficient to explain the main point. When building you identify your win mechanisms and any lose mechanisms (things that could be done that are especially dangerous to this list), then when playing the game you try to maximize the first and minimize the second. If the lists you face all share the same list of win and lose mechanisms, the games will all feel the same regardless of small individual variations. This is what people are feeling, even if they haven't managed to quantify it or put it into words.

What I'm trying to say is this: perceiving the game through the lens of a rock-paper-scissors analogy makes you more prone not necessarily to see problems where there are none (although that can certainly happen), but to magnify problems that do exist.

If you talk about X-wing as an RPS-style game, you're implicitly adopting the position that the choices available to you are exclusive, exhaustive, and absolute. If the language you use to describe X-wing implies that that all the lists you face are drawn from the same limited set, then you have adopted a rhetorical position that ignores the variation that does exist; all Falcon lists start to look the same even when some are Super Falcons and some are not, and all Phantoms start to look the same regardless of how your opponent spent the other 60+ points.

I think the Spanish Nationals would disagree with the current RPS sentiment. At 100+ players, the results are pretty significant, imo.