Given you don't let a totally new player play vs a veteran.

Is my impression correct that more and more of the result is decided by the lists/squads.

With less specialized fighters and less extreme combos i think the game was more open to various results in early waves than it is now.

E.g. before the Phantom changes i played a rather agile list with two A-Wings and a B-Wing against a list wich Whisper Echo and some kind of fill up ship. Even though i could use 3 actions with one a-wing 2 with the and even the B-Wing had PTL i think i could do absolutely nothing. They two Phantoms just always positioned themselves after my movement.

Now this is a very extreme example and im aware of the fact that the Phantoms mechanics changed. However my point is that with certain lists you have a very hard time to do anything vs a list that counters your own strenghs. My impression is this happens far more often than in the early times of X-Wings lifetime.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think certain matchups are extremely difficult even if one player is better. As game complexity increases there's really no way to stop this. But tournament performance isn't all about lists. Plenty of people go 2-4 with fantastic lists.

Given that FFG has balanced things very well, and there's that "random" dice factor... no. You don't auto-lose or auto-win anything. There are bad matchups, but this is where player skill and strategy play in far more.

The question is not so much about an auto lose but about the tendency. The game development. Does it have a higher impact? Why? Can it be counteracted? Would that be wanted?

Of course you still play, can chose bad maneauvers and dice still play a huge role.

I've gone up against some crazy squads and lost, though i was also using crazy squads...

eh, sometimes you can foul up and sometimes your opponent can make the most of your foul up.

So no. Some squads do have bad or good matchups. Dice do make a difference. But your decisions ultimately matter.

I played the most games in a row this weekend I ever had before.

Of the 7 games I played, one was probably decided by the dice (when accuracy corrector triggers on B wings that much, yeesh).

Every other game I felt like I had a chance and can point to crucial turns, moves, or decisions I made that lost (or won) me the game.

As long as your squad is decently built, you stand a chance in games. However, you must have answers to the top meta builds if you want to make cuts. Answers in the form of hard counters or answers in terms of plans of engagement.

I played the most games in a row this weekend I ever had before.

Of the 7 games I played, one was probably decided by the dice (when accuracy corrector triggers on B wings that much, yeesh).

Every other game I felt like I had a chance and can point to crucial turns, moves, or decisions I made that lost (or won) me the game.

As long as your squad is decently built, you stand a chance in games. However, you must have answers to the top meta builds if you want to make cuts. Answers in the form of hard counters or answers in terms of plans of engagement.

You last point is interesting i think. Does the specialization limit your options to simply create a list of ships you would like to play?

If you already need to think of answers to popular builds to have a chance in random games that wouldnt be a good situation in my opinion.

Your other statements rather say its not as relevant, but then the last sentence argues it is very relevant. Maybe the actual results of those 7 games are already influenced by you taking it into account when creating lists more than one would want to?

I think two things:

1) There will literally always be a subset of top builds. That is how competitive games work. You should always have a plan to fight them, no matter your list, if you are trying to be serious and competitive. Off lists totally work, but if you throw **** together, don't plan for the top lists, then get crushed, don't be surprised. If you play an off list well and with a plan, you can do wonderfully.

2) Restriction breeds better list building. Sure there's a wonderful la la land where you can play 6 rebel operatives and do well because that's fun somehow, but realistically you are constrained in building by counters and what's hot in the meta. This means you need to build creatively with whatever ships you love to have a plan to beat the popular stuff.

I think any decent list can table a tournament, you just need a plan for the popular stuff and tons of practice.

Squad building is part of the game and personally I think it is one of the most fun parts. It is the part where you get to strategize without time limits. If you don't like the idea of planning to counter certain list, than think of it as planning for your weaknesses. To do that you must know what other ships are out there and what they can do. If you thoroughly know the strengths of your list and have done your best to shore up it's weaknesses (either by modifying it or having a flight strategy) then you should be competitive.

If you've done all of that without any specific lists to counter in mind that is fine, but it seems a bit foolish to not use information you have available to you. All competitive sports and games require you to analyze your opponent in some form or another. If it is a near certainty you will see a particular play (or list in the case of X-Wing) and you don't plan for and practice beating it, you really don't have a lot of room to complain about the loss.

I'm not a someone that believes that X-Wing is in a state of bring a meta list or perish, but I do think that a lot of your success will be determined by what you've done prior to the match or tournament.

Don't get me wrong i like the planning part of list building. However for many lists there are pretty extreme counters. If you happen to play them without integrating certain combinations or upgrades in your list your chances are pretty slim. Maybe im thinking too much out of tournament game play for this forum :-D

I just think that the lists you encounter get more and more extreme.

The higher up in the skill level, the less builds and dice decide the outcome. The lower the skill level, the more the build and dice decide the outcome.

The higher up in the skill level, the less builds and dice decide the outcome. The lower the skill level, the more the build and dice decide the outcome.

Hmm i cant agree to that statement. Why do you think it is like that?

If both players play at the same very high level maneauvers and tactics should be one of the least deciding factors because both sides make less mistakes. The range of dice rolls stays the same and is rather unpredictable avor a single game with only a few turns. However what maneauvers and dice are available to you is goverend by your list. So if a list has more options to act against another list that should give you an advantage in both maneauvers and dice rolls (at a random encounter of those lists, not with preparing against a list).

The way i see it is that on the same level, skill has the least impact. On different skill levels its impact on the game can grow higher than the other factors.

Clearly the 40k refugee's are to blame we need to kick those illegals out of our IP, let them be attack wings problem!

This game is equal part flying and preperation. Sure, you can improvise all you want during casual nights, but when preparing for a competition, it pays to start studying how your squad synergises, where to play asteroids and in what manner to deploy your troops (not to mention what to do against other archtypes).

It was that way when lists were just Ties and B-Wings flying against each other and it still is the case today. They are different lists, however, and some lists are more forgiving to fly than others.

in wave 4 and 5, yes.

in wave6? not really anymore.

but you should play a meta list if you think it helps you

Here is my first random thoughts on this...

1. A larger number of players have learned how to be good at this game

2. This actually means there are more players of about an equal skill level than there were when the game was new.

3. In X Wing, the winner of a matxh between players of much DIFFERENT skill is more so determined player skill.

4. In X Wing, the winner of a match between players of EQUAL skill is more determined by squad choice and luck.

5. Many competitive games have a certain skill ceiling that is attainable by many players through practice and learning about the game. I think we are reaching this point, and now certain things like squad choice are able to determine winners more so than one person being more experienced than the other.

6. Certain players will still more regularly rise above because they have an even deeper understanding of the game, and continue to grow and explore new ways to win

7. In game strategy, imo, is still the dominant force. Sometimes I'll play against many lists that I swear, if I had flown, I could've beat myself with, because I see a strategy that would work, but my opponent doesn't catch onto it. I assume others feel this way sometimes too!

Like many games, X Wing is moving to one of these places. However, there are still a lot of under-represented squada that have just as good of a chance winning, imo, but they just don't see play for some reason.

8 *Bonus thought* Idk the last time I went into a match thinking "I have lost because my opponent has a good counter to my list", like playing Soontir and seeing a Vader Decimator on the field. Can't give up before you start! Gotta come up with SOME way to win! And, alas, I've seen it done, and I've done it.

I agree with this. Matches of people with equal skill, the winner will be decided normally by Squad list and luck. Although there is that time when a player makes a critical error like landing on an asteroid.

~ And for some unknown reason, quotes won't work for me bah...

Are matchups more important than actual playing? No. With a good Turn Zero and solid maneuvers, any list can beat any other list.

Are matchups important? Yes. Of course. That's how this game is supposed to work. Every list ought to have a counter, because every list and every ship ought to have its drawbacks; right now, the top-tier lists are those that have very few reasonable counters. If two equally skilled and experienced players go up against each other, the lists that they bring could very well decide the outcome -- but that being said, both players will always have a chance to win.

It is no misunderstanding that there are builds that perform superior to other builds. Yes the meta is alive and well and we all know what is in the Top Tier of the meta. However that being said having the exact copy of Paul Heaver's Fat Han list that won worlds won't mean that there is an automatic win. You give an inexperienced player that list and that player will still loose games over bad dial selection (landing on a rock) bad target priority (focusing on the ship with the highest damage negation) or simply making the wrong decisions (target locking a ship with sensor jammer).

Like any game that is popular and has an active online community the top winning list/decks will get copied, but having a winning/list deck does not mean that player will win the next tournament.

Is my impression correct that more and more of the result is decided by the lists/squads.

No.

However, list setups are easy to discuss and share and flying tactics are not. Therefore, you pretty much only see the former on the forum, only the former gets discussed. Similarly, it's human nature to blame your tools rather than admit your opponent is simply better than you.

Together they create the illusion that the game is decided in the metagame.