Now that the Regional Season is over (for me at least), I'm looking towards Nationals. This will be my first time attending Gen Con and I'm super stoked for the entirety of the weekend, but also focused on doing well at the tourney.

I have several lists I'm considering flying, and I want to narrow it down so I can focus on one list and practice it for the tournament. I want to document results of each build so I can review it before I make a decision.

I wanted to see if anyone else does something similar, and how they might approach it:

1. How many games do you think is a reasonable amount to know the effectiveness of a build?
2. How do you consider the opponents/squad lists into the mix with the results?
3. How do you consider timed matches vs untimed, and/or MoV?
4. How do you consider small tweaks made to the build? Do you consider it as a completely new list or do you count the results as a whole?
5. Any other game effects (such as dice, triggers of a card effect, etc.) do you consider?

I know it's silly to think there's a "right" way or an exact science to it, but I'm more curious to see if anyone else is as crazy as I am and micro analyzes results.

Thanks!

Before I even put other ships on the table, I take my list in question and place asteroids / debris down in a variety of configurations. Tight vertically, loose horizontally, vice versa. Then I practice flying my list within and around the debris. This helps to gain confidence in judging distances and movements that may be obstructed when you aren't allowed to measure.

Afterward, I browse some of the meta lists that are up and winning. I play 'games' against them where, initially, I select the best maneuver for the squad *I'm* considering against theirs. This helps to know what your options are in, say, a joust with a ship that has a pretty obvious maneuver selection.

Then I do the opposite: I provide the meta list with the best way to outplay me, either in the form of a block or maneuver that leaves me without a shot. This ingrains what positions you don't want to be in against certain lists, shows what *that* list's best choice is when *yours* is pretty obvious, or at least helps show when you don't want to take that K-Turn.

Finally, consider upgrades. If you're taking two ships of the same kind, consider which one might be targeted first and plan upgrades accordingly. Also think about what upgrades are rendered useless by being blocked or losing an action, then compare that to the propensity of the ship in question to be blocked during your maneuver testing. What are you expecting to play against? Is that Engine Upgrade really worth four points against lots of turrets or higher pilot skill ships? Adjust upgrades accordingly until your squad only has problems with one or two types of lists. Then, play against real opponents as often as possible.

Come tournament day, become disappointed in dice failures as your squad crashes and burns under green rolls despite your preparation

I went to Top8 in the Regional, and I know I won't be going to nationals but I'm still considering Worlds. I always play a build against the top meta things: swarm, fat+arcdodger, etc to see how it will do. I don't usually play what the top builds are, but more try to have a solid plan against each "top" build. Putting that plan into action is sometimes very difficult, so I also practice adjusting my strategy mid game. Or see if I can stall my ships a turn to throw off an opponents alpha strike turn.

I also try and practice with MANY different people, of all skill levels. I was recently teaching a friend and he was flying erratically, definitely not a way I would consider optimized, but it was throwing me for a loop because he was managing to arc-dodge me with these suboptimal moves and still get a (horrible) shot on my ships. It makes you think more about your strategies when your opponent doesn't have one! Reacting to something like that is also very difficult.

The one thing that came up in a good bit of discussion later in the Regionals day was that at some point you're going to be on an equal skill level, with a build that could be competitive with their build. At some point after that, your mistakes are going to make the difference in your game. So should I go to worlds, I'm going to "practice" by doing the most mentally exhaustive thing I can (which for me is to rocket a motorcycle through a few hours worth of canyons) and THEN try to play some xwing. If I can figure out how to concentrate and make good moves while exhausted both physically and mentally... then I think I'll stand a chance to perform well when the time comes.

I would play locally as much as you can against a variety of opponents and hold yourself to the highest standards. Never let yourself take a missed action or ability. After 15-20 games the things you've forgotten once or twice will be the things that can easily knock you out of elimination even if you completely outfly your opponent. I've missed an R2-D2 shield in the last Swiss round at 3/4 of my most recent tournaments and twice I lost the ship because of it.

My method is usually rack my brain for weeks leading up to said tournament over what to play, usually debating over "do I play a top tier list" or "do I play something original?" Finally decide probably the night before and run with it, lol.

In all seriousness, play, and play some more. I can't recommend Vassal enough if you can't get out or don't have a regular gaming group. It has it's flaws but if nothing else you'll get flying practice.

Know your list inside and out and obviously be aware of the top tier lists you'll likely face and have at least some sort of plan for them.

1. How many games do you think is a reasonable amount to know the effectiveness of a build?

In general, I'd say in about five games (usually less) you can figure out what parts of your list are working and what parts aren't. A recent example of my own, I had been running N'dru Suhlak with Lone Wolf and Engine upgrade in my current tournament list, but I often found that because I was flying a four ship list, I wasn't getting the most out of both the EPT and his ability. I swapped him out for another ship of equal value, and haven't looked back. A few other parts of this same list have been unchanged since I first created it, since they worked well from the first game and on.

My previous tournament list (Wes, Jan, Ibtisam w/HLC +Opportunist), I knew was effective in the middle of my first game with it, and while I hypothesized a few changes, that list stayed pretty much the same, Farlander and Rebel Aces came along. And even then there are aspects of the Farlander version that I like, but there are some intangible differences between how the two lists fly and manage Stress.

2. How do you consider the opponents/squad lists into the mix with the results?

First, I I try to figure out if there were any major mistakes I made that contributed to a loss more than my build. Did my opponent make any huge errors that I took advantage of? After looking at the game and how it played out, I look for anything that might be considered a hard counter/bad match-up. For example, Recon Specialist against Opportunist, or Dark Curse/Carnor Jax against Blaster Turrets. If these counters exist, I generally alter my strategy to that of "Kill the Counter First," should I happen upon them again.

3. How do you consider timed matches vs untimed, and/or MoV?

Most of my practice games tend to be untimed, but as the Regional I'm attending has drawn closer, one of my usual opponents and I have been playing timed matches to prepare. Keeping notes of your practice games can help you track your list's MOV performance and any other pertinent details, whether it's strategies or openings or what have you. I don't usually worry about the timed games, since I play fairly quick, but MOV tracking is something I should be doing more of, I feel.

4. How do you consider small tweaks made to the build? Do you consider it as a completely new list or do you count the results as a whole?

This question is far more subjective, though I think the best answer I can give you is that if your change alters the identity of a list, then it is a new list. If your tweak doesn't alter the identity in a major way (i.e. swapping out EPTs on a pilot) I tend to count those results together. Oddly enough, swapping out pilots and ships may not necessarily alter the identity of a list. Returning my tournament list that I alluded to in my first answer, I have a "core" of the list that has remained unchanged, and for me that core is its identity, and has been the most functional part of the list. The non-functional pilots I had in the list previously (Laetin and N'dru) were merely the first iterations and after changing them, I have found a more functional and cohesive list as a whole.

The only other criteria I would consider would be any upgrades that would impact how a list flies. To return to my first answer, again, I consider the two versions of my previous tournament list, one with Ibtisam and one with Farlander, different lists because they fly differently with the same identity (a six Red Dice super cannon). Also, you could accurately state that the identity of the list is "My Tourney List" and that any changes I make to the list do not change that fact.

5. Any other game effects (such as dice, triggers of a card effect, etc.) do you consider?

For me, this happens a bit in the analysis of my game results, though it's also something I think about when looking at tournament results, and try to figure out if how/why certain players chose the upgrades they did, and how that will influence how they fly the list. Then I try to think how my list responds to theirs; do I need fly differently? What should my strategy be going in? How am I going to deal with X (where X could be something like Rebel Captive, Autothrusters, etc.)?

Other than that, I try to keep track of what conditional effects or timing windows that are important to my list, and any time I forget a big one, I make a note of it and do my best to remember it the next time I use it. Again, I think taking notes would actually help with the memory retention here, but your mileage may vary.

To answer your questions, based on my personal experiences:

1) As many as possible, but I'd say a minimum of 10.

2) Try to get as many different opponents and/or lists to compete against as possible. I play a lot on vassal which helps for both of these aspects.

3) I don't worry about either that much. I'd focus more on trying to win, and let those aspects sort themselves out in the end.

4) I've gone both ways with this. If it's pretty minor, or something pretty similar, I usually lump it all together, but might make a mental note of when I did the change. If it's significant enough I'll consider it a new list for record keeping.

5) I'm assuming you're referring to losing/winning a game because of certain occurrences, such as dice luck? I don't really keep track of stuff like that. It all sorts itself out eventually. You might have won a game based on luck, and then lose one because of luck, and so on. A better thing to keep track of is how close your wins and losses are. If most wins are definitive, and most losses are pretty close, then you have a very solid list.