I have started a new monthly segment called "The State of the Meta".

As always let me know what you think, ideas, thoughts, etc

I'm not sure I understand your argument about the MOV at our tournament. Sure, we could have figured out the rank-order of 3rd, 4th and 5th place, as they were all tied at 14 tournament points. MOV would not have changed our respective positions, as you had 17 points and I had 25. The MOV did not favor you, because Chris had a higher MOV tally than you did after tabling Jon 300-0. (I did keep the piece of paper and just entered the scores into Cryodex.)

In the video, are you actually talking about MOV or are you talking about Tournament Points?

But no worries, I have Cryodex running now and I'll be keeping closer track of the points. I will also be bringing score sheets (they're printing out now, so I don't forget to do that later).

As to you having built my list - which was pretty much also the list that won Nationals - this also put you in an excellent position to build against me.

And, finally...

...the Dark Side laughs at your feeble threats.

MI think I mean the whole tournament setup in general. Remember I did get a tabled Victory as well, alas the objective was Advanced Gunnery which gave him points at the end so it was not a 10 to 0 win but it almost was.

As far as I can tell (and I've only played with my girlfriend and friends) the game is dominated by GSDs. Their only disadvantage, range, isn't a disadvantage at all. There is usually no shooting in the first round since all the ships are beyond maximum range (reducing the advantage of the Neb-B). Round 2, however, is a completely different story as you can park a GSD very close to an enemy vessel and potentially one-shot them. I feel like GSDs should have been speed 2, or have much lighter defences.

Squadrons as a mechanic feels totally underbaked to me. I'm not saying that you can't use them effectively, but I think it raises the skill cap unnecessarily when you can use those points to bring more ships (more activations) or upgrades. The squadron mini-game is usually over by the end of round 2, and never feels particularly satisfying or interesting in my opinion.

I feel that Rebels require far more skill to use effectively than Imperials, particularly in a deathmatch scenario. Staying at range is easy to say and almost impossible in practice. CR90s can be largely ignored until you've dealt with that brittle Neb-B, or focussed down the AFII. Indeed, attempting to swat away CR90s will just waste valuable actions as they evade all day with Mon Mothma, the only Rebel commander anyone seems to take. They remind me of A-wings from the X-wing game. Can they be dangerous? Of course, but if you spend your early turns taking down their bigger buddies, the threat that CR90s pose on their own is reduced dramatically.

Just my thoughts but I'm admittedly a rank amateur at this game, compared to my X-wing experiences.

This all falls under my point that the game is not yet complete. Wave 2 will show us what the game will really be like and all following waves will change the Meta one way or another.

While GSD's are great they are not invincible. They require a lot of prep work and practice to make them amazing. On the same token they can be beaten pretty easily if you know how to position yourself and make them work for their glory shot.

Have you tried an AFmk2 with enhanced armament and shield projectors? Deploy the thing an an angle pointing onto the board either to the left or right, so the GSDs can't just come at you. Turn two or three depending on how the GSDs are deployed and flown you level off horizontal with your edge. The goal being to get them into a broadside situation at blue/red range.

Unless of course they are pacing their VSD, in which case you have all the time in the world to set up squadrons and CR90s for flanking and rear actions.

Also, be prepared to be shocked. Pretty sure the Neb is a big trap. If it isn't right now then it will play out to be by wave two.

I have and I love that build. I find that the Gladiator's try to double across my front where I only get 1 arc on them and then ram.

The Neb is good but it needs more than 1

This all falls under my point that the game is not yet complete. Wave 2 will show us what the game will really be like and all following waves will change the Meta one way or another.

While GSD's are great they are not invincible. They require a lot of prep work and practice to make them amazing. On the same token they can be beaten pretty easily if you know how to position yourself and make them work for their glory shot.

I agree completely that the game is in its infancy, and that wave 2 will probably transform Armada into the game it's supposed to be (excepting squadrons, I'm still very skeptical about these).

I wonder if releasing the GSD in wave 1 was a mistake though. I can't help but feel like the Raider would have been better placed in wave 1 to balance the sides a bit more.

If they released the Raider, the Imp player would lose many many games and be hard to win with.

If they released the Raider, the Imp player would lose many many games and be hard to win with.

No I don't see that at all. How do you figure? The VSD is still an incredible ship.

If they released the Raider, the Imp player would lose many many games and be hard to win with.

No I don't see that at all. How do you figure? The VSD is still an incredible ship.

Maybe its "defense" is some sort of crazy 6 net yaw Speed 4, pre-nav token?

I doubt it will be more maneuverable than a CR90. If so not by much but even if that was the case it's best range is in Close while the CR90 is at Medium. It still has to get into its best range to do its job or it is a waste of points.

My only thoughts, as requested in the OP is to not use the overly used word-- "meta"....

My only thoughts, as requested in the OP is to not use the overly used word-- "meta"....

I'm not sure a change of nomenclature is going to be in the cards at this point. I do think it's useful to differentiate between different types of meta. I suggest the following:

The Structural Meta

This represents the build-decisions people make based on the totality of game rules and components. It changes when the rules and components change with each FAQ/errata and wave that comes out.

For example: in the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, people know that each of these - according to the structure of the game - has an equal chance of winning. The game changes structurally when Lizard and Spock come out in Wave 2 of that game. (It would also change if Paper gets errata'd to no longer win when it covers Rock, because why would Rock care if it has a Paper covering.)

The Constructed Meta

This represents the build-decisions people make based on what they see other people around them doing. It changes when people learn from their previous match-ups and start building against what they see their opponents building.

For example: Everyone around you seems to be playing Rock, because they feel that Rock smashing Scissors just makes their day more than Scissors cutting Paper and Paper covering Rock. People also think that Paper covering Rock is just lame. So you're going to be the guy to "meta-game" and choose Paper. People may hate you, but you're the one taking home the alt-art Paper.

MI think I mean the whole tournament setup in general. Remember I did get a tabled Victory as well, alas the objective was Advanced Gunnery which gave him points at the end so it was not a 10 to 0 win but it almost was.

Hm, this is not telling me what you think I did wrong, even if you are understanding of the overall situation. For me to learn how to do it better next time, I need to know. The main judgement call I made was to give myself the first-round bye so that I could have the opportunity to read the tournament rules, & etc. I also felt it was best sportsmanship to let the others play.

Regarding the MoV points, this is allowing me to figure out Killerardvark's cryodex as I recreate the points from that match we're talking about (here and here, from mini-ranker and HNN, respectively, for those interested).

The Cryodex calculator is a newer code, sir, but it checks out. I was about to clear it.

It also gives us an exported .html file, which I can post here:

Rank Name Score MoV SoS

1 Mikael 25 393 31

2 Lyraeus 17 178 53

3 Chris 14 300 56

4 Beatty 14 86 28

5 Will 14 61 31

(note: pasting an .html table into the FFG forum dialog box does not render when posted)

Yes, you tabled your opponent, and got the 300 points for doing so, but you still have to subtract what he killed of yours. The scratch-pad tells me he killed 163 points of yours, which gave you +137 MoV points for that last round, and a 8-2 tournament points win. Add the 41 points from the first round and you have 178. Chris, on the other hand, lost twice (2x0=0) and NUKED Beatty, giving him 300 points for that single won match.

So, I'm not sure what I did wrong when I calculated the tournament points, other than letting Beatty, Chris and Will choose their prizes rather than impose the rigid calculus of who gets what dice bag. I think people were happier this way, and that to me was "Mission Accomplished".

But, of course, I'm going to be more satisfied with the outcome of that tournament than you are. However, being satisfied also tends to be a barrier towards learning lessons. If you can point out where I went wrong, I can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

In 3 games I had to have more than 178 points to get a score of a 17.

This next tournament set it up by table numbers so have a table 1, 2, 3 etc. Next keep track of the MOV's. Other than that not much else to do.

In 3 games I had to have more than 178 points to get a score of a 17.

This next tournament set it up by table numbers so have a table 1, 2, 3 etc. Next keep track of the MOV's. Other than that not much else to do.

Nope.

You got 6TPs had 41MoV (=99-58) from your first match.

You got 3 TPs and 0 MoV from your second match.

You got 8TPs and 137MoV (=300-163) from your third match.

6+3+8=17

41+137=178

I did keep track of the tables in the last game. The table by the MLK-side window was table 1. I don't remember what table you started at, but for round 1 it doesn't matter. You were at the top table after round 1, and then dropped to the second table after round 2.

As you can tell from the calculus above, I did keep track of MoV (as in, the numbers were recorded, allowing for after-the-fact calculation).

I really think the two huge ships are going to shake things up for a couple of reasons

1. The new defense token which sounds like it will stop a critical effect. The no.1 reason Screed plus glads are so effective are assault conc missiles and this token sounds like it will stop them going off.

2. The big ships will not get '1 shot' again the best defense a glad has is killing the target with an alpha. A big fat target will get shots back and those will hurt.

Assuming the points get us one big ship on the table for two glads then I think they may prove a pretty hard counter. Imagine 3 ISD plus motti at 400. I think that has the potential to fend off 6 glads.

Off course this is all rampant speculation...