I'm confused as to the meaning of "meta". Initially in both X-Wing and Armada, I thought the term "meta" referred to the upgrade cards and such that came out with each wave that could affect previous waves. This would be classifying these cards as "meta-data". Data that describes or influences other data. This would make sense because the new cards, meta-data, both described and influenced previous ships, the static data. Ship statistics don't change, but the upgrade cards of future expansions can change their effectiveness.

However, I have seen threads saying, "How is Armada doing in your meta", or "Armada is dead in my meta". This seems to say that "meta" is a place, or an attitude within a community. I'm not criticizing, I'm just slow to pick up terms and abbreviations and just want to make sure that I understand what "meta" is.

Thanks for any clarifications,

XiliX

Metagaming refers to the use of a strategy that falls outside of the rules for army building. For example building a list that takes advantage of your opponents lack of squadrons, the list you build is not built within the knowledge of the game alone, but takes advantage of the issue that you know what your opponents strategy will be.

My regular opponent has learned I like to play with fewer points and gain the bid, so he often spends 300 points and just plays first or second as I chose. This too is an example of metagaming, making your decisions not on the play of the game but outside of the game. So I have now built a list to go first and knowing he doesn't have a clue about missions, I'll gain two advantages for the price of one.

As it relates to FFG miniatures game -

"an emergent methodology that is a subset of the basic strategy necessary to play the game at a high level."

From this https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Metagaming-

90% bollocks, 10% math

Thanks all. That clears it up a bit.

The shortest definition I can think of for "meta" is "competitive ecosystem." So what's considered good, what is run frequently, etc. Thus you can "metagame" by playing to your meta. So if tons of Gladiators are common in your meta, then a Yavaris module of B-Wings is extremely good for slapping them down as they come at your fleet. Conversely, if fighter squadrons are common in your meta, your Yavaris module is less effective.

However, I have seen threads saying, "How is Armada doing in your meta", or "Armada is dead in my meta".

Yeah, these types of statements don't make sense to me. Your meta is how the game is being played. So if no one is playing, there is no meta in the first place.

Meta Area is a little more correct in that sense, as it would be the area where your meta plays out...

But only a little.

The quintessential description of meta is playing rock / paper / scissors.

Basic knowledge of the game will tell you that paper always beats rock.

Knowing that your most of your opponents will pick rock initially is the "meta".

Intentionally picking paper is the "counter-meta" the choice that will beat what is common.

However, I have seen threads saying, "How is Armada doing in your meta", or "Armada is dead in my meta".

Yeah, these types of statements don't make sense to me. Your meta is how the game is being played. So if no one is playing, there is no meta in the first place.

I'm afraid I'm partially responsible for the (ab)use of the term on this particular forum. Here's my thought process about it:

First off, there is a distinction between what I call the objective meta vs. the intersubjective meta.

• The objective meta is the relative effectiveness of pieces based on the actual game pieces available.
• The intersubjective meta is the relative effectiveness of pieces based on people's perceptions and use of them.

The objective meta changes whenever we get a new wave of ships. The subjective meta can shift whenever enough people change their minds and start playing differently. The objective meta should be the same in every locale that has all expansions available to it, whereas the intersubjective meta can be different per Armada gaming community.

So, yeah, when I started the In my meta, squadrons are doing just fine. Why not in yours? thread, I was thinking of local gaming communities. Darth Ruin seems to have picked up on that usage with his dead meta thread.

Given how much people communicate about this game on global fora such as this one, you might not think there would be much of a local meta. But people do seem to learn what's good and what's not good to bring to a game depending on what people in their immediate environs do (which makes sense - those are your opponents). The fact that in some communities squadrons get beat up on and in others do more than fine, suggests that the local intersubjective meta can vary quite a bit.

So, in order to bring it full circle, if you want to know what's good to bring, you need to know the local intersubjective meta environment in which you play. 'Meta' has just become a shorthand term for that.

Don't forget that a local meta is largely based on actual play and the perceptions thereof, while forums such as this one contains a whole lot of theory-crafting, wishful thinking and whatnot.

Don't forget that a local meta is largely based on actual play and the perceptions thereof, while forums such as this one contains a whole lot of theory-crafting, wishful thinking and whatnot.

I'd think short term dice would play a big part in that perception.

The other thing about a local meta is if you know that none of the group has four Glads you don't have to plan for it.

The dice are random, they hate me with as much of a passion as I hate them. 14 red dice and I manage 2 accuracy and 12 blanks, yeah that game went well.

A good, unbiased and honest end game discussion is worthwhile here. I lost my last game mostly because I played my squadrons incorrectly, as such being honest about the reason for the loss helps assess what I need to change from a tactical point of view so as to make better tactical choices. It also helps understand what Strategic changes (fleet build changes) I could make to improve the list.