you will see a disproportionate amount of talk online about list building because it's very easy to talk about. Good flying is much harder to talk about.

I kinda want to start a thread on flying to counter particular lists.

That's very hard to do. There are so many variables to account for. I'm not talking about builds but positioning. Changes in formation will have a huge effect on how you approach. The same with asteroids and debris clouds. I think that's something that's learned through experience. The same applies to timing of attacks if you have a flanker. Or your opponent does. Like chess, the best you can do is try and show what to look for.

Yeah, flying well is very, very context-based. A guy I lost a tournament to on the final table has been playing me a lot, and we've beaten each other before (Bosskinator swarm vs palp+2 aces) and it's gotten to the point where he knows I know the typical moves for Fel so he does other things that are a bit weird to try to throw me off and keep Fel from getting blocked or from getting in the R2 Bosskinator danger zone.

It's really really hard to teach people this from anything other than experience. I can tell you some principles when flying, but they'll come off as obvious anyway.

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

No, the meta is created by the same player flying the same ships over and over again until they know how to use them effectively, enough so that they can win with it consistently.

Then someone posts the list online, and an entire bunch of mindless lemmings copycat it assuming it's an easy route to competitive glory.

That's how the meta is created.

TL;DR: lists don't win tournaments, players do.

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

No, the meta is created by the same player flying the same ships over and over again until they know how to use them effectively, enough so that they can win with it consistently.

Then someone posts the list online, and an entire bunch of mindless lemmings copycat it assuming it's an easy route to competitive glory.

That's how the meta is created.

TL;DR: lists don't win tournaments, players do.

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

No, the meta is created by the same player flying the same ships over and over again until they know how to use them effectively, enough so that they can win with it consistently.

Then someone posts the list online, and an entire bunch of mindless lemmings copycat it assuming it's an easy route to competitive glory.

That's how the meta is created.

TL;DR: lists don't win tournaments, players do.

All other things being equal, having a better list will give you an edge.

It is easier for a lower skilled player to win if they have an easymode meta list.

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

No, the meta is created by the same player flying the same ships over and over again until they know how to use them effectively, enough so that they can win with it consistently.

Then someone posts the list online, and an entire bunch of mindless lemmings copycat it assuming it's an easy route to competitive glory.

That's how the meta is created.

TL;DR: lists don't win tournaments, players do.

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

No, the meta is created by the same player flying the same ships over and over again until they know how to use them effectively, enough so that they can win with it consistently.

Then someone posts the list online, and an entire bunch of mindless lemmings copycat it assuming it's an easy route to competitive glory.

That's how the meta is created.

TL;DR: lists don't win tournaments, players do.

All other things being equal, having a better list will give you an edge.

It is easier for a lower skilled player to win if they have an easymode meta list.

Here's the thing: All things are never equal. You can't take player skill and put it on a 0-100 rating, and you can't take squad quality and put it on a 0-100 rating. Squads are good and bad at different things, and players are good and bad at different things. Then there's dice, of course, which blur fine distinctions between squad and player on top of that.

I think anyone telling you list building is groupthink and doesn't matter is giving you a load of baloney but tactics/flying are really important in working your less favorable matchups.

Here's the thing: All things are never equal. You can't take player skill and put it on a 0-100 rating, and you can't take squad quality and put it on a 0-100 rating. Squads are good and bad at different things, and players are good and bad at different things. Then there's dice, of course, which blur fine distinctions between squad and player on top of that.

Exactly.

Anecdotal example from a tournament a while back.

First round match up, I was playing a non-standard Chewie/Leebo list. My opponent had Chinereau and Rexler. I made two huge mistakes in the opening round with Leebo (misjudging a move and ending right in front of an asteroid, then for some reason deciding not to barrel roll away from it). I ended up being tabled 100-0.

Second round match up, I faced a guy using exactly the same Chineareau and Rexler list. He was clearly a friend of player #1, because they had a brief chinwag before the round started and my opponent was grinning from ear to ear when we deployed. No mistakes this time, and it was the Imps who tabled, in under 20 minutes.

So, two squads, both exactly the same, one tables a list, the other gets tabled by the same list. What gives?

Playing ability, that's what.

I think anyone telling you list building is groupthink and doesn't matter is giving you a load of baloney but tactics/flying are really important in working your less favorable matchups.

No one's actually saying that. What you take in your list is clearly important. But it's not as important as knowing how to fly what you're taking in your list.

Anyone can print out a Nationals or Worlds winning list from an internet forum and set up the models on the board. But only people who know how to fly it back-to-front, inside and out and who have put the practice in with it will get anywhere near that level.

Well yes, if the lists and the dice are equal, then it comes down to player skill.

The easiest thing to account for when list building is how good your list is (in the meta).

Two equally skilled players with equal luck playing non-equal squads is going to end up in a game determined by how good the lists are.

If you hand a bad player a good list, they will still lose to a better player playing a list equal to theirs. But if they face a well flown list that's merely 'okay' they might be able to pull off a win.

The way I see it, it's actually quite easy:

If I lose, that's only because my opponent had a better list/luck than me; if I win, clearly that's because I'm a better player!

Well yes, if the lists and the dice are equal, then it comes down to player skill.

The easiest thing to account for when list building is how good your list is (in the meta).

Two equally skilled players with equal luck playing non-equal squads is going to end up in a game determined by how good the lists are.

If you hand a bad player a good list, they will still lose to a better player playing a list equal to theirs. But if they face a well flown list that's merely 'okay' they might be able to pull off a win.

That's exactly why at high level play you tend to see less variety. The skill gap is extremely small in most cases, so who has the better list becomes a bigger factor in deciding the winner. By comparison, one of my roommates occasionally plays but given that I play every Saturday compared to his "once a month, maybe" I can play whatever catches my interest and expect to win with it. Against someone of my own skill level I need to more carefully consider upgrades for maximum effectiveness.

Assuming I'm making an effort to win. I usually just play what amuses me at the moment.

Variety and importance of play has gone up quite a bit

In addition to the best wave evar, The MOV changes in large ship scoring and (more importantly) randomized matchmaking makes it so you are nonlonger in ordinately favored by bringing a 2-ship MOV sponge

Double dip of derp

I wish I could stay it's true, but it's not.

I have beaten many times by lesser opponents simply because of the ships and/or upgrades they are using.

There has been and probably always will be certain combinations of ships and upgrades that are a huge value for the cost, and if you use them you give yourself a bit of a advantage before other aspects of the game are considered.

As an example, at the 2 store championships I went to this year, there was a certain player who I'd say at "best" was probably average, who made the top cuts both times simply because of the combination of upgrades he had on one of his ships. I played him at one of the two championships and lost badly even though I easily outflew him.

As an example, at the 2 store championships I went to this year, there was a certain player who I'd say at "best" was probably average, who made the top cuts both times simply because of the combination of upgrades he had on one of his ships. I played him at one of the two championships and lost badly even though I easily outflew him.

Maybe you didn't out fly him. Maybe this average player simply found a list that he was above averge with. I know for myself that there are many ships I'm not very good at flying, but some that I feel I can take on the world with.

As an example, at the 2 store championships I went to this year, there was a certain player who I'd say at "best" was probably average, who made the top cuts both times simply because of the combination of upgrades he had on one of his ships. I played him at one of the two championships and lost badly even though I easily outflew him.

Maybe you didn't out fly him. Maybe this average player simply found a list that he was above averge with. I know for myself that there are many ships I'm not very good at flying, but some that I feel I can take on the world with.

Yeah, if you lost that badly, chances are you didn't actually outfly them...

...what's next, blaming the dice?

To be fair it was probably a Fat Turretwing list. You can just smear ice cream on your face hard enough until you win. They're not that hard to fly, since you have a turret you're very hard to predict because where you end up is meaningless, so just set you dial to something random, double check that it doesn't fly you off the board or onto an asteroid, and you've won against someone who actually has to account for getting you in arc without higher PS/a lot of movement shenanigans.

You'll always have a shot, and your opponent won't be able to figure you out mentally and predict where you'll be.

To be fair it was probably a Fat Turretwing list. You can just smear ice cream on your face hard enough until you win. They're not that hard to fly, since you have a turret you're very hard to predict because where you end up is meaningless, so just set you dial to something random, double check that it doesn't fly you off the board or onto an asteroid, and you've won against someone who actually has to account for getting you in arc without higher PS/a lot of movement shenanigans.

You'll always have a shot, and your opponent won't be able to figure you out mentally and predict where you'll be.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Putting Autothrusters on ships because you expect to face turrets is meta.

Spending extra to bring Obsidians instead of Academies because you expect to face a lot of Predator or lower PS generics is meta.

Spending points on a Conner Net because you know you need a way to deal with high PS arc dodgers is meta.

If you aren't thinking about what you need to beat you shouldn't expect to win. Good players that have been more or less flying the same lists for a long time make list adjustments based on meta. Even guys that fly totally off the wall crap (and compete at a high level) are usually playing the metagame when they do it.

...a solid build which a large portion of weekend warrior local store players can employ...

Do you mean...Captain Weekend?

(seriously, watch the video with Closed Caption enabled. It is HILARIOUS! "Captain Weekend" makes his debut at 1 minute 3 seconds)

Blue sweater beatings killed me.

As for the topic... I disagree. There might be a confusion between non-meta lists and meta-breakers, but usually the meta shifts over to the most efficient ships. You say that good flying trumps meta... that's cute - I'd love to see someone beat an equally skilled opponent with four X-Wings when he fields, say, Dash and Chewie without relying on dice miracles. It's funny, because people are ready to admit that there are ships weaker than others, but they refuse to believe that a weaker list is... weaker than others? Yes, flying does a lot, but there is a difference between using the best thing to it's full potential and flying against your ship's terrible maneuvers as if in spite.

Not sure if I managed to express my point clearly, as english is not my main language, but in my opinion a player will get better performance with, well... better ships than he would with weaker ones. Of course if he is skilled enough to figure them out. It might take a moment to get used to new list, but if it's better, you'll notice it after a couple games as you get the grasp of how it works.