I just caught the Team Covenant interview with our Worlds Champion, Jonathan Reinig.

First off: Congrats to Jonathan! That could not have been easy and it must have taken tremendous skill. I also agree with the notion of not re-creating 'the meta'. That only makes you predictable and people will have practiced against you.

What I will disagree on is what he's talking about the rock-paper-scissors element of the meta. That understanding of the game's meta - we've discussed it at some length under the name of its articulators: Edsel-Blerg.

I certainly took the theory seriously - it certainly makes logical sense - and I've been paying fairly close attention to how that theory plays out in practice. However, I've just not found that it holds in the data that I've seen and collected.

I will say that it's great that he took a non-Rhymerball squadron-heavy list and did well with it, contrary to those who have been nay-saying against squadrons.

But that's just my reflection on the video. Anything you all have to say about it?

Just to note: I don't fully believe in the theory either. I just articulated it.

I still have to test more on the table to see if it really is the case. It would be nice if people also started telling everyone about games you win/lose that deal with this triangle. Also noting any important details that may skew that data: ex. My opponent played like **** that day, this game doesn't reflect any good play. If he had simply done this: it would not have been as easy.

Congrats to Jonathan for the win!

I don't believe in the "triangle" at all, but I will say that Jonathan's credibility is much higher than ours at this point, because, you know, he just won Worlds!

I do feel like the triangle does exist in some form. but its more like, you get an 5% advantage off the triangle, you dont get a near-win (15%+)

(50% is flat 50-50).

If you're 5% better than your opponent that little bit of advantage ain't gonna matter. And let me tell you. WHOO there are a lot of people who are 5%+ better than me.

It depends on too many factors, skill being just one. It also depends on ship composition, squadron composition, objectives, etc.

For instance, playing with rebel squadrons against pure VSDs on Superior Positions. Depending on their formation, you can actually do a lot of VPs without a single squadron command!

@Blail...

I completely agree with your Triangle Theory (man, I couldn't remember who wrote it to give you credit). There are some match ups that cannot be won... Rebels have the speed to cut and run giving a 5-5. Of course, it leads to another theory... can you afford to get a 5-5 in a big tourney and expect to win... a unique aspect of the current MOV scoring format.

A 10 Tie Bomber Rhymer Ball will absolutely crush the GenCon Special (first hand experience).

However, I think 400 mitigates this because everyone will likely have some squadrons.

I think Mikael did.

well. we now have a crap ton of data... (where is it though) from worlds. every match-up and every list. WE could start by simply looking at every match up and seeing if the triangle theory did match the trend.

I also do think 300 to 400 points changes the game a little.

While in theory you could still go 400 points of ship only, i think with that amount of points, you can throw in a much more lethal group of fighters AND some synergy upgrades.

VVGGG + montferrat on demolisher is my thought on pure 400 ship.

---

I've never actually played against a Rhymer ball.

Can someone else comment on Gencon special vs Rhymer? (Probably the 2VSD version? Or is it 1vsd 1glad?)

Also, can someone try 400pt VVGGG "Gencon" vs 400pt Rhymer or mass squadrons?

I just started running a VVV Rhymer ball. Needs more testing, but it looks **** scary coming at you. 2 VicIs to cover the flanks, a VicII with Corrupter to hold the center, All with EHB, one VicI with Flight Controllers. Rhymer, 3 TIE Bombers, 9 TIEs. Add Motti for survivability, then creep at them flinging squadrons.

Hyperspace Assult

Advanced Gunnery

Minefields

Come get some.

lol to be completely honest the interview took me (Jonathan Reinig) by a little surprise and was almost directly after the match. I really couldn't even remember what I said after it was over. The trinity thing definitely in our area was more of a 300 point phenomena I think than it will be at 400 and it in no way is the deciding factor in a match. Far closer to the 5% factor mentioned earlier. It can give you an edge in a match but there is so much more that goes into winning and losing than list composition. At least in my experience. I'm just happy I didn't say anything super stupid really. Overall it was a hell of a tournament with pretty much fierce competition all day.

Mikael Hasselstein was the first person I know to refrence the triangle.

So much discussion on who said it first... Are we seriously trying to give a medal to the person who invented rock-paper-scissors or what?

So much triangle... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvbQKSaYQD8&index=3&list=PLFhI8ZI7RxxRW5edJCIdghvPqP1AaSx28

At 300 points, wave one only, I feel extremely confident that I can beat down almost any other list with my version of the Gencon special ( I hate that name, I was using this list way before it was published online...but it's the accepted name, so...). My success with it has everything to do with the sheer aggressiveness that I fly it with.

Not having seen any video, or really read reports of the current winner, I can't even speculate how I would do against him. I've flown against similar squadron heavy lists, and blown them out of the sky without any issues...but again, against this particular player, flying this list, I've no idea how I would do.

What I DO know, without a doubt, is that in wave two it would be wise to bring some air cover. And I'm planning on this.

I do want to congratulate Jonathan on an awesome performance against great odds. Well played, sir!

And Ackbar can go suck it. Emperor, I hate him.

At 300 points, wave one only, I feel extremely confident that I can beat down almost any other list with my version of the Gencon special ( I hate that name, I was using this list way before it was published online...but it's the accepted name, so...). My success with it has everything to do with the sheer aggressiveness that I fly it with.

Not having seen any video, or really read reports of the current winner, I can't even speculate how I would do against him. I've flown against similar squadron heavy lists, and blown them out of the sky without any issues...but again, against this particular player, flying this list, I've no idea how I would do.

What I DO know, without a doubt, is that in wave two it would be wise to bring some air cover. And I'm planning on this.

I do want to congratulate Jonathan on an awesome performance against great odds. Well played, sir!

And Ackbar can go suck it. Emperor, I hate him.

Flyin with yer hair on fire!!! Go Darth L !!!

Mikael Hasselstein was the first person I know to refrence the triangle.

All I did was see name the theory for its authors, and expand on it.

As I've mentioned in the past, there's an objective meta, which consists of the objectively superior builds based on the ships and components (squadrons, upgrades, etc.) that are available. In a balanced game (such as I believe Armada to be), there are builds that are objectively better than others, but none will be stronger than all others.

There's also an intersubjective meta, which is how people perceive the meta to be and how they build accordingly.

At about the time that the triangle, or Edsel-Blerg (however you want to call it), was articulated it seemed like a pretty reasonable analysis. I certainly acted on it ("Oh, you all are bringing lots of ships and scoffing at squadrons? Good. Let me bring a 100-point Rhymerball and wipe the floor with you." The floors were very clean.)

But as we've been collecting more and more data, we're finding out that the theory does not describe the objective situation.

So, in that sense, Jonathan is reflecting on what people believe(d) to be true - which might be a little out-of-date, but it's what people certainly did think for a while.

^^^ that's a very good analysis of the situation, Mikael.

lol to be completely honest the interview took me (Jonathan Reinig) by a little surprise and was almost directly after the match. I really couldn't even remember what I said after it was over. The trinity thing definitely in our area was more of a 300 point phenomena I think than it will be at 400 and it in no way is the deciding factor in a match. Far closer to the 5% factor mentioned earlier. It can give you an edge in a match but there is so much more that goes into winning and losing than list composition. At least in my experience. I'm just happy I didn't say anything super stupid really. Overall it was a hell of a tournament with pretty much fierce competition all day.

Wanna talk more and share all of your tasty secrets? =)

Also, lol, I thought using the Cr90 to grab tokens and hold the commander was awesome. and naked 72pt guppies are pretty worth it.

And A wings. I've been hearing those were decent at all roles: ship or squadron killing.

--

Yeah, 5% is what I'd give that list advantage as. Nothing more.

Is there any way you think an all ship list could have defeated your list with a strong chance?

The first time I was in a conversation about rock-paper-scissors lists in a competitive miniatures game was in the 1980s. The idea that someone just thought it up is...well...silly. lol

Jonathan won because of skill. He matched list to play style to plan to practice and then stayed mistake free. RPS is the least important thing in this conversation, he's just a cool humble dude.