One of the terms I hate people use is the term "netlist". Most of the time, it carries a very negative connotation and I don't think it's fair to players who utilize this strategy. Before streams, there were replays, before there were replays, there were strategy guides, and before that, there were books. All of this information comes from people who wants to share their success and what "works for them". So is it a bad thing when another player wants to emulate or copy someone else's success? Of course not! That's why one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone belittles another person for netlisting, saying that they're not creative or something else. Being creative has nothing to do with being effective. If creativity is the key to success, then **** every source of teaching material that ever existed. What do you folks think?

I think people should be able to play the game however they want to play it. Personally I enjoy creating my own fun and wacky lists, but I understand if people want to copy a list thats been winning. Just playing the game in itself with the different objectives (even if the two lists are exactly identical) is half the fun anyways!

I think its considerably less of a problem in this game then in many others, because there are simply so many viable options. Look how many different ways you can run two ISD's, or three AFMK2's, or what have you. But as the question asked, if there were for example 1 or 2 lists that were simply superior to anything else that could be played, I feel like the rational action is to use that list if you are playing competitively. Since I don't believe its ever fair to fault someone for acting in their own rational self interest (super extreme hypothetical situations exempted), I can't see an issue with it. I do think the best players tend not to do it, because they are busy trying to stay ahead of the competition.

Also, if a list is that far ahead of the competition, its highly unlikely that only one person thought of it. One person might put it on the map, so to speak.

A question in turn Hero. Since you are a pretty prolific and knowledgable Armada writer, how would you feel if someone took a list you published and won a major tournament with it? I'm guessing stoked, but I'm curious.

A question in turn Hero. Since you are a pretty prolific and knowledgable Armada writer, how would you feel if someone took a list you published and won a major tournament with it? I'm guessing stoked, but I'm curious.

I'd feel happy, and honored that I contributed to someone's play for the better. Why else would I even bother writing all that shh on my blog? Yeah, personal thoughts about the game, but also because the material is there to help other people make new discoveries and foster a bountiful community.

As mentioned by Madagmire, the best players wouldn't netlist. It's a great tool however to learn the meta and understand the intricacies of the popular lists.

Playing competitively, if someone wins with a netlist it is more of a testament to their ability to play it rather than the list itself. Honestly I'd think it more of a handicap, since people will have known of the list, and how to counter it.

If you're just playing casually against friends, you have to make sure you're all on the same page. Fun for some people isn't fun for others. Some people just want to do shenanigans. If you pull in a competitive list on them and smash them, they might feel a bit miffed. The point i'm trying to make here is that in a casual setting you should strive to have a common understanding.

I think it is a little too early to call Armada netlistable. Armada does't have the popularity of X-wing so you won't see it on blogs or fansites as much likewise you won't find lists as thoroughly play-tested as say an X-wing list. So you migh come across a list that has a 95% win ration with 50 games and then in the meta round your area that may have more squadrons, that list doesn't win a single game because of it.

As for Armada, I'm still looking for an Android app similar to the one like X-wing companion. I can't find that, then I doubt a thoroughly tried netlist would be any easier.

A question in turn Hero. Since you are a pretty prolific and knowledgable Armada writer, how would you feel if someone took a list you published and won a major tournament with it? I'm guessing stoked, but I'm curious.

I'd feel happy, and honored that I contributed to someone's play for the better. Why else would I even bother writing all that shh on my blog? Yeah, personal thoughts about the game, but also because the material is there to help other people make new discoveries and foster a bountiful community.

That's exactly why you dislike people who look at netlists under the wrong light You'd feel like all the effort of writing and thinking (which, by the way, I find very enjoyable and an appropriate analysis) is wasted and that people do not think highly of your effort.

To answer your question, I think netlists has a batrep due to what many internet users have said towards people who tried alternative builds (in other games). I come from a 40k background, and whenever you discuss units that aren't consensually agreed upon as strong, you take more flakk than a TIE squadron in medium range of a Neb Escort.

So, people who are genuinely interested in trying out and experimenting are shut down, usually brutally, by people who support the internet consensus about how you should play. In response, the creative types start to look down upon netlisting.

In regards to Armada, because it's quite a novel game and the community is pretty nice compared to other games, I don't think there is that problem (yet). Actually, quite the opposite so far : many people turn to the net, podcasts and blogs to understand the game better and many of us provide good advice for them in return.

GenCon special?

A question in turn Hero. Since you are a pretty prolific and knowledgable Armada writer, how would you feel if someone took a list you published and won a major tournament with it? I'm guessing stoked, but I'm curious.

I'd feel happy, and honored that I contributed to someone's play for the better. Why else would I even bother writing all that shh on my blog? Yeah, personal thoughts about the game, but also because the material is there to help other people make new discoveries and foster a bountiful community.

That's exactly why you dislike people who look at netlists under the wrong light You'd feel like all the effort of writing and thinking (which, by the way, I find very enjoyable and an appropriate analysis) is wasted and that people do not think highly of your effort.

To answer your question, I think netlists has a batrep due to what many internet users have said towards people who tried alternative builds (in other games). I come from a 40k background, and whenever you discuss units that aren't consensually agreed upon as strong, you take more flakk than a TIE squadron in medium range of a Neb Escort.

So, people who are genuinely interested in trying out and experimenting are shut down, usually brutally, by people who support the internet consensus about how you should play. In response, the creative types start to look down upon netlisting.

In regards to Armada, because it's quite a novel game and the community is pretty nice compared to other games, I don't think there is that problem (yet). Actually, quite the opposite so far : many people turn to the net, podcasts and blogs to understand the game better and many of us provide good advice for them in return.

Well, not my particular efforts, but in learning in general. I would say that I'm a Tuner Spike if we're going by player archetypes, but I consult with Johnny type players all the time. My strength doesn't lie in creative or innovative list creation, it lies in min-maxing existing ideas. The difference is that I'm familiar with these archetypes of gamers and I accept and acknowledge each one. I might not enjoy playing games with the super casual fluff gamer, but I understand why he's playing the hobby and I never trash their reason for playing.

Often times than not, I think the creative types are the ones talking down on netlists in general. It conflicts with their play philosophy, so I can understand the friction they experience when playing against a player that don't share those same ideals. I think the players who acknowledges and explores "netlists" are the more competitive players, or even players looking to improve as their driving force. I don't see anything wrong with trying to get better, wanting to learn, or wanting to improve. In anything. Ever.

Learning how to play an existing game is a very difficult task, everyone you play will have been playing for a decent amount of time and you have to play catch up, using a netlisted fleet can very easily form a part of the learning to play process. That said it has to be a part of many things that you'll use to help improve what you do. Playing a well constructed fleet and learning how it works can be a great learning tool win or lose. Keep in mind that by the time a fleet is put onto the internet it is often a generation behind the meta, so at some point you are going to have to bend what you have learned into playing better against the "deck of the day".

A few years back I have a memorable experience where I played against a Flames of War list that had been taken off the net. It was game 6 of 8 and I had won my previous 5 games, so I expected a hard game, and looking at the list it was very tight and well constructed. So I brought my most competitive game, I sat and watched my opponent make mistakes and kept my mouth shut. I took every advantage of terrain and hit his weak spots with harsh delight. I think I finished the game in 45 minutes and as we are packing up I learned he had downloaded the list and had never played before. Now, I would normally explain that he was making a potential mistake and help a new player, but I never realised as his army was just so well put together.

I think you need to know how to fly the list regardless. I went against a very meta 3 K Wing list yesterday at an X Wing tournament. The guy knew how to fly, and afterwards, he said I had done everything right to combat his list (despite never playing against it). Sometimes the dice just don't go your way.

At that point I wasn't aware how popular that list was as I'm a very casual player.

I'm not saying it's bad to netlist. Ultimately you need to be able to fly it and make it work for your specific situation.

Netlisting has 3 potential pitfalls, all mentioned above.

1). New person smashing. A new person gets smacked by a top list

2) creative list smashing. If there exists a dominant list it can be hard to play with speculative lists and do well

3) group think. Net lists give some sort of stamp of approval for some people won't listen unless the person giving a counter argument is a 4 time world champion. See Gencon list and the wave 1 squadron misperceptions by the community at large.

All three are not actually problems with netlisting. All three are problems with people and netlisting makes the behavior visible. But netlisting takes the blame.

1) is simply being a jerk

2) is either being a jerk, a miscommunication regarding the intent of the game (hardcore vs casual) or an attempt to impose casualness upon competition.

3) is people tribal/herd instincts and misuse of logic.

Netlists are great. It's the sharing of information and used positively a boon to everyone. Used negativity they harden the community's perception of reality and can get in the way of new ideas.

Thankfully we don't have the collectable card game aspect where netlists came from and are part of the reason many don't like them. It's annoying enough to have your test deck get stomped, even more so when it's stomped by $1000 worth of superior cards to your $40 creative deck.

I can only see three types of people taking ombrage with netlisting : sore losers, bloggers not getting the credit they think they deserve for writing about them, and lastly people who realise that netlists tend to establish a consensus of which the more often than not aggressive defenders will be a pita to debate against.

Netlisting has 3 potential pitfalls, all mentioned above.

1). New person smashing. A new person gets smacked by a top list

2) creative list smashing. If there exists a dominant list it can be hard to play with speculative lists and do well

3) group think. Net lists give some sort of stamp of approval for some people won't listen unless the person giving a counter argument is a 4 time world champion. See Gencon list and the wave 1 squadron misperceptions by the community at large.

All three are not actually problems with netlisting. All three are problems with people and netlisting makes the behavior visible. But netlisting takes the blame.

1) is simply being a jerk

2) is either being a jerk, a miscommunication regarding the intent of the game (hardcore vs casual) or an attempt to impose casualness upon competition.

3) is people tribal/herd instincts and misuse of logic.

Netlists are great. It's the sharing of information and used positively a boon to everyone. Used negativity they harden the community's perception of reality and can get in the way of new ideas.

Thankfully we don't have the collectable card game aspect where netlists came from and are part of the reason many don't like them. It's annoying enough to have your test deck get stomped, even more so when it's stomped by $1000 worth of superior cards to your $40 creative deck.

In Armada you hardly need a netlist of stomp a newbie - given the importance of maneuver it's very likely a new player will get stomped regardless of the fleets involved.

I think it is a little too early to call Armada netlistable. Armada does't have the popularity of X-wing so you won't see it on blogs or fansites as much likewise you won't find lists as thoroughly play-tested as say an X-wing list. So you migh come across a list that has a 95% win ration with 50 games and then in the meta round your area that may have more squadrons, that list doesn't win a single game because of it.

As for Armada, I'm still looking for an Android app similar to the one like X-wing companion. I can't find that, then I doubt a thoroughly tried netlist would be any easier.

That's one of the reasons why I made a sister thread in the X-Wing forums and that one is on 4-pages now.

Well, I am a bit of a Timmy / Johnny hybrid - I like playing with things everyone else considers bad or worse and pushing the envelope on synergistic combos. I also like net-lists in the sense that it is like looking into the future for what is about to pop up in the meta, and a good primer for figuring out what works, and why it is working. And where you can look and say "here is what I might come up against - what recourse does my list have against this?"

Back when I played X-Wing, when Wave 4 was going strong, the big hotness was Whisper and 4BZ. I knew, designing my lists, that I had to have an answer to both Whisper and his crazy antics and the brute force of the 4BZ list. It meant that many lists went back to the drawing board when the last points were counted up and I asked "So, how does this keep Whisper honest"? Or "How does this avoid taking 4 B-Wing shots the first round of shooting?" If those questions couldn't be answered, then really I couldn't play it. This in turn let my lists become more competitive, and more likely to do what I wanted - win with something I put my own spin on.

The danger does come when people begin to treat the net lists as the only meta out there. How many times did we hear "Starfighters are dead", "GenCon is will take Worlds" before we watched the Twitch stream of a fighter heavy build smash through two GenCon Special variants? How much now are we hearing about Ackbar being the only choice for commander, or that Fireballs are unbeatable?

There are Timmys, Johnnys, and Spikes in every healthy meta, but it is only if they are working together to make that meta work. Spikes cannot be so fixated on the current top of the meta that they ignore any counter-meta coming their way. Johnnys need to know what the current meta is, and how it is being streamlined, so that they can develop the "next big thing" and keep it from getting stale. And we all need some Timmy in our lives to keep things casual, fun, and not make this game into a job or chore.

I'm like an Optimus/Prime myself.

I don't usually net-list, but when I do, I prefer Dos ISD's.

Anyways, ever-so-slightly more on topic: I don't like net-listing if it means every game I play is against the same exact thing. However, in Armada, I agree that so much more depends on your decisions that it's not nearly as bad as other games. Even the old 180 point core-set battles were entertaining for a good bit longer than I would have thought! Props to good game design!

I don't usually net-list, but when I do, I prefer Dos ISD's.

Anyways, ever-so-slightly more on topic: I don't like net-listing if it means every game I play is against the same exact thing. However, in Armada, I agree that so much more depends on your decisions that it's not nearly as bad as other games. Even the old 180 point core-set battles were entertaining for a good bit longer than I would have thought! Props to good game design!

Let's stir the pot ever so slightly, and I ask others to contribute their trains of thought as well.

What about X-Wing? X-Wing has arguably even more choices than Armada (8 waves vs. 2) and there's a ton of variation.

I don't want to turn this into a Armada vs. X-Wing thread, but do you think down the line that Armada will be slightly list dependent? After all, I would argue both games are designed very well, and that maneuvering is very important in both, I'm just curious.

I'm like an Optimus/Prime myself.

I'm more of a Rosie Huntington-Whiteley kind of guy.

Steady. Steady. Stay on target.

I wouldn't say I 'NetDeck' per se, as even in MtG I play creatively. For Armada, I mostly trawl for tactics and combos above wholesale lists.

I'm like an Optimus/Prime myself.

I'm more of a Rosie Huntington-Whiteley kind of guy.

I'm still trying to get back to Primax -408.24 Epsilon.

Personally, I like looking at netlist yet I rarely if ever will play one, I just like to see what other people I cannot meet in real life for a game can come up with, how they think, how they play and all that. It make me look at synergies I might have overlook or make me see new ones as people are to fixated on the curent meta, I'm a half creative, half optimizing type and I like trying goofy idea that often end up in lots of wasted points as thing didn't synergise as well as I thought it would on paper, or the back up plan was never needed or whatnot and I'm perfectly fine with that. But then I like the tension and the "how I'm getting out of this mess" feel when things don't go according to plan. But then also I worked for a small gaming company and did lots of teaching and demoing along with playtesting and trying to game and break the system, but mostly I like to have fun and thinking up list and seeing how it goes is like a good part of the fun for me.

So no I don't see a problem with netlist, what I cannot stand is "mathhammer" because at the end of the day nobody is perfect, we all end up making mistake (large and small) and the dice can turn on you and you can be killed by a ball of unbosted Tie-figther, so take what you want to and try to have fun, and play with style.... style is awesome

So no I don't see a problem with netlist, what I cannot stand is "mathhammer" because at the end of the day nobody is perfect, we all end up making mistake (large and small) and the dice can turn on you and you can be killed by a ball of unbosted Tie-figther, so take what you want to and try to have fun, and play with style.... style is awesome

Math-based approaches to wargames are important. As long as such games use probability and point-based systems, statistics will be valuable tools to aid in system mastery. There are a number of people who fall into the trap of relying exclusively on those approaches, though.

Net listing is fine. I personally don't do it often unless someone comes up with an idea I find interesting (Garm's Gups for instance).

Netlisting is a great way to shake up a meta so don't be afraid to try it out. As long as everyone understands that each Meta is different and that a list taken from someone outside of that meta may be good but just as likely not be good.