So, this segment of Discussion Time is on the statement of "It's not the list, it's you."

Now, a few things to discuss with this. First off, what is your first reaction to the statement? Second, how would you apply this to Armada? Lastly, how would you go explaining this to new and veteran players?

So, I will start.

Personally, I like this statement. It fits my idea of Armada because it all comes down to experiences. One could go ahead and tell a new player what to play and build but if they don't have the experience then they won't make the list work.

Lists in Armada are like an extension of ourselves. We build them with various purposes and concepts while working out possible concerns. Another player won't be always able to duplicate the same results with a list of yours. That is because it is your list, it fits your Style and your meta.

People can use my Dodonna the Oppressor list or my Silly 6x Nebulon-B list but they won't use them the same way.

So that's my take in this. What is yours?

I agree.

Your list has to be good but for a while my 2x ISD list was received as not a good list. Knowing the list and knowing how i will play it in every objective as first and second player is why i have success. I know the list, i practice the list , and I have very good ideas of what it can and can not do.

Experience trumps almost everything in armada. Sure a list may get the drop and hook you up but after that should you face it again you should know exactly what to expect and know how to counter it.

Also I see a lot of people run amazingly designed lists and then just throw random objectives at it. It completely outdoes everything the list does. Why put in 90% effort and not really take a hard look at the objectives you want.

I also see people with said great lists just put down questionable choices of command dials and they lose the game in the command phase regardless of dice or maneuvering.

I still think its 1/3 Fleet and 2/3 You.

A very similar thread:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/202938-about-fleet-composition-and-fleet-deployment/?p=2058554

I hate the way how "Its not the list, its you." is thrown around as a derogatory statement in another game I play.

Experience does make a difference.

But let's not make it a catchphrase to admonish people... Let's nip that right in the bud.

Agreed. Then again, I saw too much of the "Page 5" crown from Warmachine that used this sort of thing as a cludgel against other players...ESPECIALLY newbies. With everything, there is a level of having to gain experience. You have to understand rule interactions, the way your ships will move, and HAVE A PLAN. Too many people, myself included in this, always flail around for that winning list and never settle on an idea to try for a bit. You hook for results instead of experience, which in a way isn't unlike real life outside of gaming for some of us.

If it's anything I have learned in recent months, and from listening to Steve's podcast with the guys, is that practice begets experience. That allows for the conversation to move away from "Not the list, it's you"; to look for other circumstances.

I think this is a complex topic.

• Your list, basically, will never win you a game. In every single case, you have to take a list, and then put it on the table and execute a plan. There is no substitute for player skill, and no matter how much the match-up favors a player, a poor player can lose to a good player in any circumstance.
• However, your list can very definitely lose you a game, and no matter how well you play, you may be outmatched. Take a two or three ship list, without squadrons, without exceptional maneuvering potential, and pair it against something like a 5+ activation demolisher rush list that is going first. I would suggest that if you play that game, and both players are not totally unbalanced in terms of skill, whomever plays the demo list is likely to win, period, full stop.
• Also, there are lists which are objectively bad. Perhaps the most obvious example would be putting slaved turrets and gunnery teams on the same ship type errors, but when push comes to shove, poor lists can be created that have internal anti-synergy (or are weak to common strong lists) and, again, given relatively competent opponents, one person will be at a permanent disadvtange.
• Last, there is the issue of objectives. An otherwise good list can be undone by poor objectives, and likewise, an otherwise bad list can be saved with some objective luck.

So to say it's never the list is clearly wrong. Sometimes, actually, it is the list. However, to say it's always the list is also wrong. Sometimes, actually, the player is just playing poorly.

In reality, many situations are a combination of both, and also context dependent. You always have to try to improve all aspects of your game, which goes beyond just netlisting and to actually putting things on the table and making sure you can execute.

I hate the way how "Its not the list, its you." is thrown around as a derogatory statement in another game I play.

Experience does make a difference.

But let's not make it a catchphrase to admonish people... Let's nip that right in the bud.

To me, it is not just derogatory. To me it is a statement that can be taken in any amount of capacity.

It can be good, it can be bad, but in the end it all comes down to you.

I think Reinholt has it best so far. The term is not to be used as a hammer to beat people down. It is used to make people aware that the list is not the end all be all of things.

This is why net listing is so hard to do in this game. Back when the IFF guys were using Garm's Gups, I tried it out even though I have a huge aversion to net listing. It did not go my way at all. It was not my style of play and I did not have the experience needed to play it right. Even DrunkTarkin said the same thing in a following episode.

Sorry, but If I take our your "Dodonna the Oppressor" list, and then get stomped in 5 games, the intent of the statement becomes either:

1) - I'm not as Good as you are.
2) - I'm not as Experienced as you are.

It is a simplified statement that negates so many of the arguments and factors we indeed have in our own methods, metas, and opponents.

What I am against is the possibility that this statement be used that way. Because if you make it a "thing", people will use it that way.

I'm opposed to it being a thing.

You like the Statement.

I hate the Statement.

Woo! Discussion!

Armada is somewhat different from X-Wing or Imperial Assault or most other mini games in that pretty much all the units function mostly the same.

ISD's and MC-80's may have more dice and different sized arc's, but every ship functions the same way at a basic level. The upgrades don't really change that fundamentally either. The biggest ones being things like Gunnery Team and Electronic Countermeasures.

Every ship uses the same maneuver tool, every ship can fire twice every ship has shields on 4 sides, ect...

Since they all work the same way list building is more about giving you the tools to carry out your plan, then making a plan based on what your list can do.

Sorry, but If I take our your "Dodonna the Oppressor" list, and then get stomped in 5 games, the intent of the statement becomes either:

1) - I'm not as Good as you are.

2) - I'm not as Experienced as you are.

It is a simplified statement that negates so many of the arguments and factors we indeed have in our own methods, metas, and opponents.

What I am against is the possibility that this statement be used that way. Because if you make it a "thing", people will use it that way.

I'm opposed to it being a thing.

You like the Statement.

I hate the Statement.

Woo! Discussion!

Hahaha, I get that. Just like I am not good with your Slaved Turrets VSD list. It is in the end us though. The connotation that I am trying to imply is that instead of using it to hit someone over the head. Use it as a lesson on what you like to play. Use it as a method to learn from.

Armada is somewhat different from X-Wing or Imperial Assault or most other mini games in that pretty much all the units function mostly the same.

ISD's and MC-80's may have more dice and different sized arc's, but every ship functions the same way at a basic level. The upgrades don't really change that fundamentally either. The biggest ones being things like Gunnery Team and Electronic Countermeasures.

Every ship uses the same maneuver tool, every ship can fire twice every ship has shields on 4 sides, ect...

Since they all work the same way list building is more about giving you the tools to carry out your plan, then making a plan based on what your list can do.

That is how Infinity works. I have started that game and this phrase was talked about on Mayacast.

That is also the game I'm referencing it to above.

Unfortunately, I can't get further into the discussion without bringing up Cultural Biases and issues, and frankly, that will offend some people,

I'm against its use.

I'll leave it at that, and leave this thread alone now.

I'm not sure why the statement would be seen as derogatory... Because it is quite often going to be true. How many lists are there that quite simply can never win?

In X-Wing there is the 6 HWK-290 list which quite simply can not win, but there's nothing really like that in Armada that I can think of anyway. So it's not unfair to say that if you lose it's most likely because you didn't play as well as the other guy.

I'm not sure why the statement would be seen as derogatory... Because it is quite often going to be true. How many lists are there that quite simply can never win?

In X-Wing there is the 6 HWK-290 list which quite simply can not win, but there's nothing really like that in Armada that I can think of anyway. So it's not unfair to say that if you lose it's most likely because you didn't play as well as the other guy.

Because its not so much when you compare to your other player in that game.

Its when its used to compare you to another person using the same list in a different environment.

It's a gross oversimplification.

It is absolutely possible to build a bad list in Armada. For example, six Raiders, all with Boosted Comms and Flight Controllers, with a total of two squadrons of TIE Bombers, led by Admiral Motti. It may well be possible to defeat people using that list, but in no way is it contributing to your performance in a meaningful way, and you're effectively playing with a handicap. Similarly, a load of VSDs with Slaved Turrets, Gunnery Teams and led by Admiral Ozzel.

However, past a certain point, list optimisation is a game of diminishing returns, and player skill becomes so much more significant a factor. Once a list is free of contradictory upgrades, and in general works to its strengths, it's the player's skill with the list that will be the biggest factor in winning games.

However, once you get good enough using a particular fleet, further improvements might only be possible by refining your list. Something I'm currently facing myself - I play very aggressively, so is my use of an Imperial-II with defensive upgrades contributing to my success more than a cheaper Imperial-I, which might allow me to take more useful upgrades and fleet elements elsewhere? I'm confident that I'm about as good as I am personally capable of being with my current fleet, so now I want to make sure that the list is contributing as much as it should to my play style.

If you're asking specifically about "Netlists", then I absolutely think they're a red herring in Armada. Warhammer 40k? Sure, that game is so ludicrously poorly balanced that I believe there really are lists out there that require a bare minimum level of knowledge of the game in order to be nigh-unbeatable. But in Armada, I firmly believe there is no "unbeatable" list - although there might be unbeatable Player/List combinations, in which a player is so proficient with his fleet, and his fleet list has been refined well enough, that defeating him requires a string of flukey dice rolls on both sides. I don't know though, I would be surprised if that really was the case.

Saying "It's not the list, it's you" in Armada is a bit like saying "It's not the car, it's the driver" - in actual fact, there are cars that perform better than others when driven by the same person. There are also drivers who will never be as good as other no matter what car they drive. It is perfectly acceptable for a driver, following either an accident in normal driving or a loss at a race, to examine his car and ensure that it did not contribute to the negative outcome. It might be that he ended up in a collision because he forgot to check his mirrors - but it might also be that he came third because his engine just didn't have enough... carburetor, or whatever, on the final turn, compared to the other cars in the race.

I'm also against the use of this phrase. Its demeaning and insulting. And could easily be worded better.

seeing that, I see most players loose because they are always charging in and not fighting their
forces as a TEAM.
I would say its 75% the player win or loose and only 25% the force put on the table.
because even when the players swap fleets and play another game the same mistakes are made
with the new fleet. Just the way some people are.
Being in a harry to close in this game is a sure way to loose ships.

Just my out look on it

It's a gross oversimplification.

It is absolutely possible to build a bad list in Armada. For example, six Raiders, all with Boosted Comms and Flight Controllers, with a total of two squadrons of TIE Bombers, led by Admiral Motti. It may well be possible to defeat people using that list, but in no way is it contributing to your performance in a meaningful way, and you're effectively playing with a handicap. Similarly, a load of VSDs with Slaved Turrets, Gunnery Teams and led by Admiral Ozzel.

However, past a certain point, list optimisation is a game of diminishing returns, and player skill becomes so much more significant a factor. Once a list is free of contradictory upgrades, and in general works to its strengths, it's the player's skill with the list that will be the biggest factor in winning games.

However, once you get good enough using a particular fleet, further improvements might only be possible by refining your list. Something I'm currently facing myself - I play very aggressively, so is my use of an Imperial-II with defensive upgrades contributing to my success more than a cheaper Imperial-I, which might allow me to take more useful upgrades and fleet elements elsewhere? I'm confident that I'm about as good as I am personally capable of being with my current fleet, so now I want to make sure that the list is contributing as much as it should to my play style.

If you're asking specifically about "Netlists", then I absolutely think they're a red herring in Armada. Warhammer 40k? Sure, that game is so ludicrously poorly balanced that I believe there really are lists out there that require a bare minimum level of knowledge of the game in order to be nigh-unbeatable. But in Armada, I firmly believe there is no "unbeatable" list - although there might be unbeatable Player/List combinations, in which a player is so proficient with his fleet, and his fleet list has been refined well enough, that defeating him requires a string of flukey dice rolls on both sides. I don't know though, I would be surprised if that really was the case.

Saying "It's not the list, it's you" in Armada is a bit like saying "It's not the car, it's the driver" - in actual fact, there are cars that perform better than others when driven by the same person. There are also drivers who will never be as good as other no matter what car they drive. It is perfectly acceptable for a driver, following either an accident in normal driving or a loss at a race, to examine his car and ensure that it did not contribute to the negative outcome. It might be that he ended up in a collision because he forgot to check his mirrors - but it might also be that he came third because his engine just didn't have enough... carburetor, or whatever, on the final turn, compared to the other cars in the race.

Pretty much what I was going to type out, just put better.

A good admiral can win with a bad list, but a good admiral can win more easily with a good list.

Building a list that is even mildly optimized and then being to utilize the strengths of that list is part of playing the game... but not all lists are created equal, and if people are willing to buy a ship to get one upgrade card (coughNEBULONcough) then there's something to be said about some upgrades being more optimized than others.

But sure, if you're awful at the game it won't really matter what you run anyways.

Ok. Lots of long replies. And it seems that people are taking it a different way than me. I see the statement as:"it's not the list, that fits your play style.." As in... You hand me a list with 4 vsd. I won't win. It's not my style. Hand me 6 glads. Maybe. But hand those same to another player. And the reverse could be true. Who knows. Just my two cents.

I agree the phase seems hurtful. I also think I understand what what they mean by it. When I see a posted list I think someone is saying, "what do you think of this?" I suppose some might see it as "You should win with this one." I agree it would probably better to say, "that might not be the list for you."

Even better would be to discuss what parts of a fleet might not fit with someone's style.

I wish we had more people posting list concepts and thoughts over just the list.

My Dodonna the Oppressor list got hosed on for a time but now people are using it and seeing where I am going with it.

I can see why people can see the phrase being hurtful but it all comes down to connotation and the way people say things.

No list plays itself.

Lists that feature certain strengths may find themselves geared towards a given approach or style of play, sure. If Armada was played on a large grid (think Chess), there would be sets of 'optimal' openers with those various list types, since there would be significantly fewer variables at play. If you consider card games like MtG, where net-decking is extremely prevalent, the reason for that is that there's only a handful of ways that turns can go, especially if you're expecting to play against a batch of 3-5 other meta-relevant decks. You can prepare for maybe a few dozen interactions between major cards in the first few turns, and adapt to any outliers as you go. More experience helps on those later turns or more obscure scenarios, but with certain decks getting an overwhelming advantage in a few turns, people don't necessarily need to play a netdeck too many times to perform in tournament scenarios.

No fleet flies itself, which is why I think that net-lists aren't all that prevalent or successful in Armada. With the granularity of deployment and maneuvering in Armada, specifically that ships can start at any angle relative to every other ship on the board, not just 22.5 degree increments, there is no real way to fly in a way that reacts to your opponent without knowing how to your ships. While this might seem like a slight oversimplification, maneuvering is paramount to success in this game, and knowing how your list can and/or should fly increases your chances of performing well.

On the one hand, players do definitely have distinct playstyle preferences, and probably won't be particularly effective playing a list that doesn't mesh with their style. On the other, knowing the limitations of moving a ship in one kind of list provides extremely valid insight into maneuvering that ship in a totally different list, so experience is somewhat transferable between different lists.

Rather than fixating on what is objectively best, players should focus on learning their preferred playstyle and what ships / fleet concepts they enjoy or are most naturally good at. I don't think the phrase in question is particularly useful or damaging, but it's an oversimplification.

In a traditional miniatures wargame the ideal situation is that the list has a very small impact on the game experience. No one would ever continue to play a game where after weeks of painting, modeling and stuffing about you took your toys to a game day and got smashed because you picked the wrong faction, or didn't take then "next big thing."

With Armada where it is pre-painted and my only commitment is to pay for and unbox my toys, do your worst. If you come up with a killer list, my access to that list is exactly the same as anyone else. A short trip to the store away. However, trying to defeat that list is far more fun, even though I haven't found the magic sauce for my friends Demolisher list I will get there and that game win will be far more delightful for all the game lost between times.

My meta at the moment consists of my two regular opponents trying to max out Squadrons and build very balanced squadrons that consist of bombers, Intel and such. Figure if I can push 80-100 points of Squadrons that will kill their Squadrons I have a good head start on points. If I kill a ship bonus!

The initial statement is a nice conversation starter. It is a bit of an oversimplification though. The game is one seamless whole from fleet design to the conclusion of the game. The discussion of fleet design here, or deck-building in other games reminds me a lot of talk of the opening in chess. You'll find more chess books on the opening than virtually any other subject. This is the one part of the game that feels under our control. We don't know what choices the opponent will make or how well they'll play the rest of the game, but we can put a measure of control on the opening, and thus people spend an inordinate amount of time studying the opening. This gets carried over into customizable games for the same psychological need for control. I'd say that 3/4 to 7/8 of all strategical and tactical discussion for every customizable game that I've played has focused on the initial design itself. What this means is that we have a significant over-emphasis on one phase of the game relative to its overall importance in the final outcome of the game.

What really allows players to succeed is: Good decision-making. That starts with correct judgment in designing fleets and proceeds into a correct plan with objectives, circumstances, and archetypal match-ups, and concludes with effective tactical decisions from turn to turn.

When I win, it's obviously my brilliance that won me the day.

When I lose, it was the list, the meta, and definitely the fault of the dice.

But seriously, list building is part of the overall skill of playing. Some people have certain strengths and weaknesses. List building is not something I spend enough time on, and it frequently hurts me.