What if you were flying to before everyone else thought it was cool

Also it doesn't take much to come up with the same thing as everyone else

Not to hard to look at a few ships you enjoy realize that thisand this works well and bam, your flying same thing as everyone else

I'm super anti-meta. I take pride in making and flying good lists that most people don't see that often.

That being said, as others mentioned, if I'm facing a player with relatively equal skill with a meta list I'm more likely to lose than win.

There's a reason they're meta lists, they are tested powerful lists that are great for the points. As someone who HATES losing, it's hard to be competitive while remaining anti-meta.

I don't blame people for flying either list. They're not just good. They're interesting and fun. But I think the real problem to consider when looking at these two archetypes is that you're either the best with that archetype or you're not. All of your opponents are ready for that matchup. Nobody is ready for all the tier 1.5 rebel lists.

OP is correct. Be the change you want.

and the change you want is bombs

There's a reason they're meta lists, they are tested powerful lists that are great for the points. As someone who HATES losing, it's hard to be competitive while remaining anti-meta.

I think we'd still have metalists even if the game were perfectly balanced simply because people assume a tournament winner has a good list. That's not to say that's a bad assumption, but tournament victory data's always going to be skewed in favour of the meta lists simply because more people are running them.

This is such a great time to try out that wacky synergy that you've noticed but nobody ever talks about. I'm calling Wave 8 "Wave 1.5" because there are so many unique competitive lists out there that can go toe to toe with the Tier 1 lists if you fly them well. If you've ever thought you had the next Rebel Convoy or Danger Zone or whatever, now is the time to try it.

I'm super anti-meta. I take pride in making and flying good lists that most people don't see that often.

That being said, as others mentioned, if I'm facing a player with relatively equal skill with a meta list I'm more likely to lose than win.

There's a reason they're meta lists, they are tested powerful lists that are great for the points. As someone who HATES losing, it's hard to be competitive while remaining anti-meta.

There's a special feeling that comes with success combined with creativity - and I understand the chase for that feeling. Some people are just hardwired to be creative, and always will be. Others have the 'underdog' syndrome, where they will always want to compete with something unusual or slightly underpowered. I have both of these problem - so I just embrace them and work on improving.

I'm actually grateful for all the people playing tier 1 lists at the moment. Playing against Palp aces is great for building your skill in blocking, creating kill zones and focusing fire. U-Boats make you aware of blocks, dodging arcs and getting into range 1.

I'd like to point out that 'Imp A-holes' is a list I try to run frequently, and fail. It can't be that impossible as to warrant such a moniker.

Though I will say this; I see a lot more Imps than Rebels now that Wave 8 is out and everyone has had a taste. I'm even seeing long time Rebs cracking open Scum so they can learn new tricks and lot's of diversity. So obviously this is anecdotal and entirely evidenced by my own area, but Wave 8 seems to have pushed the meta by virtue of sheer existence! We didn't see a lot of U-Boats and only one Ghost, but the idea that you could show up and have to face these things made people change it up. No one spammed any of the really OP stuff like Rec Spec Kanaan Ghost and Wolf Pack, but instead they did their own thing. People who didn't have the new hotness simply made lists to counter what they expected to face, as a result there were some interesting lists. Lot's of two ship builds that you'd never expect to see. Dual B-Wings and big init, that was a thing beleive it or not. Whisper saw action with Imperial Boba and did well. PS10 X-WIng Squadron came back looking to outshoot a Han everyone knew was going to be trouble. I ran a swarm with Howlrunner and naked Phantoms. Haha, yup. There was a tricked out Baron here, a 4-LOM and Zuckuss over there...

So... I dunno man...

Seems like is you play it right the meta-game can be a pretty healthy thing. A lot of good things can happen when a group of players try to adapt to a new situation. I mean, D&D right? It's like the meta-game is your party and FFG is the DM. They say 'you look ahead three months and see an 18 point Imperial Stressbot on the way, what do you do?' and you as the player have to either react, take third watch or let the Cleric die.

In a lot of cases you look at a tournament sheet. See 50 people showed up

The top lists are your "meta lists" meanwhile those who tried to break away from the meta don't place.

There is a reason and it's not all skill.

Some things are just better in a tournament structure which you have to take other things into account like time.

You may see the odd tournament where something a little unusual will do well, but that's because for reasons of its own, but for the most part, if you go to a tournament and think " I want to see bombers do well" fly bunch of bombers then come across a meta list, and lose, it's because they are pretty powerful in a good players hand.

I try to break away from meta lists, but I know the value of some things and how well it works and enjoy using it, so I end up with a meta list.

The palmobile is a good example

I like to fly fel.

I want him to stay alive

I could fly a bunch if ties, or couple more aces with him, but I look at the palmobile, and think this will keep fel alive.

Especially when I get that bad roll.

Just the other night I had whisper roll 3 blanks and 1 focus on defense where my opponent had 3 hits

Agent Kallus, my evade, and emperor kept him from taking no dmg.

I'm not flying it because it's the cool thing to do. (while I was before it was as popular as now) but also because it keeps my ship alive

If this game was around 30 years ago before Internet, you'd still see a lot of the same meta lists because for an experienced player it wouldn't be hard to figure out these 3 ships with these upgrades are very strong.

OP is correct. Be the change you want.

This.

a big problem with anti-meta is a few people don't make the connection of hyper-modification being the be-all-end-all in an rng-driven game (blame the green dice) and that it's possible to make lists that have hyper-modification without resorting to AAA meta stuff

this is why I love bombs. they're harder to use than palpatine, without a doubt, but they're so super-modified that they don't even use red OR green dice

the other thing rarely exploited is the removal of hyper-modification via blocking. The humble A-wing really found its grove this wave (assuming it didn't when it placed 2nd at worlds; carrying two scrub aces with it) and it just plays havoc with poor jumpmasters and their focus-action dependent torpedoes

flying inefficient ships can work wonders, so long as said inefficient ships bring something to the table beyond their inefficiency (poor non-biggs x-wings )

Or even better, stop playing the boring tournament format games over and over! Try some different points levels, try some scenarios, use some Epic ships, play Heroes of the Aturi cluster, mix it up a little!

I agree. . .there is far more to X-Wing than 100-point asteroid field death matches.

Or even better, stop playing the boring tournament format games over and over! Try some different points levels, try some scenarios, use some Epic ships, play Heroes of the Aturi cluster, mix it up a little!

This is just hurting what the OP is trying to suggest. By calling one format boring, you already are showing a bias, which is no better then people complaining but being part of the problem. He's asking for people to change it up if they see a rut, or stop complaining. You have done the changing up, but much like earlier, ever persons opinion on fun will differ, and currently the vast majority enjoy the "boring" tournament standard.

Not entirely. . .although the solution is different. Sick of meta? As opposed to different lists, play different styles. Arc dodgers wither and die when faced with 300 points of guns running at them. Palp modifies one roll in 10+ per turn, rather than 1 roll in 2-3 per turn. List building becomes completely different. I wonder what would happen is asteroids become random. . .sometimes there are 12, sometimes there are none. It would at least add another element of uncertainty when approaching the table.

Appreciate all the feedback. Just to reiterate a few things-

If you are hyper competitive and enjoy taking meta lists, and listbuilding is of little importance to you, then yes, there is a good chance that those archetypes which have been winning regionals consistently are not only good options, but safe ones. To these players, I would say, if possible, at the very least take some time to look at the skeleton of that list and try to put a little bit of your own flavor in it, even if it is only 3-5 points worth. Not only will this help put your own stamp on the archetype, it will also be key in the mirror match up. For some popular lists this simply isn't possible though, which is unfortunate. Outside of that, I am not really referencing these type of players.

The players I am speaking to are those who find listbuilding enjoyable and exhilarating, and still enjoy winning. To these players, I am suggesting that you don't just fall in line with the meta and miss out on the enjoyment of listbuilding by taking a net list because you have been lead to believe it's the only way to win. I strongly believe you can win with a list you created.

Also, to those who believe it's already too late and they need to take a break from Organized Play, I say that only makes the issue worse. As less players who enjoy taking anti-meta lists join tournaments, it becomes less likely that anything outside of the meta wins these tournaments or places well. We need these type of players to continue to play the game the way they do to help break apart the monotony of the game in some regions. I feel there is enough evidence in regional results that prove that taking something other than uboats or Palp still offers you a healthy chance at placing well if your list a) is flown well and b) takes in to consideration these types of lists when you are list building.

Kdubb, you're a great poster, but everything you suggest here goes against human nature in my opinion.

In a nutshell, in any competetive environment, there will be certain strategies which are dominant over others, so others will either try to adopt those strategies or try to counter them. This is also why we call it the meta-game, it's the game of predicting who brings the counter to a dominant strategy or the counter to the counter-strategy, and so on and so forth. It's almost the exact opposite of "just run the list you like even if you dont win" as you suggest here.

It's the equivalent of telling NBA teams to stop acquiring shooters for their teams just because Curry is the best there is.

This meta-process translates into present day x-wing by most competetive players either running uboats or their most obvious counters, palp aces and crack swarm. Note that both of these lists have been good before, but have only recently gained so much steam because their counters (mostly rebel regen and stressbot) have been pushed out of the meta. This did not happen by accident.

Sure there are outliers and some people simply refusing to take part in the meta, but you cant fault players for bringing the "best" lists, counter-lists and counter-counter-lists. It's a natural process in competetive environments and does not mean these players are not intelligent as you suggest. In many ways it's quite the opposite, it's only logical that the "best" players would adopt the dominant strategies or their best counter-strategies or (...).

Hope this makes sense.

Celes, you hit me right in the heart with that Curry example since I am a big NBA fan. I certainly understand the comparison, and it is a fair one. But I am personally of the belief that we are not at the level of NBA analytics here, so I'm not 100% sold that Palp Aces is the Warriors and Uboats is the Cavs. And even if we were at that level of analytics, I would still trumpet this idea, as I have just as big a fear that the NBA will soon turn in to a 3 point shooting contest as X-wing will devolve in to Palp vs Uboats (though the warriors beautiful ball movement has minimized this worry). The NBA is also restricted to 30 teams which, while able to change from year to year, the roster is largely static during the season. It's going to be much more difficult to find a "counter" to Steph Curry when teams have a limited roster and can't mix and mingle players from all teams to find what works to beat him. And interestingly enough, Steph Curry might be an example that our own contrived biases based on results can be folly. How many years did it take until the NBA utilized the 3 point line the way it is being utilized now? There were some NBA champions who largely IGNORED the existence of the 3 point line. But, as a counter argument to that, we could also call the players nowadays compared to those in the older generation as new "waves" which change the meta. Maybe the 82 Lakers didn't have access to Guidance Chips.

I agree that in a competitive environment, when push comes to shove, players are going to pick up what they have seen win. I just believe there is more out there that can compete that is just waiting to be dreamed up. Kinetic Operator proves it to us every year at worlds. And Triple Tactician K-wings could stand to any list in that meta when flown well, so it's not outrageous to think we are handicapping the game by netlisting as much as we do. And as a side note- KO ran that list only for about a week before worlds!

I don't believe OP is saying don't play meta-lists.

He's saying don't complain about meta-lists and then play them.

Essentially, stop complaining about the problem if you're part of it.

However IMO, it's perfectly valid to complain there are too few top-tier lists but still play a top tier list because you want to win.

Not playing a top-tier list will not solve the problem you have (there are too few top tier lists), it will simply result in you not playing a top-tier list.

Part of the problem for me with everyone jumping on the band wagon, is the effect on newer players. Here in the UK there is an abundance of triple jumps.

Obviously part of their strengths are they can be a very forgiving list to try, which helps players who may not normally do too well at tournaments, do a lot better.

Recently at a couple of local tournies ive been (and a regional) there has been a few players who have only been playing for a month or so, who have gone out brought three jumps and only played them. They have been placing solidly midtable but thats not really what i want to focus on.

By veing so influenced by the 'meta' i feel like they are really missing out learning fundamentals of the game like manoeuvring. Also missing out on the fun of list building. I think to be a truly good player you need to try out loads of different ships and learn what works and doesnt from playing, rather then just picking up a list that everyone seems to be playing.

I probably have no place in competitive play. I like to play lists which I find fun; usually, these lists are at least marginally thematic (like Omega Ace, Omega Leader and 3 Omega Squadron). I'll try within my thematic ideas to make a list as efficient as possible, but I refuse to simply copy popular lists because meta.

That said, I am competing in the Utah Regional with a list I made sure to plan before looking much online at popular lists. To be honest, I still don't know what's popular right now besides Aceholes and Toilet Seats. Knowing that I'll be lucky to place even in the top 64 (hence, earning the alt art Hera), I'm still going, because I think the opportunity to play 6 games against players who are almost certainly better at the game than I am will be both fun and educational.

Practicing with my list, I have been fairly happy with it, so I hope to at least give my opponents a few decent games. Practice led me to refine my list, but the refinements are based on which upgrades proved useful, what was sucking points while not seeing use, and how could I better streamline the list as a whole. The list has not been refined specifically to counter U-boats, Aces, or anything. Instead, I focused on general strengths and weaknesses. I hope it will do well, but if it loses brutally, at least I lose with something I put together, and can therefore take full credit for however the list performs. No credit for my victories will go to whomever conceived some popular list, nor can I blame anyone but myself for defeat.

As a result, whatever happens, I have plenty to gain from it. Losses will lead to me learning to improve my flying, strategy, or list building. Victories in themselves are great, but they also can show me what elements of my play style work well, thus also helping me improve my game. When copying a popular list, a lot of these elements are lost. You're left with mostly your own flight skill, and some degree of strategy. Everything to do with designing a list, including the strategic elements of how to deploy a squadron based on the role each ship plays, asteroid placement relative to what your list design requires, and so forth is lost.

If you want to play to the meta, enjoy. I judge no one for how they play with their own toys. Personally, I'd rather fly what I think is fun regardless of meta, hence my effort not to study the meta prior to list building. If what interested me turned out to be a popular list, so be it. It's still what I want to fly. The meta won't tell me what not to fly any more than it dictates what to fly. Competitive or not, this is a game, and I play it to have fun. Hopefully, meta or otherwise, that's the point for all of us. Having fun with plastic spaceships.

I'm one of those that like coming up with new and creative lists that are competitive when you have a good strategy for them.

At the same time though, I can see why folks take meta lists especially if they only have a limited number of competitive level tournaments they can attend and would like to get some ffg bling. Nothing wrong with it.

Some like to win. Some like to get bling. Some like just play the game. To each his/her own.

I personally would rather see good sportsmanship from all players as it makes for a more enjoyable tournament.

As others have already said. Be the player you want to play against. If you want to play thematic, different or imaginative lists then you've really got a responsibility to bring thematic, different or imaginative lists to your games. If you're happy to play against top tier meta lists then bring whatever you like.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Star Wars fan first and foremost and a gamer distant second, but while I love buying the models and cards because they're Star Wars themed and Star Wars is the only reason I got into the game, these days the truth is that when the models are on the table I couldn't care less about that theme much anymore. I play for the competition against the guys who I meet at the game store. 100pt 75min Rounds is where I get my fun from X-Wing.

As a Star Wars fan first and foremost, I love the films, the books and the comics etc, but when I'm looking for narrative based Star Wars fun then the RPG systems are where I'm looking. Epic, Missions and 'Cinematic Play' just don't compare.

There's two approaches I take in list building:

1. Consider popular archetypes, but make a slight change for the mirror match. I would call this the "2014 Paul Heaver" method, where he brought a Fat Han to counter the Fat Han.

2. Consider popular archetypes, and build a list with less common ships/pilots that mimics the archetypes but in a subtle way.

The second method is extremely difficult and takes more effort/practice, and it is likely that if it's successful, someone else has thought about it and is already putting it to good use.

It really depends on how much time I have to prepare and what the meta looks like for the event I'm participating in. In lower stake tournaments like league kits and VASSAL stuff I tend to experiment more and go with method 2, but for SC and RC season I will usually go with method 1.

I really do enjoy the list building aspect of this game and do agree that people should be looking to bring more unique lists. However, the meta game still has to be a major consideration in both cases. So don't ignore the meta game when deciding on what lists to bring.

Part of the problem for me with everyone jumping on the band wagon, is the effect on newer players. Here in the UK there is an abundance of triple jumps.

Obviously part of their strengths are they can be a very forgiving list to try, which helps players who may not normally do too well at tournaments, do a lot better.

Recently at a couple of local tournies ive been (and a regional) there has been a few players who have only been playing for a month or so, who have gone out brought three jumps and only played them. They have been placing solidly midtable but thats not really what i want to focus on.

By veing so influenced by the 'meta' i feel like they are really missing out learning fundamentals of the game like manoeuvring. Also missing out on the fun of list building. I think to be a truly good player you need to try out loads of different ships and learn what works and doesnt from playing, rather then just picking up a list that everyone seems to be playing.

This has been the case since wave 4/5.

Phantom or die.

Turret or die.

Regen Poe/TLT or die.

The game is no longer about predicting maneuvers well, it's all about having a turret or boosting and barrel rolling with a higher pilot skill.

I think it's okay that new players are joining the Bowflex Revolution. U-Boats are one of the few things in this meta that you actually have to point at your opponent. I'd rather a player get 3 of those than fly Super Dash and pretend to play the game.

I'll play 'palp aces' but never the standard ones (juno/phenir/yorr). I'd rather fly something fun than something OP, even if it means i lose store championships or tournaments.

Part of the problem for me with everyone jumping on the band wagon, is the effect on newer players. Here in the UK there is an abundance of triple jumps.

Obviously part of their strengths are they can be a very forgiving list to try, which helps players who may not normally do too well at tournaments, do a lot better.

Recently at a couple of local tournies ive been (and a regional) there has been a few players who have only been playing for a month or so, who have gone out brought three jumps and only played them. They have been placing solidly midtable but thats not really what i want to focus on.

By veing so influenced by the 'meta' i feel like they are really missing out learning fundamentals of the game like manoeuvring. Also missing out on the fun of list building. I think to be a truly good player you need to try out loads of different ships and learn what works and doesnt from playing, rather then just picking up a list that everyone seems to be playing.

This has been the case since wave 4/5.

Phantom or die.

Turret or die.

Regen Poe/TLT or die.

The game is no longer about predicting maneuvers well, it's all about having a turret or boosting and barrel rolling with a higher pilot skill.

I think it's okay that new players are joining the Bowflex Revolution. U-Boats are one of the few things in this meta that you actually have to point at your opponent. I'd rather a player get 3 of those than fly Super Dash and pretend to play the game.

I find it odd that Jumpmasters are being tagged with so much 'hurr durr derp' hate, when they're actually very interesting and challenging to fly properly. Dial placement is HUGE for them, probably moreso than for any other current list.

Epic, Missions and 'Cinematic Play' just don't compare.

Because they're like, a hundred times better!

Without polling the forum, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people here have never played Epic. And of the ones that have, they can probably count the number of games they've played on one hand. That's not enough to get to grips with a new game format and work out what builds work and what don't, so even of the people who've played Epic, only a small handful will have played it enough to actually develop an understanding of it.

We had a load of epic games over the weekend and they're great fun. The first outing for the raider was very impressive - what feels like a fragile knife fighter in Armada really feels like a looming battleship in X-wing; in its first outing, it essentially flattened about half of the opposing squad in a single barrage of missiles and primary guns.