Hear me out. I don't discount the lists that are super effective to a multitude of lists, (4 TLTS, PalpAces, 3 Uboats, Etc.) But until someone makes a game breaking mathematical graph of ships, their abilities, pilots, cards, upgrades etc and 4TLTS and PalpAces are at the top, then I will eat my shoe. It's mostly leather so it should work.

The reason I say this is because when everyone talks about "the Meta" everyone kinda clues in like word-of-mouth myths from the Arcades of Old and says, "Yeah. I agree. This is the best list. Because I saw one guy use it and it destroyed that other guy!" or "I don't really know too much about the game, but it sure is fun, maybe I'll give these awesome lists a chance because people won't stop talking about them."

I have seen on these forum something akin to a herd mentality. Or, more appropriately, 18th century court fashion followers. To me, it's simply nonsense. I've used all of the lists above in my weekly match ups multiple times and to be completely honest with you, the results definitely vary. Sometimes I win. Sometimes a bunny rips my throat out. The reason I'm on this soap box is because, everyone gets their jimmies rustled when they say certain ship builds ruin the game, because "They're too powerful!" To that I'll use a saying my daughter uses. That is bullspit.

The game is so flipping varied you can come up with a multitude of lists to combat others. Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

(Unless it does than I'll eat my shoe and post pictures of it boiling in my pot and call it "Shoe Stew."

You realise that 'popularity funnel' would be a good description of 'metagame', right?

Top 8 lists of any major National or Systems Open disagrees with the meta being a myth.

"It's true.. All of it" - Han Solo (TFA)

If you don't mind I'll steal this and use it when people ask me what the meta is.

If it didn't exist then the game would be nothing but randomness and you could win with any build. You would not need to keep up with the waves.

The meta does exist whether it is shaped by power-creep to keep purchasing at least 1 expansion in every wave or the mathwing calculations to find out which build is the most efficient you will find that only a select few 100 point lists are highly competitive.

Now it would be nice to see some formats that break up the meta, that is why I like Epic, there is no real clear meta other than 4 Brobots or dozens of TIE Fighters, yet still those that play Epic will want to play the big centerpiece huge ships otherwise it would just feel like standard with a relaxed point limit.

Escalations is also another good format that doesn't have meta because the list building is part of the mechanics. Only one of the math meats that 100 point limit and because you have to build off of your previous list it is likely you won't have those tournament winning 100 point builds. Because of the scaling point limit the mechanics are shaped differently than ever before. In Standard underbidding on the squadron points just allows you to take a gambit on getting initiative, but in escalation underbidding can make room for a larger ship to enter. Example starting with a bare Vader to make room for palpatine's shuttle.

Hear me out. I don't discount the lists that are super effective to a multitude of lists, (4 TLTS, PalpAces, 3 Uboats, Etc.) But until someone makes a game breaking mathematical graph of ships, their abilities, pilots, cards, upgrades etc and 4TLTS and PalpAces are at the top, then I will eat my shoe. It's mostly leather so it should work.

The reason I say this is because when everyone talks about "the Meta" everyone kinda clues in like word-of-mouth myths from the Arcades of Old and says, "Yeah. I agree. This is the best list. Because I saw one guy use it and it destroyed that other guy!" or "I don't really know too much about the game, but it sure is fun, maybe I'll give these awesome lists a chance because people won't stop talking about them."

I have seen on these forum something akin to a herd mentality. Or, more appropriately, 18th century court fashion followers. To me, it's simply nonsense. I've used all of the lists above in my weekly match ups multiple times and to be completely honest with you, the results definitely vary. Sometimes I win. Sometimes a bunny rips my throat out. The reason I'm on this soap box is because, everyone gets their jimmies rustled when they say certain ship builds ruin the game, because "They're too powerful!" To that I'll use a saying my daughter uses. That is bullspit.

The game is so flipping varied you can come up with a multitude of lists to combat others. Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

(Unless it does than I'll eat my shoe and post pictures of it boiling in my pot and call it "Shoe Stew."

It's only fair we ask Majorjuggler for his choice on what shoe you eat. He might be able to use his math wing to work out how long you would need to boil a brogue for before it is somewhat edible.

For me, the 'Meta' dos not directly determine what I'm flying ( OK, palp aces, uboats or crack swarm today?) as much as it is a guidance for me to determine the likelihood of facing off against a specific list archetype.

So yes, there is a meta, there are a LOT of people flying those lists mentioned above. That doesn't mean I have to fly one of those to stand a chance at a tourney, but whatever list I do fly I need to be acutely aware that because of the 'meta' my list needs to have a solid plan for beating those specific lists whilst not leaving itself open to the vast mirriad of other lists it could find itself against.

Paul Heaver readily admits to and readily opens his arms to the Meta. The more defined the meta is, the easier his worlds prep will be (less lists to consider how to beat). In Paul's own words, last years prep was hell because the meta was wide open. The year before he only had two archetypes to figure out and crack.

Generally speaking, the 'meta' will likely make up 50% of the field at a premier event. Now you can pretend it's a myth and ignore it, but you'll likely find yourself as dissappinted as the wife of the gentleman next to you who still believes the female orgasm is a myth as well.

There is no meta, only Zuul.

(insert helldog with glowing eyes gif here)

Since I play 90% of my games against a friend of mine, my current meta is hugely different: All Scum, all Boba. I hate that guy. On my end, I mostly end up with some kind of bomb squad, which means almost always Deathrain + Support. I can't help it, he's just so much fun: "Here, have a conner net and kindly fly your undamaged, 50+ point ship off the board for me."

So, to answer the question: Yes, the Meta does exist.

Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

"The metagame" doesn't mean "fly the same lists as everyone else". It means "these lists are popular, if you want to go deep in a tournament you'd better have a plan for dealing with them."

Since I play 90% of my games against a friend of mine, my current meta is hugely different: All Scum, all Boba. I hate that guy. On my end, I mostly end up with some kind of bomb squad, which means almost always Deathrain + Support. I can't help it, he's just so much fun: "Here, have a conner net and kindly fly your undamaged, 50+ point ship off the board for me."

So, to answer the question: Yes, the Meta does exist.

Technically if you hit him with a conner net he's not undamaged anymore

Hear me out.

I'm fairly confident a bunch of people will run into this thread to tell us that anyone who has an opinion on the usefulness of ships based on the collective experience of themselves and others is wrong and just succumbing to groupthink.

Prepare to hear a bunch of people extoll the virtues of some trash ships like scyks or to tell us somehow that the Rookie Pilot is actually really solid in Epic because.. it has a white 4 straight while the B-wing doesn't.

Enjoy your shoe.

This is just semantics. You're using "herd mentality" and "super effective lists", but that's basically other words for meta. Paul Heaver does well precisely because he's good at reading the meta, and brings a list that is designed to combat it.

Welp. I'll take a shoe stew extra butter please.

Or, I dunno. If I was to be pig headed about it (And I yam) I would say everyone's defense of the Meta is basically what I said already. Its a popularity funnel and people fly them. Paul takes them into account because certain lists are popular at tourneys. That doesn't mean they are mathematically superior. Like I was saying. I would like to see a chart that says this is this and that is that and if PalpAces was at the top, then well I'm a man of my word.

You could say super effective lists and herd mentality is words for the meta, because I already said so. I'm just looking for actual proof it exists outside of the common tongue and can be found in the dark arts of mathematics.

Are they by numbers alone, superior? We could argue that because they show up so often at tournaments and they win more often that makes them more effective. But does it? Or does it mean they get more exposure and thus, lead more people to believe they are superior simply because they showed up? Suppose if every other list showed up outside of the Meta lists, what would happen then? Something would better than a few other lists. To me, that doesn't prove anything other than the game is well built, well balanced and extremely fun to play.

I still stand that it doesn't exist outside of being a popular list of lists.

You realise that 'popularity funnel' would be a good description of 'metagame', right?

It's kinda why I used it.

That doesn't mean they are mathematically superior.

That's. Not. What. Metagame. Means.

You realise that 'popularity funnel' would be a good description of 'metagame', right?

It's kinda why I used it.

No it's not. You used it to say the metagame doesn't exist, it's a popularity funnel.

It's like saying "the Earth doesn't actually exist, it's just a planet". Your argument doesn't exist, it's just a series of words forming sentences leading to a conclusion.

What. Does. It. Mean. Then?

I'm saying the Meta as we think of it, doesn't exist. So far, everyone I've spoken to speak of the Meta as this all seeing river of knowledge and power that shows only the most powerful lists. People decry the meta because the lists in it are "too powerful for casual play." To that I say bullspit. It doesn't exist as we like to think it does.

What. Does. It. Mean. Then?

Metagaming is anytime you use information outside of the rules of the game to affect in-game decisions.

A really common example is Rock-Paper-Scissors. So each option you choose has a 1/3rd chance of winning and a 1/3rd chance of losing, right? So in theory it doesn't matter what you pick. That's the game.

But how about I introduce the information that men on average select 'Rock', which is a masculine fist gesture, more commonly than the other two options. That is information outside of the game that now informs your decision that when you play against a man you should choose 'Paper'. Now introduce other metagame information, such as the 'Win - Stay, Lose - Shift' theory that people who won with Paper are more likely to choose Paper again next time, while people who lost with Paper are more likely to change their call.

All that is metagaming.

Mathematically Rock, Paper and Scissors are all equal. What changes is that in reality they are NOT equal because other factors prevail. That's the metagame.

I'm saying the Meta as we think of it, doesn't exist. So far, everyone I've spoken to speak of the Meta as this all seeing river of knowledge and power that shows only the most powerful lists. People decry the meta because the lists in it are "too powerful for casual play." To that I say bullspit. It doesn't exist as we like to think it does.

If you want to think that information about what has won more frequently in the past is no indicator of what will win more frequently in the future then I assume you're terrible at sports betting. And if you want to think that the popularity with which lists are played by the very smart people who think a lot about the game is not an indicator of relative power level then... well... ok.

The metagame is the metagame. It exists. It doesn't care what you do with that information, though. It doesn't care if you slavishly switch squads to follow it, cunningly tweak lists to have a better chance against it, or throw down your ships and whine like a baby that it isn't what you want it to be.

The metagame doesn't care. It just is.

Ah. That's a pretty good description. We must be thinking of different terms then, because google showed me this:

The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction.

Ah. That's a pretty good description. We must be thinking of different terms then, because google showed me this:

The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction.

That's the first sentence on Wikipedia.

The second sentence on Wikipedia is "The term passed from military use into political parlance to describe events outside conventional bounds that, in fact, play an important role in a game's outcome."