I will be posting here in a new thread rather than going so far OT in the original.

Additionally I think you are overestimating the rate at which the meta will be "solved" as well.

Most games have leaders and followers when it comes to Meta, I am not convinced that the leaders ever consider it solved.

I am playing Armada, and what I am finding is the Meta is cyclic, you start with an obvious choice, then players figure out how to defeat that choice, and it continues on until you get to a choice that is pretty much that original choice. So you have "A" then "B" then "C" then "D" and then back to "A", there is more choices at each step in the Meta cycle and players have their own way of individualising things. But the main point is that from a Meta Point of View there is no solution, the process is ongoing.

Now with SW:Destiny we have a few game mechanics that to me make it seem that we'll have a pretty open Meta.

Recursiveness: Just isn't a problem, at most you will play with 2 copies of each card. Which straight away seems to create a situation that makes the game more about how you play what you have and less about what you have. In fact I think we'll see decks that have 2 copies of say 10-12 cards and the other 6-10 will be unique cards that just bump up the effectiveness of the deck when they come up. This seems to play into the careful casual player who can compete with the cards he has by careful deck building and play, you don't need 4 rare cards to play.

Those dang dice: Here you have two issues that work against a Meta. Firstly, the dice will for most of us remain truly evil lumps of randomness, that never roll what we want. So to some extent you have to be able to play carefully and plan for the times those dice will go wrong. Most dice seem to favour three outcomes; There are faces that do nothing, faces that attack and faces that supply a game resource (shields and resources). So players have to deal with random! Secondly, I think with respect to the dice, there will be cards/dice that generate similar effects. But there will be dice faces that are going to have less risk and other dice that are going to have better outcomes but at a higher risk.

The game is alternating activation rather than you go I go, so with each play you get an ever increasing set of options and then as the turn plays out you then run through those options until they diminish or run out. I say this to highlight that each turn has both players build up and then play down. There is a very strong feeling of tempo here and player interaction, a slow build up will play out quite differently to a fast build up. I feel that some decks will rush through turns blasting away, while others will try and build up slowly and look towards using that portion of the turn that can be spent with little opposition after your opponent runs down his actions.

Obfuscation: For me this is where the turns comes together, we play our cards, dice and attacks. Here the idea seems to be that you have to hide what you are doing, keep your opponent guessing and in general trying to ensure that key attacks are not wiped away with a card play or dice roll. Perhaps you have an attack and resource roll on two dice, now you know you don't have any 3 cost cards in your hand does your opponent? Being able to intercommunicate and misdirect your actions to your opponents is just as important as what you do with those actions to begin with.

For these reasons I think there will never be a solution to the Meta, making good choices during play and deck building will be important, but so will creative thinking and problem solving.