Normally we talk about "the meta list(s)" when we're referring to competitive tournament scenes, as in those lists will do very well in those 3 skirmish map (and 6 skirmish mission) currently in rotation

BUT, is this also the case for any skirmish map? I'm not sure but my guts says no: the meta lists are well-suited for combat in those 3 skirmish maps, but might not do so well if we pick, say, Darth Vader's map or Wookiee Warrior's map. Yes the missions & deployment zones in those might not be exactly balanced, the point is they might be crushed by some other not-well-known lists in those maps

My questions:

1. Would those "meta lists" perform equally well if we randomly pick a non-tournament map?

2. For those that never play competitive tournaments, should we care about tournament meta?

3. If given the choice, which one offers more randomization: construct list after map is chosen, or construct map after list is chosen? Which one would you prefer? I know in the tournament scene it's the latter case

The reason is because I never play tournaments, but I want to punish/discourage a specific build when we're playing at home. I want to make it such that understanding the current tournament meta lists will NOT help either of us

1. Not necessarily equally well, but three maps/six missions is probably a wide enough variety in tournament settings that a non-tournament map or mission would have to be quite extreme to upset the meta.

2. Tournament meta is naturally guided towards min-maxing list efficiency. If a deployment is a "must have" or "never have" in tournament settings then it is likely under/over costed. Unfortunaely this will also be true outside of tournaments.

3. The former will tend to produce more extreme lists to take advantage of a map/mission. This may mean that deployments that would not be used in an all-comers lists actually see the table-top (hooray). You might also find that certain lists or factions have significant, excessive, advantages. Picking the list first tends to favour a more balanced list, with a mixture of deployments.

I have not played in any IA tournaments, but there is a reason why the current meta lists do well. Referring to question 2, in an asymetrical game there is always the possibility of under and over costing units. Over time the tournment meta will reflect this. I would say that the reason that Han and Chewie never feature in Rebel tournament lists, whereas Jedi Luke and Gideon are constants, is because the former are over costed and the latter under. The advantage of not playing in tournments is that you are more free to house rule and/or re-cost deployments. Some groups are open to this, but finding consensus can be hard.

10 hours ago, ricope said:

BUT, is this also the case for any skirmish map? I'm not sure but my guts says no: the meta lists are well-suited for combat in those 3 skirmish maps,

Well, first I'm going to have to disagree. It would be one thing if the maps weren't so varied as they are, but 8 crates for One Man's Trash is wildly different from a single monster to defeat on Dianoga. The 3 stations of To Your Stations is far different from dropping holocams in Reconnaissance. All three maps feature long hallways to help the rise of the snipers in Weequays and Rangers, but there are plenty of twists and turns in them to allow melee units to hide and get close. My own personal opinion is that maps of themselves aren't that different that you can definitely say "such and such list would get demolished on this map". The other person would have to build a list that, in ascending importance, compliments that map as well, plays well against that list, and play it well. The issue you will have is that meta lists are good because the figures themselves are good on a variety of maps. Whether they are simply good figures or that they create synergy amongst themselves.

You would probably be better off attempting to build against meta, however, "the meta" is pretty diverse right now. Jabba is strong, and you'll see him in a lot of lists, but his surrounding crew will vary wildly between Vinto, Rancor, Gamorreans, Shyla, etc. Jedi Luke is strong, and yes he'll likely have Obi-Wan at his side, but what else? Leia? eSabs for short range bombing? eAlliance Rangers for long range attacks? Alliance Smugglers for extra activations and interactions? Who knows?

11 hours ago, ricope said:

The reason is because I never play tournaments, but I want to punish/discourage a specific build when we're playing at home.

Please do not take offense to this, but this makes you appear ... petulant? I know that was not your intent, but the way I read this is, "I'm not good enough to defeat that build, so you can't play it." Perhaps there is more going on. Perhaps your opponent is playing a build that you simply don't have the figures to go up against. Perhaps you're both limited in what figures you currently own (could always proxy I suppose at your home games).

11 hours ago, ricope said:

I want to make it such that understanding the current tournament meta lists will NOT help either of us

Don't think that's possible unless you find other players that just don't know the figures. It doesn't take a genius to see that Jedi Luke is good though. Or that waves of regular Stormtroopers aren't a good choice against Jabba led mercenaries that include Bossk.

I would recommend though, instead of attempting to ban specific builds, or attempting to find the perfect map that would make that build suffer... instead of that, try welcoming the opportunity to play against that build. Find what you can bring to counter their figures, find what tactics you can use to nullify their strengths. It will make you a better player.

What build are you trying to find an answer to?

13 hours ago, R5D8 said:

You would probably be better off attempting to build against meta, however, "the meta" is pretty diverse right now. Jabba is strong, and you'll see him in a lot of lists, but his surrounding crew will vary wildly between Vinto, Rancor, Gamorreans, Shyla, etc. Jedi Luke is strong, and yes he'll likely have Obi-Wan at his side, but what else? Leia? eSabs for short range bombing? eAlliance Rangers for long range attacks? Alliance Smugglers for extra activations and interactions? Who knows?

Please do not take offense to this, but this makes you appear ... petulant? I know that was not your intent, but the way I read this is, "I'm not good enough to defeat that build, so you can't play it." Perhaps there is more going on. Perhaps your opponent is playing a build that you simply don't have the figures to go up against. Perhaps you're both limited in what figures you currently own (could always proxy I suppose at your home games).

No, I do not take offense to it. The way I noticed was that I specifically told my opponent to simply have fun and not lookup skirmish strategies online (nor do I). What I'm worried about is eventually we'll reach the equilibrium where we'd both be playing competitive tournament lists in order to beat each other, which is the main problem that I want to fix! I do not want to play competitive tournament lists at home

So the problem now is:

phase 1 - my opponent doesn't look up strategy & tournament meta lists online, I don't play killer lists (ex. Han + Chewie/Vader...)

phase 2 - my opponent starts picking up the game and notices "Hey these units are good!", I step up my game and no longer plays silly lists

(right now) phase 3 - my opponent is well-versed in all the rules, unit abilities, command card selections...well he's trying to beat me so he starts picking up meta lists (ex. Jedi Luke + eRangers) even without looking up lists online (I assume he's not lying to me). So now we're trying to beat each other and if he's playing competitive tournament lists, then I must also start playing competitive lists

I'm trying to move the "home meta" from phase 3 back to phase 1 or phase 2

TL;DR: I don't want to turn casual at-home skirmish into competitive tournament scene, will this bound to happen if I don't do anything? If yes, any suggestions on what can I do?

If you want to keep fun games get some house rules, like opponent may pick a figure up cost of X in your list and vice versa. That, or some other way, you can stick to non tournament lists, or even chose figures in the meta to have a more competitive-tournament-like match or whatever my 2 cents

I would just have a conversation about it. My friend John and I play a lot, and he gets tired of playing tournament lists on occasion and when he does he just tells me. Then we build more fun or silly lists and have a blast. The thing is, both ways are fun, depending on the people and the mood. If he wants to play competitive lists, then maybe sometimes you play his way and ask if he would play your way at times as well.

-ryanjamal

As someone who spent a lot of time playing maps that were not selected for rotation, I'll just say that sometimes it's obvious why a map didn't get picked.

slightly off topic, but do we know if IBSH is transferring the new maps to printable maps? I don't want to miss a Pixartprinting sale I have a hard time not playing on his maps. I wish I new how or what he scans them with.

Some of the maps are terrible, but some are really fun and actually seem fairly balanced. I just feel like they switch maps so frequently, I think they overlooked some gems in there. I also think you're missing out by only playing the rotation maps, no matter how fast they play them.

I've actually made some of my own maps ( i have too many core sets I think) some of those are terrible as well, but others could be pretty fun to try out.

If you want to have a non-meta skirmish environment at home, then work with your friend to re-cost the over-costed pieces. Boba costs 9, Vader costs 14, etc. Agree on whatever changes you're going to use, and then let those new re-costed units be part of the pool of pieces you can choose from when creating squads.

17 minutes ago, thereisnotry said:

If you want to have a non-meta skirmish environment at home, then work with your friend to re-cost the over-costed pieces. Boba costs 9, Vader costs 14, etc. Agree on whatever changes you're going to use, and then let those new re-costed units be part of the pool of pieces you can choose from when creating squads.

For everyone's info, here are 2 threads (among many) with people discussing their alternative costs (one from @ricope who started this thread):

3 hours ago, nickv2002 said:

For everyone's info, here are 2 threads (among many) with people discussing their alternative costs (one from @ricope who started this thread):

Yeah I've already started doing that. Although I'm looking more at individual skirmish maps this time rather than units

Back to topic: without unit ability/costs change, I'm assuming the answer to #1 is Yes, #2 is depends, #3 is depends? I'm looking for ideas for maximum "randomization", i.e. you really can't prepare/practice going into battle. In tournaments you can be better prepared by practicing your lists on that map 100 times. I want to discourage that kind of thinking when playing at home

14 hours ago, ricope said:

Yeah I've already started doing that. Although I'm looking more at individual skirmish maps this time rather than units

Back to topic: without unit ability/costs change, I'm assuming the answer to #1 is Yes, #2 is depends, #3 is depends? I'm looking for ideas for maximum "randomization", i.e. you really can't prepare/practice going into battle. In tournaments you can be better prepared by practicing your lists on that map 100 times. I want to discourage that kind of thinking when playing at home

If you want maximum randomization and no ability to practice a team beforehand then may I suggest making each other's teams for the night and just pick a random mission after forces are revealed.

I have a weekly game with a friend and we are currently working our way through all the maps/missions. We build our lists with no consideration for the map chosen and usually play the same list for a few weeks before moving on to the next one. Our games are casual but still competitive I think for a few reasons:

1. We don't time limit the games but instead just play until someone reaches 40 points.
2. Our lists usually have some thematic element in part because we are always trying to outdo each other with the most creative/funny name for our lists.
3. One of our unspoken/unofficial goals is to just try everything - every figure, every map, every mission, every tactic.
4. When it becomes obvious that one of us has come up with a dominant list, we usually shelve it and then come back to it when the other player has come up with a dominant list.
5. We have house ruled a couple of figures and play tested them on occasion. Mostly just for the fun of it.

We realize some of those things are directly opposite of what you should do if you are trying to become a better tournament player, but neither of us have ever even played skirmish against anyone else. So our main goals are just have fun and enjoy the game we love.

Hope that helps or if not, I hope at least that you didn't waste too much of your life reading it.

@leacher That sounds like the best way to play ANY game. Good for you guys.

On 2/10/2017 at 9:11 PM, ricope said:

The reason is because I never play tournaments, but I want to punish/discourage a specific build when we're playing at home. I want to make it such that understanding the current tournament meta lists will NOT help either of us

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting, but it feels like you are wanting to maintain a level of advantage over your opponents without putting the same amount of extracurricular thought into the game that your opponents are willing to? Instead of trying to force your opponents to conform down to your level of comfort of understanding of the game, I think you will be better served by trying to raise your own understanding of the game up to a higher level and allowing your opponents to do the same. You can even do that just by talking to your opponents about which pieces they think are good or bad and why, you don't necessarily have to troll the internet 24/7.

If you want to get to the point where you and your opponents aren't preoccupied with looking at the "meta" on the internet, then you might just have to bite the bullet and gain an understanding of what the overall power scale in the game is so you don't have to bother studying it anymore and can just focus on tactics and player interaction. You transcend something by mastering it, not by being willfully ignorant of it.

I think you are putting too much stock in this idea of "meta lists" when the meta is actually much more fundamental and simple than that. Games are not just decided by how efficient your list is, there are a ton of other factors that are in force within the game itself (contrast to metagame) deciding the winner of each individual game. List building does not make strategy and tactics obsolete, far from it. From what I have seen, the meta in IA is at the level of individual pieces and not whole lists like it is in X-Wing. Also the "meta" is not some arbitrary invisible hand that picks winners and losers, the meta does not shape reality, it is reality expressing itself through competition. Han Solo isn't a bad card because the "meta" has deemed it so, it's a bad card because relative to the other choices in the game it actually is just a bad card if you are trying to win!

In IA, the "meta" is more of an understanding of the power level of each figure, command card and upgrade in relation to and competition with each other. The superficial level of that are things like Jabba vs Gideon/3PO, HKs vs Weequays, Grand Inquisitor vs Agent Blaise. But starting to put thought into those things leads to understanding the metagame at a deeper level. It's understanding what is generally a good ratio of squad points to spend on support units, how many melee figures you should put in a list, what role each figure plays within a list, how to evaluate a figure based on the sum of its parts and its expected performance within a typical skirmish mission and how the context of the other figures in that list as well as what figures are expected to be met on the opposing side can change that evaluation. These are very valuable skills to have as a player and I think you are going to hamstring yourself if you just try to create a bubble around you and your opponents that favors your preferred playstyle.

Again I apologize if I come off as condescending or misunderstanding, I just wanted to share my perspective as a competitive player who values personal growth and competitive spirit over wins and losses.

47 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting, but it feels like you are wanting to maintain a level of advantage over your opponents without putting the same amount of extracurricular thought into the game that your opponents are willing to? Instead of trying to force your opponents to conform down to your level of comfort of understanding of the game, I think you will be better served by trying to raise your own understanding of the game up to a higher level and allowing your opponents to do the same.

This is really not the impression I took from the OP. Maybe I am missing the point, but it read to me that he is trying to vary the meta (if possible organically through the use of non-tournament Maps and Missions), so that unfanshionable deployments could be selected without a player handicapping themselves.

I agree with your point that there is a lot more to list building than just selecting the supposed top-tier deployments (anyone up for the challenge of creating the worst possible list with the best possible deployments?), but then you rightly identify Han Solo as simply being a bad card. I think the OP would like to create a gaming environment where there would be a role for any deployment in the right list. Or am I just projecting my own bias on to this?

If the IG88 attachment is the start of a trend for balancing weak deployments then the desire for a more varied meta may become a reality.

Using non-tournament skirmish missions won't make horrendous cards like Han Solo competitive, otherwise FFG would have designed a skirmish map to do that by now and stuck it rotation. The current design team at FFG is just unhappy as the rest of us that characters like Han Solo and Chewbacca that were created by the original design team are unplayable in competitive skirmish (and campaign for that matter).

That is why I interpreted the OP as wanting to keep his own personal metagame (the metagame at his house) free of being overly focused on duplicating lists on the internet, and that OP sees metagame analysis, even at a casual level, as negatively affecting play experience, so the I believe the idea of avoiding the tournament skirmish missions was to disincentivise that kind of play, although I don't think that will work for reason above. Nothing aside from a hard errata is going to fix the glaring mistakes made by the original design team, who admitted that they did not give the skirmish mode nearly as much playtesting and attention as they gave to the campaign mode.

But I will say if you are not planning to attend tournaments, you should absolutely be playing with all the skirmish maps you have available, no reason to leave them unused and collecting dust when you payed money for them right?

Edit: According to another thread here a player just won a 18 player regional in France with Han Solo and Chewbacca, so what do I know, obviously Han Solo is a great card and we all just don't know how to play this game.

I absolutely agree with you that using non-tournament maps would not shift the meta. Much more drastic action would be required to do that; house rules, re-pointing deployments, custom Maps (huge or tiny), larger or smaller lists (20 vs. 20 or 60 vs.60), etc. I just think the OPs optimism got the better of him.

That result in Paris has got me curious, because I am struggling to think of a list or match-up where including either of Han or Chewie would not put a player at a disadvantage - never mind including both!