For a long time, I played Magic: the Gathering; I had Unlimited cards in my collection that I'd opened from packs (1993, in terms of years). Once, after a new set came out I went to a tournament, very happy with my little homebrew deck and eager to beat some heads in with it.

Three people showed up with the exact same deck, and I was crushed by it in the first round. See, that set was Urza's Saga, and that year (1998) the ban list doubled because of all the broken cards printed therein. The deck was Tolarian Academy and it won, first turn, every time. The three players who had it went to the top four, then the top two - and the one to have first turn won every time.

That was my introduction to net-decking, and it was a harsh one that still sticks with me twenty years later. So yeah, I know what it is to HATE the people who blindly go online and copy what teh winrars of teh last tournament played.

But net-listing jerks aren't what a metagame is, and I'm getting pretty tired of people confusing the two, bellowing angrily at the ocean because they got splashed by it. X-Wing is not a special snowflake among games, completely immune to the laws that govern how they grow, just because it involves Star Wars and not planeswalkers or Space Marines.

A metagame is the stuff outside the rules that affects the game itself. T-65 X-Wings other than Biggs being terrible? Metagame. Knowing your opponent never K-turns unless there's no other way to avoid going off the board? Metagame. Atanni Mindlink being busted? Metagame. 2-dice primaries not being able to penetrate current ship defenses? Metagame.

A netlist is a winning tournament list that people copy from the internet . One does not equal the other, even if netlisting comes from the metagame.

In any competitively played game , there are a finite number of solutions, and these solutions make up a metagame - either you're using the solutions, or countering those solutions. Netlisting comes from people using other people's solutions instead of creating their own. In a more flexible game, those solutions would be wildly varied, but for X-Wing those solutions are very limited (and obvious) for several reasons:

1) Game sizes are absolutely tiny in wargaming terms, and every point has to pull its weight or beyond if you want to win a tournament. No adding Dutch or a Proton Torpedo 'just because'; it HAS to do work every game, preferably every turn, if you want to add it.

2) Tournament games are only won one way: by killing enemy ships. If there were a mode where you had to target lock satellites in order to score points, then Dutch would do work thanks to free actions that win games. Since there is not, he does not - and all the other ships which do quirky things are sidelined because they don't win tournaments.

3) With each new release, old solutions are invalidated - even before Palpatine's nerf Soontir was barely even a blip on the metagame radar, quite a slide from his 10% of all Imperial top cut lists before Sabine (Crew) dropped. Biggs Walks the Dogs stinks on cold ice because B-Wings are dead weight. Y-Wings are only a presence because of TLT, R3-A2, and BTL-A4 - a combo that I doubt anyone foresaw in development.

People kvetching about meta and netlists should REALLY be kvetching about those three bullet points, all of which are intentionally chosen aspects of game design that CAUSE the metagame to be so sharply defined between what's Tier S and what's Tier F. Tiny lists with no leeway, only one victory condition, and planned obsolescence - all three of those mean that if a player wants to win, there are few good solutions and in all likelihood the best players have found them, so why not play their lists instead of finding new solutions or playing what worked before?

Just... people. Understand what to complain about. The FACT that everyone's playing the same thing? Annoying. The REASON they're playing the same thing? Because the game is designed to reward it. Complain about that, push for changes in game design, and the metagame may expand to a point where you CAN fly Wedge, Luke, and Biggs together.

The Three Amigos, together again. Pretty awesome thought, huh?

Netlisting is both the cause and result of the Meta. Ponder this on the tree of woe. Om.

5 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Just... people. Understand what to complain about. The FACT that everyone's playing the same thing? Annoying. The REASON they're playing the same thing? Because the game is designed to reward it. Complain about that, push for changes in game design, and the metagame may expand to a point where you CAN fly Wedge, Luke, and Biggs together.

The game is not 'designed to reward' people playing the same thing. The design team has consistently tried to provide counters to prevailing strategies and (more recently) used the FAQ to attempt to bring diversity into the competitive list building scene.

The game designers are only human and X-wing has grown to be a pretty complex game design-wise so they will never achieve perfect balance. They can and are trying though. The meta is a process, not a destination. So maybe three amigos WILL be competitive again someday (it was back in wave 2-3 when I started playing) but then it might not be again.

I remember the days when the whole tournament scene was literally 'TIE swarm' or 'Biggs walks the dogs' so I think we actually have a bunch of diversity right now.

21 minutes ago, Arschbombe said:

Ponder this on the tree of woe.

Do you know the secret of steel boy?

25 minutes ago, Arschbombe said:

Netlisting is both the cause and result of the Meta. Ponder this on the tree of woe. Om.

That is actually wrong. The Meta will exist independent of netlisting simply because some things are better than the others and smart people will still figure it out.

Why am I the only one personally getting called out on here??

3 minutes ago, markcsoul said:

Why am I the only one personally getting called out on here??

Because I remember getting really pissed at you at some point about this subject, writing a long post that discussed various aspects of your personality, ancestry, odious habits, and general inadequacy as a human being, all in iambic pentameter.... and then deleting the post rather than have the satisfaction of it existing for mere moments before being deleted and myself being banned to the same place as paragoombaslayer. That's a cold, dark, lonely place, and writing it was enough therapy for me.

I'm not at all mad about it any more, and I would regret the post even if it existed, but for that one brief, shining moment, you encapsulated all of the displeasure I had at the people who say, "Meta doesn't exist! Don't fly meta! Star Wars is unique among all games!" Your name stuck out in my head because of that.

13 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

That's a cold, dark, lonely place, and writing it was enough therapy for me.

Apparently not.

I think you need to play some epic. No meta makes it betta. It's just for fun, feels like Star Wars, and +/- 5 points is insignificant.

Netlisting in X-wing has a lot in common with the meta. Netlists are built with maximum (arbitrary) efficiency per points, and competitive meta is usually a slice of those that proves to have the least match-up or dice risk. Simple as that.

Luckily, X-Wing is not a card game only.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Apparently not.

I think you need to play some epic. No meta makes it betta. It's just for fun. And +/- 5 points is insignificant.

Maybe you didn't see my post where I was admiring the sheer genius of putting Darth Vader aboard a Raider in the "Can't seem to clutch with the Raider" thread?

I play non-meta tournament stuff all the time - and other games, too, where it's not a problem - but for people complaining about the meta there are ways to expand it, and the meta isn't the problem, game design that forces it into extremes is.

I like this. Meta is when I incidentally, gradually end up with one of my friends' lists when I try to make a list that meets certain criteria.

'Hmmm, I never really gave Dash a fair shot and I think he'd be fun now. Who works with Dash? Well I think Rebel regen is a good option, which ship can I run at proper points? Miranda? Meh, one turret in Dash is enough. Poe? My personal favorite, but maybe get something with more punch? Norra? Sounds good. LW Dash with Norra lacks the points for any significant third ship anyway, so I better go Super Dash. Same PS? That's nice. Norra PtL Kyle R2D2 has good synergy, but I don't think I need a 3 point bid at PS 7. Vector Thrusters? Yes please.

Yo dude, I'm sending this list your way. Think it's any good?'

"Hmm, where have I seen that before?"

'Huh?'

"I ran that at the System Open you unoriginal, netlisting, scrubby, poser!"(which I didn't go to)

'K...'

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Apparently not.

I think you need to play some epic. No meta makes it betta. It's just for fun, feels like Star Wars, and +/- 5 points is insignificant.

Epic can be competitive too, and there is a sort of a meta, but it's definitely wide open compared to the standard game.

2 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Maybe you didn't see my post where I was admiring the sheer genius of putting Darth Vader aboard a Raider in the "Can't seem to clutch with the Raider" thread?

I play non-meta tournament stuff all the time - and other games, too, where it's not a problem - but for people complaining about the meta there are ways to expand it, and the meta isn't the problem, game design that forces it into extremes is.

You'll get no argument from me there. FFG needs to get people out of 100/6 or the game is going to implode. I agree with your entire line of thinking, an to be honest, I see no solution forthcoming from FFG that is going to change how the game is played publicly. Hence, we get folks like Heychadwick who are champions for Alt-Xwing.

Personally, I don't give a womp rat's a$$ about the meta or net-listing because I don't expose myself to it. What frustrates me is that I'll never see the game designed from the top down without that in mind.

And, I did feel bad for Marksoul getting called to the mat seemingly at random.

26 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Because I remember getting really pissed at you at some point about this subject, writing a long post that discussed various aspects of your personality, ancestry, odious habits, and general inadequacy as a human being, all in iambic pentameter.... and then deleting the post rather than have the satisfaction of it existing for mere moments before being deleted and myself being banned to the same place as paragoombaslayer. That's a cold, dark, lonely place, and writing it was enough therapy for me.

Dude...wow...just wow.

You obviously have a personal vendetta against me to bring up myself, and only myself up in your original post.

I'm sorry you don't agree with my opinions on x-wing and star wars in general , but coming close to making a thread solely to make a personal attack against me is pretty messed up.

I would love to read some trash-talk in iambic pentameter.

Also, Skargoth brings a valid point regarding the game design driving both meta and netlists.

There is a couple super-efficient "list-building blocks" which define what ends up on top tables. Simply because taking anything else is basically a handicap.

Netlisting is pretty much part of that "metagaming" by definition. You pull a list from outside of your personal creation and you've net listed. Even just taking ideas from other people online and you're netlisting. Pretty much the only way to completely avoid netlisting to some degree is to completely stay away from the 'net which of course means you never see this threat/post.

The Metagame is so much MORE than just netlisting to pick a squadron to play or know what to prepare for but pulling lists from the internet is certainly part of the meta and those lists will drive a lot of the megagame choices people make.

1 hour ago, LordBlades said:

That is actually wrong. The Meta will exist independent of netlisting simply because some things are better than the others and smart people will still figure it out.

Nah, not true. Nothing exists in isolation. I have friends who ran Attanni lists for a long time before it was cool - and nobody countered it explicitly, so their lists were not only inherently strong, but they also could play to those strengths unhindered because few lists explicitly countered them, and few people were used to efficiently fly against them. That's different now, Attanni has actually gotten a bit weaker.

Conversely, it looks to me like TIE Defenders actually have gotten a bit better since the nerf, because they're no longer part of the core meta lists one would expect, and fewer people are explicitly packing anti-Defender tech into their lists.

Of course, if we're talking about relative strengths between ships that fill similar roles, indeed T-70 X-Wings appear to pretty much outclass T-65 ones (also per point), and Protectorate Starfighters are more efficient than Starvipers. Between those, what you say is true. Between things that fill different roles though, rock-paper-scissors and how often you expect to run into any particular kind of list are arguably more important.

Meta equals net listing. Meta is the most net listingly thing in the whole world.

Sorry, always been bad at instructions.

I feel like a broken record in typing this, but FFG has a reasonably good balance engine that they refuse to touch. Point cost. Nothing in this game is great or wretched except in relation to its cost. Folks would decry the T-65 as OP and NPE if priced at 16pts.

Meta, net listing, net listing meta, twin son's from different mothers imho...

6 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Apparently not.

I think you need to play some epic. No meta makes it betta. It's just for fun, feels like Star Wars, and +/- 5 points is insignificant.

Epic has no meta because it's not played competitively. And it's not played competitively because not many people play it in comparison to the base game.

If epic were to be played more, there would definitely be a meta to it.

Literally nothing but Deadeye Gamma Squadron Veterans and x7 spam and entire 300 point lists that are Mindlinked together.

It's just as vulnerable, if not more so, to power squadding than the standard game is and that's saying something.

I wonder if the netlist could become self aware ?

Man X-wing is so meta.

1 hour ago, Turbo Toker said:

Epic has no meta because it's not played competitively. And it's not played competitively because not many people play it in comparison to the base game.

If epic were to be played more, there would definitely be a meta to it.

Literally nothing but Deadeye Gamma Squadron Veterans and x7 spam and entire 300 point lists that are Mindlinked together.

It's just as vulnerable, if not more so, to power squadding than the standard game is and that's saying something.

Heh, then I'm lucky as fudge y'all play 100/6.

3 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Epic has no meta because it's not played competitively. And it's not played competitively because not many people play it in comparison to the base game.

If epic were to be played more, there would definitely be a meta to it.

Literally nothing but Deadeye Gamma Squadron Veterans and x7 spam and entire 300 point lists that are Mindlinked together.

It's just as vulnerable, if not more so, to power squadding than the standard game is and that's saying something.

You're forgetting IG-8000 which, in my experience is absolutely brutal in epic. That's how I won my first epic tournament: had no clue what I was doing so I just took 3 100/6 lists and made a 300 point list (brobots twice and triple u-boats)

9 hours ago, haslo said:

Nah, not true. Nothing exists in isolation. I have friends who ran Attanni lists for a long time before it was cool - and nobody countered it explicitly, so their lists were not only inherently strong, but they also could play to those strengths unhindered because few lists explicitly countered them, and few people were used to efficiently fly against them. That's different now, Attanni has actually gotten a bit weaker.

Conversely, it looks to me like TIE Defenders actually have gotten a bit better since the nerf, because they're no longer part of the core meta lists one would expect, and fewer people are explicitly packing anti-Defender tech into their lists.

Of course, if we're talking about relative strengths between ships that fill similar roles, indeed T-70 X-Wings appear to pretty much outclass T-65 ones (also per point), and Protectorate Starfighters are more efficient than Starvipers. Between those, what you say is true. Between things that fill different roles though, rock-paper-scissors and how often you expect to run into any particular kind of list are arguably more important.

Talking big tournaments, partially agree. Toward the bottom of a tournament, netlisting certainly helps defining a clearer meta. People who aren't top 16 material are now informed what's good and are running it as opposed to whatever else might cross their mind. At this level there probably would be a much less established meta without netlisting as people constantly try out stuff that fails (they place poorly in tournaments).

Toward the top 16 however, netlisting becomes completely irrelevant to the meta. These are the guys who make the netlists. They run what they run because it's good, not because they saw it on the internet. They also don't really need the internet to tell them what's good, as they have a deep enough understanding of the game.

12 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

The meta is a process, not a destination.

No, the meta is the state the game exists in. It's like the weather, it's always there. Likewise, there is always a meta to any game, it's a description of what people are playing currently. It's a tool to understand how a fame is being played. "Metagaming" doesn't mean playing a particular list, it means using the information provided by the meta as a tool to decide what list to use.