With Store Championship season upon us I am actually struggling with a list to take. I am taking a D+O since it goes against the vaunted meta and I know it has the capacity to pull it off but which one... Do I take Liberty or Death which in the one time I played it, was a lot of fun but I sense issues or do I take Lightning Quick which seems fun and interesting.

So, here it comes. The reason for this thread.

How do you pick your list? Do you test it meticulously? Do you go with your gut. Do you play to the meta or against it?

I prefer to play things that seem crazy and anti meta. Well sort of. There are some things that we all agree on for the most part. High activation lists are good, speed is nice, and consistency is key but after that I like to take a step back and go "what do I want to prove with this list". Such as taking 5 Nebs and some squadrons and winning. Or 6 Nebulon-Bs and winning or taking a squadronless build in a squadron heavy meta and dominating.

For me, proving that what is generally accepted is not always right is fun.

I always try something unconventional. For me there is no Meta. I like incorporating squadrons to my list no matter of rest of the fleet. Sometimes I create something playable (3*Arq, 2*Goz, rhymmer, janus, Gamma, 3*Tie bombers, 2*defenders and 2*lambdas with tagge) but usually I create tournament plankton list. Now I'm on shapeing of Ultra Heavy Squadron list where almost all my squadrons have 7+HP. They will not habve strong punch but to see oponent that have dilema of sooting at squadrons (doing almost nothing or just scratching them) or at my ships

Screw META. Meta is for..

Pelta or Gallant Haven, Yavaris, 3 Flotillas, at least 1 BCC for shtts and giggles, as many squadrons as I can fit in my fists.

duh

Oh and top it off with Rieekan of course.

I think that whatever you devise fits within your play style. You will enjoy your time better and in the long run make fewer mistakes. If your ultimate goal is to game and have fun do it this way. If your goal is to become the next Worlds champion then it would come down to picking things that you may struggle with. I for one don't believe that I am the later so I am going into the season to have fun. ?

The first thing I think about when picking my list is "What do I like?" That just has to be the first question. I try to keep that general. Too specific and your personal preferences may take you into non-competitive territory.

I also like to look at more casual tournaments as question-and-answer. Rather than winning per se, I look at seeing what kinds of concepts can be viable. I've taken that attitude from reading very high level player after-action-reports. They are constantly experimenting and trying new things. They look first to learn about the game and only second to winning. Consequently, I'll design and bring some lists to test ideas about viability.

Finally, I look closely at the local meta and start working on an answer to the key lists. Right now that means you have to have an answer for 134 points of squads, an answer for MSU activation spam, and an answer for large tanky ships. So the list gets tweaked as I look at those match-ups.

I like "proof of concept" lists. I've done an X-Wing+E-Wing list with Jan and Gallent Haven and 2 BCCs with Norra to prove I can make red dice "good" bombers. It was very fun to play. Currently I'm playing an Avenger ISD with Imp aces and Sloane. In that list, I have 2 Slicer Tools, 1 with Suppressor and 1 with Tractor Beams to prove Slicer and Tractor Beams is a good "anti-meta" tech option to deal with Demo and Admo. Only partial success so far.

In the future, I want to try Tagge Interdictor and just make a really tough list to kill. Basically minimize my losses and score enough to win 7s and higher. I also have a Liberty with Dodonna and 2 Slicer tools, for the same reason as Slaone's list.

If I want consistency, I'll play TRC90s with some other stuff or my Dual Glad list with JJ.

I do plan on trying to "win hard" for one of the SC for the prizes. Otherwise I'm just gunna go have fun.

Always the most stupid one that came to my mind after testing thousand times the fleet I was going to bring to the tournament.

If I fly a list for fun, I end up losing against a list designed to win. Took an Interdictor, Demo, 2x ARQ list with some YVs as a fun, let's-try-the-Interidctor list to a tournament and ended up 4th out of 6, with one player dropping after round 2. I faced everything from Demolisher and Devastator to another let's-throw-it-together list with lots of fighters.

So, whatever Empire list that wins I guess? Currently I'm trying 3x ARQs with two GZs and all aces, and my practice matches so far seem to be good. I have no idea how to handle the meta-top rebel speedbump list now, even after facing it for weeks on end.

I think this is a really good topic! I have alwayd struggled with pulling the trigger for a fleet to use in a tournament, it's part of the "game within the game" that can cause a lot of frustration because no likes going to a tournament, getting pummelled, and then feeling like they are locked into 3 games with a "bad" list.

For my worlds list I started with Rieekan aces. I practiced with it, methodically made corrections, and then hit a block. I knew it was strong, and I would watch games where other players would take near copies of my list and wreck, but I kept losing.

It wasn't for me. So I tossed it in the trash.

Shortly after I watched a game where @Tokra played his 8 gozantis and saw how effective his squads were even against a skilled opponent. So I looked at his squad makeup, made a few tweaks and ran in a completely new direction. From the base 134 points of squadrons inspired by Tokra, I enlisted the help of as many people I could to help polish the turd of a list I had created into a diamond, or at least a more shiny turd. @Ginkapo, @Matt Antilles, and @Green Knight notably all helped me in different ways to polish the fleet, point out weaknesses, and make suggestions in how I might deploy, play, and how to handle common matchups.

I played with it on vassal some and found that I felt much more natural and comfortable with it than my Rieekan fleet. This was before Rieekan was "broken" so I didn't feel any pressure to stay with him simply cause he was supposed to be the best.

I ran one practice game with the fleet on the table against a skilled and critical opponent who I now believe is Kevin from VA, and it was a narrow loss. He helped me fix the few flaws that still were in it from the theorycrafting stage that lead to that loss and I started Worlds the next morning and went 4 wins 5 losses, had a freaking blast and finished 17th overall.

My suggestions are these:

Play what feels comfortable. I practiced for 3 months with Rieekan but it was like fitting a square peg in a round hole. He just isn't the admiral for me.

Get help on line and in person! Plenty of people here to help, enlist as many and as varied as you can find!

Play to have fun. If you have a list you have fun flying even if you lose its a fun game of Armada, and that is what it is all about.

Typically I just take a list I've been feeling good about though my occasional self play for the first of any streak of tournaments. Although, if I'm playing in my "home" turf of Philly/South Jersey, I tend to take Rebels because that locality tends to run super Imperial heavy.

I'll usually play the same lists and keep tweaking the loser when playing myself in some sort of long, drawn out, pathetic king of the hill. Unfortunately that tends to mean I really only have 2-3 lists I like, and they may not hold up to lists I can't even phathom.

I suppose if I had a local group, and played... I'd be much more prepared. And I'd probably have more options to pick from, or more accurately, I'd have weeded out the less stellar ones.

Following on from @BrobaFett, i like a list that feels good/ fun, but also plays well with my personality - for me thats a fast, hard hitter that can survive the silly positions i put them in.

I think tailoring a fleet to you the player is infinitely more important than tailoring it to the meta.