These past couple weeks I've re-emerged from being too busy with work to do much Armada. I really am still too busy with work, but Regionals are coming up and I don't want to embarrass myself. However, I really don't have much of a sense of where the global-average meta is at. I was hoping that you all could fill me in. Now, I understand that metas are localized, but Regionals draw from a bit of a broader pool. I also tend to see metas in fairly simple metrics, which have not become clear (to me) as I have not seen a lot of data collection for a while. But what are your senses:

• Is being 'first player' still the overwhelming preference for most players? How much tends to be bid for initiative preference?

• What tends to be the usual squadron complement? (how many points spent on average, cheap vs. ace, how much rogue, where on the fighter-to-bomber spectrum is the average?)

• How many activations are average? (How are the points spent on activations distributed? e.g. MSU or 2 Big & X-Y smalls)

• How much do local scenes seem to deviate from the global meta (e.g. on Vassal or at Worlds)?

Lots of max squads, lots of single large ships, usually 5 activations. Thats about all I know.

Locally the last tournament I went to my list was 399 and I won bid in every match, much to my surprise. I do not think that is indicitive of any broader Meta. That said I have seen more bids focused on second player lately, usually focused on Strategic, Fire Lanes, and Sensor Net. I personally have prefered second player lately but I think First player is still the consensus choice. I usually see bids around 8-10 on Vassal.

Lots of Max squads, usually Aces for anti squad or Generic bombers for bomber lists.

Lots of Large ships which keeps activations down a bit, 3 is a minimum, 4 average, and some 5. I have not seen as much MSU lately except in fun casual lists.

My local scene as limited as it is deviates significantly from what I have seen on Vassal, which for me is a good thing.

I for one don't care if I go first or last, and build for either. My current fighter complement is Howl, Steele and three each TIE fighter and Defenders. Activations, I'm running four, but try for five.

1 hour ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

• How much do local scenes seem to deviate from the global meta (e.g. on Vassal or at Worlds)?

A lot!

The big thing that I am seeing from all three of you is squadron-heavy.

I thought that this might have diminished somewhat after Rieekan got nerfed. Am I right in thinking that much of this is still fighter-heavy, and that bomber lists are mostly deterred - or are Defenders a big thing, because they are both bombers and decent fighters? Also, is Sloane a really big deal right now, and people want fighters to protect their ships' defense tokens?

3 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

The big thing that I am seeing from all three of you is squadron-heavy.

I thought that this might have diminished somewhat after Rieekan got nerfed. Am I right in thinking that much of this is still fighter-heavy, and that bomber lists are mostly deterred - or are Defenders a big thing, because they are both bombers and decent fighters? Also, is Sloane a really big deal right now, and people want fighters to protect their ships' defense tokens?

For some reason every is going large on anti squad squadrons. Sure Sloane may be largely responsible, but All bomber with intel is still viable but not really seen.

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

For some reason every is going large on anti squad squadrons. Sure Sloane may be largely responsible, but All bomber with intel is still viable but not really seen.

Doesn't that create an advantage for big ISDs/MC80s with a minimal fighter screen (roughly 60-70 points' worth) to go in and beat up on enemy carriers/flagships, while the fighter screen hold up the max squadrons for just a turn or two?

Just now, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Doesn't that create an advantage for big ISDs/MC80s with a minimal fighter screen (roughly 60-70 points' worth) to go in and beat up on enemy carriers/flagships, while the fighter screen hold up the max squadrons for just a turn or two?

Yup. Hence lots of Avengers and Ackbar Defiances

Most people still try for first here.

LOTS of squads.

4 activations average.

You still see a lot of variety, 2 activation lists, squad less, etc.

Given that Garm won yesterday, the Meta is obviously back to Wave 1

4 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Given that Garm won yesterday, the Meta is obviously back to Wave 1

Do we have lists and stats from regionals yesterday?

10 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

• Is being 'first player' still the overwhelming preference for most players? How much tends to be bid for initiative preference?

Not necessary, I have even played people who had a bid, so that they could play second. Going first and last is still a thing, there is just so many other things you can do. Heavy squadron activations like to go first, Demo and MC30s still like first and last. I would be aware that some people will really want it, and they will do well with it, but it isn't the only way to be good.

10 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

• What tends to be the usual squadron complement? (how many points spent on average, cheap vs. ace, how much rogue, where on the fighter-to-bomber spectrum is the average?)

Even though squadrons are really good right now, there a couple of things to remember. Relay and flotillas can be stopped pretty easily if you can A-kill the relay ships, or B-kill the flotillas. Both of these task are sometimes really hard but also sometimes really easy. Also Becareful of Sloane+Avenger. That is nasty more nasty imo than boarding parties and Avenger because the ISD my still have gunnery teams.

Another thing to remember (at least in my area), playing 3-4 games back to back can be exhausting, more so if you max out your fighters. So a lot of people in my area (SLC Utah area) don't actually bring a lot of fighters to tournaments. This might not hold as true for a Regional event, but I guarantee it will be a factor for at least a few players at each tournament. Remember ISD (especially with QLT) are pretty good at hunting down fighters.

10 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

• How many activations are average? (How are the points spent on activations distributed? e.g. MSU or 2 Big & X-Y smalls)

I would say 5, but if you have 2 good ships, go first and know what to do with them, 2 ships can be pretty good. But I see a lot of 1 big ship with 4 more smaller ships lists. Lists with more than 5 ships don't usually have any big ships.

10 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

• How much do local scenes seem to deviate from the global meta (e.g. on Vassal or at Worlds)?

I don't play Vassal, but I think that Vassel will probably have a good correlation with global meta (but that is just a guess) But local metas change a lot.

One huge thing to remember is that the meta right now is really wide. There are so many ways to build good lists.

10 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Doesn't that create an advantage for big ISDs/MC80s with a minimal fighter screen (roughly 60-70 points' worth) to go in and beat up on enemy carriers/flagships, while the fighter screen hold up the max squadrons for just a turn or two?

I am rolling with Sloane, and shes on board an ISD, so....

52 minutes ago, Hrathen said:

One huge thing to remember is that the meta right now is really wide. There are so many ways to build good lists.

QFT.

Really your whole post is fantastic, well-measured, and thoughtful.

@Mikael Hasselstein , there really is no way of knowing. I have pretty good knowledge of a couple or three different metas apart from Vassal, and each is dramatically different from the next. Probably your best bet in prepping for Regionals is knowing your own local meta, since it will be the most highly-represented there: home field advantage is a real thing for Regionals.

After that, the Vassal meta, and especially top tables, is pretty broadly representative of the global average I think. I think the biggest departure there from the global meta is activation count, which might be slightly skewed high. Bids on Vassal used to be out of control in days of yore, but I think they've stabilized of late.

That said, the deviation within one Regionals event is going to be much larger than the amount by which Vassal will vary from local metas anyway.

Lowest bid is likely to be anywhere from mid-380's all the way down to mid-370's. Low 390's will probably win bid around 80% of the time; 394-397 will likely get it around 40-50%, though that range can be a little touchy.

Average activations is likely to be around 4.5, but good chance of seeing at least a couple of 3-activation fleets and a couple of 6's. 2's and 7+'s are outliers, but do show up.

There will definitely be at least a few squadron-heavy fleets coming. Expect the 134-point squadron fleets to be balanced between bomber and fighter (Sloane fleets aside), whether it's a homogenous blob of multi-role squadrons like X-wings or Defenders or distinct fighter and bomber elements. Full 134-point complements of fighters have never in the history of the game been a good idea (excepting, of course, Sloane again), so I wouldn't worry too much about seeing something like that as long as you have an answer to Sloane. I haven't seen a lot of Rogue-heavy fleets in the wild since W3/4, but don't discount them as I've seen people working on them (I'm doing so myself).

I'm not sure if anyone has laid out archetypes recently, but yesterday's Mountain View Regionals top tables had a really good diversity of different common archetypes, and would probably be worth reviewing.

Good luck preparing!

WARNING: The following is opinion and conjecture, to be taken with a grain of salt, because it probably won't be what you're looking for, but it's where I am right now.

The meta is that most skilled players will know their fleets inside and out. Between Waves 5 and 6, the Great Errata, and everything else that's been going on, the availability of fleet archetypes is wide open. Garm, Motti, Madine, Sato (local favorite), Ackbar, JJ, everything you can think of and more is currently in the wild. I know around here there's a running trend of dual Vic fleets (often JJ, sometimes Sloane). What this has allowed a lot of players to do is to pick something they really want to work, and optimize it to the point it can work, and use player skill to make up the margin. There is no fleet out at the moment that outright lacks a counter, though trying to build a fleet that is a sum of counters will in all likelihood be less than the sum of its parts. If you have the time to go through the motions before your tournament, make sure you understand how your fleet works as well as you can, and what makes it vulnerable to different fleets. Knowing its counters is good, but if you can identify why those are the counters, you will be able to shore up those weaknesses and be less surprised when you encounter something completely out of the blue for you that uses those same tricks because you already know how to deal with it as best you can. That's probably 80% of why my two dual Large lists are doing half as well as they are, I know what they are vulnerable to and why, and practice has allowed me to learn how to outright outfly my opponents if necessary to either minimize a loss or maximize a win. I hope this helps and wasn't just a weird rant.

I talked about this more in my other thread (the hammerhead imp one) with you @Mikael Hasselstein , but the main reasons why I think the meta is so much better while it still maintains a hugely high squadron count is for 2 reasons:
1. Between Wave5 and Wave6 we got the Great Nerfing, this reduced squadron damage but a small amount that made it reasonable to complete with other lists. I still maintain that Rieekan aceholes was probably only about 55-60% effective, meaning that a reduction of say 5% of efficacy brings it right back to strong competitive.
- also in the great nerfing, we got the no admirals on flotillas, which makes list building much less simple. This is a wonderful change for list vulnerability.
2. An effect of the damage squadron reduction means that strategic has a place now that the squadron war can become less than simply tying up and killing all strategic lists by going max Rebel multi-role (I'm looking at you Bwing. And sadly the VCX is really somewhat similar). Anyway. its now possible to run 80 points + 1 strategic, which will make even a 80pt AA screen utterly valuable against 0 squadron lists.

Because of #2, I think squadrons now have much more roles and do not simply become a guessing game of if you should have AA vs certain lists. Therefore, I feel wonderful spending 80-90 pts in every list taking 5 AA fighters and a strategic fighter or two.

Due to that, squadron points are now usually between 60-134, but then you also get now THREE viable choices of squadron emphases: full bomber, full AA, strategic protection. So, not all near max fighter lists will be value bombers. This causes a huge increase in diversity.

The proof is also the heavy return of Ackbar. Ackbar is hard countered by mass squadrons. Which was nearly gone during Wave5. (I believe there was one top 4, but it also was smartly played and i think contained 6 dedicated AA squadrons...)

Hopefully someday we'll play also. =) It sounds fun to Imperial jam.

16 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

2. An effect of the damage squadron reduction means that strategic has a place now that the squadron war can become less than simply tying up and killing all strategic lists by going max Rebel multi-role (I'm looking at you Bwing. And sadly the VCX is really somewhat similar). Anyway. its now possible to run 80 points + 1 strategic, which will make even a 80pt AA screen utterly valuable against 0 squadron lists.

Please forgive a newb. What is this damage squadron reduction of which you speak?

4 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

Please forgive a newb. What is this damage squadron reduction of which you speak?

I assume he means that by allowing only one BCC to apply per roll, it reduced the damage output of certain kinds of lists slightly. There's a whole lot more to it, as Blail spent a lot of time complaining about squadrons pre-nerf. I'm glad to see that he believes the nerf had a good effect and has given him a much happier disposition about the game.

6 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

I assume he means that by allowing only one BCC to apply per roll, it reduced the damage output of certain kinds of lists slightly. There's a whole lot more to it, as Blail spent a lot of time complaining about squadrons pre-nerf. I'm glad to see that he believes the nerf had a good effect and has given him a much happier disposition about the game.

I too used to dislike the squad game, as it basically felt like it was 134 points of bombers or bust. Nowadays I’m seeing a wide variety of squadron compositions, with a healthy mix of AA and Anti-ship (or both with Maarek ), and a nice blend of aces with generics (barring Sloane, which should for the most part be max generics)

It gives a much cooler feeling of squadrons actually dogfighting and jockeying for position rather than “can I kill enough of your b-wing cloud before you yavaris me to death with them while you ignore my squads completely”...

I agree with the notion of meta as being largely local. That means that the best that most of us can say is that "In my area, people are running a lot of..."

I find that local metas tend to revolve around what the best players in the area tend to like. If they like Imperials, then some Imperial lists rise to the top and get fielded more. If they like MSUs, then you see more of those. Generally speaking, the pool of players for the game is pretty small, and that gives a lot of skew from one local meta to another. I think the term meta can have a couple of different meanings, only one of which is actually useful. The least useful definition is the most general, describing what people are bringing. This does not take into account skill level. Another way to look at it is to think of what are the general style top lists that are out there and how are they performing.

The new regional results are a pretty good indicator, and it was nice to see a lot of diversity there.

If I'd say anything characterizes the Texas meta, it is really same-old, same old. I still run Madine, Brikhause still runs Aceholes. The Imperial players still run Imperial lists, usually Sloan or Jerry, though the arrival of Sloan and the Quasar has certainly helped the competitiveness of the Imperials. Wave 6 and the nerf really didn't majorly affect what builds people were bringing, so much as make a very minute adjustment to the overall competitiveness.

29 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

I assume he means that by allowing only one BCC to apply per roll, it reduced the damage output of certain kinds of lists slightly. There's a whole lot more to it, as Blail spent a lot of time complaining about squadrons pre-nerf. I'm glad to see that he believes the nerf had a good effect and has given him a much happier disposition about the game.

This is pretty much exactly what i mean.

And the flotilla no admiral thing is a soft nerf.

Oh and Rieekan nerf makes it so that you're not guaranteed squadron damage.

... so really, what I was complaining about got nerfed 3 times in 3 different ways. It mostly means you have ot actually play the list correctly now, instead of basically being guaranteed the best damage in the game bar nothing.

On 11/26/2017 at 5:53 PM, Ardaedhel said:

Probably your best bet in prepping for Regionals is knowing your own local meta, since it will be the most highly-represented there: home field advantage is a real thing for Regionals.

This is probably the right approach. Now, if I was only in s much touch with my local meta as I used to be.... when I ran this town!

Of course, there was the last Regionals in Vancouver, WA (Portland, OR), when I was on the way up the ranks. I had managed to hand-pick my first opponent*, whom I clubbed like the baby seal he was (then). And then, the second round, I faced @Tirion .

This guy came in from outta town, slinging some upgrades that we hadn't seen 'round here much. He brought Yavaris and Toryn Farr, who (don't ask me why, I don't play Rebels), had not really been featured in these parts . He then broke my face with them. (At one point, it could have been close, but then it wasn't.)

On 11/26/2017 at 7:00 PM, GiledPallaeon said:

The meta is that most skilled players will know their fleets inside and out. ... Knowing its counters is good, but if you can identify why those are the counters, you will be able to shore up those weaknesses and be less surprised when you encounter something completely out of the blue for you that uses those same tricks because you already know how to deal with it as best you can.

I suppose this presupposes somewhat of a list of archetypes that 'get played' (and are known to be played), which is how many of us interpret the definition of 'meta', which is a bit different from the way you're implying its definition.

I think your definition is valuable too, though I think it's true for the people at the top tables. But that also sounds like a truism, or a circular argument, except for those times when some new thing or element has been introduced in order to shake things up. Basically, it sounds like you're saying that 'the meta' (according to the definition that I use) has come to an equilibrium, and people know what they've got and what they're probably going to run into among the people who know what they're doing.

On 11/26/2017 at 9:55 PM, Vergilius said:

I find that local metas tend to revolve around what the best players in the area tend to like. If they like Imperials, then some Imperial lists rise to the top and get fielded more. If they like MSUs, then you see more of those. Generally speaking, the pool of players for the game is pretty small, and that gives a lot of skew from one local meta to another.

That sounds like a useful expansion on what @Ardaedhel is saying, above. Since the list of contenders has already been published ( here ), I think I know about half of the names on that list. The real big dog of the neighborhood will be the TO, so that's no worry for me. Another person is the one I've been practicing with, and he does have the hard counter to my list (dammit). But the point is, this is not actually a very cohesive core of people who usually face one another, with just a couple of exceptions. So, there's really no telling what this meta will be like, and - as such - there is no "local meta", really.

*I had the bye, and then he wandered in.

1 hour ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

I suppose this presupposes somewhat of a list of archetypes that 'get played' (and are known to be played), which is how many of us interpret the definition of 'meta', which is a bit different from the way you're implying its definition.

I think your definition is valuable too, though I think it's true for the people at the top tables. But that also sounds like a truism, or a circular argument, except for those times when some new thing or element has been introduced in order to shake things up. Basically, it sounds like you're saying that 'the meta' (according to the definition that I use) has come to an equilibrium, and people know what they've got and what they're probably going to run into among the people who know what they're doing.

I think that is exactly my point, but I think the back half is still useful for people who have less of an idea of the archetypes (zillions of them that there are) that tend to fly. My experience is probably somewhat tilted, since the majority of my play of late has been Vassal games, and we tend to be an obsessive, perfectionist lot, but the overall point is that the meta is to optimize and perfect your list (whether as per that old argument post on Steel Command @Truthiness style ruthless pruning or @BiggsIRL style redundant redundancies or some other measure of probable performance) to your measures, and to work from there. Believe me, if we had an equivalent of whatever Brobots is, or the notorious Jumpmaster 5000 that dominated X-wing for so long, I'd make note of it, but really where Armada is right now is that there isn't a dominant list type or style insofar as anyone on here has defined that I have seen. There isn't even a dominant approach to active versus reactive initiative elements. It's definitely a circular definition, but right now everything is close enough to balanced that nothing is near as dominant as Aceholes was this time last year. Now, if the Regionals prove me wrong, and I'll be looking to see in February and March if there are any apparent netlist type effects there, I'll be happy to discuss whatever it is there and then, but for now it really is "Git gud", and elitist undertones or not, that's not a bad place to be.

Okay listing time.

First, never ever count out Rieekan aceholes

Yavaris and Rebel multirole. 5-6 ship, 134 multirole bombers, Rieekan aceholes.
Yavaris Dodonna variants
Ackbar MC80 with ET, + MC30 or CR90TRC, 3 transports, 6 AA fighters.
Related, Ackbar 2 MC80s 2-3 transports, 6 AA fighters.
Related Ackbar MC80 + Strategic and intel mass multirole
6 ship Rebel MSU, hammerheads and full TRC90s.
Mass Strategic or mass one type bomber lists, Ywing spam.
Gallant Haven bombers
7-8 ship Rambo90s
2+ MC30 based MSU Mothma (or Sato lol)

Sloane tie swarms, lacking bombers
BT Avenger + support (sometimes Demolisher) 1st builds
Demolisher based 1st builds (usually with Motti)
ISD bomber wings, VSD bomber wings (Tie Defenders?) (Usually ISD QF Goz) (ISD Demo Goz)

Rebels imo have more Tier1 builds.

Main boogeymen are Ackbar MC80, BT Avenger ISD, Motti Demolisher, mass strategic Rebel, mass bomber Rebel, MC30 based MSU, Sloane mass multirole or mass AA.

Famous forum lists:

Gink's Sato destroyers
Gink's Ackbar destroyers
Dras' Nose Punch
Clontroper's Clonisher
(2016?) Vassal champion 2 ship ISD Demo bombers
Gallant Haven Rieekan

Tier 2 stuff:

(to come)