On 5/14/2018 at 10:06 AM, garciaj113 said:

So I will speak about the T-47 and why I will never run the thing (I am Riggins, who is the top seed)

The T-47 is massively overpriced: 175pts for 7hp is disgustingly sad, almost every single Imperial unit has impact and will easily blow up the flimsy thing as soon as it moves in. Its damage output is nothing to write home about either (3.75 on avg).

The main reason I will never run it is what I am giving up: 175pts buys me -> two rebel squads with Z-6 and and a rebel squad with a rebel trooper (174pts), two AT-RTs with laser canons (180pts) the list goes on. The Airspeeder will be better off on the shelf since all the other rebel options are better, want armor take AT-RTs, want firepower take rebel troopers. All of this coupled with the fact that the Airspeeder cannot hold objectives makes it even worse.

I think a distinction needs to be made that you have based your list building/meta decisions around playing on an electronic simulation of Legion, not an actual tabletop experience. This biggest difference is that you have unlimited access to units and upgrades that, dare I say, most players don't or won't have access to. There is nothing wrong with playing on TTS but I think it leads to situations that won't apply to a portion of the playerbase and the information presented as the "current meta" needs to be advertised correctly as the "current TTS meta".

Another point that needs to be made is that the T-47 can indeed score points in 50% of the released Objective scenarios.

I would disagree that the T-47's damage output is "nothing to write home about" since you can easily move-->aim-->attack with it, at least in my experience. I have personally used a T-47 to assist with defeating multiple Stormtrooper squads and to defeat Veers solo with a T-47 in a single game. It also has mobility to get angles on enemy units that your troops/ground vehicles may not be able to get to.

Additionally, while it may be "flimsy" if your opponent is shooting it with his units it is drawing fire from your other units. It is immune to suppression, unlike your troopers, and is more resilient than an AT-RT thanks to its inherent Cover 1 and Defensive Surge.

The T-47 is a tool that has a use in the Rebel list and can accomplish things that the other tools (units) can't thanks to it's mobility and the psychological effect it can have on your opponent. Personally I like to use it to hunt enemy trooper units, both Corps and Commanders. Just look out for Luke/Vader with Dodge tokens.

17 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

I've been trying to point this out for weeks. Well put.

Honestly, I've been finding the same true about the AT-ST against a savvy Rebel player. The winning strategy seems to be just never try to destroy it. Over six rounds it doesn't contribute much to the game compared to trooper spam.

In the more recent games I've played against opponents with an AT-ST I have found that the best course of action is, indeed, to ignore it. Given the terrain situation it is easy enough to stay out of Line of Sight with your troopers. I've also found that my opponents rarely, if ever, move the AT-ST once they have deployed it. This makes it easy to maneuver around it to either minimize the weapons it can bring to bear or to negate it's offensive capability completely.

@NeonWolf

1) I am not the one who posted the topic, it is implied this is the TTS meta as this is a TTS tournament, but the arguments about the Airspeeder's efficiency still stand and it becomes even worse when commandos come out, which look to be crazy points efficient.

2) The Airspeeder's ability ability to capture objectives is severely hampered by its compulsory move and the way vehicles move, yes it can score breakthrough and key positions, but it comes at the cost of a lot of repositioning which hampers its ability to contribute to the fight.

3) Regarding its flimsiness you failed to mention two key things, its wound threshold of 5 and natural crits. Starting with the wound threshold of 5: if wounded and you roll a surge the Airspeeder is effectively completely destroyed as the opponent will blow up your main gun leaving the ship useless. If you roll a block a your action efficiency is crippled meaning your ability to take opportune shots is gone. So as soon as this thing to 5 wounds its efficiency plummets. Also in your equation you leave out natural crits, which completely negates the Airspeeder's natural cover and have the ability to push wounds through in addition to impact. Getting 7 wounds through is easily accomplished unless the opponent rolls extremely poorly or misplays.

4) You fail to address the fact that main weakness of the Airspeeder is that you can just take more stuff for its obscene point cost, by trading the Airspeeder for troopers and AT-RTs you get more scoring units, more activations and higher damage output

5) Even with the aim token being used on two red dice and the normal average still being achieved, you only get an avg of 5.25 hits, which if attacking Stormtroopers (completely out of cover) you kill 2-3 on avg, pretty weak if you ask me.

6) The Airspeeder is completely crushed by a good imperial list, not even mentioning the fact that Veers can orbital strike for an avg of 2 successful damage (orbital strike roll an avg dmg of 3.75 and had an avg crit of 1, with impact 2 and ignoring cover the Airspeeder will have to make 3 saves and make one on avg [this is without Veers aiming btw]) before the thing even activates. The whole argument of the opponent putting to much firepower into a unit without suppressing it is not a real argument, as this thing has a very real chance of going down and you suddenly lose 1/4 of your list for barely anything in return.

7) the psychological effect only works on noob players, same idea with the double AT-ST list, although AT-STs are much, much better than Airspeeders

- Also I've seen and played with the Airspeeder in real life, its still bad

To sum it all up the most efficient rebel lists will be lists that spam troopers (both regular and fleet troopers are pretty good) and AT-RTs and will probably come to include commandos as well. I personally like the Luke + Leia dual lead, I think it is very strong (I personally love running Luke). Unless I see Airspeeders winning large tournaments I will not be convinced otherwise, as all the numbers and my numerous games point to the Airspeeder being bad. I have designed several lists for myself and friends and all of them have done very well without utilizing the Airspeeder. If you like the Airspeeder fine, but all the point you made do not make an argument for why I should not just run other things for the same cost the Airspeeder.

4 hours ago, Contrapulator said:

This is a common misconception. Metagaming includes all outside influences that affect your in-game strategy, so it's virtually impossible to avoid in any game that involves army or deck building. By looking at the statistics in this thread, you are metagaming.

True but I think "meta" seems to be a shorthand for "dominant metagaming build." It's true everyone metagames to an extent unless you're doing a scenario from canon or something like that. And in games like X-Wing that came to mean must-haves and never-haves, but a dominant meta doesn't have to be that rigid and thankfullly it isn't yet in Legion. And due to the difference in game type (lots of room in 800 points for variation, objective based, round-limited) I don't expect there to be one or two dominant lists. But I do see certain units falling out of favor, such as the Heavies for example. FFG can easily shake that up just by throwing in a new objective, for example.

1 hour ago, garciaj113 said:

@NeonWolf

to sum it all up the most efficient rebel lists will be lists that spam troopers (both regular and fleet troopers are pretty good) and AT-RTs and will probably come to include commandos as well. I personally like the Luke + Leia dual lead, I think it is very strong (I personally love running Luke). Unless I see Airspeeders winning large tournaments I will not be convinced otherwise, as all the numbers and my numerous games point to the Airspeeder being bad. I have designed several lists for myself and friends and all of them have done very well without utilizing the Airspeeder. If you like the Airspeeder fine, but all the point you made do not make an argument for why I should not just run other things for the same cost the Airspeeder.

I was not trying to make an argument for why you should take the T-47 instead of other things. The units that you choose to take are entirely up to you and people will prefer different units for different reasons.

My intention was to provide counterpoints regarding the T-47 on what it can do. It is not a completely useless unit, it is situational. It is definitely not a point-and-click option.

I would hate to see new players feel like they couldn't use a unit/model that they like just because they have seen nothing but negative opinions of said unit/model.

The Airspeeder has uses. I think as lists evolve and more options are available, it will have more niche uses. However, I also think (from my experience) that it is the worst unit in the game when making an assessment of impact and utility versus points spent. This is of course across many games, with many users.

Also, I don't know if I buy the TTS =/= Tabletop argument. Obviously they are different avenues, but top players will attempt to buy units / build lists based on what they perceive to be the most optimal, particularly if tournament play is intended. I didn't intend to buy a second AT-ST until I tried double AT-ST on TTS. Now I want to run it locally for an event. The abilities and playstyle of the list doesn't change. Nor does its weaknesses. All that changes is the terrain I am playing on. I definitely get the point that players may not always have everything available. However, that in no way alters what are effective lists and what are not effective lists. An extremely effective list on TTS will likely also be an extremely effective list in real life.

3 hours ago, Big Easy said:

True but I think "meta" seems to be a shorthand for "dominant metagaming build." It's true everyone metagames to an extent unless you're doing a scenario from canon or something like that. And in games like X-Wing that came to mean must-haves and never-haves, but a dominant meta doesn't have to be that rigid and thankfullly it isn't yet in Legion. And due to the difference in game type (lots of room in 800 points for variation, objective based, round-limited) I don't expect there to be one or two dominant lists. But I do see certain units falling out of favor, such as the Heavies for example. FFG can easily shake that up just by throwing in a new objective, for example.

I agree; I think the term 'meta' often just gets conflated with what is really 'stale meta.' All it really means is having a conversation of and understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of various units and unit combinations, which I think is a perfectly normal and healthy thing to do for a game. How is FFG supposed to maintain balance, after all, if we don't have conversations like this to highlight units that aren't being used enough and need to be adjusted? When a game is out of balance, and some units are clearly good and some clearly bad for an extended period of time, that is when the 'meta' conversation essentially stops or becomes stale, and that is what is bad for a game.

5 hours ago, Big Easy said:

I think "meta" seems to be a shorthand for "dominant metagaming build.

My definition of Meta is "In games, the "meta" is referring to what are the strongest strategies currently." To me meta is different than Meta gaming, which is using outside information or influence to gain advantage in a game (as previously defined).

I'll throw in a thought here. If there had to be a meta at this point, I'm actually glad it's that troopers are paramount, rather than the big units. I think that T-47s and AT-STs being dominant would lead to a less interesting game. Cunning use of infantry units and commanders to maximize them with specialized abilities and command cards is a much richer gaming space in my opinion. I hate to see units written off, but if some have to be, I'd rather the troop builds be the winners.

On 5/14/2018 at 8:29 AM, The Bishop said:

Thanks you. I can‘t still imagine that a naked ATRT really works ?

I find it hilarious that an idea i suggested as a jank idea actually works.

In a game like this, saying "It's good in XYZ scenario" is often tantamount to saying "It's bad".

Sure, if you play the same buddy time after time and you know he likes a certain tactic, plan against it, but in competitive play the best lists are all-comers, and all-comers can't afford to waste a big chunk of their list on niche units.

For the price of a T-47, it's only 10 pts more for three Rebel Trooper squads with Z-6, or 10 pts LESS for four unupgraded Rebel Trooper squads, OR two AT-RTs with Rotary Blasters, any and all of which will be better than a T-47 in far more scenarios, and are thus a far more worthy investment.

I reserve the right to be proven wrong, but I plan to leave them on the shelf until I get enough models for a "Grand Army" game.

If there ever was a "poster boy" for a army building app (in a similar fashion as the X-Wing 2.0 app) the T-47 is the best we could ever have.

There is no way it is worth 175 points, the opportunity cost of taking it doesn't even need to be considered.

11 hours ago, Amanal said:

If there ever was a "poster boy" for a army building app (in a similar fashion as the X-Wing 2.0 app) the T-47 is the best we could ever have.

There is no way it is worth 175 points, the opportunity cost of taking it doesn't even need to be considered.

The worst part is that it can only become LESS efficient as more units are added. The old Armada/X-wing strategy of releasing repaints/new upgrade cards to revive old units seems out of the picture here. There's no point in rereleasing the model, and with only two generic upgrade slots and a high chassis-to-upgrade points ratio I have a hard time seeing how they could possibly release an upgrade that "fixes" the T-47. A decent hardpoint MIGHT help, but hardpoints are locked to units and come with a modeling component, so I don't see how they can release a new one.

Besides all that, that method of balancing is clearly unsustainable (hence X-wing 2.0). An app would be incredible... but it hasn't been implemented and there are point values on the cards so it would be a long time before we got something like that, if ever.

This actually makes me very concerned for the health of the game long term. Anyone see anyway to keep old units balanced without these options?

12 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

In a game like this, saying "It's good in XYZ scenario" is often tantamount to saying "It's bad".

Sure, if you play the same buddy time after time and you know he likes a certain tactic, plan against it, but in competitive play the best lists are all-comers, and all-comers can't afford to waste a big chunk of their list on niche units.

This thread is about the competitive meta, and in the context of competitive play, I totally agree. You want to build the most efficient, well-rounded army, and airspeeders don't fit in right now. In any meta, some units are always going to be better than others, and competitive players are always going to use the best units and eschew the rest.

But for the 90% of players who are just playing for fun (the "beer and pretzels" players) the airspeeder is probably just fine. Lots of people enjoy flying it. I think that's important to keep in mind, too.

24 minutes ago, WAC47 said:

The worst part is that it can only become LESS efficient as more units are added.

The current meta does not value what the airspeeder offers. It's entirely possible that may change at some point. Maybe Impact 3 will become highly desirable. The meta could shift to lots of units with blast or melee, which the airspeeder is immune to. I'm not holding my breath, though.

30 minutes ago, WAC47 said:

Anyone see anyway to keep old units balanced without these options?

Missions that are relevant to them may balance them up a bit.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:02 AM, Bohemian73 said:

My definition of Meta is "In games, the "meta" is referring to what are the strongest strategies currently." To me meta is different than Meta gaming, which is using outside information or influence to gain advantage in a game (as previously defined).

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. EVERY game has a metagame.

Is it possible, that you don't know the meaning of the word meta? Meta is a common Greek prefix meaning "beyond", which usually carries a sense of self-reference.

The game is the sum of all it's components and rules. The metagame is just the way the game is played. Meta is just short for metagame.

In chess there are 14 possible first moves, but most games start e2->e4. That's part of the meta of chess.

If 90% of all players play the same list, because it's overpowered, than that's an unbalanced meta. If that is true for a long time, than that's a stale meta. If all kinds of lists are played , than that's a diverse meta. If all kinds of lists are successful, than that's a balanced meta.

Meta is NOT an acronym for 'most effective tactic available'.

In linguistics (the scientific study of language) saying "My definition of ... is ..." or "To me ... means ..." and then bringing a definition that contradicts the definition of the dictionary is the easiest way to show your incompetence.

As an example: I used to know an old man, that regularly said: "To me n**** is no insult. I just use it for colored people with no offence intended." Do you think, that was smart? (And don't get me wrong, I don't want to compare you to an old racist. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.)

I'm sorry, I just can't shake off being a teacher, even though I even switched my profession more than 10 years ago.

I am an engineer - black/white, high/low, on/off, etc. Meta is a noun. Metagaming can be a verb. that is the difference I was trying to make. Some words have different meanings, especially when used in different contexts. And I never used Meta as an acronym.

"to me" is an opinion, which I believe I am allowed to have. My apologies if I offended you.

At the store I play at the Meta currently is what we bought and put together or painted first. We actually see pretty diverse armies so far in fact. There isn't a true Meta so far IMO, in fact I think player skill is really #1 right now. (well outside of dice rolls) I did like this write up though.

The T-47 is in an interesting spot so far right now. I have played games where it went down turn 2 and games where it went down turn 5 but it always dies. It does the best for me when the Imperials don't play an ATST.

On 5/16/2018 at 2:49 AM, garciaj113 said:

@NeonWolf

... I personally like the Luke + Leia dual lead, I think it is very strong (I personally love running Luke).

If you don't mind, could you explain a little how you like to play the twins and use them? I'm particularly interested in when you play what command cards, like Coordinated bombardment.

On 5/17/2018 at 3:33 PM, Uetur said:

At the store I play at the Meta currently is what we bought and put together or painted first. We actually see pretty diverse armies so far in fact. There isn't a true Meta so far IMO, in fact I think player skill is really #1 right now. (well outside of dice rolls) I did like this write up though.

The T-47 is in an interesting spot so far right now. I have played games where it went down turn 2 and games where it went down turn 5 but it always dies. It does the best for me when the Imperials don't play an ATST.

See, this is just not quite right IMO.

I get it, you guys are restricted to what you bought, but that isn't the game's meta. Could it be considered your local meta? Maybe. But even then I doubt it.

A game's meta is what players would play and what would be considered optimal if you had no restrictions. Its why the TTS tournament is nice - it allows players to build lists they think are optimal if budget and available units aren't restrictions. Economy or scarcity should not factor into an assessment of what the meta teams are, because those aren't relevant factors.

Local stores will definitely have varying lists, etc. However, for a discussion of meta in this game or any other, it really needs to be a discussion about what lists would be used if all units and upgrades were available to the player.

19 minutes ago, Copes said:

See, this is just not quite right IMO.

I get it, you guys are restricted to what you bought, but that isn't the game's meta. Could it be considered your local meta? Maybe. But even then I doubt it.

A game's meta is what players would play and what would be considered optimal if you had no restrictions. Its why the TTS tournament is nice - it allows players to build lists they think are optimal if budget and available units aren't restrictions. Economy or scarcity should not factor into an assessment of what the meta teams are, because those aren't relevant factors.

Local stores will definitely have varying lists, etc. However, for a discussion of meta in this game or any other, it really needs to be a discussion about what lists would be used if all units and upgrades were available to the player.

That’s not a helpful way to think about the metagame.

The metagame is always contextualized, from the local level on up. It’s the process of anticipating what builds and strategies will be used and planning around them. Economy and scarcity are absolutley relevant factors in the metagame.

Optimization is relative. Anything that is optimized for TTS may not translate onto the real tabletop for any number of reasons, scarcity being one. It’s only helpful to think about “what would be used” if that is predictive of what WILL be used.

TTS results can be interesting, but I hate that sometimes people act like it’s the “true meta.” Sure, it’s the meta for TTS players, and we can all learn lessons by looking to other metas. But the only context that matters when building our lists is our own.

I'm really curious how much LOS blocking terrain is used in these TTS games...

I've personally found the airspeeder to be effective *if* it has terrain it can duck behind. It rolls enough dice that comp move out of cover, shoot, move to behind cover, still does meaningful damage.

13 hours ago, WAC47 said:

That’s not a helpful way to think about the metagame.

The metagame is always contextualized, from the local level on up. It’s the process of anticipating what builds and strategies will be used and planning around them. Economy and scarcity are absolutley relevant factors in the metagame.

Optimization is relative. Anything that is optimized for TTS may not translate onto the real tabletop for any number of reasons, scarcity being one. It’s only helpful to think about “what would be used” if that is predictive of what WILL be used.

TTS results can be interesting, but I hate that sometimes people act like it’s the “true meta.” Sure, it’s the meta for TTS players, and we can all learn lessons by looking to other metas. But the only context that matters when building our lists is our own.

Fair enough. I hear you... I just don't know if I agree. In my mind, the local scene and the meta scene are not necessarily the same. Sure, my local game matters a lot when I'm building my list. However, I could play at a local store that has no one that runs meta lists, and that could therefore make my meta lists less effective.

I dunno, maybe I'm over thinking it. In my mind meta = optimal, and optimal kind of is what it is.