2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

There's more than one meaning depending on who, when and where you ask.

True, but the most commonly understood meaning is that "the meta" describes what you'll commonly expect to see in a given community. Unless specified, the community in question is generally what is seen at, we'll say, regional and above competitive events. If you want to talk about what's common at your store, you'll typically say "the local meta". If you want to talk about the peculiarities of the US East Coast players, you'd refer to the "east coast meta". "The meta" is just the overall.

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

True, but the most commonly understood meaning is that "the meta" describes what you'll commonly expect to see in a given community. Unless specified, the community in question is generally what is seen at, we'll say, regional and above competitive events. If you want to talk about what's common at your store, you'll typically say "the local meta". If you want to talk about the peculiarities of the US East Coast players, you'd refer to the "east coast meta". "The meta" is just the overall.

Not the way I've come to know it. It "commonly" means the entirety of the rules and army lists, scenarios, tournament regs, anything that exists on paper is part of it. The phrase "The meta heavily favors X." doesn't mean X will be the most commonly encountered thing in a game. X might be expensive, perpetually out of stock, etc. but it is still heavily favored by the rules even if only a tiny number of players will actually spend hundreds of extra dollars to gain an advantage in their games or exploit a temporary loophole.

Then on top of that you get into local meta etc. as you described.

It's also got a sinister meaning in some circles. In groups with one foot firmly planted in the RPG world, minmaxing your army list can be seen as metagaming, which is frowned upon at best in those gaming groups.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Not the way I've come to know it. It "commonly" means the entirety of the rules and army lists, scenarios, tournament regs, anything that exists on paper is part of it. The phrase "The meta heavily favors X." doesn't mean X will be the most commonly encountered thing in a game. X might be expensive, perpetually out of stock, etc. but it is still heavily favored by the rules even if only a tiny number of players will actually spend hundreds of extra dollars to gain an advantage in their games or exploit a temporary loophole.

Then on top of that you get into local meta etc. as you described.

It's also got a sinister meaning in some circles. In groups with one foot firmly planted in the RPG world, minmaxing your army list can be seen as metagaming, which is frowned upon at best in those gaming groups.

Different strokes for different folks. This is the first time I've ever heard someone use the term "meta" as you're using it. I always hear it with a very practical connotation. If people aren't actually playing X, then the meta doesn't feature X.

23 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Different strokes for different folks. This is the first time I've ever heard someone use the term "meta" as you're using it. I always hear it with a very practical connotation. If people aren't actually playing X, then the meta doesn't feature X.

It's probably a regional term. I never heard it at all until I started in on FFG-specific forums.

4 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

It's probably a regional term. I never heard it at all until I started in on FFG-specific forums.

It's pretty common in many competitive games. Most tabletop games have a meta. Magic the Gathering has a competitive meta. Etc, etc. It's definitely not an FFG specific thing.

So metagame is technically the game beyond the game, which is playing the game above the actual table of Legion. The metagame is the collective decision-making process we're all making based on external variables off the table - mostly what lists other people build and other trends in the game. If people are not building a list with something, it can't be said to be relevant to that decision-making process, because your analysis of that game higher tier is "the variable that is T-47s is minimized" (for example). You could spend effort making sure you account for the variable in your list or your tactics, but it's much more worth your energy to account for factors you're more likely to encounter. This is the same whether T-47s are the best unit in the game on paper but difficult to play, or really bad. If a unit is really high value (efficient, consistent, however you make value judgments of the game) you will likely see a lot of them in this metagame, and thus people will tend to play the meta-list or build their lists to account for others' current metagame decisions. Which means you can play a different "metagame" if you take something new and unexpected knowing other people will not have accounted for your choices. If that works though, usually the new variable breaks into the meta and thus becomes popular. Most games these days aren't built so that only some kind of tactical genius could pull off a certain list, which would almost certainly not be metagame except on a local level if "Only Johnny Speederhands can pull off the double airspeeder list which wins the game in 4 turns" which is why after you see some new list or build tearing up a tournament it will likely jump up in popularity on meta-game trackers because people start netlisting.

"The metagame" tends to me more emphasized in competitive but technically it can take place on any level. If your opponent's decision-making process at the kitchen table is "Vader is fun!" then if you stop and think "So I know they'll pick Vader because he's fun, do I just slap in my list what I think is fun or should I account for the Vader" you have just played the meta-game.

To beat the meta, you must first realize that there is no meta

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

It's pretty common in many competitive games. Most tabletop games have a meta. Magic the Gathering has a competitive meta. Etc, etc. It's definitely not an FFG specific thing.

Yeah but "commonly encountered" seems like a better definition for "competitive (or local) meta". UnitOmega's version is more what I was getting at.

19 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Yeah but "commonly encountered" seems like a better definition for "competitive (or local) meta". UnitOmega's version is more what I was getting at.

Fair. I think to a lot of people the concept of metagaming and concept of a game's meta are two related, but different concepts. If I bring microwavable buttered popcorn to a tournament because I know it can distract my opponents and put them off their game, I'm metagaming. I'm adding a layer of tactical/strategic play on top of the actual game. Popcorn has nothing to do with the handful of common builds I could reasonably expect to play against in an average game... i.e., popcorn has nothing to do with the game's meta.

can we get back on track with Vader, there are enough threads about how bad the AT-ST and Air Speeder are.

16 hours ago, Darth evil said:

can we get back on track with Vader, there are enough threads about how bad the AT-ST and Air Speeder are.

I think part of the reason this gets so derailed is because Vader is too close to balanced to warrant widespread demand for a fix. Also, as long as commanders are required and he's free in the core, set he's going to get used a lot regardless of how competitive he is in the upper level tournament scene.

40k has a million factions to choose from, but whatever's in the current edition of the core boxed game tends to be popular for the same reason of out of game economics.

Out of game, he's economical, popular, and easy to paint. In-game he fills a required slot and is close to balanced. That's enough to keep something returning to a tabletop near you. I hate the idea of a game of this scale having rules for someone like Vader or The Emperor in it, so I don't own Palpatine, but even I use Darth Vader just because he came in the core set and is a quick 200 points to paint.

Played Vader in tonight's game. I played him slow and sneaky, moving him around in cover, although not sneaky enough, took a few points of damage before he got to act. But, when he did, his free dodge force reflexes plus double move 1 with relentless and saber throw had him ripping through troopers and an AT-RT.

He's expensive, especially with a full complement of force powers, but if your opponent is not able to avoid him or otherwise play around him, 6 red dice for his saber with 3/3 impact/pierce is just... devastating.

I think his points are balanced.

For the record, opponent used AT-RT flame thrower on my snow troopers, 10 black dice, 10 hits. Toasty. His next activation had 5 black dice, 5 hits. Sometimes the dice are just not with you