Let's talk about talking about meta...baby!

Here's a video that Justin took (thanks for that, man!) while we were riding the train home from some (okay okay, about 2 more than some) post-event drinks. One reason I wanted to put it up was that I had this feeling during the conversation that something just wasn't clicking. There seemed to be some kind of miscommunication there because I would say something about efficient units and Rob would counter me, saying "that's meta." So I'd return to "I'd run that list anywhere, not just here." But still I didn't feel like we were making progress in the conversation. I felt like it had a sort of cyclical nature, around and again with the list being "meta" and me thinking it would do fine anywhere because it is "efficient" and has high volume, high strength fire.

Then Scott nailed it when he pointed out that if you replace the word "meta" when Rob says it, with "power gaming," it makes a lot more sense. Thinking about it that way, I can see why my comments about locality and unit trends triggered responses about net lists and using aspect warriors for fun. I think our conversation ought to have gone in a different direction. Like how different players approach tournaments, what they hope to achieve with their lists, or what they expect from their units. Or what do points-efficient lists and powerful combos (ran into an unbelievable Tau one that I'll post about later) do to upset the balance of a locality that features less of that.

I really think there is some interesting stuff to be said on these topics if we narrow down the scope of the conversation. I'm going to reach out to Rob for a follow-up and then I'll post about this again when I get the chance.