Even without turncounts, some characters are better or worse than others. So you're not rushing to beat the chapter, so what? It's not like being able to move some extra squares, being more reliable on the 2HKO, or anything becomes meaningless all of a sudden just because 'we can take extra turns'. That's like saying the Cubs are just as good as the Yankees just because the game doesn't auto-end after a five point spread (because you have more innings and who knows what will happen then, so the game should just be called at 5 point leads!).
This is a really bad comparison. Except for a draw, a baseball game ends after 9 innings, each time. If every map ended after 10 turns, obviously turncount and how good you are at rescuing and moving and other shit wouldn't matter as much, but not all chapters are defend chapters. A much fairer comparison is golf: Where there's a set goal, that you can take as long as you would like in order to complete each hole/chapter. If I could putt really well, but it took me an average of 8 strokes a hole, would I be better than some one who couldn't putt very well, but did each hole twice as fast? Being faster at one facet of the game that helps me complete the objectives of the game does not necessarily make me better at completing the objectives. The objectives aren't to crit often, or to dodge a lot, or have great supports, or to putt. They're to rout, seize, kill boss, defend, arrive, escape, and to put the ball in the hole. Obviously critting often, dodging a lot, or having great supports, or whatever else helps. I completely agree, so does every one else. The thing is, those are all things you use in order to complete the objective. They are tools. Just like movement is. Turncounts are a good way to quantify how much those tools really help you, and who gives you the best tools needed in order to complete a chapter.
Will bishops move up? Will Paladins move down outside of a LTC list? Very possibly. Why? Because the values are different.
I don't particularly care about the specifics of that hypothetical tier list, I was trying to illustrate what the logic of "turncounts don't matter for comparison's sake" implies.
You are no longer focused on completing the chapter as fast as possible (which heavily rewards movement and punishes low movement), but that doesn't mean a paladin will drop of necessity (good weapon typing, well-rounded stats, great mastery, high movement, and so-forth).
Why shouldn't we care about movement, or try to quantify how good movement is? Why shouldn't I care about how fast I can clear a chapter? Good weapon typing, well rounded stats, a great mastery, and high movement are awesome. I can also say paladins are good, not just because of those things, but because of what those things accomplish. Good weapon typing and well-rounded stats let them kill things faster and more reliably, or more simply: In less turns. High movement lets me get places in less turns. Sol lets me expose Paladins to more enemies, so that I can kill them in fewer turns. Nobody's dismissing the things you're talking about, they're quantifying them.
So yes, there will be changes in the list... because the values are different. That doesn't mean, suddenly, that Gatrie is some god-king (no axes, low movement, too slow)
I would be willing to bet that I could very reliably do more with Gatrie than I could with almost any other character in a world where turncounts don't matter, because of his pure durability. The fact that he has no axes, low movement, and is slow are all important things. How do we quantify how big of a difference each of those makes? Well, he doesn't move as fast, so we lose turns waiting for him. He doesn't have axes, so he doesn't hit as hard as other people, and so we lose turns because he doesn't always kill enemies that others would. He's slow, so he doesn't reliably double, which means enemies will live longer, and we will have to take extra turns killing them. Do you see what all of these things have in common?
those are valid reasons to say Ike > Ena in the last chapter without touching on turncounts.
Why is Ike better than Ena? Ike has greater movement,
So he gets to places in fewer turns.
doesn't require the band, Ena needs a load of Bexp to even be really usable,
Why does she need those resources? She can kill Ashnard at or near base iirc. You can wait for her transformation gauge to fill, then beat the boss slowly. Unless you'd like to kill him faster. As in, in less turns.
Ike deals far more damage on average to the boss,
Right, which helps him kill things in less turns.
It's a measure of how good you are at rushing to the endboss of a chapter and killing it.
Why is how well some one completes the objective of the game a bad way of judging how good a character is at helping complete the objectives of the game?
A character who is outright horrible but shaves 5 turns off just because they allow a rescue-drop another unit in one chapter can be placed above a solid, usable, but unremarkable unit just because of that one instance.
I personally think the ability to fly and drop some body can be a lot more important than being able to kill random brigands, soldiers, and mercs. I also think if you can beat a chapter faster and easier, you must be better at it than some one else. I wish there was a way to quantify this, like, turns or something.
Turn-count tier lists are horrible because they require the player to use a specific strategy for the list to be valid. They do not gauge how useful the units actually are, just how well they are when those specific tactics are used. For crying out loud, you were debating which character was better based on ONE FREAKING TURN! Only someone obsessed with the fastest strategies would even find a degree of value in that, and if he didn't use those strategies, it's all worthless!
I actually agree with some parts of this. I don't particularly care about a one turn difference, or exact strategies. A unit that can do a specific strategy really reliably, that's awesome and whatnot, but I don't think a character's usefulness is tied up in their ability to do one very set in stone strategy, particularly if it involves other revolving pieces, but then, I don't particularly debate tiers, and sometimes you are talking about the most tiny degrees of seperation between two units. There was some big turn counting earlier about Jill vs. Marcia. The reality is is that they are ridiculously close to the same usefulness, and those one turn differences are all that seperate them. That's not any one saying "One turn is a big deal!" it's them saying "Well, the difference is just one turn, but one person is ONE TURN better", or something along those lines.
Plus, dude, not every one thinks along the lines of an optimal playthrough, and there's been a lot of debate over that, and most people don't want to judge units based on one specific playthrough that is absolutely fastest.