3434 replies to this topic

[Anouleth]

Ena/Nasir and there's also the chance that we haven't even built up Ike considering if he weren't a Lord he wouldn't be that great a character. And once again you are contradicting your previous stance, since you are once again assuming the absolute optimum. Just because he's the best doesn't mean he's the one getting it.

It's not that he's the best, it's that he's waaaaay way better than every other possibility. For example, between Mist and Rhys, Mist is better but not by a huge margin, Rhys has some advantages, so you wouldn't assume that. But between say, Moulder and L'arachel, the advantage in Moulder's favour is so overwhelming that it's perfectly acceptable to assume that he's being used instead of L'arachel. I am happy to have an open mind, but there is a limit.

I assume the player has a certain level of competence and at least enough for Ike to maintain a decent level. The fact that "Ike wouldn't be that great if he wasn't a Lord" is irrelevant: he is a Lord. I am not going to engage in any thought experiments about what Ike would or wouldn't be if he wasn't.

Edited by Anouleth, 06 November 2011 - 10:09 AM.

[Red Fox of Fire]

*shrug* it's not even 100% guaranteed he'll be recruited (this is before we consider what he does) yet he's still ranked. Same with the three royals in this game, since they're not 100% guaranteed to be recruited either, and just because they're not as likely to be recruited doesn't mean they shouldn't be ranked at all. In tier lists we tend to judge as if the character has been recruited and used, which has been the general stance for as long as *I* have been on SF (so nearly 3 years). Granted, they'll be ranked pretty low, but they should still be ranked.

I was never assuming they wouldn't be recruited, merely that they would not end up able to do anything. It's more like they might as well not be recruited. I am assuming all these units at least make it onto the field.

[Lord Raven]

It's not that he's the best, it's that he's waaaaay way better than every other possibility. For example, between Mist and Rhys, Mist is better but not by a huge margin, Rhys has some advantages, so you wouldn't assume that. But between say, Moulder and L'arachel, the advantage in Moulder's favour is so overwhelming that it's perfectly acceptable to assume that he's being used instead of L'arachel.

This isn't about Mist/Rhys and Moulder/L'Arachel. I'm not sure how this is actually relevant. At the same time, Ena/Nasir are still able to damage Ashnard and given all the resources you could give to Ike, Ena/Nasir can do it decently effectively. It'll take a couple turns longer, sure, but it's actually viable.

I am happy to have an open mind, but there is a limit.

An arbitrary limit that you apply to whatever you are arguing. If you're going to stick with one stance, you should stay at that stance and not just make exceptions, especially exceptions where they shouldn't be made.

I assume the player has a certain level of competence and at least enough for Ike to maintain a decent level. The fact that "Ike wouldn't be that great if he wasn't a Lord" is irrelevant: he is a Lord. I am not going to engage in any thought experiments about what Ike would or wouldn't be if he wasn't.

Not everyone wants to raise Ike and Ike isn't required to be built up for an efficiency playthrough. It makes certain Rescue drops a pain in the ass but it's nothing we're not used to in other FE games.

I was never assuming they wouldn't be recruited, merely that they would not end up able to do anything. It's more like they might as well not be recruited. I am assuming all these units at least make it onto the field.

Then I guess they'd be ranked below Nasir/Ena if that were truly the case. Doesn't change the fact that Rexaura/Rexflame will help you exactly as much as Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala (except Sephiran does the same % to an Aura as Giffca does to Ashnard).

Edited by Mercenary Raven, 06 November 2011 - 03:58 PM.

[Anouleth]

This isn't about Mist/Rhys and Moulder/L'Arachel. I'm not sure how this is actually relevant. At the same time, Ena/Nasir are still able to damage Ashnard and given all the resources you could give to Ike, Ena/Nasir can do it decently effectively. It'll take a couple turns longer, sure, but it's actually viable.

Lots of things are "viable" if you are willing to take more turns. In fact, I would go so far as to say that every character in the whole game is viable if you are merely willing to take more turns and give them resources that they don't make good use of. That does not mean they should be taken into account on a tier list.

An arbitrary limit that you apply to whatever you are arguing. If you're going to stick with one stance, you should stay at that stance and not just make exceptions, especially exceptions where they shouldn't be made.

I don't make exceptions. If in theory Malliesia and Frost were the only magic users in FE12, then without hesitation I would say that yes, Malliesia would always be trained and used.

Not everyone wants to raise Ike and Ike isn't required to be built up for an efficiency playthrough. It makes certain Rescue drops a pain in the ass but it's nothing we're not used to in other FE games.

You're right that you don't have to train Ike, he's just an infinitely superior choice in every conceivable way to training Ena. So in the same way that Haar is infinitely superior to Fiona, I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it is indeed Ike we're training and not Ena.

[Snowy_One]

Lots of things are "viable" if you are willing to take more turns. In fact, I would go so far as to say that every character in the whole game is viable if you are merely willing to take more turns and give them resources that they don't make good use of. That does not mean they should be taken into account on a tier list.

Why not? A tier list is a measure of how powerful and potent characters are. Removing turn counts does not remove the standard, only changes it. If character X and character Y are of the same power, but X joins earlier than Y while Y joins at a higher level, the measurement doesn't change, only the values. Maybe X is higher than Y because he's the only flier on a early map meaning a earlier clear, or maybe there is little use for his flight and so Y is more useful in a LTC while in a non-LTC, that's different. Doesn't mean they can't still be tiered.

You're right that you don't have to train Ike, he's just an infinitely superior choice in every conceivable way to training Ena. So in the same way that Haar is infinitely superior to Fiona, I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it is indeed Ike we're training and not Ena.

What if Ike is screwed? What if you put extra effort into raising fliers/mounted units for a stronger/earlier strong team? Both are plausible situations and in both the Laguz kings are very valuable.

[Lord Raven]

Lots of things are "viable" if you are willing to take more turns. In fact, I would go so far as to say that every character in the whole game is viable if you are merely willing to take more turns and give them resources that they don't make good use of. That does not mean they should be taken into account on a tier list.

So the royals are going to be used when you are judging their worth on a tier list. They aren't discluded otherwise.

I don't make exceptions. If in theory Malliesia and Frost were the only magic users in FE12, then without hesitation I would say that yes, Malliesia would always be trained and used.

How is this relevant to my point?

You're right that you don't have to train Ike, he's just an infinitely superior choice in every conceivable way to training Ena. So in the same way that Haar is infinitely superior to Fiona, I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it is indeed Ike we're training and not Ena.

Not "infinitely" because it's possible to not build up Ike. The amount of resources he takes vs his output is an obvious reason why you wouldn't given him much to do; it's around 2-3 rescue drops here and there and an easier final chapter and that's about it. If he weren't the game's Lord (remember, Seizing isn't taken into account on this tier list) then he would actually be the only other non-mounted unit above Nephenee if even that. It's actually somewhat logical to not use Ike that often; at the same time, Ena is viable choice for the final chapter.

Edited by Mercenary Raven, 06 November 2011 - 05:25 PM.

[Red Fox of Fire]

Then I guess they'd be ranked below Nasir/Ena if that were truly the case. Doesn't change the fact that Rexaura/Rexflame will help you exactly as much as Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala (except Sephiran does the same % to an Aura as Giffca does to Ashnard).

The whole point of what I've been saying is that Lehran will be able to do something while it's possible Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala will not be able to do anything. So your "fact" is incorrect because Lehran is doing more.

[Anouleth]

Why not? A tier list is a measure of how powerful and potent characters are. Removing turn counts does not remove the standard, only changes it. If character X and character Y are of the same power, but X joins earlier than Y while Y joins at a higher level, the measurement doesn't change, only the values. Maybe X is higher than Y because he's the only flier on a early map meaning a earlier clear, or maybe there is little use for his flight and so Y is more useful in a LTC while in a non-LTC, that's different. Doesn't mean they can't still be tiered.

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that many resource distributions, while viable, should not be considered. Giving the Energy Drops to Soren is "viable" in a playthrough that does not prioritise turncount, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered for a tier list. Many resource distribution, in fact all resource distributions are viable if you are merely willing to take more turns, often many less turns than training Ena over Ike. But obviously, it is impossible to consider every possible place that a resource can go, and not all that desirable either.

Fire Emblem Resource Distribution 101, since apparently I need to repeat basics such as "the player is not the kind of complete idiot that decides to use fucking Ena over Ike".

What if Ike is screwed? What if you put extra effort into raising fliers/mounted units for a stronger/earlier strong team? Both are plausible situations and in both the Laguz kings are very valuable.

Even a heavily screwed Ike can dispatch Ashnard quickly. Even if Ike is five points behind his averages in every single stat, he still 3RKOes Ashnard using Resolve, 2RKOes if you help him out with Bands and Energy Drops (which a player should). So it's still very unlikely that Ashnard will still be alive for Giffca to reach him.

The reality is that you have to kill the first version of Ashnard anyway, who is pretty much the same as the second version. If the player has a brain, he will have a respectably fast plan for pulling this off, and he can just apply the same plan to the second form. Such plans are not difficult to form: thus, obsoleting the Royals. I am not going to assume the player is too stupid to carry it out.

Not "infinitely" because it's possible to not build up Ike. The amount of resources he takes vs his output is an obvious reason why you wouldn't given him much to do; it's around 2-3 rescue drops here and there and an easier final chapter and that's about it. If he weren't the game's Lord (remember, Seizing isn't taken into account on this tier list) then he would actually be the only other non-mounted unit above Nephenee if even that. It's actually somewhat logical to not use Ike that often; at the same time, Ena is viable choice for the final chapter.

By the time Ena even transforms, Ike would have already have beaten the chapter. That is the kind of gap between them we are talking about. There is nothing viable, or efficient, or smart, or worthy of consideration by the tier list in not training Ike and using Ena instead. It would be like if people said that we should consider not using Ike in FE10 since after all even base level Ike can eventually kill the Black Knight if he gets a Speedwing, or if people said we should consider not using Malliesia because you eventually get Frost.

Edited by Anouleth, 06 November 2011 - 05:42 PM.

[Lord Raven]

The whole point of what I've been saying is that Lehran will be able to do something while it's possible Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala will not be able to do anything. So your "fact" is incorrect because Lehran is doing more.

You don't have to have Lehran do anything, especially because what he's doing is pretty redundant and you need to also spend two turns getting a tome to him for him to actually do anything. That's just about as much as Giffca/Naesala/Tibarn especially considering how possible a 2-turn clear is.

By the time Ena even transforms, Ike would have already have beaten the chapter. That is the kind of gap between them we are talking about. There is nothing viable, or efficient, or smart, or worthy of consideration by the tier list in not training Ike and using Ena instead. It would be like if people said that we should consider not using Ike in FE10 since after all even base level Ike can eventually kill the Black Knight if he gets a Speedwing, or if people said we should consider not using Malliesia because you eventually get Frost.

There is the Demi Band, the ability to use other skills on top of Wrath and Resolve. There are efficient/low-turn methods to get someone other than Ike to finish off Ashnard, and the fact is that if the Laguz Royals can't really do much to begin with then they will be ranked pretty low anyway.

Furthermore, it's exactly like saying that there should be a "used" and "unused" tier. You've used this same stream of logic to argue Oliver at the bottom of bottom tier, when in reality your argument more or less put him in an "unused" tier. Except you strawmanned my argument in another thread to hell and back because you were arguing against me doing the exact same thing, except that I wasn't doing it. If you are going to stick by your principles that there shouldn't be a "used" and "unused" tier, then you should fucking stick by it and not make exceptions.

[Snowy_One]

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that many resource distributions, while viable, should not be considered. Giving the Energy Drops to Soren is "viable" in a playthrough that does not prioritise turncount, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered for a tier list.

Huh? Why would we give a energy drop to a mage regardless of play style? Their only use for it is in reducing AS loss for a siege tome. Much better to give to practically any melee unit as they will at least use the boosted STR.

Many resource distribution, in fact all resource distributions are viable if you are merely willing to take more turns, often many less turns than training Ena over Ike. But obviously, it is impossible to consider every possible place that a resource can go, and not all that desirable either.

... What? So you think that, just because someone decides to not attempt a least-turn-count run, suddenly that means that all resource distributions are viable? What a [part of sentence deleted out of a sense of basic human dignity]! Oh hey! Wanna give the dusts to Boyd? Well why not? We're taking more turns anyways! Since we threw out that stupid notion of 'lowest turn count' suddenly EVERYTHING is viable and it is not like there aren't some things that are obviously better than others and we should ignore it because, hey, no LTC! That is retarded.

Sides, isn't this the whole damned point of discussing tier lists? Because it is impossible to account for every possibility? You may think giving wrath to, say, Oscar is a bad idea, then someone else comes along and presents a argument that he can do good with it and provides reasons as to why and his position on the list is adjusted if there is new information to be gained and considered after all.

Fire Emblem Resource Distribution 101, since apparently I need to repeat basics such as "the player is not the kind of complete idiot that decides to use fucking Ena over Ike".

Anything that can go wrong will and at the worst possible moment. There is the very real potential that a player will have a Ike who is screwed or the player will not use him. You can say it is stupid to use Ena over Ike, and I won't argue that, but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

The whole point of what I've been saying is that Lehran will be able to do something while it's possible Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala will not be able to do anything. So your "fact" is incorrect because Lehran is doing more.

However, even when Lehran does do something it is of little value. The 'worst' I can see happening if we don't use Lehran is, maybe, maybe, taking another turn that we wouldn't have taken before. The Laguz kings, on the other hand, can still be of use if, say, Ike got screwed.

[Red Fox of Fire]

You don't have to have Lehran do anything, especially because what he's doing is pretty redundant and you need to also spend two turns getting a tome to him for him to actually do anything. That's just about as much as Giffca/Naesala/Tibarn especially considering how possible a 2-turn clear is.

Yeah, I don't have to have most characters in the game do anything. Am I really just not explaining this well? You can get Lehran attacking by turn 1 simply by trading (or just have him heal). Giffca/Naesala/Tibarn may easily not be able to do anything at all. I'm not saying that what they can do might be insignificant or redundant, I'm saying there is nothing they can do at all. Lehran is at least going to be able to do something.

[Aethereal]

... What? So you think that, just because someone decides to not attempt a least-turn-count run, suddenly that means that all resource distributions are viable? What a [part of sentence deleted out of a sense of basic human dignity]! Oh hey! Wanna give the dusts to Boyd? Well why not? We're taking more turns anyways! Since we threw out that stupid notion of 'lowest turn count' suddenly EVERYTHING is viable and it is not like there aren't some things that are obviously better than others and we should ignore it because, hey, no LTC! That is retarded.

I don't think you're understanding. The point isn't that some one who doesn't do a low turn count run is stupid, or retarded, or whatever. The point is that if you DONT factor turncount in, you stop really judging how well a character can help contribute to clearing the objectives, and start figuring out how they can survive. You can literally turtle your way through half the game with little to no problem. In a world where you don't judge by turncounts, paladins suck, and generals and bishops would be king: After all, it doesn't matter if Gatrie moves two spaces less each turn to get to the seize point, or that we have to heal him every turn, since as long as he lives, he did the job. If turncounts don't matter, it shouldn't matter if it takes Gatrie twice as long to kill something as say, Ike. They both can kill the thing, they both live, they both must be equal. I know that that's not the way some one who doesn't do low turn count runs thinks, but it's the reality of the logic. I also agree that there are some thing that are obviously better than others, like giving that Spirit Dust to Soren instead of Boyd. How exactly do you quantify that if you throw turns out the window? I know that as some one who doesn't do every run in as few turns as possible, I can still recognize when things are better. It just so happens (and not coincidentally) that the things that are better contribute to lower turncounts. Know how I know Ike is better than Ena for final? Ike saves turns. Not because I'm interested in getting the fewest turns possible, but because being able to complete the chapter objectives faster is a good way to measure how good you are at completing the chapter objectives.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, I don't have to have most characters in the game do anything. Am I really just not explaining this well? You can get Lehran attacking by turn 1 simply by trading (or just have him heal). Giffca/Naesala/Tibarn may easily not be able to do anything at all. I'm not saying that what they can do might be insignificant or redundant, I'm saying there is nothing they can do at all. Lehran is at least going to be able to do something.

No your point is just poor. There are indeed circumstances where they are doing things, especially considering Ashnard actually advances on your units in Hard Mode, and it once again contradicts Anouleth's previous stance of "oh looks like YOURE JUST ASSUMING THE OPTIMUM" which he has so vehemently argued against me.

Getting a tome to Lehran by Turn 1 requires you to go out of your way, by the way. Way out of the way. And he's doing just about as much as the royals when he is doing something (ie he's not really doing _anything_, it doesn't hurt nor help).

[Tyrant Sage]

Perhaps we should simply take Lehran off the FE10 list then since he barely does anything, if anything at all.

[Red Fox of Fire]

No your point is just poor. There are indeed circumstances where they are doing things, especially considering Ashnard actually advances on your units in Hard Mode, and it once again contradicts Anouleth's previous stance of "oh looks like YOURE JUST ASSUMING THE OPTIMUM" which he has so vehemently argued against me.

Getting a tome to Lehran by Turn 1 requires you to go out of your way, by the way. Way out of the way. And he's doing just about as much as the royals when he is doing something (ie he's not really doing _anything_, it doesn't hurt nor help).

If we're going to tier them based on what they do in 50% of runs, that's fine. But my point is not poor; it does happen that they don't get anything to do, not by simply choosing to leave them out but because time doesn't allow it. This is not the case for Lehran. I don't know when you last played 4-E-5 but you hardly have to "go out of your way" to get him a tome on turn 1. You just have to give it someone who will be standing close to there after moving/attacking/etc. Lehran can reach an Aura to attack on turn 1, so he can trade with someone who also attacked. This is not rocket science.

I would also argue that Lehran can actually make a significant contribution in 4-E-5. Attacking from turn 1 with 1-2 range magic (for cover tiles) and all those 40s, especially Spd, is pretty great.

Edited by Red Fox of Fire, 06 November 2011 - 09:12 PM.

[Lord Raven]

Attacking for 14x2 damage or 4x2 on a Wardwood tile with Rexflame is about as much as a Royal is doing to Ashnard.

I don't know when you last played 4-E-5 but you hardly have to "go out of your way" to get him a tome on turn 1. You just have to give it someone who will be standing close to there after moving/attacking/etc. Lehran can reach an Aura to attack on turn 1, so he can trade with someone who also attacked. This is not rocket science.

Except the problem lies in the fact that your key source of offense rests on Nasir, but even if you got a tome to him there is absolutely nothing he is doing to help out any more than your units already are. You have Micaiah with Fortify or even a second string healer (Oliver/Bastian/Mist/Elincia) able to use a Fortify staff, which makes the Ashera Staff overkill. If Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals, then laguz royals in FE10 (and Nasir/Ena/any other physical unit you brought) trivializes Sephiran.

[Red Fox of Fire]

Attacking for 14x2 damage or 4x2 on a Wardwood tile with Rexflame is about as much as a Royal is doing to Ashnard.

Except the problem lies in the fact that your key source of offense rests on Nasir, but even if you got a tome to him there is absolutely nothing he is doing to help out any more than your units already are. You have Micaiah with Fortify or even a second string healer (Oliver/Bastian/Mist/Elincia) able to use a Fortify staff, which makes the Ashera Staff overkill. If Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals, then laguz royals in FE10 (and Nasir/Ena/any other physical unit you brought) trivializes Sephiran.

Lehran can't use Rexflame. Rexaura is most likely what he has. And he has 52 Mt with it so he can do 22/12 damage. 22x2 is nearly half, and this is to the Auras that the Laguz royals hit at -10.

Are you serious? Team setups are not always the same and accuracy can be quite bad. Even if he's only insurance he is at least there and doing something, and as one of your most helpful offensive units to boot. As for healing, the Fortify staff might have been skipped for turns (especially since you can get the Ashera staff, so it might not be a priority) and Lehran's existence doesn't use a slot. Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals because they don't end up able to do anything. Lehran at least gets to do something.

This is not a question of redundancy. This is a question of one unit able to contribute, even if in a small way, versus units who literally may not be able to do anything.

[Lord Raven]

Lehran can't use Rexflame. Rexaura is most likely what he has. And he has 52 Mt with it so he can do 22/12 damage. 22x2 is nearly half, and this is to the Auras that the Laguz royals hit at -10.

I thought he could. Oh well.

Are you serious? Team setups are not always the same and accuracy can be quite bad. Even if he's only insurance he is at least there and doing something, and as one of your most helpful offensive units to boot. As for healing, the Fortify staff might have been skipped for turns (especially since you can get the Ashera staff, so it might not be a priority) and Lehran's existence doesn't use a slot. Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals because they don't end up able to do anything. Lehran at least gets to do something.

So what? If the team setup is terrible we're at the same scenario as we are vs Ashnard, considering there's the potential of a terrible Ike (as in hasn't-been-raised terrible) and therefore Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala have the potential to do something. The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal; it's the same concept, and the accuracies are passable if not perfect; same with using a royal as a crutch for a terrible Ike if we're taking all circumstances into account. The royals' existence doesn't use up a slot either (and I thought we were done with that argument, by the way). And then we have the Ashera Staff, who we can give to Micaiah anyway (if we'll ever need it- pretty doubtful if we have a decent team. Micaiah can use Arms Scrolls there too).

This is not a question of redundancy. This is a question of one unit able to contribute, even if in a small way, versus units who literally may not be able to do anything.

Key word is "may." You are implying with that statement that they can, just not as much. It's Cynthia's call in the end.

Edited by Mercenary Raven, 06 November 2011 - 10:25 PM.

[Red Fox of Fire]

So what? If the team setup is terrible we're at the same scenario as we are vs Ashnard, considering there's the potential of a terrible Ike (as in hasn't-been-raised terrible) and therefore Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala have the potential to do something. The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal; it's the same concept, and the accuracies are passable if not perfect; same with using a royal as a crutch for a terrible Ike if we're taking all circumstances into account. The royals' existence doesn't use up a slot either (and I thought we were done with that argument, by the way). And then we have the Ashera Staff, who we can give to Micaiah anyway (if we'll ever need it- pretty doubtful if we have a decent team. Micaiah can use Arms Scrolls there too).

Thing is, Ike already needs to be good enough to defeat Ashnard once. If he can do it once, he should be able to do it again.

"The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal"

No, they do not. Lehran will always be able to do something, no matter what, and no matter how good the RD royals are. This is fact. PoR Royals will often not be able to do anything. That is much more trivializing.

Key word is "may." You are implying with that statement that they can, just not as much. It's Cynthia's call in the end.

I already said I'm fine with tiering them based on what they can do 50% (or maybe more like 25%) of the time. It just means they're all at the bottom, likely not above anyone but each other.

[Lord Raven]

Thing is, Ike already needs to be good enough to defeat Ashnard once. If he can do it once, he should be able to do it again.

Ena can damage Ashnard too.

No, they do not. Lehran will always be able to do something, no matter what, and no matter how good the RD royals are. This is fact. PoR Royals will often not be able to do anything. That is much more trivializing.

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they're not trivial. Trivial means that they do something that doesn't matter.

I already said I'm fine with tiering them based on what they can do 50% (or maybe more like 25%) of the time. It just means they're all at the bottom, likely not above anyone but each other.

Then what are we arguing?