• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DehNutCase

Profile Information

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Radiant Dawn

Member Badge

  • Members


  • I fight for...
  1. I mean, if you like Xander and want him, in particular, to tank mages, stacking 2 DDs for +12 res is okay. Just okay. Fury 3, Fort Res/Def S-seal, Rally Defense/Resistance or even just +Atk nature would have that Tharja 2HKO Xander. To reliably tank and counter-kill mages you need a buff neutralization effect, no way around it, and currently that's only on ranged units and B!Ike*. (TA-3 is also an option, of course, but tanking 1/3 of all mages isn't what I'd call reliable.) To just tank is a bit simpler since you can use deflect effects, but getting smacked for free by the hardest hitting units in the game isn't exactly fun. *Not really because he can't carry DC and 2 copies of DD, and he doesn't have enough res. Regarding DD, that depends on whether you hate mages more or archers more. -raven double DD makes archers cry because 2 DD has the same effect as TA-3 in terms of reducing damage, and can't be negated by CA. If you hate archers more physically bulky mages like Merric and F!Robin are fine for a raven DD build, whereas Divine Naga and Mulgir smacks mages around. (You can also pack -blade on Merric/F!Robin for more damage, of course. They don't have the best spreads for offense, but -blade fixes a lot of offense issues no matter your spread, assuming you get enough buffs.) Steady Breath is a pretty interesting skill, and one of the few skills that make it worth it to run a killer weapon like Ike is. 3 and 4 cd has no difference unless you run quick pulse as well, meaning it's fairly simple to pack Aether for laughing at people trying to damage you, and 3cd goes down to 2 cd for Bonfire. That's more of an Eldigan thing than Xander thing, though. (Eldigan can even try a Sol build where he Sols on every single hit because Sol's going to 3cd after 1.9). Quick Pulse Steady Breath BK would catch a lot of people off guard, with the only caveat being it'll only work if people are caught off guard, because anyone looking at the combat forecast would know BK would wreck their shit---and BK can't move over to catch them when the opponent goes 'oh shit, well, time to run away and use a different unit to smack him next turn.' Armors simply don't apply enough pressure on the map to make them a hard defense team to beat. Doesn't matter if it takes 10 years for B!Lyn to chip them down if armors give her ten years. Might be useful as a player controlled unit, but not much better than, say, Xander running Breath & Ignis or QP and Bonfire, particularly since Xander doesn't need help moving around. Xander's QR Ignis with Steady Breath is pretty nice, yeah, and so's QP Bonfire (QP bonfire probably being better at OHKOing mages so they don't double Xander into oblivion). Pity Xander doesn't get Wrath Access or else QP Bonfire & Breath would be a damn nice combo: You have Bonfire up for the first combat (and 10 damage from Wrath, since you'll go below 75%), and afterwards you can run around charging Bonfire with Wrath. I'd say it's pretty nice, honestly, giving Xander coverage against mages that don't OHKO him (since he OHKOs them back before they can double), while still being, you know, Xander versus physical units. i.e. doesn't even notice he's being doubled. Only issue would be that Dorcas like that build more, since he can run the Bonfire, QP, Wrath combo for crazy OHKO potential, but I'm assuming you like Xander, so no problem with running it. Mind, for all units builds I would at least wait a bit for 1.9 to come out, so we know how much the meta changes from weapon enhancement/forging/upgrading whatever we want to call it.
  2. @KMT4ever, Moonbow procs from a Attack, tank counter, attack chain whether or not you have a +CD skill in your A-slot, that's why I didn't count Wo Dao's extra damage. Anyone who can't counter during mia's first attack is probably dead in two hits regardless (because you're hitting a ranged unit, which have low BST in general), so it's actually kind of a good thing you saved your Moonbow for the second combat. Regarding Glimmer, it probably activates after Wo Dao, meaning you don't get another +5 from it. (I haven't tested it personally, but calculators have Wo Dao effects activating last, and Wo Dao's out for a while, so they're probably right). Moreover, glimmer suffers from math. 50% of Atk - Def is a lot lower than 30% of Def for units that matter. Let's assume you kept flashing blade, (which is good for glimmer, high Atk units always prefer Moonbow because the only units that survive are ones with absurd defense stats) and Mia was =Atk, and carrying a +Atk 3 seal. Mia's attack = 32 + 19 + 3 = 54 attack. Note: Heavy, boring math inside. tl;dr Mia always wants Moonbow over Glimmer because there's only two situations: Enemy would die either way, or Moonbow does more damage. But yeah, since your Mia's -Def, L&D would actually start messing with her defenses because you need to tank a hit to double. Mind, I usually prefer the Fury 3 Renewal combo for melee beat stick duties, Fury & Renewal serves the exact same purpose as Flashing & Desperation, because tanking a counter hit is the same as getting +1 charge on attack, except Fury 3 gives more stats and Renewal gives off-tanking utility. L&D would not be comboed with Renewal, it's more of a Vantage thing, since L&D's big advantage is that it's excellent on enemy phase as a Fierce Stance variant (+5 Atk always rather than +6 when attacked), and, yeah, it's honestly not too great. Melee range infantry with only melee range counter is not a very useful niche. Regarding Renewal, the main reason it's so good for me is because I tend to carry tons of mobility with me. That is, after every fight, I can always just run away and heal. My teams are fairly cavalry heavy, usually has a dancer, and pivot is the only assist skill AI uses to get closer to the player. This means just walking away is usually enough if you need more time to heal (sometimes you can even stand in place because they keep doing unit moves, unit gets repositioned shenanigans), and, when it's not, I have cavalry mobility and dance + reposition to give everyone 3 or better move. Basically, Renewal isn't +10 hp for me, renewal is always a full heal if I need it to be, meaning my units can reliably tank a turn without affecting combat performance. Desperation does something similar, of course, but not packing fury means you're missing 3 speed and 3 def/res, so there's less you can tank. Edit: This also means Renewal 1 is just as good as Renewal 3 or Recover Ring for me, it's just that Renewal 3 and the ring are less tedious to use.
  3. Another FEH channel on the 14th: Post Talk

    I guess I mispoke a bit---but yes, you're right that one very precise measurement in better than tons of bad ones. (Similar to how odds = 1 - (1 - base odds)^x has a very small x if base odds is high. You need a ton less x to have good odds if base odds is high. Coin flip vs. Dice roll has coin at a 50% increase over average against dice roll being almost an 100% increase over average to get about 90% odds.) What I should've said was that the fact that the force of gravity was equal to F(grav) = GM1M2/r^2 is very certain because everything that uses the equation is testing the equation. And, if G was wrong, or M1*M2 were wrong, or weakening as the square of the distance were wrong, there's many opportunities to notice. The repeated tests is an increase in certainty, not precision, is what I mean. Precision is 'you'll get it under x orbs,' certainty is the amount of people that it applies to (say, about 60% for 200). Not by the value of majority rules. p > .32 catches 64% of people. (If we're going by 1 sigma above and below the average.) There are two ways to reach a large number of trials: Each person can do tons of trials, or a ton of people can do trials. Pulling from gacha---and giving advice to people pulling from gachas---satisfy both of these conditions. If a person keeps playing this game, they'll obviously spend orbs on new banners. This is the tons of trials part. And, if we were to give advice to large numbers of people in aggregate, then they're a ton of people doing trials. (Hell, pulling for all 4*s in aggregate is also an example, because you're more or less conducting a separate trial for each individual unit---yeah, there'll be a ton of outliers, units that just won't come, but the majority would come in around the average because that's kind of how math works.) There's going to a large (in absolute terms) number of people who do not approach any precise orb count---your 95% has 5% people screwed, my 60% or so has 40% screwed. There's even another problem that comes in where stacking too many orbs is just as bad as having too few orbs. Why? Because orbs you saved for later is orbs you can't spend now. Every orb saved during, say, Brave Heroes was an orb that wasn't spent on B!Ike, B!Lyn, etc. Basically, what I'm saying is that it's not necessary, not even a good idea, to assume that you need give expected orb counts for 95% odds to pull a unit. 95% odds is the kind of high reliability numbers you saved for units you really like rather than any given unit. Hell, this is evident if one simply imagines that everyone wants every unit at 95% odds. You know what will happen? They'll always only spend until they have 400 or so orbs left (whatever gets 95% odds) for the next unit they like, meaning they're basically sitting on 400 orbs worth of unused resource. The difference between the guy sitting on 400 orbs and the guy who's comfortable going down to 0? The guy who's at 0 will have 400 more orbs invested in his units, forever. Because their orb acquisition rate is the same. If you tried to save resources like that in any RTS game you'd get utterly wrecked. Yeah, if you save 400 minerals you can build a emergency 2 tanks or 8 marines (Starcraft) to fight off a rush, while keeping the option open to expand with it as well. (Assuming time is free for producing units here). But the guy who fast expanded, and the guy who built 8 marines immediate to come wreck your shit, got everything 400 minerals earlier than you did. If he fast expanded it means his income spiked 400 minerals before you did, meaning he'll have that income difference for the x seconds before you got your expansion up (while keeping your stockpile). If the guy built 8 marines it means his units have been out and about doing things for longer than your marines---defender advantage comes from shorter reinforcement paths, meaning less time to get to the front lines, but the time you saved with defender advantage is negated by the time the other guy saved by not having a stockpile. Any guide that gives 'this is the amount of orbs you'll need to spend' is an implicit recommendation to have that many orbs on hand to pull this unit. In other words, anything that gives a 'expected orbs to pull' number is a recommendation in spending resources efficiently. And efficiency means as low as a stockpile as possible while not missing anything important. (In SC:BW, or a normal game of it, it means spending as much as possible on expansions and gathering more resources, and spending just enough that the other guy doesn't kill you.) In this game it means having enough orbs to reasonably use up your pity %. Because the last couple orbs you spend on a banner is more valuable than the first couple, thanks to pity rate. (This doesn't mean you should stockpile enough to force the 14% full pity break or whatever it is. Any efficiency you gain from having that many on hand is lost again because you're keeping that many orbs doing nothing. Honestly, always going down to 0 orbs on a banner isn't even a bad plan. It takes a long time for the efficiency of never having high pity rates before the banner rotates out to catchup to the fact that the guy hoarding orbs for getting pity-breakers is hundreds of orbs less invested in units at any given time.) Even regular FE is like that. Holding stat boosters until the end game meant that the stat booster did literally nothing the whole game. (Part of many, many reasons why Jeigans are good, they're always around to recieve and use boosters thanks to their good availability and base stats. It's not putting boosters to use if your stats are still too low to fight, after all.)
  4. I'd say Distant Defense goes on people whose bulk is barely not there, rather than people like Xander who can probably eat 4 brave bows in a row and not notice. Problem with DD on Xander is that magic fries him even with +6 Res, and he has 37 defense already. I mean, yeah, more defense gets better the more of it you have (since -6 from 20 damage is a lot less than -6 from, say, 10 damage. It's a difference of like 25% reduction versus 60% reduction), but Xander feels like he has enough already from horse buffs + natural bulk. Raven mages would like it, for example, because mages have naturally low BST, meaning their bulk in both directions are often barely adequate rather than total overkill levels. DD also has use on dedicated mage tanks because mages pack so much damage that it's always nice to have more. I'd say, as a general rule, it'll be 2 range units that prefer to counter-kill that want DD. Think B!Lyn with Mulgir, Divine Naga Julia/Deirdre, the rare Niles, Innes, Felicia and so on. Melee units have enough stats already if they needed to tank a ranged shot (at least, vs. physical things, magical bulk isn't a real thing), and would need to devote an A-slot to distant counter if they wanted to counter anyway.
  5. Note that the problem with using Flashing blade and a special is that you've basically spent 2 slots for what L&D or DB3 only spends 1 slot to do. Moonbow adds around 12ish damage, and, well, so does DB3 when you're doubling. L&D even helps her double, doing what you'd want brash to do when she's below 50%, except it's always on, and you get to pick up Atk +3 for 3 more damage on top of L&D's 5 Atk. (Also nice synergy with Vantage since you'd have +8 Atk of 'fuck you' coming to the next loser's face when they try to smack Mia around.) If I had to build her, I'd build her for fun, that is, with a build that's thematically appropriate rather than for power level (because power level has a name, and it's Reinhardts all the way down). Ergo, how do I make Flashing Blade and Vantage OP? (Well, not really, just fun.) You give her a 4 or 5 cd skill that gives MEGA damage.You stack enough Atk that she consistently 2HKOs everything she touches without need for a special, and then she Vantage OHKOs anyone trying to hit her while she's weakened. (She's actually an excellent Aether carrier.) If you wanted a pure 'this unit is good' build, on the other hand, I'd stick to a 2 or 3 cd skill (her Default Luna is quite good, because it'll trigger like Moonbow from a normal Attack, tank counter, Attack chain, firing off 50% def worth of damage and 10 more from her supercharged Wo Dao). Reposition is in because it's the best assist skill (there's no point spending ardent to setup if you can't move enough units in range to hit things, or out of range to not be hit to death). C-slot would be whatever, and S-slot would be either a 'tech' skill---deflect x to tank a specific unit---or else something like Atk+3 or Hp+5 to improve performance across the board. B-slot goes to Renewal. It has the same effect as desperation, let's her double without dying, and gives her 1 extra special charge during her combats, because she eats a counter to charge Luna. Renewal also gives lots of general purpose utility in places like TT, CC, or just standing on a fort tile to waste some loser's time. (It helps that Mia, while not at Selena's level of bulkiness, is about as bulky as Reinhardt, meaning she doesn't die to much.) Edit: Mind, these are 'in a vacuum' suggestions, obviously you can add ardent if you happened to run renewal and happened to want a healer who wasn't a healer. A lot of unit-builds depend on what the rest of your team is carrying.
  6. Mind, I could be wrong, and maybe IS hired the one and only coder who isn't a complete sloth. (Or liked the game enough to do overtime to push this brand new skill in.) @bethany81707 But would you willingly make extra work for yourself? Code gets enough issues in it naturally to deliberately push boundaries. Warning: The below is just me rambling about meaningless stuff, only read on if you like to read people rambling about random things. That said, from what I've seen of the game, the team working on it is good, has a vision in mind, and knows how to future proof things. You can see that in polished the loading times, menu screens, and gameplay feels. The vision in mind is because everything that's been added meshes very nicely with things we already have, and future proofing is obvious in the way they've designed even the skill borders---namely, how seals had all 3 levels of it. They're not rushing to add one new thing now, they're carefully building parts that'll let them add one cool new thing now and make cooler new things out of them later. You can see this in heavy blade, for example, because it explicitly states that the highest +cd effect takes precedence if a unit has both. (I.e. Steady Stance overrides B!Roy's sword). This means someone put in the effort to make every single +special charge action check for skills that add special charge, and then take the highest value. If you weren't planning to build for the future you wouldn't do it like that, you'd just sloppy write: if (unit attacks): special_charge++ and end up with 5 million lines of spaghetti code 10 months into the project, because, if they wanted Steady Stance and Heavy Blade to only add steady stance would look like if (unit attacked) when(unit attacks or is attacked): special_charge++ if(has heavy_blade & unit attacks): special_charge-- With an extra line of if (skill & skill trigger) for every single new skill that affects cooldown charge. Now, maybe they still did that, but the sheer fact that heavy blade came out with the warning it doesn't stack implies they future proofed the skill to begin with. I.e. these people are actually competent and knows where they're going. And people who know where they're going knows they can build cool stuff from boring parts. Like yeah, ice mirror could have a DC effect and a reflect damage effect (built from damage reduction specials and damage add specials), but it's more likely that it'll only have reflect damage for now, and, later, when they want a really rainbow unicorn special, uh, special, they can add a DC effect on top. One step at a time. Still don't think they'd put DC on a special skill, though. Mostly because it makes the boundary between the A-slot and special slot hazy, and that doesn't mesh with the vision of a game that had these skill-slots to begin with. They clearly knew they'd want to prevent people from running 5 copies of Death Blow on Reinhardt by making sure it only goes in the A (or S) slot, and not the B, the C, the Assist, or the Special slot.
  7. Too much effort. Much easier to slap DC on a lance (since we can just copy and paste from Camus) than to make a new skill to do that. Gotta think like a lazy ass if you want to think like a coder.
  8. Ice Mirror is either a personal skill or not. If it is, then her lance ought to have DC. If it's not, then her lance probably doesn't have DC. Why? Because inheritable skills should not require other skills to function---they may be improved by other skills, like Steady Breath does to Aether, but Aether does not require Steady Breath to be Aether. If Ice Mirror requires DC to function, then it has to be a personal skill, or else it makes no sense. If it doesn't require DC, then there's no reason for her lance to have DC, because that's 2 skills doing the same thing. Redundant. If I had to guess, however, I'd say Ice Mirror is a personal skill, and that her lance has DC. 2 reasons: A, It makes her unique---her mirror skill only works on units with DC, and she also happens to have a DC Prf. B, a special that gives DC is ridiculous, especially if it works with shield pulse. Giving DC on the special slot is monstrous abuse of slot assignment. Yeah, we have Axe!Azura whose Prf is basically a assist slot skill, but it's non-inheritable.
  9. Official Pull Topic

    The time continuum had always not been intact, though. A timeline that allows time travels already, and always have, been dealing with the effects of time travel. Only timelines without time travelers would be adversely affected by the effects of time travelers, and those timelines don't allow time travel in the first place.
  10. Another FEH channel on the 14th: Post Talk

    We argue for the sake of arguing, of course. (It works on our debate skills and Ice Dragon helps me see where I could improve---like my tendency to ramble on and on about irrelevant things.) Edit: A lot of the argument is also helping me see where I stand on things. It turns gut feelings I have into things I've written out, something I can examine, something that I have the time between typing it up and clicking submit to think about, and then think about again when Ice responds. And, when I actually agree with his counter-arguments---I change my mind. (Which is actually a secondary effect of arguing, despite what it might seem like. It does no good to be correct about one thing when your way of thinking is flawed---arguing is a way to improve the way you think as well as a way to know particular correct things.)
  11. Official Pull Topic

    Time travellers can therefore simply bring a cat back with them in time---thereby making cats extant---and then carry cat photos around? (This doesn't mess with the time continuum because the reason cats exist would then always have been 'the time traveller' did it, forming a nice, closed loop.) Edit: Not sure why anyone would think a photograph of something non-existent is dangerous, though. When you look at a mecha manga\comic do you then think, 'holy shit, there are fighting robots!?' or 'oh hey, a work of fiction.'
  12. Official Pull Topic

    In other words, one shouldn't use cat photos in futures where we made them extinct, nor in pasts where they weren't evolved yet? That seems awfully mean to non-existent cats. Edit: It's also pretty unfair to time-travelers who like cats.
  13. Another FEH channel on the 14th: Post Talk

    The fact the other option is 'you're either male or female,' is the problem here. Being right is pointless if it doesn't actually tell you anything. Just like how 'it'll take less than infinite orbs to get Ayra' is literally 100% correct, it's also meaningless because you can't use that statement to determine the correct course of action---how many orbs you'll want to budget for her. My argument is that 'less than 400 orbs' is already toeing the line into meaningless territory because it's not, in fact, relevant for a large portion of the population. (Because 60% of those get it under 200 orbs.) And also because 95% is a damn arbitrary number, even if it's an arbitrary number science folks have gotten used to. It's a trade-off between correctness and precision---the less precise you are, that is, the larger number of orbs you name, the more people to catch, but, in exchange, the number becomes less and less relevant, less and less userful, for anyone inside the category. To increase the number of orb's precision, that is, how useful it is, you have to limit the amount of people you apply the number to. Mind, this is true no matter what particular number of orbs we choose. We already have enough information to completely compute the odds of getting a given unit given a certain number of orbs/pulls, we can just shove that into people's faces and let them determine what's the number of orbs that satisfies their need of correctness vs. precision. We're, essentially, arguing over what particular number of orbs we should arbitrarily choose to use as the 'you need this many orbs to pull someone.' You're setting it as number of orbs = x * orbs per pull when .95 = 1 - (1 - odds per pull)^x That is, when you have a 95% chance of getting the unit. (A number that, like you say, catches 95% of people while shoving 5% off a cliff, because 95% is statistically significant.) I'm using a different equation. (It's just that it happens that .6 or thereabouts = 1 - (1 - odds per pull)^x.) I use the number of 'expected orbs per Ayra.' That is, number of orbs = x * orbs per pull when x = 1 / (odds per pull). It's just that odds happens to equal 60% or so when you plug the x into odds = 1 - (1 - odds per pull)^x equation. My number is more precise, of course, because it catches less people. (I'm in favor of shoving more people off cliffs, in other words, but, in exchange, the people that I didn't shove off cliffs get more useful information.) We can call this effectively neutral factor, that is, neither a plus nor a minus. Like, I can be way more precise and say, you'll need between 75 - 125 orbs, and catch, say, the 50% smack dab in the middle of the bell curve (numbers are just for example), but, naturally, I shoved the 50% on the edges off cliffs in exchange for that exceeding precise range of 50 orbs. The main advantage is that my number of orbs happens to use the 'average number of orbs,' that is, if we took the amount of orbs everyone spent to get Ayra, and divided it by the amount of Ayras that popped out, we'd get my number. This means: A, It can be experimentally verified. B, It's not arbitrary That is, the 66% or whatever odds is not something I just randomly say 'this is a good, significant number.' For getting heads in a coin flip x is two, because 1/.5. Giving us an odds of odds = 1 - (1 - .5)^2 = .75, for example, 75% Getting a 1 on a dice roll would be x = 1 / (.16666), for odds = 1 - (1 - 1/6) ^ x = 67%. Why is the average useful? Because, surprisingly or not, gambles are less and less about sheer luck the more you do them, the orbs you waste from being unlucky as hell on one banner would be counteracted by the orbs you save from being full of luck another. Even for one person, over a long enough time, the orbs needed to get all the units he care about approaches the sum of [# of copies he wants] * [average orbs needed per copy]. (That is, you sum up # * average orbs for every single unit he wants.) The number you give can't be used for that equation because it wildly overestimates the # of orbs needed. (And, unfortunately, even then it doesn't catch everyone---you might've shoved less people off cliffs than I did, but you still shoved 5% off.) This is why I used the 1k orbs (or whatever it actually is---I didn't actually calculate because, honestly, the precise number doesn't matter too much for our argument) value for the number of orbs which, after you've expended them, you should have a full set of 4* units. (Technically that isn't it, precisely, the number I gave is more specifically the number of orbs you need to spend, on average, to get one, particular, specific 4*. It's just that you'll usually have pulled every other 4*, on average, in the process of getting that specific 4*) This is because the number that catches 100% of people will always be 'bring an infinite number of orbs, buddy,' which is bloody meaningless, and I don't see any particular difference between shoving 5% of people off cliffs and 15%, 20%, or whatever% of people off cliffs. (And the people who are getting shoved off cliffs won't see any particular difference either---no matter how high we set the bar, there'll always be some people we're shoving off cliffs, so we might as well use the more useful number.) Even for experiments, .95 being statistically significant is merely a bar for getting published. Like, do you honestly think, for example, we only have F(gravity) = GM1M2/r^2 at 95% confidence? Heck no. We have like .999999999999999999 confidence in it because every single experiment that uses the gravitational constant and ends up working is another bit of evidence that our value of G is correct. This is also why people do additional experiments if they find, for example, 1 flavor out of 20 flavors of jelly bean causes an arbitrary effect. 95% is 'good enough' yeah, but it's 'good enough' for being published, not 'good enough' for actually using. I'd much, much rather use our current value of G than a G we have 95% confidence in. Obligatory xkcd link:
  14. Another FEH channel on the 14th: Post Talk

    Sorry, I misworded that badly. What I meant was that: Unless he has a box full of red units [I find it hard to believe he actually wanted Tharja], not that unless he had a box full of red units, [I find it hard to believe he didn't get Tharja.] "You should have Tharja by now" is something I'll say at 50.1%, because I'll be right more often than not. The problem is that what I'm saying is that 'You'll need less orbs than x to pull y' at a probability = odds. Whereas you're countering with 'You'll need more orbs than x to pull y' at a probability = odds. Even if what you're saying is the same as mine, that is, you'll need less orbs than x to pull y rather than you'll need more orbs, the % of people you catch isn't the raw 95% or whatever. It's 95% or whatever minus my percentage. Like, let's say 60% of people get Ayra in 200 orbs, and 85% of them get her in 400 orbs. When you say: "It takes less than 400 orbs to get Ayra" and I say "It takes less than 200 orbs to get Ayra" the number of people I'm right about is the 60%, whereas you're right about 85% - 60% = 25% of them. And, if you said "It'll take more than 400 orbs to get Ayra," the number of people you'll be right about would be 15% of them, because that's the % of people who won't get Ayra in that amount of orbs. The reason the 60% goes to me and not you is because less than 200 orbs is a stronger statement than less than 400 orbs. Otherwise the statement 'It takes less than infinity orbs to get Ayra' would be more right than both of us, and that's not true, because the statement itself is a weaker one than 400 orbs or 200 orbs. That is, for 60% of people, the statement of 'less than 200 orbs' is more true than 'less than 400 orbs' because my hypothesis, like yours, is correct, but mine is the stronger hypothesis. Like: 'The coin will land either heads or tails' is a weaker hypothesis than 'The coin will land heads.' So the coin landing heads up is stronger evidence for the 'The coin will land heads' hypothesis than the 'The coin will land either heads or tails' hypothesis. Yeah, getting Ayra under 200 orbs is support both for the under 200, under 400, and under infinity hypotheses, but that doesn't support all three hypotheses to the same degree, if you get what I'm saying.
  15. It's the only banner where Non-Genny healers won't wreck your shit with pity breakers. We have two of the best archers as focus and Genny, who's one of two (the other one's bride!Lyn) healers that won't make you cry for pulling at 5*. Wrathful Staff might be even more valuable since staves now get + versions. The banner doesn't fix the fact that you'll be getting staves for like 50% of your 4 and 3*s, but, short of a staffless banner, that's always going to happen when you pull colorless anyway. If one needs any colorless fodder at all this is probably the best banner to roll for them, since the 5*s won't have a 50% chance of being a bad healer.