Is there a name for this tactical blunder

[Makatak]

You know that situation where you place your lord at the entrance to a room full of Armored Knights, equipped with a Rapier, thinking it was a good idea at the time. But all that penetration frees up space for all of the knights to have their way with you and eventually, you get the shaft? It's a real buzzkill. And the solution is to equip something less powerful, or nothing at all. If there isn't Fire Emblem jargon for this kind of scenario, there needs to be.

[The DanMan]

I've always called it "assisted suicide" whenever you have a unit in a situation like that.

[Extrasolar]

Oh, yeah. The whole "your unit is actually too much of a badass and kills too many units on the enemy phase, so that they continue taking hits from more enemies until they die." That's happened to me before.

Reminds me of the times when my units have sealed their own fate by critically-hitting a guy that they're almost dead against, only to open themselves up to another attack from another unit on the enemy phase and die as a result. It's like, sometimes you just need your soldiers to chill out and stop trying to be heroes.

I nominate "Don't Try To Be A Hero Syndrome," or "You're Not A One-Man Army Syndrome" for the name.

[CatManThree]

How about, "Your Lord is Not Hector"? I think that is a pretty good name for it.

[NekoKnight]

3 hours ago, CatManThree said:

How about, "Your Lord is Not Hector"? I think that is a pretty good name for it.

"Cause of death: Not Hector at a critical point in their life"

[JJ48]

I've always just called it a Reset, but I suppose having a less generic name wouldn't hurt.

[Augestein]

Either that or "swordmaster syndrome"

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Described situation sounds like a typical Edward for me.

[The DanMan]

6 minutes ago, Magillanica Lou Mayvin said:

Described situation sounds like a typical Edward for me.

I used to call it "The Ogma factor" due Ogma in SD being awesome enough to ORKO fighters but not awesome enough to take all those hits. Put him in a group of five Fighters and you'll have one dead Ogma and 4.5 dead Fighters.

[Shadow Mir]

4 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Oh, yeah. The whole "your unit is actually too much of a badass and kills too many units on the enemy phase, so that they continue taking hits from more enemies until they die." That's happened to me before.

Reminds me of the times when my units have sealed their own fate by critically-hitting a guy that they're almost dead against, only to open themselves up to another attack from another unit on the enemy phase and die as a result. It's like, sometimes you just need your soldiers to chill out and stop trying to be heroes.

I nominate "Don't Try To Be A Hero Syndrome," or "You're Not A One-Man Army Syndrome" for the name.

I like those names. Also, something similar happened with Rinkah in my first BR playthrough, except it involved multiple crits.

[VincentASM]

I'm 99% sure there's a Japanese term for this. But I can't remember what it is nor do I know what to look for.

I have a feeling it's related to "mines" though, as in landmines.

EDIT

Oh, "landmine" refers to a OP unit who can solo whole armies. Close but no coconut.

Edited March 21, 2017 by VincentASM

[Dragrath]

Ahh Not sure if there is an official name but I can sympathize... Especially the variation that occurs when your unit gets a 1% crit that leads to an opening where another enemy can come in and finish your guy off... That has been an infuriating thing for me... (FE 10 Part 2 Endgame F.Y.I. G.J. Brom...R.I.P.)

Personally if I had to call it something it would probably be Wannabe Hero Syndrome...

[Rezzy]

7 hours ago, Makatak said:

You know that situation where you place your lord at the entrance to a room full of Armored Knights, equipped with a Rapier, thinking it was a good idea at the time. But all that penetration frees up space for all of the knights to have their way with you and eventually, you get the shaft? It's a real buzzkill. And the solution is to equip something less powerful, or nothing at all. If there isn't Fire Emblem jargon for this kind of scenario, there needs to be.

I believe the term is Leeroy Jenkins-ing.

[B.Leu]

Surprisingly, it never happened to me... until I understood it was possible in the first place. Good time.

I somewhat miss my noob years at Fire Emblem, I knew just as much as Jon Snow, but I had more luck at the time.

[Dragoncat]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I believe the term is Leeroy Jenkins-ing.

I nominate this one. Leeerrooyyy Jennkinnns! xD

[Nym]

I would personally call it ''I'm too much of an idiot to realize that my unit is not as weak as I thought''.

[Randoman]

I definitely know what you're talking about, since I've experienced that same situation (even the "I should've equipped something weaker" part).

As for what I'd call it, maybe "overkill backfire" or "kill-then-be-killed"?

[Interdimensional Observer]

Curiously, PoR actually mentions this problem in a Base Conversation. It doesn't name it however.

Spoiler

Daniel
Picture this. Let's say there are two ships. And suppose there are planks connecting the ships at three different points.

Ike
All right. I'm picturing it.

Daniel
Now then, soldiers from one ship are about to attack the other one. Imagine that the defending side has fewer soldiers. If they want to mount a solid defense, what should they do? 

Ike
It seems clear enough to me. Position the soldiers with the best defense on the planks, soldiers like cavaliers and knights.

Daniel
I see. So you would hold the enemy at bay by using your strongest allies to block the primary crossing points!

Ike
Then, you'd want to have your long-range attackers line up behind the tougher units barring the bridges. I'm talking about anyone with javelins, axes, or magic. You'd be able to do a lot of damage without much risk.

Daniel
Sounds like a good plan but...it seems rough on the soldiers defending the bridges.

Ike
You would want to heal them often,obviously, but maybe there's a way to reduce how much damage they take.

Daniel
It's a stretch, but what if I don't have them attack at all? That way, they won't run the risk of getting any counterattacks!
 

 

[Dragoncat]

On 3/21/2017 at 4:59 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

Curiously, PoR actually mentions this problem in a Base Conversation. It doesn't name it however.

  Hide contents

Daniel
Picture this. Let's say there are two ships. And suppose there are planks connecting the ships at three different points.

Ike
All right. I'm picturing it.

Daniel
Now then, soldiers from one ship are about to attack the other one. Imagine that the defending side has fewer soldiers. If they want to mount a solid defense, what should they do? 

Ike
It seems clear enough to me. Position the soldiers with the best defense on the planks, soldiers like cavaliers and knights.

Daniel
I see. So you would hold the enemy at bay by using your strongest allies to block the primary crossing points!

Ike
Then, you'd want to have your long-range attackers line up behind the tougher units barring the bridges. I'm talking about anyone with javelins, axes, or magic. You'd be able to do a lot of damage without much risk.

Daniel
Sounds like a good plan but...it seems rough on the soldiers defending the bridges.

Ike
You would want to heal them often,obviously, but maybe there's a way to reduce how much damage they take.

Daniel
It's a stretch, but what if I don't have them attack at all? That way, they won't run the risk of getting any counterattacks!
 

 

Omg I remember that convo! Daniel's going to encounter this tactical error I bet. Interesting!

[Tolvir]

I have had that happen a lot. Happened in Fates recently to me. Charlotte kept critting and killing enemies when they attacked, but she also wasnt dodging attacks and was taking anywhere from 10-15 points of damage per attack. The kept coming, and she died. So annoying when that happens, the entire time I am sitting there thinking "quit killing, quit killing, dont kill that guy, no dont crit! fuck"

[Slumber]

"The Myrmidon Mistake"