How good are you at Fire Emblem?

[Nym]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

If Awakening is any indication, I'm probably better than I give myself credit for.

Anyone can be good when pair-up is that broken.

[Emerson]

11 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

tbf, Lunatic Awakening is just a bunch of BS.  You'd find a much fairer challenge in other games on the same difficulty.  And I say this as someone who loved Awakening.

Eh, still. I guess I feel proud about being decent with Fates Lunatic overall, although I'm nowhere near finishing Conquest yet.

[Zkitty8]

I'd say I'm average at fire emblem since I've beaten most of the main series games on normal mode (all of them except 1-3, 5, birthright, and revelation) and a few of them on hard mode. I'm definitely better than when I started out a few years ago. Recently I looked at my first Awakening file on normal/casual and it was bad.

[ProfImpossible]

I'm not amazing but I've been playing since I was literally 5, so I've picked a few things up. HHM still gives me some trouble though ( I think the best I've gotten is an A or  B) , as did Conquest Hard/classic. Awakening, and Fates have mechanics that are pretty easily exploitable though, so I can't say I'm necessarily "good" at those ones. 

[Charmeleonbrah]

My crowning achievement was beating Hector Hard Mode.  I only used the mine glitch once, to level up Nino she could kill Sonia.  Other than that I'm average.  I never beat Awakening or Fates on Lunatic.  I don't like to work hard at a fucking game.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Charmeleonbrah

[NinjaMonkey]

I always play on the lowest difficulty, so take a wild guess...

Edited April 18, 2018 by NinjaMonkey

[De Geso]

It depends on the game in question.

In general I'm pretty good. I'm not super high level LTC-tier, but I'm a good player nonetheless.

[Flee Fleet!]

if save stating didn't exist then I'd say I'm pretty bad. 

 

But seriously, I think I am just average. Most of the time I depend on stuff like arenas and boss abuse so my units are strong enough to plow through each chapter easily. I often face some sticky situations, but I manage to solve them for the most part.

[Mandokarla]

How are we supposed to actually gauge this? Are we making these judgements based on checking the boxes on completed runs, are we considering turncounts, or maybe the number of resets/deaths?

It's hard to accurately judge this kind of thing. To pull a subjective placement out of the air, I'd like to say that I'm somewhat better than average, but not good, per se. Conquest Lunatic was, in my opinion, the perfect example of well balanced Lunatic, and I've thoroughly enjoyed it without struggling until roughly the eternal stairway. Sacred Stones on hard with no grinding whatsoever is actually a fair challenge, and I see it as the best way to play the game. Still on the easier side, but I love that game. The only map in SS I consistently struggle with is Ephraim's damn boat. Not a fan of boat maps.

This is a hard topic to judge with any degree of relevancy. There isn't really any "right" way to play outside of Lunatic (and that's only because there are some DEFINITELY wrong ways to play the hardest difficulty in that game). 

 

[Skyla]

Uh......pretty horrendous actually. But surprisingly enough, My strategies are decently good in heroes. I can't think of a single gbh or bhb that has been problematic for me...Weird.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Skylorella Con

[EricaofRenais]

I would say I am average, but far from the best.  I tend to play slowly so I can level up weak units and make sure all my units survive, so I am bad a speed but good at leveling all my favorites.  About the only FE I can beat quickly is PoR, I kind of speed run that one on hard.   

[indigoasis]

I'm pretty atrocious, but I've managed to beat all the games that I have played without losing a single unit (granted I reset when I did, even if it was on casual, but still). I'm currently playing through Thracia 776 and boy is it fun.

[LucarioGamer812]

Average I'd say. I can beat Fire Emblems and maybe with a few resets not lose anyone (looking at you Shadow dragon, no matter what Caeda got hit by a ohko ballista that had 40% accuracy, made me use draug to waste 30 turns tanking it)

[Guest Dreamyboi]

I've heard of people beating Conquest on Lunatic meanwhile Conquest on Normal gives me trouble. So I'm pretty bad I guess.

[DisobeyedCargo]

We should make this into a poll 

[NSSKG151]

I would say I am pretty average at Fire Emblem. I would say I am definitely better than when I first started playing Fire Emblem a year ago when I was complete garbage at strategy games. (though I did choose Fates: Conquest as my first FE game to play so...)

[MyBoyHector]

Self rating I would put myself on 8-8.5/10.

[Ansem]

4 hours ago, Metakirby said:

Confirmed. Playing since I was 6 years old with Blazing Blade! 

 

unironically same, i think i was around 9-10 when i first got a hold of the cartridge. wasn't really aware of recruitable characters/permadeath until a year after i got it and was able to access the internet. this is the only series i've consistently played since i discovered fe7, and i am 21 today. i haven't played a main series game in a few months, but i would consider myself a pretty competent player in terms of efficiency/hard modes. but like most, i prefer to play casually. 

[Tessie Spoon]

I'd say I'm about average. Finished Iron Man runs of Conquest Normal and Birthright Hard, with the only differences in those runs being the map designs and the units I had access to. No DLC, no help from other players' My Castles, no Scout/Challenge maps. Just story maps and paralogues. Lost 15 units in Birthright, 7 in Conquest.

 

Though, a few of the units that survived only did so because of bad moves that led to my Corrins' deaths. I'm surprised how squishy Corrin gets when promoting to the Wyvern Rider line ._. One of those deaths taught me not to use Corrin as a tank without a Def boon; even with a Dragonstone, he just melts on Hard mode.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Tessie Spoon

[KMT4ever]

I'd say I'm decent, maybe 6-7 out of 10. On the one hand I haven't beaten any game on the hardest difficulty, on the other hand I have an absurd amount of hangups about how I play FE that make it a little/much harder than necessary.

• No Jagens: This is probably the main reason I don't do the hardest difficulty, because I'd try to use Jagen/Marcus/Frederick as little as possible and get stuck.
• Absurd weapon conservation: Half the time I don't even use Hand Axes and Javelins in the GBA games. Fates was a godsend for removing durability.
• Full-manning: I always use a full team, sometimes even more than that.
• Awakening Pair-Up: I made a point of never, ever using this unless I was feeling spectacularly lazy and grinding Limit Breaker or something.

I have a tendency to Arena/save state abuse, but that's more because I can only play through FE so much at a time before I become bored/lazy and stop caring about seriously challenging myself.

[Captain Karnage]

Good, just good I make mistakes like everyone else. 

[Michelaar]

Like most video games, I suck. Ok I think I don't give myself enough credit, I guess average? I'm not that great at it, but not that bad.

[Perkilator]

Average. Sometimes I make a move where I think it’s gonna go well in some form, then it all goes downhill.

[Lil Puddin]

I clear the games on the highest difficulties, but not always on the first try. I try to keep everyone alive but if it's the final map and they croak I just go "rip nerd lol" - Conquest's final map was R U D E to my team.

Uh, if I had to give myself a score probably 7.5/10 at the very least. :^)

[Ertrick36]

Oh, we're considering turncounts as well?

Then I'm pretty goddamn awful.  I can clear a lot of FE games, but don't ask me to do any chapter in less than 15 turns unless it's a tutorial map or endgame.