OriginalRaisins

With the help of some DLC and the Soleil paralogue, Scepti in Mekkah's discord managed to create an 18 command fates window.

Also who is this man in the orange shirt (next to Astrid)?

Is it Aimee? I thought she had a pink model.

Mark their ranges, have archers. Don't overextend into their range. You're correct that their stats are very powerful and that fighting them toe-to-toe is difficult. When it comes to using bows vs fliers, the damage bonus you get is that you triple the base damage of the bow. So if you're going to use bows against them you really are favored by using the biggest ones you have. Steel+ and silver are good, and if you have bows like Failnaught or the Inexhaustible those are also going to benefit the most from bonus damage.

This isn't what RD displayed between each of their parts, right? I'm pretty sure it just shows a cutscene with "to be continued" overlayed.

I've been playing a lot of fe7 hnm draft race lately and let me tell you: I would sacrifice my firstborn to make the cavalier reinforcements on chapter 25 ambush spawns. That chapter is made so so so so much more difficult by the fact that those cavaliers on the forts don't move right away. I'm over here trying to low man and I get literally stonewalled for 6 turns straight :( I guess this is my way of saying I disagree. I think ambush spawns are fine in the circumstances where they appear, and end-of-turn ambush spawns are fine when they appear.

That specific example was as an objection to the "people think that 80 is basically 100" line. Just because you think of a probability as a completely different probability doesn't mean that your expectation is well-founded. I agree there needs to be a comfort area where I would call it reliable. The "comfort" area is 100% success. Anything less than 100% means that I either have a backup plan in case of failure or I'm comfortable with the consequences of failure (a reset, losing a competition, etc.) It is unreasonable to believe that you will hit because you have a 10% chance to miss. Crossing the street without looking both ways probably has a >90% chance of getting you to the other side safely but I don't see people going out and doing it because they know that they need to take chance of failure seriously. Literally how can seeing the true probability give you a more unreasonable expectation of the result? In the situation you presented, your expectation of the result being "90% chance to hit, 10% chance to miss" is actually the unreasonable expection, because the reality of the situation is that you actually have a 92% (90 displayed hit is actually 98 true hit under 2rn but you conceded you didn't know the probabilities so I don't mind) chance of success and 8% chance of failure. The best way to have a true and reasonable expectation of the true hit is to be shown the true hit.

If people somehow think that a 90 is basically a 100 then they're wrong. Plain and simple. If I earn a salary of $2000/mo for my work and then I go to my boss and say "in my mind, 2000 is basically 3000 so you should be paying me $3000/mo" should they then change my salary according to that logic? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Maybe the reason people are so bad at understanding probability is because so often when they encounter it there's some hidden force like 2RN making the results actually more favorable. I can buy the angle that "it advantages the player and makes it more fun" because yes at the end of the day the point of a video game is to be fun but the crux of your argument is that "people have literally unreasonable expectations and are wrong so let's just make this game fit the misconception rather than present them with the actual reality of the situation" then that's a dumb argument in favor of 2rn.

To be honest I think the whole argument that "it's not presented as a percentage so it's not actually lying" is a really irrelevant semantic argument. Even without the percent sign present, it's still a binary outcome (only a hit or a miss) with a chance communicated from 0 to 100. How else are you supposed to interpret that besides a percentage? Even if you say "probability" instead of "percentage" as the japanese version does it's still mathematically equivalent to a percentage, except you just divide by 100 to get the proper representation. Any random event with a binary outcome has a probability of success between 0 and 1. Whether you choose to represent this probability with a number from 0 to 100 or a number from 0 to 1 or even a bar which is filled in only part of the way is pretty much irrelevant. At the end of the day, the only information regarding the success chance of their attack is some kind of proportional representation. If the filled in part of the fe1 bar occupies 75% of the space, it's only reasonable that the player would conclude the hit chance is close to 75%. If there was literally any way that the player could derive from the information presented in the UI that a "75 hit" is expected to hit the enemy about 87.5% of the time then sure I could buy that the information represented isn't actually being dishonest. But as far as I can tell the only way for a player to discover that the chance to hit is not 75% is for them to take matters into their own hands, ignore all the information presented, and empirically measure the success chance after some experimentation. All the clues that could possibly lead you to believe that 2RN is modifying the hit rates are all completely absent from the UI. I understand this is your objection which is why I qualified my post in its first paragraph. I totally agree that saying "2RN is lying to the player" carries an implication that 2RN is a bad design choice, which I completely disagree with. You and I are on the same page in this matter.

The game says that the probability of an event happening is X while the actual probability of an event happening is not X and could in fact be far from X. To call this something other than lying would require the biggest leap of logic in the history of the world, so 2RN is lying to the player. That said, I understand that your objection to the statement "2RN is lying to the player" comes more from a question of designer motivation and what is the best way for the designer to communicate information to the player. In essence, what you are asking is "Did the developers communicate this information to the players in a way that is harmful to the player's ability to play the game" which is obviously more nuanced. I'll present my point before making a separate post responding to everyone else because I'd rather lay my own cards on the table before going after everyone else :) Yes, 2-RN is lying to the player. That said, I do not blame the developers for lying to the player in this way because adding the necessary UI to help the player understand 2RN hitrates would be far too cumbersome for an average casual player and would just bloat the information provided and confuse the audience. I'm making a few assumptions here. The first is that the game developers have already decided that they want to implement 2-RN (or some other advantageous RNG mechanic) into their game and that this decision is non-negotiable. I don't really care why any group of devs would decide to favor the player under the hood, but let's just assume that they are. For my second assumption, I'm going to have really low standards for the ability of the average player to read the UI. This may seem pessimistic and elitist but remember that, for any video game, 90% of players will pick up the game, play it through onceish without looking up anything online, have a good time, and put it down without once telling anyone on the internet about their experience. Hell for a lot of games this number may actually be closer to 95 or 98 or 99% who really knows. Don't forget that literal children also play video games and a lot of FE games were rated E or E-10 and therefore have to be appropriate for younger demographics. People like the lot of us on SF are a tiny minority. Furthermore, of that small 10ish% of people who ever talk about FE online, most of them (that I've met) don't even know what the stats do or how to read a battle UI. I know this evidence is anecdotal but I see all the time players will run into a combat and be surprised when their unit dies in the combat or have no idea that an attack they're giving will fail to kill an enemy or other really simple mistakes that just seem completely beneath the experience of anyone in this thread. If I were leading the game design under those two assumptions (which I think are fair to make) I would probably have made the exact same decision that every 2RN FE game has ever made: present the hit rates on an integer scale of 0-100 (before true hit calculation) then hide it under the hood, and here's why. It is highly likely that if anyone actually learns about the 2RN hit system, they first learned about the regular hit calculation (the whole 2xskill + 1/2 luck + so on and so on) and have already gotten a grasp on that. I'd say understanding how the "hit rate" before 2RN is calculated is an absolute prerequisite for understanding that 2RN exists and how it functions. Therefore it is even more useless to the player to only show 2RN hit. You're presenting them a piece of information without giving them any of the tools needed to motivate or understand that information for themselves. It's the same reason why we teach kids the alphabet before we teach them how to write a sentence. There's no way to use your sentence-writing knowledge if you can't even articulate a single letter. If someone cares enough about the hit rates that they want to be reading it, you have to give them the ability to understand how the stats feed into it so that they can learn information at an appropriate pace. Maybe your objection to the above point is "if it's bad to only show the 2RN hitrate, Why not show both?" This would be absolutely more confusing for a player trying to learn the game and especially for the 99%. Why the hell are two different hit rates being displayed? Which one do I actually use? How is one derived from the other? Honestly the only place I can think to show the hitrate is on the battle forecast and because this is such a compact and important part of the UI then cluttering it up with an additional difficult-to-motivate number only makes the most commonly misunderstood part of FE even easier to misunderstand. So am I bothered by it lying to the player? These days, if someone cares enough about their video game to learn how the stats work into the calculation AND they derive the hit rate calculation (before 2RN) AND they somehow figure out that the true hit rates are different than what they appear to be (through a series of highly nerdy empirical measurements and statistical analysis) then they're probably smart enough to discover the internet and learn about 2RN hit way before they need to take any of those steps. The chances that someone is actually intentioned enough to understand probability AND the calculations in the game AND use them in the plans while also not having the resources to look up these kinds of things are small. Therefore no, I am not bothered by the way that FE games present 2RN hit (or rather, that they don't present 2RN hit) to the player.

Vanessa, personally. A good candidate for energy rings is whomever you're using a lot and who tends to double. Vanessa often fits both of those categories. I assume as well you're on ch 13 or 14 in which case you probably know what your team is looking like and can just use it on whomever. Using an energy ring on Moulder for extra damage with light tomes is a bit wasteful imo. Just buy shines and you'll 1round most monsters with 11 magic.

I was incorrect then, all blue assassins can proc silencer. Jaffar can also proc it while a green unit, I'll have to set the record straight.

Almost 100% certain they can't proc it. I have no actual evidence for the claim it's just hearsay from the time I've spent around people who would probably know this sort of thing.

He can't proc it in ch 25/27 and he has a light brand equipped in that map, which can crit. Also I'm not sure whether or not Runesword can crit in melee.

One trick I use is to run away from Uhai at the start. Even though you have units in range, it's unlikely that a single one of your units will be able to oneround. If, however, you run out of his range, he'll move his full move to approach you and then you can gang up on him with more units. Also, it might seem strange to do so but if you can open a door early (only if you know you can handle it) then the turn where that door would normally be open will instead skip to the next door. If part of your issue is that facing a new room of enemies is too much for you, you can open a door early to buy yourself an extra turn later. I usually do this with either Darin's door or Brendan's door. Jerme actually can't proc silencer. Silencer is completely unique to Jaffar in fe7.

That's evidence that FE7's tutorial is good, which by my post above (In reference to Lyn mode) I actually agree with. But it doesn't answer my question. My question was: It's certainly different than the fe7 tutorial, which is good, but also different people may like different tutorials. I do not wish to put words in AnonymousSpeed's mouth, but this comment leads me to believe there is a nonzero number of people who don't like the Lyn mode tutorial and will prefer a tutorial like FE6's

Why is the fe6 tutorial inadequate?

The two of you have now gone back and forth for like 3 posts each over something completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Whether or not fe7 is easier than fe8 or is easier than PoR easy mode has literally nothing to do with the original subject: that fe6 may be a good entry point for newer players. Certainly fe6 is harder than some other games but most people understand that if they're going to play a game there's going to be some difficulty. As long as the game gives them the tools to overcome their problems and learn the game it's fine. Oh, and as an aside point, the "restart chapter" button is a tool. Certainly fe6 is at least difficulty enough that it is not an appropriate game to recommend to somebody who is completely 100% challenge-averse. If some people need Birthright phoenix mode then recommend to them Birthright phoenix mode. But likewise a sizeable portion of the potential playerbase would be turned off of FE if Birthright phoenix mode was their entry point. Each person has different tastes and a good first game recommendation is one that communicates the game's experience directly to their tastes. Aspects such as difficulty should be communicated, but I don't necessarily think easier = better starting point. In my opinion, the only thing that matters when recommending a first game is that the player enjoys it. Learning mechanics that help you in other games or getting context for the story of other games don't matter at all, since they won't play a second game if they don't like the first. If someone were looking for a first FE game and I thought fe6 might be a good candidate, I'd basically ask them: Are you okay with solving problems whose outcomes are uncertain? (random misses, etc.) Are you okay with fog of war? Some of your tools are definitely better than others and there is not a lot of balance within your own army. Does that bother you? The rules of the game are pretty straightforward and classic with not many bells or whistles. Does that bother you? There is not an official localization and so you're playing a fan translation. Does that bother you? If someone answered yes to 1 and 2 and no to 3, 4, and 5 then fe6 is probably a perfect game for them starting out. It's not hard to figure out briefly who a character is and what they want to do in a sentence. Literally pressing R on their name in the stat screen does it too. Certainly the writing is no in-depth Shakespearean masterpiece but it's easy enough to get a grasp on it. Also if someone liked the game and wants more answers regarding Elibe then they can just play FE6 next. Some people like this sort of thing, myself included. People deride the fe7 tutorial but it was the first game for a lot of people who still play today, how offensive could it have been?

I don't think it's the fault of the game to give the player a game over for making a mistake. Literally all it takes is reading a combat forecast, and that's an important skill for any fire emblem game. I've seen literal children get through the early game of Radiant Dawn. It's not that hard. If your unit dies in one map, that fact is probably not going to change in the next chapter. I mean if I'm going to recommend ANY fire emblem game I'm going to tell them they'll have to do math and check stats.

If something is difficult, the reasons for its difficulty doesn't matter, it's difficult. Radiant Dawn's opening is fine for newer players. Just literally don't put people in range of enemies who will kill them. That's all it takes. I think the accessibility is a good point, and it's part of the reason I recommend 3houses as a first game so often since most of my friends own a switch. Relating this back to fe6, I think the most inaccessible thing about fe6 is the fact that it was never released in english. Certainly getting an english rom is easier today than it was back in the 2000's but a fan translation is still a romhack and that might be a barrier to accessibility. This is, of course, assuming that by "accessibility" you mean "how easy is it to get the game in your hands and running" and not "how easy is it to beat". Regarding difficulty, I don't think new players are turned off by a challenge, but returning players who expect the challenge to resemble a game they've already played can fail to adapt. If you've played Path of Radiance first, you might expect your lord to be able to take a hit from an axe and not die, and so when you go to play Radiant Dawn you might get upset when Micaiah dies to an attack. If, however, you started with RD first, you'll just see Micaiah and go "oh, I guess I need to keep her out of range" and then just keep her out of range. Most players are not turned off by a game that gives them a game over screen if they make a bad decision, much less a strategy game. I know a few people whose first FE game was fe6, and a few more whose first FE game was fe6 on hard mode. I have confidence in most players that when presented with a challenge, they'll come up with a solution. At the end of the day, I actually agree with Mute. FE6 is a pretty classic and straightforward experience that isn't really deceptive with anything except for possibly the fact that halberds don't have bonus damage against nomads and troubadours. If a new player starts the game and pays attention to the mechanics they'll learn it, and fe6 has shockingly few mechanics. I do, however, want to question whether or not it's appropriate to introduce new players to the "true ending" first or to leave them in the dark. I personally advocate that a newer player shouldn't be concerned about getting the 100% ending in any game - I've seen it cause a lot of frustration in people who want to unlock everything but don't want to plan ahead (in a strategy game -_-). The game is very replayable, and I think it's actually incorrect to encourage players to get all the gaidens. I'm really turned off every time I get in a first time FE6 stream and all the people in chat are asking whether or not Zealot is still alive or whether they're going Ilia or Sacae because these things shouldn't matter, just play the damn game and focus on giving yourself an environment to learn. In conclusion, a brand-new player to the series probably isn't going to be offended by a lot of the things you keep bringing up, ShadowMir and Eclipse. FE6 is a great game for newer players. If a new player sees that Roy is on 10 health and a brigand deals 10 damage, and then they move Roy next to the Brigand and he dies, they probably won't throw their hands in the air and say that Chrom never would have had this problem. They'll just recognize what is going on and fix their play to correct it, because that's how you play strategy games.

One is all you need ;) I've definitely opened the chest with Volke before (And I've definitely had not enough gold to open the chest with Volke before XD )

Does this mean if I equip Volke with a chest key and move him next to the chest he will have the 2 commands? I want to try this in my next run. It's likely just a distinction in the game code that would never manifest in the game itself.

There is an attachment to the switch you can apply that augments the fan, and there are several repairs you can do on the switch fan itself by opening it up. I have around 700 hours on the switch and just experienced fan issues myself and from what I read online this part is usually one of the first to start failing on the switch.

It seems like you're willing to use grinding mechanics like the tower of Valni for this purpose, in which case yes you can use every unit. If you want to infinite grind, get through at least chapter 10 so that you can unlock a shop that sells chest keys and tower of Valni floor 3. The 3rd floor of the tower of Valni has a chest with 3000 gold in it and if you manage to get to that floor you will definitely earn more money through loot than you spent on weapons to reach it. If you can chain train through the 3rd floor and stick to iron weapons I guarantee that weapon durability and money are not going to be an issue in your training. If you are unwilling to use infinite grinding such as the tower of Valni, then whether you will be able to use every unit depends on your definition of "use". You will have more units than deployment slots beginning in chapter 4 and will therefore need to undeploy some units on some maps, but there's nothing stopping you from just rotating through your cast each chapter. I will say that even though the game is easy to me, spreading exp thinly across every member of the cast can leave a newer player unprepared to face some of the challenges in mid and late game, especially if you insist upon deploying weaker units in chapters where you are struggling. Even though people frequently beat this game on 0% growths that does not mean that an arbitrary player has taken the necessary steps to have the tools available and you should not be afraid to deploy the strongest units you have when you are struggling. You clearly have an idea in your mind that at some point you want to transition from using the vast majority of units to trimming your team down to the best units in your army. If you want to do something similar in Sacred Stones I would recommend going by the pacing of the promotion items. Unlike Awakening, Birthright, and Rev, promotion items only work for a small set of classes. You can use a knight crest to promote a cavalier, for example, but not a mage. My completely subjective advice which you can ignore if you like (and I won't be offended if you do ignore) is that whenever you get a promotion item, you make a decision then and there on which of your candidate units you intend to use it on. You don't have to use it right away, but at least have an idea of who you are going to promote with that item. For example, when you get the first Knight Crest, examine all of Franz, Forde, Gilliam, and Kyle and decide which one you want to promote. You may want to give your selected unit more levels before promoting them, but still choose which one to promote nonetheless. This eases you into the practice of preparing your team for endgame by trimming down the weaker units from your roster.

This is kind of similar to my own except I used a mounted Dorothea to cast spells and have dismount. You lose one command from dance (-1) but then you get dismount for +1 so it all evens out. I forgot completely about steal.