Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Anathaco

  • Rank
    Waiting for Gotoh

Profile Information

  • Pronouns
  • Location
    Stanning Balthus for no discernible reason

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Shadows of Valentia

Member Badge

  • Members


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

2292 profile views
  1. His bases are high enough that he basically dominates anything physical up until like the beginning of Act 4, especially if you actually use him. As mentioned, give him a shield and just trade a lance to him when the situation calls for it. Mobility sucks for everyone on Celica's side from like Act 3 onwards, so he's still at a disadvantage but not by much. But he's definitely still usable if you want to.
  2. IMO at least, Dorothea's Rally Charm is just as useful as the rallybots you get in other houses. I don't know if people necessarily sleep on it, but it was a major carry in those first few chapters. Anyway, to answer OP, the Golden Deer are definitely solid enough to use all in-house units, plus you get a few free slots to recruit a few more units of your choice. My personal preference is to focus on a few (say 5-6) good combat units and leave the rest as utility, be they healing, dancing, rallying or gambits. The latter is particularly notable, I often have units with high authority deployed specifically to use high level battalions with utility gambits like Blessing, Retribution or Dance of the Goddess. However using more or less than this number works just as well- see which units shape up for you and focus on them + anybody else you want to work on. As tricky as people make Maddening out to be, its pretty flexible overall in my experience, and any unit can work.
  3. The Scythe of Sariel is basically just a Killer Lance+ but more accurate. With how easy it is to get to 100 hit in this game it has few advantages over other lances. So it may as well just be a killer lance. Not that I consider that a bad thing, but with how averse you are to relying on crit, I’m surprised you’d ever use a rare resource on repairing it. As already pointed out, the males you’d make guard adjutants don’t even have to be worth your time- you literally just have to have them in your house, which is a requirement each house can fulfil at least one of- Raphael, Caspar, and Ashe are units you may want to relegate to guard adjutant duty. Alois joins with the brawling rank to certify for brawler immediately if you don’t plan on using him (since you dislike brawling overall I figured you might not), and Cyril can be trained up to armour knight or brawler from chapter 5 (since you’ve already said you don’t like him as a unit). That’s three possible guard adjutants, completely free of charge since the units in question wouldn’t see combat utility, and are completely free recruits as long as you actually explore. As for the class diversity it really doesn’t matter, since it’s not like they’re doing anything outside of being adjutants. Just the two intermediate classes of brawler and armoured knight are enough.
  4. I believe the highest HP bar in the game is the Hegemon's final HP bar, at 199 HP. Not sure if anything ties that (maybe Rhea?) but I don't think anything beats that. So it appears Duma still holds the crown.
  5. I dunno what an Anatko is but I’ll take it. What specifically killed me is Eltosian Kadath’s abomination of a translation being immediately followed by Mir’s name remaining the exact same. Honestly the best way to spend your time. Hope you get well soon.
  6. At the risk of continuing this topic beyond its due course, I'd argue there's plenty of evidence in game to support that reaction. Flayn and Claude's ending, for example, says that Seteth never learned of their relationship, which is a solid indicator that they didn't think he'd be OK with it, or they were too scared to find out. Seteth's whole support with Flayn is about him being too overprotective and acting when he suspects somebody is trying to get too close to Flayn. But the A support is basically resolved by Flayn accepting that its a sign of his love for her and allowing him to continue worrying over her. Now, would this change if it was Byleth, as opposed to someone like Claude? Of course. Seteth trusts Byleth more. But I doubt that means he'd immediately be on board with it, with no reservations whatsoever. So its not unreasonable to wonder that. Stuff like Flayn's fish obsession became so prevalent because its just so silly that it was impossible for it to go unmemed. That doesn't mean that people actually believe that Flayn braids her hair with fish, or attacks people in the monastery with fish, or whatever the other memes about it say. It just means that the memes get more traction because they're funny (and probably get more attention than a serious comment, which might be why you saw so many jokes about Angry Seteth on the art). That's not a problem endemic to Flayn, or even Fire Emblem or gaming in general. And it doesn't mean that serious discussion of her character doesn't exist somewhere. Tl;dr: memes are memes, so they'll get repeated and spread a lot. But memes and serious discussion aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm fine with the prevalence of the former over the latter.
  7. But having tome access still gives her 1-2 range without any restrictions on doubling. Even though her magic is worse than her strength it’s still serviceable even against mages. Plus the opportunity to have unrestricted 2 range on player phase is still really helpful. As for the ore, I just checked to see if changing the 3DS time can speed that up, and seemingly it cannot. So that’s fair, but it’s still not impossible to get more ore if her hit rates are so bad that she needs a forged axe.
  8. Can’t you exchange ores at the smithy if you don’t get the mine you need? I say this as someone who hasn’t played Fates in years, but I remember that being an option. And as already pointed out, Malig Knight Camilla is more about the balanced stats, higher res, access to easy 1-2 range and saving a heart seal for something else. She functions very well regardless.
  9. True enough. To be clear I wasn't suggesting that brawling is something that should go on literally everyone that can. but it certainly is a great offensive option for the characters that can use it. And I definitely have a bias towards it since I limit the number of fliers I use typically, so everyone struggles with mobility for me.
  10. If the low might of gauntlets was actually an issue then brawlers would never be able to ORKO. And yet in my experience gauntlet users are consistently my strongest offensive units every time I play, even the bad ones like Caspar or Raphael. Other brave weapons have more might, true, but generally speaking gauntlets get the job done too, and have the other benefits mentioned above. Also, as irrelevant as it may be for units like Raphael or Dedue, for units like Felix, Yuri, and Byleth, the lower weight gives them more opportunities to quad enemies, which makes up for any damage missed by the lower might.
  11. One range lock doesn’t matter if a) the enemy dies or b) you can survive even if you fail to kill. The units that specialise in brawling tend to have high strength that makes fulfilling option a not too challenging. Especially from the mid game onwards, when you get access to death blow, attack boosting battalions, and higher strength mods from classes. As for option b, units like Dedue, Balthus, Raphael, Felix, Bylad, Yuri, etc are all bulky enough to take a hit or two if they fail to kill, even on Maddening. Brawling units typically aren’t your frail mage type who should never see a counterattack ever. Some of them, like Felix and Yuri, may even be able to avoid doubles from everything except Swordmasters thanks to their high speed. The biggest issue with gauntlets IMO is that they’re unremarkable at the beginning of the game, but they’re the easiest weapons to snowball with thanks to the brave effect.
  12. Throwing in a second recommendation for War Master Yuri. It’s beautiful to watch. Anyway, another thing I tend to see is people wondering why you’d use gauntlets over other brave weapons which have more might. The main benefits are 1) accessibility, (since they can be used from E rank and unlike other brave weapons require cheaper and more common materials to repair) and 2) combining the brave effect with other effects (like the Killer Knuckles which is honestly one of the most purely destructive weapons in the game, or the aura knuckles which suddenly give you brave magic attacks). So yeah, I’d say (IMO) gauntlets are one of the best weapon types. Definitely worth making at least one unit use it.
  13. I'd honestly say the worldbuilding of Almyra was handled decently enough. We don't ever see it, true, but we get physical descriptions from Cyril, and the cultural stuff that is necessary to understand Claude's motivation is given to us. With regards to the "show don't tell" complaint, I'd argue that's irrelevant in this context. To me, Claude's motivation is as much about how minorities are treated in Fodlan as it is about how they're treated in Almyra. His despair comes from seeing the issues from both sides of the coin, so to speak, and the two nations are compared and noted to be almost exact in their prejudice. So even though we don't see that discrimination from the Almyran angle, we see plenty of it from the Fodlan angle, and that's enough to understand why Claude would be so deadset on tearing down walls everywhere. To be clear, I would have liked to actually see Almyra. In that sense worldbuilding is like icing on a cake. In VW's case they tried to make their cake without the icing that is a good and proper view into Almyra as a whole. The cake still works without that icing, we got all the necessary information to understand Claude as a character, but you can never have too much icing on a cake.
  14. In that example I did state that both stories were attempting to explore the same idea in the same way: My point was that A does not fully explore this theme by basically having its protagonist be a cop out, and able to fully resist the temptation of power without any struggle. Hell, some people may even say that it contradicts the main idea of the story. If we were to add Story C, which is basically Story B but the protagonist redeems himself towards the end before facing the big bad, and gets his happy ending a la Story A, then your argument is fair, because both B and C have different ideas as to how it should end, but both portray the idea that power by its very nature is a corrupting force. The overall theme works just the same but the take home message is different.
  15. ...Do I wanna start the contrivance debate again? eh. I think my point has been conveyed well enough at this point. However I will add that your second point about contrivance assumes that the writer always intended their story to work that way. In some cases, sure, they may have. But writers are as prone to making mistakes as the rest of us, and when people call out contrivances in the story, it's those blunders that they draw attention to. Don't get me wrong, writing is a hard job and even experienced writers can make mistakes and cause contrivances in their plot. But I don't think that means that they should be ignored or not criticised when we notice them. Respect the author, obviously, but try and hold them to a reasonable standard, don't assume that all writers are massive big brains who meticulously plan every detail of their stories (that George R.R Martin quote is certainly proving itself useful. Props to Etrurian emperor for sharing that). It is true that all stories are different. However, if two stories do explore similar ideas I see nothing wrong with comparison. Say, in your first example, two writers both want to explore the theme of power and ambition, and how too much can corrupt people by nature. So they write Stories A and B, respectively. A does this by having a typical "protagonist goes to slay villain" type story, where the villain is a cruel tyrant who has gained too much power and become corrupted by it. So the hero goes around the world, helping people and getting stronger, and by the end he is strong enough to slay the villain, happy endings all around. Story B does it by having the same premise, but in this case the hero slowly does more and more amoral things in his quest to become stronger. He eventually gets out of hand with his quest, to the point there is little difference between him and the villain. He does eventually slay the villain, but is left as little more than an empty shell of his former self, having given up almost everything he wanted to protect over the course of his journey. Both stories work. However, Story B (generally speaking) has a far more nuanced take on the theme, because unlike Story A it displays the fact that anybody can be corrupted by power, not just the stereotypical bad guy. In a case like this I'd argue A SHOULD be compared to B, because it helps illuminate the failures of A's exploration and how to handle it better. And yes, in real life, cases aren't as cut and dry because very few authors outwardly announce what they want their stories to explore. But that's kind of where criticism and analysis come in, to determine what a story is TRYING to say, and how it could be improved upon. People will all disagree on what a story is saying, which is where discussion comes in. That, at least, is how I view literary analysis as a whole.
  • Create New...