Lord Raven

But... they're assumptions. They're not backed up at all; it doesn't matter whether or not I'm taking them literally; you use facts to conjure up a tier list, not assumptions. This is very true. I don't think I was denying this, and if I did it was probably unintentional. What question? I'm just countering your points. Knowing your mindset it would be more or less the same. Because they're lower, no one cares enough to use them so they should get the short end of the stick when you have to compare two characters. This obviously can't apply to when two characters have a similar quality of performance, says you, because the circumstances are not similar.They both get penalized for taking a slot away from another character, superior or not. Everyone gets penalized equally for taking a slot on a map for another character, regardless of who it is... which further shows the double standard you're setting for the tiers. I seriously think Hymir is somewhere in Low because of his capabilities as a Hero, whereas Bord is at the top of Bottom or bottom of High for the same reasons. Hymir has low availability but his performance as a Hero is definitely passable in Normal mode. Bord has availability on his side, although his speed suffers. and seriously... you should chill out. It's just a video game.

Hmm, let's not talk about that here. XD

The point is to change the principle that "x" character is always going to be used because he's better. It won't affect the tier list but... it'll definitely affect the debate around it.My main point is that you can't say that x character will always be used no matter what in a ranked run. Assumptions have little place; I believe the tier list should reflect the potential of a character as opposed to what apparently is supposed to happen. Like, Isadora is a support partner for Harken (and a damn fast one), but rather than trivializing it we should include it as a factor. Trivializing it is used with logic like "she's in a low tier so she won't be used because she sucks," but the point is that you can't always assume that she won't be used. If that makes sense? :S

And Zihark, Jill and Volug (well, Volug's stronger after Part I). Edward's the worst of these guys too.

I love Proud Flight. It has a bit of nostalgia, in its defense. But I was annoyed by the chapter in FE9 too, so...

An optimized rank run would obviously consist of Top, High, and upper mid tier characters. But he's arguing ranked in general, which this tier list also applies to; you just can't predict who will use what on a general ranked run. There isn't any. So this assumption cannot even be made. You don't know if nobody is bring him. His avoid is better than Harken's at base level.On top of how blocking out Harken doesn't even show how the team gets worse. The team only gets worse from Karel's recruitment if his recruitment kills off every single character on your team. Overall, the same applies to Harken really. But the team can't get worse from Karel's recruitment. If you were to use Karel, then it wouldn't be as good as using Harken on your team; but the same thing applies to every low tier in the game compared to a high tier. Using Wil on your team means you can't use Rebecca, using Isadora means you can't use Raven (well, not always, but still). Especially considering how you only have like 10 char slots on average, with like 1 or 2 Lords included in that 10. But this is a character comparison, something that is highly discouraged when judging tiers anyway. It matters just as much as Harken vs Karel. It's the exact same situation (the quality is irrelevant, considering how when you're first constructing a tier list you shouldn't quite know that Harken > Karel anyway) where using one unit = not using another, because it's simply impossible to obtain both units and use them in tandem. Karel doesn't outright suck, anyway. He's average, probably; on top of that, HHM enemies still suck hard. The point is they're blocking out each other, which is a far more consistent point than one being a worser character blocking out a better character, meaning that the character gets even more worse. This is about as relevant, and the argument is akin to, taking EXP/slots from better units dragging the lower tiers even lower, and hell characters getting lower because upper tiers are better characters than them. Not only are you not specific about the surrounding atmosphere and conditions of the game, but this is more or less the same principle. It doesn't matter who the hell cares, anyway, since there's no way to prove how many people do care and the amount of people that care about tiers There are... 15 character slots per chapter in FE DS? If I recall correctly there are more like 10 per chapter, 12 at best. Even then there's the chance that that they'll be taking EXP away from a superior unit preventing the superior unit from being better so... They... do? 20/10 seems a lot more realistic to me, especially if you're staying true to EXP rank and spreading levels out to other units aside from your main team. There's... tons of EXP in this game too? There aren't that many enemies to kill, and on my normal mode playthrough I probably had like 20/7 or 20/8 at best as far as my levels were concerned. Then again, I didn't go to any Gaidens.If everyone's getting pushed for taking EXP and a slot away from each other... why aren't Harken and Karel both? It makes no sense. And regardless of whether or not you think it's "BS" it's a factor to consider. That's cool. You seem like you're implying that lower tiers exist only to suck away from the upper tiers. That nothing matters if they're both low on the list, because apparently no one gives a damn about them. There are reasons to pick Karel over Harken though, and this is not only dependent on who the player likes better (personal bias) but dependent on whether or not you like his supports, his speed, etc. But the 1000 GB doesn't do shit for the 600 GB's quality even if you're missing out on the 1000 GB. The lemonade doesn't detract from its quality at all. This is a pretty extreme example (and I mean EXTREME because Karel has passable performance, whereas a 20 dollar glass of dog piss does not), anyway.

Then again, so's fucking your half sister so your child can be the vessel of a dark God. But I digress.

No, you don't. Have you asked everybody who's ever played HHM ranked if they used Isadora, and if they did use Isadora did they do it because she was hot? Some people might. You just don't know. Nobody? Tier list assumes you're using Karel to judge him. Tier list assumes you're using whoever you're judging. If anything, it's equal amount of bias to all, which isn't even bias. The team doesn't suffer, though. The team gets a slight boost because they get a unit with high speed/evasion/whatnot, even if he is frail. No, it's not a moot point. Except Karel's presence isn't hindering the performance of other characters. That's the worst way of looking at it. Pretending a unit blocking out a unit, in general, not mattering is bias on both ends, regardless of whether or not one is superior or not. It may as well be a strike against both of them The tier list does when Harken's being judged. Common sense has little place in the tier list debate. Common sense mainly dictates the the tier list doesn't matter because anyone can be blessed or screwed because the entire game is dictated by an RNG. But we're arguing tiers anyway. So don't wave the common sense flag at someone when it comes to Fire Emblem. Of course the guy with 1s in all stats will suffer because he blows. The max stat general will not suffer because he doesn't blow (unless the game has enemies with like... twice the max stats of a General). And the same principle applies; punish both or neither. But don't be a hypocrite. There's always a gap between performance, of some sort.You really don't get it, do you? If you punish Karel and Harken (because one will always block off another), you must also punish every other instance (which is apparently moot because they're all more or less the same character - I call bullshit because everything must be taken into account). In fact, if you punish Karel for blocking out Harken, you must punish Harken for doing the same to Karel no matter what the reason for solely punishing Karel may exist. Otherwise, the tier list becomes inaccurate and judges based upon one factor; how much the creator of the list favors the unit. There is other logic that "x blocking out y" applies to, and that's - An inferior unit blocking out a slot for a superior unit. Sure, the inferior unit is likely able to be played with the superior unit, but in this case you have seven slots in an eight slot chapter... what will you do? You could make the inferior unit worse on the tier list because it blocks out the superior unit's chance to be on the map and apply the same principle... meaning that many things below high or even mid tier will go down to a bottom tier of sorts. Or you could punish them both for preventing bias. - A unit kills a unit. Cool, this guy is blocking out EXP that another unit can't get; it's the same sort of principle! Yet you continue to deny it. Punish the lower tiers because they have a chance of killing units that a higher tier should've gotten to and killed first, and the higher tier should've gotten more EXP while the lower tier should rot to dust. Basically, everyone below High or Mid should go to Bottom and we shouldn't care about the lower tiers! Because nobody gives a shit about the lowers tiers, as you're saying! (Which is clearly untrue, considering the amount of Nino fanboys that are in the FAQ writers). I don't think they fail enough to double Wallace. Hence why I ended up agreeing, aside from the hero slot part. It's not "barely passable" it's just "passable." The point about "shoving somebody out of Hero" still being up for question above, with the Harken vs Karel principle.I've yet to hear your thoughts on the hard drive metaphor, also. It's ridiculously similar to the Karel vs Harken situation.

because they want to make it hell for you to rescue the civilians

I quite clearly don't give a damn what he thinks, and I think anything's worth discussing/up in the air regardless of whether or not he's here.

Bottom of low sounds too low. Low mid sounds too high as well.

Hymir is actually decent as a Hero. He did fine when I tried it starting from base level, but until his first level he did decent (can't judge after that, it's all about luck). Low tier or low mid sounds fine for him.

and Oscar's got better ways to use ranged stuff instead of Bows >_>

Which pretty much nullifies the point of defense and HP in Lorenz's case. I was saying that as a Hero he wouldn't be too bad, though. He isn't doubling that often, though, but he's at least avoiding doubling from the majority of NM enemies.

Hey, Ike can double the shit out of you and kill you in like three rounds! Take that!How can you find that epic? Especially since the AI is a crapshoot and attacks you when you're on a +10 defense tile. Wooden sword or not, it's still a sword.What makes a big axe any different than a sword anyway?

no clue, his base stats are actually fine (aside from speed) if you give him the Hero class, but his Speed tends to grow anyway (as a Hero)... but his defense REALLY suffers (his entire defense growth as a General is because of his class; he has 0% base defense growth!) so yeah, I should think before I post because I actually agree with bottom tier.

Prologue chapter, FE9. I'm pretty sure that's a sword.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anticlimaxIke vs BK in FE10. Most anticlimactic fight ever, especially since neither side is supposedly holding back.

An after-game FMV, probably. Battles like that in FE are anticlimactic unless we're talking Ike vs BK in FE9.

Ike would still receive a lot of training under Greil. I don't see Ike as quite as strong, but still strong.

the fact that Greil's resurrection didn't happen was among the things that slightly disappointed DMA. Because it would've been cool if Ashera could use her power of revival a lot more and take advantage of it.

Well then, I'm actually starting to agree that a mutual penalty is about right.

isn't the silver longbow like S rank anyway?

I'm aware that it's not changing much on the tier list, if at all. Yet you are still should be unable to assume things and get away with it. That's precisely what I'm trying to say. The entire idea behind everything I'm arguing is on the principle behind judging tiers. The choice between two characters is/should be irrelevant, though.Better units higher on a tier list is precisely the point. I actually don't see what point you're trying to make here; it seems to be - Better characters will always be higher on a tier list - Choice between two characters will make someone else lower and someone else higher in which case, #1 is a given and #2 I disagree with. Not fully, since there is always bias and subjectivity. And really? To make tiers less complicated, there's always getting rid of the ordering within tiers. It'll cause less debate and allow us to be in a more full accordance with what the general tiers should be like.