Jump to content
-Cynthia-

FE9 Tier list v3

Recommended Posts

Attacking for 14x2 damage or 4x2 on a Wardwood tile with Rexflame is about as much as a Royal is doing to Ashnard.

I don't know when you last played 4-E-5 but you hardly have to "go out of your way" to get him a tome on turn 1. You just have to give it someone who will be standing close to there after moving/attacking/etc. Lehran can reach an Aura to attack on turn 1, so he can trade with someone who also attacked. This is not rocket science.
Except the problem lies in the fact that your key source of offense rests on Nasir, but even if you got a tome to him there is absolutely nothing he is doing to help out any more than your units already are. You have Micaiah with Fortify or even a second string healer (Oliver/Bastian/Mist/Elincia) able to use a Fortify staff, which makes the Ashera Staff overkill. If Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals, then laguz royals in FE10 (and Nasir/Ena/any other physical unit you brought) trivializes Sephiran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking for 14x2 damage or 4x2 on a Wardwood tile with Rexflame is about as much as a Royal is doing to Ashnard.

Except the problem lies in the fact that your key source of offense rests on Nasir, but even if you got a tome to him there is absolutely nothing he is doing to help out any more than your units already are. You have Micaiah with Fortify or even a second string healer (Oliver/Bastian/Mist/Elincia) able to use a Fortify staff, which makes the Ashera Staff overkill. If Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals, then laguz royals in FE10 (and Nasir/Ena/any other physical unit you brought) trivializes Sephiran.

Lehran can't use Rexflame. Rexaura is most likely what he has. And he has 52 Mt with it so he can do 22/12 damage. 22x2 is nearly half, and this is to the Auras that the Laguz royals hit at -10.

Are you serious? Team setups are not always the same and accuracy can be quite bad. Even if he's only insurance he is at least there and doing something, and as one of your most helpful offensive units to boot. As for healing, the Fortify staff might have been skipped for turns (especially since you can get the Ashera staff, so it might not be a priority) and Lehran's existence doesn't use a slot. Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals because they don't end up able to do anything. Lehran at least gets to do something.

This is not a question of redundancy. This is a question of one unit able to contribute, even if in a small way, versus units who literally may not be able to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lehran can't use Rexflame. Rexaura is most likely what he has. And he has 52 Mt with it so he can do 22/12 damage. 22x2 is nearly half, and this is to the Auras that the Laguz royals hit at -10.
I thought he could. Oh well.
Are you serious? Team setups are not always the same and accuracy can be quite bad. Even if he's only insurance he is at least there and doing something, and as one of your most helpful offensive units to boot. As for healing, the Fortify staff might have been skipped for turns (especially since you can get the Ashera staff, so it might not be a priority) and Lehran's existence doesn't use a slot. Ike trivializes the need for laguz royals because they don't end up able to do anything. Lehran at least gets to do something.
So what? If the team setup is terrible we're at the same scenario as we are vs Ashnard, considering there's the potential of a terrible Ike (as in hasn't-been-raised terrible) and therefore Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala have the potential to do something. The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal; it's the same concept, and the accuracies are passable if not perfect; same with using a royal as a crutch for a terrible Ike if we're taking all circumstances into account. The royals' existence doesn't use up a slot either (and I thought we were done with that argument, by the way). And then we have the Ashera Staff, who we can give to Micaiah anyway (if we'll ever need it- pretty doubtful if we have a decent team. Micaiah can use Arms Scrolls there too).
This is not a question of redundancy. This is a question of one unit able to contribute, even if in a small way, versus units who literally may not be able to do anything.
Key word is "may." You are implying with that statement that they can, just not as much. It's Cynthia's call in the end. Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? If the team setup is terrible we're at the same scenario as we are vs Ashnard, considering there's the potential of a terrible Ike (as in hasn't-been-raised terrible) and therefore Giffca/Tibarn/Naesala have the potential to do something. The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal; it's the same concept, and the accuracies are passable if not perfect; same with using a royal as a crutch for a terrible Ike if we're taking all circumstances into account. The royals' existence doesn't use up a slot either (and I thought we were done with that argument, by the way). And then we have the Ashera Staff, who we can give to Micaiah anyway (if we'll ever need it- pretty doubtful if we have a decent team. Micaiah can use Arms Scrolls there too).

Thing is, Ike already needs to be good enough to defeat Ashnard once. If he can do it once, he should be able to do it again.

"The Laguz Royals themselves trivialize Lehran the same way Ike trivializes a Royal"

No, they do not. Lehran will always be able to do something, no matter what, and no matter how good the RD royals are. This is fact. PoR Royals will often not be able to do anything. That is much more trivializing.

Key word is "may." You are implying with that statement that they can, just not as much. It's Cynthia's call in the end.

I already said I'm fine with tiering them based on what they can do 50% (or maybe more like 25%) of the time. It just means they're all at the bottom, likely not above anyone but each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, Ike already needs to be good enough to defeat Ashnard once. If he can do it once, he should be able to do it again.

Ena can damage Ashnard too.
No, they do not. Lehran will always be able to do something, no matter what, and no matter how good the RD royals are. This is fact. PoR Royals will often not be able to do anything. That is much more trivializing.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they're not trivial. Trivial means that they do something that doesn't matter.
I already said I'm fine with tiering them based on what they can do 50% (or maybe more like 25%) of the time. It just means they're all at the bottom, likely not above anyone but each other.
Then what are we arguing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ena can damage Ashnard too.

The event that we actually need to use Ena to defeat Ashnard is much too unlikely.

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they're not trivial. Trivial means that they do something that doesn't matter.

Lehran does something. PoR Royals don't. What are we missing?

And again, it's not unlikely for Lehran's actions to actually be legitimately helpful, something the PoR royals can't lay claim to nearly as easily.

Then what are we arguing?

You tell me. You kept going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're understanding. The point isn't that some one who doesn't do a low turn count run is stupid, or retarded, or whatever. The point is that if you DONT factor turncount in, you stop really judging how well a character can help contribute to clearing the objectives, and start figuring out how they can survive. You can literally turtle your way through half the game with little to no problem. In a world where you don't judge by turncounts, paladins suck, and generals and bishops would be king: After all, it doesn't matter if Gatrie moves two spaces less each turn to get to the seize point, or that we have to heal him every turn, since as long as he lives, he did the job. If turncounts don't matter, it shouldn't matter if it takes Gatrie twice as long to kill something as say, Ike. They both can kill the thing, they both live, they both must be equal. I know that that's not the way some one who doesn't do low turn count runs thinks, but it's the reality of the logic. I also agree that there are some thing that are obviously better than others, like giving that Spirit Dust to Soren instead of Boyd. How exactly do you quantify that if you throw turns out the window? I know that as some one who doesn't do every run in as few turns as possible, I can still recognize when things are better. It just so happens (and not coincidentally) that the things that are better contribute to lower turncounts. Know how I know Ike is better than Ena for final? Ike saves turns. Not because I'm interested in getting the fewest turns possible, but because being able to complete the chapter objectives faster is a good way to measure how good you are at completing the chapter objectives.

Do you realize just how stupid this is? Turncount is NOT some godsend tiering method that all tier lists have to abide by and any tier list without them is somehow unusable just because 'you can take your time'. Even without turncounts, some characters are better or worse than others. So you're not rushing to beat the chapter, so what? It's not like being able to move some extra squares, being more reliable on the 2HKO, or anything becomes meaningless all of a sudden just because 'we can take extra turns'. That's like saying the Cubs are just as good as the Yankees just because the game doesn't auto-end after a five point spread (because you have more innings and who knows what will happen then, so the game should just be called at 5 point leads!). Will bishops move up? Will Paladins move down outside of a LTC list? Very possibly. Why? Because the values are different. You are no longer focused on completing the chapter as fast as possible (which heavily rewards movement and punishes low movement), but that doesn't mean a paladin will drop of necessity (good weapon typing, well-rounded stats, great mastery, high movement, and so-forth). So yes, there will be changes in the list... because the values are different. That doesn't mean, suddenly, that Gatrie is some god-king (no axes, low movement, too slow) or that Makalov is now somehow in the bottom half of the list. Just that the values are different and characters will move and adjust according to said list. Why is Ike better than Ena? Ike has greater movement, doesn't require the band, Ena needs a load of Bexp to even be really usable, Ike deals far more damage on average to the boss, and those are valid reasons to say Ike > Ena in the last chapter without touching on turncounts. And no, it's not a good measure of it. It's a measure of how good you are at rushing to the endboss of a chapter and killing it. A character who is outright horrible but shaves 5 turns off just because they allow a rescue-drop another unit in one chapter can be placed above a solid, usable, but unremarkable unit just because of that one instance. Turn-count tier lists are horrible because they require the player to use a specific strategy for the list to be valid. They do not gauge how useful the units actually are, just how well they are when those specific tactics are used. For crying out loud, you were debating which character was better based on ONE FREAKING TURN! Only someone obsessed with the fastest strategies would even find a degree of value in that, and if he didn't use those strategies, it's all worthless!

*sigh*

Uggg. I should never have asked about the stupid laguz kings being put on the list. Was a bad idea anyways. I'm just gonna leave and head off to my corner again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without turncounts, some characters are better or worse than others. So you're not rushing to beat the chapter, so what? It's not like being able to move some extra squares, being more reliable on the 2HKO, or anything becomes meaningless all of a sudden just because 'we can take extra turns'. That's like saying the Cubs are just as good as the Yankees just because the game doesn't auto-end after a five point spread (because you have more innings and who knows what will happen then, so the game should just be called at 5 point leads!).

This is a really bad comparison. Except for a draw, a baseball game ends after 9 innings, each time. If every map ended after 10 turns, obviously turncount and how good you are at rescuing and moving and other shit wouldn't matter as much, but not all chapters are defend chapters. A much fairer comparison is golf: Where there's a set goal, that you can take as long as you would like in order to complete each hole/chapter. If I could putt really well, but it took me an average of 8 strokes a hole, would I be better than some one who couldn't putt very well, but did each hole twice as fast? Being faster at one facet of the game that helps me complete the objectives of the game does not necessarily make me better at completing the objectives. The objectives aren't to crit often, or to dodge a lot, or have great supports, or to putt. They're to rout, seize, kill boss, defend, arrive, escape, and to put the ball in the hole. Obviously critting often, dodging a lot, or having great supports, or whatever else helps. I completely agree, so does every one else. The thing is, those are all things you use in order to complete the objective. They are tools. Just like movement is. Turncounts are a good way to quantify how much those tools really help you, and who gives you the best tools needed in order to complete a chapter.

Will bishops move up? Will Paladins move down outside of a LTC list? Very possibly. Why? Because the values are different.

I don't particularly care about the specifics of that hypothetical tier list, I was trying to illustrate what the logic of "turncounts don't matter for comparison's sake" implies.

You are no longer focused on completing the chapter as fast as possible (which heavily rewards movement and punishes low movement), but that doesn't mean a paladin will drop of necessity (good weapon typing, well-rounded stats, great mastery, high movement, and so-forth).

Why shouldn't we care about movement, or try to quantify how good movement is? Why shouldn't I care about how fast I can clear a chapter? Good weapon typing, well rounded stats, a great mastery, and high movement are awesome. I can also say paladins are good, not just because of those things, but because of what those things accomplish. Good weapon typing and well-rounded stats let them kill things faster and more reliably, or more simply: In less turns. High movement lets me get places in less turns. Sol lets me expose Paladins to more enemies, so that I can kill them in fewer turns. Nobody's dismissing the things you're talking about, they're quantifying them.

So yes, there will be changes in the list... because the values are different. That doesn't mean, suddenly, that Gatrie is some god-king (no axes, low movement, too slow)

I would be willing to bet that I could very reliably do more with Gatrie than I could with almost any other character in a world where turncounts don't matter, because of his pure durability. The fact that he has no axes, low movement, and is slow are all important things. How do we quantify how big of a difference each of those makes? Well, he doesn't move as fast, so we lose turns waiting for him. He doesn't have axes, so he doesn't hit as hard as other people, and so we lose turns because he doesn't always kill enemies that others would. He's slow, so he doesn't reliably double, which means enemies will live longer, and we will have to take extra turns killing them. Do you see what all of these things have in common?

those are valid reasons to say Ike > Ena in the last chapter without touching on turncounts.

Um.

Why is Ike better than Ena? Ike has greater movement,

So he gets to places in fewer turns.

doesn't require the band, Ena needs a load of Bexp to even be really usable,

Why does she need those resources? She can kill Ashnard at or near base iirc. You can wait for her transformation gauge to fill, then beat the boss slowly. Unless you'd like to kill him faster. As in, in less turns.

Ike deals far more damage on average to the boss,

Right, which helps him kill things in less turns.

It's a measure of how good you are at rushing to the endboss of a chapter and killing it.

Why is how well some one completes the objective of the game a bad way of judging how good a character is at helping complete the objectives of the game?

A character who is outright horrible but shaves 5 turns off just because they allow a rescue-drop another unit in one chapter can be placed above a solid, usable, but unremarkable unit just because of that one instance.

I personally think the ability to fly and drop some body can be a lot more important than being able to kill random brigands, soldiers, and mercs. I also think if you can beat a chapter faster and easier, you must be better at it than some one else. I wish there was a way to quantify this, like, turns or something.

Turn-count tier lists are horrible because they require the player to use a specific strategy for the list to be valid. They do not gauge how useful the units actually are, just how well they are when those specific tactics are used. For crying out loud, you were debating which character was better based on ONE FREAKING TURN! Only someone obsessed with the fastest strategies would even find a degree of value in that, and if he didn't use those strategies, it's all worthless!

I actually agree with some parts of this. I don't particularly care about a one turn difference, or exact strategies. A unit that can do a specific strategy really reliably, that's awesome and whatnot, but I don't think a character's usefulness is tied up in their ability to do one very set in stone strategy, particularly if it involves other revolving pieces, but then, I don't particularly debate tiers, and sometimes you are talking about the most tiny degrees of seperation between two units. There was some big turn counting earlier about Jill vs. Marcia. The reality is is that they are ridiculously close to the same usefulness, and those one turn differences are all that seperate them. That's not any one saying "One turn is a big deal!" it's them saying "Well, the difference is just one turn, but one person is ONE TURN better", or something along those lines.

Plus, dude, not every one thinks along the lines of an optimal playthrough, and there's been a lot of debate over that, and most people don't want to judge units based on one specific playthrough that is absolutely fastest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ena can damage Ashnard too.

Good luck with that plan. Ena needs Resolve to deal more damage to Ashnard than he can heal each turn. And even with Resolve, base Demi Band Ena can only deal 9 damage to Ashnard. That's assuming she hits and Ashnard misses. If one does the math, it's likely that Ashnard recovers more health per round than base Demi Band Resolve Ena can deal per round. Ike only needs 18 Str to match Ena's performance. Ike manages that at level 20/2, on average.

More fun facts about how much Ena sucks:

- Ena needs to be level 17 on average to double Ashnard with the Demi Band and Resolve. Ena needs to be ~level 18 or 19 to double Berserk Ashnard. Ike manages that at level 20/4-5 on average.

- Even at level 20, Demi Band Ena can only deal ~28 damage to Ashnard per round with Resolve. Ike can deal 44 damage per round at level 20/17-18.

- However, Demi Band Ena is no longer brought into Resolve range by Ashnard in one hit starting at ~level 15. Ashnard still doubles her un-Resolved, so he might take a huge chunk of her health away (more than we can heal with Physic) or miss one of his two hits and leave her out of Resolve range. Ike only needs to worry about this if he's received a Seraph Robe and is (un)lucky with Def growths.

Ena being a better Resolve candidate than Ike is pure fiction. Likewise with Nasir, but only because Ike has defeated the Black Knight if Nasir is in play.

Edit: Wait a moment. Will Ashnard even attack Ena at 1-range on enemy phase? If not, there's no way for Ena to safely attack from within Resolve range.

Edited by aku chi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Why would we give a energy drop to a mage regardless of play style? Their only use for it is in reducing AS loss for a siege tome. Much better to give to practically any melee unit as they will at least use the boosted STR.

... What? So you think that, just because someone decides to not attempt a least-turn-count run, suddenly that means that all resource distributions are viable? What a [part of sentence deleted out of a sense of basic human dignity]! Oh hey! Wanna give the dusts to Boyd? Well why not? We're taking more turns anyways! Since we threw out that stupid notion of 'lowest turn count' suddenly EVERYTHING is viable and it is not like there aren't some things that are obviously better than others and we should ignore it because, hey, no LTC! That is retarded.

No more or less retarded than training Ena over Ike or giving Resolve to someone other than Ike. If your standard of "viable" includes training Ena over Ike, which has a far more deleterious effect than giving the Dusts to Boyd or the Drops to Soren, then we absolutely should consider those resource distributions.

But certainly, you seem to understand my point. Just because a resource distribution is "viable" doesn't mean we should talk about it.

Sides, isn't this the whole damned point of discussing tier lists? Because it is impossible to account for every possibility? You may think giving wrath to, say, Oscar is a bad idea, then someone else comes along and presents a argument that he can do good with it and provides reasons as to why and his position on the list is adjusted if there is new information to be gained and considered after all.

That's fine, but I am seeing blessed little in the way of arguing that Ena is actually any good, merely that I shouldn't assume that Ike is being used over her because, I don't know, it's mean for me to not give her a chance?

Anything that can go wrong will and at the worst possible moment. There is the very real potential that a player will have a Ike who is screwed or the player will not use him. You can say it is stupid to use Ena over Ike, and I won't argue that, but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

It won't ever happen. Even a quite heavily screwed Ike outperforms Ena.

However, even when Lehran does do something it is of little value. The 'worst' I can see happening if we don't use Lehran is, maybe, maybe, taking another turn that we wouldn't have taken before. The Laguz kings, on the other hand, can still be of use if, say, Ike got screwed.

No, they can't. The kind of screwage that would be needed would be some sort of apocalyptic "less than 20 in strength and speed" screwage, the chances of which are well below 1%. If you want to put Royals on the tier list because they have marginal use in one in every ten thousand playthroughs, then fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to put Royals on the tier list because they have marginal use in one in every ten thousand playthroughs, then fine.
Then I guess this argument is over? It's up to Cynthia now.

Good luck with that plan. Ena needs Resolve to deal more damage to Ashnard than he can heal each turn. And even with Resolve, base Demi Band Ena can only deal 9 damage to Ashnard. That's assuming she hits and Ashnard misses. If one does the math, it's likely that Ashnard recovers more health per round than base Demi Band Resolve Ena can deal per round. Ike only needs 18 Str to match Ena's performance. Ike manages that at level 20/2, on average.

More fun facts about how much Ena sucks:

- Ena needs to be level 17 on average to double Ashnard with the Demi Band and Resolve. Ena needs to be ~level 18 or 19 to double Berserk Ashnard. Ike manages that at level 20/4-5 on average.

- Even at level 20, Demi Band Ena can only deal ~28 damage to Ashnard per round with Resolve. Ike can deal 44 damage per round at level 20/17-18.

- However, Demi Band Ena is no longer brought into Resolve range by Ashnard in one hit starting at ~level 15. Ashnard still doubles her un-Resolved, so he might take a huge chunk of her health away (more than we can heal with Physic) or miss one of his two hits and leave her out of Resolve range. Ike only needs to worry about this if he's received a Seraph Robe and is (un)lucky with Def growths.

Ena being a better Resolve candidate than Ike is pure fiction. Likewise with Nasir, but only because Ike has defeated the Black Knight if Nasir is in play.

Edit: Wait a moment. Will Ashnard even attack Ena at 1-range on enemy phase? If not, there's no way for Ena to safely attack from within Resolve range.

Laguz Stone Ena, Wrath/Resolve/Adept (nobody else is really using them). She's no Ike, but I'm not stupid enough to say Ena is better at dealing with Ashnard than Ike.

Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it sounds like Ike is (at least) 2 turning Berserk Ashnard. How many turns does it take Ena? I don't think second best is 'viable" if it takes an extra 8 turns, or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting a tome to Lehran by Turn 1 requires you to go out of your way, by the way. Way out of the way.

I'm sure Sothe's not doing anything important...

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Sothe's not doing anything important...

Sothe might be benched in favour of Sanaki. But it's not that hard to put a unit, any unit, on the LHS of the map in the natural course of Aura-killing.

Edited by Anouleth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike has to be pretty damn screwed to not really beat Ashnard pretty quick. Like... let's see he has 60/80 HP | 35 Def. To survive Berserk Ashnard, Ike can be screwed as much as 18 points from his average 20/20 HP | Def. Ike can be as screwed as 5 points of Spd, which is still pretty safe since it's like 14 procs in 38 levels. Ike can be screwed in 6 points of Str and still have Berserk Ashnard killed (with Wrath + Resolve) so long as Giffca attacks twice (or Ike attacks again). Not to mention Ike has a 59% chance to cap Str and a 78% chance of capping Spd.

And, Snowy, may I remind you if you're seriously arguing Ike being severely screwed, then you might as well assume Wrath + Resolve on Ike, always, and Mia would have the cost of preventing you from beating the damned game.

Now, that sounds pretty retarded, but so does a severely screwed Ike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Wait a moment. Will Ashnard even attack Ena at 1-range on enemy phase? If not, there's no way for Ena to safely attack from within Resolve range.

Not 100%, but I am pretty sure Ashnard attacks up close if he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time, Ena/Nasir are still able to damage Ashnard and given all the resources you could give to Ike, Ena/Nasir can do it decently effectively. It'll take a couple turns longer, sure, but it's actually viable.

So, it sounds like Ike is (at least) 2 turning Berserk Ashnard. How many turns does it take Ena? I don't think second best is 'viable" if it takes an extra 8 turns, or something along those lines.

I said viable, not efficient, which is what you claimed it was. And don't say "Who the fuck is saying," like I'm incapable of understanding the conversation, or the game. YOU were the one arguing that you don't need to train Ike, because and again, to quote you:

Ike isn't required to be built up for an efficiency playthrough.

Aku Chi's raised some points that makes me skeptical Ena can even come fucking close to what Ike can do. If you can figure out how big of a difference a trained Ike saves in one god damn chapter compared to Ena, that seems relevant to your whole argument that you don't need to raise Ike for an efficient playthrough. Don't talk like I'm an idiot, YOU were the one arguing it's viable to use Ena, not me, all I did was ask how big the difference was between her and Ike. If it's not "anywhere remotely near the efficiency of Ike", then why the hell did you continue to argue as if some one would use her instead of Ike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I claimed it was efficient? I said it was viable.

And you _don't_ need to train Ike throughout the game. It's not recommended but the game can live without him being trained; it makes certain chapters a turn (at best two) longer (and the endgame ~4-6 turns longer). It's perfectly possible to have an efficient playthrough without Ike is what I'm saying, and frankly we should be considering every type of efficient playthrough in this list. Even ones where we end up hypothetically using Laguz Royals.

I don't think I made this clear (legitimately don't think I made it clear, by the way): I am not arguing in any way that Ena was a replacement for Ike. I was stating a hypothetical scenario where we would use a Laguz Royal, and they would actually happened to be ranked below Ena in that case (Giffca > Tibarn > Naesala although idk how Naesala's damage output compares to Tibarn's even if he doubles).

And finally, I apologize for the venomous tone because everyone else seemed to be implying that I was saying Ena is doing just as well as Ike. It was unfair of me to have grouped you with that.

Don't group me with Snowy either, the only way to have a "screwed" Ike is to _not_ train him at all. I'm not arguing in favor of a "screwed" Ike, just an "unused" Ike, because the stresses of using Ike early on were great simply because he's not a very good unit until he promotes and even then the only thing he really has going for him is durability- 1-2 range hampers his offense greatly.

Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I made this clear (legitimately don't think I made it clear, by the way): I am not arguing in any way that Ena was a replacement for Ike. I was stating a hypothetical scenario where we would use a Laguz Royal, and they would actually happened to be ranked below Ena in that case (Giffca > Tibarn > Naesala although idk how Naesala's damage output compares to Tibarn's even if he doubles).

If we do not use Ike, and we do not replace him with Ena, then who is going to kill Ashnard?

In addition, what implications does this new approach to tiering from you have on the rest of the tier list? Do you think that we should consider using Bastian over Soren? Should we consider using Mia over Kieran?

Edited by Anouleth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we do not use Ike, and we do not replace him with Ena, then who is going to kill Ashnard?
-> Implying Ike's only purpose in the game is to kill Ashnard

-> Implying we are using Ena instead of using Ike, when in reality we are just not using Ike throughout the game and Ena is just the one person who can take out the final boss.

In addition, what implications does this new approach to tiering from you have on the rest of the tier list? Do you think that we should consider using Bastian over Soren? Should we consider using Mia over Kieran?

Anouleth the king of completely fucking taking an argument to an extreme that it shouldn't be taken to. Except you probably didn't read the portion where I said they'd probably be ranked below Ena if they were ranked at all. Who the fuck said it was a new approach? I was suggesting a hypothetical situation where the Royals would end up being used, and frankly every single argument you have made means you have clearly missed this portion of the post:

I was stating a hypothetical scenario where we would use a Laguz Royal, and they would actually happened to be ranked below Ena in that case
Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I ran calculations for a hypothetical FE9 0% growths run and found out that Ena can get rather close to killing berserk Ashnard with like, Bryce's Speedwings, Resolve, Wrath, and a Laguz Stone. Maybe she needs another point of spd on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't Bryce's Speedwings hard to get to because he starts in the back and, well, Ashnard moves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...