FE: Awakening Hard Mode Tier List

[Bryan]

In my current play thorough, Lucina is actually one of my best units. She gains exp faster than everyone else, so I ran her through tactican and merc in like two chapters, since one enemy = one level. Basically, she's awesome.

[Shadow Mir]

the former is clearly superior and closer to any definition of "efficient" that I'm aware of.

I've never seen that written anywhere, but if that's the case then the tier list's definition is shitty and we should change it? if using fewer resources, going faster, and not having to think as much wins less FE13 Efficiency Points than spreading experience around a larger team for no apparent reason, the entire system is fucked.

so yeah not knowing about the lucina thing beforehand kinda sucked but ignis is most likely going to help me more than veteran anyway. it's not like she'll have any trouble getting all the experience she needs as it is.

I don't *ever* remember lowmanning being taken into account for tier lists before this game, so what's so special about this game that we should take it into account?

As for Ignis being more help for Lucina than Veteran, I highly doubt that.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Levant Fortner

[Chiki]

Typical and efficiency are the same thing for the purpose of tiering.

An efficient playthrough is at the very least a great deal more typical than using liek two units and giving them pair ups.

You don't know what you're talking about. Typical players would want to use Nosferatanking for an easy time.

[Da Bear]

You don't know what you're talking about. Typical players would want to use Nosferatanking for an easy time.

And nosferatu is totally both viable and available immediately! Not only that but you start out with those characters to put it to use... not.

[Chiki]

Typical players spend time grinding, lol, obviously.

And what does not starting out with Nosferatu have to do with anything? The idea is that most casual players take their time. Do you really think the casual hard mode player is gonna play efficiently? Why should a casual player value efficiency like we do? The vast majority of casual players I know take their time.

[Interceptor]

Enough already. This list does not measure "typical" play; it measures play within the parameters set out by the OP.

[Da Bear]

I still want Lucina down to at least top of A. Chrom's doing amazing at whatever he's doing (If he's blessed frontlines if not backlines) before she exists.

Also I think the pegs are better than her as well.

[Shadow Mir]

I still want Lucina down to at least top of A. Chrom's doing amazing at whatever he's doing (If he's blessed frontlines if not backlines) before she exists.

Also I think the pegs are better than her as well.

On that note, why is Chrom even below her in the first place?

[Da Bear]

On that note, why is Chrom even below her in the first place?

Not sure... probably because a lot of people get screwed with him... he's far from rng proof but it's worth noting if Chrom is cursed Lucina turns out pretty weak and if Chrom is good than he's a great unit...

[Sylvan]

I don't *ever* remember lowmanning being taken into account for tier lists before this game, so what's so special about this game that we should take it into account?

Second Seals. They can dodge the level cap, which is the limiting factor in other games.

The other is pairing up. If you are allowed to use 6 units on a map. Using just 3 and deploying the other 3 for nothing other than supports is viable. (you don't have to defend them). You will take a small hit to damage (since the paired-up unit won't be attacking for any damage) but the level lead on the main unit will more than make up for this.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Sylvan

[Zkirsche]

We should see what SDS wants from his tier list and let him choose between low manning or full-scale deployment. In the mean time we should try to actually discuss character placements.

[Da Bear]

We should see what SDS wants from his tier list and let him choose between low manning or full-scale deployment. In the mean time we should try to actually discuss character placements.

No one wants to do that though... I tried with Lucina but everyone went into tiering philosophy as soon as Olwen came.

[Anouleth]

Second Seals. They can dodge the level cap, which is the limiting factor in other games.

Level cap is not a limiting factor in any Fire Emblem.

[Chiki]

It's important to agree on good criteria to tier units before placing them. Do you want more stupid rules like Rescue being banned?

[Sylvan]

We should see what SDS wants from his tier list and let him choose between low manning or full-scale deployment. In the mean time we should try to actually discuss character placements.

Placements are impacted by the play style, so it's hard to do that.

Level cap is not a limiting factor in any Fire Emblem.

It is if you are doing a low man run properly. Note, the level cap doesn't have to be 20/20. Even the first 20 is a big impact. In other games, once you hit the first 20, that's it, you have to promote or you are not getting any more stats. (and promoting at 10 has serious ramifications).

In this game, you can second seal, grid up as much as you want, then promote. (effectively 30/X is a viable alternative to 20/X present in other games). Conversely, promote at 10, and use seals to compensate for no remaining levels (this takes an exp hit though). But it's not possible to do this in other games.

The other big impact (opposed to other games) is on pre-promotes. With only 20 levels to grow in other games, and low exp, their options are totally different when exposed to a second seal. Re-classing on top of this gives better growth alternatives, which are not apparent even in other games like Shadow Dragon, where re-classing is free.

[Shadow Mir]

It is if you are doing a low man run properly. Note, the level cap doesn't have to be 20/20. Even the first 20 is a big impact. In other games, once you hit the first 20, that's it, you have to promote or you are not getting any more stats. (and promoting at 10 has serious ramifications).

In this game, you can second seal, grid up as much as you want, then promote. (effectively 30/X is a viable alternative to 20/X present in other games). Conversely, promote at 10, and use seals to compensate for no remaining levels (this takes an exp hit though). But it's not possible to do this in other games.

The other big impact (opposed to other games) is on pre-promotes. With only 20 levels to grow in other games, and low exp, their options are totally different when exposed to a second seal. Re-classing on top of this gives better growth alternatives, which are not apparent even in other games like Shadow Dragon, where re-classing is free.

You're forgetting one thing - internal level. With every reclass, your internal level goes up, and thus you level up slower than before.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Levant Fortner

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I have a big henry post in the works, but I am busy so that will come later. For now, "lowmanning" actually needs to be addressed.

There is a lot of EXP in this game. Tons of it. A heinous amount. Enemies are both numerous and high levelled. In a playthrough I'm doing, I am managing to raise about 10 different units as straight up combat units (Chrom, Lucina, Avatar, Sully, Stahl, Panne, Henry, Lon'qu (now dropped for Kjelle), and Nowi, as well as getting Anna levels wherever I can manage it) and everyone involved is still hitting promotion time around the time that enemies start being tough enough that you need to promote, which also just happens to be when Master Seals become buyable. At this point, the only unpromoted units are Lucina (who is already a level 11 Cavalier after two maps, Veteran and a low join level is retarded) and Kjelle (and only because she literally just arrived). This is with a fully efficient playthrough, abiding by all rules set forth in the OP.

Units in this game are fucking incredible. Sure, you *can* solo with them. You can solo with a lot of units in a number of Fire Emblem games, and those units tend to be higher. Not as a result mind you, but because the units that can do so tend to be amazing even with less levels and only a standard share of the EXP. In this game, there is no excuse not to use a full team, and in a number of cases, use pairs where both units are expected to be combat-capable (Chrom x Lucina, Panne x Stahl, Sully x Lon'qu, Frederick x Sumia) and still have them get plenty of experience. This is why solos are generally frowned upon. A team with a full roster of competent units (which is the standard play and one that is not unrealistic) has an inherent advantage over a solo simply because it has more options, more ability to cover ground and space, etc. This is why we make our EXP calculations and general "expected levels" based on an army in which everyone is getting a sahre. Units that need more in a short term to excel or naturally tend to earn more can get a bit of a bump, but we're not going to be saying "unit x can solo efficiently, clearly they are getting 100% of the exp, chain-reclassing multiple times, and winning the universe" on a tier list. Otherwise, why bother comparing units?

I'm sure you can go off and make a tier list based on how efficiently units solo the game. It would end up taking into account stats, ability to earn kills, durability, availability, etc, and I'm sure it would be another way to get to a list that is basically going to look very much like this one. That's not the list or the discussion that we're having here though, because that's dull.

e: Also Olwen, I'm reporting your next one or two line snarkpost. It's not contributing, so cut it out.

e2: also can everyone stop responding to snark with more snark tia

Edited May 9, 2013 by Seven Deadly Sins

[Da Bear]

Do you want more stupid rules like Rescue being banned?

lol it means no rescue-skipping. That should be obvious.

[Anouleth]

It is if you are doing a low man run properly. Note, the level cap doesn't have to be 20/20. Even the first 20 is a big impact. In other games, once you hit the first 20, that's it, you have to promote or you are not getting any more stats. (and promoting at 10 has serious ramifications).

Maybe they're not getting any more stats, but good level 20/20 units rarely even need "more stats", and even if they did, they're probably capping or close to capping most of their important stats; certainly close enough that stat boosters can make up the difference. In that case, the restriction would be stat caps; not the level cap.

[Sylvan]

You're forgetting one thing - internal level. With every reclass, your internal level goes up, and thus you level up slower than before.

I did say promoting earns less exp. Internal level is an extension of this. Either way, the argument then shifts from being "do we allow lowmanrun" to "is less exp worth having stronger units".

My gut feel (having done no formal analysis) is that the level lead is worth the exp drop, unless promoting early.

A team with a full roster of competent units (which is the standard play and one that is not unrealistic) has an inherent advantage over a solo simply because it has more options, more ability to cover ground and space, etc.

Informally, I ran through twice, one keeping pace with the enemy, one with a level lead using fewer units. The level lead seemed to give more options. It made defend missions harder, but made taking chests & valuables easier. It certainly was more efficient, less items consumed, fewer turns, more gold. I don't see why we should neglect any analysis of the playstyle. At a minimum, we should weigh up the difference between the two, and actually judge the differences, rather than say "we didn't do it before, so we won't do it now" - ignoring the differences between this and previous games.

This is why we make our EXP calculations and general "expected levels" based on an army in which everyone is getting a sahre. Units that need more in a short term to excel or naturally tend to earn more can get a bit of a bump, but we're not going to be saying "unit x can solo efficiently, clearly they are getting 100% of the exp, chain-reclassing multiple times, and winning the universe" on a tier list. Otherwise, why bother comparing units?

Giving everyone equal amounts of exp still happens in a low man run. The only thing that's different is the number of units on a map. Saying one unit gets all the exp and reclass chains (at the cost of all other units) is favouritism, not a low man run.

For instance, if you were to compare sully and chrom - based on join time, someone might be tempted to say "well I need chrom to survive, so he needs exp. Since I need to level him, I need to do it right now. Sully joins at a time when chrom is levelling, so she can't have exp, so she's bottom tier". Well, this is wrong. Join time does matter, but saying they can't get exp is blatant favourtisim (you have to at least say "what happens if they get exp"). This has nothing to do with how many units are on the map - and applies equally to a full-team run vs a low-man run.

Maybe they're not getting any more stats, but good level 20/20 units rarely even need "more stats", and even if they did, they're probably capping or close to capping most of their important stats; certainly close enough that stat boosters can make up the difference. In that case, the restriction would be stat caps; not the level cap.

Like I said, 20/20 is not everything. Other games, hitting those caps requires 20/20, which means a long turn count in an unpromoted class. (which means, no promote benefits) That has an impact on the mid game. Additionally, pre-promotes with only 20 levels are usually writeoffs in a lowman run, thanks to the low number of levels to grow in and less exp.

In this game, both promoting early and using pre-promtes are viable in a lowman run. They may not be optimal, but are still viable, and thus worth considering.

(As an aside, most units will not be hitting their caps in other games. For example, even in shadow dragon and using re-classing, healers will only have a limited number of missions to level in as certain classes - hampering their options. Solo mages often will still have 40%+ chance of death in late-game hard modes, even trained to 20/20 - unless burning stat boosts. This hurts healing, hurts boost distribution and hurts item consumption. Additionally, thieves are impractical - even 20/20 have a high chance of death, making item gathering difficult - in awakening, pairing up or re-classing thieves makes it straightforward.)

Edited May 10, 2013 by Sylvan

[Redwall]

I don't see why this discussion is needed. The tier list's curator has chosen an arbitrary set of criteria (many of which I don't like) in order to promote a particular playstyle. If you wish to make a tier list with your own arbitrary set of criteria, then surely it can be done in another thread.

[General Horace]

This might be preempitive considering recent discussion, but I feel Morgan warrants tiering on the main list. Overall, s/he's a fairly static unit (as far as kids go), and with Veteran as a guarenteed skill, and mu likely having a level lead on most of your main party, s/he's likely to have higher stats in comparison to the other kids earlier on as well. Not to mention infinate reclass possabilities, Morgan's just a really versatile unit. I'd like to say at his/her best, they're better than Lucina.

[Tables]

I don't see why this discussion is needed. The tier list's curator has chosen an arbitrary set of criteria (many of which I don't like) in order to promote a particular playstyle. If you wish to make a tier list with your own arbitrary set of criteria, then surely it can be done in another thread.

Trying to have multiple 'generic' tier lists for the same game is usually a recipe for disaster. You might see them for cases where some specific change leads to massive changes in character viability (e.g. Seth in FE8 relegates all but a handful of characters to 'how well does this character help Seth destroy everything'?). If there's an issue with a tier lists rules, either that thread, or perhaps if really necessary, a single meta thread, is the best place to discuss it, to avoid multiple lists competing over essentially the same rules.

Here, I think the rules are pretty much as sensible as they can be. Some can be debated yes, especially the first half, but everything from Barracks down comes down to (I suspect) avoiding any arguments based on grinding (trivialises everything) and especially randomness (because well it's random, which means there's just a huge amount of potential stuff going on).

[Naglfar]

I have a big henry post in the works, but I am busy so that will come later. For now, "lowmanning" actually needs to be addressed.

There is a lot of EXP in this game. Tons of it. A heinous amount. Enemies are both numerous and high levelled. In a playthrough I'm doing, I am managing to raise about 10 different units as straight up combat units (Chrom, Lucina, Avatar, Sully, Stahl, Panne, Henry, Lon'qu (now dropped for Kjelle), and Nowi, as well as getting Anna levels wherever I can manage it) and everyone involved is still hitting promotion time around the time that enemies start being tough enough that you need to promote, which also just happens to be when Master Seals become buyable. At this point, the only unpromoted units are Lucina (who is already a level 11 Cavalier after two maps, Veteran and a low join level is retarded) and Kjelle (and only because she literally just arrived). This is with a fully efficient playthrough, abiding by all rules set forth in the OP.

Units in this game are fucking incredible. Sure, you *can* solo with them. You can solo with a lot of units in a number of Fire Emblem games, and those units tend to be higher. Not as a result mind you, but because the units that can do so tend to be amazing even with less levels and only a standard share of the EXP. In this game, there is no excuse not to use a full team, and in a number of cases, use pairs where both units are expected to be combat-capable (Chrom x Lucina, Panne x Stahl, Sully x Lon'qu, Frederick x Sumia) and still have them get plenty of experience. This is why solos are generally frowned upon. A team with a full roster of competent units (which is the standard play and one that is not unrealistic) has an inherent advantage over a solo simply because it has more options, more ability to cover ground and space, etc. This is why we make our EXP calculations and general "expected levels" based on an army in which everyone is getting a sahre. Units that need more in a short term to excel or naturally tend to earn more can get a bit of a bump, but we're not going to be saying "unit x can solo efficiently, clearly they are getting 100% of the exp, chain-reclassing multiple times, and winning the universe" on a tier list. Otherwise, why bother comparing units?

I'm sure you can go off and make a tier list based on how efficiently units solo the game. It would end up taking into account stats, ability to earn kills, durability, availability, etc, and I'm sure it would be another way to get to a list that is basically going to look very much like this one. That's not the list or the discussion that we're having here though, because that's dull.

e: Also Olwen, I'm reporting your next one or two line snarkpost. It's not contributing, so cut it out.

e2: also can everyone stop responding to snark with more snark tia

I wish you wouldn't keep saying "soloing" because nobody else said that. still, it's true that a tier list that concentrates resources will look very similar to one that spreads them out, and I don't think this list particularly cares about the couple of turns of difference you might see between playstyles. if we could declare this mostly irrelevant and get back to tiering, that'd be chill.

I don't see why this discussion is needed. The tier list's curator has chosen an arbitrary set of criteria (many of which I don't like) in order to promote a particular playstyle. If you wish to make a tier list with your own arbitrary set of criteria, then surely it can be done in another thread.

a tier list that most people are happy with > five tier lists that nobody gives a shit about, so maintaining one good tier list is worth doing.

This might be preempitive considering recent discussion, but I feel Morgan warrants tiering on the main list. Overall, s/he's a fairly static unit (as far as kids go), and with Veteran as a guarenteed skill, and mu likely having a level lead on most of your main party, s/he's likely to have higher stats in comparison to the other kids earlier on as well. Not to mention infinate reclass possabilities, Morgan's just a really versatile unit. I'd like to say at his/her best, they're better than Lucina.

morgan should be easy enough to tier in theory, but the problem would lie in how you would tier all 192647 morgans without the list looking awful. I think if we could have a clause added to the OP that shitty pairing setups are ruled out, we could throw in all the kids without too much trouble.

[General Horace]

morgan should be easy enough to tier in theory, but the problem would lie in how you would tier all 192647 morgans without the list looking awful. I think if we could have a clause added to the OP that shitty pairing setups are ruled out, we could throw in all the kids without too much trouble.

really the only thing that matters for morgan is his starting weapon, since he's freely reclassable. He's only really below average when his C rank weapon is like, staves. It'd be easier to integrate the kids one at a time I feel too.

Edited May 10, 2013 by General Horace