Want to make a new tier list?

[Chiki]

you're probably not inclined to admit that haar saves turns in 2-E because you can 1-turn with a stun proc from elincia, except elincia starts 2-E in bad/worst bio (don't recall which) and she has a 6%/1% chance to proc stun.

I'd have to look at that chapter again and see if it's possible. Even if not, it's still possible to argue that Jill (T) > Haar based on the Boots.

but i don't agree with you. you know as well as i do that the lowest of LTC strategies require a substantial amount of luck

I don't agree with that either. I think tier lists should focus on getting low turncounts with some kind of reliability.

If we're going by LTC standards then 50%+ of the units in this game would be bottom or low tier because they contribute virtually nothing or have like one or two chapters where they can/have to help [usually because they're forced]. Nephenee would be equally worthless as Edward because both only actually do stuff in like 1.5 chapters at best. I think that'd be kind of a strange way to look at it because Nephenee is clearly a better unit.

This is a misunderstanding of what a LTC is. LTC is just playing to get the lowest turns possible. There's contexts in which Jill and Haar aren't allowed, in which maybe Edward and Nephenee would do better. They get points for that.

Also, even in LTC runs with no restrictions, Edward and Nephenee both get a lot of points for shaving turns in the chapters they're in.

LTC runs also are favorable towards units like Fiona, believe it or not, who seem to be trash at first but they can help in shaving turns by carrying people.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Irysa]

Chiki, I think everyone else has made it pretty clear that they do not want the list to function as a 100% maximum LTC list. For example, I would have to rate Merlinus as like, probably Top Tier in FE6 because he helps save turns that nobody else can in a bunch of maps due to convoy shenanigans and acting as a decoy.

Factoring in a metric of reliability and speed is by far a more reasonable standard rather than just assuming the lowest TCs.

I'm not gonna try to explain the rules of the list, I just don't see any scenario in which vanilla Tanith is better than Skrimir.

Skrimir can put in a lot more work than you're assuming, though. As noted above, he can double (and kill) a lot of 4-P enemies, and with a Speedwing (if you're giving Tanith resources, surely one wing can be saved for Simba) he can do the same to 4-3. He's easily better all around in 4-E.

I'm willing to accept Skrimir is better than I remember him being (although I still refuse to accept him as a "super useful" unit, simply because he has to transform, doesn't have Canto and doesn't have ranged combat, and can't really be moved around effectively by other units) but I feel this ruling issue is an important point of contention, sorry. If Jill can be rated as high as she is, and we just defacto assume that she's going to be getting the statboosters, bexp, forges, skills and shit she needs to be rated as high as she is, I call into question why half the Beorcs on this list can't be assumed to be able to get similar investment. I mean, obviously it's not going to be as worth it as it is for Jill, but what is the reason why we're not allowed to distribute these resources as we choose to do so?

Edited March 16, 2015 by Irysa

[Yojinbo]

Edward does stuff in 1-P which is a shitty, inconsistent and luck based chapter in an LTC run and he makes a few contributions in 1-1 and 1-2. Nephenee does stuff in 2-1 which is a shitty chapter unless you have transfers and she makes a few contributions in 2-2. In the context of an LTC run they're equally useful/worthless, which kinda leads to the conclusion that they should get a similar ranking. I find that to be pretty strange because Nephenee is the better unit in actuality and I don't think anybody would argue otherwise.

[Florete]

I'm willing to accept Skrimir is better than I remember him being (although I still refuse to accept him as a "super useful" unit, simply because he has to transform, doesn't have Canto and doesn't have ranged combat, and can't really be moved around effectively by other units) but I feel this ruling issue is an important point of contention, sorry. If Jill can be rated as high as she is, and we just defacto assume that she's going to be getting the statboosters, bexp, forges, skills and shit she needs to be rated as high as she is, I call into question why half the Beorcs on this list can't be assumed to be able to get similar investment. I mean, obviously it's not going to be as worth it as it is for Jill, but what is the reason why we're not allowed to distribute these resources as we choose to do so?

I'm not trying to justify giving Jill stat boosters, but the logic is that she will do more with them (much more) than pretty much anyone else, and what she does with them can't be replicated. Tanith? You already have multiple better units than her by the time you get her and she doesn't lay claim to any special niche otherwise. Boosters on her will only help her, not the player.

[Irysa]

Yes, but why are we penalising other characters for not being able to be as good as Jill with those resources? If the purpose of the tierlist is to rank characters according to their strength, and some of the characters are being given a lot of specific investment in order to be ranked as highly as they are, why can an argument not be made that the player should be able to determine where those resources are going? You do not actually need to massively invest in Jill to beat the game, or to get through Part 3 DB chapters, she is just by far the best candidate and also helps out a lot more with those resources later on.

I understand WHY Jill is considered high, I'm asking why I can't equally rate other units in a vaccum where they're getting that kind of treatment in terms of attempting to achieve similar levels of capability in combat. The basic assumption (so far as I can see) is that "well Jill should be getting those" which means we're already operating under the assumption of using a specific team of characters in a specific way. This to me does not seem to be intuitive because instead of creating a tierlist for Radiant Dawn, we're creating a tier list for "Radiant Dawn played in a specific way" so to speak. I don't think it's fair to rate units lower when they're just actually not optimal choices and whilst worse are salvagable enough to be able to get into good enemy phases during a rout heavy segment of the game.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Irysa

[Snowy_One]

they're going to come up with approximately the same thing as the 2009 tier list, which means that there are no "new ideas" to be discussed. these are literally old ideas that have your approval. you approve of discussion that excludes veterans because you're tired of being constantly ridiculed for your atrocious argumentative abilities, and rather than attempting to elevate yourself to their level, you'd much prefer to bring them down to your level.

You notice I don't care about the 'ridicule' so much as I care about the stuck-up attitudes. I mean, why would I bother with your arguments when you're trying to tell me what I think and what my logic is when I already pointed out that it isn't true. Heck, why don't you handle the logical contradiction of 'Snowy hates the 2009 tier list, yet supports a topic that would turn out the same as the 2009 tier list' before you even try to talk back?

Either way, I'm not going to bring a catfight into this topic and I consider myself to be a veteran debater and wouldn't debate under my own suggestions. So I don't see the point in continuing dealing with your delusions. If you want to argue PM me. I'm not going to drag your desire to scrap into an unrelated topic.

[Florete]

Sorry, I don't have the answers to those questions, nor do I care to find them. This is delving into tier philosophy now, which I simply can't stand anymore.

Even with whatever might be "reasonable" resource allocation, I still say Skrimir beats vanilla Tanith. I think you're underestimating his power and durability.

[Irysa]

I don't claim Tanith's required resource dump to be reasonable. I agree that Skrimir is better than vanilla Tanith by a mile, but only on a tierlist that aims to reflect how useful units are relative to the amount of investment they're going to need to be useful, which this current one does not. Yojinbo's is more agreeable to me although I think rating Skrimir in "super useful" was dumb but that's a nitpick at this point.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Irysa

[Ownagepuffs]

Skrimir + 3-9 Speedwings = Cain-lite. He's a pretty good candidate for it, too.He also comes with a laguz stone so he pretty can start the rape train as early as turn 1 and lion gauge is .Maybe not "super useful" but he's certainly a cut above useless filler.

[Florete]

Yeah, I wouldn't call Skrimir "super useful," just "good." He doesn't exactly do anything special, but he does his job well.

[Eselred]

Merlinus for Top Tier. I like it.

Anyway, Radiant Dawn is practically impossible to tier because of the wonky availability and the character dump at the end of the game. It's totally unlike other Fire Emblem games where your army grows and progresses over time. You keep jumping back and forth then all of a sudden, BOOM, the game allows you to access all of your units near the end. It should also be noted at that point the game gives you the Royals, who thoroughly outclass the majority of your army.

I remember the last time I played RD, Tibarn practically soloed the maps he participates in, and he destroyed the end game along with Ike and the other Royals. Are the Royals top tier because they crush the few maps they are in? Or low tier because they have basically no availability?

How can you tier this mess? Madness.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Anyway, Radiant Dawn is practically impossible to tier because of the wonky availability and the character dump at the end of the game.

Thats not really true. You tier with specifications like: Mode, Part, Efficiency, and who requires less effort. Like a list with Easy Mode in mind would simply be whos the best that requires the least amount of BEXP, stat boosters, forges, skills, and junk. (cuz really, thats the only way to tier Easy Mode) Guess who would be at the top of an Easy Mode tier list? Royals, Haar, Titania, Sothe, Nolan, etc.

Hang on...arent those guys the same you'd find in similar positions in a Hard Mode list? Mostly because Hard Mode limits resources. Theres a pattern where you can find the same people being good across Parts and Modes. Just as you can find Fiona and Meg at the bottom across the board. The game isnt impossible to tier. Its just there are so many options on who to use and who can be pretty good with some effort, it becomes a bit of a clusterfuck.

[-Cynthia-]

To be fair, it's not like this is totally unique to RD. Athos pretty much owns the final 2 chapters for instance in FE7 and isn't available for the rest of the game.

Personally I think Cain/Giffca get a little too much credit compared to folks like Geoffrey/Brom/Tauroneo who are more essential for a chapter or two than Cain or Giffca ever are (but not so good after), but eh.

[Eselred]

Then why are many veteran Tier debaters throwing up their hands in this very topic and saying they won't get involved with this again? Why is there constant bickering back and forth about pretty much every character and nobody can ever agree on the criteria? Because this game is very different from the rest of the Fire Emblem games, and with how it is structured, it makes it very difficulty to create a solid tier list.

Athos is one unit. RD, by my count, has four diverse groups that the story jumps back and forth between. Some groups are used more often than others, but the fact remains that you don't build up a singular army like in other Fire Emblem games. The game keeps skipping back and forth, then bang, everybody is available all at once, go make a few groups for a couple of maps, then it's off to end game where only the best of the best should be used (and useless Micaiah because she is forced).

[Zasplach]

Well, not to insert myself into a heated topic with only a slight suggestion, I've played Radiant Dawn and understand that the game is a tiering nightmare, but why not do what we do with games like Fe4? Fe4 has two distinct pars where you have a varied cast. Why not split Radiant Dawn into four separate lists, part 1,2,3,4. Let's you give each part more perspective, lots of work though.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Zasplach

[Lord Raven]

Well RD's lists are considerably weirder.

You have one list with 1-P to 1-E, 3-6, 3-12, and 3-13

Part 2 is almost impossible, because you have like 2-P, 2-1, 2-2, 2-E, where the 2-P and 2-1 cast are extremely different and both give you a limited selection of units. 2-2 and 2-E have largely different rosters and one is expected to take one turn or something. It's better off omitted

Then you have 2-3 and 3-9, which is kind of dumb to tier by its lonesome.

Finally, 3-P to 3-5, 3-7/3-8/3-10/3-11, 3-E.

Part 4 has three different armies so that's three different tier lists

Then Endgame is its own beast but you have random utility units that are almost necessary to efficiently clear 4-E-5, which is extremely hard to tier unless you put forth some extra criteria.

It's really somewhat tedious and you omit parts of the game because parts of the game are set for you. Then splitting up part 4 tiers becomes kind of wonky because you could do something where you omit some obviously stupid arrangements (like not putting Makalov/Astrid/etc into the Dawn army maps). In reality, it's not that much work, but it also makes less discussion for a group of folk that only created something like this because they like to argue, and like 1/4 of those arguments are about the tiering metric.

[Zasplach]

It's really somewhat tedious and you omit parts of the game because parts of the game are set for you. Then splitting up part 4 tiers becomes kind of wonky because you could do something where you omit some obviously stupid arrangements (like not putting Makalov/Astrid/etc into the Dawn army maps). In reality, it's not that much work, but it also makes less discussion for a group of folk that only created something like this because they like to argue, and like 1/4 of those arguments are about the tiering metric.

Fair point, I'm just an avoidant when it comes to conflict. Argue away friends.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Then why are many veteran Tier debaters throwing up their hands in this very topic and saying they won't get involved with this again? Why is there constant bickering back and forth about pretty much every character and nobody can ever agree on the criteria? Because this game is very different from the rest of the Fire Emblem games, and with how it is structured, it makes it very difficulty to create a solid tier list.

That is not exactly exclusive to this particular game. You bring up tiering in some other FE, you will probably be met with the same "meh" and the same people arguing over the same thing. Thats because one guy uses LTC standards to tier, while another guy Snowy uses the experience he has with favoring a unit into the fray. And another guy is talking about basic efficient play, and someone else is thinking about who stomps on the most dicks while available to do so in a particular chapter. It always happens.

Im seeing people like Red Fox back up because she doesnt want to go in the same circles shes been going in for years. (talking about "tier philosophy" whatever that is.) Really, the one thing people need to take into consideration is transfer bonuses, or the lack thereof. Like, if you dont have transfers on a particular unit, that effects how they perform overall. Nephenee with transfers might be placed higher than a Nephenee without. Also, Lord Raven is right, it really isnt difficult, and people just really enjoy arguing, so they do.

[Junkhead]

volug's in that weird place where he's pretty much always really strong (ie 1-6 where he's sothe but better), falls off (I've never understood how he can apparently be strong in 1-E; he doesn't seem to do significant damage to anything he doubles and doesn't double anything he does a lot of damage to besides lolmages), then is suddenly godlike again when he can fullshift. i'd probably rank him roughly in the same place as sothe (probably one or two spots higher)

One or two spots higher than Sothe is Haar's spot, lol. I mean, I hear what you're saying, and I can make something decent out of him on this list. I put him on the higher end of High, above Mia. I think he shines more in Part 3, believe in or not. Kind of like Nolan, except he trades in needing to Grass with excellent durability without needing anything (the strongest Tigers with 41 Atk fall short on 2HKO'ing him).

If we're going by LTC standards then 50%+ of the units in this game would be bottom or low tier because they contribute virtually nothing or have like one or two chapters where they can/have to help [usually because they're forced]. Nephenee would be equally worthless as Edward because both only actually do stuff in like 1.5 chapters at best. I think that'd be kind of a strange way to look at it because Nephenee is clearly a better unit.

Like honestly, I don't actually think there's a better way to rank characters than by how much they contribute to a low turn count. It's still sub-par though imo. I just don't think FE10 is a game where a tier list makes a lot of sense.

50%? lol, I think you're being awfully generous. I like playing LTC more than effeciency, but I think effeciency is faaar more fair to most of the cast.

Bases > Growths, because you always have bases, whereas you have to hope that RNG favors you so you keep pace with your growths. You also have to invest time and resources into making growths do something, while bases are just there and take no effort or investment.

Well said.

It's not just that the Dawn Brigade are some of the worst units in the game that are forced in your face all the time and need to be babysat so they don't go splat. They're also some of the most annoying and uninteresting characters in Fire Emblem history. Finally, Micaiah is not only one of the worst units in RD, but also one of the worst lords ever.

Hence, The Fail Brigade, because they fail on all levels. RD would be my favorite FE game by far if the DB were simply a prologue/tutorial like Lyn mode, and the rest of the real game focused on Ike and his crew. Alas...

You almost sound biased, huhu. The Dawn Brigade isn't as bad as some people say they are. That's so old. It's like the time when people thought Paladins weren't worth using, even though they're like half and half. I think it's actually easier to count out the terrible ones, which are Meg and Fiona (do you wish to count Illyana among the crew?).

Tanith is a moderately helpful unit who (admittedly with a buttload of favouritism) can be made into a competant combat unit.

I don't think that much is required to make Tanith decent. I think that most of her drawback is really just from availability. Her bases don't seem like an awful lot of fuss, I find them pretty fixable.

I love Peggies for Endgame (except Elincia & Marcia, rather neutral towards them).

Again, I beg the question - how is resource allocation supposed to be factored into this list? If Jill is lowered because she needs all those resources to operate to full potential then I don't see a problem but hypothetically speaking if you pump like, half of the Beorc units in this game with the stuff Jill is getting then they can also become strong. Not as strong mind, so Jill is definitely better, but the problem with resource allocation is that we can't just give it to everyone. Are we basically penalising everyone who isn't Jill for just not being quite as helpful as she is? The whole "Top tier" "High tier" stuff is too vague, I feel like there needs to be a distinction for units that basically require nothing/minimal investment or effort to be effective (Haar) and units who need to be given a lot of resources to be good. Or else, we need to just flat out assume that we're using a particular inflexible team composition to indicate as such.

Yep, that's how it works. It's assumed someone like Jill or Nolan get dibs on some of the statboosters because they can make most out of it. Yes, you can make something good out of someone like Boyd, but that doesn't mean he'll have a shot at getting them if someone like Haar, Titania or even Oscar put them to better use. Think Mia, for example. She's great at combat with the right resource (Adept, a forge and a support with Ike), but she'll never be better than Haar & Titania only because she lacks their Mov. This is the case with Jill, unfortunately. Anyway, I do like what you're saying. Makes you think, doesn't it? What do you propose?

Jill starts tripping up Sothe as early as 1-6 (both parts), as her movement range allows her to contribute in ways that Sothe cannot. By part 3, it's not even a contest anymore. So Sothe clearly wins 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-8, it's closer for 1-6, 1-7 and 1-E. Then Jill wins 3-6, 3-12, 3-13, 4-P, 4-3, and endgame. Personally, I'd give the edge to Jill.

In my LTC run (no, this isn't beside the point, trust ), Sothe actually did a great deal of the job, even when Jill existed. I actually only used Jill for 1-6-1 & 1-E, because Sothe manages to 3-turn 1-6-1 & 2-turn 1-6-2...Jill actually requires something like an Str transfer, a Drop and/an early promotion to replicate Sothe's 1-6-1. 1-6-2, you might as well Rescue-Drop Tauros over to the boss, so I guess they both tie? In 1-7, I deployed Jill, but she wasn't even into Rescue-Dropping Micaiah, that was the LEA's job.

Titania and Ike are obviously harder to compare to Sothe, but you're overrating Sothe amongst the DB or underrating those two. Sothe's reign of terror does not last forever. From 1-6 on, he is surrounded by units at least equal (Zihark, Jill, Muarim, Tormod) or better (Volug, Nailah, Tauroneo, Black Knight). Yes, he is better than the low level tier 1 scrubs, but who cares?

Sothe is better than most of those (in Part 1), and I can tell you why. 8]

Meanwhile, Ike is a no strings attached killing machine, and as you go down the list of GMs they start to have more and more strings attached. Most GMs either lack the AS to double or the Atk to 2HKO, but Ike does not. Haar, Titania, Gatrie and Boyd all need some if not a lot of help to double. Shinon has comparable parameters but a terrifail class. Mia and Nephenee don't 2HKO. If you want, we even have some equivalents of Edward/Leonardo to compare Ike's combat to in Rhys, Mist and Rolf.

I'm starting to realize that Ike is mildly overrated. Ike's only really amazing as long as he doubles, and from Day 1, he's borderline on that department. He needs to get Spd constantly just to double enemies- and this is only at 1-range, he needs Adept to 1RKO with a Wind Edge (which he also falls short of quickly without +Atk). I think a lot of his shining moment is really when he gets Ragnell, and even then, it's only just Part 4. He's really good, just doesn't contribute as much as Sothe unless you weigh his Part 4 lolstomp heavily (nothing wrong with that, it's important)

tl;dr don't treat Sothe like a god

lol, sure.

I'm sold on Jill being better than Sothe. Above she goes! シ

If Jill can be rated as high as she is, and we just defacto assume that she's going to be getting the statboosters, bexp, forges, skills and shit she needs to be rated as high as she is, I call into question why half the Beorcs on this list can't be assumed to be able to get similar investment. I mean, obviously it's not going to be as worth it as it is for Jill, but what is the reason why we're not allowed to distribute these resources as we choose to do so?

How would you go about with this? I'm curious...the way I see it, I assume that certain characters are in their respective spots with reasonable resources given to them. For example, Boyd could be quite a monster even better than Mia. But to do so, you'd have to be giving him something like an Angelic Robe, a Secret Book and a Speedwings just so he can BEXP his way up years later and start becoming self-reliant by the bitter half of Part 3. Meanwhile, the above characters take little to no resources to become as good. Mia doesn't need an awful ton of resources to become a great combatant, and while someone like Jill takes an Angelic Robe + a Drop, she's doing a godly job at carrying the DB through their awful Part 3 chapters (and then making Part 4 a heck of a lot easier).

Edward does stuff in 1-P which is a shitty, inconsistent and luck based chapter in an LTC run and he makes a few contributions in 1-1 and 1-2. Nephenee does stuff in 2-1 which is a shitty chapter unless you have transfers and she makes a few contributions in 2-2. In the context of an LTC run they're equally useful/worthless, which kinda leads to the conclusion that they should get a similar ranking. I find that to be pretty strange because Nephenee is the better unit in actuality and I don't think anybody would argue otherwise.

If it makes you feel better, Edward's key to 4-turning 1-4. I don't remember the specifics at the moment, but it doesn't require much luck.

Yes, but why are we penalising other characters for not being able to be as good as Jill with those resources? If the purpose of the tierlist is to rank characters according to their strength, and some of the characters are being given a lot of specific investment in order to be ranked as highly as they are, why can an argument not be made that the player should be able to determine where those resources are going? You do not actually need to massively invest in Jill to beat the game, or to get through Part 3 DB chapters, she is just by far the best candidate and also helps out a lot more with those resources later on.

I understand WHY Jill is considered high, I'm asking why I can't equally rate other units in a vaccum where they're getting that kind of treatment in terms of attempting to achieve similar levels of capability in combat. The basic assumption (so far as I can see) is that "well Jill should be getting those" which means we're already operating under the assumption of using a specific team of characters in a specific way. This to me does not seem to be intuitive because instead of creating a tierlist for Radiant Dawn, we're creating a tier list for "Radiant Dawn played in a specific way" so to speak. I don't think it's fair to rate units lower when they're just actually not optimal choices and whilst worse are salvagable enough to be able to get into good enemy phases during a rout heavy segment of the game.

I have to see how that'll work in a tier list. I don't know how that would be organized yet, but I'll take a look. I think you make a solid point.

You notice I don't care about the 'ridicule' so much as I care about the stuck-up attitudes. I mean, why would I bother with your arguments when you're trying to tell me what I think and what my logic is when I already pointed out that it isn't true. Heck, why don't you handle the logical contradiction of 'Snowy hates the 2009 tier list, yet supports a topic that would turn out the same as the 2009 tier list' before you even try to talk back?

Either way, I'm not going to bring a catfight into this topic and I consider myself to be a veteran debater and wouldn't debate under my own suggestions. So I don't see the point in continuing dealing with your delusions. If you want to argue PM me. I'm not going to drag your desire to scrap into an unrelated topic.

Don't worry I think you are a "vet". シ

EDIT: Actually, Irysa. I think I found the answer to your question. The reason why we assume such linear resource allocations is precisely because this is an effeciency tier list. To distribute resources throughout the team in the form of charity will not benefit us as highly as one may think, considering it doesn't take a ton of characters to dominate chapters.

tl;dr: Certain characters are "assigned" to certain resources because they'll make the most out of it and for our team. シ

I was almost about to make an alternative tier list assuming different kinds of resource scenerios, lol (shh, still am ;3)

Edited March 17, 2015 by The Red Queen

[dondon151]

Heck, why don't you handle the logical contradiction of 'Snowy hates the 2009 tier list, yet supports a topic that would turn out the same as the 2009 tier list' before you even try to talk back?

i did explain this. you want the veteran tier debaters to stay out because the newbies don't know your track record of being unable to understand fundamental concepts that dictate why characters are better than others.

also skrimir is blegh. doesn't fly, has no 2-range, needs substantial help to ORKO anything in 4-3. tanith at least increases reliability for the 3-11 4-turn and she can do a lot in 4-2 with investment.

[Junkhead]

It's okay, all are welcome! シ

[Radiant head]

Skrimir is awesome in the desert chapter, but that's basically it.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Radiant head

[Junkhead]

How's he going to feed Micaiah kills if he 1RKO's about 90% of 4-P? He also doesn't perform very well in the desert without a Speedwings or Resolve proc.

[Radiant head]

Not 4-P, in 4-3, where she has good movement alongside him.

[Junkhead]

6 Mov isn't good, lol...9 Mov is beast (no pun intendre) and he even has more Mov and durability untransformed. 'sides, why does Micaiah want to level at that point? She's only really be decent at using staves...