"Ask Fire Emblem Heroes Questions and Get Them Answered Here" Thread

[Jotari]

Do combat boosts apply for Great Flame's skill?

[Hilda]

10 hours ago, XRay said:

I got a second Alm that I do not need. I thought about merging him, but he got Windsweep, which is pretty rare. However, there is like almost no demand for Windsweep.

The only one I can think of so far is Jaffar, who can now basically shutdown counter attacks from everyone besides dragons and faster units (there are staff units too, but staff units are pretty squishy). But even then, I much rather have him stick with Poison Strike and just let him focus on mages.

Is there anyone else who may want Windsweep? Are there any other more practical builds or gimmicky builds that I overlooked?

i use windsweep on my saizo in arena. he can then safely rackle DC armorers melees. with the dagger debuffs giving then everyon -6 debuffs to all stats he can basicly shut them down and not be killed mostly in enemy phase and retalliate withbonfire if he gets attacked.

Also windsweep can be good on legendary robin with dark breath.

The skill can be somewhat opressiv in high tier arena when you only run melles for higher points.

[Vaximillian]

31 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Do combat boosts apply for Great Flame's skill?

Yes, they do. All stat comparisons take in account actual stats after hones and spurs.

[LordFrigid]

4 hours ago, Rezzy said:

What do the "Helpers" do in Grand Conquest?

My Titania is listed as the helper for a zone, but she's not giving any area bonus, and I don't really know what I'm doing by being a Helper here.  I have not actually myself fought in this zone this round.

Basically...

When you press “Help Out!”, the game randomly chooses one territory your army can battle in. You get listed as a “Helper” for that territory.

Each territory has a count of the “Participants” in the battle for that round (the numbers that show up in red, blue, & green underneath the territory node on the map). The number of participants is the sum of unique people who have battled in that territory, or are helpers for that territory.

When a battle is completed, your raw score is the amount that you are shown in the post-battle results screen; ex. Fully completing an Infernal 2.0 with one stamina is 2000 points. If there is more than one participant in that territory, there is also a participation bonus applied, equal to +10% of the raw score you got for completing the map, per participant in that territory. So, using the full Infernal 2.0 completion example from before, in a territory with 8 participants, the final score added to that territory is 2000 * 1.8 = 3600.

The final score added to the territory you fight in is also the base score for the point value that radiates out to adjacent territories. So, if you’ve achieved GC Tier 20 (50% of score applied to neighboring territories), you would contribute 50% of your final score of 3600 to adjacent territories your army can fight in, as opposed to 50% of your raw score of 2000.

I’m not sure if participation bonuses are applied retroactively as well (i.e. if adding participants to a territory affects the score previously accumulated for that territory). I doubt it, though.

[Ice Dragon]

16 hours ago, Xenomata said:

Alm is pretty much the only "smart" user of it, and even he might prefer something a little more offensive to guarantee he gets kills with Double Lion Falchion, Chill Def comes to mind.

There's literally no point in using Windsweep on Alm when much better options like Chill Def, Dull Close, and Cancel Affinity exist, especially because it frees up his Sacred Seal slot to run something other than Phantom Spd.

@XRay The best use of Windsweep I can think of outside of daggers (and other debuffers) is Litrblade fliers to avoid taking counterattacks from Distant Counter and bows.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ice Dragon

[Rezzy]

17 hours ago, LordFrigid said:

Basically...

When you press “Help Out!”, the game randomly chooses one territory your army can battle in. You get listed as a “Helper” for that territory.

Each territory has a count of the “Participants” in the battle for that round (the numbers that show up in red, blue, & green underneath the territory node on the map). The number of participants is the sum of unique people who have battled in that territory, or are helpers for that territory.

When a battle is completed, your raw score is the amount that you are shown in the post-battle results screen; ex. Fully completing an Infernal 2.0 with one stamina is 2000 points. If there is more than one participant in that territory, there is also a participation bonus applied, equal to +10% of the raw score you got for completing the map, per participant in that territory. So, using the full Infernal 2.0 completion example from before, in a territory with 8 participants, the final score added to that territory is 2000 * 1.8 = 3600.

The final score added to the territory you fight in is also the base score for the point value that radiates out to adjacent territories. So, if you’ve achieved GC Tier 20 (50% of score applied to neighboring territories), you would contribute 50% of your final score of 3600 to adjacent territories your army can fight in, as opposed to 50% of your raw score of 2000.

I’m not sure if participation bonuses are applied retroactively as well (i.e. if adding participants to a territory affects the score previously accumulated for that territory). I doubt it, though.

Thank you, that's quite helpful.

If you battle at the same zone multiple times, does it count each time as a participant, or do you only count once no matter how many times?  And can you be a "Helper" for a zone you battle in yourself?

[Johann]

15 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

If you battle at the same zone multiple times, does it count each time as a participant, or do you only count once no matter how many times?  And can you be a "Helper" for a zone you battle in yourself?

It only counts towards the "troops" helping if you've battled there once, regardless of how much stamina you use. With that in mind, it can be beneficial for your team if you fight in many places, even with a single stamina in each, especially if there are already a ton of base points already. Consider this area from I think 2 GCs ago:

I only added a few points to the base, but my team's score in this area was so absurdly high that I actually contributed a large amount (as did that Reinhardt guy and the two other people who used Help Out). My team's base score here was actually 71,940 (including my own 1,480), but each one of us who fought or "helped out" each brought another 7,194 points to the area.

Using "Help Out" will always pick a location that you haven't fought at yet, so it's often best to save it until after you've done your fighting for that round.

[Rezzy]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

It only counts towards the "troops" helping if you've battled there once, regardless of how much stamina you use. With that in mind, it can be beneficial for your team if you fight in many places, even with a single stamina in each, especially if there are already a ton of base points already. Consider this area from I think 2 GCs ago:

I only added a few points to the base, but my team's score in this area was so absurdly high that I actually contributed a large amount (as did that Reinhardt guy and the two other people who used Help Out). My team's base score here was actually 71,940 (including my own 1,480), but each one of us who fought or "helped out" each brought another 7,194 points to the area.

Using "Help Out" will always pick a location that you haven't fought at yet, so it's often best to save it until after you've done your fighting for that round.

Good to know how that works.  I think I have your Cain on my Horse Brigade.

[Johann]

2 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Good to know how that works.  I think I have your Cain on my Horse Brigade.

Your Titania's been in my starting line-up for as long as I can remember, even when there aren't cavalry bonuses

[Ice Dragon]

@Johann Holy crap this is the first time I've seen that screen in English and the "till" in "No battling till the next round" triggers me to hell and back.

It's so horribly unprofessional.

[Vaximillian]

3 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

@Johann Holy crap this is the first time I've seen that screen in English and the "till" in "No battling till the next round" triggers me to hell and back.

It's so horribly unprofessional.

“Till” is a separate word and not an abbreviation of “until”. “Till” and “until” mean the same thing and are equally acceptable.

Your anger is misplaced this time.

[Ice Dragon]

1 hour ago, Vaximillian said:

“Till” is a separate word and not an abbreviation of “until”. “Till” and “until” mean the same thing and are equally acceptable.

Your anger is misplaced this time.

In the language that I am familiar with, "till" is more colloquial than the more formal "until", and I believe that to be an inappropriate place to use colloquial diction.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Ice Dragon

[Roflolxp54]

OK, so I've managed to pull a 2nd Legend Lyn and I want to merge my Legend Lyn copies. Which IVs are better?

+Def/-HP
+Spd/-Res (Res is a superbane)

[Garlyle]

So if I have my 5* unit levelled up to 40 and got all the skills I wanted to have(including weapon refinery and such), BUT I get the same hero with better IV and I want to merge the old one into it - what will I lose from the original?

[Humanoid]

2 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

So if I have my 5* unit levelled up to 40 and got all the skills I wanted to have(including weapon refinery and such), BUT I get the same hero with better IV and I want to merge the old one into it - what will I lose from the original?

The 39 levels. :P

 

EDIT: Learned skills remain learned and unlearned skills remain unlearned but available. You just have to reequip the skills.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Humanoid

[Vaximillian]

1 minute ago, Garlyle said:

So if I have my 5* unit levelled up to 40 and got all the skills I wanted to have(including weapon refinery and such), BUT I get the same hero with better IV and I want to merge the old one into it - what will I lose from the original?

SP. That’s it.

[Garlyle]

@Humanoid @Vaximillian Oh, that's it? Ok, I've got nothing against training sessions.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Garlyle

[DehNutCase]

47 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

In the language that I am familiar with, "till" is more colloquial than the more formal "until", and I believe that to be an inappropriate place to use colloquial diction.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/'til

 

Language changed to the point that till and til are informal, but until is to till what flammable is to inflammable. They were both originally the same damn thing until a whole bunch of people forgot where the words came from.

 

Edit: Mind, I'm not saying it's proper to use til or till in place of until, these days. I never use inflammable because there's a significant chance the other guy I'm talking to never opened a dictionary in their lives.

Flammable is the less 'proper' word, but it's by far the better word of the two because it's far less ambiguous (to the average person)---in enough time, inflammable will probably become a conjunction of 'in' and 'flammable' rather than a derivative of the Latin 'inflammare'.

Edited August 7, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

2 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Language changed to the point that till and til are informal, but until is to till what flammable is to inflammable. They were both originally the same damn thing until a whole bunch of people forgot where the words came from.

Diction is important in writing. "'Sup dawg. Ya can't fight here 'til the next round," while potentially funny and perfectly appropriate in colloquial spoken language, would be absurdly inappropriate to put there despite having the exact same meaning.

The comparison with "flammable" and "inflammable" is not the same at all. "Flammable" and "inflammable" are nearly perfect substitutes for each other, having the same denotations, connotations, and diction (the only real difference is that "inflammable" is more likely to be misunderstood). "Till" is of notably lower diction than "until", making a substitution not always equivalent.

[DehNutCase]

40 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Diction is important in writing. "'Sup dawg. Ya can't fight here 'til the next round," while potentially funny and perfectly appropriate in colloquial spoken language, would be absurdly inappropriate to put there despite having the exact same meaning.

The comparison with "flammable" and "inflammable" is not the same at all. "Flammable" and "inflammable" are nearly perfect substitutes for each other, having the same denotations, connotations, and diction (the only real difference is that "inflammable" is more likely to be misunderstood). "Till" is of notably lower diction than "until", making a substitution not always equivalent.

Incorrect.

'Till is the lower diction. Till is a proper word of itself.

Until is the combination of the norse 'und,' meaning as far as, and the norse 'till,' old english 'till,' or old english 'til.' 

 

'Till and 'til are derivates of until. Until is a derivative of till and til, both of which are far older than 'till and 'til, because they're either just as old or older than until.

 

In a similar fashion. Flammable is a derivative of inflammable.

Edit: Nevermind---flammare and inflammare are both Latin. They are both equally old.

 

Because which word is older is mistaken due to various reasons---'in' being a common english prefix, even though inflammable doesn't have a prefix, and 'till being a shorthand for until, despite till being a proper word of itself, causing people to think of till itself as a shorthand of 'till---people mistake the older, more proper word for the younger one.

 

If you bothered scrolling down in the link I posted, you would've seen this, but I'll just copy and paste instead:

Quote

till, 'til, or 'till?

People often ask which is the correct synonym of until: till, ’til, or ’till?

Many assume that till is an abbreviated form of until. Actually, it is a distinctive word that existed in English at least a century before until, both as a preposition meaning “to” and a conjunction meaning “until.” It has seen continuous use in English since the 12th century and is a perfectly legitimate synonym of until.

’Til and ’till are much newer words, having appeared in the language only in the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Both are variant spellings, either of until or of till. Writers of usage guides have roundly condemned ’till as a barbarism (apparently because it seems to have added a superfluous l to the end of until). ’Til, for its part, has been deemed inappropriate in formal writing.

 

Further, you and I disagree on how to use words in the first place:

I use them to communicate as clearly and succinctly as possible---it's not usually possible to have both, so I tend to err on the side of using more words, and saying the same thing multiple times.

 

You use words as 'powerfully' as possible, that is, to use as few words as possible to get the most meaning. Your usage of 'powercreep' is one such example. You use a very specific, very strong definition of the term---the term as it's used by game developers. The word is stronger that way, but it's also less clear---because the burden of knowledge to understand is far higher.

Personally I'm against using words like that, but it doesn't bother me because I use language rather than construct it. Choosing a meaning of a word, sticking to it, and convincing others to stick to it allows you to change the meaning of a word, but I don't bother with that because I'm perfectly fine using existing or easily understood meanings of words to communicate, and have no problems with people creating new words that are both succinct and clear.

 

'Robotics' is actually one such word. Robots existed before Asimov, robotics didn't. He invented the word, but it was clear from the moment it was first created that it meant 'the study of robots' in the same sense that kinetics is the study of physical force or electronics is the study of electrical devices.

Powercreep isn't such a word, not at the level of strength you're trying to use it at---if it was, you'd have a lot less arguments over its definition, believe me.

Edited August 7, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

2 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

'Till is the lower diction. Till is a proper word of itself.

"Proper words" are not exempt from having different diction.

"Since", when used to mean "because", is a proper word and is being used correctly, but has a lower diction when used with that meaning and is generally frowned upon for technical writing (largely because "because" is less ambiguous than "since"). "Due to the fact that" (which are also "proper words") is also frowned upon in technical writing for the opposite reason, being too formal (and also too wordy), but it fits fine in things like formal essays and lab reports (and also pads your word count nicely).

 

(In case it is not 100% clear, by "technical writing", I'm referring to "writing suitable for use in an instruction manual", which is what the original string in question falls under.)

 

20 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

If you bothered scrolling down in the link I posted, you would've seen this, but I'll just copy and paste instead:

I did, in fact, read that and promptly threw it out because it didn't address the point, which is diction and not being a "proper word", the two of which are most definitely not the same thing.

Furthermore, the age of a word is irrelevant in its present-day usage. "You", for example, was originally an honorific (and also plural), but has since evolved to become the standard second-person pronoun (both singular and plural).

[DehNutCase]

6 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

"Proper words" are not exempt from having different diction.

"Since", when used to mean "because", is a proper word and is being used correctly, but has a lower diction when used with that meaning and is generally frowned upon for technical writing (largely because "because" is less ambiguous than "since"). "Due to the fact that" (which are also "proper words") is also frowned upon in technical writing for the opposite reason, being too formal (and also too wordy), but it fits fine in things like formal essays and lab reports (and also pads your word count nicely).

The problem is that till being 'lower' is entirely because the people writing style guides stopped reading dictionaries.

(Also, is 'diction' supposed to be used this way? I always thought 'register' was the more specific term for the degree of formality of word choice, whereas diction is just what words you chose.)

 

Till's a little far gone at this point, but one fancy ass work of literature called 'Till death do us part' which never uses until where till would do and you'll have a certain type of style guide writer suggesting till in place of until.

6 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

(In case it is not 100% clear, by "technical writing", I'm referring to "writing suitable for use in an instruction manual", which is what the original string in question falls under.)

Fair. Mind, I think I'm a bit more forgiving of a reader than you---I'm fine with people using definitions decades or centuries out of date, if only because books can easily last decades or centuries.

6 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

I did, in fact, read that and promptly threw it out because it didn't address the point, which is diction and not being a "proper word", the two of which are most definitely not the same thing.

By proper word I meant: A word that is proper, that is, a high register word.

Not as in a word that's a word, that is, a word with a definition.

 

(Also, part of the confusion is that I haven't seen diction used in place of register before now, which meant I didn't quite understand you at first.)

6 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

Furthermore, the age of a word is irrelevant in its present-day usage. "You", for example, was originally an honorific (and also plural), but has since evolved to become the standard second-person pronoun (both singular and plural).

The age of a word very much affects how strong it is, though. Older words tends to be more specific and more easily understood than younger ones simply because they're in more books.

Because of that, I tend to like older words over younger ones as a rule---not an ironclad rule, mind, inflammable vs. flammable showcases a very good reason to use the word that seems lower in register. Inflammable used to be more popular and more formal, and then people stopped learning Latin, so now flammable is less ambiguous.

[Ice Dragon]

9 hours ago, Roflolxp54 said:

OK, so I've managed to pull a 2nd Legend Lyn and I want to merge my Legend Lyn copies. Which IVs are better?

+Def/-HP
+Spd/-Res (Res is a superbane)

I was going to answer this, but got caught up in my usual argument with a certain someone.

I'd probably go with [+Spd, -Res] unless that specifically loses you an important match-up. Lyn with -Res and the Distant Def 3 Sacred Seal and no buffs still survives standard maxed Reinhardt (albeit by only 2 HP), for example.

 

47 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

(Also, part of the confusion is that I haven't seen diction used in place of register before now, which meant I didn't quite understand you at first.)

47 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

(Also, is 'diction' supposed to be used this way? I always thought 'register' was the more specific term for the degree of formality of word choice, whereas diction is just what words you chose.)

"Diction" was the word I was taught in English class way back when. I hadn't heard of the word "register" used in this way before, but it seems it means the same as what I'm intending. As best as I can tell, "diction" is not inaccurate, just imprecise. (Either way, it's the word I grew up with, so it'll be the one I use.)

 

47 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

The problem is that till being 'lower' is entirely because the people writing style guides stopped reading dictionaries.

Dictionaries are strictly not prescriptive, though. They are descriptive of the language. Language will evolve with the speakers.

 

47 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Till's a little far gone at this point, but one fancy ass work of literature called 'Till death do us part' which never uses until where till would do and you'll have a certain type of style guide writer suggesting till in place of until.

That's a quotation from The Book of Common Prayer. And quotations from well-known works don't typically get updated to use more modern word choices or word order even as the times change. (Though they will sure as hell get misquoted to hell and back.)

 

47 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Fair. Mind, I think I'm a bit more forgiving of a reader than you---I'm fine with people using definitions decades or centuries out of date, if only because books can easily last decades or centuries.

I think the main difference is the fact that I do technical writing as part of my job, and I am very familiar with the word choices acceptable for technical writing.

Using definitions or word choices decades or centuries out of date is entirely reasonable for works written decades or centuries ago. They are not reasonable for writing done today unless the intent is to specifically look or sound old.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Ice Dragon

[DraceEmpressa]

Do equipping refined weapns gives higher SP cost in arena since it costs higher SP as well? 

[Ice Dragon]

3 minutes ago, DraceEmpressa said:

Do equipping refined weapns gives higher SP cost in arena since it costs higher SP as well? 

Yes for inheritable weapons. No for uninheritable weapons (because they cost the same SP).

Edited August 7, 2018 by Ice Dragon