FE9 Tier List

[Florete]

Top

Ike

Titania

Rhys

Mist

Garbage

Bastian

Lucia

Mia

--This list assumes maximal room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.)

What is this I don't even

No seriously, how the fuck can you make a tier list that "assumes maximal room for player error?" How the hell can you quantify that?

...Are you guys trolling us again?

[Reikken]

Sounds like you're the one trolling, cursing up a storm. If you have disagreements and reasoning for them, please voice them. preferably without flames.

And no, it's not quantified. Indeed, it can't be quantified. There's only so much that can really be quantified, afterall. Instead, it's qualified. Again, if you have disagreements, voice them.

Rhys's healing does make earlygame easier...but if we're so error prone we can't keep him from dying right (if we can't protect Marcia from bows, we sure as hell can't protect Rhys from more than one enemy).

It's much easier to keep a healer out of danger and still have him do his job. Soren has to be at least 2 cells from an enemy (or 1 cell depending on how you measure it). Rhys can be much farther away. In the worst case scenario, Rhy is also 2 (or 1) cells away from the enemy, with the person he's healing right next to the enemy and Rhys right behind. More often, he's farther away. For instance, you can heal before the unit moves in to attack the next enemy. If worst comes to worst, you can even have the injured unit retreat to be healed. If they're mounted, this isn't even much of a problem.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Reikken

[Crimson_Edge]

Then why are Rhys and Mist so high? They are very prone to errors, since they also get 2RKOd. If the player is so error-prone they cannot protect Marcia from bows, they shouldn't be able to protect Rhys and Mist either.

Healer utility serves early on to counterbalance any sort of negative gained from using the two; indeed they do die easily, but much like Reyson, their absence is sorely missed. If they didn’t die easily, they would be Top Tier for their healer utility. Plus, healers don’t need to be in range of enemy attacks in order to heal; attackers like Soren do, so the player is in a much worse position if forced to use Soren than if forced to use Rhys.

It's not just Rhys and Mist either. If we assume the player is too stupid to know how to use BEXP, Makalov and Astrid should be lower as well, since we have to be smart enough to put the KW on them and BEXP them for them not to be useless.

The player may use BEXP, but may not use it most efficiently--without knowledge of a unit’s growths (or with unit mismanagament), a player could distribute his BEXP equally out among all units with the notion of being fair (note that this is preferable to treating one unit unfairly at any rate). And yes, Astrid and Makalov are a good bit lower than normal because nowhere in the game does it ever say that Knight Ward grants Speed growth to units--the average player has no way of knowing this information, and so the Knight Ward tactic does not apply to units such as Brom, Astrid, or Makalov. Of course, Astrid and Makalov are fairly decent without the Knight Ward--they simply aren’t top/high tier.

Mordecai takes several turns to transform though, and untransformed Mordecai is not very useful (he can Smite, but with his low untransformed Mov that's not helping much anyway). Smiting can be handy, but can often be replaced by any two unmounted units, which makes it less special.

He has worse stats than Titania actually, only 11 AS at base, which means he's going to drop out of doubling range pretty quickly.

Smite in Chapter 10 to gain you maximum BEXP is unique, an advantage that Kieran cannot replicate. What does Kieran ever have over, say, another unit such as Jill, that is as large of an advantage as Mordecai's advantage in this one chapter is? Mordecai’s absence affects the team more greatly than does Kieran’s absence.

And no, Mordecai’s stats are pretty awesome when he joins. To continue the comparison to Kieran, behold:

2 Mordecai

31 Atk, 119 Hit, 6 Crit, 11 AS | 41 HP, 32 Avo, 16 Def, 7 Res

12/0 Kieran

Iron Axe: 19 Atk, 99 Hit, 5 Crit, 12 AS | 30 HP, 32 Avo, 10 Def, 1 Res

Steel Axe: 22 Atk, 89 Hit, 5 Crit, 8 AS | 30 HP, 24 Avo, 10 Def, 1 Res

He loses only in AS, but even when Kieran doubles and he doesn’t, Mordecai can still be doing more damage. Sure, there are turns when he’s untransformed until you get the Demi Band, but early chapters are also short, so he’s not a whole lot worse off during those chapters than Lethe is.

Also, Titania has 35.4 HP and 12.2 Def at 20/4. Untransformed Mordecai at base has 41 HP and 13.0 Def. And Mordecai has significantly more Atk even when Titania is using Steel Axe (even Lethe beats her in Atk, I believe).

[Progenitus]

"It was debated primarily by Solid and Reikken, with secondary opinions provided by other debaters such as myself, smash fanatic, and Paperblade. At this point it is believed to be reasonably accurate, and therefore we are now posting it and opening it up to general discussion."

Yeah, that helps explain Mia's position. They must love this.

...Are you guys trolling us again?

Fox disagrees with us, and instead of defending her viewpoint, she labels us as trolls.

Typical.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Reikken]

@Weapons:

iirc Ashnard is an idiot and always attacks at melee range, or at least on those who can damage him.

@Narga:

Indeed, Ike is not immune to the exp distribution opportunity cost that applies to everyone who fights, just the more significant unit slot cost. I overlooked that. Is that enough to put him below Titania? maybe. But it's certainly not enough to put him below anyone else.

And no, it's pretty obvious that fielding more units is more helpful than fielding fewer. You don't need to be good at the game to see that much.

[Florete]

Sounds like you're the one trolling, cursing up a storm.

Using the word "fuck" is now cursing up a storm? Sorry I dirtied your tier topic with my vulgar fingers.

And no, it's not quantified. Indeed, it can't be quantified. There's only so much that can really be quantified, afterall. Instead, it's qualified. Again, if you have disagreements, voice them.

How can you tier units based on that? As Interceptor pointed out, there are a million stupid things you can do in this game to positively or negatively affect performance. Then if you follow this:

I’m skeptical about resets ever being permissible in any sort of tier list or debate environment, simply because if allowed, the player can simply say “I will restart all my chapters until my units get perfect level-ups” and then statistical comparisons between units become relatively meaningless. Theoretically, you can thus give Mia perfect stats by restarting every chapter as many times as possible until her level-ups approach perfection. This doesn’t fly. At the very least resets need to be put at a minimum, but considering that this yields a contradiction, I’m personally against them entirely (unless Ike dies, which forces a reset).

Mist and Rhys obviously need to drop to the very bottom, and Ike ought to drop as well for possibly forcing you to reset the game. Since the rules also state: --Unit absence is considered over unit presence; in other words, the question is “which unit’s absence would hurt turn count more?” not “which unit’s presence benefits turn count more?” So, in Unit A vs. Unit B, Unit A being in play means Unit B isn’t; both can’t be on the team. I don't see how Ike not using a unit slot is such an advantage considering anyone else's team just won't use him, and it's not as if you need to use max deployment for the best turn counts (and Ike is not needed for the best turn counts either).

Fox disagrees with us, and instead of defending her viewpoint, she labels us as trolls.

Typical.

With some of what I've seen in the past from CATS and Solid, and with what I know about how you and Paperblade feel about this forum's general debate community? I wouldn't be surprised. And really, should I?

[Narga_Rocks]

@Weapons:

iirc Ashnard is an idiot and always attacks at melee range, or at least on those who can damage him.

I surround him with Ike + dragon + 2 other units. Take a guess who he attacks.

@Narga:

Indeed, Ike is not immune to the exp distribution opportunity cost that applies to everyone who fights, just the more significant unit slot cost. I overlooked that. Is that enough to put him below Titania? maybe. But it's certainly not enough to put him below anyone else.

And no, it's pretty obvious that fielding more units is more helpful than fielding fewer. You don't need to be good at the game to see that much.

And yet, a bunch of us think that 8 units + healers is more efficient in this game. Clearly, there is disagreement in this matter. You might as well make the rule, then, if you want to enforce full deployment. A player could easily decide to use less than max.

[Reikken]

Does your "8 units + healers" involve leaving unit slots completely empty? Of course not. Even if you're not really leveling them and are instead focusing exp on just a few, it's easy to see that having competent units like Calill or Mordecai to help out whenever is better than having a slot completely unused.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Reikken

[Crimson_Edge]

Indeed, what Reikken just said. Having a 3-10 range Tome user like Calill even if you're not actually focusing EXP on her is obviously better than having an entirely empty unit slot, even if you're using fewer than maximum units.

I can see Ike going below Titania; I fail to see how he goes any lower than that.

Ike forcing you to reset has no bearing on his performance. If anything, that just maks his absence hurt more since he'll be on a lower level and you'll have to protect him in order not to reset

[Narga_Rocks]

Does your "8 units + healers" involve leaving unit slots completely empty? Of course not. Even if you're not really leveling them and are instead focusing exp on just a few, it's easy to see that having competent units like Calill or Mordecai to help out whenever is better than having a slot completely unused.

But it means that using Oscar instead of some random utility unit isn't hurting nearly as much as was implied before by dropping his utility down to 10% of normal. It makes it possible for other units to beat Ike aside from Titania.

[Crimson_Edge]

But it means that using Oscar instead of some random utility unit isn't hurting nearly as much as was implied before by dropping his utility down to 10% of normal. It makes it possible for other units to beat Ike aside from Titania.

That's IF the player uses fewer than maximum deployment slots--in this case, it's arguable which is better.

If the player doesn't, it isn't arguable.

Clearly, Ike remains the victor overall.

But Titania rising above him seems reasonable.

[Narga_Rocks]

That's IF the player uses fewer than maximum deployment slots--in this case, it's arguable which is better.

If the player doesn't, it isn't arguable.

True. The player can reasonably use anything from X - Y units to X units if X is maximum deployment and Y isn't too large. Anything too low (like 6 total or something) is obviously not happening for a normal player, and you could argue that half the players will use X units even if X-3, X-2, X-1 are all options.

Hmm, I think Vykan would like this particular tier list as well. It doesn't optimize anything and tries to account for the player doing retarded things, which he's always supported. Too bad you guys didn't do this before he got sick of tier lists.

Forgot about this earlier.

It's much easier to keep a healer out of danger and still have him do his job. Soren has to be at least 2 cells from an enemy (or 1 cell depending on how you measure it). Rhys can be much farther away. In the worst case scenario, Rhy is also 2 (or 1) cells away from the enemy, with the person he's healing right next to the enemy and Rhys right behind. More often, he's farther away. For instance, you can heal before the unit moves in to attack the next enemy. If worst comes to worst, you can even have the injured unit retreat to be healed. If they're mounted, this isn't even much of a problem.

Except it's pretty simple to see if there is a bow user nearby. I don't see how it is any easier to keep Rhys from getting attacked unexpectedly than it is to prevent Marcia from getting attacked unexpectedly by a bow. Sure, Rhys is kept further from the front lines, but you could still leave a hole in your wall by accident. The only excuse for either is simply not paying attention. It seems rather arbitrary to state that you would pay attention to Rhys but not Marcia.

Also, "For instance, you can heal before the unit moves in to attack the next enemy."

Yes, this is a common tactic to heal a unit and keep your healer out of danger. But what if you screw up and attack first? Then Rhys needs to go up and heal and you need to set up your other units in a wall around Rhys and he's really close to the front lines and if you screw up and think that a couple of enemies can't reach him when they can he up and dies. I don't see how it's much different than not paying attention to the nearby bow units. Let's see. You are using a flier, you know they are weak to bows. Why wouldn't you pay attention?

There are an infinite number of ways to play stupidly. It seems that you are just drawing the line where you feel like it in order to raise certain units while lowering others.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[CATS]

What is this I don't even

No seriously, how the fuck can you make a tier list that "assumes maximal room for player error?" How the hell can you quantify that?

...Are you guys trolling us again?

Please keep discussion civil and do not engage in pointless flaming or accusations of trolling. If you find the list to be so hopelessly flawed, I encourage you to discuss and attempt to show what is so horribly wrong. Calling something ridiculous, without actual discussion, is pointless.

Criticizing the conditions of the tier list on the basis that they cannot be objectively represented? But you must realize that this is not something unique to the conditions of this list. A great many of the topics discussed in tier lists are ultimately subjective. Is a second healer really more useful than an eighth fighter? Does flying utility outweigh large advantages in raw combat ability? If these issues were entirely objective and easily defined, discussion would've died out long ago as such questions would've been simple and quickly answered. The fact that something is subjective does not prevent it from being included in discussion.

In the case of assuming an imperfect player, there are certain distinctions which are fairly obvious and easily made. For example, the assumption that the player does not know the growth rates of his units or the exact details of his items (with the Knight Ward being the best example); in other words, the assumption is that the player does not have access to, or does not utilize, resources beyond the game disc itself in order to acquire information about the game mechanics.

Beyond this, while certainly there are an infinite number of ways to play stupidly, some ways are stupider than others, so to speak. Yes, it is possible for a stupid player to get Gatrie killed, however this hardly means that his durability advantage over Mia is irrelevant; in this case the fact that Gatrie has an advantage can be demonstrated by pointing out that Gatrie is more difficult to kill, and that it generally requires a stupider player to get him killed than it does to get someone like Mia killed. This mentality can then be applied to discussion in a general sense. Will all issues with it be easily resolved? Certainly not, but this does not mean that the condition itself is not viable. After all, if it were the case that everything were black-and-white and easily defined, discussion would be stale, boring and pointless.

[Reikken]

Except it's pretty simple to see if there is a bow user nearby.

Bows are not an instant fail for Marcia. She's still relatively high for a unit that has nothing that she is best at.

[Narga_Rocks]

Please keep discussion civil and do not engage in pointless flaming or accusations of trolling. If you find the list to be so hopelessly flawed, I encourage you to discuss and attempt to show what is so horribly wrong. Calling something ridiculous, without actual discussion, is pointless.

Criticizing the conditions of the tier list on the basis that they cannot be objectively represented? But you must realize that this is not something unique to the conditions of this list. A great many of the topics discussed in tier lists are ultimately subjective. Is a second healer really more useful than an eighth fighter? Does flying utility outweigh large advantages in raw combat ability? If these issues were entirely objective and easily defined, discussion would've died out long ago as such questions would've been simple and quickly answered. The fact that something is subjective does not prevent it from being included in discussion.

In the case of assuming an imperfect player, there are certain distinctions which are fairly obvious and easily made. For example, the assumption that the player does not know the growth rates of his units or the exact details of his items (with the Knight Ward being the best example); in other words, the assumption is that the player does not have access to, or does not utilize, resources beyond the game disc itself in order to acquire information about the game mechanics.

Beyond this, while certainly there are an infinite number of ways to play stupidly, some ways are stupider than others, so to speak. Yes, it is possible for a stupid player to get Gatrie killed, however this hardly means that his durability advantage over Mia is irrelevant; in this case the fact that Gatrie has an advantage can be demonstrated by pointing out that Gatrie is more difficult to kill, and that it generally requires a stupider player to get him killed than it does to get someone like Mia killed. This mentality can then be applied to discussion in a general sense. Will all issues with it be easily resolved? Certainly not, but this does not mean that the condition itself is not viable. After all, if it were the case that everything were black-and-white and easily defined, discussion would be stale, boring and pointless.

As Interceptor has pointed out countless times, of course there are subjective things that are discussed. The question here would be whether there is a point in adding even more subjective things on top of it. The information on the game disc only is an objective rule, so while I don't think it is a good rule, it is certainly an option for tiering (I think it's more interesting to see which units are best when the player tries to squeeze out everything the game has to give, rather than simply which units are better in a random playthrough by Joe-Know-Nothing). Adding more subjective rules, however, like stating a player is good enough to protect Rhys but not good enough to keep Marcia away from bows, is pointless. Cutting out as many subjective things as possible is helpful.

Also,

"Yes, it is possible for a stupid player to get Gatrie killed, however this hardly means that his durability advantage over Mia is irrelevant; in this case the fact that Gatrie has an advantage can be demonstrated by pointing out that Gatrie is more difficult to kill, and that it generally requires a stupider player to get him killed than it does to get someone like Mia killed."

sounds like it awards durability more than offence. I don't really see a need for that. Each unit has a niche, and being better at offence when there are multiple units around that can sit on enemy phase and take on 8 enemies has meaning. If you have 8 really durable units but only 3 or 4 units are particularly good at offence, it seems like all 8 of the durable units will end up above any units with good offence and less durability simply because if the player sucks he can more easily grind his way through a map by abusing the durability of his most durable units. This is basically focusing on a playstyle that is very different from powering through maps efficiently, since the other option is to position his units so that the units better at offence can face exactly what they can survive (or are like 99.5% likely to survive) and then heal as needed and keep going, rather than just randomly place his 8 tough-guys that 2or3RKO everything and slowly truck his way through the map. Sure, Gatrie is less likely to get killed by a "stupid player", but should that really be meaningful?

[Reikken]

The game itself rewards durability more than offense. Only when the player doesn't make mistakes or allows resets on death are they balanced. Lacking in offense means what? You lose a few turns. Lacking in defense means what? You can't be as aggressive, meaning you lose a few turns. But then when the possibility of making mistakes is introduced, now lacking in defense can also mean death.

Adding more subjective rules, however, like stating a player is good enough to protect Rhys but not good enough to keep Marcia away from bows, is pointless.

No such rule exists. I do not know how you formed such a misconception.

EDIT:

If you have 8 really durable units but only 3 or 4 units are particularly good at offence, it seems like all 8 of the durable units will end up above any units with good offence and less durability simply because if the player sucks he can more easily grind his way through a map by abusing the durability of his most durable units. This is basically focusing on a playstyle that is very different from powering through maps efficiently, since the other option is to position his units so that the units better at offence can face exactly what they can survive (or are like 99.5% likely to survive) and then heal as needed and keep going, rather than just randomly place his 8 tough-guys that 2or3RKO everything and slowly truck his way through the map. Sure, Gatrie is less likely to get killed by a "stupid player", but should that really be meaningful?

Marcia is placed well above Brom, is she not? You're way overreacting. Defense is not the be-all end-all of this list. It is simply increased in value as compared to most other tier lists.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Reikken

[Narga_Rocks]

No such rule exists. I do not know how you formed such a misconception.

Oh?

And sure units can die. If the player makes one mistake (not a giant mistake), Marcia can be placed in front of a bow user and suffer death; this possibility never exists with Tauroneo or Mordecai. This is clearly an advantage for those units, and not a slight one. Additionally, the average player won't always have ideal support set-ups (or even be able to play units in a way so as to always have bonuses in play), so durability matters more than usual. Obviously the player is not perfect. We aren't assuming that the player cannot play the game--we are merely accounting for the possibility of errors.

The only justification for Rhys being so high and Crimson Edge's statement to have any relevance for your list is if what I stated is true about the list. I noticed you didn't dispute his statement here. Okay, so you can say it isn't a "rule", per se, but it seems to be an accepted result that "a player is good enough to protect Rhys but not good enough to keep Marcia away from bows".

My point here is merely that bow users restrict Marcia's move, nothing more. They do not cause her to die randomly because the player is incompetent. Other units have the advantage of extra flexibility because they can occasionally go where Marcia can't, but they shouldn't have the added advantage that a stupid player finds it harder to get them killed.

Marcia is placed well above Brom, is she not? You're way overreacting. Defense is not the be-all end-all of this list. It is simply increased in value as compared to most other tier lists.

Marcia isn't the only unit in the game with more offence than defence. I'm assuming flight and move and canto allow her to be above him even on this list. Plus she's under units like Mordecai and the royals of all things.

[Kinata]

About Marcia in arrows, isn't Marcia the best candidate for the full guard?

And about the Resolve argument from like a page ago, Ike doesn't need wrath or aether. Ike with Resolve can defeat Ashnard in one turn easily, which makes the royals essentially useless.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Kinata

[Reikken]

To deny that she can indeed be accidentally killed by a bow is to deny a basic premise of this tier list. Rhys can also accidentally be killed. Neither flaw drags them excessively far down because Rhys isn't one-rounded by enemies and Marcia isn't one-rounded by bows, but it does indeed make them a fair bit worse than they otherwise would be. It may appear that Rhys is lowered less than Marcia is, but that is largely because the gaps between units are greater lnear the top of this list. Raising/lowering them by the same amount would have Rhys rising/dropping a smaller number of spaces. Additionally, bows aren't the only things that Marcia can die to.

The full guard doesn't exist until the end of ch 16. Also, Marcia may not get it, or it may even be missed; it's quite missable afterall, especially when going for a low turn-count.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Reikken

[Anouleth]

This entire tier list is insane. 'Maximal room for player error'? Does this mean that Rhys can't get Physic staves stolen? Does this mean we consider the possibility that Stefan isn't recruited? However about the dozen other characters that are optional to recruit? What about the Knight Ward? Does the player accidentally sell it in a fit of stupidity? How about accidentally leaving untransformed Mordy in the range of enemies? I think Int summed this up in the second post:

There are an almost infinite number of ways to play terribly in this game, such that they drown out the good ones by sheer numbers. Where do you draw the dividing line?

This list was discussed and debated at length over an instant-messaging chatroom system. It was debated primarily by Solid and Reikken, with secondary opinions provided by other debaters such as myself, smash fanatic, and Paperblade. At this point it is believed to be reasonably accurate, and therefore we are now posting it and opening it up to general discussion. Note that the conditions of the list differ from the given conditions of previous lists, though not excessively so.

I am posting the list because I was elected by a committee of five other debaters in a chatroom to be the most qualified person to run and control the tier list.

Feel free to commence discussion.

Why bother? I'm sure your little shadowy cabal is capable of making all the important decisions yourselves, without having to ask opinions from the great unwashed.

The game itself rewards durability more than offense. Only when the player doesn't make mistakes or allows resets on death are they balanced. Lacking in offense means what? You lose a few turns. Lacking in defense means what? You can't be as aggressive, meaning you lose a few turns. But then when the possibility of making mistakes is introduced, now lacking in defense can also mean death.

It depends on what standard you use for durability. Gatrie is facing crit rates from Thunder Mages and Sages forever, and if the player is too stupid to use the Knight Ward, they can double him as well. Yet your tier list has him quite high.

Seizing and recruiting have nothing to do with it; Ike is the best unit in the game simply because he doesn’t consume a unit slot. This is a massive advantage that, coupled with his already enormous stats, makes him better than everyone by a tier except Titania (who might be arguable, since her absence affects the earlygame greatly). Suppose I have a choice between using Oscar who uses a unit slot and Ike who does not. The team with Ike can add another attacker, such as, suppose, Nephenee. The team with Oscar cannot add any additional units because Oscar is replacing someone. So now in battle, the worst-case scenario is that Ike and Nephenee both attack an enemy and one-round it, and Oscar one-rounds something—the best-case scenario is that Ike and Nephenee both one-round an enemy, and Oscar one-rounds something. Clearly the part of the team with Ike and Nephenee, even when they fail to do what Oscar can do combined together, is at the very least no worse off and at the very best twice as good as the part of the team with just Oscar. And in reality the gap is even wider since Ike’s stats are very good.

It’s simple really. Ike’s value is 100% of his value; Oscar’s value is 100% - opportunity cost of losing another good unit (who can perhaps be put at 90% value). Ike beats everyone clearly except possibly Titania.

You beg the question here. Can Ike take credit for the work of another unit? If we're comparing Ike + one other unit to ANYONE, Ike can obviously go above Titania, because we're comparing Ike+Titania to Titania. And you could apply the same logic to any forced unit, anywhere. I guess Hector should be at the top of his tier list too, since Hector+Raven is obviously always going to be better than Raven.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Anouleth

[Narga_Rocks]

Out of curiosity, have any of you spoken to Inui about this list? I'd think he would at least want Rhys to drop below Mist.

[CATS]

As Interceptor has pointed out countless times, of course there are subjective things that are discussed. The question here would be whether there is a point in adding even more subjective things on top of it. The information on the game disc only is an objective rule, so while I don't think it is a good rule, it is certainly an option for tiering (I think it's more interesting to see which units are best when the player tries to squeeze out everything the game has to give, rather than simply which units are better in a random playthrough by Joe-Know-Nothing). Adding more subjective rules, however, like stating a player is good enough to protect Rhys but not good enough to keep Marcia away from bows, is pointless. Cutting out as many subjective things as possible is helpful.

I disagree. As stated already, the objective and easily defined is also easily settled and decided. Hence, reducing subjective factors stifles discussion to a certain extent. And is discussion not the ultimate purpose of the tier list topic?

sounds like it awards durability more than offence. I don't really see a need for that. Each unit has a niche, and being better at offence when there are multiple units around that can sit on enemy phase and take on 8 enemies has meaning. If you have 8 really durable units but only 3 or 4 units are particularly good at offence, it seems like all 8 of the durable units will end up above any units with good offence and less durability simply because if the player sucks he can more easily grind his way through a map by abusing the durability of his most durable units.

From where do you deduce that I was attempting to prove durability > offense?

This is basically focusing on a playstyle that is very different from powering through maps efficiently, since the other option is to position his units so that the units better at offence can face exactly what they can survive (or are like 99.5% likely to survive) and then heal as needed and keep going, rather than just randomly place his 8 tough-guys that 2or3RKO everything and slowly truck his way through the map.

And yet clearly the topic does not care for maximum-efficiency "playstyles." Realize that this mentality is simply an artificial constraint to guide discussion, in the same way that the traditional "efficiency" tier list encourages a minimum turncount. If you dislike it, then you are free to that opinion, but I hardly see how you can prove that it is not a viable condition for discussions, nor do I see why it is at all undesirable.

Sure, Gatrie is less likely to get killed by a "stupid player", but should that really be meaningful?

That depends, I suppose. Do you think Gatrie's defensive advantage should be meaningful?

---

Why bother? I'm sure your little shadowy cabal is capable of making all the important decisions yourselves, without having to ask opinions from the great unwashed.

lol, I see that you missed the point in those passages.

Ofcourse we want opinions. It is why the list was posted. What is not wanted are pointless flames devoid of any actual content or discussion, such as "This entire tier list is insane."

[Inui]

I'll address some of these issues for now.

Seizing and recruiting have nothing to do with it; Ike is the best unit in the game simply because he doesn’t consume a unit slot. This is a massive advantage that, coupled with his already enormous stats, makes him better than everyone by a tier except Titania (who might be arguable, since her absence affects the earlygame greatly). Suppose I have a choice between using Oscar who uses a unit slot and Ike who does not. The team with Ike can add another attacker, such as, suppose, Nephenee. The team with Oscar cannot add any additional units because Oscar is replacing someone. So now in battle, the worst-case scenario is that Ike and Nephenee both attack an enemy and one-round it, and Oscar one-rounds something—the best-case scenario is that Ike and Nephenee both one-round an enemy, and Oscar one-rounds something. Clearly the part of the team with Ike and Nephenee, even when they fail to do what Oscar can do combined together, is at the very least no worse off and at the very best twice as good as the part of the team with just Oscar. And in reality the gap is even wider since Ike’s stats are very good.

It’s simple really. Ike’s value is 100% of his value; Oscar’s value is 100% - opportunity cost of losing another good unit (who can perhaps be put at 90% value). Ike beats everyone clearly except possibly Titania.

My problem with this argument is that the choice does not exist. The choice to not field Ike doesn't exist, so it's not a point for or against him. He's taking up a unit slot that he and only he can take up. Fielding someone else over him doesn't mean you suddenly can't use another unit because the choice does not exist. There is no "Ike's absence means you lose Ike + someone else" or something due to the option never existing.

Ike's forced deployment in the midgame is actually annoying. He's often ramming 20/0, so giving him kills is kinda pointless, and he gets surpassed by most of your team during that time.

[CATS]

There are 12 deployment slots available and the player seeks to utilize all of them.

Team A uses Ike. Team A has 12 units.

Team B does not use Ike, keeps him away from combat, and keeps him at his base level. Team B has 11 units.

The team that used Ike does indeed have an extra unit.

[Reikken]

This entire tier list is insane. 'Maximal room for player error'? Does this mean that Rhys can't get Physic staves stolen? Does this mean we consider the possibility that Stefan isn't recruited? However about the dozen other characters that are optional to recruit? What about the Knight Ward? Does the player accidentally sell it in a fit of stupidity? How about accidentally leaving untransformed Mordy in the range of enemies?

I assume you haven't read the posts made in response to these kinds of comments. Perhaps more clarification should be edited into the first post so that people won't miss it.

To answer each question, though...

physics- He can, but not always. Stolen physics are only given partial weight, as it generally requires use of Volke to get them (ie one specific unit), as well as not killing certain enemies until he gets to them.

stefan- When not talking about Stefan's own placement on the list, yes. He generally will not be recruited, given how incredibly obscure he is.

knight ward- Astrid usually dies on the first turn of hard mode unless you shove Ike two spaces or something like that, so it often does not exist anyway. As for selling it in a fit of stupidity, if by that you mean "Hm, I don't want +2 def/res on Kieran as much as I want +5 atk on this silver lance that I don't have the money for at the moment, so I'll sell this", then yes. Or "Brom doesn't need more def/res", not knowing that it increases speed growth as it's never mentioned anywhere in the game, then also yes. However, if by that you mean "LOLOL SELL GOOD ITAM", then no, clearly not.

mordecai- Moving him forward to be attacked by several enemies? No, not happening. Occasionally not noticing that an enemy or two can still reach him even though he's behind other allied units? Sure.

It depends on what standard you use for durability. Gatrie is facing crit rates from Thunder Mages and Sages forever, and if the player is too stupid to use the Knight Ward, they can double him as well. Yet your tier list has him quite high.

Oh can they? That's a valid point and worth looking into.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Reikken