FE9 Tier List

[Anouleth]

Everyone but Ike down. If Ike dies, it forces a reset, so the player is 100% guaranteed to use him, but other units can die and the player can continue without them, so they're not guaranteed in the same way he is.

If we're going to remove Stefan on the basis that he may not be recruited, we should penalise other units on the basis they might die.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

The reverse happens to people like Astrid

Astrid's a pretty bad example due to the fact that she has Paragon, meaning that she will catch up to the rest of your team very easily. She doesn't even have to get the killing blow to get a decent XP gain. A better example would be Rolf.

[dondon151]

All prepromotes down, lower leveled units up. Why? Because players see these strong guys (Titania, Stefan, Tanith, etc) and think they're gonna be awful, so they don't use them to their full potential. The reverse happens to people like Astrid and Sothe, they get babied to the point where they have to be useful.

How would they know this? I know for sure that I didn't start favoring growth units until I read misinformed character guides that said "oh Titania sucks because bad growths but Tormod is gr8."

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

You know, I just realized another scenario regarding pre-promotes. The assumed player could have absolutely NO knowledge of growth-rates and just fill their team up with pre-promotes just because some of them start off with stats somewhat higher compared to most of the un-promoted units at the time.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

You know, I just realized another scenario regarding pre-promotes. The assumed player could have absolutely NO knowledge of growth-rates and just fill their team up with pre-promotes just because some of them start off with stats somewhat higher compared to most of the un-promoted units at the time.

Not much of an issue here in Steroid Land (Tellius).

The whole "Prepromotes should go down because most people will go for growth rate units" may be inaccurate as that growth rate mindset was dominant when FE7 first came out and now that's not the case (heck in this forum it seems to be a minority).

Edited March 16, 2010 by Speedwagon

[CATS]

Why is it us that should be debating under these conditions? I know a few people (like Vykan, Paperblade, Interceptor) who are considered to be tactically proficient, and some other people (Colonel_M, smash, etc.) who aren't exactly the best when it comes to strategic perfection, but I'm sure that everyone who is taken seriously in a tier list topic has some significant degree of tactical proficiency in the game. Then, why do we have to pretend like we're all stupid to an arbitrary degree? I am not going to make that assumption, because that's not how I play.

If you had the FE6 version of the list, I'd consider actions like dropping units across the gap in chapter 8x, dropping units over the mountain in chapter 15, and using like 6 rescue chains every turn on chapter 24, but you'd be allowed to handwave all of that strategic gold because apparently the average player does not have enough neurons firing in his brain to even conceive of it. That is complete bullshit. Stupidity is not an excuse to sandbag units, apart from the fact that it simply does not make any economical sense to not take the most profitable actions possible. Now, the average player might have a smaller scope of what the most profitable actions are, but that does not excuse the tier list from having a similar limited scope.

It seems to me that the tier list evolves as more information is made accessible to the people involved in making it. Item statistics, availability, enemy statistics, strategies, etc. are all made more available as time progresses. Adhering by the standard that this tier list sets is like willingly sending civilization back to the Stone Age. Or, if you'll permit me to make a TTGL reference, I hereby declare CATS to be the leader of the Fire Emblem Anti-Spirals, hindering tier list progress for fear of the destruction of the Fire Emblem universe.

The kind of person whose input should be taken seriously in this tier list is this guy. He should run this list. We can sit around pretending to be the kinds of players we really aren't, but we can't possibly come close to the real thing.

So what? The list assuming a competent player exists and this topic doesn't pretend that it's the "official" tier list or superior to other lists or anything like that. If you don't like this premise, you don't have to post in this topic. And I didn't come up with this condition, others thought of it, they just all pointed at me to post the list and make edits. PM Reikken if you care that much about it.

Honestly, I think this tier list is a terrible idea. Simply because tier lists are mainly made for maximum efficiency. As I've said, there's no such thing as "normal"/"retarded" efficiency when it comes to tier list debating. All these assumptions just ruin the entire point of a tier list.

This is the same as me coming into a max efficiency list and saying "This is retarded, guys, a tier list is made to rank characters based on how cool their hairstyle is. I think this tier list is a terrible idea." Why should I care what you think a tier list should be? If you want something else, go make your own list or post in a different one. Posting your opinion here is worthless. And ironically, there are quite a few people who would beg to differ when you say "tier lists are mainly made for maximum efficiency."

Sure, for the most part there's nothing wrong with making tier lists with different standards but really, this tier list is assuming the player is either mentally retarded, brand new, or just a VERY casual FE player that could give a damn about efficiency.

Brand new? Mentally retarded? Where is this coming from? Is there some magic text in the OP which only you can see, and I can't, which says these things?

And honestly, why does this rule even exist? What exactly is the purpose of it?

Someone else wanted it, I don't remember who. So I dunno.

[dondon151]

So what? The list assuming a competent player exists

No, it doesn't. Aside from there being several degrees of competency, the player being portrayed here seems to be anything but competent. All of the information that he has is from one relatively cursory glance at the game. I don't think you can expect much out of this player. If his competency weren't in question, dissenters wouldn't be coming into this topic and suggesting that the player doesn't know how to recruit characters.

and this topic doesn't pretend that it's the "official" tier list or superior to other lists or anything like that.

Yes, it does. You say in the OP that you were "chosen by a committee of 5 other people in a chatroom" or whatnot. You were implying that since this tier list has backing from the big players (I can probably list at least 3 of them off the top of my head, though if I ran through the entire memberbase of FEF I would probably come across all 5 eventually), then it is more legitimate than other tier lists.

If you don't like this premise, you don't have to post in this topic. And I didn't come up with this condition, others thought of it, they just all pointed at me to post the list and make edits. PM Reikken if you care that much about it.

I want to make it known exactly why I believe this premise to be pointless. Furthermore, I am in the dark as much as anyone else with regards to what we can and can't argue given these constraints. If you can't respond to criticism and hammer out your guidelines until they are crystal-clear, then that's your loss.

[CATS]

No, it doesn't.

So this list:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16443

Doesn't assume a competent player? In that case, it still doesn't matter, since that leaves you free to go make the Perfect Player Tier List if you want to.

Aside from there being several degrees of competency, the player being portrayed here seems to be anything but competent. All of the information that he has is from one relatively cursory glance at the game. I don't think you can expect much out of this player. If his competency weren't in question, dissenters wouldn't be coming into this topic and suggesting that the player doesn't know how to recruit characters.

What dissenters suggest is irrelevant. The fact that people suggest something hardly means the viewpoint is correct or valid. The conditions of the list have been blatantly exaggerated or mis-represented multiple times (people saying the player here is assumed to be "retarded" and etc). This is wrong, annoying, and pointless, so I'd appreciate it if people would quit posting such things.

Yes, it does. You say in the OP that you were "chosen by a committee of 5 other people in a chatroom" or whatnot. You were implying that since this tier list has backing from the big players (I can probably list at least 3 of them off the top of my head, though if I ran through the entire memberbase of FEF I would probably come across all 5 eventually), then it is more legitimate than other tier lists.

That's the impression you got from it. That doesn't mean it's the impression that was intended. Yes, I was chosen by some other people in a chatroom to post the list. How does that lead to the implication that this list > others? Nor was it stated anywhere that the people originally discussing the list are "big players" or superior thinkers or whatever it is you're suggesting. The closest thing to that is the OP stating that "At this point it is believed to be reasonably accurate," but all that means is that the people originally talking about it got it to a point where they couldn't see any more flaws in it under the conditions given for it. I don't see how that possibly implies the inherent superiority of this tier list over any others which might exist.

Here we go, I'll edit the OP. Bam. No more complaining about this.

I want to make it known exactly why I believe this premise to be pointless. Furthermore, I am in the dark as much as anyone else with regards to what we can and can't argue given these constraints. If you can't respond to criticism and hammer out your guidelines until they are crystal-clear, then that's your loss.

You're not giving me criticism that I can respond to. You aren't saying "here's what's wrong and here's what might fix it." You're saying "this list sucks and is pointless." That's not constructive, nor is it relevant. If you believe the list to be pointless, you have no obligation to contribute to it. You don't have a right to protest a topic's existence based on the fact that you personally have a negative opinion of it.

It's also extremely ironic that you criticize this specific list for not having "crystal-clear" guidelines, when none of the so-called "efficiency" lists have anything even close to "crystal-clear" guidelines. People can't even define what "efficiency" is supposed to mean anymore. The other FE9 list has no guidelines in the OP other than a link to the tier list FAQ. etc. So it seems like your opinion of this list is based on the nature of its premise, not the extent to which that premise is clarified.

Edited March 17, 2010 by CATS

[Narga_Rocks]

So what? The list assuming a competent player exists and this topic doesn't pretend that it's the "official" tier list or superior to other lists or anything like that. If you don't like this premise, you don't have to post in this topic. And I didn't come up with this condition, others thought of it, they just all pointed at me to post the list and make edits. PM Reikken if you care that much about it.

No, it doesn't. Aside from there being several degrees of competency, the player being portrayed here seems to be anything but competent. All of the information that he has is from one relatively cursory glance at the game. I don't think you can expect much out of this player. If his competency weren't in question, dissenters wouldn't be coming into this topic and suggesting that the player doesn't know how to recruit characters.

So this list:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16443

Doesn't assume a competent player? In that case, it still doesn't matter, since that leaves you free to go make the Perfect Player Tier List if you want to.

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate"

So, in CATS' first post, he's saying that

there exists a tier list that assumes a competent player (the one run by Cynthia is the most reasonable inference)

and

this topic doesn't pretend to be "official" or "superior".

In dondon's post, it seems that he didn't notice that the "and" in CATS' post separates two different lists and thought it meant that this one assumes a competent player.

He then refutes the idea that this list assumes a competent player.

Then in CATS' second post, it seems as though he thought dondon was talking about the list run by Cynthia doesn't use a competent player. (though I think it's obvious dondon was talking about this list. The line "the player being portrayed here" is rather unambiguous.)

Oh, and:

"The conditions of the list have been blatantly exaggerated or mis-represented multiple times (people saying the player here is assumed to be "retarded" and etc). This is wrong, annoying, and pointless, so I'd appreciate it if people would quit posting such things."

It really is a little difficult though to argue about a tier list where we effectively have to "dumb down" our skill in order to make arguments about it. I mean, does Scrub have the brain power to figure out how to pull off a shove chain or a rescue chain? Can he figure out how to block Ashnard in with 4 units and then have Reyson vigor Ike and the Dragon and then have another unit rescue Reyson and then another pull off a take/drop? (I assume knight ring won't exist, of course, since while the player could reasonably make Naesala go away through usage of Ulki/Janaff and Reyson, that doesn't mean the player will know to leave the ravens alive). There are a lot of different things that could easily be pushed aside with a statement like "the player won't know how to do that" or whatever.

As I said before, the stipulation that Scrub only has what is in the manual and tutorials makes perfect sense. It is objective, and I am happy with it (though personally I wouldn't create a tier list in this manner given the wealth of resources on this very site) from an arguing standpoint. The idea that the player makes random errors and isn't a tactical genius is subjective and makes things much more complicated. I have no idea how much I have to dumb down my ability in order to make a valid argument.

[Progenitus]

hey narga

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=865019

in particular...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

of course int and colonel M completely ignored this, so I don't expect you to listen to this either, nor do I expect anyone to actually listen.

[CATS]

Then in CATS' second post, it seems as though he thought dondon was talking about the list run by Cynthia doesn't use a competent player. (though I think it's obvious dondon was talking about this list. The line "the player being portrayed here" is rather unambiguous.)

Yeah, that's probably the case. I looked back through my first quote and tried to find things which "No, it doesn't" might refer to, and "The list assuming a competent player exists" was all that I could come up with. Probably both of us could've phrased things better.

It really is a little difficult though to argue about a tier list where we effectively have to "dumb down" our skill in order to make arguments about it. I mean, does Scrub have the brain power to figure out how to pull off a shove chain or a rescue chain? Can he figure out how to block Ashnard in with 4 units and then have Reyson vigor Ike and the Dragon and then have another unit rescue Reyson and then another pull off a take/drop? (I assume knight ring won't exist, of course, since while the player could reasonably make Naesala go away through usage of Ulki/Janaff and Reyson, that doesn't mean the player will know to leave the ravens alive). There are a lot of different things that could easily be pushed aside with a statement like "the player won't know how to do that" or whatever.

I agree that the premise is ambiguous and leaves alot of room open for interpretation; that's an entirely valid complaint. What bugs me is when I see people posting and either stating or implying that the list assumes the player to be "mentally retarded" and such. That's clearly not justified, and it demonstrates that people either didn't actually read the OP, or didn't bother to try and actually comprehend anything it said before they decided to blast the list.

I also disagree that the premise of an imperfect player cannot be discussed at all, but that's not an issue where I'll be able to change anyone's mind, so w/e.

As I said before, the stipulation that Scrub only has what is in the manual and tutorials makes perfect sense. It is objective, and I am happy with it (though personally I wouldn't create a tier list in this manner given the wealth of resources on this very site) from an arguing standpoint. The idea that the player makes random errors and isn't a tactical genius is subjective and makes things much more complicated. I have no idea how much I have to dumb down my ability in order to make a valid argument.

If it were up to me, I would have the tier list assume that the player is entirely competent and has played the game many times (i.e. will have a memory of where stuff is, what's coming next and thus what he needs to prepare for, etc), but simply that they have only the manual and the tutorial available to them. The conditions would then be about what a perfect player would do with limited information, rather than having to try and figure out what sort of mistakes an imperfect player might make.

Others were insistent that the player's tactical capacities be imperfect, though, so meh. Since the other people who originally discussed the list don't seem to even be following the topic anymore, I'd be willing to change the premises if alot of people wanted some sort of change (which seems to be the case). But if folks want the premises changed, hopefully they'll be willing to start actually discussing the list afterwards. It'll be pretty lame if I change something and then people still refuse to actually discuss any of the positions.

Edited March 17, 2010 by CATS

[Anouleth]

hey narga

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=865019

in particular...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

of course int and colonel M completely ignored this, so I don't expect you to listen to this either, nor do I expect anyone to actually listen.

Yes, I saw Paperblade post that. It's simply not applicable.

The issue with this list is the phrase:

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

This phrase is not clearly defined. Now, Loki's Wager is the 'unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.' I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not possible to define 'player error' - it can be done, it just hasn't been done. After all, if a list of guidelines like this was posted, that would define 'player error':

-The player sometimes moves a unit into the wrong position - i.e. in the range of enemies

-The player is not assumed to be using high tiers

-The player will rescue units that are in danger if possible, but won't use a rescue chain to advance slower units across the battlefield

-The player is assumed not to know the locations of hidden items, but he will try to open all chests - this is because he knows chests can contain extremely valuable items, so he will open all to make sure he misses nothing vital. He won't steal all stealable items, however

-The player is aware of all conversations, and will read all base conversations that he can reasonably be expected to fulfill the requirements for (no Occult from Stefan)

-The player does not know BEXP turn limits, but he is aware they exist and will try to finish chapters quickly. He does not know that BEXP can be acquired for stealth completion, and he will only kill the C22 Bishops

I may have missed stuff, and there's obviously room for disagreement, but you get my point. If a list of guidelines like this was posted, there would be absolutely no grounds to say that the OP is vague.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Anouleth

[CATS]

No, there would still be room to complain, just not as much. For example, "the player sometimes moves a unit into the wrong position," but how often does this occur? "The player is not assumed to be using high tiers," but what units is he using? etc. That's the problem; it could be completely defined, or almost-completely defined, but it would require a very extensive list of random arbitrary conditions. I personally don't care enough to come up with all that stuff, especially since with so many conditions, I'm sure there would still be lots of complaining about some of them.

[Rodykitty]

this topic doesn't pretend to be "official" or "superior".

I have to disagree with this. If it wasn't pretending to be official, the tier list title would be named something like "Low Skill FE9 Tier List", not simply "FE9 Tier List" which appears standard.

[CATS]

In the same vein, were it intended to be standard, it would have been titled "Official FE9 Tier List" or "Standard FE9 Tier List." Clearly this wasn't the intention, and I don't know why you're nitpicking on this point when it's already been addressed and clarified. "FE9 Tier List" implies only that it is a tier list for FE9, which is indeed true.

Edited March 18, 2010 by CATS

[Colonel M]

Well CATS, keep in mind I'm not so much yelling in your ears about this. I just find running a list under Loki's Wager pretty ambiguous as is the actual terminology. Like I've said before: I liked the idea of doing unit existing vs. unit not existing, but the rulesets of "player not having enough information" and "tactical error" just seem rather... bleh. Under the first terminology, the player would have to backhand on personal experience period, and we all know that PEMN usually, but because the player only has a limited resource (this being his / her playthrough), the player him / herself does not know what exactly is a good nor a bad character. Honestly, I'm still trying to compute why the rule exists. It just creates so many theories, but I guess under the definition of Loki's Wager it makes some sense.

I guess it's just me, but I'm not following Loki's Wager much with a tier list. You basically create theories and hypothetical situations that can't really be duplicated multiple times and an average player, if this is what we're following, can't really be calculated perse. So take my words with a grain of salt. I just think the first rule should not exist, but I guess if the actual premise of this list is Loki's Wager itself, then I don't have much to say in the matter.

[Narga_Rocks]

hey narga

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=865019

in particular...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

of course int and colonel M completely ignored this, so I don't expect you to listen to this either, nor do I expect anyone to actually listen.

And it's completely impossible that the reason that argument didn't work might have something to do with the nature of his argument, eh?

I could make the same complaint about your persistent inability to listen to any criticism, too, but until this post I haven't done that recently, have I? Sometimes there is a reason people don't appear to listen, and it isn't about the non-listener, it's about the argument itself.

"Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Loki is a trickster god in Norse mythology, who, legend has it, once made a bet with some dwarves.[1] It was agreed that the prize, should Loki lose the wager, would be his head. Loki lost the bet, and in due time the dwarfs came to collect the head which had become rightfully theirs. Loki had no problem with giving up his head, but he insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter; and, one could suppose, they are discussing the matter still. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As a result, Loki keeps his head indefinitely.

The fallacy's focus on over specification makes it in some ways the opposite of hasty generalization and could be considered an extreme form of equivocation."

Now, aside from how they should probably just ask for an installment on the head (parts that are obviously head) and they'd leave the rest for later (the head is within their rights to take, but as near as I can tell they never promised to take it all at once)...

Why do you think this applies here? And are you focusing on what comes before the comma in the second sentence, or after? Here's the thing, though:

We've basically shown that at the current moment the concept is not clearly defined. I have never really claimed that it cannot be defined. At this moment, though, I don't seem to have an answer on the question of Scrub's ability to form shove chains and rescue chains. I noticed you are characteristically mute on the matters of real importance, and would rather throw out fallacies to refute carefully thought out arguments rather than answer the deep questions involved. It's a very general view you have on people's posts where you focus on one little thing and throw out a fallacy and seem to think you've refuted their entire case. Say one little thing and if we continue to bring up the points you ignored then you claim we aren't listening.

Now, if you take issue with the part after the comma, that it cannot be discussed as a result of the concept not being clearly defined, then do tell what kind of arguments we are supposed to make if almost anything we say can be countered with "the player doesn't know how to do that"? Until the concept has been clearly defined, we are rather limited in just what we can actually argue about. Apparently we aren't interested in arguing while being tied down with an unknown amount of chains. (Though some of us are likely unwilling to argue while being tied down at all, so they might not like it even if the player's potential incompetence becomes clearly defined on this list.)

I agree that the premise is ambiguous and leaves alot of room open for interpretation; that's an entirely valid complaint. What bugs me is when I see people posting and either stating or implying that the list assumes the player to be "mentally retarded" and such. That's clearly not justified, and it demonstrates that people either didn't actually read the OP, or didn't bother to try and actually comprehend anything it said before they decided to blast the list.

Yeah, I've had to point out in this topic where the premise is being stretched beyond a reasonable tolerance. Like, recruitment, when there is a nice function this game gives that fe6 doesn't. (In case anyone can't tell, I'm venting about the lack of indication of which characters can have convos with enemies in fe6.) I can certainly empathize with getting urked by it.

I also disagree that the premise of an imperfect player cannot be discussed at all, but that's not an issue where I'll be able to change anyone's mind, so w/e.

Hey, if I could figure out what the guy can do and what he can't, that would be okay with me. I'd probably not participate a lot, but I'd at least make more of an attempt to discuss the list itself. But Scrub seems to be arbitrary in what I'd think of a non-perfect player's abilities. Sometimes Scrub is less able than what I'd think he should be, and in other areas he is more able. I don't, however, think it is impossible to clear that up. Just hard and possibly not worth the effort (certain originators have clearly given up on trying, at least, or they think it is clearly defined and we are just being dense).

If it were up to me, I would have the tier list assume that the player is entirely competent and has played the game many times (i.e. will have a memory of where stuff is, what's coming next and thus what he needs to prepare for, etc), but simply that they have only the manual and the tutorial available to them. The conditions would then be about what a perfect player would do with limited information, rather than having to try and figure out what sort of mistakes an imperfect player might make.

I'd go with that too.

Others were insistent that the player's tactical capacities be imperfect, though, so meh. Since the other people who originally discussed the list don't seem to even be following the topic anymore, I'd be willing to change the premises if alot of people wanted some sort of change (which seems to be the case). But if folks want the premises changed, hopefully they'll be willing to start actually discussing the list afterwards. It'll be pretty lame if I change something and then people still refuse to actually discuss any of the positions.

What is unfortunate is that I can certainly see this happening. If I were forced to make a bet on the outcome I know which way I'd be leaning.

[CATS]

What is unfortunate is that I can certainly see this happening. If I were forced to make a bet on the outcome I know which way I'd be leaning.

Indeed, I'd make the same bet myself. It's a shame, but meh, there is nothing to be done about it. Since as you said, the other originators clearly don't care about maintaining the list anyways, I don't really care that much if it dies and doesn't accomplish anything.

[Narga_Rocks]

--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.

So I still have a problem with Ike auto-topping as a result of this rule. If Ike is absent, then his slot isn't taken. To put it simply, if a particular map has 10 deployment slots, if Ike is "absent", then instead of 1/10 unit slots being taken before adding other units, 0/10 slots are taken. Then you can fill up the other 10 slots with other units. Ike v. Oscar becomes Ike + 9 units vs. Oscar + 9 units. The fact you can't actually do this in game shouldn't be relevant. If we are treating Ike as if he is absent, then you have 10 slots for Oscar's team, not 9.

(I realize that Ike isn't any longer at the top of the list, but that took a fair amount of effort and he's still above units solely because his comparisons are being treated like Oscar + (x-2) units vs. Ike + (x-1) units, hence giving Ike an extra unit in the comparison.)

Edited March 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Life]

So I still have a problem with Ike auto-topping as a result of this rule. If Ike is absent, then his slot isn't taken. To put it simply, if a particular map has 10 deployment slots, if Ike is "absent", then instead of 1/10 unit slots being taken before adding other units, 0/10 slots are taken. Then you can fill up the other 10 slots with other units. Ike v. Oscar becomes Ike + 9 units vs. Oscar + 9 units. The fact you can't actually do this in game shouldn't be relevant. If we are treating Ike as if he is absent, then you have 10 slots for Oscar's team, not 9.

(I realize that Ike isn't any longer at the top of the list, but that took a fair amount of effort and he's still above units solely because his comparisons are being treated like Oscar + (x-2) units vs. Ike + (x-1) units, hence giving Ike an extra unit in the comparison.)

Didn't I say this in Smash's FE10 tier list with regards to Micaiah?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Narga_Rocks]

Didn't I say this in Smash's FE10 tier list with regards to Micaiah?

I don't remember precisely what you may have said. My argument is basically for using the defined rules to eliminate Ike's exaggerated advantage over other units due to being forced. I can buy it being an advantage, just not so strong an advantage. Of course, my argument, were it to be accepted, would eliminate the advantage completely, but oh well.

[Tino]

The fact you can't actually do this in game shouldn't be relevant.

Mainly for curiosity's sake, but what makes you think this?

[Narga_Rocks]

Mainly for curiosity's sake, but what makes you think this?

Ike doesn't disappear. If you have 10 unit slots, Ike will take one of them. Their argument for Ike auto-topping was, as near as I could tell, that if you used Ike, you got Ike + 9 slots. If you use Oscar, Ike isn't being played (under their rules) but he still takes up his slot (at base level, I'd assume). Meaning, Oscar's team has Oscar + 8 useful units. Ike's team effectively has an extra unit.

My argument is that because the list's rules state that “which unit’s absence would hurt turn count more?” is being considered, if Ike was truly "absent" then he wouldn't be taking up that extra slot and Oscar's team now has Oscar + 9. This obviously can't actually be done, as you can't actually remove Ike.

The only counter that I can see is seize arguments, which are generally ruled out because of storyline. Now, since I'm removing Ike completely, maybe the seize argument could be valid, but then Ike becomes an infinite number of tiers above any other unit because Ike's "absence" on any other units' team means you can't even get past the first seize chapter.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[CATS]

I don't think game mechanics should be disregarded where they are relevant or applicable, as I believe to be the case with Ike being constantly forced. However, I'll admit that with the way that condition is worded, that's a valid interpretation of it. I'll probably make the change if you care enough to try and determine what Ike's new position should be with this point in mind.

[Progenitus]

Ike doesn't disappear. If you have 10 unit slots, Ike will take one of them. Their argument for Ike auto-topping was, as near as I could tell, that if you used Ike, you got Ike + 9 slots. If you use Oscar, Ike isn't being played (under their rules) but he still takes up his slot (at base level, I'd assume). Meaning, Oscar's team has Oscar + 8 useful units. Ike's team effectively has an extra unit.

My argument is that because the list's rules state that “which unit’s absence would hurt turn count more?” is being considered, if Ike was truly "absent" then he wouldn't be taking up that extra slot and Oscar's team now has Oscar + 9. This obviously can't actually be done, as you can't actually remove Ike.

The only counter that I can see is seize arguments, which are generally ruled out because of storyline. Now, since I'm removing Ike completely, maybe the seize argument could be valid, but then Ike becomes an infinite number of tiers above any other unit because Ike's "absence" on any other units' team means you can't even get past the first seize chapter.

You actually can't even beat prologue without Ike :o

I tend to ignore factors where only a single unit can ever do it, and without it, it's 100% impossible to beat the game. For example, Ike killing the BK/Ashera in FE10, lords or a certain unit seizing, etc. That single action will give them infinite value, no matter how good or bad they are for the other parts of the game. On the flip side, stuff like thief utility when they're the only thief around (e.g. Matthew silver card) don't fall under that category, since it's still possible to beat the game without him/her, it's just a lot harder.