Redefining the tiering process

[Vykan12]

I’m finding that max efficiency tier lists have reached an extreme that is no longer conducive to debating and argumentation. Based on my own experiences, and what I’ve seen from Dondon’s 0% growths and various efficiency playlogs (particularly Gergeshwan’s), aiming for low turn counts as your ultimate goal trivializes the tiering process.

Let me elaborate a bit. One problem is that turncounts are so low that levelling units becomes a chore. In fact, levelling units long-term isn’t even feasible anymore in most cases. I’d go as far as saying 60-90% of a unit’s combat potential is determined by their bases, depending on the game.

Another problem is that mobility alone is an overwhelmingly powerful asset to have when low turning, and it trivializes the hell out of arguments. If shaving turns is the main criteria for ranking units, then the first flier to join your team is almost automatically top tier based on their non-combat utility. You’ll also commonly see the argument “this unit’s not contributing offensively/not gaining levels because all the mounted units ahead of him are doing most of the work”. Again, taken to its rightful extreme, most units that aren’t mounted on some sort of creature are generally only contributing minorly to a low turncount run. In the same vein, in certain games (FE5, FE6, FE11), warpskipping makes otherwise worthless magic users with high staff ranks turn into gods, and renders entire casts of units useless, that is unless you’re a lord or a bosskiller.

Ironically, low turning is a goal that requires extremely complex planning, knowledge of the game, etc, but it also reduces tiering arguments to blinding simplicity. No more supports, very little levelling, prepromotes dominate (hello there Marcus/Seth/Titania/etc), mobility trumps combat, 2/3rds of the cast is lucky to get more than 10 kills, resource allocation is basically pre-determined, and the list goes on.

What I find interesting is that the tier process seems to be lagging behind the evidence it’s based upon (i.e. the wealth of efficiency playthrough videos posted here). You will still see arguments where units are given unrealistically high levelling and supports, movement advantages are treated as minor, if not sometimes outright ignored, etc. It’s almost as though people either don’t realize what ridiculously efficient play is like, or they dislike its consequences and implicitly ignore them.

So, I’ve identified something I view as problematic, but I’m not sure what a good solution would be. In some way, turn counts have to become a secondary concern for the tier process to become refreshing. An interesting concept would perhaps be to have an “RNG proof” tier list. That is, a list where the main goal of a playthrough is to beat the game through as little risk as possible. This would shift a lot of importance on things like durability, hit rates, and range attacking, while simultaneously taking away a lot of the emphasis on ploughing through a chapter at rapid-fire pace. In fact, I find that a lot of the efficiency playlogs are surprisingly dependent on low probability outcomes, even if it isn’t outright RNG abuse. So instead of asking “who’s the best unit for 4 turning this chapter (where 4 turning might be a 1/3 chance anyway), we ask, “who’s the best unit for 5-7 turning this chapter safely? I’m not saying to banish RNG dependence outright, as it’s still a very paramount aspect of the game. I think, above anything, I like the concept of eliminating a character’s chance of death in a chapter, though perhaps an arbitrary cutoff could work too (<1%, <0.1%, <0.05%).

That’s the best idea I have at the moment, but I encourage any thought process that promotes debate, and possibly a playstyle closer to what game developers intended (more levelling, supports are viable again, mages/generals/archers aren’t close to useless in most games, etcetera).

[Rodykitty]

I know that SDS attempts to alleviate this problem by banning Warpskip in his tier lists (warp is only allowed if it doesn't save turn counts such as for grabbing items).

Draft PTs force players to use characters they normally wouldn't otherwise use, but there is still the problem of late game units being unusable, but they at least make units down to Upper Mid or so relevant to play.

I wouldn't want to abandon the current model completely though. Games really shouldn't be played the way developers meant it to be and efficient PTs reflect that.

[StinDuh]

I find drafts erroneous and pointless. I just don't see the value in being forced to use characters I don't like in an attempt to get low turn counts... Fire Emblem isn't about low turn counts anyway, and I think people are wrong to say that beating Fire Emblem with a surprisingly low turn count is considered good. I also find the number of draft topics and playlogs to be extremely overwhelming to the point of annoying in our forums

[Mekkah]

There not being much to discuss is a natural occurrence even without the whole low turn religion. The games have been out for so long, even if there wasn't any trivializing by mounts or base stats every debate would have been done to death by now.

As I'm sure you know, the better solution would be to make a new tier list topic with a goal different from low turning...but there's no suitable one. We can make a Snowy_One tier list where the goal is to compare 20/20 units during the last 2 turns of the game, but then we wouldn't be talking about anything meaningful. We can go back to BEXP limits or 20 turns per chapter or whatever, but then you are turning the game into communism. Who cares if Gilliam takes 2 rounds of combat to kill this Paladin whereas Seth only takes one, we have enough time to do so!

smash made some kind of attempt to make a tier list for FE dummies or people new to the game, trying to make reliability without knowledge of the game's events etc a huge factor. It didn't end well, of course, because everyone loves to smashbash and he doesn't respond well to that.

[Rodykitty]

I find drafts erroneous and pointless. I just don't see the value in being forced to use characters I don't like in an attempt to get low turn counts... Fire Emblem isn't about low turn counts anyway, and I think people are wrong to say that beating Fire Emblem with a surprisingly low turn count is considered good. I also find the number of draft topics and playlogs to be extremely overwhelming to the point of annoying in our forums

I mention drafts, and instead of reasoning as to why they couldn't be used as a template for tier lists, I get someone who hates drafts and low turns being vocal. You sound like someone that'd hate tier lsits anyway, so why respond to me?

With that out of the way, the reason I suggest drafts for tier lists is that some lower tier or obsoleted characters could potentially place higher on the tier list based on them having to fill roles that have become empty that are normally filled by higher tier characters.

Then again, this is based on not having payed too much attention to past draft tier lists so maybe the idea doesn't pan out well in practice.

[Vykan12]

As I'm sure you know, the better solution would be to make a new tier list topic with a goal different from low turning...but there's no suitable one.

Did you read my idea about an "RNG free" tier list?

Really, anything that causes a big paradigm shift in how we evaluate units is cool, even if it's a bit silly or pointless.

[Kaoz]

I mention drafts, and instead of reasoning as to why they couldn't be used as a template for tier lists, I get someone who hates drafts and low turns being vocal. You sound like someone that'd hate tier lsits anyway, so why respond to me?

With that out of the way, the reason I suggest drafts for tier lists is that some lower tier or obsoleted characters could potentially place higher on the tier list based on them having to fill roles that have become empty that are normally filled by higher tier characters.

Then again, this is based on not having payed too much attention to past draft tier lists so maybe the idea doesn't pan out well in practice.

FE9 Normal Draft

FE10 Normal Draft

The FE9 lists are pretty similiar to each other, FE10 has some differences but that's mostly because of the different parts which is something no other FE has. I don't think there are draft tier lists for the other games?

Anyway, I feel Mekkah summed it up pretty well. The only thing I could really think of at the moment would be that every character has to be recruited (and alive) which might distract from LTC a little in a few chapters.

[StinDuh]

I mention drafts, and instead of reasoning as to why they couldn't be used as a template for tier lists, I get someone who hates drafts and low turns being vocal. You sound like someone that'd hate tier lsits anyway, so why respond to me?

I guess I wasn't as specific as I could have been. Out of the times I've looked at tier lists and draft playthroughs, they've looked really boring. When the goal is to take the least amount of turns possible, that takes away from the whole point of the game. I guess if there were a new way to tier and draft units I'd be interested. I'm just not necessarily into the whole lowest turn count thing.

[Rodykitty]

The point of FE is to be a tactical RPG. Low turns is just an application of tactics.

The FE9 lists are pretty similiar to each other, FE10 has some differences but that's mostly because of the different parts which is something no other FE has. I don't think there are draft tier lists for the other games?

I see. I concede that idea then.

[Anouleth]

I’m finding that max efficiency tier lists have reached an extreme that is no longer conducive to debating and argumentation. Based on my own experiences, and what I’ve seen from Dondon’s 0% growths and various efficiency playlogs (particularly Gergeshwan’s), aiming for low turn counts as your ultimate goal trivializes the tiering process.

If a tier list is correct, there is nothing to discuss with regards to it. If the current tier lists do not see much discussion, that is probably due to one of two factors:

-The tier list is perfect with regards to it's aims, or nearly perfect. This can be seen with dondon's FE8 tier list, or the Warpskip tier lists, or even with the FE12 tier list (which sees relatively little discussion despite being new).

-There is just not much interest in discussing the game, whether because it's not very popular (FE8 tier lists suffered from this for a long time) or because the person running the list is inactive (which happened with FE10 for a short period of time) or because people just don't like the criteria (the 'imperfect player' FE9 tier list).

Now, given the amount of discussion that has taken place under efficiency criteria, I doubt that it is unappealing to debaters. Rather, I think that most of the tier lists are approaching a high degree of accuracy and it is more difficult to disagree with them. As knowledge of the game increases, the number of areas on which debaters will disagree will shrink.

Let me elaborate a bit. One problem is that turncounts are so low that levelling units becomes a chore. In fact, levelling units long-term isn’t even feasible anymore in most cases. I’d go as far as saying 60-90% of a unit’s combat potential is determined by their bases, depending on the game.

That would depend on the game, and on how rigorously you apply a standard of efficiency. Certainly, if you demand that the player achieves the lowest turncounts possible, it is probably impossible to train, say, Edward or Aran and keep them competitive. But I wouldn't call a playthrough that went a bit more slowly and did train Edward or Aran 'inefficient', and I don't think that how Edward or Aran turn out once trained is irrelevant to their performance. That's not to say that I think that any character can be trained - a I probably wouldn't call playthrough that intended to make serious use of someone like Fiona 'efficient', and I don't think that the question of how she turns out is at all relevant to her tier list position. I guess I'm making this very subjective because different people will apply a different standard of what can be considered and what cannot be considered.

Another problem is that mobility alone is an overwhelmingly powerful asset to have when low turning, and it trivializes the hell out of arguments. If shaving turns is the main criteria for ranking units, then the first flier to join your team is almost automatically top tier based on their non-combat utility. You’ll also commonly see the argument “this unit’s not contributing offensively/not gaining levels because all the mounted units ahead of him are doing most of the work”. Again, taken to its rightful extreme, most units that aren’t mounted on some sort of creature are generally only contributing minorly to a low turncount run.

It is perfectly natural for high movement units to be ranked highly because in most cases, foot units do not have anything to offer over their mounted brethren. Kent/Sain/Lowen frequently appear near the top of FE7 tier lists, and why shouldn't they? They have high movement, decent, well-balanced stats, and WTC. What does someone like Erk or Eliwood have to offer in comparison?

And why shouldn't flight be ranked highly? We have many people who can fight, but only a small minority that can fly, and flight can trivialise chapters.

In the same vein, in certain games (FE5, FE6, FE11), warpskipping makes otherwise worthless magic users with high staff ranks turn into gods, and renders entire casts of units useless, that is unless you’re a lord or a bosskiller.

I don't really agree with warpskipping in tier lists myself.

Ironically, low turning is a goal that requires extremely complex planning, knowledge of the game, etc, but it also reduces tiering arguments to blinding simplicity. No more supports, very little levelling, prepromotes dominate (hello there Marcus/Seth/Titania/etc), mobility trumps combat, 2/3rds of the cast is lucky to get more than 10 kills, resource allocation is basically pre-determined, and the list goes on.

I think that most tier lists probably do lean a bit too heavily towards 'fixed, optimum playthroughs with no room for deviation', but I don't think it's as bad as you make out.

What I find interesting is that the tier process seems to be lagging behind the evidence it’s based upon (i.e. the wealth of efficiency playthrough videos posted here). You will still see arguments where units are given unrealistically high levelling and supports, movement advantages are treated as minor, if not sometimes outright ignored, etc. It’s almost as though people either don’t realize what ridiculously efficient play is like, or they dislike its consequences and implicitly ignore them.

Well, people aren't perfect.

So, I’ve identified something I view as problematic, but I’m not sure what a good solution would be. In some way, turn counts have to become a secondary concern for the tier process to become refreshing.

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like you just personally don't like how the current tier lists operate. Obviously, discussing the same 8 games over and over will eventually get stale (especially when the newest ones, 11 and 12, don't have a lot of depth to discuss in tier lists because of Warp and an extremely high level of difficulty respectively)

An interesting concept would perhaps be to have an “RNG proof” tier list. That is, a list where the main goal of a playthrough is to beat the game through as little risk as possible. This would shift a lot of importance on things like durability, hit rates, and range attacking, while simultaneously taking away a lot of the emphasis on ploughing through a chapter at rapid-fire pace. In fact, I find that a lot of the efficiency playlogs are surprisingly dependent on low probability outcomes, even if it isn’t outright RNG abuse. So instead of asking “who’s the best unit for 4 turning this chapter (where 4 turning might be a 1/3 chance anyway), we ask, “who’s the best unit for 5-7 turning this chapter safely? I’m not saying to banish RNG dependence outright, as it’s still a very paramount aspect of the game. I think, above anything, I like the concept of eliminating a character’s chance of death in a chapter, though perhaps an arbitrary cutoff could work too (<1%, <0.1%, <0.05%).

As much as I love fiddling around with binomial distributions, not everyone wants to painstakingly crunch the millions of possible ways that a potential strategy could go tits up. For what it's worth, I don't think that current tier lists are too RNG-dependent. Often, the 'fast' 2turn strategy is just as reliable, if not more so, than the 'slow' 4 turn strategy that lets other units gain experience and catch up to your super-Jeigan. Certainly, if I cared about reliability, I would not use Nolan/Aran/Jill/Edward, who are all unreliable in their own way for various reasons, and I would instead focus on those prepromotes who you wanted to see move down in the first place, since they are more reliable.

That’s the best idea I have at the moment, but I encourage any thought process that promotes debate, and possibly a playstyle closer to what game developers intended (more levelling, supports are viable again, mages/generals/archers aren’t close to useless in most games, etcetera).

The fact is that mages/knights/archers are useless. Mages have a very weak enemy phase. Archers have no enemy phase. Knights have low movement. What advantages do they offer to make up for this? Mages often don't have stellar offensive stats to make up for their durability. Archers usually have horrible stats which only exacerbates their poor situation. Knights have overkill durability and usually lack the speed to have good offense.

Personally, I like the FE8 solution: Ban Seth. You could reasonably apply this to FE7 tiering by banning Marcus. FE6 and FE9 tiering already allows for training a lot of units. I don't know how you'd approach FE10, since it's already generally agreed that training 2 or 3 units can be done in an efficient playthrough, and relaxing turncounts just turns Part 3 into a joke. Banning Warp seems to be a good solution to FE11. FE12's difficulty is too aggressive: many units are never going to be reasonable choices, and restricting use of the most powerful assets in the game makes it impossible for most players.

EDIT: In reference to your comment about the 'intended playstyle', there is none. There is no 'correct' way to play the game. I think that one of the strengths of Fire Emblem is that there are many different ways to play it, whether you use a cavalry-heavy army or an army with many mages or armours. And I don't think that a style of play that avoids supports or relies on prepromotes is necessarily 'unintended'.

I guess I wasn't as specific as I could have been. Out of the times I've looked at tier lists and draft playthroughs, they've looked really boring. When the goal is to take the least amount of turns possible, that takes away from the whole point of the game. I guess if there were a new way to tier and draft units I'd be interested. I'm just not necessarily into the whole lowest turn count thing.

The point of the game is to have fun, and obviously that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with getting the lowest turn counts. But obviously, characters that can complete the game faster and more reliably than other characters are better.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Zkirsche]

The fact is that mages/knights/archers are useless.

They are only useless in the context of how we play the game. Unfortunately the option to play fast msotly derives from the game being too easy. This means there's nothing stopping you from racing forward, hurting knights, and that most units have reliable 2 range options, which hurts mages and archers who only really had that claim to fame in the first place.

Now, I haven't played FE12, so I might be just talking out of my arse here, but I would imagine in a harder game such classes prove much more crucial and much better.

Hopefully Serenes Emblem will be balanced and difficult enough to warrant such discussion. If it ever comes out, that is.

[Rodykitty]

Now, I haven't played FE12, so I might be just talking out of my arse here, but I would imagine in a harder game such classes prove much more crucial and much better.

Both FE11 & 12 make bow users useful due to the high difficulty of the hardest modes and the threat of flying enemies.

[Anouleth]

They are only useless in the context of how we play the game. Unfortunately the option to play fast msotly derives from the game being too easy. This means there's nothing stopping you from racing forward, hurting knights, and that most units have reliable 2 range options, which hurts mages and archers who only really had that claim to fame in the first place.

No, they are just useless. Archers give up enemy phase, and in exchange get crappy stats. Mages give up durability, and get nothing. Knights give up movement, and get bad speed. That's not to say that these classes are never good, but generally when they are good, it's because they're atypical for some reason or another. FE6 Klein and Shin have very good stats for the area they join in and are in a game where Bows aren't a big handicap (they can still have reasonable enemy phases in C12 and in Sacae and their player phase is great). Pent has decent durability, great offense, and a very high staff rank. Gatrie has decent speed.

Now, I haven't played FE12, so I might be just talking out of my arse here, but I would imagine in a harder game such classes prove much more crucial and much better.

From what I understand, effective damage against fliers, the ability to heal, and just being able to chip enemies is quite helpful. However, I'm led to believe that Knights are pretty situational because they lack the speed to double enemies.

[Zkirsche]

No, they are just useless. Archers give up enemy phase, and in exchange get crappy stats.

This is probably more due to bad character design from the developers. Taking enemy snipers, for example, however, they usually have the best 1-2 range thanks to crit and decent stats. Having such a typical sniper on the players team is rare, but in a hard game, where perhaps chokepointing is useful, their 2-range can prove especially handy when you have to attack from behind a powerful unit (e.g. a knight who can withstand the blows).

From what I understand, effective damage against fliers, the ability to heal, and just being able to chip enemies is quite helpful. However, I'm led to believe that Knights are pretty situational because they lack the speed to double enemies.

Well, that's a start.

[Rewjeo]

Well, in the FE8 tier list I "put up" (meaning chopped Seth off and said "let's fix this") I said that the goal was maximum efficiency given whatever team you're using. So sometimes Amelia will actually be used seriously. This way there is discussion about all of the units. However, due to how easy FE8 is, this is much easier to do. In other games you can actually use a team so terrible that beating the game becomes impossible (or so incredibly close to it that you can't really tell the difference.)

[Rodykitty]

I think people forget that a lot of classes are designed from an enemy perspective as well. While Archers and Armors are typically bad player units, they tend to be great enemy units. A game like FE can't perfectly balance all classes since it's actually important that some are stronger than others.

[Vicious Sal]

I guess I wasn't as specific as I could have been. Out of the times I've looked at tier lists and draft playthroughs, they've looked really boring. When the goal is to take the least amount of turns possible, that takes away from the whole point of the game. I guess if there were a new way to tier and draft units I'd be interested. I'm just not necessarily into the whole lowest turn count thing.

Though It's tiering over two games, you might be interested, though it never got off the ground. =/

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=25509

[Anouleth]

This is probably more due to bad character design from the developers. Taking enemy snipers, for example, however, they usually have the best 1-2 range thanks to crit and decent stats.

The point is that Vykan wants tiering to give existing archers, knights and mages a chance relative to other classes. Not your Theory Sniper that has decent stats and crit and the best 2-range on the team (I assume you meant to say 2 range instead of 1-2 range, since Snipers don't have that).

Having such a typical sniper on the players team is rare, but in a hard game, where perhaps chokepointing is useful, their 2-range can prove especially handy when you have to attack from behind a powerful unit (e.g. a knight who can withstand the blows).

I have yet to see a Fire Emblem where you regularly need to make use of chokepoints. In addition, the whole point of a Knight is that they are durable enough to take on multiple enemies at once - in other words, that you don't have to use a chokepoint. It's very nice to play TheoryFE and think about shielding a ranged attacker behind another unit, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fighting at most, once per turn and that they need protection.

Well, in the FE8 tier list I "put up" (meaning chopped Seth off and said "let's fix this") I said that the goal was maximum efficiency given whatever team you're using. So sometimes Amelia will actually be used seriously. This way there is discussion about all of the units. However, due to how easy FE8 is, this is much easier to do. In other games you can actually use a team so terrible that beating the game becomes impossible (or so incredibly close to it that you can't really tell the difference.)

I think that's untrue. As dondon has shown, even with all characters at base stats, it is still possible to beat most Fire Emblems (admittedly with RNG abuse to defeat some of the tough bosses towards the end of the game)

[Rewjeo]

dondon also didn't use units with super shitty base stats.

[Rodykitty]

dondon also didn't use units with super shitty base stats.

The point is that units that are leveled up with growths are very likely to be able to beat the game.

[Anouleth]

dondon also didn't use units with super shitty base stats.

There's nothing stopping a player from getting to Chapter 20, realising that their current team is not good enough to beat the remaining chapters, and then copying dondon's strategy. If anything, 'bad' teams will probably do better later in the game because they tend to lean towards growth units. A good example is 4-E in FE10. You could have used any team throughout the rest of the game, but as long as you bring in Royals/Rafiel/staff users you can still beat it.

[Colonel M]

or even with the FE12 tier list (which sees relatively little discussion despite being new).

There's two reasons for this:

1) It's a game who has been barely been played by other tier list players

2) There's shockingly a lot more to explore, such as Linde actually being crappy and how Cecile and Rody actually are towards the entire game

I think the biggest culprit, at the moment, is that maximum efficiency is not exactly a bad thing but it is viewed as a black sheep. After all, this is a tactical RPG. Aside from things such as survival and what not, lowest turn counts possible should be an objective. I don't view it as a bad way of tiering characters since it only causes minor discrepancies (mainly FE10). The best solution is to create another tier list... but it's difficult.

It's not the best solution, but what you could do is this. First, you exclude everyone from your comparison with two units. So let's say you're comparing... Rebecca and Eliwood. You wouldn't assume Marcus, Hector, and everyone else being around you. When you do a comparison, you compare who does better at offense, who does better at defense, any special qualities, etc. It's something that's done normally on tier lists, but it still causes problems that you (likely) have Marcus existing early game, so regardless making EXP assumptions and how competition for resources work slippery to deal with. Banning your early game Paladins doesn't sound like a great idea either since there are some chapters where you literally LEAN on Marcus in FE6, for an example. We also need to remember that just like Atk and Def, Movement is a stat. Despite people like MaxKnight out there thinking that Movement is the most useless stat in games such as Shining Force II, it's usually the stat that makes or breaks just about any character in general. I personally don't care about shitty units such as Bors and Rebecca. I kind of instinctively hate them now simply because they have gigantic flaws that are difficult or impossible to repair.

...I'm not sure what to add really. It's a web that has multiple solutions but doesn't really draw to a consistent thread.

Edited June 9, 2011 by _M_

[Florete]

That’s the best idea I have at the moment, but I encourage any thought process that promotes debate, and possibly a playstyle closer to what game developers intended (more levelling, supports are viable again, mages/generals/archers aren’t close to useless in most games, etcetera).

What is this? What is the developers intention? Are you one of the developers who can tell us what you intended for the players to strive for in these games?

Obviously not, seeing as, for example, in the GBA games, you likely won't even know about something like supports unless you look it up online or randomly stumble across it because neither the game nor the game's book tells you about it.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, I just find it annoying when someone makes a claim about what the creator of something "intended" when they don't seem to have any right to be making such assumptions. As far as Fire Emblem goes, it's a strategy RPG with many known and hidden elements. It can be played multiple ways and I don't think any one of them was "intended" by its creators to be "the" one.

I find drafts erroneous and pointless. I just don't see the value in being forced to use characters I don't like in an attempt to get low turn counts... Fire Emblem isn't about low turn counts anyway, and I think people are wrong to say that beating Fire Emblem with a surprisingly low turn count is considered good. I also find the number of draft topics and playlogs to be extremely overwhelming to the point of annoying in our forums

Then don't draft characters you don't like. If you get stuck with someone you don't like, don't use them. Drafts are fun and competitive, that is the point of their existence. Try one before you go bashing them.

[Kinata]

One thing that's annoyed me about tier lists as they are ironically not that useful in determining which units you should use in these games. Take those awesome characters who do not appear to the end, like the Laguz Royals in FE10. They are often put surprisingly low on the tier lists as punishment for not being in most of the game. True, they do less to help you as a whole throughout the game since they are usable so little, but when you do get them, it's a probably a good idea to use them. Noobs who misunderstand what tier lists are about may think this means that the Laguz Royals are bad units and should be avoided even when they can be used.

My point is, tier lists are not that useful from a practical, team-building standpoint. I'm not sure if a tier list that only talks about how good a character is when you get them is feasible (there will probably some problems over what standards to use). Perhaps a better use of our time is just to discuss which teams are optimal for each chapter.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Kinata

[Anouleth]

Obviously not, seeing as, for example, in the GBA games, you likely won't even know about something like supports unless you look it up online or randomly stumble across it because neither the game nor the game's book tells you about it.

FE8 tells you about supports in the tutorial, and the game also provides a handy list of which characters can support who. I don't recall if FE6 or FE7 bring them up in the tutorials, but it seems weird that they wouldn't.