Espinosa

I don't see why Chinchou's late evolution matters at all in the 3rd generation. You dive into the water, you catch one of a high enough level (they come at <=30) and it evolves the next level. Clearly, if you are using a Lanturn, you will teach it Thunderbolt; otherwise, why use one in the first place? Its niche is to deal super-effective damage to water-types without worrying about taking any substantial damage back. I also don't like how it's assumed that we overlevel Starmie and it outspeeds everything. What if we don't? It's very likely that Starmie won't be faster than Drake's Salamence (to OHKO with Ice Beam) and die to Crunch, whereas Lanturn doesn't mind being attacked with anything Salamence has (it doesn't have Earthquake). Same applies to facing Sidney's Sharpedo. Starmie is half-psychic, and being psychic-type isn't so terribly good in this generation (unless you are Medicham), when the fighting-type gyms precedes the time you can catch and evolve a Staryu, a poison-type gym is non-existent, and most of E4 has super-effective move against you (two of them specialising in dark and ghost types). Lanturn, on the other hand, comes just in time to face the water-types used by the last gym leader. Also, as far as Shock Wave on a non-electric type goes (like Kadabra), unless we're talking about attacking Gyarados, Psychic will always hit harder. It can be argued that Ralts line's access to Thunderbolt makes it about even with the Abra line in terms of efficiency.

It's easy to justify bandit/pirate skirmishes too, since those are too pervasive.

Okay, let's stop You first!

I've had him die to the Halberd Fighter in chapter 6 before.

Just wanted to say that none of the two patches are English. Unless the original megaupload had something different.

I'm sure I'd love it a lot more if it were properly translated.

I see a lot of advice about giving this blade and that blade to Felgus, so I had to ask, is Leaf a good combat unit, or do we just have him seize and that's that? Because I left him with the Rapier on all of my unfinished runs and he wasn't doing very good at all.

Something I've been meaning to ask the Fire Emblem players of this forum... When it comes to the time you spent playing Fire Emblem, what else do you do besides play the game? Namely, how much research and scrutiny goes into how you play? I'll ask some more questions to make my idea clear: - how many times do you usually restart a chapter you've done without any casualties or serious errors (like letting an enemy thief getting away with treasure or something unlikely to happen after you know a map well enough)? Do you rehearse before you proceed to the next chapter? Do you often look for discussions and playlogs by other online to see what strategies others use to clear the maps? In that case, what is the ultimate goal? Self-improvement, competition, higher rank, etc.? - do you often find yourself looking at enemy stats in chapters still to come, so that you can plan ahead how to distribute the resources necessary to complete those future chapters more efficiently? Or is it mainly trial and error? Do you make many notes for yourself that you can come back to later and check/compare to your earlier attempts or progress?

Well, I just went to the website and got this "Conspiracy to Commit Copyright Infringement" lol

Haar should solo the map, pretty much. Don't forget that wyvern knights don't take extra damage from arrows in this game, so don't be afraid to get into enemy snipers' range.

What I notice from watching different let's players on YouTube is that they all seem to compensate for Marcus's absence by fielding frail units with high speed, like Erk and Guy, and putting them into the range of several enemies at once, and then scream in horror when 40% accurate attacks miss 10 ten times in a row during enemy phase. And really, if you arena abuse, you have more of a reason to use the ol' Marcus - Marcus conveniently solos the maps, then his mates train in the arena. I don't understand though, if Marcus is to blame for "hogging exp", why is it okay to level Raven to 20/0, promote him and then have HIM hog that exp. Sure, Raven ends up with stats enabling him to be competent in Endgame thanks to his growths when trained fully, but where did all the paranoia of levelling lower-levelled units go? Just doesn't seem consistent, that's all.

Just wanted to correct that the Nugget Bridge only works in FireRed/LeafGreen, so it's not an option in any of the first generation games. I also wouldn't give Swords Dance so much credit in RBY seeing how criticals cancel out all the attack boosts you receive, so somebody fast like Scyther or Pinsir will face high chances to crit (and therefore render the turns spent setting up with SD useless). It's probably deserving of mention on such lower-tier Pokemon as Kingler and Lickitung, though.

Dig is indeed an early available utility option, but a highly contested one at that. With really poor learnsets (those started improving with, like, generation 4?) in the game, it's too likely that somebody on your team will also want it. I mean, same power as Earthquake except available to way more Pokemon and acquired way earlier? Yes, please! Not something to be wasted on an HM slave, and if you're genuinely going to raise a Charmander for combat purposes, you'll teach Cut to something else.

Did a quick search to see if this has been discussed before but it didn't generate anything. Found this while googling for something else (not really tips on how to get better at FE7, though I guess I could use some): http://www.wikihow.c...n-Fire-Emblem-7 Some very dubious pieces of advice here, unintentionally making the game harder for the player if one were to follow them, including: There's apparently a discussion tab and one person there did humbly suggest that using Marcus is a must for ranked runs, and the site does give you a chance to approve or disapprove of the articles. Maybe somebody could give it a better try? What mystifies me is that Sacred Stones camera screenshot at the top of the page, though.

If somebody gives science no credit, I don't see the benefits of making such people "aware" of science, because with that initial attitude they won't be making any contributions to its development anytime soon. And really, how more "aware" of it can we possibly get when urban life is surrounded with latest inventions and you can't exactly go without them if you want to properly function in today's society. Some people see television, the internet and iPhones and whatnot as a lesser evil rather than something that makes you proud of human progress, and I don't see why deceitful techniques would be needed to convince people of the opposite. What would that achieve anyway? Encourage donations? Give Apple more customers? Just establish peace between the secular and the traditional values? I honestly don't see the point of that manoeuvring when all you get is dubious bragging rights about how you "ahahaha convinced a silly Creationist" of something by being dialectically dishonest in a questionable community like reddit's.

The worst character is probably the one pirate in TRS who reduces every allied unit's stats within 3 squares range or something.

I started my second playthrough in the game and remembering just how much I screwed up the first time I played (due to giving people items they have no use for and then being unable to easily pass them over to units who would appreciate those items more). I even missed getting Holsety because the guide I was checking for item locations neglected to mention it. I wanted to ask for a little support with choosing who should get which items. Sigurd got the Speed Ring so far (because he's always my boss killer of choice, when it's not Levn) but I'm not sure about the rest. The inheritance system is still confusing to me because I didn't make it very far when I first tried the game. I want to plan ahead and get 50+ kills with Sigurd's Silver Sword and Hero Axe, but I'm not sure if anybody will be inheriting those. If I want the kids to inherit the items, what are some of the best choices I could make in the first chapter of the game? Many thanks.

The userbase makes forums what they are, as I see it. So as long as the people here provide thought-provoking and interesting content (with more of it being borne in co-operation and discussion), I will personally be inclined to come and read, perhaps participate.

They did achieve commercial success by getting Roy, Marth and Ike into Super Smash Bros, didn't they? I don't see how a different game will change the status of the series dramatically. The art work does look a bit too anime-ish, but there have always been "waifus" in Fire Emblem that the fans enjoyed ogling over. Search up just about any FE girl's name and you'll find some YouTube videos dedicated to their appreciation.

Really enjoyed reading this, thank you for your time.

If you're talking about the Christian icon, then I wouldn't agree that it's the right place to look for a testament of earthly beauty. Those icons are symbolical to a high extent, pointing to belonging to the other world, depicting people who renounced this one. I personally have a problem with this, because, as trite as it may sound, I happen to seek beauty, comfort and joy in this here life, right now. Science and Christianity were a single entity for quite a time, I'll agree with this. It was the monks doing all the research, and studying thoroughly and whatnot. Key freethinking or secular scientists are offspring of Christianity and its culture, and if it were any different, we wouldn't have made the discoveries that changed our world. This makes militant atheism intolerance towards belief in that the five senses do not exhaust the human experience or, on the contrary, the conservative unwillingness to accept evolution as a fact, to cite an example, all the more absurd. No, sorry but you don't. It's not at all impossible to find out what different pagans believed in, since you have the written and archaeological data from the past, not to mention the existing pagan tribes and nations that still live on. In Ancient Greek mythology, the underworld was hardly after life in the meaning you are applying to it. Hades was for the privileged, for 'special' heroes and special villains. The other souls were believed to simply take other form upon the end of their earthly life, transmigrating endlessly. I'm fairly convinced the concept of reincarnation was not foreign to Egyptians either, but of course I am aware that it's not shared unanimously by every single pagan religion. That was the view that governed when Christianity made its way to the top as a state religion in Egypt, Armenia, Syria, Rome etc., which is what I needed to get my point across. Can't say I made any sense out of this. To clarify what I was trying to say, paganism is indeed universal as there is not a single ethnicity out there that hasn't been pagan at some point. Paganism is also not merely heritage of the past, but reality. I'm not only referring to the pagan cultures that have survived in different parts of the world, but this pronounced pagan approach to life that never really left us. It is also not futile at all to speak of pagans' unity, because pagans are, believe it or not, the most religiously tolerant people. A pagan will travel to a different land and won't be displeased at all to worship different deities from those he is used to, because he will recognise the god in question as serving for a specific purpose, and the only difference that will remain will be an insignificant one - that of the name. Judaism, Christianity, Islam... They were very different in this regard. No devout follower of either will ever agree that the other religions worship the same being under a new name. The Jews were always at war with the other tribes, and the Judaic God was constantly in rage with their flirting with the heathen customs of the next pagan culture they had contact with. Christians were systematically persecuted in the Roman Empire, singled out of the other religions with which the rulers had no problems with. As for the usurper theory being applicable in this case, Christianity doesn't see the Father as an usurper, but as a creator of the universe who is constantly ruling. He had no predecessor and will have no successor. Of course, various religious syncretist sects, like the various gnostical schools of thought, did believe that the creator of the universe was a malevolent being, an usurper, and had God and Satan change roles in their systems, but those were no Christians.

Atheists in the West have been nurtured by the same culture (that has formed as a result of several centuries of stability), therefore it is natural for them to share the Christian morality naturally, without giving it much thought. I'd like to encourage you to take your doubt one step further - why do we feel that we have no right to take another's life? And it's no surprise that you say we do feel one's life is one's right, because a right goes under the category of Law, which also shaped not without the Christian participation to say the least. That, and your name is Phoenix Wright. I kid, I kid. I've heard this countless times before, and it appears more incredible each time I seriously think about it. Science relies on faith just as religion (in particular, Christianity since that's most topical in our milieu) relies on reason. For one, the scientific method demands faith in itself, faith that we can indeed learn things about the world we live in and that the scientific method is capable of providing us with that knowledge through experience. Similarly, if reason had clearly suggested Christians that Jesus was never a historical person, or that he was an ordinary bloke who died like the rest (archaeology testifying that his body was buried here or there, or something, and that there was no resurrection to speak of), there would be no point in treating the Bible as anything but an elaborate allegory from one of the greatest humanists and there would be no Christianity and no Christians. But it just happens that you have all those people who are convinced in the historical authenticity of the events described in the Bible, and who have the experience of communication and life in faith to make it something more than awareness of facts, or a gnosis of some kind. I'm not doubting that specific representatives, both Christian and secular, are capable of finding beauty in their world view and sharing it with the world in a convincing manner. It's still necessary to remember that much of this was born in polemics, out of necessity to persuade or convert. Omar Khayyam is another scientist-poet (one who, I'll confess, interests me quite a bit more than any contemporary personality), not to mention a Muslim-poet as well. I'm not accusing every single person with either belief system of literary, artistic or aesthetic impotence - you don't know me, but trust me when I say I know better than that - I'm saying theology and the scientific method as such do not leave any place for any kind of poetry. The reason we see it is because there is an effort to have some of it too.

I love how everybody's discussing attack accuracies already.