Defeatist Elitist

Well, the main reason I think Anima > Light is that Anima is lighter and deals more damage, which are two of the most important things for tomes. Anima also > Dark, because Dark is heavier and less accurate, and some of the tomes are really quirky and bad (in FE8 at least, FE7 Luna is brokenly awesome).

THISTHISTHISTHIS! I have a policy of never taking anything offensive seriously. :P As a result, I haven't been really mad for, well, years and years.

I think the point is more that Moulder in particular is excellent with Anima magic, as he loses far less AS then most characters, especially Lute. Artur or Natasha can go Bishop, but Moulder's sexy Con allows him to wield Excalibur and other Anima tomes far better than anyone else.

I wake up as Lucius and- You know what? I don't think this can end well at all! What the fuck am I supposed to do, eh? :P

They're both INCREDIBLE characters, but Kent just has a small edge overall. In practice, I usually use both of them, and Lowen, and then if one gets RNG screwed I can ditch them.

Honestly, I'd say that Kent has a slight edge on Sain...

What is it with this forum's taste? :P THE MOUSTACHE!

Happy Thanksgiving. THANKS FOR ALL THOSE SMALLPOX BLANKETS! <_<

Well, I just got back from the dinner with my family. :D

Yeah, I was going to say, with the Paladins, Ike, Mist, and a couple other Mountedish characters, you would have one totally kick ass team there.

So, since this game has 6 Paladin thingies, and they're OMGWTFBARBEQUE amazing in most cases, especially with their weapons, using every single one of them is awesome. Geoffrey is the only one who is remotely lagging. Now, most of you guys probably know this, but I'm going to post this anyway to make things easier for everyone. This is a way to, if you want, get every possible Paladin weapon combination. It's actually pretty easy. First, Geoffrey and Titania start out Paladins, so they're already taken, and Lances/Bows and Lances/Axes is too. That means that Oscar has to go Lances/Swords. Lances are now dealt with. Now, the others can do several things. One of Makalov or Kieran will take the others weapon type, the other will take bows. Then Astrid will take the remaining. For simplicity, we'll say Kieran takes Swords. Then Makalov takes bows, and Astrid takes Axes. So here's a list: Lances/Bows: Geoffrey Lances/Axes: Titania Lances/Swords: Oscar Axes/Swords: Kieran/Makalov Axes/Bows: Kieran/Astrid Swords/Bows: Makalov/Astrid And their you have it. Of course, no matter what, using all the Paladins would give you a super versatile team, but this is pretty cool anyway.

Your Sain is pretty awesome. Skill isn't very important anyway... :D Sain in general, I think he's pretty great. Him and Kent are both amazing. Paladin's are truly epic. I often use many.

Puppeteer - Summons Monsters to fight for him. Kind of like, based on the tome or weapon he wields, when he attacks it shows the attack animation of a different creature. Mainly intended for FE8. For example, he could attack with the Revenant weapon, which would be a fairly weak weapon, with the Revenant animation. Or a Mauthedoog weapon that was fast, accurate, but low on damage, etc.

If I'm actually playing, I usually train the character I get earlier, until I get the later character, and then compare them. The worse one is usually not used.

Also, McCain looks really cute hobbling around up there with his little stoop. ^_^ And his voice is cute too.

The (usual) point of Fire Emblem Debating is to find which characters most easily and efficiently can clear the most difficult mode possible (overall). However, debates could be held on other things as well. That is a possibility. It's just that they are usually about what I said earlier.

GODDAMNIT. I thought I posted somewhere that we normally mean the character with the highest probability of being best... I mean, pretending that characters can't be screwed is a bit silly, hey?

I believe the genre you guys are looking for is Point and Click Adventure. They where insanely popular on PC at one point, and mostly consisted of you methodically and patiently picking up everything you ever saw and rubbing it experimentally against everything else. But I like Time Hollow. It's fun.

I see Wist's point, and it's a good one, however their are a couple things I should point out. One, and the most important, StarCraft is a Multi player game. If any of you did watch the video (I hope you did, it was amazing :P), much of the value of the Valkyrie's came from the opponent NOT KNOWING HOW TO COUNTER Valkyries. They had no idea what to do when faced with that. In a multiplayer game, things aren't static. In Fire Emblem, everything's pretty predictable and static. But to sandman. I understand that your point is simply to win the game, not to get Max Ranks. Max Ranks however, is assumed in order to REFINE the character pool further. I will continue discussing later, but I don't have much time right now... Oh, and sandman, if you get Visual Boy Advance, you can record AVIs of your game. So you can record yourself playing through any of the GBA games.

Oh come on, living in America doesn't have too much do do with what I was saying. First of all, I didn't claim to understand America's needs for Health Care, I just explained an example I saw. But honestly, we'll see what happens when the elections roll 'round. I believe in equality, semi-socialism, etc, all that "Liberal Bullshit". This is the main reason I support Obama, because I'd much rather have an intellectual in command of the massive adjacent nation then a maverick. Oh, and lawl at saying that Obama should take lies like a man. Because everyone knows that lieing is a good trait for your leader.

I don't think you understand. Take one situation. You have two characters. Character A can deal with the situation in 5 turns. Character B takes 10 turns. Character A is better. This is an incredible oversimplification, but I think it shows my point. The Debating Standards are there because there is a "best way". Take the Olympics. The best runner is the one who runs the distance in the least amount of time, right? Just because you can run 100m doesn't give you a Gold Metal.

Well, that obviously says something about YOUR taste to, doesn't it. :P

HHM (and ranked runs) is the only mode considered for a variety of reasons. Let me dig them up: (quote from Titania topic): "Without a goal or idea, things become confused and pointless. For example, with no regard to BEXP, people could say any character is the best because they can just sit that character there surrounded by un equipped characters, picking off every enemy on the field one by one. That is to say, the debate standards are there to provide a goal to reach towards, a reasonable one, and one that the game itself seems to be flaunting. Think of it this way. Logically, character's true value is tested best in Hard Mode (tell me if you disagree). This is because if something is harder it requires the character to be even better, in other words, raising the difficulty refines the remaining units until only the best remain. Now, Maximum BEXP is the only real goal we have in FE9 HM, and would make the game more difficult. Thus, if a character is actually good they should be one of the most useful units in said situation. This is what debating is based on, or something like it. It is difficult to explain. As Vincent said, it's more something that you learn from debating." For example, I want too find out the best Soccer Player in the English Leagues. Now, I'm logically only going to go based on people's performance in the Premiership and highest level competitions, since being able to score 2 points a game in a piss easy environment doesn't make you better than someone who can score 1 in a much harder environment. This is the idea behind this. You use bows, you may be able too use them more effectively. But it is actually easier (as we have proven) overall to use better weapon types. Maybe your strategy is based on that. But as I said before, No Strategy > Strategy, and therefore bow users are inherently weaker in most of the titles. That is not too say they don't have strong points, it's just stating that they are generally eclipsed by other things. In general, other weapons will be better. If you prove your supports better, then yes, they will be accepted. But much of the confusion seems to be based around this: When we're debating, we tend to fight other people's good points. For example, the debate where I am supporting Wil. Many of you have made many valid points, although I have not admitted them. This is just because I wouldn't be defending my character well if I did. Rebbecca IS a better character. But if I'm defending Wil, I'm going to fight that with every fibre of my being. I'm going to bend things, and present them in a way that will make Wil look better. If I'm obviously proven wrong, I will admit it, but I will usually maintain my stance in an actual debate.

Do you still take McSame seriously? He basically supports everything Bush does... The last 8 years, the Republicans dominated, because they know how the political game works. They never bother with issues, in fact, they would rather Americans never look at the issues, because they get owned their. Most of what they do is with words. They put a negative connotation on words like "socialist", "liberal", and even "elite". They are "patriotic". They make their key words. Al Gore and Kerry didn't know how to play the game. They just said what they where going to do, and they had good ideas. But that was the wrong choice, although Gore actually won anyway, so meh. McSame simply attacks Obama at every turn. As does Palin. They do things like call him "unpatriotic". But things are kind of changing now. Obama has keyed into the game. He's made his key word "change", and boy is it helping him. The accusations the Republicans throw at him are no longer working as well. Unlike before, when you can fudge and lie all you wanted, know that the internet is where it is, when they lie, they are called on it. That is why there are so many Republican Hypocrisy videoes and such going around. Politics is changing, and hopefully for the better. I believe Obama won. He addressed the issues, and explained points. He did what was important. McSame just attacked him over and over, throwing in a couple "patriotic" speeches here and there. For example, Obama's Health Care plan is WAY better than McSame's (if that name is annoying, you can tell me to stop, I just love it to pieces). Obama explained it. McCain went up and said, "My healthcare plan is good for Americans. Obama's healthcare plan is totally shitty, and sucks.", then, Obama comes up and says "You know, that was a pack of lies, and your Health Care plan is REALLY bad." McCain comes up and says "Obama's healthcare is shitty. Mine is patriotic." and repeats the same lies from his last statement. In short, never trust a man who shares a name with a French Fry brand. And when electing a leader, choose the one who, when his life is threatened, can fly away using his ears, as opposed to the one who will attempt to hobble to safety while wheezing.

You have horrible taste. FACT: Makalov is uber hawt. :P