Fire Emblem Tier List

[dondon151]

What? No. Bartre is higher than Karla, but he is still on the lower end of the tier list. Bartre is contributing negatively by sucking and taking up a slot which I could've used to field a better unit.

Character is contributing negatively because he's not one of the top ten units in the tier list. If you really want to draw the line of zero utility that high (at the point where like 75% of the characters in the game are a negative), then I hope you realize the implications behind this principle on how often characters not at the top of the tier list should be used. I believe myself that units should be compared to an empty slot when analyzing their utility, even if their net utility after factoring opportunity costs is less than zero - and from an economic standpoint, this does make sense, because a firm will operate even if its economic profits are negative as long as its normal profits are positive. Therefore, a player will use a unit that contributes positively relative to an empty slot even if he will not contribute as much as a superior character. Or, to put it in simpler terms, the player will be happy as long as he's getting normal profits out of his characters.

He's a negative because he takes up a unit slot.

This isn't even true earlygame.

You can say "he's not that bad" or whatever, but the fact is, he is that bad. The tier list itself says so, and I don't really see how you can disagree as long as Bartre sits on the lower end of the list.

Numbers don't support the notion that earlygame Bartre is "bad," even if he's not as good as some of your other characters. Before dudes like Eliwood, Lowen, and Rebecca start to double, Bartre beats all of them in offense and maybe durability as well as long as he doesn't get doubled. I find it pretty ridiculous that you're actually saying that Bartre's bad because the tier list says so.

With regard to the Jaffar problem, I think you can possibly get yourself in a scenario where it is impossible for Jaffar to survive before you reach him and the only way to ensure his safety is to use up the RNG.

Edited August 5, 2009 by dondon151

[CATS]

I'm saying that if you want to count pre-recruitment things for or against a character, you have to take into consideration the chance of Jaffar/Nino dying before they can even be recruited.

Oh, indeed. I don't know how often Jaffar dies; if it's alot of the time, then you have a pretty good point against him.

As for Nino, as I said, I wouldn't be too worried. A 2% crit chance is extremely unlikely. It's not going to tip the scales one way or the other by comparison to Karla's recruitment needs, which are happening 100% of the time that she's used.

So we feed weak Nino EXP to get to L10 and use a Guiding Ring on her just to have her heal once or twice then die as an enemy distraction? Never mind that the enemies that killed her got through enemy phase taking even less damage than if they had attacked _Karla_.

Okay then, don't give her any EXP or a Guiding Ring. Though if Nino consuming a Guiding Ring is a point against her, I would imagine that Karla requiring you to feed Bartre that Hero Crest should be a point against her, aswell. Difference being, obviously, that Nino doesn't have to use a promo item if you don't want her to, whereas with Karla you don't have a choice.

Anyways, it still doesn't really matter as the point is that, at the very worst, Nino can do something without hurting the rest of the team. At the very minimum, she can be used as Bolting fodder in NoF, or fielded in VoD (once again to probably be used as bait). Karla requires that resources be essentially wasted in order for her to even exist. If her contributions after joining (basically, whatever she is able to do in VoD) are worth the wasting of those resources earlier in the game, then Karla definitely wins. If not, she's an overall negative no matter what, while Nino is atleast like 0.001 positive or something, so Nino wins.

Character is contributing negatively because he's not one of the top ten units in the tier list. If you really want to draw the line of zero utility that high (at the point where like 75% of the characters in the game are a negative), then I hope you realize the implications behind this principle on how often characters not at the top of the tier list should be used. I believe myself that units should be compared to an empty slot when analyzing their utility, even if their net utility after factoring opportunity costs is less than zero - and from an economic standpoint, this does make sense, because a firm will operate even if its economic profits are negative as long as its normal profits are positive. Therefore, a player will use a unit that contributes positively relative to an empty slot even if he will not contribute as much as a superior character. Or, to put it in simpler terms, the player will be happy as long as he's getting normal profits out of his characters.

Well, the reason I'm saying this is that people always assume that characters can't realistically acquire supports with units who are ranked towards the bottom of the tier list; the tier list FAQ itself even says so. To suggest that suddenly, using those lower end units isn't a problem, would entirely contradict this standard. I don't particularly care one way or the other, I'd just like to avoid contradictions where someone says "Canas can't support Bartre because Bartre won't be used!" while at the same time also saying "Karla requiring you to use Bartre doesn't matter!" Either pick one or the other, either any unit is viable, or bad units are used less often.

Also, the top ten units aren't always the ones that are used. First of all, we're not even sure who the top ten units are, as these tiers aren't ordered yet. And second, the game doesn't play the same way we do when debating, with set averages. The RNG can go either way, giving a upper mid unit better-than-usual stats and thus a slot in the party, or screwing over a high tier unit and knocking them out of their spot.

This isn't even true earlygame.

I guess you didn't bother to read my whole post.

I agree that he isn't really a negative during the very early chapters, but those alone won't even be enough to get him to L10, much less 10/5. You're going to have to field him beyond just those first few chapters.

I find it pretty ridiculous that you're actually saying that Bartre's bad because the tier list says so.

So the tier list is meaningless, and we should pay no attention to it?

Edited August 5, 2009 by CATS

[Florete]

I don't think Nino's recruitment has anything to do with Jaffar.

I'm saying that if you want to count pre-recruitment things for or against a character, you have to take into consideration the chance of Jaffar/Nino dying before they can even be recruited.

I think the problem with that is that you get a Game Over if Jaffar or Nino die, so it's more like the game forces you to save them and not the character so they can be recruited. It would be like penalizing Hector because if he isn't used he still has to Sieze, but he won't be any durable if unused so he's likely to die by anything on the way. Jaffar and Nino's recruitment is also something you'll do regardless of if you plan to use them not. You're not going to always use Bartre.

[dondon151]

Oh, indeed. I don't know how often Jaffar dies; if it's alot of the time, then you have a pretty good point against him.

It's not a lot of the time, but Jaffar is pretty vulnerable to Thunder mages and a few Swordreaver fighters and they 3RKO him in tandem IIRC. Jaffar also doesn't use an Elixir unless he's ridiculously low on HP.

Well, the reason I'm saying this is that people always assume that characters can't realistically acquire supports with units who are ranked towards the bottom of the tier list; the tier list FAQ itself even says so. To suggest that suddenly, using those lower end units isn't a problem, would entirely contradict this standard. I don't particularly care one way or the other, I'd just like to avoid contradictions where someone says "Canas can't support Bartre because Bartre won't be used!" while at the same time also saying "Karla requiring you to use Bartre doesn't matter!" Either pick one or the other, either any unit is viable, or bad units are used less often.

I didn't say anything contrary to low tier units being used less often. I just said that people don't mind using low tier units as long as those units garner a normal profit, though the fact that they will be used less often than high tier units is a result of their utility being less than those high tier units. If we're assuming Karla is to be played, then we might as well assume that Bartre is being played, and Bartre does have positive utility (in fact, moreso than Karla).

Also, the top ten units aren't always the ones that are used. First of all, we're not even sure who the top ten units are, as these tiers aren't ordered yet. And second, the game doesn't play the same way we do when debating, with set averages. The RNG can go either way, giving a upper mid unit better-than-usual stats and thus a slot in the party, or screwing over a high tier unit and knocking them out of their spot.

The fact is that top tier units will be consistently superior to high tier units and so on, and units below a certain point in the tier list (generally corresponding to the number of available unit slots) generally have negative utility when factoring in opportunity cost.

I guess you didn't bother to read my whole post.

I agree that he isn't really a negative during the very early chapters, but those alone won't even be enough to get him to L10, much less 10/5. You're going to have to field him beyond just those first few chapters.

I was addressing points one by one and forgot to remove that.

So the tier list is meaningless, and we should pay no attention to it?

You're using Bartre's position on the tier list to argue about his position on the tier list. Well, not quite, but being bad and being low on the tier list are almost synonymous.

[Mekkah]

I think the problem with that is that you get a Game Over if Jaffar or Nino die, so it's more like the game forces you to save them and not the character so they can be recruited. It would be like penalizing Hector because if he isn't used he still has to Sieze, but he won't be any durable if unused so he's likely to die by anything on the way. Jaffar and Nino's recruitment is also something you'll do regardless of if you plan to use them not. You're not going to always use Bartre.

You don't get a Game Over if Nino/Jaffar dies, only Zephiel or a lord on that map. The only reason to reset if you're not going to use these two is if you want to play 28x, but that is an entirely different story.

[Florete]

I think the problem with that is that you get a Game Over if Jaffar or Nino die, so it's more like the game forces you to save them and not the character so they can be recruited. It would be like penalizing Hector because if he isn't used he still has to Sieze, but he won't be any durable if unused so he's likely to die by anything on the way. Jaffar and Nino's recruitment is also something you'll do regardless of if you plan to use them not. You're not going to always use Bartre.

You don't get a Game Over if Nino/Jaffar dies, only Zephiel or a lord on that map. The only reason to reset if you're not going to use these two is if you want to play 28x, but that is an entirely different story.

I'm reasonably sure you get a Game Over if Jaffar dies, as I've had that happen to me rather often at times. Even if that isn't the case, I'd take the fact that keeping them alive means I get an extra chapter for extra experience and items outweighs what I have to do to keep them safe in the first place. Recruiting Karla doesn't get us anything special like that, just a crappy fighter.

[CATS]

I didn't say anything contrary to low tier units being used less often. I just said that people don't mind using low tier units as long as those units garner a normal profit, though the fact that they will be used less often than high tier units is a result of their utility being less than those high tier units.

I thought they were low tier precisely because they don't garner a "normal profit."

If we're assuming Karla is to be played, then we might as well assume that Bartre is being played, and Bartre does have positive utility (in fact, moreso than Karla).

How does he have positive utility? Are you arguing that a team with Bartre > a team which doesn't use him and has a Upper Mid or High unit in his place?

The fact is that top tier units will be consistently superior to high tier units and so on, and units below a certain point in the tier list (generally corresponding to the number of available unit slots) generally have negative utility when factoring in opportunity cost.

Yeah, and Bartre doesn't have this negative utility you're referring to?

[dondon151]

I thought they were low tier precisely because they don't garner a "normal profit."

No, they're low tier because their normal profit is less than that of the high tier characters.

How does he have positive utility? Are you arguing that a team with Bartre > a team which doesn't use him and has a Upper Mid or High unit in his place?

Yeah, and Bartre doesn't have this negative utility you're referring to?

I can see that you didn't understand my principle, or maybe it's my fault for not stating it clearly enough.

Here's the thing: a team with Bartre is better than a team that has an empty unit slot. This means that Bartre has a normal profit (I'll substitute profit with utility from now on so it won't look like I'm talking about money). Bartre has a negative economic utility because he is not an optimal unit choice for the team; however, so are about 75% of the rest of the cast. Having negative economic utility doesn't stop the player from using Bartre (or anyone else, for that matter) - if the player decides to use Bartre, then he will have reason to as long as Bartre has positive normal utility, i.e. as long as he helps the team more by being there than by being replaced with an empty unit slot.

From being tied for the second most available character in the game, Bartre garners a lot of normal utility, and it seems that according to the logic of everyone else in this thread, Karla needs to be penalized (or in this case, needs to get credit) for Bartre's utility.

One inherent problem with judging characters by economic utility is that it kind of becomes a messed up availability contest. A mid tier character can be fairly decent, but if we field him, then he is a detriment because he prevents a top, high, or upper mid tier character from being fielded. Suppose we had two mid tier characters of the exact same quality, but the difference is that one is available for longer. Since the one with more availability has negative economic utility for longer, than he is considered worse than his less available counterpart, even if both might be performing satisfactorily relative to enemy units. I shouldn't have to remind you how this seems completely counterintuitive.

Edited August 5, 2009 by dondon151

[Lord Raven]

I'm reasonably sure you get a Game Over if Jaffar dies, as I've had that happen to me rather often at times. Even if that isn't the case, I'd take the fact that keeping them alive means I get an extra chapter for extra experience and items outweighs what I have to do to keep them safe in the first place. Recruiting Karla doesn't get us anything special like that, just a crappy fighter.

You don't, btw.

[CATS]

You don't have empty slots. The game gives you far, far more units than you have room to field. I don't see how "it just seems counterintuitive" or "it makes availability an issue" is a good enough reason to pretend otherwise.

I mean, we certainly can pretend that units are being compared against an empty slot, since the tier list is already completely theoretical and we already make arbitrary assumptions about it (such as disregarding ranks, main lord doesn't get points for seizing, etc.). I just don't see why.

Edited August 6, 2009 by CATS

[Quasar]

And yet another tier list falls victim to negative utility.

Economic utility

It is counterintuitive alright. I'm not sure there is a way to put characters in tiers that makes sense and is entertaining to discuss.

I mean, we certainly can pretend that units are being compared against an empty slot. I just don't see why.

Anything is better than assuming that non-high tier characters want to avoid negative utility and either aren't fielded after forced period or go out and die on the first enemy they can. The example dondon gave about mid-tier characters joining at different times applied to this would lead to both being about equal - only used for a single chapter and ranked according their performance in it. Fascinating.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Quasar

[CATS]

So, I mentioned Canas moving up earlier, and I don't remember anyone ever saying anything to the contrary, and one person agreeing. To elaborate on some reasons why, I believe the standards used in the FE11 tier list are that units are assumed to always get an early Master Seal, even if this means multiple units get the exact same one? If the same standards were to apply here, then the option of promoting Canas early helps him out a ton. His main problems stem from his low AS before promotion, however, his promotion increases his Con to 8 and gives him +3 Spd, for an effective +4 AS. This allows him to double and easily one-round the majority of the enemies (during the chapters after you get the first Guiding Ring, atleast), and largely removes his AS problems in general. He also obviously gets staff use, which helps him to be more useful than someone like Bartre or Rebecca.

A level 12 Erk has 12.5 Spd; a 12/1 Canas has 12.4, and Erk gains no Spd on promotion, so even if we promoted him early aswell, this figure would not change. Likewise their defenses are very similar. It really bothers me to see Canas in the same tier as Renault and Wallace.

[dondon151]

So, I mentioned Canas moving up earlier, and I don't remember anyone ever saying anything to the contrary, and one person agreeing. To elaborate on some reasons why, I believe the standards used in the FE11 tier list are that units are assumed to always get an early Master Seal, even if this means multiple units get the exact same one? If the same standards were to apply here, then the option of promoting Canas early helps him out a ton. His main problems stem from his low AS before promotion, however, his promotion increases his Con to 8 and gives him +3 Spd, for an effective +4 AS. This allows him to double and easily one-round the majority of the enemies (during the chapters after you get the first Guiding Ring, atleast), and largely removes his AS problems in general. He also obviously gets staff use, which helps him to be more useful than someone like Bartre or Rebecca.

A level 12 Erk has 12.5 Spd; a 12/1 Canas has 12.4, and Erk gains no Spd on promotion, so even if we promoted him early aswell, this figure would not change. Likewise their defenses are very similar. It really bothers me to see Canas in the same tier as Renault and Wallace.

I didn't pay attention to Canas's current position, but he does need to be above Wallace/Renault.

[-Cynthia-]

Really there should probably be a Middle tier, especially since Low and Top are rather small.

Also, units not being ordered within tiers is beginning to bother me.

Edited August 11, 2009 by -Cynthia-

[CATS]

A cursory attempt at ordering the tiers.

-Top-

Marcus

Raven

Ninian/Nils

Marcus seems to be accepted as the best, so he's good where he is. Raven vs Ninian seems difficult to measure, but I'm gonna go with Raven as the winner, due to availability and the fact that there's been some general anti-Ninian sentiments throughout the topic.

-High-

Priscilla

Serra

Lowen

Sain

Kent

Oswin

Guy

Matthew

Eliwood

Pent

Harken

Who should be top of this tier? Let's see.

Matthew: Apparently you don't need the Silver Card in unranked. So no. No idea where he should really go, but he offers useful combat earlygame and thief utility throughout (and he's your only thief for a good while). I'll toss him under Osw1n/Guy.

Guy: Excellent offense earlygame, but as the game goes on, he gets worse and worse. Mono-swords throughout the entire game is balls. He also needs supports in order for his offense to really keep up throughout the entire game, but this is very iffy as his Priscilla support is slow and she has better partners, while Matthew won't always be fielded after his level caps. I'm gonna say no.

Priscilla/Serra: This just depends on how highly you value healing utility, as that's what they offer for a significant portion of their existence. On the other hand, combat performance is clearly being valued over Exp gains here with Marcus rated as the game's best unit, so you might as well hand these two an early promotion. Too lazy to look up stats and see how good they are compared to Kent / Sain, but I know that at the least they have good offense against generics, and still offer staff utility, so their case is looking pretty strong. I'm gonna put 'em at the top, with Priscilla over Serra (though I still question that; Serra is qualifying for promotion earlier than Priscilla and has several chapters as the only available healer).

Kent/Sain/Low1n: Someone said that defense > offense in this game. If so, Low1n wins out of these three, considering his higher defensive stats and excellent support with Marcus. I'm still inclined to keep them all together, and inclined to say Sain > Kent as the Str gap is considerably larger than the Spd gap. I'll put these guys right under Priscilla/Serra; their combat is probably overall unmatched by anyone else in this tier, and they also have their high move, which is apparently considered to be quite significant if the opinions on Priscilla vs Serra are anything to go by.

Osw1n: Earlygame invincibility makes him very valuable during that time, but as the rest of the team's durability improves, Osw1n's usefulness decreases drastically. He strikes me as similar to Guy; very useful during the earlygame, but becoming steadily less impressive as the game goes on. I'll put these two right under the Cavs, with Osw1n over Guy, because once again I remember someone saying defense > offense in this game.

Eliwood: Starts off fairly poor but improves with his Hector support and solid growths. He's probably better than Osw1n/Guy later on, as in after he promotes, while being less useful than them early on. I'd say that gives the w1n to Osw1n/Guy, as the team in general is much stronger later in the game, so a win later on is less impressive than a win early on (the placement of Marcus as the game's best unit strongly reinforces this notion).

Harken/Pent: These guys are going at the bottom because they have little availability compared to everyone else in the tier, and since this is High tier, everyone here is assumed to be helpful and creating positive utility while they're around. Pent has slightly more availability than Harken (I think he joins 1 chapter earlier, and Harken is only recruited like partway through PFoD), and a high staff rank, so I'll just put him over Harken for now.

Might type some more thoughts up for the lower tiers later.

Also, I'm still recommending Canas to jump up to Upper Mid. He's by no means bad, and he doesn't deserve the same tier as many units that are indeed quite bad (Heath, Rath, Fiora, Renault, Wallace, etc).

Edited August 12, 2009 by CATS

[Florete]

Personally, I think Priscilla and Serra could make the jump to Top. Staff utility is extremely useful for at least the first half of the game, and then there are chapters like Genesis and Cog of Destiny that practically require units with high staff levels and good Resistance. Enemies may suck later in the game, but we get pounded with a lot of them, so healing is still highly valuable. Add in the fact that both are great combat units when they promote and I can definitely see them comparing to the likes of Raven and Marcus.

Also, Ninian/Nils could probably jump to the top of High, or near it. I believe the only reason they were rated so highly before was because of experience rank on top of what they already did, but we don't care about that anymore. Either above or below the cavs sounds good to me.

I also agree with CATS on Guy; he's kind of overrated due to being reliant on supports and no good ranged options.

I have no comment on his other suggestions at this point in time.

[-Cynthia-]

I still can't even fathom why Athos would be in Low. He's one of the best characters in the Final Chapter(and he's forced), only problem is that he's only around for one chapter, but I doubt this constitutes him being lower than people whon are bad most of the game(Heath etc.)

And no offense, but Raven doesn't seem to check here that often, it might be better for someone else to repost this, I'd be willing, or if whoever else wants to.

Edited August 12, 2009 by -Cynthia-

[_____]

I still can't even fathom why Athos would be in Low. He's one of the best characters in the Final Chapter(and he's forced), only problem is that he's only around for one chapter, but I doubt this constitutes him being lower than people whon are bad most of the game(Heath etc.)

The fact that he's lower than Renault, who has, like, 1 chapter of availability over him and is pretty bad during the entirety of it is odd.

[Colonel M]

Athos should be right dab in the middle since he is the most "neutral" character in the game.

[Raven]

I still can't even fathom why Athos would be in Low. He's one of the best characters in the Final Chapter(and he's forced), only problem is that he's only around for one chapter, but I doubt this constitutes him being lower than people whon are bad most of the game(Heath etc.)

And no offense, but Raven doesn't seem to check here that often, it might be better for someone else to repost this, I'd be willing, or if whoever else wants to.

I'm here. I check in when I need to do so.

I still can't even fathom why Athos would be in Low. He's one of the best characters in the Final Chapter(and he's forced), only problem is that he's only around for one chapter, but I doubt this constitutes him being lower than people whon are bad most of the game(Heath etc.)

The fact that he's lower than Renault, who has, like, 1 chapter of availability over him and is pretty bad during the entirety of it is odd.

I believe I put Renault where I did because he comes with a Fortify stave, which is very useful in the Final chapter when so many units are getting injured about the place. Athos isn't needed because other units can do just as good a job.

I'll also take the several other points that have been raised into account when editing the list.

[Florete]

I believe I put Renault where I did because he comes with a Fortify stave, which is very useful in the Final chapter when so many units are getting injured about the place. Athos isn't needed because other units can do just as good a job.

I'll also take the several other points that have been raised into account when editing the list.

The fact that he comes with it is meaningless, since anyone with A staves can use it. I don't need to use Renault to get and use the Fortify staff.

On the other hand, Athos is pretty much superior to Renault in every way. There's no reason he should be ranked lower at all.

[Colonel M]

Athos isn't needed because other units can do just as good a job.

That's a poor excuse. He's a forced character that can use any tome and staff. Also one of the only units that can actually damage the Dragon. Yes there are others, but he can do it. He's practically neutral in all terms so I don't see the reason why he should be in Low altogether. As I've said smack dab in the middle is pretty good spot for him or a bit lower pending on your thoughts.

[Raven]

I believe I put Renault where I did because he comes with a Fortify stave, which is very useful in the Final chapter when so many units are getting injured about the place. Athos isn't needed because other units can do just as good a job.

I'll also take the several other points that have been raised into account when editing the list.

The fact that he comes with it is meaningless, since anyone with A staves can use it. I don't need to use Renault to get and use the Fortify staff.

On the other hand, Athos is pretty much superior to Renault in every way. There's no reason he should be ranked lower at all.

I see what you mean, but Renault still needs to be recruited to obtain the staff. I don't disagree that Athos is superior to Renault in every way, so I probably would be shifting him to above Renault, at least.

Athos isn't needed because other units can do just as good a job.

That's a poor excuse. He's a forced character that can use any tome and staff. Also one of the only units that can actually damage the Dragon. Yes there are others, but he can do it. He's practically neutral in all terms so I don't see the reason why he should be in Low altogether. As I've said smack dab in the middle is pretty good spot for him or a bit lower pending on your thoughts.

That much is true, but he's a great unit who joins in the last chapter and gets lost amongst the sea of other great units who can do what he can do just as well. I don't believe he should go any higher than the bottom half of lower mid.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Raven

[Florete]

I see what you mean, but Renault still needs to be recruited to obtain the staff. I don't disagree that Athos is superior to Renault in every way, so I probably would be shifting him to above Renault, at least.

The problem is that we don't credit units for items they come with. We rank characters based on how they help towards completing the game when in play. I can recruit Renault, take his Fortify, and dump him. I never have to actually use him to make use of the Fortify. The fact that he can use it is a point for him, although in a comparison vs. Athos that's canceled out since Athos can also use it.

That much is true, but he's a great unit who joins in the last chapter and gets lost amongst the sea of other great units who can do what he can do just as well. I don't believe he should go any higher than the bottom half of lower mid.

Athos is a tricky character to tier. He's like Lehran, Gareth, and Nasir, in the case that he's good when he's around, but he's never around. I'd say those three (Nasir at least) are comparitavely better than Athos, and even they aren't ranked as high as Mid, so I'd agree that somewhere in Lower Mid would be good for Athos.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Red Fox of Fire

[-Cynthia-]

I would say only Nasir is better, since Athos has better relative availability than they do, he bascially ties with Lehran is usefulness and Gareth is meh.

Athos is pretty handy in the Final. He can use staves for one, and if he's attacking he can use Luna and do more damage than almost anyone against Kenneth/Ursula while taking only a weak counter in return and is one of the only few able to hurt the dragon, plus he's forced.

I still think a Middle tier is a good idea. Upper Mid and Lower Mid are rather crowded (11 and 13), and you run into issues of decent units like Isadora being in the same tier as nubs like Wallace.

Edited August 12, 2009 by -Cynthia-