FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked

[dondon151]

I still don't know why we haven't tiered non-LM versions of characters.

[Florete]

The fact that earlygame LM chapters are piss easy would mean it has a minimal effect anyway.

I mean, are people really going to use LM availability as an argument to kick Lyn out of LoMid?

Sure, why not? That's 12 maps that Lyn is good in. She also happens to be your best boss killer for a lot of them. Of course, this all depends on if you're going to assume LHM is S ranked. If not, there's no reason to give units credit for it.

[Narga_Rocks]

If LHM is to be assumed S ranked, the units there need to get credit for it since that's officially "part" of the game as a whole. However, it's my view that LHM shouldn't be assumed S ranked since this is "HHM ranked" and not "LHM->HHM ranked." LHM can be assumed, but only as a level booster, much like it is on the efficiency list.

I don't see why assuming LHM to be S ranked should result in:

"the units there need to get credit for it since that's officially "part" of the game as a whole"

I think it's more like us using fixed mode for PoR transfers in RD. It lets you (partially) regulate how much of a level booster those units get. In an efficiency tier list, LHM should be assumed to be played efficiently, and so the exp the units get and their likely levels can be mostly determined from that. In a Ranked tier list, LHM can be assumed to be played for the best rank, and units' levels can be determined from that.

It would make the list inaccurate to assume those units appear at base level, but it could arguably go against the spirit of the list to assume they are BAd to max level in LHM or something silly like that. Assuming that the guidelines for the HHM list are also used while playing LHM seems like the easiest way to adjudicate the levels of units coming from LHM.

But do units coming out of PoR get credit for clearing PoR in the RD tier list? No, they don't. And they shouldn't, because PoR is not part of RD. PoR is simply a level booster, a means to an end, and there's nothing about the game of PoR that affects transfer units in RD (for example, Rolf has a (T) version despite being one of the worst PoR units. Some other units have (T) versions despite being some of the worst candidates for transfer, like Haar). In the same way, LHM is not HHM. If this list is to rank units based on how they contribute to S ranking HHM, LHM should not be considered S ranked because that doesn't help you S rank HHM aside from Funds (which is easy). If it's assumed the player goes through it at all, which is fine and probably for the best, it should be done fast and used as a level booster for a choice few characters (which characters depends on those being argued)

If you're to assume LHM is S ranked, there's a goal to be met in those 12 maps, and the units who help you reach that goal should receive credit for it. Removing that goal acknowledges that it can just be skipped and that's why units wouldn't get credit. Adding that goal means that, according to the tier list, it is necessary to play through and beat those 12 maps as a requisite towards beating the game, and there are certain units that allow those 12 maps to be cleared. And where did you get BAing anyway?

Does anyone else agree with me or am I alone on this?

I got BAing from:

Using it is as a "level booster" alone feels like an inconsistent and arbitrary middle ground. If the logic of simply using LHM to help you S Rank HHM is taken to its full extent, then logically, you should be boss abusing your LHM units in Ch 10 and making them awesome, doing everything you can in LHM to help your ranking of HHM. Of course, people would protest this. So it would be better to go with one of the other two options.

Anyway, my point about PoR and RD is that there is some way to prevent unreasonable bonuses in RD. Fixed Mode.

This:

"it should be done fast and used as a level booster for a choice few characters"

I have to ask where it comes from. It makes sense for a HHM efficiency tier list to assume LM is played efficiently. I don't see why it makes sense for a HHM ranked tier list to assume the same thing. Simply stating "level booster" is arbitrary. There has to be some adjudication for the levels they get coming out. Using the same LM standard whether the HHM standard is efficiency or ranked doesn't make much sense to me.

And since I'm only trying to suggest ranks in LM for a way of determining what levels are possible (wouldn't Serra have a higher level this way?), I don't see why they should have to get any credit for it.

As for:

"If you're to assume LHM is S ranked, there's a goal to be met in those 12 maps, and the units who help you reach that goal should receive credit for it."

I'd have to suggest that

"it should be done fast"

is a goal as well. It is a different goal than ranking LM, but a goal nonetheless. If suggesting the need to rank LHM (If it's assumed the player goes through it at all) means the units should receive credit, I submit that suggesting the need to go through it quickly ("If it's assumed the player goes through it at all") would also result in the units receiving credit for it.

Oh, and why not do a thing like in RD where you have a version of characters that went through LM and those that don't? You can even state an expected level for the LM versions of the characters. People could then try to justify a different level and explain why. Or just go with the level listed and compare the characters from there. Only thing is it wouldn't be as easy to make comparisons since you really can't assume that only one character from LM got levels, and I suppose it wouldn't be right to assume that all LM characters were given equal kills (or staff use) per chapter of existence.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Florete]

This:

"it should be done fast and used as a level booster for a choice few characters"

I have to ask where it comes from. It makes sense for a HHM efficiency tier list to assume LM is played efficiently. I don't see why it makes sense for a HHM ranked tier list to assume the same thing.

And why not? It largely has the same effect on both and can otherwise be skipped. The fact that it can be skipped and since this list is based on S ranking HHM is why I don't think S ranking LHM should matter, thus LHM, if assumed, would be exactly as I've stated since we never allow things like boss abuse. Theoretically that might make sense, but it just doesn't follow our rules. It would be like allowing resets for transfers.

Simply stating "level booster" is arbitrary. There has to be some adjudication for the levels they get coming out. Using the same LM standard whether the HHM standard is efficiency or ranked doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm sure we can all decide what levels would be reasonable given this criteria. I don't see how this doesn't make sense.

As for:

"If you're to assume LHM is S ranked, there's a goal to be met in those 12 maps, and the units who help you reach that goal should receive credit for it."

I'd have to suggest that

"it should be done fast"

is a goal as well. It is a different goal than ranking LM, but a goal nonetheless. If suggesting the need to rank LHM (If it's assumed the player goes through it at all) means the units should receive credit, I submit that suggesting the need to go through it quickly ("If it's assumed the player goes through it at all") would also result in the units receiving credit for it.

Not at all. It's as previously stated right after that:

Removing that goal acknowledges that it can just be skipped and that's why units wouldn't get credit.

If it's only done for the levels, why would anyone get credit for it? Units don't get credit simply for leveling. In the end, the point is that S ranking adds an unnecessary requirement to what playing through LHM should actually be doing for HHM (higher levels for units), and if you're going to have a separate requirement that needs to be reached, you need to credit units for helping you reach it.

Oh, and why not do a thing like in RD where you have a version of characters that went through LM and those that don't? You can even state an expected level for the LM versions of the characters. People could then try to justify a different level and explain why. Or just go with the level listed and compare the characters from there. Only thing is it wouldn't be as easy to make comparisons since you really can't assume that only one character from LM got levels, and I suppose it wouldn't be right to assume that all LM characters were given equal kills (or staff use) per chapter of existence.

That works.

[Narga_Rocks]

This:

"it should be done fast and used as a level booster for a choice few characters"

I have to ask where it comes from. It makes sense for a HHM efficiency tier list to assume LM is played efficiently. I don't see why it makes sense for a HHM ranked tier list to assume the same thing.

And why not? It largely has the same effect on both and can otherwise be skipped. The fact that it can be skipped and since this list is based on S ranking HHM is why I don't think S ranking LHM should matter, thus LHM, if assumed, would be exactly as I've stated since we never allow things like boss abuse. Theoretically that might make sense, but it just doesn't follow our rules. It would be like allowing resets for transfers.

I just think

Efficient -> Efficient

and

Ranked -> Ranked

makes more sense than

Efficient -> Efficient

and

Efficient -> Ranked

Simply stating "level booster" is arbitrary. There has to be some adjudication for the levels they get coming out. Using the same LM standard whether the HHM standard is efficiency or ranked doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm sure we can all decide what levels would be reasonable given this criteria. I don't see how this doesn't make sense.

Oh, you can determine levels under the criteria. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the legitimacy of the criteria itself.

As for:

"If you're to assume LHM is S ranked, there's a goal to be met in those 12 maps, and the units who help you reach that goal should receive credit for it."

I'd have to suggest that

"it should be done fast"

is a goal as well. It is a different goal than ranking LM, but a goal nonetheless. If suggesting the need to rank LHM (If it's assumed the player goes through it at all) means the units should receive credit, I submit that suggesting the need to go through it quickly ("If it's assumed the player goes through it at all") would also result in the units receiving credit for it.

Not at all. It's as previously stated right after that:

Removing that goal acknowledges that it can just be skipped and that's why units wouldn't get credit.

If it's only done for the levels, why would anyone get credit for it?

But that's what I'm saying for ranks. It's just done for levels. I'm just trying to say the way I think it should be done while getting those levels. We already agree that things like BA aren't legit, so we are already placing restrictions on how LM is played. I'm just suggesting a different restriction from the one you are suggesting.

Units don't get credit simply for leveling. In the end, the point is that S ranking adds an unnecessary requirement to what playing through LHM should actually be doing for HHM (higher levels for units), and if you're going to have a separate requirement that needs to be reached, you need to credit units for helping you reach it.

But doesn't going fast also add a requirement to playing through LM? Either way it is a requirement. I don't necessarily think S ranking adds an "unnecessary" requirement. A requirement is clearly needed, we agree on that. I just think that mine is more consistent.

[Dat Nick]

IMO if transfers are being assumed on RD so should the MKDD bonus disc here.

Yes, you can argue "But you need the disc first", but I'll counter right back with "You need PoR to get RD Transfers", and not everybody who has played RD has played POR.

[Narga_Rocks]

IMO if transfers are being assumed on RD so should the MKDD bonus disc here.

Yes, you can argue "But you need the disc first", but I'll counter right back with "You need PoR to get RD Transfers", and not everybody who has played RD has played POR.

Transfers aren't being "assumed". The non-transfer versions co-exist alongside them. You could, in fact, ignore the transfer characters completely and look at the list without them. Transfers are being assumed to not exist for those regular versions.

However, since it is possible to have a transfer character, we chose to rate what the transfer character (using fixed mode in PoR) can be like. Transfers for that character are assumed because, well, otherwise that character wouldn't exist. When that character exists, a transfer happened, and we can rate the character from there.

What is the MKDD thing about? Is it at all similar?

[Life]

My own personal opinion on the matter is to leave Ranked LHM as is. Since this is a Ranked HHM tier list, S Rank LHM discussion really has no place in the tier list. LHM should only count for the levels that you get out of it and the White Gem.

Oh and Fox, if you want to say that LHM should be included in the HHM list, then Serra >>> Prissy as Prissy doesn't exist in Lyn's story. The 3.5 chapter lead that Serra has over a non-existant Prissy will switch to a 10.5 chapter lead. There's no way Prissy can top that as Serra is vital for S Ranking LHM. The other big change I can see is Wil shooting up as he's actually decent even when locked in bows.

[Narga_Rocks]

My own personal opinion on the matter is to leave Ranked LHM as is. Since this is a Ranked HHM tier list, S Rank LHM discussion really has no place in the tier list. LHM should only count for the levels that you get out of it and the White Gem.

Oh and Fox, if you want to say that LHM should be included in the HHM list, then Serra >>> Prissy as Prissy doesn't exist in Lyn's story. The 3.5 chapter lead that Serra has over a non-existant Prissy will switch to a 10.5 chapter lead. There's no way Prissy can top that as Serra is vital for S Ranking LHM. The other big change I can see is Wil shooting up as he's actually decent even when locked in bows.

Um, all I'm saying is that there are (at least) two different ways to determine what levels are reasonable for units coming out of LHM. I'm not suggesting actually giving them credit for anything they do in LHM.

And I think Fox doesn't actually want LHM to be included in this list (though she does want the extra levels/items from it). She's just saying (which I disagree with) that if LHM is assumed to be S ranked (for the purpose of gaining levels) then, since there is then a goal (S ranking LHM), units should get credit if they help with that goal.

I don't see how asking for one thing (S ranking LHM to determine reasonable levels) leads to the other (needing to give units credit for what they do in LHM).

[Florete]

My own personal opinion on the matter is to leave Ranked LHM as is. Since this is a Ranked HHM tier list, S Rank LHM discussion really has no place in the tier list. LHM should only count for the levels that you get out of it and the White Gem.

The bolded is why I don't think it should be assumed S ranked in the first place. If it only counts for levels and the White Gem, why assume it needs S ranking?

Oh and Fox, if you want to say that LHM should be included in the HHM list, then Serra >>> Prissy as Prissy doesn't exist in Lyn's story. The 3.5 chapter lead that Serra has over a non-existant Prissy will switch to a 10.5 chapter lead. There's no way Prissy can top that as Serra is vital for S Ranking LHM. The other big change I can see is Wil shooting up as he's actually decent even when locked in bows.

What does that have to do with the criteria that should be used? In any case, that's not entirely true since LHM is so easy Serra's healing is largely for her own benefit only. One of CATS ideas was to intentionally injure your units for her to heal. If that's needed in order for her to level, she's not actually helping anything, thus she's only actually neutral for those maps, or perhaps very slightly positive.

[Narga_Rocks]

My own personal opinion on the matter is to leave Ranked LHM as is. Since this is a Ranked HHM tier list, S Rank LHM discussion really has no place in the tier list. LHM should only count for the levels that you get out of it and the White Gem.

The bolded is why I don't think it should be assumed S ranked in the first place. If it only counts for levels and the White Gem, why assume it needs S ranking?

Well, we are certainly assuming something about LHM. We've already stipulated no BA. It's also been suggested

If it's assumed the player goes through it at all, which is fine and probably for the best, it should be done fast

So we are putting assumptions onto LHM already. We already assume a few things about the way in which it needs to be completed, so why not assume it needs S ranking?

If it only counts for levels and the White Gem, then why assume we must go fast/must not BA?

If the logic of simply using LHM to help you S Rank HHM is taken to its full extent, then logically, you should be boss abusing your LHM units in Ch 10 and making them awesome, doing everything you can in LHM to help your ranking of HHM. Of course, people would protest this. So it would be better to go with one of the other two options.

Going fast in LHM obviously prevents BAing and other things that slow you down, so it works to prevent that issue. But honestly, if the justification for not assuming S ranking of LHM is that LHM only counts for levels and the White Gem, why assume we must go fast at all?

Actually, aside from probably getting Serra an extra level or two, would any other character's level coming out of S Rank LHM be much higher/lower than it is coming out of Fast LHM?

[Florete]

Well, we are certainly assuming something about LHM. We've already stipulated no BA. It's also been suggested

If it's assumed the player goes through it at all, which is fine and probably for the best, it should be done fast

So we are putting assumptions onto LHM already. We already assume a few things about the way in which it needs to be completed, so why not assume it needs S ranking?

If it only counts for levels and the White Gem, then why assume we must go fast/must not BA?

Well, we have to do something, right? The only way to come out of LHM without assigning credit to the units or BAing is just getting it done fast. If it's going to be assumed for certain units, it has to get done. The simplest, most reliable way is to just go through it fast like you would in an efficiency tier list. If the only actual goal is to get some free level ups, making it S ranked is pointless, but allowing boss abuse runs counter to what FE tier lists stand for in the first place. Barring that, 'fast' is practically your only choice.

Actually, aside from probably getting Serra an extra level or two, would any other character's level coming out of S Rank LHM be much higher/lower than it is coming out of Fast LHM?

Yes. The experience rank in LHM is not as demanding as in HHM, but you still need to spread a fair amount of it around, which means you can't focus on, say, 2-4 units. I also don't like the idea of having a set turn count when things can probably be done faster, and not only because it helps Serra, but if it can be shown that you can have enough turns remaining by Ch 10, there would be a bit of boss abuse allowed.

In the end, assuming S rank runs counter to the reason you use LHM in the first place and allowing boss abuse runs counter to FE tier lists as a whole. If you're to not give credit to the units coming out of it, what choice do you have?

Edited December 11, 2009 by Red Fox of Fire

[CATS]

I don't see how asking for one thing (S ranking LHM to determine reasonable levels) leads to the other (needing to give units credit for what they do in LHM).

It doesn't have to lead to that, you're right, but nor must it lead to not giving units credit for LHM performance.

[RNG Princess]

Louise deserves a higher place than Bartre, her decent speed and bow are more helpful the chapter she is recruited compared to Bartre's lack of accuracy and speed throughout the game.

[Crimson_Edge]

This list makes me scratch my head in confusion. Guy in Top Tier? How can a Sword-locked unit with questionable support options and bleah durability be as good as a unit such as Ninian or Lowen? Serra and Priscilla over units such as Marcus and Eliwood? Lyn, Fiora, and Florina so high when they have absolutely garbage durability? Lyn starts with a total of 2 base Def and is locked to Swords (no 1-2 Range), meaning she can't even attack non-Axe units without having to be healed, and even those will hit her sometimes. Plus her promotion is questionable as it shafts Eliwood, who is an excellent unit and has better actual promotion gains from using the same item (Heaven Seal).

I post this list for discussion, as I was directed here:

Top

Hector

Ninian

Lowen

High

Marcus

Eliwood

Kent

Canas

Pent

Rebecca

Oswin

Erk

Upper Mid

Sain

Lucius

Harken

Raven

Lower Mid

Matthew

Hawkeye

Dorcas

Bartre

Geitz

Priscilla

Serra

Guy

Low

Rath

Isadora

Vaida

Louise

Renault

Wallace

Legault

Dart

Bottom

Heath

Nino

Florina

Fiora

Farina

Jaffar

Karel

Karla

Lyn

Edited February 6, 2010 by Crimson_Edge

[CATS]

Regardless of the other stuff, yeah, Guy is still in top tier? That was disproven a long time ago through a lengthy discussion in the other tier list.

[Florete]

Guy in Top Tier? How can a Sword-locked unit with questionable support options and bleah durability be as good as a unit such as Ninian or Lowen?

That's the one edit that hasn't been done yet on this list. He needs to drop to High at best. Nothing else you said I agree with.

EDIT: Also, Priscilla and Serra should not be separated by a tier.

EDIT2: Since the first post is based on the GFaqs list, might as well post their most recent one. It isn't much different but fixes some issues.

-Top-

Matthew

Raven

Serra

Priscilla

Ninian/Nils

-High-

Oswin

Hector

Guy

Sain

Kent

Erk

Marcus

Lowen

Eliwood

Florina

-Upper Mid-

Pent

Lucius

Harken

Dorcas

Geitz

Legault

Lyn

Fiora

-Lower Mid-

Dart

Hawkeye

Canas

Heath

Vaida

Jaffar

Karel

-Low-

Rath

Isadora

Bartre

Farina

Rebecca

Wil

Louise

-Bottom-

Wallace

Nino

Renault

Karla

-Unranked-

Athos

Edited February 6, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[CATS]

Lucius still a tier below Erk.

15 Erk, C Priscilla: 10.6 Mag, 14 Spd----26.1 Hp, 4.8 Def, 39.6 Avo

14 Lucius, C Raven: 13.6 Mag, 14.4 Spd----23 Hp, 3.1 Def, 35 Avo

Shouldn't be a tier gap between those two, they're too similar.

[Crimson_Edge]

With what, exactly, do you disagree, and why?

Okay, let me actually point out some of the flaws in this tier list. Hector isn't the best unit in the game and Matthew is? As I posted in my topic, Hector doesnt consume a unit slot. This means that using Hector does not mean not using someone elsehes consuming fewer resources. In order to use Hector, you do not need to sac Erk, Sain, Lowen, Kent, or any of the other extremely good units that you need to sac in order to use, for example, Oswin. Oswin must replace someoneHector, on the other hand, needs to replace no one.

Put a different way, if a chapter has 11 unit slots available, the team thats using Hector gets to use 11 units. The team thats using Oswin and is not using Hector gets to use 10 units. Hector is contributing a full additional unit of attacking force to your teamno one else in the entire game can claim this advantage. The difference between not using Hector and using Hector is massive, a full unit of difference; the difference between not using Oswin and using Oswin is not massiveit may only be the difference between using Oswin and, say, Lowen instead, which is not a noticeable difference at all. Hector is definitely the best character in the game.

It appears to me that Matthew is ranked so highly only because of the Silver Card; however, Matthew getting you the Silver Card needs to occur for only a single chapter. It's a solitary action after which there is no follow-up action required on his part for the remainder of the game; any member of your team can use the Silver Card once Matthew retrieves it. Matthew must only select "Steal" while standing next to Aion in order to get the Silver Card. After this, his contribution toward getting it is finished. It's no better than giving Priscilla credit for every action taken by Raven, since she recruits Raven. Priscilla must only go up to Raven and select "Talk" in order for your team to get Raven; to give Priscilla credit for everything he does beyond this simple action in this one chapter would be translating Priscilla's worth into "Priscilla + Raven," which is obviously ridiculous.

Moreover, Matthew is stuck at level 20 for a long time and so must avoid combat altogether. On any chapter that he's fielded, even beyond having to be off stealing the majority of the chapter, he can't rejoin your other units in combat both because he gains no EXP from fighting anything and so hurts EXP Rank and because his durability is horrible and so he must avoid getting attacked or risk injuring Tactics or Survival. He's also Sword-locked and so lacks 1-2 Range, further cutting into both his offense and defense. Because of all this, he also has difficulty building and maintaining supports (meaning he can't provide benefits to such units as Guy). Indeed he gets credit for his positive actions, but are we not also to strike him down for his negative ones? Bad durability doesn't just restrict the individual unit; it restricts the entire team's mobility, including the unit's support partner. And in Matthew's case, it's not just durability, it's also bad offense and negative EXP Rank.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Crimson_Edge

[dondon151]

It appears to me that Matthew is ranked so highly only because of the Silver Card; however, Matthew getting you the Silver Card needs to occur for only a single chapter. It's a solitary action after which there is no follow-up action required on his part for the remainder of the game; any member of your team can use the Silver Card once Matthew retrieves it. Matthew must only select "Steal" while standing next to Aion in order to get the Silver Card. After this, his contribution toward getting it is finished.

Does it matter that 1 action by Matthew outweighs the net sum of anyone else's actions? Matthew gets you a ton of cash, and Funds is one of your 5 ranks. Therefore, Matthew is ranked high.

It's no better than giving Priscilla credit for every action taken by Raven, since she recruits Raven. Priscilla must only go up to Raven and select "Talk" in order for your team to get Raven; to give Priscilla credit for everything he does beyond this simple action in this one chapter would be translating Priscilla's worth into "Priscilla + Raven," which is obviously ridiculous.

I don't understand this analogy. Priscilla is to Matthew as "Priscilla + Raven" is to what? "Matthew + cash?" Even though cash is itself a factor of rank? Or is it "Matthew + card," even though the card is still, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to cash, a factor of rank?

Moreover, Matthew is stuck at level 20 for a long time and so must avoid combat altogether. On any chapter that he's fielded, even beyond having to be off stealing the majority of the chapter, he can't rejoin your other units in combat both because he gains no EXP from fighting anything and so hurts EXP Rank and because his durability is horrible and so he must avoid getting attacked or risk injuring Tactics or Survival. He's also Sword-locked and so lacks 1-2 Range, further cutting into both his offense and defense. Because of all this, he also has difficulty building and maintaining supports (meaning he can't provide benefits to such units as Guy). Indeed he gets credit for his positive actions, but are we not also to strike him down for his negative ones? Bad durability doesn't just restrict the individual unit; it restricts the entire team's mobility, including the unit's support partner. And in Matthew's case, it's not just durability, it's also bad offense and negative EXP Rank.

You can't penalize a unit by assuming that the player is stupid. If Matthew hits 20/0, then the player will use Legault. If Matthew fighting in a certain scenario will not yield desirable results, then Matthew will not fight in that scenario.

Edited February 6, 2010 by dondon151

[Crimson_Edge]

Does it matter that 1 action by Matthew outweighs the net sum of anyone else's actions? Matthew gets you a ton of cash, and Funds is one of your 5 ranks. Therefore, Matthew is ranked high.

I'm merely noting the logical inconsistency in not also giving Priscilla credit for Raven's recruitment (Raven is at the top of the list on this tier list, as far as combat units are concerned). If indeed Matthew's contribution toward Funds is so substantial, Priscilla's contribution to combat in the form of recruiting Raven must also be counted and be fairly substantial. Granted, Priscilla's contribution is Raven - unit Raven might have replaced (on my tier list this is not substantial, but on the one posted here this is fairly huge; there are no other combat units in Raven's tier), but in effect the gain is the same.

In addition, the placement is misleading for the simple reason that Matthew needs only to be used for that particular chapter in order to contribute to the S Rank. If faced with the decision of deploying Matthew or deploying Lowen for any other chapter except this one, the tier list would indicate that Matthew might be preferred for deployment, whereas this is not actually the case. How much one individual action can boost a unit's tier list position is quite questionable in face of the unit being rather lackluster in other areas. If Lowen is contributing to a better S-Rank for tens of chapters more than Matthew is, but Matthew is contributing more than Lowen for a select handful of chapters (most notably this one), then the question must be asked whether Matthew's contribution can indeed be regarded as greater, impacts thereof notwithstanding. In a way, it's almost like the Seize argument for Lords; if Hector doesn't Seize in Chapter 13, then you cannot progress to the rest of the game, so this one action in Chapter 13 precipitates into the benefit of progression in later chapters.

You can't penalize a unit by assuming that the player is stupid. If Matthew hits 20/0, then the player will use Legault. If Matthew fighting in a certain scenario will not yield desirable results, then Matthew will not fight in that scenario.

Indeed you can penalize Matthew for this. If Matthew hitting 20/0 means that Legault must instead be used, obviously this is a cut into Matthew's utility and his given options. For example, it is indeed a bad thing that Lyn cannot be placed in front of Lance-wielding units; only a stupid player would actually play her in front of these units, but the fact that she's unable to fight "in this scenario" restricts her options. That's a direct negative for the unit. Another unit, such as, say, Dorcas, can indeed be played in this scenario, and therefore Dorcas has an advantage over Lyn. To disagree with this is to say that a unit who can fight two types of enemies (suppose, Valkyries and Heroes) doesn't have an inherent advantage over a unit who can only fight one type of enemy (suppose, Valkyries) simply because the player would have to be stupid in order to field the latter unit against the type of enemy it cannot face.

And this also means that compared to other units, Matthew is providing fewer support bonuses (if Legault is truly taking his place). The negative hasn't been erased; if anything, it's been made worse, so I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

[CATS]

I'm merely noting the logical inconsistency in not also giving Priscilla credit for Raven's recruitment (Raven is at the top of the list on this tier list, as far as combat units are concerned). If indeed Matthew's contribution toward Funds is so substantial, Priscilla's contribution to combat in the form of recruiting Raven must also be counted and be fairly substantial. Granted, Priscilla's contribution is Raven - unit Raven might have replaced (on my tier list this is not substantial, but on the one posted here this is fairly huge; there are no other combat units in Raven's tier), but in effect the gain is the same.

I have to agree with this regardless of other stuff. If Matthew gets to be highly ranked because of a big Funds contribution, does Priscilla not give you a significant Tactics contribution by allowing use of the best combat unit? You cannot obtain Raven without fielding Priscilla in Ch 17 and having her perform a specific action, exactly the same as how you cannot obtain the Silver Card without fielding Matthew in 19x and having him perform a specific action. It is indeed inconsistent. If Matthew is in Top because of the Silver Card, Priscilla should not be any lower than Raven.

[Inui]

I just lost a huge post I was typing about Marcus being better than Oswin. I am very discouraged right now. It figures that the first time I type in a browser instead of Word Pad in many years, it goes gay on me and I lose my post. I should just learn to NEVER take chances since the RNG of life hates me more than the RNG of Fire Emblem.

Perhaps I will try again when I'm not mad.

[-Cynthia-]

I would say Marcus>Oswin easily on efficiency, but with ranks we have to consider that Marcus hurts the Exp rank more than Oswin, and the Exp rank in FE7 is fairly tricky if I recall.

[Florete]

Okay, let me actually point out some of the flaws in this tier list. Hector isn't the best unit in the game and Matthew is? As I posted in my topic, Hector doesn’t consume a unit slot. This means that using Hector does not mean not using someone else—he’s consuming fewer resources. In order to use Hector, you do not need to sac Erk, Sain, Lowen, Kent, or any of the other extremely good units that you need to sac in order to use, for example, Oswin. Oswin must replace someone—Hector, on the other hand, needs to replace no one.

Put a different way, if a chapter has 11 unit slots available, the team that’s using Hector gets to use 11 units. The team that’s using Oswin and is not using Hector gets to use 10 units. Hector is contributing a full additional unit of attacking force to your team—no one else in the entire game can claim this advantage. The difference between not using Hector and using Hector is massive, a full unit of difference; the difference between not using Oswin and using Oswin is not massive—it may only be the difference between using Oswin and, say, Lowen instead, which is not a noticeable difference at all. Hector is definitely the best character in the game.

Not taking a deployment slot is an advantage, but you are overblowing it. Oswin's team has 10 and Hector's team has 11, I see. Well, what if 10 is all that's needed? If that one last deployment slot isn't being put to much use in the first place, Hector not taking a slot is not worth much in the end. It's good, but not even close to auto-best material.

Plus, Hector has other issues keeping him down. Very late promotion, bad mobility, doesn't double for a while, etc.

It appears to me that Matthew is ranked so highly only because of the Silver Card; however, Matthew getting you the Silver Card needs to occur for only a single chapter. It's a solitary action after which there is no follow-up action required on his part for the remainder of the game; any member of your team can use the Silver Card once Matthew retrieves it. Matthew must only select "Steal" while standing next to Aion in order to get the Silver Card. After this, his contribution toward getting it is finished. It's no better than giving Priscilla credit for every action taken by Raven, since she recruits Raven. Priscilla must only go up to Raven and select "Talk" in order for your team to get Raven; to give Priscilla credit for everything he does beyond this simple action in this one chapter would be translating Priscilla's worth into "Priscilla + Raven," which is obviously ridiculous.

I discussed this with Mori, though I kind of forgot where we ended up...Anyway, I do agree that the Silver Card alone is not enough to make him the best, but there are plenty of other things that propel him that high. Basically, even without the Silver Card, he'd still probably be Top tier, even if not the best.

Moreover, Matthew is stuck at level 20 for a long time and so must avoid combat altogether. On any chapter that he's fielded, even beyond having to be off stealing the majority of the chapter, he can't rejoin your other units in combat both because he gains no EXP from fighting anything and so hurts EXP Rank and because his durability is horrible and so he must avoid getting attacked or risk injuring Tactics or Survival. He's also Sword-locked and so lacks 1-2 Range, further cutting into both his offense and defense.

Matthew also has the advantage of increased experience gain, so he's already actually helped the Experience rank more than most units and capping out is just the result. It's more like his utility stops at this point; he doesn't go negative.

Indeed you can penalize Matthew for this. If Matthew hitting 20/0 means that Legault must instead be used, obviously this is a cut into Matthew's utility and his given options.

Not being deployed does not make one negative. You cannot penalize him for this.

For example, it is indeed a bad thing that Lyn cannot be placed in front of Lance-wielding units; only a stupid player would actually play her in front of these units, but the fact that she's unable to fight "in this scenario" restricts her options.

Lancereavers say "Hi." Even before, sometimes having her fight Cavaliers and Knights with her Mani Katti knowing she might have to be healed can be advantageous because of how awesome the Mani Katti is, and it's even free.

That's a direct negative for the unit. Another unit, such as, say, Dorcas, can indeed be played in this scenario, and therefore Dorcas has an advantage over Lyn. To disagree with this is to say that a unit who can fight two types of enemies (suppose, Valkyries and Heroes) doesn't have an inherent advantage over a unit who can only fight one type of enemy (suppose, Valkyries) simply because the player would have to be stupid in order to field the latter unit against the type of enemy it cannot face.

The advantage is that one unit can safely take on more enemies than another. That's an advantage for one unit more than a disadvantage for the other.