FE6 HM Tier List

[GreatEclipse]

Wendy > Treck

If we desire maximum efficiency, both will sit on the bench for the entire game. If Fir of all people is having problems with “LOL unit slots” then whatever Treck could have accomplished in comparison to Wendy is irreverent, because the opportunity cost of deploying him over someone better exceeds anything he can do on his own. However, Wendy has a free recruitment, so she can still sit on the bench for free. Treck requires you to sacrifice maximum efficiency for two turns or more just to be recruited, so he has an opportunity cost to even sitting on the bench.

[-Cynthia-]

One, usually recruitment isn't really considered in a character's position, it's what they do after they get recruited that's most important.

Two, Wendy not taking a slot for a chapter does not counteract how much better Treck is than Wendy when actually deployed. We assume a unit is deployed when comparing the two, so saying things like both will not be deployed is irrelevant. The thing with unit slots is that it is advantageous to have periods where you do not use a slot, because then there's no opportunity cost to your deployment. Advantageous does not automatically equal win though, performance still matters.

BTW, is it just me or is Treck the most pointless character in the entire game? Another Cav when we have 2 that are better than him, plus 2 Paladins. He has a bland personality and is pretty ugly. At least Noah recruits Fir, is kind of cute and has a little more potential, Treck is just so blah.

[CATS]

Two, Wendy not taking a slot for a chapter does not counteract how much better Treck is than Wendy when actually deployed. We assume a unit is deployed when comparing the two, so saying things like both will not be deployed is irrelevant.

Why? Where is this stated, and what is the logical basis for it? The positions on the tier list do not reflect this mentality. I already cited one example on the FE7 list. On this list, Marcus needs to be significantly lower if this is the mentality. etc.

The thing with unit slots is that it is advantageous to have periods where you do not use a slot, because then there's no opportunity cost to your deployment. Advantageous does not automatically equal win though, performance still matters.

This is poor logic. Advantageous does not automatically equal win? How do you determine when it does and doesn't "equal win?" It sounds like an excuse to apply the logic selectively, a notion which is supported by current tier list positions--"Okay, for Bartre and Geitz, it's advantageous enough that Geitz wins by alot, but for Lugh and Zealot, it's not advantageous enough for Zealot to win."

[Reikken]

ewafwd

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[CATS]

This is the efficiency list iirc.

lol, ninja'd by edit

Edited March 4, 2010 by CATS

[Colonel M]

Not to mention that Treck doesn't have to rely on gay tactics like the inefficient Triangle Attack just to injure something.

See I can play Mr. Sarcstic too.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Tyranel M

[grandjackal]

I'd think Treck would be the superior choice for Sacae being the reason, thanks to his wind affinity granting him and Zealot more accuracy for those damn nomads. Noah would give 8 more avoid and 1 Def at A, but Treck would be giving 8 more Acc and Crit. Considering hte durability of a raised Ilian cavalier that none of them are gonna be dying any time soon in Sacae, I'd take the Acc and Crit. That's just me though.

As for Wendy and Treck...Uhhh, do I even need to begin to explain where this is an exaggeration of circumstances?

[-Cynthia-]

Why? Where is this stated, and what is the logical basis for it? The positions on the tier list do not reflect this mentality. I already cited one example on the FE7 list. On this list, Marcus needs to be significantly lower if this is the mentality. etc.

I didn't say they had to be deployed for every chapter, we can't just assume they aren't used at all. I'm not sure you actually read my post in context. Putting Wendy> Treck just because she has easier recruitment is a silly idea. If we assume no units are deployed past the top 10 or so, there would really be no way to tier them at all.

This is poor logic. Advantageous does not automatically equal win? How do you determine when it does and doesn't "equal win?" It sounds like an excuse to apply the logic selectively, a notion which is supported by current tier list positions--"Okay, for Bartre and Geitz, it's advantageous enough that Geitz wins by alot, but for Lugh and Zealot, it's not advantageous enough for Zealot to win."

Again, I question whether you actually read the post in context, or if your reading comprehension is just terrible. It is an advanatge for a unit not to take up a unit slot, but it does not mean that they automatically should be tiered above those who do. Their relative contributions to the team have to be considered.

I wasn't really talking about Bartre vs. Geitz or Lugh vs. Zealot here, but I suppose I could go into it. Bartre's earlygame peformance is not good enough to outweigh the period in which Bartre and Geitz share availability, since Geitz is singificantly better during this time period. In Lugh vs. Zealot, Lugh might be considered better because his time period where he doesn't take up a slot is good enough to outweigh the time period that he and Zealot share (perhaps because Lugh beats Zealot lategame).

[Reikken]

Not to mention that Treck doesn't have to rely on gay tactics like the inefficient Triangle Attack just to injure something.

See I can play Mr. Sarcstic too.

Wendy doesn't need to either. You can have her do damage to something (and then possibly die), while Treck can't even do that because he has to make you go way out of your way even to recruit him. Winner: Wendy.

[Colonel M]

Wendy doesn't need to either. You can have her do damage to something (and then possibly die), while Treck can't even do that because he has to make you go way out of your way even to recruit him. Winner: Wendy.

Treck does damage even as a NPC, so it's a matter of nitpicking if he's under your co-

Why are we still discussing this?

[Reikken]

because it's relevant to the tier list, obviously

As to that, if he's not even a playable character, I should certainly think that it has nothing to do with the position of the playable version of Treck.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[Colonel M]

If anything it's merely whining about something I never said about Fir, so I dunno why I got such a random post such as that.

[Dat Nick]

Ofcourse it is. You took one post out of context while ignoring everything else I've said on the subject.

I took nothing out of context, that's exactly what you said.

Here, read your own post again.

Cool, Zealot is finally upper mid where he belongs. Anyways, let's see here, Ch 8x.

9 Lugh: 7.2 Mag, 10 Spd----20 Hp, 4.2 Def, 7.4 Res, 27.8 Avo

2 Zealot: 10.2 Str, 13.2 Spd----35.8 Hp, 11.3 Def, 7.2 Res, 31.6 Avo

Lugh: +0.2 Res

Zealot: +3 Pow, +3.2 Spd, +15.8 Hp, +7.1 Def, +3.8 Avo, +3 Mov

lolol

Steel axe fighter: 25 Atk, 67 Hit----34 Hp, 4 Def, 2 Res, 5 AS

Finally, Lugh doesn't get completely raped at offense. He can do double 13's with Elfire vs Zealot doing double 15's or 16's with Steel Sword/Iron Blade. Well, Zealot + silver lance, steel axe or steel blade can still ORKO, so Lugh still loses, but at least it's not completely horrible. But, look at the defense. Lugh is OHKO'd. He can never go in range of this enemy. Zealot is 3HKO'd at 12.75% hit. He can fight two of them at once, and can do so for a long period of time without needing to be healed. It takes 22-23 rounds for him to die on average. Lugh dies in one hit. Are you kidding me?

Killing edge merc: 20 Atk, 110 Hit, 37 Crit----31 Hp, 6 Def, 3 Res, 12 AS

Obviously Lugh can never get attacked by this. Zealot on the other hand still has 13 Hp left after eating a critical from this guy. He can go into range of this guy and say, a steel sword merc, and be completely safe. Meanwhile Lugh 3HKOs with Elfire, while Zealot 3HKOs with iron lance or 2HKOs with silver (very close to a 2HKO with steel).

Aircalibur mage: 19 Atk, 107 Hit----26 Hp, 5 Def, 9 Res, 11 AS

Lugh + Elfire does 6 damage, a 5HKO. Zealot can 2HKO with steel sword or 3HKO with javelin. Lugh is 2HKO'd at 79 displayed, Zealot is 3-4HKO'd at 75 displayed.

Ch 9 comparison should be even better. Looks like plenty of axe enemies have 8-9 AS, and the durability gap should be pretty hilarious against them.

How does this say anything BUT Zealot>Lugh because 8x lol?

Except that I already talked about that.

Okay, so keep talking about it, since everybody and their mother knows Zealot shitstomps Lugh earlygame.

t proves that Zealot is miles better during the only time period where either one is getting used, aside from Ch 4 and 5 for Lugh I guess.

...What the fuck is this shit? Zealot should go to High tier under this logic seeing as how everybody in Upper Mid "Will never be used after we pick up another uber character to always replace him or her"

Edited March 4, 2010 by s Portsman

[CATS]

I didn't say they had to be deployed for every chapter, we can't just assume they aren't used at all. I'm not sure you actually read my post in context. Putting Wendy> Treck just because she has easier recruitment is a silly idea. If we assume no units are deployed past the top 10 or so, there would really be no way to tier them at all.

I read your post in context. The fact that I don't see your point doesn't mean that I didn't read it. "We can't just assume they aren't used at all?" That depends on your definition of "used." Wendy can certainly be used in Ch 8 and has a free recruitment. Treck cannot be used in Ch 7 without you first doing what is required to recruit him (whether or not this is actually detrimental to efficiency is a different question entirely). Are you positing that a unit must be on the field in at least 2 chapters in order to be "used?"

In Lugh vs. Zealot, Lugh might be considered better because his time period where he doesn't take up a slot is good enough to outweigh the time period that he and Zealot share (perhaps because Lugh beats Zealot lategame).

So you think Lugh's Ch 4 and 5 outweigh Zealot's Ch 7 followed by ~10 more chapters of use? I disagree, but at least that's a consistent argument (as opposed to other people ignoring that, and choosing to hype lategame instead while not also arguing Bartre = Geitz on FE7 and etc), so whatever.

And no, Geitz is not significantly better. That's the point.

20/3 Bartre: 20 Str, 11 Spd----49 Hp, 13 Def, 8 Res, 32 Avo

4 Geitz: 19.5 Str, 14.4 Spd----44.85 Hp, 12.2 Def, 4.2 Res, 39.2 Avo

Better? Maybe. Tier gap? No.

[Reikken]

If anything it's merely whining about something I never said about Fir, so I dunno why I got such a random post such as that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's certainly not the case for me. Someone pointed out a very valid logical point that I didn't notice before, and now that it has been brought to my attention, I'm discussing it.

[Inui]

If Lugh's lategame exceeds Zealot's earlygame and makes him better, why doesn't Fir's MIDGAME to lategame rape of Lot make her exceed him as a unit?

What an inconsistent load of shit...

This still didn't get addressed. :(

[Reikken]

When does "MIDGAME" start, sir?

[Dat Nick]

Also, I'm getting sick of this Geitz/Zealot vs Lugh/Bartre logic, because it ignores two major differentials:

A: Zealot is crappy lategame, unlike Geitz

B: Lugh does not have 1/4th of Bartre's earlygame suck. He's not a win machine, but he's doing MUCH MUCH better than Bartre is.

[grandjackal]

Wendy doesn't need to either. You can have her do damage to something (and then possibly die), while Treck can't even do that because he has to make you go way out of your way even to recruit him. Winner: Wendy.

People that should vanish off the list then.

Ilia Sue

Ilia Shin

Fir

Hue

Karel

Anyone I'm missing? Come on, this is ridiculous.

Besides, how is it going out of your way? Rescue dropped Roy with Allen, Lance and Marcus along with Sue for the dragonrider, it's not hard to recruit Treck anymore than it is to recruit Zealot.

[Colonel M]

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's certainly not the case for me. Someone pointed out a very valid logical point that I didn't notice before, and now that it has been brought to my attention, I'm discussing it.

Alright. Keep in mind I wasn't exactly trying to jump down your throat here, it's just the context of the post threw me off. Especially at:

Wendy > Treck

If we desire maximum efficiency, both will sit on the bench for the entire game. If Fir of all people is having problems with “LOL unit slots” then whatever Treck could have accomplished in comparison to Wendy is irreverent, because the opportunity cost of deploying him over someone better exceeds anything he can do on his own. However, Wendy has a free recruitment, so she can still sit on the bench for free. Treck requires you to sacrifice maximum efficiency for two turns or more just to be recruited, so he has an opportunity cost to even sitting on the bench.

Which sounds nothing more but bitter complaining.

[Inui]

When does "MIDGAME" start, sir?

Western Isles? About 1/3 of the game is over by then in terms of chapter count. I'd personally pick Chapter 9 as the starting point of the midgame. When you move into Sacae or Ilia is when the lategame starts, imo.

[Reikken]

People that should vanish off the list then.

Ilia Sue

Ilia Shin

Fir

Hue

Karel

Anyone I'm missing? Come on, this is ridiculous.

Besides, how is it going out of your way? Rescue dropped Roy with Allen, Lance and Marcus along with Sue for the dragonrider, it's not hard to recruit Treck anymore than it is to recruit Zealot.

You have to completely waste the turns of multiple units for a few turns. That's quite a negative impact.

and uh... I'm not seeing how this applies to any of those units except Hugh. They all have at the very least forced chapters in which they can do something (even more than Wendy can), and some of them arguably have much much more.

Western Isles? About 1/3 of the game is over by then in terms of chapter count. I'd personally pick Chapter 9 as the starting point of the midgame. When you move into Sacae or Ilia is when the lategame starts, imo.

yeah, but when? Lot's easily owning her when she joins.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[Inui]

yeah, but when? Lot's easily owning her when she joins.

1/0 Fir beats 12/0 Lot with his supports in offense already, while Fir still has more Evd vs Lot being able to take like one more additional hit vs Steel and two more vs Hand, and then Fir's level skyrockets with good growths and Lot loses hard.

[CATS]

I took nothing out of context, that's exactly what you said.

I suggest that you read my response again.

Ofcourse it is. You took one post out of context while ignoring everything else I've said on the subject.

If you want to pointlessly repeat yourself after you've already received a relevant response, feel free to do so, but do not expect me to care about what you have to say if that's all you can do. In the meantime, again, no, that is not exactly what I said. Here is what I've said on the subject of Zealot and Lugh as a whole.

Assuming this is efficiency, Zealot and Marcus both need to go up. I've argued both of these in the past and I mostly got the "no reponse, list unchanged" deal, especially on Zealot, so I'll start with him.

Zealot is not equal to most units when he joins, either.

9-10 Lance, C's w/ Roy and Alan: 10.4 Str, 12.25 Spd----27 Hp, 8.7 Def, 2.25 Res, 39.45 Avo

Let's see, there's the best unit in the game on Ch 7. Here's Zealot:

10 Str, 13 Spd----35 Hp, 11 Def, 7 Res, 31 Avo (+ move, axes, weapon ranks, con)

You get a second Silver Lance in Ch 6 and Zealot is one of only two units who will have A Lances right now (and right now you also happen to have two Silver Lances).

Now let's compare these two on Ch 7's enemies, starting with offense.

Steel Lance Knight: 26 Hp/12 Def

vs Lance w/ Iron: 5 x 2 (3RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Iron Axe/Silver/Hammer: 7 x 2/12 x 2 (2RKO both ways, but Silver Lance's massive damage can make the difference on whether it takes one or two extra units to finish it off)/23 x 2 (ORKO)

Javelin Knight: 28 Hp, 12 Def

vs Lance w/ Javelin: 4 x 2 (4RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Hand Axe: 6 x 2 (3RKO)

Iron Sword Merc: 28 Hp, 7 Def, 11 AS

vs Lance w/ Iron: 11 x 1 (3RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Silver: 18 x 1 (2RKO)

Iron Bow Archer: 30 Hp, 6 Def, 8 AS

vs Lance w/ Iron/Javelin: 11 x 2/10 x 1 (2RKO/3RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Silver/Javelin: 18 x 2/10 x 2 (ORKO/2RKO)

Javelin Cavalier: 31 Hp, 8 Def, 7 AS

vs Lance w/ Iron/Javelin: 9 x 2/8 x 1 (2RKO/4RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Silver/Hand Axe/Halberd: 16 x 2/10 x 2/33 x 1 (ORKO/2RKO/OHKO)

Javelin loldier: 33 Hp, 2 Def

vs Lance w/ Iron: 15 x 2 (2RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Iron Axe: 17 x 2 (ORKO)

Mage: 23 Hp, 4 Def, 8 AS

vs Lance w/ Javelin: 12 x 1 (2RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Javelin: 12 x 2 (ORKO)

And, dun dun dun......

Steel Lance Dragon Knight: 34 Hp, 13 Def

vs Lance w/ Iron/Javelin: 4 x 2/3 x 2 (5RKO/6RKO)

vs Zealot w/ Iron Axe/Hand Axe/Silver: 6 x 2/5 x 2/11 x 2 (3RKO/4RKO/2RKO)

Zealot kills in atleast 1 less round than Lance against all enemies, and in most cases he actually doesn't even need the Silver Lance to do it, that's like icing on the cake (2RKO vs 5RKO on those Dragon Knights).

And I won't bother to give the numbers on defense, it's clear that Zealot is considerably better at that, too.

Now for fun, instead of comparing him to the top ranked unit, let's compare him against an upper mid.

6 Lugh: 6 Mag, 8.5 Spd----18.5 Hp, 3.7 Def, 6.5 Res, 23.8 Avo

Should I rly even bother? It's not that I'm unwilling to give lots of stats and numbers on how much better Zealot is here, it's just that it's unnecessary as long as you're not blind. The Dragon Knights OHKO Lugh, while Zealot is 3HKO'd @ ~31% hit, and takes 10 rounds to die on average. Mercs on this chapter can get 12 Spd, so if Lugh winds up with 8, he is ORKO'd. Meanwhile the same Merc would do 2 damage to Zealot. Lugh's offense vs Knights, with a 12 Def/Res gap, is nearly the same as Zealot's Silver Lance offense against them (actually Zealot is still doing more damage, though).

It's clear that Zealot is definitely valuable when he first appears, and should remain useful throughout the Isles at worst. He can bust out Killer Axes 2 chaps before sword/lance units get their Killers, and assuming that his doubling remains steady, Lance doesn't catch up with his base Hp/Def until after promotion, so he'll obviously still be good for quite a long time.

Lugh is ranked even lower than Lot, whom I used for my Marcus comparison, and not likely to even be used as filler material until Gonzo/Echidna/etc start to join. I hardly think a tier gap in Lugh's favor to be justified.

I don't have enemy stats for Ch 14 yet, but I shouldn't need them, it's blatantly obvious that Cecilia's jointime performance is a joke compared to this. If being a 3rd or 4th string healer for half the game outweighs what Zealot has, then I'm gonna go make a topic arguing L'Arachel to at least the top of lower mid on the FE8 list.

If people seriously think Cecilia is more useful from 14-final than Zealot is from 7-13, then push Cecilia to upper mid too imo. Either way I think it's clear that Zealot should be there. He has a strong positive contribution for a section of the game; indeed it looks like he's your absolute best unit when he joins, so he should be on the upper half of the list atleast.

CATS Apprently there was a post detailing Noah>Zealot, so you might want to do a comparison between the two of them.

Noah is a simple issue. It boils down to the fact that Noah is a lower mid, i.e. completely mediocre and unremarkable, unpromoted combat unit. There are at least 20 other units above him on the list and he doesn't even manage upper mid; he's clearly not worth training and using long-term, while Zealot has significant use for a period of time right after he joins (during which he is much better than Noah, obviously). It's the same case as something like Bartre vs Harken. Bartre isn't worth using long-term, and Harken has significant use for at least a small portion of the game, so Harken contributes more.

The post showing Noah > Zealot was assuming that both were used long-term throughout the entire game and that Noah is promoted and such, even though that's clearly not a good idea. If this is the mentality then if anything Marcus should be lower than he is, since he's much worse than almost any trained unpromoted units in the lategame (Lugh, Lot, etc) even if it's not at all worthwhile to actually train up those mediocre units and give them lots of resources and a deployment slot.

I'm not sure it's really such a simple issue, Noah has pretty clear leads post-promotion, so it boils down to whether Zealot's leads over Noah before promotion are greater than Noah's overall leads post promotion.

If we're simply going to discount any characters who require more effort put into them without looking at the long term benefits, we don't have much reason to have Lance and Alan two tiers above Marcus. Lance/Alan vs. Marcus and Noah vs. Zealot are pretty similar sitautions in my mind, though since Noah joins later it's harder to justify raising him and the end product is inferior, though Zealot's team is much stronger when he joins than the Marcus's team as well.

Lance/Alan are different because they're actually really good and worth using for the whole game. Noah is clearly not better than the average or the alternatives and not contributing anything notable during the lategame. If you don't train up Noah then you're not missing out on anything for the lategame because you have other units that can be trained instead and perform atleast as well as he would; with Lance/Alan this isn't the case. If you remove them then you're clearly worse off since there's no one else as good as they are to fill the spot left behind.

It's exactly the same as the reasons why Erk > Pent but Pent > Canas on the FE7 list.

I wouldn't worry about lategame as neither one is getting used there.

-Top Tier-

Lance

Alan

Dieck

Rutger

Miredy

Percival

-High Tier-

Clarine

Gonzales

Echidna

Lalum

Elphin

Chad

Astohl

-Upper Mid Tier-

Marcus

Thany

Shin

Lot

Saul

Roy

Ellen

Fir

Klein

Tate

Lugh

-Lower Mid Tier-

Zealot

There's nearly 20 units above them, neither one has anything meaningful to contribute during lategame. It's similar to Zealot vs Noah, simply a question of tier list consistency. Lugh's Ch 3-5 vs Zealot's Ch 7-whatever (probably used up through 13 or 14 at least), an obvious win for Zealot. A trained and supported Bartre will be stronger than Geitz. If Geitz > Bartre on the FE7 list because he's good or atleast usable for a while without needing to be trained first, then Zealot > Lugh.

I notice Zealot > Lugh got no response, not any disagreement atleast.

Here's Zealot:

10 Str, 13 Spd----35 Hp, 11 Def, 7 Res, 31 Avo (+ move, axes, weapon ranks, con)

You get a second Silver Lance in Ch 6 and Zealot is one of only two units who will have A Lances right now (and right now you also happen to have two Silver Lances).

Let's compare him against Lugh.

6 Lugh (assuming 5 levels in 3 chapters, since he's not gonna do anything on Ch 3): 6 Mag, 8.5 Spd----18.5 Hp, 3.7 Def, 6.5 Res, 23.8 Avo

Should I rly even bother? It's not that I'm unwilling to give lots of stats and numbers on how much better Zealot is here, it's just that it's unnecessary as long as you're not blind. The Dragon Knights OHKO Lugh, while Zealot is 3HKO'd @ ~31% hit, and takes 10 rounds to die on average. Mercs on this chapter can get 12 Spd, so if Lugh winds up with 8, he is ORKO'd. Meanwhile the same Merc would do 2 damage to Zealot. Lugh's offense vs Knights, with a 12 Def/Res gap, is nearly the same as Zealot's Silver Lance offense against them (actually Zealot is still doing more damage, though).

Ch 8 and 9 comparison coming later if you want to see Lugh get horribly slaughtered some more.

Okay, so, chapter 8.

8 Lugh: 6.8 Mag, 9.5 Spd----19.5 Hp, 4 Def, 7.1 Res, 26.4 Avo

Zealot, still at base: 10 Str, 13 Spd----35 Hp, 11 Def, 7 Res, 31 Avo (+ move, axes, weapon ranks, con)

Let's compare to some random enemies.

Iron lance loldier: 18 Atk, 82 Hit----33 Hp, 2 Def, 1 Res

Zealot + iron axe is an easy 2HKO. Lugh doesn't have enough Atk to 2HKO even if it had 0 Res. Zealot is 6HKO'd at 41% displayed. Lugh is 2HKO'd at 55-56 displayed.

Steel lance knight: 20 Atk, 70 Hit----27 Hp, 13 Def, 2 Res

Zealot + silver does double 11's, or steel axe does double 9's. Hammer results in massive damage. Lugh does double 11's with thunder. Zealot is 4-5HKO'd at 29% displayed. Lugh is 2HKO'd at 43-44 displayed.

Thunder mage: 15 Atk, 97 Hit----23 Hp, 4 Def, 7 Res, 8 AS

Zealot + javelin is a simple 2HKO. Lugh can't double and does 6 damage with thunder, a 4HKO. Zealot is 5HKO'd at 66% displayed. Lugh is 3HKO'd at 70-71% displayed.

Steel sword merc: 18 Atk, 100 Hit----30 Hp, 7 Def, 2 Res, 13 AS

Zealot + silver can 2HKO, or iron lance will 3HKO. Lugh can only 3HKO. Zealot is 6HKO'd at 59% hit. Lugh is potentially one-rounded.

Also, Zealot has 8 move while Lugh has 5, and this map has huge gaps between the different groups of enemies. Lugh is quickly getting left behind as the mounted units cover the space between one group of enemies and the next much more quickly than Lugh and his 5 move. Some foot units might get ferried along the way, but probably not Lugh. Dieck, Rutger, Roy, etc have priority on that.

And Lugh is a tier above Zealot right now.

This is pretty fun, maybe I'll do a Ch 9 comparison tomorrow just for kicks.

You might as well do a chapter 7 comparison, as I believe that will be more important than a chapter 9 comparison.

I already did a quick one shortly before the Ch 8 comparison. No need to go into detail on Ch 7. Lugh is OHKO'd by dragon knights and etc. It's just "lugh gets raped, lugh gets raped, lugh gets raped."

That's a very, very loose connection to make. Geitz's performance is very much unlike Zealot. Geitz joins midgame and remains a useful fighter for the rest of the game, Zealot joins earlygame and somewhere around Ch13 his combat is going to be arguably worse than, say, Lugh...by the time the team promotes, he might as well be an 8 mov packing mule. There's some similarities here, but not enough to say "well it's that way on FE7 so it should be that way on FE6 too".

Sure it is. Geitz's initial performance isn't as good as Zealot's. Zealot is atleast as good as Alan and Lance if not better when he joins. Is Geitz as good as Raven and etc when he joins? Geitz has about 10 chapters of use assuming you use him in every chapter after 24, and really it's 9 chapters, since he does nothing worthwhile in Ch 24 (unlike Zealot in Ch 7). That's pushing it since you can easily argue that Geitz isn't fielded or doesn't matter on some of those chapters (such as the final, where lords + Athos + Nils already takes up 5 out of 12 slots). Zealot also has 9-10 chapters of use assuming he gets dropped around Ch 13 or 14.

Lugh's combat will be better than Zealot's 8-9 chapters after Zealot joined? lol, a trained Bartre is arguably better than Geitz as soon as Geitz joins. When Zealot joins, Lugh is getting raped horribly even if you seriously tried to train him up.

20/1 Lugh

Thunder: 21.6 atk, 16.5 AS, 118.6 hit, 13.0 crit - - 44.7 avo, 29.5 hp, 7.8 def, 12.7 res, 11.7 critavo

--/10 Zealot

Killer Axe: 23.2 atk, 14.8 AS, 95.5 hit, 36.6 crit - - 35.9 avo, 41.8 hp, 13.7 def, 8.3 res, 6.3 critavo

Javelin: 18.2 atk, 14.8 AS, 85.5 hit, 6.7 crit

There's a significant gap in offense in Lugh's favor, and a significant gap in defense in Zealot's favor...and then staves vs mount blahblah. And a large win @ 1-2 range...lol @ Zealot's hit. Maybe the tier gap should go, but I do not see Zealot > Lugh, at least not based on just a comparison at Zealot's prime.

A trained Bartre is at worst nearly equal to Geitz. Why is there a tier gap in Geitz's favor if we're allowed to skip forward to when the unpromoted unit has consumed lots of resources, including a deployment slot for a long time, and push this comparison as a significant advantage for said unpromoted unit?

You're better off addressing the faults on the analogy with the FE7 Warriors, or devaluing Lugh's mid- and lategame wins than by going "haha look at how badly Lugh loses earlygame".

I did address that. There are nearly 20 units above Lugh who are getting used over him during the lategame. Did you address that?

There you go. There's all the stuff that you ignored and failed to acknowledge. If you're going to attack my argument, please actually address my main points, rather than taking individual posts or statements out of context and attacking them individually. You've said nothing that hasn't been addressed already (not that you had much to say in the first place), and your complaint is adding nothing meaningful to the discussion.

[grandjackal]

You have to completely waste the turns of multiple units for a few turns. That's quite a negative impact.

Zealot and Treck are towards the direction of the pathway leading to the throne, how the hell is that wasting a few turns when it's the direction they're heading towards?

and uh... I'm not seeing how this applies to any of those units except Hugh. They all have at the very least forced chapters in which they can do something (even more than Wendy can), and some of them arguably have much much more.

To recruit Sue, I have to pull Roy away from the throne to recruit her while Chad needs to waste his time picking the door open. If I'm not going Sacae, why should I even bother? It wastes time when I wouldn't have to, which made you cry over Treck, it holds so the same for Sue.

Same goes for Shin, I could just kill him and move on, or have a crappy unit take a unit slot to recruit a guy I don't necessarily need. If this is not thinking Sacae, why should I not opt for the exp?

Fir is noticeably so, as she's not even spectacular at her start, then immediately again hits problems in the coming lance chapters. Why should I care when I can just kill her and move on without having to waste a unit slot on hurfadurff Noah?

Karel? Only Fir (hurd) and Bartre (durff) can recruit him. Fir's dead, Bartre blows my dick by now. Wasting a good unit slot to recruit KArel? Why bother?

My claim is your scope is skewed.