FE6 HM Tier List

[Reikken]

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.

An average 12/0 Lot with supports can 2-round everything on the map, even possibly even one-rounding steel axe users. And he's much more durable. Fir has all of about 2 (!!!!) more avoid. And she dies to two hits from just about anything (archers for instance), while Lot can eat two steel axes and still be alive, and laughs at anything else. Hand axe, hand axe, steel axe, and he's still alive.

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?

You have to get Roy to them by turn 2, or else Treck dies. Roy can't get there that fast without rescue/drop, and then he needs someone to rescue him again right after, or he'll be the one dying.

Sue: Ah, right. That's not nearly as bad as Treck's recruitment, though. Chad has to pass by there anyway, and Sue can rescue Roy to get him back to where you want him to be faster.

Shin: Sure, having to field Sue can suck, so that counts against him. However, this also applies to Shin (and Sue) on the Sacae list.

Fir: Noah isn't bad at all. Oh noz, I have to field someone who has decent AS with a steel sword in an axe heavy chapter.

Karel: did not know that. but if you're using either of them, this is no problem.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[Colonel M]

Even when you consider Fir's lategame, she faces iffy Hit rates in Ilia (like it's about 43% displayed against a 20/1 Fir vs. Steel Lance Pegasus Knights, 33 with B Shin). The FalcoKnights do even better against her (2HKO and 58% displayed, 48 if B Shin is in play). Meanwhile, 20/1 Lott has rofl 50.6 HP | 16.8 Def with A Dieck support. The Steel Lance Pegasus Knight does 6 damage per round. That's about a 9RKO right there. The FalcoKnight does 13 damage, or a 4RKO. Not to mention he still wins in the Avoid department. His +15 Avoid with the support and +10 from WTA gives him 62 Avoid (52 without WTA), which the 109 Hit FalcoKnights w/Silver have 47% dislayed against him. You'd almost have to try very hard just to get the dude killed. In Sacae it's even more of a joke. If he takes damage from the Nomads it's like... 2 due to being doubled. Nomadic Troopers w/Steel Sword (and assuming Iron Bow is still out) does maybe 10 damage per round, and that's assuming he never budged a level after promotion.

Want to know something really fucking scary? Those 40 Atk Wyvern Lords... they 3RKO Lott. He's one of the few units that can seriously take more than 2 rounds against these guys.

There's a lot more to the story than "Lott gets raped midgame", which I disagree with because Reikken pointed some of the stuff out. You'd be very surprised how much the Dieck support can make him a semi-monster. He may not be the greatest unit to ever exist on the planet, but he has advantages that you are just handwaving like crazy.

[Inui]

An average 12/0 Lot with supports can 2-round everything on the map, even possibly even one-rounding steel axe users. And he's much more durable. Fir has all of about 2 (!!!!) more avoid. And she dies to two hits from just about anything (archers for instance), while Lot can eat two steel axes and still be alive, and laughs at anything else. Hand axe, hand axe, steel axe, and he's still alive.

This is efficiency. Lot having anything more than his C's is a bit absurd by those standards. Fir has more than just 2 more avoid, and it's a lot more than that on axe users.

He's not one-rounding Steel Axe guys much, if at all. Even if he doubles with his own Steel Axe, which isn't too likely, he's failing to one-round the Fighters you yourself cited in one of your debates.

Fir does two-round everything, and actually stands a good chance to one-round thanks to her joining sword that only one other unit that already has good weapons can use.

There's no question that Lot wins durability when Fir joins. However, Fir's offense is already better (no lolmisses, better weapon for the time, way more Spd) and both her offense and durability improve very quickly.

Even when you consider Fir's lategame, she faces iffy Hit rates in Ilia (like it's about 43% displayed against a 20/1 Fir vs. Steel Lance Pegasus Knights, 33 with B Shin). The FalcoKnights do even better against her (2HKO and 58% displayed, 48 if B Shin is in play). Meanwhile, 20/1 Lott has rofl 50.6 HP | 16.8 Def with A Dieck support. The Steel Lance Pegasus Knight does 6 damage per round. That's about a 9RKO right there. The FalcoKnight does 13 damage, or a 4RKO. Not to mention he still wins in the Avoid department. His +15 Avoid with the support and +10 from WTA gives him 62 Avoid (52 without WTA), which the 109 Hit FalcoKnights w/Silver have 47% dislayed against him. You'd almost have to try very hard just to get the dude killed. In Sacae it's even more of a joke. If he takes damage from the Nomads it's like... 2 due to being doubled. Nomadic Troopers w/Steel Sword (and assuming Iron Bow is still out) does maybe 10 damage per round, and that's assuming he never budged a level after promotion.

Want to know something really fucking scary? Those 40 Atk Wyvern Lords... they 3RKO Lott. He's one of the few units that can seriously take more than 2 rounds against these guys.

There's a lot more to the story than "Lott gets raped midgame", which I disagree with because Reikken pointed some of the stuff out. You'd be very surprised how much the Dieck support can make him a semi-monster. He may not be the greatest unit to ever exist on the planet, but he has advantages that you are just handwaving like crazy.

You realize I already posted all of those numbers, right? Fir wins.

Edit: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19301

Ignore the fact that it's a formal debate and just look at the combat comparisons, which are quite "factual" if you can accept the levels (which I easily can, obviously).

Edited March 4, 2010 by Inui

[Colonel M]

This is efficiency. Lot having anything more than his C's is a bit absurd by those standards. Fir has more than just 2 more avoid, and it's a lot more than that on axe users.

The supports start as early as Chapter 2. You need 60 points for a C Support. Dieck is 10+2 and Thany is also 10+2. This only requires about 25 turns just for a C with both of them. He could probably hit Bs by the time of C10 or C11, though this is just guesstimating off of the top of my head.

You realize I already posted all of those numbers, right? Fir wins.

No, Fir doesn't win. While you're right that ORKOing is still an advantage, having as much Enemy Phase exposure as Lott can have is also a significant advantage. And Fir lacks any 2 range weapon in Sacae, which means she has little to no Enemy Phase whatsoever.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Inui]

Fir joins in Chapter 9.

Lot also blows dick at that due to horrible offense. He's Lowen without a horse, shittier Hit, shitty Res, and against stronger enemies. How is that considered good at all? There are 15+ units that can do what you're saying Lot can do and do it just as well or better. There are two units with the same player phase/boss slaying/strong enemy unit slaying offense as Fir, except one of them has terrible Hit.

[Reikken]

This is efficiency. Lot having anything more than his C's is a bit absurd by those standards. Fir has more than just 2 more avoid, and it's a lot more than that on axe users.

What, you can't manage 6-7 turns per chapter? (55 over 8-8.5 chapters)

If Lot needs to double with something stronger than iron, he whips out that killer axe that no one else can even equip. It also can grant OHKs in other cases, and +hit over steel, etc

Fir does two-round everything, and actually stands a good chance to one-round thanks to her joining sword that only one other unit that already has good weapons can use.

The +10 crit on it makes it quite useful for killing bosses, among other things. Every time she swings it against a normal scrub enemy that someone like Alan or Lance can one-round with a steel/iron sword, there's quite an opportunity cost incurred.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[-Cynthia-]

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?"

I'm saying that we can't compare units if we don't field them at all. We have to assume that they're are fielded at least a moderate amount in order to gauge their usefulness. Going Treck= Wendy because both aren't going to be fielded is not the principle by which the tier list operates, if we don't assume they're fielded we really can't rank the lower tiers at all.

It isn't a perfect system, since it can be tricky to assume they're fielded in situations with extremely limited unit slots (FE6 doesn't have many chapters like this anyway). I also think it's reasonable to drop characters of they are only useful for a certain period of time (IE Marcus). Of course when comparing Marcus to someone like Fir, Fir still has an advantage lategame because she is contributing while Marcus isn't.

I suppose you could make a tier list where you use the lower tiers as little as possible, but that goes under the assumption that we're always using "the best team", which isn't an assumption tier lists make.

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.

It's a combination of what Lugh does before Zealot joins and his eventual lategame leads vs. Zealot's leads during the midgame. I would personally side with Zealot here (more chapters and Lugh's potshots early on are not that great), but I can see the logic in Lugh>Zealot.

Stuff about Bartre/Geitz

That's FE7, which isn't really relevant here. If you have an example on this list that is inconsistent in the context of Lugh/Zealot that would make a little more sense.

[CATS]

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.

A: Irrelevant. Geitz isn't significantly better than Bartre for the lategame. If Lugh > Zealot because Zealot is crappy lategame, then Bartre = Geitz or nearly so because they're not much different lategame. I've said this many times. Again, also remember that Zealot rapes Lugh for a good stretch of time, while Bartre is never losing to Geitz by any significant amount while both exist.

B: Also irrelevant. The fact remains that Lugh is not optimal deployment. If it's fine to deploy him anyways and brush over the opportunity cost associated with raising him, then the same can be done for Bartre. Also, your statement isn't even true. Earlygame is arguably when Lugh's at his worst and Bartre at his best; Lugh can't double yet, and in FE7 most others can't double yet so Bartre's bad Spd isn't as much of a detriment as it will be later on. Meanwhile, Lugh has 16 Hp/3 Def and 9 Atk, while Bartre has 29 Hp/4 Def and 17 Atk.

I'm saying that we can't compare units if we don't field them at all. We have to assume that they're are fielded at least a moderate amount in order to gauge their usefulness. Going Treck= Wendy because both aren't going to be fielded is not the principle by which the tier list operates, if we don't assume they're fielded we really can't rank the lower tiers at all.

1. Not the principle by which the tier list operates? Says who? You?

2. No one is arguing Treck = Wendy. The argument is Wendy > Treck.

3. Why must units be fielded "a moderate amount" (however much that is) in order to gauge their usefulness? If they are not useful during the time period where you're using them, then how does that give an accurate picture of their usefulness?

I too would prefer to debate low tiers assuming they get fielded to some amount, according to what smash proposed in his recent topic in General FE. However, since there is no consensus on that issue, I'm forced to just argue what's accurate and consistent with the premise of "who contributes the most towards efficiency?"

It isn't a perfect system, since it can be tricky to assume they're fielded in situations with extremely limited unit slots (FE6 doesn't have many chapters like this anyway). I also think it's reasonable to drop characters of they are only useful for a certain period of time (IE Marcus). Of course when comparing Marcus to someone like Fir, Fir still has an advantage lategame because she is contributing while Marcus isn't.

And likewise, Lugh > Zealot because of lategame, I assume. Yet when I don't use Lugh at all, there are other units waiting to be trained instead of him, indeed even ranked above him on the list, who will take his slot and contribute atleast as much as he would've. If such is the case, then how is he "contributing" during lategame?

When you remove Zealot from the game, are there any substitutions who are as good as he is for Ch 7-14? No, there aren't. The team that uses Zealot drops him after awhile and trains some other upper mid instead of Lugh; their midgame benefits from Zealot's presence, and their lategame is similar at worst. All they're missing out on is Lugh's potshots on Ch 4 and 5. The team that uses Lugh, on the other hand, suffers a measurably worse midgame because there's no way to replace Zealot's utility during that time period. The alternatives to Zealot are worse than he is. Hence we can see that Zealot's presence in the game clearly contributes more towards efficiency than Lugh's.

That's FE7, which isn't really relevant here. If you have an example on this list that is inconsistent in the context of Lugh/Zealot that would make a little more sense.

1. The principles are the exact same. The fact that it's a different game has no relevance whatsoever to the logic being used.

2. I already cited Marcus's position. Do you think Marcus is getting used lategame?

3. Look at Lot/Echidna vs Fir. dondon's argument in favor of Echidna particularly is inconsistent with the notion that Lugh > Zealot because of lategame.

[Inui]

What, you can't manage 6-7 turns per chapter? (55 over 8-8.5 chapters)

Of them ending their turns right next to each other in an efficiency playthrough? I guess it can happen, but it seems the general thought around here is that supports build really slowly in efficiency lists...

If Lot needs to double with something stronger than iron, he whips out that killer axe that no one else can even equip. It also can grant OHKs in other cases, and +hit over steel, etc

Marcus and Zealot don't have C's in axes yet? Ward is never ever used?

The +10 crit on it makes it quite useful for killing bosses, among other things. Every time she swings it against a normal scrub enemy that someone like Alan or Lance can one-round with a steel/iron sword, there's quite an opportunity cost incurred.

Then trade her something else. She's still 2RKOing at the worst with Iron, which is better than Lot, since Lot lolmisses too much. I know it was a formal debate, but you brought up missing even 10% of the time compared to 0% being pretty bad, and that makes perfect sense to me. Except Lot's missing more than 10% of the time.

[Colonel M]

Don't worry Inui. All will become clearer with our little debate. I hope to guarantee that.

[grandjackal]

You have to get Roy to them by turn 2, or else Treck dies. Roy can't get there that fast without rescue/drop, and then he needs someone to rescue him again right after, or he'll be the one dying.

Hey, Zealot is recruited, Zealot recruits Treck, Treck rescues Roy and runs back, someone takes and drops Roy. You've got myriads to do this, and you got someone like Thany to avoid having to deal with the houses. We run him back as to easier recruit Noah (who if anything is even more out of the way) ,and once the action's over you can still have Thany fly him over the wall. Don't worry, thanks to Noah and Treck, they can do all the errands as they run house to house to sell her girlscout cookies for prizes.

You are seriously overrating how much a problem this actually is. It's also ignoring that Zealot's in the same situation. Without that rescue drop, you have to rely on his AI not doing something mindnumbingly retarded that would cause him to pull away from you. There are occasions where he will actually rush the throne. Should we penalize Zealot in the same manner? No, because it's just as ridiculous.

Sue: Ah, right. That's not nearly as bad as Treck's recruitment, though. Chad has to pass by there anyway, and Sue can rescue Roy to get him back to where you want him to be faster.

OR, I could move on with my day and not bother. If anything, her joining situation is worse since Treck is at least towards the path of the throne.

Shin: Sure, having to field Sue can suck, so that counts against him. However, this also applies to Shin (and Sue) on the Sacae list.

In Sacae, I would name him as one of those units that's a bit too good to pass up (similar to Gonzales, who I could have also brought up, and probably should for Sacae), and thus the profit outdoes the cost. Going Ilia? Hardly call him necessary, since anyone who doesn't suck can basically walk through Ilia. I'd take countering over Shin not countering as well over there.

Fir: Noah isn't bad at all. Oh noz, I have to field someone who has decent AS with a steel sword in an axe heavy chapter.

To have "decent speed" in the isles, you need at least 11 just for chapter 9. Noah starts with 9, and has a 30% growth. Explain to me how Noah got 6 levels in essentially 2 1/2 chapters.

Karel: did not know that. but if you're using either of them, this is no problem.

Fir's dead, Bartre sucks by then, the unit we get for the cost is exceedingly average. No dice.

[Reikken]

Of them ending their turns right next to each other in an efficiency playthrough? I guess it can happen, but it seems the general thought around here is that supports build really slowly in efficiency lists...

I can't see that being the case considering how big maps are. You're still limited by how far away the throne/gate is and/or the enemies that bar your path.

Marcus starts with E so would need 100(!) swings. Unless he stops using swords and lances almost entirely as soon as you give him one in ch 2, he doesn't hit C for a long time. Zealot has had only had 3 chapters to get in 50 swings. That's even less likely. Ward, in efficiency? lulz

True, his his is pretty bad, but missing doesn't matter as much with no combat rank, and more importantly, when Fir is losing in every other area, she's still much worse.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Reikken

[Colonel M]

Just for an fyi: I found those codebreaker codes for each chapter. Unfortunately you can't really get accurate FoW statistics, but I can at least provide you with the shiny values for each of the chapters. It's all within the OP, so now no one is really in the dark with Enemy Stats | weapons.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Just for an fyi: I found those codebreaker codes for each chapter. Unfortunately you can't really get accurate FoW statistics, but I can at least provide you with the shiny values for each of the chapters. It's all within the OP, so now no one is really in the dark with Enemy Stats | weapons.

Hack your chapter 1 party to thieves and Sages with 99 Warp and Rescue.

Then there's all the stuff Jackal had on the first post back when he had this tier list.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Balcerzak]

OR, I could move on with my day and not bother. If anything, her joining situation is worse since Treck is at least towards the path of the throne.

You kind of have a funny definition of "towards the path of the throne". It's much faster to open the door on the west and send Roy through there. Having Roy head to the houses at the east is a detour. Just have Roy recruit Noah, while moving northwest. Let Treck die because he's too weak and you can't get to him in time without wasting a bunch of actions on rescue chaining, then have Noah recruit Zealot who's strong and can manage to survive.

[GreatEclipse]

Even if you disagree with my example, the principle is the same. The differences between the 13th best unit available and the absolute worst are meaningless on a maximum efficiency tier list when you only have 12 deployment slots. Both units are sitting on the bench, and higher stats are meaningless when they go unused. The only opportunity Treck and Wendy have to contribute anything at all is the chapters they are forced into, and Treck even contributing in his joining chapter arguably has an opportunity cost Wendy does not share. Even disregarding it, I cannot see him contributing enough to justify the current tier gap. And if you can get credit for something you do as an NPC, I intend to argue Pent up for killing those pesky Wyverns in the desert.

I considerer Fir better than Lott and Echidna under the standards I use to judge units, but using the standards of this list, having them above her makes perfect sense. Lott has little to no opportunity cost attached to his contributions before she existed, and Echidna can be used for the chapters where her performance is at its best and then dropped. Fir needs to fight for a unit slot when she is at her relative worst in order to improve, and her two best support partners will only exist for a few chapters when they even exist at all.

[grandjackal]

You kind of have a funny definition of "towards the path of the throne". It's much faster to open the door on the west and send Roy through there. Having Roy head to the houses at the east is a detour. Just have Roy recruit Noah, while moving northwest. Let Treck die because he's too weak and you can't get to him in time without wasting a bunch of actions on rescue chaining, then have Noah recruit Zealot who's strong and can manage to survive.

Faster yet, just have Thany fly Roy over the wall as you move after you recruit Zealot, it works it's way out form there.

Again, if we're going to erase several units just because you have to recruit them when they don't join automatically, there are several others that are going to go along with Treck. Fir instantly comes to mind.

[CATS]

From Vykan's tier list FAQ:

You only account for the contributions a character provides when they are playable. If a character starts off as say, an enemy before being recruited, then the actions that character takes as an enemy will not be held against his/her ranking.

So no, Treck doesn't get to be better than Wendy because he deals one or two counters as a green unit. Unless you want to say the tier list FAQ is invalid, in which case we need to re-define what the list is based on, since the FAQ is what provides the definition of "efficiency" used as the premise for arguments in this topic. I guess you could argue this individual provision is wrong/illogical, but I see no basis for it.

Edited March 4, 2010 by CATS

[grandjackal]

Yet I hear nothing from the fact that there are several other characters in the same situation. Why does Treck get the shaft and absolutely no one else?

[CATS]

No one said that others aren't also getting the shaft, except for Reikken, who explained his points on why.

[-Cynthia-]

1. Not the principle by which the tier list operates? Says who? You?

Various people. Across tier lists there has been a lot said about unit deployment. I haven't run into a tier list that assumes units aren't deployed for the majority of their existence.

2. No one is arguing Treck = Wendy. The argument is Wendy > Treck.

You missed the point . A massive gap in performance when used > slightly easier recruitment. Treck and Wendy were example units anyway, if we assume that all lower tiers are not being fielded they all are essentially equal (except for extremely minor contributions during forced chapters, but that's horribly boring to debate).

3. Why must units be fielded "a moderate amount" (however much that is) in order to gauge their usefulness? If they are not useful during the time period where you're using them, then how does that give an accurate picture of their usefulness?

Um, because if you can't use them, you can't judge them at all. Otherwise the tier list just becomes "what does this unit do in their joining chapter or other forced situations" unless they are considered a top unit for a specific point in time. It would be the biggest discussions stifler ever.

I too would prefer to debate low tiers assuming they get fielded to some amount, according to what smash proposed in his recent topic in General FE. However, since there is no consensus on that issue, I'm forced to just argue what's accurate and consistent with the premise of "who contributes the most towards efficiency?"

You don't seem to grasp the concept of the tier list. It's not "how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible" it's "how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible, while using unit X (when unit X is the one being tiered). Unit X is then tiered based on how much they contribute during said runthrough.

Here's the big thing: The tier list does not assume we are using the top units at any given time.

And likewise, Lugh > Zealot because of lategame, I assume. Yet when I don't use Lugh at all, there are other units waiting to be trained instead of him, indeed even ranked above him on the list, who will take his slot and contribute atleast as much as he would've. If such is the case, then how is he "contributing" during lategame?

We're getting into positive/negative utility here is another matter entirely. Here are a few points.

1. A lot of the units above Lugh aren't better than him come lategame. Lott, Roy, Ellen, Saul, Marcus come to mind. This makes Lugh much closer to receiving a deployment slot (top 10 or 12 or w/e).

2. Said units sbove him could be stat screwed. A Lance who doesn't gain a point of Spd before promotion is likely worse than Lugh.

Basically, almost everyone is good enough to contribute positively when fielded (people whoa re as crappy as Sophia might be an exception). It's how much they contribute that differentiates them. Just because Lugh may not be in the top 10 group while trained does not make his lategame leads over Zealot irrelevant, since he's still a better substitute.

When you remove Zealot from the game, are there any substitutions who are as good as he is for Ch 7-14? No, there aren't. The team that uses Zealot drops him after awhile and trains some other upper mid instead of Lugh; their midgame benefits from Zealot's presence, and their lategame is similar at worst. All they're missing out on is Lugh's potshots on Ch 4 and 5. The team that uses Lugh, on the other hand, suffers a measurably worse midgame because there's no way to replace Zealot's utility during that time period. The alternatives to Zealot are worse than he is. Hence we can see that Zealot's presence in the game clearly contributes more towards efficiency than Lugh's.

I actually agree with this. My main point is that Lugh's lategame leads aren't enitirely irrelevant, but I don't see them outweighing Zealot's midgame leads either. I actually said that I could see Zealot> Lugh a while back.

1. The principles are the exact same. The fact that it's a different game has no relevance whatsoever to the logic being used.

Sort of, except that Bartre and Geitz's performance is relevant to their placements, and it's not something that we need to get into. I could go on about how Bartre's Spd deficiencies, particularly in the earlygame, make him not contribute much while Geitz is gone and be worse while he's around, but that's not really a discussion for this topic.

2. I already cited Marcus's position. Do you think Marcus is getting used lategame?[//quote]

Lugh is a better subsitute than Marcus as well. Of course Marcus builds up a lot of positive utility ealry in the game (both when Lugh is and isn't around) which is why he's higher than Lugh. He's also higher than Zealot because his performance in comparison to the team in earlygame> Zealot's in midgame.

For untis like Marcus, being allowed to not be fielded after their contributions is a bonus of sorts, but it should still be considered that they won't have much contribution in later chapters. The not "forcing" deployment is mainly to avoid some people's concepts of negative utility, smash talks about it some.

3. Look at Lot/Echidna vs Fir. dondon's argument in favor of Echidna particularly is inconsistent with the notion that Lugh > Zealot because of lategame.

It does. It doesn't totally handwave Fir's lategame leads however, by sayiing neither will be fielded or anything like that. It just asserts that Echidna's midgame leads are more important.

[Reikken]

It's also ignoring that Zealot's in the same situation.

No he's not. Zealot doesn't instantly die like Treck does.

To have "decent speed" in the isles, you need at least 11 just for chapter 9.

Where is this magical number coming from?

For untis like Marcus, being allowed to not be fielded after their contributions is a bonus of sorts,

or a double standard

What determines this, that Marcus gets preferential treatment in this regard that units like Dorothy don't get?

[CATS]

Various people. Across tier lists there has been a lot said about unit deployment. I haven't run into a tier list that assumes units aren't deployed for the majority of their existence.

Do these various people have logic, or just opinions?

While tier lists may assume that units are deployed for the majority of their existence in some cases, such as apparently Zealot vs Lugh, obviously this isn't assumed in all cases. Marcus on this list is probably one of the best examples.

You missed the point . A massive gap in performance when used > slightly easier recruitment.

Based on what? The fact that it's boring to debate them if they're not used for the whole game? While certainly true, that's also irrelevant.

Um, because if you can't use them, you can't judge them at all.

No one is saying you can't use them. You can obviously use Wendy in Ch 8. Treck too can be used, however, the cost of using him is greater than the benefits (or so the argument goes, again, I don't necessarily agree or disagree, it's just an example).

You don't seem to grasp the concept of the tier list. It's not "how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible" it's "how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible, while using unit X (when unit X is the one being tiered). Unit X is then tiered based on how much they contribute during said runthrough.

Says who? Where are you getting this stuff from, and what makes it authoritative?

We're getting into positive/negative utility here is another matter entirely.

No, it's extremely releveant. Lugh's gross utility is arguably > Zealot's. Zealot's net utility > Lugh's almost undeniably. This is the core of the issue at hand.

A lot of the units above Lugh aren't better than him come lategame. Lott, Roy, Ellen, Saul, Marcus come to mind. This makes Lugh much closer to receiving a deployment slot (top 10 or 12 or w/e).

Roy is forced so that's irrelevant. You'll also notice I didn't bold Marcus's name when going down the list. Lot, Ellen and Saul would all require evidence of some sort; without any proof given one way or the other, the fact that they > Lugh on the list suggests they are preferable deployment. Plus, he's down by more than just 3 units. 18 viable lategame units are above him last I counted, though I may have been off by 1 or 2. Regardless, even if he is superior lategame, it would have to be weighed against all that time when he has to be fielded as non-optimal deployment in order to reach that point.

If someone could show how the benefits of using Lugh in the lategame clearly outweigh the costs of training him, and how his net utility is thus > Zealot's, that would be a good argument. But that's not what anyone is saying, rather, the best argument that's come up so far is essentially just "you have to use them both the whole game!", with poor or non-existent explanations of exactly why this must be done.

Said units sbove him could be stat screwed. A Lance who doesn't gain a point of Spd before promotion is likely worse than Lugh.

Lance with -1 Spd < average Lugh? There's a two tier gap. Are you sure about that?

Regardless, the same could happen in reverse. What if Ellen (who apparently < Lugh lategame) gets RNG blessed so now she's worth using lategame?

Just because Lugh may not be in the top 10 group while trained does not make his lategame leads over Zealot irrelevant, since he's still a better substitute.

That's entirely arguable. Lugh requires a promo item, alot of Exp, and a deployment slot for a long time in order to be viable during lategame. Zealot may suck during lategame, but he's still more usable than a very low-leveled Lugh, and requires none of the above.

But, that's irrelevant anyways. On an efficient run, Lugh isn't getting used lategame (or so let's assume for the purposes of the following question). How does that not make his leads irrelevant? You keep protesting this, but I don't see your reasoning.

Sort of, except that Bartre and Geitz's performance is relevant to their placements, and it's not something that we need to get into. I could go on about how Bartre's Spd deficiencies, particularly in the earlygame, make him not contribute much while Geitz is gone and be worse while he's around, but that's not really a discussion for this topic.

Sure, you could argue Bartre is actually a whole tier worse while both are around. But assuming that they are similar while both exist, do you seriously think a tier gap in Geitz's favor is justified? If so, why?

It does. It doesn't totally handwave Fir's lategame leads however, by sayiing neither will be fielded or anything like that. It just asserts that Echidna's midgame leads are more important.

Okay, so Zealot's leads are "more important" than Lugh's still-relevant-but-less-important lategame leads. The end result is the same either way. If all you want me to do is use different wording, that's cool I guess.

[dondon151]

3. Look at Lot/Echidna vs Fir. dondon's argument in favor of Echidna particularly is inconsistent with the notion that Lugh > Zealot because of lategame.

I agree with Zealot > Lugh. Zealot is very clutch. Bartre vs. Geitz is totally dissimilar to Zealot vs. Lugh.

[Inui]

The phrase "opportunity cost" is going to make me go insane...