Personal Tier List

[Florete]

The Reyson is fairly simple, at least to me. When Reyson chants, all he does is refresh the four units nearby him. That's it. He doesn't do much else at all. Sure, those for units may be able to attack again or move into better positions, but they are the ones who are doing it. Even though Reyson is the enabler, it is still those units who are doing it. Not to mention that Reyson will not always refresh four units and those four units will not always be Jill, Oscar, Kieran, and Titania either. As a result, he drops.

Wow, that is the most retarded sandbag I've ever read.

What happens when Reyson is not there? Those units don't get refreshed (btw those four you mentioned all have Canto, making it extremely easy for them to make a diamond formation for Reyson). All turns that you shave off, all extra enemies that you killed as a result don't happen. "But they're the ones doing it" is, again, the most retarded sandbag I've ever heard to try using as a counter to that. Reyson's abilities allow this to happen and as a result he receives the credit for the increase in positive performance. He has a much greater effect on overall performance than you are giving him credit for.

I originally wasn't going to post at all in this thread because we already have a list with weird rules, but I couldn't let this slip by.

[Anouleth]

Wow, that is the most retarded sandbag I've ever read.

What happens when Reyson is not there? Those units don't get refreshed (btw those four you mentioned all have Canto, making it extremely easy for them to make a diamond formation for Reyson). All turns that you shave off, all extra enemies that you killed as a result don't happen. "But they're the ones doing it" is, again, the most retarded sandbag I've ever heard to try using as a counter to that. Reyson's abilities allow this to happen and as a result he receives the credit for the increase in positive performance. He has a much greater effect on overall performance than you are giving him credit for.

I originally wasn't going to post at all in this thread because we already have a list with weird rules, but I couldn't let this slip by.

I kinda see where he's coming from. I remember Int complaining about this - if Reyson cantos Ike and Ike kills an enemy, who gets credit for the kill? Ike or Reyson? Maybe both?

This is why I agree with Int that Dancers shouldn't be tiered.

[Florete]

I kinda see where he's coming from. I remember Int complaining about this - if Reyson cantos Ike and Ike kills an enemy, who gets credit for the kill? Ike or Reyson? Maybe both?

This is why I agree with Int that Dancers shouldn't be tiered.

The way I see it, you need to look at them differently. Whereas normal combat units like Ike can be looked at almost on a turn-by-turn basis, Herons need to be looked at in an overall scope. How did the Heron help complete the map by the end of it?

I don't really agree with not tiering them but I can see where that sort of view comes from. I still believe their contributions can be measured on a tier list.

[Interceptor]

The way I see it, you need to look at them differently. Whereas normal combat units like Ike can be looked at almost on a turn-by-turn basis, Herons need to be looked at in an overall scope. How did the Heron help complete the map by the end of it?

I don't really agree with not tiering them but I can see where that sort of view comes from. I still believe their contributions can be measured on a tier list.

The problem is that you can argue over the magnitude of the contribution. Looking at it from the perspective of both extremes, an argument can be made that they are invaluable (nobody can reproduce what they do, and their nature makes them unique), or that they are doing very little (the lion's share of the benefits of completion is done by the units that are Vigored).

In that way, you can argue Raisin to God tier, to crap tier, or anywhere in between, just based on how you split who gets the credit. There is an argument for both sides, and it cannot be neatly squared to the goals of an efficiency tier list (ranked tier list is another story). Efficiency tells us how we use Raisin, but not how to rank him.

[Zkirsche]

Ike > Boyd is more tricky, but I will try to explain. In the early game... Ike is more likely to double than Boyd. Even though Boyd has an advantage with axes, Ike's doubling (and regal sword) gives him a stronger edge. Not to mention that, later on, after promotion neither will have too much trouble killing IIRC, except Ike can do it in 'one' attack (Aether), heal (Aether), and still has a load of dodge to back it up if he screws up. Boyd... does not have that. Not to menion that Boyd's speed isn't the best either. Not saying he's slow, but when people have tried to argue speed bands for Ilyana, Boyd's name often pops up as a contender for the band.

I think Boyd is a very good contender for the ch2 speedwing, as very few units can use it as well as he can (he's bordeline doubling the entire game) and can ORKO at 1-2 range. This should at least put them in the same tier, if not make him > Ike (though they should be in teh same tier IMO).

[Original Alear]

The problem is that you can argue over the magnitude of the contribution. Looking at it from the perspective of both extremes, an argument can be made that they are invaluable (nobody can reproduce what they do, and their nature makes them unique), or that they are doing very little (the lion's share of the benefits of completion is done by the units that are Vigored).

In that way, you can argue Raisin to God tier, to crap tier, or anywhere in between, just based on how you split who gets the credit. There is an argument for both sides, and it cannot be neatly squared to the goals of an efficiency tier list (ranked tier list is another story). Efficiency tells us how we use Raisin, but not how to rank him.

I think the debate is whether you split the credit. IMO at least, you shouldn't. The unit gets credit for both its actions, as well as its enemy phase following the player turn. Reyson gets credit that overlaps w/ the other unit's credit.

If the unit would normally have to choose between the two actions and positions, reyson gets credit for the lesser of the two. That is to say, whichever action the unit would NOT have made if it had to choose between one and the other (as opposed to both). If the "lesser" action is the second action performed, Reyson gets credit for the enemy phase of the unit as well. (I.E. if Ike was going to kill a unit and then seize the gate, but because of galdrar is able to do both, reyson gets credit for whichever action Ike would not have performed that turn otherwise).

If reyson allows a unit to perform an action they normally would not have been able to perform (for instance, Ike moves forward 7 spaces, is galdrard, and moves an additional seven spaces) reyson gets credit for that action.

It would get complicated when galdraring multiple units. It may be that he allows lower-movement units to perform roles that higher move units would normally perform (because they were higher priority) thus allowing the higher range units to kill further in or less threatening enemies. The actions of one unit may have ramifications for another (for instance, even if reyson can't reach gatrie to galdrar him, maybe he lets rhys heal gatrie so gatrie can attack instead of using a healing item). What I'm trying to point out, however, is that Reyson should get credit for whatever the unit would NOT have done without galdrar, but the unit should also get full credit for performing the action.

This brings out a very obvious point. As long as the added player phase (as well as enemy phases which reyson receives credit for, if a unit would not be there otherwise) of the re-moved units exceeds what the next unit we'd bring to the chapter, Reyson is allowing moves to take place which exceed the value of the next unit. In an 8 unit chapter, Reyson is almost inevitably better than the best unused unit.

The only exception would be when the enemy phase is so overwhelming that we need an additional unit out to cover a spot and take hits, or the chapter is so overpopulated with weak units that the difference between having 7 and 8 different units to counter and kill enemies during the enemy phase is greater than the difference between the player phase of the worst used unit and the best unused unit. As far as I'm concerned, the first doesn't happen in POR. There are maps with large numbers of enemies that can be killed during enemy phase, but I can't think of any where you'd be unable to cover all the different spots and maximize enemy phase without one additional combat unit.

I'm ignoring factors like Reysons supports compared to other units, possibility of rescuing (he's light so it isn't very big), and auto-healing since I think they are fairly marginal in comparison to Reyson's abilities. Being able to restore the move of 4 units when transformed will mean reyson always gets a slot. This is not the same thing as saying he is always the best unit, since reyson only gets credit for the "2nd best" player phase action most of the time.

Also, I'm not clear on what "benefits of completion is done" means.

I don't think any of this is important, I just thought about it and felt it was interesting to me.

Edited March 4, 2010 by SeverIan

[Reikken]

A half-wit can figure out damned well what I mean by 'maximum potential' (measuring how well a character can do overall).

How well a character can do what? Since you apparently don't care about how fast you can beat chapters. That removed, I don't know what you're measuring things by. I haven't tested, so I say probably, but you can probably two-round every enemy and only take on a few at a time (due to durability or move or anything else) and still make bexp limit. What then can differentiate the units?

[Anouleth]

Please re-read the last part of my post. I won't deny that Rolf certainly wins over Shinon during the latter chapters. What is stopping me, however, is mainly that back on Gamefaqs, the snipers were considered absolute trash. Since negative utility abounds there and Rolf is often considered the worst character, that Shinon is seen as superior due to his early-game performance is simply expected. I do see your point though and I do agree with the concept. If we are measuring the entire game, then yes, Rolf is indeed better than Shinon from a statistical point of view. However, do keep in mind that Shinon has several chapters where he is the second-best basically in the game as well as Rolf needing training while Shinon does not...

My god... I feel so dirty saying that...

Anyways, here is a good question I would like to see answered before I make a change. How much better than Shinon is Rolf and how useful is Shinon in the early game anyways? I have a general opinion that he is fairly useful at the least, but am unsure of just how much.

Shinon really isn't that great in the early game. He's not very strong, and even with the Steel Bow will stop consistently 1-rounding after 1 or 2 chapters. But you can't use him to weaken stuff for Soren or something, since he has 20% crit on everything. In addition, while you can throw Gatrie or Titania that rescued someone into a pile of enemies and weaken them all for someone else to kill, Shinon is limited to Player Phase - so he weakens or kills a unit, pretty much at random, every turn. I think he should get points for C4, just because it's such a clusterfuck and you want another durable meatshield even if it has no Enemy Phase, but he's really nothing special.

And Shinon gets blown away by Rolf upon rejoining.

[Interceptor]

I think the debate is whether you split the credit. IMO at least, you shouldn't. The unit gets credit for both its actions, as well as its enemy phase following the player turn. Reyson gets credit that overlaps w/ the other unit's credit. [...] I don't think any of this is important, I just thought about it and felt it was interesting to me.

That's all well and good, but what you just wrote there is an argument for a God tier Raisin. Even if you don't agree with a split, going with an overlap still gives Raisin credit for things that he is not actually doing. Since he's a heron, he's the only one around, and that means his contributions cannot possibly be replicated by anyone else. This gives him an incredible advantage over basically every other unit.

[Original Alear]

That's all well and good, but what you just wrote there is an argument for a God tier Raisin. Even if you don't agree with a split, going with an overlap still gives Raisin credit for things that he is not actually doing. Since he's a heron, he's the only one around, and that means his contributions cannot possibly be replicated by anyone else. This gives him an incredible advantage over basically every other unit.

Well ya, that's exactly where I was going in fact. Reyson for god tier.

I think there actually are some other situations where reyson's usefulness would be lessened (for instance, if no one had re-move it would be a lot harder to galdrar unnits in a way that they are able to perform 2 player phase actions instead of one, or if everyone was a 99 move level 30 julia with narga) but I don't think these situations exist in POR.

There may be specific turns where even a transformed reyson is not the most useful character though. If a paladin has a really useful player/enemy phase doing 9 move, and reyson can't vigor in such a way that allows the paladin to do two player phases (this would generally only occur if reyson is far from the pally's destination) their 1 turn can be a lot more useful than whatever reyson's "lesser action" is.

All these things considered, we may say that there's no point in tiering reyson under these arguments since it's so goddamn obvious. But why does it being obvious prevent it from being true?

[Snowy_One]

Do remember that there is a series of assumptions that goes with placing Reyson in a top tier; some more or less reasonable than others.

1) That Reyson is transformed more often than not. I don't know the gain/loss rates for Reyson's transform gauge, but I do know that it will eventually empty out. There are only four uses of a Laguz stone available in-game. Assuming Reyson gets all four and assuming he only needs one stone use per chapter to stay transformed for the entire chapter (fairly generous IMO since some chapters will likely last quite a while), he will get, at most, four chapters of 'always' being transformed. Elsewise, there will be times when he is untransformed. When he is untransformed, he's obviously not refreshing four units, which seems to be a huge part of his value.

2) That he's always refreshing four units. Quite simply put, things happen on the battlefield. Maybe there is a shrub that prevents a unit from cantoing back. Maybe the enemies are just not positioned right to allow for canto-refreshing. Maybe one of a multitude of other possible problems happened that prevented there from being four units in range for him to canto. Either way, it can not be guaranteed that, even when he is transformed, he will always refresh four units. One very likely scenario is that the only enemies are so far away that, even with canto, the units will not be able to get back into Reyson's range.

3) That the units he canto's are GOOD. I'm sure all of us will admit that higher-tiered characters like Oscar are more likely to be played than someone like Bastion. However, less likely to be played =/= will never be played. Units that are average to bad will likely still be fielded from time to time. While I won't say that it makes Reyson's chanting less valuable, if you are claiming Reyson is as good as the people he refreshes and he refreshes units that are 'average' is he suddenly average even though he did nothing different? If the tier list allows for 'negative utility' and Reyson refreshes a group of people, all of which have 'negative utility', did he suddenly end up hurting the team somehow?

4) That Reyson never gets attacked. There's no denying it. Reyson is frail. I would almost wager that he's the frailest character in the entire game (probably is if Rhys gets some speed). Having him canto four front-line units is putting him at risk of being attacked. This means people will have to protect him and/or risk him being attacked or dying. It seems odd to me, however, that certain people are willing to go through the extra work in ensuring Reyson has four people to always canto and is protected even on the front lines, but feel that keeping a sniper, mage, or healer on the back lines is too difficult a strategy to be worth enforcing. Either way, that's beside the point.

I'm really starting to feel that Reyson should be omitted from the tier list entirely. A lot of how good he is seems to be dependent on the team he's assigned to and has less to do with his 'actual character' (if you catch my drift) than it does the other people on the team. I would say he's useful, even on the worst possible team, but I cannot say just how much simply because it fluctuates with the team. This goes beyond a simple support in terms of magnitude IMO.

[Zkirsche]

Snowy, if Reyson vigors a bad character, we still get an overall better result with Reyson than without him. Thus, Reyson can never really be a negative unless his durabiltiy issues get in the way too much. As for keeping him protected, remember that ballistaes are quite common when Reyson joins and these will rip him and his piss-poor durability to shreds.

[Snowy_One]

I don't disagree with the statement that Reyson refreshing someone is always a positive. What I'm saying is that how good Reyson is is dependent on the team he's in. However, if you do agree that Reyson gets credit for the units he canto's and agree that there is such a thing as negative utility, wouldn't that mean that Reyson cantoing a unit with negative utility would make Reyson a negative utility (I guess the better way to describe it is to think of Reyson like a chameleon, becoming as good or bad as the units around him. If the units are bad, than won't he be like them as well)?

[-Cynthia-]

Reyson still makes those units better. It's like if Rhys heals someone who's a "negative", it's still an advantage for him even if the unit isn't very good.

[dondon151]

Reyson vigoring a character that's bad is only worse than Reyson vigoring a character that's better, but it's better than not having Reyson.

[Snowy_One]

So, in other words, Reyson does not get credit for what another unit does or how good they are; only for his actual work.

[Original Alear]

I don't disagree with the statement that Reyson refreshing someone is always a positive. What I'm saying is that how good Reyson is is dependent on the team he's in. However, if you do agree that Reyson gets credit for the units he canto's and agree that there is such a thing as negative utility, wouldn't that mean that Reyson cantoing a unit with negative utility would make Reyson a negative utility (I guess the better way to describe it is to think of Reyson like a chameleon, becoming as good or bad as the units around him. If the units are bad, than won't he be like them as well)?

When is reyson with a bad team again? In either FE9 or FE10 for that matter? Anyway, my argument is that for every chapter reyson is available, he is always fielded and is always better than the best unfielded unit.

When people talk about negative utility here, they seem to be talking about when using a character, leveling them etc would cost more than giving the resources, unit slot etc to another character. If we understood fire emblem completely, every character used on a map would have positive utility for that map and every character available but not used on a map would have negative utility if they were used in place of another character, as the cost of their utility would be another character's greater utility. In practice, negative utility should be very hard to establish for most characters considering the element of training, since we might bring a character w/ lesser performance on a particular map because we know they will gain levels and contribute more effectively on later maps.

(although I think this element is mostly absent in FE10, it definitely applies to characters such as part 3 neph and probably to some DB characters people seem to use).

If you guys have been using negative utility to detract from a unit for taking actions such that the cost outweighs the effect, you have been misunderstanding negative utility. When negative utility exists it is not used[/i] if the player is making good decisions. If the unit reyson vigors next best action has negative utility, it would not take that action! And reyson would probably not have bothered to vigor the unit, unless no other playable units were in range. (in which case reyson might vigor for EXP, though he would probably move to the position which allows him to vigor the best during the next turn while still being safe in preference of EXP)

(please note that actions such as "moving away from an enemy that would kill the unit" has a positive utility which is at least equal to the value of all removable skills and items on that unit).

(a rational economic actor would not make a decision which gives them negative utility. For instance, if I stab myself, economic theory would either explain me as a masochist or argue that I preferred my estimation of what death would be over my estimation of continuing to live would be. If someone prefers to hurt others even if it seems to hurt their own "wealth" or enjoyment as well, they may have a sadistic utility curve. Keep in mind that in the most abstract sense, "utility" is a fully subjective and individual term.)

For instance, Meg is probably a unit with negative utility if you try to level her and use her in combat. However, she is not a unit (or might not be) a unit with negative utility if you use her to shove or wall (during the few maps when a base level meg can be used to wall at least one unit without dying). Actually, even if she does die she still might have positive utility, depending on whether the player considers survivability to be a factor in determining utility.

(FE10 has no ranking system, so determining meg's survival as having positive utility is completely subjective)

My overall point here is that even if a unit has overall negative utility, there may be points (mostly when the units allowed on a map are very large or the unit is required) where they have TURNS that yield positive utility. Reyson can still utilize that positive utility, although he probably won't (since he'll be vigoring another unit instead)

Snowy, if Reyson vigors a bad character, we still get an overall better result with Reyson than without him. Thus, Reyson can never really be a negative unless his durabiltiy issues get in the way too much. As for keeping him protected, remember that ballistaes are quite common when Reyson joins and these will rip him and his piss-poor durability to shreds.

Actually if the character was bad enough, and if reyson is max level, the vigor action would not have a better result.

So, in other words, Reyson does not get credit for what another unit does or how good they are; only for his actual work.

I am trying to argue that reyson gets credit for whatever action the unit makes that the unit would not make otherwise. (the wait of a units final turn is considered an action, the utility of which is derived from the unit's enemy phase)

In the case where the unit takes an action prior to being vigored that is different from the action made were reyson not there to vigor it, it goes something like:

pre-vigor action + post-vigor action - action in the absence of vigor=reyson's credit.

(essentially, this only occurs if pre-vigor action < action in the absence of vigor but pre-vigor action + post-vigor action > action in the absence of vigor)

Edited March 8, 2010 by SeverIan

[Snowy_One]

Severlan, you're preaching to the choir on the matter of negative utility for the most part (I disagree with a few minor details, but not enough to make it worth a post on). I personally believe negative utility can only happen if a unit somehow hurts the team if it is fielded and units that cost a larger amount of resources for similar/lesser payoff simply have 'a worse cost for a lesser payoff'. However, assume for a moment that there was such a unit out there that, if refreshed, would end up hurting the team in some manner. If Reyson refreshed him, would it be a negative for Reyson just because he refreshed him? Sure, it may not be something that actually happens in-game, but it is also something that runs along the implications of what you seem to be suggesting (if Reyson gets credit for the undone action, than how good he is is linked to that action, and if that action hurts the team, is Reyson suddenly a bad character?). I would at least like to hear how you plan to address this theoretical situation.

Also, to start focusing on a earlier post, I do see the argument that Rolf > Shinon. It is true that Shinon is flat out worse than Rolf from the moment he rejoins and Shinon isn't a God-character himself even in the early game. However, I personally find him invaluable in chapter 5 since he and Gatrie can hold the left side easily, useful in chapter 3 since there are only four characters and Marcia is at risk of death, 4 because he makes a great protector for Shinon and is useful for taking out armors with his critical, and 7 for protecting that chest.

[-Cynthia-]

I guess the question is whether the negative utility unit actually gets better by getting an extra action or not.

This is mostly theoretical though since:

1. Not many, if any, characters acquire true negative utility in PoR. Pre-promotion Rolf and Shinon after rejoining parhaps. Even Lucia and Bastian don't actually slow us down, they're just mediocre filler.

2. Reyson has a ton of other units to refresh, more likely than not we have an excellent rather than terrible team, so he's definitely a positive then.

[Snowy_One]

We don't know that Reyson has other units to refresh though. Remember that I am asking about a theoretical situation in-game about what would happen if Reyson were to refresh units that were so bad as to actually hurt the team by being there. There is a reason why. So far, it seems that he is being given credit for the work of other units, hence why he's ranked so high. If, say, though we were to have him refresh a unit who is aweful/hurts the team, would Reyson suddenly become a downside?

Also, I would say Reyson's value on the team is actually inverse to the tier placing of the characters since lower-tiered characters can't do enough damage/don't double/need the extra turn in general to survive while top-tier characters are still set on their own and could likely care less (and may actually get hurt overall by being refreshed/fighting again if it means moving away from a valued support. Not saying this wouldn't happen with a low-tier team, but it would be less proportionally signifigant IMO).

[dondon151]

We don't know that Reyson has other units to refresh though. Remember that I am asking about a theoretical situation in-game about what would happen if Reyson were to refresh units that were so bad as to actually hurt the team by being there. There is a reason why. So far, it seems that he is being given credit for the work of other units, hence why he's ranked so high. If, say, though we were to have him refresh a unit who is aweful/hurts the team, would Reyson suddenly become a downside.

No. A worse unit is negative because he displaces a better unit. But on a map, where Reyson does the work, since the worse unit is already there, Reyson can't be a negative if he makes the worse unit do twice the work. Reyson + better unit is better than Reyson + worse unit, but the negative cost is attributed fully to the worse unit and not to Reyson.

[Original Alear]

We don't know that Reyson has other units to refresh though. Remember that I am asking about a theoretical situation in-game about what would happen if Reyson were to refresh units that were so bad as to actually hurt the team by being there. There is a reason why. So far, it seems that he is being given credit for the work of other units, hence why he's ranked so high. If, say, though we were to have him refresh a unit who is aweful/hurts the team, would Reyson suddenly become a downside?

Also, I would say Reyson's value on the team is actually inverse to the tier placing of the characters since lower-tiered characters can't do enough damage/don't double/need the extra turn in general to survive while top-tier characters are still set on their own and could likely care less (and may actually get hurt overall by being refreshed/fighting again if it means moving away from a valued support. Not saying this wouldn't happen with a low-tier team, but it would be less proportionally signifigant IMO).

As dondon pointed out, even if the unit is costing you a lot in terms of another unit being there instead, once it's actually on the map you're still going to use it to do something useful (or you probably wiill).

I don't think that the theoretical situation where a unit is so bad that its existence harms the team actually exists in reality, not simply because it is costing you the placement of another, better unit but because in its own right it would be better to not have it on the map. This is because there is almost always a space a unit can safely wait without worrying about dying or absorbing an attack. The unit can also shove, rescue, mule items, etc.

(Additionally, we might argue that since FE9 has no survival ranking, survival is not a priority. This means the unit can absorb at least one free hit from enemies which won't be directed at your guys - this might be a negative if your units are strong enough that they can take the hit and counter, but it might be a positive if you really need a free hit for some inexplicable reason)

However, I'd like to address your question in full regardless :) It is theoretically possible that all possible actions (including standing in place) of a unit could have negative utility. The key here, however, is whether the utility of the unit's actions changes when reyson vigors it.

If reyson vigors a negative utility unit and it stands in place, the usefulness of this vigor is 0. It may be that reyson's enemy phase now involves him dying because he has moved to an unfavorable position, which would probably be negative utility, but in that case reyson would not vigor. Also, realistically any vigor action has slight positive utility from giving reyson 10 EXP.

It is also possible for reyson to vigor a unit such that the unit performs an action with negative utility, but reyson's vigor gives positive utility. This would occur when the unit in question changes its action as a result of being vigored, for instance moving to a different spot where it attracts less enemy attention. In this situation, although the utility of the action could be negative, it is closer to 0 than it would have been before. The difference between the two points of negative utility is the positive utility of reyson's vigor.

((Generally, this is only useful to discuss when even a unit choosing "wait" in the best position has negative utility, because all units are required to have an enemy phase. A player-phase action such as attacking that has negative utility can be opted out of, and thus would never be made.))

There may be a situation where reyson vigors a unit and enables it to make an action which has more negative utility (as I pointed out before, this is really only useful when discussing waits - in other words, reyson vigors a unit but every single position it can move to is a worse "wait" position than the one it is in). In that case, the action is not made.

Edited March 8, 2010 by SeverIan

[Life]

I'm on Clash! of my personal playthrough (using units that I never use like Stefan, Tormod, Rolf and Makalov) and I can honestly say that Mia should not be entitled to Wrath at all. Wrath+Vantage is WAY too overrated, Snowy.

Even though I won't pull numbers right now (I'm sitting in a library thanks to my destroyed hard drive, if I was in my residence I'd put forth a proper argument), Mia has problems with her Wrath+Vantage combo later in the game without a forged Steel Sword (might even include the sword too). She doesn't have enough Att to actually KO the enemies that others can. In Defending Talrega, she does maybe 5+ damage a hit with an Iron Blade against the Wyvern Riders. So what if she can hit first? She's not killing a WR at full health even after a critical. Then she gets hit on the rebound and has the potential to die. All it takes is 3 shots (~12 damage a hit with WTA against Mia).

In my own experience (a perfectly average Mia), she does about ~3 damage to Wyvern Lords in Chapter 24 per shot. Kinda pathetic really.

Oh and Rolf up quite a bit. Earlygame babying is extremely worth it when he's ORKOing most enemies in the lategame at comparable levels to the army. He's got rather good defense, solid Avo, 20 extra crit from being beside his brothers before the 20+ Crit from promotion and has quite a nice Str stat. As much as I hate archers, Rolf is probably the best one I've ever used (just beats Igrene).

Edited March 10, 2010 by Cap'n Crunch

[Narga_Rocks]

I'm on Clash! of my personal playthrough (using units that I never use like Stefan, Tormod, Rolf and Makalov) and I can honestly say that Mia should not be entitled to Wrath at all. Wrath+Vantage is WAY too overrated, Snowy.

Even though I won't pull numbers right now (I'm sitting in a library thanks to my destroyed hard drive, if I was in my residence I'd put forth a proper argument), Mia has problems with her Wrath+Vantage combo later in the game without a forged Steel Sword (might even include the sword too). She doesn't have enough Att to actually KO the enemies that others can. In Defending Talrega, she does maybe 5+ damage a hit with an Iron Blade against the Wyvern Riders. So what if she can hit first? She's not killing a WR at full health even after a critical. Then she gets hit on the rebound and has the potential to die. All it takes is 3 shots (~12 damage a hit with WTA against Mia).

In my own experience (a perfectly average Mia), she does about ~3 damage to Wyvern Lords in Chapter 24 per shot. Kinda pathetic really.

Oh and Rolf up quite a bit. Earlygame babying is extremely worth it when he's ORKOing most enemies in the lategame at comparable levels to the army. He's got rather good defense, solid Avo, 20 extra crit from being beside his brothers before the 20+ Crit from promotion and has quite a nice Str stat. As much as I hate archers, Rolf is probably the best one I've ever used (just beats Igrene).

Now, if only wyvern lords were the only enemies in chapter 24 Mia would have a problem.

Except, what level is she for you? A 20/10 Mia with rounded down str has 17 str. This means a couple of things. First, why on earth are you talking about an Iron Blade? For one thing, you can buy Silver Swords in chapter 23. For another thing, Steel Blades are cheaper, more accurate, and do more damage than Iron Blades. Even drop her down to 20/7 for some weird reason and she has 25.6 spd and 16 str, so either 24 AS or 25 AS with the steel blade. That's 27 mt without even getting Rhys. With Rhys that is 30 mt. And with 24 AS she doubles everything on the map. Give her a silver sword and Rhys and she has 32 mt, or 33 mt at a higher level (even 20/9 will usually result in 17 str).

Now, you might notice this:

2x Wyvern Rider lv 20 (steel lance, 1 javelin)

35 hp, 27 atk, 10 AS, 102 hit, 24 avo, 18 def, 7 res, 7 crit, 4 cev

1x Wyvern Rider lv 20 (killer lance)

36 hp, 27 atk, 10 AS, 103 hit, 25 avo, 19 def, 7 res, 37 crit, 5 cev

1x Wyvern Lord lv 5 (silver lance)

37 hp, 32 atk, 11 AS, 107 hit, 26 avo, 18 def, 8 res, 7 crit, 4 cev

32 mt will 3HKO every last one of these things (33 is less borderline, of course). Even with the weapon triangle. Of course, I'd probably not want her getting attacked by the killer lance enemy, but that's one guy. If you give her a forged steel sword it has the same mt as a silver sword, so she can even get +9 crit to add to her skill and swordmaster bonus and wrath to get pretty decent crit. Or, you know, just focus on the other enemies in the chapter (she isn't your only unit) that she 3HKOs or better with a killing edge (needs Rhys for some).

Seriously though, in order for her to do 3 damage to the strongest Wyvern out there, she'd need to be stuck at 23 mt (weapon triangle). Even if you sandbag her weapon selection by giving her something that makes no sense (iron blade when steel blade is better in every way but wt) she'd need to be just 20/2 with no supports in order to have just 23 mt. 14 str + 9 mt = 23. How do you justify a 20/2 Mia in chapter 24 if she's being used seriously?

[Snowy_One]

Trick question. You don't. If any unit is being used seriously, you can expect them to get ~1 level per chapter without Bexp (give or take depending on what's going on). In order for Mia to be only 20/2 by this point you would have to have her gain less than a level a chapter and have her get no Bexp what so ever.

Though why would a wrath/vantaged Mia not want to go against the killer lance guy? If this is the enemy phase, she's probably the best since she has a chance to kill him before he can even attempt to critical her.