Should units get credit for Storyline Conversations

[Narga_Rocks]

Since this has been distracting the fe7 tier list for too long, I'd rather discussion took place here.

So:

Matthew is not in any way a parallel to the Nino thing. His position is a result of his class abilities. It isn't much different than considering how much better +30 crit makes Rutger than if he didn't have it. Hector's promotion is similar. If Hector had to go walk up to Raven in order to promote, I wouldn't want to credit Raven with Hector's promotion. I suppose others might want to, but I wouldn't see the point. If, however, we did credit Raven with Hector's promotion, then you could complain we are being inconsistent with the Nino thing. Hector promoting on his own as part of the storyline does not mean we should ignore what he can do as a result. His stats are now different. Matthew running up to the enemy with the silver card and pilfering it is a result of his class abilities, and not a result of pre-set conversations.

[CATS]

I disagree with the distinctions you're drawing between them, for reasons covered in the FE7 topic.

Hector promoting on his own as part of the storyline does not mean we should ignore what he can do as a result. His stats are now different. Matthew running up to the enemy with the silver card and pilfering it is a result of his class abilities, and not a result of pre-set conversations.

Nino talking to Jaffar as part of the storyline does not mean we should ignore what you are able to do as a result (go to 28x). Your ability to S Rank is now different (in the same way that after Hector promotes, it is now easier for you to S Rank as a result of it).

If your argument is that the conversation is specific to Nino's character, and that only traits which are common to all characters or at least all characters of a certain class should be considered, then once again this rules out many other things. Farina's 20,000 gold recruitment cost is a result of a pre-set conversation in which the player chooses whether or not to pay the 20,000 bucks to her. It is not related to her class abilities, as demonstrated by the fact that other pegasus knights do not have this trait; rather, it is specific to her character, and should thus be disregarded in tier list arguments.

[-Cynthia-]

I do agree with CATS on the point that including recruitment costs for someone like Farina and not giving various characters credit for recruiting people seems somewhat contradictory.

My suggestion is that tier lists should ignore recruitment costs. Most tier lists seem to focus on gauging a unit's usefulness based on when they're fielded, and how they perform when they're fielded doesn't have much to do with the effort of getting them.

Edited March 27, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Mekkah]

AFAIC Farina's recruitment cost is factored in because we have to pay it in order to use her as a team member (fight with her, give her weapons, promote her, etc). Nino does not have to see any combat as a "team member" whatsoever to trigger 28x and/or Jaffar.

[GreatEclipse]

As I said in the tier topic, whatever value Nino has as a combat unit is not relevant to the value of her utility. You can use Chad in chapter 3 and 6 without ever giving him a single round of combat, then drop him.

[-Cynthia-]

I think the question is whether thief/flyer/ etc. utility is being counted while utility offered in unique situations to specific characters (recruitment, seizing, etc.) is not. They are not necessarily the same thing.

[Life]

As I said in the tier topic, whatever value Nino has as a combat unit is not relevant to the value of her utility. You can use Chad in chapter 3 and 6 without ever giving him a single round of combat, then drop him.

I disagree. And you forgot Chapter 7 (there's a door and a chest there).

Nino is different because she doesn't consume a resource or gain Exp when she allows us to gain access to Night of Farewells. In order to steal the Silver Card, Matthew must get enough Exp to raise his level (and effectively his Spd) to the point that he can steal the Silver Card from Aion (or steal anything from anyone). He also gains Exp for doing the act which Nino does not when talking to Jaffar. Or in the case of getting treasure from a treasure chest, he uses a use of his Lockpick (or a Chest Key) in order to get the treasure.

Chad still consumes the Lockpick to gain items or open doors which is a function of the thief class. Nino consumes nothing or does nothing remotely similar to being a mage by talking to Jaffar.

[Momo]

The way I see it is, if the action must be used to play the entire game (gaiden chapters and such) then it shouldn't be counted. It's like giving Hector credit for seizing. Matthew getting the Silver Card isn't like this.

[GreatEclipse]

I think the question is whether thief/flyer/ etc. utility is being counted while utility offered in unique situations to specific characters (recruitment, seizing, etc.) is not. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Both are action commands. Why a unit can do something is irrelevant. All that matters is what they can do.

If you need to consume a resource of some kind for an action to be counted, then Colm can only get credit for opening chests before promotion or when promoting into an Assassin.

Edited March 28, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

Both are action commands. Why a unit can do something is irrelevant. All that matters is what they can do.

But the distinction is that one is from the unit skills. The other is effectively storyline. It is simply a conversation. Matthew stealing is like Eliwood attacking. Lalum dancing is like Roy attacking. Recruiting a character or talking isn't. It is something entirely different, and isn't really a good way of analyzing a unit's ability to assist in S-ranking. It reduces the meaning of Nino's position by inflating her worth beyond what a reasonable analysis would conclude.

And while Life Admiral may be using slippery slope as a means of dissuading the action, slippery slope is only bad when the links aren't there. If you are using one storyline conversation to up Nino's worth, then why not other storyline conversations? Why not all actions of any sort that require you to hit a button? I think you are okay with that ending, from some of your other statements, but I don't see how it would result in a useful ordering of units and clearly others have zero interest in discussing a tier list under those conditions. What's the point? What is better about a tier list most of us hate than one that most of us like and can actually enjoy?

[GreatEclipse]

But the distinction is that one is from the unit skills. The other is effectively storyline.

You keep insisting, no matter how many times I address it, that unit conversations are entirely storyline. Forgive me if you think this is condescending, but IT IS NOT A PURE STORYLINE EVENT IF IT IMPACTS HOW I PLAY THE CHAPTER.

CATS said it best: If disliking the implications of an argument are reason enough to discard it, you should be open about that, and not claim that your list is objective or meaningful in any way.

Edited March 28, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[CATS]

Matthew stealing is like Eliwood attacking. Lalum dancing is like Roy attacking.

What? No, it isn't. Stealing =/= attacking =/= dancing =/= talking. Your distinction between "talking" and the other things is completely arbitrary.

And while Life Admiral may be using slippery slope as a means of dissuading the action, slippery slope is only bad when the links aren't there. If you are using one storyline conversation to up Nino's worth, then why not other storyline conversations? Why not all actions of any sort that require you to hit a button?

All actions of any sort that require you to hit a button do indeed seem to be considered already, except this one. Supports are considered, rescuing is considered, etc. I don't see much of a slope for us to slip on here.

What's the point? What is better about a tier list most of us hate than one that most of us like and can actually enjoy?

If you want a tier list that looks good according to the majority opinion, stop discussing things and just make this the accepted method of tiering characters. This method of tiering will be far more efficient in creating a tier list that "no one hates" (or at least as few people as possible hate) than the current method where dissenting opinions are given unnecessary consideration.

[Narga_Rocks]

You keep insisting, no matter how many times I address it, that unit conversations are entirely storyline. Forgive me if you think this is condescending, but IT IS NOT A PURE STORYLINE EVENT IF IT IMPACTS HOW I PLAY THE CHAPTER.

CATS said it best: If disliking the implications of an argument are reason enough to discard it, you should be open about that, and not claim that your list is objective or meaningful in any way.

And if you'd cut the insults we'd be better off. Calling the list meaningless is just insulting. Personally, I find more meaning in a list that doesn't incorporate those types of conversations than one that does. It better reflects a character's ability to contribute towards S-ranking through their class abilities and stats and weapons, which I always thought was the whole point of the tier lists. As far as I'm concerned, this change you want to make would render the list meaningless. Get over yourself and accept that people do things and see things differently. Stop calling things meaningless if you are the one that can't accept the viewpoint of others. I can accept that both ways are legitimate and can see that the way that appeases more people is superior. If there was something inherently wrong with what the majority wanted, that would be a different matter. That's not the case here, though.

Calling it not objective is one thing. You are wrong, of course, but that isn't important. Calling it meaningless is going too far.

Oh, and putting it in caps doesn't make your side more meaningful. All recruitment conversations and seizing impact how you play a chapter. That doesn't mean they belong in a tier list. A tier list that sticks Hector somewhere on the list based on how he performs is more meaningful than one that has him listed under "Infinite Worth Tier". Ditto with Nino evaluated based on her performance compared to Nino evaluated based on some silly little conversation.

What? No, it isn't. Stealing =/= attacking =/= dancing =/= talking. Your distinction between "talking" and the other things is completely arbitrary.

What's not to get about this? It's rather obvious. Stealing is a skill of the theif class. Being able to use swords is part of Eliwood's class. Dancing is part of being a dancer. Talking to Jaffar is part of being a mage? There is far more in common between stealing and attacking than there is between stealing and talking. I don't mean to say that they are precisely the same. I'm just getting increasingly annoyed with GE's constant paralleling of Matthew's stealing and Nino's big moouth. I would just prefer if all of you would try another avenue, since the Matthew's stealing = Nino's talking is a dead end.

All actions of any sort that require you to hit a button do indeed seem to be considered already, except this one. Supports are considered, rescuing is considered, etc. I don't see much of a slope for us to slip on here.

But talking is basically the only one that isn't part of a class. All units have an aid score determined by their class and the unit's con. All units get an increase to their combat parameters based off what supports are in play. Ever watch sesame street? Which one of these things is not like the other? Which one of these things does not belong? The answer is talking.

If you want a tier list that looks good according to the majority opinion, stop discussing things and just make this the accepted method of tiering characters. This method of tiering will be far more efficient in creating a tier list that "no one hates" (or at least as few people as possible hate) than the current method where dissenting opinions are given unnecessary consideration.

Do you honestly believe your statement has any merit?

You could argue that we are basing what earns points from the majority opinion. I could accept that. Once we have an understanding of what earns credit then we argue about which units rank better as a result of that understanding. I strongly disagree that what you are proposing (using the voting system) would result in a better tier list, or a more acceptable tier list, than the current method. Clearly, people like RF and Life Admiral and Colonel M and ... are more in favour of what we have been doing, since it actually works. Or at least, it did until people decided to derail everything because they want to raise Nino for some strange reason. What you are proposing is something that nobody wants, so how could it possibly be preferable? There seem to be a small number of dissenters to the status quo.

[CATS]

What's not to get about this? It's rather obvious. Stealing is a skill of the theif class. Being able to use swords is part of Eliwood's class. Dancing is part of being a dancer. Talking to Jaffar is part of being a mage? There is far more in common between stealing and attacking than there is between stealing and talking. I don't mean to say that they are precisely the same. I'm just getting increasingly annoyed with GE's constant paralleling of Matthew's stealing and Nino's big moouth. I would just prefer if all of you would try another avenue, since the Matthew's stealing = Nino's talking is a dead end.

"There is far more in common between stealing and attacking?" No, there is only one thing they have in common which they do not also have in common with talking, which is (as you've pointed out) the fact that they are class-dependent. This one difference has been seized upon as a justification, but why this difference matters is still arbitrary.

You can find plenty of random and meaningless differences between different things. Bartre's color pallette is not a result of his class, it's a result of his character, and it's different from Dorcas's, but does that have any impact on how Bartre's combat affects gameplay? Absolutely not. The same applies to Nino and talking. It is not a result of her class, you're right. That doesn't change how it affects gameplay.

Also:

If your argument is that the conversation is specific to Nino's character, and that only traits which are common to all characters or at least all characters of a certain class should be considered, then once again this rules out many other things. Farina's 20,000 gold recruitment cost is a result of a pre-set conversation in which the player chooses whether or not to pay the 20,000 bucks to her. It is not related to her class abilities, as demonstrated by the fact that other pegasus knights do not have this trait; rather, it is specific to her character, and should thus be disregarded in tier list arguments.

But talking is basically the only one that isn't part of a class.

Support is dependent on character, not class. A unit's class has nothing to do with their affinity, their support list, or how long their supports take.

Do you honestly believe your statement has any merit?

That depends. Do you believe your statement that a tier list which most people find to be agreeable is better than one which is consistent? If so, then yes.

You could argue that we are basing what earns points from the majority opinion. I could accept that. Once we have an understanding of what earns credit then we argue about which units rank better as a result of that understanding. I strongly disagree that what you are proposing (using the voting system) would result in a better tier list, or a more acceptable tier list, than the current method. Clearly, people like RF and Life Admiral and Colonel M and ... are more in favour of what we have been doing, since it actually works. Or at least, it did until people decided to derail everything because they want to raise Nino for some strange reason. What you are proposing is something that nobody wants, so how could it possibly be preferable? There seem to be a small number of dissenters to the status quo.

The number of people who initially disagree with a new argument will very frequently be greater than the number who agree, especially when the argument is unconventional and without precedent. When it was first indicated, 4-5 years ago on GameFAQs, that Nino's 20/20 stats do not necessarily make her better than Pent, many, many people disagreed. It took a good deal of discussion and a length of time in order for opinions on the matter to change, and eventually the majority opinion did change as a result. If everyone on the board then had the same mentality that you have here, this Pent > Nino argument, ridiculous in the minds of many when it was first posed, would have been quickly rejected and we'd still be ranking characters based on who has the best 20/20 averages.

The issue here is your belief that what people want is better than what makes sense. If everyone wants Seth to be bottom tier, despite the fact that that makes no sense, then why not make it happen? Accept the fact that you are simply using majority opinion over logic, or make some arbitrary rules to justify the placement ("Seth isn't allowed to attack" or something), either way, it doesn't really matter. What you are doing is indeed very similar to a democratic-consensus process. What's baffling is this idea that you want to accept what more people want, and you also want to do a discussion topic which claims to be objective. The two are mutually exclusive. Objectivity is not concerned with personal desires; it is the lack of a personal bias. You cannot take personal desires into account without sacrificing objectivity.

[Narga_Rocks]

"There is far more in common between stealing and attacking?" No, there is only one thing they have in common which they do not also have in common with talking, which is (as you've pointed out) the fact that they are class-dependent. This one difference has been seized upon as a justification, but why this difference matters is still arbitrary.

It's the one thing that relates to unit performance, so even if there is only the one thing they have in common, it just happens to be the most important thing.

You can find plenty of random and meaningless differences between different things. Bartre's color pallette is not a result of his class, it's a result of his character, and it's different from Dorcas's, but does that have any impact on how Bartre's combat affects gameplay? Absolutely not. The same applies to Nino and talking. It is not a result of her class, you're right. That doesn't change how it affects gameplay.

Then Nino down because she causes us to have to work towards getting her to Jaffar and chat. Nobody else causes us to do that in order to get to that chapter. Nino is the one that causes us to go out of our way just to get her to talk to someone in order to get to the gaiden. If she didn't have to have that stupid conversation just to get to the next chapter, I could have had her attack something.

If your argument is that the conversation is specific to Nino's character, and that only traits which are common to all characters or at least all characters of a certain class should be considered, then once again this rules out many other things. Farina's 20,000 gold recruitment cost is a result of a pre-set conversation in which the player chooses whether or not to pay the 20,000 bucks to her. It is not related to her class abilities, as demonstrated by the fact that other pegasus knights do not have this trait; rather, it is specific to her character, and should thus be disregarded in tier list arguments.

You could drop the recruitment cost from the equation, but I'm not convinced that you have to do so in order for the list to be internally consistent. Maybe you are right, but it's up to others if they want to drop it, though.

Support is dependent on character, not class. A unit's class has nothing to do with their affinity, their support list, or how long their supports take.

Ah, but the unit's combat parameters are affected by supports. If we are judging how a unit can perform in a chapter and using that to determine their spot on the list, why wouldn't we use it? You might as well say that a unit's class has nothing to do with their stats or growths. Except here's the thing: I was talking about their stats, too. I forgot to state it explicitly in some of my posts, but many of the posts over the last few hours did have that. Stats + class abilities + weapons available. Basically, combat parameters and class abilities. Nino's conversation (and indeed, all recruitment conversations and seizing) are the only things that aren't part of that. Supports, rescuing, dancing, attacking: all these things are a result of the class and the unit stats and their available weapons. (stats are more than just hp, str/mag, skl, spd, lck, def, res, con)

That depends. Do you believe your statement that a tier list which most people find to be agreeable is better than one which is consistent? If so, then yes.

My statement is not that a tier list which most people find to be agreeable is better than one which is consistent. I didn't say that, and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth. Try quoting actual statements, next time. However, I do find that tier lists in which most people find the rules to be agreeable, namely that they find what units get credit for to be agreeable, are better than one that most people do not find those rules to be agreeable. Also, finding a set of rules that people find agreeable does not automatically make a tier list inconsistent, so where did that come from?

The number of people who initially disagree with a new argument will very frequently be greater than the number who agree, especially when the argument is unconventional and without precedent. When it was first indicated, 4-5 years ago on GameFAQs, that Nino's 20/20 stats do not necessarily make her better than Pent, many, many people disagreed. It took a good deal of discussion and a length of time in order for opinions on the matter to change, and eventually the majority opinion did change as a result. If everyone on the board then had the same mentality that you have here, this Pent > Nino argument, ridiculous in the minds of many when it was first posed, would have been quickly rejected and we'd still be ranking characters based on who has the best 20/20 averages.

Hey, if people are happy with the idea of ranking characters based off their 20/20 averages, I say go ahead. If they become convinced that looking at a unit's contributions throughout the whole game is a better way of ranking, then the change is made. If people become convinced that silly story conversations are an important part of a unit's contributions towards S-ranking the game, have fun with the tier list that creates. Currently, that isn't the case. Maybe one day it will be.

Care to see what the opinion is over here?

Nino is clearly far far too low at the moment. Ditto Hector and his infinite worth. Raven is also way above Priscilla despite the fact that Priscilla should have Raven's worth + Priscilla's worth given that the storyline event of Pris recruiting Raven results in Pris getting credit for everything he does ever (since he couldn't do any of it if not for her). Why is this place the only one that gets these complaints about inconsistency (though we aren't inconsistent at all) when fef is left alone? Or did I miss some posts in the 8 pages on that site where you guys were actually consistent? Do feff'ers just get off on making complaints about the good people here at SF?

The issue here is your belief that what people want is better than what makes sense. If everyone wants Seth to be bottom tier, despite the fact that that makes no sense, then why not make it happen? Accept the fact that you are simply using majority opinion over logic, or make some arbitrary rules to justify the placement ("Seth isn't allowed to attack" or something), either way, it doesn't really matter. What you are doing is indeed very similar to a democratic-consensus process. What's baffling is this idea that you want to accept what more people want, and you also want to do a discussion topic which claims to be objective. The two are mutually exclusive. Objectivity is not concerned with personal desires; it is the lack of a personal bias. You cannot take personal desires into account without sacrificing objectivity.

If you can come up with a logical ruleset under which Seth somehow drops to bottom tier (which I'd love to see, by the way) that everyone finds superior to the current ruleset, then it seems to me that Seth belongs in bottom tier. Until then, nope.

If we have a democratic consensus at all, it is strictly in what types of actions are deemed creditable. It is hardly mutually exclusive to want to come up with an agreeable set of rules and then argue under them. What's baffling about that?

Besides, what's better, a tier list two or three people like and the rest refuse to argue under it, but like 2 or 3 other people are happy with the ruleset? Or, a tier list that a bunch of people like arguing under and are almost all happy with the rule system except there are a couple dissenters that are annoyed because we think that recruitment conversations shouldn't affect unit placement?

[CATS]

Ignoring stuff that isn't about convos, since it was mostly covered in the FE7 topic, and I want to avoid redundancy.

Then Nino down because she causes us to have to work towards getting her to Jaffar and chat. Nobody else causes us to do that in order to get to that chapter. Nino is the one that causes us to go out of our way just to get her to talk to someone in order to get to the gaiden. If she didn't have to have that stupid conversation just to get to the next chapter, I could have had her attack something.

What does this have to do with the point you quoted? It looks like it just came out of left field.

Anyways, sure, that's the opportunity cost of going to 28x. A team that doesn't go there doesn't have to do this, or even recruit Nino if they don't want to. But the benefits clearly outweigh the cost, so it doesn't really matter.

You could drop the recruitment cost from the equation, but I'm not convinced that you have to do so in order for the list to be internally consistent. Maybe you are right, but it's up to others if they want to drop it, though.

Well, at least you would be willing to be consistent.

Ah, but the unit's combat parameters are affected by supports. If we are judging how a unit can perform in a chapter and using that to determine their spot on the list, why wouldn't we use it? You might as well say that a unit's class has nothing to do with their stats or growths. Except here's the thing: I was talking about their stats, too. I forgot to state it explicitly in some of my posts, but many of the posts over the last few hours did have that. Stats + class abilities + weapons available. Basically, combat parameters and class abilities. Nino's conversation (and indeed, all recruitment conversations and seizing) are the only things that aren't part of that. Supports, rescuing, dancing, attacking: all these things are a result of the class and the unit stats and their available weapons. (stats are more than just hp, str/mag, skl, spd, lck, def, res, con)

Yes, you can further differentiate by saying that it's a direct stat boost while Talk is not. But again, the list in question is not an Individual Combat Prowess Tier List; it is an S Rank Tier List. The idea is to rank units based on how they contribute towards S Rank, not purely on their combat stats. The 28x Talk clearly falls under the umbrella of contributing towards S Rank, as outlined many times, and so there is reason to consider it. You are naming differences between it and other actions which also contribute to S Rank, but you have not explained why those differences are relevant and should lead to one being considered while the other is thrown out.

Why do these differences matter? Or is your position simply arbitrary? One could seize upon any number of mechanical differences between different actions, and come up with all sorts of arbitrary positions as to what should and shouldn't be counted towards S Rank based on these random differences. I could say that supports require units to stand adjacent to each other for many turns in order to achieve, which no other action requires, and that therefore supports should not be considered like other action-commands are, as they are fundamentally different from all other commands. Just like how, since Talk is not a result of and does not affect stats or class, it is different from all other actions and should therefore be discarded. Etc.

[Rewjeo]

IMO, while it does make sense to credit Nino for 28x, we then run into the problem of where the line is drawn on what one unit gets credit for that another unit they recruit does. IMO, units need to either get 0 credit for recruiting someone or we need to make a rule that says that units only get credit for what a unit they recruit can do if they are never used, i.e. their inventory 99% of the time. And in a few cases, things like 28x.

[Anouleth]

Well, 28x has a 94000 funds requirement. If we just play through the chapter and don't get any stuff other than the Fell Contract, then we're hurting our Funds a lot. If we use a thief and get some other stuff, then Nino is taking credit for what another unit is doing.

Nino is only helping us by taking us to 28x if we assume a perfect player that gets everything. Otherwise, she's actually hurting us.

[Rewjeo]

Well, I believe the tier list generally assumes that the player is perfect or near perfect, so I don't think that's too much of a problem.

[Balcerzak]

Well, 28x has a 94000 funds requirement. If we just play through the chapter and don't get any stuff other than the Fell Contract, then we're hurting our Funds a lot. If we use a thief and get some other stuff, then Nino is taking credit for what another unit is doing.

Nino is only helping us by taking us to 28x if we assume a perfect player that gets everything. Otherwise, she's actually hurting us.

Nino making 28x available can never hurt, as even if you unlock the gaiden, you are not obligated to go there if you don't feel you can perform better than the requirement(s). Furthermore, depending on the overall status at that point in the game, you may not be equally concerned with each rank's standing. Unlocking 28x at allows flexibility. Need to trade Funds for Tactics (XP, etc.)? Here's a chance. Don't need to? Don't have to.

[Anouleth]

Nino making 28x available can never hurt, as even if you unlock the gaiden, you are not obligated to go there if you don't feel you can perform better than the requirement(s). Furthermore, depending on the overall status at that point in the game, you may not be equally concerned with each rank's standing. Unlocking 28x at allows flexibility. Need to trade Funds for Tactics (XP, etc.)? Here's a chance. Don't need to? Don't have to.

What about the threat to Survival Rank? Nino can easily be killed in Battle Before Dawn. So the opportunity cost of Nino talking to Jaffar could be greater than the benefit.

[Balcerzak]

What about the threat to Survival Rank? Nino can easily be killed in Battle Before Dawn. So the opportunity cost of Nino talking to Jaffar could be greater than the benefit.

Maybe this is all just a symptom of my play style, but speaking from experience, there are no real threats to Nino on her side of the chapter. There's the monk, two swordreaver(slayer?) Fighters, one (maybe two) mercs in the center area beneath the chest room, and then Ursula and her cadre. It's dead easy to stay out of Bolting range, and since you're already blitzing to save Zephiel, your 8 move dudes have probably already dealt with the small other patch of enemies after dropping off Hector so he can recruit her. After that, assuming you're engaging the reinforcements as they're streaming in on the other side (the real threat of this chapter), this creates a huge dead space with zero enemy density. Nino's only real risk will be when she's getting very close to Jaffar, and if you don't have the situation under control by that point, you're probably doing something wrong.

In the worst case scenario, you can always rescue Jaffar and transport/drop him into the dead zone at minor opportunity cost for causing a unit to waste a couple of turns, but no threat to Nino's survival.