Redefining the tiering process

[Rodykitty]

It just occurred to me that Vykan12 isn't gonna post in this thread again.

[Florete]

I'm aware of that. That's why I said

and responded with

You did. Guess I accidentally singled out the one part. Sorry.

I understand that there isn't as much debating value to this as to a tier list (which is more so for fun than for a practical reason I gather), but I think it'd also be nice to argue about something that actually does serve as a sort of game guide.

Well, Mekkah did start a Ch-by-Ch tier list topic a while back with FE8 and I carried it to FE10, but it didn't get far because people weren't very interested in it. If people want to, I'd be happy to try it again.

[Anouleth]

It seems to be fairly obvious to me that the developers' intentions are, at the very least, to choose to give experience to units over lowest possible turncount.

Uh, why? The developers don't intend the gamer to play in any particular way. This is not a game where there is one and exactly one way to play the game.

Sure, we don't know how we're "intended" to play, but I sincerely doubt the developers planned on having every play from the standpoint of lowest possible turncount over giving experience to units.

I'm sure that something like this has been discussed before. While many players don't play for a very low turncount, that's immaterial. The question that tier lists exist to answer is 'how good are the characters in this game?'. Obviously, a character that can complete the game faster, more reliably, or under harsher conditions (less experience) is better than a character who takes longer, has a higher chance of failure, or needs more experience and needs us to slow down. Now, the performance of characters can vary wildly depending on the conditions they are in (whether that's faster or slower play), and everyone will have a different set of conditions that they consider relevant, but everyone agrees that there is some limit to what can be considered. Very few people consider how a character performs when boss abused to be relevant to how good they are, for instance. And the reality is that the harsher you make the conditions, the more apparent the difference between units is. If your objective is to beat 3-3 in 10 turns, then Haar being better than Nephenee might not be obvious, but if your objective is to beat it in 6 turns, then it is readily apparent that Haar is much better.

It just occurred to me that Vykan12 isn't gonna post in this thread again.

It has been a whole eight hours. He couldn't possibly have anything better to do in that timespan, right?

Also, I'd like to point out that these tier lists aren't necessarily 100% max efficiency, to take an example, Elincia's use of rescue staves probably saves more turns than whatever Geoffrey or Stefan does. But that doesn't mean her availability and crappy stats stop her from being in low. The same with Edward, who saves 12 turns in 1-P and probably some in 1-1 and 1-2 as well. Does Janaff ever save 12 turns? Does Mia or Titania save 12 turns anywhere in the game?

I can see why his contribution is undervalued, though. It seems silly to push him into Top Tier on the basis of a single prologue chapter.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Zkirsche]

I can see why his contribution is undervalued, though. It seems silly to push him into Top Tier on the basis of a single prologue chapter.

It seems silly because of the old tiering methods before this hyper-efficiency one. Technically speaking Edward saves more turns than 90% of the cast in FE10, and from a logical standpoint, it doesn't matter if this is condensed into one chapter, or among many.

[Interceptor]

Ironically, low turning is a goal that requires extremely complex planning, knowledge of the game, etc, but it also reduces tiering arguments to blinding simplicity.

This is not real irony. It's not fake, modern dramatic irony. Not even Canadian singer-songwriter Alanis Morissette irony.

Irony is not a synonym for "here comes a fun fact", Vykan.

[dondon151]

I don't think they were "planning" on anything except to have people buy and enjoy the game however they feel like doing so. Low turns and efficiency is one way. I certainly don't think they "planned" on tier lists, either, so if this topic is going to be about developer's intentions, we should abolish tier lists before trying anything else.

Well, it's difficult to say for sure that the developers of the game weren't planning for anything in particular.

I think the easiest way to see this is by looking at enemy reinforcements. Things like the massive group of reinforcements in FE DS chapter 10 were probably intended to encourage the player to move faster, but they're not even worth considering when the player plays quickly enough. I remember those days where I used to think "oh, shit" when reinforcements appeared, and now, they usually don't even get a chance to show up.

So, I'm pretty sure when the game developers designed these maps, they had something in mind about how well the player can perform.

Edited June 9, 2011 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

It seems silly because of the old tiering methods before this hyper-efficiency one. Technically speaking Edward saves more turns than 90% of the cast in FE10, and from a logical standpoint, it doesn't matter if this is condensed into one chapter, or among many.

If there was a chapter in which there was only one unit, such as FE9 Prologue, we would obviously be in the right to completely disregard contributions made during that chapter. Now, Edward is not quite in that situation in 1-P, but it is quite close. Certainly, it's not logical, any more than disregarding seize arguments or whatever is logical, but the tier list is not meant to be some objective, dispassionate project such that future generations might know that Edward indeed saved more turns than Micaiah over the whole of FE10.

[Vykan12]

What is this? What is the developers intention? Are you one of the developers who can tell us what you intended for the players to strive for in these games?

Obviously not, seeing as, for example, in the GBA games, you likely won't even know about something like supports unless you look it up online or randomly stumble across it because neither the game nor the game's book tells you about it.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, I just find it annoying when someone makes a claim about what the creator of something "intended" when they don't seem to have any right to be making such assumptions. As far as Fire Emblem goes, it's a strategy RPG with many known and hidden elements. It can be played multiple ways and I don't think any one of them was "intended" by its creators to be "the" one.

I suppose I wasn't being clear. I honestly don't really care how game devs expect us to play the game. Hell, I remember a while back Mekkah was claiming game devs expected players to arena abuse Nino, and similar siliness. And obviously trying to guess how programmers expect consumers to play their games is inherently a little ridiculous. What I meant by it was to find a way to promote discussion that doesn't involve rendering the vast majority of any cast useless simply because they belong to an unfavorable class or require a lot of levelling.

Isn't it annoying to having one unit completely destroy another statistically, yet that advantage is entirely voided by the fact that one unit is an archer while the other rides a beast from the east? Evidently there's nothing wrong with such logic, some advantages will matter more than others, but it makes discussion boring and predictable, in my opinion.

This is not real irony. It's not fake, modern dramatic irony. Not even Canadian singer-songwriter Alanis Morissette irony.

Irony is not a synonym for "here comes a fun fact", Vykan.

<3

[Florete]

I suppose I wasn't being clear. I honestly don't really care how game devs expect us to play the game. Hell, I remember a while back Mekkah was claiming game devs expected players to arena abuse Nino, and similar siliness. And obviously trying to guess how programmers expect consumers to play their games is inherently a little ridiculous. What I meant by it was to find a way to promote discussion that doesn't involve rendering the vast majority of any cast useless simply because they belong to an unfavorable class or require a lot of levelling.

Isn't it annoying to having one unit completely destroy another statistically, yet that advantage is entirely voided by the fact that one unit is an archer while the other rides a beast from the east? Evidently there's nothing wrong with such logic, some advantages will matter more than others, but it makes discussion boring and predictable, in my opinion.

Much better.

It's all in context. If Unit A beats Units B by 10 in every stat except Move where Unit B has 2 more, that's not enough to determine which is better. If Unit A's advantages means he's the Black Knight and Unit B is Micaiah (comparing performance against enemies), obviously Unit A is better despite the lower Move. However, if Unit B kills everything just as or almost as easily, and same for durability, Unit B is most likely going to be better.

Is it annoying? That depends on how you look at it. I think it makes perfect sense and, in the end, it doesn't annoy me at all.

And remember that mounted units do not always dominate. In FE10, for example, two of the games Paladins are down in Bottom tier and a few more in the Mid/Low Mid range. Context is key. A mount and all its advantages certainly helps, but it has to be weighed against the other units around it and what they all bring. No one can really argue that someone like Titania in FE9 has the best of all worlds (offense, durability, mobility) for a large portion of the game, but Mia still beats Oscar in FE10.

[Zkirsche]

If there was a chapter in which there was only one unit, such as FE9 Prologue, we would obviously be in the right to completely disregard contributions made during that chapter. Now, Edward is not quite in that situation in 1-P, but it is quite close. Certainly, it's not logical, any more than disregarding seize arguments or whatever is logical, but the tier list is not meant to be some objective, dispassionate project such that future generations might know that Edward indeed saved more turns than Micaiah over the whole of FE10.

And that's the thing: from a logical standpoint basing it off a 100% efficiency tier list is correct and whoever saves the most turns is right, meaning Edward should be tiered in top. But he isn't because we don't debate that, which was the original point:

Also, I'd like to point out that these tier lists aren't necessarily 100% max efficiency

So somewhere along the train of logic we drew a line which we shall not cross for it is boring, dull and lifeless. All we have to do is bring that line back a bit.

[Colonel M]

I think Vykan is talking about instances such as Thany vs. say Lot or Fir. At least that's how I take it.

[Vykan12]

And remember that mounted units do not always dominate. In FE10, for example, two of the games Paladins are down in Bottom tier and a few more in the Mid/Low Mid range. Context is key. A mount and all its advantages certainly helps, but it has to be weighed against the other units around it and what they all bring. No one can really argue that someone like Titania in FE9 has the best of all worlds (offense, durability, mobility) for a large portion of the game, but Mia still beats Oscar in FE10.

Well FE10 is a strange case because much of the advantage of being on a horsie is hindered, if not turned into an outright disadvantage, thanks to map terrain. So, in that sense, the raw mobility advantage of having a horsie is heavily reduced, and the unit's actual combat credentials vs a foot unit become more important.

The point is more salient in a game like FE4 where someone like Holyn/Ayra lose a lot of their usefulness precisely because they're unmounted. The only reason they'd be beating any mounts would be due to an availability advantage, *boom* argument concluded.

But yes, I agree that the nature of the game can mess with the importance of mobility, and ultimately result in a better debating platform. FE7 comes to mind, the way earlygame is designed just lends itself to making a unit like Oswin very useful, whereas someone with similar combat will end up bad to mediocre in another game (eg/ Gilliam, FE9 Gatrie).

[Anouleth]

I have the horrible sensation that snowy or smash are behind this topic. It has their foul stench all over it.

Isn't it annoying to having one unit completely destroy another statistically, yet that advantage is entirely voided by the fact that one unit is an archer while the other rides a beast from the east? Evidently there's nothing wrong with such logic, some advantages will matter more than others, but it makes discussion boring and predictable, in my opinion.

Not really. Are we supposed to rank Igrene over Niime because Igrene has better combat stats while Niime is merely more useful in every conceivable fashion? Are we supposed to prioritise combat stats above all else merely because it 'annoys' you to do otherwise?

And I don't think that it's necessarily the case that Archers are always underneath Wyverns. Generally, I hate it when people say, for example, 'oh Jill's better because wyvern'. The Wyvern doesn't matter. What matters is what a character can do. If Sanaki had a horse, that wouldn't really improve her because she lacks the durability to charge ahead. Similarly, if Haar had 0DEF instead of 25DEF, his mobility would be useless, because again, he wouldn't be able to fly over stuff because he would die. I appreciate the value of flying utility, but it's only truly awesome when the character in question can back it up with great stats (or FE6 where there is a ton of terrain everywhere). You talk of an archer that destroys a flier statistically but is still rated lower. Can you give an example of such a situation, in any tier list?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Vykan12]

The Wyvern doesn't matter. What matters is what a character can do.

You seriously underestimate non-combat utility. A unit like Mordecai in POR could easily rank in high/top tier just for his ability to smite units, as that single-handedly saves at least a turn on numerous maps in the game. Similarly, mounted units have tremendous utility from rescue-dropping, especially when a flier uses it to bypass terrain. In many cases you can skip up to 3/4s of a map because of a flier, no amount of combat can compensate for that in that particular map unless you're a bosskiller or something.

Even if you stripped Haar of his combat in FE10, he'd still easily be in high tier because he can ferry Ike up a mountain (3-4), he's the most suited for 3-3's goal of burning supplies, he can help units bypass traps on the bridge in 3-11, and the list goes on. In particular, before other fliers join the team, his flying monopoly inarguably saves turns all over the place, even if he were Fiona in combat.

Can you give an example of such a situation, in any tier list?

FE6 Thany comes to mind. Her combat is terrible (not sure where people stand on whether it's salvageable long-term but wtv) but she saves an awesome number of turns just by being the only flier capable of ferrying people over mountains and such until other fliers show up. Dondon's 0% run of that game made this glaringly obvious, and I would personally have FE6 Thany in top tier easily, even if that isn't the case in the current list.

If Sanaki had a horse, that wouldn't really improve her because she lacks the durability to charge ahead.

It would make her a hell of a lot more useful, though, because she'd be able to increase the mobility of better units by ferrying them, and she could perform hit & runs, which increases her tactical flexibility significantly.

I appreciate the value of flying utility, but it's only truly awesome when the character in question can back it up with great stats (or FE6 where there is a ton of terrain everywhere).

I disagree, flying on its own is an invaluable turn-shaving tool, having good combat to back it up just makes it over-the-top.

The only reason we have fliers like Zeiss who have poor ranking is because their availability is pitiful and their contributions are severly mitigated by the presence of other fliers on the map.

[Rewjeo]

The point is that units that are leveled up with growths are very likely to be able to beat the game.

Take a team consisting of units in "Free Silvers" (what it was last time I checked) in FE12 Lunatic Reverse. Are you likely to beat the game?

There's nothing stopping a player from getting to Chapter 20, realising that their current team is not good enough to beat the remaining chapters, and then copying dondon's strategy. If anything, 'bad' teams will probably do better later in the game because they tend to lean towards growth units. A good example is 4-E in FE10. You could have used any team throughout the rest of the game, but as long as you bring in Royals/Rafiel/staff users you can still beat it.

A tier list does not assume that this is someone's first time ever playing FE. If they choose the team, they know it sucks. Either they don't choose sucky teams or they do. You don't randomly switch. Yes, logically you WOULD switch, but then, logically you wouldn't have chosen anything less than the optimal team in the first place.

[Zkirsche]

I have the horrible sensation that snowy or smash are behind this topic. It has their foul stench all over it.

Nice unnecessary potshot there, you even beat Interceptor to it, which is astounding.

Edit: Wait, I forgot the irony comment. Interceptor is still the best at everything.

Not really. Are we supposed to rank Igrene over Niime because Igrene has better combat stats while Niime is merely more useful in every conceivable fashion? Are we supposed to prioritise combat stats above all else merely because it 'annoys' you to do otherwise?

Oh come on, does it not seem stupid to you that a requirement to be in high/top tier in FE9 is 9 mov or flying or being Boyd/Ike? That Neph/Soren/Mia/Zihark, who are all good combat units, are considered mediocre simply for -2 mov in the context of how easy the game is? This is partly game design fault but also the fault of high efficiency play which generally leaves 7 mov units in the dust in that game.

It's logical that mobility trumps all else in a game which is so easy and with plentiful exp but that doesn't make it what we should debate. The tier list is not meant to be some objective, dispassionate project such that future generations might know that Oscar indeed saved more turns than Nephenee over the whole of FE9.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Kevin

[Balcerzak]

Take a team consisting of units in "Free Silvers" (what it was last time I checked) in FE12 Lunatic Reverse. Are you likely to beat the game?

This sounds like a challenge I will have to take at some point.

[Paperblade]

FE9 Mia is not a good combat unit.

Edit: Addendum: Unless you give her all your BEXP, Swords, and skills. And even then that would be questionable on Maniac (what BEXP). Who are we comparing to Snowy again?

Double Edit: That would be pretty difficult, Bal, since last I checked Free Silvers is reserved for units that join after a certain point in the game and don't have a useful non-combat utility (Staff Rank for Again, Dancer, Xane, Nagi).

Edited June 9, 2011 by Paperblade

[Zkirsche]

FE9 Mia is not a good combat unit.

She's not a good combat unit because most of the time we're investing all our bexp into marcia/Jill/Astrid/Makalov because that BEXP would see more use. If made as overlevelled as they are as quickly as they are, given maybe a dracoshield or seraph robe to help, even Mia can become a good combat unit.

Edit: damn you and your ninja edits.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Kevin

[Anouleth]

You seriously underestimate non-combat utility. A unit like Mordecai in POR could easily rank in high/top tier just for his ability to smite units, as that single-handedly saves at least a turn on numerous maps in the game. Similarly, mounted units have tremendous utility from rescue-dropping, especially when a flier uses it to bypass terrain. In many cases you can skip up to 3/4s of a map because of a flier, no amount of combat can compensate for that in that particular map unless you're a bosskiller or something.

That's my point. The Wyvern and the flight do not have inherent value. What has value is what the character can do. If a character can move Ike to the seize point in four turns, that has value, it does not matter if he has flight or good durability. And the value in doing so is obviously very high. The objective of a seize chapter is to get Ike to the seize point, and characters that accomplish that quickly are going to be better. Of course combat cannot compensate for that, because 'kill units' is not our objective beyond that which is necessary to clear a path to the seize point. Flight is only a means to an end, not an end in of itself.

Even if you stripped Haar of his combat in FE10, he'd still easily be in high tier because he can ferry Ike up a mountain (3-4),

He can't. Haar needs to engage in combat multiple times in 3-4 and also help kill the boss. If Haar had no combat abilities, he would die when he dropped Ike, or enemies would pile up and block Ranulf and Ike.

he's the most suited for 3-3's goal of burning supplies,

If Haar did not have combat, he would be unable to accomplish that task because he would die.

he can help units bypass traps on the bridge in 3-11,

And again, Haar needs to engage in combat multiple times. If he did not, in this case you could easily replace him with any of the six other flying units at your disposal not counting Partner units and get the same result.

and the list goes on. In particular, before other fliers join the team, his flying monopoly inarguably saves turns all over the place, even if he were Fiona in combat.

If Haar had Fiona level combat, he would be useless, possibly more so than Rolf. Let's see: he can't contribute in 2-P, or 2-E (maybe he can drop Heather and help get the Dracoshield), or 3-2, or 3-3, or 3-4, or 3-5, or 3-8, or 3-10, or anywhere in Part 4. That sounds like a recipe for Low Tier to me. I guess he still might contribute in 3-11, though, since it's quite chokepoint heavy.

FE6 Thany comes to mind. Her combat is terrible (not sure where people stand on whether it's salvageable long-term but wtv) but she saves an awesome number of turns just by being the only flier capable of ferrying people over mountains and such until other fliers show up. Dondon's 0% run of that game made this glaringly obvious, and I would personally have FE6 Thany in top tier easily, even if that isn't the case in the current list.

Like I said, FE6 is a weird example because there is so much terrain in that game. Typically, flying units do not dominate quite so much. I guess Thany is a pretty good counter-example, but other than her I can't think of any.

It would make her a hell of a lot more useful, though, because she'd be able to increase the mobility of better units by ferrying them, and she could perform hit & runs, which increases her tactical flexibility significantly.

Actually, it doesn't. Largely, Sanaki has no trouble reaching units anyway since she has access to long-range tomes, and there is no need for her to rescue-drop units since we have multiple alternatives (such as Sigrun) to do so. She also has no trouble staying out of danger in the desert.

I disagree, flying on its own is an invaluable turn-shaving tool, having good combat to back it up just makes it over-the-top.

I disagree. Flying on its own varies in value depending on how much terrain there is. For instance, flying is not really great in FE8 Ephraim Route since there only a bare handful of situations where you want a flier.

Oh come on, does it not seem stupid to you that a requirement to be in high/top tier in FE9 is 9 mov or flying or being Boyd/Ike?

There are numerous 9 move characters who are not in high tier or top tier in FE9. And to me, it seems perfectly natural that Paladins should dominate. Paladins not only have great mobility, but they also generally have good stats and are well-balanced with Axe access. Other classes struggle to compare to them even in terms of combat, let alone with the movement difference factored in. I asked if we were supposed to disregard other forms of utility outside of statistical prowess, but Paladins dominate in every area in FE9, not just movement.

That Neph/Soren/Mia/Zihark, who are all good combat units, are considered mediocre simply for -2 mov in the context of how easy the game is?

Soren has -3 move, not -2. Soren also struggles to double and has horrible durability. Mia struggles to 2HKO and also has durability issues, along with no good 1-2 range options. Zihark is better off, but again, has 2HKO problems, durability problems, and no good 1-2 range (although his issues here are less serious than Mia's). Nephenee is fine statistically and accordingly is the third highest rated 7 move unit in the game, but again, I would be hardpressed to say that she 'destroys' any Paladin statistically or even matches them.

It's logical that mobility trumps all else in a game which is so easy and with plentiful exp but that doesn't make it what we should debate. The tier list is not meant to be some objective, dispassionate project such that future generations might know that Oscar indeed saved more turns than Nephenee over the whole of FE9.

I guess that's true, but it seems much more reasonable to me to disregard prologue chapters in which you only have 1 or 2 units than to disregard movement and forms of utility that don't directly relate to stats.

She's not a good combat unit because most of the time we're investing all our bexp into marcia/Jill/Astrid/Makalov because that BEXP would see more use. If made as overlevelled as they are as quickly as they are, given maybe a dracoshield or seraph robe to help, even Mia can become a good combat unit.

Edit: damn you and your ninja edits.

Mia has low strength, so she struggles to 2HKO. For example, she has 2.4 less strength than a 20/1 Marcia at the same level and that gap never goes away. Marcia also has a stronger weapon type and higher defense. Marcia is not even a particularly strong unit, yet she makes Mia look like a chump.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Interceptor]

Just to remind everyone, "turns saved" to dictate the placement of units on a tier list was an argument chosen to be self-evidently absurd. See: Eddie's performance in 1-P. In other words, the intention was to pull people back from the brink, using a patently ridiculous notion. Unexpectedly, some people took it seriously.

The proper use of turn counts in a tier list argument, is as just another factor to consider. The reason that turn counts matter is not because we can end 2-Endgame on Turn 1 with a magic crit and therefore Haar is Jesus, it's that going faster is generally more difficult/dangerous than turtling our way across a map. Thus, speed can expose the difference between units that straight stat comparisons cannot.

ITT, people searching for solutions to non-problems, shoving square pegs into round holes for their sins.

Interceptor is still the best at everything.

Notice, Vykan, how kirsche is being ironic here.

[Paperblade]

Just to remind everyone, "turns saved" to dictate the placement of units on a tier list was an argument chosen to be self-evidently absurd. See: Eddie's performance in 1-P. In other words, the intention was to pull people back from the brink, using a patently ridiculous notion. Unexpectedly, some people took it seriously.

The proper use of turn counts in a tier list argument, is as just another factor to consider. The reason that turn counts matter is not because we can end 2-Endgame on Turn 1 with a magic crit and therefore Haar is Jesus, it's that going faster is generally more difficult/dangerous than turtling our way across a map. Thus, speed can expose the difference between units that straight stat comparisons cannot.

So is limiting ourselves to Bronze weapons and rotating the entire cast every chapter, but no one seriously suggested we implement those.

[Interceptor]

So is limiting ourselves to Bronze weapons and rotating the entire cast every chapter, but no one seriously suggested we implement those.

I don't care what anyone else says about you, AdjectiveNoun, nobody can top your false equivalences.

[Zkirsche]

There are numerous 9 move characters who are not in high tier or top tier in FE9.

Means nothing. How many units in the top two tiers have flying? To be honest, I might go as far to say even Ike and Boyd don't contribute anything after a certain chapter because they simply can't keep up.

And to me, it seems perfectly natural that Paladins should dominate. Paladins not only have great mobility, but they also generally have good stats and are well-balanced with Axe access. Other classes struggle to compare to them even in terms of combat, let alone with the movement difference factored in. I asked if we were supposed to disregard other forms of utility outside of statistical prowess, but Paladins dominate in every area in FE9, not just movement.

No, Nephenee vs Makalov is an argument Makalov would lose if he was on the ground. Maybe even Neph vs Astrid. Boyd would be higher than Oscar if Oscar had 7 mov and lacked a horse etc.

Soren has -3 move, not -2.

Nice nitpicking. Look at the point, not the small details.

Soren also struggles to double and has horrible durability.

Soren struggles to double? Soren actually starts out with more spd than Oscar earlygame, so once he grabs a forge he actually doubles MORE than the third highest ranked unit in the game. Also, with an Ike support and maybe a dracoshield/seraph robe his durabiltiy is salvageable, and if we don't constantly assume those resources go on Marcia those could go actually go to him.

Mia struggles to 2HKO and also has durability issues, along with no good 1-2 range options.

No 1-2 range is a pain, yes, but the gap between her and the pallys would shrink if they had 7 mov. Also, don't forget vantage/wrath as an aid for durability and offence. But yes, Mia is the weakest one there.

Zihark is better off, but again, has 2HKO problems, durability problems, and no good 1-2 range (although his issues here are less serious than Mia's).

Zihark has similar str to Ike at similar levels, and also much more avo, especially with an earth support.

Nephenee is fine statistically and accordingly is the third highest rated 7 move unit in the game, but again, I would be hardpressed to say that she 'destroys' any Paladin statistically or even matches them.

I would definitely rank Nephenee above Makalov.

[Anouleth]

No, Nephenee vs Makalov is an argument Makalov would lose if he was on the ground. Maybe even Neph vs Astrid. Boyd would be higher than Oscar if Oscar had 7 mov and lacked a horse etc.

Sure, that's probably true. But it's not like Nephenee 'destroys' Makalov in combat, which was how Vykan originally phrased it. The same applies for Boyd and Oscar.

The point is that it is not like the Paladins are ranked highly purely because of their high movement. They generally also have great combat. At similar levels to 7 and 6 move units, they are generally winning or tying important stats. For example, 20/1 Makalov beats 20/1 Nephenee in strength and defense, and can tie speed with KW use as well as having a superior growth spread.