Which Archer should I use?

[Peppy]

rebecca is awesome...

[Bluedoom]

Go for Rath. You can get him some decent levels if you use him over Wil in Lyn Mode( you'll definetly want him along with Sain and Kent.) Wil's more trainable han Rebecca anyways, but just like you go for Sain and Kent over Wil, you'd go for Lowen over Rebecca. :P.

Rath also gets swords and is pretty neat as a nomad trooper as well.

If you want foot archers, I'd say Louise since she's pretty good with Pent support( and you'll want Pent as your sage since Erk is iffy) I haven't tried using Geitz, but I know his base speed let's him double stuff in his joining chapter( I think? I do remember he was good at doubling things)

Also, bartre is a REALLY good option. He's pretty good at killing stuff, especially in ENM, at least a better warrior compared to Dorcas.

[CrashGordon94]

What I'll probably do is give Becky a try for a few chapters and if she impresses me, I'll use her, otherwise I'll just stick with Rath. How's that for a plan? Just saying because there aren't a whole lot of early ENM units that intrigue me.

Also, a lot of people mention Bartre and Getiz. ...Seriously?

[Integrity]

Becca's cuter and fuck the police.

Geitz with a bow is better than Rebecca easily and maybe even Rath.

EDIT: On the other hand...

[spoiler=this cleanly describes my bias]

Edited October 27, 2011 by Integrity

[Raven]

Myself and Integ are on the same wavelength here.

Just try using Rebecca up til Rath appears. Then make your decision.

[Smiley Jim]

Since I don't have anything new to add, I may as well say this:

I'm on the same boat as Integ and Vanguard. I'd suggest using Rebecca at first, see if her stats make the cut(and hopefully not '19HP/4 str at Lv8' like mine was), and ditching her for Rath if she gets RNG screwed. Though, to be frank, archers still suck unless their player phase offense eclipses most other people's(which neither Rebecca or Wil accomplish at base.), and even with Raven-like PP offense, are still helpless on the EP.

Edited October 28, 2011 by darkandroid125

[Raven]

An Archer's EP isn't totally useless, depending on the situation. If you play the game right, you can play to the strengths of your archer - using walls and landscape etc. to make the most of ranged enemy attacks during EP. If you are able, and patient enough, to use archers to their strengths instead of outright saying "shit" and throwing them off the team, then I consider you a good FE player.

Also with Rebecca's amazing Speed and Luck, she has one of the best avoid stats in the game - plus whatever supports can bring her on the side.

[dondon151]

An Archer's EP isn't totally useless, depending on the situation. If you play the game right, you can play to the strengths of your archer - using walls and landscape etc. to make the most of ranged enemy attacks during EP. If you are able, and patient enough, to use archers to their strengths instead of outright saying "shit" and throwing them off the team, then I consider you a good FE player.

Wait. You commend suboptimal choices by labeling them the decisions of a good FE player? That's rather amusing.

[Othin]

Being able to use poor choices effectively is certainly a mark of skill. But it doesn't make those choices not poor choices.

[CrashGordon94]

Whatever. Anyway, I've made my final (ish) decision, I will try Becky to she how she is and I'll use Rath. I will also try Geitz if there's room in my team. Dorcas, Bartre, Wil and Louise are pretty much out of the question now.

[dondon151]

Being able to use poor choices effectively is certainly a mark of skill. But it doesn't make those choices not poor choices.

Being able to make good choices is also a mark of skill. As far as I'm concerned, V-Raven's statement implies that he thinks looking past the insurmountable shortcomings of units is a mark of skill. That's called shooting yourself in the foot.

[Progenitus]

Use Rebecca if you are going to use her supporters (mainly Lowen/Sain/Raven/Dart). Otherwise stick with Rath.

[Florete]

Being able to make good choices is also a mark of skill. As far as I'm concerned, V-Raven's statement implies that he thinks looking past the insurmountable shortcomings of units is a mark of skill. That's called shooting yourself in the foot.

You make it sound like a player can't use bad units without lacking a certain level of skill. A skilled player can certainly use whatever units he or she wants to, and the skill shows in how well those units are used.

[Anouleth]

You make it sound like a player can't use bad units without lacking a certain level of skill. A skilled player can certainly use whatever units he or she wants to, and the skill shows in how well those units are used.

A skilled player would also determine that the most effective way to use Rebecca and Wil is... not to.

[Florete]

A skilled player would also determine that the most effective way to use Rebecca and Wil is... not to.

A skilled player can know that and decide to use them anyway. Ever heard of a 0% growth run of any random video game? Similar concept of handicapping oneself and it takes a certain level of skill to actually pull it off effectively.

[dondon151]

You make it sound like a player can't use bad units without lacking a certain level of skill. A skilled player can certainly use whatever units he or she wants to, and the skill shows in how well those units are used.

You didn't read my post closely, and you didn't read V-Raven's post closely either.

His original post involved the clause "if you are... patient enough." That's already a mark against skill. If a player is patient enough, he can exploit any one of the potential methods available to trivialize the game with little mental effort.

Second, the player has to make use of what he is given. If Rebecca were, hypothetically, useful in a handful of maps (think FE6 Klein in chapter 12), then skillful use of her would involve abusing her traits to make the chapter as easy as possible. That's fine. What V-Raven is suggesting is for the player to try to tailor his playstyle to use Rebecca in circumstances where she is not actually useful.

Edited October 29, 2011 by dondon151

[Florete]

You didn't read my post closely, and you didn't read V-Raven's post closely either.

I actually read your post very closely and still believe you're overvaluing efficient play in a topic that is not really asking for it. Regardless of what Raven said, you still said "Being able to make good choices is also a mark of skill." With the way you've been arguing and the way you usually argue it's not hard to take that...well, the way I did.

[Othin]

dondon, you appear to be missing the crucial fact that we're not saying V-Raven is right. I don't know about Fox, but my point from the start has been that both you and him are wrong. So there's no point in hiding behind his words.

[Raven]

Hey I'm not gonna argue with anyone over my opinion.

If you can use your favourite units well regardless of their class, and therefore their "handicaps" (lack of 1-range in an Archer's case), then kudos. From personal experience, Rebecca is certainly usable and should not be disregarded.

[Othin]

We aren't discussing opinions, so the opinion card is irrelevant. But if you say you're done here, I won't argue with that.

[Raven]

We aren't discussing opinions, so the opinion card is irrelevant. But if you say you're done here, I won't argue with that.

I appreciate that, but my initial point was my opinion; my view on things. I don't care if it's "wrong". And it turned into this.

Edit: I am going to respond to Dondon's initial response.

Wait. You commend suboptimal choices by labeling them the decisions of a good FE player? That's rather amusing.

That is not what I meant. I meant that a player can still be "good" even if they choose to use Rebecca, and use her well and as efficiently as possible. A good player is a good player, regardless of the units they pick.

Suboptimal or not - if you can effectively and successfully use a unit regardless of their flaws, then as I said earlier: Kudos to you. It even makes the game fun to use units with flaws such as Rebecca with zero 1-range. I use Rebecca because she works well with how I play and the other units I choose to use. Her Battle to Win ratio amazes me every time I use her (because first, I baby her up for like 7 or so chapters, then when she's rolling on her own, she kills nearly everything she touches and avoids like a fish eye getting jabbed at with a pointy blade). It doesn't give me maximum efficiency points to use her but I don't give a shit.

If a person prefers to use a unit despite the flaws and inefficiency they bring during play, then that doesn't make them any less a good FE player. I think people who use Rebecca, despite knowing the restrictions this brings to them, are good players because they are willing to work with those restrictions and are able to do so in an efficient and effective way. So what if it's not "maximum" efficiency? I respect players who go for archers. It shows me they are willing to go against the grain of efficiency for whatever their reasons are. My own personal reasons for using Rebecca are already stated above and throughout this thread.

Now I don't believe I've said anything here worth arguing against. Read my words carefully and you'll see that it's my opinion. I already know that Archers aren't efficient compared to nearly every other unit available, so save your effort trying to make me see your point of view. I already know it.

Edited October 29, 2011 by V-Raven