FE: Awakening Hard Mode Tier List

[Elieson]

but if it's established that Nosferatanking is stupid broken overkill, and we didn't tier Seth in the FE8 tier list for that reason, ...why not just not tier for Nosferatanking?

[Integrity]

The problem is that this doesn't seem to be the case. Tharja is currently beneath Vaike!

Do forgive me if I missed your point, but wouldn't Tharja being beneath the Vaike suggest that we already aren't tiering for Nosferatanking?

[Redwall]

Looking at what specifically Legault excerpted and quoted from your (Integrity's) post, his claim was that it's not established that Nos-tanking is game-breaking. Given that Levant Fortner has tried to argue that it's not game-breaking when Tharja is the Nos-tank, I think Legault has a point.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Redwall

[Legault!]

Do forgive me if I missed your point, but wouldn't Tharja being beneath the Vaike suggest that we already aren't tiering for Nosferatanking?

Considering you're the first person who's told me that Nosferatanking is assumed to be banned, everyone is treating Nosferatu like an overrated tome, and the OP doesn't mention Nosferatu restrictions, I'm going to assume you're alone on this one.

[Elieson]

OP also hasn't been updated since the same day it was created on.

[Legault!]

OP also hasn't been updated since the same day it was created on.

Just CTRL+F'd "Nosferatu" and no one discussed the possibility of banning it, and lots of people talk about how overrated it is.

EDIT: If I'm wrong and I somehow missed a really obvious post somewhere I'll be happy to eat crow. Everyone is tip-toeing around something so obvious and it's somewhat frustrating.

EDIT 2: E for Everyone.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Legault!

[Blademaster!]

Do forgive me if I missed your point, but wouldn't Tharja being beneath the Vaike suggest that we already aren't tiering for Nosferatanking?

From my understanding of the argument and previous posts made in the thread, nosferatanking is being included in the tier and Legault is arguing that such characters should go up, but others seem to believe that Dark Knight > Nosferatanking. I haven't done a no grind in hard mode (doing one now), but in Lunatic mode, the only character I could really have done so was Avatar, and that was only because of veteran, rally spectrum+speed, Chrom support, hoping for the RNG to be in my favor, and 1 reclass back into sorcerer. Regardless, Avatar already has his/her own tier anyway.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Blademaster!

[Dark Sage]

The most elegant solution would probably to ban Nosfertanking from the list for the same reason we ban Seth from most FE8 lists: it's broken. Not that I expect this to go anywhere. SDS doesn't come on often and when he does he rarely edits the OP.

It would also help if someone gave a definition to the word "brisk" that wasn't incredibly vague but I also don't expect this to happen. ;/

EDIT: Ok to be honest, noseferatu tanking's viability on this list depends heavily on what we mean by brisk. Turncounts almost certainly play a role but I'm pretty sure it's not that inefficient to send the tank to go aizenstomp shit because you have the Pair Up system and mounts to work with to get them into proper positioning (plus Olivia if necessary). To be more clear, strictness of turncount is what really limits nosferatu tanking. In a much more strict environment for turns, I could possibly see an argument for Dark Knight!Tharja>Sorcerer!Tharja and nosferatu tanking wouldn't be so viable.

It's really funny that you can basically beat the game in 30 minutes with a Sorcerer though.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Tyrant Sage

[Legault!]

From my understanding of the argument and previous posts made in the thread, nosferatanking is being included in the tier and Legault is arguing that such characters should go up, but others seem to believe that Dark Knight > Nosferatanking. I haven't done a no grind in hard mode (doing one now), but in Lunatic mode, the only character I could really have done so was Avatar, and that was only because of veteran, rally spectrum+speed, Chrom support, hoping for the RNG to be in my favor, and 1 reclass back into sorcerer. Regardless, Avatar already has his/her own tier anyway.

This is a much less hostile way of saying what I said, thanks.

Also I was sure that my "!" username gimmick would make me unique. Thanks Blademaster!

[dondon151]

wow guys, the strange justifications about the tier list are absurd

1. "this is not an LTC tier list, so why aren't nosferatu users at the top"

this is an LTC tier list, but no one wants to admit it. lower turncounts are better and you can go lower with units that don't use nosferatu in this mode. i suspect that no one wants to call this an "LTC tier list" because there is some sort of stigma attached to the concept of a true minimum LTC tier list, where all discussion is dead. it's totally possible to simultaneously believe that lower turncounts are better and that the list won't become degenerate. the truth is that for however long now, terms like "LTC," "efficient," "brisk" (lol) all more or less mean the same thing and even i don't know what the difference is anymore. all i know is that lower turncounts are better, except you'll get slapped on the wrist if you go too low.

this is the same question that we asked in FE11: why aren't wolf/sedgar at the top? because there are faster methods than wolf/sedgar. no one cares that they are slightly easier to use.

2. "this is not a draft tier list, so arguments from drafts are invalid"

i don't get this one. someone decides to play the game efficiently with a couple of self-imposed constraints, and because of that (the constraints) his argument is ignored. certainly draft play is not wholly representative of actual play because draft play highly values earlier units and is more lenient with respect to the cost required to bring those units up to speed; however, it also explores merits of units that wouldn't be immediately obvious otherwise.

3. "having to think is bad"

smash fanatic tried this one a few years ago. was it smash fanatic? i don't remember anymore, but we got a few laughs out of it.

it's a strategy game, the player is expected to think, and the one metric that these tier lists absolutely do not judge on is time, whether game clock time or real life time.

Edited March 19, 2013 by dondon151

[Legault!]

this is an LTC tier list, but no one wants to admit it.

Somehow I doubt this since "LTC Tier List" is an oxymoron. In a given LTC run there is exactly one strategy that produces the lowest possible turns, so that's the strategy you will always be using. Ranking units when the player will be following exact step-by-step instructions is literally pointless unless you happen to like ranking pointless things.

[Terrador]

Somehow I doubt this since "LTC Tier List" is an oxymoron. In a given LTC run there is exactly one strategy that produces the lowest possible turns, so that's the strategy you will always be using. Ranking units when the player will be following exact step-by-step instructions is literally pointless unless you happen to like ranking pointless things.

"Low" does not mean "Absolute Minimum"; furthermore, some strategies are much too unreliable to bother using in an ordinary playthrough, again deviating from that potential minimum.

[Florete]

I see Tier List Philosophy 101 is back for a new term.

I kinda want SDS something in this topic before moving too far. It is worrisome that the list hasn't been edited since 3 minutes after it was posted.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[Legault!]

"Low" does not mean "Absolute Minimum"; furthermore, some strategies are much too unreliable to bother using in an ordinary playthrough, again deviating from that potential minimum.

If "low" means "sort of low" then we're back into "brisk" territory: not quite absolute LTC, but there's some arbitrary range of acceptable total turn counts that's mystifying.

[OrangeCrush980]

I think part of the idea of "brisk" is that we're trying to reasonably divide EXP between 8-13 units instead of just having our best unit solo 75% or more of the map, which kills tier list discussion.

[Legault!]

I think part of the idea of "brisk" is that we're trying to reasonably divide EXP between 8-13 units instead of just having our best unit solo 75% or more of the map, which kills tier list discussion.

Tier lists are in my mind supposed to evaluate how good units are. Minimizing unit performance to arbitrarily divvy up experience seems counterintuitive. Once you establish the units who can solo comfortably at a "brisk" pace and put them at the top, you can then deal with the rest of the tier list.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

hi i'm here

Nosferatanking: I'm sure it's doable. I've done it a lot. For most of the game it is a breeze. When you hit endgame, however, it (especially when delivered via Tharja) just falls off so hard when you have high-avoid enemies crawling out of the woodwork, forges flying in out of nowhere, and mages' defense stats falling off. Tharja is where she deserves to be, though I could see her going up slightly. Miriel needs to compete for a reclass, Avatar is Avatar so who gives a shit, Morgan is Morgan (see Avatar), and Henry is garbagio.

It's good, don't get me wrong. It's just not THAT good.

As for changes to the tier list, I think I'm going to be moving Panne into top tier. Not sure about anything else.

[Legault!]

hi i'm here

Nosferatanking: I'm sure it's doable. I've done it a lot. For most of the game it is a breeze. When you hit endgame, however, it (especially when delivered via Tharja) just falls off so hard when you have high-avoid enemies crawling out of the woodwork, forges flying in out of nowhere, and mages' defense stats falling off. Tharja is where she deserves to be, though I could see her going up slightly. Miriel needs to compete for a reclass, Avatar is Avatar so who gives a shit, Morgan is Morgan (see Avatar), and Henry is garbagio.

It's good, don't get me wrong. It's just not THAT good.

As for changes to the tier list, I think I'm going to be moving Panne into top tier. Not sure about anything else.

Tharja obliterates 23, 24, and 25, so I'm not sure what you mean by "endgame."

[Elieson]

A tier list generally debates the contributions of a unit towards the team's goal (in the case of FE13, Rout and Kill Boss). It's guided by a term called efficiency, which means that it's measurable.

General ways that Fire Emblem games can be measured are by say, EXP gained, Funds, Turn Counts (see FE7 for how the game itself ranked your efficiency), etc.So an overall efficiency in Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword, while achieving a ridiculous maximum LTC, would penalize you pretty heavily if you just roflstomped the game with Marcus on say, ENM (which is entirely possible).

Therefore, the idea of a Solo is flawed through the standards of the game's ranking system itself. If you are unable to get an S rank in the Ranking system, it's your fault, not the game's.Tier lists here are generally based on some sort of metric. When I looked up "Brisk" in my good ol' Merriam-Webster, words that came up were "quick", "fast", "agile", and "active".

So by that, I'm assuming that SDS implied that all paralogues needed to be completed, but that you wouldn't say, kill a horde of enemies, chill and heal every single hurt unit for exp and max health, then repeat. It's generally implied that you'll be sort of pushing your way through levels, and of course, not touching DLC beyond the allowed clauses stated (say, the Renown awards). Now we could build a tier list based on one single element of the game, but in all seriousness, that's not the point. Seth breaks FE8. We all know that. That's why tier lists either ban him, acknowledge him as the superior unit, or both.

We could, for instance, suggest that this tier list do the same with Tharja (as it's already been done with Avatar), under normal circumstances, but that'd be silly. You're robbing resources from other units by forcing Tharja to suck them all up. There is no doubt in my mind that the game could be completed "more briskly" by not capitalizing on Tharja after she decides to join you 1/3 of the way through the game, but the point is that regardless of how good a unit is, their ability to contribute to a net goal is what's being measured; not their ability to solo the game.

**Edit, Formatting Suck**

Edited March 19, 2013 by Elieson

[Legault!]

Do I come across as a dumb guy? People are explaining this to me like I'm a Fire Emblem toddler.

We could, for instance, suggest that this tier list do the same with Tharja (as it's already been done with Avatar), under normal circumstances, but that'd be silly. You're robbing resources from other units by forcing Tharja to suck them all up.

1. Comparing this to FE7 Ranked doesn't make sense since those restrictions are game-defined.

2. If allowing Tharja to Nosferatank could provide a much more reliable completion while only costing a handful of extra turns, I hope can agree this is a good trade-off. Now the question is whether or not this is actually true. In my experience it is, but enemy stats etc. would help here.

[KitheOfEvrark]

Out of curiosity, what kind of resource investment is needed to get Tharja to use Nosferatu to its full potential?

[Florete]

As for changes to the tier list, I think I'm going to be moving Panne into top tier. Not sure about anything else.

Should that really happen when she needs a Second Seal to have three separate weaknesses? I'd much sooner think she's too high rather than too low.

[Legault!]

Should that really happen when she needs a Second Seal to have three separate weaknesses? I'd much sooner think she's too high rather than too low.

Panne's got a lot of vulnerabilities, but she's got absurd offensive potential right out of the box and high movement to boot with a Second Seal. She'll quickly double and destroy just about any enemy on Lunatic, which translates to overkill on Hard.

I'd support her moving up.

[Dark Sage]

Should that really happen when she needs a Second Seal to have three separate weaknesses? I'd much sooner think she's too high rather than too low.

This becomes a non-issue when you factor in Pair Up/Supports (particularly from Lon'qu), Tantivity, Quick Burn and later Swordbreaker to get a stupidly high amount of avoid on her. Seriously, I recall Paperblade saying that it wasn't uncommon for her to face around 20% displayed on Lunatic. This is pretty overkill on Hard Mode (aka, makes everything a joke).

[dondon151]

Somehow I doubt this since "LTC Tier List" is an oxymoron. In a given LTC run there is exactly one strategy that produces the lowest possible turns, so that's the strategy you will always be using. Ranking units when the player will be following exact step-by-step instructions is literally pointless unless you happen to like ranking pointless things.

did you read my entire post? you're not disagreeing with me.