Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Chiki]

It doesn't make a difference if it's dependent. The definition says nothing about dependency, and it is not logically necessary to consider it.

Even if it were true, you're still wrong. Look at the hypocrisy here. Marcia's cutting turns depends on bexp (which means it depends on every other unit you use to cut turns). Without that dump she's useless. Without Rutger Thany is useless. Yet it's perfectly okay for you to penalize Thany for being dependent but not Marcia? Thany has other options like Dieck. Marcia does not and bexp is her only choice. Marcia is more dependent than Thany.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

I think your 4-turn strategy is the one I used (if it's the same strat grand jackal described in his old playlog). I'll need to replay the game to find out if it can be 3-turned though, because I started having doubts about it a couple of maps after I did that. I think I played "too safely", which is generally a bad idea in this game and its RNG, and as a result got some unnecessary extra turns in plenty of places. It seems to be possible if two Cavs rescuedrop Roy on turn 2, knowing how close Roy is to the seize point, and survival can't be that bad (even the Steel Bow Nomads have poor hit).

Thany doesn't need Rutger in order to function at all. If she's not carrying Rutger in chapter 8x, she's carrying Marcus, Zealot or Alance (one of whom could even be promoted at this point) to accomplish the same thing in maybe 1 turn more - still better than travelling all the way around.

You're greatly overestimating the real Thany in your theorycrafting; why not use another example? Like John and Bob if what you say has no equivalent in any of the games lol.

[dondon151]

Even if it were true, you're still wrong. Look at the hypocrisy here. Marcia's cutting turns depends on bexp (which means it depends on every other unit you use to cut turns). Without that dump she's useless. Without Rutger Thany is useless. Yet it's perfectly okay for you to penalize Thany for being dependent but not Marcia? Thany has other options like Dieck. Marcia does not and bexp is her only choice. Marcia is more dependent than Thany.

i'm getting the impression that you legitimately don't understand here

BEXP has nothing to do with anything because BEXP is not a unit on the tier list. BEXP is not ranked relative to anything, and BEXP does not perform.

the reason why thany's performance is dependent on rutger's performance (or some other unit's performance) can be illustrated as such:

- a control team with rutger and thany requires w turns to complete a map

- a control team with rutger but without thany requires x turns

- a control team with thany but without rutger requires y turns

- a control team without either unit requires z turns

the difference [w - x] is going to be different from the difference [y - z], but in both cases the value represents the marginal contribution of thany to the team. thany is going to save fewer turns if rutger is not there than if rutger is there (i.e., [w - x] < [y - z]). marcia doesn't have this problem because she doesn't have to drop anyone to do the combat for her all of the time.

so depending on the interpretation, you could say that there is no "dependency" or "sharing" or whatever pedantic term that you can come up with to describe this interaction, because thany's contribution can still be measured. it's just less than what it would be if she could actually, you know, fight. but regardless, this is what dependency means.

also, man, that is enough of the "my definition, your definition" crap. you are just looking for an excuse to beg the question.

Thany doesn't need Rutger in order to function at all. If she's not carrying Rutger in chapter 8x, she's carrying Marcus, Zealot or Alance (one of whom could even be promoted at this point) to accomplish the same thing in maybe 1 turn more - still better than travelling all the way around.

i sincerely doubt that the difference would only be 1 turn. the paladins can't double the boss, have worse hit, and don't have a +30 crit bonus. unless you are RNG abusing for bosskills, there's no way rutger saves only 1 turn.

Edited April 26, 2013 by dondon151

[-Cynthia-]

It's not really possible to judge how many turns a particular unit saves overall as each unit's unique turn saving contribution is impacted by the other units in play- the only way you can reach a number is by assuming the other units on the team. While this is a fine idea for a tier list, it's a different sort of tier list with strengths and drawbacks. One notable drawback is that an 'assumed team' doesn't distinguish between mediocre and outright bad units very well.

Taking FE6 as an example, Ray and Sophia both don't save any turns on the 'optimal' team. However, it's very easy to see that in almost any team composition, Ray is going to perform better (better bases and joins earlier with approximately the same growths and no notable utility differences). Just because Ray isn't part of the optimal team doesn't mean he's as bad as Sophia as far as the current tier lists are concerned.

[Espinosa]

Rutger's high hit/crit are far from a guarantee that he'll get the job done on time, too, really. Lance needs to be 15/1 on average to double Henning, which probably isn't happening, but at least the Paladins have a chance to counter at 2-range (forcing Henning to equip a Hand Axe for later WTA against him), though a sword is probably more useful because of the two Steel Axe Fighters around in spite of the lack of 2-range (you're not likely to connect anyway).

I do remember when I had a fresh promoted Lance enter chapter 12 with C swords and just enough strength to 2HKO the boss with the Wyrmslayer, but my plan to shave off a turn failed pretty badly because I couldn't manage to connect both the hits in one round of combat (which was necessary for... a 4-turn clear I believe?) and re-arranging the action order of other characters the same and previous turn couldn't fix that, so I went with Durandal!Rutger and an extra turn taken instead. So the reliability concern is a big one.

[Snowy_One]

Pre-planning? Lol. So does every other strategy. A stated goal? So does every other strategy.

I don't think you get it. In order to be good, Thany requires that the player enter the map with the goal and intention of achieving a lower turn count through a rescue-drop in a way/manner that Thany can help in. Marcia does not require that since her combat is good enough to help shave turns off through other means, making her superior to Thani on the whole.

[Chiki]

Espinosa, with your inability to understand concept debates again...

If you think about it, bexp is indeed a unit on the tier list--multiple units. You can't get bexp if you don't use your other units, can you?

Second, it's perfectly valid to offer different senses for definitions in which my view works. It's not my fault if you aren't educated in analytical arguments enough to see it's valid.

[Espinosa]

BEXP is a resource. Units are not, at least not to a degree where they could be compared. We can talk about Marcia getting a big amount of BEXP, or Miledy getting a Speedwings, but we cannot really argue if "Thany gets Rutger" or not.

[Chiki]

How can we get bexp if not for other units though? Dondon clearly fails to understand that resources cannot be gotten if not for other units--and I am not arguing that we should give bexp a spot in the tier, obviously. Marcia relies on your other units going quickly in order to be good---and Thany relies on Rutger to be good, as well.

Other units > resources > Marcia

Rutger > Thany

Here are two chains of reliances. The difference is that one is more indirect and the other is direct. I don't see a need to argue that the direct one is more important than the other. It feels to me that they're both equally important.

Miledy, too, relies on another unit to get her a Speedwing, in a form of indirect reliance.

Think of a case of indirect murder. Killing someone yourself vs. having someone kill someone for you. Surely they have equal blame.

The task is to argue why indirect reliance is not as important as direct.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

Everyone seems to "clearly fail to understand" you; did you consider for a second your theory might be the one to blame?

You can't really expect any unit to be self-sufficient, as no FE games are literally solos (though some come close). Seth needs a flier to drop him in a couple chapters, and a Warper to go to places; every proficient unit like Seth and Haar needs a Lord to seize in some maps - even Sigurd who can kill the boss and seize on the same turn needs staves to keep going.

Units are evaluated in relation to the games where they exist, though we could argue about similar units all day - is Seth better than Sigurd? Is Wendy worse than Amelia? Assuming a similarity in the roles played. How we're supposed to compare Marcia to a fantasy Thany in an imaginary setting is beyond me; indeed, I "clearly fail to understand" you and what you're even aiming at here.

[Chiki]

The thing you fail to understand is not my theory itself; rather, it's your inability to understand what a concept is. We are talking about the concept of "double-counting," and trying to see whether it is worth applying to in real games prior to applying it to real life practice.. For example, let's discuss the concept of being an adult. You would claim that 60 year olds are adults, am I right? But in a physically possible world, we could have a 60 year old who acts like a child in every action that he does. So it is not enough to say that people above a certain age are adults, but also that a person's personality matters. This 60 year old who acts like a child may not occur in real life, but it could have physically occurred (nothing is stopping it from physically occurring). So we have to discuss concepts for every single physically possible world in order to test its limits, because by definition, concepts aren't things that apply to only one possible world. They apply to all of them.

This is just basic metaphysics. I suggest you look at the definition of a concept at dictionary.com, which says that it is an abstract notion. The definition of abstract, which you would question next undoubtedly, is something that exists in thought but not in reality. Abstract concepts are all things which apply to every physically possible world, so we can't have a logically impossible notion such as a square circle. That's just plain impossible.

Ah, but now you could say that concepts change depending on real life. FE6 and 9 have different concepts for double-counting. But this is an ad hoc argument, because it's logically preferable and simpler to claim that there is one universal concept. If it were logically necessary for FE6 and 9 to have different concepts for double-counting--if they were so different that this is the case--then I would see the need. But this is simply not the case. By Occam's razor, we can "trim" your claim away until we get my claim--that there is only one concept for every physically possible world.

Second, let's consider the notion of "relying on another unit." Does Marcia rely on other units even though the reliance is indirect? Let's consider the difference between two kinds of verbs: verbs which transfer between the subject and the object and verbs that don't. Consider the verb "respects." If I respect my professor, does that mean I respect his daughter, even though he respects his daughter? No. Or consider another verb phrase, "murder." If I murder my parents, and my parents murdered their parents, does that mean that I murdered my grandparents? No.

Consider the verb phrase "relies on." I'll give a real life example. I'm relying on a group project in order to get an A in my syntax class. But the parts of the group project that I'm relying on are not done by me, but by others who I have no control over. So if I rely on my group project to get me an A, then I'm also relying on my group members to get me an A. I'll give you another example. Consider the verb phrase "being an ancestor of." I am ancestor of X, who is an ancestor of Y. Does that mean that I am an ancestor of Y? Yes. The lesson to learn here is that some verbs are transitive whereas some verbs aren't. "Relies on" is transitive.

Does Marcia indeed rely on Titania and Ike and so on to get her exp? It's true by definition, or the nature of the verb--that's just how the verb is defined. As the verb simply transfers between the subject and the object, the answer is a clear yes--your task is to argue that direct reliance is what matters. Your task is to argue that indirect reliance is preferable over direct reliance, because we have already established that indeed, Marcia relies on other units indirectly.

The way Seth relies on Eirika is not the same way as Marcia and Thany rely on other units. Seth relies on Eirika because otherwise the number of turns to complete the chapter would be infinite, or impossible. Seth does not rely on Eirika to do the process which allows him to clear the chapter. Seth does not need to rely on another unit to kill enemy units, nor does Seth need to rely on other units to get him experience.

The way Sigurd relies on other units for healing should be enough to penalize him, but it isn't the fact that he relies on other units that penalizes him, it's the fact that his durability needs reinforcement. We can penalize him for not being God, because it means that his reliability isn't perfect. But we don't have to penalize him simply because of the fact that he needs healing, ignoring reliability. I don't think we should penalize units simply for needing help for the mere sake of needing help. We should penalize them if it affects your turn count, reliability and so on.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

I'm relying on a group project in order to get an A in my syntax class. But the parts of the group project that I'm relying on are not done by me, but by others who I have no control over. So if I rely on my group project to get me an A, then I'm also relying on my group members to get me an A. [...]

Does Marcia indeed rely on Titania and Ike and so on to get her exp? It's true by definition, or the nature of the verb--that's just how the verb is defined.

This is what I was getting at with my probability example, but I'm not so sure about your conclusions. You waived my example off by setting P(EXP) = 1, but that doesn't really change the structure of my argument at all. I claim that Thany relies on Rutger to shave the 50 turns, and that Rutger relies on getting EXP to shave the 50 turns; hence, Thany relies on an EXP dump to Rutger to shave the 50 turns. Yet you penalize Rutger for the EXP dump without penalizing Thany for it as well. It is unclear whether this is any more consistent with your three criteria than would the decision to penalize both for the EXP dump.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

This is what I was getting at with my probability example, but I'm not so sure about your conclusions. You waived my example off by setting P(EXP) = 1, but that doesn't really change the structure of my argument at all. I claim that Thany relies on Rutger to shave the 50 turns, and that Rutger relies on getting EXP to shave the 50 turns; hence, Thany relies on an EXP dump to Rutger to shave the 50 turns. Yet you penalize Rutger for the EXP dump without penalizing Thany for it as well. It is unclear whether this is any more consistent with your three criteria than would the decision to penalize both for the EXP dump.

I don't have time to reply to this completely, but I don't see how this changes my conclusion in any way.

The only way I penalize someone for an exp dump is if that exp dump affects turns or reliability elsewhere. If it does not, then I don't penalize them. Case in point: Giving FE9 Mia an exp dump does not affect turn count and reliability negatively.

[Redwall]

OK that was poorly worded, I apologize. I am aware that complexity-weighted turns and reliability are the end goals of your tier list. My argument is that both Rutger and Thany should be at the exact same position in the exact same tier; if P(EXP) = 1, then OK, neither one gets penalized relative to other units, but if P(EXP) < 1, both get penalized the same amount, but neither should get more of a penalty than the other.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

The issue with that is Thany has more availability than Rutger, so she saves more turns.

Though if we hypothetically assumed they save an equal amount, then yes, I can see them being tiered at the same spot.

[dondon151]

marcia does not "rely on" anyone for her BEXP because you are getting that BEXP anyway. that is more or less an assumed conclusion of the FE9 tier list.

(it's the same thing as units that "rely on" other units in order to be recruited. these conclusions are given and it would be inappropriate to credit units with recruiting other units.)

you should be careful the next time you waste your breath on irrelevant tangents and definitions. i have the impression that you ignored my previous post entirely and i am wondering right now whether i should bother with continuing to address you.

Edited April 27, 2013 by dondon151

[Chiki]

That certainly isn't true if you don't use Titania, and Titania is not certain to be used in any tier list, not even mine.

And that's just a weird conclusion to make even if you can get enough bexp to go around without Titania. We assume we will be getting bexp anyway, therefore Marcia doesn't rely on bexp from others? The tier list could assume that Rutger will be used and recruited anyway, and that still wouldn't change the fact that Marcia and Thany rely on certain things. If I assumed, with 100% accuracy, that my group is going to get me an A from a group project, I would still be relying on them to get me an A.

Dictionary.com defines reliance as "trustfully depending on." In a tier list, we simply have 100% trust. Reliance is not removed out on the equation if we completely trust that something will occur.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

I'm full aware that you're proposing an abstract concept and that is precisely the problem - you still haven't applied anything to real context we would care about in an appropriate manner.

Reliance isn't one-way, and a character that relies on others to fulfil misc tasks is also relied on to varying degrees. Seth may not need much maintenance in the form of healing, but he can't teleport to places at will, so he's reliant on other characters to, say, make sure Saleh/Artur gets to A staves until chapter 16, which could involve feeding promoted enemies to that character, getting hurt so that they spam staves and so forth.

You're not reliant on Thany and Marcia in the same extent. Thany is relied on for the duration of one chapter only, and even there she's relied on two mounted units to drop her in a position that enables her to shave off most turns, a bosskiller (promoted Rutger being the most reliable one by far), all of which restrains her.

I believe you should distinguish between reliance that's necessary (lords seizing, staffers healing, pre-C9 team accumulating turns low enough to get max BEXP in FE9) and restrictive reliance. Having to carry Roy is restrictive, and if you have to carry a boskiller in addition to that if you can't claim the bosskill on your own (this is the case because Miledy's arrival) you're limited even more in your functioning.

My main proposal:

1) Examine the complete network of characters in their relations, how they rely on one another and the nature of the reliance.

2) Apply it to specific context to fulfil a specific goal.

[dondon151]

That certainly isn't true if you don't use Titania, and Titania is not certain to be used in any tier list, not even mine.

this is 100% false. it's been years since i've played FE9, but even i know that titania is forced in some maps. if you don't use titania, at least when she is forced, then you're violating the premise of the tier list: you're sandbagging.

And that's just a weird conclusion to make even if you can get enough bexp to go around without Titania. We assume we will be getting bexp anyway, therefore Marcia doesn't rely on bexp from others?

well, yes, because that's what "assumed" means. we assume that we will be recruiting marcia, so ike doesn't get bonus points for recruiting her. we assume that we're clearing maps "briskly," which by all means indicates to me that we're expecting 1200 BEXP or whatever amount marcia is supposed to have available by the time that she is supposed to have it. any other interpretation of this premise leaves me scratching my head.

and suppose for a moment that max BEXP requirements were less stringent or nonexistent. the player still "relies" on using units to clear chapters to earn BEXP (but more importantly, to make the game progress). so, would we declare that marcia is in debt to everyone else because of this trivial mechanism of reliance? no, we would probably handwave it.

and then suppose the opposite for a moment: max BEXP requirements are literally impossible to meet. well, then, that would just mean that marcia would have less BEXP, and she would be worse as a result. not much worse, it seems, because she's still the MVP in maniac mode where enemies are more durable and there is less BEXP to plow into her.

the cost of BEXP is already fairly assessed in two ways: one is the opportunity cost of marcia getting the BEXP, and the other is the seemingly inflated contribution of early-joining units (because you more or less have to use them). but hey, weren't you the one who suggested that early-joining units deserve less merit for their contributions because those maps had less "complexity?"

Dictionary.com defines reliance as "trustfully depending on." In a tier list, we simply have 100% trust. Reliance is not removed out on the equation if we completely trust that something will occur.

how strange of someone who comes up with his own definitions for fire emblem "concepts" to lecture me about standard written english definitions of words used to describe fire emblem "concepts."

this whole discussion has been inundated in a deluge of side arguments that obfuscate the original point: thany-who-can't-fight saves fewer turns than thany-who-can-fight. the reason is obviously because someone else has to do the fighting and turns get lost rescuing and dropping non-lord units. either that, or more units need to be used to reach the same results. i don't think that i need to illustrate this because the original statement is painfully obvious. how's that for a "concept?" is it too concrete for you?

Edited April 27, 2013 by dondon151

[Chiki]

Espinosa, I think it's best to discuss concepts first before applying them to real life practices: that's what philosophy is.

And I don't know whether staff users healing is necessary reliance. Why is it necessary if it only takes, say, one more turn to heal with a Vulnerary? It seems like staff usage is more "restrictive" rather than anything else. You can take ages for Seth to cross the desert--it seems to me like his mount restricts him from moving across the desert efficiently and one needs a Warp user to teleport him. You can even say that Marcia's needing bexp restricts her from owning the game, but I don't see why that's necessary. I just don't know if the difference between restrictive and necessary is very clear.

I think there is a way in which your ideas could work. We could define necessary as something which we need to complete a chapter at all. We need Eirika to seize the throne. We could define restrictive as anything that can prevent a unit from cutting turns. Thany needing Rutger, Marcia needing bexp, and so on. I think this makes more sense, because necessary seems to imply that Seth needing staff help is necessary, when restrictive seems far more appropriate.

Dondon, when it comes to Fire Emblem games, we don't have a generally accepted dictionary for the definitions of concepts. I use widely accepted, universal definitions for common English concepts. But there is no such thing on Fire Emblem concepts, so we have to argue which is the more valid concept for tier listing. You guys do this all the time.

Titania isn't forced in any map. She certainly is forced to come, but the game doesn't force you to use her. That is what I meant. Even LTCs don't need to use Titania. I believe she only saves around 10 to 15 turns.

If bexp requirements did not exist, I would agree that, while the reliance is maintained (as you say, in a trivial way), it is not worth considering as it is the nature of the game.

But then consider the bexp requirements being almost impossible--only possible with the turn counts that I can get on my LTC playthrough. This is a middle ground between your examples. In this case, is Marcia's reliance on Titania and Oscar so on trivial? Not at all. For Marcia needs all of those units going as quickly as they can to do well. So yes, there are cases in which this reliance is important and non-trivial.

Now one could say "this doesn't apply to real FE9." But remember this is a debate about concepts.

[dondon151]

Dondon, when it comes to Fire Emblem games, we don't have a generally accepted dictionary for the definitions of concepts. I use widely accepted, universal definitions for common English concepts. But there is no such thing on Fire Emblem concepts, so we have to argue which is the more valid concept for tier listing. You guys do this all the time.

and then you fabricate a related definition as that word applies to fire emblem. the english dictionary says nothing about how complexity applies to a fire emblem game, nor does it say anything about reliance.

Titania isn't forced in any map. She certainly is forced to come, but the game doesn't force you to use her. That is what I meant. Even LTCs don't need to use Titania. I believe she only saves around 10 to 15 turns.

But then consider the bexp requirements being almost impossible--only possible with the turn counts that I can get on my LTC playthrough. This is a middle ground between your examples. In this case, is Marcia's reliance on Titania and Oscar so on trivial? Not at all. For Marcia needs all of those units going as quickly as they can to do well. So yes, there are cases in which this reliance is important and non-trivial.

i have never witnessed a single argument in recent FE9 tier lists that uses the supposition that titania went poof and disappeared. there is nothing that indicates to me that achieving maximum BEXP is not something taken for granted.

(man this quoting thing is messed up with the new forum software)

Now one could say "this doesn't apply to real FE9." But remember this is a debate about concepts.

back in the dark ages of fire emblem tiering, arguments were conceptual all the time. not one debate cared about realistic in-game situations. please don't forget that the purpose of a concept is to aid in understanding of a real event or thing, not to cater to the argumentative tendencies of people on serenes forest.

in any case, we are getting sidetracked again. the final paragraph of my previous post should have ended all discussion on this matter, unless you object to it.

Edited April 27, 2013 by dondon151

[Chiki]

You're probably the only debater in history who has an issue with "fabricating" definitions for terms. The truth is that when there is no widely accepted definition for technical terms, it's perfectly okay for you to introduce your own sense of the term which you think prevents a logical contradiction. For example, a man named Harry Frankfurt argued 30 years ago against the commonly held belief that free will was "the ability to do otherwise." Then, a man named Widerker gave his own sense of free will, in which he argued that it was the ability to make decisions. Frankfurt, in his reply, argued that a person is someone who has second-order volitions (again offering his own definition for a widely understood term). In "Survival and Identity," David Lewis redefined identity as non-transitive in order to prevent a logical contradiction with the fission case. People much more experienced than either of us have no issue with "fabricating" definitions.

Let's talk about Fire Emblem. Are there widely accepted definitions for our concepts? No. Is there a logical issue with the (undefined) concepts that you use? Yes. Occam's razor simply prevents concepts on cutting turns such as yours. It is not logically necessary to claim that turn saving is a needlessly complicated thing in which direct reliance is held against a unit. There is no logical necessity which puts indirect reliance over direct reliance. You are simply making ad hoc arguments, when I see no reason for them to be used in tier list debates.

It isn't my fault if you aren't experienced with arguments enough to make solid ones, though I really suggest you do some readings. Here is an aforementioned reading: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_possibilities. And here is Lewis redefining identity: http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Lewis.SurvivalAndIdentity.pdf

You seem to have simply ignored my argument about Titania. I am not claiming that Titania goes poof and disappears. As Cynthia puts it, tier lists measure how likely a character is to be used. So higher tiers have a higher chance of being used. If Titania has a 90% chance of being used, that doesn't mean she is going to be used for certain, and that we can take her use for granted. If one decided not to use her at all for exp hog issues, Marcia would indeed be screwed.

Second, you conveniently ignored my counterargument on your examples, in which I found a middle ground to illustrate that there are cases in which indirect reliance matters.

Say we have ridiculously hard to get LTC requirements, so hard that only someone like me can get them. And they require everyone to be used: Titania, Shinon, Oscar, Boyd, and so on. Now, as Cynthia puts it, a tier list measures a character's likelihood of usage. But it does not say that every single character has to be used. So Marcia would rely on the low probability chance that every single character has to be used: Boyd, Shinon, Oscar, Titania and so on, for if they are not used, Marcia cannot get a bexp dump great enough to promote her.

According to our own tier list practices, indirect reliance can be just as important as direct.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

Whoa there, "probability of being used" doesn't imply we flip a coin or use some sophisticated means of drawing to determine if a character is being used.

If Titania isn't used, Marcia won't suffer at all. Your turn counts prior to Marcia joining will.

If Marcia doesn't get enough BEXP to promote; well, how about we deprive Mia of the entirety of her C9 dump to accomplish that goal then? Marcia makes better use of it by far.

[Chiki]

FE9 Marcia is not as reliant as FE6 Thany. I am arguing, however, that if the FE9 bexp requirements were changed to make them much more strict, indirect reliance can mean just as much as direct reliance.

In my conceptual case, Marcia relies on Titania, Oscar, Boyd and so on in order to be able to get enough bexp to do work. Marcia relies on the probability that all of those characters will be used.

After arguing for and against concepts, what does this mean about our practices? I think we should ignore direct and indirect reliance as long as they don't negatively affect turn count and reliability.

Giving FE9 Mia a bexp dump does not affect reliability negatively, so there's no reason to penalize her. Sigurd needing healing does, because that's a point against his reliability that he needs healing.

Giving Thany Rutger, as long as it does not negatively affect reliability and turn counts, should not be a reason to penalize either of them.

[Espinosa]

Giving FE9 Mia a bexp dump does not affect reliability negatively, so there's no reason to penalize her. Sigurd needing healing does, because that's a point against his reliability that he needs healing.

Giving Thany Rutger, as long as it does not negatively affect reliability and turn counts, should not be a reason to penalize either of them.

Unfinished logic there. Without the bexp dump (an investment far more sizeable than simply choosing to have your mounted healer follow Sigurd), Mia is 0% likely to push Ike from one square to another. At least Sigurd is somewhat likely to not get too hurt if you just play through a turn without constantly saving. Without the bexp dump, Mia can only visit the villages and will not contribute to the 6-turn completion.

Nobody is going to punish Thany or Rutger for their dubious interrelation, I'm sure, though there are plenty of other reasons to penalise either of them.