Sumia is underrated

[Florete]

I can reply to others at the same time, certainly. The definition of going off-topic according to the Code of Conduct is as follows:

This says nothing about being able to reply to other people at the same time.

And yet I already explained that I'm not even going off-topic.

Fire Emblem is something I'm passionate about, just as you are, for the same reason that others are passionate about games like football. That's why it's important to me.

Personally I think you could make use of a lid on your passion, but I guess this is a good answer.

As for the rest of the topic, well, Interceptor spoke my thoughts exactly:

Nominating this thread for the Weasel Wording wing of the Strawman Hall of Fame.

I thought it was pretty well established that Sumia is really important in the earlygame, particularly with Frederick. There are always going to be some detractors, but SumiaxFred is OTP, and probably something that rescues her from an otherwise lackluster support list. Her performance arguably puts her above an altogether better unit, Cordelia, just because of those pre-Ch7 contributions.

No news here.

[shadykid]

If she's not needed for it at all, how is she as important for it as you say? That's what confuses me.

Edward isn't technically needed in FE10 1-P either, you do that though

[Quick]

LTCing how? I find it hard to believe Sumia won't have an A support by the time Chapter 8 comes up. You have 5 chapters to get that support in.

Chapter 7 is when Cordelia appears but I think you mean by when it ends. All those chapters should take maybe 3-4 turns max per chapter and that seems hardly enough to get an A support in by 4 (I guess 5) chapters.

And I'm LTC'ing the way you presumably did, Sumia and Frederick combined while taking abuse of the map structure to lure and kill as many enemies (or the boss if it's defeat the boss) using the least turns as possible. Obviously I'm using Chrom and MU as well as other units that make the game go faster like you did but the point is I'm trying to beat it similarly as you did.

[Vashiane]

She'd be top quality stuff if it weren't for the fact that she's so damn ugly

Oh c'mon... she's not THAT ugly. She's not Cherche, but she's certainly not ugly.

In an efficiency playthrough, Cordelia probably won't be seeing much use as the map will likely end at around turn 3 (this isn't even as going as fast as possible).

... Wait. Isn't that a Rout the Enemy map? How do you beat that in three turns?

[Interceptor]

Wow, mini-modding a mod; let me get some popcorn.

You'd be surprised at how strong Sumia is when Cordelia comes in, thanks to a Frederick support. She can ORKO a lot more than Cordelia does with the high Dual Attack chances.

This is a pretty hamfisted way to do a comparison, honestly.

There's a good chance that you aren't going to have a situation where Cordelia and Sumia are used simultaneously, so comparing their combat stats at Ch7 is sort of nonsense. If you're intending to use Cordelia, a smart strategy is to mostly use Sumia early on for her most useful non-combat contributions (ferrying, Pair-Up, etc). On Cordelia's team, this allows Frederick to last longer, allows you to train another unit, or give more EXP to someone you were already using (like Avatar or Chrom).

Whether these things combined with Cordelia's superior lategame martial stats are enough to put her on top would be a subject for debate, but it's a better way to compare than flopping their stats next to each other on a table in an unrealistic situation.

[Constable Reggie]

Oh c'mon... she's not THAT ugly. She's not Cherche, but she's certainly not ugly.

Sorry bro, science backs me up here.

[Chiki]

Wow, mini-modding a mod; let me get some popcorn.

This is a pretty hamfisted way to do a comparison, honestly.

There's a good chance that you aren't going to have a situation where Cordelia and Sumia are used simultaneously, so comparing their combat stats at Ch7 is sort of nonsense. If you're intending to use Cordelia, a smart strategy is to mostly use Sumia early on for her most useful non-combat contributions (ferrying, Pair-Up, etc). On Cordelia's team, this allows Frederick to last longer, allows you to train another unit, or give more EXP to someone you were already using (like Avatar or Chrom).

Whether these things combined with Cordelia's superior lategame martial stats are enough to put her on top would be a subject for debate, but it's a better way to compare than flopping their stats next to each other on a table in an unrealistic situation.

You can compare a playthrough in which only Cordelia is used, and a playthrough in which only Sumia is used.

[Tamanoir]

I would love Kellam tobe able to pair up with Sumia. They complement each other so much, it really is a shame..

She also have absolutely awesome base at level 1.

My reasons to prefer Sumia over Cordelia (and one og the reason I support Sumia XHenry), is her higher magic growth, which make her an awesome Dark Flier (for the magic option). I think she also have higher RES. Apparently, you're opposed at her using magic, right ?

I honestly don't really like them personnality wise, so it haven't any role here.

And now, I'll leave because this topic apparently isn't for me...

[Interceptor]

You can compare a playthrough in which only Cordelia is used, and a playthrough in which only Sumia is used.

This is almost as bad. Now you're not comparing Sumia to Cordelia, you're comparing +Sumia/-Cordelia to +Cordelia/-Sumia, which is nonsense. Frederick is the greatest unit in the game on Lunatic by that method.

The fact of the matter is, one of Cordelia's advantages is that she comes as a trained Pegasus Knight with C lances. Those 20+ kills that you fed to Sumia, can go to someone else on a team that's intending to use Cordelia after Chapter 7. Believe it or not, that's actually a thing. A lot of what Sumia contributes in the earlygame, can be chalked up to passively making Frederick extra-badass, by either letting him double or getting him somewhere important.

Which is why one does not simply walk into Mordor compare martial stats at a single point in time and call it a day.

[Chiki]

This is almost as bad. Now you're not comparing Sumia to Cordelia, you're comparing +Sumia/-Cordelia to +Cordelia/-Sumia, which is nonsense. Frederick is the greatest unit in the game on Lunatic by that method.

The fact of the matter is, one of Cordelia's advantages is that she comes as a trained Pegasus Knight with C lances. Those 20+ kills that you fed to Sumia, can go to someone else on a team that's intending to use Cordelia after Chapter 7. Believe it or not, that's actually a thing. A lot of what Sumia contributes in the earlygame, can be chalked up to passively making Frederick extra-badass, by either letting him double or getting him somewhere important.

Which is why one does not simply walk into Mordor compare martial stats at a single point in time and call it a day.

Why can't we compare one playthrough with Sumia, and one playthrough with Cordelia? Can you explain why it's nonsense? Is there a contradiction involved or is it just because you don't like it?

They can indeed go to someone else--I am not denying that. But why does that prevent us from comparing those two playthroughs? Anyway, the kills Cordelia gains in the playthrough could have gone to someone else instead, as well, so it goes both ways.

You can't just disregard Sumia's earlygame contributions by saying Cordelia is already trained and she comes at a later time. By that logic, Athos is the best unit in FE7 because "one of Athos's advantages is that he comes as a trained Archsage with S tomes." It makes no sense. You have a tendency to disregard the importance of availability--I've noticed this in another thread as well.

You know, you haven't offered a way on how you intend to measure whether a unit is good or not. What makes a unit good to you?

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki

[Junkhead]

Sumia's offense is pretty darn good with the Frederick/Forge/Tonic setup. But I still think her durability is somewhat problematic even disregarding Bows. She still has that scrawny HP which doesn't allow her to get too much Enemy Phase against axe-users (and we know how axe-heavy FE tends to be earlygame). At least Sully can go with Swords and be able to expose herself more...

Oh c'mon... she's not THAT ugly. She's not Cherche, but she's certainly not ugly.

What are you talking about, Sumia is extremely beautiful. Edited May 30, 2013 by Soul

[General Horace]

Oh c'mon... she's not THAT ugly. She's not Cherche, but she's certainly not ugly.

... Wait. Isn't that a Rout the Enemy map? How do you beat that in three turns?

you can do it pretty easily in two turns since Sumia can lure the wyvern riders near the bottom on turn one, which triggers the boss and his friends to move, and MU can kill him with Elwind or something.

[Chiki]

Beating Chapter 7 in 2 turns is one of the easiest. Try beating Chapter 15 in 2 turns (the one where you get Say'ri).

[Interceptor]

Why can't we compare one playthrough with Sumia, and one playthrough with Cordelia? Can you explain why it's nonsense? Is there a contradiction involved or is it just because you don't like it?

What you said was "You can compare a playthrough in which only Cordelia is used, and a playthrough in which only Sumia is used", which is an entirely differently thing than "compare one playthrough with Sumia, and one playthrough with Cordelia". The sharp reader will note the word "ONLY".

And such a thing is nonsense because it doesn't tell you enough about Sumia vs. Cordelia, since Cordelia's army without a token earlygame Sumia performance isn't actually realistic.

Anyway, the kills Cordelia gains in the playthrough could have gone to someone else instead, as well, so it goes both ways.

No it doesn't; they are not equivalent situations. Sumia and Cordelia share the post Ch7 kills, but only Sumia is taking the pre-Ch7 kills. And adding insult to injury, it's not pure gravy like a Fred kill, it's something necessary for her advancement, so she has to take the EXP.

You can't just disregard Sumia's earlygame contributions by saying Cordelia is already trained and she comes at a later time.

Tell that to the guy who disregarded Sumia's earlygame, whoever that was; you seem to have the two of us confused. I'm all for giving credit to Sumia for sitting in Frederick's saddlebags and giving him stats.

By that logic, Athos is the best unit in FE7 because "one of Athos's advantages is that he comes as a trained Archsage with S tomes." It makes no sense. You have a tendency to disregard the importance of availability--I've noticed this in another thread as well.

It makes no sense to you because you don't actually understand the logic, as evidenced by your lousy example.

To turn it into a decent example, Athos is not the BEST unit in FE7, however he's easily better than every other unit that's a net negative to the team (from an efficiency standpoint, not for Ranking). It's easy to see why he's better than Wil, for example, who spends his entire career being a drag on your army. Athos's team simply doesn't deploy Wil, while Wil's team has no such choice. Any respectable tier list is going to have an Athos, Lehran, Giffca etc unit somewhere around that crossover point between the goodish units and the shit ones.

You know, you haven't offered a way on how you intend to measure whether a unit is good or not. What makes a unit good to you?

I don't have any One Ring™ standards; it's situational depending on the context. Unlike some people around here, I have the ability to argue under criteria that I don't espouse personally. A unit that's good in HM LTC may be shit in reliability Lunatic+. A good way to measure it is the A's Team vs. B's Team bit from above, but that only works if your criteria isn't shit. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Chiki]

What you said was "You can compare a playthrough in which only Cordelia is used, and a playthrough in which only Sumia is used", which is an entirely differently thing than "compare one playthrough with Sumia, and one playthrough with Cordelia". The sharp reader will note the word "ONLY".

No it doesn't; they are not equivalent situations. Sumia and Cordelia share the post Ch7 kills, but only Sumia is taking the pre-Ch7 kills. And adding insult to injury, it's not pure gravy like a Fred kill, it's something necessary for her advancement, so she has to take the EXP.

I put the only there on purpose. One can consider a playthrough using only Sumia to see her general contributions to said playthrough, and one can consider a playthrough using only Cordelia to see her general contributions to said playthrough. The playthrough which is more efficient is the winner.

I'll ask you one last time. Why do you think it's nonsense? Just a clear, direct answer will do.

Let's compare Athos and Marcus to see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.

Marcus comes at the beginning of Chapter 11 and takes all the kills from the beginning of Eliwood's mode till endgame. Only Athos, however, is taking the pre-Endgame kills.

To turn it into a decent example, Athos is not the BEST unit in FE7, however he's easily better than every other unit that's a net negative to the team (from an efficiency standpoint, not for Ranking).

Indeed, but Sumia is obviously a net positive, so she has earlygame over Cordelia. Duh.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki

[Junkhead]

Aren't axes still a significant burden on her earlygame? Granted, she gets 3HKO'd, but the problem is that it's very likely for those hits to actually land meanwhile Sully is likely to dodge with a Chrom support and WTA.

[Chiki]

Swords come with their own disadvantages. Lances have a decent amount of higher might which can be preferred for the thieves, mercenaries and so in as well.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki

[LunaSaint]

I have to admit, one of the statements made about Tonics/forges at the end of Sumia's rating day made me realise just how good she is. Lategame offence (her early game offense is amazing) is really her only problem and the game gives you plenty of excess tools to patch it up.

[shadykid]

Indeed, but Sumia is obviously a net positive, so she has earlygame over Cordelia. Duh.

you say this as if someone's disagreeing with you on that point

[Chiki]

you say this as if someone's disagreeing with you on that point

He was bringing up truisms for no reason other than to argue. What was I supposed to do?

[dondon151]

arguing against interceptor 101

[Interceptor]

I put the only there on purpose. One can consider a playthrough using only Sumia to see her general contributions to said playthrough, and one can consider a playthrough using only Cordelia to see her general contributions to said playthrough. The playthrough which is more efficient is the winner.

I understand why you chose that method: you think that it will show you the real difference between the units. Now, understand why I'm telling you it's flawed: you are introducing variables with different weights to either side of the equation (taking Sumia out of Cordelia's playthrough, Cordelia out of Sumia's), which lards up your results. The reason it screws up your comparison, is that Fire Emblem is a game with an army of units. Your "only" nonsense would only work if Sumia or Cordelia were soloing the entire run.

I'll ask you one last time. Why do you think it's nonsense? Just a clear, direct answer will do.

It's not really my problem if you can't understand it. The concept is pretty simple, and there are probably a half dozen other denizens in the tier list threads that could also explain it.

Let's compare Athos and Marcus to see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.

Marcus comes at the beginning of Chapter 11 and takes all the kills from the beginning of Eliwood's mode till endgame. Only Athos, however, is taking the pre-Endgame kills.

Athos's team would use Marcus in precisely the same way that Marcus's team uses Marcus. There is no advantage to be gained by Athos in this scenario, because he wouldn't re-distribute the kills. Marcus god-stomps Athos in any efficiency tier list because of the weight of his personal contributions.

Indeed, but Sumia is obviously a net positive, so she has earlygame over Cordelia. Duh.

Again, tell it to the guy that's apparently making this argument, because it's not me. Sumia is obviously a net positive, and deserves credit for her early game. That does not mean that she rolls into Ch7 with combat-ready stats for free. Those stats have a cost to the rest of the army, a cost that Cordelia isn't paying because her stats ARE free.

As I said before, it may be the case that on balance, Sumia is the superior unit overall, but I can tell you it won't be simply because she beats Cordelia in a straight-up battle in Ch7. That's a lazy, hamfisted, cleaver of argument.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Interceptor

[Chiki]

The reason it screws up your comparison, is that Fire Emblem is a game with an army of units. Your "only" nonsense would only work if Sumia or Sordelia were soloing the entire run.

No it wouldn't. All I am saying is that we should consider how efficient the run was with Sumia present instead of Cordelia, and with Cordelia present instead of Sumia. All other factors would remain equal (same units used as efficiently as possible, and so on). Why would this only work if Sumia or Cordelia were soloing the game? You still have failed to answer this question, and even though you point out others can point out the error in my reasoning, no one has done so.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki

[Redwall]

I think Interceptor's point is that the marginal value of adding Sumia to the set A={Cordelia, everyone not named Cordelia or Sumia} is different from the marginal value of adding Sumia to the set B={everyone not named Cordelia or Sumia} which in turn is different from the MV of adding Cord to the set C={Sumia, everyone not named Cordelia or Sumia}.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

I'm not denying that, if that is what he means (I've no idea what he means). The solution to that is we simply consider all of those contexts in order to find the value of a unit overall.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki