FE Lords Tier List

[dondon151]

fe5 is a warpskip so why does leaf's combat prowess mean anything

technically you can barely use ephraim in FE8 since you can just go eirika route and then warpskip the rest of the game

[Snowy_One]

technically you can barely use ephraim in FE8 since you can just go eirika route and then warpskip the rest of the game

This is actually very true. Eirika is required for far more chapters than Ephraim and actually has multiple chapters to use her in (also, 'no training mode to herself? Technically every chapter before the split is for her). I also don't think it's terribly fair to say 'Seth exists so Eirika is useless' because it is VERY possible that Seth may not be used. So what happens then?

Also, Elincia isn't on that list? She is a lord after all (may not the main character next to Ike, but is a queen who fights on several maps and is clearly of great importance as well as holding a unique class and weapons) in almost every sense beyond that Ike steals the spot-light from her. Maybe defining what a 'lord' is would be better though as several characters could validly make a claim to it via unique class and/or required survival.

[ChefGuevara]

Its kind of a stretch to assume seth isnt used, and i dont think Eli counts

[Snowy_One]

It's not a stretch at all. The player just has to go to the character select and unselect him and, bang, Seth isn't used.

And why doesn't Elincia count? She's got all the trappings of a lord right down to having a unique sword for herself (Amiti), so why isn't she? If she isn't then the term 'lord' probably needs re-defining, especially since Ephram can end up basically sidelined for most of the game if Eirika's route is taken.

[sittingonchairs]

technically you can barely use ephraim in FE8 since you can just go eirika route and then warpskip the rest of the game

Yeah but wasn't Ephraim's route assumed for Ephraim? It says in the original post anyways. In which case you would obviously have to use Ephraim.

[dondon151]

Yeah but wasn't Ephraim's route assumed for Ephraim? It says in the original post anyways. In which case you would obviously have to use Ephraim.

even on ephraim's route, i'm not sure how important ephraim actually is. more important than leif is in chapters 4-7?

[General Horace]

to be fair, leaf's only really fantastic in 4/4x/5 then people get horses and haul his butt around

it again depends on how people are playing the game, because if you're just casually strolling through both of the games, Ephraim is undoubtably the stronger unit

efficiency wise even if you go Eph route, its the Seth and Cormag show anyway, although Ephraim does certainly help in like killing the chapter 10 boss and being pretty good at routing Selena's chapter since there's lots of Reginlief targets, He's also pretty much required for 1 turning the final boss too, and is a good candidate for endgame bosskiller since he's got the hardest hitting weapon in the game

[Baldrick]

It also depends on how much you take into account differing objectives. Even when you get outside, chapter 7 is escape which gives foot units with good combat more chances to shine.

Edit: Yeah, there's not much combat in chapter 6

Edited August 9, 2014 by Baldrick

[General Horace]

Chapter 7 maybe, but Chapter 6 there are very few enemies unless you rambo it in which case the more durable dudes like Brighton shine more than a foot unit with mediocre combat

this being said I haven't played Thracia in a few years now so I could be remembering incorrectly.

Edited August 9, 2014 by General Horace

[dondon151]

the dominant strategy for chapter 6 in non-elite mode playthroughs is to rambo through with asvel and leif, but leif is mostly there to give support bonuses.

[Snowy_One]

to be fair, leaf's only really fantastic in 4/4x/5 then people get horses and haul his butt around

it again depends on how people are playing the game, because if you're just casually strolling through both of the games, Ephraim is undoubtably the stronger unit

efficiency wise even if you go Eph route, its the Seth and Cormag show anyway, although Ephraim does certainly help in like killing the chapter 10 boss and being pretty good at routing Selena's chapter since there's lots of Reginlief targets, He's also pretty much required for 1 turning the final boss too, and is a good candidate for endgame bosskiller since he's got the hardest hitting weapon in the game

This is why I generally dislike assuming certain units (beyond supports) are in-play. How good is Ephraim? It's hard to know because Seth and Cormag, two distinctly NON-LORD units, mess of the readings. FE9 Ike could be an outright godsend and get 6-7 stat-ups every level-up and still be inferior to Marcia, Jill, and the paladins simply because of higher movement for them. It kind of renders the majority of points in favor for or against either lord moot. Michy's stats are low? Doesn't matter because Volug and Sothe will be fighting most of the battles. Lyn kinda weak? Doesn't matter cause Florina will likely handle the majority of speed/movement on the map anyways. If you factor in Jeigans, paladins, and fliers it could even be argued that FE10 Ike is inferior due to his lower movement than someone like Haar or Jill while the twins get little ponies to keep up with the group.

[dondon151]

those units exist. you can't just ignore them.

and yes, FE10 ike is quite overrated in PKL's list, but i think that's because he didn't bother changing it.

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

@Snowy Movement and other units do render most of a lord's good points irrelevant because no matter how strong a unit is if they can't reach enemies before other units they simply won't be able to do anything, so I think it's a completely valid thing to consider in a tier list. Even taking movement into account I think FE10 Ike deserves to be highly ranked, since even if some mounted units are faster than him in rout maps (which there are quite a few of) he can still deal with close enemy groups while the fliers go off to kill other things. This gets even more effective when he has ragnell and thus ridiculous 1-2 range. Some games are more friendly to unmounted units than others, and in FE10 it's easier for them to contribute.

Edited August 9, 2014 by MartyTheDemonSlayer

[Snowy_One]

But then that turns the tier list into little more than a list of 'units with high movement ranked by stats and other units'. Technically the twins are among the best lords in the entire series (certainly trumping FE9 Ike) simply because their ponies let them keep up with units like Seth on the front lines.

And yes, you can ignore that those units exist. This is a tier-list about the lords, not paladins or fliers.

[dondon151]

But then that turns the tier list into little more than a list of 'units with high movement ranked by stats and other units'.

how is this worse than a list of "units ranked by stats alone"

the quality of this objection would be the exact same if i replaced the nonsense between the quotations with something completely arbitrary. not only is the statement itself not true (there exist traits more valuable than movement, and movement by itself doesn't tend to have much value), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the result other than that you don't like it.

And yes, you can ignore that those units exist. This is a tier-list about the lords, not paladins or fliers.

that's not how it works. thought experiment: i ask you which is better, FE6 marcus or perceval. deferring to a tier list, we see that marcus is better. does this question make the assumption that the units are to be compared in a vacuum? obviously not. comparing those two units is essentially identical to the task of making a tier list with those only two units. the context of the game doesn't just disappear.

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

@Snowy Also, to refute your FE8 twin example, Chapter 17 is a quick boss kill that Seth is already capable of doing. Chapter 18 having the horses is nice to kill Gorgon eggs. Chapter 19 is essentially a boss rush, Chapter 20 is flyer reliant, and endgame you have better boss killers, so having horses doesn't instantly make the twins top tier. Though high movement is a massive boon, it doesn't instantly make a unit amazing if they don't have stats to back it up. Also, how good a lord is shouldn't be judged simply by how good they are by themselves, because clearing a fire emblem game well requires the use of multiple units. The measure of a good unit (and lords are units) is their unique contributions to their team. Unless you deliberately sabotage yourself when someone does something better than the lord, they will be doing it instead of the lord, so just because they can do something it means nothing if in application if they won't. The already questionable objective quality of a tier list is lowered when you start considering things that have no realistic impact.

[Ownagepuffs]

But then by this criteria wouldn't every lord that isn't Sigurd and Sigurd Jr. be lumped in the same tier since the other lords have characters that are better than them? Asvel beats Leaf, Seth beats twins, Titania beats Ike (FE9), etc?

[dondon151]

what? if asvel > leif and marcus > roy, that doesn't mean we can't say that leif != roy. lords still do things even when they are mostly being carried around.

Edited August 9, 2014 by dondon151

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

Sigurd and Celice may be the only lords who are the actual best units in their game, but some lords can still contribute where others do not. Sure, Haar is better than fe10 Ike and Miledy is better than Roy, but all Roy does is get ferried to the throne whereas Ike can clear swathes of enemies in rout maps. Someone might be doing that task better than Ike, but you still need multiple offensive units, and he's still good enough to be used for one of these slots. What I meant in my post is that when you need three strong units and your lord is not one of the top three options, it's impractical to rate a lord based on what he'd do in that role. That's the different between a bad lord and a good lord, not their ability to be the best but to fill a niche needed in the army. No game is a one man show, not even FE4.

[Snowy_One]

how is this worse than a list of "units ranked by stats alone"

How is it better? The only units you can assume will be on a map are those that have to be deployed. It is not unreasonable to assume a units supporters are also deployed, but beyond that you can't really guarantee what a team make-up will be. May be all knights, may be all paladins, may be all normal foot soldiers. Saying a unit, any unit, is useless simply because 'Seth exists' is stupid. Likewise, pretty much any lord who doesn't get a mount would be near-useless in the face of flying units or mounted units making comparing them pointless since their contributions amount to 'who can capture the throne the fastest' and 'who is the most valuable before your first mounted/flying unit arrives'.

the quality of this objection would be the exact same if i replaced the nonsense between the quotations with something completely arbitrary.

not only is the statement itself not true (there exist traits more valuable than movement, and movement by itself doesn't tend to have much value), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the result other than that you don't like it.

I dislike any tiering system that negates the value of a unit simply because of the existence of another. If unit A is bad, it should be because unit A is bad, not because unit B exists and can complete a map in one turn less.

The measure of a good unit (and lords are units) is their unique contributions to their team. Unless you deliberately sabotage yourself when someone does something better than the lord, they will be doing it instead of the lord, so just because they can do something it means nothing if in application if they won't. The already questionable objective quality of a tier list is lowered when you start considering things that have no realistic impact.

Aside from capping thrones none of the lords offer nothing unique that mounted units cannot offer. As a result all are identical unless they are mounted/fliers at which point they can be compared to the rest of the team. This means Elincia is, technically, better than Hector because she can rescue and carry units. No point in arguing either since she contributes unique things to her team that other units cannot (namely being a flying staff-user).

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

I guess I meant unique and useful contributions. And that doesn't oversimplify things to the extent you're describing, since uniqueness can be quantitative as well as qualitative. For instance, Marcus and Lowen may both be mounted and capable of quickly getting places, but to say they were the same from a game play perspective is completely wrong. Marcus is unique because his stats are much higher: he is the only unit at the beginning who can one round almost everything reliably even at 1-2 range, has high movement, doesn't need training, and continues to be useful far into the game. Having a horse isn't the only way units differentiate themselves from each other.

[dondon151]

How is it better?

you proposed the alternative in the first place; you must answer the question. if you can't answer the question, don't redirect it to me, thanks.

your caricature of an efficiency tier list is actually better than your proposed tier list because it better represents the game.

The only units you can assume will be on a map are those that have to be deployed. It is not unreasonable to assume a units supporters are also deployed, but beyond that you can't really guarantee what a team make-up will be. May be all knights, may be all paladins, may be all normal foot soldiers. Saying a unit, any unit, is useless simply because 'Seth exists' is stupid. Likewise, pretty much any lord who doesn't get a mount would be near-useless in the face of flying units or mounted units making comparing them pointless since their contributions amount to 'who can capture the throne the fastest' and 'who is the most valuable before your first mounted/flying unit arrives'.

you have yet to explain how any of this (despite your consistent employment of straw men) is bad, aside from you not liking it.

the statement that a unit is useless because a better alternative exists is perfectly valid. this is called an opportunity cost. learn your economics. thought experiment: if wendy were the only playable unit in FE6, wendy would be the best unit in the game. the entire reason that wendy sucks is because there are 50 or so other units that are better than she is. if those 50 units didn't exist, then wendy wouldn't suck.

incidentally, this is why people have such an easy time with casual low-tier playthroughs: the low-tier units become good when the high-tier units are not allowed to be used. an outside observer of PKL's low-tier FE12 playthrough, unaware of palla & co.'s existence, would think that ryan is the best unit in the game. he's not the best unit in the game, because MU and palla, etc. are normally better.

I dislike any tiering system that negates the value of a unit simply because of the existence of another. If unit A is bad, it should be because unit A is bad, not because unit B exists and can complete a map in one turn less.

okay, i dislike tiering systems that ignore reality.

you have no way to know if unit A is bad if you don't have unit B to compare it to.

Aside from capping thrones none of the lords offer nothing unique that mounted units cannot offer. As a result all are identical unless they are mounted/fliers at which point they can be compared to the rest of the team. This means Elincia is, technically, better than Hector because she can rescue and carry units. No point in arguing either since she contributes unique things to her team that other units cannot (namely being a flying staff-user).

here's a classic example of snowy-grade fatuousness. i'll leave it as an exercise for the class to point out exactly what's so silly about this paragraph.

Edited August 10, 2014 by dondon151

[ChefGuevara]

you proposed the alternative in the first place; you must answer the question. if you can't answer the question, don't redirect it to me, thanks.

your caricature of an efficiency tier list is actually better than your proposed tier list because it better represents the game.

you have yet to explain how any of this (despite your consistent employment of straw men) is bad, aside from you not liking it.

the statement that a unit is useless because a better alternative exists is perfectly valid. this is called an opportunity cost. learn your economics. thought experiment: if wendy were the only playable unit in FE6, wendy would be the best unit in the game. the entire reason that wendy sucks is because there are 50 or so other units that are better than she is. if those 50 units didn't exist, then wendy wouldn't suck.

okay, i dislike tiering systems that ignore reality.

here's a classic example of snowy-grade fatuousness. i'll leave it as an exercise for the class to point out exactly what's so silly about this paragraph.

It seems like every tier list on this site turns into an old married couple arguing sooner or later

Edited August 10, 2014 by Livin La Vida Loca

[Snowy_One]

you proposed the alternative in the first place; you must answer the question. if you can't answer the question, don't redirect it to me, thanks.

your caricature of an efficiency tier list is actually better than your proposed tier list because it better represents the game.

okay, i dislike tiering systems that ignore reality.

Reality. Seth, Marcia, Haar, or whatever other unit who is not automatically required for a map will not always be used. Not using them is a simple matter of not using them. Therefore, making a list of any sort based off the assumption that they ARE used, be it LTC or otherwise, is not reflective of reality.

the statement that a unit is useless because a better alternative exists is perfectly valid. this is called an opportunity cost. learn your economics. thought experiment: if wendy were the only playable unit in FE6, wendy would be the best unit in the game. the entire reason that wendy sucks is because there are 50 or so other units that are better than she is. if those 50 units didn't exist, then wendy wouldn't suck.

Learn economics. Investing in something like coal plants only pays off if coal plants are used. If, say, wherever you're investing decides to use solar power everything you invested in coal has become worthless.

here's a classic example of snowy-grade fatuousness. i'll leave it as an exercise for the class to point out exactly what's so silly about this paragraph.

the statement that a unit is useless because a better alternative exists is perfectly valid. this is called an opportunity cost. learn your economics.

Also, I would be happy if you learned where your 'shift' key is.

It seems like every tier list on this site turns into an old married couple arguing sooner or later

I honestly am starting to suspect that most of these 'arguments' would vanish if I simply put Dondon on ignore. While I disagree with the idea of LTC lists, my problem stems from them being an absolute measure, but if that were true every list would be 'units to use and not to use' as opposed to an actual list with tiers. I don't think anyone else is really THAT rabid about the standard being enforced. Maybe they'd have problems with it, but they wouldn't be going

the statement that a unit is useless because a better alternative exists is perfectly valid. this is called an opportunity cost. learn your economics.

. After all, if that's so, there are only two tiers of units. 'Useful' and 'Useless'.

Still think that, by the listed criteria, Elincia would be the best lord though. Would like to at least see a reason why not.

[CT075]

if elincia qualifies then so does MU and then MU still trumps her in terms of "trivializing their game"