FE Lords Tier List

[Baldrick]

@Livin La Vida Loca; Now that you've pointed it out, I can't unsee it.

@dondon; You can look at Wendy's solo performance in that game and judge her to be a bad unit. Especially if you compare it to a game where Miledy is the only character and there are no other changes. IMO it's a good way to look at it since it you're judging them solely on combat performance; if Wendy had 40 move there'd probably be some niche for her in vanilla, but in solo she's just as bad.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Baldrick

[Snowy_One]

I'm not sure the MU can be counted simply because there are so many different ways that the MU can affect the game. You'd probably have to make a different tier-list (assuming you're doing the 'other units negated by better units' simply based on if the MU is a paladin or sage.

Also, how does the MU and Elincia relate to each other? Elincia, while having a unique class, is pretty much just a normal peggy with a unique feature and a special sword. That's not quite in the same league as 'can be almost any class'.

[CT075]

elincia has a unique class, gives a game over when she dies and is plot-important throughout [her part of] the game.

MU has a unique class (tactician), gives a game over when s/he dies, and is plot-important throughout the game.

what is the difference

e:

oh you mean by the list criteria, not "are they a lord or not"

the list criteria is stated specifically "how much do they trivialize their portion of the game", of which MU does extremely well (you can #yololtc it and galeforce the entire game, or trivialize it in a different way with nosferatu). Elincia is just a flying nuke (and in the prologue is just chip damage)

Edited August 10, 2014 by CT075

[Loki Laufeyson]

If it seizes and isnt named Geoffrey, its a lord.

*grumbles about Hector's placement something something Florina can ferry him everywhere something Wolf Biel something tank*

[Florete]

If it seizes and isnt named Geoffrey, its a lord.

*grumbles about Hector's placement something something Florina can ferry him everywhere something Wolf Biel something tank*

Laura and Lucia confirmed lords.

Chrom confirmed not a lord.

Don't even know why this became a discussion. The currently ranked lords are the only lords needed.

[Ownagepuffs]

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.

Maybe I've just been watching too many efficiency run from you guys but it seems no lord does anything besides kill occasionally and seize.

Only reason I asked was because some of the earlier posts sounded to me like "Ephraim is too high because Seth is better at killing things". I just think it's odd to bring up Seth when discussing Ephraim's value compared to other lords.

[Snowy_One]

elincia has a unique class, gives a game over when she dies and is plot-important throughout [her part of] the game.

MU has a unique class (tactician), gives a game over when s/he dies, and is plot-important throughout the game.

what is the difference

e:

oh you mean by the list criteria, not "are they a lord or not"

the list criteria is stated specifically "how much do they trivialize their portion of the game", of which MU does extremely well (you can #yololtc it and galeforce the entire game, or trivialize it in a different way with nosferatu). Elincia is just a flying nuke (and in the prologue is just chip damage)

Even so, shouldn't she be at least in the bottom tiers?

Also, Lucia isn't a unique class, just overleveled and gives a game-over when killed. I'm also not AGAINST the MU being on the list, I'm just curious as to how they can be placed considering the sheer number of variations.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Quintessence]

Maybe I've just been watching too many efficiency run from you guys but it seems no lord does anything besides kill occasionally and seize.

Only reason I asked was because some of the earlier posts sounded to me like "Ephraim is too high because Seth is better at killing things". I just think it's odd to bring up Seth when discussing Ephraim's value compared to other lords.

You have to bring units like Seth, Haar, Titania, Marcus, etc. in order to rate the lord and compare the lord with every other single unit's performance in the game; it simply is necessary because how else can you measure their performance? By doing a lord solo? That criteria is simply vague because to rate a unit you first need to have another unit as reference, otherwise every unit is considered as awesome by the sole reason of clearing the chapter and its objective. After rating said lord's contributions at trivializing the game (for this tier), you then take lord by lord and compare them.

[General Horace]

Even so, shouldn't she be at least in the bottom tiers?

Also, Lucina isn't a unique class, just overleveled and gives a game-over when killed. I'm also not AGAINST the MU being on the list, I'm just curious as to how they can be placed considering the sheer number of variations.

Its been a long time since i've played awakening, but i'm pretty sure Lucina only has a retreat quote and doesn't cause a game over

[Snowy_One]

You have to bring units like Seth, Haar, Titania, Marcus, etc. in order to rate the lord and compare the lord with every other single unit's performance in the game; it simply is necessary because how else can you measure their performance? By doing a lord solo? That criteria is simply vague because to rate a unit you first need to have another unit as reference, otherwise every unit is considered as awesome by the sole reason of clearing the chapter and its objective. After rating said lord's contributions at trivializing the game (for this tier), you then take lord by lord and compare them.

That also carries the problem of 'both of these units are worse than Seth/Haar/Titania/whoever, so why does it matter which is better?' IMO, it may be best to just assume a group of non-descript average foot units and see how well a unit stacks up to those. That way the 'doesn't matter cause X is better' problem goes away.

[dondon151]

Maybe I've just been watching too many efficiency run from you guys but it seems no lord does anything besides kill occasionally and seize.

some lords kill more occasionally than others. some kill entirely for self-improvement while others play necessary roles in saving turns. the differences in how much they do so accounts for their relative positions in this list.

Only reason I asked was because some of the earlier posts sounded to me like "Ephraim is too high because Seth is better at killing things". I just think it's odd to bring up Seth when discussing Ephraim's value compared to other lords.

it's not odd at all if seth's existence diminishes ephraim's value. i mean, this is plainly observable if you replaced ephraim with franz (just look at all the franzs in FE8 drafts). now that we've established that seth's existence diminishes ephraim's value and seth's existence diminishes franz's value, why doesn't this principle apply to comparisons between games? comparing ephraim to hector doesn't suddenly suggest that seth no longer diminishes ephraim's value.

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.

this entire post is pretty difficult to respond to because it mostly falls under the umbrella of something that's "not even wrong." i can, however, expose the absurdity in this piece of rhetoric with rhetoric of my own:

iron swords are not automatically required for a map and 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.

@dondon; You can look at Wendy's solo performance in that game and judge her to be a bad unit. Especially if you compare it to a game where Miledy is the only character. IMO it's a good way to look at it since it you're judging them solely on combat performance; if Wendy had 40 move there'd probably be some niche for her in vanilla, but in solo she's just as bad.

no you can't. wendy is the best unit in her game and milady is the best unit in her game, because both of them are the only playable units. is milady better than wendy? who knows. wendy could just be in a harder game. and if wendy's in a harder game, maybe she's better than milady. who knows.

That also carries the problem of 'both of these units are worse than Seth/Haar/Titania/whoever, so why does it matter which is better?' IMO, it may be best to just assume a group of non-descript average foot units and see how well a unit stacks up to those. That way the 'doesn't matter cause X is better' problem goes away.

okay. this is actually false, both in the context of this tier list and in the context of FE tier lists in general. i'd appreciate it if you stopped perpetuating this non-truth, thanks.

EDIT:

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

you shouldn't be complaining about the quality of my grammar (which, aside from the capitalization, is generally spot-on) when everyone else is complaining about the quality of your posts.

Edited August 10, 2014 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

no you can't. wendy is the best unit in her game and milady is the best unit in her game, because both of them are the only playable units. is milady better than wendy? who knows. wendy could just be in a harder game. and if wendy's in a harder game, maybe she's better than milady. who knows.

1. 1 is the highest and only number in the set {1}, 2 is the highest and only number in the set {2}. Is 2 bigger than 1? Who knows?

2. I would have thought it went without saying that nothing else about the game changes apart from the playable characters. But thanks for helping me close a possible loophole in my argument.

[dondon151]

2. I would have thought it went without saying that nothing else about the game changes apart from the playable characters. But thanks for helping me close a possible loophole in my argument.

that isn't what i meant. i was indeed assuming that nothing was different between wendy emblem and milady emblem aside from the playable character. you say that wendy is worse, but i say that wendy emblem is just harder.

consider the simplified scenario where normally, wendy and milady have the same growths. now suppose that instead of milady's stats being higher than those of wendy while the enemies' stats are the same between both games, milady and wendy now have the same stats but wendy emblem has enemies with higher stats.

intuitively, we say that milady is better than wendy in the first scenario, while wendy emblem is harder in the second scenario. but there's really no basis in solely affirming either. what happens when everything is different?

1. 1 is the highest and only number in the set {1}, 2 is the highest and only number in the set {2}. Is 2 bigger than 1? Who knows?

this is a bit of a faulty analogy because 1 and 2 are in the set of natural numbers, and we already know that 2 > 1 (or rather, we don't "know," but we can prove it in a lengthy manner). you've made a bit of a circular argument here by presupposing that one set contains an element that's greater than the element of another set. a better analogy would be:

a is the highest and only number in the set {a}, and q is the highest and only number in the set {q}. is q bigger than a? who knows?

Edited August 10, 2014 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

I disagree you were assuming nothing else was different. You said;

if wendy's in a harder game, maybe she's better than milady. who knows

If Wendy's game is harder only because she is worse, how can you possibly assume that Wendy might be better?

----

a = 4p + 3s + 8d (p>0, s>0, d>0)

q = 17p + 13s + 16d

q - a = 13p +10s + 8d

=> q - a > 0

q > a

QED.

If you want to pretend to be incapable of putting those numbers into context I can theorycraft some combat for you.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Baldrick

[dondon151]

I disagree you were assuming nothing else was different. You said;

If Wendy's game is harder only because she is worse, how can you possibly assume that Wendy might be better?

you took that quote out of context (the preceding sentence was important) and i was trying to be eloquent at making my point. i'm not so stupid as to be purposefully dishonest in constructing a thought experiment. to reiterate: that wendy's stats are lower than milady's stats doesn't necessarily mean that wendy is worse than milady; it could instead mean that wendy emblem is harder than milady emblem because the game designers gave wendy lower stats. in no way does that suggest that wendy is better or worse than milady, though.

the conclusion that wendy is better because her game is harder can be reached the same way that we rank DB units in FE10 despite them being "worse" than GM units. i'm not playing some novel logical trick here - jill going into 3-6 is much "worse" than haar going into 3-6, but her contributions could arguably be more valuable because DB maps are more difficult, not in the least because her stats are lower to begin with.

a = 4p + 3s + 8d (p>0, s>0, d>0)

q = 17p + 13s + 16d

q - a = 13p +10s + 8d

=> q - a > 0

q > a

QED.

um, these are still arbitrary values that define the quality of each unit. you shouldn't be able to compare disparate games in this manner, because for example, it wouldn't make sense to compare hector against leif by transposing hector into leif's game and vice versa. but what you're doing is transposing milady into wendy emblem.

Edited August 10, 2014 by dondon151

[bottlegnomes]

the conclusion that wendy is better because her game is harder can be reached the same way that we rank DB units in FE10 despite them being "worse" than GM units. i'm not playing some novel logical trick here - jill going into 3-6 is much "worse" than haar going into 3-6, but her contributions could arguably be more valuable because DB maps are more difficult, not in the least because her stats are lower to begin with.

I think the issue with this scenario is that they're the only unit in their respective games, so their contributions are identical, being the sole contributor to success—like, say, Wind Waker Link vs OoT Link. If they were each one of 2 units in their games, Miredy existing alongside FE10 Haar and Wendy existing alongside, I don't know, Sophia, then this would be more similar to the RD comparison. Sophia would appreciate Wendy's help more than Haar would appreciate Miredy's.

[dondon151]

I think the issue with this scenario is that they're the only unit in their respective games, so their contributions are identical, being the sole contributor to success—like, say, Wind Waker Link vs OoT Link.

yeah, i don't actually think that either can by definition be considered better than the other; i was just trying to provide an equally valid viewpoint that contradicts baldrick. there are a ton of examples, like the link example that you used, or fusion samus vs. prime samus, etc.

Edited August 10, 2014 by dondon151

[bottlegnomes]

yeah, i don't actually think that either can by definition be considered better than the other; i was just trying to provide an equally valid viewpoint that contradicts baldrick. there are a ton of examples, like the link example that you used, or fusion samus vs. prime samus, etc.

Ah, makes sense.

As for the list, seriously, why is Seliph below RD Ike?

[Baldrick]

you took that quote out of context (the preceding sentence was important) and i was trying to be eloquent at making my point. i'm not so stupid as to be purposefully dishonest in constructing a thought experiment. to reiterate: that wendy's stats are lower than milady's stats doesn't necessarily mean that wendy is worse than milady; it could instead mean that wendy emblem is harder than milady emblem.

In that case, how can you ever say A is worse than B? Using A over B just makes the game harder.

the conclusion that wendy is better because her game is harder can be reached the same way that we rank DB units in FE10 despite them being "worse" than GM units. i'm not playing some novel logical trick here - jill going into 3-6 is much "worse" than haar going into 3-6, but her contributions could arguably be more valuable because DB maps are more difficult, not in the least because her stats are lower to begin with.

1. Different maps

2. Jill does have better stats in some areas. Her speed/res stats, growths and caps are better which makes her arguably better for endgame.

This is getting off-topic. This is my last response in this thread.

@The proof. BBM is correct. You can objectively say unit B is better than unit A if B wins in every relevant parameter, unlike Jill v Haar where she is better in some areas and depends on the playstyle.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Baldrick

[BBM]

@Dondon- I think Baldrick chose Wendy/Miledy's base STR/SPD/DEF stats.

[CT075]

Also, Lucina isn't a unique class, just overleveled and gives a game-over when killed.

wait what does lucina have to do with anything? O_o

she does have a unique class (lord. no, chrom existing does not make her class any less unique unless you care to state that chrom isn't a lord either), but she also doesn't game-over when killed i am 90% sure

[bottlegnomes]

Pretty sure Snowy's referring to FE10 Lucia.

Edited August 10, 2014 by bottlegnomes

[Snowy_One]

Yea. It was a typo. Their names are so similar.

[dondon151]

In that case, how can you ever say A is worse than B? Using A over B just makes the game harder.

the key element here is that wendy emblem and milady emblem are different games. or they could be different modes of the same game. the fact that wendy and milady aside, the games are identical doesn't mean anything, because then you still need to provide an adequate justification for when you can compare two units by transposing them into each others' games.

here's another example. when we say that FE6 is harder than FE7, what do we mean? FE6's enemies have higher stats than FE7's enemies on the whole, but marcus, alance, and shanna also have lower stats than marcus, sain/kentadin, and florina. what makes the game harder?

@Dondon- I think Baldrick chose Wendy/Miledy's base STR/SPD/DEF stats.

yes, i'm well aware of this. it's still arbitrary; baldrick picked a set of numbers greater than another set of numbers in order to prove that the former set is greater than the latter set.