Titania is the best in the game.

[Florete]

There are always enemies who can reach your back-liners, be it through long-range magic, ballistae or a simple small hole in your front-lines (it's not like you're ever going to move all your units in a straight line) or even a mage that can kill Rolf, then he's done for, so he has two choices, sit back or die, and obviously we go for the first option, because we don't want dead characters.

I occasionally kill Oliver in RD....

Long-range magic and ballistae are rare in this game.

[Don Draper]

Rolf is actually being compared to Titania? LOL. Wow, not even close

Titania, 20/20 A Mist B Boyd (Forged Silver Axe)

HP 48.2

Atk 43.5

Spd 23.5*

Def 22.6 (+2)

Res 19.6 (+2)

Rolf, 20/20 A Mist B Marcia (Forged Silver Bow)

HP 43.8

Atk 42.7

Spd 26.2

Def 21.4

Res 15.5

Rolf has a bit more speed, but not really because Titania is pretty much doubling everything anyway, and can get a few Knight Ward levels to get up to, say, 25 speed pretty easily.

Otherwise, Titania has more attack, more durability (def/res/HP), more mobility (2 move and move-again), can gain weapon triangle advantage over two types of foes, can attack at 1 range or 1-2 range (instead of just pure 2 range).

Titania is clearly superior to Rolf at 20/20. Now consider that Titania hits 20/20 way earlier than Rolf (in fact Rolf might not even hit it at all), so at any point before endgame the gap becomes huge. I don't need to bring up how the comparison looks in Chapter 9, I hope.

[Raven]

People who are for Rolf think about what Rolf is capable of becoming.

People who are against Rolf think about what Rolf is like when he joins.

Both sides of the argument will never come to an agreement due to different settings, so it's completely pointless.

"Here and now" group will obviously say he sucks, because he does, when he first joins, and for a couple of his levels later.

"Look to the future" group have my vote, since Rolf becomes one of the most useful units in the game.

There is no point in debating over a character if both sides are comparing the character under different conditions, it's impossible.

But, the capability of Rolf becoming an uber pwnage character certainly is much better than the fact he starts off shit. Only serious debators give a shit about starting levels, but the truth is, the majority, especially here at Serenes Forest, don't give a shit.

Sigh.

[CGV]

Sigh.

yeah, that's what I said as well (the sigh and the whole paragraph thing in my own words)

I'm gonna end here. Raven has a good point (he's had a lot of those ITT)

I can't convince people that Rolf (and archers in general) can turn out kick ass and they can't convince me he (and other archers) sucks, so I'm throwing in the towel

Thanks for the postcounts! :D

Edited September 21, 2008 by CGV

[Swordsalmon]

I can't convince people that Rolf (and archers in general) can turn out kick ass and they can't convince me he (and other archers) sucks, so I'm throwing in the towel

Can turn out. That's the most important argument. With tons of babying, any character can turn out good. Still, let me ask a theoretical question.

You have a good character. Very strong, very durable. You later get a weakling who's useless and can't do anything without spending alot of time. He ends up fairly strong at the end of the game, but the first character is still better and was never weak. Who's the stronger character?

That's why Titania>Rofl.

And Archers themselves can still be good, even if their class sucks. Jamuka and Briggid of FE4, along with Klein are pretty good or at least usable, even though they're of the worst class. All three make up for their weakness by having a strong bonus, like skills or supports. Rofl has no benefits, and is horrible.

[Florete]

In terms of overall usefulness, Titania is definitely > Rolf.

In terms of usefulness in the game, it's debatable, but Titania is among the top if not at the top.

In terms of being the BEST, I see that as how a unit turns out, and Titania is not the best there.

[CGV]

I'm gonna end here. Raven has a good point (he's had a lot of those ITT)

I can't convince people that Rolf (and archers in general) can turn out kick ass and they can't convince me he (and other archers) sucks, so I'm throwing in the towel

SS... stop saying Rofl. How many times does a mod have to remind you

[sandmanccl]

The same response? Perhaps. The point is that I'm right, and you fail to see it.

It's not a standpoint, it's a fact. All I have said all the time is that snipers can't counter melee combat, and you have yet to give a good argument against that.

I've said they don't have to counter in melee combat like a dozen fucking times, you imbecile. I guess what I'm saying is that you're right. That's also a completely useless and irrelevant stat because there's maybe one or two guys on my team in any given round that's getting attacked, and it's usually a knight/general that doesn't have enough speed to double-attack because the best strategy in order for pure survivability is to eliminate enemies on your turn.

You can't compare Fire Emblem with games like Advance Wars. They're completely different. They're not even the in the same gaming genre. Strategy Roleplaying Game and Strategy are two completely different things.

Difficulty is completely irrelevant. If a character sucks, that character sucks, no matter how easy the game is. If that character is two-rounded, then no matter how hard or easy the game is, that character is two-rounded.

I fail to see how they're so different. So there's no RPG stats in Advance Wars. It's still a strategy game. You still use your brain to figure out the best possible choice of attack to minimize casualties. The difference with RPG stats is that it's possible to have a unit that can't possibly hurt the enemy, or have a guy that can't be hurt by the enemy. You utilize archer units in the same way that you utilize long range units in any other given strategy game: kill them without fear of retaliation.

I don't care if a unit that never sees an attack from an enemy unit can die easily. That's why he doesn't ever get attacked. If you have issues keeping him up to level, it's because you're not very good at milking enemies for experience. Your argument about how there's usually an enemy that can get behind your lines to attack your weak units holds no water to me because that only happens to me on a first playthrough, and even then that's where cavalier units come in most handy because assuming you keep your army within movement's range of each other (like I do and would suggest others do), you can move them back to protect your flanks while you keep your heavier slow units pushing the march forward.

And now you're completely wrong. I'm not telling people that they shouldn't use archers. You can use archers if you want. I only say that archers suck, especially in this game. And indeed, archers are pretty much impossible to use if you are aiming for max BEXP, which we aim for in debates.

An argument stating why archers suck is an argument saying archers shouldn't be used. It's one and the same thing. And your last point, "which we aim for in debates", who is this we you're talking about? Because you're the only person that's brought it up on this forum, in this thread, that I've even really seen. If "we" is people other than those here at Serene's Forest, go debate with them and I'm sure it will be a huge circlejerk.

Swordmasters are much better than snipers, but the only valuable swordmaster in this game is Zihark with his Earth affinity. Lucia is the second worst unit in the game, Mia downright sucks and Stefan is only really useful for a couple of chapters and has no supports.

The game isn't about averages, no. Debates however, are about averages, support options, joining conditions, availability, skills and all those other things. We're not playing the game right now, we're debating. All you have to do is see the difference between the two.

Swordmasters are much worse than snipers, if you ask me. I'd rather have a guy who can one-round an enemy or help weaken them in case I have to take them out with guys that can't afford to get counter-attacked (which ironically enough is usually a swordmaster) than have a guy who has to go in danger's way in order to be effective. The lack of significant defensive capabilities hurts swordmasters more than it hurts snipers because snipers don't need them the way their class works. Granted, Swordmasters are more usable in FE9 than they were previously and Trueblades are arguably one of the best unit types in FE10, but that doesn't change the fact that the usual FE game forces them to rely on luck.

I'm sorry you don't think GAME MECHANICS shouldn't be allowed into a debate about what is good or not because honestly I think that's the most important standpoint to argue the use of anything. Sort of like why I argue that Clerics are the single most powerful class in Dungeons and Dragons or why I argue that the Heavy is probably the most useful member of any given team in Team Fortress 2 (barring a few maps).

And about the "if you put mind to it" or "if you use him right" and all those other things. We all know how Lucia is one of the worst units in the game. But "if you put mind to her" she suddenly becomes better? Haha, nice try. And guess what, the same applies to Rolf. He sucks and there's nothing you can do about it.

Lucia's stats aren't that great and her growths aren't that great, but you can still make her a worthwhile addition to your army. You can argue all you want about how she sucks and how everyone else is better and you might be right that she's not the best unit, but you're going to have a damned time convincing me she's a bad unit because bad units don't exist in FE9 or 10. (Okay, well, Gareth is pretty much failure in FE10 but you can make other people at least usable, even if they aren't the best.) And yes, this comes entirely from a game mechanics standpoint.

Your own mages are better for taking them down, because enemy mages have such crappy HP that even with a double attack from Ilyana or Tormod you can kill them, and both of them receive no damage in return. And Rolf fares well against mages, huh? Well, there are some mages in chapter 9. Let's see how he really fares against them.

LOTS OF NUMBERS AND A SITUATION TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENS THAT ARCHER UNITS ARE COMPLETELY ALONE AND GET ATTACKED BY A WHOLE SHITLOAD OF ENEMY UNITS

I agree that your mages are better for weakening enemy mages but that's because Resistance is a totally broken stat in FE9. Soren and Ilyana have so much resistance so early that enemy mages do 0 damage to them. That doesn't mean that he isn't useful against them, though. Let's say you're using Gatrie or Brom later on. Let's say they're gonna take a good 20 damage if they get hit and can't one-round the enemy you're fighting. Send an archer in and if he doesn't finish the job, your generals can move in with a greatly reduced chance of getting killed. Now, your archer might get damaged. Hey, it happens. Good thing you brought a healer. Speaking of healers, that's another thing about archers. Let's say there's a ranged unit that can hit just that one square beyond your front-line guy. You run your frontliner up there and he takes enough damage he's in danger, you'd have to run your healer up there. As much as I like Rhys, neither he nor Mist are very durable because their exceptionally low speed makes them doubled by nearly everything. Your archer runs up and is the one that takes damage, your general is now in front of him, your healer heals your archer and is now out of range of possibly being attacked. This situation happens quite often, and doesn't require overanalysis of numbers. Numbers are just game mechanics to determine probabilities and damage. They don't fix a stupid player, and a smart player can ignore them if it never comes into play against how they approach a given battle. That's a fact.

So no, I'm totally bullshitting by making hypothetical situations that never happen.

Fixed.

Let me say some stuff about Rolf.

Rolf is there to fight enemies. That's his job. Now, there's no such a thing as an EXP rank here, so it doesn't matter that he gains more EXP for a kill than other characters. And to continue on the "other characters" part, Rolf fails. Crappy offense, crappy durability and the worst class in the game. By using Rolf, the team is worse off than when he is replaced by a character who is actually good. Remember how I said that he has to fight things? Well, there are many, many more fighters. And guess what? He's a lot worse than all those other fighteres. He joins as your worst character, and even if you give him more EXP than he deserved on average, he will remain sucky. Rolf is a massive detriment to the team.

In debates there's something you need to aim for. In Path of Radiance debates, we aim for max BEXP, and that's a simple fact. Simple debating standards.

Your debating standards, yet again. Not mine. I've said a dozen times I don't give a shit what you and your friends debate. Debate me, you asshole. I'm insulted that you keep thinking I give a shit about how you and your friends approach the game, how you think it should be played, what you place the most importance on. I, and the vast majority of people that bought and played the game that I've talked to, don't really care how many turns it takes them to beat any given level. Doing it in the least amount of turns possible gives you bragging rights, but not much else. It's a personal achievement, and one I don't care about, so stop bringing it up with me.

Also, "debating standards" aren't so simple if you're the only person that knows about them. I didn't know about these "rules" and certainly don't care for them because I was debating the game just fine before I knew about them.

Now, to more specifically address the quote above this paragraph, Rolf gains plenty of XP if you use him right. I can argue that til I'm blue in the face because the fact is that if he's so underleveled he's unusable a couple maps down the road, you genuinely don't make good use of archer/underleveled units. They're in every FE game. I like using them because I get satisfaction out of making those that start weakest end up powerful. They are hardly bad units. They just take a bit of work.

And I don't tell how people have to beat the game, I debate whether a character is good or not.

No you are not. How can you not see that? You're telling me that I need to beat the game in the least amount of turns possible and get the most bonus experience I can get. That IS what you're argument is all about. You get satisfaction out of min/maxing everything. Okay. I can understand that. I get satisfaction out of doing something different that still gives you the end-result: beating the game.

Are you preventing your team from advancing? I hope you're not. And if you actually do that and no enemy can attack him, then all you do is waste a turn, and that's not what you want.

No. I still move up the guys that should be moved up. I never put anyone in a situation they can't handle. I don't care if my swordmaster would be attacked by only two guys and they only had a 20% chance apiece to hit him. If both hits would kill him, I don't send him out there. I'm also of the mind that any game never needs to look like a series of lucky breaks. You beat it right without fail, every time, without relying on restarting until something goes your way with units that have more luck (not the raw stat, but as in people that simply have more stats and therefore the random number generator is slightly more in their favor). I'm not saying I've never restarted a Fire Emblem game at my last save because a character I liked died, but I will say I only do that during casual runs where I don't care about the personal satisfaction of doing things like a master.

(edited out quotes because I used too many quote boxes. Basically you pulled out arguments on the support system.)

Supports help but hardly change the game. Pairing up Rolf with Rhys isn't a bad idea because they will likely be near each other a lot, and if you choose to use Kieran or Titania, they have plenty of other support options. That's why nearly ever unit has multiple options for supports.

And the fact YOU can't get him up to par quickly means YOU don't use archers correctly. I have absolutely no problem getting him into fighting shape quickly. Half the strategy in Fire Emblem games is learning how to utilize your units in order to maximize the experience they can all gain in battle. (Example: your swordmaster will one-round some guy because he double-attacks and he's overleveled for some reason. Your knight and archer can both get a hit in without killing the unit. You attack with the archer, then the knight, then finish him off with your swordmaster. Now you got the 30 or so experience between the first two guys and the 30 or so for finishing off the unit with your final guy, instead of just the 30 experience on one guy. Simple concept and one of the reasons I advocate slow units to people who think speed is the answer to everything.) Bonus experience only kind of changes that because it means you can beat a map quicker for more XP to help level up units you haven't got yet rather than rely on the ones already in your party, but it doesn't change the fact that guy is still gaining experience.

tl;dr you're trying to debate things with rules that no one here cares/knows about, therefore offending those you're "debating" against because you're ignoring everything we say because it doesn't fall within your bullshit guidelines of how to argue a game.

[Tino]

I've said they don't have to counter in melee combat like a dozen fucking times, you imbecile. I guess what I'm saying is that you're right. That's also a completely useless and irrelevant stat because there's maybe one or two guys on my team in any given round that's getting attacked, and it's usually a knight/general that doesn't have enough speed to double-attack because the best strategy in order for pure survivability is to eliminate enemies on your turn.

You can flame all you want, but you won't achieve a single thing with it.

Useless and irrelevant? Wrong. Getting EXP for less than 50% of the time is highly relevant. It hurts your team so badly that it isn't funny anymore. And the only useful General is Brom, and he actually can double with the KW, which he will get because he's the only General/Halberdier played, and the Paladins can use it while receiving BEXP.

Of course you should kill as much enemies as possible on your turn. However, it's impossible to kill them all, so there will always be enemies that attack you on your turn, and there are usually more than two.

I fail to see how they're so different. So there's no RPG stats in Advance Wars. It's still a strategy game. You still use your brain to figure out the best possible choice of attack to minimize casualties. The difference with RPG stats is that it's possible to have a unit that can't possibly hurt the enemy, or have a guy that can't be hurt by the enemy. You utilize archer units in the same way that you utilize long range units in any other given strategy game: kill them without fear of retaliation.

I don't care if a unit that never sees an attack from an enemy unit can die easily. That's why he doesn't ever get attacked. If you have issues keeping him up to level, it's because you're not very good at milking enemies for experience. Your argument about how there's usually an enemy that can get behind your lines to attack your weak units holds no water to me because that only happens to me on a first playthrough, and even then that's where cavalier units come in most handy because assuming you keep your army within movement's range of each other (like I do and would suggest others do), you can move them back to protect your flanks while you keep your heavier slow units pushing the march forward.

Except that Fire Emblem has an actual leveling system, which makes the game a hell of a lot different than Advance Wars. Advance Wars also has CO Powers, which Fire Emblem doesn't have, Fire Emblem has supports which Advance Wars doesn't have, etc.

In Advance Wars, your units don't gain EXP, whereas in Fire Emblem, they do, which is the main reason that archers, who can only attack less than 50% of the time barely gain any experience.

Milking enemies is for another unit to kill him is what we call babying. Now, if it would be for one or perhaps two chapters, that would be fine, but Rolf needs babying and getting mooch kills all the time, which is favoritism, which is invalid in debates. Besides, it sucks if you need mooch kills. It's a sign of weakness.

An argument stating why archers suck is an argument saying archers shouldn't be used. It's one and the same thing. And your last point, "which we aim for in debates", who is this we you're talking about? Because you're the only person that's brought it up on this forum, in this thread, that I've even really seen. If "we" is people other than those here at Serene's Forest, go debate with them and I'm sure it will be a huge circlejerk.

No. I state archers suck, but I don't tell people not to use them. If people like using archers, let them, I'm just doing what I like, and that's debating. Debating and telling people which characters to use and not to use are two seperate things.

General debating standards.

Swordmasters are much worse than snipers, if you ask me. I'd rather have a guy who can one-round an enemy or help weaken them in case I have to take them out with guys that can't afford to get counter-attacked (which ironically enough is usually a swordmaster) than have a guy who has to go in danger's way in order to be effective. The lack of significant defensive capabilities hurts swordmasters more than it hurts snipers because snipers don't need them the way their class works. Granted, Swordmasters are more usable in FE9 than they were previously and Trueblades are arguably one of the best unit types in FE10, but that doesn't change the fact that the usual FE game forces them to rely on luck.

I'm sorry you don't think GAME MECHANICS shouldn't be allowed into a debate about what is good or not because honestly I think that's the most important standpoint to argue the use of anything. Sort of like why I argue that Clerics are the single most powerful class in Dungeons and Dragons or why I argue that the Heavy is probably the most useful member of any given team in Team Fortress 2 (barring a few maps).

Now you're talking about stats, which are (again) character dependent. This makes everything you said null.

I have never played Dungeons and Dragons and neither have I played Team Fortress 2, so I can't tell exactly what you mean.

What do you understand under game mechanics?

Lucia's stats aren't that great and her growths aren't that great, but you can still make her a worthwhile addition to your army. You can argue all you want about how she sucks and how everyone else is better and you might be right that she's not the best unit, but you're going to have a damned time convincing me she's a bad unit because bad units don't exist in FE9 or 10. (Okay, well, Gareth is pretty much failure in FE10 but you can make other people at least usable, even if they aren't the best.) And yes, this comes entirely from a game mechanics standpoint.

Yes, Lucia can be useful, that's true. You haven't heard me say that she can't be used. She can be used perfectly well. Rolf however, has no use at all, making Lucia the second worst unit instead of the worst.

I agree that your mages are better for weakening enemy mages but that's because Resistance is a totally broken stat in FE9. Soren and Ilyana have so much resistance so early that enemy mages do 0 damage to them. That doesn't mean that he isn't useful against them, though. Let's say you're using Gatrie or Brom later on. Let's say they're gonna take a good 20 damage if they get hit and can't one-round the enemy you're fighting. Send an archer in and if he doesn't finish the job, your generals can move in with a greatly reduced chance of getting killed. Now, your archer might get damaged. Hey, it happens. Good thing you brought a healer. Speaking of healers, that's another thing about archers. Let's say there's a ranged unit that can hit just that one square beyond your front-line guy. You run your frontliner up there and he takes enough damage he's in danger, you'd have to run your healer up there. As much as I like Rhys, neither he nor Mist are very durable because their exceptionally low speed makes them doubled by nearly everything. Your archer runs up and is the one that takes damage, your general is now in front of him, your healer heals your archer and is now out of range of possibly being attacked. This situation happens quite often, and doesn't require overanalysis of numbers. Numbers are just game mechanics to determine probabilities and damage. They don't fix a stupid player, and a smart player can ignore them if it never comes into play against how they approach a given battle. That's a fact.

You're going to use Brom ^_^

Let me tell you a story.

There was this enemy mage. He could deal 20 damage to Brom (not that it actually happens, but still), our general. Now, we have Rolf, our archer with fairly non-existent Resistance. He attacks the mage and his HP drops to below half his maximum HP. Then Brom kills the enemy mage.

Another story.

There was this enemy mage. He could deal 20 damage to Brom, our general. Now, we have Ilyana, our mage with massive Resistance. She attacks the mage and takes no damage in return. The Bromkills the enemy mage.

It's pretty easy to see which of the two is better for your team, right? You take no damage at all when you use a mage instead of an archer, and your healer will be able to do other things instead of having to heal unnecessary wounds of an archer.

Also, Rhys's speed isn't as bad as you think.

Note: Not my data~

Data From Chapter 26

Average Swordmaster Attack Speed: 22

Average Warrior Attack Speed: 14

Average Tiger Attack Speed: 16

Average Cat Attack Speed: 17

Average Sniper Attack Speed: 15

Average Sage Attack Speed: 15

Average General Attack Speed: 8

Average Bishop Attack Speed: 11

Average Halberdier Attack Speed: 15

Average Wyvern Attack Speed: 13

Average Paladin Attack Speed: 17

Bertram's Attack Speed: 22

Rhys's 20/15 Attack Speed: 17 Light, 15 Shine

Average Warrior Hit: ~90

Average Swordmaster Hit: ~127

Average Wyvern Lord Hit: ~100

Rhys's 20/15 Evade: 56 Light, 52 Shine

Average Swordmaster/Sniper Critical: 25

Average Swordmaster/Sniper Attack: 23

HP: 35

Critical Evade: 22

Defense: 10

Data From Chapter 27

Average Swordmaster Attack Speed: 21

Average Warrior Attack Speed: 12

Average Tiger Attack Speed: 18

Average Cat Attack Speed: 19

Average Sniper Attack Speed: 14

Average Sage Attack Speed: 14

Average General Attack Speed: 8

Rhys's 20/17 Attack Speed: 18 Light, 16 Shine

Average Warrior Hit: ~90

Average Swordmaster Hit: ~125

Rhys's 20/17 Evade: 60 Light, 56 Shine

Average Swordmaster/Sniper Critical: 24

Average Swordmaster/Sniper Attack: 24

HP: 37

Critical Evade: 24

Defense: 11

As you see, Rhys doesn't have as bad speed as you think. And Mist has pretty good speed, too. Even better speed than Rhys, if memory serves well (too lazy to check it :P)

Also, are you saying that you should have an archer defend your healer? Why? Why would you want an archer to defend your healer? You would rather want a character who can actually kill on the enemy phase to defend your healer, obviously. Again, your healer will only heal unnecessary wounds this way.

Your debating standards, yet again. Not mine. I've said a dozen times I don't give a shit what you and your friends debate. Debate me, you asshole. I'm insulted that you keep thinking I give a shit about how you and your friends approach the game, how you think it should be played, what you place the most importance on. I, and the vast majority of people that bought and played the game that I've talked to, don't really care how many turns it takes them to beat any given level. Doing it in the least amount of turns possible gives you bragging rights, but not much else. It's a personal achievement, and one I don't care about, so stop bringing it up with me.

Also, "debating standards" aren't so simple if you're the only person that knows about them. I didn't know about these "rules" and certainly don't care for them because I was debating the game just fine before I knew about them.

Now, to more specifically address the quote above this paragraph, Rolf gains plenty of XP if you use him right. I can argue that til I'm blue in the face because the fact is that if he's so underleveled he's unusable a couple maps down the road, you genuinely don't make good use of archer/underleveled units. They're in every FE game. I like using them because I get satisfaction out of making those that start weakest end up powerful. They are hardly bad units. They just take a bit of work.

General debating standards, not mine. They're used in all debates. And again, I don't tell people how to play the game, but I debate the characters that in it and whether they are good or not, or whether character A > character B or not and all those things. I've stated this multiple times now, and you still say that I tell people how to play the game. But in all seriousness, I do NOT.

There's this nice topic I made for everybody to take a look at the debating standards, so that argument is null now, because everybody can know about them, and if you don't want to read them, then you also may not complain about me following the standards while you don't.

Rolf takes a lot of work to become a bad unit. I don't see how such a character can benefit the team in any way. And again, "you don't use him right" is a bad argument, for we're not discussing how to play the game, but whether a character is good or not. Everybody has a different playing style, so that argument can't be brought up.

No you are not. How can you not see that? You're telling me that I need to beat the game in the least amount of turns possible and get the most bonus experience I can get. That IS what you're argument is all about. You get satisfaction out of min/maxing everything. Okay. I can understand that. I get satisfaction out of doing something different that still gives you the end-result: beating the game.

No, that's what we assume when we're debating anything about the game, to get max BEXP. I don't care whether people want to beat the game with max BEXP or not. Hell, just let them gain no BEXP if they want to. I don't care. But in debates we assume that max BEXP is gained, and that's part of the debating standards which you will have to follow if you want to debate.

No. I still move up the guys that should be moved up. I never put anyone in a situation they can't handle. I don't care if my swordmaster would be attacked by only two guys and they only had a 20% chance apiece to hit him. If both hits would kill him, I don't send him out there. I'm also of the mind that any game never needs to look like a series of lucky breaks. You beat it right without fail, every time, without relying on restarting until something goes your way with units that have more luck (not the raw stat, but as in people that simply have more stats and therefore the random number generator is slightly more in their favor). I'm not saying I've never restarted a Fire Emblem game at my last save because a character I liked died, but I will say I only do that during casual runs where I don't care about the personal satisfaction of doing things like a master.

That makes the entire "move an archer in front of the whole group" argument null, because archers simply can't handle those situations.

Supports help but hardly change the game. Pairing up Rolf with Rhys isn't a bad idea because they will likely be near each other a lot, and if you choose to use Kieran or Titania, they have plenty of other support options. That's why nearly ever unit has multiple options for supports.

And the fact YOU can't get him up to par quickly means YOU don't use archers correctly. I have absolutely no problem getting him into fighting shape quickly. Half the strategy in Fire Emblem games is learning how to utilize your units in order to maximize the experience they can all gain in battle. (Example: your swordmaster will one-round some guy because he double-attacks and he's overleveled for some reason. Your knight and archer can both get a hit in without killing the unit. You attack with the archer, then the knight, then finish him off with your swordmaster. Now you got the 30 or so experience between the first two guys and the 30 or so for finishing off the unit with your final guy, instead of just the 30 experience on one guy. Simple concept and one of the reasons I advocate slow units to people who think speed is the answer to everything.) Bonus experience only kind of changes that because it means you can beat a map quicker for more XP to help level up units you haven't got yet rather than rely on the ones already in your party, but it doesn't change the fact that guy is still gaining experience.

tl;dr you're trying to debate things with rules that no one here cares/knows about, therefore offending those you're "debating" against because you're ignoring everything we say because it doesn't fall within your bullshit guidelines of how to argue a game.

Supports defenitely can change a character completely. I mean, Mist gains full defense from her supports, making her a very durable character, while she would be cannon fodder without supports. See what I mean?

And Rolf is Rhys's worst support options, so Rolf will never support Rhys. All characters that Rhys supports are better than Rolf, so why would Rhys take Rolf over them? Also, Rolf gives shitty bonuses.

"you don't use him correctly" is enough for me not to counter this anymore, because I have already countered this earlier in this post.

Again, not my guidelines, but the general debating guidelines that all debaters follow, and so should all people here if they want to debate.

[Leonri]

Seriously, flaming is bad. Very bad. So don't do it.

I hardly think only 50% Exp is accurate. 80% is more realistic as enemies do not get to attack 100% of the time.

Rolf beats Lucia everywhere. I don't understand how you can seriously consider them equal. Rolf is vulnerable under level 5. Lucia will always be vulnerable, with her awful stats

Milking enemies is for another unit to kill him is what we call babying. Now, if it would be for one or perhaps two chapters, that would be fine, but Rolf needs babying and getting mooch kills all the time, which is favoritism, which is invalid in debates. Besides, it sucks if you need mooch kills. It's a sign of weakness.

Wrong! He needs a little babying on the first chapter, and about three levels from Bexp. After that he's rocking. He comes just before the raven chapters, against which he'll gain exp fast.

Rolf takes a lot of work to become a bad unit. I don't see how such a character can benefit the team in any way. And again, "you don't use him right" is a bad argument, for we're not discussing how to play the game, but whether a character is good or not.

Rolf takes a little work to become a very good unit. He benefits everyone by destroying enemies very fast. He can take out very dangerous enemies, that would otherwise put your melee units at risk.

High strength+huge critical= Excellent offense

Good avoid+very good defense=Very good durability

Most importantly he has great stats. You can't deny that so you can'yt say he's a bad unit.

[Tino]

I hardly think only 50% Exp is accurate. 80% is more realistic as enemies do not get to attack 100% of the time.

Rolf can attack only on the player phase, on which he won't attack all the time, so less than 50% is completely accurate.

Rolf beats Lucia everywhere. I don't understand how you can seriously consider them equal. Rolf is vulnerable under level 5. Lucia will always be vulnerable, with her awful stats

Rolf is always a detriment to the team. Lucia is never a detriment to the team, but the fact that she comes so late makes her the second worst character in the game.

Wrong! He needs a little babying on the first chapter, and about three levels from Bexp. After that he's rocking. He comes just before the raven chapters, against which he'll gain exp fast.

Sure, he can two-round the Ravens there, but the Ravens also rape him to death with their great stats.

Rolf takes a little work to become a very good unit. He benefits everyone by destroying enemies very fast. He can take out very dangerous enemies, that would otherwise put your melee units at risk.

That's what you have mages for, or Javelins and Hand Axes. They do the job much better than archers, because they can actually still do something on the enemy phase.

High strength+huge critical= Excellent offense

Good avoid+very good defense=Very good durability

Sure, that's why he's one or two-rounded by everything when he joins and still two or three-rounded nine chapters later <_<

Most importantly he has great stats. You can't deny that so you can'yt say he's a bad unit.

He can't kill and can't survive (which I have proven). Yes, that's absolutely great </sarcasm>

[Leonri]

Rolf can attack only on the player phase, on which he won't attack all the time, so less than 50% is completely accurate.

Rolf is always a detriment to the team. Lucia is never a detriment to the team, but the fact that she comes so late makes her the second worst character in the game.

Sure, he can two-round the Ravens there, but the Ravens also rape him to death with their great stats.

That's what you have mages for, or Javelins and Hand Axes. They do the job much better than archers, because they can actually still do something on the enemy phase.

Sure, that's why he's one or two-rounded by everything when he joins and still two or three-rounded nine chapters later <_<

He can't kill and can't survive (which I have proven). Yes, that's absolutely great </sarcasm>

50% is still way too low. 80% is a much more realistic number.

How is Lucia a benefit to the team? I really can't see that.

And? They do that to everyone on the team. Rolf doesn't have to fear a counter attack.

Javelins and Hand-Axes suck. Poor Might, bad hit, high weight. Sure they're better varieties, but they're rare. Bows are the best ranged weapons. No counter>>general suckiness

Two or three-rounded? Hardly. More like five. About equal to Boyd. He has better Defence and Avoid than him, but less Hp, so he's as durable as Boyd is. Also he can kill. Very easily in fact. His base strength is one point under Oscar's and his growths just 5 under Oscar's

You're "proof" doesn't stand up. That's assuming he's a 10 levels lower than everyone else, which is obviously biased.

[Judge Judy]

This debate is getting out of control......maybe I should stay out of it :(

[Tino]

50% is still way too low. 80% is a much more realistic number.

He attacks only on the enemy phase, so that's 50%, and then he also doesn't attack always on the player phase, so it's even less than 50%. Epic fail.

How is Lucia a benefit to the team? I really can't see that.

She doesn't benefit the team, but at least she's never a detriment to the team, unlike Rolf.

And? They do that to everyone on the team. Rolf doesn't have to fear a counter attack

*points at Ilyana and hand axes and javelins*

Seriously, Rolf's durability is so fail that he can't survive two attacks, unlike your other characters, who can survive at least two rounds of combat with them, and by that time, the Ravens will be killed off, which means they won't die, while Rolf will.

Javelins and Hand-Axes suck. Poor Might, bad hit, high weight. Sure they're better varieties, but they're rare. Bows are the best ranged weapons. No counter>>general suckiness

Hit is not a problem. Enemies have low enough Avoid to hit very frequently with Hand Axes and Javelins. And Weight also doesn't matter too much.

As for Might, a Hand Axe has more Might than an Iron Bow, so that's not true at all -_- Obviously, a Silver Bow has more Might than a Hand Axe or Javelin, but that doesn't matter, because there are also those nasty Tomahawks and Spears that can be used, as well as magic weapons and Short Spears and Short Axes (although from the higher ranked weapons there aren't as much as Javelins and Hand Axes).

Two or three-rounded? Hardly. More like five. About equal to Boyd. He has better Defence and Avoid than him, but less Hp, so he's as durable as Boyd is. Also he can kill. Very easily in fact. His base strength is one point under Oscar's and his growths just 5 under Oscar's

You're "proof" doesn't stand up. That's assuming he's a 10 levels lower than everyone else, which is obviously biased.

Not biased at all. His level is realistic, because he gains so few experience, which gives him bad offense, durability and mobility.

This debate is getting out of control......maybe I should stay out of it

If you don't plan on adding something to the debate, please don't post in it.

[Don Draper]

Rolf is actually being compared to Titania? LOL. Wow, not even close

Titania, 20/20 A Mist B Boyd (Forged Silver Axe)

HP 48.2

Atk 43.5

Spd 23.5*

Def 22.6 (+2)

Res 19.6 (+2)

Rolf, 20/20 A Mist B Marcia (Forged Silver Bow)

HP 43.8

Atk 42.7

Spd 26.2

Def 21.4

Res 15.5

Rolf has a bit more speed, but not really because Titania is pretty much doubling everything anyway, and can get a few Knight Ward levels to get up to, say, 25 speed pretty easily.

Otherwise, Titania has more attack, more durability (def/res/HP), more mobility (2 move and move-again), can gain weapon triangle advantage over two types of foes, can attack at 1 range or 1-2 range (instead of just pure 2 range).

Titania is clearly superior to Rolf at 20/20. Now consider that Titania hits 20/20 way earlier than Rolf (in fact Rolf might not even hit it at all), so at any point before endgame the gap becomes huge. I don't need to bring up how the comparison looks in Chapter 9, I hope.

Once again, proof that Titania is better then Rofl at Endgame. And before you complain, I didn't include Skill/Luck because they don't matter. Titania has slightly more Luck, but Rofl more Skill, but neither stat makes a difference. Titania>Rofl at Endgame, as well as the entire game.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IOS

[Rehab]

I'm going to do a playthrough using only characters considered low and bottom tier on easy mode and use no bexp. I am such a fucking rebel.

[Leonri]

Once again, proof that Titania is better then Rofl at Endgame. And before you complain, I didn't include Skill/Luck because they don't matter. Titania has slightly more Luck, but Rofl more Skill, but neither stat makes a difference. Titania>Rofl at Endgame, as well as the entire game.

Wht do people always underestimate skill and luck? Skill adds to your critical and adds to your hit. Luck takes away your opponents critical, adds hit and avoid. They're both important.

Titania is only slightly beating Rolf and only because of Supports. What are the (+2)'s ? Stat boosters?

[Kintenbo]

Tino, archers/snipers are in FE for a reason (like providing extra firepower from behind). If you can't figure out how to use them effectively... you just suck at using them...

And what about healers? What do you think of healers? Are they completely useless because they can't even attack?

He already explained why Archers are bad. Even if you use them the way you claim is right, they'll still suffer from inadequet experience, which is a detriment to your underleveled Rolf. I love to use Rebecca, but I cannot deny the fact she is difficult to raise. (even though she's a ton better than Wil)

Healers are vital for keeping your folks alive, nobody will deny that. Healers aren't bad because that's their job, to heal and survive. Rolf's job is to kill and survive, which he certainly is awful at in the beginning. Even then, Tino already mentioned how he still will be in the same boat for a while. You basically need to use all the bonus experience you have to get him up to par.

Oh yeah, Sandmanccl, try to show some decency. You're definately not acting like an adult, which at apparently 22, is rather embarrasing. Insulting people over a video game is very immature.

[Don Draper]

Luck/Skill are irrelivant because...

Critical has a 1-2% difference between the two, so its negligible

Hit will always be 90-100% anyways due to High Skill and Luck/Extra Hit from Forge/Support Bonuses (They each get an extra 17% from supports).

1 Critical Evade difference between the two makes no difference

2% Extra Avoid from Luck makes no difference.

Bonuses come from Knight Ward, if she has it equipped.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IOS

[Tino]

Luck/Skill are irrelivant because...

Critical has a 1-2% difference between the two, so its negligible

Hit will always be 90-100% anyways due to High Skill and Luck/Extra Hit from Forge/Support Bonuses (They each get an extra 17% from supports).

1 Critical Evade difference between the two makes no difference

2% Extra Avoid from Luck makes no difference.

Bonuses come from Knight Ward, if she has it equipped.

Crit of your own characters indeed doesn't matter much, but once we're talking about Swordmasters or Berserkers, then Crit does matter, especially with a Killer weapon equipped.

Hit actually can matter, especially with Biorythm and skills like Tempest and Serenity, because even though enemies don't have uber Avoid, they still have Avoid, mainly because they actually have luck and not just Speed, of which the, for example, FE7 enemies had next to nothing, and no Luck at all.

It actually can. If one character can be OHKO'd because he can be crit'd while the other can't be crit'd, then it's obvious who wins ;)

----------

And Kintenbo, you're awesome <3

[Don Draper]

...I'm arguing your side

[Tino]

I know, but that doesn't mean I can't point out the things you argued wrong ;)

[Swordsalmon]

Rolf beats Lucia everywhere. I don't understand how you can seriously consider them equal. Rolf is vulnerable under level 5. Lucia will always be vulnerable, with her awful stats

Wrong! He needs a little babying on the first chapter, and about three levels from Bexp. After that he's rocking. He comes just before the raven chapters, against which he'll gain exp fast.

Rolf takes a little work to become a very good unit. He benefits everyone by destroying enemies very fast. He can take out very dangerous enemies, that would otherwise put your melee units at risk.

High strength+huge critical= Excellent offense

Good avoid+very good defense=Very good durability

Most importantly he has great stats. You can't deny that so you can'yt say he's a bad unit.

While Lucia is indeed pretty bad, she can use Silver weapons right from the start, and is useful in her chapter by combating the Berserkers and Laguz. Lucia is doing more right at that point then Rolf will ever do. And without any babying.

A little babying? A level 7 Rolf is two-rounded by the Ravens, which he's 'best' against. Also, he three-rounds them, so it takes much longer to kill the Ravens, reducing BEXP. Besides, giving 300 BEXP reduces greatly from the superior characters. ^_^

Melee characters are rarely at risk. Oscar, Titania, and Boyd are all incredibly durable, and Brom, Kieran, Marcia, Ike, and Zihark have reliable enough defenses. Rolf has the worst durability out of every fighting character.

He doesn't get those stats until 20/20, which never happens.

I find it quite silly that you say Rolf has excellent stats, yet then Titania is bashed for having 'mediocre' stats though they're all higher than his. O_o

Wht do people always underestimate skill and luck? Skill adds to your critical and adds to your hit. Luck takes away your opponents critical, adds hit and avoid. They're both important.

Titania is only slightly beating Rolf and only because of Supports. What are the (+2)'s ? Stat boosters?

Skill rarely effects anything to be of much use, and Luck doesn't give enough bonuses.

We've proven that Titania is still superior than Rolf even without supports. Heck, if Rolf had optimal supports, he'd still be beaten by a supportless Titania.

[sandmanccl]

You can flame all you want, but you won't achieve a single thing with it.

Useless and irrelevant? Wrong. Getting EXP for less than 50% of the time is highly relevant. It hurts your team so badly that it isn't funny anymore. And the only useful General is Brom, and he actually can double with the KW, which he will get because he's the only General/Halberdier played, and the Paladins can use it while receiving BEXP.

By 50% of the time, you really mean like 80% of the time, because it's very rare that the vast majority of your army gains experience on the enemy turn. You're too stupid to see that. You fucking fail. Asshole.

VERBAL DIARRHEA ABOUT HOW STRATEGY GAMES CAN'T BE SIMILAR AT ALL BECAUSE EVERY GAME ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET THAT IS A DIFFERENT SERIES HAS THINGS THAT MAKE IT UNIQUE BUT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT AT THE VERY, VERY, VERY CORE OF THE GAME, IT'S STILL THE SAME BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY GET LUMPED INTO THE SAME GAME GENRE ALSO I AM A FUCKING DOOFUS THAT CAN'T LISTEN TO REASON BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE OF SOME BULLSHIT GUIDLINES I READ ABOUT ON THE INTERNETS THAT MEANS IT IS INFALLIBLE AND MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED

Fixed. Read at least one thing I'm saying, you fucking twat.

No. I state archers suck, but I don't tell people not to use them. If people like using archers, let them, I'm just doing what I like, and that's debating. Debating and telling people which characters to use and not to use are two seperate things.

Oh, you fucking doofus. How can you not see that telling someone that something is completely not worth using is the same as telling someone to not use that unit? Holy god, you're stupid.

General debating standards.

Now you're talking about stats, which are (again) character dependent. This makes everything you said null.

I have never played Dungeons and Dragons and neither have I played Team Fortress 2, so I can't tell exactly what you mean.

That doesn't make what I said any less relevant, you bloated pillar of fat molecules. Game Mechanics are the most important thing. End of discussion. Everything else is trying to figure out how to achieve a certain specific goal within the game mechanics. End of discussion. There is nothing else that can be said about it because that is the cold, hard facts.

You're going to use Brom ^_^

Let me tell you a story.

There was this enemy mage. He could deal 20 damage to Brom (not that it actually happens, but still), our general. Now, we have Rolf, our archer with fairly non-existent Resistance. He attacks the mage and his HP drops to below half his maximum HP. Then Brom kills the enemy mage.

You're forgetting the part where your healer gets Rolf back up to full health, asshole. Stop changing the story to try and make it fit your ideals.

Yeah, sure, you could attack that guy with a mage. You're forgetting the part where there's an enemy unit with a ranged attack that has enough speed to double-attack the guy directly behind Brom. Ilyana is not a fast unit, and her defense is sage-like terrible, and she has low HP. She dies this next round. Rolf has better defense than Ilyana does. He'd survive it assuming you raised him right. Looks like I still win, because I laid down a scenario that actually happens quite often. Hmm, I guess you wouldn't understand anything about that because you have to bullshit your way through everything by changing the situation to fit your needs instead of giving me any credit for when I have a point.

Funny thing is, Ilyana is still on my team. She's busy helping nuke other things, though. It happens. That's one of the reasons you get to front 10 to 15 guys on maps.

You belligerent shit factory.

Also keep in mind that path of radiance is decidedly super easy. My healers, more often than not, sit around doing nothing. Rhys STILL isn't promoted and I'm at chapter 22, even though whenever a unit takes even a pip of damage or even just gains a single HP from a level up, he's there to fix them up. It'd take a shitload of bonus experience to make him worthwhile. On the other hand, Rolf is a level 1 sniper now and holds his own against, well, everything I can come against.

Predition: you're going to say PEMN. Too bad this is fact, my friend. There's rarely a situation where my guys even get hurt because ON AVERAGE, Brom, Makalov, and even Astrid have enough defense to not take damage outside of maybe the final two fights in the game and from bosses, and Ike and Zihark are fast enough to dodge very well (AND they have good defense considering how weak enemies are) and my other units never get attacked because I'm not stupid. Considering they are my front three, no one is even getting hurt and so I feel like my healers are useless. I HAVE to put my weaker guys in harm's way to make my healers worthwhile.

Also, Rhys's speed isn't as bad as you think.

He's got 8 speed at level 20/0. Sorry, Mr. Logical Fallacy, that's pretty awful. And before you say OH HE SHOULD BE HIGHER LEVELED, the fuck how? I've already explained I've used him every time I could, which unfortunately equated to maybe 3 turns on any given map. Brom starts out with more than that. Also I'm ignoring everything else you posted with the exact numbers and shit because none of that has ever, ever come into play for me, ever. A guy is either slow enough to be double-attacked or not. He's still getting double-attacked, therefore, he's slow.

Also, are you saying that you should have an archer defend your healer? Why? Why would you want an archer to defend your healer? You would rather want a character who can actually kill on the enemy phase to defend your healer, obviously. Again, your healer will only heal unnecessary wounds this way.

Where the fuck did you get that fucking stupid fucking idea? You're like a steaming pile of crap that somehow developed arms and figured out how to type on a computer.

My units are ALWAYS within movement's range of each other. Exceptions are when I split my party into two groups, and even then, there's plenty of guys to go around to get everything done.

It's not a terrible idea to have an archer near your healer at most times, anyway, because quite often there's Wyvern Knights and Pegasus Knights to fly in. Archers are very good for taking those out.

General debating standards, not mine. They're used in all debates. And again, I don't tell people how to play the game, but I debate the characters that in it and whether they are good or not, or whether character A > character B or not and all those things. I've stated this multiple times now, and you still say that I tell people how to play the game. But in all seriousness, I do NOT.

There's this nice topic I made for everybody to take a look at the debating standards, so that argument is null now, because everybody can know about them, and if you don't want to read them, then you also may not complain about me following the standards while you don't.

You fucking do. Pull your head out of your ass and use real-life assessment skills to review what you're saying. You are so telling people to not use archers because they "suck" and are "useless." You've used those adjectives. That is saying to not use them. How can you not see that? I've pointed it out to you like a hundred times, and so have the mods, and you still refuse to see it because you feel like you can hide behind your stupid "debate guidelines" that were laid down by people OTHER than the community you are currently addressing. I can keep telling you that you're full of shit for saying GENERAL DEBATING GUIDELINES BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW because just like 10 pages ago, there's only a handful of people who give a shit. That fact has not changed. The fact you keep using "general debate guidelines" to back up your arguments instead of your own opinions on how people should approach the game suggests to me you have down syndrome or Asperger's syndrome or something like that.

No, that's what I assume when I'm debating anything about the game, to get max BEXP. I care very much if people beat the game with max bonus XP because all my arguments revolve around this statistic, therefore making all my arguments in favor of obtaining max bonus experience. Hell, just let them gain no BEXP if they want to. I will think they are an inferior player for not using the units I've told them they should be using. But in debates I assume that max BEXP is gained, and that's part of the debating standards which I follow and everything that anyone else ever says that doesn't follow them is null and void to me because I can't be human.

I fixed what you just said right here. I hope you realize this is what is going on. This is all about you, man. You keep saying "we" but it's all about you. You are trying to tell us what we can and cannot argue for, just for YOUR sake, so that YOU can be right.

Again, not my guidelines, but the general debating guidelines that all debaters follow, and so should all people here if they want to debate with me.

Stop being a self-centered asshole, you smelly behemoth. I'm not saying there aren't other people here who follow your guidelines on "debating" but I will say the vast majority of people here care absolutely nothing for them, including the people who run the site and if you try and change the nature of any place away from what the people who run the site want, you are in the wrong.

You don't use him correctly. You have not countered that. The fact is it's very possible to gain Rolf a lot of experience with relatively little effort. You HAVE NOT COUNTERED THAT. You think you have, but it's a FACT people have been able to raise up Rolf without any difficulties, NUMEROUS times. That is FACT. That is not PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, but just plain FACT. You are NOT using him right if you can't make him worthwhile. That is FACT.

[Leonri]

Stop flaming!

No wonder he doesn't respect your arguments if you're verbally abusing everyone!