Do you prefer Wyvern Riders starting off with lances or axes?

[IceBrand]

In the older games they usually began with lances only and later promote with swords. Currently they start with axes and promote with lances. Which do you like more?

[MCProductions]

Lances, only because I hate axes with a burning passion.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i say axes, because there aren't enough axe users typically.

[Topaz Light]

Axes, because...

• It helps to further differentiate them from Pegasus Knights
• It fits their nature as a more heavyweight sort of class
• It adds some much needed variety to base-tier Axe-using classes (Dragon Rider with Axe as opposed to Fighter, Mountain Fighter, and Water Fighter)

EDIT: Also yes I am aware of Axe Knights and Armor Axes but neither of those classes is in as many games as Wyvern Riders (which exist in some form or another in every game in the series sans Gaiden).

Edited January 10, 2016 by Topaz Light

[Maribelle]

I guess axes since I don't use axe users that much.

[Xyr]

Lances, makes more sense to me as a flier than an axe.

[Knight]

I would say lances, but seeing as there are so many lance and sword classes, I guess axe is a better idea from a gameplay perspective. Until Fates, there were hardly any class options for females to use axes as well.

[Anacybele]

Axes, because one, we already have two other mounted classes that use lances (cavalier knights and Peg knights), and two, there weren't that many axe wielders before this change.

[DarkDestr0yer61]

Axes.

Also, I believe Pegasus Knights should start with swords.

[bookofholsety]

axes, both for diversity from pegasi and for better suiting their stat build. i know fe is no stranger to weapon redundancy (hello, myrms and mercs) but i figure in this case that it was nothing but a benefit to make the change, and it better justifies wyverns being their own thing rather than an archanea-style peg promotion

[Azz]

Axes. I just wish we had another flying class that started with swords to complete a trio. coughGriffonRidercough

[NekoKnight]

I'm on the fence. Flavor-wise, a lance seems a more practical weapon for a mounted soldier and I don't mind the weapon redundancy with Pegasus Riders that much. Pegasus and Wyverns have very different stats, so I think their weapon type is the least defining trait.

But for weapon diversity I think axes is a better choice. There aren't many options for unpromoted axe users and we already have plenty of lances.

Axes. I just wish we had another flying class that started with swords to complete a trio. coughGriffonRidercough

If I were to make a trinity of fliers it would be:

Pegasus: Sword/Lance

Wyvern: Lance/Axe

Griffon Rider: Axe/Sword

With the second weapon after promotion.

Warcraft 3 has made me unable to associate Griffons with anything but Dwarves.

Edited January 10, 2016 by NekoKnight

[Shadow Mir]

Axes, for the reasons most other users stated.

[Enaluxeme]

Axes, but they should give them promotions that actually ride wiverns like in FE4. Cherche is bugging on a griffon.

[Ycine]

I like the fact that they're using Axes at the beginning now.

It gives a good distinction between Fly Unit gameplay wise. I mean without the stat differency between characters,

Before you either get someone that hits hard or someone that hits twice and they hit the same target : Sword Wielder Class.

[Anouleth]

Lances, because Wyverns are already way too strong. Switching Wyverns from Lances to Axes amounted to a straight buff with no associated downsides and no real change in the way they played.

[Cyas]

I wanted to say Lances because I'm used to having them on Wyverns but ultimately my vote goes to Axes for the sake of weapon diversity.

Lances, because Wyverns are already way too strong. Switching Wyverns from Lances to Axes amounted to a straight buff with no associated downsides and no real change in the way they played.

Switching from Lances to Axes does have a downside. Drop Chrom on a mountain/forest in chapter 7 with the Falchion equipped and he can trivialize the Wyverns on all non-L+ difficulties. Lance!Wyverns would at least be a small threat in that case but Axe!Wyverns get completely trivialized. You can deal with most Wyvern Riders by throwing a well-trained Falchion!Chrom at them. At least up until Ch 24, Swordbreaker kinda rules that option out.

[Avarice Shadow]

Lances because it's my favorite weapon and I want more or it.

[RJWalker]

Axes are too good for a class that is already too good.

I wanted to say Lances because I'm used to having them on Wyverns but ultimately my vote goes to Axes for the sake of weapon diversity.

Switching from Lances to Axes does have a downside. Drop Chrom on a mountain/forest in chapter 7 with the Falchion equipped and he can trivialize the Wyverns on all non-L+ difficulties. Lance!Wyverns would at least be a small threat in that case but Axe!Wyverns get completely trivialized. You can deal with most Wyvern Riders by throwing a well-trained Falchion!Chrom at them. At least up until Ch 24, Swordbreaker kinda rules that option out.

Pretty sure they meant that their is no downside for the player's wyvern units.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Dunal]

Both.

I wouldn't mind seeing Wyverns/Pegs be split like Armors or Knights.

So you could have a Sword Pegasus and a Lance one. Both separate classes that promote differently.

And an Axe Wyvern and also a Lance one.

Assuming there's two of each class that joins you (like Awakening or FE6 for instance) then this works to separate both units too (Like Miredy having Axes and Zeiss have lances for example, or Florina with lances and Fiora with swords).

[Cyas]

Pretty sure they meant that their is no downside for the player's wyvern units.

Most likely. But the OP didn't say that we're solely talking about playable Wyverns so I thought it's worth pointing out that there is in fact a downside, at least for enemy Wyvern rider.

[Shadow Mir]

Lances, because Wyverns are already way too strong. Switching Wyverns from Lances to Axes amounted to a straight buff with no associated downsides and no real change in the way they played.

Axes are too good for a class that is already too good.

Maybe, but still, I'm honestly bothered by the fact that for most of the series, the only tier 1 classes that use axes are fighters and those that are fighters in all but name, especially since good units in said classes tended to be scarce.

[Dunal]

The whole "don't give them axes, axes are too strong!" is so incredibly silly anyway because axes are only stronger by 1 MT and WTA changes that's entirely dependant on enemy weapon disparity.

...So er... give the class one less STR? Yay, problem solved...

(And actually, the difference between Lance/Axe is usually 1 STR and -3 SKL or -5 LUCK in terms of hit, which doesn't make axes seem that 'great', only if a class has the option to use them over other weapons and they have an excess amount of HIT)

Edited January 10, 2016 by DLuna

[RJWalker]

Also, aesthetically, lances fit better to mounted classes.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Anouleth]

Maybe, but still, I'm honestly bothered by the fact that for most of the series, the only tier 1 classes that use axes are fighters and those that are fighters in all but name, especially since good units in said classes tended to be scarce.

Why is that a bother? Axes and Lances are functionally very similar. Diversity of weapon types is not a meaningful goal when those weapon types function the same way.

In addition, the fact that only Fighters/Barbarians use axes is a good thing because they're historically a weak class and are stronger when they have uncontested access to strong axes such as the Hero Axe. Part of what makes Lex good is that he's virtually the only unit that can use Axes (except for promoted Lachesis and Arden).