Archers are great

[sandmanccl]

I don't understand the lack of respect the archer/sniper class gets throughout the series. Even when they have absolutely awesome gains (like Leonardo in Radiant Dawn or Wil in Blazing Sword), they still don't get any love.

What exactly do you guys have your ranged units do? I just don't get it. The purpose of this thread is for people to try and take a new look at the class to give them a shot and hopefully come to a better tactical sense of how to use them to be valuable members of your team. This is a debate (not a FE Standards debate, but you know, a good old-fashioned argument). You can dislike archers all you want but keep your "I just plain don't like them" opinions out of here, please.

I'll start by listing some of the arguments I've heard against their class and giving a rebuttal.

#1) They can't counterattack melee, which means they become the target of melee attacking enemy units.

Solution: Don't put them in range of enemy melee units, perhaps? It's a pretty simple concept. Pre-FE6 I can see this as a problem because enemies reinforced on their turn, but after that when you can see everything coming? This is really a concern? Really?

Make walls, man. My strategy in general is to let the enemy come to me because it's easier to predict what will attack whom. The way the game is designed, you can't get to the enemy before they get to you unless you have more movement than they do or they are units designed to hold choke points and therefore don't move, or they are units that were moving up towards you regardless of your position. (Throughout the series, the majority of enemies stay put until you are in range to attack.)

This means your horse units will either be initiating every single combat for you while you're advancing, which is a bad idea because if they get in trouble, your other guys won't be able to catch up to them to bail them out.

Move a guy with high defense just into range of all the guys you want to pull forward, and leave all your other units (and I mean all of them) just beyond reach regardless of what the enemy tries to do. Next round, pull your troops forward and demolish everything they've got. Rinse and repeat. You won't suffer any casualties, your units will generally stay clumped together enough so that everyone, including the people in the very back, will be able to attack on your turn. Not being able to counter-attack is just not a concern for me because roughly 75 to 85% of all damage I inflict is during my phase on my turn.

#2) They have poor defense gains.

This is really just a sub-set of what I just outlined. Poor defense doesn't matter on guys that don't get attacked and never risk being counter-attacked. The only things that should ever have a chance to damage your archers in order of most dangerous situation to least are a) units you didn't know were there on fog-of-war maps, B) enemies with hand axes and javelins, and c) enemy wizards and archers. Archers CAN prove to be liabilities on fog-of-war maps, I'm not going to deny, but then again everything that's not in heavy armor can prove a liability in those maps. I'm not going to single out any one class for something that many fall prey to. The second one can also be somewhat of an issue, but I usually leave enemies with ranged melee weapons to my melee units. Javelins and Hand Axes don't hit particularly hard toward the end of the game so I'm comfortable with the risk of taking the damage on my guys that are already doing most the tanking anyway. Lastly, mages and archers. Most the time, you're going to attack an enemy archer with someone that can't counter-attack him back, and enemy mages usually have abyssmal HP and speed so even if you don't kill it in a hit and manage to get hit by a counter-attack, it's rarely enough damage to one-shot your archer and hopefully you've got a healer on stand-by. That's worst case scenario, anyway.

#3) Bows are the worst weapon type.

Laughable. Bows are fantastic. They ignore the weapon triangle, meaning you're never at a disadvantage while attacking someone. You're never at a damage advantage (except against pegasus knights, while you will utterly murder) I suppose, but I consider attacking without fear of being counter-attacked a greater advantage than having a bonus to hit and damage. Stat-wise, bows are fairly powerful, being only slightly behind the power of lances at equivalent levels but with better hit percentages and less weight. Actually, in Radiant Dawn, Silver Bows are more powerful than even Silver Axes. (Not Silver Poleaxes, but still. It also have a significantly better chance to hit and significantly reduced weapon weight.) You can't call them weak when they clearly have power behind them.

Here's the kicker: I'm not arguing that bows are superior inherently to any other type of weapon. There is no such thing as a best weapon type. The only people who say there is a best weapon type are the ones that feel obligated to categorize things as such, instead of taking into consideration strategy.

------

That's really the key here, guys. Strategy. Archers can't ever have crazy moments where they take on 20 guys in a round and miraculously survive while slaughtering the whole lot of them. Of course, anyone that ever puts anyone in a situation like that has a deathwish for that unit.

edited: some typos, but there are probably more

Edited October 12, 2008 by sandmanccl

[canas is back]

unfortunatly that's the problem, you have to make a wall and so it limits the ability to use those units in the wall to thier full potential, it's not so much that the archer itself is bad, it's that it limits others ability to do things, (except shinon B) )

with the bow itself, they are usually fairly expensive, and axes usually have more power, also their hit is not THAT bad.

also with Leo, he is a great archer, and in other games he'd rock out loud, but in RD where you have shinon, and (in case you don't want shinon) rolf who outclass him

Edited October 12, 2008 by Shigeru Miyamoto

[Dr. Tarrasque]

My thoughts on those arguments you listed:

#1. Very true, archers can't counter attack and that's definitely s con most of the time, specially on ranked runs. On a no rank run where you're trying to train a low level unit and you're trying to give them kills and you've got an archer with great avoid is one of the few situations where not counter-attacking sort of helps. However, using units with low ATK to weaken the enemies is pretty much better. I always use at least 1 archer or nomad/nomadic trooper... they're not difficult to use at all.

On a ranked run, being unable to counter direct attacks is just horrible and you've gotta move well enough for tactics so you can't just move around hoping for the enemy to come to you.

#2. Agreed, archers don't really need def but it helps. The fact that you have to make walls for them is what hurts.

#3. I disagree with you on that There is no such thing as a best weapon type because most games do have a best weapon type that's extremely obvious to see. Examples: FE4 has swords because their AS loss is 3 while Axes have 18 AS loss and the only axe worth using is the Hero Axe seeing as how it has only 12 AS loss. The same goes for magic, Wind wins because it's light and fire sucks because it's heavy.

In FE6, Bows and Axes are probably the 2 best physical weapon types because they're the best against the Wyverns in the game, whom are your more common threats.

FEDS it's the same, Axe weapon mastery now gives accuracy boosts, couple that with the low avoid formula they threw in the game and there's no doubt that it is the best. Swords usually need that +3 power boost from the mastery just to beat the MT of axes by 1 single point.

Weapon triangle is in the tutorials for a good reason and using it effectively means better results, therefore... a "best weapon type" in an FE game is usually determined by which weapon is most common among enemies.

Edited October 12, 2008 by ThunderMan

[sandmanccl]

How are you not using your units to their full potential if they are doing you the greatest service they can do to your team? There's almost ALWAYS a choke point you can lure enemies to, especially in Radiant Dawn. I'd give you concrete examples but it'd take me some research and more importantly some maps to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Just because they are blocking the choke point doesn't mean you can't move them ahead when it's your turn again.

I find archers greatly enhance what I can do with my team. Here's a common occurance: I have a guy that can't kill an enemy in a single hit. He'd kill the guy, but would get countered in the process and there's a pretty good chance he'll get hit. Archer hits the guy first, other unit can now kill it without fear of retaliation.

Or hell, just the most basic thing you can think of. A guy you can't kill on your own, so you hit him with the archer first so that you can. Simple.

If you think you aren't going to gain a lot of experience with your archer because he's just going to be weakening guys, you gotta keep in mind the enemies that hit your wall unit and survive. Archers are excellent directly behind your tank units to kill the guys that park in front of them, allowing you to advance your walls another spot forward at the very least.

I didn't think I'd hear the expensive argument. I guess they can be, if your archer is strength-screwed but speed blessed. Honestly, that's one reason I like the slower but more powerful archers in whatever duo is in the game. Most the time, they don't NEED to double-attack in order to kill or help you kill whatever unit you are facing. Also, bows tend to be very, very, very common enemy drops. I'm not saying you won't have to buy a bow, but you shouldn't have to buy many, and Steel Bows aren't much more expensive than steel anything else.

As for RD: I think Shinon sucks. Leo's got the same strength, except that he's more useful for the maps he's on. He crits a lot because his skill is golden (but then again, Leo's is even better) but I don't like relying on crit. He's the most average out of all the people who SS-rank bows end-game so he's my least favorite. I'm not going to dis Rolf (who is my favorite guy in RD so far) but Leo's got some advantages on him and it's not like they are going to compete with each other for XP.

[sandmanccl]

My thoughts on those arguments you listed:

#1. Very true, archers can't counter attack and that's definitely s con most of the time, specially on ranked runs. On a no rank run where you're trying to train a low level unit and you're trying to give them kills and you've got an archer with great avoid is one of the few situations where not counter-attacking sort of helps. However, using units with low ATK to weaken the enemies is pretty much better. I always use at least 1 archer or nomad/nomadic trooper... they're not difficult to use at all.

On a ranked run, being unable to counter direct attacks is just horrible and you've gotta move well enough for tactics so you can't just move around hoping for the enemy to come to you.

#2. Agreed, archers don't really need def but it helps. The fact that you have to make walls for them is what hurts.

I'm not making the walls JUST for the archers. I'm making a wall so that the enemy predictably funnels out to where I want them to be, to protect absolutely everyone in the party that isn't my beefy tank. There's no hope involved. The enemy WILL come to you, every time, unless the AI is programmed to hang back to defend a point.

I do this all the time, and my tactics rank in FE6 is always 5 stars unless it's a playthrough where I'm just trying to earn more supports for the support library. I am seriously debating downloading VBA just to record what I do and show how it works because apparently, my best efforts to describe it aren't working for you. I don't see why not being able to counter-attack on even a ranked run would matter because you still have other units that can do it and you can make sure they are the ones that are in place to get attacked.

#3. I disagree with you on that There is no such thing as a best weapon type because most games do have a best weapon type that's extremely obvious to see. Examples: FE4 has swords because their AS loss is 3 while Axes have 18 AS loss and the only axe worth using is the Hero Axe seeing as how it has only 12 AS loss. The same goes for magic, Wind wins because it's light and fire sucks because it's heavy.

In FE6, Bows and Axes are probably the 2 best physical weapon types because they're the best against the Wyverns in the game, whom are your more common threats.

FEDS it's the same, Axe weapon mastery now gives accuracy boosts, couple that with the low avoid formula they threw in the game and there's no doubt that it is the best. Swords usually need that +3 power boost from the mastery just to match the MT of axes.

Weapon triangle is in the tutorials for a good reason and using it effectively means better results, therefore... a "best weapon type" in an FE game is usually determined by which weapon is most common among enemies.

If axes were simply the downright best in FE6, then there wouldn't be a point to using sword guys or lance guys or mages or archers or even healers.

There's no such thing as "best" when the best possible team is going to have at least one of every type to take on the situations in which they are indeed the best course of action. Doesn't matter if it usually means axes. Doesn't matter if it usually means swords. With the advent of the weapon triangle, assuming there's a best anything is just going to put you at a strategical disadvantage when you find a situation where you wish you had something else.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I'm not making the walls JUST for the archers. I'm making a wall so that the enemy predictably funnels out to where I want them to be, to protect absolutely everyone in the party that isn't my beefy tank. There's no hope involved. The enemy WILL come to you, every time, unless the AI is programmed to hang back to defend a point.

It is programmed that way sometimes. By your logic, having an archer means having another person that needs a wall then if there's other that need walls.

I do this all the time, and my tactics rank in FE6 is always 5 stars unless it's a playthrough where I'm just trying to earn more supports for the support library. I am seriously debating downloading VBA just to record what I do and show how it works because apparently, my best efforts to describe it aren't working for you. I don't see why not being able to counter-attack on even a ranked run would matter because you still have other units that can do it and you can make sure they are the ones that are in place to get attacked.

When I spoke of the tactics rank I meant FE7 which isn't as easy to A rank as FE6's. Not being able to counter-attack on a ranked playthrough DOES matter. Pretend your units can't 1 round enemies even if they double-attack... What happens when a sniper is ambushed on a turn? he either lives or dies and enemies don't take any counter-attack damage so your units are still not gonna 1-round them. If it were a unit that could counter-attack, then this would make a difference between your units 1-rounding or not seeing as how the person getting ambushed (assuming he counter-attacks) is weakening the enemies that attacked him and that results in your nearby units killing those enemies on your phase. This is why Hand Axes and Javelins are great weapons, they may have low MT and accuracy but they help rankings and speeding things up a bit. Same goes for magic.

If axes were simply the downright best in FE6, then there wouldn't be a point to using sword guys or lance guys or mages or archers or even healers.

You're confusing the term BEST with the terms EXCELLENT/PERFECT

There's no such thing as "best" when the best possible team is going to have at least one of every type to take on the situations in which they are indeed the best course of action. Doesn't matter if it usually means axes. Doesn't matter if it usually means swords. With the advent of the weapon triangle, assuming there's a best anything is just going to put you at a strategical disadvantage when you find a situation where you wish you had something else.

Again:

You're confusing the term BEST with the terms EXCELLENT/PERFECT.

I'll say this again too:

In FE6, Bows and Axes are probably the 2 best physical weapon types because they're the best against the Wyverns in the game, whom are your more common threats.

Swords are best against axes, are the Axe users in this game a threat? no and then later you've got Wyvern Riders with Lances, using a sword against them would help them slaughter you on the enemy phase.

Lances are best against swords, are there that many sword users in this game? No, there's not many sword users and the earlygame is packing Axe users.

Bows (like you said) have no weapon triangle disadvantages and have no ability to counter-attack. Why are they considered best IMO (along with axes)? Because the effective multiplier is 3 and that is pretty decent in this game considering that your biggest threats are Wyvern Riders and the other weapons aren't doing much to the them.

Axes are best against lances and the more common threats in this game are packing them so this is the weapon type you'll want to use since it adds some avoid for you due to the weapon triangle bonuses (which counts as durability) and adds hit % and 1 damage which counts as attack.

The only weapon in FE that is close to being excellent is the Holsety since it makes Levin/Sety/Arthur nearly immortal. I don't claim that any weapon type completely outranks the others, like you said they all have their moments. I only classify axes and bows as the 2 best physical weapon types in FE6 because they're good against Wyverns, your most common threat in the game. That and some other reasons.

Edited October 12, 2008 by ThunderMan

[Reikken]

Archers suck

...in easy games. Why slow down to make walls when you can just mow through them with paladins, heroes, etc. that kill everything on the counterattack?

When things are harder, then archers start to become useful. Their range starts to matter.

something I said about archers and FE7; too lazy to reword it:

"Archer is not an inherently bad class. If you have poor defenses, or enemy offense is just that good, archer is a good class. Not eating counterattacks helps keep you alive. If enemies are hard to kill, with lots of bottlenecks and stuff due to it taking several units to take down one unit, archer again is a good class. Having more places to attack from is helpful.

If you have great durability and/or enemies are easy to kill, archer is a bad class.

Archers are better off, relative to other characters, in harder games than in this one."

[Mufasa]

In RD Deadeye only takes 25%

The other major skills take 30. So archers have an advantage there.

[Florete]

I have yet to see an Archer actually hurt Tactics or Combat. Archers have only helped me, and very much so. I love them.

[Reikken]

Anytime it gets attacked melee, it hurts combat.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Reikken

[Florete]

Anytime it gets attacked melee, it hurts combat.

I'd like to see someone have a 4 star or less combat rank without actually trying to get there, and have it be late enough in the game so that it might actually be a challenge to fix it. Combat is so stupidly easily to 5-star, nothing hurts it. NOTHING!

[Reikken]

It may not get hurt enough to lower below 5 stars, but it certainly does get hurt. Also, intentionally hurting your combat rank by counterattacking without killing helps exp. Excess in one rank can be sacked to help another.

[Florete]

It may not get hurt enough to lower below 5 stars, but it certainly does get hurt. Also, intentionally hurting your combat rank by counterattacking without killing helps exp. Excess in one rank can be sacked to help another.

Ok, so? You shouldn't be letting your archer be attacked at all, so what's your point?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Sometimes an archer getting attacked is out of your control. The point is that in most situations you're better off using a unit capable of indirect and direct combat (or just direct combat).

Edited October 12, 2008 by ThunderMan

[Swordsalmon]

I don't understand the lack of respect the archer/sniper class gets throughout the series. Even when they have absolutely awesome gains (like Leonardo in Radiant Dawn or Wil in Blazing Sword), they still don't get any love.

Except Leonardo is killed by everything and Wil doesn't get good stats until late-game.

What exactly do you guys have your ranged units do? I just don't get it. The purpose of this thread is for people to try and take a new look at the class to give them a shot and hopefully come to a better tactical sense of how to use them to be valuable members of your team. This is a debate (not a FE Standards debate, but you know, a good old-fashioned argument). You can dislike archers all you want but keep your "I just plain don't like them" opinions out of here, please.

I'll start by listing some of the arguments I've heard against their class and giving a rebuttal.

#1) They can't counterattack melee, which means they become the target of melee attacking enemy units.

Solution: Don't put them in range of enemy melee units, perhaps? It's a pretty simple concept. Pre-FE6 I can see this as a problem because enemies reinforced on their turn, but after that when you can see everything coming? This is really a concern? Really?

Make walls, man. My strategy in general is to let the enemy come to me because it's easier to predict what will attack whom. The way the game is designed, you can't get to the enemy before they get to you unless you have more movement than they do or they are units designed to hold choke points and therefore don't move, or they are units that were moving up towards you regardless of your position. (Throughout the series, the majority of enemies stay put until you are in range to attack.)

This means your horse units will either be initiating every single combat for you while you're advancing, which is a bad idea because if they get in trouble, your other guys won't be able to catch up to them to bail them out.

Move a guy with high defense just into range of all the guys you want to pull forward, and leave all your other units (and I mean all of them) just beyond reach regardless of what the enemy tries to do. Next round, pull your troops forward and demolish everything they've got. Rinse and repeat. You won't suffer any casualties, your units will generally stay clumped together enough so that everyone, including the people in the very back, will be able to attack on your turn. Not being able to counter-attack is just not a concern for me because roughly 75 to 85% of all damage I inflict is during my phase on my turn.

Fighting classes are supposed to fight as much as possible.

The Archer has to be within range to attack. It's highly unlikely you can build a defense to protect the Archer without greatly sacrificing Tactics. As such, the Archer is hindering Combat, Experience, and Tactics by being forced to protect him instead of killing the enemies. Using the Archer instead of say, a Wyvern Rider, damages efficiency because the Archer cannot attack on the Enemy Phase.

#2) They have poor defense gains.

This is really just a sub-set of what I just outlined. Poor defense doesn't matter on guys that don't get attacked and never risk being counter-attacked. The only things that should ever have a chance to damage your archers in order of most dangerous situation to least are a) units you didn't know were there on fog-of-war maps, B) enemies with hand axes and javelins, and c) enemy wizards and archers. Archers CAN prove to be liabilities on fog-of-war maps, I'm not going to deny, but then again everything that's not in heavy armor can prove a liability in those maps. I'm not going to single out any one class for something that many fall prey to. The second one can also be somewhat of an issue, but I usually leave enemies with ranged melee weapons to my melee units. Javelins and Hand Axes don't hit particularly hard toward the end of the game so I'm comfortable with the risk of taking the damage on my guys that are already doing most the tanking anyway. Lastly, mages and archers. Most the time, you're going to attack an enemy archer with someone that can't counter-attack him back, and enemy mages usually have abyssmal HP and speed so even if you don't kill it in a hit and manage to get hit by a counter-attack, it's rarely enough damage to one-shot your archer and hopefully you've got a healer on stand-by. That's worst case scenario, anyway.

Except for the Archer to gain any use, he'll have to get within enemy range to fight. The enemies always target Archers first, so their survival is more difficult unless you turtle, which of course damages every rank.

#3) Bows are the worst weapon type.

Laughable. Bows are fantastic. They ignore the weapon triangle, meaning you're never at a disadvantage while attacking someone. You're never at a damage advantage (except against pegasus knights, while you will utterly murder) I suppose, but I consider attacking without fear of being counter-attacked a greater advantage than having a bonus to hit and damage. Stat-wise, bows are fairly powerful, being only slightly behind the power of lances at equivalent levels but with better hit percentages and less weight. Actually, in Radiant Dawn, Silver Bows are more powerful than even Silver Axes. (Not Silver Poleaxes, but still. It also have a significantly better chance to hit and significantly reduced weapon weight.) You can't call them weak when they clearly have power behind them.

Here's the kicker: I'm not arguing that bows are superior inherently to any other type of weapon. There is no such thing as a best weapon type. The only people who say there is a best weapon type are the ones that feel obligated to categorize things as such, instead of taking into consideration strategy.

WTN is actually a pretty bad trait. They never get any increased offense or accuracy against other enemies (Except for fliers, of course), which weakens overall offense. Bows are the most expensive weapon type, and second-weakest.

Axes are the best weapons in FE5/7/8/9 due to higher accuracy from Lance enemies, cheap, and powerful. Swords are the best in FE1/3/4 due to their sheer power. There's always the best and worst weapon types.

------

That's really the key here, guys. Strategy. Archers can't ever have crazy moments where they take on 20 guys in a round and miraculously survive while slaughtering the whole lot of them. Of course, anyone that ever puts anyone in a situation like that has a deathwish for that unit.

edited: some typos, but there are probably more

They take 20 enemies, but aren't killing as much as sending in a different class to handle the 20 enemies.

Now, Bows can be somewhat useful, like the first couple chapters of Book 2 and FEDS HM5. But for the most part, Archers are an overall hindrance, being unable to counter.

[Florete]

I cannot see how Archers can be hurting experience. That makes absolutely no sense.

[CGV]

*Agrees with sandmanccl on his first post and only skimmed through the rest*

[sandmanccl]

Sometimes an archer getting attacked is out of your control. The point is that in most situations you're better off using a unit capable of indirect and direct combat (or just direct combat).

It's only out of your control if you didn't plan for an enemy ahead of time, which is only a problem in fog of war maps, which I've mentioned.

Also, I confuse the series numbers. When I said FE6 earlier, I meant FE7. I've only played the ones released on U.S. soil and it's going to stay that way. I've never had an issue with my tactics rank in FE7, even on hard mode, unless I'm purposely delaying turns in order to build up supports faster.

@ Swordsalmon:

Leo is killed by everything? So what? Why is he getting attacked? If he's getting hit, you're doing it wrong. Micaiah gets killed by everything, too. Effective use of positioning solves this problem. Sanaki also dies when she's attacked. Ilyana does. Soren does. Rolf does. Shinon is an exception just because his starting defense is so high. People that don't use swords/axes/lances tend to die in a hit or two, and that's also dependent on their defense, which can still be pretty abysmal for a lot of guys. The vast majority of units you have will die in 3 or 4 hits max on hard mode.

You said you haven't even played RD yet, anyway.

Wil has great stats. 50% strength gain on an archer = beautiful. All his gains are just fine, and unless you just don't make effective use of archers (which apparently you don't), they'll be powerful enough. They can fall behind, sure, but then again, whomever you don't use falls behind quickly.

Also, "Fighting Classes should fight as much as possible" is a bullshit argument. Archers are support classes, anyway. They keep your other units healthier by whittling down enemy HP therefore making it so you don't even have to risk counter-attacks. This makes your armor knight units more effective because the tag-team of them tanking the unit on the enemy phase with your archer finishing it off on your phase allowing you to move in further.

You're theoretical arguments about what might happen aren't practical. If it wasn't for archers, I probably wouldn't 5-star tactics every time I touch FE7.

Enemies don't target archers first if you archer can't be targetted by them, which is easy to do without hurting tactics rank because you usually only need a guy or two to block enemies from advancing into your back ranks.

Your arguments against WTN are exactly my arguments for it. You don't need that increased power when you kill the guy in two hits, anyway.

It's decided. I'm gonna have to get VBA and a rom of FE7 in order to prove what I'm saying because you are theorizing situations that only happen with poor planning.

[_____]

Even with the best strategies, Sandman, there're going to be times when you are forced to have a weaker unit be attacked. Unless you're playing on Easy or something, an Archer like Leo is likely to be one-rounded.

[sandmanccl]

Dude.

I've beaten every single state-side FE game on hard and have never, ever, ever had a problem with my low defense ranged units getting attacked and dying. Even with crappy defense, by the time you face just hordes and hordes of enemies where they might conceivably take a hit in the face, they still have enough Defense and HP to take it without dying.

And they weren't stat-blessed, I might add. I didn't follow any FAQs back when I went through Blazing Sword. I loaded my original end-game file and the only stat-blessed guy I had was Hector. Everyone else, and I mean everyone, was either right on their average if not a little bit worse.

What I'm saying is that the best strategies don't fail, regardless of if your units are overpowered or not. The game is more a strategy game than an RPG. I treat it as such and have had fantastic results.

Edited October 13, 2008 by sandmanccl

[Raven]

Archers have never let me down. That's all I have to say.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Raven

[Meteor]

Ranged units are indeed my friends. I opt for the magical kind, however.

Except for murdering Pegasi, they meet or exceed the capabilities of Archers.

[Reikken]

Too bad FE doesn't have archers mounted on pegasi. That would be awesome.

[StalkerPizza]

Archers are awesome except in FEDS where they are sorta narfed.

[Liz]

archers use bows to fight