Moulder!

[Florete]

Alright, I'm not going to argue about the characters right now, but as to how you're talking to SS... I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on how debates work, but honestly, SS is just doing his thing. I've seen him admit he was wrong before, and I've seen him change his mind. He doesn't discount anything that isn't his idea. He does have his standards of course, which you disagree with, but he really isn't being a dick.

Maybe it's because SS is saying that his options are better, and trying to prove them. But isn't that what everyone is doing? I see how it might look like he's being static and not changing, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about other peoples ideas. I know for a fact that he thinks Raven is pretty damn good.

I think what Sandman meant is that he acts like no other options are ever plausible. He talks as if the game is played the exact same way every time, which is wrong in every form of the word.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Guy actually has better stats.

Totally BS. You broke the meter, so I had to respond.

Josh has a statistical lead in every stat at the same level for the bulk of the game. Guy only comes out a point ahead in luck after level 16, a point in speed after 20/4(a stat that both characters max anyway), and a point ahead in RES at 20/20.

Admitedly, HHM Guy has a bit less to worry about, but Josh naturally has better HP and STR(He's so far ahead here that the bulk of Guy's support boosts are worthless), along with SKL, RES, and DEF for the bulk of the game and an early speed lead.

Among other smaller issues, Ross is garbage, Dancers are bleh, and I prefer Moulder and Lute to Saleh. Gerik supports give Josh what he ACTUALLY needs, which is Crit, Avoid, and Defense, though L'Arachel's support runs a bit better.

Josh's game is still on the large part easier, which is important in doing damage.

lol at not using Brom.

And don't doubt Muarim. Mordecai and Muarim have the potential to be amazing with High stat caps and Resolve.

But once again, MOULDER is amazing. Mostly thanks to his large HP.

Edited October 22, 2008 by bunny

[Defeatist Elitist]

I think what Sandman meant is that he acts like no other options are ever plausible. He talks as if the game is played the exact same way every time, which is wrong in every form of the word.

There's a difference between acting like other peoples options are viable in a debate, and actually considering them. It's difficult to explain. Either way, I have seen him take other peoples opinions and ideas. I have seen him admit he was wrong. I've seen him accept other peoples ideas.

[Florete]

There's a difference between acting like other peoples options are viable in a debate, and actually considering them. It's difficult to explain. Either way, I have seen him take other peoples opinions and ideas. I have seen him admit he was wrong. I've seen him accept other peoples ideas.

All in all, I can see a few major flaws in the debate standards. And no, it has nothing to do with personal experience.

[Defeatist Elitist]

All in all, I can see a few major flaws in the debate standards. And no, it has nothing to do with personal experience.

Please, tell them to me. I'll try to defend them. In fact, I'll address some here right now.

First, the assumption that certain units are being used. This is usually because of course, the point of debating is to prove what characters are the "best" and make the game easiest. So the other "best" are automatically assumed. In addition, the game is made harder if you have to use characters that aren't the "best". That's why it's assumed.

Supports also. Supports can in some cases make or break a character. +5 Damage, and +5 Def/Res is pretty significant. A unit with 20 Str, 20 Def, and 20 Res and a Support granting +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res, is slightly better than a unit with 23 Str, 23 Def, and 23 Res who has no real Support options. It's not hard to keep people in Support Range.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Supports also. Supports can in some cases make or break a character. +5 Damage, and +5 Def/Res is pretty significant. A unit with 20 Str, 20 Def, and 20 Res and a Support granting +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res, is slightly better than a unit with 23 Str, 23 Def, and 23 Res who has no real Support options. It's not hard to keep people in Support Range.

Of course, supports shouldn't be assumed as a solid stat either, especially in games that aren't FE9, 10, or 11. Fact is that the range isn't easy to keep either and they have to be built up, and some players simply won't.

A big issue with his argument is this general assumption that Guy always has a Killer weapon, and he WON'T. It's that simple. This alone makes Josh better, because he'll be running more damage even with his crappy supports. Zihark too. And it doesn't help that Guy doesn't have the Con to use the Killing Edge without speed loss and the others do.

Edited October 22, 2008 by bunny

[Florete]

Please, tell them to me. I'll try to defend them. In fact, I'll address some here right now.

First, the assumption that certain units are being used. This is usually because of course, the point of debating is to prove what characters are the "best" and make the game easiest. So the other "best" are automatically assumed. In addition, the game is made harder if you have to use characters that aren't the "best". That's why it's assumed.

Supports also. Supports can in some cases make or break a character. +5 Damage, and +5 Def/Res is pretty significant. A unit with 20 Str, 20 Def, and 20 Res and a Support granting +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res, is slightly better than a unit with 23 Str, 23 Def, and 23 Res who has no real Support options. It's not hard to keep people in Support Range.

Funny how you addressed two of my main issues. Let's see here.

That's just not fair, though. From what I see, the point of a debate is to determine which of two characters is better. This means that the only characters that should be assumed to be deployed are the two in question and any required characters, lords, etc. Therefore, you should, in the debate, make that specific run of the games "team" based around what makes the two characters best. The only reason a supporting character should "want" someone else is if that someone else is either the other character in question or a lord. Like if you wanted to debate whether Raven wants Wil or Rebecca in a debate between the two archers, or if Eliwood wanted someone else in a debate between Lowen and (random character). Those are just examples.

EDIT: Likelihood of a unit being deployed is considerable, but not definite. Like, you can say, "This unit supports this unit, who is an awesome character and is often used." However, how great that specific unit is may easily be debatable in itself.

Supports are great, I love them. But, a character that's great without supports >>> a character that's great because of supports. Why is this? Well, your over-emphasis on supports contradicts something I've heard any debator say: No strategy > strategy. Building and using supports efficiently and timely takes a good deal of strategy. They won't always be next to each other to build it, and they won't always be able to be within range to make use of it. They may be awesome when near their support buddy(ies), but if they have to go out of range, you may notice they now pretty much suck. Should supportability (lol, if it's a word) be considered in debates? Most definitely. Should a units performance on their own be considered? Most definitely, maybe even more so. Why? Because people play the game differently and have different results every time. Top tier characters aren't always used, stat screwage happens, etc. If supports are all that's saving a unit, but without them s/he sucks, that character shouldn't be considered as good as the guy that's already great, even if s/he has little to no support options.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Red Fox of Fire

[bunny: spider bitten]

And to be fair, on the concept of 'Great characters are always used', they are largely great because they have multiple support options with other great characters. Pris and Matt, for example, have better support options than Guy.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Funny how you addressed two of my main issues. Let's see here.

That's just not fair, though. From what I see, the point of a debate is to determine which of two characters is better. This means that the only characters that should be assumed to be deployed are the two in question and any required characters, lords, etc. Therefore, you should, in the debate, make that specific run of the games "team" based around what makes the two characters best. The only reason a supporting character should "want" someone else is if that someone else is either the other character in question or a lord. Like if you wanted to debate whether Raven wants Wil or Rebecca in a debate between the two archers, or if Eliwood wanted someone else in a debate between Lowen and (random character). Those are just examples.

EDIT: Likelihood of a unit being deployed is considerable, but not definite. Like, you can say, "This unit supports this unit, who is an awesome character and is often used." However, how great that specific unit is may easily be debatable in itself.

Supports are great, I love them. But, a character that's great without supports >>> a character that's great because of supports. Why is this? Well, your over-emphasis on supports contradicts something I've heard any debator say: No strategy > strategy. Building and using supports efficiently and timely takes a good deal of strategy. They won't always be next to each other to build it, and they won't always be able to be within range to make use of it. They may be awesome when near their support buddy(ies), but if they have to go out of range, you may notice they now pretty much suck. Should supportability (lol, if it's a word) be considered in debates? Most definitely. Should a units performance on their own be considered? Most definitely, maybe even more so. Why? Because people play the game differently and have different results every time. Top tier characters aren't always used, stat screwage happens, etc. If supports are all that's saving a unit, but without them s/he sucks, that character shouldn't be considered as good as the guy that's already great, even if s/he has little to no support options.

To the deployment thing. The reasoning is this, say you;re debating between two random characters. If one of them has a support option that is a weak character, then fielding that support option is weakening the team. Now, if the bonuses are large enough to make up for that, then it's a benefit, but they often aren't.

And to Supports. Supports make Moulder awesome, to go with the one we have here. +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res is huge. Very few people will beat him in all three of those stats anyway. Now, being great without Supports > being great with them. But being pretty good without supports << being amazing with them. It's a delicate balance. Of course, if you're in a debate and someone is saying a character's supports make them so awesome and you think that it doesn't do enough, point it out. Don't expect them to immediately bend to your will, it wouldn't be a debate if they didn't argue back, but it will usually be kept in mind. Supports I also don't find need much Strategy or anything like that. Number crunching perhaps, but not strategy. Reason being, Supports are part of a character, and are therefore a statistic. They don't really need Strategy, and are a massive help. But as you said, there needs to be a balance.

[Florete]

To the deployment thing. The reasoning is this, say you;re debating between two random characters. If one of them has a support option that is a weak character, then fielding that support option is weakening the team. Now, if the bonuses are large enough to make up for that, then it's a benefit, but they often aren't.

And to Supports. Supports make Moulder awesome, to go with the one we have here. +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res is huge. Very few people will beat him in all three of those stats anyway. Now, being great without Supports > being great with them. But being pretty good without supports << being amazing with them. It's a delicate balance. Of course, if you're in a debate and someone is saying a character's supports make them so awesome and you think that it doesn't do enough, point it out. Don't expect them to immediately bend to your will, it wouldn't be a debate if they didn't argue back, but it will usually be kept in mind. Supports I also don't find need much Strategy or anything like that. Number crunching perhaps, but not strategy. Reason being, Supports are part of a character, and are therefore a statistic. They don't really need Strategy, and are a massive help. But as you said, there needs to be a balance.

There are such a thing as bad supports, I agree. Thus, if the supporting character isn't good and also isn't giving good bonuses, that support isn't likely to happen. That's somewhat what I meant with "Therefore, you should, in the debate, make that specific run of the games "team" based around what makes the two characters best." If the supporting character totally blows, like Knoll, it's not doing much at all. Also, you're already making the game easier/harder based on the unit that's being debated. I had something to add to that last sentence, but I forgot what it was. :(

#1 flaw: Speed. Not the stat, but Tactics and such. That obviously doesn't make a difference in this game, but it does in 6 and 7 especially, where fast supports with mediocre bonuses > slow supports with great bonuses. By the time the slow but great support is built, if it even happens, it likely isn't going to be too useful. On the other hand, a fast support, while it may not be as good, can be of use almost right away and be helping throughout most of the game. Thing is, they still aren't 100% reliable. Characters just won't always be within range/right next to each other.

On the subject of Moulder, I can definitely see him being great from his supports. But what if his supportees aren't being used, what then? How good is he now? Note that I'm saying he's a bad character, I've never used him, but how he performs without supports can easily be more important than how much his supports are aiding him.

[bunny: spider bitten]

I got the idea of fielding other units as support for a character.

What I don't get is that sometimes you're support options don't even provide that great of bonuses.

Going back to Guy, Fire is an average affinity, but Wind is the worst. What makes matters worse is that Matt has at least 3 better support options and Pris has at least 2 as well. Not even getting started on comparable options. Should that just be ignored to make his argument work well?

Moulder, at the very least, has the best affinity in the game.

[Defeatist Elitist]

There are such a thing as bad supports, I agree. Thus, if the supporting character isn't good and also isn't giving good bonuses, that support isn't likely to happen. That's somewhat what I meant with "Therefore, you should, in the debate, make that specific run of the games "team" based around what makes the two characters best." If the supporting character totally blows, like Knoll, it's not doing much at all. Also, you're already making the game easier/harder based on the unit that's being debated. I had something to add to that last sentence, but I forgot what it was. :(

#1 flaw: Speed. Not the stat, but Tactics and such. That obviously doesn't make a difference in this game, but it does in 6 and 7 especially, where fast supports with mediocre bonuses > slow supports with great bonuses. By the time the slow but great support is built, if it even happens, it likely isn't going to be too useful. On the other hand, a fast support, while it may not be as good, can be of use almost right away and be helping throughout most of the game. Thing is, they still aren't 100% reliable. Characters just won't always be within range/right next to each other.

On the subject of Moulder, I can definitely see him being great from his supports. But what if his supportees aren't being used, what then? How good is he now? Note that I'm saying he's a bad character, I've never used him, but how he performs without supports can easily be more important than how much his supports are aiding him.

Uh, I think we're saying the same thing here...

On supports: Yeah, a fast Support is better generally. I agree. That's something that must be factored in, and that's generally considered. You haven't seen people condemn IkexSoren for being slower than a brick wall? :P

Moulder Supports several REALLY good units. His Supporters are incredibly likely to be used, but hey, even without them he's pretty good. His Supports are a big part of him though, because they are with good units, are fairly fast and give incredible bonuses. He's kind of on the extreme end of Supports. Like, I'd say he may have the best Supports in the SERIES. Especially for the stats he has and the type of unit he is.

[Florete]

Uh, I think we're saying the same thing here...

On supports: Yeah, a fast Support is better generally. I agree. That's something that must be factored in, and that's generally considered. You haven't seen people condemn IkexSoren for being slower than a brick wall? :P

Moulder Supports several REALLY good units. His Supporters are incredibly likely to be used, but hey, even without them he's pretty good. His Supports are a big part of him though, because they are with good units, are fairly fast and give incredible bonuses. He's kind of on the extreme end of Supports. Like, I'd say he may have the best Supports in the SERIES. Especially for the stats he has and the type of unit he is.

I thought so too.

Tino once mentioned SerraxFlorina. 241 turns? Yeah right. Serra's supports are all rather slow, which means she isn't getting much use of them, but no one mentions that.

He's got four choices. Syrene is one of them. Lol. Gilliam is another, is he a great unit? Not that I've heard. Vanessa and Colm are both great, and it looks like those are generally his main supportees, correct? In debating him with them two involved, those are perfectly reasonable options. But consider the fact he might not be supporting them. I currently have Colm with Neimi and am not using Vanessa. How would he fare if I had used him?

[bunny: spider bitten]

Gillaim is fairly underrated for what it's worth. He's comparable to Oswin, and has a great affinity for supporting. The issue? He doesn't have Oswin's bases and Seth can do his job.

Edited October 22, 2008 by bunny

[Defeatist Elitist]

I thought so too.

Tino once mentioned SerraxFlorina. 241 turns? Yeah right. Serra's supports are all rather slow, which means she isn't getting much use of them, but no one mentions that.

He's got four choices. Syrene is one of them. Lol. Gilliam is another, is he a great unit? Not that I've heard. Vanessa and Colm are both great, and it looks like those are generally his main supportees, correct? In debating him with them two involved, those are perfectly reasonable options. But consider the fact he might not be supporting them. I currently have Colm with Neimi and am not using Vanessa. How would he fare if I had used him?

Alright, good.

Tino may have made a mistake. Or he might have just hoped you didn't catch it. :P I must admit, often my debate points have big holes in them, and I just hope no-one sees them. :D

You are correct. Vanessa A/Colm B is amazing. Ironically, Vanessa has 2nd best Supports in the series, with Moulder A/Lute B. If you don't use either of them, then Moulder will be significantly less useful, although still pretty damn good. But the thing is, 2 units, both of which are good and very likely to be fielded (Vanessa is usually considered the best flier, and is your ONLY flier for a lot of time), and the bonuses are incredible, for all people involved. No matter what, this ends up benefiting the team. Hell, if Vanessa was total shit it might almost be worth it. :P Well, maybe not quite. You also have to think that if you did do this, Vanessa would become super awesome as well. So basically, there are so many benefits to using Moulder and his Supports, that NOT using them is basically a detriment to the team.

Besides, he's a fairly good unit without them.

[Raven]

I think Gilliam is a good unit too, as long as you don't get RNG screwed with him. Like I did in one of my HM runs... 18 defense at 20/6. He had more skill than defense. Lol.

[sandmanccl]

Please, tell them to me. I'll try to defend them. In fact, I'll address some here right now.

First, the assumption that certain units are being used. This is usually because of course, the point of debating is to prove what characters are the "best" and make the game easiest. So the other "best" are automatically assumed. In addition, the game is made harder if you have to use characters that aren't the "best". That's why it's assumed.

Supports also. Supports can in some cases make or break a character. +5 Damage, and +5 Def/Res is pretty significant. A unit with 20 Str, 20 Def, and 20 Res and a Support granting +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res, is slightly better than a unit with 23 Str, 23 Def, and 23 Res who has no real Support options. It's not hard to keep people in Support Range.

You know what the issue with assumed characters is? It's always on the side of the debate goon squad.

Example: I mentioned a few other support options for a few guys. I was immediately told who those other guys SHOULD be supporting. Well, the issue is that you'd have a cast of like 20 characters being used. I'm trying to remember exactly who but it was a few pages ago and I remember most of it. I think it had to do with Sain.

Immediately, I got "Sain should be supporting this guy and this guy". Why? I don't get why that's the case. Especially because that would mean every horse unit in the game is being fielded, as well as Oswin. I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind fields Oswin, Kent, Sain, Lowen, AND Marcus. It just doesn't happen. You'd be competing for promotion items, weapons, strategical use on the field, and it'd leave a lot of other potentially good units to rot.

The idea that two guys have to be fielded on the same playthrough in order to be compared is a completely flawed idea, especially in the case of Raven v. Guy. They fulfill the same role on the battlefield, compete for the same promotion item, compete for a lot of the same supports, use the same weapon type (until promotion), and generally have comparable stats. You really shouldn't use both of them in the same run because it's just hurting your team. Seriously, in any given run, are you REALLY going to use both of them at the same time? Honestly?

There are too many flaws with the "debate standards" because you're bringing some bullshit into my arguments and saying I'm not right in my opinions because I have to do things some nonsensical way laid down by people 2/3rds my age. I take a tone with people appropriate for the tone they deserve. If you're going to be a twat, I'm going to treat you as one. You have absolutely no idea how upset I am with people who tell me my opinions are invalid for some stupid reason.

If the argument is "Guy is actually a pretty valid character because you get him earlier so you can build his supports faster," fine, I can accept that. It's a pretty accurate statement. If the argument is "Raven sucks because Guy is better in every way," I can't accept that. It's not true. There's arguments for and against, and legit reasons either way.

It's like I've said, I'm not going to argue with a tired brick wall.

ATTEMPT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC

Or at least back to the right FE game. Gilliam is one of the most underrated units in FE8. Someone said Seth fills his role, but not exactly. The thing is, Seth's defense, while good, isn't god tier. 11 defense as a level 1 paladin is just about average. He doesn't have as much room to grow into the stat (but his 40% gain is one of the better defense gains in the game). Because he's not gaining a whole lot of experience for 10 maps or so, Gilliam's D will clearly outclass Seth's in a very short amount of time. This last playthrough, Gilliam didn't take a single pip of damage outside the stage he joins and Renvall Castle (he got nailed by Purge for ~20 damage, but that was pretty much it). Gill's also got awesome supports in Garcia and Franz, a great support with Moulder, and while it's slow, a great support in Neimi. Hell, Syrene isn't as bad as a lot of people think and Gilliam's support with her makes him even better and helps her quite a bit. Every single one of Gill's options (except Syrene) adds to attack and defense. My last playthrough, Gilliam with Garcia A, Franz B, was an unstoppable killing machine, even against enemies that managed to double-attack him.

I think next PT, I'm going to go Gilliam/Moulder A. I need to unlock that support in my library so why not?

[bunny: spider bitten]

To start, you make me feel. . . Old. Well, older. You mention being 2/3s older than most people you argue with, and while that may or may not be the case, my being 18 to your 22 just makes me feels odd.

I can't be completely sure if you just like subjecting yourself to some sort of age superiority or if the age gap provides you with enough experience to actually be superior, though I'll roll with either because it reflects nicely on myself.

At the very least, I'll throw out that you're not incredibly old either. I know a forum goer that's like 60.

Immediately, I got "Sain should be supporting this guy and this guy". Why?

It's definitely something that should be thrown out there in a fair assumption. If it's honest and truly a better option, all you can do is concede. While, frankly, I don't see the logic in supporting Matt and Guy because they're fairly similar and Matt has at least 3 better options in ranked and unranked runs. I'm sure we could argue they have better options, but all the same. Pris has better options as well.

At the same time, it's VERY difficult to argue against something like Lance and Alan support.

Seriously, in any given run, are you REALLY going to use both of them at the same time? Honestly?

Enough people do. I'd honestly use Bartre over one of the two on a given run, but he's one of the more underrated units in the title. Facing the facts, competition for Heroes Crest is low. Makes the Ocean Seal look ridiculous and stupid.

Or at least back to the right FE game. Gilliam is one of the most underrated units in FE8. Someone said Seth fills his role, but not exactly

I meant early on, and I was being fairly lazy when I tossed out the idea. If Gilliam had another defense or two at the start, he'd probably land a bit better than Ozzy and Seth wouldn't take his role.

Honestly, I know Gilliam runs better DEF and stats in general, but it's a big issue of when. If you're actually using him, it'll take Gilliam something like 10 levels to compare. If not, it's only about 5 levels. I am a huge fan of the class and I think Gilliam is an amazing addition, but I can see why he's easily over looked. HP, while a smaller issue overall, doesn't exactly work in Gill's favor, and don't even mention RES.

It's only slightly disappointing that the Great Knight promotion isn't more valid.

[DeSu]

STAY ON THE FUCKING TOPIC PEOPLE. THERE IS A REASON THE BOARDS ARE SPLIT BETWEEN EACH FIRE EMBLEM GAME. FE7 AND SACRED STONES ARE UNRELATED.

[Raven]

STAY ON THE FUCKING TOPIC PEOPLE. THERE IS A REASON THE BOARDS ARE SPLIT BETWEEN EACH FIRE EMBLEM GAME. FE7 AND SACRED STONES ARE UNRELATED.

Done.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Glad you kept your cool there.

And frankly, it is on topic to an extent. Discussion of debates in general happen to be relevant to this title, and Gilliam is also in this title.

Admittedly the topic is about Moulder, and despite both topics carrying heavy relevance to it, they aren't on topic.

But at the end of the day, you chose to fangasm over an ugly character in an easy title and there's not much to say about him without getting into technical details. Which leads to places that are bound to be irredeemably off topic.

[DeSu]

I don't like the fangasm part.

But Moulder is cool. I see no reason why I shouldn't be annoyed that my topic has 2+ pages of why Guy sucks/doesn't suck. Especially when people ignore the TOPIC CREATOR when he tries to keep things in line. Go make a Guy debate somewhere else. It really isn't that hard.

[sandmanccl]

I meant early on, and I was being fairly lazy when I tossed out the idea. If Gilliam had another defense or two at the start, he'd probably land a bit better than Ozzy and Seth wouldn't take his role.

Honestly, I know Gilliam runs better DEF and stats in general, but it's a big issue of when. If you're actually using him, it'll take Gilliam something like 10 levels to compare. If not, it's only about 5 levels. I am a huge fan of the class and I think Gilliam is an amazing addition, but I can see why he's easily over looked. HP, while a smaller issue overall, doesn't exactly work in Gill's favor, and don't even mention RES.

It's only slightly disappointing that the Great Knight promotion isn't more valid.

I could respond to the Guy stuff but I'm going to attempt to stay at least on the subject of FE8 here.

Gilliam's starting defense is quite good. He's got 9 on the first level of the entire game. It's conceivable you'll gain a level with him on that first stage, and because his defense gain is over 50%, it's likely his defense will increase one. You WON'T be gaining Seth a level in that first stage, even if you use him to do everything for you.

Gills is only a single point behind Seth in this case, and seeing as Seth's pre-promotion status means his experience gains are slow, Gill should quickly surpass him in the defense area. Seth is still awesome for different reasons (strongest character you'll have until people finally start catching up to his level, great skill, great speed) but I like to use two tank units at any given time because I find it's easier to hinder enemy progress towards my back ranks.

If you get Gilliam to level 4 or 5 within the first few stages, he'll pretty much be invincible for the entire game. His strength is awesome (45% = very yes), his HP gains are the best in the entire game (90% = Laguz wish they were Gilliam), his skill is decent enough (35% growth with a base of 6 serves just fine). His speed and resistance are the only real issues. 30% growth in speed actually isn't too bad for a Knight especially, but his base of 3 means if you get screwed out on it, it'll really hurt him down the road, but 20% resistance growth with 3 base is downright bad.

Making this again about Moulder, I looked at it a little more and realize it'd be a killer support. Moulder isn't nearly as much of a liability being directly behind your tank units as Natasha or L'Arachel, and once promotes, the Lightning/Anima support will make Gilliam even more invincible and Moulder can actually serve as a secondary tank (as a sage/bishop, wtf).

I think I've got my party planned out for my next playthrough.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You know what the issue with assumed characters is? It's always on the side of the debate goon squad.

Example: I mentioned a few other support options for a few guys. I was immediately told who those other guys SHOULD be supporting. Well, the issue is that you'd have a cast of like 20 characters being used. I'm trying to remember exactly who but it was a few pages ago and I remember most of it. I think it had to do with Sain.

Immediately, I got "Sain should be supporting this guy and this guy". Why? I don't get why that's the case. Especially because that would mean every horse unit in the game is being fielded, as well as Oswin. I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind fields Oswin, Kent, Sain, Lowen, AND Marcus. It just doesn't happen. You'd be competing for promotion items, weapons, strategical use on the field, and it'd leave a lot of other potentially good units to rot.

The idea that two guys have to be fielded on the same playthrough in order to be compared is a completely flawed idea, especially in the case of Raven v. Guy. They fulfill the same role on the battlefield, compete for the same promotion item, compete for a lot of the same supports, use the same weapon type (until promotion), and generally have comparable stats. You really shouldn't use both of them in the same run because it's just hurting your team. Seriously, in any given run, are you REALLY going to use both of them at the same time? Honestly?

There are too many flaws with the "debate standards" because you're bringing some bullshit into my arguments and saying I'm not right in my opinions because I have to do things some nonsensical way laid down by people 2/3rds my age. I take a tone with people appropriate for the tone they deserve. If you're going to be a twat, I'm going to treat you as one. You have absolutely no idea how upset I am with people who tell me my opinions are invalid for some stupid reason.

If the argument is "Guy is actually a pretty valid character because you get him earlier so you can build his supports faster," fine, I can accept that. It's a pretty accurate statement. If the argument is "Raven sucks because Guy is better in every way," I can't accept that. It's not true. There's arguments for and against, and legit reasons either way.

It's like I've said, I'm not going to argue with a tired brick wall.

ATTEMPT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC

Alright, I think I see now.

If someone says "No, this character is assumed", then they're doing it because it helps their side. You can, and SHOULD say "No, actually, it would benefit the team more to use X other character". It looks like the rules are biased in the debaters direction, because they present things to their advantage. It's how you debate.

Also, no-one said Raven sucks because Guy can replace him. Raven is awesome, I believe me, Tino and SS all think he's great.

[bunny: spider bitten]

I don't like the fangasm part.

But Moulder is cool. I see no reason why I shouldn't be annoyed that my topic has 2+ pages of why Guy sucks/doesn't suck. Especially when people ignore the TOPIC CREATOR when he tries to keep things in line. Go make a Guy debate somewhere else. It really isn't that hard.

Eh. Fangasm was a bit much. And as far as the Guy thing, your explosion wasn't unwarranted in that sense. It's more the fact it came a page late.