FE10 Tierlist 2017

[ping]

Based on the chart in the OP, 4 is not "slightly below average." Based on that chart, it puts him in the E ranks, below S, A, B, C, D, and all the + and - (S+, B-, C even, etc.), basically meaning "this is a bad unit, avoid." So...no, I don't think 4 is a reasonable score for Brom at all.

About that...

I don't really like the proposed scale. As it stands, the difference between 'flawless (10)' and 'decent (7)' is only three points, while 'bad unit, avoid' and 'really bad unit, avoid' ranks from 0/10 to 4/10. Is is really necessary to differenciate that pedantic between, say, Meg, Fiona and Lyre?

I personally started to vote with 5/10 as my baseline for a average unit and for the sake of consistency I've kept that scale for myself. So my 5.5 for Brom actually stands for very slightly above-average, not barely usable.

But if we're discussing if specific votes, here's a question: How on earth is Brom as good as Haar? I read your paragraph on him, but how is a unit that's good for three chapters and decent at best for the rest of the game (especially when compared to the rest of the GM) as good as a unit with better base stats, better caps, better weapon ranks and way better mobility? Even Haars growths are probably better than Brom's; the only stats where Brom grows significantly better than Haar are Luck (lol) and HP (and Haar's base HP is higher than Brom's tier 2 cap).

[Cornguy]

Leane, 7. Don't really have a ton of reasoning, I've always had a tough time rating dancer classes. She flies which is good, activating two units is cool. I don't always have room for dancers, but they're helpful when they get a chance.

Nealuchi, 5.5. He can be helpful in part 2, but I'm never gonna use him when its over. Laguz life I guess.

Haar, 10. Do I have to explain? Flying tank, ridiculous damage dealer, uses arguably the best weapon type in the game.

Brom, 7. I think he's super helpful in part 2, the only thing keeping him from a better score is that he gets outclassed after part 2. But he's still a reasonable unit to bring into endgame if you're attached to him.

Nephenee, 6.5. Stats are okay, but she's a little frail, and I don't think Halberdiers are a great class.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

From the 27th (next time) I'll let you vote for five characters each second day.
It has the advantage that more people have the chance to vote if they're not in the forum everyday,

About that...

I don't really like the proposed scale. As it stands, the difference between 'flawless (10)' and 'decent (7)' is only three points, while 'bad unit, avoid' and 'really bad unit, avoid' ranks from 0/10 to 4/10. Is is really necessary to differenciate that pedantic between, say, Meg, Fiona and Lyre?
I personally started to vote with 5/10 as my baseline for a average unit and for the sake of consistency I've kept that scale for myself. So my 5.5 for Brom actually stands for very slightly above-average, not barely usable.

But if we're discussing if specific votes, here's a question: How on earth is Brom as good as Haar? I read your paragraph on him, but how is a unit that's good for three chapters and decent at best for the rest of the game (especially when compared to the rest of the GM) as good as a unit with better base stats, better caps, better weapon ranks and way better mobility? Even Haars growths are probably better than Brom's; the only stats where Brom grows significantly better than Haar are Luck (lol) and HP (and Haar's base HP is higher than Brom's tier 2 cap).

Do you find that the scale from 0 to 10 hasn't enough spectrum?

Or do you mean that the interval of 0.5 is too large (what I could understand tbh)?

I would prefer to have an interval of 0.25 but it's not managable with the poll.


Also my made classification is pretty subjective.
I guess everyone would made the class limits differently.

My system is comparable with the mark system from school.
If you reach the half of the total points => D

Edited December 25, 2016 by Eleanor Hume

[Caster]

No dancing unit is a worth a 1/10.

Even if you personally don't like how the unit works or aren't good at using efficiently, or they don't go with your playstyle well, it's stupid in my opinion to give them a 1/10

Because they're incredibly useful.

Leanne - 7.5/10

The worst heron but still useful, dancing is nice no matter what, plus I like the girl quite a bit.

Nealuchi - 4.5/10

Not the worst hawk, but falls off very fast, can still be somewhat useful.

Haar- One of the best units in the game.

9.5/10

Brom - Pretty average... not really anything special. 5/10

Nephenee- I really like her but her start is extremely awkward and is probably one of the units with the most trouble getting going to their full potential.

6/10

[Fire Emblem Fan]

We ARE only about halfway through the characters and there's a lot of part 2 junk coming up, let alone some late joinees in part 3 and part 4. I can assure you there are much worse units than Brom on the horizon.

Even so, putting Brom less than D tier really seems harsh, that doesn't really say "slightly less than average" to me.

But if we're discussing if specific votes, here's a question: How on earth is Brom as good as Haar? I read your paragraph on him, but how is a unit that's good for three chapters and decent at best for the rest of the game (especially when compared to the rest of the GM) as good as a unit with better base stats, better caps, better weapon ranks and way better mobility? Even Haars growths are probably better than Brom's; the only stats where Brom grows significantly better than Haar are Luck (lol) and HP (and Haar's base HP is higher than Brom's tier 2 cap).

I've actually said a couple times that Haar is the better unit. My personal rating for Brom is 9/10, but without any bias I'd probably rate Brom a 7/10. My 9/10 still stands because bias, but I will most definitely not argue that Brom is better than Haar.

[Anacybele]

@ Anacybele

I don't think you got the point of the existence of herons.

They're dancers who can give your allies an extra turn.

Uh, duh, I know. I'm not stupid. I even said before that that's ALL they can do and it's why I didn't give them zeros. They're really hard to protect from ranged attacks when they can't defend themselves in any way and like you said, they can pretty much all be one-rounded. They're helpful when you need to refresh units and they're there and you can protect them, but it's hard to protect them. I don't even try to use them much because every time I do, they get killed by a ranged attack because even if I put them behind the line, I somehow still can't keep them out of danger.

[Jave]

Leanne: Worst Heron, but has the advantage of Canto and no terrain penalties. Great use in the maps where she's around, but no reason to bring her to Endgame when her superior-in-every-way brothers are available. 6/10.

Nealuchi: Decent for the three maps he's around and that's about it. No need to field him again. 4/10

Lippy the Dragon and Hardy Har Haar: ALL BOW TO YOUR DRAGONLORD GOD. Seriously, Haar is so amazingly good you can't even count all the ways he's useful. Amazing availability, great bases, no weakness to bows (Seriously, why did they remove this? It makes Wyverns so broken), no terrain penalties, it's like they didn't even check for something to balance him better. Not even his bad Resistance makes him a bad pick for Endgame. -Insert Spinal Tap Reference Here-/10, but really 10/10 since that's as far as the poll goes.

Brom: Okay unit. Sure he's outclassed by Gatrie but he's still decent enough to have around. 6.5/10

Nephenee: I've always have Neph turn out great for me without much effort. She has a bit of a rough start but she'll grow to be a great unit, and a good candidate for Wishblade. 8/10

[Radiant Dragon]

My system is comparable with the mark system from school.

If you reach the half of the total points => D

Perhaps spreading the points out a little more evenly so F isn't three times as big as every other tier might help. Basing the tier list on a school grading scale isn't a great idea because they are intended to provide distinctions at the higher levels only, whereas the difference between a ~0.5 unit and a ~3.0 unit is meaningful enough to not warrant the same grade, at least in my opinion.

I would also remove the separate ranks for + and - tiers personally, but it is your scale and your topic, so keep them if you like them.

[Samias]

I agree, grading these things like you would grade school assignments doesn't make sense if people are rating 1-10 with the assumption that 5 is a unit that neither excels nor fails, and that even a unit with a 3 or a 4 is contributing in some way. 1 and 2 is pretty much the realm of completely awful units.

[Quintessence]

I'd argue Leanne is NOT the worst Heron, I'll place her on second place and Rafiel as the best of all three. Leanne vigors 2 units at once, Reyson chants only 1, and if you want to chant 4 units and the extra movement you either have to wait several turns or use a stone to transform him. But more importantly, Leanne is in the more important chapters, chapters where you really need her while Reyson is not as needed as her. For instance, take out Leanne from the chapters she's available and you'll struggle much more than if you take out Reyson from the chapters he's available. The sole reason od Leanne contributing more than Reyson in vital chapters and the ability to vigor 2 people at once when untransformed is enough reason for me to rank her above Reyson.

[Jave]

What's really dumb about Leanne is that she can only refresh units left and right, but not up or down. Like, what is up with that? Have they actually tried explaining it with in-game logic? Like if she needs to be facing the sunrise or sunset or something? In terms of pure logic it's probably the dumbest gameplay mechanic in the series.

I also think it's kinda stupid to grade an Heron with anything less than a 4/10. They have flaws, sure, but their utility is amazing and putting them down on Fiona tier is utterly ridiculous.

[Junkhead]

uhhhh, she can, actually

[eclipse]

Lame or not, I don't think it's a troll rating (about the only reason why I'd argue to throw any score out).

[Quintessence]

Lol idk (the reasoning behind her vigor mechanics), I find it awkward but anyways I dig it.

Another issue is that people want multi role units and they rank them down because they aren't god units. For some reason the game is a Role Playing Game, and rating Micaiah bad because she can't take a hit and dies to a breeze, as well as Ilyana, is really dumb and silly. Since when are mages defend units or knights? For some reason knights exist, and the role of a mage is to break through high def units and are offense oriented, so they should be ranked whether or not they fulfill that purpose. If there's a thwomp sage then that's an extra bonus ~. But like, rating any heron, healer, mage, archer, sword unit etc., bad because they're frail as fuck is wrong, because their role is different.

= EDIT =

Oh, she actually vigors up/down and left/right units.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Quintessence

[ping]

From the 27th (next time) I'll let you vote for five characters each second day.

It has the advantage that more people have the chance to vote if they're not in the forum everyday,

Do you find that the scale from 0 to 10 hasn't enough spectrum?

Or do you mean that the interval of 0.5 is too large (what I could understand tbh)?

I would prefer to have an interval of 0.25 but it's not managable with the poll.

Also my made classification is pretty subjective.

I guess everyone would made the class limits differently.

My system is comparable with the mark system from school.

If you reach the half of the total points => D

Nah, the scoring system in itself is fine. It's just the translation into school grades that I don't think works that well. The issue is that the 0-10 scale are equivalent to the grade, not the points achieved in a test. The closest comparision I can think of is the grading system in the gymnasialen Oberstufe (sorry, non-Germans ;P ) that goes from 0-15 and in which 8 points equals a solid C in the US (and 5 points is a D).

There is no real equivalent to points in a test in these polls - 4/10 does not mean that four out of ten criteria are met or something like that.

To be honest, I wouldn't do any conversion of the score at all. The absolute numbers don't really have a meaning on their own, it's how they compare to each other. Up to this point, I wouldn't say Tauroneo and Muarim are the average, but rather Micaiah and Edward (because they're #11 and 12 out of 22) or Edward and Aran (because they're the closest to the average score of 6.03).

I've actually said a couple times that Haar is the better unit. My personal rating for Brom is 9/10, but without any bias I'd probably rate Brom a 7/10. My 9/10 still stands because bias, but I will most definitely not argue that Brom is better than Haar.

I did not expect two points of bias to be a thing. :D

But to be honest, that's why I personally try not to give bias points deliberately (although I know that I can't just turn off my personal preferences). If I see that someone gives two units the same score, I would assume that this user found both units roughly equal in terms of usefulness. Especially because (if I got your scaling right) your bias elevated a good-but-not-great unit on the same level as an amazing unit.

Another issue is that people want multi role units and they rank them down because they aren't god units. For some reason the game is a Role Playing Game, and rating Micaiah bad because she can't take a hit and dies to a breeze, as well as Ilyana, is really dumb and silly. Since when are mages defend units or knights? For some reason knights exist, and the role of a mage is to break through high def units and are offense oriented, so they should be ranked whether or not they fulfill that purpose. If there's a thwomp sage then that's an extra bonus ~. But like, rating any heron, healer, mage, archer, sword unit etc., bad because they're frail as fuck is wrong, because their role is different.

To be fair, 'dies to a stiff breeze' is a pretty annoying trait for a unit that's supposed to fight. For healers and herons it's a smaller issue since they're not supposed to engage in combat, although a dancer that could tank multiple hits so you don't have to go out of your way to keep him away from the frontline sounds pretty handy. :D

But generally speaking, it's a question how strong or useful the unique ability of a unit is compared to its shortcomings. The niche for archers to deal accurate damage without being counterattacked, for example, tends to be rather underwhelming and usually doesn't compansate for the lack of counterattacks during enemy phase and the typical shitty-early-archer stats. And sometimes, the units can't even fill their intende niche because other units are comparably good at it - and better in other regards. Knights in FE6 for example can't pointchoke better than other units, so they're just inferior to the cavs in the game. Leonardo might be able to use Beastfoe to great effect, but so does Nolan as soon as he has access to crossbows and Nolan is just the better unit in general. I'm not sure if mages are that much better at thwomp-killing than physical units, to be honest, so I find their frailty and usually really bad caps more important than that.

[Quintessence]

But that's their role, a unit that needs to fight not necessarily has to face a counter because they easily can nuke and rush the enemy. That's what glass canon units work, only hit hard but don't get countered. Additionally, not every fight unit or mage has to be a glass cannon. If they can face hits and tank like a thwomp then that's a bonus trait they have but a judgement should be based on how they fill a role.

Archers are that way because they were designed as such, and I don't find any flaws in it because it fills a strategic niche. They're supposed to snipe from afar without getting hit and there are a lot of good examples, while others require some investment and work, even in Leonardo's case.

Reading through like 10 pages of the thread and finding the common argument of "don't waste your time and effort in X, Y is tons better and stomps enemies" in a Tier List is not a good argument for 1) a list supposed to serve as a guide to inexperienced players, 2) a series like FE that has tons of replay value and 3) a game like RD where you have 77 ~ characters at your disposal to experience the game and its cast in so many refreshing ways.

Question is, why on a guide a lot of you discourage people to use a unit? What's the problem if I want to use Leonardo, Meg, Fiona, Lyre or Oliver in HM? Instead of echoing such argument why don't you (all) orient players on a good way to use a character on whatever mode? That's why I don't like Tier Lists, because they basically are telling you who to use and who to avoid, in other words, instead of encouraging people to try units and experience the game in so many ways, they're guiding you to a strict way of playing the game (haar+royals gg).

[Junkhead]

I feel people put Edward on Wrath on a negative because they don't know how to use it well. The thing's meant to be strategic. This is, a strategy game, after all. Edward's actually really good in HM, if you're willing to put in the effort (and no, I'm not necessarily talking babying).

Edited December 26, 2016 by Soul~!

[Radiant head]

i prefer putting the wrath on micaiah or leo tbh

Edited December 26, 2016 by Radiant head

[Junkhead]

You prefer getting a shitty early-promo Leo? (;

[Shadow Mir]

I feel people put Edward on Wrath on a negative because they don't know how to use it well. The thing's meant to be strategic. This is, a strategy game, after all. Edward's actually really good in HM, if you're willing to put in the effort (and no, I'm not necessarily talking babying).

Tbf, Edward doesn't make good use of it since his ranged options are wind edges, which are both weak and inaccurate. I'd much rather give it to Micaiah or Ilyana instead.

[Junkhead]

are you guys actually forgetting the only unpromoted character bar Ed is Micaiah or something?

[Radiant head]

ed and micaiah are the only tier one units?

[Junkhead]

Do I spell it out for you.

[Quintessence]

ed and micaiah are the only tier one units?

That can equip Wrath. The rest can't unless you promote them.

= EDIT =

It took me quite the time to figure it Soul, so I can only blame you~

Edited December 26, 2016 by Quintessence

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Perhaps spreading the points out a little more evenly so F isn't three times as big as every other tier might help. Basing the tier list on a school grading scale isn't a great idea because they are intended to provide distinctions at the higher levels only, whereas the difference between a ~0.5 unit and a ~3.0 unit is meaningful enough to not warrant the same grade, at least in my opinion.

I would also remove the separate ranks for + and - tiers personally, but it is your scale and your topic, so keep them if you like them.

I agree, grading these things like you would grade school assignments doesn't make sense if people are rating 1-10 with the assumption that 5 is a unit that neither excels nor fails, and that even a unit with a 3 or a 4 is contributing in some way. 1 and 2 is pretty much the realm of completely awful units.

Alright, I understand your points.

I'll fix the class limits.

Nah, the scoring system in itself is fine. It's just the translation into school grades that I don't think works that well. The issue is that the 0-10 scale are equivalent to the grade, not the points achieved in a test. The closest comparision I can think of is the grading system in the gymnasialen Oberstufe (sorry, non-Germans ;P ) that goes from 0-15 and in which 8 points equals a solid C in the US (and 5 points is a D).

There is no real equivalent to points in a test in these polls - 4/10 does not mean that four out of ten criteria are met or something like that.

To be honest, I wouldn't do any conversion of the score at all. The absolute numbers don't really have a meaning on their own, it's how they compare to each other. Up to this point, I wouldn't say Tauroneo and Muarim are the average, but rather Micaiah and Edward (because they're #11 and 12 out of 22) or Edward and Aran (because they're the closest to the average score of 6.03).

Heh... I was exactly thinking about this.

It'd increase the spectrum of D.

Honestly putting someone with an average of 4.5 into E is a bit harsh.

I guess I'll increase the spectrum of C + D a bit.

I feel people put Edward on Wrath on a negative because they don't know how to use it well. The thing's meant to be strategic. This is, a strategy game, after all. Edward's actually really good in HM, if you're willing to put in the effort (and no, I'm not necessarily talking babying).

Wrath is only one good in 1-4 because one tiger brings him down to wrath-zone.

In the prolog he can use it too since he suvives three level 3 brigands with exactly 1 HP.

As for the other chapters in part 1, one hit isn't enough and he might can take only take two steel lances.

It's really hard to bring his HP down to <30%.

In 3-6 you can use the exact the same strategy as in 1-4.

The reason why I think Edward is still good in hard mode is less because of wrath, but rather because of his strength and speed.

He's the only first tier unit besides Jill with transfer boost in speed who's able to double most stuff in part 1.

He can oneround some enemies and claim free kills with the brave lance.

And unlike in NM he does a good job against lances. With support he can take even two steel lances in his face.

i prefer putting the wrath on micaiah or leo tbh

Wrath needs 15 points (unlike in FE9) and first tier Leonardo doesn't have the capacity.

Edit: Made a new classification with a new class and new class limits.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Eleanor Hume