About 2 range and durabilty

In many debates (in the case of Draug/Dolph/whoever), then a character who has access to 2 range is assumed to have a free pass on durability because they will not take counters in most cases. A character who may have better durability otherwise (like Abel), but who will be facing counterattacks, is assumed to have worse durability then the character who has 2 range. I don't agree with this stance at all. Having two range is nice, but how can we not credit characters who can soak up another hit or too? An entire army cannot be made up of bow users, and other units are required in order to protect the bow users from getting killed. Really, I just want to hear the justification as to why a unit with 2 range gets a free pass on the durability argument. A smart player might not put them in range of an enemy, but this could detract from efficiency in many cases. Unless we're using General Zag/Wolf, its an inconvenience to shield these characters from oncoming attacks. I think that the durability of these bow users (Hunters for example) need to be looked at a little more closely, and not just be discarded.

I fully agree with this post. Hunter is great as a support role, but the Hunter -> General setup is being weighed too heavily upon. One thing I agree with Grandjackal on is that it's used as a debate crutch.

Isn't this just part of "hunters don't have an enemy phase?"

dondon151 wrote:Isn't this just part of "hunters don't have an enemy phase?"

Pretty much yeah.

Maybe the route is slightly overrated, but I do know that Dolph was very good with the setup when I used him. I have plans to actually test if Hunter->General is as viable as it is on paper.

I'd actually question Armor Knight more than I would Hunter though.

Obviously units should get credit for being able to wall in others. It makes Zagaro and Wolf even more ridiculous than they are, since they prevent tons of damage being done to others. Not just people like Clerric and Lena who cannot afford to take hits at all even if they survive, but someone like Peg!Shiida can only take one hit, and others are often lucky to take 1-2 more than that. Even Marth makes for a good example.

But, that's comparing a frontliner to a backliner. If we're comparing, for example, a unit (say, a Swordmaster) that's 2RKO'd and takes a counter versus a Sniper that's ORKO'd, I'm going to hand overall durability to the Sniper because the Swordmaster isn't going to be doing much frontlining at all. Then on top of this, it's possible the Swordmaster's enemy phase action isn't that great to begin with, so you can begin to doubt if he's really contributing anything.

I agree, on the basis that it's the weakest form of chip, and I believe archers and hunters catch shit for that. It's more like a free weak-ass attack you normally wouldn't have.

Concerning those saying walling isn't a big deal, it is in fact a big deal. Why? Most of the enemies are lance wielders, and who is the majority? Cavs! What is the greatest strength ofa cavalier? Movement! You have to build a BIG goddamn wall as to block off an enemy type that has 8 move. There is trading out, but then you have to accept the fact that there are people placing themselves as to be vulnerable to ranged attacks who might not be able to counter or get mauled, or that these people are going to be in front anyways.

Let's make an example. Abel has 13 mt with a javelin, and Gordon has 13 mt with a Steel Bow. Steel bow does not face WTD, and all of the first 3 chapters I would honestly prefer you use swords (I would have the balls to say Cain over Abel if Abel didn't get access to Ridersbane so damn quick). This means Gordon is more likely to build rank for his bow, so when he hits C he has +1. Abel probably has gotten an Str level up by the end of chapter 3, but it would just say that Gordon can do what Abel does, yet people say Gordon sucks after his forced chapters, but apparently the javelin makes Abel "godly". Doing Gordon damage is not brilliant. If it is, Gordon should rise into mid, I think we both know that's stupid.

but apparently the javelin makes Abel "godly".

Maybe I should remove Abel from Broken tier and drop him down to High tier where he's considered just a tie break above Kain.

o wiat

Here's what I figured about two range: Its better if the character you're comparing to is killed in the same amount of rounds, but worse if the character you're comparing to can survive at least on more round. I made this comparison earlier:

Caeda is killed in 2 rounds. Barst is killed in 3 rounds. Here's Caeda's best case scenario:

Caeda attacks an enemy on player phase, and avoids a counter. Now she can take one hit on enemy phase.
Barst attacks an enemy on player phase, and takes a counter. Now he too can take on hit on enemy phase.

Why aren't they considered equal durability wise? Well because of all the situations that could pop up:

1) Barst could be attacking an enemy with 2 range (an archer for example)
2) Barst could avoid the enemy's attack (He does have ridiculous avoid with supports after all)
3) Barst could be finishing off an enemy on player phase
4) Barst could attack with a Hand Axe on player phase, and trade to get a Silver Axe on enemy phase

All of these situations would make Barst's durability better then Caeda's, as he would be able to survive at least two attacks on enemy phase instead of one. In the case of bow users, they also have the added disadvantage of taking a counter on player phase when facing other bow users.

Therefore, 2 range should only be considered an asset durability wise if the other character dies in the same amount of hits. Otherwise, it isn't.

I don't agree, IOS, since your analysis ignores that we might have to heal Barst afterwards, which requires attention that Caeda is not taking. We could also have a near-dead Caeda still contributing to damage output, whereas we can't have a near-dead Barst doing the same at 1-range unless it's a death blow.

Not saying that Caeda's better than Barst, just using your example characters to point out an important aspect of durability comparisons.

In all fairness, a 3RKO compared to a 2RKO means you are allowed a player phase without needing a heal, which means that Barst is attacking more frequently than Caeda with a stronger weapon.

Interceptor wrote:I don't agree, IOS, since your analysis ignores that we might have to heal Barst afterwards, which requires attention that Caeda is not taking. We could also have a near-dead Caeda still contributing to damage output, whereas we can't have a near-dead Barst doing the same at 1-range unless it's a death blow.

Not saying that Caeda's better than Barst, just using your example characters to point out an important aspect of durability comparisons.

Huh? My comparison is assuming that Barst isn't being healed. Thats why I put that he can only take one round on enemy phase instead of two. A near-death Caeda is something I didn't consider, but then it stems back to having to alter your strategy around sheltering that character. Barst's other scenarios would certainly outweigh this.

IOS wrote:Huh? My comparison is assuming that Barst isn't being healed. Thats why I put that he can only take one round on enemy phase instead of two.

Right, but it's a less accurate comparison if you make that assumption. You can get an extra hit out of Barst, but you can't get it again until you heal him. 2-range still remains a durability aspect that keeps on giving the longer a chapter runs.

A near-death Caeda is something I didn't consider, but then it stems back to having to alter your strategy around sheltering that character. Barst's other scenarios would certainly outweigh this.

It may, and it may not, but the situation is more complicated than simply saying that 2-range is only an asset durability-wise when units have the same #HKO numbers.

EDIT: I already said this, but just to repeat, I'm not arguing Caeda over Barst or even saying that her durability is better. I'm pointing out that there is more to the general case than you've accounted for.

What with the abundance of Shooters in this game, I don't like the idea of having a half-dead character running around the map, when it could be sniped off at any time.

What with the abundance of Shooters in this game

1 a chapter IF that is an abundance?

You don't have to like it, only acknowledge it. It's a perfectly valid tactical maneuver.

A near-dead Caeda with a 2-range weapon makes you pay for her offense by protecting her from an attack on Enemy Phase (also true of something she OHKOs, but that's Caeda-specific and outside of my point). She does not necessarily need a heal: she can wait. If your healers are tied up, or you want to use them somewhere else, you have the option to still use her as an attacker anyway. That's the advantage, and it happens when you are pushing your army.

And then there is also the other point, which is not related to fighting near-dead at all, just to saving yourself some healing. I have not beaten this game yet, just as a disclaimer, so I can't participate in most discussions, but minimizing damage in this game is a bedrock principle of efficient play as far as I've seen.

Having to wall 2 range units off is rarely a problem in this game. It's only an issue when enemies are both close to your army and acting on enemy phase, which is a scenario that is avoided at all costs by default when playing for efficiency. You want to lure enemies (or run up to them, when your dudes are awesome enough to do that later), kill them immediately on player phase, and move ahead again. Not sit and spend 2-3 turns fighting enemies after they've closed with your group, as that's preventing you from moving forward to the throne.

In this case 2 rangers are rarely if ever placed in a situation where lots of enemies can reach them on enemy phase. The exceptions are usually flying enemies, and bow/tome users are conveniently also the guys who blick those.

The primary advantage of durability/having one range is being able to deal damage on enemy phase, though healers contribute strongly towards that aswell.