"His problem is that he has fewer levels to reach those caps, meaning with training, Franz, Forde, Amelia, and Kyle, will USUALLY, not always, be better, and with the training options so readily available in Sacred Stones, it can be worth it to train those characters."

-No, it isn't. Seth is highly durable (doesn't die except to ridiculous stuff like Lyon or Gorgons or Dracozombies), 1-rounds everything except some of the faster enemies in Chapter 19 (a chapter that is beatable in two turns). The slightly better speed that Franz/Forde/Amelia develop is not "worth it".

"I also wouldn't say that he's WORSHIPED by the fandom. Game FAQS is a terrible example to use, because they're mostly, mostly, stat snobs who care about the best characters."

-1)It's hardly just Game Faqs that thinks Seth is godly. Have you ever been on most FE fansites, hmm? 2)Like Seth.

"Many would agree that Seth should be benched, but you know Your Millage May Vary. I'm not sure it's really reasonable to keep it the way it is. To me it seems to be a YMMV entry."

-You're right; whether being able to solo most of the game is "broken" is something that's a matter of personal opinion.

"My point is, I'm not going to engage in an edit war. I think that it might be better if the entry is moved. He's not really a Game Breaker. If you HAVE to classify it, he's more of a Disc One Nuke."

From the Disc One Nuke page:

"Distinct from a Game Breaker in that it's usually not enough to carry you through the entire game."

-Seth can carry you through the entire game and only needs support against wtfLyon and against wtfGorgons in Chapter 18.

The fandom is far past the point where we judge based on 20/20 stats; we've long since gotten it through our heads that not everyone is going to hit 20/20 and that it's far more meaningful to judge based on how characters perform before they hit 20/20. If you really want to talk about this, why not go to, say, Serenes Forest or something?

Oh geez, what a mess. Let me clear some things up about the major parts of the discussion here.

Seth and similar units: the guy who comes at the start and mows down everything in exchange for subpar bases for their level, and may also have bad growths, ultimately leading to them falling behind the rest of your units sometime down the road. Regardless of any of the negatives, the sheer number of turns saved by making full use of these units early on, and indeed usually until at least halfway through the game, often puts them comfortably at the top of tier lists. About that...

Efficiency: The golden word amongst FE fansites. To define it simply, turncount. The theory is that units that get the game done safely in fewer turns are better than ones that don't. Efficiency is the only way of measuring the worth of a unit that doesn't have blurred lines, which comes in handy for nerds on forums who like to bicker about the value of units because statistics, context and objectives all come together neatly and YMMV doesn't apply anywhere. You can't discuss "good" with no context, or worse, conflicting contexts, and this is the context you want.

20/20 stats: Probably the most widespread meaningless argument. Assuming a unit even gets to their max level, they'll be there for a couple of chapters at most, around endgame. Endgame is when your entire team is (or should be) packed with strong, self-sufficient units, and at that point an individual unit isn't worth as much, making it even more of a non-issue. Take into account a unit's performance throughout the whole game, not just at the end.

Creature Campaign: Another non-issue. Here, you have infinite resources, so the only practical difference between units is their class (Bishops > everyone else). The tower and ruins are randomly generated as well, so you can't play them for turns fairly like the main story. As such, they're left out of tier discussions and the like. By the way, so is tower abuse, because that trivialises the game and is pretty much cheating.

"Stealing experience": A fallacy. There are a few reasons for this, but I'll just skim over it. Yes, early on Seth will gain five points where someone else would gain thirty, but try thinking of experience points as less of an end in themselves and consider exactly what they do. You can go ahead and not field Seth and give all of the experience he would have gained to other members of your team, and what do you get for that? A higher turncount and a slightly stronger team... except it's not stronger, because your team lacks Seth, who would still be levelling up regularly with the experience he earns, and instead has one more ordinary unit. Even with Seth's rampages, it's not like there isn't enough experience to keep your other units competent, but because Seth is just that overpowered for so long it doesn't really matter if the rest of your team is set back. Sacrifice Seth for the sake of some weaker units, or sacrifice some weaker units for the sake of Seth? If you've seen a playthrough that uses Seth to his full potential, you should know the answer.

Stop Having Fun Guys: I think that's everything, so I'm going to finish by nipping this in the bud. There is a difference between someone challenging your idea of a good unit, and someone challenging the way you like to play the game. I've seen a lot of people who act defensively and feel threatened by the bad hardcore man who is only trying to set them straight. Of course, I can't blame them, since the person who calls them out to begin with is usually rude and condescending. Basically, if you like to grind Amelia to 20/20 in the tower and have her solo the latter half of the game, there's nothing wrong with that, but still please realise that this does not change the fact that she is the worst unit in FE 8, being nigh unsalvageable without the tower.

Hopefully this gives you all the perspective you need to have a proper discussion. Have a nice day.

The end destination isn't what counts, it's the journey along the way. Seth will have ridiculously better stats than every unit through the main game(Ephriam is the only one who generally gets better than Seth before post game and he promotes 17 chapters through) he's the first one who can wield a legendary weapon, then falls behind(and only slightly) after the game is over, thus he's broken in the game.

If that isn't gamebreaker then you should be asking to remove almost every other entry on this page. For example if Trainee's are acceptable as gamebreakers and they only end up marginally better than Seth, what does that say about Seth during chapters 1 through to Final? The whole story can't be disc one can it?

Most of the other entries should be cleared anyway; there are very few existing entries that are legitimate examples of the Gamebreaker trope rather than extremely casual players gushing over things that are perceived to be broken.

Judging from the length of the page itself, I'd be under the impression that almost everything in every FE game fits the Gamebreaker trope, when that really isn't the case. There are not that many units or items that have the ability to trivialize the entire (or most of a) game.

I'd like to apologize for wasting time on an issue that should be somewhere else. I guess I hadn't really thought of it that way. I'm being kind of an ass here and I really haven't changed my opinions from back in 2007 during the whole "anti-prepromotes" movement. Guess I'm too old for this debate. Sacred Stones is kind of a special case all by itself in that anyone can become a Game Breaker during Creature Campaign. I think that if we take that into account, the most pure form of a game breaker would probably be the Bishop class what with Slayer and all, but being given a character who can solo the entire game with a couple of exceptions (I guess I did do it with Seth, Cormag, Artur, Dussel, and Ephraim the first time around) is pretty broken. But I kind of agree with dondon151. The page seems a little cluttered and not entirely organized. I think someone less biased than I am needs to work on it. I have to go replay FE 7 and kick some sense into myself.

I've taken the liberty of removing a big chunk of the entries and made a change on the Fire Emblem shadow dragon section about forging.

Here's my reasons.

Volug- His entry even said he's not good past the first part of the game Brave Weapons- double hits are good but they aren't gamebreakers, they don't guarantee a kill.

Nephenee & Trainee's- A weak character becoming a good character isn't gamebreaking.

Dark Magic, specifically Luna- Ignoring resistance is sort of OK but the tome has no might, it's only effective against foes with alot of resistant which is just Bosses.

Lyon- He's the last character you get after completing the toughest challenge in the game multiple times over, once you have him there's nothing left to do. There's no game to break.

Lions- They have low resistance and are available in the part of the game with the most magic users, Caighness maybe but that's only because he's part of the 3 broken Laguz Royals.

Forging- I changed the sentence about the forged Iron Sword on a Marth with every stat booster being able to kill everything in the game except Gharnef, forging can make game breakers but an iron sword isn't one of them.

I think there needs to be a disclaimer at the top of the page that virtually any character in the game can be made into a gamebreaker of sorts through intense favoritism. It should include brief descriptions on the means of training units like boss abuse, reinforcement abuse, arena abuse, battle save abuse, FE 9 BEXP abuse, and resource stacking.

Then, the next section should include the real gamebreakers. These should just be limited from one to a few examples per FE game and include the characters, items, and/or mechanics that allow most of, or the entire, game to be easily trivialized.

There's still a lot of entries on the current page that don't adequately fit the definition of a gamebreaker:

- The first example is basically an endgame appraisal of FE 9 Ike. Good, but not gamebreaking. - A subheader of the first example is FE 10 Ike. Better than FE 9 Ike, but still not gamebreaking, even with transfers.

- Second example is just false; Ayra is in no way a clear gamebreaker in FE 4 because of her unmounted movement.

- The third example kind of shows the "everyone can be a gamebreaker" side of how this trope applies to FE, but there are broken characters in FE 4 gen 2 that obsolete less broken characters. Ayra is also not gamebreaking.

- Fourth example on FE 11 forging is mostly correct thanks to arvilino. This would probably be even better integrated with its interaction with gamebreaking units, and a mention on FE 12 forging having a similar effect.

- Example five: who cares about what's broken in FE 8 creature campaign?

- Sixth example is completely erroneous. Marksmen are not gamebreaking at all.

- Example seven: lions aren't broken either, and I wouldn't even consider laguz royals to be gamebreaking because they have the crippling disadvantage of 1 range lock. - Haar, however, is gamebreaking.

- Blessed weapons in the eighth example are not gamebreaking. They're just SS weapons with infinite uses... which is nice until you realize that 50 uses on SS weapons would be enough to last through 4-E anyway.

- Ninth and tenth examples are boss and arena abuse and very clearly state that abusing EXP gain will create gamebreakers out of almost anyone.

- In the eleventh example, Julia is not broken or significantly gamechanging in FE 4 second generation.

- The twelfth example about the 3 most important stats doesn't even belong on this page.

- Thirteeth example about FE 9 axes: a weapon type in itself can't be a gamebreaker, especially if the weapon type in question isn't significantly superior or different from the other weapon types.

- In the fourteenth example, Titania is a gamebreaker in FE 9; Oscar is merely good.

- Last example about Seth sounds amateurish but is entirely correct.

I don't know if anyone here cares enough to argue about these changes, but I don't want to attempt these changes without at least proposing them first.

Would Warpskipping be a good entry?

Perhaps. I've already overhauled the page as no one seems to recognize that there's a discussion section, and I've included warpskipping under separate game entries for when I thought it was strong enough in that game to be gamebreaking. Not sure if it requires a section of its own, however, because it's subtly different in each game due to the staff mechanics, the units available, the availability of Warp and Hammerne, etc.

Thanks, this looks much better now, especially with the disclaimer. I think this addresses both sides of the view while providing the best examples of the Trope possible.

If anyone can help in fixing all of the red links, that would be much appreciated. I've never edited for TV Tropes before, so I don't yet understand all of the more subtle stuff.

It would also be nice if someone could add some examples from FE 1-3, since I've never played those games before.

Hmmm....well in FE 1, there's not a whole lot of Game Breakers. I guess Jeigan counts since he's mounted and everything there sucks plus he's around from the beginning? Warp and Hammerene are the only thing that pops into mind.

With FE 3, it's a similar story. Warp, maybe Rescue, and by extension Yumina. Sirius and Paola probably too since caps are at 20 and they have ridiculous bases and join early (and Paola has flight).

I'm a little busy though and I have a headache right now, so I can't really add those yet.

I wouldn't list Rescue as gamebreaking - not in FE 3, and not in FE 12 Lunatic. It's a remarkably good turn saver in the absence of better turn savers, but the fact is that the player can't skip much of anything using Rescue because the unit using Rescue has to move ahead in the first place.

And before anyone says it, I wouldn't consider FE 3 Again to be gamebreaking either because it only has 3 uses.

So in response to this whole Elincia edit war going on right now, I'd like to request that we come up with a more concrete description of how extreme a unit/weapon/item needs to be to be properly "game breaking". Does Sothe count, if he only breaks the first half? Do the Royals count, if they only break part 4 (and 1-8/1-E in Nailah's case)? Does Titania count if she's pretty good but not an indestructible death machine for the whole game?

Even with the cleanup, I think Game Breakers aren't well defined enough for this series. I'd like for there to be a more concrete set of standards (character must be among the top 5 units for most of their existance, character must be around for over half the game, etc). Otherwise it's too easy to come in and do something like call Ilyana a Game Breaker because Rexbolt is fairly good for one map in the whole game.

So what do you guys think? Should we come up with a more concrete set of criteria? It would be a lot nicer to establish all that here, then set it forth in the main page, than have this constant back and forth edit-warring every time a debatable character gets added, plus it would decrease the YMMV aspects that cause this kind of issue in the first place.

The issue is not necessarily that Game Breakers are not well defined, it's that this one guys sees a video hyping up Elincia and insists that the video makes her Elincia good enough to be a Game Breaker. This is ignoring the following:

1. The guy was only using Beorc units 2. He was playing slowly 3. He gave Elincia Dragonfoe, so of course she'd ORKO stuff 4. Her enemy phase still sucks 5. What she does isn't unique. She has a Brave weapon and flight. Ok. Due the same combo with a trained flier, only swap out Amiti with a Brave weapon. You still get the same result and in the case of Jill's and Haar's case, a better result. 6. Elincia has enough problems in her other maps that being great in that Endgame section does not override her flaws.

Sothe and Volug are gamebreakers because they make the hardest section in the game (Part 1) considerably easier and are still useful late in the game (Volug is a great combatant all the way up to Endgame and Sothe has Beastkillers for Part 3 and has thief utility in Part 4). Titania has a good case for being a game breaker, as she's Haar without flight and worse durability, but better speed.

All three of these units have one thing in common. They make a tremendous impact on the teams they're on. Somebody like Elincia is good when trained, but she's not on the level of Sothe for instance.

"So in response to this whole Elincia edit war going on right now, I'd like to request that we come up with a more concrete description of how extreme a unit/weapon/item needs to be to be properly "game breaking". Does Sothe count, if he only breaks the first half? Do the Royals count, if they only break part 4 (and 1-8/1-E in Nailah's case)? Does Titania count if she's pretty good but not an indestructible death machine for the whole game?"

None of your examples would qualify. Sothe is more of a Disc One Nuke than anything else; his performance drops off drastically in his second half of the game and his performance in part 1 is occasionally eclipsed by superior temporary units. Titania is merely good. Royals are more Last Disc Magic or something.

To be honest, I think gamebreakers are pretty evident when you look at the definition of a gamebreaker in the first place. The Game Breaker page contrasts them with units that are gamebreaking in either the first half or second halves of the game, but not both. That removes borderline cases like FE 10 Sothe, FE 10 laguz royals, FE 6 Marcus, FE 6 Miledy, etc. Then there's our clause that discounts all potential gamebreakers as a result of various types of time-consuming abuse, which further discounts borderline cases like FE 11 Wolf, FE 11 Sedgar, etc. (in addition to obvious ones like FE 10 Elincia). You can think of it this way: would this character be in a tier of his own (or shared with one other character) in a low turncount tier list of this game? If not, then he's probably not a gamebreaker. If this gamebreaker is mostly a mechanic in the game rather than a certain unit (like in FE 4, FE 5, and FE 11), then you'd list the character(s) that abuse that mechanic the best.

Finally, I'd prefer it if we'd just limit the examples to one or two for each game. It's not really simply a matter of aesthetics; usually there is just one character that's so much better than the rest. Like, Titania is good, but Haar is simply better. Volug is good, but his weaknesses are too numerous to make him gamebreaking. And if you really want to give an honorable mention to Sothe, you should probably make an entry for him in the Disc One Nuke page. I'll refrain from immediately editing out some examples because that's kind of a douchebag move, but I don't want someone to look at this page and get the impression that everyone is broken in Fire Emblem.

Well, this is an example of the issue I'm trying to point out; I bring up Titania/Sothe/Royals, N Kot B says they're Game Breakers, dondon says they're not.

Now, personally I agree with dondon that ideally we would describe characters that are excellent for the majority of the game and obviously just better than others (FE 9 Titania, Seth, etc). However, that kind of brings up it's own issues; for example, by that criteria, does any Sword of Seals character count (as the description says, most characters either join too late or decline too earl to count, or are susceptible to RNG screwage). Between that and the inherent problem of differing playstyles and such, I think it's unrealistic to just say "Look at the Game Breaker description, see if it applies here", because people are going to interpret availability/need of training in different ways.

I wouldn't ordinarily make such a big deal about this, but because tvtropes is user-created content I think it would be very helpful to have specific and clear rules as to what does or does not prevent a character form being on this page. As has been mentioned a few times, almost any character can be a game breaker given the proper setup/training (and even characters who are just terrible still have fans).

Finally, I think there's an inherent issue which I myself have fallen into; the "if x is here, and y > x, then y ought to be here!" problem. Setting forth specific rules would limit the amount of characters present, and would make it less likely for people to see a...shall we say, "tier gap" and feel the need to add everybody in between.

Anyway, I've rambled enough about it, I guess. If you guys don't think it's important then I'm okay with that. I just think it would help prevent edit warring over confilcting ideas of what a Game Breaker is if we had clear guidelines as to what does or does not constitute one in the Fire Emblem series.

1. So Laguz Royals are the most balanced things ever? No they're not. And she KEEPS UP. 2. 9 turns is not slow. Even if it was, it was due to the challenge's terms. 3. Effective 1HK is what's important. Elincia does that to Reds. NOLAN couldn't do that. 4. Laguz Royals' enemy phase still sucks too by that logic. Your point? Oh wait. I forgot. Elincia can have the Tempest Sword equipped via the Trade command and keep herself from being targeted by the Spirits. 5. Brave AXE can't effective 1HK Reds even with 40 Strength. 6. Uh, no? She massacres any mook she attacks on 2-E, even if she's supposed to. 4-2, there's plenty of forest terrain that lets her snipe baddies. 4-5, there isn't a ranged baddie there except Izuka, and if the beast laguz prove too much, give her Beastfoe + Vantage, a valid combination because Stun requires only 25 capacity. There. 45 Might Amiti again thus effective 1HKing beasts and most likely Ravens (not affected but doesn't matter, their defenses suck) when anything there that isn't Izuka or a Dragon can't range her, and as further protection, she can get the occasional first strike off due to her high Speed.

As for the "artificial difficulty creation"? You can't think how those things would help if anything? Let's see:

• Formshift ban - Formshift breaks mechanics, to the point where saying that nothing else is broken because of that is a pathetic joke. Even if that wasn't a problem, there aren't many defensively strong baddies left. The whole problem with Elincia's brokenness is isolating them. She provides a free attack you can't complain about, and it's one that's very strong. Really, you can use her as a pseudo-Archer, because she will inevitably hit something for basically free. And Sephiran is on the list because she can effective 1HK him via Ena.
• Range wand ban - Range wands help keep her alive if she's actually trucking everything in sight.
• Range 3+ ban - when Dragons counterattack 1-2 range attacks. Really.
• Blessed Dragon Killer ban - hey guys, let's kill Dheginsea in 1 turn, probably using either beyond ridiculous Game Breakers or overcomplicated moves that only Stop Having Fun Guys could possibly understand and calling that a standard. Won't that be fun.
• Double Bow restriction to 2 range - Double Bow is OP due to having 1 range option to begin with.

Bottom line: Elincia is broken. The reason you don't notice is because you hold to ridiculous standards.

Where's the revert button. Apparently, a LOT of discussion was added. Elincia's Amiti abuse is at least restricted to a few chapters to be fair, though so are a lot of things. Again, Elincia acts as a ridiculously versatile pseudo-Archer. If she somehow doesn't have a valid target, the battlefield is incredibly unlikely to be crowded enough to stop your other units from mopping up. The fact that DRAGONS can be included in her valid targets list says something.

@Seiji Mc Seij

It's really difficult to provide the criteria in layman's terms so that any guy would understand them. I've already included that disclaimer about anyone being able to be a gamebreaker, and the fact that gamebreakers are supposed to trivialize the entire game doesn't stop guys like Gamet from thinking that a mediocre unit "dominating" one chapter in a game with over 40 chapters (after substantial abuse) is gamebreaking.

I also don't believe that any FE 6 character falls under these criteria. I've already pointed out the characters that trivialize large sections of the game but fail to do so for its entirety due to their poor growths or imperfect availability.

@Gamet

You are certainly correct that Elincia's Amiti is restricted to a few chapters. That is exactly why she's not a gamebreaker. Other things that are restricted to a few chapters are either not listed or are covered under the "anyone can be a gamebreaker" clause.

Furthermore, Elincia's perceived dominance of 4-E-3 is trivial because there is a much faster way to break that chapter. It is very possible to 1 turn clear 4-E-3 while only killing one generic red dragon (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXveFiQL4w4). If this strategy obsoletes whatever Elincia does in terms of brokenness, then clearly, Elincia is not very broken because she is much worse at it. If anything, this solidifies the fact that laguz royals + Rafiel is broken for that one particular map.

Finally, arbitrary restrictions aren't indicative of a normal playthrough where characters are allowed to be used to their full potential. I don't really care if you accuse us of "holding to ridiculous standards;" that is really the only way of figuring out who or what is really broken vs. just simply good, and we don't want this page to be saturated with a billion examples.

Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They're beyond broken. Everybody will agree on that. Might as well say that Voldemort isn't a Complete Monster just by comparing her to Dolores Umbridge. He's not let off the hook for his Freudian Excuse, why should Elincia be let off the hook from brokenness just because of the Laguz Royals?

And "arbitrary restrictions"? Yes, there's a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn't. It's just abuse said something to death. Stop pretending that's not the case.

By the way, if you're interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it's incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I'm sure all the users here who would do it won't revolt.

"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They're beyond broken."

Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the Game Breaker page? It says:

"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. "

Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.

"Yes, there's a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn't."

Aha. Yeah, right. These things took time to figure out. If these abuse strategies were so easy, then there wouldn't be comments on You Tube videos expressing awe at their swiftness.

"By the way, if you're interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it's incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I'm sure all the users here who would do it won't revolt. "

I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player's playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.

No, you don't make beyond broken stuff standard. All that does is only drive the point home that it is beyond broken, not show anything truly impressive. And if you're going to leave boss abuse alone for high turn counts, then Elincia doesn't deserve a cut for being compared to beyond broken stuff. The fact is, Amiti still causes enough problems for the enemy force on 4-2 and 4-5, especially on 4-5 when Beastfoe turns it into effectively 1HKing Tigers with base Strength, and Vantage pretty much spikes up Elincia's Speed value during the enemy phase, considering the Tigers most likely can't 1HK her to begin with.

And Laguz Royal brokenness didn't take long to figure out. A blog post I stumbled upon some time back points out why it's such a problem too. Any restriction if not outright ban they get would be well deserved, problems with Dheginsea or no. The only things that could deserve praise when using them would be the 0% growth runs. Shallow speedruns? Don't make me laugh.

Stop using such high standards that L Pers like Slim Kirby couldn't keep up just as a cheap excuse for cutting examples on a YMMV trope. If I find what some of the things you do overcomplicated, what makes you think L Pers in general, let alone newbies, will understand them whatsoever? You have no concept of a happy medium whatsoever.

"No, you don't make beyond broken stuff standard. All that does is only drive the point home that it is beyond broken, not show anything truly impressive."

Please, don't be ridiculous. There's no such thing as "beyond broken."

"And if you're going to leave boss abuse alone for high turn counts, then Elincia doesn't deserve a cut for being compared to beyond broken stuff. The fact is, Amiti still causes enough problems for the enemy force on 4-2 and 4-5, especially on 4-5 when Beastfoe turns it into effectively 1HKing Tigers with base Strength, and Vantage pretty much spikes up Elincia's Speed value during the enemy phase, considering the Tigers most likely can't 1HK her to begin with."

You can 1 turn 4-5 with 2 Rescue staff charges. That's pretty cool (and kind of broken).

"And Laguz Royal brokenness didn't take long to figure out. A blog post I stumbled upon some time back points out why it's such a problem too. Any restriction if not outright ban they get would be well deserved, problems with Dheginsea or no. The only things that could deserve praise when using them would be the 0% growth runs. Shallow speedruns? Don't make me laugh."

It's actually fairly amusing that you can't trivialize 4-E-1 with only laguz royals. That's at least one map in 4-E where they're not the best (Haar, Jill, Titania are better in that map). Also, why do you think that only your opinion is valid? Why is this such a problem that it needs to be banned? As far as I know, the laguz royals are a completely legitimate component of the game. Look at the Game Breaker page again. Its definition is not subject to arbitrary bans like what you've proposed.

"Stop using such high standards that L Pers like Slim Kirby couldn't keep up just as a cheap excuse for cutting examples on a YMMV trope. If I find what some of the things you do overcomplicated, what makes you think L Pers in general, let alone newbies, will understand them whatsoever? You have no concept of a happy medium whatsoever."

L Pers are not the end all be all of Fire Emblem players. In fact, most of them are pretty subpar. But anyway, what is there so complicated about warpskipping? Or using the undisputedly best character in the game? Certainly it is much less complicated than training a specific unit, giving her a specific skillset, and then trading her weapon every enemy phase!

Gamet, your hyping about Elincia with Dragonfoe in 4-E-3 or Beastfoe in 4-5 does not show that Elincia is broken, it shows that those skills are great in those chapters and that she can make good use of those skills. Unfortunately what you are failing to realize is that all that stuff that makes Elincia "broken" can also make another unit broken. You just need to swap out the Amiti for a Brave weapon or strong weapon and you can achieve the same or similar results.

The Laguz Royals by the way don't belong on Game Breakers. They are EleventhHourSuperpowers which is different. They are undoubtedly powerful when they are around, but they are only around for a limited amount of time to use their power. Plus some royals like Naesala and Tibarn can be OHKO'd by Crossbows and they have a non-negligible chance of getting hit by those and all the Royals lack 1-2 range.

Please stop badmouthing the way we like to play because it's "cheap" in your eyes. You're sounding like a classic Scrub.

You know...now that I look on the Game Breaker main page, there are a remarkable amount of examples that don't actually conform to the trope's definition, and are just "this is pretty cool" or "this is way powerful if you get this exact setup that only is possible in the late/postgame".

Perhaps the issue has never been with FE specifically, and it's just that Game Breaker itself needs to have an overhaul? Since so many people are inclined to list anything and everything regardless of availability or setup or training required...either the trope definition needs to be loosened (say, make it a supertrope of Disc One Nuke and Last Disc Magic and all related things) or the trope pages all need to be overhauled like this to conform with the current definition.

The trope definition is fine, but most people like to be distracted with cool, shiny things, so there's understandably a load of crap on that page.

Ooh. The Stop Having Fun Guy is calling me a Scrub. Totally unpredictable.

And Brave weapons go through their uses fast. Amiti doesn't have that problem, not to mention goes on a flying unit you are forced to have on Tibarn's team. Also, Elincia makes RIDICULOUS use of those skills. Effective 1HKing Tigers with BASE Strength, meaning she shouldn't ever have a shortage of valid targets. Oh, but what about 4-2? Oh you mean the map that's so full of terrain that Elincia dying from full health is your fault even if you're a newbie, when Tibarn's team should have a second healer to accomodate the people needing EXP to begin with.

Also, you deserve to be badmouthed for badmouthing players who actually are decent. You don't want to recognize that they have some sense of skill. So tell me what you do to the people who front-line archers who can't take punishment without attacking any valid targets.

A Stop Having Fun Guy is somebody who objects to people playing differently because it's not the optimum way to play. A Scrub is essentially a Stop Having Fun Guy only he hates on people for using "broken" things. I do not oppose other people's playstyles nor have I badmouthed other players. Therefore, I am not a Stop Having Fun Guy. You however, have insulted me, dondon, and other people who have fun playing efficiently. It's basically you (the pot) calling the kettle black.

Anyway Elincia has the following problems. First, her base stats are horrible for Part 4 and it's unlikely she'll gain any levels. She doesn't quad at this point, she only doubles. Second of all, ORK Oing Tigers at her base strength with Beastfoe is not anything special. Base Rolf can do it with a reasonably strong crossbow for instance and we're not even getting into Haar or Jill, who can also effectively ORKO (or OHKO) tigers but actually have an enemy phase. I've said this a billion times and you have been sticking your fingers in your ears. Also Elincia has better things to do than kill tigers. Namely, team up with Tibarn and Reyson using Rescue to 1-turn 4-5 for instance.

Also you seem to be under the impression that people need experience but that's not the case. Experience is only valuable as means to an end, and you don't really "need" to farm for exp with healers or whatever. In fact, it's possible to beat this game at 0% growths.

Also the archer class sucks. Didn't you get the memo? Therefore, Elincia essentially being like an Archer is not a point in her favor.

By any chance, are you a Masterknight DH sockpuppet? The familiar logic, the manner of speech, and just everything about you is pretty much identical.

I have heard you called people like Mage Knight 404 n00bs. I saw his LP. There were mistakes, but he could hardly qualify as n00bish. But you only want to insist otherwise. YOU are the problem, end of discussion.

And Elincia has problems? She'd have to have horrible Strength, because as far as one-rounding goes, Amiti means the enemy effectively has only HALF of their HP. And if you're even going to talk about Haar or Jill, go right ahead and gimp Micaiah's team of power units they need to make up for Micaiah's lack of authority stars and the desert map that everybody just loves.

Ah right. Rescue. Because everybody will even think to do that, never mind that it's a Guide Dang It to begin with—even if Dragonfoe is too by that logic. Oh wait, most players don't try for quick victories in general, such things inherently involve at least either Game Breakers or overreading the game. You're doing both and using THAT as a standard.

Your 0% growth also takes 3 turns on 4-F-2. Hardly a healthy standard when people panic because they want to avoid KILLING the Black Knight. And they still have trouble with Dheginsea and Ashera. Experience just a means to an end? All you have proven is how fail your argument is.

Also, the point is that Elincia gets valid targets she can tear apart left and right. Didn't you get the memo? Or are you too busy abusing Laguz Royals like nothing else exists, when I, a "scrub" as you oh so wisely called me, didn't even need them for Dheginsea or Ashera?

Elincia does have horrible strength. Her base strength is 19. For reference, that's the same base strength as Brom. She also has poor durability.

The fact is, that Elincia is not really broken. She needs a lot of levels in order to be able to kill enemies on her own, so she likely won't be killing enemies reliably until the very, very end of the game. That's hardly Game Breaker status. While it's true that she can OHKO Tigers with Beastfoe, so can anyone. Even base level Rolf OHK Oes Tigers with the right weapon and Beastfoe.

Permitting Elincia to be called a Game Breaker is I think, rather trivialising the word. She joins late, has initially mediocre offense and durability and requires some training in order to flourish. With such low standards for qualifying as a Game Breaker, one could conceivably stretch the term to cover 30% of the cast.

"Ooh. The Stop Having Fun Guy is calling me a Scrub. Totally unpredictable."

I'd prefer not to be called a Stop Having Fun Guy because I think I've given more than adequate acknowledgment to the diverse playstyles possible in Fire Emblem via listing the available methods of abuse.

"And Elincia has problems? She'd have to have horrible Strength, because as far as one-rounding goes, Amiti means the enemy effectively has only HALF of their HP. And if you're even going to talk about Haar or Jill, go right ahead and gimp Micaiah's team of power units they need to make up for Micaiah's lack of authority stars and the desert map that everybody just loves."

Elincia's str at —/4: 20.95

Titania's str at 20/4: 30.8

Sure looks like horrible str to me. Titania does more damage with a Brave Sword than Elincia does with Amiti, that's for sure. Against a random enemy like a 23 def halberdier, she does about the same amount of damage in one strike with a forged Silver Axe compared to Elincia's dual strike with Amiti. Against 27 def generals, Titania pulls ahead (although she could just whip out a Hammer for OHK Os).

So now even if Elincia is approximately offensively equal to Titania against most enemies, she's still a lot less durable, and she's playable for a much shorter period of time, which means that Elincia is not as gamebreaking as Titania. Titania is not even listed right now because she pales in comparison to Haar.

"Ah right. Rescue. Because everybody will even think to do that, never mind that it's a Guide Dang It to begin with—even if Dragonfoe is too by that logic. Oh wait, most players don't try for quick victories in general, such things inherently involve at least either Game Breakers or overreading the game. You're doing both and using THAT as a standard."

I'm a pretty smart guy; I didn't need to look at a guide. But anyway, gamebreakers aren't always immediately obvious (that's not a characteristic of the trope), so there's nothing wrong with what is in your opinion "overreading" the game. Remove that element and it's just gamebreaking, so I'm glad you agree with us. On the other hand, some gamebreakers (like Warp in FE 5 and FE 11) are extremely obvious, but players don't use it because they think it detracts from their enjoyment of the game. That's also fine, but it doesn't make the mechanic any less broken; in fact, it all but confirms it.

"Your 0% growth also takes 3 turns on 4-F-2. Hardly a healthy standard when people panic because they want to avoid KILLING the Black Knight. And they still have trouble with Dheginsea and Ashera. Experience just a means to an end? All you have proven is how fail your argument is."

Meanwhile you have not proven anything at all, so I'm patiently waiting. I think that I've also very adequately proven that EXP is merely a means to an end; the end being a completion of the game.

"Also, the point is that Elincia gets valid targets she can tear apart left and right. Didn't you get the memo? Or are you too busy abusing Laguz Royals like nothing else exists, when I, a "scrub" as you oh so wisely called me, didn't even need them for Dheginsea or Ashera?"

I made Dheginsea and Ashera look like mice in the palms of gods. I wonder which accomplishment is more relevant to this trope?

Nobody actually said that L Pers were noobs, just that they were hardly a standard for playing. That's a lot different than what you're saying. We actually were quite civil towards you, not swearing at you, insulting you, and trying to explain using logic that Elincia is not a Game Breaker. Ok, maybe I shouldn't have called you a Scrub, but that was basically the worst thing we did. What you said:

"Fuck you then."

That's flaming.

"Even if 0% growth running was impressive, it doesn't change the fact that you're a Stop Having Fun Guy who calls people n00bs without perfectly valid proof."

Strawmanning.

"your opinion is trash."

Hypocrisy.

"Ah right. Rescue. Because everybody will even think to do that, never mind that it's a Guide Dang It to begin with—even if Dragonfoe is too by that logic. Oh wait, most players don't try for quick victories in general, such things inherently involve at least either Game Breakers or overreading the game. You're doing both and using THAT as a standard."

Terrible logic we refuted.

You like to hold the high ground and call us Stop Having Fun Guys but really, you're telling us we aren't allowed to have fun playing the game quickly and using stuff that you decree broken. Your opinion is hardly sacred sir. Get off your high horse and stop throwing tantrums when you don't get your way when arguing about obscure JSRP Gs on the internet.

MODERATOR SPEAKING

Locking the page. Any further edits will have to go through this thread since you can't have a civilized discussion. This is your only warning. Further asshattery will result in suspension.

I missed this argument, but I think Thatkidinthebasement might be right about Gamet. He posts almost exactly like Master Knight DH who is supposed to be banned from this site, for similar arguments he's had before.

If you compare "gamets" posts with his blog http://real-game-balance.blogspot.com/. Most notably dozens of tropes, lots of caps and getting angry arguments.

Also http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Awesome.ptitle8zx0nomxzqc5&more=t, gamets edits are entirely based around mentioning Masterknightd H.