Hello r/fireemblem.

About a year ago, I ran a tier list with this format for [Sacred Stones](https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/xp2vrd/sacred_stones_insertion_sort_tier_list/) and the overall feedback was that it went quite well. I didn't really have the passion to run it for any other games at the time so it lay dormant, but now I'm interested in running it for Fire Emblem Engage.

Hopefully this isn't too confusing considering the ongoing other tier list, but I just wanted to take the advice of the host and literally run my own tier list because his flippancy bothered me so much. This is also just a better format for tiering IMO. Sorry to make you go through rules debates 2 days in a row but I promise I'll actually listen to them.

To a programmer, the sorting method we will be using is called insertion sort; to non programmers I'll quickly explain what that means.

We'll move through the cast two units at a time in an arbitrary order--we'll do recruitment order. Then we vote on where they go in the already-sorted list, and, if it's relevant, also where they go relative to each other, until we've done the entire cast. I'll run through a few rounds to give an example.

---

In round 3, we're discussing Vanessa and Moulder. The tier list so far might look like this:

**Top**
Seth
Franz
Eirika
Gilliam
**Bottom**

And a valid vote might look like this:

Vanessa between Franz and Eirika, above Moulder
Moulder between Franz and Eirika, below Vanessa

In Round 4, we're discussing Garcia and Ross. The tier list so far might look like this:

**Top**
Seth
Franz
Vanessa
Moulder
Eirika
Gilliam
**Bottom**

And a valid vote might look like this:

Garcia between Moulder and Eirika
Ross between Eirika and Gilliam

---

I think that's enough of an example. Some random housekeeping points about the format:

* I will determine the placements by taking the median vote for each unit
* I will run re-sub rounds at the end, but from experience, there shouldn't be too many necessary.
* Ties will be broken by removing the host's own vote.
* We will be pre-seeding the list with four uncontroversial units in order to skip straight to the juicy discussion.
* There will be an on-deck thread each round for discussion of the upcoming pair of units. This way, people can start thinking about arguments before the voting opens.
* After the list has been created, I'm planning on another round of votes to split it into tiers. I'll explain that format when we get there.

---

Now that I've explained the format, it's time to discuss the actual rules of tiering FE17. These rules seem pretty uncontroversial (feel free to say in the comments if you disagree though!)

* Maddening Mode
* Fixed growths
* Full recruitment. Recruitment cost is therefore not counted against a unit, and all units are judged assuming you have a full cast (e.g. no "Alear is better if Vander dies")
  * However, you are allowed to reset, this isn't an iron man tier list. It's just that resetting is inefficient, so you want to minimize it.
* Efficiency focused. Low turn counts, reliability, and reliably getting low turn counts are what we care about.
* Glitchless

Here are my biggest questions:

* How do we deal with paralogues?
  * Are they allowed? And if so, are they mandatory? Making paralogues optional increases the number of contexts we have to consider (x unit is good / bad if you do / skip this paralogue) but it might more accurately reflect how people play the game.
* DLC and post-release features?
  * The outcry for including the Ancient Well yesterday was great, so I assume most people are in favor of post-release features. Less clear on DLC.
    * Of course, this brings up another question about how to count the Ancient Well, which is also RNG based. I assume we're not rigging perfect well drops, but do we have any heuristic for how to account for it? Do we only count the SP?
* Bond rings?
  * These are RNG based, but probably shouldn't discount them entirely. One suggestion I received was to assume no S rank bond rings.
* Somniel features?
  * Some of these are RNG based. Do we consider rigging these as inefficient? And if so, how do we account for the RNG disparity? Ban entirely?
  * I expect the non-RNG ones (forging, for example) to be less controversial, but feel free to air thoughts in the thread.

I may have forgotten things. If you have any other questions about this proposed tiering format, FE17, r/fe tier lists, etc., just put them down below. I'll leave this thread open for about 24 hours, and then let consensus determine the rules for any open questions. I assume that consensus will be pretty messy especially about how to account for RNG elements, but I'll do my best.

---

One last point of order. Something that came out of the FE8 tier list was the idea to pre-seed with 4 very uncontroversial units so that early discussion rounds don't feel quite so trivial. The goal here is to have roughly one unit in each quartile of the tier list.

I propose starting with a tier list that looks like this:

**Top**
Alear
Vander
Framme
Etie
**Bottom**

Which I think meets our goals here. But if you have better suggestions for the initial list, let me know that as well.