Oh yeah, I noticed that with calculator spells as well. Around the first turn or so there's always a ct that hits everyone (or everyone besides the caster).
However, you can't consistantly in such a case, it changes after a little.
Oh yeah, I noticed that with calculator spells as well. Around the first turn or so there's always a ct that hits everyone (or everyone besides the caster).
However, you can't consistantly in such a case, it changes after a little.
*Dude, he's got Haste and I don't. Only all of his team's gonna have CT 100 on turn one, thus making it all the harder to hit me with his lousy-cheap-skate Calculator Holy. Who knows about Height or exp? It could all very well help me in him not hitting me with those Calculator Holy spells.
*As far as the damage goes, my monks have always seemed to kick that much ass, but I could be wrong; or it might have been Ramza that did that much. Still, the point remains that the monks can outdo the Knights with their Excaliburs about 2 to 1.
*And don't forget about the almighty ranged attack of Earth Slash. It may cause nearly as much damage as an attack would, but it does deal a significant amount of damage. Monks also have a few supportive abilities, mainly Chakra, that come in handy at times, compared to the knight's lousy break weapon skills.
I'd also like to think that Lv. 98 female thiefs with Setiemsons could potentially take care of the job, so long as they can get to the Knights in the first round and steal those bad-ass-cheap Excaliburs. Give 'em all a Black Costume, Thief Hat, Move +3, Math Skill, Dragon Spirit, and Magic Attack UP, and they just might take care of the cheap Knights. They've got just a bit more Speed than the knights now, a move of 7 if I'm correct, and the ability to hit every last one of those pricks with Level 3 Flare. If nothing else, they can always charm the knights. See what you can do with both of these strategies, Jay.
Kuja Highwind/Blackmage: Some guy that used to be active back around 2001... He almost made his way through Proto's Custom Title Tournament way back in the day...but almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades. Oh well.
I like the thief idea.
Dear Lord.
"I mean, this is the MIDDLE AGES."
This is a fictious world. It is not in the Middle Ages. It is in a time period unique to the game. If it were in the Middle ages, there would be no magic and combat would not be turn-based.
Before I continue, let me ask that you READ THE REST OF THIS THREAD if you have not already done so. Many of these issues have already been dicussed. For example, I have previously and EXPLICITLY explained how I meant the term "Knights" in this thread. In addition we have already discussed Monks.
So moving SWIFTLY on ...
Yes, I KNOW Monks are powerful. I KNOW they can easily do 1998 damage on one turn. HOWEVER, they do not have Haste and would not get their turn first. FURTHERMORE, the attack has no range, so you would need to be in proximity of the Knight in order to attack it. ADDITIONALLY, 1998 damage is pure OVERKILL. A lot of damage does not necessarily equal the best unit. A knight can deal damage which, while admittedly less than 1998, is still lethal, and that is all that matters. Dead is dead. A Chaos Blade / Excalibur attack is something to be reckoned with.
Next, I only say to calculate for level 99 because most people are on level 99. I can calculate by any number of different factors and attributes. I thought that much was obvious ...
While I am thinking about it, let me point out the tragic flaw in every one of your arguments, which is all anyone has ever been trying to do is to design a team which can beat mine. To be the best team, you must be the best in general. Even if a team you design could beat mine, it would probably not be better than mine on average.
Kuja, that team would still lose as a result of HP defecit. Let's assume you manage to steal an excalibur from each and every one of my Knights. Their turns are now over and now it is my turn. They are all adjacent to my Knights, for the proximity on a Steal ability is one. So, all I do is attack with my remaining Chaos Blade, killing each and every one of your Thieves. If you charmed them, it would not matter; all I would have to do is Calculate a spell which will hurt your units by a great deal but only mildly to mine because I have high HP.
As for you, Summon Illusion, I do not take responsibility for your misunderstanding. I have explicitly defined "Knight" earlier in the thread and readig that is your responsibility. Not mine.
Squires would not be considered Knights because they do not have Knight-type abilities.
itd be fun to steal the excaliburs and chaos blades and CHUCK EM AT HIS CHARACTERS HEADS! BAH HQ HAHAHAHHAQHQHQHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHKAKJHKAHJAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
Alas...
Alas ... if that only made sense ...
Re: Alas...
oh, i assure you, it did. steal/throw is a fun yet not very effective combo. theres some joy in stealing someones weapon and then killing them with it ::sighs happily::. it would just be fun with your guys because they have such good weapons. get what im saying?Originally posted by Jay Ayanami
Alas ... if that only made sense ...
You're one of those people that try to sound intellingent but really isn't, aren't you.
The majority's definition is different from yours, which would mean that the general thought for knight would intdeed, be the generic knight class. Of course you may just be an eccentric one, however the discussion earlier just simply faded out, meaning that most people are going by their own definitions anyways... (side look)
Ah, but you see, it's pretty damn close to the design of that of the middle ages, corrupt churches to knights, general wars and the island looking like europe, gothic shaping, peasant rebellions, lords, distant lands referring to japan...how is this NOT middle-ages designed.
The ancients would be representational to rome&greece, and of course they did believe in magic, which doesn't neccessarily make it true but hey, that's because they need magic to make it an FF (duh).
You know, it's people like you that don't get anywhere.
Like something he would say, there's no point in talking in this sort of case. You can write some long-dwindling explanation which sort of really isn't an explanation anyways, but I'm just gonna ignore this thread like he did. Don't expect me to read the reply which you spent so much time wasting.
me? or jay ayanami(pssh)?Originally posted by Summon Illusion
You're one of those people that try to sound intellingent but really isn't, aren't you.....
MLenyo:
"oh, i assure you, it did. steal/throw is a fun yet not very effective combo. theres some joy in stealing someones weapon and then killing them with it ::sighs happily::. it would just be fun with your guys because they have such good weapons. get what im saying?"
This course of logic is first flawed because it relies on a successful theft, an action that typically has low chances of working. Secondly, one hit with a Chaos Blade by a Thief will in all liklihood not kill one of my units. My units have high HP due to the Maximillian and Grand Helmet. You'd have to have a unit with relatively high attck power. Moreover, you'd have to have a second turn to throw the item and in all liklihood, I'd have killed you By then.
Summon Illusion:
"You're one of those people that try to sound intellingent but really isn't, aren't you."
Okay, you spelled intelligent wrong and mispunctuated, just so you know. Only trying to live up to your expectations. Anyhow, you know nothing about me. Think of me however you want to; it would be an impossible feat for me to convince you otherwise. There is no point in stooping to petty insults as you have done so I shall not.
"The majority's definition is different from yours, which would mean that the general thought for knight would intdeed, be the generic knight class."
I stress this point: the majority's opinion is a moot matter. I clearly defined what "Knight" meant earlier in the thread. It was your responsibility to read the thread before you post. I could wager that half of the people who see this thread simply read the subject and then post, and without heed to what has already been established. I have chosen to approach this debate in an Aristotelian way (i.e. I define a word before I employ it; this is the meaning that is used when I speak with the word; regardless of the audience's opinion, it is the meaning intended.)
As for what you have said about this taking place in the Middle Ages (and I will say here and now that you are wrong) I will say the following:
"I feel that somewhat your comparings to the referall knight to all classes that look like knights is unfair. I mean, this is the MIDDLE AGES. DUH, most of the special classes would have the knight concept in it. What else do you expect? - -;;"
That line of logic is flawed. You will notice that the abilities of the special Knight classes are largely based around the generic Knight class. Meliadoul breaks people, just as a normal Knight would. Orlandu also possesses these abilities. You will notice that I did not include Hell or Heaven Knight in the types of Knights available! This is because their abilities are not of the Knight type.
And about the setting of the book - I will not deny that there are compelling similarities between FFT and the Middle Ages. However, this does not make them at all synonomous. It simply makes them, at best, analogous.
And there are compelling reasons that it does not take place in the Middle Ages. Shiva is Hindu, for example. Furthermore, they have technology that never existed in the Middle Ages including guns and robots. This world is ficticious and therefore you cannot apply the premises of the real Middle Ages to it.
"You know, it's people like you that don't get anywhere."
Yet another pointless insult. In my defense, I will say that I am the one driving this debate onward. You dwell on the conflict over the Knights by not accepting that "Knight" had already been defined as something other than what you are happy with. Accept this definition not in general, but in the context of this debate. You and I both know what is meant by it so let's go with it, regardless of whether we believe it is correct or not.
Secondly, I don't see how you could possibly make this inference since you know little to nothing about me. You simply know a bit about how I write, that I disagree with you, and that I like FFT. You should stop and consider your words before you allow them to spew from your mouth in a passionate fit. To lay this matter to rest, I will say that I do, in fact, "get anywhere" in life. You'll have to take my word on that.
In closing:
I DO, in fact, explain myself clearly. You choose to be obstinate. Call this what you like, but it will only be a hollow justification to yourself. I have posted, and it is available to you should you wish to read it. I have left the option to make a response in YOUR hands.
Finally:
"Don't expect me to read the reply which you spent so much time wasting."
That didn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant to add "making" to the end. That might have made sense.
P. S.
Feel free to e-mail me if you desire proof that I am not a stupid individual. I will provide it. You have my word on that.
hey, chill jay, i never said "my thieves would steal your items and kill you because youre team is beatable!!!" i was having some fun, thats what this is all about anyways. and i said it would be fun to steal the weapons, not i WOULD steal the weapons. some people...
"hey, chill jay, i never said "my thieves would steal your items and kill you beacuse youre team is beatable!!!" i was having some fun, thats what this is all about anyways. and i said it would be fun to steal the weapons, not i WOULD steal the weapons. some people..."
I was only saying that it is a flawed approach to defeating my team. You seem to think that I was passionately debating with you. Not at all. I was simply showing the inherent flaw. There is no need for me to chill; I assure you I am quite calm now. Take offense if you like; I only felt your post deserved a response.
it wasnt an idea to beat your team, it was something fun to do.
Sorry to interrupt..but would you listen to yourselves? you sound like kids heh. "Nono! i would do this and youde die!". well..the point is..as i was looking at this thread i just noticed some things.
1) There is no way to prove how "elite" your team of knights are, because we cannot test.
2) This is one of the most unintelligable threads iv'e ever read. im surprised its not locked.
3) And lastly, there is no such thing as an elite team in FFT. Everything has a weakness.
That's not true. There IS a elite team in FFT with or without special characters. We're just going to find out what is the elite team.
BTW: Elite doesn't mean invincible. It just mean strong...(Checks the dictionary)
Posting Permissions
