Does anyone still think Zemeckis isn't the best knight?

I remember people here used to debate about who was the best knight in the game, and I would laugh whenever someone would say "Lance" or "Kiloph".

If any of the people who used to say that stuff ever look here again . ..seriously, explain to me how you could've possibly thought they were any better than Zemeckis?

You can easily beat the game with any country before you can possibly level up either of those guys to 30 even if you're gimping your whole army's exp to feed them the best kills. Zemeckis can hit from behind 2 rows of monsters, has two red orbs, can Power himself or one of his minions (Powered dragon breath attacks ftw), and can Geno Thunder. Not to mention he starts with the best rune power and rune area in the game easily, and is by far the strongest and most durable long range unit in the game. All this in a convienient package that starts the game at level 27. . as opposed to being less than level 5 to start. Even worse, Lance doesn't even get his area attack spell unless Zemeckis and his entire faction is gone.

Zemeckis. Easily best character in the game.

^ Thank you. Exactly.

Like years ago on here a lot of people were claiming it was Lance or Kiloph being better than Zemeckis because they had better rune power and strength at lvl 30. But really, Zemckis' range easily negates the strength difference, and his high starting level and overall dominance (not to mention he has better spells their EITHER of those other guys can get), easily counters what rune power the other dudes get several years into the game (which only occurs when you intentionally drag and game out and don't attack).


In fact, Zemeckis owns so much, last night I started up a new game with Esgares to test the circumstances in which Shred appears, and I was getting attacked at Logres with just Zemeckis there. . .got attacked by Vaynard, Guinglain, and Morholt. They brought 2 white dragons, the efreeti, wyvrens, etc. . .like full teams.

I killed both Guinglain AND Vaynard. . .without charging either of them. I stood in the middle of the map and waited for them to close in on me and attack from 2 sides (north and from west) winning the battle with -just- Zemeckis and his starting team. If Morholt wasn't forced to retreat, I could've killed him too. I casted Power on the Tiamt and Zemeckis at the start of the battle and used their huge attack power to smash them.

So if that doesn't prove how good Zemckis is, nothing does. Zemeckis can defend cities by himself as soon as the game starts. WTF can Lance do? Nothing. He couldn't have won that battle even at level 30 without a full cast of high level/maxed level monsters. Which Zemeckis doesn't need.


Zemeckis > lvl 30 Lance. And it's not even close.

I also don't think Vaynard compares either, though he is better than Lance since he is good for the entire game with no babysitting. I think he is clearly worse than Zemeckis though for 2 reasons. 1: The obvious point, his spells are worse and his range is worse. Vaynard's stats are amazing though otherwise. 2: Vaynard is 1 blue orb vs Zemeckis' 2 red orbs. 1 blue orb is probably the worst elemental affinity you could have in the game. . .weak against all the buffest monsters (every dragon + Phoenix + both types of high level giants. . .etc), weak against Zemeckis' powered attacks, weak against the best spells (Geno Thunder, Exa Blast, Thunder), weak against dragon breaths. . . I mean, really. He's weak against everything powerful in the game besides Divine Ray and Curse. Meanwhile Zemeckis is strong against all of those things (defensively). I think Zemeckis' element type of only worse than the 3 red orbed Salamander and Phoenix. He's only weak against stuff you don't see much like lizard guards and hydras and fall berg. The Fall berg obviously never comes into play since you can attack them outside of Fall berg's range and cripple those mages.

Oo i dunno, Zemeckis' stats might be worse than some of those guys, but his element type, his range, his spells, and his starting level/rune power all easily make him the best imo.

Rune Caster posted...
If Zemeckis has stats like this vs. Lance as King...

Zemeckis Lvl 30 Hp 795 Mp 387 Str 119 Int 106 Agi 110 RArea 26 Rune 400
Lance Lvl 30 Hp 852 Mp 339 Str 126 Int 112 Agi 112 RArea 25 Rune 423

I noticed all you did was say "...." at the end of that because you don't want to embarrass yourself by saying better stats = better character. Those stats are wrong anyway, for both knights.

Stats does not = better character. Zemeckis can hit from 3 spaces away, and has better spells (Power is better than anything Lance gets. So is Geno Thunder). Zemeckis also starts 26 levels higher, and Lance still manages to be less useful in battle even after you feed him kills all the way up to level 30. Oh, and Zemeckis doesn't need to wait until everyone else in your faction beats Esgares so he can actually have an AoE spell and have good STR growth per level up.

For starters, to actually have Lance get more STR than Zemeckis, you have to keep him at level 1, or a low level until he becomes King. If you don't, he will end up with almost the exact same STR as Zemeckis if you level him as just Prince. So he will have no edge at all in STR or Attack power. So let's say you do hold him off until you take out Esgares. Now what? The toughest faction in the game is already gone. Do you even need Lance at that point? Not really. There's no Zemeckis to even compare him to anymore, since you have to beat him to become King.

Then, after all that work and being halfway through the game and Lance STILL being just level 1. . .you can start to level him up as a King for the extra STR growth. Then yeah, his attack ends up higher than what Zemeckis' has on the stat sheet, but he does not gain 3 hexes in normal attack range, does not gain the Power Spell, and does not gain Geno Thunder, and does not gain 2 red orbs instead of just 1. Nor does he gain 26 levels instantly to match up with what Zemeckis started with. FYI, Lance does less damage against blues and takes more damage from reds too. Even with his slightly higher stats.

So either way, he is still worse. The only thing more impressive about Lance is that the numbers on his stat page are higher. In battle, Zemeckis is better 10 times out of 10 due to high range, spells, and element orbs. I'm still baffled at how some people can't look past a few numbers being slightly higher, and use logic to see that attack range, more powerful spells, a grossly higher starting level, and better element orbs is better.

cantcomplain18 posted...
Ummm.. I've beaten ol' Zemie with Dryst, Gereint, Dinadan, Guinglain, Kiloph, and Bagdemagus (though that one I almost lost... His low speed seems to make him blind lol) just by letiing them rush in from outside his attack rang and going toe-to-toe with him.

Granted, he gave em a spot of trouble, but if he goes down, he goes down, right? Hes tough, but I beat him with a lot of people that are technically inferior, so that doesn't exactly make Zemeckis look like the toughest.

That's not what I'm talking about. You are saying the AI is poor so he's beatable. I'm saying when you are actually in control of any particular knight, including Zemeckis, he is the best. That is not disputable.

Play as Esgares, use Zemeckis, then tell me if you still believe he isn't SIGNIFICANTLY better than every other rune knight in the game.


windmastery posted...
Well if you say that range Is the most important thing, merriot as artemist might as well be the best knight... (4 hex away!)

And she has really high rune power although she has lower atk
But, you said better stat =/ better char, so oh well...

The best thing about your post is that you actually thought you made a good point. I literally laughed out loud in real life because you seem so impressed with your incredibly weak "points".

4 hexes isn't much different than 3 hexes. But 3 is much better than 1. 2 is also much better than 1. 3 wouldn't be a big difference over 2, but it is a little better. There are practically no situations where a 3 hex range isn't enough to hit what you're wanting to hit.

Anyway, the problem with Artemis knights compared to Zemeckis is threefold. One: Their power is always noticably lower. Nobody in the game has noticeably better attack than Zemeckis when it starts. The only people that do need to be leveled up at least 10 times first, and all of them only have that power at melee range, not long range. So yeah, 290 attack is noticeably better than 240 when both are ranged. 290 attack is not significantly lower than 310 when the 290 is ranged and the 310 is ranged. If they were to battle eachother, the ranged character would always win since he never gets countered. He just needs to take a step back then fire. The 310 fighter loses by attrition, and almost always eats a counter attack when he attacks. Hence why the tiny power difference between them and Zemeckis is not an advantage, and why the difference between Zemeckis and a typical Artemis actually is. If you cannot fathom that logic, then you probably also struggle with math in general. 290 + 290 is greater than 310. So basically for every 1 attack a melee character gets on Zemeckis, Zemeckis gets two on them. His own, and his counter attack. Making him superior.

Zemeckis is also a lot more durable than every Artemis with no exceptions. He also has superior spells. No Artemis gets Power or Geno Thunder; the two best spells in the game. If you do teach an Artemis magic, both their HP and attack power take noticeable dips. Making them completely inferior to Zemeckis in every category besides the extra 1 range which barely factors in.



GradeABrassiere posted...
Zemeckis isn't the best knight in the Brigandine: Grand Edition...

BUT i think he is the best in the LOF. He can attack after moving and has a super high critical... BEST KNIGHT HE IS.

I agree. GE nerfed him significantly since he is no longer a secret playable character like in LOF. Power is weaker plus no more Geno Thunder = he loses his versetility. Though I still think he's great anyway in GE. Just isn't "clearly" the best knight anymore.

mrgeniusdude posted...
zemeckis isn't the best knight because 5 times out of 6 he won't be the leader of the force that wins

Irrelevant, since that excludes every non-leader knight from discussion, and then broad-brushes every leader into the same category.


cantcomplain18 posted...
I really don't think it matters how good I can play Zemeckis... I'm never playing against myself lol. All I know is that I usually kick his ass when he shows up. So I don't really think of him as the best.

Cai's magic, if anything, usually gives me more trouble. Lyonesse too, when/if she gets up in level. Having multiple monsters decently damaged hurts more than just having one hit kind of hard, imo.

You can kick anyone's ass when the AI controls them since the AI is dumb.

When you play as Zemeckis, it's clear he's better than any other knight in the game due to versetility and unlikeliness of dying. He doesn't have the strongest attack in the game, but it's close to what is the strongest. Not to mention, he has the most powerful ranged attack, and what in my opinion are the two most useful and dominating spells in the game (spells that hit your own troops being more powerful, but less useful)

I'm surprised Cai's magic gives you more trouble since his best spell (Geno Thunder) is the attack same spell Zemeckis has, only Cai is twice as easy to kill. Especially if you are controlling Zemeckis. Zemeckis + a fairy and 1-2 High Centaurs kills Cai in one turn with no counter attacks. Zemeckis Powers himself. Next turn, Fairy Re-acts him, Zemeckis hits him twice, and if he doesn't kill him, you have High Centaurs to finish him off. Instant win vs Cai. Though Cai is great when you can control him too.


windmastery posted...
well, u don't to have be mean about it lol...
I thought i was being obvious that i was joking since i was actually just trying to be sarcastic... Oh well, maybe i'm just not good at it

I never even dreamt of beating zemeckis one-one on bye using any artemist because as I Posted ABOVE artemist stat< Zemeckis
Though i don't think it's impossible of beating Zem one bye one by using kiloph as champion/avenger since he will have high hp,atk,agi, and hp regen... You might need to be lucky though...

Sorry. Some of the posts I've gotten from people here have been sarcastic, but in such a way as to they think they're correct, and rather than make an intelligent debate, they reply with lame sarcasm.

Anyways, it is impossible for Kiloph to beat Zemeckis unless Zemeckis by some miracle whiffs on repeated attacks. Basically this is what would happen: turn 1: Zemeckis Powers himself, Kiloph has no buffs, so either moves in to attack, or attacks and gets countered, eating a massive Powered counter attack. turn 2: Zemeckis Powers himself again, Kiloph recovers 40 HP. Kiloph hits Zemeckis, but eats another massive counterattack. Turn 3: Zemeckis trolls Kiloph and Powers himself again. Kiloph recovers 40 HP, attacks Zemeckis, and eats yet another massive counterattack.

At this point, Kiloph is dead if any one of Zemeckis' attacks criticaled. if not? Zemeckis walks back one tile, shoots him, and Kiloph dies. Zemeckis' powered attacks do roughly 300 damage to Kiloph without criticaling. Kiloph's attacks do about 175 to Zemeckis. So Zemeckis is down 525 health, Kiloph is down 850, and only isn't dead already because of the HP recovery, and because he didn't get criticaled (if he didn't).

Even if Kiloph did get a critical in, Zemeckis still wouldn't be dead. So basically, Zemeckis wins in 3-4 hits, and Kiloph needs 5 hits to win unless he criticals twice, which is at most as likely than Zemeckis criticaling once.

So no matter how you slice it, Kiloph would need absurd luck to win. Zemeckis needs none.

Rune Caster and cantcomplain, when you use that logic, basically every knight in the game isn't very good unless you control them.

So if we're going to continue the discussion, let's have a modicum of intelligence and stop posting weak rationalizations to avoid legitimately discussing who the best knight in the game is. Clearly the knight with the best strategic ability and overall usefulness when using him is the best knight in the game. It does not matter how poorly the AI uses them. The AI uses everyone badly. That's a completely irrelevant point.


Wind Mastery, thank you for actually having a discussion with me about it Btw, Kiloph is excellent. . .Zemeckis is a bit better, but Kiloph at level 30 is easily capable of beating damn near anyone. He is on par with Lance and Vaynard imo. I'd put him in the top 5-8 without hesitation. I do prefer characters who start with a higher level though, such as Cai, Vaynard, and Guinglain, but once you get Kiloph up there, he's just as good.