You could do that... but i kinda feel that'd be less effective on most scenarios except for the "Fight for your life" ones.

Oh, I can see tons of exploratory techniques being used with perma-death off, that's for sure. But as long as it's optional, I guess there's no harm done. To be honest, I would prefer that there would be some kind of separation between those who play with Perma-Death on and Perma-Death off. Probably better exp gain per action, or SS level weapons being available only to Perma-Death on.

I am strongly against the idea. Being a huge turn-based strategy fan, it turns this game from real epic strategy game into just another easy and generic jrpg. I also feel that all players should experience FE the way it was meant, otherwise they shouldn't be playing it at all. It is already annoying talking to the resetters about strategy games (not just FE, but Civ as well), now it will be worse on the FE front with the non-strategy mode players.

Do you mean to say that there shoud only be one way to play?

Why? What's wrong with other people - who don't have the skill or time to learn the skills - having an easier time of it?

It's not like you veteran players HAVE to put perma death off. Maybe some people like me just want to have a good time playing the game without stressing over the fact that my favourite character would die, and never come back. I don't have the time or the will to reset 20 times just for one fight.

To me this is a good addition, and to you, there is absolutely no change. It just seems like you don't want other gamers to enjoy the series.

Resetting is not how you should be playing any strategy game either. If you lose your piece, that's part of the game. It can't really be a strategy game if you don't really lose pieces.

The defining aspect of Fire Emblem is knowing there is a risk. It is like a chess game where you play a single game across multiple boards, and you get new pieces on each board depending on what you do. Each piece has its role in the story; and you know that there will be loss along the way, and it can't be predicted as in some games - the story will evolve accordingly.

As I said before, I am not really fond of discussing the game with resetters, and I feel this change is nearly sacrilege. It is like making a Sid Meier's Civilization game where you get all the towns and units back you lost after the war is over. People will play the game in Casual Mode and then criticize it without actually having experienced the true experience, it will be worse than the resetters.

Call me casual but perma-death isn't fun, it's down right un fun. Doesn't matter though that's not why I bought Fire Emblem,  but it sure as hell was why I never bought some of the other GBA ones.

There are other ways to emphasize characters maybe the developers could emphasize those rather than tossing around the old brick n mortar.

Once you buy the game nothing anyone else sais matter.

If there's still the option for the game to play the way you want then there is no arguement. Does it really affect you to know that others will enjoy seeing the ending of their favorite characters without worry of having lost them through out the campaigns?