Marth: the Hero Fallen from Grace?

[danieljosebatista]

Let me start by saying that I am fully aware this topic has been discussed before. That being said, I'll get right to it.

We all know that Marth is a good character. He has a great dash-dance, his grab is stupidly good, his down-tilt covers so much space, and his overall range is amazing. So why? Why do we complain that "Marth isn't good enough" or "Marth can't do this or that" when he clearly has so much going for him? One of the possibilities that others have pointed out in the past is that perhaps the problem is us, the Marth mains. Maybe we complain too much instead of figuring out what we can do to solve our issues. Then again, maybe another possibility is that Marth simply is not as good a character as we all once believed him to be.





What do you think? Why has there not been a top Marth main since Ken and M2K?

 

[BTmoney]

Dr. PP possibly best active Marth. If not a very strong second.
PPU definitively a top 15 player and basically a solo Marth main.

Marth boards improving his metagame, Umbreon telling people not to nair, PP showing us how to dtilt, Kadano/Austin revealing new frame data and extremely useful knowledge and techniques (pivot f-smash! And how to kill jiggs out of grabs etc.)

Marth is better than ever, I mean have you seen the Marth boards lol? Or Armada/M2k vs. PP's Marth or PPU as of late?

 

[Construct]

Marth plays better when you're playing better, and plays worse when you're playing worse.

Now that might seem like a really stupid and obvious observation, but you have to think about it. You ever see sets in the winner's bracket where the Marth is just getting slapped around and looks like he has no idea what he's doing, only to see him again in loser's tossing his opponent around like a ragdoll? Marth often looks like the best character in the game, and he often looks like the worst. He suffers badly from consistency issues. He's very demanding to play, not so much in a technical sense the same way as Fox or Falco, but in his own way. Sometimes your reaction and spacing are on point, and Marth accentuates that more than other characters; if you're playing well, you're almost untouchable. On the other hand, that's really all Marth has. He can't just shoot more lasers if he's playing poorly. He just gets ****ed up by the opponent.

That's the only real issue I see with Marth. As a character, he has all the tools he could ever need. The issue is if we're consistently capable of using them.

 

[BTmoney]

Can't really agree with any of that. Especially with the line referring to Falco's lasers.

 

[Construct]

Can't really agree with any of that

Could you elaborate?

Especially with the line referring to Falco's lasers.

I'll try to make my sarcasm more evident in future posts

 

[BTmoney]

Marth plays better when you're playing better, and plays worse when you're playing worse.

Now that might seem like a really stupid and obvious observation, but you have to think about it. You ever see sets in the winner's bracket where the Marth is just getting slapped around and looks like he has no idea what he's doing, only to see him again in loser's tossing his opponent around like a ragdoll? Marth often looks like the best character in the game, and he often looks like the worst. He suffers badly from consistency issues. He's very demanding to play, not so much in a technical sense the same way as Fox or Falco, but in his own way. Sometimes your reaction and spacing are on point, and Marth accentuates that more than other characters; if you're playing well, you're almost untouchable. On the other hand, that's really all Marth has. He can't just shoot more lasers if he's playing poorly. He just gets ****ed up by the opponent.

That's the only real issue I see with Marth. As a character, he has all the tools he could ever need. The issue is if we're consistently capable of using them.

Essentially, that is too vague, opinionated, and abstract to actually mean anything. It's like you have/had an idea but couldn't articulate it, which is fine. But moving on from that, the winner/loser bracket thing obviously has no causation (nor correlation most likely) and is either the result of faulty observation or you watching a strange pool of matches. Marth does not perform any better or worse in Winners Vs. Losers nor the 1st or 2nd set of Grand Finals. I don't think Marth ever looks anywhere near the worst charcter in the game, I think that's just the extremely violent metagame that revolves around high tier characters with absurd offense and a disregard of the fact that he indeed is better than a lot of characters.

"Marth is good when he's good, but bad when he's bad"
Yes. That goes for every single character and therefor is not worth stating and has no meaning. If you are tech chasing with Sheik then she looks good, if you are getting combo'd then she looks bad. When Falco is 0-deathing characters he looks insane, until you breathe too hard on him and he dies.

Marth is not a character that has consistency issues because he is not overly technically demanding nor does he revolve around techniques with small windows and high variance. Obviously you were being sarcastic with the lasers but what you were hinting at was incorrect anyways since shooting lasers when you shouldn't or spamming them gets you nowhere, lasers aren't going to take any stocks.

Marth struggled a bit in development because he has a strong anti-meta developed against him (Ken, M2k) and he is/was a popular character. Also as it stands now if you aren't edge guarding your opponents are living to 170% and it is too hard to outplay someone (say Fox) who can uthrow you at like 88% and kill you. However Marth play is being and has been optimized so I disagree with the OP and your post.

I think saying Marth isn't that good or overrated is an outdated opinion and you should read up on Cactuar's/PP's thread more.

 

[Construct]

To clear something up: I think that Marth is an excellent top-tier character and times for him have never been better.

Too vague, opionated, and abstract is actually a pretty fair assessment of my post; I was in a rush when I wrote it. My b, and thanks for the lengthy response.

Winner's vs Loser's was an anecdote. It was to illustrate the idea that the same Marth can fluctuate wildly in how well he performs, even in a very short timeframe. Now, you can say this about anyone, but it's more prevalent in Marth mains than just about anyone besides Foxes. Look at the results of PPU, a fantastic player and arguably the best Marth main, for an easy example of this. A more concise example is Mew2King's performance at Zenith 2012, and was what I had in mind when I wrote that bit. Saying Marth is the worst character in the game was hyperbole. I think Marth is fantastic, and place him higher than most most people would on the tier list.

Saying that Marth is good when he's good and bad when he's bad carries means more than you're reading into it.
Lovage once said that your dashdance is only as good as your ability to act and react out of it, and that might be one of the most simple yet insightful things I've read on these boards. For Marth to initiate his offence, the vast majority of time he has to finesse his way into grabbing or dtilting an opponent after carefully baiting out a near miss.

"Marth is good when he's good, but bad when he's bad"
Yes. That goes for every single character and therefor is not worth stating and has no meaning. If you are tech chasing with Sheik then she looks good, if you are getting combo'd then she looks bad. When Falco is 0-deathing characters he looks insane, until you breathe too hard on him and he dies.

Marth is not a character that has consistency issues because he is not overly technically demanding nor does he revolve around techniques with small windows and high variance. Obviously you were being sarcastic with the lasers but what you were hinting at was incorrect anyways since shooting lasers when you shouldn't or spamming them gets you nowhere, lasers aren't going to take any stocks.

I suppose this is the point I disagree with. In my humble, vague, opinionated, and abstract view, the inconsistency in Fox comes primarily not from the technically demanding shield pressure, but rather from the demanding neutral game, and I believe the same applies to Marth and Falcon. Dashdancing is really an insane concept if you get down to it: bullying the opponent around with your movement, trying to scare or bait them into swinging within inches of you in order for you to counterattack. It isn't easy. If you're a tad slower than usual, your gambit falls through and you've gone and served yourself on a silver platter to the opponent. I feel Marth has the most demanded of him in this regard, because he doesn't have Falcon's speed nor Fox's absurd toolbox. What he does have though is more than enough, provided the Marth player is playing on point.


I agree with the rest of your post completely

 

[danieljosebatista]

Thanks for your input, guys.

Ado: While I agree with you that PPU is a great Marth (maybe even a top 15 player), he really is not what I would call a "top" player, at least not yet. This is part of my question because how is it that such a good chatacter no longer has a top player backing him up the way he used to? I know PP has a great Marth, but that has more to do with PP than with Marth imo. Also PP uses Marth as a strategic counterpic, not a main. When he went Marth against Armada for example, I think some people would agree that it was done because Marth has a more favorable match-up than Falco against Peach. That itself is up for debate, but either way we all know Marth does well against Peach.

Construct: I really like what you said. As a Marth main I can definitely agree that there are times you feel invincible, and other times you feel like you can't do a thing. Maybe Marth really is a character who suffers from inconsistency depending on the nature of the player. That would mean that a super skilled player is necessary to play him successfully at the highest level.

 

[BTmoney]

Ado: While I agree with you that PPU is a great Marth (maybe even a top 15 player), he really is not what I would call a "top" player, at least not yet. This is part of my question because how is it that such a good chatacter no longer has a top player backing him up the way he used to? I know PP has a great Marth, but that has more to do with PP than with Marth imo. Also PP uses Marth as a strategic counterpic, not a main. When he went Marth against Armada for example, I think some people would agree that it was done because Marth has a more favorable match-up than Falco against Peach. That itself is up for debate, but either way we all know Marth does well against Peach.

What would you call PP Marth Ditto'ing M2k in winners then and then proceeding to beat his Sheik in GF (historically bad MU for Marth)? That's definitely not counter picking lol. Marth vs. Peach isn't the best MU in the world although I believe it's slightly in Marth's favor, same for Falco vs Peach. PP said before that he only went Marth because he wanted to slow down the pace of the game and focus more on his spacing and the mental aspect rather than the technical aspect and having to execute perfectly repeatedly (i.e. the Falco v. Peach MU). His Marth wasn't as good before but he's had a Marth for years. A true counter pick would be going Fox, Puff, or Falcon not going a character with about an equal MU because you felt more comfortable like that.

Construct: I really like what you said. As a Marth main I can definitely agree that there are times you feel invincible, and other times you feel like you can't do a thing.
Maybe Marth really is a character who suffers from inconsistency depending on the nature of the player. That would mean that a super skilled player is necessary to play him successfully at the highest level.

This is what I'm getting at, that is the nature of every character in the game. Marth has non-advantageous MUs versus Fox and Falco (and Sheik to a lesser extent imo, Puff is debatable) so when you are getting rushed down and they are encroaching your space and you have no options, it's supposed to happen. As it stands at this stage in the metagame, when space animals are playing well or perfectly you basically lose because they have the tools to constantly out do you neutral and they have the kill power. You can't run from Fox and Falco shuts down your defining and best tool (Dash Dancing). If you want to counter this by playing on platforms then you just make it easier for Falco since 1, Marth can't platform camp Falco and 2 you don't want to be above anyone (or in the air without a reason) versus any character. That being said, Marth can punish all of their mistakes very hard but my point is they don't ever NEED to make that mistake in the first place.

A super skilled player is necessary to play Fox/Falco at the highest level since they die when you look at them too hard and they are more demanding than other characters to play.

A super skilled player is necessary to play Falcon at the highest level since he is combo fodder and sometimes relies on making reads. You better be acquainted with all scenarios so 1 you can attempt to make a read and 2 you don't get ***** when you inevitably miss one. You don't have the luxury of hard long combos that push people off stage like spacies have against you. So you better play perfect or be extremely skilled since the quality of your options and your low percent game is way way worse.

A super skilled player is necessary to play Puff at the highest level since she dies at 70% so she can't afford mistakes and is heavily reliant on the user spacing well, reacting well to rest set ups (hitting all possible rests and not ever whiffing) and making good decisions.

etc.

 

[Construct]

As it stands at this stage in the metagame, when space animals are playing well or perfectly you basically lose because they have the tools to constantly out do you neutral and they have the kill power...

...That being said, Marth can punish all of their mistakes very hard but my point is they don't ever NEED to make that mistake in the first place.

The rest of your post pretty much missed the point, but this is what I'm addressing

When a Marth is playing perfectly, he's literally untouchable.

However there's no point in basing theory arguments on perfection because we can't play perfectly all of the time or even close to all the time. While this may be applicable to all characters, it holds true for Marth more than just about anyone else. He relies on react and deny tactics involving his movement and his heavy ass sword. The better the Marth player is playing at any given point, the closer he gets to his untouchable godlike character status. However, if the player is not playing at that level, Marth gets exponentially worse. A whiffed move or inaccurate dashdance with Marth leaves him far more vulnerable than anyone else in the top tiers.

Now take what you said and apply it to Marth. The problem comes from how much more difficult it is for Marth to not make a mistake in the neutral game when compared to the other very top tier characters. Fox and Falco do take quite the beating when they get hit, but their strength as character comes from how easy it is for them to play in a safe manner. Having their respective toolboxes gives them an absurd amount of leeway for getting away with stupid stuff.

I still feel like I haven't quite gotten all I'm trying to say out but whatever

 

[Construct]

disregard double post

 

[BTmoney]

The rest of your post pretty much missed the point, but this is what I'm addressing

When a Marth is playing perfectly, he's literally untouchable.

However there's no point in basing theory arguments on perfection because we can't play perfectly all of the time or even close to all the time. While this may be applicable to all characters, it holds true for Marth more than just about anyone else. He relies on react and deny tactics involving his movement and his heavy *** sword. The better the Marth player is playing at any given point, the closer he gets to his untouchable godlike character status. However, if the player is not playing at that level, Marth gets exponentially worse. A whiffed move or inaccurate dashdance with Marth leaves him far more vulnerable than anyone else in the top tiers.

Now take what you said and apply it to Marth. The problem comes from how much more difficult it is for Marth to not make a mistake in the neutral game when compared to the other very top tier characters.

And thats where I disagree, I fully understand you I just disagree. You're smoking crack if you think Marth (on whiff, which loosely defines a lot of bad move selection, missing, and bad spacing) gets punished harder than Fox, Falco and Falcon per mistake. You're starting an argument/position (whatever) based on something I would call incorrect.

Could you elaborate on that last sentence? If you're comparing him to Fox or Falco then you should feel that way since they either have a better option or the better tools when it comes to converting from neutral to punishment vs Marth. If you're talking about any other character I disagree.

A correct version of that sentence is:
"The problem comes from how much more difficult it is for Marth to not make a mistake in the neutral game when compared to Falco vs Marth and to a lesser extent Fox vs. Marth and to a lesser and debatable extent Sheik vs. Marth"

My only issue with Marth is that you can't have your opponents live to 170% if you don't get an edge guard. Pivot fsmashing in the near future will now give him new kill options (at percents 10x better or percents where he can't get anything good) out of throws and other set ups that he previously did not have. He's not "too hard or too comparatively hard" or however you want to word it to play in neutral. He just gets outdone by Falco and Fox like the rest of the cast although he maintains among the best (bad) MUs versus them.

 

[Deleted member]

This is part of my question because how is it that such a good chatacter no longer has a top player backing him up the way he used to? I know PP has a great Marth, but that has more to do with PP than with Marth imo. Also PP uses Marth as a strategic counterpic, not a main. When he went Marth against Armada for example, I think some people would agree that it was done because Marth has a more favorable match-up than Falco against Peach. That itself is up for debate, but either way we all know Marth does well against Peach.

Kevin played Marth against Armada as an experiment to see how effectively the extra dash range would mitigate the stage control offered by Peach's float. It has every much a bit of Kevin being an excellent player as it does Kevin being talented at playing the character to specific knowledge and finesse. Kevin could play Marth at tournaments if he wanted to and I personally suspect that he would actually do better, but him playing Marth is not about doing better at tournaments and never was. It was an effort in developing one's self and the inner fulfillment of having achieved personal goals. I think it's safe to assume that he will play as a Falco player indefinitely.

If you guys make this conversation more interesting, I'll join in. The preview seems pretty self-explanatory so far though.

 

[danieljosebatista]

And thats where I disagree, I fully understand you I just disagree. You're smoking crack if you think Marth (on whiff, which loosely defines a lot of bad move selection, missing, and bad spacing) gets punished harder than Fox, Falco and Falcon per mistake. You're starting an argument/position (whatever) based on something I would call incorrect.

I strongly disagree. Marth certainly gets punished harder than spacies. While a chaingrab on fox or falco at FD might be deadly, that's about it. On the other hand, one dair shine from a good Falco or one Upsmash at 60% from Fox can lead to the stock. Even when Marth survives, he's in a much worse position than the other high tiers because he's floaty and light. One bair will kill him, a well placed f-tilt will kill him. Unlike Peach and Puff who are also floaty and light, he actually dies easily and doesn't have the advantage of an amazing recovery. In this sense, Marth is absolutely punished harder than spacies. Falcon is a less solid character overall than Marth, but I would say in terms of being punished his weight actually helps him survive more at times.

Kevin played Marth against Armada as an experiment to see how effectively the extra dash range would mitigate the stage control offered by Peach's float. It has every much a bit of Kevin being an excellent player as it does Kevin being talented at playing the character to specific knowledge and finesse. Kevin could play Marth at tournaments if he wanted to and I personally suspect that he would actually do better, but him playing Marth is not about doing better at tournaments and never was. It was an effort in developing one's self and the inner fulfillment of having achieved personal goals. I think it's safe to assume that he will play as a Falco player indefinitely.

If you guys make this conversation more interesting, I'll join in. The preview seems pretty self-explanatory so far though.

Looks like you already joined in man. Honestly, whether or not it was an "experiment" or whatever, PP went Marth and took a set off Armada. Personally I think this was clearly a match-up decision. Btw just to clear this up, I am by no means saying that PP does not have an amazing Marth. But I do doubt that he could maintain his current level of success at nationals using Marth (At least at this moment in time).

 

[DoH]

Spacies get punished the hardest out of all the characters, come on.

My theory on why Marth has dropped is that the game has largely turned into "who can bait who into their punish game." As Marth's moves are slower than Fox/Falco/Sheik/Peach/Puffs, he has to act first, where those characters (and Falcon, ICs) can weave in and out of his range and punish accordingly.

 

[Deleted member]

My theory on why Marth has dropped is that the game has largely turned into "who can bait who into their punish game." As Marth's moves are slower than Fox/Falco/Sheik/Peach/Puffs, he has to act first, where those characters (and Falcon, ICs) can weave in and out of his range and punish accordingly.

If you're actually using his moves to act, then yeah marth gets killed. the ideal way to play against fox is to get him to commit to something and then abuse his lack of range/priority. the ideal way to play marth is to play this way against every character, and don't be afraid to attack your opponent's attacks since you're favored to win any exchanges based on priority.

 

[BTmoney]

I strongly disagree. Marth certainly gets punished harder than spacies. While a chaingrab on fox or falco at FD might be deadly, that's about it. On the other hand, one dair shine from a good Falco or one Upsmash at 60% from Fox can lead to the stock. Even when Marth survives, he's in a much worse position than the other high tiers because he's floaty and light. One bair will kill him, a well placed f-tilt will kill him. Unlike Peach and Puff who are also floaty and light, he actually dies easily and doesn't have the advantage of an amazing recovery. In this sense, Marth is absolutely punished harder than spacies. Falcon is a less solid character overall than Marth, but I would say in terms of being punished his weight actually helps him survive more at times.

The Marth vs Spacie MU is based entirely around him death touching, gimping, and edge guarding them. You're telling me that Fox or Falco have the same potential in this MU to kill off a single hit assuming you have any sort of DI? That is wrong. Fox combos, as you should know, are comparatively short and fairly powerful and should end with a positional advantage or a kill move at the correct percents. While that is great, if you get grabbed by Marth by the ledge and you get your recovery option covered, then you just died at 30% (same can be said for the kill potential of being grabbed center stage and to a lesser extent being thrown onto a platform). Now you think Marth's best case scenario of killing you from 0% is worse than Fox's best case of damage and a positional advantage? How is damage and positional advantage that is conducive to you taking a stock a harsher punishment than taking a stock? Fox and Falco have no true 0-death options versus him while he as some on them. They may rack up damage via true combo and then win the micro encounters that are not guaranteed (you DI'ing poorly, you get shield pressured/stabbed or you chose the wrong OOS option at the wrong time, you missing a tech and you get smashed etc.) and either kill you or edge guard you from there. But, at some point along that line Marth retains or regains options while Marth can better true combo, or at least effectively combo, them into either an edge guard (which is a stock) or death. Essentially, it's not debatable that Fox and Falco cannot kill Marth at low percent from one mistake as well as he can do to them.

I believe space animals can win most all micro engagements with Marth but at no point (unless you DI or jump wrong and get shine spiked) should a space animal be punishing a single mistake as brutally as you can punish theres. They have the edge in this MU because like I've stated before, they don't have to make the mistake in the first place.

I also will take this a step further and not disagree, but say you are simply wrong in thinking that Falcon has more practical survivability than Marth. That's not debatable. It doesn't matter that he has as much knockback resistance as he does when his recovery is short, predictable, easy to cover and free. Also if you think Marth gets punished harder than Falcon then I have nothing to say to you since at this point in the metagame (and I don't see this ever changing) fast fallers get punished harder than any other character and the only redeeming defensive quality they have is exclusive to Fox and Falco which is a large number of recovery options. Falcon does not have the same number or quality of options.

 

[Construct]

DoH eloquently summarized what I've been fumbling around trying to say for the last few posts.

And thats where I disagree, I fully understand you I just disagree. You're smoking crack if you think Marth (on whiff, which loosely defines a lot of bad move selection, missing, and bad spacing) gets punished harder than Fox, Falco and Falcon per mistake. You're starting an argument/position (whatever) based on something I would call incorrect.

This isn't what I'm saying
Okay I understand how you could have misconstrued that last bit about the dashdance leaving him more vulnerable, my wording was vague- What I meant there was when Marth messes up and makes an opening for an opponent to get in, it's a very big opening.

Could you elaborate on that last sentence? If you're comparing him to Fox or Falco then you should feel that way since they either have a better option or the better tools when it comes to converting from neutral to punishment vs Marth. If you're talking about any other character I disagree.

Sure. Fox's movement, wide array of moves that are safe on shield, and most of all his shine let him do obscene things in the neutral game. The same goes for Falco, but replace movement with lasers. The space animals dominate the neutral game.

A correct version of that sentence is:
"The problem comes from how much more difficult it is for Marth to not make a mistake in the neutral game when compared to Falco vs Marth and to a lesser extent Fox vs. Marth and to a lesser and debatable extent Sheik vs. Marth"

My only issue with Marth is that you can't have your opponents live to 170% if you don't get an edge guard. Pivot fsmashing in the near future will now give him new kill options (at percents 10x better or percents where he can't get anything good) out of throws and other set ups that he previously did not have. He's not "too hard or too comparatively hard" or however you want to word it to play in neutral. He just gets outdone by Falco and Fox like the rest of the cast although he maintains among the best (bad) MUs versus them.

I suppose here I just fundamentally disagree with you

 

[knightpraetor]

I strongly disagree. Marth certainly gets punished harder than spacies. While a chaingrab on fox or falco at FD might be deadly, that's about it. On the other hand, one dair shine from a good Falco or one Upsmash at 60% from Fox can lead to the stock. Even when Marth survives, he's in a much worse position than the other high tiers because he's floaty and light. One bair will kill him, a well placed f-tilt will kill him. Unlike Peach and Puff who are also floaty and light, he actually dies easily and doesn't have the advantage of an amazing recovery. In this sense, Marth is absolutely punished harder than spacies. Falcon is a less solid character overall than Marth, but I would say in terms of being punished his weight actually helps him survive more at times.

i think that it's stretching it a little to say that marth gets punished harder than spacies. However, if you limited it to only the small stages, and defined punishment as likelihood of scoring a stock, then I would agree that fox punishes marth as hard as marth punishes him. Fox can get as much off a conversion on average as marth gets off his guaranteed combos. A good spacey should be able to follow up with a potential death mixup on almost any hit after 40. The problem is that a lot of spacies are bad and play for damage for some reason. Add on the fact that mixups are worse than consistent damage for getting through tournaments and I wouldn't want to be going fox vs marth in tourney. But it's still doable. Anyway this whole question is really ill-defined. I mean, what constitutes punishment. If you don't consider fox's 2 hit into pressure that is likely to lead to another two hits as part of the first hit's punishment, then of course marth is infinitely better than fox.


also, spaceys can DI in such a way to trade damage for survival. You see all these flashy combos that result in death and don't understand why marths don't just always do that. Marth doesn't have these guaranteed kill setups. He just completely utterly wrecks spaceys who do not know the correct way to DI or miss a DI. marth's legitimate platform combos are all like that m2k vs leffen combo on FD, massive amount of damage, but no finish. though on platform stages, i think most of the time you are better off sending them offstage in such a way that you minimize their recovery options to one or two things and then picking up kills that way instead of getting them to 110 and then having them make some comeback.

however, there is no way you can compare marth's survivability on PS and FD to fox's. He eats some silly combo and just DIs out after a few hits. Fox tries to DI out and still eats 50+ percent.

I do feel like marth's survivability is barely better than falcon's. falcon stays on stage easier but once put off dies, while marth gets sent off stage easily but has a chance of living afterward without the opponent messing up. Why are we debating this though? is it really worth arguing over levels of trash recovery? Marth is at high risk of dying past 70 when sent off stage by jiggs, peach, and sheik. And against fox and falco if they are good they have mixups on you that can result in your death like half the time. Luckily most foxes don't know any of the mixups so you get away with it.

However, vs spacies I would have to say falcon has it worse. Marth will DI out and then have some mixup of getting back on stage. falcon will DI out and just die, and fox can kill him at ridiculously low percent and has combo setups that put him off stage. Marth always has options off fox's early setups unless he DIs a shine poorly.

But against peach, sheik, and jiggs, I would put marth's survivability on par with falcons.

Falcon is the reason that I still play marth for fun when I'm not playing peach. Cause whenever I start to think I have it bad, I remember falcon and his eternal fight for freedom from spacey dominance. Uggh, just thinking of all the guaranteed falcon deaths i've seen with the falcon DIing perfectly, I feel bad for him. Poor guy

edit: wanted to disagree in part with ado's post. Marth may not have high variance in all his matchups. but vs fox and falcon's dashdance he doesn't have good low committal options except for retreating moves and dtilt, both of which are limited on small stages. Consistent options with low committal (low committal being defined as a wide pool of followups when wrong) are of course more available against slower characters. it's a rather limited problem, but there are lots of foxes and they don't typically play FD in their set first match.

however, looking back, I guess overall I would agree with the statement since I think against the non top six marth has very low variance if you do the matchups correctly.

 

[4 Aces]

What kind of pivot forward smash are we talking about here?

Because from what I understand, pivot forward smash (especially for Marth) has been around since the early days of Smash. Is there a twist I don't know about? I saw the new pivoting tutorial, but I felt like even that has been around for a while. Is it just because of the newer exposure?

Ok to be fair, the pivot foward into forward smash is pretty tight.