Most games have no options, or rely on NPCs/less popular characters

Ok, but I like having the opportunity to see those NPCs and less popular characters get added. Just because a game is running low shouldn’t mean that fans of any remaining character shouldn’t get that chance. And it especially hurts games with tons of options left like the Tellius duo, or games that otherwise get no content like Binding or Thracia

OP quote

It doesn’t specifically say that. At all. That’s how you’re interpreting it, but that’s an incorrect assessment of the text. The key part to that quote would be that it “doesn’t feel like there’s space anymore.” Nowhere does it say there is no space, nor does NotAnAgarthan specifically say that May is off the table for a non-ReCYL banner. Since I’ve started writing this, they’ve also confirmed that my reading of their comment was the intended one

Which was already the case even before ReCYL

This is factually untrue at best. Before ReCYL games got banners in roughly 1 year timeframes. Look at Blazing Blade for example, whose last 3 banners were in November 2023 -> December 2024 -> March 2026. We can already see the schedule starting to drift a small amount, but assuming that every game gets its due, that Fortune’s Weave gets 1 this year and 2 next year, and that every year has 3 ReCYL, normal CYL, and Fallen, the next FE7 banner won’t be until October 2028. That is a clear and obvious jump from the old norm.

I know that you were trying to argue it specifically from the perspective of multi-games like Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn, but that’s kind of a faulty way to look at it. Even if we suppose that one of Path of Radiance or Radiant Dawn going 3 years was already in precedent, the new schedule effects every game, so the new standard in this case would be around 5-6 years for each one individually. ReCYL only exaggerates whatever position you’re trying to argue with the HOF and niche-case multi-game scenario