Proposal: Eliminate the Holy damage type.

[Temuchin Khan]

I would like to propose the following criteria, even though it eliminates some of my own proposals :) The word for the damage type should have a form which sounds good in the following sentence in the place of holiness or blade:

"The holiness of the sword did far more damage to the vile creature than the blade"

Good criterion.

Also, with a little tweaking to switch them to noun form, some of the proposed terms would fit the bill:

"The radiance of the sword did far more damage to the vile creature than the blade."

"The arcana of the sword did far more damage to the vile creature than the blade."

I favor "radiance"/"radiant."

[Maeglin Dubh]

Radiant definitely seems to fit the bill better than arcane, given that set of criteria.

[Elvish_Pillager]

The dispulsion of the sword...

[Rhuvaen]

The pommel of the sword did far more damage to the vile creature than the blade.

Now that HAS to be the best damage type...

I'm starting to suffer philosophical and poetic damage from this thread. Hey, aren't those neat damage types? Just add more ingredients to the cauldron at whim and stir.

Back on topic, I think people are getting too hooked on 1) different meanings for holy or 2) different meanings for dispelling magic. The purpose here however is to come up with something that is orthagonal with weapon specials such as magical, holy, poison, maybe even berserk (okay, the last two are a bit far-fetched).

So how these combinations sound?
- holy arcane
- magical arcane
- standard arcane (?)
- holy radiance
- magical radiance
- standard radiance
- holy spirit (hm)
- holy hallowed
- holy whiteness

Things that sound crooked are "holy hallowed", all types of "white", non-magical dispels and the like.

[Temuchin Khan]

The purpose here however is to come up with something that is orthagonal with weapon specials such as magical, holy, poison, maybe even berserk

I was under the impression, though, that the majority of devs didn't want to change holy to a weapon special and instead wanted a different name for the sixth damage type, one that was broader than "holy" but narrow enough to exclude the other five.

If holy becomes a weapon special, my vote is the same as it ever was: call it "hallowed."

[Rhuvaen]

I was under the impression, though, that the majority of devs didn't want to change holy to a weapon special and instead wanted a different name for the sixth damage type, one that was broader than "holy" but narrow enough to exclude the other five.

My apologies for posting under wrong assumptions then, and in bad style too. Reviewing this thread this seems to be the case. I'm guessing I was lead astray by some of the proposals along the lines of "dispel" which - given their disparity with the original meaning of "holy" - led me to believe that the holy part was going to be removed from the damage type...

Please resume this discussion despite the nuisance (although I hope it helped to at least rehash what this thread is trying to achieve and point out possible misunderstanding - at least for me it did ).

[Sapient]

I can see how some people support the weapon special idea as a way to tidy up the resistance listing and allow combinations of holy+other. However, from a MP balancing perspective, such a weapon special definition would mean that you have to simultaneously change two variables whenever any tweaks need to be performed (blade or other damage, undead damage)... and even worse one is changing at a double rate to the other. This may not be not as difficult as balancing berserker's frenzy, but still it would be restrictive.

Also, it would be a real pain for any UMC with demons, angels, or other holy/unholy races to create and maintain alternate versions of the white mage and paladin line (and others who have or will have holy damage). I would also like to point out that there is a mainline campaign with a demon, BTW.

[Temuchin Khan]

I can see how some people support the weapon special idea as a way to tidy up the resistance listing and allow combinations of holy+other. However, from a MP balancing perspective, such a weapon special definition would mean that you have to simultaneously change two variables whenever any tweaks need to be performed (blade or other damage, undead damage)... and even worse one is changing at a double rate to the other. This may not be not as difficult as balancing berserker's frenzy, but still it would be restrictive.

Also, it would be a real pain for any UMC with demons, angels, or other holy/unholy races to create and maintain alternate versions of the white mage and paladin line (and others who have or will have holy damage). I would also like to point out that there is a mainline campaign with a demon, BTW.

Good points!

[Elvish_Pillager]

I would also like to point out that there is a mainline campaign with a demon, BTW.

Three demons, actually.

[Eleazar]

I would also like to point out that there is a mainline campaign with a demon, BTW.

Three demons, actually.

UtBS? Not relavant since the demons are one-shot appearances not neccesary for the completion of the campaign. And UtBS used mostly unique units anyway.

Anyway, the ballance of standard mainline units takes precedence over campaign specific units.

I don't understand Sapient's prediction that UCMs will need to maintain their own versions of MoL and Paladins. Unit balance has always changed to some degree between major releases. If campaign maintainers wish to take advantage of the new features, there will always be some adjustments neccesary.

[Noyga]

Well if you use other creatures that are supposed to be vulnerable to holy (like the demons of UtBS or of the Extended Era for example), the standard holy special won't work on these creatures. This means you need a modified version of the special, so you need to duplicate every usable unit that use holy to use the modified version of the holy special.

[zookeeper]

Well if you use other creatures that are supposed to be vulnerable to holy (like the demons of UtBS or of the Extended Era for example), the standard holy special won't work on these creatures. This means you need a modified version of the special, so you need to duplicate every usable unit that use holy to use the modified version of the holy special.

Not quite. You could "update" the units on-the-fly to suit your holy needs with some simple WML trickery - it would be really easy with a macro, which I can write if it comes to that.

Argument thus countered.

EDIT: Well, ok ok, if you took a modified paladin (whose holy sword now deals extra damage also to demons) in your UMC, opened the unit help and clicked on the holy special of his sword, you'd still only see the default description, which would be a real glitch, but that doesn't sound awfully bad.

[Sapient]

Argument thus countered.

Maybe such a macro possible, but I'd like to know that it works first (it's not that simple, IMO). Also, you are only addressing a part of the argument, not the whole thing, so I wouldn't say you countered it just yet.

[Darth Fool]

Argument thus countered.

Maybe such a macro possible, but I'd like to know that it works first (it's not that simple, IMO). Also, you are only addressing a part of the argument, not the whole thing, so I wouldn't say you countered it just yet.

Isn't it as simple as adding an event in the new unit that filters on the new unit as defender where the attack has the special holy and multiplying the damage by some value? In fact, I think that all damage types could be replaced in a similar manner, not that we would want to, but they could be.
I could be wrong and this certainly isn't the last word in that you still don't have the WML macro for it, but I really suspect that zookeeper is right on this.

[Noyga]

And how about the description in the help ?
It is possible to show 2 different specials with the same name in the help.
AFAIK dynamically changing the special doesn't work in the help.