You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

[Aethaeryn]

The discussion you are looking for most likely took place on IRC, or another temporary medium, as was most likely not preserved.

IRC is not a temporary medium if in an official Wesnoth channel. Nothing is purged if you look far enough back in the archives, just compressed.

http://irclogs.wesnoth.org/

The trick is that you would need to know the day.

[Caphriel]

I didn't know that the Wesnoth IRC channels were logged. Learn something every day, I guess

[Noskillz]

Just asking a question, would giving the thunderer impact attack change the balance much?

I personally would love having my thunderer rifle butt something but would it make it too strong against undead?

[Yogibear]

Just asking a question, would giving the thunderer impact attack change the balance much?

Yes, it would change the balance a lot, not only against undead, but also vs drakes, as the thunderer is the main source of (neutral) pierce damage for knalgans. Against undead, the thunderer would probably overpower knalgans largely.

[Caphriel]

I think he meant for the melee attack.

[Eskon]

Merely changing the type of the melee attack... the thunderer would become stronger in melee against many undead, butt in on footpad territory, and suck more in defense against woses. The dwarvish fighter would still be your go-to place for impact melee, but thunderers would be not much worse, and much less vulnerable to adepts.

I don't see much sense in butting be a 6-2 attack, though. If anything, it would be a moderately weak 6-1 or something - and not only make the thunderer even less capable of reliable killing than he already is, but raise the question why the thunderer, carrying a slow-loading unreliable ranged weapon, doesn't carry a proper backup melee weapon to begin with. So if anything, it should be an addition to the dagger attack.

That would actually be something to think about. Adding a 6-1 impact melee attack to use on skeletons. Mainly a flavor change with negligent impact on balance, and would probably not help Keeping It Simple.

[Aethaeryn]

Merely changing the type of the melee attack... the thunderer would become stronger in melee against many undead, butt in on footpad territory, and suck more in defense against woses. The dwarvish fighter would still be your go-to place for impact melee, but thunderers would be not much worse, and much less vulnerable to adepts.

I don't see much sense in butting be a 6-2 attack, though. If anything, it would be a moderately weak 6-1 or something - and not only make the thunderer even less capable of reliable killing than he already is, but raise the question why the thunderer, carrying a slow-loading unreliable ranged weapon, doesn't carry a proper backup melee weapon to begin with. So if anything, it should be an addition to the dagger attack.

That would actually be something to think about. Adding a 6-1 impact melee attack to use on skeletons. Mainly a flavor change with negligent impact on balance, and would probably not help Keeping It Simple.

Would it really be negligent? It would make them useful against skeletons, especially skeleton archers.

[csarmi]

Well, they would do 4-2 or 7-1 vs skeletons in melee. Not a big change, that 7-1 attack, although it is certainly better, then attacking archers in ranged.

[pauxlo]

Well, they would do 4-2 or 7-1 vs skeletons in melee. Not a big change, that 7-1 attack, although it is certainly better, then attacking archers in ranged.

The 4-2 is in most cases better than 7-1 – almost only for skeletons with 5, 6 or 7 hitpoints the last one would be better (having a greater CTK).

[Eskon]

It would make them more useful against skeletons, but not to a degree they become worthwhile anti-skeleton recruits. Thunderers against undead have the job of bat/walking corpse wasting and possible defending against adepts, and adding a crappy 6-1 melee impact attack wouldn't disrupt the balance overall I think. Against skeleton archers the melee attack of the thunderer already does 4-2 damage if I'm not mistaken - this would get switched to an 8-1 attack, which is not terribly different. I wouldn't do it for reasons of simplicity.

[csparrow]

I think an impact on a thunderer would not be that useful, this has been said before but, fighter have an impact and so do footpads. It would not be to advantageous to change the thunderers melee attack to impact.

maybe, add a fire attack (like shooting a phosphorus round) to dragon guards(sorry if i am wrong about the name i rarely play knalgas) and weaken the pierce. this would make it slightly more effective against undead and add a fire attack to the alliance.

this is all assuming change is needed, I find the races fairly balanced.

[silent]

I'd prefer some sort of way to make the thunderstick much less...luck dependent. That would be far more useful

[csarmi]

That would take away the whole point of the thunderstick attack. Besides, it's an advantage, if used well.

[silent]

That would take away the whole point of the thunderstick attack. Besides, it's an advantage, if used well.

Attacks should never be luck dependent in the first place, even if you are trying to hit something in the open or on poor terrain

[Velensk]

All attacks are luck dependent. The thunderstick is useful in that you can be sure that it will either do full damage or do nothing making it easy to plan for. Now part of that plan must be for the possibility that it will miss but in many instances a skilled player will pick a situation where the thunderer missing will not hurt him too badly.

EDITED: Originally said a lucks are luck based but this is what I had meant.