These units with only 3 traits...

[Flametrooper]

Would this carry over to campaigns too, though? I like my Strong Mermaid Sirens and Strong Orcish Slayers. Heck, even the Mage of Light gets a decent impact melee where strong is helpful - can save its life. I don't like the removal of Strong for stuff in MP, but I'm not that strongly opposed to it - but in campaigns, keep the trait, please.

[Sapient]

Oh, by the way, how do you feel about 'fearless' being removed from L1 mages?

*ducks for cover*

[Elvish_Pillager]

Oh, by the way, how do you feel about 'fearless' being removed from L1 mages?

"The fewer units with Fearless, the better"?

I'm not sure what I think about Fearless, and if I post about it I'll start a new thread.

[joshudson]

Of course nobody cares at this point, but I would have recommended giving the DA a 0-1 or 0-2 melee attack and letting it keep the strong trait.

[Soliton]

Of course nobody cares at this point, but I would have recommended giving the DA a 0-1 or 0-2 melee attack and letting it keep the strong trait.

I think that's a quite interesting idea.

[Flametrooper]

Don't 0-damage attacks totally screw everything up, though?

-Happy thanksgiving.

[JW]

Of course nobody cares at this point, but I would have recommended giving the DA a 0-1 or 0-2 melee attack and letting it keep the strong trait.

I think that's a quite interesting idea.

That is interesting, but isn't minimum damage 1? That would make Adepts actually hurt Ulfs now, even if non-Strong.

Just a question. Happy Thanksgiving!

[Elvish_Pillager]

Yes, damage on any swing rounds up to 1.

It would be simple, though, to make the Strong trait, as a special case for the Adept, give it a 1-1 or 1-2 impact attack as well as increasing the other attacks it gains when it advances. (It would also be possible to take away the extra attack once it gets an actual decent attack, but not nearly so simple.)

[appleide]

Yes, damage on any swing rounds up to 1.

It would be simple, though, to make the Strong trait, as a special case for the Adept, give it a 1-1 or 1-2 impact attack as well as increasing the other attacks it gains when it advances. (It would also be possible to take away the extra attack once it gets an actual decent attack, but not nearly so simple.)

This is an alternative. However:

Whether the 1hp is useful on the adept is subjective to the player. If it were up to me to decide what traits my adepts get, I'd choose strong over quick any day. The thing that is broken with "balance" in multiplayer, is that balance is partially subjective. To my playing style, adepts with 11.4% more hitpoints is more useful than having an extra move. I disagree with removing "Strong" trait from Adepts.

[Sapient]

I'd choose strong over quick any day. The thing that is broken with "balance" in multiplayer, is that balance is partially subjective. To my playing style, adepts with 11.4% more hitpoints is more useful than having an extra move. I disagree with removing "Strong" trait from Adepts.

I already countered this argument on page 2. The frequency of the quick trait has not increased by this removal of strong (due to addition of fearless trait).

[appleide]

The additional fearless trait and the already existing strong trait would further dilute the chance of acquiring "quick". The removal of strong removes this effect. It also prevents the ability for the fearless trait to give variety to possible traits on the Dark Adept. Therefore, my opinion that strong should stay with Dark Adept remains unchanged.

[Temuchin Khan]

I'd choose strong over quick any day. The thing that is broken with "balance" in multiplayer, is that balance is partially subjective. To my playing style, adepts with 11.4% more hitpoints is more useful than having an extra move. I disagree with removing "Strong" trait from Adepts.

I already countered this argument on page 2. The frequency of the quick trait has not increased by this removal of strong (due to addition of fearless trait).

Actually, no, you did not counter appleide's argument. Appleide's particular objection is entirely immune to what you said earlier in response to that other argument.

Appleide said "MP Balance is partly subjective and depends on one's playing style. My style leads me to prefer an Adept with strong over one with quick" and you attempted to counter with "Quick does not come up more frequently than it used to," which says absolutely nothing to the objection that appleide was actually making.

Appleide's objection thus far stands unrefuted.

[Gus]

To be perfectly fair, tho, you have to say that appleide's point was made on the basis that Strong was better than Quick because it provided +1HP instead of -10%. So effectively, replacing Strong with Fearless means that it provides "+0HP and is not affected by negative ToD" instead of -10%.
This is why, in fact, appleide's concern was indeed addressed.

That being said, i stand by my opinion that all units should have access to all the general traits, the only exclusive traits being restricted to faction-specific ones (such as Dextrous or Healthy".

[Flametrooper]

And you know, 1 HP can make a difference. If you're facing Drakes, the 7-4 from a Clasher can kill an adept without Strong. With Strong, it barely survives, and you can ZOC it and get it to a village.

[Gus]

Oh yeah, i'm sure you can find plenty of examples which you will never ever encounter in-game to make 1HP sound important =)