These units with only 3 traits...

Flametrooper · Post by **Flametrooper** » November 27th, 2006, 1:31 am

You're not the kindest person, are you? There really are situations like that in game. They may be rare, but they can be crucial, and you don't "never encounter" them. Plus, different people have different play styles.
You don't need to get all sarcastic on people who state the fact that sometimes a Strong Adept has been a gamesaver for them.

Post by **Zhukov** » November 27th, 2006, 1:34 am

This damn thread is back.

I'm staying out of it this time.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 27th, 2006, 1:36 am

I apologize if you felt mocked by my answer, that wasn't the aim. Light-hearted comment, yes, sarcastic, no.

I am well aware that 1 HP can be a life-saver, but you must admit that it does not happen very frequently. Also, if one were to argue that Fearless is an advantageous replacement for Strong (something which i don't advocate, but which i do understand), they could say that dealing normal damage during the day could be a life-saver by killing your opponent before they can hit you enough for that lack of 1HP to be significant.

Zhukov wrote: This damn thread is back.

I'm staying out of it this time.

Well, your last post in this thread was "i'll post a proper counter later", which you never did, so... =)

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 27th, 2006, 8:31 pm

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

I've been saved by 1 HP many times, and it's a reasonable assumption that about half the units saved this way had the Strong trait, and thus were saved by being Strong.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 27th, 2006, 8:45 pm

I can't see what's reasonable about this assumption, sorry =)

Also, i would like to humbly point out that i am _in favour_ of all units having access to the same set of traits, bar racial-specific ones, as i wrote in about half my posts in this thread. I was only stating that the point had been mostly addressed, as opposed to what had been said.

Also, EP, maybe that in the situation you describe, it'd be a safe assumption to say that your units would have survived even more easily if they had done more damage due to ignoring the negative effects of ToD. But assumptions don't bring a lot, do they?

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 27th, 2006, 8:53 pm

Gus wrote:Also, EP, maybe that in the situation

situations

Gus wrote:you describe, it'd be a safe assumption to say that your units would have survived even more easily if they had done more damage due to ignoring the negative effects of ToD.

...especially since they were often Neutral.

Gus wrote:But assumptions don't bring a lot, do they?

There's a difference between a safe assumption (mine) and a totally bogus assumption (yours).

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 27th, 2006, 9:30 pm

well, if your argument is that my assumption is bogus and yours is great, i can only say that you're right and your argument is great. Because mine is bogus. And yours is great. So if i say anything, it's bogus. Unlike yours. Which is great.

Got it.

PS: i know i shouldn't, but i can't resist the pleasure: from what you say, it'd be safe to say that Dark Adepts don't need Strong, since your units which benefitted from the trait were mostly Neutral.
You're welcome

Elvish_Pillager · November 27th, 2006, 10:49 pm

Gus, do you have trouble distinguishing the concept of all members of a group, from the concept of some of the members of a group?

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 27th, 2006, 11:43 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:Gus, do you have trouble distinguishing the concept of all members of a group, from the concept of some of the members of a group?

EP, do you have troubles respecting the person you're talking to, or reading the posts and topic YOU started?

The "problem" was that DAs without Strong lost 1HP. It has been said that this was made up by the Fearless trait. Then it has been said that in some situations, Strong was better because it was a life-saver. I countered that by saying that Fearless could arguably also be a life-saver. You then said that "you were often saved by 1HP" and that "Fearless wouldn't have helped in this case because the units in question were neutral". Without going as low as asking you how these assumptions are any fairer than my own ones (which you called "bogus", without any other argumentation than this rhetoric trick), I'm just saying that either you're contradicting yourself (if that 1HP would have saved an ADEPT, then it cannot be a NEUTRAL unit), or your contribution to this post, on this question, was absolutely not needed, considering you're not dealing with the question at hand.
In case you still don't get it: the argument that Fearless is an advantageous replacement for Strong in the case of Dark Adepts simply cannot be countered by arguing that Fearless is useless for Neutral units until Adepts are changed form Chaotic to Neutral.

Thanks for reading the post entirely this time.

Website · Post by **Sapient** » November 28th, 2006, 1:09 am

Right... this is getting a lock if it doesn't get any new content other than semantics debates on old posts.

JW · Post by JW » November 28th, 2006, 3:29 pm

Gus wins.

btw, about Fearless.....it's only going to be applied to Adepts, Outlaws, Loyalists, and Northerners?

Post by **Noyga** » November 28th, 2006, 4:05 pm

Traits are usually given by race (through we can do some exceptions for some units), most races would be able to get the fearless trait.
However, something in the code prevent the neutral units to get the fearless trait when recruited.
There might be a problem, but only for red mages (and perhaps mages can't get fearless at all).

JW · Post by JW » November 28th, 2006, 4:23 pm

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't especially like the Fearless trait. The whole not being used on neutral units thing makes it seem silly to me.

Why would humans get it and not dwarves?
-obviously the reasons are gameplay oriented, but it makes no sense to my head.

Just my wildly biased opinion. Ignore it at will if it's inconsequential.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 28th, 2006, 9:53 pm

Gus wrote:EP, do you have troubles respecting the person you're talking to, or reading the posts and topic YOU started?

No, I just get really really annoyed reading this whole forum full of people willing to spring to ad hominem attacks at the drop of a hat, and finally crack and try one myself. Sorry about that.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 28th, 2006, 10:12 pm

I'm not exactly sure how to read this post.
In any case, let me assure you that i wouldn't launch "ad hominem" attacks at you, considering how highly useful your strategy guides were to me.