These units with only 3 traits...

[Gus]

However in the case of strong DAs, the trait is next to completely useless. It adds all of 1HP. It might as well not be there. And that's exactly the point, if it might as well not be there why don't we remove it and replace it with something useful? But hang on...well, blow me! Some smart cookie has already thought of that! In fact it's been implemented, how clever!

Well, i completely disagree with that statement =)
First, It "only" adds 1 HP. But consider ranged attackers in general. What is the benefit of Strong to them ? 1 HP and +1 dmg on their 2 attacks, which, given the way attack works, can be equated to 1 dmg. So, the point i disagree with, is that "1 HP + 1 dmg" is significant enough but that "1 HP" is not.
Second, i do agree with you, somewhat, that it might as well not be there since it adds so little (and, to be in concordance with my previous point, i think the same when i get Strong Mages or Strong Bowmen). Where i don't agree with you is that it is not simply "not there". By that i mean, you don't sometimes get Dark Adepts with only one trait. You always get Adepts with 2 traits, chosen out of all the traits minus the ones who serve less purpose (not "no purpose"). I believe it is unfair to the Bowmen or other ranged units with only two melee attacks, that the DA are the only ones that get to NOT get the trait that benefit them the less. Also, i believe that Adepts are meant to have the big "no-melee weakness". Should this weakness be compensated slightly by not giving them the "melee-only" trait that everyone else in the game can get? From the tone of the question, you can probably tell i think it shouldn't

You made the gameplay argument that the DA should get strong because he/she gains melee at later levels. The thing is, as JW so rightly pointed out, the traits are balanced with MP in mind (SP campaigns are balanced on a scenario basis, and don't follow factions). In MP the main concern is L1 units. L2s are fairly rare and don't really enter the MP equation, so the melee of the Dark Sorcerer is basically irrevelent.

Is it? There ARE some advances in MP, even though, of course, it's much more limited than in campaigns. And even then, see my previous argument: you decide to recruit a unit with a certain weakness, you have to cope with that weakness, i think.

You made the realism argument that some DAs should get strong because some individuals would be stronger then the rest. This is the realism base for all traits and is entirely true. However the only effect this has on the DA is to add that measly little 1HP, and as I said above, this is basically nothing. We might as well give them a 'hare lip' trait. In fact, why not? Oh yeah, that's right...because it would have no impact on their damn stats! If you want to have the occasional stronger-then-average DA that's fine, but you're gonna have to use your imagination, just like I have to if I want the occasional DA with a hare lip.

There again, i'm sorry but i have to disagree =) Strong is a trait that everyone in the whole game can get, BUT Adepts. The only similar mechanism is with Intelligent Trolls, and i won't develop the matter, because it is similar to the issue with Adepts. Even when units cannot use its benefits to the fullest, they can still get it. Adepts should be no exception, and if a particularly muscular Adept decides to learn magic and disregard melee combat, then too bad for him. Or maybe he'll get to use his ability later on, when he becomes a Sorcerer or Lich... Also, you say there's no impact on the "damn stats", but you're plain wrong, there is: 1 HP. It might not seem much, but cf my first paragraph: for ranged attackers, it's a difference of 1 dmg in average on melee retaliation.

I think that's enough for now. Maybe later I'll go back through the thread again and rebuff your posts quote-by-quote, if that's what it takes to penetrate.

I put some efforts in my post to back it up correctly (or at least coherently, even if you're free to disagree with me), so i hope i will not be answered to in this borderline-flaming way =)

EDIT: zookeeper said it much better (and in much less lines!!!) than i could

[Sapient]

Ok, three points:

1) There's no need to get hostile. Certainly there are valid arguments in favor of both possibilities.

2) If dark adepts can get strong trait then they should have at least a 1-1 melee attack. All IMHO.

3) While intelligent trolls are possible, such a rare contradiction of their race seem to belong in the realm of campaigns heros, not normal recruits. This is purely a race flavor thing. Different races have different traits available to them, especially in 1.3, but this has long been true (e.g. "dextrous").

[Becephalus]

If EP is wrong, and removing strong from adepts is a good thing because strong is worthless on adepts, then we must remove it from units like mage, mermaid initiate and orcish assassin as well.

I can commit this right away, any objections? Using the logic I've seen used to counter EP's points, there certainly shouldn't be any.

I would be fine with that it is a worthless trait for those untis especially mages. I use assasin melee farily regularly, but almost never mage.

As for the whole thread.

First off the game is stipulative. You could add one line to the desscription saying that adepts must bleed tyhemselves regularly for their unholy powers, and the problem is solved. No more strong, AND it adds flavor to the unit.

On top of this it just plain pisses a lot of players off, and I generally think it is poor game design to piss off players unecessarily.

Finally everyone needs to turn it down a notch, it is not as though the future of Wesnoth revolves around this change.

[Gus]

If this reply proves unnecessary, feel free to delete it, i just want to react on what has been said, but not if it causes a heated argument ^^

Anyway, Sapient, you said that if they were to have Strong as a possible trait, they should have a puny melee attack. I have two arguments against that, one being humorous (it would DOUBLE their melee potential !!! =D), the other being, as i said in my previous post, that the lack of melee was supposed to be a weakness of the unit.

On Intelligent Trolls, i don't see where the contradiction is, especially considering the fact that traits are supposed to be relative. The example of a "Strong Mage" being in reality less strong than a "non-Strong Fighter" was a good one. So Intelligent Trolls wouldn't be more Intelligent by our standards... Just, they would realize more quickly that they can hurt more by using a big stick than their bare hands, or that they could fling rocks at enemies from afar. This is what "Intelligent" means in the game, in the case of Trolls.

As for what Becephalus said about pissing off players, i agree it's not a good idea in a game. Still, Wesnoth is not really "newbie-friendly" anyway, and i can't see how a decent player could really complain more about having Strong on an DA than on a Bowman or another ranged/support unit with only two melee attacks at most. As i have shown, it's a 0-2 dmg difference, not really a game-breaker either.

Finally, i definitely think it's possible to keep discussing this if the need exists, without resorting to personal attacks or aggressive tone

[Flametrooper]

What if there were a trait that gave Adepts a weak melee impact fist attack? Maybe like 4-2, or even just 4-1 or 5-1. Then it could still have Strong, and if it got Strong and this, then it would make sense...
Just a random idea.

[Tomsik]

Flametrooper: Right now, adepts are only default era units that don't have melee attack, giving it to them would make them non-unique.

[Baufo]

Well, having actually NO melee attack seems to be a rather psychological thing. The only _really_ difference in gameplay is IMO that a 1 hp berserk can't kill them.

PS: This does _not_ mean that I would like to see DAs getting a melee attack.

[Zhukov]

*sigh*

Why do I even bother?
Ok, here's my answer in breif:

If EP is wrong, and removing strong from adepts is a good thing because strong is worthless on adepts, then we must remove it from units like mage, mermaid initiate and orcish assassin as well.

I can commit this right away, any objections? Using the logic I've seen used to counter EP's points, there certainly shouldn't be any.

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Probably not on the Orcish Assasin though.

[JW]

Yeah, for some reason I like Strong Assassins too.

Weird huh?

[Baufo]

Well, they are one of the more likely units to level in MP and they get a pwnzoring melee if they do. I also like them.

[Jetrel]

*sigh*

Why do I even bother?
Ok, here's my answer in breif:

If EP is wrong, and removing strong from adepts is a good thing because strong is worthless on adepts, then we must remove it from units like mage, mermaid initiate and orcish assassin as well.

I can commit this right away, any objections? Using the logic I've seen used to counter EP's points, there certainly shouldn't be any.

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Probably not on the Orcish Assasin though.

Nor on the mermaid - she does melee a lot like the orcish assassin does melee. As a siren, she gets a magical melee attack, and strong is very useful for that. Same for the priestess line.

I was going to suggest removing it from the mage, though.

[Gus]

Nor on the mermaid - she does melee a lot like the orcish assassin does melee. As a siren, she gets a magical melee attack, and strong is very useful for that. Same for the priestess line.

I was going to suggest removing it from the mage, though.

ah but the argument that was used was that it was balanced for MP, and that there were "no advancements in MP".

[Zhukov]

ah but the argument that was used was that it was balanced for MP, and that there were "no advancements in MP".

Ugh, for the love of...

The point is that strong is much more useful on the level 1 Mermaid because she has a melee and uses it. It gives her a slight boost to damage as well as the 1HP.

The DA has no melee. Strong only gives 1HP. Thus strong is significantly more useful on a Mermaid then on a DA.

I'll post a proper counter later.

[Gus]

Zhukov, please don't mix up two things.

You (and it is a general "you") made two points:
- Adepts don't have a melee attack so they should not get Strong
- It doesn't matter that their advancement gets a melee attack because we're talking balance, and balance means MP, and MP means no advancements.

Now, as far as the first point is concerned, it was ironically criticized by zookeeper, and i argued against it myself, saying that the difference between an Adept and a regular Ranged attacker (by that i mean, who focuses on Ranged attacks) was very little, in average less than 1 dmg per fight.
For the second point, it seems Jetryl argued the usefulness of Strong for the melee attack of an ADVANCED unit, which goes against what was said before by proponents of the removal of Strong access to Adepts.

And, once again, since i take the time to properly back up my answers, type them out correctly, and respect my fellow posters, please don't go "for the love of..." or other flamishness with me like you did in answer to EP. Thanks a lot.

EDIT: btw, i can read, and you could probably have seen that if you had read my post. So, no need to underline an argument that i specifically addressed and countered. Once again, feel free to say why you think i'm wrong, just don't imply i'm wrong because i have no clue or cannot read. Thanks.

[Cuyo Quiz]

*bashes head*

Check the line...