Are the 15 red/brown gems a fixed value?
Edit: That type of information should be shown in game instead of relying on people to explore game files.
Yeah it is. Its only the life gain in his spell that is scaling with magic.
Thanks, just seen it here too:
Stonehammer - Troops - Gems of War Database has this information as well. But I agree, the game should do a much better job explaining what part of a troop’s spell scales with Magic, and at what ratio.
Considering the effort into writing the story, shouldn’t Stonehammer at least get the Impervious trait?
That’ll free one of the three traits up into something else that fits more into his theme, like Dwarf Bond or Pyromania?
I know @Sirrian said he’ll be making less visits to the forum, but come on! At least stand up for your own story! 
1 Like
even impervious doesnt protect from mana drain 
If it did, it would be a bit to much 
i know but that means if you want more “complete” defense trait setup it doesnt necesarely need to include impervious, it may be a set of other traits that include drain-immunity… and instakill immunity…
So, impressions after using him for a few days:
- The gem creation and all-enemies effects are huge improvements over the original pre-release data.
- AoE Stun is nice. Makes many teams much easier.
- I’m still not sure why he has an AoE Burn. I mean, I guess it’s trickle damage? My sneaking suspicion is that it has more to do with someone getting a really nice piece of artwork, seeing the flaming hammer, and thinking, “well, CLEARLY he’ll throw down Burns!”. And there’s nothing wrong with that; it’s just a little…random. ;p
- Even with the vast improvements to his ability, I feel like 24 mana is a little high. It doesn’t feel egregiously disproportionate, but it just kinda feels more like a 22 - especially when compared to the other 24s. Maybe it’s just because it does so much stuff, I guess? *shrug*
- He’s extremely vulnerable to being Frozen, and that’s fine. A) That’s just part of the trade-off of putting a tri-color unit at the top of your stack, and B) everyone needs a weak spot.
- He’s moderately vulnerable to being Devoured, which is kinda obnoxious. ;p This is only less impactful than Frozen because Devour is less common, often a random chance, and always single target, whereas Frozen is common, consistent, and sometimes AoE.
- I still think it’s really weird that his unique Mythic trait is, for all practical purposes, the same as Gorgotha’s Legendary trait (especially when Stonehammer pays 24 Arcanes for 80%, when Gorgotha pays 6 Arcanes for an essentially-the-same 75%). Apparently I just need to get over it. ;p
- And most importantly, he’s fun! To be fair, I fully traited him right off the bat so I’m not sure if the “fun factor” would be there as much without his tankiness, but he’s definitely fun when traited.
3 Likes
Agreed.
Would it be so game-breaking to just have him at 100% immune to skull? At least I think that would make his meta much more interesting. I mean, if I look up the definition for “Unbreakable,” it means: adj. impossible to break
Frankly, 80% is a far shot from “impossible” 
2 Likes
And it shouldn’t, it’s already powerful enough. However Mana Shield should (could) protect from Mana Drain.
Though the hammer is clearly bent which looks a bit of a shoddy job. Wouldn’t want him crafting my Armour, no guarantee it’d fit too comfortably…
Yes if it didn’t have a downside. I’ve posted a generic trait suggestion before: Ethereal trait: immune to skull damage, take double (or 50% extra) damage from spells.
4 Likes
It’s kinda stupid that the hammers handle is bent.
As for 100% being game breaking - not even close to game breaking @Jainus.
You kill it with abilites anyway, and not with skulls. He shouldnt take damage from skulls. Right now his mythic trait is gorgotha wannabe.
Did that place have eight peaks by any chance?
1 Like
I agree that his trait is ridiculous - but necessary if you want to use him. It takes so much arcane traitstones to be…5% better than a legendary…hmm. That just doesn’t sound right!
It should be completely immune. That’s mythical. And worth the trait stone cost. Either that or leave his third trait alone but give him impervious and another trait that would help him. As it is his traits just feel wrong compared to other mythics (and gorgotha)
And you also have to consider that he is a tricolor and needs to be in the front spot. So he should be worth it.
I like stonehammer and have replaced gorgotha with it on one of my teams. But it still bugs me that his third trait is a gorgotha wannabe. Just like it bugs me that dragon soul is a copy of immortal king… give it something unique!! I’m still waiting…
2 Likes
I’m sure that a lawyer for the devs will be very enthusiastic about telling you how there are absolutely not eight peaks. 
Although I suppose that it wouldn’t be the first time that they’ve poked the infamously litigious bear (cough cough Slayer cough). ;p
3 Likes
100% skull damage reduction is just unfair for skull based team: what happens if you are in front of Stonehammer? Not everyone can scout for free and so on, a team who can be unable to win against another team sounds weird.
If you want to increase his “tankiness” compared to Gorgotha change his trait for reduction to all damage (like it was already proposed many times).
1 Like
I can see that point, so perhaps it shouldn’t be 100%. But it should be higher than 80%. So perhaps more like 90%. I am iffy on this because I still would rather see immunity because if you don’t have free scouting you should still be scouting if you don’t want to take a team that is heavily countered. Retreating doesn’t lose you anything really, so if you have to retreat because you ran into a hard counter then that’s on you.
Hard counters aren’t a bad thing if you don’t have too many hard counters to a specific type (looking at you mana burns that are hard countered by impervious AND mana shield and now both of those are on really good troops that I see everywhere! Which is why I don’t use Mab unless I use her just for utility on the team. Which, by the way, you can easily have a Queen Mab team that can’t win against another team so apparently it isn’t that weird for devs).
I don’t believe that any troop should have damage reduction to both spells and skulls because that would be really annoying to face. When it’s one or the other you have a counter rather than it being good at everything. It definitely needs skull reduction because it is a front line tank but I don’t think adding spell reduction is a good choice.
1 Like
I guess that some players can like to invade without having a clue about the defense team. Retreating because it’s hard and you’re going to spend too much time is one thing. Retreating because you cannot win because your team is based on skull is another thing. And you know how fast one OP troop can be find in 90% of the defense teams…
Impervious is too powerful (it should not include mana burn immunity and stun one) and present on too many troops now… But for mana burns you can still do skulls damage to the troops who have Impervious/Mana shield so you can be able to win. So skull damage is important for teams based on this kind of damage but also as a “emergency” if your team is hard countered.
And jumping from +5% to 10% doesn’t change a thing: this Mythic trait is too close to an existing legendary trait. Now I just don’t understand why only skull-based teams should be hard countered with reduction traits like that and nothing against spell damage or true damage…
It depends of how much % of reduction. 50% seems okay. And yes it will be annoying but less than Famine…
He is in the front line because he have skull reduction, not the opposite. With only a spell reduction, you could put him in the back to have a beautiful and annoying Gorgotha in front and Stonehammer in the back team ;-). Of course, in this caase, he will only tank for himself.
1 Like
I don’t think this would work as a trait. Since players are expected to pay substantial sums of Traitstones to unlock traits, traits themselves should be designed to be beneficial, not double-edged. This sort of thing is fine for spells, of course (see Berserker) but it’s hard to say 100% Skull immunity offsets the 2x Magic damage without actually trying it first, and the game is not set up to refund you if you do risk it. It’s one thing to pay for a trait you later deem “worthless,” and another altogether to find you “ruined” a troop by training it with a dud trait.
That being said, why do we not have magic-dampening traits (take 25% less damage from spells, for example)? It seems like an obvious inclusion, so its absence makes me suspect the devs know something we don’t. @Sirrian or @Saltypatra, is there a philosophical or gameplay reason you could enlighten us with?
1 Like
I disagree but don’t feel the need to say anymore on the topic because I’ve said already how I feel on that matter.
Personally I don’t want to see spell reduction traits because it will slow our games down. So unless it’s accompanied by a buff to rewards I am not in favor of it because I don’t want to have to play a lot longer to get my weekly seals and gold.
… But it would make sense to have it since there is a skull reduction version.