[BUG .95] No reason not to take "weak" and "might" during sovereign creation.

In all honesty, if you really want to min-max a sovereign for attack, the Clumsy and Cruel weaknesses are much better than Weak. You can get around Clumsy simply by not sitting your sovereign next to an ally while making melee attacks or by only using ranged attacks, and Cruel adds an additional +1 attack at the relatively minor cost of 5% unrest in all cities.

But only one weakness per sovereign. So you then lose the opportunity to take other weaknesses that may be more suitable to your ruler/race and your way of playing. For example, if I'm using a Pariden-like ruler who focuses on magic and ranged attacks, Clumsy is a better fit, etc.

Basically the way it is designed if you are making a custom sov you should always pick at least one weakness, "Weak" if nothing else.

I would prefer it if it was more of a balancing act where it was still sensible to not take any weaknesses but it is a minor point I guess.

some of the weakness's aren't 'strong' enough not to take at all times.  The above points on Cruel and Clumsy fit that description.  You then are able to get an extra design point to put into something really nice, which sort of ruins the balance.

I wouldn't mind seeing the weaknesses get a bit stronger so that taking one really does hurt - but just enough that it's worth taking for that extra point in something else.

Precisely. If you didn't want to take another weakness, there is no reason not to take "weak" and "might" together, that is the design issue. 

A simple fix for this would be to make "Weak" give a -3 to attack instead of -2.

With ranged weapons, Clumsy should offer a chance to randomly shoot an ally and if the hero is by himself, then he shoots himself. Hilarity ensues.

That would be comical. Really, in Joeball's example there is still a drawback, since even he says you can't place your sovereign next to other units safely. And obviously, Cruel is still giving you 5% unrest. 

In the scenario I am describing you only benefit. You would have to decide "I am not going to abuse this" not to pick these two traits together.

I think taking Might and Weak together is a waste, and you're nerfing your sovereign by doing so.  If you want to max your sov's attack, you should take might and the weakness shouldn't drop that.  If you're going for more of a caster build, then you can take weak, but you wouldn't bother taking might.  If you could take as many weaknesses as you wanted, sure, it would be a flaw, but since you're limited to one, you're just limiting potential by taking the two together.

the problem is that you think that 'might' is a worthwhile trait to take along with the weakness to generate a +1 attack.  It's not, as there are other traits that are better than might and cruel as the weakness can be overcome with a simple building.  So you can get more than just +1 attack with other combinations.

I can agree that there should be 'excluders' wrt traits and weaknesses so that this specific example you're pointing out doesn't happen (a combination that will give both the plus and negative on the same stat).  The only problem is that there aren't enough weaknesses that counter specific stat boosters from traits to allow for the coding of that.

edit:

It would be really funny though if Clumsy affected ranged attacks as well as magic.  On the magic side, it could be a % chance to fail casting a spell (tripped while talking or something) or a chance to have the target switch to another tile within 3 of the intended target.

...And so does the player ignoring Clumsy unless they're magic wielders, only. Though if we take this to its logical conclusion, then Clumsy should also cause the ruler to occasionally target their own troops with attack spells, enemies with beneficial spells, and themselves with maluses. Hilarity, and no more Clumsy.

It's never a waste because it is a FREE +1 to attack. The only time you would not do this is if you want another weakness for whatever reason. It would ALWAYS be worth it because it is a free +1 to attack, no matter your build. 

I don't think this qualifies as a bug.

Personally, I don't see the point in taking a trait that directly weakens another trait, seems counterproductive. Thus Clumsy is my typical weakness of choice, or sometimes Cruel, if I'm not using Rebels as the faction weakness, and depending on the Path I plan to follow.

That makes sense if you take clumsy every... single... time. But if you don't plan on taking a weakness...

Then the might/weak combo becomes +1 attack for the cost of 0 points. 

It's not a free +1 attack.  You're using a trait point you could be using for something else.  When you take a weakness you get a trait point to spend on ANYTHING.  You could advance one of your spell schools, or take one of the traits with full benefit.  If you want extra attack, take one of the other weaknesses like -20% spell resist and get the full 3 attack in exchange for something that rarely matters.  You can't take another weakness to get another trait point.  I don't think you understand this.

In your scenario, I actually have a weakness. -20% to my spell resist. In my scenario, I have a free +1 to attack. If I intend to take another weakness, I would avoid the might/weak combo and suffer a weakness. But if I had no intentions of taking a weakness, I would NEVER avoid this combo. 

It's still a weakness because it is weakening the Might trait, I would never choose this combo.

Then you would never choose this combo for personal reasons, because you have every reason in the world to do it mathematically if you are not picking another weakness. 

Let's say you get done picking your spell books, and whatever traits you want. You did not pick "Might" or any weakness. You have 0 points left to spend. Why wouldn't you do this? If you are not picking a weakness, the current design has eliminated the choice, you pick it for logical reasons. If you don't pick it at this point, you have put an artificial handicap on yourself, which is fine, but the game should not depend on that.

If I want a free +1 attack, I'll take Cruel. That lets me pick another, potentially more useful, trait, and +5 unrest in every city is barely noticeable and easily negated - just get a Commander specialized in Administration up enough to get Administration III and the malus is gone, or just ignore the penalty. If I want to get free attack bonuses, I'll take Might and Clumsy, because the penalty from Clumsy is so easily evaded that it almost isn't a weakness, and +3 attack greatly outweighs the chance of hitting your own units in melee, especially if you go for an archer build, in which case Clumsy can never trigger (unless you for some reason decide to equip your archer with a melee weapon), or I'll take Might and Cruel, for the same reasons as I'd take Cruel for +1 attack given above.

Beyond that, I'd rather take something like Brilliant or Tactician over Might, because my preference in champions is more Field Commanders and Mages than Warriors. Even when I go in for warrior-type champions, most of the damage is coming from trained troops anyways, since there are more of them and I'm not as concerned about losing them.

The point is, though, that if you're going to min-max for something, you pick what you're trying to maximize. If you want to make a great warrior-type sovereign, then there are better ways to go than Weak + Might. If you want a great Commander sovereign, then there are better traits to take than Might, and you probably want at least Air I, and possibly Water I, for Haste and Slow, which are great support spells with very low casting costs, and most enemies don't have enough spell resistance for it to be too difficult to get Slow to stick even with a relatively low-level commander. If you want a great mage, then Might has no real use for you except possibly in the early game, when you probably will not have the mana income for much spellcasting, and this stage doesn't last long enough that I'd consider it worthwhile to spend a weakness to gain a trait to get a net of +1 attack. If I'm that desperate for additional early attack, I'll either take Cruel and pick something that more directly benefits me as a caster (like Brilliant, Attunement, or Scholar) or I'll go for Might and a weakness that doesn't kill most of the benefit of taking Might. Moreover, magic tends to provide ways to get around unrest penalties (unrest reduction from Death and maybe Life, bonus production from Earth, bonus income from Air (allowing lower tax levels or fewer cities for similar income), bonus research from Water, better troops from just about any of them (allowing fewer troops, which permits you to spend less time on training), better troop conservation from Life (also allowing you to spend less time on training)).

In the end, though, the only time that +1 attack on my Sovereign is going to be helpful to me is right at the beginning of the game, when I don't have the mana production to support lots of spellcasting and don't have the economy to support large armies (or rapidly replace loses). After that part of the game, I should have large enough armies that my champions are kind of insignificant, I should have enough mana income to cast at least one or two good spells per battle, I should have found a +1 attack book or a better weapon, or something else that makes +1 attack on the sovereign insignificant. If you want to min-max for an easy early game, there's better ways to do it (especially since as long as it's in the early game, your armies are small enough that working around the penalty from Clumsy is trivially easy, and +3 Attack from Might and Clumsy is far better than +1 Attack from Might and Weak - early game, you're usually looking at no more than 10 defense on enemies and about 10 attack on your sovereign, so +1 attack is roughly a 10% damage boost while +3 attack is roughly a 40% damage boost), and if you want to min-max for an easy late game, then +1 attack is almost worthless.

Some previous version (FE beta?  I don't remember exactly when) allowed multiple weaknesses, each of which gave +1 ability point.  At that time there were several "free" choices like the one available in the OP, which is why the number of weaknesses was limited to one.  Like Gandalftheredskin said, I don't think this qualifies as a bug, just a choice available to the player.

I think your timeline is pretty close to accurate. Wasn't "Weak" just recently changed from a weight capacity weakness to an attack penalty when encumbrance was removed?  I think the current interaction between these two traits was not intentional. 

But there is a cost, in a sense, as I noted above: you lose the ability to select another weakness that would be better countered by a different strength. The result isn't a free +1 to attack, but +1 to melee attacks with a forfeiture of any other weaknesses and strengths in its place.

There is only a cost if you intended to take another weakness. If not, there is no reason not to tack these two on. I rarely take weaknesses except for "Rebels" sometimes. I don't abuse the might/weak freeby (personal choice), but really if I or other players were playing optimally in that situation, you would tack it on every time, and have this bizarre mighty-weak sovereign with +1 attack.

My point is that as much could be said about several other strength/weakness packages tied into how the particular player envisions their character. In the one I provided--a magic-casting monarch whose only weapon is a bow, and is Clumsy--the malus is averted right in the nature of the build itself, without having to even go down the path of finding a strength to balance things out. With several such builds available, there's no particular reason to go with Might/Weak, since several others are just as effective. This isn't to negate the effectiveness of your chosen combination; only to show that there are several builds every bit as good, depending upon how you like your sovereign: fried, scrambled, sunny-side up, etc.

*facepalm* its all good jshores, some people like myself understand the point your making.. i suppose the counter as others have said is the using up of the weakness.

horses for courses

Overall, not that big a deal. An extra +1 attack on your sovereign barely registers by mid/late game. If you found an exploit to get +1 attack, keep it.

Want to know a better one? Quendar wine gives you +3 attack PERMANENTLY, and you can drink as many as you can find.