Even though this is not getting fixed, I'll try to elucidate:
Tim wrote:
Tahnan wrote:
Perhaps even more pertinently: think about having either a wubba NPC (with no script), or a goblin NPC whose only command is "Invulnerable". They'll act in entirely identical ways--with the single exception of the player entering with his sword over them, in which case one survives, and one doesn't. That, to me, is what makes no sense.
Can I ask what you mean by "making no sense"? Are you implying that it doesn't makes sense because a wubba character works different from a goblin character because they are different kind of characters, and thus having different contexts? In normal speaking languages, a sentence can have different meanings in different contexts, does that make no sense to you?
It doesn't sound harsh; but I'm also not quite sure I know what you mean. My point was this:
1. A stationary, has-no-scripting, invulnerable character should always act the same, i.e. it should sit there and not do anything, including dying, regardless of its appearance.
2. A wubba is a stationary, has-no-commands, invulnerable character.
3. A goblin set "
invulnerable"
is a stationary, has-no-scriping(*), invulnerable character.
4. Therefore, a wubba and an invulnerable goblin should act the same.
...but they don't, when stabbed on Turn 0, and that's what makes no sense to me.
(The asterisk indicating that it does technically have scripting, i.e. the "
set me invulnerable"
command. But it's a command that takes no turns to execute, and "
(in)vulnerability"
feels to me like an inherent quality like "
(in)visibility"
, the latter being set by a checkbox. So it feels, to me, like having essentially no scripting.)