Talk:Foocubus

"You have a curious feeling..."

I have that sometimes, as a negative effect. Wonder what it means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.246.11 (talk • contribs)

You got the level drain, but it was blocked by some artifact such as Excalibur, or you were polymorphed into a drain-resistant monster.--Ray Chason 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Level 1 Succubus

What happens when you have sex with a succubus at level 1 and it de-levels you? Also, what happens when it says "You're such a nice guy, I wish..."?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.132.29 (talk • contribs)

When you are drained from level 1, whatever the cause, you die; if it's a foocubus, your score line says you died of "overexertion." So don't be too hasty about kicking sinks.

When you get the "nice guy/sweet lady" message, the foocubus teleports away (except on a no-teleport level) and remains in condition to try again; it does not autocancel, nor complain of a headache.--Ray Chason 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is which

Any chance of a clarification as to which is male and which is female? I always forget... 82.24.163.179 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Incubus in Latin means "lying upon"; succubus (i.e. sub-cubus) means "lying beneath". It seems even devils prefer the missionary position.--Ray Chason 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Autocancel and stoning

Is it possible to un-cancel a foocubus by stoning and stone-to-fleshing it? -- Tjr 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This was possible through 3.4.1 (bug SC341-10), but foocubi and nymphs no longer uncancel. See zap.c, line 511. I suppose you have me to blame for that.--Ray Chason 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

leash and non-teleport

"Leashing the foocubus will prevent it from teleporting on its own." -- is this really true for foocubi? I know for sure a leashed tame arch-lich will teleport away as it deems fit, the leash will then go slack. -Tjr 09:23, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just tried it. The pet will teleport away but stay leashed. However the next turn the leash will go slack because you're suddenly leashed to something really far away. -- Qazmlpok 13:08, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

#chat

I tested it in wiz mode. If you #chat with a Foocubus, it will either seduce you (if it does not have a headache) or cajole you, based on gender. Cajoling has no effect, but since #chat uses a turn for you and not for the foocusbus, the foocubus will then act you as if you had ended the turn in any other way. This means that if it is hostile, it will try to attack you if you are not on Elbereth or a scroll of scare monster or whatever else. A peaceful or tame foocubus will not attack at this point (which is what the article originally implied), simply because the foocubus would not normally attack at this point. Tjr made an edit with a comment saying that a hostile foocubus would ignore Elbereth if #chatted to; I assume he meant that it will use it's seduction "attack". A foocubus will not attack if you're on Elbereth but it will seduce you if able; the seduction from #chat isn't really an attack.

In short, the only special part of #chatting to a foocubus is the seduction effect. It uses up a turn for you like normal and does not use up a turn for the creature chatted to, like with anything else. In fact, I'm fairly certain that #chatting to a foocubus and laying with it will not use a turn for the foocubus; so if it doesn't teleport away it will immediately attack you when it's turn comes up. Cajoling also has no effect on it's own. -- Qazmlpok 03:00, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wizmode testing and gameplay experience confirm: If you stand on Elbereth, hostile foocubi will not attack. But if you #chat to them, they will seduce you (but still not hit). Even without standing on Elbereth, #chatting seems to always start seduction, while normal melee attacks do not (gameplay experience only). In practise, it is therefore a good idea to dust-engrave Elbereth before getting all your armor removed.

This "#chatting only takes up a turn" theory does not seem very plausible to me, given the above observations. Proponents, please further convincing proofs for it or remove it.-Tjr 17:55, January 24, 2010 (UTC)