Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hit and run"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(yes, we should use NetHackish terminology over Foobandish terminology) |
(fresh monsters don't attack, right?) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:: "hack and back" gives no results in RGRN, but "hit and run" does. Maybe this article should be moved, with hack and back redirecting to it? --[[User:Paxed|Paxed]] 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | :: "hack and back" gives no results in RGRN, but "hit and run" does. Maybe this article should be moved, with hack and back redirecting to it? --[[User:Paxed|Paxed]] 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
::: Agreed, moved. --[[User:Jayt|Jayt]] 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | ::: Agreed, moved. --[[User:Jayt|Jayt]] 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==split-off monsters== | ||
| + | : "if the monster divides, that extra monster could appear adjacent to you and immediately attack." | ||
| + | I believe newly created monsters always have 0 movement points and must wait at least a turn for them to replenish before they can act in any way. Therefore, splitting pudding should be safe unless you are burdoned. --[[User:Tjr|Tjr]] 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 31 March 2011
I think this is usually called "Hit-and-Run" in nethack circles. --Paxed 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I call it "hack and back", but I learned it from ToME (variant of Angband) while doing the Thieves Quest. --Kernigh 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
split-off monsters
- "if the monster divides, that extra monster could appear adjacent to you and immediately attack."
I believe newly created monsters always have 0 movement points and must wait at least a turn for them to replenish before they can act in any way. Therefore, splitting pudding should be safe unless you are burdoned. --Tjr 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
