v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "DF2014 Talk:Magma smelter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(rsp) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
[[User:TC|TC]] ([[User talk:TC|talk]]) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) | [[User:TC|TC]] ([[User talk:TC|talk]]) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :It was intended to convey the conjecture that a building destroyer might be able to [[Building_destroyer#Destroying_from_underneath|destroy the workshop from underneath]]. However, since that involves pathing and swim-pathing is unreliable it probably isn't a serious concern.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 2 February 2016
The article says
- Placing the only opening to the magma under the impassable tile of the smelter is a guarantee that magma creatures won't be able to enter the workshop area through the opening, possibly baring a building destroyer with an alternate route.
I assume "baring" is supposed to be "barring", but even then I don't know what the sentence is supposed to mean:
- A building destroyer with an alternate route might be able to enter the workshop area through the opening.
- Magma creatures may enter the workshop area through the opening if a building destroyer destroys the workshop first.
- Building destroyers with access to the workshop area via an alternate route may be effectively barred from entering the area if the workshop is placed as described (i.e. the workshop somehow prevents them from using the alternate route).
Without clarification, I'm inclined to revert that sentence to its state before Sowelu's edit on 25 Sept. 2014, to the last version that was unambiguously written.
TC (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- It was intended to convey the conjecture that a building destroyer might be able to destroy the workshop from underneath. However, since that involves pathing and swim-pathing is unreliable it probably isn't a serious concern.--Loci (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)