Contradicting info in the wiki

dacovale · Post by **dacovale** » February 13th, 2008, 12:02 am

I was reading through the FAQ, and found this. First it says "After a unit reaches the highest level it can get, every time it gains 100 experience it gains 3 hitpoints. It does not heal when this happens."

A few lines below, it says "The Necrophage eats the corpses of the dead, allowing it to periodically completely heal. Leveling into itself is how this is carried out."

The second quote implies that leveling up does heal the unit, while the first quote clearly says it doesn't. I don't know enough to tell which is correct, so I'm posting here instead of fixing it myself.

While I was writing this post, I suddenly got it. I think. Every level-up up until the AMLA heals the unit, but AMLA level-ups don't. Is that correct?
Because if it is, I'll add a sentence explaining it in the answer. (So the next person doesn't have to reason it out.)

Aethaeryn (User Page) · Post by **Aethaeryn** » February 13th, 2008, 12:06 am

Both are wrong. The Necrophage used to exclusively full-heal on AMLA, but now it just gains 1 HP every time it makes a kill. All mainline units now full heal when they AMLA (instead of just the Necrophage), as of the most recent development (1.3) versions.

Post by **zookeeper** » February 13th, 2008, 12:19 am

As of 1.3.something: AMLA requires 150 XP, not 100. AMLA full-heals, just like level-ups do. Necrophage doesn't have any special AMLA, and thus shouldn't be mentioned.

If someone would be as kind as to update that bit on that page, please do.

Post by **turin** » February 13th, 2008, 1:27 am

zookeeper wrote:Necrophage doesn't have any special AMLA, and thus shouldn't be mentioned.

That unit just got 50% less cool.

Post by **Thrawn** » February 13th, 2008, 4:00 am

but turin, it gains hp when it kills things now, as an ability

so it's still kinda cool <_<

dacovale · Post by **dacovale** » February 14th, 2008, 10:00 am

ok, so that's how it's like in the development version, but what about the stable version? after all, the faq should be about the stable version, right?

February 14th, 2008, 10:24 am

The dev version is going stable as release 1.4.0 very soon - updating the wiki to include information from 1.2.8 is basically pointless, as the 1.2.x versions will be obsolete once 1.4.0 is released.

db0 · Post by **db0** » February 14th, 2008, 10:32 am

There is also this

Post by **zookeeper** » February 14th, 2008, 11:16 am

dacovale wrote:ok, so that's how it's like in the development version, but what about the stable version? after all, the faq should be about the stable version, right?

As thespaceinvader said, 1.4 will be out reasonably soon (we're in beta now), so we're already updating the wiki to correspond with 1.4 instead.

Post by **irrevenant** » February 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm

zookeeper wrote:
dacovale wrote:ok, so that's how it's like in the development version, but what about the stable version? after all, the faq should be about the stable version, right?
As thespaceinvader said, 1.4 will be out reasonably soon (we're in beta now), so we're already updating the wiki to correspond with 1.4 instead.

Once that's done, perhaps we should fork the wiki, so there's one to keep track of stable and one to keep track of Dev? They'll shortly be synched up, but that won't last for long...

Post by **zookeeper** » February 14th, 2008, 10:35 pm

irrevenant wrote:
zookeeper wrote: As thespaceinvader said, 1.4 will be out reasonably soon (we're in beta now), so we're already updating the wiki to correspond with 1.4 instead.
Once that's done, perhaps we should fork the wiki, so there's one to keep track of stable and one to keep track of Dev?

No, too messy and error-prone. {{DevFeature}}s and the like are good enough, we just might need to make people apply them better in non-WML contexts.

Post by **irrevenant** » February 15th, 2008, 9:55 am

zookeeper wrote:No, too messy and error-prone.

How so? (Not necessarily disagreeing, but I'd like to hear the logic involved).