0001586: Giantess killing her newborn - Dwarf Fortress Bug Tracker

(0005403)
Logical2u (manager)
2010-04-27 14:34

Ah, interesting. This sounds like it might be related to 0000842 or 0000252, although obviously very different circumstances.

(0005406)
smjjames (reporter)
2010-04-27 14:44

Hey, do you remember that one report or whatever back in 40D where someone had a horse which belonged to siegers which gave birth and then the horse attacked the foal, or maybe it was the other way around. This sounds similar.

(0005407)
jimi12 (reporter)
2010-04-27 14:47

I just had a different Giantess give birth and immediatley begin to kill her baby.

(0005409)
Footkerchief (manager)
2010-04-27 14:53

Man that's messed up. Well, all the related issues that Logical2u mentioned are under one umbrella now.

(0005410)
Logical2u (manager)
2010-04-27 14:57
edited on: 2010-04-27 16:15

... I'm trying to think of what the common thread might be.

It's possible that (consecutively, not individually!)
1. The giant itself isn't listed as Friendly because it was spawned sometime after the map was made, or it's from a hostile civilization.
2. The baby is immediately given a historical name upon birth, since its birth was observed by your dwarves. (Edit: Probably a blank historical name - much like wagons in 40d and underground regions in the present version - this could be checked later in Legends mode)
3. Bug 0000842 comes into play - critters that become historically significant on your map become friendly to you.
4. Hostile and friendly critters don't get along.

(0005411)
smjjames (reporter)
2010-04-27 14:57
edited on: 2010-04-27 15:27

*Pokes Footkerchief* What about the old one I mentioned? Although that one had to do with siegers, the mechanics behind the bug could be similar.

Still, a siege would have to be around long enough for the mounts to give birth, so this kind of bug would be much easier to run into.

@Logical2u: Not sure about number 4 as I had an olmman go friendly with a hostile member of the same species nearby and they didn't fight. I'll have to check the sight range of the olmmen real quick.

Edit: They have normal sight, at least for aboveground and it looks like they have normal sight belowground too. So that might not be why.

(0005414)
Footkerchief (manager)
2010-04-27 15:02
edited on: 2010-04-27 15:04

Logical2u: I'm thinking it's 3. Giants, being semi-megabeasts, probably become historical figures at birth.

smjjames: I have a vague memory of that report, but all I could find was this one where the newborn horse foal reveals an ambush: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=37679.0 [^]

(0005416)
smjjames (reporter)
2010-04-27 15:24

Maybe I was confusing that and an issue with captured invader mounts, I can't find the one I was thinking of.

(0005549)
jimi12 (reporter)
2010-04-28 10:28

The babies were both listed as friendly, but were unnamed. They were just listed as "Giant baby". The orignal giants were all named and listed as current resident and were hostile to me.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-04-27 14:27	jimi12	New Issue
2010-04-27 14:34	Logical2u	Note Added: 0005403
2010-04-27 14:43	Footkerchief	Relationship added	child of 0000252
2010-04-27 14:44	smjjames	Note Added: 0005406
2010-04-27 14:47	jimi12	Note Added: 0005407
2010-04-27 14:53	Footkerchief	Note Added: 0005409
2010-04-27 14:57	Logical2u	Note Added: 0005410
2010-04-27 14:57	smjjames	Note Added: 0005411
2010-04-27 14:58	Logical2u	Note Edited: 0005410	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:00	smjjames	Note Edited: 0005411	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:02	Footkerchief	Note Added: 0005414
2010-04-27 15:03	Footkerchief	Note Edited: 0005414	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:03	Footkerchief	Note Edited: 0005414	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:03	smjjames	Note Edited: 0005411	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:04	Footkerchief	Note Edited: 0005414	View Revisions
2010-04-27 15:24	smjjames	Note Added: 0005416
2010-04-27 15:27	smjjames	Note Edited: 0005411	View Revisions
2010-04-27 16:15	Logical2u	Note Edited: 0005410	View Revisions
2010-04-28 10:28	jimi12	Note Added: 0005549
2010-07-04 10:35	Footkerchief	Relationship replaced	related to 0000252
2010-07-28 15:23	Footkerchief	Relationship added	parent of 0002878
2014-01-26 10:39	Footkerchief	Relationship added	related to 0003685

Notes
(0005403) Logical2u (manager) 2010-04-27 14:34	Ah, interesting. This sounds like it might be related to 0000842 or 0000252, although obviously very different circumstances.

(0005406) smjjames (reporter) 2010-04-27 14:44	Hey, do you remember that one report or whatever back in 40D where someone had a horse which belonged to siegers which gave birth and then the horse attacked the foal, or maybe it was the other way around. This sounds similar.

(0005407) jimi12 (reporter) 2010-04-27 14:47	I just had a different Giantess give birth and immediatley begin to kill her baby.

(0005409) Footkerchief (manager) 2010-04-27 14:53	Man that's messed up. Well, all the related issues that Logical2u mentioned are under one umbrella now.

(0005410) Logical2u (manager) 2010-04-27 14:57 edited on: 2010-04-27 16:15	... I'm trying to think of what the common thread might be. It's possible that (consecutively, not individually!) 1. The giant itself isn't listed as Friendly because it was spawned sometime after the map was made, or it's from a hostile civilization. 2. The baby is immediately given a historical name upon birth, since its birth was observed by your dwarves. (Edit: Probably a blank historical name - much like wagons in 40d and underground regions in the present version - this could be checked later in Legends mode) 3. Bug 0000842 comes into play - critters that become historically significant on your map become friendly to you. 4. Hostile and friendly critters don't get along.

(0005411) smjjames (reporter) 2010-04-27 14:57 edited on: 2010-04-27 15:27	Pokes Footkerchief What about the old one I mentioned? Although that one had to do with siegers, the mechanics behind the bug could be similar. Still, a siege would have to be around long enough for the mounts to give birth, so this kind of bug would be much easier to run into. @Logical2u: Not sure about number 4 as I had an olmman go friendly with a hostile member of the same species nearby and they didn't fight. I'll have to check the sight range of the olmmen real quick. Edit: They have normal sight, at least for aboveground and it looks like they have normal sight belowground too. So that might not be why.

(0005414) Footkerchief (manager) 2010-04-27 15:02 edited on: 2010-04-27 15:04	Logical2u: I'm thinking it's 3. Giants, being semi-megabeasts, probably become historical figures at birth. smjjames: I have a vague memory of that report, but all I could find was this one where the newborn horse foal reveals an ambush: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=37679.0 [^]

(0005416) smjjames (reporter) 2010-04-27 15:24	Maybe I was confusing that and an issue with captured invader mounts, I can't find the one I was thinking of.

(0005549) jimi12 (reporter) 2010-04-28 10:28	The babies were both listed as friendly, but were unnamed. They were just listed as "Giant baby". The orignal giants were all named and listed as current resident and were hostile to me.