Talk:List of skill anomalies

Archives:
 * /archive 1
 * /archive 2

not abandoned, this was linked to at GWG a few mins ago &mdash; Skuld  18:03, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Not Really Anomalous Stuff

 * I don't see why swift chop is considered anomalous, the description is pretty clear, if it hits it will do x dmg and if it's blocked it will cause a deep wound and do x dmg. It's common sense that the original dmg won't be inflicted since the attack was blocked.


 * So Deadly Haste appears to be more bugged than anomalous. But I tested with Caltrops, Siphon Speed, and Ice Spear, and they ALL benefit from the near 0 cast time, so it's obvious that deadly haste is the issue here, not the ice spear combination with it.  Still need to be fixed.  --Crazytreeboy 02:12, 8 January 2007 (CST)


 * The behavior Feast for the Dead is consistent with other necromancer skills that target an undead ally if you do not have an ally targeted (e.g. Taste of Death). So, either it's anomalous for all such skills, or it's "correct" for Feast for the Dead. --IzzionSona 11:22, 10 January 2007 (CST)


 * Persistance of Memory - The note that says that it does not recharge skills when you are affected by knockdown should be correct. Knockdowns do 'not' cause their target to become interrupted, rather, their skills just fail to activate. Removing note. (Terra Xin 08:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT))
 * Actually knockdown does not cause interruption or skill failure, like skill failure, it bypasses interrupt prevention, but unlike skill failure, skills disrupted by knockdown need to recharge. You're right about it not being an anomaly. -- Gordon Ecker 21:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Power Block - Removed end note about this skill causing a disabling effect even if the interrupt was prevented. This is not a bug, the skill description comes in two folds, and you only need to trigger an interrupt to make the disabling effect happen. (Terra Xin 08:39, 16 March 2007 (CDT))
 * Power Block's description is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as meaning either "all spells of the same attribute as the interrupted skill are disabled" or "all spells of the same attribute as the spell the foe was casting are disabled". Still, since the behaviour is consistant with one interpretation of the skill description, and I agree that we shouldn't describe a skill as anomalous when it works as written. -- Gordon Ecker 21:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Sharpen Daggers - The note says that "the next 1...6 attack skills cause bleeding" when opinionated that it should say "the next 1...6 successful attack skills cause bleeding" is really no different. The immediate requirement of an attack skill is that it has to hit in order to cause an effect, attack skills do not come with secondary effects if they do not hit - as far as I know. I'll wait like, 24 hours for a response before I remove this note. (Terra Xin 08:45, 16 March 2007 (CDT))
 * It's not the next 1...6 successful attack skills, it's the next 1...6 successful hits with attack skills, so dual attacks will consume two "charges" if both strikes hit, and a single activation of Barrage or Hundred Blades can consume all of the "charges". -- Gordon Ecker 21:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Snowball arena skills + Daze - Are people aware that you can't attack in the Snowball arena? I thought that was the only way you could trigger daze. If you can't attack, then you can't become interrupted while dazed. (Terra Xin 08:58, 16 March 2007 (CDT))
 * Ice Breaker and the snowball arena avatar skills treat the snowball skills as attacks. -- Gordon Ecker 21:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I believe that is what should be noted instead. I might as well add in the redundancy of the Mesmer's blinding capability, and the Necromancer's 15 health degeneration when the cap is 10. Editing note, and ty. - (Terra Xin 08:42, 21 March 2007 (CDT))


 * God I love English. Alright. The very first note that says that "takes no damage" quantifies as 0 damage and "deal no damage" quantifies as not dealing any damage at all, not even 0 damage. OK? You essentially have two problems with this perspective:

1: Here I am swinging my weapon at you. Every single time I 'hit' you, I'm dealing damage. Unfortunately for me, because you have this ability that bottom line states "takes no damage" regardless of the fact that I'm hitting you, you're not taking any damage, overall. In the mechanics of GuildWars, they have to account for the fact that 'I' am 'hitting' 'you', incorporating the fact that you're not even taking any damage, the 0 is not a quantative value, but rather as an indicator that the target was 'hit', but took 'no damage'. Unlike the following situation (number 2), this doesn't follow real life relations. I.E. One poke would deal no damage, but if you poke someone 100,000 times, they will eventually take some damage within that time. Unlike guildwars, the focus is having the direct ability to "take no damage" and so as long as you have that ability, 100,000 pokes will still deal no damage overall. (I could also say that 0 IS a quantative value, as it is rounded down to the nearest whole number, that would fit in real life relations. But I didn't say that :P..)

2: In the second case... Here I am swinging my weapon again at you. Sadly for me, I have been cursed with the burden of "deal no damage". (Now, the following is entirely debateable, but just so you know... Im right, regardless :P). Firstly, it is impossible for me to quantify a marker of 0, if I say "I'm dealing damage, but I'm not dealing damage" because that analogy simply makes no sense. Secondly, I also cannot say "I'm hitting you, but I'm not dealing damage to you" because that breaks GuildWars mechanics, and the first outcome/rule towards 'hitting' a target in GuildWars is that damage is always calculated after the hit. If I am dealing no damage towards you, there is NO way that I can be hitting you in the first place.(Terra Xin 09:25, 16 March 2007 (CDT))
 * I would also like to add one more thing. "Takes damage" with the final result of taking "0" damage is correct. In effect, its exactly my point with "takes no damage" under no. 1, except you're not given the direct ability to 'take no damage' rather, all of the damage was reduced by so much, the target ended up not taking any damage, but the 0 still had to be allocated. It's not like the attack missed or anything. (Terra Xin 09:01, 21 March 2007 (CDT))


 * (My last one I hope) Vampiric/Deadly swarm. I would pass these skill descriptions as redundant information, or information that uses language that doesn't exist from a game-mechanics perspective, than anything else. Perhaps the anamoly should be re-written to reflect this, as opposed to what is currently there?


 * Sure, if you can think of a more concise way of describing the effects. -- Gordon Ecker 21:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The description suggests that it's just a single swarm that flies out, and affects multiple targets, rather than three separate assaults. A possible solution could read: "Spell. Send out a swarm towards target foe and nearby foes. Over 3 seconds, each second, 1 foe will suffer xx damage. (The same foe cannot be affected by this spell more than once.)"

Paragon anthem anomalies
So I see there are notes saying that pet attacks won't trigger those few anthems but what about the Bear's inherent attack Brutal Mauling? I was under the impression that Brutal Mauling does trigger such things and if so this should be noted as an exception under the anthems as the notes all say that no pet attacks will trigger the effects.--  Vallen Frostweaver  07:33, 7 December 2006 (CST)


 * Brutal Mauling is an attack used by pets, but it's not technically a skill of the Pet Attack skill type. The game treats it as a regular Attack Skill. -- Gordon Ecker 18:02, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Stoneflesh Aura
Im not sure if this is anomaly or not, but SFA activates randomly before and after protective spirit. Id think it should do one or the other but not both.--Hyprodimus Prime 23:01, 18 December 2006 (CST)


 * Hypodrimus, do you know for sure that every time you're watching it the two enchantments were in the same position on the stack? It seems to be a global effect that enchantments in the effect monitor apply from left to right (under the default effects monitor setup).  What this means is, enchantments that were applied first take effect first, then enchantments that were applied later.
 * So, if SFA was put on before PS, then the effect would be: if ( Damage - SFA effect ) > 10% of health, reduce damage to 10% of health.
 * If SFA was put on after PS, then the effect would be: if Damage > 10% of health, reduce damage to 10% of health, then Damage = Damage - SFA effect --IzzionSona 11:47, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Fixes noticed each month since submission to Anet
Fixes noticed made from my submission on 9/7/06 to next submission on 10/19/06.
 * Mend Condition now reads properly.
 * Siphon Strength now behaves as a hex spell and not a touch.

Fixes noticed made from my submission on 10/19/06 to next submission on 11/27/06.
 * Ride the Lightning now reads properly.

Fixes noticed made from my submission on 11/27/06 to next submission on 12/18/06.
 * Dust Trap now reads properly.
 * Song of Power now reads roperly.
 * Star Servant now reads properly.

Fixes noticed made from my submission on 12/18/06 to next submission on 1/30/07.
 * Verata's Sacrifice now effects more than 3 minions but doesn't effect allies' undead as description says.
 * Lyssa's Assault now reads properly.
 * Intimidating Aura now reads properly.
 * Clumsiness now acts as it reads.

Fixes noticed made from my submission on 1/30/07 to next submission on 2/xx/07.
 * (not submitted yet)

--  Vallen Frostweaver  10:25, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Verata's Sacrifice
I just went out in Haiju Lagoon, raised seven minions, then cast Verata's Sacrifice, and saw all seven minions benefit from the increased health regeneration. I believe the notation in the article is incorrect, but I don't want to revert it without confirmation. --IzzionSona 11:49, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * it's true. the skill was updated but not the anomaly page here.  thanks for the reminder.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Special Skills
Ice Fort doesn't prevent knockdown. Or perhaps it only prevents knockdown when not holding an item, because you can definitely knock down a player holding a present, forcing them to drop it.
 * I'd also like to say that you can't interrupt snowballs because you can't attack on an enemy that's not dazed. So they are just spells, but there are no attacks to interrupt the target with.--62.45.121.11 06:26, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ice Breaker and the DvG versions of Avatar of Dwayna and Avatar of Grenth treat them like attacks. It is currently not known if snowballs can interrupt Dazed foes casting Snow Down the Shirt, Ice Fort, Holiday Blues, Blinding Snow or Icicles. -- Gordon Ecker 07:07, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * While there is no way of proving this, I am under the impression that Ice Fort actually reduces the duration of all knockdows to 0 secons or something very close to it. This would explain why you do drop the present as if KDed but don't actually spend any time on your arse. Furthermore, Snowball, MegaSnowball and everything else other than the glyphs are indeed treated as spells, and this can be easily tested by simply bringing along global fastcast items on a PvP character the way I did. The reason that people get confused about daze is that they forget that daze makes you easily interuptable, meaning that any attack will interupt you, however, if they stop to think for a second they will realize that there is no attack possible in the snowball arena. And spells will not interupt dazed casters. Amonde 11:05, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Lightbringer's Gaze
Lightbringer's Gaze, despite being presented as a skill, does not allow a Ranger's Expertise stat to affect it's energy cost. Don't know if that qualifies as an anomaly but still... --Vena Maransdatter 20:50, 18 January 2007 (CST)
 * Expertise was changed long ago. --Fyren 20:51, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Spear of Archemorus
From the Item section, there's a note on the Spear of Archemorus: "The Spear of Archemorus is able to deal 1900 damage to a single target, rather than the 235 damage listed in its description." If I remember correctly, this increased damage is only against Zhu Hanuku, and I believe is due to an effect of his own, as I don't think the increased amount of damage has ever been seen hitting anyone else... perhaps something that needs research, or merely a faulty listing in this article. On a related note, I normally see a fully-charged spear dealing 300 damage to enemies... {Jioruji Derako} 01:19, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Eviscerate
Removed: "*Eviscerate's description is both redundant and omits information: '...and inflict a Deep Wound, lowering your target's maximum Health by 20% for X seconds.' This leaves out the healing reduction in addition to being redundant." because if it were to say that it reduced healing, that would be redundant, as according to Deep Wound, all skills causing that condition have that effect anyways.--Thelordofblah 23:42, 4 February 2007 (CST)
 * It's redundant because it says it lowers your max health. It omits information because while it begins to explain what a deep wound is, it doesn't go all the way to mention it reduces healing.  --Fyren 00:11, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * Whats your point? Its not omitting information since it is common to all skills causing deep wound. For instance we dont need to include that Hamstring causes the character to limp.-- Thelordofblah 19:55, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * What you said implied it wasn't redundant. It is omitting information because it begins to describe deep wound but doesn't follow all the way through.  --Fyren 22:48, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * I dont quite follow, but revert if you feel that it really is needed.-- Thelordofblah 03:23, 11 February 2007 (CST)
 * A deep wound has two effects. They say it inflicts a deep wound but then only mention one of those two effects.  This can only be confusing; the description should either list both or none (probably none since the vast majority of condition-inflicting skills don't attempt to explain anything).  --Fyren 03:32, 11 February 2007 (CST)
 * I don't really see why this is such an issue. It was obviously released with Proph, and they didn't much expect people to remember what the conditions did, so they put the entire description of a deep wound in the skill from when the skill was introduced. --69.143.206.161 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Headline text
"Barrage's description is misleading. It actually fires arrows at the target and up to 6 foes adjacent to the target. Barrage also removes Glyphs, even though it is not stated in the description." Don't Glyphs end when you use any non-spell skill?--Devils Apprentice 19:09, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * Nope, just tested it now-- Thelordofblah 19:58, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Animate Flesh Golem
Is this really an anomaly? The skill states The Flesh Golem leaves an exploitable corpse. Which means, no matter how it dies, it leaves an exploitable corpse. The only anomaly I can see is that creating a second golem will kill your first golem (which then leaves a exploitable corpse per skill description), which is not mentioned in the skill. --Ryard 23:44, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * But the thing is the corpse is exploited if you animate a new one before the old one is dead. Capcom 23:47, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I read that wrong. --Ryard 23:51, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Anomalous Paragon Skills
I'm thinking that the anomalies are a limitation of the game engine. Anthem of Envy/Flame/Crippling Anthem have no target when a Ranger uses a pet attack, because the pet attack is in actual fact, a shout that tells the pet its next attack should be modified to do so-and-so (and therefore don't come from you). With no target/source to apply their effects to/from, these three anthems can't trigger on pet attacks. As for Anthem of Guidance, there is no source for the attack, since the pet initiates the attack and not you. Anthem of Fury just needs to recognise pet attacks as attack skills. Defensive Anthem is NOT anomalous though, since the pet and Ranger are separate entities, and Rangers cannot 'hit' with pet attacks. Anyone agree/disagree? --220.233.103.77 09:18, 10 February 2007 (CST)
 * My view has always been something like this:
 * When you use a pet attack, the player is the one using the skill. You can see the skill show up in the target monitor when the player is selected.  If you watch the pet, no skill shows up.  So the player is using an attack skill yet isn't hitting anything with it, so no shouts that trigger on hit or attack skill go off.  Brutal mauling, which a pet bear will use itself, does trigger shouts that work on attack skills.  --Fyren 10:01, 10 February 2007 (CST)
 * It's still anomalous that pet attacks trigger Zealous Anthem but not Anthem of Fury. -- Gordon Ecker 19:30, 10 February 2007 (CST)
 * They trigger anthem of fury. The player gets adrenaline.  --Fyren 03:02, 11 February 2007 (CST)
 * That wasn't the case when I tested it back in December, but it could've been fixed since then. I'll check again tomorrow. -- Gordon Ecker 05:06, 11 February 2007 (CST)
 * You're right, they trigger Anthem of Fury now. -- Gordon Ecker 21:13, 11 February 2007 (CST)
 * Guidance and defense aren't triggered/removed from the player if he uses a pet attack. I have no idea if something changed or not, but it's what I always expected.  --Fyren 21:39, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Guru bugs forum
Guild Wars Guru has a new bugs forum that will be getting attention from the devs so i've started a thread other there http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10121544 &mdash; Skuld 15:30, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Traps Fixed
The bugged descirptions on traps have been fixed, and the dmg is now shown. That section should be deleted.Feriluce 00:55, 25 February 2007 (CST)

"Retreat!" description does not match functionality
While the description of this skill was updated to the new 'earshot' range, the functionality remained unaltered, meaning that you have to be in nearby range of a dead ally for the effect to trigger. Amonde 11:14, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Yeti Smash?
Why is this on the list? The skill seems to do exactly what it says it does; if it were going to give the extra damgae to target foe and adjacent foes, it would say so, like Earthshaker -Damasus 13:18, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I didn't add it but I could see where people get mistaken with it (even if you and I don't). I corrected the wording on the article page to better reflect the assumed anomalous behavior possibility. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:32, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Not really, ambiguos, but kinda redundant..
I notice that skillls like Earth Shaker actually explain why the effect that takes place happens. There are a few more like that but I forgot their anmes...would those skills count for this?&mdash; Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:15, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I dont quite follow how earth shaker does this, I Belly Smash,That what you were thinking of?-- Thelordofblah 19:39, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Aura of the Lich
Is it really an anomaly that it reduces life-sacrifice by half as well? Shouldn't that just be considered an effect of, not Aura's damage halving, but the Max Health halving? 151.197.62.225 14:42, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Not quite. See, it reduced sacrifice to 1/4, instead of 1/2. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    17:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * In that case, it's 1/2 sac from 50% HP, and 1/2 sac from the halving of damage from "all sources". I think a better anomaly would be the fact that Life-steal does the same amount of damage. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.62.225 (contribs).
 * That is not an anomalie. It says it reduces DAMAGE, and life stealing isn't a direct damage.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 22:49, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Aura of the Lich is anomalous because health sacrifice is non-damage health loss. If health sacrifice counted as damage, it could be reduced by Protective Spirit. -- Gordon Ecker 00:04, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I know. I was saying that the life stealing statement is false.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 18:26, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I was responding to the previous, anonymous comment. -- Gordon Ecker 18:48, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Dwarven Battle Stance
I don't think this skill falls under the idea of this page. Whoever described the stance saying that it doesn't mention that you have to have a hammer equipped should realize that the skill explicitly says..." when your hammer attack hits"...therefore if you hit with an attack from any other weapon, it won't apply. I took the liberty of removing this skill, but anyone can step over me and put it back in if you disagree. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skimp (contribs).
 * The description says "you attack 33% faster, and if your hammer attacks hit, your target is interrupted", the first statement is unconditional, the second statement is conditional. As a literal interpretation of the description indicates, the attack speed increase is unconditional while the interrupt effect requires hammers. The anomaly is that the skill description does not mention that a hammer is required to activate the stance. -- Gordon Ecker 16:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Scorpion Wire
Scorpion Wire's skill description states when you are more than 100" from your target it teleports you to that enemy, and that foe is knocked down. First off 100" is a terrible way to explain the radius, it should simply be if the target leaves your "area". Also, it says it "teleports" you to target foe, actually its a "shadow step".