Talk:Glyph of Immolation

Would this make firestorm and meteor shower cause burning? <3


 * Probably, but so would Mark of Rodgort, which is so much more useful anyway --Gimmethegepgun 06:17, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * On the other hand, this Glyph could allow for some pretty damn hilarious combos. Like a Me/E who causes Burning with Conjure Phantasm :D [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:29, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Devious thinking as usual, Entropy! That should be fun... --Gimmethegepgun 07:24, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * The description sais it only works on the target, so AoE won't work.

I don't know. I sense a nerf coming around the corner? I'm sure A-net with make this resticted to elementist spells or what would happen if you were a monk healing somebody with this gylph on? *smells BBQ* Flechette 17:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Only works on enemies. The Hobo 17:56, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

That's right. I knew that, I was testing you. lol Flechette 18:27, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

3 Seconds of burning is not that much. I see the use coming primarily if it causes burning and THEN SF checks for burning, making it instant damage rather than burning x 2. The Paintballer (T/C)
 * SF is a spell of the past. ANet nerfed it into oblivion tbh, much better choices exist in Savannah Heat and Mind Blast. - Auron 18:44, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

This spell sets the target on fire for three seconds when you cast the spell. it won't keep on causing burning with DoT spells. --Ckal Ktak 03:46, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Where did that come from? The Hobo 03:54, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

When this is used before a spell, the burning effect happens first or the spell? If burning happens it could be usefeul with Discord.
 * It's supposed to happen before the spell effect comes into play. Izzy pointed out the synergy with Steam. --Kale Ironfist 03:17, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Could anyone see a Shock Warrior using this lil puppy right here to become even more annoying? Kalle Damos
 * How would this make shock wars more annoying?76.80.114.221 11:35, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Assuming Shock stays a Skill, it won't. This only triggers on Spells.

The first that came to my mind (dont ask me how) was: Glyph of lesser energy+Glyph of Immolation+Glowing Gaze=free energy! Aint I truly badass at making Elementalist combos? xD -Shinoda 08:33, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * You can only have one Glyph at once. No, you're not that badass, sadly. :( ~  Gold [[Image:DeanIcon.png]] Dean   - 08:54, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That was a extremely sad statement. I'm just going to laugh now. --Lann 17:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * It wasnt meant to be badass, silly :p -Shinoda 13:14, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Boy oh boy, is this a gift for Searing Flames spammers. Pity you lose out on the energy managment that Glyph of Lesser Energy gives but this still can equal a fast take down for an SF team. I just hope we get a third ele hero in GW:EN. :) - Drive By Poster


 * You do, and honestly this is pointless with SF, and SF is overrated anyway. What you should REALLY be doing with those ele heroes is have 2 use SH and 1 use some AoE water snares --Gimmethegepgun 13:57, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmmm...how about using Glyph of Immolation-->auspicious incantation-->counjure nightmare?
 * Since Conjure Nightmare has 8 degen, the additional 7 would be wasted (-10 degen cap) cKowDont 07:38, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

If it would be used with Steam, it would make a nice blindness skill for Water eles. :) Big Bow 01:18, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

It can. --Ckal Ktak 02:21, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

thats bs. 222.153.236.223 02:31, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Except no water ele is gonna use it for the same reason no water ele uses Elemental Flame: takes too much fire magic shittiness to get to 3 seconds of burning. It ILL however be used by fire noobs with 12-12-3 (3 is water) to get a little bit of blind --Gimmethegepgun 02:32, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Huh? "takes too much fire magic...to get to 3 seconds of burning"?  It doesn't take any fire magic to get 3 seconds of burning with this skill.


 * Earthen Shackles ? Fexghadi 06:09, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


 * ofc --Gimmethegepgun 06:24, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Perhaps combine with Incendiary Bonds for 6 seconds of burn?--Gigathrash 00:09, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Epidemic/Fevered Dreams fun since it should apply the burning before the spell goes into effect. Zulu Inuoe 19:02, 19 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Or combine with air spike skills, lol, glyph of immolation + lightning surge + lightning hammer >:)  assuming you have 12 air 12 Eng +3 fire, lol :D Tera arcane 09:27, 23 August 2007 (GMT)

about the bug note
Just from reading that, it looks like its AoE damage that doesn't cause burning (meteor is AoE, it can hit more then one target). -- Xeon 09:13, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The deciding factor on the burning is if the spell fails if your target dies. For example, if your target dies when you're casting Fireball you will continue casting and the fireball will hit the area where they were. So no burning. If you're casting Liquid Flame and your target dies, the spell will fail. Therefore no burning. The basis for whether or not it will cause burning is whether or not the spell is area targeted, (AKA targeted first on the living target, and second, if the target dies, on the area where they were). So AOE DOT spells like Fire Storm will not cause burning, but spells like Flare would. --Seraphfamily, jumping over from PvX Wiki
 * Also, i suggest getting rid of the bug note. It's not a bug. --Seraphfamily again
 * It has to be a bug, as even AoE DoT spells target something.--Teh Uber Pwnzer 13:36, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not a bug if it doesn't really target them. The ones listed use the foe as a cast target, but hit the ground instead of the foe and 'splash' the damage, which is why they don't cause burning. --Kale Ironfist 06:48, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
 * They do "target a foe". Unless the spell can be cast without targeting a foe, it should work with this glyph. --68.106.223.233 04:17, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with Seraphfamily and Kale in taking out the bug notice. To simplify things grossly you could say that AoE spells target an area and not a foe, thus not activating the glyph. Mootboot 13:34, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * They don't target a foe, that's just an engine limitation. You are still targeting their location, and the damage splashes. Because of this engine limitation, spell immunity skills still work against AoE so long as you are the on the patch of ground that the skill is targeting. Since there is no true target with AoE skills, it cannot apply burning. To simplify my argument, YOU are targeting a foe, the SPELL is targeting their ground location. Since the SPELL has no targeted foe, it cannot cause the burning condition. --Kale Ironfist 20:48, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I think that's stretching it. If the spell is targeting a foe for the purposes of anti-targeting skills, it should be targeting a foe for the purposes of this Glyph. Otherwise it's an inconsistency at best. If it's not meant to work with AoE spells, it should say so in the skill description.--Mysterial 19:41, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
 * It doesn't look like a bug if the behaviour is consequent. I agree that you should say in the discription that the use is limited, but not that it is a bug Hexhammer 02:59, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * The end user should not have to be aware of how the game engine works. If a spell reads "target foe", it should trigger Glyph of Immolation. It's that simple. [[Image:Riven-sig.png]]   13:55, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

(Reseting indent)The deciding factor is aoe versus single target. Go test it. I could list off all the skills that will trigger this using that, and be right every time. Here's your best bet for testing whether or not the spell will cause it: If your target dies while you're casting, and the spell still completes, it's an aoe style targeting spell, and therefore will not trigger the Glyph. If the target dies, and the spell fails because of this, it is a enemy targeted spell, and the Glyph will trigger off of it. Just sort of explaining my die/not die comment from above... It's just a way to test what spells target. I use it when creating builds for Attunements. All you elementalists out there know what i'm talking about...It's a pain if your target dies and you don't get that energy back from your 25 energy spell. Seraphfamily 18:34, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh and allow me to repeat myself...again...Someone change the Bug! note to just a Note. I don't want to change it because...well i just don't know how. IT IS NOT A BUG. And unless someone explains to me how it is logical for aoe spells to cause burning with this... I will continue to maintain that position on the issue.Seraphfamily 21:52, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Maxing out degen with 1 spell...
Glyph of Immolation + Virulence. The Glyph fulfills the condition requirement (in fact even with no fire magic at all) so that Virulence can hit. --Jorx 05:03, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Are we absolutely sure that it'll trigger? I didn't really find the above sentences to be very reassuring. Flechette 05:22, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Izzy says yes for Steam, so yes, it will work with Virulence. --Kale Ironfist 05:58, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Izzy? Please enlighten me. Is he some kind of A-net employee? And in before everyone else: do not kill me for not knowing who izzy is. :`\ Flechette 06:16, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Isaiah Cartwright the skill balancer/creator. --Kale Ironfist 06:25, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The person everyone blames when their skills gets nerfed --Blue.rellik 06:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * And when he fails miserably to nerf something that DESERVES nerfing instead of stuff that doesn't like he usually does... --Gimmethegepgun 08:05, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Btw., just think of Glyph+Epidemic... Setting a group of adjacent enemies on fire for only 10 Energy (5 additional energy for up to 2 more groups)... For the burning duration does not depend on Fire Magic attribute (which is ridiculous in my opinion - this makes this glyph far too strong!), you can in fact use this combo with any E/Me or Me/E build which can spare 2 slots (or uses Epidemic). A-Net should tie the glyph to Fire Magic anyhow. --Jorx 08:15, 30 August 2007 (CDT)


 * The question is how Epidemic+GoI trigger each other. With GoI active, and when you hit your target with Epidemic, that target will catch fire. Question is, will Epidemic's effect trigger at all as the target did not originally have a condition. Edit:- Also, the burning only lasts 3 seconds and by the time you cast epidemic, you'd probably only have less than 2 seconds left, so it's not really as useful. You'd be better off using Searing Flames--BeeD 20:45, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Fact: It synergises with Steam to cause blind. Extrapolation: Epidemic will cause burning on use while this glyph is active, then its effect is applied. Assuming that it comes in the same order as GoI+Steam, all foes within adjacent range of the target will suffer from a 3 second burn. Not too effective, unless you just want to kick start Searing Flames or something like that. --Kale Ironfist 22:19, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * lol reminds me of the old Magic the Gathering days with the "stack" and all the triggered effects. Sounds like using Mark of rodgort would be more effective in continuing the burn. Good explanation btw Kale. --BeeD 19:29, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm
I have to say that this skill is indeed a glyph and NOT an enchantment. Therefore a 20% enchantment will not extend the number of spells it causes burning on, nor how much it heals for


 * Did it ever heal? --84.24.206.123 13:29, 2 September 2007 (CDT)


 * IF this were an ench, a +20% ench wouldn't have done anything beyond making it last longer, nothing to do with number of spells. Sign your comments --BeeD 20:35, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
 * lawl BeeD... you dums?
 * Please explain, whoever you are --BeeD 19:25, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Swarmyyy
Deathly swarm/Vampiric swarm??? burn or not one or three --Dunkoro 08:35, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
 * To answer this refer to my argument above. The "Swarm" spells target the first foe, and fail if that foe dies. Therefore from the previous logic they would cause burning on only the first foe. I would suggest testing it, but i've been guessing and then testing spells and i haven't been wrong yet using that logic. (For the purpose of finding a viable use for it if you're wondering) Seraphfamily 18:14, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Relationship to Glyph of Swiftness?
In which way is this related to Glyph of Swiftness? Removing this link. --Jorx 08:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * /agree, only thing in common is the "next spell" part, but that's with all Glyphs... --[[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (s)talkpage 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness
- Only works on a single foe, so combining with SF may cause a little more damage to the initial target, but foes 'in the area' still don't take direct SF damage until the 2nd blast. - Doesn't make sense to combine with other degen since there's a 10 degen max. - Looks useful only for skills that require a condition to take effect. Oye 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Steam! 66.57.17.110 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Bug?
I was testing GoI out on Isle of the Nameless with my Mesmer and found a discrepancy with the way it works with Fragility. - I've got 11 Fast Casting and 8 Fire Magic. Adjusted casting times for skills are in parentheses after each skill. GoI grants me three burns for three seconds apiece.

- My sequence is Fragility (.60 sec), GoI (1 sec), Phantom Pain (.60 sec), Drain Delusions (.15 sec), and Wastrel's Worry (.15 sec).

- Burning starts a microsecond before Phantom Pain. PP's aftercast kicks in, then Drain Delusions is cast. Time after first burning sets in: .90 seconds (.75 aftercast, .15 DD). Unlike what GuildWiki says, the damage from Fragility triggers twice, despite the burning being reapplied.

- However, casting Wastrel's Worry immediately after Drain Delusions does not trigger Fragility a third time. This is odd, since the spell is cast within the time that the opponent is still burning, as Drain Delusions was. (.90+.75+.15=1.80) Trying spells with 1 sec (.60 sec), 2 sec (1.20 sec), or 3 sec (1.80 sec) ended with the same results, despite them all casting while the opponent was still burning.

- There's also the issue of how it accounts for the reapplication of burning in the first place. The target seems to burn for longer than expected. Using the GoI+PP+DD example above, the target should have its burning reapplied at .90 seconds, resulting in 3.90 seconds of burning. However, timing the burn produces something closer to 4.5-5.0 seconds of burning. It may be just my inability to use a stopwatch and click on buttons simultaneously, but so far that sounds out of whack. MrPony 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)