Talk:Signet of Sorrow

Has a dead Pet? Is this supposed to be an IWAY counter? Zinger314 23:10, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Would look that way. There are also several new curses...Ulcerous Lungs, Vocal Minority, and Well of Silence that will probably put a hamper on IWAY also. Janl 23:13, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Hmm...On a N/Me, Signet of Illusions + Symbolic Celerity + this with the condition for instant charge filled = 1/2 second 60+ damage instant recharge with no energy cost? O_O Methnor 10:00, 24 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Update: I just tried this in PvP. In situations where there were people near corpses, it absolutely rocked, and ruined alot of people. However, there weren't many situations. I still used it as a damage dealer though, and I brought along Mantra of Inscriptions to cut down the recharge time. I also brought Insidious Parasite, Faintheartedness, and Conjure Phantasm. I boosted Parasite and Faint with Signet of Illusions (as I didn't have max Curses, I had max Illusion and Soul Reaping). Overall it worked pretty well. Methnor 10:45, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Symbolic Celerity decreases the cast time by 25%, as being a primary nec makes you unable to spend any points in fastcasting. Even though, really nice counter vs IWAY, VimWAY or barrage teams in HA. -- Sai Qui 13:12, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I know it's Fast Casting, that's the whole point of Signet of Illusions. Activate it and then cast Celerity. With 12 in Illusion it brings it up to 45%, and reduced the Signet of Sorrow's cast time to about half a second, which makes it work wonders. Methnor 13:23, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You said N/Me (with SR), not Me/N (with FC). That confused me too.193.61.111.50 09:10, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The whole point of Signet of Illusions is that you're able to activate Celerity using your Illusions attribute (which you're able to raise) instead of Fast Casting (which you aren't). You need Soul Reaping for higher Signet of Sorrow damage. That's why it's a N/Me and not a Me/N. Methnor 16:22, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Too bad Signet of Illusions only affects spells, and this is a signet. StatMan 14:49, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Too bad Signet of Illusions is used to increase Symbolic Celerity's effectiveness, and not the Signet's. I'm going to explain this again because for some ungodly reason people don't understand this simple concept: You cast Signet of Illusions, followed by Symbolic Celerity (which, despite being Fast Casting, is now buffed due to Signet of Illusions). Then you spam Signet of Sorrow, which has had its cast time cut down by half due to your buffed Symbolic Celerity, and has high damage due to your Soul Reaping. Capiche? 88.154.137.253 21:11, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

The damage number are confirmed up through rank 12. I left the other numbers because up until that point it had followed exactly the progression of Toxic Chill (which I had copied the code from). Janl 08:24, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

does this signet "consume" the corpse in regards to a MM build? or is this spell spammable, as in as long as the same corpse is sitting there, you can keep casting the spell? Malvaro 15:12, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * First, this Skill is not a Spell, it's a Signet =P Second, I don't think so as it's not written "Exploit" anywhere on the description, and this probably also means this Signet can be used even if the corpse is exploited Ericdanie 18:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

Of course this does NOT consume the corpse. The whole point of this skill is to spam it when someone's within range of a corpse. Arshay Duskbrow 21:32, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

This is gonna be one of my new MM skills...-DaMan 14:46, 24 October 2006 (CDT)


 * The "Foe has a dead pet is a clue". means if you use a N/R and send your lvl 3 pet to his doom. you can spam this indefinitely. overpowered Our Lady of Health


 * From reading the description that doesn't sound like it's true. The foe you're using the signet on would have to have a dead pet, so whilst letting yours die would provide a corpse, if they happen to move away from it then you'd have no fast recharge. RossMM 19:17, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Un-document requirement
I noticed that it has an un-documented requirement in my using of it. Through technically it matches the description, the undocument requirement of it is that the corpse has to be UNEXPLOITED in order for the signet to recharge instantly. --Dcpmx 04:57, 22 November 2006 (CST)
 * I haven't experienced this. I have had problems where the corpse disappears while I'm spamming this, thus resulting in an unexpected recharge, but even after my hero MM exploits the corpses, I can still spam this skill. --Thervold 22:51, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 * Never mind, I just did a test, and you're right about the need for the corpse to be unexploited. Bummer. --Thervold 23:01, 2 December 2006 (CST)

ditto here: is this a bug? Sjj668 00:57, 11 December 2006 (CST)

hmm, someone double check that note
Im pretty sure i have seen people use this on exploited corpses. Xeon 02:18, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * Just checked. Exploited corpses do not allow instant recharge.  People seeing instant recharge might have a hidden unexploited corpse among the pile of dead.  And, with instant recharge from one dead guy, and a grouped up bunch of warriors, a pile of dead is what you shortly get.  Would probably be an elite if it was life stealing too (and I would want it!).  Queen Schmuck 02:40, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * Also on PvE, corpses that can't be exploited do not count for this signet. -Taala 14:33, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Basically Unnatural Signet for Necros. Oh, and it's great in PvE when you have a huge group of enemies that start dying.Ayumbhara 15:46, 27 January 2007 (CST)


 * Dang, if this didn't have the Exploited Corpse-catch It would've been a fun spike in HA. One person saccs, the monk Unyieldings them, they run into the fray and Mystic Sandstorm it off...4-5 necros spam signet...repeat :D - Gary

Not true on isle of the dead with the master of damage killed one of the dummies by him used putrid explosion and i could still use this skill on the corpse, even though it was exploited

annoying hero bug
They'll spam this skill on an enemy if there's a corpse nearby but when the target is near death, they'll use this skill even if there's no corpse around. P A R A S I T I C 22:53, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That's not a bug. It still does damage, they're just using it to finish the enemy off.  If you want them to only use it when there's a corpse around so that it recharges, you're going to have to disable it and tell them when to use it.  GD  18:01, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, that's very stupid, I wonder if they use unnatural signet like that as well. GW AI isn't very good. 67.162.10.70 18:21, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ya, gw AI is on par with N64's Bomberman imo...
 * Well, simply refusing to use it unless there's a corpse around would also be stupid. Using the signet intelligently requires anticipating how likely it is that there will both be a corpse around and another enemy to fight in the next 30 seconds.  If likely, save it, if not likely, use it now.  That kind of looking ahead and making accurate predictions about future events, in a game as complex as Guild Wars, would require a level of AI far far beyond Deep Blue or other monumental achievements in computer AI.

Works now with exploited corpses
Just did a test killing one in a group, using consume corpse and then spamming this skill. I also brought along bone horror to make sure there were no unexploited corpses around. So this is now spammable! though killing someone with this doesn't trigger the instant recharge if it's the first kill, sorry guys (thought it was worth a mention). 71.208.103.233 23:47, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Same guy as above, someone erased the note I put on earlier about it working with exploited corpses. I'd be fine if there was some reason, but since there was none, I reverted it back and made it a bit more wiki-like in the description. If someone has a problem with the way it's stated or that the notes there, at least say why. Side note, I realize that the skill could be spammed before, but now it's less conditional. 71.208.103.233 23:54, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * The reason why it was removed was BECAUSE of the fact that it is now no longer bugged, and working as intended. We shouldn't be documenting the fact that it didn't work that way before. A literal interpretation would have exploited corpses instantly recharging the skill anyway. Notes should be about clarifying the description, of which it already is clarified through the description itself. I will break 1RV because the note has no purpose in being there. --Kale Ironfist 00:36, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Contact an admin in the future or tag it with before acting. We've had many older users blatantly ignoring 1RV and it's starting to tick me off, that sets a horrible example. Solus got banned for it, Skuld got banned for it... don't become the next.
 * We have notes on other pages documenting past bugs ("this skill used to work incorrectly, but this was fixed as of the such and such day update"). Such notes are fine, as long as we make it clear the bug no longer exists. - Auron 01:13, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Shouldn't there be a clear consensus on this issue? I remember reading Fyrens' comment back when I was still an anonymous user that GuildWiki should document the game as it is now, and (from my view) it should not bother with past issues that have since been updated to no longer exist. Such notes involving fixed bugs is similar to noting Beguiling Haze that it originally was not a shadow step. but it is now due to updatesuchandsuch. (The point being that such notes are now irrelevant as the skill descriptions state exactly what happens with the skill, with nothing else happening). --Kale Ironfist 01:25, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Changes to skills aren't noted especially because people add text like "as of whenever, it now" or "due to a recent change" which is very time-sensitive phrasing. In a month most won't care that a month ago it was different and it will no longer be "recent."  Tracking all the changes to skills would take up significant space in many skill articles, so it's left to people to look through the history of the templates if they care enough to do so.  --Fyren 04:53, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Since I feel the need to defend myself, I wasn't aware that notes about debugged skills were frowned upon. Also, like I said this wouldn't have been a problem if the person who deleted the line made some note or said something in the talk pages, as far as I knew it could have just been malicious. I used the liberty of 1RV, as noted in the edit, and I would not have broken it even if the line was deleted for a second time. It seemed that before the change there was a consensus that the skill had an undocumented requirement that the corpse had to be unexploited, so it might not have been seen as "bugged", just how the skill worked. But next time I will only mention similar changes in the talk pages. I didn't mean to start anything, but I wasn't left with much to go on. 71.208.108.137 04:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * This skill was good before, now that it works how it's supposed to it's absolutely amazing. I use it all the time.  I have noticed something, however; monsters will occasionally run away from the corpse as though it were taking AoE damage.-AOTT 11:59, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's worth mentioning that this signet works well with a flesh golem. The corpse of the golem satisfies the signet's instant recharge condition.-AOTT 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this really working?
Trying to use this in PvE with a curses build to finish off enemies when one is down, it always seems to take the full recharge even if I use it on an enemy standing on top of a corpse. --Getalifebud -- (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Works great for me --[[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (s)talkpage 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Had the corpse been exploited? I'm fairly sure it wouldnt work if it had. [[Image:Bigrat2sAvatar.jpg]] Bigrat2  Talk 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even then it always worked for me (Putrid B00M!!! ftw) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (s)talkpage 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)