Talk:List of skill anomalies

Old stuff:
 * /archive 1

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

Not Really Anomalous Stuff

 * There seem to be some things here which just don't seem anomalous in any way (for instance, Distracting Blow says that you deal no damage. However, damage bonus such as Order of Pain will deal damage with this attack. Additionally, this attack can be blocked and evaded.. It's an attack.  Shouldn't it follow the rules of Order of Pain, and blocking and evading?  It seems like these things could be clarification notes on the skill's individual pages, but they seem to follow all the stated rules of the game.  They are just in a different category than things which apparently break the rules, yet don't say so (Whirling Defense, Dust Trap, etc.)  Maybe the skills are confusing to some people, but they are internally consistent with all the "rules" of GuildWars.  I'll make these changes, but figured I should make a note here since people might disagree or wonder why I'm doing it.  --JoDiamonds 02:28, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * If a skill says "deal no damage", it should actually deal no damage. I fail to see how this is consistent with dealing damage with Order of Pain, which, if you read its desc, says that the bonus only triggers when the target takes damage. &mdash; Stabber 02:39, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * If you read the description for OoP, it says "hits ... with physical damage", not "takes physical damage". Therefore, there is no inconsistency. F G 05:55, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Good point. I'll remove Distracting Blow then. &mdash; Stabber 01:03, 7 April 2006 (CDT)


 * The Essence bond complaint isn't ambiguous. The character *did* take damage -- they took *0* damage. 0 damage != no damage. a hit attempt is made, the hit succeeds, damage is calculated, the damage is 0, damage is dealt to the recipient. this triggers the essence bond. This is not anything wrong with the description or the operation of the skill -- it's just an example of people not thinking in the "computer science" way of how the code actually works. --Eudas


 * 0 damage != no damage -- so you say. The game, however, treats it differently. Take Illusionary Weaponry. There 0 damage actually means no damage. In fact, it goes even further -- there 0 damage means no hit. &mdash; Stabber 02:51, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * OK. I'll happily admit there are inconsistencies.
 * But you are no more definitively right to say that the game treats it one way than the other way. The exact wording of Mist Form doesn't agree with the exact wording of Illusionary Weaponry.  To me, it seems like there simply isn't one way the game works, and most likely it is ad-hoc per each skill (and ANet hasn't gotten their act together on this issue!).  There are few enough skills that explicitly mention "zero damage" to be confusing and unclear what the "right" behavior is.  For instance, the attacks with Mist Form aren't doing non-zero damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Order of Pain shouldn't trigger (like Essence Bond).  IW seems like it replaces the attack with direct damage (so it doesn't trigger things that care about "attacks", but it should trigger damage effects like Reversal of Fortune, going strictly by the wording).  Which one is "different"?  The answer is that they are different from one another, and there really isn't one which is "right".  At least, nothing is clearly right.
 * I'd really like to see 1v1 arenas put in so I can test things easier. I suppose I can try fighting low level enemies with Shielding Hands on, to see what "zero damage" really means, but I can't see monster adrenaline or anything like that.
 * Also, apologies for putting things at the top of the page. I didn't realize there was a policy to put things at the bottom.  My mistake.
 * --JoDiamonds 03:18, 29 March 2006 (CST)
 * To reply to myself in a more useful fashion and focus on what we can do about it, here's where the actionable debate seems to be: Should we list every one of these things as an anomaly, or simply clarify how the game works on the skill pages? If we want to list Mist Form as an anomaly, I'd argue we need to list Illusionary Weaponry also, since it's unclear what those skills mean simply by reading the description.  There may be a more general topic here, maybe worth putting on a page of its own -- Order of Pain is only one example of many skills that care about "damage" being done, or "attacks" hitting.  Or maybe it belongs on many pages (a note on attack and damage, etc., though damage is already a hairball of a page.)  --JoDiamonds 03:23, 29 March 2006 (CST)
 * I would posit that perhaps things like Illusionary Weaponry are inducing the attack animation, but are not inducing the do_Hit function. no hit, no damage. no damage, no effects from things like essence bond. thus, effectively, you aren't taking damage from attacks, you're taking damage from a spell, albeit one that is an enchantment and doesn't require continual activation. this is purely conjecture on my part, though. --Eudas


 * I agree with, and heartily support, any attempt to document and codify what the game means by "zero/no damage", "strikes for damage", "deals damage", "takes damage", "bonus damage", etc. There appear to be many inconsistencies. It is, however, a painstaking task without a 1v1 arena, as you note. Order of Pain was only an example, but that's the only one I've tested. I am fairly certain that something similar happens for skills with similar prereqs, like Mark of Pain, but I haven't tested them. &mdash; Stabber 04:05, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * I think some areas in this article take wording too seriously, or atleast that many of these skill describtions verbally suggest what they are doing. For one thing, Aura of the Lich says: "you take half damage from all sources." It sounds as is it should naturally allow you to take half damage from all sources.


 * Channeling says "you gain 1 energy from each foe in the area" not "you steal 1 energy from each foe in the area". Every other life-stealing skill says that. "From" might imply 'due to'.


 * Life Attunement says that it causes the target to deal 30% less damage in combat. No other skill uses this word (at least to my knowledge). This seems to suggest, in my opinion, that this skill is meant to affect weapon damage only. --Sagius Truthbarron 06:25, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * If we cannot be precise, then we might as well give up documenting. AotL specifically mentions damage, but life sacrifice is not damage. If it were damage, then Protective Spirit should limit it, and Shielding Hands reduce it. For LA, combat is an undefined term. It is not immediately clear that it should refer to weapon damage only. (Also see Talk:Combat for other skills that use this term.) For Channeling, the unambiguous way to phrase it would have been "for" each ally, not "from". I don't know what your objection is. Are we being too anal? Of course! That is, after all, the point of a wiki. F G 06:51, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Judge's Insight
Those enchanted with Judge's Insight deal holy damage with 20% armor penetration. Afaik, there are 2 armor piercing values used in GW's damage calculation &rarr; it deals armor-ignoring damage, and has 20% bonus armor piercing which translates into extra damage. --62.142.255.147 20:40, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * Your explanation makes zero sense. Can you explain using the terminology of the damage article, please? Armor penetration is not in and of itself "damage". &mdash; Stabber 01:36, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * Sorry for not making any sense. (I do not know how the damage system is interpreted in guildwiki since I haven't read guildwiki's version of it.) I was referring to gwonline's version. Their damage calculation formulas have AP and bonus AP modifiers. Take a look, it's interesting and GWO's version seems to be almost, if not completely, correct. ^^ --62.142.255.147 02:23, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * If you're talking about SonOfRah's article, it has many mistakes and we have a more accurate picture of it. In any case, even in SonOfRah's article armor penetration is not damage. So I still have no idea what you're smoking. &mdash; Stabber 03:03, 30 March 2006 (CST)

In fact, I just tested this with a sword warrior with 12 swords, 12 smiting, and 0 strength against the AL 60 dummy. Vanilla Wild Blow does 37 damage, which is:
 * 22 (max damage of sword) * 1.2 (+20% customization bonus) * 1.4 (AE)

The reason AE is 1.4 is, according to the AE equation,
 * 2^((60 (5*AR) + 20 (critical hit bonus) - 60 (AL of dummy))/40) = sqrt(2) &asymp; 1.4

So far so good. Now, with Judge's Insight, Wild Blow does 46 damage. That means that the AE is:
 * 46 / (22 * 1.2) = 1.74

If the EAL of the target is now x, then we must solve for:
 * 2^((80 - x)/40) = 1.74

That is,
 * x &asymp; 48

Notice that 48 = 80% of 60. Thus against JI, the AL 60 dummy has an effective AL of 48, not -12 as your "armor ignoring + 20% bonus" suggestion would indicate. The non-armor-ignoringness of JI has been documented by many different people in a variety of experiments, and you can easily check the numbers yourself. &mdash; Stabber 03:35, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * Your math (and final conclusion) is correct, but your argument isn't. Ignoring armor is NOT equivalent to 0 AL.  Something that ignores armor sets the damage scaling to 1 (AE in the damage article here, I think).  This would be the same as setting the enemy AL equal to your attack rating (Rah's term, don't care to look up the term here).  The ultimate effect of armor ignoring, of course, is you deal the damage the skill says you'll deal (or, if you could somehow get armor ignoring attacks, you'd always deal damage from your weapon's stated range besides crits).
 * This means your example was poor, since what the other anonymous claimed and the actual result end up being the same if you have 12 sword against 60 AL. His claim is that it ignores armor, so with 12 sword the enemy AL would always act like 60 AL, but on top of that there's 20% penetration, making that 60 AL turn into 48 AL.  As you stated, the way it actually acts is just a damage type change and +20% penetration.
 * Probably the simplest test to disprove JI armor ignoring is just to take 0 weapon attribute, use JI, and see that you still hit for something like 0-2 against 60 AL. If it ignored armor, you'd hit for something in your weapon's range instead.  --68.142.14.68 15:15, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * I never said ignoring armor is 0 AL. On reread, I wasn't precise in my statement above: I should have said (EDL - 12), not simply -12. What I meant is that if JI did +20% damage and ignored armor, it would et the EAL to (EDL - 20% of EAL). Unfortunately, there isn't any skill that does a critical hit and ignores armor for us to verify this. &mdash; Stabber 16:40, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * You still originally said "thus against JI, the AL 60 dummy has an effective AL of 48, not -12 as your 'armor ignoring + 20% bonus' suggestion would indicate." I was pointing out that 60 - 12 is 48, making them the same as the real (in game) effective AL.  And you just said "[s]et the EAL to (EDL - 20% of EAL)," which is the same.  In your case with 12 swordsmanship versus the 60 AL dummy means EDL = EAL = 60, so setting EAL to EDL - 20% of 60 still works out to 60 EDL versus 48 EAL.  Your example is a case where DL = AL anyway so is useless in proving or disproving any armor ignoring was going on.  --68.142.14.6 18:34, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * However, you can spend 5 minutes testing it out for yourself with a different attribute rank in Swordsmanship instead of continuing this pointless thread. Have you done it? I just did. Guess what the result is? &mdash; Stabber 19:09, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * Or you can spend mere seconds actually reading what I said. Have you done it?  Obviously not.  I'll give you the short version, excerpted from what I first said: "Your math (and final conclusion) is correct, but your argument isn't."  For your example where you have 12 sword and are hitting a 60 AL target, you can't tell the difference between how JI does act and how the original anonymous claimed it to act.  For any case where AL = DL his claim matches the real result.  --68.142.14.6 19:21, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * All right, I'm washing my hands off this article. What an utterly idiotic debate this has been. Do whateer you please. &mdash; Stabber 19:46, 30 March 2006 (CST)

While Stabber's own example above was indeed insufficient to distinguish the difference between the anon's claim vs the non-armor-ignoring claim currently written all over GuildWiki, it has been reported in the past in many cases outside of GuildWiki that JI really does not ignore armor. Thus the burden of proof should be on those who want to prove it ignores armor. -SolaPan 02:24, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * Unless I'm missing some subtlety, the above example by Stabber does really show that Judge's Insight is not armour ignoring. If if was armour ignoring, then the EffAL would be (EffDL - 0.2 &times; AL), which in the case of a critical hit is (80 - 12), i.e., 68. However, the above calculation shows that it is 48. (Another possibility is (EffDL - 0.2 EffDL), which would be 80 - 16 = 54, which is still different from 48.) In this case, I think that 68.142 was wrong and Stabber correct. Critical hits are odd that way -- armour ignoring critical hits actually do less damage than non-armour ignoring critical hits. 128.2.196.71 04:35, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * For a critical hit, the difference between adding 20 to DL, subtracting 20 from AL, adding 20 to the difference between EffDL and EffAL, and multiplying the damage by sqrt(2) all work out the same and I don't believe there's any way to differentiate between them by observing values in game. However, Stabber's example assumes the latter of those four options, not the first as you do.  --68.142.14.47 19:51, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * First of all, Stabber's example, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to discover---experimentally---the EFfAL for a critical hit under JI using the equation for damage that is the basis of every damage article I've ever seen. Therefore, it is simply wrong to say that she was assuming any particular behaviour with regard to critical hits. Secondly, she was trying to prove that JI doesn't cause armour ignoring damage. In every scenario for armour ignoring damage, the EffAL would not be 48. Third, she was trying to advocate for JI causing just 20% armour penetration. For this claim, there is at least one way to interpret the damage equation so the EffAL works out to be 48. I remain mystified by your and SolaPan's objections to her calculation above. If you do believe that an EffAL of 48 given the setting of Stabber's experiment is consistent with JI causing armour ignoring damage, please explain it as such, without referencing earlier comments. 128.2.196.71 21:39, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * She clearly multiplies by 1.4 (an appromation for sqrt(2)), showing that she's not using +/- 20 to DL or AL. If she was thinking that DL or AL changed due to the crit, she wouldn't have multiplied by 1.4 and she would have taken that into account when solving for AL (and then not arrived at 48 AL).  --68.142.14.21 03:57, 2 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Astonishing! You are unable to refrain from a he-said-she-said argument and answer a question plainly. Esan 03:30, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Because in the very first sentence of my very first edit here, I said Stabber's conclusion was correct. I have never suggested JI ignored armor and, in fact, mentioned how to prove it didn't. In the same first edit.  --68.142.14.68 04:27, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Why does this have to be any more complicated than just "I hit the dummy with 60 armor, I hit the dummy with 100 armor, the second one obviously takes significantly less damage"? --130.58 00:25, 2 April 2006 (CST)


 * Because Stabber offered up a flawed argument. She said, basically, "anonymous' theory is wrong because I hit the 60 AL dummy with 12 swords for 37 damage" (with the implication that it wouldn't do 37 in anonymous' model).  But, in the anonymous user's theory, 37 damage also results.  I pointed this out along with a much simpler way of showing it doesn't ignore armor.  Her response shows she didn't understand that they work out the same.  I tried quoting what she said to explain where they work out the same, and resummarized.  Then she made a condescending remark here and made the "babysitting idiots" edit in the article.  Of course, I'm obviously biased.  How does everyone else view the edits?  --68.142.14.21 03:57, 2 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Stabber's second-to-last comment was trying to say instead of spending time and energy to argue the flaw of her particular example, it's more productive to just go ahead and repeat the test with other numbers. The response of 68.142.14.6 (not sure if that's you), of telling her to go back and read what 68.142.14.6 wrote, was focused on the validity of her example, but the way it came out sounded like "there is no point in taking 5 minutes to test with different DL/AL (to see whether JI ignores armor or not), if you take a few seconds to read what I wrote".  That is definitely false in the sense that taking a few seconds to read what 68.142.14.6 wrote earlier will not settle the issue of whether JI ignores armor, which is what Stabber was trying to prove.  Of course that's also not what 68.142.14.6 meant, but the way the response was worded (and in the context of Stabber's comment being replied to), it simply came out very wrong.
 * What 68.142.14.6 wrote eariler only pointed out Stabber's particular example does not differentiate armor-ignoring from non-armor ignoring. Stabber was saying "Take 5 minutes to test for yourself using different AL/DL and this issue of me picking a bad example will be moot", yet 68.142.14.6 continued to pursue the issue.
 * Stabber made the condecensending remark only after her suggestion to "take 5 minutes to produce a better example" was trivially dismissed.
 * To summarize, on the issue of whether Stabber's example was bad, I agree with 68.142.14.6. On the issue of whether JI ignores armor, I agree with Stabber that you can just take 5 minutes to test and see for yourself.  On the issue of whether their discussion was pointless, I agree because they were talking about different issues (whether JI ignores armor vs validity of a particular example).  On the issue of whether the condescending remark was appropriate or not, I think the fact that 68.142.14.6 and Stabber were talking about different issues led to some frustration becuase they couldn't get their point across (because the other person didn't care about that point), and I'll leave it at that. -SolaPan 03:14, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Okay, now change your weapon skill rank to something other than 12, or hit a dummy other than that one. Arguing all day about whether two different calculations work out to be the same thing in one special case or about who started what is pointless. Talk pages aren't forums: make your point as conscisely as possible, test your theory in multiple different situations, and move on. Here's an example:
 * JI does (non-armor-ignoring) light damage with 20% armor penetration. It takes as little as three swings to show this: once with JI and Wild Blow against the armor 60 dummy, once with JI and Wild Blow against the armor 100 dummy, once using Wild Blow but not JI against the armor 80 dummy. (For the lazy: hitting the armor 60 dummy does a lot more damage than hitting the armor 100 dummy, and armor 80 without JI is the same as armor 100 with JI.)
 * There, I just falsified the theory presented above with a test that takes less than 30 seconds. --130.58 03:47, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I am yet to see an explanation of how 46 damage is possible using anon's model of "armour ignoring + 20% penetration". The only suggestion offered so far has been that the 20% penetration is calculated on the base AL, not the net AL, which is strange because most damage formulas I've seen calculates armour penetration on net AL. Esan 04:03, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * If it was based on the base AL, this would imply that ANet created a skill that would totally rip warriors to peices (60 armor - armor penetration calculated based on higher amount = really low effective armor value) and completely hid it in the skill description (they're smarter than that), or that they created a skill that ignores armor and does a set amount of bonus damage, but somehow decided to just say "20% armor penetration" rather than "+X damage", despite the fact that the bonus damage would always be the same. Either one of these would be ridiculously complicated ways to say something simple. --130.58 04:14, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Now that I re-read the original discussion again, I believe condecensing remarks began with "Or you can spend mere seconds actually reading what I said. Have you done it? Obviously not." Because it presumed to address the comment it is replying to, when it was on a totally different issue. If I were Stabber, I would feel insulted by that remark, because to me it sounded like 68.142.14.6 did not read what Stabber wrote in the first place, yet the person who didn't do the reading is accusing the other person of not reading. My final analysis is both side were at fault of typing words that came out condescending (regardless of intention), and I'm more than happy to overlook who started it, as long as the person who started it isn't trying to push the issue. -SolaPan 03:28, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't deny what I posted was insulting. I think the only difference is her reply was less overt. "Guess what the answer is?" sounds condescending to me, at least. I think it's pretty fair to say she didn't read what I said, given that I both agreed with her conclusion and gave an easy way to show JI doesn't ignore armor, all in my first edit in this JI section. Esan, her knight in shining armor, also seems to have missed this.  And I guess 130.58 missed the latter part.
 * And yes, all the 68.142.* comments (on this page, at least) are mine, but not the 62.142.whatever original anonymous comment. --68.142.14.68 04:27, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I have missed nothing, dear argumentative fellow. Come on now. This is my third (and final) request for you to substantiate your claim as to how 46 damage is possible with the "armour ignoring + 20% penetration" theory using Stabber's experimental setup. Esan 04:52, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Missed nothing except the first edit I made in response to Stabber. Pan agreed that Stabber's example doesn't distinguish itself for 12 sword versus 60 AL, and I'd assume others (such as 130.58, at least, who have read through this) would have pointed out anything incorrect.    Find some other windmill to tilt at, Sir Esan.  --68.142.14.88 12:18, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, the last refuge of the scoundrel -- appealing to popularity. And I wonder if those you call supporters really agree with you or if they have merely not given the matter sufficient thought. At least 130.58 has indicated before that he/she doesn't believe that armour penetration can be calculated on base AL, which is the basis of your claim. Perhaps SolaPan and 130.58 can answer my query. How is 46 damage possible with both armour penetration and armour ignoringness in Stabber's setup? You certainly seem incapable of answering a straight question, and I have given you ample opportunity. I have to agree with Stabber on her opinion of you, hastily though her opinion was formed. Esan 13:12, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I did think you were the same as the original anon for about five minutes (62.142.changing-garbage looks a lot like 68.142.changing-garbage). By the time I posted, I think it was pretty clear to me that you weren't. My point still stands: if you've already concretely falsified something, arguing about whether it might have been coincidentally accurate for one very rare case where X and Y and Z happened is pointless. Short of that one weird thing described below, JI behaves just like one would expect 20% AP to work pretty much always.


 * Unrelated note: if your IP floats all over the place, please get an account or just sign things with some kind of name or handle in front of the ~ . It makes it much easier to figure out who's who, especially if your IP lives in class A space and, unless they know your ISP practices, folks looking at it only know that the first number won't change from post to post. Useful if you intend to carry on discussion for more than one post. --130.58 06:13, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * No thanks. As far as I know my ISP's dynamix IP range is class D or smaller.  --68.142.14.88 12:18, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * 68.142.0.0 - 68.142.31.255 according to whois. Classes are kind of dead, yes (though D refers to something like multicast, for reference - only A, B, and C are real host addresses), but it's still pretty much the only way to assume things without actually having to fire up whois. Anyway, whatever floats your boat. I really don't think there's a non-personal argument to be made here at this point, and am probably just going to go through and slap "Judge's Insight does light damage" on every relevant page. --130.58 15:15, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * For what it's worth, I'd really prefer to simply say that JI doesn't ignore armor. That is more precise and more clearly correct than saying it is light damage.  The short version of the premise behind this (previously-argued) difference is that it's not entirely clear whether or not holy damage ignores armor, or that skills causing holy damage ignore armor.  There is (as far as I know) no way to tell the difference between those two situations.  We can state things definitively about an individual skill, but as long as the game says JI does holy damage, I think it's wrong of us to say it's just wrong (especially "on every relevant page"; it scares me we might write something that's simply not true all over the place when there's a more definitely correct way of saying the same thing.)  Oh bother, that wasn't that short.  --JoDiamonds 05:42, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * But the only perceptible difference between light damage and holy damage is specifically the armor-ignoring property. Both do double damage to undead and don't count as physical or elemental damage. I really don't think that "every holy damage skills in the game is wrong" makes sense here. --130.58 05:52, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree w/ being simple and precise. -SolaPan 06:26, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * To be clear, no one suggested stating anywhere that the other eight holy damage skills are wrong. But you make my point: Both the statements Eight of the nine holy damage skills are wrong and Judge's Insight causes light damage aren't clearly known to be true or false, based on the information available in the game.  We shouldn't say either one, as that would be confusing to players.  The correct information for each skill is on the skill page or linked to it, for Judge's Insight or any skill causing holy damage. --JoDiamonds 06:55, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I modified the JI note in this skill anomalies page a while back to lay out what I consider a fair assessment of the situation with JI. To the best of my knowledge, the game never explicitly claims that holy damage = armour ignoring damage. It is very likely that the skills that do holy damage have armour ignoringness as part of their description. This is the old "strikes for"/"deals" distinction that many believe differentiates armour noticing from armour ignoring damage. That is to say, any skill described as "deals X damage" will be armour ignoring. Esan 11:00, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I moved this highly interesting discussion down esan 05:45, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Please accept my apologies for my behavior earlier in this thread. I appreciate esan's backing me up, but I think 68.xx was correct in that my experiment was inconclusive. In particular, here's how 46 damage is possible with both armor ignoring and armor penetration: 10 * 1.2 * 2^((60 - (60 - 0.2 * 60))/40) * sqrt(2). It's based on the hypothesis that a sqrt(2) multiplier is used for critical hits after armor, as 68.xx pointed out earlier. There are no armor ignoring attacks in this game, so it is a moot question what the EffDL and EffAL for critical hits will be in such a case. &mdash; Stabber 00:58, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Better experimental evidence that JI is not armour ignoring
The above experiment by Stabber has one serious flaw -- it uses critical strikes to discern the armour ignoringness of a skill. As critical strikes are somewhat shrouded in mystery, I went out and got better numbers. I took a W/Mo with an uncustomized candy cane axe (base damage of 10) and axe mastery ranks 9 and 12 against all three AL dummies. The results are: These numbers are for the non-critical hits. Strength was at 0 even though I wasn't using any attack skills so strength's armour penetration doesn't come into play. These numbers correspond to:
 * Without JI : [10 &times; 2^((5 &times; AR - AL)/40)]
 * With JI : [10 &times; 2^((5 &times; AR - 0.8 &times; AL)/40)]

Now the question of armour ignoringness. There are essentially two possibilities that I see: Neither of these possibilities matches the "with JI" column exactly.
 * Possibility 1 : [10 &times; 2^((5 &times; AR - (5 &times; AR - 0.2 &times; AL))/40)]
 * possibility 2 : [10 &times; 2^((5 &times; AR - 0.8 &times; (5 &times; AR))/40)]

Conclusion: the available data best fits the hypothesis that JI causes simply "20% armour penetration" with no armour ignoringness. Esan 03:51, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, here's a fun question worth testing: does JI's armor penetration stack with Strength or override it? Esan, mind testing this with your candy axe? (I suggest putting a bunch of points into Strength and comparing damage done with a regular hit vs. damage done with Disrupting Chop - I choose that skill because it doesn't add any damage itself, only from Strength - both with JI and without it.) --130.58 04:14, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Certainly. I set axe mastery and strength both at 12 and used disrupting chop as the tool, just as you suggested. It appears that JI and Strnegth are combining to reduce AL to 0.8 &times; 0.88 = 0.704, i.e., a 29.6% armor penetration. Esan 04:36, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I see you fixed that critical hit that was causing some confusing previously. And that, sir, is why I like to use Wild Blow (you're probably right about it being bad for cases where you really care about the mysterious damage equation, though). --130.58 06:16, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Mist Form
Nothing on Mist Form says the attacks don't hit. It appears that the attacks hit for zero damage, which is maybe a special case? I don't know if the way Mist Form works is different from, say, doing zero damage vs. someone with Shielding Hands. Maybe it's not an anomaly at all. --JoDiamonds 02:23, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * If the attacks hit, they should give all the on hit bonuses, including adrenaline, energy (for zealous), life stealing (for vampiric), etc. But they don't. Also, please stop adding new comments to the top of the page. &mdash; Stabber 02:42, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * In fact, I tested a Warrior's ability against Mist Form using the Eidolon in Mineral Springs while solo IDS farming for some new guildmates and although my attacks did not do any damage while he was under the effect of Mist Form, my adrenaline did increase on every swing thus easily killing it with Sever Artery and Riposte, both adrenaline skills. --Gares Redstorm 02:42, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * Mist Form used to not give adrenaline, but this was fixed in one of the updates. I remember this because I used to farm the Tengu in Twin Serpent Lakes (before they added mesmers there) using both a Mist Form ele and an invincimonk. They wouldn't use Riposte with Mist Form. I don't recall if it was a documented or an undocumented change. 128.2.196.71 05:23, 1 April 2006 (CST)


 * Old disc, but not clearly stated: Mist Form doesn't do zero damage to the enchanted for the purposes of Balthazar's Aura or Essence Bond, I don't think (whereas Life Barrier + Life Bond will do zero damage to the caster, making him gain energy.) Pretty dang sure. Hooray inconsitency! --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 14:25, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Armour ignoring and verbs in skill descriptions
A breif study has shown that if you go by the strike/take x damage as your distinction, you get even more exceptions. -SolaPan 13:21, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Indeed? I would be curious to learn of the exceptions. esan 13:56, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
 * First of all we need to establish common assumptions. Assume armor ignoring uses the verbs "take", "deal".  Assume Non-armor ignoring uses the verbs "suffer", "strike".
 * Then based on these assumptions, we should check Mind Burn, Shield of Judgment, Smite Hex, Barbed Trap, Ignite Arrows, Spike Trap, and many warrior/ranger attack skills that strike for +x damage. Those are the likely exceptions I see with the "go by the verb" rule. -SolaPan 15:16, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. Off to test them out. Will post results. esan 05:46, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Life Attunement
Consider our current formulation of combat, I propose removing Life Attunement from list of anomalies. -PanSola 17:48, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Deny Hexes totally linked
In line with Plague Sending being unlinked, Deny Hexes should be in the Divine Favor line, since its effectiveness is clearly dependent. Anomilistic enough? -- Dashface 09:19, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * But its effectiveness is not dependent on the attribute score itself -- just the number of skills in your bar that you recently used. You could get DF skills with zero in the relevant attrib. Linking would be purely semantic.--Ishmaeel 10:13, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. The effectiveness of the spell doesn't vary based on the attribute.  That's what makes something linked.  We make a sort of special exception for spells like Gale, because whether or not a spell automatically fails is certainly variation based on attribute.  Deny Hexes is therefore unlinked, as it works the same no matter how many points you have in Divine Favor (or any other attribute).  --JoDiamonds 13:25, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Turns out that I totally misread the description. I thought it removed one hex for each level of Divine Favor, not seeing that it cared about the amount of Divine Favor skills or if they might be recharging at the time of use. Sorry 'bout that. (Darn, and I was gonna get that skill.) -- Dashface 08:30, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Resurrection signets and "struck for"
I'd say the signet and celestial skills are the "anomaly" and not skills like keystone, oath shot, or assassin's promise. I use quotes since it's clear it should be the way it is, though of course the game text says otherwise.

About "struck for" and armor ignoring, I didn't think the quick look at skills that... uh... was it Pan or Stabber (or someone else entirely, I can't find the talk page now) showed that ANet saying "struck" or "takes damage" or any other wording consistently meant either armor ignoring or not. --68.142.14.103 16:57, 28 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The usual "damage actuator" theory holds that the "struck for" actuator is armor noticing, and "deals" is armor ignoring. (See ignore armor.) You can see the flaw by comparing Gaze from Beyond with Channeled Strike. Both say "struck for", but the former ignores armor and the latter doesn't. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 21:44, 28 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Gaze from Beyong being armor-ignoring was a bug, which has been fixed in the most recent game update.

Res sigs vs certain skills
Sorry, this is not an anomaly. A used signet is actually considered by the game to be recharged, however it is used but inactive. Take this for example: You as a player are using the res signet to res a recently dead ally. A ranger on the other team uses distracting shot, disableing your res signet. Three seconds later you kill someone with assassin's promise hex on them that you cast. Your res signet will recharge as it SHOULD. This again, is not an anomaly because it is working as described. Res signets when used, become disabled but recharged. This goes for adrenaline skills as well which are always considered recharged (through normal use but can gain recharge if they are hit with certain mesmer/ranger skills like diversion). --Draygo Korvan 15:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * another possible reasoning here is a concept called skill override. Where a particular skill description will over-ride the action of another. Because res signet specifically says it only can be recharged by moral boosts, it may be ignoring the request from the skill Assassin's Promise to reactivate. However, i think it is more the latter where the game treats the signet as 'disabled' and not 'recharging'. --Draygo Korvan 15:22, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * This is all fine and well, but the game itself doesn't really use any of these terms. While we should explain these things as well as we can, and "disabled" seems very reasonable, we shouldn't try to propogate term we make up too much.  =)  --JoDiamonds 09:44, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't believe it has anything to do with 'override.' The signet and other similar skills simply have a maximum number of uses.  This is quite different than a recharge which determines a rate at which a skill may be use.  The signet most likely recharges immediately.  The morale bonus simply resets the available use count back to 1.  Theoretically, some new skill X may be usable only three times in a match, and is given a bonus use for each morale bonus. --Jeremy Winston 16:17, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

How does Meditation of the Reaper get in the effects monitor?
The skill's self-targetting, isn't it? How does it appear in a player's Effects Monitor? -- Gordon Ecker 07:26, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i think it would be rather rude of Anet to be stealthy with that skill, considering it can kill your entire party if it's not ended properly. i think that might have been a design decision to lubricate the PvE campaign, similar to shiro and glint using only non-player skills. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:23, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Use of 'Spirit' in skill descriptions
I have found that all Ritualist skills which make references to spirits also apply to ranger spirits. At least I am able to destroy Tranquility and Nature's Ritual with Unnatural Signet. (Which, of course, is a mesmer skill and not a ritualist skill.) I am under the impression that Essence Strike will recover energy if near a ranger spirit as well. I will need to verify that. --Jeremy Winston 16:21, 26 July 2006 (CDT)