Talk:Glyph of Immolation

Skill Tweaks 07/26/07

 * Glyph of Immolation: 1..3 spells -> 1..4 spells please discuss new skill changes here. ~Izzy @-&#39; 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now have a look at Elemental Flame =D --Heelz 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Now non-Eles can get a good use from it without straining to hit L12 Fire Magic. arredondo 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good change. 8 spec isn't too hard to reach on a secondary line for 3 spells, which is a fair amount for this. Interesting skill overall Patccmoi 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Izzy. This looks like it can inspire some creative fun stuff. :D --Redfeather 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mechanics question: Will the burning apply before the spell takes effect, since you're trying to buff up Steam?  I'd also like to point out that --if it does-- this is 4 shots of Searing Flames that bypass having to deal burning first, if you're worried about that.  [[Image:User GD Defender sig.png]] 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does apply before, and works really well with Steam, searing flames, and the new Earth slow. ~Izzy @-&#39; 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs to be changed to reindeer glyph with that kinda skill icon. --Lou-Saydus[[image:User Lou-Saydus Hail Storm.jpg|19px]] 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually another question - if you have a spell that hits multiple foes, will all of them start Burning, or just the original spell target ? Clan Yumemiru 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * also i want to know how this would work with meteor shower? --Tenshi Strife 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It currently does not work at all with DOTAoEs, including Meteor Shower. Not even the targeted foe gets set on fire. I'm not really liking the burning happening before the spell effect, either - sure that makes Steam work and gives Searing Flames more direct damage it doesn't need but I'd much rather it worked as a cover for blindness.--Mysterial 12:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A 3 second cover? You might as well use something else. Besides, seeing as how strong condition removal is getting these days, the value of cover conditions just feels somewhat diminished. Fro 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did some more testing - any AoE spell that would still trigger if the target died is not affected by Glyph of Immolation. I assume whatever they do internally to allow those spells to continue prevents the Glyph from getting the target to inflict the condition on it.

+Searing Flames
Is it me, or would this combine rather too well with Searing Flames?

nope, sf spam costs too much energy thats why pople will use glyph of lesser energy instead


 * I SF a lot, and never use GoLE (no sense in telling someone that you're about to turn them into a smoldering pile of ash). My problem is how to keep the target burning, without the cost...  This is a glyph I might actually use!  Gwynna Vive 11:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It does in fact work very well with SF, but it only sets the actual target on fire, not the nearby foes. As for usage, a chain I'm trying now is || GoI->SF->GG->SF->Steam->SF ||. With Fire Attunement up (and 4 pips regen), this chain effectively costs 15 energy in 10 seconds. Every third sequence use || GoI->SF->GoLE->SF->?->SF || instead, which gives 7.33 energy. Together this would cost you 45 energy/minute total, if my calculations are correct, with still 2 skill slots open (channeling?). Comments welcome :) --Tenshi 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The attibute line isn't specified, but as a glyph, does that mean energy storage? I'd suggest put it in water - might combine well with Steam, and means it's harder (attibute spread) to combine with fire spells that could take too much advantage of it.

Actually, it says "Fire attribute" at the side. Darkobra


 * My mistake :O (or maybe it got updated since i posted, i dunno). Well, like I say above then - if it's in fire, it combines too well with Searing Flames. Stick it in water; would be more interesting.

This does combo extremely well with Steam, putting it water would be really odd, it's burning!! ~Izzy @-&#39; 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah. Steam's a real oddity, sat on it's own in water magic at the moment. Put this skill in there with it and it makes some sense.


 * I do wonder when this applies, though. For example, if I use Meteor Shower - would it apply to my target when I finish casting, when the first meteor hits the guy, or each time the meteors hit? I'm guessing it's the first choice (burning begins when casting ends), but would be nice to be sure. I like how this spell combines very well with the current ones - by itself it may not be all that, but in the right combinations it would be really nice. Erasculio 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like fun with shadow steps.


 * If it applies burning before the spell's effects, this will be good with Searing Flames. Other than that, it's kind of underwhelming. Though it would be interesting to cause burning with non-elementalist spells. I wonder how this works with AoE targeted spells. But seriously, this is the only Fire Magic spell we get for GW:EN? Well, I guess, fire got love in Nightfall. --Heelz 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be really, really cool if it applied the burning each time the spell hits - so, for Meteor Shower, for example, it would apply Burning in an area three different times. But of course that would be way overpowered, and that's not how it's going to work : P Erasculio 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks more interesting with air spike or shatterstone than anything, throwing considerable extra damage on top of an already-nasty spike. 66.67.187.203 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it does apply before, can be used with Glowing Gaze as well for guaranteed energy. --MasterPatricko 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you spend 10 energy to get, 10 energy. --Curse You 00:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fire Attunement. Although it still is only 2 energy. I concede defeat ;) --MasterPatricko 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how would this interact with AOE spells, because it it works nicely, gogo fire at 4 and N/E (i can see it at SS skill bar use with desecrate/reckless) or Me/E (now, wouldnt be casting fewered dreams with instant fire spread be nice?). Zweistein 09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think it would be 'too good' with SF. To sustain SF properly you really need to use GoLE. You can't use that with this. Fro 11:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that, actually. But with guaranteed burning, glowing gaze+fire attune would cover it, no? Is GOLE really necessary?

i'm wondering whether this would work with epidemic. Doubt it tho.

Looks lame.-- §  Eloc   §  05:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

MoR blows this out of the water, thought it would be interesting to spec like 4 points into fire and use this on, say, a mesmer or a rit. - 75.75.148.44 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A Mark of Rodgort, which can't get removed and works on all spells is a very good idea. Except it is not. The optima of this skill is additional 126 armorignoring damage for 5 energy. -Selber 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This skill doesn't make any sense lorewise. A frozen Burst which causes burning? Dancing Gnome 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This + a degen mesmer, anyone? Or maybe a fragility spiker? A Vile Miasma/Putrid Bile nec packing this could be evil, too. --Desme 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is for any fire spells that doesn't cause burning, like Savannah Heat, Fire Storm, and Breath of Fire Lightblade 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The obvious connection for me would actually be Earthen Shackles. Xelonir 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should glyphs stick with their own kind =p in the Estorage line?
Im all for more burning but...seriously..this skill would be more appealing if it was tied to Estorage..sure you could say that it causes burning so it should be fire... but then wtf.. is whirlwind and teinas wind doing cold damage for?! or chilling winds for that matter..Hector Mata ZoS
 * On a windy day, you do not feel 'zapped' but 'cold'. While it could be in Energy Storage, I would think that ES would be self-inflicted immolation rather than targeted immolation (sort of like, too much energy, can't control it scenario). Plus, most glyphs are in no attribute. --Kale Ironfist 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

..kk then explain how steam would give ya a Burrr ists cold feeling..once again trying to slap real world logic on skills is like..well the same as applying real world logic to magic the reason i suggested moving this to Estorage is to give the skill a more variable usage it has nothing to do with how its damage is related to its elemental predisposition..after all i could have just said make it an air magic skill cus last i checked lightning strikes causes fires too..ya know?...
 * I think the question is rather whether the glyph is supposed to work on spells of other classes or not. If it is, Energy Storage would be a bad place to put it. Xelonir 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

True but if ya go with that..doesnt Energy surge +3 secs of burning sound really nasty to you O.o Hector Mata ZoS

Tweak
I'm debating 1..4 spells on this so you can hit the 3 spells at 8 attrib. ~Izzy @-&#39; 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do that, could you also make Elemental Flame hit 3 seconds of burning at 8 Fire Magic? This skill totally outclasses EF. Plus, EF encourages fire/water hybrids, but it forces you to get 12 FM for 3 seconds of burning. --Heelz 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say 1..4 sounds perfect. It's a little bit too weak as it is now, whereas 1..5 would mean constant burning for the whole duration of the glyph if you time your spells well. Xelonir 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that if this intended to promote cross-element-builds like Fire/Water. But just to use Steam spec some points into Fire, ideally up to 8? I rather see 16 Fire builds speccing 4 points into Water and carry Steam along. This would mean that at least one Water skill is used for something else but snaring in PvP. In PvE, it would add a blind option to Fire Elementalists, but it is so much more an addition to the Fire line which is already good at making a lot of mobs burn and die. This manages to promote fire even more, not so much the Fire/Water mix in which Water is clearly the underdog. --Longasc 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this glyph only cause the target to burn? As mentioned earlier, what about Fire Storm or perhaps Lava Arrows? --Dustin Fay 158.147.93.45 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Powerful on non Ele spells?
I imagine this at 8 fire magic with Fragility (15 illusion) would hurt alot. 20x 2 + 3 sec burning = 82dmg, and that's not even including a more offensive spell...add Clumsiness into the mix and it turns into 172dmg from one spell. Add in Frustration then you get much pain =p P A R A S I T I C 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd honestly use Mark of Rodgort at lvl 3 and a fire wand over this if I wanted to use Fragility. --Redfeather 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could go one step further and be useful rather than a mild annoyance doing 14 +(wand) damage a second.--66.192.104.10 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm... Just thought of something.
The description says spell... burning is triggered before the spell. So wouldn't this work extremely well (if not too well) on a Mesmer using Extend Conditions? LordSojar 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Too well? You'd be able to keep burning going for 8 seconds at 9 or higher Fire and 15 Insp, which is 3 seconds more then Extend's recharge...That's assuming it isn't removed. It'd only be TOO well when paired with a lot more conditions; which would probably have to come from someone else. RitualDoll 08:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I'm a bit late, but that isn't -that- powerful. You can do a similar thing with just Mark of Rodgort, which doesn't use your elite slot.  Burning is the most degenerating condition, BUT you can get similar effects that last longer with bleeding and poison.  A W/R with poison tip signet can easily hit you with -7 degen with sever artery.  Even a standard ranger can with screeming shot and poison tip.  StatMan 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Skill description
The description is poorly written and should be "Spell that targets a foe also causes Burning" &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.184.77 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

No the description is fine. It isn't a hex! It only affects spells what you cast on foes.
 * can someone check the in game skill description? if the wording is different from the description here, it should be reflected w/ a 'sic'. -- VVong | BA 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the in game description, it was fine. The article was wrong though, the burning duration is 1...3...4, not just 3.  Atra Astrum [[Image:User AtraAstrum sigpic.png]] 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been trying out this one with SF a bit and I noticed that in that case, the targeted foe gets set on fire by GoI (and thus takes dmg from SF), however the nearby enemies do NOT get affected by GoI and thus just get set on fire by SF. Therefore the description should imho be "[...] Spells that target a foe also cause Burning on the target [...]".--Tenshi 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In-Game Difference
The in game description now has the # of seconds of burning scaled the same as the # of spells. When did this happen? RitualDoll 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Steps?
Wouldn't it be funny using this skill with something like Death's Charge? Set them on fire and start your dagger chain. Could work even better with an Entangling Asp sin?66.28.139.242 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs buff IMO
Make burning around 20'ish seconds,then it might be slightly used,also should inflict dazeOni 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I smell sarcasm in this post... -Anon
 * I concur. But I cant tell for sure. It could just be his deodorant.--66.192.104.10 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was changed now but is it just me or did this glyph always give back 2 energy when casted under fire attunement?? Is that a new change with the 23rd's fix?72.20.237.153 04:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the fire attunement it says when you use a Fire Magic skill. so its always been that way.--75.94.77.148 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sliver?
What happens when this is used with sliver?--Sam6555 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean Sliver Armor? Nothing happens. Sliver Armor doesnt target a foe when you cast it. Mr J 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yea. :| --Sam6555 23:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug?
Is this skill bugged? It says that it works on spells that target a foe but I can't get it to work on things Inferno. For those skills you don't have to target somebody but their effect DOES target a foe. So shouldn't it inflict burning anyways? The glyph should read: "Glyph. For 15 seconds, your next 1...3...4 spells YOU CAST that target a foe also cause Burning for 1...3...4 seconds." Previously Unsigned 08:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, Inferno doesn't target a foe. I don't know what you're getting at. --Kyoshi (Talk) [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GoI says it works on spells that target foes. The effects of Inferno and other spells effect target foes, but you don't select the target. But it should inflict burning on them as well since their effects target foes. By adding "you cast" to the description it differentiates between any spell that just targets them and ones that are targeted. Yes, it's minor, but it seemed like a bug to me in the description. Previously Unsigned 11:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me use Flare as an example here. "Send out a flare that strikes target foe for..." The bolded part is what's important when judging whether a spell targets a foe. That's how it has always been, and that's what it means, and I see no bug or need for clarification. Inferno doesn't target a foe in this sense, and so it doesn't work. (By the way, there's even a note about this on the article itself.) --Kyoshi (Talk) [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the note is kind of vague, I'm going to edit it for clarity. --Kyoshi (Talk) [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if you think about it, it wouldn't make sense for Inferno to cause burning using this glyph, otherwise Heal Area and the like would also set foes on fire (although that would be funny, think of it like Firestorm, it doesn't burn everyone in its AoE when cast - it's the same for this one). -~=Sparky  User Sparky, the Tainted charr sig.PNG  (talk)  19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I hope the notes are clearer now. --Kyoshi (Talk) [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)