Talk:List of skill anomalies

Not Really Anomalous
Mesmer:
 * 1) Illusionary Weaponry: In addition to preventing damage, melee attacks made while under the effects of Illusionary Weaponry are not considered to hit, miss or fail to hit.
 * IW still faces the prospects of 'fail to hit'. Clumsiness will prevent IW from succeeding, removing end note. I would also like to debate about this skill even being an anomaly, "deal no damage" should be enough for it to mean "Does not hit or miss". Anyone? -- Terra Xin 22:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Clumsiness does not cause an attack to fail to hit, Clumsiness causes interruption a fraction of a second before the attack action is completed. Attacking with Illusionary Weaponry and a scythe will not trigger Sand Shards, attacks with Illusionary Weaponry do not count as failing to hit. As for "deals no damage", I disagree. If an attack hits and its damage is reduced to 0 by Life Sheath or Shield of Absorption, it's still hitting, and hits with skills like Distracting Blow count as real hits for Vampiric and Zealous weapons. -- Gordon Ecker 22:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, I can make do with the 'fail to hit' part. But as for the skill being anomalous, let's look at this again. If an attack hits and its damage is reduced to 0, then damage was still recorded. This is not the same thing as a target who is under the influence of "deal no damage" because they are incapable of hitting their targets (as outlined by the anomaly). Basic rule in GW mechanics is that if a target is hit, damage is dealt - the indicative value of "0" is quantitative, meaning that there would have been a higher value being dealt to that target, but an intervention reduced that amount of damage to zero, so the effect was '0' 'damage' received. This may get confusing, here... It is possible that a person cannot 'deal' damage, but you cannot say that because a person DID deal damage - (but an intermediate mechanic reduced it to 0 and the target 'received' 0 damage) that the overall effect of the person who dealt the damage, actually dealt 'no' damage. In simplicity, Damage received and damage dealt are two different occurrences. -- Terra Xin 20:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The thing is that an attack while enchanted with IW doesn't hit, and that's what makes it anomalous. Both Distracting Blow and Illusionary Weaponry have the same description, which goes something along the lines of "You deal no damage in melee, but ". That's it, both should work similarly. Distracting Blow works conforming to that description, it still hits but you simply do 0 damage, which is fine. IW on the other hand doesn't even hit at all, if you're using a Zealous weapon you won't be getting energy back. Does that make sense? --Dirigible 00:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Not quite. It is equally debatable to say that Distracting Blow is anomalous instead, because I can argue that based on its description, it's not even supposed to be hitting. Going back to my previous statement, all things that 'hit' will deal damage, if a target is 'hit for 0 damage' that target will take damage, which is in conflict to what Distracting Blow states, where it says "deal 'no' damage". Now let's take yet another step back - "no" is not quantitative, it doesn't mean '0' (which is quantitative), it means 'no'... In this perspective, damage cannot be dealt, and if damage cannot be dealt, then Distracting Blow should not be hitting, and it should not deal '0' damage. I can back this up by returning to IW and saying that attacks with IW do not in fact 'hit', but rather, the hit mechanic is removed altogether by IW, and IW becomes the one that deals damage instead, not the player - therefore the clause within this skill, "deal no damage" doesn't conflict with game mechanics... same with Mist Form as well. I hope my third response better supports my second. (I'm not the best at clarifying situations, and if any part of it didn't make sense, please respond in question^^) -- Terra Xin 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The description doesn't need to say that Distracting Blow will hit because the default result for attacks in GW is to hit. There is no inherent chance for the attack to either miss or fail.
 * Are you trying to redefine what a hit means in GuildWars? Quoting you, "Basic rule in GW mechanics is that if a target is hit, damage is dealt" &larr; this is wrong. That's simply an assumption that you are making, which happens to be wrong. The hit mechanic is a very specific one, it has nothing to do with the damage being dealt or taken besides the fact that they usually come together. A hit does nothing to do with damage, whether it's 1000 or 0 or "no damage". Look at Distracting Blow, it both hits and it deals no damage (you don't see the 0 on top of the enemy). The same happens with Mist Form, you are dealing no damage (not even a 0 will popup) but you're still getting on hit effects, like zealous gains and Stamina ending.


 * A hit in GuildWars does not need to deal any damage, it has nothing to do with damage at all.  &larr; important


 * Signet of Stamina. You have +250 maximum Health. This Signet ends if you successfully hit with an attack.
 * If you're enchanted with IW, Signet of Stamina will never end, and therefore you are never successfully hitting. Mist Form will end it. So will Distracting Blow, both of which are working normally in this aspect.
 * A Zealous mod will give your weapon these two stats:
 * Energy gain on hit: 1 / Energy regeneration: -1
 * With IW up, you never get that 1 energy, therefore you are never hitting. Both Distracting Blow and attacks when under Mist Form will get you energy though.


 * In GuildWars a hit is simply a trigger, which may or may not be used to decide whether or not damage has been dealt or taken, or if you'll get any secondary effects/bonuses that are associated with that mechanic triggering. IW simply breaks the hit mechanic because a hit never triggers even though it's supposed to. That's what makes it anomalous. --Dirigible 11:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(ri) OK, If you're saying that the hit is merely a trigger and is separate from damage, then the skill still isn't an anomaly. IW replaces the 'hit/miss' trigger with its own 'trigger', so that whenever you complete an attack, the result is 'xx untyped damage' dealt, instead. The difference is that because it was IW that dealt the damage and made the trigger (and not the player), then it is IW that 'would' get the benefits of things associated with the 'hit/miss' trigger. This isn't like Mist Form (I'm sorry, I was wrong...) and Distracting Blow, where both the attack and the trigger to hit is made directly by the player. It makes better sense to me now - because IW doesn't trigger for the player against skills like Holy Wrath, Weapon of Remedy, Price of Failure, Reversal of Damage...etc -- Terra Xin 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I hope I'm not rushing you, but if there isn't a response, I'd like to remove the note. I see this skill as a window for opening and defining the properties of hitting (because IW is so unique in that respect). Therefore if it is under request to leave the skill as an anomaly, then there should be a suggestive description change that doesn't conflict or alter the mechanics of this skill, rather than what it says currently, but I don't have an issue with the current skill description. -- Terra Xin 09:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Look, you can't say "IW replaces the 'hit/miss' trigger with its own 'trigger'" and expect us to accept it just like that. Here's why: Game mechanics are (or at least should be) always valid for all skills at all times, unless otherwise specified. If a skill breaks that rule then that skill is anomalous, it's not working as expected. There's nothing in IW's skill description that either says or implies that "IW replaces the hit/miss trigger with its own". Absolutely nothing. The description of Illusionary Weaponry is the same of several other skills (as I pointed out in the previous post), thus the "normal" behaviour for it would be to act just like those other skills. It doesn't. It is therefore abnormal, anomalous, it breaks the standard.
 * You say, "I see this skill as a window for opening and defining the properties of hitting". And I'd have to retort that we can't do that. We are simply players of GuildWars, and here we are merely documenting the game. We can neither define nor expand the properties of the Hit mechanism, because to put it simply we are not ArenaNet. And ANet has given us some very clear ways with which to determine these things: Does it give energy back with a zealous weapon? It's a hit. Does it end Signet of Stamina? It's a hit. It doesn't? Well, then it's not a hit. There's nothing to argue about that, we're not here to change how the game works, we're simply pointing out what there already is.
 * Your theory about IW replacing the hit/miss mechanic with its own trigger sounds as completely subjective and unbased speculation to me. Here we have one skill which doesn't behave as expected. One way to look at it is that this skill is buggy, the most rational way to look at it. On the other hand, here's this other explanation you're proposing, that comes up with a theory that somehow allows a skill to hit even if you yourself aren't hitting, that allows IW to gain the benefits of that zealous weapon... Forgive me, but that sounds very far fetched and speculative. Why don't other skills with the exact same kind of description like Dblow or Mist Form exhibit the same phenomenon? You are saying that there's this whole never-before-noticed game mechanic which affects only this skill, only Illusionary Weaponry! Excuse me if I find that not convincing, and if I decide to simply label the skill buggy. It's like having a guy that keeps knocking his head against a wall, and your explanation for it is that "He's not crazy, it's the world that insists on going in his exact opposite direction". --Dirigible 10:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to say that IW is buggy - I think it probably works exactly as the designers intended. That being said, it is anomalous (just different).  As the previous posters have all pointed out, this skill acts differently than other similar skills.  So, I'd say that the comment should stay. -Spot 11:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I did outline before that both Mist Form and Distracting Blow can hit, because the attack and the requirement to trigger a hit must be done by the player, or the effects wont succeed. This is why Mist Form and Distracting Blow will not strike while blinded. Mist Form does not have another clause saying that something would happen if you complete an attack, nor does Distracting Blow state that it's not a melee Attack (all melee attacks must hit in order to trigger their basic goals), and will specifically state what will happen if it becomes blocked, no melee attack will trigger if it fails or misses... IW is an enchantment, not a Melee attack, so it does not need to adhere to the basic requirement of hitting. I don't see why it's such a bad thing to think that IW has such a unique mechanic, while in the same context, Mist Form is the only skill that prevents 'damage received' from operating - a mechanic no other skill has.

(ri) Or, better yet, why not label the 'description' as anomalous, and leave the skill's mechanic as it is? It's equally viable, and I have a simple solution: "For xx seconds, you deal no damage in melee, but whenever you attack in melee, target foe takes xx damage instead." This way, the end of the attack will not result in a hit/miss/fail-to-hit, because due to the inclusion of 'instead' one can make a definitive argument that the mechanic is removed, and the enchantment performs the trigger at the end of the attack, instead. So all that happens with this solution is that the mechanic is more clearly described with this singular word, and the skill effectively remains the same. I hope this one-word-wonder makes everything more clear. -- Terra Xin 20:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * If a skill does something which its description doesn't say it does (such as the damage from Shadowsong, I consider that an anomaly. Illusionary Weaponry's description says it does two things. It says it makes your melee attacks deal no damage, and that it causes your target foe to take damage whenvever you make a melee attack. Based on that description, attacks should still be able to generate adrenaline, and attack skills should still be able to inflict conditions, but they don't because of the additional undocumented effect of bypassing hit detection. Adding "instead" wouldn't make clarify anything. The simplest accurate description I can think of is "your melee attacks deal no damage and bypass hit detection", a less technical but more verbose alternative is "your melee attacks deal no damage and cannot hit, miss, be blocked or fail to hit". I don't think the skill's bugged, I think it's working as intended, and that the description is misleading because the intended effect is difficult to describe in a concise, non-technical manner. I believe this is also the case for Deathly Swarm and Vampiric Swarm. -- Gordon Ecker 21:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm with Gordon - IW isn't bugged but does exactly what it says on the label. You swing a weapon at your foe, and the mesmer's mind-bending power causes the foe to react as though he had been hit, and his hp drops accordingly. The clue is in the title "illusionary" and is a simple concept to grasp if you know what a mesmer is/does. The weapon itself is not touching the foe, it's all in the mind :D Hence, it cannot be affected by armor or skills which would cause a "miss". There is nothing anomalous about this skill. Which, by the way, is awesome - Me/W with Illusion at 16, daggers equipped and Flurry... ftw and causes those AL100 armored-spam-can warriors to "Run Away!!" [[Image:User Fox.jpg]] Fox (talk|contribs) 05:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


 * It doesn't do what it says on the label, Fox, and that's the point. Here's three skills:
 * Distracting Blow: Swipe your weapon at the target, dealing no damage but disrupting the target's current action (and the actions of foes adjacent to your target).
 * Mist Form: For 8...18 seconds, you cannot take or deal damage from attacks.
 * Illusionary Weaponry: For 30 seconds, you deal no damage in melee, but whenever you attack in melee, target foe takes 8...34 damage.
 * All of these can be summarized as:
 * You attack, your attacks deal no damage, but .
 * They all have the same kind of effect, judging from their descriptions. The description of them all suggests that you are hitting, but simply dealing no damage. Their descriptions are alike, so we expect them to act alike as well. But here we have Distracting Blow and Mist Form that actually land their hits, while Illusionary Weaponry doesn't. Doesn't that make IW an anomaly?
 * Notice that many of the skills listed in this article are about broken descriptions. By your logic Lava Arrows isn't anomalous either, since even though it doesn't say that the damage is Fire Damage, it should be obvious to the user that it is indeed so because of the word "Lava", right? But why then do Fire Storm, Searing Flames, Fireball etc. use the words "fire damage"? If they specify it and Lava Arrows doesn't, isn't Lava Arrows an anomaly?
 * And for everyone's convenience, the definition of anomaly: "Deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule". --Dirigible 05:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * But that's over-egging the pudding, D. "Attack" doesn't mean "hit". The description nowhere states the word hit, only attack. Similarly, Distracting Blow doesn't say hit, only "swipe weapon at". That implies the wielder isn't connecting with a weapon but instead, as it says on the label, distracting the foe. Mist Form is the only skill of the 3 that has a misleading description - IW is unaffected by it and the poor ele still takes damage with each, non-connecting, swipe at them. [[Image:User Fox.jpg]] Fox (talk|contribs) 07:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd just like to chime in in support of Dirigible here. I've thought this skill was anomalous since testing with Feigned Neutrality and Sand Shards. It appears to me that the damage from IW does not come from attacks at all, as no on hit triggers are affected.  To answer some of the above: Distracting Blow does hit an enemy, it just does no damage, and the same effect is present with attacks under Mist Form. Any normal/skill attack appears to go through this process: Miss/Hit->Blocked?->Damage, whereas IW goes straight to ->Damage.  Other "no damage" skills cause the attack to still go through: Miss/Hit->Blocked? before dealing no damage (hence why Blind can be useful to stop interrupts).  Also, to sum up, I am of the opinion that while there is  any ambiguity about the skills operation and relevant description, it should be kept on the list of anomalous skills, as clearly, either:
 * the description is not sufficiently precise to describe the skills behaviour, or
 * the skill is not operating in the intended fashion, or
 * a combination of the above.
 * I don't see any harm in keeping it here. My personal preference for a "fix" would be for IW to say all your attacks "Miss" rather than "deal no damage", as this wouldn't break the potential synergy between IW (scythe), and Sand Shards. --Indecision 07:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Responding to Gordon: "If a skill does something which its description doesn't say it does (such as the damage from Shadowsong, I consider that an anomaly." - That's correct, but we're having this debate over whether it's the skill's description that is anomalous, or the skill's effect - since it can now be taken either way. I was originally debating that the skill isn't an anomaly, but now I am leaning towards the skill's description being anomalous (and only for a single word), and would rather leave the effect the way it is now. That's also up for debate, btw.
 * Responding to Dirigible: "Deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule" - the relevancy of this statement in this debate is sketchy. Yes, IW is anomalous. No, we don't 100% know why it's anomalous, because the mechanics (rules) aren't 100% clear. Dirigible, it is plausible to say that my theories are far-fetched with regards to IW replacing the hit mechanic with it's own trigger for damage, but if you look closely at the history of this game; it took almost 2 years for Anet to write up a PvP Primer titled "obscure mechanics". Everything related to that article was never documented by anet before then, but researched and developed by the playing community. My theory can be tested and stressed in any circumstance, this anomaly - as it currently stands - can still be debated. Should we wait for Anet to write another article? (Terra Xin 09:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT))

Ranger: Rampage as One. The description says that both you and your companion move and attack faster. A dead pet cannot be the target of, nor be able to do either of these things (because the pet is dead, of course). Finally, the word both will only activate if both receivers are alive, this is actually reinforced by the use of the words "you and your pet". For these reasons, it shouldn't be an anomaly. It's like saying that you should be able to target a dead person with an enchantment, because 'target ally' doesn't specify whether the ally has to be alive or not. :P - (Terra Xin 04:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT))


 * I don't think Bloodsong is anomalous. The description says "Attacks by that Spirit steal up to X Health", and attacks by the Spirit do steal up to X Health as the description indicates. If it was supposed to steal life for the caster, I would expect the description to say something along the lines of "Whenever a foe is hit by the Spirit's attack, you steal up to X Health from that foe" or "This spirit's attacks do X damage, whenever a Spirit of Blood Song you control deals damage, you gain the same amount of Health". -- Gordon Ecker 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharpen Daggers
Can anyone confirm that the anomaly for Sharpen Daggers still exists? As far as I can see, the entry doesn't really reflect the skill update. -- (CoRrRan / talk) 11:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I just tested it with Barrage, it still uses up one charge for each successful hit with an attack skill rather than one charge for each attack skill activation, only the green numbers were out of date. -- Gordon Ecker 20:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Thx Gordon! -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Rangers and bridges/stairs
I find that not only do skills sometimes fail to activate whilst on bridges/stairs (as stated in the article), but also that targets in plain sight are often "obstructed" - even when standing right next to them. I think this is just a Ranger problem, but that's my main area of expertise (no pun intended) so I could be wrong :) -- Snog  rat  19:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think it's a general problem, because I think I have seen it with other chars. Not sure though. I tend to avoid bridges nowadays, they are always buggy ;) - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  01:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, you are describing 2 different things and 1 of them has 2 circumstances. The "obstructed" message happens under 2 different circumstances but usually on bridges/stairs/inclines/etc. and it's mostly because of 1) part of the target is "through" a wall/floor and the weapon is trying to hit the enemy but they are "obstructed" due to this (happens with melee too, got it to do this when fighting Rotscale by that little shrine thing) or 2) the wall/fence/rock/whatever you are attacking over is actually scripted to be taller or wider etc. than it appears when we see it thus obstructing the enemy.  The ranger note is regarding the lack of bow attack skill activation when on bridges/stairs and often inclines.  This also happens when using spear attacks too.  Does that clear it up? --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill icons in list
I must say I really dislike having the skill icons inside the text, it makes it much harder to read. If they were only listed with the skill first on the row, and only one skill per note, that would be ok I guess. But having the skill icons in the middle of a note makes in confusing, imo. - anja    (contribs)  17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Human Mind automatically matches words with pictures. By doing so and having the skill icons there, it is alot easier for peoples minds to read as they can only glance at the picture and know what the skill is right away.--Eloc 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My mind must not be human, because I agree with Anja. It just reads like a kid's book to me, and breaks up the sentence. Especially with the Paragon icons for the anthems, which are difficult to tell apart at a glance even when they're full sized. --Nkuvu 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also messes with the line height, so some lines are further apart than others. I would agree with having them in the case I described in my previous comment, but not in the middle of a text. It doesn't matter if you specify my mind as human or not. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Lots of things mess up the lining. It doesn't mess it up alot when there is like 1 picture every line.--Eloc 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's things like this
 * This hex does not trigger for, and.
 * that makes it so irritating to read. Not the ones with just one icon at the start of the line, as I've already said.- anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The same sentence without the skill icons is much easier to read, in my opinion:
 * This hex does not trigger for Heal Area, Karei's Healing Circle and Healing Ring.
 * --Nkuvu 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anja, how does it make it harder to read. I find that it's easier because a quick glance at the picture would just let you see what it is instead of reading the entire skill name.--Eloc 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, it takes all attention away from the text, and focuses it on the icons, which isn't really the intention of the text. I think the way Nkuvu put it, with an icon just for Scourge Healing is a much better solution, if we need the icons at all. And honestly, I have no idea what skill it is by just looking at the icon. Sometimes I can make an educated guess, but it doesn't help me very much. I read faster than I can identify the icons. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, go ahead and change that.--Eloc 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh it would be fine if they were all left alligned, the ones mid page bug me. -- Lemming64 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone go change it then. I don't have alot of time to change it now a days.--Eloc 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking whether to remove all or just the ones in the middle. In some cases, it looks really odd just the remove those in the middle, for example with Call of haste and call of protection. Anyone else have an opinion? - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Make &  into two seperate articles or w/e.--Eloc 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would we make the list longer just to fit the icons in? I still think they are unnecesary and just clutter the page, but I would really like to see some more input from other people. We will end up agruing forever about this :P - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  08:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this will go on forever. xD--&lt;font color=Black&gt; § &lt;font color=Red&gt; Eloc &lt;/font&gt;§&lt;/font&gt; 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloodsong
This skill is not anomolous look at Vampirism and Animate Vampiric Horror they state clearly they that you gain health Bloodsong does not so it should be quite clear that you do not gain health Masterofthat 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Bloodsong doesn't seem anomalous to me either. The skill description is perfectly clear. A simple note on the Bloodsong-page should suffice. I'm removing it from the list. -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurzick/Luxon skills
I feel the kurzick/luxon skills deserve to be added here since if you speak to a kurzick bureacrat or luxon scavanger the description of the skill they give you states the lowest possible peramiter of the skills variable to be that as it would be at rank 0 in the appropriate title track, however you cannot actually purchase the skills until you reach rank 1. Put as a simple example: for Triple Shot the bureacrat/scavanger states that the lowest possible damage you can do is 3 arrows with 50% reduction each however you must be at title rank 1 to purchase the skill, title rank 1 shoots 3 arrows with a 48% reduction therfore this skill description is wrong. Masterofthat 10:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The description is not wrong, since if ArenaNet allowed us to buy them without having R1 Allegiance, then the 0 rank would come into effect. As it is, it's just a limitation to ensure people have donated to get the skills, so there is nothing anomalous about them, as they are doing everything as intended. --Kale Ironfist 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If any other skill description showed an impossible to acheive value (e.g. if Flare showed the damage done with -1 fire magic]] it would be listed as anomolous so why not this? It shows an impossible to acheive value so it cannot be considered correct. Masterofthat 12:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ArenaNet balance skills with a variable from 0-X (where X is usually 15, but for the title based skills, it's 10). Just because we can't have the skill at R0 does not mean it's unimportant to balance it for it (otherwise the code would break). Plus, it's not really detailing where the skill is not doing what it says it's doing. The skill is doing exactly what it says (for Triple Shot, reducing base damage by X%). From that, I'd say it is not anomalous. --Kale Ironfist 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10 for Sunspear skills, 12 for Kurzick and Luxon skills. -- Gordon Ecker 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete this Template
There is no need for a template for everything. A bug is worthy of a template, all of these notes could be just as well be mentioned with a note instead of this fugly tag. SystemisFlawed
 * You mean Template:Anomaly, right? Since this is a list, not a template. :) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Signet of Mystic Speed
Although the signet has no activation time, it can't be activated in the middle of another action. does anyone know whether this signet can be interupted? Jinsof 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be interrupted. Refer to Dolyak Signet. (Terra Xin 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Healers Covenant
When using vigorous spirit with HC, VS costs less energy, but is not effected by the -25% heal reduction. Jinsof 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

removed Infuriating Heat`
Its not really an anomaly. The skill description says "twice as fast" not "twice as many" making it a percentage multiplier, not a direct multiplier. IAt bare maximum, the signet should activate 50% faster, but there's no point in going into it that closely. (Terra Xin 06:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Pulverizing Smash
There is an anomaly with pulverizing smash failing if the target isnt knocked down. Could someone check if its still there and then add it to this list? I am unable to do this in the near future. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.149.1.199 (talk).

Xarxun Says:
Shouldn't "Echo" be removed? its anomalies seem more like a check and balance to me. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Xarxun (talk).
 * No, it's anomalous because its' behaviour is inconsistent with the description. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Belly Smash
Full and Concise has bad wording. 62.45.184.57 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scourge Healing and Heal Area effects

 * I no longer have a punching bag - I mean, active playing friend - that I can test game mechanics with. Does Scourge Healing genuinely not trigger on Heal Area and co in all situations, or just when an ally heals an enemy target hexed with Scourge Healing?
 * Many players are unaware of how the Friendly Fire mechanic appears to function. You won't normally be able to damage your party member with any effect that has not been explicitly flagged to do so.  You can see this mechanic best in action when playing with Minions, which you can enchant or hex, and then gain or lose control of them.  For example, cast Scourge Healing on a Masterless Minion, then use Verata's Aura/Gaze.  You will now find that EVERY heal that you cast will fail to cause damage to you, or fellow party members.  However, the animation still procs.
 * Similarly, skills like Shield of Judgment, Reversal of Damage, Balthazar's Aura are party-aligned as well. If you lose control of a friendly minion who has been enchanted by any of these, the effects will not harm your party members.  You can tell that they still proc by their animations, expenditure (Reversal of Damage will end), and/or the occurrence of non-damaging effects.  For example, Shield of Judgment can't damage, but will knock down your party members.  Ritualist weapon spells can still cause life stealing to your own party members, as well.
 * TLDR Version: If you're talking about casting Scourge Healing on a target, and that target uses Heal Area without getting damaged by Scourge Healing, then it's a bug worth reporting. If you're talking about how you won't get damaged from healing a target that you hexed with Scourge Healing, then you're talking about an issue that goes far beyond Heal Area or Scourge Healing.  It's just that it's usually only visible when using those skills. MA Anathe 03:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Signet 'anomalies'
I'd vote for removing the anomalies about Dolyak Signet and Signet of Mystic Speed. Just because their casting time equals 0 doesnt mean they can be expected to behave like skills with casting time = 0, like Shouts, or like stances. They are of type Signet, and regarding their aftercast delay and usability during other actions they are consistent with all other signets. Therefore, no anomaly. Roland of Gilead talk 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you think it isn't anomaly, doesn't justify going through pages removing them. - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can report them to ArenaNet at Feedback:Bug reports/Skill bugs and see what they say about it. --Silver Edge 22:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interrupt effect anomalies
Anybody want to work these skills all in? It would seem to be a LOT but they seem like anomalies to me. Many of the skills do not have the anomalie listed either: [] Previously Unsigned 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not everyone agrees that these are necessarily anomalous or bugged. It's possible that the text is misleading (or wrong) or that we incorrectly assume that interrupt skills should only have an effect if there's an interrupt (whereas the interrupt could be an independent effect).


 * That said, it would be worth mentioning on the specific pages whether the additional effects do or do not require an interrupt. I think Previously Unsigned's research makes it clear that, at best, the game is inconsistent on this point. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering then at what point does a faulty descriptino become an anomalie? Previously Unsigned 02:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If we knew the descriptions are wrong, then we could call that a text bug. However, it might be that we are misreading the text and the developers think that it should have been obvious that the multiple effects are independent.


 * So, I think we should document that the interrupt is not required to cause the other effect; we can do that without having to decide whether it's a bug/anomaly/not. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)