**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

AW Window of Stun node bugged - pic

Pbb22Pbb22 Posts: 43 ★
edited September 2020 in Bugs and Known Issues
AW, tier 5. Path 9, section 2 the second fight. Nodes are “Window of Opportunity - Stun” and “Empowered Immunity.” Opponent - 6* R1 Emma no sig ability. Me using Gilly99.

Start of fight, Emma is in Diamond form. Emma cannot be stunted in Diamond form. I went for well timed block to reduce damage. And then I got stunned. Zero hits attempted by me, immediate KO.

If the node is going to work this way, then the description needs updated badly. From the node: “Whenever the Defender would be stunned, the Attacker is instead stunned for 4 seconds.” She wasn’t going to be stunned because she’s stun immune.
Post edited by Kabam Zibiit on

Comments

  • Options
    Pbb22Pbb22 Posts: 43 ★

  • Options
    pseudosanepseudosane Posts: 3,818 Guardian
    That is how it works. You cannot attempt to stun, it reflects back at you.
  • Options
    GamerGamer Posts: 10,171 ★★★★★
    pseudosane said:

    That is how it works. You cannot attempt to stun, it reflects back at you.

    It still a bit buggy in my eys if no stun get able it shuts reflect one u but it two defrinds node now stun reflexes and stun of opitinaty.
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Pbb22 said:

    pseudosane said:

    That is how it works. You cannot attempt to stun, it reflects back at you.

    I’m aware of how the node works. I wasn’t attempting to stun Emma, I was attempting to well timed block her when she already can’t be stunned.

    If the node is going to work this way, then the description is incredibly misleading.
    If you have parry mastery then using a well timed block attempts to stun her. You dont have to be capable of stunning, just that they would be without some other effect.
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
  • Options
    ChikelChikel Posts: 2,058 ★★★★
    Pbb22 said:

    AW, tier 5. Path 9, section 2 the second fight. Nodes are “Window of Opportunity - Stun” and “Empowered Immunity.” Opponent - 6* R1 Emma no sig ability. Me using Gilly99.

    Start of fight, Emma is in Diamond form. Emma cannot be stunted in Diamond form. I went for well timed block to reduce damage. And then I got stunned. Zero hits attempted by me, immediate KO.

    If the node is going to work this way, then the description needs updated badly. From the node: “Whenever the Defender would be stunned, the Attacker is instead stunned for 4 seconds.” She wasn’t going to be stunned because she’s stun immune.

    I think the node reads the stun being applied and reflects it back at you without considering the defender's immunities.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    With that logic I’m curious how you interpret the other buff the node gives “ Empowered Immunity:
    Whenever this champion would receive a debuff they are immune to, they generate 30% of a Bar of Power”
  • Options
    Pbb22Pbb22 Posts: 43 ★
    CoatHang3r said:

    With that logic I’m curious how you interpret the other buff the node gives “ Empowered Immunity:
    Whenever this champion would receive a debuff they are immune to, they generate 30% of a Bar of Power”

    If they wouldn’t receive the debuff for any reason, they gain power. Doesn’t matter what it is or why, if the debuff wouldn’t place, then boom. That’s the exact same logic I’m applying

  • Options
    Pbb22Pbb22 Posts: 43 ★
    edited September 2020
    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
    You’re proving my point with IMIW. His medium dash doesn’t make contact so he wouldn’t be stunned. Emma is stun immune in diamond form. So neither would be stunned. Yet I got it reflected into me.

    And if “would be” is the critical phase, then my point about the node needing clarified remains strong. Because she wouldn’t be stunned, same as IMIW. So something has to change.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    Pbb22 said:

    CoatHang3r said:

    With that logic I’m curious how you interpret the other buff the node gives “ Empowered Immunity:
    Whenever this champion would receive a debuff they are immune to, they generate 30% of a Bar of Power”

    If they wouldn’t receive the debuff for any reason, they gain power. Doesn’t matter what it is or why, if the debuff wouldn’t place, then boom. That’s the exact same logic I’m applying

    So emma would have been stunned if she was not immune?

    The node does not read when the defender is stunned, it reads would be stunned.
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Pbb22 said:

    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
    You’re proving my point with IMIW. His medium dash doesn’t make contact so he wouldn’t be stunned. Emma is stun immune in diamond form. So neither would be stunned. Yet I got it reflected into me.

    And if “would be” is the critical phase, then my point about the node needing clarified remains strong. Because she wouldn’t be stunned, same as IMIW. So something has to change.
    No, you just dont under stand the logic. "If they would be stunned". If you parry a medium dash imiw they would not be stunned in any case what so ever, so "if they would be stunned" cannot logically kick in. Emma would have been stunned if she was not immune
  • Options
    pseudosanepseudosane Posts: 3,818 Guardian
    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
    You’re proving my point with IMIW. His medium dash doesn’t make contact so he wouldn’t be stunned. Emma is stun immune in diamond form. So neither would be stunned. Yet I got it reflected into me.

    And if “would be” is the critical phase, then my point about the node needing clarified remains strong. Because she wouldn’t be stunned, same as IMIW. So something has to change.
    No, you just dont under stand the logic. "If they would be stunned". If you parry a medium dash imiw they would not be stunned in any case what so ever, so "if they would be stunned" cannot logically kick in. Emma would have been stunned if she was not immune
    This is exactly right. Same way how Nick gets around this interaction in his second life.If you get the immune callout, the stun would be applied. I understand why you would think so, but unfortunately that is not how it works.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
    You’re proving my point with IMIW. His medium dash doesn’t make contact so he wouldn’t be stunned. Emma is stun immune in diamond form. So neither would be stunned. Yet I got it reflected into me.

    And if “would be” is the critical phase, then my point about the node needing clarified remains strong. Because she wouldn’t be stunned, same as IMIW. So something has to change.
    No, you just dont under stand the logic. "If they would be stunned". If you parry a medium dash imiw they would not be stunned in any case what so ever, so "if they would be stunned" cannot logically kick in. Emma would have been stunned if she was not immune
    Imiw would be stunned by anyone who can parry projectiles, kinda hard to follow this when he very well could be stunned.

    The line taken kinda falls apart because they’re stun immune due to the node but for some reason Emma’s stun immune is different and exempts her attacker from the node? 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    CoatHang3r said:

    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    Lormif said:

    Pbb22 said:

    I get that logic @Lormif however that’s not what the node says. Node says when defender would be stunned. She wouldn’t be stunned. I wouldnt fight against what you said, but then the node should be changed to read “well timed block.” Because by your logic, trying to parry a medium dash from IMIW would also reflect the stun and it’s the same interaction.

    "would be" in the operative phrase. Also a well timed block is not the only time you can stun an opponent. And no IMIW cannot be stunned on a medium dash at all, not because of immunity, but because the dashes do not make contact, therefore it cannot be. Your phrasing takes it further away from the interaction not closer.
    You’re proving my point with IMIW. His medium dash doesn’t make contact so he wouldn’t be stunned. Emma is stun immune in diamond form. So neither would be stunned. Yet I got it reflected into me.

    And if “would be” is the critical phase, then my point about the node needing clarified remains strong. Because she wouldn’t be stunned, same as IMIW. So something has to change.
    No, you just dont under stand the logic. "If they would be stunned". If you parry a medium dash imiw they would not be stunned in any case what so ever, so "if they would be stunned" cannot logically kick in. Emma would have been stunned if she was not immune
    Imiw would be stunned by anyone who can parry projectiles, kinda hard to follow this when he very well could be stunned.

    The line taken kinda falls apart because they’re stun immune due to the node but for some reason Emma’s stun immune is different and exempts her attacker from the node? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I understand but that is not the implication that was made by their post, I was just going by that.
  • Options
    WOLF_LINKWOLF_LINK Posts: 1,324 ★★★★
    It‘s all about the priorities.

    1) Parry (you)
    2) Stun caused by Parry
    3) Reflect caused by the node
    4) Emma‘s immunities

    If 3 and 4 would be reversed, you wouldn‘t get stunned. But well, the node goes first. Before she could trigger her immunity.
  • Options
    xLunatiXxxLunatiXx Posts: 1,139 ★★★★
    Can we have a confirmation or insight from kabam on this ?
    Cause the way the node describes it, we shouldn't get the stun back.

    “Whenever the Defender would be stunned, the Attacker is instead stunned for 4 seconds.”

    Either change the description or fix the bug.
    Simple.
    @Kabam Zibiit
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    edited September 2020
    xLunatiXx said:

    Can we have a confirmation or insight from kabam on this ?
    Cause the way the node describes it, we shouldn't get the stun back.

    “Whenever the Defender would be stunned, the Attacker is instead stunned for 4 seconds.”

    Either change the description or fix the bug.
    Simple.

    The node grants stun immunity, it shouldn’t ever stun you then? Ya know cause they’re stun immune...nope
  • Options
    ChikelChikel Posts: 2,058 ★★★★
    xLunatiXx said:

    Can we have a confirmation or insight from kabam on this ?
    Cause the way the node describes it, we shouldn't get the stun back.

    “Whenever the Defender would be stunned, the Attacker is instead stunned for 4 seconds.”

    Either change the description or fix the bug.
    Simple.
    @Kabam Zibiit

    There's no problem with the node description, I think the problem is from your interpretation.
    The node says "...would be" which is different from ..."is" The stun gets reflected back at you when the defender "would be stunned" not when the defender "is stunned" so immunities don't mean anything.

    I'm curious how this node will interact with BPCW's stun reflection. Will the stuns keep reflecting back and forth?
Sign In or Register to comment.