[vC] HotW P3 3:59 [Restricted]
1 2
ok so walking while being immobalised doing nothing is the same like doing aoe attacks.
What the kitten are you even trying to say here?
He means that Shoggroth is effectively disabled through immobilizes during it’s retreat to burrow.
during retreat shoggroth doesnt do anything anyway. so its the same, isnt it?
[qT] Quantify
Whole lot of salt here. The option that banned immob on Fimbul/Subject 6 but allowed it on Tar won. I don’t understand how there is still debate. Though I guess that’s the wrong choice of words, more like whining.
“Using an immobilize on bosses before they have activated is banned. "
What does “activated” mean? If its turning “red” the rule is sueless. If it means starting to attack this rule makes multiple record invalid. (like Mossman 1:07, CM Story 3:29) In both records a boss gets immobilized before he starts attacking. I am sure there are more records like that. So either way this rule makes no sense the way it is written.
Neither the SC mossman record or qT CM record immobilized bosses? And as far as I know activated refers to the boss having the ability to use skills. Ie. Fimbul can’t use a skill until he finishes his walk, same with subject 6, but shoggroth could use a skill, he is now rendered useless by the immobilize combined with his in-fight mechanics.
(edited by SlyDevil.3952)
I reworded it to "Using an immobilize to prevent a boss from activating is banned. ", hopefully it’s more clear.
ok so walking while being immobalised doing nothing is the same like doing aoe attacks.
What the kitten are you even trying to say here?
He means that Shoggroth is effectively disabled through immobilizes during it’s retreat to burrow.
during retreat shoggroth doesnt do anything anyway. so its the same, isnt it?
Which would mean immobilize would be banned on all melee bosses, and cc would be completely banned. The difference between shoggroth vs. fimbul was that shoggroth had his in-combat mechanic used against him, whereas fimbul hasn’t entered combat(per-se), he’s still trying to roleplay.
Isn’t it pretty obvious that it was intentioned to bug the Boss? Otherwise the Thief wouldn’t have rushed to the Spawnlocation of Fimbul.
In my eyes this falls under “11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.” and this rule existed already before the record was made.
Tbh i cant take this “community” and their rules srs when members who vote for thoose rulesets violate against them.
It wasn’t 100% clear whether “fight back” could be applied to this case. Technically the boss is fighting back by trying to reach his activation location, but at the same time he isn’t really fighting.
So a poll was made to clarify the rule so that everyone would be on the same page.
1 2