Guild Wars 2

So S/D thieves can no longer access their unblockable attack while their opponent is blocking. Much like ride the lightning, a hit that is blocked does not count as a hit, and so does not open up larcenous strike for us. I don’t know whether this was intentional; it wasn’t intentional for ride the lightning as stated before the change, but it was never resolved.

So a question to the devs: was this intentional? If not, will it get resolved unlike ride the lightning? If so, will you consider resolving ride the lightning as well, so that a block sets it to 20s cd as intended at the time of the change?

Ofc it was intentional

How dare Anet make it so you have to hit with your skill!

If flanking strike is blocked/blinded/evaded you will not get access to Larcenous Strike

hehk.8705:

How dare Anet make it so you have to hit with your skill!

I genuinely enjoy sarcasm, despite it being the lowest form of wit, but if you’re going to do it, at least make sense with it. The question is what counts as a hit, given that when the ride the lightning change was made, a hit for those purposes included being blocked. It was just never fixed to work as originally stated/intended. That is what is being asked here, because what is the point in having an unblockable skill in a chain that you cannot reach while being blocked?

Wasn’t the rtl nerf just to make it so it lowered eles mobility? This just sounds like theives are kittened they need to land one attack for access to another.

Flanking Strike:
This skill now must successfully hit a target before giving the thief access to Larcenous Strike. Initiative cost has been increased to 4

Obviously not a bug. Blinds/blocks/evades will cause it to not successfully hit

Once again, I’m seeking a definitive response as to what constitutes a hit, given that (yes even though it was due to reducing mobility, it’s still the same principle hence the reference) for ride the lightning to have its cooldown 20s it needed to hit, and when this was announced a it was stated that a block would still count as a hit. You guys can keep ignoring that point and proclaiming that thieves are crying (yes we know you hate thieves, we’ve had it since launch and we no longer care) when the reality is that you saying a block is not a hit is your opinion since you cannot know for sure since you are not developers.

Edit: Discuss your opinions and why, of course, but don’t pretend to know. By a definitive response, I don’t mean non-devs saying what they think or want it to be.

“Happy” by Pharrell now that’s a Hit

Impact.2780:

Once again, I’m seeking a definitive response as to what constitutes a hit, given that (yes even though it was due to reducing mobility, it’s still the same principle hence the reference) for ride the lightning to have its cooldown 20s it needed to hit, and when this was announced a it was stated that a block would still count as a hit. You guys can keep ignoring that point and proclaiming that thieves are crying (yes we know you hate thieves, we’ve had it since launch and we no longer care) when the reality is that you saying a block is not a hit is your opinion since you cannot know for sure since you are not developers.

Edit: Discuss your opinions and why, of course, but don’t pretend to know. By a definitive response, I don’t mean non-devs saying what they think or want it to be.

The developers themselves said what counted as a hit during the Ready Up! video. Nobody is giving their “own opinion.”

KarinaCO.6948:

The developers themselves said what counted as a hit during the Ready Up! video. Nobody is giving their “own opinion.”

No definition is given where the change to the skill is mentioned. It could be that it is somewhere else in the video and I missed it, of course. Although, just as things said can be forgotten, it wouldn’t be the first time someone recalls hearing something that was never stated.

So you’ve no problem with a block not breaking stealth, but it should trigger an on hit effect now…? XD

Phaeton.9582:

So you’ve no problem with a block not breaking stealth, but it should trigger an on hit effect now…? XD

Where did the OP even bring this up?

If you have an issue with block not causing Reveal, discuss it in a thread dedicated to that topic.

Imagi.4561:

Phaeton.9582:

So you’ve no problem with a block not breaking stealth, but it should trigger an on hit effect now…? XD

Where did the OP even bring this up?

If you have an issue with block not causing Reveal, discuss it in a thread dedicated to that topic.

Those two are actually tied together. If touching a block counts as a hit, it means that a stealth attack on a block counts as a hit, and would give reveal… You can’t have one without the other.

Gwalchgwn.1659:

Imagi.4561:

Phaeton.9582:

So you’ve no problem with a block not breaking stealth, but it should trigger an on hit effect now...? XD

Where did the OP even bring this up?

If you have an issue with block not causing Reveal, discuss it in a thread dedicated to that topic.

Those two are actually tied together. If touching a block counts as a hit, it means that a stealth attack on a block counts as a hit, and would give reveal... You can’t have one without the other.

I don’t like having words put into my mouth, and it’s especially bad practice to do so in that manner because the person you’re talking to might actually agree with you. In this case, I do, so all your snipe has accomplished is making you seem petty and unhelpful in this topic, and making me type out a response.

I didn’t bring it up here because despite whether the concept of a hit is equally relevant to stealth attacks, it’s a separate issue that has been argued over for perhaps more than a year. Stealth already has plenty of counterplay, and blocks are one of them already. They tell you when the thief is attacking, that they are close by, and that you need to dodge or move from that position. Longer duration blocks will result in the stealth running out before they can get off their attack. But what of longer stealth durations like shadow refuge? Well the thief will just wait out your blocks, unless it’s a long duration of aegis in which case yes, it will be a successful counter unless the thief steals the boon after starting their stealth attack. See, it won’t really make a difference, so I don’t see why it’s such a hot topic. If you must know, there was a thread dedicated to this somewhere many many months ago, where I posted that I agreed that one should be revealed when attacking from stealth even if the attack was blocked.

As for the two being tied together, they really aren’t. Sure you can take the definition of a hit and run with it on another topic, but this is about an individual skill. There are plenty of skills which have their own special properties, so it wouldn’t be game breaking to allow flanking strike to turn over to larcenous when blocked. They could also make flanking strike unblockable, thus addressing it without any words on what a hit is (although I doubt they will because then it would go from a huge nerf to a huge buff). Edit: Actually it might be rather balanced overall if they did given that accessing larcenous is likely to cost a lot more initiative now, but versus a blocking target S/D thieves would be a total counter, and almost render their blocking ineffective as defense (almost because it is still forcing the thief to use a lot of initiative) to damage.

This isn’t an issue. The idea is of the skill is that your first skill throws the enemy off and allows you to do a critical blow.

In real life, if you land a surprising flanking strike a person, they’ll probably be vulnerable for an additional attack. If your enemy anticipates your surprise attack and blocks it, you definitely won’t have a chance at another hit.

The only scenario where sword 3 now fails is when someone is blocking and you hit them. However you can still land it if you hit them before they block or proc aegis so the unblockable perk still works but it’s just not as abused.

Thieves are not meant to be full on tank strikers and spam 3 whenever they feel like it. They are meant to be tricky and strike the opponent at vital times.

lol, how dare someone block my blockable skill!

Impact.2780:

Gwalchgwn.1659:

Imagi.4561:

Phaeton.9582:

So you’ve no problem with a block not breaking stealth, but it should trigger an on hit effect now…? XD

Where did the OP even bring this up?

If you have an issue with block not causing Reveal, discuss it in a thread dedicated to that topic.

Those two are actually tied together. If touching a block counts as a hit, it means that a stealth attack on a block counts as a hit, and would give reveal… You can’t have one without the other.

I don’t like having words put into my mouth, and it’s especially bad practice to do so in that manner because the person you’re talking to might actually agree with you. In this case, I do, so all your snipe has accomplished is making you seem petty and unhelpful in this topic, and making me type out a response.

I didn’t bring it up here because despite whether the concept of a hit is equally relevant to stealth attacks, it’s a separate issue that has been argued over for perhaps more than a year. Stealth already has plenty of counterplay, and blocks are one of them already. They tell you when the thief is attacking, that they are close by, and that you need to dodge or move from that position. Longer duration blocks will result in the stealth running out before they can get off their attack. But what of longer stealth durations like shadow refuge? Well the thief will just wait out your blocks, unless it’s a long duration of aegis in which case yes, it will be a successful counter unless the thief steals the boon after starting their stealth attack. See, it won’t really make a difference, so I don’t see why it’s such a hot topic. If you must know, there was a thread dedicated to this somewhere many many months ago, where I posted that I agreed that one should be revealed when attacking from stealth even if the attack was blocked.

As for the two being tied together, they really aren’t. Sure you can take the definition of a hit and run with it on another topic, but this is about an individual skill. There are plenty of skills which have their own special properties, so it wouldn’t be game breaking to allow flanking strike to turn over to larcenous when blocked. They could also make flanking strike unblockable, thus addressing it without any words on what a hit is (although I doubt they will because then it would go from a huge nerf to a huge buff). Edit: Actually it might be rather balanced overall if they did given that accessing larcenous is likely to cost a lot more initiative now, but versus a blocking target S/D thieves would be a total counter, and almost render their blocking ineffective as defense (almost because it is still forcing the thief to use a lot of initiative) to damage.

Agree with me on what? Putting words into my mouth are we?

While I admire your sophistry on the matter, arguing the point by referencing rtl miscommunication during ele previews last year seems a little weak.

If you’re having issues with proffession matchups, over and above the glaring steal issues, I suggest you discuss this as there are lots of players happy to help-or maybe join in on the qq

Hope you found this post more useful.

Phaeton.9582:

Agree with me on what? Putting words into my mouth are we?

While I admire your sophistry on the matter, arguing the point by referencing rtl miscommunication during ele previews last year seems a little weak.

If you’re having issues with proffession matchups, over and above the glaring steal issues, I suggest you discuss this as there are lots of players happy to help-or maybe join in on the qq

Hope you found this post more useful.

Given the context and nature of your response, it implied you were in favour of blocking attacks from stealth causing reveal. If that is not the case I can only apologise and advise that you communicate such things in a less sarcastic manner if you want to be interpreted correctly.

As for the rest… I don’t feel like repeating myself for your benefit yet again. Simply re-read my earlier responses on what this topic was asking.

hehk.8705:

lol, how dare someone block my blockable skill!

You did it again v_v. It’s not about blocking flanking strike, but blocking the turn over into larcenous.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

This isn’t an issue. The idea is of the skill is that your first skill throws the enemy off and allows you to do a critical blow.

In real life, if you land a surprising flanking strike a person, they’ll probably be vulnerable for an additional attack. If your enemy anticipates your surprise attack and blocks it, you definitely won’t have a chance at another hit.

The only scenario where sword 3 now fails is when someone is blocking and you hit them. However you can still land it if you hit them before they block or proc aegis so the unblockable perk still works but it’s just not as abused.

Thieves are not meant to be full on tank strikers and spam 3 whenever they feel like it. They are meant to be tricky and strike the opponent at vital times.

While I appreciate where you’re coming from, it is still an issue. If you’re going to reference real life scenarios, I can simply say when your opponent is blocking their right side, you won’t say “oh kitten , I need to get a hit in there before I can strike them where they aren’t blocking.” More constructively though, if the time larcenous strike remained available for use was increased, it would certainly make preparing the strike ready for a block a realistic option. Only 5 seconds for them to block and you to land the attack – especially if the block is aegis in which case they can still dodge, blind and attack – isn’t enough time to use it to actively counter a block.

A blocked hit is not a successful hit no matter how you want to twist it. The patch notes state it pretty clearly, therefore if your FS gets blocked, you don’t get to use LS. I don’t know where the problem is here.