Xaph

If this works its a bug, SoR seal twist doesn't work if I remember right. I think Theoloras had a big post about it. Looking forward to your results Drakova, especially against casters like spriest/lock.

Manual Crowd Pummeler is actually amazing for SoR but for lvling IMO it depends on what ranks you have available. SoR and SotC are pretty close as long as you judge SotC when using SoR.

Brack Rotus all day

I'm pretty sure it's a separate mechanic. IMP Conc aura affects silence and interrupt though.

Armor enchant will only get worse as your gear increases because of diminishing returns.

Anyone able to locate a video of a paladin using SoR? All the videos I've found are of pallies using SoC whether they're holy/prot/ret.

Highest skillcap vanilla wow is druid/hunter IMO. Both classes do not scale like other "high skill cap" classes and hunters especially have a glaring weakness. Mages, rogues, and warlock have much more consistent cc and burst giving them much more control over the course of a fight.

Looking back I should've named my pally Canuckadin.

I don't think it's on-next swing but extra swing category abilities that cannot proc items.

I know reading comprehension is tough for you. I can see that in all of the replies you've posted on other bug reports as well. You're misunderstanding what Killerduki was pointing out. Whether the debuff for JOTC shows or does not show THAT IS LIKELY THE VISUAL BUG (caps so you hopefully read it). I understand what you're saying about the mechanics but you're clearly using your eyes and assuming that the VISUAL BUG is the same as what's taking place. The only way to AVOID THE VISUAL BUG, is to compare the damage on the two different warders and theorize what caused the difference in damage. Again, YOU CANNOT BE 100% POSITIVE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING (THE VISUAL BUG) IS EXACTLY WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE DAMAGE CALCULATION. The only way to control for that is to compare the damage.

You're still not reading what he wrote correctly. The appearance of a second jotc and it falling off is a separate issue. Whether you like him or not, just read what he wrote. There are two separate issues, one is a visual bug and the other is jotc stacking. You're conflating the 2.

Pretty hard to deny the evidence now but I'm sure Imbaslap's hatred of paladins will come up with something.

Right now we only have the class guide on the official wow forums. Video evidence is hard to come by because all the shockadins are using SoC instead of SoR.

I don't know which patch changed it but it was changed in retail. Gotta admit these guys on the forums know way more about paladin than me but I did grind to rank 12 on retail with a team and it wasn't possible later on to weapon swap and keep reck stacks.

You lose charges when you swap weapons

If I understand correctly, physical damage procs or wounds can proc other coh items? Does that mean somethingn like http://db.vanillagaming.org/?item=12583 is better than TUF for reck bombs?

Consecration is terrible early on. The only issue with tanking is dps not realizing you can't just taunt stuff off them. Prot is fine for lvling but doesn't really get good until sanctuary/reckoning imo. The 3% hit is nice though. Imo consecrate early on is not worth it but some people swear by it.

Does this mean that SoR on reckoning swings should be able to proc items like HoJ for instance? And, SoR on the HoJ could theoretically proc another HoJ? I have yet to see personally a HoJ proc from anything other than the initial white swing.

Anyone have a reliable way to calculate dps value of annihilator 3 stack?

Anyone else not receive any rank progress last week? I only had around 67k honor and I'm rank 7 but it doesn't look like I had any progress at all.

Cook, thanks.

Saying something existed changes the entire issue. If it existed prior to 1.8 then we can assume it continued to exist or didn't. If it didn't then it was either removed intentionally or perhaps it was a bug connected to something else and when that got fixed it disappeared. The other option is that it remained. Your requirement to prove that it didn't change is through video evidence is one way of looking at the issue but it does not escape the further claim that you are suggesting one of the first 2 options took place.

You're committing a basic logical fallacy. If you agree that judgment stacking existed before 1.8 and after 1.12, then your assumption is that it was REMOVED in 1.8. That is your base assumption. Your reasoning is that because we think that judgment stacking still existed between 1.8 and 1.12 that the burden of proof is on us to DEMONSTRATE that it wasn't stealth removed as there is no official statement on the issue. This means that the burden of proof that you require us to provide is actually not that judgment stacking existed between 1.8-1.12 but that the stealth removal of it didn't happen. Before responding please read this carefully as the entire discussion rests on whether you concede that judgment stacking existed prior to 1.8. If you don't then fine, but if you do agree then whether it is a positive or negative claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a stealth removal occurred NOT that one didn't. The GitHub thread that covered this issue conflated all kinds of issues as you are here. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that judgment stacking of wisdom and light would break certain encounters and on that basis alone it shouldn't be allowed. The same is not true for crusader stacking. A second issue is whether debuff stacking with a particular spell should be considered a bug that was not correctly dealt with by blizzard. Again, here I think you could make the case that it was missed but should be brought in line with the standardized approach to spells. A third issue is whether debuff stacking even existed (this is what we're discussing and it's why the concession that it existed prior to 1.8 is so important).

Obviously the example was exaggerated but it was meant to show how silly your rationale is. If you concede the point that judgement stacking existed PRIOR to 1.8 and then POST 1.12, then your "flying spaghetti monster" example is irrelevant. If you concede both those points then it is you who is claiming it was REMOVED during those 4 patches, requiring YOU to establish proof that it was. In all the threads concerning judgment stacking this has never been done. My point was to show that if you concede that hunters existed during some patches and demand video proof of patches in between because they could have been stealth removed is ludicrous. If you don't concede that the evidence compiled demonstrates that judgment stacking existed prior to 1.8 then I agree with your argument. The burden of proof changes depending on that claim.

The whole argument is pointless. If you applied the same standard you're requiring to every other ability in the game we'd have to conclude that hunters didnt exist prior to oatch 1.4 and disappeared again in patch 1.10 only to resurface in 1.11. See how silly your argument is? You can rationalize it anyway you want but it doesn't make it less absurd when applied to other cases.