Hand of Protection and Chimaeron

[Deleted]

Last night when doing HC Chimaeron I discovered something quite neat. If you use Hand of Protection on the tank before a massacre, he won't take any massacre damage. It really helped us out, as it enabled us to enter feud phases with a full health tank. The tank can also take the first hit during feud while still having the bubble, thus always mitigating that hit aswell (provided he taunts).

Got me wondering why I've never read about it before in any guide or on any forum, as it's another really nice trick to make those feuds a bit easier. It might be just a bug, as massacre deals magic damage, and HoP shouldn't block magic damage.

Anyone else who has been doing this?

[Powell]

we got a paladin tank, he just bubbles himself, heh.

[Stalvir]

...and HoP shouldn't block magic damage.

Massacre is physical damage.

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=82848

[Mattsvaliant]

Yeah, I didn't know this either till I started doing hardmode and someone mentioned that the previous paladin used it. *shrug* I someone how slipped through the cracks, although I do remember the tankspot vid mentioning that theres only physical damage in the fight (untill p2 in HM).

[Deleted]

When I was progressing on this fight my raid found it better to use HoPs on feud double attacks, completely negating them - just make sure to HoP and THEN taunt, or the target will change.

[FiveDkp]

Pretty good idea but problem is knowing when a feud is coming XD

[Deleted]

Pretty good idea but problem is knowing when a feud is coming XD

Yeah it tends to be a bit random between the 2nd and 3rd massacre. Our raid tends to use Lay on hands for two of the feud starts and I bubble in phase 2 to buy myself some time so make sure not to have the forbearance debuff leading into it.

It definitely is a good idea though if you time it right, you could also use divine shield for one.

[Deleted]

Pretty good idea but problem is knowing when a feud is coming XD

That's one of reasons why I find it better to pop it for the double attacks - you can't tell 100% when the feud will come. It can be foreseen with some accuracy after some non-feud massacres went off, but never 100%.

[Bulwarked]

Massacre-> Massacre(with a possible feud after)-> Massacre(Guaranteed Feud if hasn't happened.)-> Massacre(as feud ends)-> Massacre-> Massacre(with a possible feud after)-> Massacre(Guaranteed Feud if hasn't happened.)-> Massacre(as feud ends) and so on so forth.

That should be the pattern you see every time. The second massacre has a 50% to cause a feud and if it doesn't the next one has a 100% to cause a feud. Then a massacre will end the feud. If you don't count the very first massacre and the massacres that always happen at the end of a feud you can think of it like each massacre increases the chance a feud will happen by 50% starting at 0%.

(free)Massacre-> (0%)Massacre-> (50%)Massacre-> (100%)Massacre-> (free)Massacre-> (0%)Massacre-> (50%)Massacre-> (100%)Massacre and so on.

This means that you could have 2 feuds happen after as many as 8 Massacres or as few as 6.

[Nillo]

Massacre-> Massacre(with a possible feud after)-> Massacre(Guaranteed Feud if hasn't happened.)-> Massacre(as feud ends)-> Massacre-> Massacre(with a possible feud after)-> Massacre(Guaranteed Feud if hasn't happened.)-> Massacre(as feud ends) and so on so forth.

That should be the pattern you see every time. The second massacre has a 50% to cause a feud and if it doesn't the next one has a 100% to cause a feud. Then a massacre will end the feud. If you don't count the very first massacre and the massacres that always happen at the end of a feud you can think of it like each massacre increases the chance a feud will happen by 50% starting at 0%.

(free)Massacre-> (0%)Massacre-> (50%)Massacre-> (100%)Massacre-> (free)Massacre-> (0%)Massacre-> (50%)Massacre-> (100%)Massacre and so on.

This means that you could have 2 feuds happen after as many as 8 Massacres or as few as 6.

Ehm... you've got 1 too many here:
It's always like this:
1 (start), 2 (50%), 3 (100%) , 1 (post feud) , 2 (50%) , 3 (100%), 1 (post feud) ,....
so the worst case would be 8 massacres and 4 feuds.

[Deleted]

Never seen more than 3 massacres between feuds. Would suggest probability is off somewhat. Have done Chimaeron 20 times now making the 50/50 split on the 3rd equate to a feud trigger over 20 kills(and countless wipes) extremely unlikely

---------- Post added 2011-06-14 at 09:10 PM ----------

Ehm... you've got 1 too many here:
It's always like this:
1 (start), 2 (50%), 3 (100%) , 1 (post feud) , 2 (50%) , 3 (100%), 1 (post feud) ,....
so the worst case would be 8 massacres and 4 feuds.

Yeah I thought the Maths behind it seemed wrong. My attempts equate to 150 or so and never seen more than 3 massacres before a feud.

[Deleted]

Ehm... you've got 1 too many here:
It's always like this:
1 (start), 2 (50%), 3 (100%) , 1 (post feud) , 2 (50%) , 3 (100%), 1 (post feud) ,....
so the worst case would be 8 massacres and 4 feuds.

It's possible to get a feud back to back, or at least I remember getting pissed over them happening that way for us.

[Bulwarked]

Ah yeah, I had an extra one after the post feud massacre. My fault. either way, I was just trying to say that you should be able to (kinda) guess when the feud is about to happen.

It's possible to get a feud back to back, or at least I remember getting pissed over them happening that way for us.

This has never happened for me, I don't think it's possible.

[Nillo]

It's possible to get a feud back to back, or at least I remember getting pissed over them happening that way for us.

I think you're imagining things here.
The feud phase always ends with a massacre (#1 in my example) and that one will never trigger a new feud, but the one after that (#2) may trigger feud (which may appear to be "back to back").

[Deleted]

Ah yeah, I had an extra one after the post feud massacre. My fault. either way, I was just trying to say that you should be able to (kinda) guess when the feud is about to happen.

This has never happened for me, I don't think it's possible.

Regardless of whether I'm right or not about back to back feuds you can't be 100% sure when it will happen - you can predict to some extent with a bit of accuracy, but not enough to plan ahead with cooldowns on it.

I think you're imagining things here.
The feud phase always ends with a massacre (#1 in my example) and that one will never trigger a new feud, but the one after that (#2) may trigger feud (which may appear to be "back to back").

Point. I have not played for 2 months, forgot the feud ends with a massacre. I meant the next one, not one ending feud phase.

[Deleted]

I was trying to track whether the first feud was always after 3 massacres but I lost interest

With a probability based mechanic chances are it just seems like they are always after 3 the first time then 2-3 massacres per feud thereafter.

[Nillo]

I was trying to track whether the first feud was always after 3 massacres but I lost interest

With a probability based mechanic chances are it just seems like they are always after 3 the first time then 2-3 massacres per feud thereafter.

Nope (unless they changed that sometimes) the first feud may also happen after the 2nd massacre, but then I haven't seen a 2 massacre feud at the start for a few weeks.

[Deleted]

Yeah I thought I might have been mistaken.

[Tech11]

This has never happened for me, I don't think it's possible.

Yeah it is possible,

here's how the massacre "works".

1st no chance of feud.

2nd 50% chance of feud

if no feud happend, 100% chance

massacre as feud ends -

1st (after feud) 50% of feud

2nd if no feud already happened. 100%

etc.

the only time feud never happens after massacre is, the first massacre and the massacre that happens a second after Feud.

Also, feud ONLY happens if the boss has Double Attack buff while he is casting massacre. Check it out

[Deleted]

I'm not sure if you just skimmed over what was said above as you have effectively just repeated it.