Enchantment bugs and Buff Slots

Hey everybody!

I wanted to provide an update to this topic:

With the ZG enchantments coming out, we noticed that a few of those enchantments suffered from a similar bug to the one preventing Devilsaur Armor from granting +2% hit (which we fixed in September). In particular, the Zandalar Signet of Might wasn’t granting its +30 attack power when applied to the Highlander’s Leather Shoulders, which also have +30 attack power. We have a fix ready to deploy with next week’s maintenance to make these enchantments provide the value they were intended to, even when applied to items with the same effect built in.

We also noticed that our first round of enchantment fixes to prevent enchantments from consuming buff slots missed some of the enchantments that could be flagged to avoid consuming buff slots. The powerful ZG enchants, and “Arcanum” enchants are among these, and we also have a hotfix to keep these from consuming buff slots, which will also be out by next week’s maintenance.

There may be some enchantments whose effects are complex enough that they can’t be marked passive, but we’ll do our best to mark any passive that can be, so they won’t consume a helpful buff slot.

We hope this helps players who stack buffs and recently discovered that their ZG enchant was pushing off a buff. We’ve seen that some players enjoy buff stacking, and we don’t want the ZG enchants to be a power-loss trap that you can’t fix without replacing the gear.


10-4, chief

Thank god.

1 Like

If you do make TBC classic, can you just forgo the buff and debuff limitations? They don’t really add anything to the gameplay in the first place, and end up having consistent problems anyway. Also, no need to include extra strength batching and leeway.


Stop making sense. You will offend the blues.

I’m afraid to ask a question that may bring about a negative course of action so I’ll just say bravo Blizz. Thank you.

1 Like

I’ve already made enough sense to offend the blues on more than one occasion.

They don’t even like implied criticism.

Even retail uses the same leeway classic does, but i think (not 100% positive)
that by late TBC batching had gotten tighter.

Maybe what all they learn through the course of classic will help them avoid problems that they have run into here when they do TBC.
Can hope anyways.

Anyone who believes this is a possibility is probably suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

They’re not even making mistakes. They just being lazy and refusing to invest money or development time into this project.

The best hope I have is that they’re SO lazy that they don’t bother making any of the bespoke recreations of the technical limitations of early WoW.


What about Warrior stances consuming a buff slot? Can we have that one looked at as well?


Quoting from the blue post mentioning Arcanums from before:

There are still some enchantments occupying helpful slots – notably, the Arcanum enchants that will come from Dire Maul and other enchantments that are applied via item rather than via the enchanting profession. This was the case in our 1.12 reference.

That bluepost and now this one suggest 2 different behaviors from the same 1.12 reference client. Could you please explain what happened and why you are now hotfixing it? You claim that you “missed” it as if you forgot to check it against the reference, but it was clearly mentioned before.


This helps explain why I’m randomly losing buffs in BWL if I pop any cooldowns, despite my buff tracker saying I’m under the cap.

Does this mean Elemental Sharpening Stones will no longer count as a buff slot?


The only mistake here is listening to you.

1 Like

And what of the blasted lands buffs and zanza potions overriding each other?


Dude, obvious expansion things aside, doing TBC is going to be extremely similar to having done classic.
A lot of things they had to find solutions to will probably be directly useful
going forward.

It is not supposed to be a big development project.
If nothing else, the investors would probably have a big push back on that
I doubt that they have any super thrilling feelings about classic, or tbc

Read it carefully:

They knew the arcanums were not working properly, but their first round of fixes didn’t actually fix the arcanums.

I mean, it’s an astounding level of incompetence to have gone this long without noticing the fix they came up with did not fix the thing they specifically mentioned, but it’s not exactly inconsistent with what they’ve said, per se.

1 Like

And nobody is really asking for classic to be a big development project except the classic+ folks.

I’m saying almost NO resources are being used here. A little love from the devs would go a looooong way.

I agree that doing TBC is going to be extremely similar to having done classic in that we’ll see the project neglected again.

1 Like

Yes, that seems incorrect, should be a passive

Wouldn’t that be normal?
I dont know, im just asking

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you quit making assumptions like you’re speaking for the entire community?