I tested out the HOJ triple swing bug

yes, cuz the Guide to Reckoning that you posted earlier, I chatted with the author - so posting yet again what Baconn wrote:

<Reverends of Swagger>
120 Human Paladin23205315 posts

Aug 28, 2018 (Edited)1

Got linked over to this post from I assume Theloras, and I can shed a little light on Reckoning. Some of the info from my 14 year old guide was a little out-of-date: IIRC when the sticky dropped I stopped updating the guide.

Normally if you’re sitting down you would not get Reckoning charges from auto-attacks. However, you could gain charges from random NPCs by constantly sitting and standing up due to server lag: mob would try to attack you as your were sitting, so it’d be a forced crit. However, if you stood up just as you were getting hit, the server would see you as if you were standing and get a Reckoning charge.

In regards to the free hit. Im not sure how many times i have told you blizzard changed ther 1.12 behavious of crit reactive procs not proccing from /sit. They dont want it in this version of the game - quote whoever you want from whatever timeline youd like - the dont want it in Classic

Lets try again shall we.

One more time? Creating a workaround to their fix is still exploiting something if they dont want it in the game.


So you’re telling me the sit/stand thing WAS in vanilla? Why did I ever humor the possibility these numb skulls knew what they were talking about and not just over reacting to a video they saw.

no one ever said it wasnt.

They patched it in vanilla to fix it, but this guy is pointing out that there was a way around it using spell batching.


ding ding ding

and again, Seal Twisting during TBC should not have existed, yet it did due to Spell Batching and no Blood Elf Paladin was ever banned for “Creative use of Game Mechanics”

not if the mechanic exists in the 1.12 reference client (which it does) lol


1 Like

And this is where I disagree with you. These guys are intentionally finding a work around that blizz themselves stated they did not want in the game. It should not be allowed. Period.

1 Like

it existed in 1.12 Vanilla due to spell batching - just using /sit doesn’t work

originally published on warcraft movies on 2006-02-24

Yeah, I get that it existed, that’s not up for debate. But what we have here is a clear cut to the T definition of exploit. Someone found a work around to a fix that blizz put in. That’s an exploit. It can either be patched out and fixed, or you can claim warts and all and blizz can instead just ban the people for exploiting.

cmon dude, on paper Seal Twisting should not have existed at all - but it did and no one ever got banned for the entirety of The Burning Crusade expansion - same with Totem Twisting

Yet Seal Twisting is again not what’s being discussed here and never had action directly taken by blizzard to try and counter it.

Edit: We’re not talking about spell batching being abused to do gimmicky things, we’re talking about spell batching being abused to specifically abuse and work around a fix for something blizzard attempted to correct.


neither did using spell batching to gain reck charges in Vanilla

I have spoken

Oh please, you’re just being intentionally obtuse at this point. Blizzard attempted to fix reck charges being gained by /sit, people found a way around that by abusing spell batching. That doesn’t change the fact that blizzard tried to stop the /sit reck charges.

According to that post it was possible to do the /sit /stand in vanilla.

1 Like

does the mechanic exist on the 1.12 reference client or not?

answer is yes = therefore not a bug and not an exploit

that is the standard the devs have set for classic


if you don’t like playing a game with spell batching then perhaps retail is more for you

1 Like

ding ding ding

Sorry for asking something that probably has been covered to death (i’ve been off the forums for a week or so) – but what is the bug exactly in specific to Fury warriors?

Yes, it was, and Blizzard tried fixing it, but people exploited and found a loop hole. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s an exploit.

And now you want to claim that because something exists in the reference client it can’t be a bug/exploit? OH boy does the bug forum have a nice long list of things for you to take a look at.

1 Like