Cast Zealotry attacked champ w/ a Pounce but didn't get the bounty hunter perk. Attack chain increased so it definitely counted as an attack. Too many Firking bugs in this game. It's so annoying. Mods don't even reply.
What champ used pounce? Did it hit multiple champions? What champions did it hit? Did the champion have it base or get it from some other source such as Boundless Enthusiasm?
Despite increasing the attack chain, I don't think Pounce counts as an attack. The tooltip only says it deals damage to all adjacent enemy units, not that an attack takes place. It's always been that way for as long as I can remember. It won't count as an attack with the Impatient skill either, if you just Pounce on someone, you still take the five damage at the end of the turn. Whether it should be that way or not is up to debate, though, I guess.
@moodudu is correct, this is WAI as Pounce is not an attack but a relocation ability with a damage component
I can see why you would say that from a design perspective and to some extent I agree. The entire attack vs non attack abilities is a bit messy and something I am planning on phasing out. Another part of the issue is that an ability can't be two types. From a technical perspective the AP increment as it is called is an independent control on ANY ability in reality and is not specifically tied to attacks. And a long time ago (before I was a dev even) pounce was merged in this manner. I remember myself doing the Pounce + Basic thing with Lonx Ambusher once upon a time.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Pox has 3 different kinds of activated abilities as it relates to attacks: Basic Attacks Non-Basic Attacks Non Attacks The problem with Pounce is that it is the last category, it is not, in the strictest sense, an attack because it's primary mode is relocation, and it happens to have a damage component after the champion relocates. It doesn't trigger on-attack things such as block or dodge, etc. Now, the so-called "attack chain" isn't really an attack chain so much as an AP increment for certain abilities - either they are tied to this increment system or not. Traditionally, it has been used for things that are attacks. The problem with Pounce is that since it isn't classified as an attack, you can argue it shouldn't increment this attack chain. On the other hand, everything that does damage actively like this IS on the "attack chain." That's just been the rule. So it is kind of a contradictory situation. One approach is to slowly phase out the things that key off "attack" as it has always been ambigious to what constitutes an attack and try and keep everything to be either basic attack or all abilities instead - this distinction is quite clear and not ambiguous at all. One problem with this is that we have stuff like Throw Javelin and such which makes sense as an attack, but also isn't basic. In this specific case, Bounty Hunter should either trigger off basic attacks, or ANY damage (activated, passive, attacks, non-attacks, all of it) that the champion does. And that'd make it super clear as to when it should, or should not, trigger (though that doesn't help with the Pounce question).
By "area attack", I meant that it's similar to a cone. Pounce is like a cone with a radius of 1 that deals 100% of the champion's DMG, except that it only damages enemy champions and the champion also relocates to the center of the cone. Cones are on the attack chain and don't trigger on-attack effects, so it makes sense for Pounce to also be on the attack chain while not triggering on-attack effects, unless the argument is that cones should not be on the attack chain.
Oh, you are right about that. I am just acknowledging that there is a valid thinking process that says something commonly called "the attack chain" is something that is incremented by attacks.
Thanks for the detailed response, Sokolov. Hopefully wordings can be refined soon. Another thing you may want to look at is the word "hit". One would assume that means attack, but damage auras will trigger Leech Vitality, which seems to piss a lot of people off. Rightly so.
