does twitch poison apply death fire touch?
?
?
No, because his passive is an on-hit effect.
Yeah but you build no ap.
They're increasing the ad ratio on DFT next patch. I might try it
Dot away fellow mtg fan.
I just tested this, and no twitches passive does not apply DFT, but as far as I could tell brands does
And this is because Twitch's passive is an attack effect, rather than a spell effect (yes, he can apply stacks with his W, but that doesn't make it a spell effect). DFT applies with spell damage, and Brand's passive is spell damage because it only happens with spells.
And what about Darius bleed?
Also an attack effect and won't use Deathfire Touch. However, it's a physical damage DoT, so it does apply Black Cleaver, as the only prerequisite to its proc is "physical damage."
Its primary source is basic attacks, so it's an attack effect. Basically how they chose to code these DoTs.
Exactly, its both a spell damage and on-hit and it does not work either
Then explain darius passive. its both an on-hit, and applied by abilites. and DFT does not apply from it either.
Unlike Darius, Twitch's passive only states basic attacks, and then his W states that it applies his passive.
Darius' passive states attacks and damaging abilities.
He has 3 damaging abilities, only 2 of which actually apply spell effects (his Q and R). The primary source of his DoT is basic attacks, so it is treated as an attack effect instead of a spell effect. Rule of majority.
The primary source of his DoT is basic attacks, so it is treated as an attack effect instead of a spell effect. Rule of majority.
This makes no sense at all lol. The majority of how something is applied has no affect on how things work. Thats not how computer logic works at all. You can very well go an entire match of just applying his passive with just Q and R, thus making his AAs the minority and abilities the majority. Thus making your point mute.
The only solution to this is that Darius passive is actually an "On-hit", BUT Q and R apply it, as an added feature.
I was explaining the reason it was coded to function as that, not the programming behind it.
My phrasing could have been better, yes.