Glacia passive reads "monster gains a shield when inflicting debuffs". As you can see in the video at 8th second she casts her ult and gains shield despite not inflicting any debuff on any of heros (as they all protected by Debuff immunity from Phaessa). She does apply Stun on Journ, however Stun is Control not Debuff so it should not trigger her passive.
Unless again the skill description is missing some crucial part (as flame domain does) ...
#S4 Frost domain bug (why I'm not even surprised)
calm pilot
desert aurora
Dear Traveler,
Thank you for your cooperation, the information you provided has been submitted to the relevant team and we believe it will advance the progress of the verification of the issue. If there is any new information, we will contact you as soon as possible.
desert aurora
Dear Traveler,
Upon reviewing your situation, it appears that your hero was affected by the [Entangled Vine] debuff. This triggered the Boss's passive skill effect. Please note that [Entangled Vine] is not classified as a Control effect.
We understand how this might be confusing and appreciate your attention to detail. We are grateful for your support and understanding. If you have any further questions, please contact us.
calm pilot
Dear Traveler,
Upon reviewing your situation, it appears that your hero was af...
Ok, Entangled vine is debuff, roger that. In that case it should not be applied since my heroes had Debuff immunity. It is a bug.
river jacinth
besides, if entangled vine is supposed to be a debuff instead of a control, the icon color is misleading. (even tho "entangle" should naturally be a control just by its name)
debuff = red icon
control = purple icon
buff = blue icon
so either way, theres something wrong going on
desert aurora
Dear Traveler,
To clarify, Stun is control effect rather than a debuff. Phaessa's skill provides Debuff Immunity, which does not protect against Stun. You can verify this by checking the lord information on the main screen of Frost Domain, where it suggests using heroes with "Control Immunity" abilities to counter such effects.
We appreciate your understanding and support. If you have any further questions or need additional assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us.
errant slate
this is getting more and more confusing
light swift
calm pilot
Dear Traveler,
To clarify, Stun is control effect rather than a debuff. Phaess...
Yes Stun is a debuff. As such it should not trigger boss passive ability. Yet it does.
Here's proof. I apply Control immunity before ult - no Stun is applied and no shield for boss.
And the opposite situation. Control immunity from Elmister runs out before Entanglement ends. And as soon as my heroes get hit by Stun boss gets shield.
And finally lets discus "Entagled Vine" ability. It is not blocked neither by Debuff immunity (the very first video shows that) nor by Control immunity (the later two videos). So what it is? So according to game rules it is neither debuff nor control. What it is then?
desert aurora
Dear Traveler, thank you for your patience. I'll forward your case to our dev team and they will do their best to work on your case. I'll get back to you as soon as the result comes back.
desert aurora
Dear Traveler,
After verification, the damage effect of Entangled Vine is classified as a special buff (indicated by a gold frame) and does not trigger the boss's passive skill. The passive skill includes negative states such as debuffs and control. Therefore, we recommend using heroes with "Control Immunity" skills when challenging this dungeon.
Thank you for your understanding.
calm pilot
Dear Traveler,
After verification, the damage effect of Entangled Vine is class...
Very well, in that case you need to update passive skill description as now it says it triggers on debuffs while as you said it triggers on debuffs and control.
desert aurora
Dear traveler,rest assured, we have taken note of your issue and escalated it to our team for examination. Your patience is highly appreciated, and we'll keep you informed once we have an update.
hallow portal
That is quite a significant change to be just a "documentation issue". But now it seems it will be passed off as a documentation issue rather than correcting the actual problem....