Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding about the Hemo debuff is that it is NOT multiplied by weapon damage multipliers, although it does crit when the attack that consumed it crits.

In other words, by my understanding, if an attack deals X damage (before armor) to a target without the Hemo debuff present, and the crit modifier is M, then:

regular hit damage w/ Hemo debuff = X + 42
critical hit damage w/ Hemo debuff = X + 42*M
glancing hit damage w/ Hemo debuff = X + 42*0.75 (guessing here)

Perhaps you know something I don't know, but I haven't noticed any discussion about this recently on any of the EJ threads so I don't think there has been any change on consensus here. Have you actually tested this?

Well, the way it was implemented before, it was just tacking it on (not even critting). IE,

hit = X + 42
crit (as implemented) = X*M + 42
crit (as behaves) (X+42)*M

I don't think that is right as implemented, so at least that part should be fixed.

Now, I *thought* it applied to other attacks as well, but you two think otherwise. I don't remember where I saw this, and I can't find it now. Do you have a reference one way or the other?

In any case, it is simple enough to move the 42 back out so that it is just affected by crit but not by other multipliers. Since that is consensus, I will do that.

I can't find where this boosting occurs... In fact, I tried changing mob armor on the Talents sheet and saw that it has no affect whatsoever on the SnD/Rupt Mutilate cycles. It simply wasn't in the equation at all, boosting or otherwise.

This means that I still think it wasn't weighting instant and SnD damage properly versus Evis. and Rupture damage. Still, it's good to know the only issue is what cycle was selected, not what the actual damage output was. So, it could be selecting you a suboptimal cycle based on incorrectly weighted damage, but at least it isn't messing up the DPS of the cycle that got selected.

Yes, and I agree with you here. I used X and M in a confusing way on my last post, so ignore it for now. If a hit does X+42, then a crit should definitely do (X+42)*M, so I agree with you.

Actually DMM agreed with you, not me. (You must have misread his post.) Since I'm in the minority, go ahead and leave it as you had it. I'll try to run some tests on my own to see if I can conclude the same thing just to be safe.

I guess I have one question...

Are you talking about the "+420*(1+raidcrit)*debuffon"?

That is the code for the hemo debuff estimate and should not be doubled on a crit (note the raidcrit multiplier already included).
The actual Hemo debuff (if active) is already added to the base weapon damage on the Gear _ Buffs sheet, and as such gets any and all multipliers automatically and unseen.

I'm actually referring only to the finisher damage calculations that are currently in the upper-left corner of the Buffed and Unbuffed Cycles sheets. There is a table there which seems to apply Hemo to finishers by just tacking it on the end. I modified these equations somewhat to apply damage multipliers to Hemo differently. IE, now things like Serrated Blades and Aggression apply also to the Hemo debuff for a Rupture or Eviscerate finisher, respectively.

I did not apply Hemo to the instants or anything like that, and the equations I'm using as a model seem to account for not double-dipping via the Hemo Debuff Estimate box.

After some testing, I've come back to my original claim that the 42 damage from the Hemo debuff is not multiplied by any weapon damage modifiers. Here are my numbers:

Weapon: [Club]
Target: Servant of Grol, level 54
Debuff: 5-pt improved EA, which reduces armor by 3075. I believe this brings this mob to zero armor. Can anyone confirm that this mob has less than 3075 armor? When I use Kick when he has a 5-pt EA on him (and no Hemo debuff), it does 135 damage (hit not crit). How can Kick do more damage than its tooltip claims? Am I missing something here?

I also have 5/5 sinister calling, so my Hemo does 120% weapon damage, not 110%.

Hemo HIT without Hemo debuff present = 422-423
Hemo HIT with Hemo debuff present = 465-7

The difference is in the ballpark of 42. If it was getting multiplied by 120%, it should be closer to 50.

Ghostly Strike HIT without Hemo debuff present = 350-1
Ghostly Strike HIT with Hemo debuff present = 391-4

Here again, it's in the ballpark of 42. Ghostly Strike is 125%, so it should be around 52-53 difference if it was getting multiplied.

Now let's check crits. I have 2/5 Lethality, and no RED meta gem equipped, and no mace specialization, so my crit modifier for Hemo and Ghostly should be 212%.

Hemo CRIT without Hemo debuff present = 919
Hemo CRIT with Hemo debuff present = 1009-11

The difference is in the ballpark of 42*2.12=89. If it was getting multiplied by 120%, it should be closer to 107.

Ghostly Strike CRIT without Hemo debuff present = 759
Ghostly Strike CRIT with Hemo debuff present = 852

Here again, it's in the ballpark of 89. Ghostly Strike is 125%, so it should be around 111 difference if it was getting multiplied.

Murder and Dirty Deeds should bring a 110-damage kick up to 134-135 damage. This also implies that your hemo debuff was not increased by Dirty Deeds, though Murder contributing 2% of 42 would be small enough to get lost in the rounding.

Hmm...something must have changed since the PTR, maybe when they made Hemo be affected by Hemo.

Rupture does NOT consume Hemo and does not receive any benefit from it. (I tested this as well while I was in Blasted Lands.) I believe only instant damage attacks can consume Hemo, not bleed effects, so this makes sense.

As for Eviscerate, my guess is it's also increased by 42, although I didn't test it at the time. However, I can't think of any other possibly way Blizzard could have designed it.

Another quick item. I don't think this affects anything, but the "DPS" cell in the red block on the "Buffed Cycles" sheet doesn't pull from the correct location for Mutilate cycles. The current formula is:

However, cell J283 is "Number of Finishers". Mutilate "DPS" is the next cell over - K283. Thus, the corrected cell formula would be:

Like I said, I don't think this cell is actually used elsewhere, so it's probably not a big deal. Also, if/when we go to the new cycle setup, this cell formula will be changing anyway, so fixing it may be low priority.