sdrf
- xendon
- xendon
- Asia/Baghdad
- Yes
- No
MC-8827
This is a problem because chain can be changed when executing and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment. :: The second screenshot shows workaround with using setblock clock.
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
This is a problem because chain can be changed when executing and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment. ::The second screenshot shows workaround with using setblock clock.
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.This is a problem because chain can be changed when executing and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment.
The second screenshot shows workaround with using setblock clock.
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
This is a problem because chain can be changed when executing and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment.
The secondscreenshot shows workaround with using setblock clock.
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.This is a problem because chain can be changed when executing and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment.
This
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
This is a problem because chain can be changed
whenexecutingand expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.Examples are in attachment.
This
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.This is a problem because chain can be changed during execution and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick.
Examples are in attachment.
This
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
This is a problem because chain can be changed during execution and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick, after the chain executes.
Examples are in attachment.
This
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
This is a problem because chain can be changed during execution and expectation is that the changes made should be accounted in the next tick
, after the chain executes.Examples are in attachment.
This
I'm not sure that this isn't intended but it is certainly not expected.
It doesn't have to be determined on the go. I expected it to be determined after the chain executes and I thought it was clear from bug description.
Sadly it's intended to work this way but I still think this should be changed.
And I think it's important that conditionality should be saved only when using Ctrl unlike wool which color is saved regardless of using Ctrl and that makes sense for wool but would be annoying for command blocks.