They don't have to change the way Taunt works to change the way it affects an encounter. They already have the capability to make a 2nd list on a mob as evidenced by Patchwerk. All they would have to do is apply the same coding to the Four Horsemen and change the variables of how the list works.From a logical point of view, whats the most likely: Blizzard changing the entire mechanic for one single encounter even tho most of what you said was adressed and explained by the new Taunt implementation. OR Lag/changing debuffs pushing off a mocking blow icon while the mob is still under its effect and therefore messing up Taunt OR What I like to call human error.
It still has a high probability of running after the other tank if you Taunt after the Mocking Blow icon wears off so it has absolutely nothing to do with the interaction of Mocking Blow and Taunt.
Also 'high probability' and 'absolutely nothing' in the same sentence <shiver>
I assume you went and tested this in between my post and your last response?
Casting "Taunt" puts on you on the list which is 1 person long. The next person to cast "Taunt" would take your place on the list. It's pretty simple, guarantees smooth transitions for the encounter, and doesn't require them "changing the entire mechanic".
And yes, I do think it's logical that they would do that. On an encounter where an unsuccessful swap can wipe a raid, it makes sense to add in coding that prevents that from happening. This addresses the agro aspect of the swap, the only problem is that they didn't implement the +chance to hit for Taunt to prevent Resists in which case the encounter would've worked perfectly.
I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with high probability and absolutely nothing in the same sentence.. It doesn't always happen so it's simply a high probability of happening and it happens regardless of when you cast Taunt and Mocking Blow so there is absolutely no correlation between the two. Maybe you speak another form of English?