Talk:Warriors as tanks

The correct sequence
I believe that opening with a shield slam instead of revenge, sunder (devastate), shield bash is far more effective. If you have improved bloodrage, you'll be able to slam right away, getting initial threat equal to 4 sunders. Any opinions on this?

Reply to: The correct sequence
Warrior tanking currently is based on a priority system instead of a rotation. Thus any sequences are not really helpful. I will replace the text about the rotation wit the currently existing priority system if no everyone is ok with it.

GronkerLonker (talk) 08:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Taunt
Regarding Taunt:

Taunt DOES generate threat.

Taunt does 2 things and fails to do one more: A) It gives you threat equal to 100% of the current target B) It applies a debuff that forces the mob to attack the Warrior BUT C) It DOES NOT make you the current target for aggro purposes. This means the warrior must have 110% of the original target's threat in order to keep the mob's aggro once the debuff expires.

This is the way Taunt's mechanics have been explained to me on the Warrior Forums, and is also how wowwiki describes it on the page for Taunt:

Warrior Taunt

I agree with the assessment of the writer that Taunt is (mostly) a crutch and the mark of a good tank is that he rarely needs to use it. But I removed the sentences saying it "generates no aggro" because, well, it does.

On a separate note: I'm starting/joining a campaign to standardize the terms "threat" and aggro. To wit: "Threat" is what you generate points of whenever you deal damage to a mob, heal it's current target, hit it with a sunder, etc. "Aggro" is the state of being the mob's current target. I'd like to edit the article to conform to these terms, but I want to air the idea to the wowwiki community before I do a major edit. Thanks.

Reply to Taunt
Not quite correct. Taunt does work as you suggested. However, you have the implications wrong. You are correct about taunt giving you A) 100% threat and B) Taunt giving you aggro. What happens after is this: You have aggro. That pesky Rogue will now have to generate 110% of the threat that YOU have to pull aggro and the ranged DPSers will have to generate 130% threat. This is why Taunt is useful. Ataraxzy 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add one thing: if you taunt a target and stop building up threat (with the other group members stopping dps as well) you'll lose aggro as soon as de taunt debuff expires. Zoarial 1.11 17 January 2008

If the situation allows for a 2h weapon
concedes "if the situation permits a two-handed weapon". When does it not permit?

I have not played a warrior – only a paladin. Ever since I dropped for, I have never consistently wielded a 1-hand weapon. I have picked up my skill in order to test my new 1-h, but that's a heap. Even with the added bonus of defense (using a shield), it's a piece of junk, and I have always wound up taking more damage than if I use my. I can't kill anything quickly. And if I can't do significant damage, I can't take aggro, so I can't tank. So I'm wondering (and probably in the wrong place): how do you do it? But anyways, it seems like a two-hand weapon would be better in all respects than a one-hand, simply because you could kill faster and the priest would not have to heal quite as long.

Does anyone have any light to shed here? Schmidt 19:44, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

In level 60 instances, where the shield makes for a huge increase in armour and damage mitigation. Paladins should be using holy damage with Righteous Fury and Warriors in Defensive Stance to generate aggro, not relying on beating DPS classes at their own game. --Dlanod 23:18, 1 November 2006 (EST)


 * Yeah, when I asked about that, I was a ret noob. I have a paladin now all protection and I know quite a bit more about tanking. It's not just being able to take damage, but to prevent others from taking damage, which of course means developing aggro. I didn't really understand how a warrior could develop aggro using a 1-hand weapon. I guess it's just not having played a warrior, and now I know very well that it's basically impossible to hold aggro on more than one target unless you have a shield and (for paladins) Holy Shield. Schmidt 15:25, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Reply to If the situation allows for a 2h weapon

 * Tanking is another issue for a pally.. since pally can heal themselves and shield. It's more convienant for them to deal damage in order to hold agro and also assist in dps.


 * However warriors without shields (dps) are not very efficient tanks. Espcially since in order to deal damage they often use berserk or blance stances, which don't hold agro as well as defense stance. Also shields reduce the amount of damage taken depending on the total armor value of the warrior at level 60 and his shield and also talents. In PVE progress it's important that healers and damage dealers don't get inturrpted or attacked. Thats why the tanks job is to hold agro and allow the rest of the group/raid to do thier job efficiently. If a warrior hold agro well for 3 mobs while the group is killing the fourth the mobs will go down easy one by one instead of a hectic survival frenzy where mana is waisted and time is lost.


 * The situation permits for a warrior as sometimes there are other players who can function as tanks and are assigned as tanks. It's not important if it's a 5 man or a raid as long as a proper tank is assigned as main tank. However if all things become hectic and MT dies. The DPS warrior need to swap his weapons and equip shield with a hander ASAP and grab control of the situation. Having a shield is very vital in such situations as some of the life saving talents of a warrior is shield wall which requires a shield to be equiped in defense stance. From a personal experince against tiger boss in ZG I was able to contain the situation when thekal main tank died and I had 1 boss and 2 mini bosses agroed for AOE damage, shield wall really allowed me to survive such a hectic moment with so little damage taken.

DW 22:57, 28 July 2006 (EDT) --

Tanking binds and macros
I find it very useful for tanks to be using both mouse binds and macros. I espcially like having the key "1" to swap between balance and def stance. I do not use attack button anymore and moved it to a scluded location in my bar since I find it quite useless.

so just do this, on balance stance put defance stance switch as key 1 and then switch to defense stance and put balance as key 1 also. This allows you yo basically tab between the two stances with ease.

I personally use this macro for charging:

/script CastSpellByName("Charge"); /cast Intercept(Rank 3) /script SpellStopCasting; /script CastSpellByName("Defensive Stance");

adding intercept to the original charge macro is quite useful as sometimes you need to leg a long way in combat and you just need to boost it to there at times. It is quite useful for pvp as well.. charge a mage, shield bash (if u had ur shield on)

right now I am thinking of making a small change ro this. I am trying to find setup where I can tab also into berserk stance but only if needed. --DW 23:14, 28 July 2006 (EDT)


 * These days, the macro could be rewritten as:

/cast [nocombat,stance:0] Charge; [stance:2] Intercept /stopcasting /cast [nostance:1] Defensive Stance
 * Much simpler this way, and more reliable using the new macro conditionals. (If you're in combat in battle stance, this macro won't do anything but switch stances. In berserker stance, it will try to intercept if you have enough rage.) I may have the stance numbers incorrect, but if they're not right as they are, just add 1 to each of the numbers. Personally, for not tanking, I enjoy this macro:

/cast [nocombat] Charge; [combat] Heroic Strike
 * which allows me to use the same button for both in battle stance. Schmidt 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Taunt
What is with this "taunt shouldn't be used" "taunt is a crutch" crap? Havn't any of you heard of pulling with Distracting Shot/Aimed Shot, max rank, and taunting it to get all that threat for yourself? Big deal if the hunter matches your threat initially, they can feign right after you grab aggro and you won't even have to do the 10% extra even if they crit.

Plus, if the mage is critting like crazy and might be nearing the over 30% of your threat pull point, using taunt early will give you the threat needed to stay on top AND you will NOT have to do an extra 10% if it was used before he pulled it off you. Just an extra 0%.

If you're the one pulling so that you don't even need 10% extra threat after a taunt, it because even more useful on managing multiple enemies. If you're tanking 4-5 mobs and it gets hard to keep control, it's easy just to hit taunt on one that you lose, hit one sunder, and forget about it keeping the other ones in line. No need to waste multiple sunders when taunt will push your threat back up in the clear. Remember that casters (and healers) need over 30% of your threat, so when the healer pulls it off you, they've done 130% of your TOTAL threat on a target which might amount to 30% of 3-4 sunders plus your rage generation over that time. Again, if you're the one that pulled, it's a little known fact if you're above everyone else on the threat list that you won't have to deal the extra 10% to get it back. Easy threat from a "crutch" ability.

And last, for those of you who don't use tactical mastery and try to horde rage (and use bloodrage it keep it up while not in combat), this can be used towards the end of combat if you are saving up rage and lose aggro. It's a lot easier to hold aggro by having a lot of rage from the start to heroic strike/sunder spam quickly. If you lose aggro at the end, no big deal, use Concussion Blow or Taunt. Both will work. Go ahead and blow Taunt just in case. I tend to try and do this before a larger pull without enough crowd control to ensure I've more than enough rage to grab and keep aggro of whatever we pull.

Taunt is a utility to those who know how to use it wisely, definately not a crutch by any means.


 * There's a feeling among many in the endgame pve community that using Taunt is a sign of a bad tank. Likely this is caused by an over-reliance on Taunt by bad or uninformed warrior tanks; certainly, if your tank is relying on Taunt because they aren't generating enough threat to hold aggro on 2- or 3-pull groups at the beginning of an instance, you may start looking for a different person to tank your run.


 * Of course, what a lot of people don't like to admit is that poor dps or healing tactics can also cause an overreliance on Taunt. The healer who sneaks a hot on the tank before any damage is taken (or to heal the deficit caused by Blood Rage) is pretty much guaranteed of pulling aggro and forcing a Taunt.  The mage who gets itchy on the Polymorph button and pulls instead of waiting for the tank to pull is going to force a Taunt.  The Assassination rogue who starts off with a Cold Blood Ambush before waiting for 5 sunders is going to force a Taunt.  The shaman who uses frost shock, etc., etc.  (I'm not going to take a side on the Aimed Shot/Taunt initial aggro, but I will say it's not liked by everyone...like me for example. ;)


 * In a smoothly-functioning, well-informed group, a warrior tank will still need to Taunt. Bad pulls happen.  Or maybe you get a string of missed sunders and dps doesn't notice.  But there's still a difference between using Taunt maybe once or twice per pull and using it 5 or 10 times in every pull.  If the former, you don't really have a problem; if the latter, somebody (very possibly the tank) is doing something wrong.--Scrotch 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Devastate
Devastate generates threat, multiplied by the number of sunders - has any work been done to see exactly how efficient this is? Given that it costs more rage than Sunder, one assumes it generates more threat even with 1 sunder?


 * In any case, it does do more damage than 1 sunder--which of course generates more threat in that way, although I suspect it would be negligible compared to the amount of threat everyone else is gaining while dpsing. But why do you want to used Devastate on only one sunder, except for that fact? Schmidt 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hit rate
Till a while back I had problems adjusting to TBC tanking and had alot of problems trying to tank with my warrior (got my mage leveled first so I didnt notice it cause I didnt instance with my warrior).

One that affected me as a tank was hit rate.. it was just unbelivable how it drastically affected the way I tank. Having about 5% hit rate saved me from all my rage troubles and losing agro. Hitrate should be noted in this article to be honest.


 * The latest thinking I've seen indicates that around 60 hit rating (give or take maybe 10) is what an endgame tank needs, I'll add something to that effect. I know for a fact that when I go below 50 holding aggro gets a lot harder.--Scrotch 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First Person
A lot of this article is either cut and pasted from another source (maybe a forum post) or was written from the ground up in the first person voice ("I think that..."). I'm pretty sure that's not accepted in any encyclopedic wiki. I'll be eliminating these as I see them without rewriting the content. If anyone has any objections let me know. Frailgesture 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

agi increases hit%?
There's a reference to agi increasing hit chance...I assume the writer was confusing hit chance and crit chance (otherwise from everything I've ever seen it's just blatantly wrong). I'm going to remove this statement.--Scrotch 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Glyphs
Any experienced tank can write information on the choices of Glyphs for tanking? --SaudiGamer (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)