haha

"This is where Taunt comes in. The Warrior Taunt immediately places you at 100% aggro of whoever the highest-Threat player is on the target list for that creature. It also bypasses the 10% rule and does not require you build immediate threat. When tanking, it may be helpful to remember that you can let any player you want build Threat for you on a mob -- all you have to do is Taunt the mob to get everything they worked for and make the mob yours. This is also a good argument for Improved Taunt.

One important note about Threat gained from Taunt is that you will only gain the Threat of the current target of your creature. For instance, a ranged class such as a Mage may have 120% of your accumulated Threat, but due to the 100/110/130 rule has not pulled aggro. You would not receive the Threat bonus from that Mage for using your Taunt prior to him actually being targeted by the creature. If a creature is applying a Secondary or Random-Secondary ability where he temporarily changes targets to someone else -- disregarding his normal Threat table -- you will not gain the Threat of the player he is targeting."

From 0.5.2:

This is a little confusing and I would suggest rewording the first sentence, since there is a contradiction, or at least not full clarity.

1: The Warrior Taunt immediately places you at 100% aggro of whoever the highest-Threat player is on the target list for that creature.

Contradicting: One important note about Threat gained from Taunt is that you will only gain the Threat of the current target of your creature.

Solution: "The Warrior Taunt immediately places you at 100% aggro of the mob's current target, unless that target ..."blah blah, to deal with the final sentence of the paragraph.

As I am beginning to level myself a Warrior with end-game tanking aspirations for my guild, I would like to thank everyone who has participated in the creation and refinement of this guide. Cider in particular, for writing it all down. I feel immensely more informed than before and am sure I'll be back here many more times. Thank you all for the work, thought and effort you put into this to make the rest of the community better! :D


~ Ent

sweet

---

Q u o t e:


Okay that makes more sense to me. At which point I have to question Cider's commitment to stamina as the attribut warriors should primarily seek. I ask which is better, 2k stamina, or pushing crushing off the table? He says it's to eliminate as many spikes, but I think your health will be so much more stable if instead of spikes being caused by three crushing in a row, every hit you take is a block.

---

Since it seems that you are going to remain a level 60 twink, we can ignore the fact that becoming un-critable, at level 70, is exceeedingly simple.

Prior to TBC, a good lot of us got together and created a timeline type comparison of HP:Def
5000hp:400def
5500hp:430def
6000hp:440def

These numbers were all fairly organic in that attainable drops pre-MC could attain level 1, in MC level 2 and pre-Naxx level 3. Prior to entering Naxx, becoming uncritable was nearly impossible. Of course, once meeting 440def, then you stack the hell outta stam, but that should go without saying.

If you are in TBC, 490 def should be attained prior to hitting level 70, its just that easy.

/edit hrrmm, I still display as level 60 too. Well anyways, in TBC, there is no excuse to be crittable.

I am Left handed, and i would like do ADD some things on the key bindings part, about using the left hand to control the warrior !

Ex: Using the model

Q W E R T
A S D F G

instead of using T and G for important skils, it is better for left handed people, to use Q and A.
T and G only for less important skils !

I am studing more about how do make it easier for left handed people to play, if it is of any interest here in this topic, i can write more about it !

hi

---

Q u o t e:


Okay that makes more sense to me. At which point I have to question Cider's commitment to stamina as the attribut warriors should primarily seek. I ask which is better, 2k stamina, or pushing crushing off the table? He says it's to eliminate as many spikes, but I think your health will be so much more stable if instead of spikes being caused by three crushing in a row, every hit you take is a block.

/edit addition: ps I think you meant that after miss/dodge/parry/block/crit 15% of attacks will be crushing blows from a level 73+. small difference in launguage, big difference in what you'd see.

incorrect: for instance, following that statement, out of 100 attacks 90 are misses/dodged/parried/blocked/crits then 1.5 attacks (15% of the 10 attacks remaining) would be crushing blows.

as opposed to what I think is actually the case: 100 attacks, 90 are misses/dodged/parried/blocked/crits then the remaining 10% will be crushing blows. (the remaining 5% crushing has been pushed off the table.

a rather dramatic difference. I believe that's true since ~7% of hits I take vs a 73 boss is crushing. and I definately miss/dodge/parry/block more than ~53% of incoming attacks. (47%* 15% = 7%.)

---

Sorry, but I don't think I follow you. If you avoid 90 out of 100 attacks in some way, each one of those that doesn't get avoided has a 15% chance to crush. Based on what I'm getting from you, the remaining 10 attacks would all be crushing. That means you never take a normal hit? Please correct me if I'm interpreting what you're saying wrong.

Regardless, there is more than simply avoiding Crushing Blows. Most bosses have some type of special attack (Breath, Maul, etc) which hits very hard but cannot crush or crit because it is a special. These are the things make Stamina more important than avoidance in terms of minimizing spike damage. Avoidance comes more into play as allowing healers extra time to breathe. For instance, Maul hits you for 10k and you get hit right away for 4k - no crits, but still heavy burst damage. Health and avoidance help in surviving these situations, health more reliably so. Not to mention, stamina is your only magical defense attained from gear.

The bottom line is that you will be crushed in most boss encounters, even with extremely high avoidance. At that point the health you sacrificed just to minimize crushing blows (which are already fairly minimal from the avoidance you get from typical gear upgrades) makes keeping you alive much more difficult.

Essentially what I'm saying is that, putting these things in the practical perspective of making gear and gem choices, a lot of the gear meant to endure boss fights comes with heavy avoidance, stamina, and armor. Pick those pieces for raiding (Bold, Felsteel, Timekeeper's, Bracers of the Green Fortress, etc.) and use primarily 12 stamina gems. Looking at my own gear, I could use some more avoidance, maybe 2 or 3 more percent total, and obviously more armor. However, I have a very nice cushion of health. I'm not going to get crushed much more than someone with 6% more avoidance, but through my gem choices I have a reliably large cushion of health that makes taking crushing blows and hard hitting specials easier when they do happen.

Balance is key.

Interesting armoury there cider =P

TF and an offhand item <3

Wow, that is a lot of great information.. escpecially the macros. Thanks for the time put in to do it.

I was wondering what people think of the thunderclap talents. I always thought the extra 10% slow especially in an initial charge against a group is worthwhile. Am I wrong on that?

---

Q u o t e:

Note that there are significant Diminishing Returns on Mitigation; as you gain each new point of Armor, each point provides a smaller net benefit in terms of mitigation.

However, in the words of Satrina, "Mitigation is subject to diminishing returns, but Armor is not." What this means is, Armor provides a linear increase to lifespan, if not mitigation.

To better understand this, use the following examples Satrina used:

Q u o t e:
1) I have 3000 armour and 5000 hitpoints. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 38.64 seconds Now I will add 1000 armour, giving me 4000 armour. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 43.18 seconds Adding 1000 armour increased my time to live by 4.54 seconds.

2) I have 6000 armour and 5000 hitpoints. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 52.27 seconds Now I will add 1000 armour, giving me 7000 armour. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 56.82 seconds Adding 1000 armour increased my time to live by 4.55 seconds.

3) I have 10000 armour and 5000 hitpoints. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 70.45 seconds Now I will add 1000 armour, giving me 11000 armour. Against a level 60 opponent that deals 200 damage per second I will live for 75.00 seconds Adding 1000 armour increased my time to live by 4.55 seconds.

---

I think there is a big misconception about diminishing return on armor. In fact a lot of ppl b/c of this doesnt even think there's diminishing return. Mitigation is about percentage. What percet of the overall damage are you mitgating. In this table yes it shows that 1000 increase in armor will increase your time to live by the same amount at any level of armor you have. But thats not really the important factor in this table.

The main thing that shows diminishing return is that in example 1 at 3000 armor you live for 38.64 seconds, an increase of 1000 armor increase your time to live by 4.55 seconds. What this means is 1000 armor will increase your survival time by 11.8%

Copmare to example 2 at 6000 armor you live for 52.27 seconds with an increase armor of 1000 you will still only live 4.5 seconds. The increase of 1000 armor this time only increase your survival by 8.7%

Furthermore, at 10,000 armor you live for 70.45 seconds and an extra 1000 armor give u still 4.55 seconds, an increase survival of 6.5%.

Stats and numbers are important but its also important to understand what they mean. A lot of ppl got the wrong idea that since the survival time increase at the same amount they dont think it has diminishing return. If there werent any diminishing return from increasing armor, then every 1000 armor should increase the same amount of survival percentage. Meaning in example 2 and 3 your survival time should have been increase by 11.8%, not 8.7 and 6.5.

What this all means is that from example 1, adding 1000 armowhen you only have 3000 armorr gives u better benefit (11.8% time to live longer) than adding 1000 armor when you already have 10,000 armor only giving you 6.5% time to live longer. Clearly it benefits more to add 1000 armor at the low armor than at the high armor. As yoour armor gets higher and higher, lets say you have amror high enough to allow you to survival for 40,000 seconds, adding 1000 armor at that point will still only let u live 4.5 seconds longer, a very very minor increase compare how long u can already live.

Great Post, some minor flaws but thats not to be not expected in such a long post.

tainted, check this link on the subject of armor http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=91629683&postId=915424084&sid=1