Talk:Warrior tactics

How about, instead of forcing warriors into one role, tactics for fitting into a party regardless of what role a warrior specs him/herself around. Seems to me to be a more productive course than belligerantly bellowing "YOU WILL TANK AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!" Constanz 12:30, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

For that matter, the condescending tone of the "how to help a..." section needs a serious rewrite. As a warrior, I am NOT an accessory for your character, and I resent being treated as such. Constanz 12:52, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

Page too big; there seems no need for tactics relating to individual abilities to be placed in a bit list here - this just massively bloats the page, and duplicates info. Am moving the actual tips for each ability to the Tips and Tactics section of each ability's own page. Vrisch 05:33, 23 March 2006 (EST)
 * agreeable, seems better to move the info to the individual skills / talents themselves though: Warrior talents | Warrior abilities. imo at least. either way i'll probably end up moving that info to those pages later, since the skills are mostly stubbed right now still. Feel free to start on it though :) i've been picking up way too much to "be done" lately. CJ 05:40, 23 March 2006 (EST)

Embarrassing
These sections about how to play a character are embarrassing. They are full of typos, awful grammar, hideous spelling, the list goes on. Plus, what is written "correctly" reads terribly. It reads eerily similar to reports written by high school students trying to "sound" professional and having no idea whatsoever what they are writing.

Furthermore, the section on Tanking reads as if written by a Priest. Warriors are very capable of dealing high amounts of damage. People who read this may be turned off from this class because they have interpreted one's opinion or play style as fact. While tanking is important, this is not a personal BBS or website, and the information presented should be neutral. Statements such as "Please don't try to compete with the rogue or the mage or the, well anyone, as a damage dealer - you Take Damage." are not neutral. This is what I'd expect to read on a guild message board, NOT an "info source" for WoW. This goes for Talent Strategies, too. (Speaking of the Talent section, there is NO information on Warrior talents expect Last Stand, which again provides one's play style and opinion. It does not provide any FACTUAL information, such as which talent tree Last Stand is found in, rage usage, cooldown, etc. It also does not clearly describe how to use said ability, and is extremely difficult to understand what the author is describing, especially to one who has never used the ability, thus defeating the whole point of having it included in the article.)

It is very challenging to provide advise and tips without personal commentary. The Warrior tactics page is full of one or more persons opinions or play styles. WoW and similar MMO's strengths come from the nearly endless options available to the players through talents, spells, abilities, talent points, weapons, armor and the player's personality. In many games, there is one way to play: Stomp the Goomba or he kills you. In WoW, there is much more.

This article, and similar/related articles on play and tactics, should all be removed, as it's clear the authors and editors can not edit in a neutral, factual way, nor in a college level writing style. This article would not pass a college level English course, yet it's been posted to a public encyclopedia. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

Yes, people are doing this in their spare time, and yes, they are not being paid, but when you volunteer to feed the homeless and don't wash your hands before doing so, all you've done is make a bigger mess for someone else to clean up.

For now, I'm leaving the article as-is. One, I don't have the time to clean it up, and two, I don't feel qualified on Warrior tactics to edit this page; I came here looking for some information on the talent trees.

this is prolly not applicable anymore is it? I think I'll remove this post after a while unless you still feel the warr article is "embarrassing"--Shishi 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

spirit
I've added a little note to the PvE solo tactics section about spirit. I feel like this is an unorthodox statement I've made since it is so vastly underestimated by most warriors so I'm adding a defense here before people start reverting/flaming without actually checking things.

Anyone who feels spirit is useless for a warrior should look at the health regeneration article that clearly shows warriors are very exceptional in this area. Of course, you don't regen health at all (normally) while in combat, so yeah it doesn't help while fighting, but that this effectively cuts down on down time is proven by hunter pets. Ask any hunter and they'll tell you how awesome the pets natural high health regen is. Warriors in my opion can at least match that regen. Truth is that more research is needed to be sure of this as I don't know how much health pets regen per spirit (my hunter is very low level) but certain is that warriors can easily increase their spirit, pets can't. --Shishi 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Druids
"In melee combat, A warrior should always beat a druid."

Sounds like the author never had to fight a feral druid specialized into tanking. --Pai 08:29, 5 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Or never dealt with Nature's Grasp from a casting Druid. That is an asinine, somewhat elitist statement.  Dirkbronze 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Defensive Spec'd warriors - a risky but potent strategy is to aggro additional mobs. In defense stance with decent gear, mobs do very little damage, but generate extra rage. The downside is that you can't bandage to heal after a concussion blow."

And this sounds like poorly thought out theorycraft. Letting mobs hit you is in effect giving your opponent a boost in dps equivalent to that of the mobs on you. Unless someone can provide more details and reasons as to how giving opponents a boost in dps is a potent strategy, I'm going to vote for its removal. Ajm 06:36, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Shadow Priest
About Warrior VS Shadow Priest, I think the opposite of what is written (Having played both at 70 to 1900 in arena) a warrior should ALWAYS beat a shadow priest, they can stance dance our fear for the same CD, and can render Mind Flay useless with a carefully timed MS or Whirlwind, I think it should be looked at again. --Shiryo 11:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially now that fear from a SP basically does nothing to anyone....Mind Flay is worthless due to short range and having to stand still...so basically...once we blow our fear...we're dead Acecow 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaman
"Ignore totems, especially if you are arms spec. It is not worth wasting an entire swing of a slow weapon for a crappy totem. They do not cause a great deal of damage, though the earthbind totems are a pain, so long as you have a hamstring on him you are both equally disadvantaged. That swing you could use on a totem is much better off critting him for about 2000 damage than trying to mitigate a few hundred from a fire totem."

^I have to disagree with this...to a point. Warriors have a fantastically great way to take out totems quickly, easily, and cheaply without wasting a big slow swing. Waiting for a white to kill it is a waste yeah... but totems have all of 5 hp if I recall correct. Almost any hit will take them out. That includes a 10 rage, spammable, instant attack we get that deals a tiny bit of damage as a secondary effect. It's called hamstring. Using hamstring you can take down a totem in a second or two. You can actually, if you're really really good, take down two totems between swings of a really slow weapon. Or take down an entire four totem fort in less time than it takes for two whites. Graptor 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea totems have about 5-10 hp...but couldn't you just TC if you're close to a few? Acecow 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thunder clap is a AoE effect, and totems are immune to those. they'd be absolutely useless if they weren't after all.--Shishi 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you cleave them? Acecow 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Previously multi-target and AoE effects would hit totems, but blizzard patched it so they aren't hit by any ability that isn't specifically targeting that totem.  Used to be I could wipe out most of a fort with one whirlwind.  You actually have to target the totem to be able to hit it.  Meaning if you wait for whites, you end up taking on the order of 12 seconds to kill four totems with a slow 2h.  Hamstring fixes that little problem.  Graptor (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of changes
I made lots of changes in most of the tactics, since i found most of the information hopelessly outdated and defeatistic! Any comments and changes would be appreciated!

Rewrite
This article reeks of poor theroycraft, situational advice and long since defunct ideas. I'm going to work on a much more general and sound strategy guide.


 * A rewrite would be much appreciated. Seems as though each section is either "run away--you'll lose" or "you'll always beat this class with mortal strike."  I hate to make assumptions about the author, but he or she doesn't seem to be someone who has played the class enough to understand its nuances.  Dirkbronze 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The paladin, warrior and priest sections definately need some improvements. I personally edited a lot in the rogue/hunter/mage/shaman sections and believe them to be valid tactics in most arena-situations. If anyone disagrees i'd like to discuss it further :) Krigskoen 13:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Added cleanup tag
After reading through this article and reading the comments here, I thought it was appropriate to add the cleanup tag. Any PvP article should have commentary more thought out than "mount up and run away" for facing each opposing class. I also believe that commentary like "one should always beat x class" leads to poor tactics and overconfidence.

There are also a couple of areas of ideas that are at odds with one another. For example, carrying a 2H weapon prevents the warrior from dealing spell interrupts (requiring a shield) at low-levels. Pummel isn't available until 38. So, a warrior that carries a 2H weapon for mortal-strike is vulnerable to casters and cannot interrupt as the article would suggest until level 38.

There seems to be a general mish-mash of high-level and medium-level tactics here. Can that be separated out? Maybe a discussion in the introduction on what a lower-level warrior can expect and cannot do in the following document?

Dirkbronze 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlock Pets
It might be good to note that Warlock pets have 0 resilience. Not sure whether or not to add it or HOW to add it, so I'm leaving it up to the community. Greatcow95 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)