Def or Battle Stance in pvp?

Warrior
So I'm getting told by other players to fight in Def stance in Arenas but other than taking less damage, what's the upside? I like fighting in Battle due to the fact I do a ton more damage. What's your intake on it?
it's all situational your healer is cced play by the pillar OR switch to defensive stance until your topped

or use it before your about to take massive crits to the face
oh yeah and IF your caught in a stun without defensive up you'll get annihilated
Defensive stance in 5.1 all the time. 5.2 won't matter because you'll be raged starved to do anything in defensive stance, and you'll die too fast in battle stance to do anything useful.
Yea I understand that, I've bee told to always play in Def. Not sure if that's what Warriors do or what. I still fight in Battle but was just wondering.
Defensive stance does not suffer from the loss of rage since charge, berserker rage, and mortal strike give enough rage for you to do everything. Overpowers are free on globals and free on procs, so you can still give out sustained damage even in battle stance. The only abilities that cost rage are heroic strike, slam, shattering throw, hamstring, and execute. But those are easy to maintain.

Different story in 5.2. Overpower costing 10 rage makes it impossible to stay in defensive stance. It's impossible to keep hamstring up on an enemy while trying to hit them with an overpower & slam. Remove heroic strike from your bars completely. Not worth using it since you're going to be starving and struggling to maintain a decent rage pool... and slam hits way harder and cost less rage. This makes us fight in Battle Stance, which wouldn't be a problem if we had damage reduction, which was removed at the start of the expansion...

So, we take tons of damage in battle stance and that isn't worth it. So, we're pretty much nerfed terribly. Only thing they did for warriors in 5.2 is increase our damage, especially on our bleeds by a ton. But we're still squishy, so we'll get tunneled into the ground.

So, we're gonna suck. But until the next patch, Defensive Stance all the way.
Actually I found defensive stance to be viable in ptr, the reason is because overpowers reduce the cooldown of mortal strike now allowing us faster rage build up.
This doesn't mean you won't be rage starved but its still viable and the 15% less damage taken still makes a notable difference. Not discrediting anything you said but, its not useless as everybody thinks. The slam damage is a great change by the way. The Damage boost it got is amazing and it allows for extremely large hits in the ptr. That said battle stance is going to do more damage but its the same on live... the More rage you have the more slams you can get off.
02/11/2013 06:48 PMPosted by Adios
Defensive stance in 5.1 all the time. 5.2 won't matter because you'll be raged starved to do anything in defensive stance, and you'll die too fast in battle stance to do anything useful.


You mean you will have to choose to use defensive and or be offensive like the rest of us melee? Awwwwwwwwwe!
02/26/2013 09:49 AMPosted by Paníc
You mean you will have to choose to use defensive and or be offensive like the rest of us melee? Awwwwwwwwwe!


Except for the fact that no other melee has to choose between defense and offense, except for maybe DK presences, they just have weak defense. Poping cloak and combat readiness doesn't reduce your damage at all. A warrior already has to make the same choice to either continue to be offensive in DBtS or leap behind a pillar. The only difference between warrior currently and other melee is that warriors have decent passive DR. And honestly if you think stances are actually a choice and not just something you sit in 90% of the time you don't understand them at all.
02/26/2013 10:04 AMPosted by Faust
Except for the fact that no other melee has to choose between defense and offense
Man, those Ret Pallies who have to use Holy Power on WoG instead of TV/Inq lose no DPS at all.

Man, those Rogues who have to burn CP on Recuperate lose no DPS either.

Or those Shaman who have to use MW stacks on healing instead of LB (one of their primary DPS contributors).

Or Ferals who have to lose 2 GCDs for one Healing Touch, and one of them is a full 1.5s GCD since it's out of form.

Yup, no offensive losses at all.
02/26/2013 10:04 AMPosted by Faust
You mean you will have to choose to use defensive and or be offensive like the rest of us melee? Awwwwwwwwwe!


Except for the fact that no other melee has to choose between defense and offense, except for maybe DK presences, they just have weak defense. Poping cloak and combat readiness doesn't reduce your damage at all. A warrior already has to make the same choice to either continue to be offensive in DBtS or leap behind a pillar. The only difference between warrior currently and other melee is that warriors have decent passive DR. And honestly if you think stances are actually a choice and not just something you sit in 90% of the time you don't understand them at all.


True however as we can Vanish Warriors can Sword and board and leap away, intervene. Rogues have virtually no mitigation at all unless we click evasion glyphed 4 seconds before you smash us... Wish we could just have a passive mitigation click on click off.
Man, those Ret Pallies who have to use Holy Power on WoG instead of TV/Inq lose no DPS at all.

Man, those Rogues who have to burn CP on Recuperate lose no DPS either.

Or those Shaman who have to use MW stacks on healing instead of LB (one of their primary DPS contributors).

Or Ferals who have to lose 2 GCDs for one Healing Touch, and one of them is a full 1.5s GCD since it's out of form.

Yup, no offensive losses at all.


Going Dstance in 5.2 won't be comparable to any of those especially with the hybrid healing buffs. Most warriors would be happy for a decent no-cd heal that costs rage.
Defensive stance does not suffer from the loss of rage since charge, berserker rage, and mortal strike give enough rage for you to do everything. Overpowers are free on globals and free on procs, so you can still give out sustained damage even in battle stance. The only abilities that cost rage are heroic strike, slam, shattering throw, hamstring, and execute. But those are easy to maintain.

Different story in 5.2. Overpower costing 10 rage makes it impossible to stay in defensive stance. It's impossible to keep hamstring up on an enemy while trying to hit them with an overpower & slam. Remove heroic strike from your bars completely. Not worth using it since you're going to be starving and struggling to maintain a decent rage pool... and slam hits way harder and cost less rage. This makes us fight in Battle Stance, which wouldn't be a problem if we had damage reduction, which was removed at the start of the expansion...

So, we take tons of damage in battle stance and that isn't worth it. So, we're pretty much nerfed terribly. Only thing they did for warriors in 5.2 is increase our damage, especially on our bleeds by a ton. But we're still squishy, so we'll get tunneled into the ground.

So, we're gonna suck. But until the next patch, Defensive Stance all the way.


Please reroll rogue, ty.
02/26/2013 10:04 AMPosted by Faust
Except for the fact that no other melee has to choose between defense and offense


wat. both rets and dks spend their resources on heals. dks spend their resources on defensive cooldowns

a warrior doesn't need rage to control the hell out of people, other then hamstring and piercing howl all your control is free. compare to a rogue where elements of their control toolkit competes for resources with both their damaging abilities and their heals.
wat. both rets and dks spend their resources on heals. dks spend their resources on defensive cooldowns

a warrior doesn't need rage to control the hell out of people, other then hamstring and piercing howl all your control is free. compare to a rogue where elements of their control toolkit competes for resources with both their damaging abilities and their heals.


Healing is not the same as DR, also the cost on IBF is going away for good reason. I guarantee that warriors would like a solid heal that costs rage with no cd or a least get a reduced cost version of shield block/barrier for arms/fury. I don't even see the point about control requiring resources as relevant. I would much rather see kidney on a 40s cd with no cp cost then 20s with it.
02/26/2013 12:53 PMPosted by Faust
Healing is not the same as DR


flat DR is generally superior to healing. heals can be locked out through stuns, silences, fears or dispels.

02/26/2013 12:53 PMPosted by Faust
I don't even see the point about control requiring resources as relevant.


because if they just spent resources on controlling something they need to regenerate them before they can use them on damage/healing.

02/26/2013 12:53 PMPosted by Faust
least get a reduced cost version of shield block/barrier for arms/fury.


you mean an increased cost version. you should have to make a decision weather you want to use your rage defensively or offensively

but warriors already have the best non tank defensive cooldowns. they don't need any more.
ATM Def stance give rage every so many seconds while in combat AND decreases damage taken by 25% now Top that with 60 rage every swing as arms and whatever is incoming and you will never be rage starved. I think Fury still gains 30 rage per swing from each weapon to amount to 60. This may of changed, I've honestly never looked. That's why warriors do it. Constant incoming rage and less damage taken.
It's called FURY PVP SON!!! arms feels rage starved you say??? Then play a spec that is angrier!!!! You want damage reduction??? NO YOU DON'T!!!! MORE DAMAGE IS ALWAYS BETTER!!!! RECKSTORM!!!!! RAGING BLOW!!!!! I'M SO ANGRY, MY SWORD JUST GREW A BEARD!!!! DUEL BEARDED SWORDS!!!!! duel bearded swords? don't you mean dual bearded swords??? NO I DON'T!!!!! /BEARDSTORM and /endthread.
02/26/2013 02:16 PMPosted by Idoma
flat DR is generally superior to healing. heals can be locked out through stuns, silences, fears or dispels.


Not when most melee heals are instant. Also it's generally established that heals usually have a cost while most DR (shadowform, AotIH etc) don't.

02/26/2013 02:16 PMPosted by Idoma
because if they just spent resources on controlling something they need to regenerate them before they can use them on damage/healing.


Kidney Shot is generally an exception supported by its short cd and 6 sec duration. It not like everyone is going around spending resources to CC. Certainly casters generally don't.

you mean an increased cost version. you should have to make a decision weather you want to use your rage defensively or offensively

but warriors already have the best non tank defensive cooldowns. they don't need any more.


Lol in terms of actually cooldowns warriors are very subpar. Shield Wall is a 5 min cd than can be dismantled and only reduces damage by 40%. DbTS can also be negated by disarm has a 2 min cd and only 20% DR. Compare that with 40% magic reduction (which most damage is) every minute with 1 bubble and 2 BoPs and paladins clearly have the better defensive utility in addition to healing. The 60 rage cost of Shield Block/Barrier is balanced around the fact that it one of the only things prot warriors spend rage on. Especially with only a 6 sec duration and the fact that you have to be sword and board a 20-30 rage cost would be totally reasonable.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum