View Full Version : Tanking Crusaders Glory vs Burnished Quel'Serrar

12-07-2009, 02:23 PM
Hello i am on the fence of what i should use between Crusader's Glory - Item - World of Warcraft (http://www.wowhead.com/?item=47810)
Burnished Quel'Serrar - Item - World of Warcraft (http://www.wowhead.com/?item=49495)

i have gotten very different opinions and would like to know since i have both of them.

I would also like to know if i should use the +170 trinkets x2 or my Onyxia trinket and +170 stam x1 trinket. Thank you.

The World of Warcraft Armory (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Bleeding+Hollow&n=Astiron)

12-07-2009, 02:35 PM
From what all the tanks I have run with have told me, Id take the Crusader's over Quel in a heartbeat. Im willing to bet alot on Crusader's having alot higher EH than Quel. On the trinkets... one of our raiders made a prot pally and she got scolded for using the onyxia trinket when she had other trinkets such as black heart or the brewfest ones so Id say you probably should go with the dual brewfest. Just my opinion from what Ive noted :)

12-07-2009, 02:47 PM

12-07-2009, 03:28 PM
The onyxia trinket is crap. Keep it for your unhittable set (it may have more uses in ICC, I don't know), but for your MT set it's trash. Parry and defense are not as important as stamina.

I would use Crusader's Glory because it's reliable and not a random proc, although I've heard the uptime on the Quel'serrar varies from 60% to 90% which is not bad at all. That being said, I don't know if Warriors get more from a slow weapon than a faster one (Deep Wounds maybe? I don't know if Devastate is normalized for weapon speed or not, I'm a pally/DK man).

Another benefit of Crusader's Glory - that extra defense will help you stay about 540 when you ditch the Onyxia trinket, helping you stack more stamina in gems and enchants.

12-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Devastate is based on wep damage which will Lead that arguement to Quel Serrar. If i am defense capped at 540 with x2 stam trinkets and Quel Serrar should i use that or Crusaders Glory

12-08-2009, 07:09 AM
I'm not sure what you meant, but I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice some defense rating to "hope for the proc" of Quel'serrar, if you were implying that.

Always, always, always be at 535 for heroics and 540 defense for raids. You can't hope on a proc to save you, because it'll be the one time that it doesn't that you get crit, killed, and wipe the raid.

In reference to your post above, I think Crusader's Glory is probably your best bet, as posters above have alluded to the fact that it's a predictable on-equipment buff to defense and dodge rating as opposed to the "finger's crossed, leeroy!" technique.

12-09-2009, 08:55 AM
I have both.

I prefer the BQS (not the GQS tho) to the non-heroic Ardent Guard (Crusaders Glory).

The BQS has an up-time on the proc of ~50-65%. While it is not dependable from a defense point of view, (ie you need 540 without it proc'd) the armor proc is unbelievable. Normalized against even the most conservative proc up-times, BQS is still a superior EH weapon vs. non-heroic AG/CG.

Now the 245 version of AG/CG is another story. Assuming equal ilvl I would take the AG/CG over the BQS, and only because I prefer static stats to procs. Upgrading to the 245 AG/CS would "tip the scales" for me so to speak.

It's simply a matter of personal preference. Proc or static? Normally I'm a static kinda tank, but the proc on the BQS has a super high up-time and is very nice. In this case I don't mind the proc nature of the QS.

12-10-2009, 10:02 AM
We do get bigger ticks from deep wounds from slower weapons because of the base damage spread for the weapon, however, the controlling issue at bar is the impact of weapon speed on heroic strike spam.

On a given boss pull, the single largest source of my damage and will be heroic strike and the frequency that you can hit heroic strike is governed weapon speed. The faster the weapon, the more heroic strikes, hence the reason warrior tanks look for fast weapons rather than slow 1-handers like Broken Promise.