PDA

View Full Version : Tanking Unholy tanking with Icy touch?



zambony
03-26-2010, 11:30 AM
long time reader, 1st time poster.

I've played DK tank in blood and frost for a while now, but by the time I got through both of these and wanted to move to unholy, it received fairly big nurfs so I never played it.

With the recent changes to Icy touch, unholy tanking can get pretty good threat out with not that much changes in the original rotation.

With that, I was thinking of a spec that looked a bit like
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent#j0EMZhxZbxhcxMzxcht0ucq:0sM0mV

with this rotation :
IT-PS-BS-BS-ScS
ScS-ScS-IT-IT

Then just go in cruse control with ScS on death runes.

I know that bone sheild is not as good as it used to in ICC, and that there are not realy alot of magic fights out there, but this still looks farly interesting.

With the The Ruby Sanctum comming up in 3.3.5, I'm guessing that magic tanks will be much more needed than they are now, so I'd like to start testing it out soon.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Has anyone tried out UH tanking since 3.3.3?

Thanks
Zambony

bling581
03-26-2010, 12:46 PM
While single target threat (from what I've read) was part of the issue with Unholy tanking, I think most of it lies with the fact that it has the least amount of physical defense. Obviously it's strength is higher magic defense but I don't see that come into play that much in ICC, at least not enough to make it worth going Unholy as a main tanking spec.

KnThrak
03-27-2010, 02:53 AM
Now that Necrosis is fixed I broke out my old Unholy tankspec again (this time with Gargoyle instead of 1/2 Dirge, although I sadly found out it still does not transfer threat to me, so I may as well take Dirge again), and I do ok.
Threat is certainly not an issue anymore between +20% damage Rune Strikes and the superpowered Icy Touch attacks.

And survivability... well... it comes down to Bone Shield being more versatile than VB and UA, AMZ being able to "break" certain fightmechanics, and -6% magic damage. And the ability to completely soak certain damage with AMS which in turn makes debuffs not apply.

It's a flavour spec. I'd argue if your raid has no Unholy DPS DK, and you cannot feasibly let someone respec, tank as Unholy if Frost and Blood are not needed. Believing Blizzard about WotN for a moment, utility should still be the primary decisionmaker as it boosts more than just you.

Satorri
03-27-2010, 05:54 AM
If you use Bone Shield well (meaning pre-buff and keep it up on CD, don't save it for a rainy day) your physical durability will be fine, though it can be a little anxiety causing in ICC since it will be on CD for longer periods thanks to the avoidance reduction. The fine print is that it is still good burst damage protection while it is up. There are some fights where you may not like it, I'm thinking particularly Festergut, but if you play your IBF in well, and trinket uses if you have them, you shouldn't notice it being terribly squishy.

For threat? DKs in general, let alone Unholy with it's nice buffs, are hard to contest right now, so I wouldn't give it a second thought.

Try it out and let us know how it feels.

Nez
03-27-2010, 11:29 AM
I've been tanking as unholy and have had little issues with it in ICC10. I mainly switched to provide the caster buff and stuck with it since. Try it out, with smart use of BS you will be fine. Does nice dps in there also with all the packs and there are a few places your bubble can be useful for a little damage reduction. It does take a little more work on packs on the pull vs frost, but with the IT threat buff that will help a lot. Once you have them under control I have had little trouble holding them even prior to the buff once the curses start ticking.
:D

Satorri
03-28-2010, 06:16 AM
The thing about Bone Shield is that it is more of a perceptual nerf than an actual pain in ICC.

Avoidance reduces the number of physical hits you take.

Taking fewer hits means your shield isn't consumed as quickly.

So the shield has a slightly reduced uptime when your avoidance is reduced.

That said, the shield always soaks roughly the same amount of damage and the value is only in multiple hits connecting at the same time, since there is a minimum window within which you cannot consume multiple charges.

So, less avoidance is only a partial reduction in uptime for when you are outside of that window, but the shield will still soak more hits than you might think if you just related the avoidance loss directly. I know another big problem is that people felt like their threat was not as strong with Unholy, and now that shouldn't be a concern really. I'm curious to see if the number of Unholy tanks increases at all.

KnThrak
03-28-2010, 04:54 PM
I'm curious to see if the number of Unholy tanks increases at all.

With utility being the decisionmaker for most raidgroups, and Unholy DPS DKs being a dime a dozen (at least on Emerald Dream), I doubt it.
I just wish the Gargoyle would transfer threat. :S

Vesdarin
03-29-2010, 01:52 AM
Perhaps it's because I've never been with truly supreme DPS. Perhaps it's because I'm doing something differently. Nevertheless, I know one thing is for certain: I've tanked ICC10 and 25 with unholy, no problems at all. Threat is never an issue, and on many fights I find myself at 10-13k TPS. I think this is due to my Tier 10 2set, glyph of DnD, and my dps sigil, which I use because the added avoidance from the tanking one never seems to help all that much. Bone shield is great, as it allows you to run into a fight with some extra insurance while healers get to their positions, and I've seen my AMZ save people on fights like Dreamwalker and Festergut many a time.

Don't let people get you down for saying you can't tank unholy. It may not be as effective in some areas, but in others, it more than earns its keep.

Satorri
03-29-2010, 05:46 AM
With utility being the decisionmaker for most raidgroups, and Unholy DPS DKs being a dime a dozen (at least on Emerald Dream), I doubt it.
I just wish the Gargoyle would transfer threat. :S

Fair point. If you have an Unholy DPS DK you have the raid buff covered. I don't, normally, and at that, I wouldn't let that steer me away from tanking with it, but for many that is probably a notable concern. At least we've long since left the 3rd disease not stacking way behind.

Gargoyle does transfer threat, last I checked. =) Stealth change, some have thought maybe unintended, but it hasn't been changed yet.

zambony
03-29-2010, 09:47 AM
Very interesting responses, I honestly though I'd get shutdown by everyone saying that this was not a good idea. I'll defenitly try it out then. I currently have 2 tanking specs (DW frost tank for raid trash, heroics and sometimes PVP, and blood tank for raid bosses), which one should I drop? I know DW frost is viable for raid bosses as well, I just don't have as good 1h weapons at this time compared to my 2h for blood. I also don't have my 2p T10 yet, so my aoe would suffer alot if I dropped frost.

Thanks,
Zambony

zambony
03-29-2010, 09:50 AM
The thing about Bone Shield is that it is more of a perceptual nerf than an actual pain in ICC.

Avoidance reduces the number of physical hits you take.

Taking fewer hits means your shield isn't consumed as quickly.

So the shield has a slightly reduced uptime when your avoidance is reduced.

That said, the shield always soaks roughly the same amount of damage and the value is only in multiple hits connecting at the same time, since there is a minimum window within which you cannot consume multiple charges.

So, less avoidance is only a partial reduction in uptime for when you are outside of that window, but the shield will still soak more hits than you might think if you just related the avoidance loss directly. I know another big problem is that people felt like their threat was not as strong with Unholy, and now that shouldn't be a concern really. I'm curious to see if the number of Unholy tanks increases at all.

I thought that one of the reasons for the debuff was to allow bosses to hit more often but less hard than they used to. With that, if they do hit more often, the shield would last less long and so would absorb less damage than outside (again, this would only apply in ICC though, no clue on how it would work in future raids).

Xaejan
03-29-2010, 12:32 PM
I really like what you've done here. I am getting a bit tired of Blood Tanking and I feel like I lose too much when I go to DW from my beefy 2H. Which leaves me with two choices, 2H Frost or 2H Unholy.
For me, this decision comes down to a matter of cooldowns. I haven't heard a lot of good things said about AMZ (though I admit I really like the talent), and bone shield gets eaten up so fast some times it doesn't feel worth it. Would I trade Bone Shield for VB? Would I trade AMZ for Improved Rune Tap? -6% Magic damage or +3% Stamina? It isn't really apples to apples but these are some of the trade offs.

I will say this, I spec'd an unholy spec for Saurfang at one point, this was before the 5% buff to players. My blood healing threat was peeling blood beasts onto me and generating too much Blood Power. I chose Unholy because of the Taunt rotation mechanic and Ebon Plague Bringer, I was pretty successful at timing Bone Shields to soak the first few hits. At the time it was feasible to use for a 10 man, both from a threat and mitigation perspective. I went with a Frost spec 2H as well for the extra mitigation and armor cooldowns. It felt a lot more sustainable. Unholy was feasible I suspect it still would be, though I would also suspect (and I have no proof for my speculation) that Blood might be an optimized choice.

Play with it, I'd be VERY interested to hear your experiences with it. :)

Satorri
03-29-2010, 02:49 PM
Bone Shield absorbs 1 hit per bone, right? So, if you isolated that, it would only ever absorb 4 hits (with the glyph).

The catch is that it cannot consume more than one bone at a time, so if you get hit a couple times in short sequence (less than 2 sec apart), both hits will get soaked in the same bone. To that end, having more avoidance can give you some free passes on swings that might have taken a charge, but it won't actually increase the shield as much as you might think. The funny thing is that increasing your avoidance can stretch out the shield duration, but a fair amount of the added damage reduction is not the shield at all, but the avoidance. Having it up longer feels good, but it is really just significant of the fact that avoidance is saving you more hits over time. Bone Shield still only ever is significant to the stacked damage sources for its best potency.

Because of that, Chill of the Thrown sets you back, which is a perceptual discomfort, but the actual impact is not quite as severe as you might expect, and the protection is still as strong as it ever was. In some fights the faster attacks actually can put multiple swings within the charge cooldown already, which is pretty nice.

Leucifer
03-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Bone Shield absorbs 1 hit per bone, right? So, if you isolated that, it would only ever absorb 4 hits (with the glyph).

The catch is that it cannot consume more than one bone at a time, so if you get hit a couple times in short sequence (less than 2 sec apart), both hits will get soaked in the same bone. To that end, having more avoidance can give you some free passes on swings that might have taken a charge, but it won't actually increase the shield as much as you might think. The funny thing is that increasing your avoidance can stretch out the shield duration, but a fair amount of the added damage reduction is not the shield at all, but the avoidance. Having it up longer feels good, but it is really just significant of the fact that avoidance is saving you more hits over time. Bone Shield still only ever is significant to the stacked damage sources for its best potency.

Because of that, Chill of the Thrown sets you back, which is a perceptual discomfort, but the actual impact is not quite as severe as you might expect, and the protection is still as strong as it ever was. In some fights the faster attacks actually can put multiple swings within the charge cooldown already, which is pretty nice.

Sat is right. It does have a "hidden" 2 second cooldown per proc.

Bone shield, from my perspective, should be shit-hot against a single target, particularly against ICC bosses (which, from other things I've read, have a 1.5 sec swing timer!!! just under a 2.0 sec bone shield proc! 2 hits for the price of one!). Problem I see is, what happens after the shield gets blown through?

My one big suggestion at this time would be to ensure that you have all targets in front of you at all times. Keep up your dodge/parry. If stuff creeps behind you, you will see this get blown in a hurry.

KnThrak
03-30-2010, 12:02 AM
Gargoyle does transfer threat, last I checked. =) Stealth change, some have thought maybe unintended, but it hasn't been changed yet.

I tried this two days ago on a mob in Icecrown, hit a single blood strike, 2100 threat, summoned gargoyle, he nuked once, nuked twice and stole aggro off me. That was in Frost Presence ofc, no diseases, no procs, I eliminated all chance. Did the same again a few minutes later on the next mob, same result.
Assuming he'd transfer threat that should be impossible, no?

KnThrak
03-30-2010, 12:13 AM
I haven't heard a lot of good things said about AMZ (though I admit I really like the talent), and bone shield gets eaten up so fast some times it doesn't feel worth it. Would I trade Bone Shield for VB? Would I trade AMZ for Improved Rune Tap? -6% Magic damage or +3% Stamina? It isn't really apples to apples but these are some of the trade offs.

The trade-offs are tough to compare though.

Bone Shield and Vampiric Blood are quite different, even if one can put VB on a level with a damage-reduction cooldown for most purposes, Bone Shield can "soak" extra damage. A prime example here would be Lana'thel, who's aura just cannot eat your charges. A lot of effects cannot eat them actually while the Bone Shield happily reduces all your damage taken by 20%. That's what makes it so strong, the order of things: a) You take 20% less damage, period. b) Some attacks expend a charge (which does nothing), and once all charges are gone the shield dissipates. I wish I had a mod telling me how much damage each BA/IBF/AMZ/AMS soaked. :S

Anti-Magic Zone is really tricky. On average, it's garbage. It's a weaker AMS (unholy has 100% AMS) on a longer CD with a smaller max-cap.
Oh, and it can absorb from the entire raid.
Oh, and it can absorb a near-infinite amount of damage, assuming it's in one blow. Absorbing Pungent Blight is fun in a 25man, again, wish I had a mod to show me how much damage that was.
So when it shines, it really shines. It just has few fights where it does. And one needs a keen eye given the 2 minute cooldown, 1U requirement and 10s duration. But when you connect it, you just turned a wipe into a stunt escape. :)

Satorri
03-30-2010, 06:12 AM
If you're right Knthrak, they may have fixed it, I haven't tested it myself. The exchange from DRW was that it was providing damage threat only, not getting Frost Pres threat multiplier. That said, I don't know that anyone hasn't tested whether or not it gets threat for itself as well.

AMZ is actually a very powerful spell, but it is very hard to use well. If you take the time to find the best places to use it, it can be a great tool. I love tools like that.

I'd add WotN to your list for tracking how much damage is prevented by talents.

Sterbefall
03-30-2010, 07:53 AM
That said, the shield always soaks roughly the same amount of damage and the value is only in multiple hits connecting at the same time, since there is a minimum window within which you cannot consume multiple charges. I think you're overlooking dots and aura damage that don't remove bone charges. Unholy was actually a nice option for HM NRB for that reason (activate BS right before or after taunt with the big bleed).

zambony
03-30-2010, 10:00 AM
To Satorri, Bone shield does benifit in lasting longer with more dodge, but only on fights that have dots, or magic+phisical combos. I would agree that in a fight with only physical damage, ICC's debuff would not change anything in terms of use of bone shield.

I like this. So with all of this discussion, if UH is indeed viable, lets look at what fights it would be usefull in. I've stolen this from an other thread (http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?64802-Conclusions-about-Trinkets-Per-Boss-ICC-25-%28normal%29):

Lord Marowgar
Melee + Saber Lash + Bone Storm = 100% (Physical Damage)

This would give a thumbs up to Frost tanking (better against phisical damage)

Lady Deathwhisper
Frostbolt Volley + Frostbolt = 56% (Frost Damage)
Death and Decay + Shadowbolt = 33% (Shadow Damage)
Melee = 11% (Physical Damage)
Adds, mixed physical and magic damage = Irrelevant.

This would give a thumbs up to UH tanking

Gunship
Anything realy.

Deathbringer Saurfang
Melee + Blood Nova + Boiling Blood + Rune of Blood + Mark of the Fallen Champion = 100% (Physical Damage)

Frost tanking

Rotface
Melee + Mutated Infection = 74.7% (Physical Damage)
Slime Spray = 25.3% (Nature Damage)

Probably Blood tanking tanking (unless you want to use your AMZ on the sprays)

Festergut
Melee + Vial Gas + Gastric Bloat = 86.3% (Physical Damage)
Gaseous Blight + Pungent Blight + Spores = 13.7% (Shadow Damage)

Frost or Blood tanking

Professor Putricide
Melee = 100% (Physical Damage)

Frost tanking

Blood Council

Prince Valanar
Melee + Empowered Shock Vortex = 100% (Physical Damage)

Frost tanking

Prince Taldaram
Data Coming Soon.

Probably frost or Blood.

Prince Keleseth
Data Coming Soon.

UH tanking

Blood Queen

Main Tank
Melee = 74.7% (Physical Damage)
Shroud of Sorrow + Twilight Bloodbolt = 25.3% (Shadow Damage)

Frost or blood tanking

Off- Tank
Blood Mirror + Twilight Bloodbolt + Shroud of Sorrow = 87.8% (Shadow Damage)
Delirious Slash + Vampire Bite = 12.2% (Physical Damage)

UH tanking

Dreamwalker
Tank 1
Melee = 63% (Physical Damage)
Gut Spray + Flesh Rot = 32.3 (Nature Damage)
Frostbolt Volley = 2.5% (Frost Damage)
Lay Waste = 2.3% (Fire Damage)

Tank 2
Melee = 66.9% (Physical Damage)
Gut Spray + Flesh Rot + Acid Burst = 27.3% (Nature Damage)
Frostbolt Volley = 3.1% (Frost Damage)
Lay Waste = 2.7% (Fire Damage)

Not sure here.

Sindragosa
Data Coming Soon.

Probably frost or UH since there is alot of AOE in waves.

The Lich King

no idea