Article View: alt.games.warcraft
Article #340949Re: Glyphing a prot warrior
From: Neil Cerutti
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:15
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:15
18 lines
1413 bytes
1413 bytes
On 2011-03-28, Urbin <urbin@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Damn, that of course brings me right back to my dilemma because > I wasn't sure which major glpyh I should pick: The one > increasing the Cleave targets by one or the one increasing the > Sunder targets by one :-) I think Sunder is the clear winner for tanking, as it generates lots of threat. > Anyway, for the time being, other than on bosses, I use Cleave > much more often then Sunder, so I went with the Glyph of > Cleave. ...but then if you aren't finding Sunder necessary then glyphing for it would be a mistake. -- Neil Cerutti
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8vbg0fF87aU5@mid.individual.net>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mailReferences:
<slrniosofc.i8j.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net> <imlntv$kp7$1@dont-email.me> <slrnip0tjn.lhl.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net> <imptlq$hd4$1@dont-email.me> <slrnip0umd.lhl.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Neil Cerutti <ne...@norwich.edu> Newsgroups: alt.games.warcraft Subject: Re: Glyphing a prot warrior Date: 28 Mar 2011 13:15:59 GMT Organization: Norwich University Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8vbg0fF87aU5@mid.individual.net> References: <slrniosofc.i8j.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net> <imlntv$kp7$1@dont-email.me> <slrnip0tjn.lhl.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net> <imptlq$hd4$1@dont-email.me> <slrnip0umd.lhl.urbin@stinky-local.trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net PnwHxuVeAHQEF7BdJuRWwgajvICAzWTUbxNjzLlU/eoJsD98k9 Cancel-Lock: sha1:T2NuSe5vtUmO6pF5YQBvKjAYAvE= User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1/mm/ao (Win32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit