Talk:Tank

I find Elementalists are often equally good as a tank as a Warrior. --Tetris L 19:18, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)

How is that? Elementalist armor is made of toilet paper, it's completely useless! :) There is no defense that the elementalist can conjure that the warrior cannot, in return, the warrior has an edge (+25 AL and a shield) that the ele cannot make up. --Karlos 20:31, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Elem Armor is weaker than warriors', but they can compensate some of that with some nice defensive spells (especially earth magic) and with the MASSIVE melee damage output they can deal. The trick is to kill all adjacent foes before they kill you. Granted, if foes use ranged attacks you're f*cked. But that goes for warriors too. :) --Tetris L 20:42, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Like I said, nothing the ele can conjure that the warrior cannot. Ward against melee gives a 50% chance to evade, Defensive Stance gives a 75% chance. Try tanking the Dredge Brutes or the Bladed Aataxe and you'll see that an else is the worst option. Tanking is not about leading the charge to wipe out the enemy, tanking is about damage absorption. And a warrior is the bane of rangers, not the other way around. Warriors are the reason rangers have all those dirty tricks like Throw Dirt, Escape, Flee and Run for your life! :) --Karlos 21:13, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I don't question that Warriors are the best tanks. I'm just saying that they are not the only tanks. For me damage absorption isn't the definition of tanking. For me a tank is somebody who is suited to engage the enemy in melee, Kilroy Stonekin style, front row, to protect the other party members that use ranged attacks or spellcasting from the second row. And warriors are definetly not the only ones who are suited for melee attacking. --Tetris L 21:28, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I agree, as far as defensive tanking (keeping melee units focus on you) goes, a geomancer can go a long way with with Armor of Earth, Kinetic Armor, Obsidian Flesh, Ward Against Melee, Ward Against Foes (to stop them from reaching soft targets), Aura of Restoration, a spammable spell (like Stone Daggers to keep Kinetic Armor running and feed Restoration. Toss Crystal Wave or Aftershock some PBAOE damage and you're all set. --theeth 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * heh heh.. Then you go to the Fissure of Woe and get your behind handed to you in a platter by something called Abyssals and you learn, the very hard way, that tanking should strictly be for warriors. :) I was with a PBAoE Geomancer yesterday. Poor thing died 4 times before we even got to the forgemaster. She was totally distracting the monks and we ended up asking her to just stay back (where she only had one spell she can hurt people with). Abyssals got her two times, Skeletal Berserkers got her once and the big bad Dragon Lich another. Tanking Geomancers, in my opinion, are a gimmick... They can be totally cool and surprise your foes in certain situations, but it's not something you can use everyday. Kinda like a running quarter back.. Useful and surprising every now and then. Disastrous if used repeatedly. :) --Karlos 17:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless who's tanking, if you have a me/n or n/me to cast Sympathetic Visage, Enfeebling Blood and Shadow of Fear on top, normal damage output is a reduced to a nicely manageable 16.5% with approximately no chance of addrenaline-based attack. Another exemple of why teams need to be well balanced and stay out of the 3 warriors, 2 nukers, 2 monks and one whatever pattern. --theeth 18:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless you're going questing/farming with guildies or friends, there's no point in contriving some elaborate solo build that relies on others. I'd say 90% of the parties that go in FoW are random people meeting in ToA. I personally never heard of the 3-2-2 rule you mentioned. Most of the FoW parties have a 2W-2E-2Mo rule and the UW ones have a 2W-2E-2Mo kind of rule. It's more of a generic build really. A specific build might have great success farming certain areas, but not others and requires coordination. --Karlos 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to drudge up this question again but I really don't like the line "...Tank is a term that denotes a warrior." It sounds as if Tank and Warrior are synonyms or interchangeable, they are not. Consider this use of the word Tank. "Damn our Warrior just disconnected, can we get one of the rangers to Tank for a bit?" How about if I have a rough go at defining "Tank".


 * To Tank is to try and get most mobs to attack you instead of other party members, for this reason Tanks normally stand at the front of the group. Because they need to be able to take a lot of punishment, Warriors are generally used as Tanks in most situations.


 * The reason I came across this article was because in the Elementalist Ranger article it was said that "Having a pet can be beneficial for an Elementalist by providing extra damage to targets, and pets also another target for enemies to hit (aka meatshield)." Meatshield really just being another word for tank, for a character with a pet, the pet is their Tank.


 * Consider this sentence: Most people think that Warriors make the best Tanks although others will argue that Geomancer's can also make terrific Tanks. Whether or not you agree with the sentence is irrelevant, the sentence certainly makes sense in my opinion. If "Tank is a term that denotes a warrior" is part of the definition of a Tank then the sentence wouldn't have made sense. The role of a Tank isn't exclusively performed by a Warrior, other classes can attempt it. The role of a healer or minion master can only be performed by a specific class but with a well thought out skill set or in unusual circumstances other classes can Tank albeit less successfully. Can we remove the line "...Tank is a term that denotes a warrior." from the article? --Xasxas256 09:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It should say "despite what tank actually means, in Guild Wars it is almost always used as a synonym for warrior."--Cloak of Letters 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not agree to your proposal as I mentioned eons ago. I'll give you two points to think about:
 * a) Try telling a Fissure group or Team Arena group that you are a Geomancer tank that will do just as a good as a warrior, see if they believe you. :)
 * b) All other clasess that may attempt to "tank" will rely on enchantments which means that they cannot face mesmers/necros that disenchant which means they are not real tanks.
 * As cloak says, in Guild Wars it is used exclusively as warrior. The verb "to tank" is used more loosely but when a party is looking for a tank there's no question what they are looking for. You can simply explain in "To Tank" that other classes can attempt to tank as well using a variey of techniques. --Karlos 15:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: point (b) &mdash; I think I can adapt Invincimentalist to be an indefinite Obsidian Flesh tanker. At 16 earth, Armor of Earth + Kinetic Armor + Obsidian Flesh = an obscene +166 armor, and Galigord's Stone Staff even gives the +20% enchant needed. Run in, cast Ward Against Melee, Ward Against Foes, and plop yourself down like a Stone Daggers spitting turnip. The only counters I can think of OTTOMH are Chilblains/Well of the Profane and exclusively shadow damage skills, and at least a Chilblains strategy can be defeated with altering the enchantment order, covering, and/or making the necro Fragile. (This is a purely theoretical exercise; I've never played a geomancer, so there's probably some detail I missed; also, I agree that no sensible GW player uses "tank" to refer to anything but Warriors, perhaps even just W/Mos.) &mdash; Stabber (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with a build that relies on Obsidian Flesh/Spell Breaker to protect the enchants is that it only lasts for 20 seconds, then the tank goes back vulnerability again. Such a tank could never stand up to the Ether Breakers or Doubter's Dryders. Overall, it migh be a good tanking build for some foes, but it's not a consistent tanking build. --Karlos 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the whole bit about this using the strategy of Invincimentalist. It is possible (in theory, I haven't tested it, but I have verified that invincimentalist works) to keep Obsidian Flesh up always indefinitely. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I could tell you lots of stories of warrier tanks I've partied with who obviously thought they were invincible just because they had 20 more AL than the rest of our party. Aggroing large groups of foes Leeroy Jankins style they were killed again and again. They failed miserably (and off course, blamed it on the monks' bad healing). Well, Mr. Warrior Tank, here is news for you: Your shiny armor doesn't reduce damage from most spells and hexes. You're just as vulnerable against those as the monk in the back row. Now ... does this story prove that Warriors are bad tanks? No. Just like your story about a failed Geomancer tank doesn't prove that Geomancers are always bad tanks.
 * A definition article should always start with the definition. This article starts with "tank = warrior". Well, as a definition, that is plain and simply wrong. If tank was just an other term for warrior, then we wouldn't need a separate term. And we wouldn't have to ask "Who will be our tank?" at the beginning of a mission. The definition of tank is a melee attacker who serves as a shield in the front row, to block the way to the spellcasters and ranged attackers in the second row, to aggro foes and draw their attention and damage at himself and to absorb that damage.
 * Again, nobody questions that tanks are the best tanks, and that the article should clearly say that. All we're asking for is that the article mentions the possibility of other professions (even though less suited for it) taking over the role of a tank. Is that too much to ask for? I will come up with a suggestion for an alternative wording that hopefully anybody can live with. If not, we can put this matter to a vote.
 * One last, additional thing: I want to challenge the separation of the noun part of the article into offensive and defensive tanks. In my opinion there is no such separation. To be suited for his role a tank must always be both. -- 02:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not giving an example of a bad Geomancer, I am showing a consistent flaw that cannot be addressed in a tanking Geomancer. Just like an invincible monk will always fleee from a mesmer with his tails between his legs. That is NOT a tank. That is a player "tanking" in specific situations.
 * As for the tank being "offensive" and "defensive" I assume yo uhaven't heard about the "book trick."
 * As for the question "who's going to be our tank?" tell me.. How do you think the party will react when the ele says he will? Unless this is a specific build for a specific area, no one will allow the ele or monk or necro to tank.. Only the warrior.
 * Finally, a tank's number one role is to "tank" the other side's warriors, therefore, having the huge advantage in Phys. AL is a gigantic bonus. --Karlos 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, Armor level makes a HUGE difference against elementalist spells (which constitute most spells) so your statement that the AL does not help against most spells is incorrect. Try nuking an Abyssal vs a Shadow Beast (both level 28). My Air spells do EXTRA damage against the Beast while they do nearly two thirds damage against the Abyssal. --Karlos 03:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Karlos, you know you have an indefensible position here. For one, the word Tank in this context does not mean warrior. The word tank indicates the player(s) who is(are) going to aggro the melee foes to reduce pressure on the casters. Secondly, the Invincimentalist or Invincimonk ARE tanks. They're much better at it than warriors are, in certain specialised situations. Just because you wouldn't take an invincimentalist to the FoW doesn't mean they aren't tanks. The same way you wouldn't take a warrior tank such as you describe (as a vs. Melee damage absorber) to a PvP arena - the number one role of the tank in PvP is to distract the other teams Monk. Shandy 05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is NOT about what I think is a tank or is not a tank. This is about the word tank as it is used in the game. When a party posts the following message "Party needs 2 tanks for FoW" WHAT could they possibly mean? Is there any vagueness or ambiguity about what it is they want? Any doubt in anyone's mind? Why are we over-philosophizing this? (is that even a word?) --Karlos 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In my experience, "tank" is used enough as a noun with a meaning not restricted to warriors, that we shouldn't strictly limit the definition that way. --Rezyk 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm far from happy with the "Tanking Squishies" paragraph that Karlos added. The heading alone is a slap in the face for all non-warrior tanks. I will go ahead now and suggest the alternative definition wording and article layout. -- 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * W/Mo tanks do not have the means to overcome all enemies either. What is the meaning of end of the paragraph? Shandy 05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does it say in the articles that anyone has the means to overcome all enemies? All it says is warriors are fairly hardy and resilient against all enemies. There is not enemy in the game against whom warriors are weaker than other classes. The only weakness warriors have (degen) is one that all others have. --Karlos 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say it. But you argued in this talk that spellcasters can't be good tanks because their methods of boosting their armor are easily countered by enchantment removing and other hexes. Well, there are counters against warrior tanks too, and you even mentioned them in the article yourself: Blindness, Weakness, Empathy, ... These will hinder a warior tank and he has to watch out for them and get them removed, or he'll quickly fail as a tank. This isn't any different from other profession tanks who have to watch out for certain enemy counters. But the fact that they can be countered doesn't mean that they can't be tanks. -- 06:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No. This is just for an offensive tank, a defensive tank (what is meant in the verb to tank), does not care about empathy or sympathetic visage or weakness. I would even argue that the "offensive tank" is no longer used in the game. A question to you Tetris, do you call an offensive Elementalist/Ranger/Monk an offensive tank? --Karlos 06:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, for starters I have updated the definition part of the article (and made some minor changes to the structure). Karlos, can you live with the new wording of the definition? It is basically what several people in this talk have explained as their understanding of the term "tank".
 * Regarding your question, I will answer in a minute. -- 06:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, first of all, like I said, a tank is always both offensive and defensive to me. A tank will always rush forward and engange the enemy. That's what I call offense. A tank will never just sit there and absorb damage, although that is an important part of his role.
 * According to this definition an offensive spellcaster is a tank to me, provided he rushes forward and enganges the enemy at short range. Off course a spellcaster who stays in the second row isn't a tank, even if the uses offensive spells. -- 06:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I am tempted to revert you edit because it is meaningless. "A tank is a front row melee fighter.." Two big problems: a) You just said a tank is a warrior and b) This is not what a tank is. I will not revert it tonight. I will wait till tomorrow, perhaps one of the other people (or you) can come up with a definition that has to do with actual tanking (i.e. soaking in damage and holding aggro).
 * 2) If you call an elementalist that can dish out damage a tank then you have your own set of terminology in the game that is not reflective of what players actually use. While you are netitled to that and I hope you have fun with it, this entry is not about what you think people ought to be saying but what they actually are. I do not mean to discount your opinion, but your opinion here is not relevant. This is not about what you think a tank should be vs what I think a tank should be. Please try to be mindful of that.
 * --Karlos 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed the period in the first two sentences as it appears to be able to confuse readers. Shandy 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was better. I removed the melee fighters part, made it gender insensitive and moved the attack technique to the end of the paragraph since I believe it is not relevant nor characteristic of a generic "tank" to use Melee only. The Invincimonk doesn't even have to wield a melee weapon. --Karlos 09:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jeez I didn't think that reasking the tank=warrior question would spark this kind or reponse, over 2000 words in 24 hours (including sigs)! Anyway I'm happy the, "...Tank is a term that denotes a warrior." line has been removed although I'm not so sure I like: "However, other professions may take over the role of a tanks as well, although they are more vulnerable and less suited for it." I'd prefer "However, other professions may take over the role of a tank(sp) as well, although they may be more vulnerable and less suited for it, a warrior is the most reliable tank. "A Geomancer can potentially have far more armor than a Warrior although many situations their ability to Tank may be vastly inferior. However if you're farming in a known area then then a Geomancer won't be more vulnerable, a qualified needs to be added. Two sentences before it says "Warriors are generally the best tanks" so a qualifier needs to be added and the absolute "are more vulnerable" should be removed I think, it contradicts the "Warriors are generally the best tanks" line.


 * Look the bottom line is that IMO this article should NOT say that only warriors can tank, it simply needs to say: What the art of tanking is(coming under attack, taking damage yourself instead of other more vulnerable members of the party), that it can be performed by several classes although not all of them will be able to in all situations and that Warriors are the most versitile and dependable Tanks. Anything else is additional "nice to know" information. The article has been significantly improved over the last 24 hours I think, it's just that one sentence I don't like now. I'm not changing it myself though, this is too much of a highly charged topic, but it's always good to see passionate discussion :) --Xasxas256 10:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been heavily discussed (and edited), but nonetheless, I have edited the articles once more, and substancially. Apart from some minor corrections, that is mainly because I have to add myself to those people who think that a tank in GW is defensive by definition. Taking the word tank from the verb to tank. A tank might deal damage, but its main purpose in a team is to prevent the rest of the team from suffering damage, by drawing attacks onto him. Saying "offensive tank" is using the word tank as a synonym for warrior and describing a warrior that does not tank. So any description of an offensive tank should be placed in the warrior article instead. --Xeeron 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with Xeeron here. The most important part of tanking (the action) is not taking or dealing damage but much more preventing soft targets from taking damage by aggroing on yourself. I think the dichotomy here is that GuildWars players generally (if not always) use the noun tank to refer to warriors (as in: GLF tank), irrespectively of that player ability to tank. Which leads more and more people to ask for "good tanks" when what they really are asking is for a warrior that knows how to tank. To that effect, I think the article as it is now does a good job of making a distinction between the noun and the action. --theeth 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Having read Karlos talk page as well now, I think I should be more clear, so to prevent misunderstandings. As I see it, there are 3 different uses of the word tank:
 * 1) Any character that can tank (as in take a lot of damage)
 * 2) Any warrior
 * 3) Any warrior that can tank (as in take a lot of damage)

No 1 and 2 are are entirely different interpretations, while No 3 is a subgroup of 1&2 and the most strict of the interpretations. My stance (and my edit of the article is according to that) is that No 1 is the most logical interpretation. No 3 is refered to in the sentence "Infact many GuildWars players think of warriors exclusively when they ask for a tank.", while the note describes No 2. --Xeeron 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you want this in 2 places but whatever. I think both "sides" are wrong. I want the article to say "In any Everquest style MMORPG "tank" means a character with strong defense that draws monster aggro and takes damage or the process of doing such. Guild Wars players have taken to using tank to also mean any warrior. For example "experienced hammer tank lfg". In the traditional sense of the word "hammer tank" is an oxymoron because of the lack of a shield means theyâ€™re taking quite a bit more damage than a "sword tank" would. Some nonwarrior builds (Invincible Monk, Invincimentalist) can tank better than a straight warrior but they may be met with "lol ur not a tank" from ignorant players that don't know the ONE TRUE definition of tank."--Cloak of Letters 14:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's fine.
Admin stepping in. Unless there's punctuation, grammar, or spelling to correct, leave this article alone for a few days. Things are running way too hot over a simple term-definition article. It certainly looks like it answers any questions I might have about the word "tank" and its usage. Talk is fine but keep things in check, guys. **Nunix 15:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Reverted Rustjive's change which was made an hour after this note was posted. And even if this note was not posted, I'd like to hear more about the "stupdidity" of listing counters before I see them gone. I found them very informative for new users. --Karlos 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is/was the line (I don't consider the minor change better): "A Ranger relying on stances to dodge attacks will have problems taking on elementalists while a monk or elementalist relying on enchantments to resist attacks will have problems facing mesmers and certain necromancers." As these are examples of other classes having trouble tanking as compared to warriors, are you telling me that Warriors are better at 'dodging' spells? Or that warriors have an easier time against mesmers and necromancers? A line that says 'against certain' *anything* quickly makes the entire line irrelevant. Who doesn't know that a counter exists for every strategy? Examples might not be stupid, but these ones are - being general here really doesn't help. I won't delete it again - I don't care that much - but pointing out the obvious isn't my thing. --Rustjive 04:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The examples are for those who do not understand how other classes can tank. It illustrates both the general method used and the general counter. And yes, Warriors have higher base AL which they can raise even more, so they generally take less damage from spells. Also, warriors cannot be "disenchanted" into squishies, monks can. --Karlos 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong about rangers there. They have a native 100AL vs Elemantal spells and thus are stronger agaisnt it than any warr will ever will be. Rangers also have +15% armor available agaisnt certain elements like cold, fire and lightning which gives them an even greater defence. Such misconceptions are unfortunately common in game and I hoped a wiki like this would promote understand of these aspects rather than being filled with such annacurate information like this --217.205.104.178 07:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Holy Smokes! There goes the credibility of the enitre wiki out the window because of one bad example I gave. Dang. Oh well, guess we'll have to take down the site now. Gee, sorry guys. Didn't mean to. --Karlos 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the article should note that a furry ranger aided by greater conflag. and winter has a minimum base AL of 95. Meanwhile, the warrior's platemail is not even registering the +10 vs physical, leaving him with a measly 85 AL. As we all know that any match in GW is decided based on AL alone, the ranger is clearly a better tank than the warrior. QED. I once knew a curator named Anna. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead, put in examples, but the examples are poorly worded/thought out. There's no spell for which the ranger is a worse tank than a warrior against. Furthermore, if you mean that elementalists can be 'disenchanted', then write that - not that they're weaker 'against mesmers and certain necromancers'. There's a large difference in meaning: one is lazy and irrelevant, the other is true and obvious. I've changed it to reflect this and, if anything, to remove 'certain necromancers'. But once you change it to what you actually mean - it sounds stupid. --Rustjive 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on the Ranger example. As for the abundant stupdidity in the article. Can't help you there. --Karlos 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very confused about who is allowed to edit this article and who is not. Rustjive's original edit was disallowed since it was made after Nunix's note, but other edits have been allowed.  Should I be editing the parts I disagree with? --Rezyk 13:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, how come the ele has 35%dp if the tank is doing his job? --Melkor 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're trying to say that if a tank is doing his job no other party member will come to harm? What fantasy world is that in? Have yo unever played with eles who run ahead of warriors? Have you not faced the Skeletal Berserkers who will break aggro like mad men and run like wild into the party? Should the situation arise where, God forbid, both the tank and the ele are facing death, then the tank should certainly get preference. --Karlos 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally have not really read the article (a quick skim which I have forgotten most of), but maybe I ought to try to write my own version from scratch on a personaly page that hopefully give a new perspective instead of playing tug-o-war over the same article. I don't have the time now (got some big homework) but when I can, I'll try doing it on User:Lunarbunny/Tank. I'm seeing all of this argument and not liking what it has been doing to people. Again, I'll get my own version up ASAP (likely to be tomorrow Pacific Time). - Lunarbunny 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At first I was really impressed with the discussion after I reignited the question of tank=warrior, good, healthy discussion is the cornserstone for a good teamwork and should increase the quality of writing and discussion, even strong discussion is a good thing when it shows that the people involved are passionate about the issues.


 * However it all got a bit heated and I was worried just what I'd unleached, the GuildWiki community would be much poorer without the contributions of Tetris L or Karlos. As it terns out this appears to have been a flashpoint for an ongoing issues between Tetris L and Karlos (and perhaps a few others), see Karlos's talk page for more info. So as I see it, the argument is not about this issue, Lunarbunny so I don't see any need for a rewrite, as one of the admins Nunix said "Things are running way too hot over a simple term-definition article." I reckon that this article is now well and truly at an acceptable level of quality, it's very comprehensive for a jargon definition piece, I say just leave it, I don't think that any further editing is going to massively improve the article and it will only serve to antagonize the players in this game. Although that said I think Karlos has been pretty calm and even handed in his explanations for some of the questions raised of late, I'm not going to give any examples, I had no intention of winding any one up. Please Lunarbunny don't rewrite the article, it's only going to open a whole new can of worms if you do, this whole thing is already starting to die down and the article is fine! Have a look at things myself and Shandy have said about your User:Lunarbunny/Experimental_PvP_Builds piece instead!!!! --Xasxas256


 * Anyone using the term "tank" in Guild Wars is misappropriating a term from EverQuest that should never have been copied over&mdash;the whole idea is meaningless, since there is no way to control aggression in Guild Wars. However, since the damage is already done&mdash;and people in this game insist on using a term that has no inherent meaning&mdash;this article, as it stands, is pretty good.  It's exhaustive, and it presents most (all?) sides of the phrase.  I second the request for cooler heads to prevail on this one.  &mdash;Tanaric 01:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll avoid the redux...and thanks for the comments on my Experimental Builds page. Ignore the link in my above comment&mdash;it'll remain red unless somebody vandalizes it. OH NO! The chem teacher hater! - Lunarbunny 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm? Please elaborate what you mean by "control aggression". --Xeeron 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what Tanaric was referring to specifically, but from D&D games, Barbarians had "taunts" and Morte had cussing, skills that directed aggro at a player. --Karlos 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In other MMORPGs such as WoW or EQ, it is possible for the warrior to make himself a prime target by simply attacking the enemy, although in WoW it's slightly more sophisticated with various skills either raising or lowering your 'threat' level. In GW it seems to the eye that the AI is fairly simplistic - they charge towards the casters for a set amount of time, if they don't reach them (or they become buffed) and then they target the nearest available foe. Shandy 09:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)