Transmog yourself into an Avenger!
6 blue posts to read before Diablo 3's launch
Cross-realm zones coming soon
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsVal'anyr is a Paladin weapon
by Zach Yonzon 
Apr 28th 2009 at 4:00PM
Ferarro compares Val'anyr to other best-in-slot competitors, from the Turning Tide from Kel'thuzad to the new Ulduar weapons. Given that the proc seems to favor humongous heals, it seems tailor made for Holy Paladins, masters of nuke healing. The effect also seems to proc pretty often according to Ferraro, who reveals, "for what it's worth, when I saw it in action a while ago it was proccing 100% of the time". Not only that, but she points out that the lack of Spirit makes it sub-par for Priests; the lack of MP5 makes it less than attractive for Shamans; and notes that Druids aren't exactly in the market for Crit Rating, which Val'anyr has. It's a rather interesting read, and something I'll probably send to our GM for some, um, consideration...
Filed under: Paladin, Items, Analysis / Opinion
Reader Comments (Page 6 of 6)
Joli Apr 29th 2009 2:11AM
"No one has proven me wrong yet" -Ferarro
Go google "Discipline Priest". Theres your proof.
traiand Apr 29th 2009 4:30AM
Our officers stated that it does not matter for which healing class the mace would be the most usefull.
The mace goes to the priest, as a reward for his contribution for guild and guild progress past last two years.
rulrich Apr 29th 2009 4:37AM
it's not a paladin item, you QQing retard paladin and you wont be able to get it, its for all healing classes, if it was for paladins, then it would say. all i can c is that ferrero kid QQing coz she wants to get it for herself, its best for priests and resto shammies, holypaladins comes 2nd and then druids the last.
im sorry but i talked to ferrero's guild master and they are giving it to the priest. so you lost and you wasted your hours to make that web post in ur blog, hahaha, QQ moar naw
Ferarro Apr 29th 2009 8:25AM
Learn to read.
Then read my article.
Slowly.
And you didn't talk to my GM because a.) I'M the guild master, and b.) my guild isn't on servers you can access. *laugh*
But congrats to whoever Priest is getting it. It's a great weapon for them, too!
JaneLame Apr 29th 2009 6:03AM
I'm a priest and I've no intention to bid on Val'anir. I suggest that the rest of the spirit users would do the same.
Steve Apr 29th 2009 4:54AM
Wow, who would have thought the first legendary healing weapon would be for anyone other than blizz's pet class?
Sylantt Apr 29th 2009 5:31AM
Just a thought, and a pointless one, however:
Does anyone know if it works of VE from a Shadow Priest?
Thats lots of bubbles, very small ones granted, thought!
Averna Apr 29th 2009 8:37AM
"I wrote - and explained a dozen times - that it's simply the best in the hands on a Paladin, stat-wise. There's a big difference between me saying what my class can do versus me saying what your class shouldn't do. Don't make me a villain and take my article as the latter, especially when you yourself agree with it in your own post."
I agree with you that it's a decent paladin mace, stats-wise. And if that's all you said in your article, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
But you didn't say it's best in the hands of a Paladin, stats wise. You said it's best in the hands of a Paladin, period. Your post wasn't just about stats. If it was, it wouldn't have a big long section about the proc, and how it's best used by paladins.
You're not a villian, you're just wrong.
And no, you never wrote "it's ONLY a paladin mace." I'm not saying you did. However, you did write that it is best for paladins, based on the stats, the proc, and the slot. I argued that based on the stats, you're right; based on the proc, you're wrong; and your slot argument is just flawed to begin with.
Ferarro Apr 29th 2009 9:45AM
"best in the hands of a Paladin, stats wise."
"best in the hands of a Paladin, period."
That's... the same statement. It's currently best in the hands of a Paladin. It doesn't mean it's BAD in the hands of a Druid or Priest or Shaman.
And the only argument you can make for the proc is based on what you haven't seen yet: the proc itself. I, on the other hand, actually saw the early version of the proc back in March and I'm basing my opinion on that. And I said in my post that if it's still the same on Live (which I hope it isn't), then Paladins will get the biggest kick out of it.
If the proc is amazing gets somehow customized for every healing class via some option or quick quest, then that cancels out the proc argument. All that's left are the stats.
I'll let you figure it out from there.
Ferarro Apr 29th 2009 9:56AM
Look, I know you must really, really, really, want this mace super-duper bad, and that so much is hinging on getting it. So maybe you read my article as saying, "This mace is not for druids!" And with Wowinsider's title of the post (which I'm not happy about), I can see how someone could immediately think that's my stance. But it's not. And if you've read my post like you say you have, I really can't understand where you're coming from with any argument when you're agreeing with me.
The stats favor Paladins > Druids. We both agree on that.
The proc's mechanics is unknown to you and I've seen it first hand. Unless it's changed, it's still Paladins > Druids.
It's not a personal attack on you from Blizzard or me. Those are just facts. And to be honest, I truly hope the proc and mace can be altered or customized in some way. Because if not, when the Live version gets revealed, all of this will start over again, the theorycrafters will break out their pens, and in less than a week X class will benefit Y% more from Z proc. And everyone NOT playing that class will be up in arms like you and so many others who read that post and aren't Paladins.
Myria Apr 29th 2009 9:52AM
Clueless idiot writes mindlessly biased article based on a ton of assumptions -- assumptions that, surprise, surprise, ONLY favor her argument -- pulled out of her rectum, and this is news why?
I mean, seriously, that post was worse then most of the crap that shows up in the official forums... And that's truly saying something. Not to mention that if the author backpedals anymore she's going to fall right off of that "I'm a leet raider" pedestal she's put herself on.
No one has seen the thing in-game, no one knows how the proc works, any speculation right now is pointless (ask bear druids -- if you can find one -- how well the SD speculation worked out when compared to the end result) and any claims of it being "best" for anyone WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT WORKS is idiotic beyond belief.
Ferarro Apr 29th 2009 10:00AM
How have I backpedaled? Enlighten me.
snoozypanda Apr 29th 2009 12:35PM
The whole POINT of the legendary mace is the proc, and it's clearly designed to be used advantageously by all healing classes whether they're proc'ing single-target large shields or multiple small shields.
To disregard the proc and evaluate it based on stats and conclude that Stats + Proc makes it a better Paladin mace is ridiculous.
And the argument for Stats is not sound. The author essentially says that because it has no Spirit, no Mp5, and has Crit makes it lesser of a weapon for Priests, Shamans, and Druids respectively.
...you know, there's a REASON blizzard created Sockets, Enchants, and other gear slots. The point is to mix and balance your itemization across all your gear. None of the healing classes NEED any particular stat on an item for it to be "better" or "interesting" to them. It depends on your itemization on your other gear, enchants, and gems to make any item BiS for you.
Spellpower and Int trumps all other stats for all healing classes. Crit/Haste are secondary considerations as well as Spirit/Mp5. I've seen many many Shamans/Priests/Druids in high level content go for Haste/Crit gear to better itemize those stats, because at that level--they don't need the mp5, the spirit, etc.
I'm rather disappointed that wowinsider highlighted quite so biased and incomplete of an article. Obviously someone was a Paladin too...read the entry again and think whether it actually makes sense objectively before just deciding to broadcast it because it suits your interests.
Any random person can write a blog article saying it's better for X class, do your research and publish one that's actually got it's facts straight and it's a completely biased perspective.
snoozypanda Apr 29th 2009 12:37PM
*isn't a completely biased perspective.
Verit Apr 29th 2009 2:20PM
I'd say it really depends how much regen you already have on the rest of your gear.
Since I'll never have this weapon - I really don't care, but massive amounts of crit and spell power is still nice for a resto shaman.
Isiene Apr 29th 2009 5:26PM
"Look, I know you must really, really, really, want this mace super-duper bad, and that so much is hinging on getting it."
I felt a little ill when Averna's points countering Ferarro's *arguments* were met with the petty, mocking, and contemptuous tone of Ferarro's reply as quoted above. This is slightly off topic, but Ferarro: despite the fact that you're getting attacked by people from all sides, shouldn't you respond to gracious arguments with grace, and if you truly need to spew condescension, go pick those who attacked your person first, and not your argument?
Responding with a personal jab when presented with a rational argument is one of the most frequent signs that the personal attacker doesn't have a logical reply.
In short, regardless of my own opinions on the matter, are any of us even surprised that there is this much controversy and high emotion from her post? After all, voicing a controversial sentence at the very beginning of a post, and then sticking on a few qualifying paragraphs at the very end doesn't do anything to negate the emotional slap of the first controversial sentence.
For a quick refresher, the first sentence I'm referring to is this:
"This is first and foremost a Paladin mace. Period."
I think her article would've had a FAR better reception without that initial sentence and claim. The EXACT same thing could've been said with more grace, more tact, and of course, a lot less explosive and dramatic appeal. Sure, that explosive appeal might be exactly what the author is trying for, but in the end, without it, more people would agree with her; less screaming about classes, stats, rights and wrongs would ensue. But this sentence makes me think that the author wasn't trying for reason or sense as the ultimate goal. That sentence was trying for shock value, attention, and controversy in every single word and letter. And it got it: the attention now is skyrocketing.
That said, again, this whole affair makes me slightly nauseous. I read many, many WoW blogs, and thankfully, none of their articles ever inspired the pettiness and cat-fighting this one post did -- in some part due to the author's responses to readers' comments.
In the end, if the author doesn't have the emotional backbone, fortitude, and grace to deal with the ensuing controversy that she inspired (as I know I personally do not), then don't poke the bear in the first place.
tl;dr version: The first sentence of the blog post made a massive bid for attention, and that massive cry for attention kicked off enough hot air that what logical points the author eventually did make were lost in the drama of it all.
Gemeril Apr 30th 2009 11:26AM
The reason that people are disregarding the war glaives and huntard bow is because the hammer DOESN'T drop.
The shards do, and anyone can turn them in... So when you get the weapon, who's to say it's not class specific, or should be? That would be a very easy thing for blizzard to do.
darkeshadowe May 5th 2009 3:52PM
You are wrong and misleading people with this. I know it's an archive, but it is not a Paladin weapon. You really need to amend this post.
Blue Post from blizzard stating it's for ANY healer, including druids.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=16903512910&sid=1