Build 12694 – Curious

I believe this is it for Death Knights, although I’ll obviously update the post immediately if I find I missed anything.

Pretty interesting stuff, overall – Unholy’s GCD problems just got even worse, and when you combine that with the fact that FeS hits harder than SS now, it could lead to us ignoring Reaping (despite the fact that it’s free!). DnD being reverted to its live form is a bit random – not necessarily a bad thing, really, just kind of out of the blue. All of the bug changes are, of course, quite nice.

Death Knight:


  • Death Runes are now functioning as intended.
  • Raise Dead now functions as intended.
  • Runic Empowerment no longer bugs out the rune display.



  • Glyph of Icy Touch – Frost Fever double-dips into the glyph when spread via Pestilence.


  • Corrupting Strikes – Now increases the damage of Festering Strike by 10/20/30%, in addition to the previous increase of the same potency for Plague Strike and Scourge Strike.
  • Dirge – Now increases the runic power generated from Festering Strike by 5/10, in addition to the previous increase of the same potency for Plague Strike and Scourge Strike.
  • Death and Decay – Now costs a Blood, Frost, and an Unholy rune (up from an Unholy rune). Damage increased by approximately 100%.
    • In other words, more or less reverted to its live form.

34 Responses to Build 12694 – Curious

  1. wesser says:

    The way in which runes recharge has changed.

    read that off of MMO-champ, any more info on it?

    • Consider says:

      Nah, it hasn’t. That was simply Blizzard’s way of referring to the new rune system. It’s been in the “official” patch notes since the start of beta – likely near the start of alpha as well.

    • WaffleDK says:

      Yeah, the “Official” patch notes are very rarely actually updated during the beta. It’s best not to go off of those for new changes on a build by build basis.

  2. Leviatharan says:

    Dirge applies to FeS too now?…
    Crap. This means my GCD map needs a tweak for more death coils. <.<

    • Leviatharan says:

      Huh. Does it seem strange to anyone else that you can officially just tap all 6 of your runes to get RP capped?

      • Olanai says:

        Now that’s an interesting observation – it gives me an idea for a different mechanic. Suppose that spending your runic power directly leads to increased rune recharge? That is, imagine the runes and runic power working off the same “power”, but split into two bins. Using rune abilities shifts power from the rune bin to the runic power bin, like today, but the reverse would also apply. The trade wouldn’t be 100% efficient, as you do want to leave some amount of resource hoarding and scarcity. Reduce the natural recharge rate of runes to roughly match the natural decay rate of runic power. The details of which runes get recharged in which order might be a bit tricky, but a least-recently-used method should be simple enough Add in some utility abilities that shift (consume) large amounts of power from one bin to the other. Add procs that amplify the damage/effects/power generation of either rune abilities or runic power, to mix things up in terms of rotation.

  3. Anaroth says:

    I wonder if the DnD change is a deliberate reversion. I can’t really see the point of it.

    The Corrupting Strikes change seems pretty obvious, but also kind of pointless, as I don’t really think they’re at the point of balancing unholy yet and the other specs don’t really use it.

    I wonder if the frost fever double dipping was introduced with their crappy pestilence spread disease nerf. Probably a non-issue as glyphs will no doubt get revised.

    Looking at the updated wowtal trees, MotFW now claims to add 100 RP when it procs!

    Shadow priests appear to have gotten some love as well as the stated fire mage changes.

    • Consider says:

      MotFW was already like that last patch. Complicated to explain, but basically, it has to say 100 to generate 10 (while previously it said 10 but only generated 1).

      If I’m not mistaken, it has to do with how they copy-pasted the proc from similar mana restore effects, I believe, and for those who will recall the Spark of Hope “bug” during Ulduar, mana effects translate to RP effect at a 10:1 ratio for whatever reason. Such is my speculation, anyways. I’m sure the tooltip will be fixed by live, it just probably requires some actual “under the hood” functionality changes, which just isn’t worth it yet since it is working as intended.

      • Anaroth says:

        Yeah I though it might be that. For some reason a lot of the energy / rage effects internally use values 10 times as large, perhaps to capture fractional information. Although I do believe the actual talent descriptions are implemented separately, but maybe they’re auto-generating them.

  4. Anaroth says:

    Hmmm I can’t believe they’ll leave Festering Strike as a better use of 2 death runes than Scourge Strike, but if it is the case then unholy’s gcd issues actually got slightly reduced as a Festering Strike is one less gcd and 15 less RP than the 2 Scourge Strikes… (although your other Festering Strike in a 20 second rotation will generate 10 more RP, so the RP is pretty much a wash)

  5. Vanq says:

    The DND change confuses me so did the one unholy rune. I play DK tank and the one unholy rune wasn’t so bad due to fact you could use DND then use PS 10 secs later if aoe threat was still required for free Blood Boil. The three rune DND makes it even worse as now you cant even use a HS/BB. The problem with blood tanks at moment is lack of a 1 Frost rune ability (Hence why ive always thought HB should be baseline ability not frost talent). Personally I feel if DND with 1 Unholy 1 Frost would work out alot better atleast from tank prespective due to alot of threat comes from blood runes, not really had chance to look at these changes from dps prespective.

  6. Gravity says:

    Hey Consider, maybe you could start a new OP on the official forums. I’m travelling with work so can’t really do it justice, and I think the current one is stupidly long now, too hard for new beta testers to know what’s discussed/ what’s outstanding/ what changed recently.

    • Consider says:

      Personally, I can’t stand super long threads like the current one (especially when I haven’t been reading from the beginning, as obviously wasn’t possible due to Alpha). Not a fan, for any number of reasons!

      If one isn’t done by someone else beforehand, I’ll do a new thread with a “compilation” type post when the next patch hits. I tend to have a knack for organizing such things, but there’s just little point in starting it now – everything that there is to discuss pretty much has been, to death at that.

  7. Jonneh says:

    I’m kinda getting annoyed with all the bit-part changes leaving us completely in the dark and guessing as to whats going on.

    I’d welcome any return to our AoE strength, so I hope the change back for DND is permanent.

    • Gravity says:

      Me too. Not annoyed but am getting a little frustrated with waiting. In fact, I’m running a poll asking people which class I should test next (ie. now) instead of the DK.

      Vote over here if you’d like.

      • Gosox says:

        If you’re taking time off your DK and don’t mind healing I’d love feedback on holy paladins but I can’t see your poll right now due to work webfilter blocking anything to do with games.

        On that note wanted to thank Consider for the format of this site as it stays under the radar of my work’s webfilter.

      • Consider says:

        I do what I can ^^.

    • Vanq says:

      Don’t get me wrong the return of the damage to DND is more than welcomed but with the new rune system sustaining aoe threat with a DND that costs 3 runes when we have gained a extra cleave target from HeartStrike, blood boil has been buffed and a free blood boil is using a unholy rune for PS just isnt something that will help us.

      Give the old DND damage but not three runes >< 1 frost or 1 frost 1 unholy or just make HB baseline with the damage split just like Divine Storm etc and it wont make frost any different because apart from unholys impurity the frost tree still has procs and buffs for HB. I'm not really going to be fond of using IT constantly for RP just because I have nothing else to use and fact that IT lost its threat multiplier confuses me even more when they didn't give us anything to use our frost runes on as a tank, they could make the new festering strike 1 frost rune reduce its dmg like scourge strike then everybody could use it gets really annoying when we need our blood runes for cds and threat yet they keep pushing blood runes onto abilities when frost runes have been untouched.

      I do agree with your comment about leaving us in the dark seems they don't even know what to do with our class. RE is a disaster sooo much RNG, threat issues and aoe issues. Hope they find a balance of Rune abilities and RP abilities soon with some half decent threat modifiers. Changing some rune cost abilities to RP cost abilities could solve some of these issues still leaves us with IT as only viable frost rune button.

  8. Baadshah of Dawnbringer says:

    To be honest, the DnD change sort of relieves me (even though it could just be a bug or unintended change). I’ve had DK friends complain about the neutered version as tanks, and I was one of the people who said that perhaps they were going overboard with clamping down on DK AoE.

    DnD is not the “incidental AoE” that we currently have (in the form of Wandering Plague and strong diseases on multiple targets). It has a high cost, a respectable cooldown and can’t just be fired off at a whim with no DPS cost. You also can’t “accidentally” fire it off and break CC- it’s a conscious decision.
    In other words, it’s just fine as it is right now (I assume it will scale upwards in Cataclysm to match new rune cooldowns).

    Wish for next patch: Revert Ebon Plague to its current spreadability (only fair if warlocks can do so with Jinx) and let it be caused by diseases, not strikes.

    • Consider says:

      I’m not quite following the first part of the last line. Ebon Plague is still spread by Pestilence, same as ever. All that’s changed is Outbreak doesn’t apply it for whatever reason (which, technically, isn’t a change, since Outbreak is new!).

      • Baadshah of Dawnbringer says:

        Sorry, I should have been more clear- I meant that this whole headache of it not scaling with Epidemic, not being caused by Outbreak, etc, would simply be solved if the disease went back to being caused by Blood Plague or Frost Fever, as opposed to the attacks that cause those diseases.

        Oh and I had forgotten it was still being spread by Pestilence- that’s good to remember.

  9. Anaroth says:

    I’m going to recant on the festering strike issue.

    However from reading the spell descriptions I think Festering Strike is only hitting about as hard as one Scourge Strike. If so then by ignoring reaping you’re losing a lot of dps.

    Thinking about it I’d like to see Festering strike hit almost as as two SS’s for a couple of reasons.

    1) It gives you more flexibility to deal with blood and frost rune RE procs. For example if a frost rune procs then previously you’re pretty much best ignoring it whether it’s currently a death rune or not. If Festering Strike was a good move to make with at least 1 Death Rune, then you can either wait for your other half of the runes to come up and use it with a death rune, or if it is a death rune then SS with it, and do a Festering Strike the next time the runes come up.

    2) It’s actually a great pacing mechanism. During periods where we’re close to being gcd constrained using Festering Strike over a two SS combination gives you an extra gcd and 6 seconds longer diseases (saving you part of a gcd) at the cost of some RP. Without a reduction in the melee gcd, such periods are unavoidable (like when we have unholy frenzy / blood lust). During those periods we will have much quicker rune regen and if our rotation is fairly tight normally (like it should be), we will be gcd constrained.

    • Jonneh says:

      As I’ve stated in posts before now.. making a 2 rune strike proc death runes never worked out for blood, because its just bad balance to have a strike cost twice as much but do less dps than two of the single rune strikes you’re supposed to replace it with. Ignoring the fact that you use an extra GCD.

      It ended with Blood only using death runes for HS when there were two targets, something which isn’t and probably never will be part of the SS mechanic, especially under cataclysm “aoe is dirty and to be shunned” mentality.

      They could probably have fixed this by making SS cost 2 unholy under the old rune system.. but obviously thats not possible without complicating matters alot.

      I tend to think that about all our major problems at the moment. You start to wonder if there really is an easy way to solve all these various issues, and if perhaps Blizzard are also sat there wondering how. Perhaps thats why we’ve heard nothing for weeks, perhaps the whole thing is going to be scrapped or reworked to make life easier.

      • Jonneh says:

        I actually think someone on the beta/US forums should make a serious post asking about our issues, and if Blizzard are aware.. and further more if the silence about DKs and lack of changes means they are doing something drastic.

      • Consider says:

        I wouldn’t say they’re doing something “drastic”, per se, but probably just taking a very long and thorough look at the new rune system. How drastic the actual changes end up being are all depends on what they conclude!

        If they realize a lot of our problems aren’t from the new rune system inherently so much as from how certain new (or old) additions – Runic Empowerment, for instance, but also the outdated resource cost on our tanking cooldowns, th lower reliability of RS for tanks, and so on – play with the new rune system, then we should see some interesting stuff in the weeks to come! If they come to the first conclusion, then who knows what they’ll do.

      • Anaroth says:

        That’s actually the reverse of the situation we’ve had in unholy with festering strike. Previously it hit for much less than 2 Scourge Strikes. I’m not sure what it is at now, but I suspect it’s still much less, some one on beta want to check for me?

        My feeling is balance wise it should definitely hit harder than SS+BS or SS+IT (or its not really worth using), and almost as hard as 2 x SS.

      • Consider says:

        It hits about as hard as a SS + BS/IT currently. I can parse some specific numbers in a little bit, if so desired.

        It would still be worth using if it didn’t hit as hard as SS + BS/IT… if you’re GCD capped, since it might do less damage per resource but greater damage per cast time. Which is the problem – in a GCD capped environment, you shift your focus away from damage per rune and to damage per cast time (which, for us, is simply damage per GCD). FeS can’t hit weaker than a single SS, of course, so if we can cap our rotations, which is so easy to do currently, we’re going to forgo Reaping and the like because it’s simple a dps loss, even if FeS is nothing more than the damage of a single SS + 1.

        The real problem is GCD capping. It’s bad. Bad, bad, bad!

      • Anaroth says:

        I wouldn’t mind some numbers tbh, in game tooltips would be useful.

        The big difference of course is that Festering Strike doesn’t get any disease bonuses.

        Using numbers from the online dbs, I get multpliers for talented FS as about 195% weapon damage, BS with 3 diseases as 110%, and talented 3 disease SS at about 180% (with extra from vicious strikes too). It also has the lowest static damage.

        The above numbers suggest that assuming you’re not currently gcd constrained that it’s probably only worth using Festering Strike on a pure F+B rune combo. (Even IT + PS/SS is probably more useful and more damage if you have F+D).

        If that is the case then I’d like to see the number pushed up a bit. Either directly or via a side effect.

        The issue of gcds is two-fold, unholy needs a nice relatively tight normal rotation, which is actually pretty easy to balance, we also need good ways to handle dynamically extra melee haste, which leads to extra resources.

        The easiest way to deal with it would be to have melee gcds be reduced by melee haste. If blizzard made a general change then it would buff most melee classes yellow damage during bloodlust/heroism. That I think is a good thing. There isn’t really a reason why casters should get an almost flat boost from haste when melee don’t. I actually think it would make balancing the melee classes easier too. Unfortunately it wouldn’t help kitties or rogues as they have a 1 second gcd already, however that could be changed. The other options would be to give us moves which could use up extra RP, or have us switch up our cycles, which has only moderate success for DKs.

  10. Jonneh says:

    GC Quote:

    We actually want Holy Wrath to feel like a filler. The reason is that we think it’s bad gameplay when players have absolutely no gaps in their rotation. Our encounters get increasingly complex to the point where we often ask you to worry about extra things beyond your core rotation. We also don’t want things that break up your rotation (like say a knockback or fear) to be horribly punitive (it can be punitive, but shouldn’t destroy your dps relative to someone else’s).

    To use the specific example, Ret isn’t going to want to skip over a Crusader’s Strike or Templar’s Verdict opportunity except under extreme duress. But missing a Holy Wrath once in awhile won’t be devastating. It might be a dps loss, but it won’t crater your dps. We want all of the classes to have the occasional GCD with nothing going on, so long as it is truly occasional and not constant. This is less important with casters because they do have short periods while casting to look around and notice the state of the encounter. With the live DKs for example, there is absolutely no time to do anything but mash buttons, or the whole rotation collapses.

    Aware of issues, but so far only making it worse!

  11. Raaj says:

    So, today’s news aside, where is Consider’s new Hypothetical Unholy talent tree change post?

    Lol, after yesterday’s Frost tree change post, I am looking forward to this new post more than anything that actually comes from Blizzard!

  12. Leviatharan says:

    “Any tweets/whatever on the subject while I type the rest of this up would be most appreciated.Could always just make FP = PvE dps, UP = PvP”

    First off, I am in love with the idea that spec X will use X presence and Y will use Y presence. If Unholy DPS is viable, then making UP a PvP pres would ruin the philosophy.
    Second, following the previous statement, I don’t think Blood needs to have a matching DPS presence. You don’t see Prot wars DPSing because they have two stronger DPS specs, why do the same for Blood DKs?

    Personally I think that Unholy Presence is fine on the general Haste front (the IUP talent suggests it’s just haste, the presence just seems to define what the haste does), since it contributes to the rune regeneration (in contrast to Frost’s RP generation), pet haste, and (I’m guessing from IUP again here) disease ticking. However I do think that it does need more, since a Frost DK has more haste at any given time from Icy Talons alone, and the increased movement speed is debatable as an upgrade.
    Perhaps if the presence increased another stat that Unholy DKs use over other specs, like… Crit or Crit damage? That would make sense considering that diseases are effected by both Crit and the Haste given by UP, but then Frost might want it based on KM alone.
    If we used another stat given to the ghouls like Strength, then Frost still might try to use it.
    The only other option I can see is increasing Shadow Damage slightly, which might require increasing the damage of FP slightly to match, though I have no objection to that.

    • Leviatharan says:

      That, or increased pet damage, which might actually be a welcome change and still fit into the tree’s philosophy, and still be something the other two specs wouldn’t use.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: