Page 70 of 70 FirstFirst ...
20
60
68
69
70
  1. #1381
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    You are right though; It's not a Warcraft or Blizzard character, so why use it as potential new class material?
    I don't know, you're the one criticizing it for being something it's not.

    Like I said, it's just a picture of a dude unrelated to WoW. There's no argument here about it being a Fury Warrior; but it tells a lot about the person who sees that in an unrelated image.

  2. #1382
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    Then please list the number of weapon-based attacks within the Monk class.
    They still use swords to attack.

    You are right though; It's not a Warcraft or Blizzard character, so why use it as potential new class material?
    Because it could still be used as inspiration for a new class. Monks did not exist in Warcraft 3 before.

  3. #1383
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They still use swords to attack.
    Since you're too afraid the answer, the correct response is 1. ONE weapon-based attack, and even that is optional, because its the Jab button.

    Which in turn can be glyphed to make it so you punch instead of use your equipped weapon.

    Kind of hard to be a swordsman when you have one weapon-based attack that in itself isn't really a weapon-based attack.

    Because it could still be used as inspiration for a new class. Monks did not exist in Warcraft 3 before.
    But Monks existed in WoW ever since Vanilla. Pandaren Monks existed in WoW since WotLK. That androgynous swordsman has never existed anywhere in WoW.

    Blizzard likes broad class ideas. That six-sworded warrior doesn't provide that. Heck, Warriors have Bladestorm anyway.
    Last edited by BedlamBros; Yesterday at 01:28 AM.

  4. #1384
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    ONE weapon-based attack, and even that is optional, because its the Jab button.
    Your idea of 'optional' is weird, since that is a mandatory skill to do most of your other skills.

    Kind of hard to be a swordsman when you have one weapon-based attack that in itself isn't really a weapon-based attack.
    Doesn't change the fact that the monk is a sword-wielding fighter.

    But Monks existed in WoW ever since Vanilla.
    No. No, they did not. Unless you can provide proof to back your claim?
    Pandaren Monks existed in WoW since WotLK.
    No. No, they did not. Unless you can provide proof to back your claim?
    Last edited by Ielenia; Yesterday at 02:16 AM.

  5. #1385
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Your idea of 'optional' is weird, since that is a mandatory skill to do most of your other skills.
    Monks can perform Jab unarmed. In fact, Monks can perform all of their abilities unarmed.

    How many Warrior abilities can you perform unarmed? Don't worry, I don't expect for you to answer that either.

    Doesn't change the fact that the monk is a sword-wielding fighter.
    See above.

    No. No, they did not.
    http://www.wowhead.com/npc=11043

    Check out the patch.

    No. No, they did not.
    http://www.wowhead.com/item=49665

    Check out the patch.

    How many times can someone be wrong in a single thread?

  6. #1386
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    Monks can perform Jab unarmed. In fact, Monks can perform all of their abilities unarmed.
    You should take a look at Warlods of Draenor beta. Just sayin'.

    How many Warrior abilities can you perform unarmed? Don't worry, I don't expect for you to answer that either.
    We're not talking warriors, we're talking monks.

    Yes. It kicks and trashes. Great monk.

    Promotional pets are not canon. Unless, of course, you could point me where, outside of players, one could find any of the kinds of murlocs you can have as pets. I'd love to meet the murloc marine. Or the zerg...
    Last edited by Ielenia; Yesterday at 03:26 AM.

  7. #1387
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    Since you're too afraid the answer, the correct response is 1. ONE weapon-based attack, and even that is optional, because its the Jab button.

    Which in turn can be glyphed to make it so you punch instead of use your equipped weapon.

    Kind of hard to be a swordsman when you have one weapon-based attack that in itself isn't really a weapon-based attack.



    But Monks existed in WoW ever since Vanilla. Pandaren Monks existed in WoW since WotLK. That androgynous swordsman has never existed anywhere in WoW.

    Blizzard likes broad class ideas. That six-sworded warrior doesn't provide that. Heck, Warriors have Bladestorm anyway.
    The six sworded warrior is your strawman, not mine.

    The image is exploring the distilled extracted essence of what a demon hunter offers outside of the Night Elf demon hunter of Warcraft 3 if it were to become a multiracial class.

    The demon hunter specialists of WC3 who were NOT ILLIDAN, something the majority of detractors here continue to seem oblivious towards and ignore in favor of touting Illidan and his Illidari as the be all and end all, ignoring there were demon hunters in the the last decade fighting in the ranks and front lines of the Kaldorei army while Illidan was a hunted fugitive and criminal if Warcraft 3 implied anything with it's hero unit templates.

    The number of swords he is wearing has fucking zero to do with anything here. This is why discussing highly aesthetic topics with people who are mired in literalist thinking is an exercise in banging your head on a wall while expecting it to start to feel pleasurable.

    The demon hunter is inspired by the archetype of the light armored or naked fleet footed wardancer who is augmented by the demonic and the supernatural.

    The fury warrior who fights with a juxtaposed nimble grace and finesse in conjunction with their renowned martial devastation, rather than merely a howling mindless berserker. It is a highly specialized hybrid of the fury warrior and the rogue, once said to use "chaos", something that thematically lends itself well to void and shadow magic as much as the arcane fire and fel.

    It is an icon for Warcraft as an intellectual property, highly visual in it's identity, and so far barely explored in the lore, constantly and intentionally held back on the fringes as something shrouded in enigma used to tease and entice and inspire as something of an easter egg. So far in WOW we've only seen strange solitary hermits who have all but nearly zero history that is known of yet along with a very specific new breed of them indoctrinated in a dogma which the demon hunters of WC3's Night Elf army specialist had nothing to do with if what was implied by WC3 is consistently a factor here even when it isn't convenient for your position.

    The image is meant to explore how being a demon hunter could be extended from Night Elves, as Blizzard did with the Illidari in kind with the Blood Elves. A human demon hunter. It implies the fertile ground here for that which is novel but what still resounds with the traditional and iconic. The blademaster, the wardancer, the blind yet nimble killer.

    Trust the contextually challenged tendency the detractors in this subject demonstrate to totally miss the fucking point and use selectively judged context as another weapon to poke holes in their own strawmen. Have fun with that.
    Last edited by Yig; Yesterday at 04:12 AM.
    If you like my draw-rings. http://yig.deviantart.com/
    If you can't find them for some reason beyond that page. http://yig.deviantart.com/gallery/
    WOW screenshot and concept art gallery http://smg.photobucket.com/user/evilknick/library/WoW

  8. #1388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You should take a look at Warlods of Draenor beta. Just sayin'.
    You can still preform Jab without a weapon.

    We're not talking warriors, we're talking monks.
    I'm comparing a class that is weapon dependent with a class that is not weapon dependent. Try to keep up.

    A Warrior requires a weapon to perform the majority of his abilities. Which is why you could call a sword carrying warrior a "Swordsman" because his abilities are based around the sword. The Monk's abilities are based around punching and kicking. It's a big difference.

    Yes. It kicks and trashes. Great monk.
    Still a Monk.


    Promotional pets are not canon.
    Where did I say it was canon? I just said it was in the game during WotLK.

    Let me know when that blind half naked swordsman pops up, then we can have an actual conversation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Yig View Post
    The six sworded warrior is your strawman, not mine.

    The image is exploring the distilled extracted essence of what a demon hunter offers outside of the Night Elf demon hunter of Warcraft 3 if it were to become a multiracial class.
    You really shouldn't waste your time. There's pretty much zero chance a Demon Hunter class will appear in the game.

    It's the same reason that swordsman could never become a class; The armor system in WoW doesn't support the aesthetic you're looking for. You guys want some shirtless blind guy running around with bladed weapons. The problem with that is that isn't a WoW class, that's one of those crappy Asian MMOs where the character has one appearance throughout the entire game, and the armor and weapons don't really change. In WoW every class is going to be fully armored from head to toe. No class will ever get blindfolds, invisible chest armor, or shoulder pads. No class will ever get one type of weapon that they must use at all times. A class must have helmets, full chest armor, shoulder armor, etc. Along with being able to equip a wide variety of weaponry.

    That effectively eliminates the Demon Hunter because its entire appeal revolves around being exactly what a WoW class is not.

  9. #1389
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    I'm comparing a class that is weapon dependent with a class that is not weapon dependent. Try to keep up.
    Again, we're not talking about warriors, this thread is about Demon Hunters.

    Where did I say it was canon? I just said it was in the game during WotLK.
    If it's not canon, then it doesn't exist in Warcraft.

    Let me know when that blind half naked swordsman pops up, then we can have an actual conversation.
    These guys?

    You really shouldn't waste your time. There's pretty much zero chance a Demon Hunter class will appear in the game.
    Thank you for sharing your opinion. You can move along, now.

    In WoW every class is going to be fully armored from head to toe.
    Then give them mail armor. No problem.
    No class will ever get blindfolds
    Just like no class would fight unarmed or have its own attack animations prior to MoP?
    No class will ever get one type of weapon that they must use at all times.
    Hunters say 'hello'.
    A class must have helmets
    And yet we can hide them...
    full chest armor, shoulder armor, etc.
    I don't see any issue in giving them full mail armor.
    Along with being able to equip a wide variety of weaponry.
    Hunters say 'hello'. (x2)
    Last edited by Ielenia; Yesterday at 04:54 AM.

  10. #1390
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Again, we're not talking about warriors, this thread is about Demon Hunters.
    According to what you guys want in the game, there's little difference.


    If it's not canon, then it doesn't exist in Warcraft.
    Fortunately we have something called reality that exists outside of your opinion.


    Blademasters are part of the Warrior class. Thanks for proving my point.


    Just like no class would fight unarmed or have its own attack animations prior to MoP?
    Yet Monks still wear head to toe armor, and can still equip a variety of weapons.

    Good luck developing armor tiers when everyone just wants to wear kilts and blindfolds.

    Hunters say 'hello'. (x2)
    Guns, Crossbows, and Bows are not one type of weapon. And they can still equip non-ranged weapons.

    DH lovers want to use Warglaives, not maces, axes, or daggers.
    Last edited by BedlamBros; Yesterday at 04:59 AM.

  11. #1391
    You seem to be stereotyping a lot here, making arguments that aren't sound.

    "According to you guys" says a lot, considering you don't know what anyone wants here. You assume what people want, then attack it. For instance, you said DH lovers want to use Warglaives and nothing else. Who here in this current discussion even mentioned Warglaives? Only you.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; Yesterday at 05:09 AM.

  12. #1392
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    Fortunately we have something called reality that exists outside of your opinion.
    Actually, ask anyone: if something is not canon to a fictional universe, then said something does not exist in said fictional universe. That is reality.

    Blademasters are part of the Warrior class. Thanks for proving my point.
    I don't see any of those attacks in the warrior list...

    Yet Monks still wear head to toe armor, and can still equip a variety of weapons.
    Yet every photo of a monk you find is wearing cloth... and weren't you earlier advocating monks do not use weapons?

    Good luck developing armor tiers when everyone just wants to wear kilts and blindfolds.
    Or, like I said, full mail armor.

    Guns, Crossbows, and Bows are not one type of weapon. And they can still equip non-ranged weapons.
    Yes, they are a single type of weapon. A type of weapon no other class uses. And they can equip some non-ranged weapons, yes, but they would not be able to do over 90% of their attacks.

    DH lovers want to use Warglaives, not maces, axes, or daggers.
    Don't put words on everyone's mouth. We want Demon Hunters, and I don't mind them wielding daggers, swords or even axes.
    Last edited by Ielenia; Yesterday at 05:25 AM.

  13. #1393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Actually, ask anyone: if something is not canon to a fictional universe, then said something does not exist in said fictional universe. That is reality.
    The Pandaren Monk existing in the game during WotLK is a reality. You believing that something outside of canonical lore not existing is your opinion.

    Hopefully you can see the difference.


    I don't see any of those attacks in the warrior list...
    Good point! I wonder why those attacks wouldn't be on the Warrior list...

    Blind Strike
    10 yd range
    3 sec cast
    Inflicts 185000 to 215000 Physical damage.
    Oh.......

    Yet every photo of a monk you find is wearing cloth... and weren't you earlier advocating monks do not use weapons?
    Yeah, this is also a game with walking and talking Panda bears. You're really looking for real-world accuracy in WoW?

    And I didn't say that Monks didn't use weapons bright boy. I said that Monks can perform all of their abilities without weapons, so they're not "swordsmen" or "pikemen", they're basically barefisted martial artists. They still use them for for that ONE weapon-based attack that they perform.


    Or, like I said, full mail armor.
    Which goes completely against the desired Demon Hunter aesthetic and completely erases their uniqueness. How would you tell a DH apart from a Rogue or a Warrior for example?

    Yes, they are a single type of weapon.
    When I said single type of weapon I was talking about swords, since I have yet to see a DH not using a sword or a Warglaive.

    Guns, Crossbows, and Bows are three different types of weapon.


    Don't put words on everyone's mouth. We want Demon Hunters, and I don't mind them wielding daggers, swords or even axes.
    If you're willing to compromise everything that makes them unique and interesting, why do you want them?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    You seem to be stereotyping a lot here, making arguments that aren't sound.

    "According to you guys" says a lot, considering you don't know what anyone wants here. You assume what people want, then attack it. For instance, you said DH lovers want to use Warglaives and nothing else. Who here in this current discussion even mentioned Warglaives? Only you.
    So out of this ENTIRE discussion, you decide to pull out a small part of my argument, take it out of context, and then try to use it against me?

    Why do I even bother?

    The best part of all of this is the silly argument that you guys would be willing to compromise on every aspect of what makes a DH to bring the DH into the game.You wouldn't, and neither would any other DH fan. You guys would QQ to high heaven about how your DH doesn't feel like the real Demon Hunter or some other crap.

    Which is why Blizzard isn't going to bring it into the game. They can't match the expectation.
    Last edited by BedlamBros; Yesterday at 05:57 AM.

  14. #1394
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    So out of this ENTIRE discussion, you decide to pull out a small part of my argument, take it out of context, and then try to use it against me?
    No, I took many examples of things you've said that make no sense. You've not answered any of them, so I keep picking examples of inconsistency in your 'arguments'. It all stems from the same issue that you have though - that you're angry against the strawman.

    Again like my examples before, you said that character with 6 swords was a Fury Warrior, then proceeded with an argument that the character would never happen in WoW because it has 6 swords. All the while, you said it couldn't be a Monk despite describing the character as asian styled. When confronted with examples of Monks that use swords, you ask to see a WoW Monk that fights with swords - despite the fact the character in the art isn't fighting with swords at all.

    Now you're saying Demon Hunters have to have Warglaives, even though no one ever brought them up. None of this is relevant to the discussion nor does it have any point. You're having a fictional argument with 'Demon Hunter lovers' who want a 6-sworded Warglaive-only fury warrior that 'could wear plate' from a crappy asian MMO. What happens when anyone says that's not what we want to see? You attack them by saying they're straying from the 'Demon Hunter identity'.

    In the end it's just your opinion. We can't stop you from seeing a narrow archetype that can't fit in as a playable class. Acknowledging it however doesn't make it any more true. Everything goes through change when being adapted into a playable class. Even the Druids had to be opened up to multiple races and both genders to become playable. Even if we don't like it, it doesn't change the fact a female Tauren Druid will be a Druid. A gnome Death Knight in Frost spec dual wielding axes is just as much a Death Knight as an Arthas clone.

    So why would a Demon Hunter that strays from being a typical Illidan clone not be a Demon Hunter? Being Barechested and using Warglaives does not define what a Demon Hunter is. Using Fel magic and having a demonic theme doesn't make a Demon Hunter. Having Spectral Sight and Arcane Tattooes doesn't make a Demon Hunter. There is only one thing that makes it true - Lore. It's the one thing that makes wannabes like Rogues with Warglaives or Warlocks using Dark Apotheosis simply wannabes. They're always going to be Rogues and Warlocks. The only way to play a Demon Hunter is to play a Demon Hunter.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; Yesterday at 06:43 AM.

  15. #1395
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    No, I took many examples of things you've said that make no sense. You've not answered any of them, so I keep picking examples of inconsistency in your 'arguments'. It all stems from the same issue that you have though - that you're angry against the strawman.
    Actually I answered all of your questions. You asked why that character couldn't be a Mage or a Warlock. I answered that question in post #1352. You asked why that character couldn't be a Rogue or a Monk. I answered that question in post#1356. You had some further confusion about my argument, and I answered those questions in post #1360.

    What question did I miss exactly?

    Again like my examples before, you said that character with 6 swords was a Fury Warrior, then proceeded with an argument that the character would never happen in WoW because it has 6 swords. All the while, you said it couldn't be a Monk despite describing the character as asian styled.
    Asian styled as in Asian MMOs like Ragnarok Online, Dungeon Fighter Online, or Aeon.

    When confronted with examples of Monks that use swords, you ask to see a WoW Monk that fights with swords - despite the fact the character in the art isn't fighting with swords at all.
    I said that a Monk isn't a swordsman, which they aren't. They're barefisted martial artists who occasionally use weapons.

    The character in the art is clearly a swordsman since he has 5 swords and is a warrior. I mean seriously, what is your point here?

    Now you're saying Demon Hunters have to have Warglaives, even though no one ever brought them up. None of this is relevant to the discussion nor does it have any point. You're having a fictional argument with 'Demon Hunter lovers' who want a 6-sworded Warglaive-only fury warrior that 'could wear plate' from a crappy asian MMO. What happens when anyone says that's not what we want to see? You attack them by saying they're straying from the 'Demon Hunter identity'.
    Simply more nonsensical confusion on your part. I never said that DHs have to use Warglaives. I said that people who want DHs want them to have warglaives because that's part of their appeal. The problem with the DH is that if you begin to diverge from the core image of the concept, it loses its strength and appeal. And yes, anyone saying that they don't want the bare-chested, blindfolded, warglaive swinging DH is simply lying in an attempt to "win" an internet debate. If that isn't what you want out of the DH, then you don't want the DH in the first place.

    Earlier in this thread YOU were talking Blindfolds and Arcane tattoos as a way to distinguish the DH from Warlocks. Well guess what? They can't have blindfolds or Arcane tattoos, because those aren't compatible with WoW's armor system. So please explain what makes the DH unique and interesting when the very class system itself works against the very thing you were arguing for.


    So why would a Demon Hunter that strays from being a typical Illidan clone not be a Demon Hunter? Being Barechested and using Warglaives does not define what a Demon Hunter is. Using Fel magic and having a demonic theme doesn't make a Demon Hunter. Having Spectral Sight and Arcane Tattooes doesn't make a Demon Hunter. There is only one thing that makes it true - Lore. It's the one thing that makes wannabes like Rogues with Warglaives or Warlocks using Dark Apotheosis simply wannabes. They're always going to be Rogues and Warlocks. The only way to play a Demon Hunter is to play a Demon Hunter.
    Yes, and what does lore say? Lore says that the only living DHs are Night Elves, and that DH training is arduous, and can lead its practitioners into insanity or even death. Out of 5 Blood Elves sent to train with Illidan, only one survived to become a DH. 3 died, and 1 went insane. I'm pretty sure that its stated somewhere that only Elves can survive the process. Which would make sense since they're the only DHs we've encountered in WoW.

    However, I'm sure you're willing to ignore that part of lore in order for Blizzard to implement the class and the number of DHs go from 3 to millions in a blink of an eye.

    Gotta love that adherence to lore.....

  16. #1396
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    What question did I miss exactly?
    You didn't miss any questions, you just didn't answer any of them with anything other than opinion.

    You're literally the only one in this entire discussion who is saying a blindfolded swordsman wearing leather garments with 6 swords is a Fury Warrior. You're calling people out for asking for Warglaives when you were the one who brought it up, and at the same time admonishing them for straying from any other Demon Hunter concept that doesn't use Warglaives.

    The question is... what is your point? That a class can't exist because it doesn't exist yet?

    I said that people who want DHs want them to have warglaives because that's part of their appeal.
    Ielenia: We want Demon Hunters, and I don't mind them wielding daggers, swords or even axes.
    Bedlambros: If you're willing to compromise everything that makes them unique and interesting, why do you want them?
    Wanting them because of appeal and Compromising everything that makes them unique and interesting are two very different things. Your statement implies Warglaives are everything that makes a Demon Hunter unique. Whether you intentionally meant it or not, what you have there is a loaded question.

    Earlier in this thread YOU were talking Blindfolds and Arcane tattoos as a way to distinguish the DH from Warlocks.
    A Runemaster could have Arcane Tattooes too. Maybe there's another type of class that could have Spectral Sight, who knows. The point is Warlocks don't have either. These are themes that a Demon Hunter has exclusive to them, but they don't define what a Demon Hunter is any more than Holy Magic defines what a Paladin is. Sunwalkers don't exactly use Holy, but they're still Paladins. What defines a class is lore, nothing else.

    However, I'm sure you're willing to ignore that part of lore in order for Blizzard to implement the class and the number of DHs go from 3 to millions in a blink of an eye.
    Nowhere in lore does it state that Demon Hunters are exclusive to Night Elves, since we already have examples of Blood Elves becoming them. Nowhere in the lore does it state Demon Hunters can only use Warglaives nor that they have to be bare-chested. All the lore says is that they're shadowy warriors who use demonically charged warblades, and that they gained spectral sight through rituals and that they've made pacts with darkness.

    There is no conflict in lore that prevents a Demon Hunter (class) from being playable. It is the only thing that we need to create a Demon Hunter class, even if it doesn't play like the image of a Fury Warrior with Warglaives that you imagine in your head.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; Yesterday at 09:13 AM.

  17. #1397
    Well this thread took a sudden turn for the inane.

    Don't feed the troll, guys.

  18. #1398
    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    The Pandaren Monk existing in the game during WotLK is a reality. You believing that something outside of canonical lore not existing is your opinion.
    Actually, it doesn't exist in the lore, in the canon universe. First off: we never see Pandaren that small, unless they're children, so unless you're saying Blizzard advocates putting children in pit fights to knock each other unconscious for the amusement of adults....

    Good point! I wonder why those attacks wouldn't be on the Warrior list...
    Oh.......
    Probably because the Warrior does not have the 'blind fighter' theme?

    Yeah, this is also a game with walking and talking Panda bears. You're really looking for real-world accuracy in WoW?
    So it's ok for Blizzard to deviate from source material if it suits your arguments, but when others offer deviations of source material for their arguments... it's suddenly not allowed....? Prime example below.

    Which goes completely against the desired Demon Hunter aesthetic and completely erases their uniqueness. How would you tell a DH apart from a Rogue or a Warrior for example?
    Because none of those wear mail armor? How do you tell a Warlock apart from a Priest or Mage if they're wearing the same armor? How do you tell apart a Rogue from a Druid or Monk if they wear the same armor? Through their class mechanics and play-style.

    When I said single type of weapon I was talking about swords, since I have yet to see a DH not using a sword or a Warglaive.
    So you haven't seen a DH use anything other than a sword or warglaive. Good for you. Now tell me where, in the lore or game mechanics, is the information that forbids Demon Hunters from using other kinds of weapons, please.

    If you're willing to compromise everything that makes them unique and interesting, why do you want them?
    If 'warglaives' are the only thing that makes them 'unique and interesting' to you, it's not my fault.

    Which is why Blizzard isn't going to bring it into the game. They can't match the expectation.
    Blizzard has millions of active players. No matter which class they add (or don't add), they won't ever match everyone's expectations, so that is a moot argument to use.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by BedlamBros View Post
    Yes, and what does lore say? Lore says that the only living DHs are Night Elves, and that DH training is arduous, and can lead its practitioners into insanity or even death.
    I would love if you quoted out the part of the lore (and gave its source) of the fact that the only living DHs are Night Elves, and how it's impossible to Blizzard to add, in a future expansion, more information into this lore regarding current Demon Hunters training other mortal races into the Demon Hunter path.

    Out of 5 Blood Elves sent to train with Illidan, only one survived to become a DH. 3 died, and 1 went insane.
    Illidan's training. Luckily, player DHs would not be training under Illidan, thank Elune.

    I'm pretty sure that its stated somewhere that only Elves can survive the process.
    Quote and source, please?

    However, I'm sure you're willing to ignore that part of lore in order for Blizzard to implement the class and the number of DHs go from 3 to millions in a blink of an eye.
    Gotta love that adherence to lore.....
    Please quote (and source) us the part of the lore we're allegedly ignoring?

  19. #1399
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    You seem to be stereotyping a lot here, making arguments that aren't sound.

    "According to you guys" says a lot, considering you don't know what anyone wants here. You assume what people want, then attack it. For instance, you said DH lovers want to use Warglaives and nothing else. Who here in this current discussion even mentioned Warglaives? Only you.
    I want glaives.

    Then again, I'm not really a fan of the DH concept to begin with. I just want glaives.

  20. #1400
    The Patient Arberian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Moonglade
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Larynx View Post
    I want glaives.
    THats the point, you dont want DH you want Glaives.
    My youtube Channel : Arberian021
    WoW isn't all about new concepts or themes, it's about classic archetypes that fit the Holy Trinity gameplay style of Warcraft.
    Demon Hunter Class Idea
    "Where is the difference between Flash Heal and Flash of Light ?!Where is the difference between Conflagrate and Fire Blast ?!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •