Rae'shalare, Death's Whisper

[Teriz]

After we turn in Kel'Thuzad's phylactory in Vanilla, the argent dawn never received it. It was taken to Northrend by Inigo Montoy. Arthas turned him into the Lich "Thel'zan", KT was brought back and KT moved Naxxramas to Northrend. It's not the same Naxxramas.

Yes, they are. Arthas is a 2nd generation DK, exactly like the others we witness in Vanilla Naxx. They became bound to the Frozen Throne and did the bidding of Ner'zhul's LK.


It took longer than a few moments lmao. He laid dormant for a majority of that time, fighting for dominance over the body. He didn't awaken fully until the start of Wrath. (Arthas fused in the year 22, Vanilla Naxx was in the year 25, Wrath Naxx was in the year 27). While he was dormant, the 2nd generation DKs trained and became stronger in Icecrown some were sent to Vanilla Naxx, The DKs of Acherus are 3rd Generation (Us/Playable, and those in Wrath Naxx). As it stands, the death knights that were in Naxxramas during Vanilla, are 2nd generation.

I've found nothing stating that Arthas created new Death Knights in that interlude/slumber period, but sending forces that were already created pre fusing. Sure, cause like I said, he never took direct action himself which is the point. He was still in contact with his minions during the slumber.

Thank you, and this illustrates my point that in order for a new generation of Dark Rangers to emerge, we’re going to need Sylvanas in a prominent role. As I said, this CAN be done, but it would require a third expansion where Sylvanas takes a major/significant role.

And this begs the question; if they intended to create a Dark Ranger class, why didn’t they do it in Shadowlands? We have Sylvanas in a major role, we have NE Dark Rangers looking for a place to belong, and we now have Sylvanas as a raid boss with her weapons and abilities up for grabs as spoils.

All of that has been/will be resolved by 10.0. Does anyone honestly think we’re going to be doing this all over again next expansion?

[Glazey]

Thank you, and this illustrates my point that in order for a new generation of Dark Rangers to emerge, we’re going to need Sylvanas in a prominent role. As I said, this CAN be done, but it would require a third expansion where Sylvanas takes a major/significant role.

And this begs the question; if they intended to create a Dark Ranger class, why didn’t they do it in Shadowlands? We have Sylvanas in a major role, we have NE Dark Rangers looking for a place to belong, and we now have Sylvanas as a raid boss with her weapons and abilities up for grabs as spoils.

All of that has been/will be resolved by 10.0. Does anyone honestly think we’re going to be doing this all over again next expansion?

While he is wrong in Death Knights history. I'm not gonna exclude the possibility of Dark Rangers being a class. We're basing alot of this off of the Hero class definitions, which wouldn't necessarily be used in this case. Monks are not a hero class and didn't really need a prominent character, infact, all the other races were trained to be monks by random pandaren. Dark Rangers could easily follow this path and adds in that 2nd class that can use bows.

So far, we have "four" races known to be Dark Rangers; Blood Elves, "Forsaken", Humans, and now Night Elves. Infact, the only thing that you need to be in order to be taught the shadow magic that they use is to be undead. Right now, with current models, we have two on each faction.

The possibility is there lore wise for it to happen, however I believe it to be extremely unlikely. As I've stated some where in this thread, I believe I saw a interview where they said if they're going to do a new class, it won't be a dark edgey one.

[Teriz]

While he is wrong in Death Knights history. I'm not gonna exclude the possibility of Dark Rangers being a class. We're basing alot of this off of the Hero class definitions, which wouldn't necessarily be used in this case. Monks are not a hero class and didn't really need a prominent character, infact, all the other races were trained to be monks by random pandaren. Dark Rangers could easily follow this path and adds in that 2nd class that can use bows.

So far, we have "four" races known to be Dark Rangers; Blood Elves, "Forsaken", Humans, and now Night Elves. Infact, the only thing that you need to be in order to be taught the shadow magic that they use is to be undead. Right now, with current models, we have two on each faction.

The possibility is there lore wise for it to happen, however I believe it to be extremely unlikely. As I've stated some where in this thread, I believe I saw a interview where they said if they're going to do a new class, it won't be a dark edgey one.

Yeah, I’m not going to say that it’s impossible for a Dark Ranger class to appear either. I agree that it’s simply highly unlikely. I also agree that it seems more likely that the next class is likely to be a base class that isn’t “dark” or “edgy”.

Going forward, I see Dark Ranger being an aspect of the Hunter class. Shadowlands was the chance to bring in a Dark Ranger class, and they didn’t do it.

[Fantazma]

Thank you, and this illustrates my point that in order for a new generation of Dark Rangers to emerge, we’re going to need Sylvanas in a prominent role. As I said, this CAN be done, but it would require a third expansion where Sylvanas takes a major/significant role.

Man, just take a breath and think about it. Why do you think we would have to have an entire expansion around Sylvanas with her leading 100% of the role in the next story... for Blizzard to give us playable Dark Rangers??
Allow me to compare the Dark Ranger class ...with the Zandalari Trolls race.
BFA needed to spin around some Zandalari Troll for 2 years so that some players can nowadays have a character of this race??

I think you're really stuck with this old WTLK and LEGION idea that introduced us to new classes with almost 100% of the lore of these expansions connected to these classes. Blizzard has already surpassed this requirement. See the allied races. See the covenants. They are part of the expansion, they are important, but they are not the center of the expansion.

I've said this in other threads about Dark Rangers:
All it takes is a simple chain-quest where Sylvanas or Nathanos (or both) are recruiting new Dark Rangers (us?) and that's it.
It was like that with the allied races, it was like that with the Covenants... and very likely it will be like that with the Dark Rangers, Tinkers, Bard, etc.
Blizzard doesn't need another full expansion with Sylvanas in the 100% spotlight to give us a new class based on Sylvanas...

[Teriz]

I think you're really stuck with this old WTLK and LEGION idea that introduced us to new classes with almost 100% of the lore of these expansions connected to these classes. Blizzard has already surpassed this requirement. See the allied races. See the covenants.

At the start of Shadowlands Blizzard reiterated that new classes have to match the theme of the expansion they’re introduced in. So no, that isn’t an outdated requirement for new classes.

Lore wise, we would need Sylvanas to create a Sylvanas styled class. An expansion whose theme relates to Dark Rangers, and Sylvanas creating a group of new Dark Rangers? There’s no way she couldn’t have a major role in such an expansion.

[Fantazma]

Yeah, I’m not going to say that it’s impossible for a Dark Ranger class to appear either. I agree that it’s simply highly unlikely. I also agree that it seems more likely that the next class is likely to be a base class that isn’t “dark” or “edgy”.

Going forward, I see Dark Ranger being an aspect of the Hunter class. Shadowlands was the chance to bring in a Dark Ranger class, and they didn’t do it.

If Blizzard introduced the Dark Rangers as a simple new spec for Hunters it would be easier (in terms of time and manpower to deploy this). But it would be a bit confusing to see (for example) a Blood Elf momentarily turning into a Forsaken while the Hunter just changes spec.
Blizzard would also be missing the opportunity to create another class that can use bows and that can use mail-armor. There is a lack of that in the game right now.
If Blizzard found a way to introduce Dark Rangers and Tinkers... without creating a lot of stress (like they did when they gave us Worgens and Goblins ...and those who like werewolves chose worgens and those who like...(gold?) ... opted for Goblins at that time)... would be perfect and would please almost 80-90% of players.

[ThatsOurEric]

And this begs the question; if they intended to create a Dark Ranger class

Which they never did.

why didn’t they do it in Shadowlands?

Because they never intended to make this a class in the first place.

This isn't rocket science.

[Ielenia]

After we turn in Kel'Thuzad's phylactory in Vanilla, the argent dawn never received it. It was taken to Northrend by Inigo Montoy. Arthas turned him into the Lich "Thel'zan", KT was brought back and KT moved Naxxramas to Northrend. It's not the same Naxxramas.

Those inside Naxxramas were all risen again, as evidenced by having all the same bosses, hence why I say I believe it's the same.

Yes, they are. Arthas is a 2nd generation DK, exactly like the others we witness in Vanilla Naxx. They became bound to the Frozen Throne and did the bidding of Ner'zhul's LK.

Arthas is a second-generation death knight. Then he became the Lich King and created more death knights, the same death knights that then existed in Acherus and the player death knights.

It took longer than a few moments lmao. He laid dormant for a majority of that time, fighting for dominance over the body. He didn't awaken fully until the start of Wrath.

Where does it say that? Can I have the quote, please?

I've found nothing stating that Arthas created new Death Knights in that interlude/slumber period, but sending forces that were already created pre fusing.

I believe those in Naxxramas were death knights created by the Lich King. But if you say there is proof that those were death knights pre-merge, I would like to see the evidence, please.

Sure, cause like I said, he never took direct action himself which is the point. He was still in contact with his minions during the slumber.

He cannot be active (i.e. be in contact with others) and still be slumbering. That's like saying you can have a lucid conversation with someone who is sleeping.

[Glazey]

Those inside Naxxramas were all risen again, as evidenced by having all the same bosses, hence why I say I believe it's the same.

Yeah, but it's not the exact same. It's Naxxramas 2: Electric Boogaloo, as evidenced by the lore.

Arthas is a second-generation death knight. Then he became the Lich King and created more death knights, the same death knights that then existed in Acherus and the player death knights.

Yes, but the deaths knights in Vanilla Naxxramas were 2nd generation like Arthas. The Death Knights in Wrath Naxxramas are generation 3 cause the Wrath Naxx isn't the same as Vanilla Naxx, which is my point. Vanilla Naxx=2nd Generation Death Knights (much weaker than Gen 3, so no frost/blood powers).

Where does it say that? Can I have the quote, please?

Dragon Hunt, Blood of the Highborne, Classic Naxx, Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, and Cinematic art book for Wrath. All taken from from the Interlude portion located on Wowpedia.

I believe those in Naxxramas were death knights created by the Lich King. But if you say there is proof that those were death knights pre-merge, I would like to see the evidence, please.

How about the fact that Wrath Naxx and Vanilla Naxx are two different points in time we've gone in there? All because you wanna believe it's not two different things, then you're just choosing to be willfully ignorant. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are the same, I've already established that the two are different through lore.

He cannot be active (i.e. be in contact with others) and still be slumbering. That's like saying you can have a lucid conversation with someone who is sleeping.

Oh look, Blizzard being inconsistent? Who would've guessed. Take it up with them because that's exactly what happened.

[Teriz]

If Blizzard introduced the Dark Rangers as a simple new spec for Hunters it would be easier (in terms of time and manpower to deploy this). But it would be a bit confusing to see (for example) a Blood Elf momentarily turning into a Forsaken while the Hunter just changes spec.
Blizzard would also be missing the opportunity to create another class that can use bows and that can use mail-armor. There is a lack of that in the game right now.
If Blizzard found a way to introduce Dark Rangers and Tinkers... without creating a lot of stress (like they did when they gave us Worgens and Goblins ...and those who like werewolves chose worgens and those who like...(gold?) ... opted for Goblins at that time)... would be perfect and would please almost 80-90% of players.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's perfectly fine to believe that Hunters would share abilities with each other, and this is expressed in game. For example, while Arcane shot probably comes from Night Elves, all Hunters regardless of race can use it. Explosive Shot probably comes from Dwarves, and again all Hunters can use it.

Wailing Arrow could/should come from the Forsaken and again, all Hunters would be able to use it regardless of background.

In other words, there's really no need for individual types of Hunters (Dark Rangers, PotMs, Shadow Hunters, etc) when the general Hunter class serves as an umbrella that can encompass all of those concepts perfectly fine.

[Krakan]

Anyone else think hunter leggo weapons are cursed? In sunwell the leggo wasn't bis and in 9.1 it looks like survival might be top spec for hunters.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, but it's not the exact same. It's Naxxramas 2: Electric Boogaloo, as evidenced by the lore.

But it's still the same place, with the same characters brought back to undeath.

Yes, but the deaths knights in Vanilla Naxxramas were 2nd generation like Arthas.

Where is the evidence? As far as I know, everything was retconed when the playable class was created.

How about the fact that Wrath Naxx and Vanilla Naxx are two different points in time we've gone in there?

They are from different points in time. I never contested that. But they're still the same place with the same characters.

Oh look, Blizzard being inconsistent? Who would've guessed. Take it up with them because that's exactly what happened.

"I'm right. It's Blizzard who's wrong."

[Glazey]

But it's still the same place, with the same characters brought back to undeath.

and yet, it's not the same cause it's two different instances where we go in there and fight.

Where is the evidence? As far as I know, everything was retconed when the playable class was created.

3rd Generation Death Knights were from Acherus. Earliest point for Acherus in the lore is the from the DK Starter Zone, which takes place at the start of Wrath. From there, we can gather that the Death Knights in Vanilla Naxx are 2nd generation. Stop saying it was retconned cause it wasn't, it just isn't.

They are from different points in time. I never contested that. But they're still the same place with the same characters.

You said Vanilla Naxx was retconned cause of Wrath, specifically, the death knights in military quarter into having new powers.

You only see humans in Vanilla Naxx as Death Knights while in Wrath Naxx, you get different races which further fuels my point.

Generation 2 Death Knights never gained those abilities aside from Arthas when he put on the Helm of Domination. Generation 3, however, does.

What makes more sense here? Generation 2's were killed in Vanilla Naxx and once Kel'Thuzad relocated Naxx to Northrend, it was filled with new trainees that were stronger or it was just retconned because you wanna be right. The best arguement you could make here is that Arthas resurrected the 2nd Gen Naxx Death Knights into Gen 3, which still ends up with me being right.

You also wanted me to prove that Vanilla Naxx and Wrath Naxx were two different things, which makes your stance that they were the same, just Vanilla Naxx was retconned.

"I'm right. It's Blizzard who's wrong."

I'm sorry that you didn't like the truth of the matter. Gave you a few sources, along with the compounded information section on Wowpedia that says it.

[Ielenia]

3rd Generation Death Knights were from Acherus.

Are you guessing, or are there any actual lore or developer quotes that state that the third generations death knights came from Acherus and not anywhere else?

You said Vanilla Naxx was retconned cause of Wrath, specifically, the death knights in military quarter into having new powers.

Read what "retcon" means. And yes, that is what happened.

You only see humans in Vanilla Naxx as Death Knights while in Wrath Naxx, you get different races which further fuels my point.

Generation 2 Death Knights never gained those abilities aside from Arthas when he put on the Helm of Domination. Generation 3, however, does.

That's the thing, though: it's a retcon. Just like Blizzard retconed Chen Stormstout into being a monk, and retconed all DHs into having horns.

I'm sorry that you didn't like the truth of the matter.

So I'm right when I jokingly represented your argument as "I'm right and it's Blizzard who's wrong"?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Prove it? Because, as far as I know, Naxxramas has been moved from EPL to Northrend, and not "a new Naxxramas".


Wrong. The second generation death knights are the human paladins that headed to Northrend and ended up becoming death knights after giving into bitterness and resentment, before Arthas took the mantle. The third generation death knights are the ones in Naxxramas, the ones created by Arthas after he took the helm and sword.

the classic DK’s were likely made by Kt or were second generation as we see in the ash bringer comics.

Which took a few moments? He immediately got his eyes turned blue seconds after putting on the helm, and was already creating new death knights for Naxxramas.

he went “dormant” for years not directly doing any thing with his body even though his mind was still in control of the scourge and likely capable of talking as we saw in naxx. They say this in wrath in the lich king novel in chronicles they even set it up in the wrath trailers with him finally getting up raising Sindragosa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCr7y4SLhck

[THC BANDIT]

Yeah, I’m not going to say that it’s impossible for a Dark Ranger class to appear either. I agree that it’s simply highly unlikely. I also agree that it seems more likely that the next class is likely to be a base class that isn’t “dark” or “edgy”.

Going forward, I see Dark Ranger being an aspect of the Hunter class. Shadowlands was the chance to bring in a Dark Ranger class, and they didn’t do it.

I reject your grandiosity and believe Dark Rangers are right around the corner

I also feel like there is plenty room for another bow-wielding class.

[Glazey]

Are you guessing, or are there any actual lore or developer quotes that state that the third generations death knights came from Acherus and not anywhere else?

Everything I've said is taken from Wowpedia, which is taken from all forms of the lore. If Fallen Knights of the Silver Hand is Generation 2, then the Death Knights of Acherus are generation 3 unless you're going to imply that we're playing Generation 2 DKs lmao

Read what "retcon" means. And yes, that is what happened.


That's the thing, though: it's a retcon. Just like Blizzard retconed Chen Stormstout into being a monk, and retconed all DHs into having horns.

No. Vanilla Naxx was not retconned. It still happened. We went in there in the year 25 and killed everything and came back in the year 27 and killed everything again but in Dragonblight. The difference between the two is that the DKs in Military Quarter were Gen 3 and not 2 and Rivendare took over as head of the Horsemen. They both happened. Show me otherwise cause the entirety of the lore is stating what I've said.

It's just not a retcon, all because you want there to be one in Naxx, doesn't mean there was one. I've given lore explanations for your "retcons" that fit the story.

Again, since you didn't wanna respond to it; What makes more sense here? Generation 2's were killed in Vanilla Naxx and once Kel'Thuzad relocated Naxx to Northrend, it was filled with new trainees (Gen 3) that were stronger or was just retconned because you wanna be right.

So I'm right when I jokingly represented your argument as "I'm right and it's Blizzard who's wrong"?

Blizzard's writing has always been shotty in WoW, I don't see how this is news, but continue avoiding the subject cause the truth of the matter is that LK was slumbering/dormant for years but was still in contact with his minions.

[Ielenia]

Everything I've said is taken from Wowpedia, which is taken from all forms of the lore. If Fallen Knights of the Silver Hand is Generation 2, then the Death Knights of Acherus are generation 3 unless you're going to imply that we're playing Generation 2 DKs lmao

I read the Acherus' WoWpedia article and saw nothing about "third generation death knights" coming solely from there.

No. Vanilla Naxx was not retconned. It still happened.

I'll repeat: read what "retcon" means. Here's a hint: it does not exclusively means "to remove from the lore".

[Glazey]

I read the Acherus' WoWpedia article and saw nothing about "third generation death knights" coming solely from there.

Okay, let's think a little bit here. We have the Creations of Gul'dan (1st Generation from Gul'dan: Orcs being put into Human bodies), followed by Fallen Knights of the Silver Hand (2nd Generation from Ner'zhul: Fallen Warriors and Paladins), followed by The Death Knights of Acherus (3rd Generation from Arthas: Us, playable races). It does not explicitly say the generation of Death Knights in those passages but with the information we are given, we can safely say that the DKs who were raised (Us) after Arthas woke up are more powerful than the 2nd generation raised by Ner'zhul thus creating a new generation.

Unless you wanna say that we are 2nd generation, in which case, explain how any other race other than Humans are Death Knights with the given lore.

I'll repeat: read what "retcon" means. Here's a hint: it does not exclusively means "to remove from the lore".

"a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events."

That is what retcon means, which again, doesn't apply to Naxxramas as there was Vanilla Naxx in the year 25, and Wrath Naxx in the year 27. It is not a retcon, there is no different interpretation on a previously described event because it's two different things.

Example; I walk into a store and get milk from Janice. Two years later I walk into the same store that moved down the block and got chocolate milk from Cindy, me getting chocolate milk two years later from Cindy, does not change the fact there I was there two years earlier and got milk from Janice. That is the reality of Naxxramas.

What you are saying is that I walked into a store and got milk from Janice, two years later, I'm telling the story and got chocolate milk from Janice, which doesn't work in the context of Naxxramas because I changed what I had done in the past. That is what a retcon is.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'll repeat: read what "retcon" means. Here's a hint: it does not exclusively means "to remove from the lore".

It wasn’t retconned classic naxx would have been second generation and then in wrath they got a boost in power likely bringing them on or near par with 3rd generation and reinforcements by non human dk’s, here’s a quote that explains the classic/wrath change with no retconning.

In the years since Arthas shattered the Frozen Throne and merged with the Lich King, the power and fury of the death knights has only grown. Now these unrelenting crusaders of the damned eagerly await the Lich King's command to unleash their fury on Azeroth once again.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101124...night/lore.xml