Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Ielenia]

Er, what?

They existed since Warcraft 3.

And the Burning Blade clan was not accepted into the Horde until WoW. Which just so happens to be the exact same time that warlocks became a playable class. Which is the whole point, here.

Yet you say Anduin and Taelia getting married was highly unlikely even though Thrall and Aggra is an example of precedent of characters meeting and marrying.

Funny how you are able to use double standards.

It's about precedents. Considering we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, it is fair to say that it's highly unlikely that Anduin and Taelia end up married "just because they met, once".

Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let this slide, considering how much you love harping on what you consider mistakes of mine:

And we have lore that defines a separation between Paladin and Priest. That does not exist between Dark Ranger and Hunter.

Yes, it does. And I've linked it to you:

Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.

Because it is still an example of standing lore that was not changed or retconned.

So you're employing double-standards. You literally dismissed Sylvanas as an example of "dark ranger" because she is no longer with the Horde:

And I gave you evidence that they could be, namely in the form of Sylvanas. But it doesn't change the fact you also asked me to explain why there were dark rangers in the hunter order hall, then did a bait-and-switch on me after I gave you a possible reason.

Sylvanas isn't even part of the Horde any more.

But now you're asserting that Nathanos is an example of how dark rangers are just hunters, despite the fact that he's no longer with the Horde. I'm sorry, dude, but if Sylvanas is invalid as an example, then so is Nathanos.

[Triceron]

And the Burning Blade clan was not accepted into the Horde until WoW. Which just so happens to be the exact same time that warlocks became a playable class. Which is the whole point, here.

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

Again, reply when you actually do your proper research and have lore to back up an argument. This is just absurd though that you don't even know your pre-WoW lore.

It's about precedents. Considering we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, it is fair to say that it's highly unlikely that Anduin and Taelia end up married "just because they met, once".

Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let this slide, considering how much you love harping on what you consider mistakes of mine:

Then shouldn't you have considered it is an _unknown probability_ instead of saying it was highly unlikely? If you don't know the chances of Anduin and Taelia getting married, then how are you ever reaching conclusions that ANYTHING is highly unlikely without considering the unknown?. You can't define the likelyhood of them getting married based on other people -not- getting married.

Consider this statement you made which is what you SHOULD HAVE said regarding the Anduin and Taelia marriage situation.

No, it does not make it "highly unlikely". In fact, we can't even say it's even unlikely. It's simply an unknown probability.

If I toss a coin up in the air, and then immediately slam my foot down on it as it lands on the ground. so no one you can see which side is up. Now, I claim that that the face being up is tails. But I have no evidence that the coin did land with tails face up. That does not make the coin landing with tails face up "highly unlikely", does it?

Whether you flip a coin a dozen times or a thousand times, the probability remains the same; the probability is not affected by previous averages or statistics. You should *know* that other people meeting and not getting married has *zero effect* on the probability of Anduin and Taelia getting married. Yet you decided to define it as being Highly Unlikely, despite knowing that you had no evidence to judge the likelyhood Anduin and Taelia would get married.

Explain yourself.

But now you're asserting that Nathanos is an example of how dark rangers are just hunters, despite the fact that he's no longer with the Horde. I'm sorry, dude, but if Sylvanas is invalid as an example, then so is Nathanos.

Nathanos left the Horde. He didn't change his class. It is relevant because is a Dark Ranger who trained Hunters. He has kept consistent as a Dark Ranger, and he employs the same general tactics as any Hunter would. Nothing in lore contests him as being anything more than a Dark Ranger.

As for Sylvanas herself, there are numerous factors we *need* to consider before we discuss her as a Dark Ranger.

A) Main characters are not bound to class restrictions. Characters like Anduin can use 2H swords, Thrall wore plate armor and became Aspect of the Earth, Jaina could 'summon' an arcane battleship and launch arcane fireballs. These are beyond class limitations, and we need to regard Sylvanas as a main character which has power beyond their class identity
B) Sylvanas has a unique origin not shared by any other Dark Ranger. She was the only known Dark Ranger who was a Banshee that regained her form. We have not seen any other Dark Ranger born this way. Her use of Banshee powers are unique to her, and shown this way in lore. While this doesn't make it exclusive to her for a potential class, we have to consider that every other Dark Ranger has not been shown to use *any* of these special Banshee abilities.
C) Sylvanas gained inexplicable powers during BFA. This includes the use of her Banshee powers, which she had never displayed before. Now in Shadowlands, it is being explained through her connection to the Jailer. So if we regard Sylvanas as a class representative, then the powers that are tied to the Jailer have to be defined and we have to figure out whether this would be something unique to Sylvanas, or something applied to all Dark Rangers. As far as the lore is concerned right now, they are unique to her, and explained through the Jailer connection. No other Dark Ranger has shown any exceptional feats like Sylvanas.
D) *ON TOP* of the top 3, she is no longer part of the Horde. This was not the *main* reason to dismiss her, but an addendum to an already lengthy number of reasons why she stands out beyond a class rep. She is no longer connected to the Dark Rangers, so they wouldn't be able to learn what she is capable of now.

Considering the context I asked you to provide was lore to suggest Dark Rangers would become playable, you chose a character that no longer has ties to the playable factions, who has disconnected ties to all other Dark Rangers, who has ascended to demi-god/god-like status, and who is not bound by class restrictions whatsoever.

All the while, every other Dark Ranger that we know of that remains with the Alliance and Horde are shown to be doing the exact same things as they had before, no longer have a direct connection to Sylvanas, and are already present in the Hunter class halls.

As long as I'm sticking to your definitions of what lore represents and how you regard opinions as less-than-lore, then no, Dark Rangers should not be modelled after Sylvanas because the Lore has already defined them as hunters and has also severed the Horde and Dark Ranger's connections to her character. Unlike the DK's or DH who also have severed connections with their masters, Sylvanas did not teach or grant power to the Dark Rangers under her command before she severed ties; making the Dark Rangers stuck in a sort of limbo situation with very little room for growth in the lore. If you can provide me with lore that says otherwise, I'd be completely open to hear you out; but I don't have much faith considering you think the Burning Blade joined the Horde in WoW.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Don't forget the :

"High elves aren't part of the Alliance. The Silver Covenant is neutral"
"Alleria will never be Alliance"
"Void elves aren't High elves. Deal with it"
"Half-elves are more relevant than high elves"
"Okay you got fair skin and blue eyes, but still not High elves"

I think some will remain eternally in denial because they just can't accept that High elves fans were right from the beginning.

We got our High elves. We will get our blond, white, and silver hairs in the end. It's all that matters.

Oh god, the "The SC Is neutral, so HE aren't part of the alliance" has always been the dumbest one, it's so dumb it actually bothers me.

I don't think it was misunderstand semantics. It was intentionally twisting semantics to create and argument where there wasn't one.

Oh for sure, but I do think there's a noticeable amount of people that actually believe that by not holding onto the name, they "lose", be it either the actual legacy of the High Elven empire or the continuity from it to the present as Blood Elves.

And I do agree that a lot of people knowingly obfuscate it, but I'm pointing out to those people that legitimately think the question "Who are the true High Elves" has to do with the name itself. It's the wrong question, mind you, but a lot of people ask it genuinely.

- - - Updated - - -

They should turn Sub Rogue into a ranged Spec called Dark Ranger and it will be perfect.

This might be a joke, but I do legit think that "Dark Ranger" might work better as a Rogue Ranged spec rather than a Hunter one.

[Ardenaso]

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

I'm thinking the Blademaster in WC3 was representing the Burning Legion loyalists like the Blademaster Arthas and Uther fought; just as how the Blood Mage and Blood Elves are in the Human roster despite their entire plot in TFT is leaving the Alliance of Lordaeron

Unless they actually represent those in Thrall's Horde proper like Samuro

[Triceron]

I'm thinking the Blademaster in WC3 was representing the Burning Legion loyalists like the Blademaster Arthas and Uther fought; just as how the Blood Mage and Blood Elves are in the Human roster despite their entire plot in TFT is leaving the Alliance of Lordaeron

Unless they actually represent those in Thrall's Horde proper like Samuro

Their lore is stated to be working with the Horde in the Warcraft 3 Compendium.

"Under Thrall's command, the Blademasters have once again joined the Horde and serve as the young Warchief's personal honor guard."

[Ielenia]

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

Again, reply when you actually do your proper research and have lore to back up an argument. This is just absurd though that you don't even know your pre-WoW lore.

I'm talking about the warlocks. The Burning Blade clan was in WC3, but their warlocks were not. Evidence of that is how there were no warlocks in the Orc campaign, and how Thrall was fighting to free their people from their slavers.

Explain yourself.

Apples and oranges. They're different situations. For the 'dark ranger' example, we have little evidence for both sides. For the 'Anduin and Taelia' example, we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, and a very, very, very, very small amount of people AND getting married. Saurfang and Zappyboi did not get married. Varian and Jaina did not get married. Thalyssra and Liadrin did not get married. Chen and Vol'jin did not get married. Valeera and Brol did not get married. Etc, etc, etc.

Also: there is still the fact we have a canonical description of the dark rangers that does not fit at all with the canonical description of the hunter.

Nathanos left the Horde. He didn't change his class.

And neither did Sylvanas, but that did not stop you from dismissing her as an example because she left the Horde.

A) Main characters are not bound to class restrictions.

That doesn't disqualify her as a possible example.

B) Sylvanas has a unique origin not shared by any other Dark Ranger.

How do you know that?

C) Sylvanas gained inexplicable powers during BFA. This includes the use of her Banshee powers, which she had never displayed before.

Sylvanas already displayed some banshee powers way back in Cataclysm, as she used Banshee Scream during her fight against Genn Graymane during the worgen starting zone. During the Battle for Gilneas City quest, Sylvanas lets out a scream that knocks everyone back and stuns them.

D) *ON TOP* of the top 3, she is no longer part of the Horde. This was not the *main* reason to dismiss her,

That was literally the only reason you gave for dismissing her.

- - - Updated - - -

Their lore is stated to be working with the Horde in the Warcraft 3 Compendium.

"Under Thrall's command, the Blademasters have once again joined the Horde and serve as the young Warchief's personal honor guard."

The blademasters. No mention about warlocks, or the clan as a whole.

[BaumanKing]

"High elves aren't part of the Alliance. The Silver Covenant is neutral"

But, how is that even possible? Vereesa herself calls Varian HER king.

[Triceron]

I'm talking about the warlocks. The Burning Blade clan was in WC3, but their warlocks were not. Evidence of that is how there were no warlocks in the Orc campaign, and how Thrall was fighting to free their people from their slavers.

The lore of the Warlocks of the Burning Blade was that they were already a part of the Horde working in relative secrecy, established well before WoW. That puts it in the timeline of Warcraft 3 when the entire clan would have been accepted into the Horde. There is no lore that says suggests they were *introduced* in WoW, lore specifically says they are part of the Burning Blade clan and they have been operating in a part of Orgrimmar.

If you want to claim that there is a possibility they joined after the Burning Blade clan already joined in WC3, then you would need to prove this with evidence, otherwise the lore is pretty damned clear that the Warlocks in both Alliance and Horde were already operating within these factions, and explains that we had not seen them before (as in WC3) BECAUSE they operate in secrecy.

Apples and oranges. They're different situations. For the 'dark ranger' example, we have little evidence for both sides. For the 'Anduin and Taelia' example, we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, and a very, very, very, very small amount of people AND getting married. Saurfang and Zappyboi did not get married. Varian and Jaina did not get married. Thalyssra and Liadrin did not get married. Chen and Vol'jin did not get married. Valeera and Brol did not get married. Etc, etc, etc.

This is an example of Ielenia *choosing* what lore he wants to statistically affect probability, and what lore he doesn't want statistics to affect probability. This is a double standard.

Consider for a second, Imagine if you were suggesting FOR Anduin and Taelia getting married. Imagine if I told you the chances they get married were highly unlikely because Saurfang and Zappyboi didn't get married. Would you consider this as evidence at all?

Now imagine I said Dark Rangers can't be playable because Bards aren't playable. Would you consider this evidence at all?


If you claim NPCs that have not gotten married as insurmountable evidence, then for consistency sake shouldn't I be able to claim all the NPC classes that have never been made into playable classes as insurmountable evidence making Dark Ranger highly unlikely?


- Just want to be clear to anyone else, I'm playing devil's advocate using Ielenia's argument against himself. I do not personally use 'statistics' to prove anything as being 'highly unlikely'.

[Ielenia]

The lore of the Warlocks of the Burning Blade was that they were already a part of the Horde working in relative secrecy, established well before WoW. That puts it in the timeline of Warcraft 3 when the entire clan would have been accepted into the Horde.

Warcraft 3 was also when Orgrimmar was established. Learn your lore.

Funny. All I can see is how only the blademasters of the Burning Blade clan became part of the Horde, initially, and then later, in World of Warcraft, the warlocks were added into the Horde, by pretending to be good.

This is an example of Ielenia *choosing* what lore he wants to statistically affect probability, and what lore he doesn't want statistics to affect probability. This is a double standard.

No, this is not. We have actually little evidence that both (dark rangers and hunters) are one and the same, and little evidence that both are not the same. We even have a canonical description of the dark rangers that wildly differs from the hunter's, of which you have not addressed yet.

If we claim NPCs that have not gotten married as insurmountable evidence, then for consistency sake we should claim all the NPC classes that have never been made into playable classes as insurmountable evidence.

Once again: apples and oranges. A lore event (the marriage) is not the same thing as a game mechanic (a class being playable). You're once again doing a bait-and-switch here, because you went from "lore to distinguish dark rangers and hunters" to "Blizzard creating a new playable class".

You are deliberately CHOOSING one argument to be affected by statistics, while the other you blatantly ignore because you don't even *consider* it a statistic.

I'm not "choosing" anything. I'm simply pointing out the differences between both cases.

Consider for a second, Imagine if you were suggesting FOR Anduin and Taelia getting married. Imagine if I told you the chances they get married were highly unlikely because Saurfang and Zappyboi didn't get married. Would you consider this as evidence at all? I think you would consider it as absurd as if I said Dark Rangers can't be playable because Bards aren't playable.

If I was making a case for Anduin and Taelia getting married, my only argument would be "because I want to see them together", considering there is no lore that guarantees two people marrying "because they met", and loads of evidence of people meeting but never getting married. In other words, yes, I would accept your claim that it's "highly unlikely" the two end up getting married.

[Triceron]

Funny. All I can see is how only the blademasters of the Burning Blade clan became part of the Horde, initially, and then later, in World of Warcraft, the warlocks were added into the Horde, by pretending to be good.

Yes, you can only see that because you choose to interpret the lore of the Burning Blade as a bunch of independent classes that can join the Horde at different times, instead of the more sensible interpretation of an entire clan swearing allegiance to Thrall's Horde. That's why it's funny, because you're choosing to find nuance to explain your own mistake.

Lore states when the Burning Blade clan joins, and Warlocks are associated with the clan. There is no specific lore that says they joined later; the lore clearly states that they already have operations within Orgrimmar *before the start of WoW*. You said earlier that it didn't happen UNTIL WoW, which is blatantly false. The lore SAYS they are already there and that Thrall already knows of their existence and is already keeping a watchful eye on them. Learn your lore.


Here are your exact words.

Considering the Horde did not exist before WoW, that's a tall order.

And the Burning Blade clan was not accepted into the Horde until WoW. Which just so happens to be the exact same time that warlocks became a playable class. Which is the whole point, here.

I'm not taking anything out of context. These are the literal replies you gave me. Now you are claiming a lore retcon even though the lore specifically states that the Warlocks are already operating in Ragefire BEFORE WoW even starts.

If I was making a case for Anduin and Taelia getting married, my only argument would be "because I want to see them together", considering there is no lore that guarantees two people marrying "because they met", and loads of evidence of people meeting but never getting married. In other words, yes, I would accept your claim that it's "highly unlikely" the two end up getting married.

Necromancers and Dark Rangers would be highly unlikely to happen.

You kept saying where I got that from and argued that no, it is an unknown probability to happen. But if I use your own argument that all the NPCs we've known that never joined as a playable class, all the Runemasters and Timeweavers and Bards etc, then you are making a case that I can use this insurmountable evidence to consider the Dark Ranger and Necromancer as highly unlikely.

From there you would have to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that they would; just like someone would have to provide evidence of Anduin and Taelia's relationship in order to say they would get married. Right?

Once again: apples and oranges. A lore event (the marriage) is not the same thing as a game mechanic (a class being playable)..

Lore makes no differentiation to the two.

[Ielenia]

Lore states when the Burning Blade clan joins, and Warlocks are associated with the clan. There is no specific lore that says they joined later; the lore clearly states that they already have operations within Orgrimmar *before the start of WoW*.

Where does it say that? Because I've looked through all the Warcraft 3 information I could find, and saw nothing about warlocks being part of Orgrimmar.

Necromancers and Dark Rangers would be highly unlikely to happen.

Why? The only reason you've given so far is that because "there is no lore of them being the Alliance and the Horde", but that is not exactly a point against them.

You kept saying where I got that from and argued that no, it is an unknown probability to happen. But if I use your own argument that all the NPCs we've known that never joined as a playable class, all the Runemasters and Timeweavers and Bards etc, then you are making a case that I can use this insurmountable evidence to consider the Dark Ranger and Necromancer as highly unlikely.

That is not the same thing. You cannot compare a lore event to a game mechanic and treat both as the same.

Lore makes no differentiation to the two.

... Are you saying there is no difference between lore and game mechanics/features? Is that it?

[Triceron]

Where does it say that? Because I've looked through all the Warcraft 3 information I could find, and saw nothing about warlocks being part of Orgrimmar.

If you say something happens *UNTIL WoW* then you are saying they joined when WoW started. Just like if you said 'Until I broke my leg' it doesn't mean BEFORE the moment you broke your leg. The lore for the Burning Blade Warlocks in the Coven of Shadows is established before WoW starts.

"Ragefire Chasm consists of a network of volcanic caverns that lie below the orcs' new capital city of Orgrimmar. Recently, rumors have spread that a cult loyal to the demonic Shadow Council has taken up residence within the Chasm's fiery depths. This cult, known as the Burning Blade, threatens the very sovereignty of Durotar. Many believe that the orc Warchief, Thrall, is aware of the Blade's existence and has chosen not to destroy it in the hopes that its members might lead him straight to the Shadow Council. Either way, the dark powers emanating from Ragefire Chasm could undo all that the orcs have fought to attain." - World Dungeons lore on old WoW site

The novel 'Cycle of Hatred' establishes that the Burning Blade Cult is legion-aligned and working under/is a part of the Shadow Council. The Burning Blade Cult Warlocks in Ragefire are Shadow Council agents that have infiltrated the Horde-aligned clan's Warlocks already operating in the Cleft of Shadow, which we had quests that tasked us to investigate. The lore of the entire dungeon and the area established that Horde-aligned Warlocks were already operating in the Cleft of Shadow, and that you are to address the *new threat of Shadow Council agents* that Thrall is already aware of and wants you to deal with.

This would have established the Warlocks during the 'Post Third War' period. It covers the time period after Warcraft 3 up to WoW. It's when the Scarlet Crusade would have been established, when Night Elves join the Alliance etc. Just like if we talk about Teldrassil/Darnassus, you can say 'we didn't have this city until WoW' but that doesn't mean this place only existed when WoW did. We have lore that establishes this happened in the time after WC3 and prior to the start of WoW. Keep in mind we are talking about lore for when Warlocks in the Horde would have been established, not when we as players were first made aware of Warlocks existing in the Horde.

The way you are using 'Until WoW' is based on *when players became aware* of playable Warlocks or Night Elves being part of the Alliance, but these connections would have been made in the lore *before* WoW even started.

Why? The only reason you've given so far is that because "there is no lore of them being the Alliance and the Horde", but that is not exactly a point against them.

As per your argument, it is highly unlikely because there is no lore for them being in the Alliance and Horde. Otherwise, based on your own use of observation, we can see the thousands of NPC classes that did not join the Alliance and Horde, whether they were (former) enemies or allies. That is what would make it highly unlikely. Same reasoning that you apply to Anduin and Taelia's marriage.

That is not the same thing. You cannot compare a lore event to a game mechanic and treat both as the same.

But asking you for a lore reason for Necromancers to join the Alliance and Horde is not a game mechanic. I have been asking you to provide lore evidence to suggest that they would join, and you have not provided. You are simply saying it's a game mechanic and Blizzard can do whatever they want; which means you are talking about possibility and not plausability. I didn't say Necromancers can't be playable, I have clearly said they are highly unlikely based on the lore-standard that you have used to make all your arguments.

... Are you saying there is no difference between lore and game mechanics/features? Is that it?

I mean I'm not talking about gameplay mechanics, period. You are the one who decided to shift the topic to game mechanics when I specifically asked you to provide lore to suggest Necromancers would be playable.

Besides, if we WERE talking about gameplay mechanics, then there are no gameplay mechanics in the game to suggest that the Necromancer class is likely; I could use the same argument and point at all the NPCs with unique abilities that never got their own class as insurmountable evidence that it would be just as highly unlikely.

[BaumanKing]

So, are the new purple eyes available on the pre-patch?

[Ardenaso]

But, how is that even possible? Vereesa herself calls Varian HER king.

ikr 10 characters

[Ielenia]

The way you are using 'Until WoW' is based on *when players became aware* of playable Warlocks or Night Elves being part of the Alliance, but these connections would have been made in the lore *before* WoW even started.

No. I said "until WoW" because that's when all that started. The warlocks of the Burning Blade clan did not exist in Orgrimmar until WoW was created and the lore for them was created and retroactively added them to Orgrimmar.

As per your argument, it is highly unlikely because there is no lore for them being in the Alliance and Horde.

No. That was never my argument. Again, absence of lore does not define absence of validity. And as for your "Anduin and Taelia" example, I said it is unlikely not because "there is no lore", but because of the mountain of evidence against the claim that "they meet, therefore they marry" by pointing at all the other characters that have met, but have not married.

Same reasoning that you apply to Anduin and Taelia's marriage.

Except that's not your reasoning. You said those classes are "highly unlikely" because of lack of lore, and not because "we have so many representatives of other classes that aren't playable classes".

But asking you for a lore reason for Necromancers to join the Alliance and Horde is not a game mechanic.

When you talk about playable class you are talking about game mechanics/features considering "playable class" is not something that exists in the lore.

[Triceron]

No. I said "until WoW" because that's when all that started. The warlocks of the Burning Blade clan did not exist in Orgrimmar until WoW was created and the lore for them was created and retroactively added them to Orgrimmar.

Why would you call it retcon if it didn't contradict previous lore?

We know Burning Blade clan joined the Horde. We know Warlocks were established in the Cleft of Shadow. We have quests that send us there to investigate them.

There is no retcon if nothing was changed. Only new lore was provided to explain what we weren't openly aware of.

If we want to talk about Retcons, maybe I should bring back that you said the Horde didn't even exist until WoW?

No. That was never my argument. Again, absence of lore does not define absence of validity. And as for your "Anduin and Taelia" example, I said it is unlikely not because "there is no lore", but because of the mountain of evidence against the claim that "they meet, therefore they marry" by pointing at all the other characters that have met, but have not married.

There was no claim being made except your own, which you refuted on your own terms.

This was the original question: "I think there is a high chance Taelia will marry Anduin". I offered you no other claims.

Your response was:

"I would say it's highly unlikely as we only saw the two interact I think once, and there were no "they'll get married!" vibes from that encounter."

You already judged it as highly unlikely without evidence, without any claim to refute. I then explained that you left the other person nothing left to discuss here because you already judged it and here you are saying it's because you were using mountains of evidence to refute a claim; even though you said it was highly unlikely before any claim was even made.

Heck, even the Aggra and Thrall example was not a claim. It was presenting a possibility, a precedent that could reoccur in the future to counter the idea that them getting married was highly unlikely. You had not explained how you reached that conclusion in the first place through evidence; you just made a blanket statement that it wasn't likely because they only met once, without asking for the person to elaborate their opinion (ask why they think the chance is high) or address the fact that there isn't much evidence on the table to draw a conclusion. There was no reason to assume that the 'high chance they will get married' was solely based on their single encounter.

And I am showing you now how Ielenia reacts to people expressing opinions. He does so by asserting they are claims, and refuting them with 'mountains of evidence' that amount to baseless statistics that have nothing to do with one person's opinion.

Except that's not your reasoning. You said those classes are "highly unlikely" because of lack of lore, and not because "we have so many representatives of other classes that aren't playable classes".

You are right, it's not my reasoning. It's *your* reasoning. I'm using your own argument against you. Do you still not understand why I'm using this 'Highly unlikely' response? It's because it's the same words that YOU used to form a rebuttal, despite there being nothing to prove would be likely OR highly unlikely. And the reasoning is absolutely a lack of lore; considering your reasoning to dismiss Anduin and Taelia getting married was based on them only having a single meeting. That is essentially a 'lack of lore showing an intention to get married'. When applied to classes, then this can be translated as 'lack of lore to become a playable class'.

I've told you from the start that I'm employing a devil's advocate argument using your own logic against you, and that you are finding massive holes in it is because your arguments are based on fallacious logic; that absence of lore can deem something to be *highly unlikely*

Your Anduin and Taelia assessment was not based on existing lore, it is based on an *absence* of lore. You simply abstracted that concept into 'they won't likely get married because they only met once and there were no marriage vibes', which boils down to a lack of explanation and a lack of intent.

[Traycor]

But, how is that even possible? Vereesa herself calls Varian HER king.

Just gaslighting. High Elves have always been Alliance.

[Ielenia]

Why would you call it retcon if it didn't contradict previous lore?

That's not what "retcon" means. Retcon does not mean "removing/replacing old lore". Retcon means "retroactive continuity" and it doesn't necessarily have to contradict existing lore. For example: if Blizzard were to add the protoss world into the Warcraft universe, and state that this world has been there since the beginning, that is a retcon, because the protoss have been retroactively added into the Warcraft lore, but no existing lore has been removed or altered.

You already judged it as highly unlikely without evidence, without any claim to refute.

I literally did, and you even quoted it. I pointed out how they have only met once and there was no 'spark' of chemistry between the two.

You are right, it's not my reasoning. It's *your* reasoning. I'm using your own argument against you.

And you're still misapplying it. Because a class being playable is not a lore thing. Unless you could show me the lore in which Anduin, or Varian, or Bolvar, or Lady Katrana Prestor ever signing something, or proclaiming "now the players can choose monk as their class!" or something to that effect. Which you can't, because that's not how it works. A class being playable is not a lore thing. It's a game mechanic thing. Which is why pointing at NPCs that resemble currently not playable class concepts does not work.

[Triceron]

That's not what "retcon" means.

"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established diegetic 'facts' in the plot of a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former" - Wikipedia

The Burning Blade clan was already part of the Horde. That we weren't aware there were Warlocks working secretly in Orgimmar (which was only just established in Rexxars campaign) is not adding something to old continuity, its simply adding continuity that we are actively exploring in WoW.

Teldrassil at the beginning of WoW is not a retcon even though it happened before the start of WoW. Night Elves joining the Alliance is not a retcon, its new lore that is established in a time period before WoW.

Having Protoss be a part of WoW history would be a retcon because it alters the continuity. It would not be a retcon if they simply introduced Protoss as a new race we never seen before in modern time, without affecting history. It'd be hella weird, but not any more of a retcon than learning about the Maldraxxians or the Venthyr for the first time.

I literally did, and you even quoted it. I pointed out how they have only met once and there was no 'spark' of chemistry between the two.

There are no claims, no facts involved, only opinion. What you present here is your own interpretation, your own opinion, and you did not address or engage the topic, you simply tried to refute it instead of reaching any talking point.

You just said it was highly unlikely because of a claim you were dismissing; yet no claims were made. On top of that your basis for judging it highly unlikey is ultimately subjective. 'I didn't get a marriage vibe' is not factual proof. Someone who were autistic might not pick up on any 'spark' of chemistry at all, and that wouldn't be evidence that it's highly unlikely.

And you're still misapplying it. Because a class being playable is not a lore thing. Unless you could show me the lore in which Anduin, or Varian, or Bolvar, or Lady Katrana Prestor ever signing something, or proclaiming "now the players can choose monk as their class!" or something to that effect. Which you can't, because that's not how it works. A class being playable is not a lore thing. It's a game mechanic thing. Which is why pointing at NPCs that resemble currently not playable class concepts does not work.

Sure it is. Its lore of them formally joining the Alliance and Horde, its them partaking in the class politics and being addressed as formal champions of the factions.

Are you saying DKs becoming playable was not a lore thing? That there was no reason for them to be playable?

I could say that if we had a Pandaria expansion, there's a good chance we could see playable Monks/Brewmasters. That's lore supporting plausability right there. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. The Monks/Brewmasters already exist in lore as specific archetype of characters. Or I could say if we got an expansion where we fight the Burning Legion again, there's a good chance we could get Demon Hunters. Again, these are all things that exist in the lore, and providing lore themes to support the conditions surrounding its plausability. It's just as relevant considering the lore is establishing a direct connection between these classes and our own factions, not exclusively to game mechanics.

I mean if you're talking about something that's complete absent of lore like the Auction Hall or the UI, then yeah. But classes in WoW are motivated just as much by adherence to lore as it is influenced by gameplay exploration; otherwise they wouldn't have to give us lore-centric classes like a "Death Knight' and 'Demon Hunter' and simply call them "Zombie Lord" and "Shadowdancer" with all the same mechanics and none of the flavour. That would be purely be a discussion of game mechanics.

We're not talking about Zombie Lords and Shadowdancers, we're talking about Death Knights and Demon Hunters. We're not talking about Dark Wizards, we're talking about Warlocks and Necromancers. To discuss what we 'get' in lore is to establish a formal and official lore connection between these (independent) classes and our own factions.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

I did want for the new eye color to have come with the event tho