Why is Azshara a mid-expansion boss?

[Airwaves]

Something tells me she is the final boss and blizzard will abandon BFA like they did WOD. In any case it is a massive disservice to her character and I will not be returning for it.

[Raone]

I may have missed some leak, which I hope I have because I'm disappointed.

Why is Azshara a simple mid-tier boss? A lore figure, competing with Deathwing and the Lich King, who has in one way or another been teased in nearly every expansion, and even vanilla, becomes just another boss in the way for the ultimate villain.

So we kill her, but not before she manages to release N'zoth, and then what? 14 years of teases flushed down the drain?

Why is Ragnaros a first tier boss of Classic? Nefarion 2nd tier? C'thun only 3rd tier?
Why is Magtheridon only first tier, Kael/Vashj are only 2nd tier
Why is Yogg 2nd tier of Wrath? Hes an old god
Why is Cho'gall the first tier of Cata? Ragnaros 2nd tier
Why is the Thunderking 2nd tier of MoP? hes far stronger then Garrosh
Why was Kargath the very first boss killed in WoD?
Why is Guldan the 2nd tier of Legion? Kil'jaden only 3rd tier? He was the final boss of TBC ...

You could argue literally all of them, boss order doesn't really matter

[cparle87]

It literally does not mean only that. Retcon literally means changing the continuity retroactively. This does literally encompass inserting a new backstory for a character, that changes the meaning of a whole expansion, to justify the story of a new expansion. You are literally wrong and smug about it.

Saying something is X, then later saying it is Y and we should forget it was ever X= retcon. Example, changing the origin of the Eredar from being demons who corrupted Sargeras to being people corrupted into demons BY Sargeras. Or changing Garona from a half orc/half human who was 20+ years old in the First War, to a half draenei/half orc who was magically aged up. See what those are? They told us the details or the event, then told us to disregard those details and accept the new details as having been the truth the entire time.

Not telling us anything at all, then saying it ix X = not retcon. You have to state something, then later tell us "no that wasn't it before, this is the truth now". We never knew Illidan's long-term plan before Legion, therefore it could not be retconned. You cannot retcon something that was never known before.

I'm actually finding it rather ironic you don't know what a retcon is considering what username you're using and how infamous he is for doing such things.

[George Lucas]

Saying something is X, then later saying it is Y and we should forget it was ever X= retcon. Example, changing the origin of the Eredar from being demons who corrupted Sargeras to being people corrupted into demons BY Sargeras. Or changing Garona from a half orc/half human who was 20+ years old in the First War, to a half draenei/half orc who was magically aged up. See what those are? They told us the details or the event, then told us to disregard those details and accept the new details as having been the truth the entire time.

Not telling us anything at all, then saying it ix X = not retcon. You have to state something, then later tell us "no that wasn't it before, this is the truth now". We never knew Illidan's long-term plan before Legion, therefore it could not be retconned. You cannot retcon something that was never known before.

I'm actually finding it rather ironic you don't know what a retcon is considering what username you're using and how infamous he is for doing such things.

Yeah, you're is still wrong, retconning doesn't just mean changing something, then we wouldn't need that word, but whatever. I won't try anymore.

[viridian-716]

We are fighting her mid-expansion because her "death" will be her ascension, hence RISE of Azshara into something more again. -source details from the last 3-4 interviews with Ian.

[Destinas]

Well from what we know so far, she may not fully die. Her "death" animation is actually just heavily breathing with her hands on the ground. Of course we haven't seen the cinematic at the end of the raid, which could explain more.

Anything could happen. She could have her own "it was merely a setback" moment by being reshaped by N'Zoth again, coming back in the final raid once more. She could be saved for another later date in some other way. She could certainly die in the cinematic, as well.

As for why? While I find her to be very interesting and different than other bosses, many others don't. She doesn't carry the weight with most of the community that the Lich King did, or even the way Deathwing did (despite the fact that when Cataclysm was announced most MMO-C posters hadn't read any of the books prior, so they had no idea who he was). It's more compelling to have an Old God as the final raid boss of BfA - one that was spoken about since Cataclysm, with smaller hints from previous expansions and books all dealing with Azshara as well.

[Kavoo]

I guess she won't be killed off tho, in her "death" animation shes just left in the ground, panting.(just like Garrosh)

[cparle87]

Yeah, you're is still wrong, retconning doesn't just mean changing something, then we wouldn't need that word, but whatever. I won't try anymore.

ret·con
/ˈretkän/
noun
in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

Imposes a different interpretation on previously described events. We didn't know what he was after before. If we did, and they changed it, that would be a retcon. That is not the case.

[George Lucas]

ret·con
/ˈretkän/
noun
in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

Imposes a different interpretation on previously described events. We didn't know what he was after before. If we did, and they changed it, that would be a retcon. That is not the case.

From wiktionary: A situation, in a soap opera or similar serial fiction, in which a new storyline explains or changes a previous event or attaches a new significance to it.

From google: (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

From Cambridge: a piece of new information given in a film, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity".

You detache the new backstory of Illidan from the old backstory and act like the additions are some isolated thing that relates to nothing previously established. That is not the case. New stuff was inserted retroactively in to the canon and gave new meaning to what was previously established and served as a plot device to kickstart the new Legion story. Burning Crusade had a main story and the new Illidan story relates to that in a very big way. The new stuff changes the understanding of this old story. It imposes a different interpretation on previously described events. Like the Black Temple raid or the whole Illidari stuff in Outland. I should really stop repeating this.

[cparle87]

From wiktionary: A situation, in a soap opera or similar serial fiction, in which a new storyline explains or changes a previous event or attaches a new significance to it.

From google: (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

From Cambridge: a piece of new information given in a film, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity".

You detache the new backstory of Illidan from the old backstory and act like the additions are some isolated thing that relates to nothing previously established. That is not the case. New stuff was inserted retroactively in to the canon and gave new meaning to what was previously established and served as a plot device to kickstart the new Legion story. Burning Crusade had a main story and the new Illidan story relates to that in a very big way. The new stuff changes the understanding of this old story. It imposes a different interpretation on previously described events. Like the Black Temple raid or the whole Illidari stuff in Outland. I should really stop repeating this.

By your logic every new piece of lore information added is a retcon because it causes you to look back at previous events and view them in a different light. Theramore is a retcon because it made Jaina's personality change. Thrall not being warchief anymore is a retcon because he changed his clothes.

You post all these definitions but you don't understand them. You have to CHANGE something in the past in order for it to be a retcon. They can't change Illidan's motivations or end goal because we didn't know them in the first place before. Like I said before changing Illidan's agenda from being ruler of Outland for his own benefit to wanting to destroy the Legion would be a retcon. Not knowing what he wanted to learning he wanted to destroy the Legion is not.

[George Lucas]

By your logic every new piece of lore information added is a retcon because it causes you to look back at previous events and view them in a different light. Theramore is a retcon because it made Jaina's personality change. Thrall not being warchief anymore is a retcon because he changed his clothes.

You post all these definitions but you don't understand them. You have to CHANGE something in the past in order for it to be a retcon. They can't change Illidan's motivations or end goal because we didn't know them in the first place before. Like I said before changing Illidan's agenda from being ruler of Outland for his own benefit to wanting to destroy the Legion would be a retcon. Not knowing what he wanted to learning he wanted to destroy the Legion is not.

Nope, total strawman. Theramore and Thrall's abdication did not take place years in the past, when they were introduced. But the intention was the same, justifying a new direction for the story. A retcon would be, if, for example, it would be revealed that Thrall had planned back then to put Garrosh in charge so he could blame all problems and wrong doings of the new Horde on him, because in reality Thrall is a malicious and irresponsible schemer. That would be a equivalent to the Illidan stuff.

Yeah, it was said, written and implied through the whole of Outland that Illidan was ruling Outland for his own benefit and fought the Legion because Kil'jaedan and the Legion was angry at him for loosing against Arthas, not because he was trying to save the universe, claiming otherwise is ridiculous. "Illidan lives in fear that he will be discovered by his powerful enemies - most notably Arthas, the new Lich King, and the remaining Lords of the Burning Legion." That was on Blizzard's website for Black Temple. "He is not who he once was, however. His soul has been corrupted by power, his mind has been twisted by defeat. He has become what I am sworn to destroy and his pet servants, the Illidari, are as much of an abomination as any demon of the Burning Legion." Altruis said that in Burning Crusade and there is a lot more like this. One could argue saying this is all unreliable narration, but that would be dishonest, as it was most definitely not meant that way back then.

[cparle87]

Nope, total strawman. Theramore and Thrall's abdication did not take place years in the past, when they were introduced. But the intention was the same, justifying a new direction for the story. A retcon would be, if, for example, it would be revealed that Thrall had planned back then to put Garrosh in charge so he could blame all problems and wrong doings of the new Horde on him, because in reality Thrall is a malicious and irresponsible schemer. That would be a equivalent to the Illidan stuff.

Yeah, it was said, written and implied through the whole of Outland that Illidan was ruling Outland for his own benefit and fought the Legion because Kil'jaedan and the Legion was angry at him for loosing against Arthas, not because he was trying to save the universe, claiming otherwise is ridiculous. "Illidan lives in fear that he will be discovered by his powerful enemies - most notably Arthas, the new Lich King, and the remaining Lords of the Burning Legion." That was on Blizzard's website for Black Temple. "He is not who he once was, however. His soul has been corrupted by power, his mind has been twisted by defeat. He has become what I am sworn to destroy and his pet servants, the Illidari, are as much of an abomination as any demon of the Burning Legion." Altruis said that in Burning Crusade and there is a lot more like this. One could argue saying this is all unreliable narration, but that would be dishonest, as it was most definitely not meant that way back then.

You do realize that Cata is like 10 years ago in lore time and nearly that long irl?

Didn't that quote come from Malfurion, who denounced everything Illidan did even if his actions resulted in a positive result? Malfurion is the epitome of an unreliable narrator. Guy instantly decried his own brother as a monster who sold his soul on sight.

I think we need to find a new word to use. "Retcon" has simply had too many negative connotations added to it due to misuse.

[George Lucas]

You do realize that Cata is like 10 years ago in lore time and nearly that long irl?

Didn't that quote come from Malfurion, who denounced everything Illidan did even if his actions resulted in a positive result? Malfurion is the epitome of an unreliable narrator. Guy instantly decried his own brother as a monster who sold his soul on sight.

I think we need to find a new word to use. "Retcon" has simply had too many negative connotations added to it due to misuse.

When the bombing of Theramore was introduced it was in the present back then and not 10 years prior to where we were at that point, unlike the Illidan retcon, which changed stuff that took place years prior to the point we were at it's inception, what makes it a retcon in the first place. A straight continuation of a story can never be a retcon. You are not making any sense here.

No, this things were not coming from Malfurion, but directly from Blizzard to advertise Black Temple. Malfurion said: "Illidan sits atop his throne in Outland – brooding. I'm afraid that the loss to Arthas proved to be his breaking point. Madness has embraced him, Remulos. He replays the events in his mind a thousand times per day, but in his mind, he is the victor and Arthas is utterly defeated. He is too far gone, old friend. I fear that the time may soon come that our bond is tested and it will not be as it was at the Well in Zin-Azshari."

No, we do not need a new word. Stuff that changes the continuity retroactively is a pretty simple meaning. The Illidan retcon isn't even a bad thing in my opinion. The main "story" of Burning Crusade was even more stupid than the new stuff.

[Mehrunes]

You post all these definitions but you don't understand them. You have to CHANGE something in the past in order for it to be a retcon. They can't change Illidan's motivations or end goal because we didn't know them in the first place before. Like I said before changing Illidan's agenda from being ruler of Outland for his own benefit to wanting to destroy the Legion would be a retcon. Not knowing what he wanted to learning he wanted to destroy the Legion is not.

Except the very first definition posted by @George Lucas talks about a change or explanation. Meaning that no, you don't have to CHANGE something. Because that's what the "or" part means. The Cambridge one also has an "or" there, where the other alternative is giving a different way of understanding. The Google one outright abandons the change part and instead focuses on the alternative given by Cambridge. Not even understanding the word "or" is a terrible basis to throw accusations on how other people don't understand definitions.

Which makes your monumental stretch here:

By your logic every new piece of lore information added is a retcon because it causes you to look back at previous events and view them in a different light. Theramore is a retcon because it made Jaina's personality change. Thrall not being warchief anymore is a retcon because he changed his clothes.

all the more funny. Because the wikitionary definition outright demands that the explanation or change happens to a previous event. Thrall stepping down as Warchief when he did was a current development. It neither explained nor changed previous events. And it doesn't meet the criteria of Cambridge and Google definitions on imposing a different interpretation or way of understanding of previous events either. Because, again, it was a current event.

You do realize that Cata is like 10 years ago in lore time and nearly that long irl?

Cata ended ~3.5 years ago in lore (assuming we're halfway through BfA). And it started ~5.5 years ago.

[Eggroll]

Well, Blizz "writers" surely know how to cut their supply of meaningful, long built up villains short and make them look trivial once we encounter them.

[cparle87]

When the bombing of Theramore was introduced it was in the present back then and not 10 years prior to where we were at that point, unlike the Illidan retcon, which changed stuff that took place years prior to the point we were at it's inception, what makes it a retcon in the first place. A straight continuation of a story can never be a retcon. You are not making any sense here.

No, this things were not coming from Malfurion, but directly from Blizzard to advertise Black Temple. Malfurion said: "Illidan sits atop his throne in Outland – brooding. I'm afraid that the loss to Arthas proved to be his breaking point. Madness has embraced him, Remulos. He replays the events in his mind a thousand times per day, but in his mind, he is the victor and Arthas is utterly defeated. He is too far gone, old friend. I fear that the time may soon come that our bond is tested and it will not be as it was at the Well in Zin-Azshari."

No, we do not need a new word. Stuff that changes the continuity retroactively is a pretty simple meaning. The Illidan retcon isn't even a bad thing in my opinion. The main "story" of Burning Crusade was even more stupid than the new stuff.

I mean Thrall stepping down was in Cata, which was 10 years ago. And Theramore was two years after that. Also you say that a straight continuation of a story cannot be a retcon, but call us finding out Illidan's agenda for the very first time to be one. Interesting dissociative thinking.

So Blizz paraphrases Malfurion for their BT quote. So?

If a word becomes so tainted by negative use that simply seeing the word leads to negative connotations, then I believe we do need a new word. Retcon can be used for bad, clumsy, or hamfisted changes. Find a new word for good changes.

- - - Updated - - -

Cata ended ~3.5 years ago in lore (assuming we're halfway through BfA). And it started ~5.5 years ago.

Each expansion itself lasts 1-2 years ingame, Cata being closer to 1, with a gap in between. There was a 2 year gap between WoD and Legion I believe.

[George Lucas]

I mean Thrall stepping down was in Cata, which was 10 years ago. And Theramore was two years after that. Also you say that a straight continuation of a story cannot be a retcon, but call us finding out Illidan's agenda for the very first time to be one. Interesting dissociative thinking.

So Blizz paraphrases Malfurion for their BT quote. So?

If a word becomes so tainted by negative use that simply seeing the word leads to negative connotations, then I believe we do need a new word. Retcon can be used for bad, clumsy, or hamfisted changes. Find a new word for good changes.

Don't get what you're trying to say here.

I won't bother anymore, this must be a joke.

No.

[Rozz]

The debate over retcons has gone on long enough. Please get back to the topic of the thread.