Did we just get a Dark Ranger skill mega buffed?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Neither have I claimed that "all paladins use the same light".

Yet there all holy warrior's no matter where there power comes from or how far removed from the actual holy light they are just like the TH members.

That is pure projection, because your "interpretation" of the dark ranger's description is one that simply does not fit the actual meaning of the words used in the description.

Prove it. show me the meaning of those words and how my Interpretation doesn't fit Like I did with holy.

And I will say this one last time: you're equating "ranger" with "dark ranger" here. Being called a "ranger" is not the same thing as being called a "dark ranger". Make the distinction between the two first, then we can talk.

Again no where have I equated ranger and dark ranger I just asked a yes no question on what he's been called YOU are the only one who has equated the two.

Says the poster who is cherry-picking what is canon and what isn't, and asking loaded question.

I haven't done either. all I've done is lay out that all of your statements and ask for Simple yes/no Answer for you to clarify if you think there right or wrong Which you refused to do, here Ill quote all of them for you to show case your pathetic squirming around Nathanos and the dark rangers You refuse to admit to.

You say dark rangers don't use pets other then Nathanos, this is wrong.

dark rangers do not use pets. The one sole exception to this is Nathanos,

you say he didn't have pets until he was a raid boss, this is wrong

Nathanos is the sole example of that, and on top of that, through Nathanos' entire existence he did not use pets. Only when he became a "raid boss" that he was given two pets,

You imply he only became a dark ranger after dark mirror even quoting the passage on dark mirror and bolding parts, Note the word Imply I'm not putting any words into your wormy mouth.

Except, as far as I know, he was never referred to as a dark ranger until the Legion expansion. Which coincidentally also gave him a new model based on the story in which Sylvanas transfers his soul into his own cousin's body and "made him stronger":

and to quote my self about your spineless Squirming because you can't admit to being wrong.

he's been a dark ranger since he was raised,he has always had pets, Dark rangers do in fact have pets, and all of your previous statements about him were a frivolous waste of every one's time based off of nothing

All of the facts are on my side while you try and squirm around the truth so you don't have to admit to being wrong on every thing.

[Ielenia]

I can see how a simple google search would be such a daunting task for you,

If that's what you want to call me not wanting to do the legwork that you are supposed to do. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim, then you're the one who's supposed to show the evidence. Just saying "it exists, look it up" does not cut it.

The exploding ice that almost killed Muradin when Arthas grabbed Frostmourne was the first sign of frost magic. Literally the moment he became a DK.

Can you prove it was cast by the sword? And not just a flying shard of ice that hit Muradin as the sword forcefully expelled itself from the block of ice that was encasing it?

But you're right, no other DK's used frost until WotLK, and that's because those DK's were created by Gul'Dan.

You're wrong twice. First: no death knight at all used frost magic until the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along. And second, even Arthas' own death knights did not use frost magic. The death knights inside Naxxramas are Arthas' death knights.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet there all holy warrior's no matter where there power comes from or how far removed from the actual holy light they are just like the TH members.

"Holy" does not mean "worships the Light".

Prove it. show me the meaning of those words and how my Interpretation doesn't fit Like I did with holy.

I've already done it. Your "interpretation" borders on absurd because a hunter sending a pet to taunt enemies is not "sowing hatred and dissension among enemy ranks".

I haven't done either.

Yes, you have:

And again:

Again, you literally did:

Im the dishonest one? I’m not the one pointing to a vague description and claiming it to be lore when it isn’t

Here we have you accusing canon information of being non-canon.

And then you asked the question where you equate "ranger" to "dark ranger".

[Lorgar Aurelian]

"Holy" does not mean "worships the Light".

Yes that's exactly my point thank you for agreeing with me. one can be a holy warrior and have nothing to do with the light just like the Twilight hammer and the prelates as Holy isn't defined by the light.

I've already done it. Your "interpretation" borders on absurd because a hunter sending a pet to taunt enemies is not "sowing hatred and dissension among enemy ranks".

No you haven't you have yet to sight a single definition Like i did with holy.

And then you asked the question where you equate "ranger" to "dark ranger".

No I asked a question about what he's been called no where did I make any equations that was all you.

I also asked other questions to clarify rather your holding onto your other incorrect statements/implications which you you also refuse to answer because you Know your wrong.

[Yarathir]

Now that with Shadowlands hunters can tame a lot of undead beasts, I think Blizzard can do a Green Fire style quest... maybe one of Sylvanas's former Dark Ranger trainees helps you recover her daggers or something and it gives you some cool cosmetic effects like red eyes and purple shots.

And I guess eye customization too.

[TheRevenantHero]

I really wish my Hunter had arrows with shadow damage, could teleport, could mind control, could shoot arrows that lock the target in chains, AOE silence as a general skill, etc etc etc etc...
Yes, I would be very happy to play with this "merely dark variation" of a Hunter.....
Oh sorry, looks like I confused Dark Rangers with a Banshee again. I will keep making this "mistake".
Do not worry.

Dark rangers can't teleport. Dark rangers don't have mind control. Dark rangers can't lock people in chains. Dark rangers can't AoE silence.

So...yeah. You can definitely make a dark ranger in game by just using black purple transmog on a hunter.

- - - Updated - - -

If that's what you want to call me not wanting to do the legwork that you are supposed to do. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim, then you're the one who's supposed to show the evidence. Just saying "it exists, look it up" does not cut it.


Can you prove it was cast by the sword? And not just a flying shard of ice that hit Muradin as the sword forcefully expelled itself from the block of ice that was encasing it?


You're wrong twice. First: no death knight at all used frost magic until the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along. And second, even Arthas' own death knights did not use frost magic. The death knights inside Naxxramas are Arthas' death knights.

- - - Updated - - -


"Holy" does not mean "worships the Light".


I've already done it. Your "interpretation" borders on absurd because a hunter sending a pet to taunt enemies is not "sowing hatred and dissension among enemy ranks".


Yes, you have:

And then you asked the question where you equate "ranger" to "dark ranger".

Dark rangers are literally called that because they are raised Farstrider rangers. that's literally the only fucking reason. And because Farstrider rangers are hunters, that means dark rangers are just undead hunters. Why do you accuse people of cherry-picking lore when you do it CONSTANTLY?

[Yarathir]

"Sylvanas is a hunter hero."
"But she's not a hunter."
"Sylvanas drops a legendary weapon with lore significance in that it is the one wielded by Sylvanas, and it's only really usable by hunters."
"But she's not a hunter."
"Hunters have in the past had, and do now possess a few quirks and abilities related to Dark Rangers, such as that talent to summon a skeletal dog."
"But Dark Rangers and Hunters are nothing alike."
"Hunters can now tame all manner of undead creatures."
"But Dark Rangers and Hunters are still nothing alike."

Mental olympics, in my opinion.

[TheRevenantHero]

"Sylvanas is a hunter hero."
"But she's not a hunter."
"Sylvanas drops a legendary weapon with lore significance in that it is the one wielded by Sylvanas, and it's only really usable by hunters."
"But she's not a hunter."
"Hunters have in the past had, and do now possess a few quirks and abilities related to Dark Rangers, such as that talent to summon a skeletal dog."
"But Dark Rangers and Hunters are nothing alike."
"Hunters can now tame all manner of undead creatures."
"But Dark Rangers and Hunters are still nothing alike."

Mental olympics, in my opinion.

You're making far too much sense for the dark ranger lovers. Even though you're 100% correct.

[ro9ue]

If Dark Ranger was going to be added as a class (or 4th spec), it would've been done in Shadowlands anyway. Sort of like Legion - Illidan - DH, this was that parallel opportunity.

The last hope for Dark Rangers is either a green fire style quest for cosmetic effects or they could give the sylv bow extra purple shots FX and do a Night Warrior style quest for red eye option. Idk if they'll do anything though lol. Might just be like here's your bow now fuck off with the dark ranger shit.

[Ielenia]

Dark rangers are literally called that because they are raised Farstrider rangers. that's literally the only fucking reason.

So we can equate paladins and death knights because second generation death knights used to be all paladins?

And because Farstrider rangers are hunters, that means dark rangers are just undead hunters.

In your opinion. Others disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes that's exactly my point thank you for agreeing with me. one can be a holy warrior and have nothing to do with the light just like the Twilight hammer and the prelates as Holy isn't defined by the light.

For the last time, stop putting words in my proverbial mouth. If you keep this up, I'll drop this conversation.

No you haven't you have yet to sight a single definition Like i did with holy.

"Meaning of the words" is something you're supposed to learn in school, isn't it?

No I asked a question about what he's been called no where did I make any equations that was all you.

And for as long as you don't fix your question, it'll remain unanswered.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

For the last time, stop putting words in my proverbial mouth. If you keep this up, I'll drop this conversation.

If I say the word holy doesn't only apply to those who worship the light and then you say ""Holy" does not mean "worships the Light"" that's you agreeing with me. I put no words in your mouth you made a statement that is within 100% agreement with the statement i made.

"Meaning of the words" is something you're supposed to learn in school, isn't it?

Yes just like in school you learn Words can/do have multiple meanings and can be interpreted Multiple ways and the number of those meaning can grow Further as you construct sentences with them.

do you need to go back to school you don't seem to understand these concepts.

And for as long as you don't fix your question, it'll remain unanswered.

There is nothing to fix its a binary question about what he's been called you are the only one who made it about rangers and dark rangers being connected so you can weasel around not admitting your wrong on every point as I already laid out before.

[Fantazma]

Dark rangers can't teleport. Dark rangers don't have mind control. Dark rangers can't lock people in chains. Dark rangers can't AoE silence.

[Ielenia]

There is nothing to fix its a binary question

In which you insist on equating "ranger" to "dark ranger", something I've pointed out several times. And you still insist on repeating the same question, without fixing the mistake, which leads to believe it's intentional.

And if that's the case, the conversation is over.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

In which you insist on equating "ranger" to "dark ranger",

No it's been only you who has ever Equated the two and insist on doing it continuously even when it's been said multiple times that they are unrelated and the Question has nothing to do with them being connected.

And if that's the case, the conversation is over.

Of course it is as your Objectively wrong on every point and you know it. But instead of Admitting your wrong you weasel around Giving an Answer Post after post looking for an Opening to Run away so you can try and keep your crumbling pride intact.

[Ielenia]

Of course it is as your Objectively wrong on every point and you know it.

Such a childish taunt. Good riddance.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Such a childish taunt. Good riddance.

A completely correct taught you mean as I’ve already shown in an earlier post.

Also hilarious that you call me childish after you tired to pull the whole school thing and failed at it. But again you project your negative traits onto those who prove you wrong.

[TheRevenantHero]

Sylvanas is the only banshee. So she doesn't count. Try again.

- - - Updated - - -

So we can equate paladins and death knights because second generation death knights used to be all paladins?


In your opinion. Others disagree.

- - - Updated - - -


For the last time, stop putting words in my proverbial mouth. If you keep this up, I'll drop this conversation.


"Meaning of the words" is something you're supposed to learn in school, isn't it?


And for as long as you don't fix your question, it'll remain unanswered.

No. It's not an opinion. It's literally stated in the lore. Dark rangers are hunters in the same way vindicators are paladins. Anyone who disagrees blatantly disregards lore.

[Ielenia]

Sylvanas is the only banshee. So she doesn't count. Try again.

You do know that no death knight in WoW had blood or frost powers before they were made playable, you know?

No. It's not an opinion. It's literally stated in the lore.

It is your opinion that dark rangers are "just undead hunters". Even if you were right, it's not set in stone and can be changed in the future. In Warcraft 3, all death knights used to be paladins. And yet that is no longer true for the playable death knight class.

Dark rangers are hunters in the same way vindicators are paladins.

No, not the same thing. Hunters don't have necromantic powers, cannot raise skeletons, and, if the Warcraft 3 unit is to be believed, don't have spells that charm humanoids.

Anyone who disagrees blatantly disregards lore.

Anyone who disagrees is simply disagreeing with your opinion.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

No, not the same thing. Hunters don't have necromantic powers, cannot raise skeletons,

To quote the wowpedia hunter race page.

As the forsaken were once humans, their traits followed in undeath. The Forsaken's Banshee Queen, Sylvanas Windrunner, was a hunter/ranger during her lifetime and after being raised into undeath by Arthas Menethil found herself out of touch with the wilds, which was replaced by necromancy, making her a dark ranger which would later be taken up by others in the Forsaken. Dark Rangers grew in numbers during the War against the Lich King and likely have instructed new forsaken trainees to expand their ranks after the Cataclysm.

And for rising skeletons.

[Kithelle]

No. I think Dark Rangers (compared to all possible new classes that could be added in the future) is the most obvious and necessary class. imo.
And I believe that if happens I don't see a problem (and it would be very likely) that we would have a quest or any kind of very short story where Sylvanas (the only Dark Ranger with Banshee powers) would find a way to share her powers with all Dark Rangers and Blizzard would do this just to explain to us why DR playables have talents like Sylvanas have (like "Mind Control" and "Haunting Wave").

Necessary class? That's hilarious....oh wait you're serious?

This "class" can literally be covered in a 4th spec...there is no necessity for this class.

[TheRevenantHero]

You do know that no death knight in WoW had blood or frost powers before they were made playable, you know?


It is your opinion that dark rangers are "just undead hunters". Even if you were right, it's not set in stone and can be changed in the future. In Warcraft 3, all death knights used to be paladins. And yet that is no longer true for the playable death knight class.


No, not the same thing. Hunters don't have necromantic powers, cannot raise skeletons, and, if the Warcraft 3 unit is to be believed, don't have spells that charm humanoids.


Anyone who disagrees is simply disagreeing with your opinion.

No. It's the lore behind it. They are resurrected quel'dorei Farstrider rangers. And guess what? The Farstriders were all hunters. As for death knights, they weren't shown to just be basically another class with an edgy spin like dark rangers.

And it is ABSOLUTELY the same thing. Hunters are capable of taming undead beasts. Dark rangers can't summon skeletons in WoW either. And hunters are getting Wailing Arrow so they will soon be able to use necromancy.

And I'm not stating an opinion. I'm stating facts. The lore clearly shows that outside of Nathanos and Delaryn, they are ALL former Farstrider rangers who were killed by Arthas. Just because you are refusing to accept the facts doesn't make my comments opinions. So I repeat, anyone who tries to say that dark rangers are anything but undead hunters is 100% disregarding lore.