Very Good point. Everyone is always after High elf role players completely ignoring Sand trolls and Wildhammers
4 Likes
[Citation needed]
2 Likes
Actually disappointing to see there werent more severe action taken tbh.
4 Likes
Do you want me to link the blue post and embarras you ? or you just going to stop before i flag you for trolling i think it is best for everyone if you just stop .
2 Likes
This
Please stop lying there is no need for it.
4 Likes
Well she will probably give them another chance
3 Likes
Hey everyone,
Please keep your posts within the Code of Conduct and on topic. Please also note, that posting via a 2nd account to circumvent an existing forum silence will indeed result in the permanent removal of posting rights.
Thanks!
13 Likes
Actually you’re rather amusingly wrong. But then this is because Blizzard use the term incorrectly themselves, or to put it more clearly you can, and do, have different ‘races’ of Elves, and Tauren, and Trolls. Races can interbreed and the offspring will always be a member of that race. Two Horses who mate will always produce a baby Horse, two Donkeys who mate will always produce a baby Donkey.
The next classification up is ‘Species’ This is where two types of creature are distinctly different, but can interbreed, an example in our world is a Mule, which is the offspring of a Horse and a Donkey. They are however Sterile, and thus are a kind of dead end. They cannot produce Offspring, even with other Mules. A WoW example would be Elves and Humans. We know they can interbreed and produce a hybrid child, a Half-Elf. We have no lore knowledge yet as to whether Half Elves are sterile or not (probably not, but we have no evidence either way).
Undead are however an unnatural condition of existence created by magic, rather than by breeding, because, well, they’re dead, they can only create more Undead by magical means, assexually, rather than actually mating and producing children. For Undead to be a Race, rather than a biological condition, would therefor mean that Undead could procreate without any magic being involved, which we famously know they cannot…This is constantly referred to in game. Undead also covers a variety of beings, some of which are not the same race, or -even- the same species, or are you suggesting that a human Undead could mate with an Undead Bear? A Plaguehound? A -Skeleton-?
Undeath is an unnatural condition of existence, and Undead can be of many races and species, not just one defined one. So no, Blizzard using the word ‘race’ is incorrect in that term, they’re not even a -Species- as they cannot reproduce naturally.
Ahh, the Scroll up answer, how long before you start throwing insults at people and get yourself another Forum Vacation and resort to posting on another Account, like you did last time?
7 Likes
Im afraid you wasted your time she is already gone again
2 Likes
Yes it is, come on.
Banshees are different then undeads.
Her physical appearance did not changed.
No she did not, She is still high elf using void powers, it’s different then void elves.
you are wrong, horde have entire undead race, they are not “collective races of undeads” but specific race undeads.
2 Likes
It really is not. Undead is singular and plural, just like we don’t say ‘Taurens’, Draeneis, Pandarens, Worgens. Same as the words ‘They’ and ‘Them’ have always been both singular and plural. It is just how some words work. But if you want to test this theory, you can do so simply. Open up a reply post to this, type the word ‘Undead’ into it. ‘What does that prove?’ you may think. Now add an ‘s’ to the end of the word, so ‘Undeads’ What happens? You get a little red wavy line under the word. Do you know why that line appears? That is warning you that you are not using a real word. It won’t stop you posting it (after all if I type Draenei that comes up with the same line, because it isn’t a real word, unlike Undead).
So if the forum is fine with Undead, but tells you Undeads is not a proper word, that kind of proves me right. That plus being very fluent in my native language and knowing that the plural of Undead is Undead. Want another example. My favourite one you sometimes see on forums when posters have gone a bit juvenile and criticise anyone who disagrees with them and call people ‘Sheeps’ instead of ‘Sheep’. Sheep is singular and plural, ‘Sheeps’ is not a word. Try the red line test, and you’ll see I’m right.
Look up ‘Banshee’ on Wowpedia, the site that actually uses sources and links. I won’t ask you to read through the whole article, where it repeatedly refers to Banshee’s as being Undead. Just at the very top of the page, where it says Classification, I’m pretty sure (as in it -does) that it states ‘Undead (incorporeal)’ Banshees are a -type- of Undead, same as Zombies are different from Vampires, which are different from Skeletons which are different from Ghouls, which are different from Death Knights which are different from Liches, Banshees are not different from the Undead. They are a -type- of Undead, like all the ones I listed above.
Again, yes it does, did you not even watch any of the cutscenes or comics where she blatantly does look different. I repeat, the manner in which she became a Void Elf was 100% unique. Therefore -she- looks unique. Similar to Nathanos really, he was unique in his creation, no other Undead was created in the same way.
Well the character of Alleria calls herself a Void Elf, and she should know! Again, look at WoWpedia with all the lore links and sources, look at the First basic Paragraph “Alleria became the first Void Elf” Sources provided. Look at the summary box, what does it say under ‘Race’? “Void Elf, Formerly a High Elf”
‘Formerly’. Know what that word means in English, it means “Previously it was, but now it isn’t” Face facts, she refers to herself as a Void Elf, Locus Walker acknowledges it, and Blizzard themselves state she is a Void elf.
Actually You are again, incorrect. The Forsaken, so the Horde Undead, are made up of the following; Human Undead. Elven Undead, Abominations (I checked this, they are classified as Undead, not Constructs), Banshee’s (So not even ones who have regained their own bodies, but full on Banshees like the one in Hillsbrad) Dark Rangers, and whatever the heck type of creature Nathanos was (Which was never given a name as a type of creature given that there was only one of him).
Everything you have said there is incorrect and I have given you the evidence.
9 Likes
As a side note, isn’t Dark Ranger is a “class”? I mean they are Elven corpses, elven undead with Ranger past, who got their views and customs twisted by darknes and undeath, had to adapt their ways to their new existence? Or for some strange reason Blizzard classified the dark Rangers as a seperate undeasd-type?
It is a weird one, because technically all a Dark Ranger is, is a Banshee that has taken over pretty much permanent residency in it’s own deceased body, they probably are the same, Only problem with that, is in the WoW game itself, we only ever see Sylvanas of being capable of then going Incorporeal again, before reforming her body. That seems to be a Sylvanas only thing, as logically what that cinematic would have looked like, is us seeing Sylvanas go incorporeal, and her unanimated corpse drop to the floor, so she has kind of transcended that state, whereas the Other Dark Rangers seem kind of ‘locked in’ to their bodies, we never see any of them pull any stunts like that. (Doesn’t mean they -can’t- I guess, we just never see it happen). You do also get Banshee’s who are -not- Dark Rangers in the Forsaken. This too is plausible. I imagine the Elves of Quel’thalas started burning their dead pretty quick after they saw what was going on, so some Banshees would have no body to reinhabit. (Logically this means all Dark Rangers should look hideously decayed as their body has just been lying there decaying -until- Sylvanas broke them free from Arthas.) Doesn’t take that long for decay to set into a Corpse, but hey, as we all know, ‘Sexy Sells’
So theoretically you have Sylvanas, who is a -very- powerful Dark Ranger, you have Dark Rangers, and then you have Banshee’s who can’t become Dark Rangers, but are instead Incorporeal Undead, as opposed to Dark Rangers, who are corporeal Undead.
They need to sort out their Lore consistency a bit on them basically. Whilst there is speculation that Nathanos is a Dark Ranger, the lore suggests heavily otherwise. For a start he never went through an Incorporeal phase, but as anyone who played WoW since the start will remember, He was risen as a (Very skilled) standard Male Forsaken, as his model reflected until Legion. Dead Male Elves should not be able to become Dark Rangers, as dead Male Elves become Spectres, not Banshees (Indeed Blizzard staff jokingly refer to them as ‘Manshees’ 
) Spectres however, cannot possess people, not even their own dead bodies.
You get people who are described as dark rangers, basically any hunter Forsaken could call themselves that, you even get that one mob we see which is a male elf without a name just referred to as ‘dark ranger’, but to be fair, that is likely just a mob title, the actual model bears no resemblance to a Dark Ranger at all, instead looking like the lovechild of a male elf and a Leper Gnome.
It’s tricky, they could do with clarifying it, but I imagine it is very low on their list of priorities… After all, Why have your game world make coherent sense? Surely that would cost a Raid Tier! 
Time for the mods to start banning these spam threads about elves. Always get capped on arguments over the same damn thing.
It’s one thread, dude, with an obvious title. Better it was all here than countless threads on the same topic saying nothing new all the time, like everyone else has to put up with from the Mythic raiding posters every day. Now -that- really is spam…
2 Likes
The plural of “sheep” is “sheep.” But “sheep” is also a collective noun meaning a type of sheep. A collective noun denotes a collection of individuals. Collective nouns have plurals that designate multiple collections. The plurals of collective nouns are formed in the usual way by adding “-s” or “-es.” Thus we can have a box of fish, or many fishes in an ecosystem, and a flock of sheep, or different sheeps in a region
Would you say there is “much” sheep or sheeps?
It’s correct to say Sheeps, same for Undeads.
What i meant they are not horde undead race, but different.
She sits in Stormwind looking exactly same as before as high elf
Horde race is called undead.
What i said is 100% correct.
yeah they could deport spammers such as you from here
3 Likes
Spammer? Me? I wrote one reply after this thread once agained showed up. You can take your words and do that your self
1 Like
this topic exactly, exclusively continues since 2018…so
What on earth? It’s never correct to say sheeps? Where did you get those crazy rules on grammar from?
There are many kinds of sheep in this region.
I see you have many sheep
There are many breeds of sheep
You have one sheep, but over there there are many sheep.
It is literally never correct to use the term “sheeps” I’m sorry but it just isn’t. That is not how the word works at all and if you’ve heard otherwise you’ve heard wrong.
Try typing in “can I use sheeps” in Google and everywhere you look, the answer is the same: no, you can’t, not if you’re respecting the rules of English language. You’re entitled to use it of course, but it’s wrong and not a proper word.
Same goes for Undead. The singular and the plural are the same.
You use of fish as an example doesn’t play out, firstly because the word fish is not the same as the word sheep, in English general rules for words don’t work as a rule as there are sounds of exceptions to said rules. Secondary to this, it’s recognised within the field of marine biology that this is a wierd inconsistency in the field where some will use the term fish only, and some use fishes to describe different certain aspects of fish-related multitudes but not others. For example saying “many different fishes display such behaviour” but referring to a group of fish, as fish, rather than fishes. There is no common understanding as to why.
Yet with deer, you see the same thing as sheep, no use of the term deers ever.
So essentially, never think “because this similarish word does this, so it goes for that” because it doesn’t hold in English at all. I have heard people use the term fishes, yes, but I have NEVER ever heard people use the term sheeps (outside of children whom tend to throw an S on everything to pluralise, before they’ve mastered spoken English)
3 Likes
I would say there are many sheep. You never put an ‘s’ on the end of the word Sheep. It may be confusing to non native speakers, but that is just how English works. I would never use the word ‘Sheeps’ in English, because it simply is not a word, and is an incorrect term to use.
It is incorrect to say -either- of those two words, as you can see, if you had read my post and done the ‘red line’ test. Neither of those words are grammatically correct.
Are you confusing the Forsaken, with playable Undead? You can only currently roll an Undead character who is a Human Undead (Death Knights are separate, and are still split on Faction boundaries) We know however that Undead Elves exist within the Horde, just that they are not Playable. We know that Abominations are Undead and exist within the Horde, but they are not playable. We know that Banshee’s are Undead and exist in the Horde, but they are not playable.
The unifying factor of the Forsaken is that they are all Undead. Whatever type of Undead they are, they are all Undead. We only have the option currently to play Human Undead. That simple.
Well, Banshee’s exist in the Horde, and they are Undead, and they are part of the Forsaken. You can’t play one. But you can’t play a skeleton either, are they not Undead?
Wasn’t the question I asked. We know she ‘Voids out’ when doing her strong Void Elf stuff, we see it happen. Blizzard say she is a Void Elf, she refers to herself as a Void Elf, Everyone refers to her as a Void Elf. She is a Void Elf.
So Delete all Elven Undead, Banshees, Abominations, Dark Rangers, Skeletons, and because the only playable Horde race is Human Undead that is all there can be, right, by that logic? Look up those races. Tell me what they are classified as.
Absolutely not.
4 Likes