And if those arrows killed him, you be the first here complaining Saurfang didn’t die hard enough from an arrow. 
Nah I already stated that you think Horde owes the Alliance no victories for their enjoyment which explains your behavior here telling Alliance players.
“lalalalala you got your victory, you don’t need any anymore, lalalala, leave the Horde alone”
This is something you want Gant, no more losses however small or big for the Horde to suffer for an Alliance win because you think Horde is down enough and shouldnt suffer anymore. Which is your view and your right to have it.
I view it differently. 
1 Like
Horde players should really get all of themselves on the same page too if that’s the case. Good luck with Erevien.
Arrows are only a meaningful attack when fired from Sylvanas’ bow ofc
1 Like
Ah, yes, the notoriously poor construction of sentinel arrows. Or perhaps you are referencing the night elf curse that causes all potential energy built up in their bow strings to evaporate immediately upon release without being converted to kinetic energy?
1 Like
I would think you’d get along with Erevien quite well given your shared views on ethnic minorities.
3 Likes
I respect Kyalin. She at least admits there a lot of positive Night elf moments. Just that those moments get overshadowed a lot.
If he then kills the night elves for the rest of the siege, and then dies from blood loss … It is unlikely that it will be satisfactory.
Not really no, Saurfang dying or not isn’t the point, it’s you trying to say the sentinels are getting a good presentation in that cinematic when all they do is hit saurfang with arrows and it doesn’t effect him. It’s just stupid when arrows are actually hitting people and they aren’t really effected, sentinel arrows or not.
I think the issue is that the good moments are limited in infuriating ways. They move the ball down the field, but they don’t accomplish what is required.
Take Darkshore as an example. Horde players like to run around as though this was some kind of a humiliation for them, but this was one of our starting zones, and it comes off of the heels of years of agonizing over Ashenvale during the Cata/MOP era, to have it thrown into question again which has gone unanswered to this day. So on one side you have our critics (and the devs) holding up Darkshore as though this should be enough to make up for the War of the Thorns (we’ll leave aside the previous content which also wasn’t made up for) and to us it very clearly isn’t for the fairly obvious reason that we lost a LOT more just before this.
But, neither side really wants to give an inch - so on our side the good aspects get downplayed lest it interfere with the overall point that things are bad (which they still are). The other side presents Darkshore as being way more than it is in order to undersell the Horde’s overall victory.
Basically, both sides resort to extremes, and it’s in no one’s interest to moderate because doing so looks like it’s undermining the convictions of one’s overall argument. In short - it’s yet another Story Forum prisoner’s dilemma.
2 Likes
Weird. Because earlier you said that I stated this:
Those are 2 completely different things.
Also.
This is false.
Go ahead and quote me stating this.
Hint: you can’t.
If you say so…
Clearly, that’s why you seem so salty.
Well who knows why he was able to walk off those three arrows hitting him. “Rule of cool” I guess.
1 Like
Not really. You see I don’t understand why you are here arguing like you would ever give Alliance one more victory over the Horde. Your mind is made up. You don’t want the Alliance to win against the Horde one more time!
If I recall you don’t even want NPCs to acknowledge Horde crimes when they work with Horde NPCs when we get neutral content because that penalizes the Horde player.
All your doing here is gaslighting any Alliance fan here who wants a more conclusive victory and resolution to the faction wars that Blizzard has the Horde start in spectacular ways.
Why even bother? Clearly what I have seen I don’t think is enough comparable to what you got to see and experience. So I want more. So you trolling me here isn’t going to convince me or anyone else that has the same opinion.
I just don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish.
I already tried talking to you about what sort of resolution both sides can have but you shut down that conversation everytime you could. So what are you doing here? Whats the point?
It’s plot armor, not “weak sentinel arrows.” It’s a problem with the writers’ tendency to portray all of their main cast of characters with an unrealistic level immunity; it is not an intentional antagonistic representation of how weak sentinels really are. Folks really need to stop treating these types of narrative flaws as malicious affronts to the godliness of the kaldorei.
2 Likes
The thing with plot armor and contrivances is - if they are repeatedly set up so that the Kaldorei are consistently on the wrong side of those rather arbitrary decisions, that does indicate some form of bias.
- Correlation does not equal causation, 2. they aren’t repeatedly portrayed like that either way.*
*Anymore than any other race, which would indicate a bias or favoritism.
1 Like
Stares at this conversation, than to his favorite race who’s been largely forgotten for the last 10+ Yrs, than to the heritage armor quest And some of y’all think you actually got it bad. 
It was rule of cool that the arrows did no damage to him. But when you’re watching that cinematic you can’t say “wow the night elves got great representation when they hit saurfang and he was still fighting afterwards”, it’s more “wow that was stupid that arrows seem to have no effect” main character or not, just don’t have him get hit.
I think where you get confused is it’s not that this particular scene is malicious on Blizzards part, it’s the people who think the portrayal of those three sentinels was a good one in that cinematic when they didn’t even get to kill red shirts, just hit someone with arrows and they are still fighting.
Yes. After all, nothing bad has happened to you in these ten years.
Disagree on 2.
As for 1, while technically correct, you can nevertheless derive patterns from repeated observations. You certainly have to be aware of third factors of course, but repeated occurrences nevertheless usually mean something.