The Queue: Go lay down
by Michael Sacco 
Jan 26th 2010 at 1:00PM
Why do I always wait to do the easiest post of the day until four in the morning? I should do the easy one first, then do the several-thousand-word posts.
Flaskamel asked...
"Is it possible for 25 druids to kill a 25-man boss?"
Yes, absolutely, though it depends on the boss. Some bosses, like Anub'arak, would be nigh-impossible with a group composed entirely of druids.
Kershalock asked...
"Still looking for an answer to the kodo mystery - warm blooded mammals, cold blooded giant riding lizards?"
Definitely lizards. There are kodo palette-swaps in Durotar called Thunder Lizards, for example. You're riding what amounts to a big ol' friendly stegosaurus. Minus the spiny things, of course.
Cygnis asked...
"What's up with Balargarde Keep? It's just sitting there with all those closed doors out in west Icecrown and a big horn on the top. Yet another in the things that might have been?"
Nope, it's involved with the Bone Witch questline, and it's actually pretty cool, though I won't spoil it for you. You can get the quest chain by completing the Shadow Vault quests first.
Shibdaddy asked...
"When 3.3 came, raid members who have an assist are no longer able to call Ready Checks. Was this something done intentionally or a bug, and if its a bug is there any indication that they plan to fix it. It can be very frustrating as Tank when you're not the party leader and you have to wait or ask for a /readycheck."
Just a bug, and one getting fixed in the 3.3.2 mini-patch coming soon.
Tuktuk asked...
"I read some weeks ago that heirlooms don't work for 80+ but do they still work as normal to lvl80 when Cataclysm comes out?"
Blizzard says yes, though we'll likely need to wait and see exactly how it goes. There are plans for new heirlooms in nearly every slot; some crafted, some purchased, and we don't know what levels they'll affect just yet.
Malkavos asked...
"Any plans to revive Ask a Lore Nerd?"
Nope, it's basically been rolled into The Queue. You'll be seeing more lore content on the site soon, though, as soon as we get our new lore columnist contracted and ready to go.
Dragon_eel asked...
"I am having an extremely hard time finding a CURRENT guide for Balance Druids. Everything is for either Resto or Tanks. Also most guides are a year or two old."
You'll be seeing plenty of regular moonkin content here soon, as the pre-eminent moonkin Murmurs has joined the WoW.com team. He'll be putting out a special Balance edition of Shifting Perspectives.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW.com crew is here with The Queue, our daily Q&A column! Leave your questions in the comments and we'll do our best to answer 'em!Filed under: The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 9)
Jamie Jan 26th 2010 1:06PM
Surely people are tired of Tauren Rogues by now, right?
Oni Stardust Jan 26th 2010 1:34PM
No, no we're not.
Neirin Jan 26th 2010 1:35PM
Not when they love pie!!
Neofox Jan 26th 2010 7:03PM
You ever see a Tauren stalk a python? 'Course you haven't. That's because Tauren are so adept at blending in with their surroundings.
mkb_cbr Jan 26th 2010 1:07PM
Sorry to nitpick, but you've got a grammatical error in your headline:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/lay-versus-lie.aspx
Radioted Jan 26th 2010 1:10PM
How can you nitpick with eyes like that?????????????
Chris Anthony Jan 26th 2010 1:16PM
Not necessarily. Yes, "lay" is transitive, but why assume that the object isn't implied or otherwise truncated? :)
Phil Jan 26th 2010 1:17PM
The Grammar Nazi Strikes Again!
ElegantErica Jan 26th 2010 2:04PM
Cheers for grammar geeks!
kev-dogg Jan 26th 2010 2:18PM
and honestly, "lie" instead of "lay" just sounds... i really can't think of a better word so I'll just say pompous, but its closer to sounding like a yuppie, to use a dated term.
jus'sayin.
Tokkar Jan 26th 2010 2:28PM
@kev-dogg:
Of COURSE it's "lie" - if it were "lay", there'd be eggs!
paragorillabear Jan 26th 2010 3:02PM
@Chris
as Tokkar pointed out, it is impossible for there to be an object, implied or otherwise, unless the dog is being told to lay eggs. or lay bricks. or lay tile. or what have you...
It's an imperative mood sentence, a command. The subject IS implied; it is considered to be "you," or "you dog" in this case. The verb should be "lie."
I'm not saying all this to be nitpicky, because in addition to knowing the above, I also know that this distinction between "to lie" and "to lay" is rarely noted anymore, except by those who pompously insist on speaking "the King's English," and I would say it is fast on its way to becoming archaic.
I don't use it (except when I have to teach it), and I've seen it misused in newspapers and magazines, by national news broadcasters, and even by Obama.
I'm just saying that unless that's an egg-laying or tile-laying dog, there is no object.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get moving. I have lain here in bed long enough with my laptop lying upon my lap, heating up my nads.
Chris Anthony Jan 26th 2010 3:21PM
@paragorillabear, but that's just not true. "Lay" is a transitive verb that means "to place on a surface". "Lay eggs", "lay brick", etc. are idiomatic uses that have the same basic meaning, but they're not the only uses of the word. "Go lay [your head] down" is a perfectly valid sentence (even if the synecdoche is a little broad).
Ringo Flinthammer Jan 26th 2010 3:23PM
Here's the way to remember it: Eric Clapton is wrong. It's not "lay down Sally" unless Sally is dead and he's just placing her corpse somewhere. So either he's got bad grammar or he's a murderer.
And Phil, bad grammar isn't a virtue for professional writers, especially if they have aspirations of bigger and better things, which I bet they do.
paragorillabear Jan 26th 2010 5:26PM
back @ Chris
You are correct. I did not consider the possibility of "Go lay [your head] down," so yes there could be an unstated object.
But then again, when people say "Go lay down," especially to their dogs, they probably don't mean "Go lay your head down."
But then again, who the hell is going to say "Go lie down" to their dogs??? I mean, dogs are horrible at grammar anyway.
If I were proofreading, I would have left it as it is, as a common idiomatic expression, rather than changing it to King's English.
Ratskinmahoney Jan 27th 2010 12:46AM
For more language plice prowess: it's going to be a while yet before anyone can speak King's English, and noone has spoken it for nearly 58 years (on 6th February).
Ratskinmahoney Jan 27th 2010 12:50AM
Whoops. My pedantry failed. It's more like 56 1/2 years.
Jabbirtok Jan 26th 2010 1:10PM
Is'nt Ask a Faction Leader supposed to come back today?
Adam Holisky Jan 26th 2010 1:52PM
Look at the site at 2pm EST.
Docp Jan 26th 2010 1:08PM
DAAAWWWWW LOOK AT THE PUPPY!
I'll go sit in a corner now.