Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Hasha
  • Member Since Sep 1st, 2008

Are you Hasha? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW30 Comments

Recent Comments:

Breakfast Topic: Sorry, not happening! {WoW}

Apr 18th 2010 1:45PM - Fishing
- playing a Paladin
- hardcore-raiding
- grinding a nether-drake

(not playing anymore but thats the stuff I never would have done)

Drama Mamas: Invasion of privacy {WoW}

Apr 16th 2010 6:54PM I'm just imagining:

"Jim, I love you!"
"Mary, I love you too, but we can't meet again, we have different ranks in our World of Warcraft guild."

The Colosseum: Loinclothz, Hunter of Sargeras, Page 2 {WoW}

Apr 4th 2010 6:05PM To all those wo were offended by his anti-BM-remarks:
As a heavily PvP-focused player what MEANT to say was, that *Arena-PvP-BM-Hunters* are easy to play.

WoW Rookie: Essential WoW terminology in other languages {WoW}

Mar 18th 2010 5:41PM A few corrections for german:

Most of the forms you show are correct but plural. In cases where the singular form differs I will add it. However, if you talk to a hardcore RPer who plays a lord or something you can use the plural too (pluralis majestatis, in the past our kings wanted to be adressed in plural).

Can you share quests?
Correction: "Könnt ihr Quests teilen?" would be the correct plural or pluralis majestatis
Singular would be
"Kannst du Quests teilen?"

Please turn off Aspect.
Correction: "Mach bitte den Aspekt aus." (singular)
"Macht bitte den Aspekt aus." (plural)

Follow me. "Folgt mir." is correct for plural but singular would be "Folge mir."

Go. "Los gehts." is ok but "Los geht's." is 100% correct. ("geht's" is an abbreviation of "geht es")

Stop. "Stop." is the old form. Nowadays (for about 10 years) we write "Stopp." with double-p

Let the tank pull. "Lasst den Tank pullen!" is correct, singular would be
"Lass den Tank pullen!"
However, a hardcore-RPer would pretend to not understand english so you would say
"Lass(t) den Brecher ziehen!"

Don't pull aggro. "Zieh keine Aggro." this is singular, plural is
"Zieht keine Aggro."

Wait here. "Warte hier." is singular, "Wartet hier." plural

Let's run back from the graveyard together so we don't get lost.

"Können wir gemeinsam vom Friedhof zurück laufen. Lasst uns vom Friedhof zusammen laufen damit wir uns nicht verlaufen." I would clarify that these are two options so you only need one of those sentences.

Would you like to run another? Nochmal?
"Wollt ihr nochmal eine Instanz machen?" is good but
"Wollt ihr nochmal machen?" isn't, in the case where you want to run another something but not an instance I would say
"Wollt ihr es noch einmal machen?"

Introductory guide to fighting rogues, Part 2 {WoW}

Mar 5th 2010 7:21PM "...I think in this situation you wouldn't want to backstab but instead pump damage into him."

Sorry, I meant
"...I think in this situation you wouldn't want to gouge but instead pump damage into him."

(can't find the edit button)

Introductory guide to fighting rogues, Part 2 {WoW}

Mar 5th 2010 7:17PM @onetrueping:
Gouge does not drop you from combat (thats vanish) and also does not stun (thats cheapshot and kidney shot) your opponent, it does incapacitate him.

Explaining my post:
What I was saying, was that "Because A, B" is not necessarily true even if both A and B are true. There has to be a link between A and B. If A weren't true then B wouldn't be true anymore.

An example: Because oranges are orange, bananas are yellow.

Yes, both are true but they are not linked.
If oranges wouldn't be orange, bananas would still be yellow.

The reason you use gouge is that
1. your enemy cant turn while gouged
and
2. if your enemy cant turn he cant prevent you from getting in his back
and
3. you have some attacks (backstab) that you can only do from the back

The sentence again:

"Because it requires that their opponent be facing them, rogues often also use this to maneuver behind their opponent."

The first part (A) of the sentence is a restriction to an ability. The second is a usage option of an ability. As a restriction does not increase your usage options (sorry for my english, I'm not a native speaker), B would be true even if A wouldn't, so you can't say "Because A, B".

A more specific example:
"Because you can only open bottles with bottle openers, people open bottles with bottle openers".

Even if you can do another thing (like performing emergency heart surgery) with a bottle opener, that does not restrict you from opening bottles with it.

In our case, even if you could gouge someone from anywhere you would have 2 cases:
1. you're behind your enemy -> backstab directly
2. you're in front of your enemy -> gouge then backstab

So as in case one where you can't use it now you still wouldn't use it even if you could (for the purpose of getting behind the enemy).

However, you could understand it as;
"Because it requires that their opponent be facing them, rogues often also use this to maneuver behind their opponent, instead of having it on cooldown because they used this earlier on the enemy when they were behind him."

Now your enemy would only turn his back to you (if gouge would work from anywhere) if he wanted to run away from you because he would maybe lose the fight. However, because of crippling poison I think in this situation you wouldn't want to backstab but instead pump damage into him. However, if it was a Paladin with Hand of Freedom runing away to jump of a cliff when down there were his friends and kidney shot was on cooldown/ you didn't have combo points, it would make sense to gouge from behind to get combo points and let time pass to get your kidney shot off cooldown / let his hand of freedom go away. However then, he would likely not turn around and attack you, where you would want to gouge to get in his back but gouge would be on cooldown.

So thats why I think the sentence makes no sense.

Introductory guide to fighting rogues, Part 2 {WoW}

Mar 5th 2010 4:46PM "Because it requires that their opponent be facing them, rogues often also use this to maneuver behind their opponent."

This does not really make sense...

Encrypted Text: The art of the gank {WoW}

Feb 19th 2010 2:12PM In general I agree with the article but there is one exception for killing lower players:
Repeatetly killing them as an lvl 80 on a flying mount when they can't fly (or when you have a fast mount and they are smaller than 20) is unfair in my opinion.
If you both only have your normal mounts or both have flying mounts it's possible to resurrect and immediately ride away but on a flying mount they can just kill you over and over. The epic flying mounts are just so insanely fast and also you can fly on places where they can't even reach you.
P.S.: I don't know why it only posted half of my comment the first time...
P.P.S.: I know now: There is a bug when you use a "smaller than" character, it cuts your post.

Encrypted Text: The art of the gank {WoW}

Feb 19th 2010 2:11PM In general I agree with the article but there is one exception for killing lower players:
Repeatetly killing them as an lvl 80 on a flying mount when they can't fly (or when you have a fast mount and they are

Encrypted Text: The art of the gank {WoW}

Feb 19th 2010 2:09PM In general I agree with the article but there is one exception for killing lower players:
Repeatetly killing them as an lvl 80 on a flying mount when they can't fly (or when you have a fast mount and they are