Talk:War of the Ancients

Alternate History: Canon?
I think the alternate history is canon. There is nothing in the alternate history I see that contradicts the current lore, in fact the alternate history could be a kind of retcon. My two points are: Malygos having SOME children left in the alternate history (there are a few Blue Dragons in Warcraft III, and in the War of the Ancients, BEFORE the timeline split happens it is after Wc3 and he says that there was a plan for Alexstrasza to give some of her eggs to Malygos, but that plan hadn't went through yet, meaning there couldn't have been Blue Dragons in Wc3), and Hakkar the Houndmaster not appearing in Wc3. Saimdusan 00:39, 6 March 2007 (EST)


 * I think we all agree that Alternate History is the current history and the one that Metzen is following now. There are only a few minor differences though. Not only that official site has refrences to the novels being part of the history.Baggins 00:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)


 * Not quite. The only reference I found in the Burning Crusade FAQ you mentioned was that the Burning Legion simply appears in the books - this does not make the story more official. Besides, the Blizzard website contradicts itself on many matters, but the Alliance Players Guide clearly states that the original history is the version used in the timeline right now. Tulon 21:00, 21. May 2007


 * What's the exact quotation for that? Given the fact that the Warcraft Encyclopedia is based almost completely on the alternate history, it's pretty damning evidence. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alliance Player's Guide mentions Hakkar the Houndmaster. Obviously its following the novel history. In anycase there are only slightly minor differences between the two histories, with general synopses its very hard to tell to which history a book is referring to, at any specific point in time. But refrences to novel-only characters are as ragestorm said, damning evidence.

Here is the mentioned BC Faq quote mentioned above for anyone wondering;

What does the title of the World of Warcraft expansion refer to? "The Burning Crusade" refers to the Burning Legion's ongoing efforts to destroy life throughout the universe. To date, the Burning Legion's exploits have been documented in Warcraft III and in our War of the Ancients novel trilogy. As part of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, players are able to travel through the Dark Portal to confront the Legion on otherworldly battlefields. Baggins 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Alliance Player's Guide clearly mentions that Illidan did warn Azshara, a thing he did not in the alternate history. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Novel-only characters would also exist in both timelines, so that's not so much an evidence - the same goes for your quotation of the Burning Legion. I don't doubt the fact that it is featured in the trilogy. Tulon 14:45, 22 May 2007


 * "warning" Azshara is getting down to symantics. Illidan defects in both versions, and the only reason he doesn't warn Azshara about anything is becuse there wasn't anything specific to warn about- the resistance hadn't found a way- or even agreed to- destroy the Well. However, Illidan did defect to the Highbourne, and did share everything he knew with Azshara and the Legion. Also, if Blizzard considered the alternate history- well, alternate, then they wouldn't be referring people to it (that's what the FAQ is, a referral, not a difinitive answer). In short, while nobody has said "the original is void," most evidence suggests that the trilogy is canon.-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know if the resistance agreed on this (though it sounds like it) or if there was even a way, but the Alliance Players Guide states the following: "However, Illidan was deeply addicted to arcane magic, and he did not agree with his brother's plan to destroy the Well. Illidan's claims that the world needed arcane magic - carefully used - fell on deaf ears and only infuriated the other night elves. Illidan managed to warn Azshara of Malfurion's plan to attack the Well itself, and stole vials of its water. In the chaos of battle, Illidan disappeared." (APG page 123) Tulon 19:50, 23 May 2007


 * Indeed, Ragestorm.


 * "Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Novel-only characters would also exist in both timelines, so that's not so much an evidence."


 * Hakkar is a very special case, in that he was specifically created in Knaak's trilogy. Not only that but Knaak gives us two histories for Hakkar, a pre-timetravel version, and a post-time travel version. In one version Hakkar died during The Battle of Mount Hyjal, or one of the other battles of Third War (noteably an event that never occured during Warcraft 3 games anyways)? Wheras he dies in so-called "alternate" history due to some changes to the timeline.


 * The Player Guides. Alliance and Horde set, actually refers to Hakkar's death occuring in War of the Ancients. Therefore it was specifically referring to not only a character, but an event of that version of the War. If anything what we have here is a blending of the two timelines to create a "definitive" event. Like Ragestorm said, nobody is saying the original is void. But both versions are definitely part of the official story.


 * It might also be argued that the true (alternate) history was the one Knaak referred in his novel, to how events were before the changes took place (since some of the stuff he hinted and mentioning as happening due to previous events of the past never actually occured in the release Warcraft 3, version of the future). Although some might point out that this makes almost three distinct versions of the war of the ancients story, Knaak's pre-change history, and post-change history created during the timetravel of the novel, and the original WC3 account. Plus I should mention that there are also further extensions to the War of the Ancients (as far as battles, characters, and events) chronicled in the RPG, WC3, and refrences in WoW, that have not been mentioned in other versions of the story, so there is more to the war than the manual and Knaak's novels even cover, or could cover.Baggins 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you that the current official history is most likely a blending of both the original and the alternate history regarding the War of the Ancients, as we find both enough inconsistencies and confirmations in each of the timelines. As for Hakkar: though I am of the opinion that a lot of events regarding the alternate history are not (longer) part of the official timeline (Illidan's warning), this does not count for Knaak's characters who - even though he created them - would imho nonetheless exist in both timelines until a newer official source says anything else. I'm sorry about that, I should have probably made myself more clear about this. That being said, I now think we should mention this in the article - but not simply say that either of the sources is 100% official. Tulon 19:45, 23 May 2007


 * I made a few changes to your edits to neutralify it, and make reference to the fact that even older accounts aren't 100% consident with each other, telling slightly different versions of the story. There really is no true, "alternate" timeline unless one wants to point out at least 3-4 alternate different timelines derived from various sources. Even both of Knaak's timelines aren't 100% consistent with previous timelines. I've already discussed much the whole timeline issue in detail in the past...


 * As for Hakkar, importance of him was that in Knaak's prime timeline, Hakkar was alive all the way into third war and had major prominant involvements during the Third War according to his books (something that was not held up by any previous source chronicling the events, Hakkar never made even a "minor" appearance during the Third War in any other source (written before or after the books), let alone having the prominant role and positions in the battles as Knaak claimed he had), whereas all sources confirm he died during the War of the Ancients as confirmed by Knaak's second timeline. Which all points to Knaak's "prime" timeline not even being any of the variations of accoutns made by any other source.Baggins 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if "official documentation" would be the right description, as this would still mean the newer RPG books are overruled by Knaak's older story in aspects of certain events. It doesn't sound really neutral to me, but for the time being I guess it could stay this way, until newer sources of lore are released for possible re-evaluation of this subject. Tulon 22:10, 23 May 2007


 * Official documenation is the term Blizzard used in the faq. In anycase, even RPG is an "official documentation". However, it seems you are touching on another issue altogether. To remain neutral, we do not consider novels as being worth more than RPG, manga or games, or games worth more than novels, manga or rpg, or the RPG worth more than games, manga or novels, or manga worth more than any combination of the above. In other words we consider all sources to be on the same grounds of merit, as being equal sources, as stated in various comments by Metzen, and on Blizzard's websites. This is one reason why we've currently tried to soften the concept of "alternate", and instead move towards different accounts, but we won't state that one source is more valid than another.


 * We don't want to bring in the opinions of; novel fans than think the novels are more important than everythign else, or the rpg fans who think its more important than everything else, or the game fans that think that at differing levels as to which games are more important than other forms of media. In other words we try to present the various sources as neutral as possible on their own merits, and let people decide on their own, while avoiding the arguements from the different aspects of fanhood. We are trying to follow the Metzen/Blizzard, ideal that the sources are all on equal level, and we'll present all versions of info, even if they seem contradictory. But we are certain people are smart enough for themselves to figure out when two narrations don't add up well, and they are free to discuss their opinions on the matter in the talk pages, but it will generally stay out of the main pages (except briefest of notes). But we won't present our own opinion on which source is more valid than another.Baggins 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I would vote to name the RPG as another "official documentation" in the same sentence, however, so the novels don't appear to have more weight. I know it's just a small matter of diction, but imho it can greatly influence the reader in a way not wanted by us. By the way, the same goes for the paladin article - the sources both ingame and in the sourcebooks are contradicting each other multiple times. I have PMed one of the RPG developers to ask him about this, and the answer is simply that there is no official answer to the question regarding the status of the Silver Hand as of now. That's why they always kept it so vague. Tulon 21:30, 28 May 2007


 * Eh? The RPG vague about the Silver Hand? Some of the books are actually pretty specific about its existence in "modern times".Baggins 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Caverns of Time instance
My friend & I were kinda thinking that it would be pretty awesome if Blizzard added a War of the Ancients instance to the Caverns of Time sometime in the near future. I mean you really don't get a whole lot of info about it in-game (or maybe I'm just too lazy to find any) & it would be pretty cool to play a role in the events. I don't know, does anyone know if Blizzard is planning for one or not or does anyone else think this an awesome idea too, for me I think it would be great to finally understand how Azshara planned to summon Sargeras, when & why Illidan betrayed his brother, what exactly happened during & possibly a little bit after the battle, etc. I dunno what do you guys think? --Solfaris Kupo! (talk) 16:35, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Forum:Caverns of Time: Cataclysm Instance.
 * 17:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah! My appologies! Thank you for setting me straight! --Solfaris Kupo! (talk) 23:15, March 30, 2010 (UTC)