CountessEdit

Where does the title comes from!? --N'Nanz (talk) 20:32, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think it was datamined, but as long she is confirmed by Blizzard i -personally- don't see problems in just adding the title to her page. Eraclito 20:47, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering it myself... but now we know, I probably should move it, but I too don't see the title as a big deal now that she has been announced. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:53, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Countess" part is still datamined, but whatever. We know the "Lana'thel" half. By the way, should the info really be styled as a bluepost?--SWM2448 22:06, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

It can... won't matter once it goes live it will just turn into {{Patch 3.3.0|note=Added.}}. User:Coobra/Sig4 06:09, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

The problem of datamining ptr is that... it could change! Queen Lana'thel --N'Nanz (talk) 08:11, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Lana'thel anyone? --catbeef (talk) 10:44, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Lana'thel contains "background info" and her appearance at Quel'delar's Rest. Queen Lana'thel is for the IC boss.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 10:48, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

MergeEdit

I'm just going to suggest they be merged... now maybe if she played a bigger role outside ICC, with quests or had previous lore of her background or a large page to begin with, I don't see the need to split the pages, it will only confuse users. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:55, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:25, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I say we keep 2 artiles to split lore and IC. Adding more of the Quel'Delar article about her death and role as Sword-bearer, and removing all BG infos of the IC article.

Like Sindragosa, which is not much more developped.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 11:47, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, but there's the matter of her title - seeing as it's the same both inside and outside ICC (or so I'm told by people who test this stuff), I'd say rename this page "Blood-Queen Lanathel (tactics)", like we do the other bosses. --Joshmaul (talk) 17:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need her seen on the PTR in IC, to know her name and then create a "Blood-Queen Lanathel (tactics)".

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:54, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Really, though, does a single appearance in a single quest warrant a page split? We've got other bosses with lore and tactics on the same page because of how little there is. Hell, half of Lana'thel's lore page is just a transcript of her dialogue in the Quel'delar quest. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I believe, puting all in one single article would be too much.

Shall we vote?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 08:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the split of the articles, but I do not agree on the naming. The articles should be named Blood-Queen Lana'thel and Blood-Queen Lana'thel (tactics) just like any other lore-rich raid bosses. That keeps things clear.AMBER^(ЯΘ<K) 11:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

The naming has to be done according to what is seen in-game. Outside it's "Blood-Queen Lana'thel", but inside, we still don't know. Of course "<NAME> (tactics)" is the good solution as always.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 14:03, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

The blue post on the schedule (which also confirmed the name for Deathbringer Saurfang - thanks Blizzard) seems to indicate that "Blood-Queen Lana'thel" is the name of the game. http://blue.mmo-champion.com/13/21035174537-icecrown-citadel-testing--november-1014.html --Joshmaul (talk) 19:47, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I think a vote on whether or not to split it is an ideal solution. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:32, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Since the Schedule give us her name in IC, I've moved for a <NAME> (tatics).

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 16:27, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

First BiteEdit

I'd like to suggest that the first bite target is not based on threat, but on damage dealt. We've experimented with hunters mis-directing and Rogue's TotTing, which has had no affect on the first bite target. However, we have noticed that a healer has once gotten the bite first, so it might be similar to how PVP mobs determine threat - this would also explain why it doesn't target tanks.

Also see this for more discussion: http://elitistjerks.com/f74/t90157-icc_hunter_strats_tips/p10/