What do you want the next hero to be?

[VERlTAS]

Once again, thank you for your negativity and condescending replies. You obviously are too busy worrying about my English to worry about the stickie's English. It seems to me that we both interpret the term EVERY TROOP TYPE differently. You interpret it as ANY or ANY EXISTING TROOP TYPE, and I interpret it as EVERY. If it is ruled out, just let them delete it and go harrass someone else.

[MrH]

Once again, thank you for your negativity and condescending replies. You obviously are too busy worrying about my English to worry about the stickie's English. It seems to me that we both interpret the term EVERY TROOP TYPE differently. You interpret it as ANY or ANY EXISTING TROOP TYPE, and I interpret it as EVERY. If it is ruled out, just let them delete it and go harrass someone else.

And I thank you for your sarcasm. I am allowed to voice my opinions on this forum, don't throw a fit because they aren't positive. I do worry about your English. I don't worry about the sticky's English (nice try, trying to get me to comment on your purposefully incorrect spelling of 'sticky'. We both know you can spell it, you've written 'sticky' before), as I don't need to. It is clear enough in its wording for it to be interpreted correctly.
You know very well that this idea isn't going to be deleted, as countless other threads ask for ruled out ideas, and they don't get deleted.
And thank you for saying that I interpret the word 'every' to mean 'any' or 'any existing troop type'. Please stop manipulating the language of others to suit you.
If you count voicing my opinion as harrassing you, I suggest you grow up, and grow some thicker skin.

[Warble]

And I thank you for your sarcasm. I am allowed to voice my opinions on this forum, don't throw a fit because they aren't positive. I do worry about your English. I don't worry about the sticky's English (nice try, trying to get me to comment on your purposefully incorrect spelling of 'sticky'. We both know you can spell it, you've written 'sticky' before), as I don't need to. It is clear enough in its wording for it to be interpreted correctly.
You know very well that this idea isn't going to be deleted, as countless other threads ask for ruled out ideas, and they don't get deleted.
And thank you for saying that I interpret the word 'every' to mean 'any' or 'any existing troop type'. Please stop manipulating the language of others to suit you.
If you count voicing my opinion as harrassing you, I suggest you grow up, and grow some thicker skin.

Both of you are interpreting the statement. The logical thing to do would be to ask for clarification from a staff member.

I would take it to mean what the OP thinks it does, that every troop type does not get its own hero. That is what it says after all, even if further thought makes that statement seem so ridiculous as to be unnecessary.

Also, behaving in a "toxic" manner can get you an infraction. I think you got a little too excited on this one. lol

[MrH]

Both of you are interpreting the statement. The logical thing to do would be to ask for clarification from a staff member.

I would take it to mean what the OP thinks it does, that every troop type does not get its own hero. That is what it says after all, even if further thought makes that statement seem so ridiculous as to be unnecessary.

Also, behaving in a "toxic" manner can get you an infraction. I think you got a little too excited on this one. lol

Neither of us know for sure, but I'm trying to help him to see what I mean. Yes, it does say that every troop type does not get its own hero. From my point of view, that means something different to what you think it says.
I've just been accused of 'harrassing' someone, for simply stating my views on his post. If either of us are harrassing the other, it's him- he sent me a PM about this. If you see my defending myself from wild accusations as 'behaving in a 'toxic' manner, fair enough, but that seems ridiculous to me.

[VERlTAS]

I really am sorry if you think im throwing a fit and being immature. And i apoligize if you arent harassing me. Im sorry if their are grammatical errors, im sorry I interpret the sticky differently, and im sorry you think im not listening. I understand what you mean. I wasnt manipulating your words, but you defined "every troop type" as a category of ALL EXISTING TROOPS. You described it as a CATEGORY yourself. And I did not intend to spell "sticky" wrong. I went through and checked my spelling so you would not think that. And im not trying to stop you from voicing your opinion, I simply am asking you to hear me and I dont feeel like you are. I suppose I havent told you before either that I do understand what you are trying to say, and i am sorry. But I do ask that you report this thread and contact a moderator as I have. If you understand how I am interpreting it, please tell me.

[MrH]

I really am sorry if you think im throwing a fit and being immature. And i apoligize if you arent harassing me. Im sorry if their are grammatical errors, im sorry I interpret the sticky differently, and im sorry you think im not listening. I understand what you mean. I wasnt manipulating your words, but you defined "every troop type" as a category of ALL EXISTING TROOPS. You described it as a CATEGORY yourself. And I did not intend to spell "sticky" wrong. I went through and checked my spelling so you would not think that. And im not trying to stop you from voicing your opinion, I simply am asking you to hear me and I dont feeel like you are. I suppose I havent told you before either that I do understand what you are trying to say, and i am sorry. But I do ask that you report this thread and contact a moderator as I have. If you understand how I am interpreting it, please tell me.

Apologies accepted, even the pointless, sarcastic ones. 'A category of all existing troops' is how I define the word 'every' in that context. I know I described it as a 'CATEGORY' myself, I wrote the comment. Maybe spelling sticky wrong right after you told me I was worrying too much about your English when every other time you've managed to spell it correctly was an accident, I can't say for sure. I have already told you that I understand how you are interpreting it.
I haven't contacted a moderator as there are many threads on ruled out topics every day, and mods don't delete them. I didn't see a reason to waste their time on this one when they ignore all of the others, particularly as I don't know for sure whether the idea is ruled out.

[VERlTAS]

Don't u think SC would say something like NO ADDITIONAL HEROES if that's what they meant?

[NF2335]

But it would attack storages rather than collectors.

[MrH]

Don't u think SC would say something like NO ADDITIONAL HEROES if that's what they meant?

I don't. They could mean that, but they didn't say that. As an English native speaker, that is how I would interpret that phrase. The first time I read it, I didn't even realise that it could be interpreted differently.
I understand why you want to interpret it differently, you made a thread on a new hero, someone who had previously read the sticky told you that they were ruled out, so I don't blame you at all for taking it to mean what you say you take it to mean, it's what a lot of people would have done in your shoes.

[Th3RocK]

Why this option?
Just to see more than the giant, the biggest and greatest Giant chief and its also cool to see many places he takes on the map!