Do you want tinkers?

[SirCowdog]

Are we still arguing about what is and is not canon? We literally have orcs from a different timeline, werewolves, and space goats as playable races. Sargeras stabbed the planet with a giant sword, and we've flown through space to another planet in a giant crystal.

Why is anything off the table at this point?

[Teriz]

I think its pretty clear that Gazlowe is supposed to be a Tinker in WC3. They just didn't have the model ready at that time and only the sapper was available. I mean, Blizzard made him a Tinker for HotS, and based on his actions in WoW, Blizzard is obviously pushing him in the Tinker direction.

I mean, if you REALLY think about it, it would make more sense for Gazlowe to be a Tinker that can build stuff than being a sapper whose sole purpose is kamikaze itself.

[Trollokdamus]

For WoW nothing. I just happen to add it and in one case an NPC is called a tinkerer. Tinker, Tinkerer, and Tinkologist seem to have been used in wow to refer to the same type of class. In the real world tinkerer is related form to tinker (tinsmith) but I am not entirely sure of the history around it.

So in WoW there is no difference, clear. But I'm still confused about the real world. Does this related form convey a different meaning?

What's wrong with Twitter? It's a means of communication with the ones who developed the lore of the franchise.

Sometimes Twitter serves as a means of communicating lore to us. Just like any other website where Blizzard places lore. Including the website I linked to you with its Goblin Tinker lore bit.

Yes, and it's the campaigns that is the canon part of Warcraft 3. Nothing else in that game is canon, because they're not part of the story campaigns.

Except the Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit has never made an appearance within the official campaigns, hence we cannot claim it is part of the lore.

It matters. It really does. If something is not shown to be part of the official campaigns of Warcraft 3, we cannot claim it is part of the lore told in Warcraft 3.

You know, this is hilarious. Our discussion in a nutshell:

You: Only campaigns' lore is canon.
Me: But why? Why isn't lore located elsewhere also canon if it comes from Blizzard?
You: Only campaigns' lore is canon! Only campaigns' lore is canon! Only campaigns' lore is canon!

Alright, I give up. Time to get off this hamster wheel. Feel free to believe that you've "won" or whatever and keep your delusions.

[Bas Prime]

Tinkerer could work. Its know to people, they have specific races for it, they can wrap it around a good story. If blizzard stops tieing a hero class to the expansion, there is nothing that could stop a Tinkerer to be implemented into the game. I think Tinkerer is one of the most likely classes to be next, for me at least. followed by the Blademaster.
Dragonsworn is in the mix for some years now, I dont really saw a concept that I really liked, but Blizz could tie this to the dragon story they seem to start up for the next expansion.
So basically Tinker makes sense, I would like to see the Blademaster next, and Blizz needs to stop tieing the classes they want to add to an expansion. A content patch should be enough to introduce them.

[Shammyrock]

to be honest, I don't really see the need for any new classes at the moment. If they really wanted to. I'd rather they looked at additional specs for current classes.

Tinker in general has a confused identity, people want it to every role.

[Swnem]

to be honest, I don't really see the need for any new classes at the moment. If they really wanted to. I'd rather they looked at additional specs for current classes.

Tinker in general has a confused identity, people want it to every role.

What nonsense. They CAN do every role. You did try to do island expeditions, yes? This isn't people making this stuff up. They are in-game already.

[SirCowdog]

Tinkerer could work. Its know to people, they have specific races for it, they can wrap it around a good story. If blizzard stops tieing a hero class to the expansion, there is nothing that could stop a Tinkerer to be implemented into the game. I think Tinkerer is one of the most likely classes to be next, for me at least. followed by the Blademaster.
Dragonsworn is in the mix for some years now, I dont really saw a concept that I really liked, but Blizz could tie this to the dragon story they seem to start up for the next expansion.
So basically Tinker makes sense, I would like to see the Blademaster next, and Blizz needs to stop tieing the classes they want to add to an expansion. A content patch should be enough to introduce them.

I actually expect dragonsworn to be the expansion artifact power mechanic. You pick an aspect which starts you at one corner of a progression tree, then slowly work your way through to each other dragon aspect over the course of the expansion.

Potentially this could be a hybrid between artifact weapons amd essences/legendaries, with each dragon aspect having its own quests and story progression similar to order halls or artifact weapons.

This would allow both "dragonsworn" and Tinkers in the same expansion. And dragonsworn would fit into a dragon isles context more naturally this way, contrasted against demon hunters, who seem badly out of place now that the Legion and Illida is done and over. At least the Lich King is still present.

[Wolfrick]

Sorry to brain your dreams, but if it comes to having a new class I woul vote 10 times for NECROMACERS... tinkers just dont fit the Lore and idea behind world of warcraft... having it as a player class seeing people running around with huge mechs and other stupid enginner like stuff... just feels bad...

I know its a hero class in Warcraft 3, but its a mix between alchemy and engineering... stuff like that are special and unique... it should not be an everyday and overall thing

[rhorle]

Sorry to brain your dreams, but if it comes to having a new class I woul vote 10 times for NECROMACERS... tinkers just dont fit the Lore and idea behind world of warcraft... having it as a player class seeing people running around with huge mechs and other stupid enginner like stuff... just feels bad...

Spaceships, tanks, Titan robots/AI, Anything post-cataclysm goblin. Oil, "steam punk" like technololgy and the like feels bad? Oil and "tech" are just as much a part of Warcraft as anything else. It is fine to dislike them but it is just silly to ignore it as a core part of what Warcraft is.

[kaminaris]

Spaceships, tanks, Titan robots/AI, Anything post-cataclysm goblin. Oil, "steam punk" like technololgy and the like feels bad? Oil and "tech" are just as much a part of Warcraft as anything else. It is fine to dislike them but it is just silly to ignore it as a core part of what Warcraft is.

It's probably closer to dieselpunk. WoW rarely uses steam to power robots. Or straight up Oilpunk.

It does fit, whoever thinks otherwise must have missed every single quest with shredders, tanks, cannons etc.

[Ielenia]

Sometimes Twitter serves as a means of communicating lore to us. Just like any other website where Blizzard places lore. Including the website I linked to you with its Goblin Tinker lore bit.

Twitter and the classic website are nowhere near the same thing. One is a website about the game while the other is a social media tool to be in contact with other people.

If you can find me a tweet where one of the Warcraft developers say that all the multiplayer-only 'Goblin Tinker' hero unit, with its robotic backpack with mechanic robotic arms that can turn into a mech (mind the caveat), then I'll concede its canon.

You know, this is hilarious. Our discussion in a nutshell:

You: Only campaigns' lore is canon.
Me: But why? Why isn't lore located elsewhere also canon if it comes from Blizzard?
You: Only campaigns' lore is canon! Only campaigns' lore is canon! Only campaigns' lore is canon!

"Hilarious" is your misrepresentation. It's more like this:

You: Even things not shown to be canon in the Warcraft 3 story campaigns are canon to the Warcraft 3 story campaigns.
Me: No, only the official story campaigns are canon to the Warcraft 3 lore.
You: No, the whole game is! Everything about the game is canon!

- - - Updated - - -

The archetype of units in WC3 are part of cannon. They already exist in the game as well. My post doesn't prove anything you have said. Things outside of the story have been stated to be cannon. Blizzards use of campaign is not referencing the story online but the specific game mode that they curated and created. Blizzard has been using the term tinker to describe archetype in Warcraft.

Yes, Blizzard has stated that some things outside the story are canon to the Warcraft franchise as a whole, but here's the thing: when the topic at hand is "is it canon to Warcraft 3?" then if it's not shown in the campaign, then it's not canon. And so far, to my knowledge, no one from Blizzard has not said that the Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit's most defining feature, the robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech, is canon.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pozzik is a goblin tinker in WoW. It is cannon.

I never said "tinkers" are not canon. I said that the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit" has not demonstrated to be canon, because its most defining feature, the "robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech" does not exist in the game.

Your argument is saying that Pandaren, a neutral unit, were not cannon until MoP.

False. I've pointed out that the Pandaren appeared in the WC3:TFT official night elf campaign. That Chen Stormstout appeared in the official "Founding of Durotar" campaign. In Vanilla there were references to Chen Stormstout in the barrens in the form of an empty barrel of his.

Or that Demon Hunters from WC3 were not cannon until they showed up in WoW as a class.

False. Demon Hunters were an integral part of the WC3 night elf campaign. Illidan was an integral part of the WC3 night elf campaign. There were demon hunters in WoW since early vanilla.

The unit is a Blizzard added unit and was available in the campaigns.

But the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit", with its "robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech", has not.

This is not about "it's only canon if it's made into a class". This is about being "demonstrated to be canon", and the WC3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit has not been demonstrated to be canon, because its most defining feature, the "robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech" has not been shown to exist in the lore yet.

It is clear that the Tinkerton, Claw-pack, or Hammer-tank fits right in line with everything else Blizzard has created regarding goblin tech and the most common gnome and goblin archetype of tinker. We even have Gazlowe as an island NPC deploying mechanical stuff. Goblin shamans tinker/craft mechanical conduits they keep on a ring that allow them to channel the elements into the manifested totems.

The WC3 unit could easily be turned into a cool down ability and made indisputable cannon. Remember to that the unit was added to the game by blizzard after an april fools joke become widely popular. The essentially made it cannon and not a joke.

Agreed. And if the subject matter was "the 'robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech' can easily be fit into WoW" or "Blizzard can make it canon", I'd have said "yes, I agree" and moved on. But that's not the contention. The problem is that people want to insist it's canon to the Warcraft 3 game lore when it is not.

[DotEleven]

Yes, they are.


Because they know alchemy. Hence, alchemists.


Yes, you do. That's like saying you don't need someone who went through medical school to treat your illnesses and wounds.


No, I have facts.


The irony of this statement is, as the meme goes, "over 9000!"

- - - Updated - - -


Except it's not about a case about "class identity", but about a claim of the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit" being actual canon to the Warcraft 3 story campaigns.


I know. And that's true.
It legitinizes the possibility of any identity people want tge Tinker to be, and recognize every hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm art as legitimate potential for the class.


The issue is that people continue to bring up the false claim that the Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit, specifically, is "canon" to the Warcraft 3 story campaigns. If they simply said "Blizzard could make it canon if they wanted to", I'd have replied with "yes, you're right" and moved on. But no, they are insisting on the error of claiming the unit is currently canon to the WC3 story campaigns.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, it should be the case, because if we're talking about Warcraft 3, then the subject matter is Warcraft 3, and not any other piece of media regarding the franchise.


"Lore" is the story campaigns. Nothing less, nothing more.


That's true. I mistook that for the other bolded part of your statement. Apologies.


And you want to know why? Because the site actually has a section called "Warcraft Lore", which the Warcraft 3 website does not have. The Warcraft 3 game's official campaigns are the lore of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Witches aren't alchemists. Witches are witches. Just because they know potion making doesn't make them alchemists. Once again, you're arguing based on feelings because you believe in Alchemists but the tinkers a no while neither appeared in the campaign.

[Ielenia]

Witches aren't alchemists. Witches are witches. Just because they know potion making doesn't make them alchemists.

Yes, it does make them alchemists. The knowledge and practice of alchemy does make one into an alchemist. What you are proposing boils down to the idea that you can create potions and elixirs without knowing how to make potions and elixirs.

Once again, you're arguing based on feelings

No, I'm basing it on facts.

because you believe in Alchemists but the tinkers a no while neither appeared in the campaign.

There is so much wrong to unpack in this statement, alone. But I'll focus on these two:
• First: I said alchemists are shown to already be part of the lore back in Warcraft 3, due to the existence of potions in Warcraft 3. I did not say that the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Alchemist neutral hero unit" was shown to be part of the lore.
• Second: I already acknowledged the existence of tinkers, or at least technology-oriented characters, due to the existence of machines in Warcraft 3. I did not say the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit" was shown to be part of the lore.

[CrittenMitten]

Necromancer and especially tinker shit will always be a poorly thought out concept that became popular among people who are easily swayed by a handful of people with too much time on their hands.

It is like telling Blizzard to make a class out of tailoring, calling it Knitter, and uses certain threads to heal, buff allies or damage enemies. DEEP LORE

Another 'class' out of skinning and call it Flayer that uses skins from enemies to get stronger and use as attacks. WOWeee!

Then another super unique well thought out 'class' called Stone Pelter; it uses rocks and sometimes gems from those rocks to enhance abilities and fight enemies. REVOLUTIONARY!

Of course Necromancer it's not like we already have death knights with unholy specs but then again many simple people believe that just because something is in Diablo then
-IT MUST- be in WoW.

[kaminaris]

No, I'm basing it on facts.

No, you are not. You are either trolling or have bloated ego saying what is part of canon and what is not. Blizzard decides that, not you.

[Triceron]

Then another super unique well thought out 'class' called Stone Pelter; it uses rocks and sometimes gems from those rocks to enhance abilities and fight enemies. REVOLUTIONARY!

Well unless you're of the opinion that there are no creative classes left at all in Warcraft, I'm curious what classes you do think would work that wouldn't be subject to criticism.

Cuz despite how niche the Tinker and Necromancer would be, there aren't a lot of other choices out there. Dragonsworn and Bard are probably the other outstanding two that don't have any particular niche, but at the same time aren't highly regarded in many discussions either.

With the classes are they are right now, I don't even know what you would consider revolutionary in the most sincere form of the word. Everything's homogenized.

At this point we really are dipping into a shallow pool looking for a shiny pebble we can call a new Class. We're far past the days of Death Knights with 3 Tank/3DPS specs and the ability to raise allies into Ghouls.

[DotEleven]

Yes, it does make them alchemists. The knowledge and practice of alchemy does make one into an alchemist. What you are proposing boils down to the idea that you can create potions and elixirs without knowing how to make potions and elixirs.


No, I'm basing it on facts.


There is so much wrong to unpack in this statement, alone. But I'll focus on these two:
• First: I said alchemists are shown to already be part of the lore back in Warcraft 3, due to the existence of potions in Warcraft 3. I did not say that the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Alchemist neutral hero unit" was shown to be part of the lore.
• Second: I already acknowledged the existence of tinkers, or at least technology-oriented characters, due to the existence of machines in Warcraft 3. I did not say the "Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit" was shown to be part of the lore.

Potion making isn't strictly "alchemy" There are plenty of stories of people doing potion making without it being called "alchemy"

[Semyaz]

Mesmer pls

[Ielenia]

No, you are not.

Yes, I am.

You are either trolling

No, I'm not.

or have bloated ego

Says the guy that has used insults more than once against me.

saying what is part of canon and what is not.

The official campaigns in Warcraft 3 are lore. What is not part of the campaigns, is not.

Blizzard decides that, not you.

Just using basic logic, here: we cannot claim something exists in a story without demonstrating it does.

And the Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit has not been demonstrated to exist in the lore, because its most defining feature, the robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech, has not been demonstrated to exist in the lore.

- - - Updated - - -

Potion making isn't strictly "alchemy"

Yes, it is.

There are plenty of stories of people doing potion making without it being called "alchemy"

Stories like...?

[DotEleven]

Yes, I am.

No, I'm not.

Says the guy that has used insults more than once against me.

The official campaigns in Warcraft 3 are lore. What is not part of the campaigns, is not.

Just using basic logic, here: we cannot claim something exists in a story without demonstrating it does.

And the Warcraft 3 Goblin Tinker neutral hero unit has not been demonstrated to exist in the lore, because its most defining feature, the robotic backpack with mechanical arms that can transform into a mech, has not been demonstrated to exist in the lore.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, it is.


Stories like...?

Harry Potter for one. Literally anything with Witches like Sabrina the Teenage Witch or Hocus Pocus. Alchemy isn't the only thing that does potion making. Ergo, alchemists aren't part of the lore with your logic. But you're willing to admit Alchemists exist, but refuse to believe the tinker does.