Do you want tinkers?

[Ielenia]

It isn't apples and oranges. The quote you are referencing does not say that the campaign is the only part of the strategy games they consider canon. That is you saying that.

The part where he used it as the reason why something that doesn't show up in the campaign is not canon? Seriously. Are you really his alt, friend, relative or otherwise associated account? Because you are doing an awful lot of white knighting when you've stated a few times you don't really care at all.

This shows how little you're actually reading what I'm writing. The argument here is regarding the Warcraft 3 game. The books, novels and comics do not come into this discussion, since we're talking about the canon parts of that specific game.

At no point whatsoever I said that Warcraft 3 is the "only source of Warcraft lore."

[Triceron]

No. You literally said that canon does not dictate what is allowed and does not dictate what is not allowed. It is fine to clarify what you actually meant but don't lie and claim you said something when you really did not. Canon stops Anduin from being dead. Canon dictates what is and is not possible.

Lol what? No it doesn't.

Why didn't canon prevent Varian from dying then?

Canon is an explanaition of lore within the current continuity.

So in Vanilla, he is absent and his whereabouts unconfirmed. In Wrath, he is back, and the comics explain his whereabouts prior to his return. In Legion, he is killed by Gul'dan. That is canon and lore.

Canon would have explained each new change, but it doesn't DICTATE what change could or couldn't happen.

Example is Canon would not prevent Varian from being raised from the dead. Canon is just an explanation of the current story. The canon is that Varian is dead, and will remain dead, until explained otherwise. And that 'until otherwise' is just to indicate that the author(Blizzard) can change that at any time.

So if Blizzard wants to kill Anduin, they totally could, and if Blizzard does then it would be canon.

Canon is a collection of everything Blizzard does for the story, thats it. If Blizzard didn't do it in the story then it didn't happen. If you killed Drek'thar and Blizzard says Drek'thar is alive, then your actions of killing him are non-canon.

Vol'jin is dead. That is canon. We can still talk to his spirit though right? Doesn't mean he is alive though, Blizzard still says he is dead. So that remains canon until Blizzard decides to change it.

Make sense? I still doubt you will to be able to follow anything I say lol.

Have you tried googling the meaning of canon btw? Might help you look less foolish

[rhorle]

This shows how little you're actually reading what I'm writing. The argument here is regarding the Warcraft 3 game. The books, novels and comics do not come into this discussion, since we're talking about the canon parts of that specific game. At no point whatsoever I said that Warcraft 3 is the "only source of Warcraft lore."

At no point did anyone say that is what you are saying. However the question they asked you was where does it say that the campaign, and not neutral units added by blizzard, is the only canon thing in WC3? I know full well what argument you are making you are just misunderstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didn't canon prevent Varian from dying then?

Because he can die with in canon. He is not immortal. Canon literally dictated if he can die or not. Canon dictates what is and what is not possible in the fictional universe. If Blizzard made Varian immortal in the Canon then he could not be killed. You know because canon is the rule that dictates what can and can not happen.

[Ielenia]

At no point did anyone say that is what you are saying.

Oh, gods, dude. Are you serious? The fact the entire conversation was regarding Warcraft 3 and Warcraft 3 alone did not clue you in that we were talking about Warcraft 3 and Warcraft 3 alone?

However the question they asked you was where does it say that the campaign, and not neutral units added by blizzard, is the only canon thing in WC3? I know full well what argument you are making you are just misunderstanding.

You're clearly the one misunderstanding as you decided to bring in the books in a discussion about the Warcraft 3 game. And I did answer the question. It's in here in this very page, but here you go:

https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/08...warcrafts-lore
"And yes, we do find ourselves fettered by something that was a small piece of a campaign in an RTS game"

Note the word: campaign. The lore of Warcraft 3 is the official campaigns. If the entire game was canon, i.e. multiplayer-only features like the WC3 goblin tinker, then I imagine he'd say game instead of campaign.

[Triceron]

At no point did anyone say that is what you are saying. However the question they asked you was where does it say that the campaign, and not neutral units added by blizzard, is the only canon thing in WC3? I know full well what argument you are making you are just misunderstanding.

- - - Updated - - -



Because he can die with in canon. He is not immortal. Canon literally dictated if he can die or not. Canon dictates what is and what is not possible in the fictional universe. If Blizzard made Varian immortal in the Canon then he could not be killed. You know because canon is the rule that dictates what can and can not happen.

I find it really amusing watching you explain whatever you feel like is canon.

If you trollin me, you doin a great job lol!

[Lochton]

It is delightful to see discussion talks into reach and claims of what is canon and non-canon but even in this talk we have to take a break. We cannot write something of from the Warcraft Universe just because they are not considered canon from the Warcraft 3 campaign. Yes, Tinker made its first functional appearance in the WC3 non-campaign content but so did alchemist, and something much bigger - Firelord.

We have seen NPC's portrayed with mechanical/Tech/alchemy based functional attacks - not just minor outputs - and we have seen many more 'Firelords' as well which if we went with the whole argument about units being non-canon from Warcraft 3, then our Firelords would also be non-canon, which we have seen before to not quite be.

[LorDC]

IMO, the whole discussion whether tinkers are canon or not is pointless. Why? Because lore and "canon" is the least important thing in the game. Developers will bend and retcon story as soon as it they need it for gameplay purposes. Look at draenei. Blizzard retconned them as soon as they needed new race for Burning Crusade. Or Legion, where we had literal spaceships in a "high medieval fantasy" setting. And you know what? No one really complained about it except couple of nerds.

So the real questions that are worth debating:
1) Does game need/has space for another new class? It actually boils down to two questions:
1.1) How does new class affect long-term balance of the game? Read: will it hurt a long-term player retention?
1.2) How does new class affect short term sales of new expansion.
2) Is it really possible to add distinct and fun new class? And if yes, which class has the most potential to appeal to the playerbase both in terms of gameplay and class fantasy?
3) What are opportunity costs of adding new class? Isn't it better spend to designers' and atrists' time on some other things?

[DotEleven]

It doesn't appear in WC3 story either though. So not canon.

- - - Updated - - -



Reply is above

Re: Pokemon, mystery gifts are not canon then. Does that make more sense?

Mystery gifts are not sustained in lore, so they are not canon. All your answers are there.

Canon, again, only relates to lore. Not game mechanics, not PVP, not downloadable side content that has no vearing to the story

So you're saying that the pokemon that is in the pokedex is NOT canon because it has no bearing on the story and was added later despite the fact it has a pokedex entry?

[Kumorii]

It is delightful to see discussion talks into reach and claims of what is canon and non-canon but even in this talk we have to take a break. We cannot write something of from the Warcraft Universe just because they are not considered canon from the Warcraft 3 campaign. Yes, Tinker made its first functional appearance in the WC3 non-campaign content but so did alchemist, and something much bigger - Firelord.

We have seen NPC's portrayed with mechanical/Tech/alchemy based functional attacks - not just minor outputs - and we have seen many more 'Firelords' as well which if we went with the whole argument about units being non-canon from Warcraft 3, then our Firelords would also be non-canon, which we have seen before to not quite be.

To be fair, the entire discussion is about what's canon and non-canon and as you say, it's quite pointless. Even the ones saying it isn't canon are saying that it has nothing to do with the validity of adding Tinkers as a class. Yet it's so important to say that they are canon since a long time for some reason. It has no bearing on that they could be added and made canon in retrospect.
Seems to me that people are really grabbing at any straws to justify them even further. It's like if they can justify tinkers being canon from a long time ago that would somehow increase the chances of them being added, while that's not the case.

But dunno, it's quite a fun read regardless.

[Lochton]

To be fair, the entire discussion is about what's canon and non-canon and as you say, it's quite pointless. Even the ones saying it isn't canon are saying that it has nothing to do with the validity of adding Tinkers as a class. Yet it's so important to say that they are canon since a long time for some reason. It has no bearing on that they could be added and made canon in retrospect.
Seems to me that people are really grabbing at any straws to justify them even further. It's like if they can justify tinkers being canon from a long time ago that would somehow increase the chances of them being added, while that's not the case.

But dunno, it's quite a fun read regardless.

This is sorta where I wish they had not removed their RPG books from the storyline, as Tinker was even fleshed out as a core class there. I was just honestly annoyed about that specific discussion going in circles for there was three units that are not canon, yet one is okay, another is sorta, and the last (tinker) is 'oh no, death and horror' - Hence I added my comment.

[Rendark]

Apples and oranges. The discussion here is about Warcraft 3 and what parts of it (or its entirety) is canon to the Warcraft lore. As in: the official story campaigns of Warcraft 3 are canon to the Warcraft lore, while everything else, like multiplayer-only features, which includes units and heroes not used in the official story campaigns, are not.

We're not discussing what other books, comic and novels do or don't do.

Again where does it say that the campaign is the only thing that is canon is Warcraft 3?

[Ielenia]

Again where does it say that the campaign is the only thing that is canon is Warcraft 3?

Read the quote from the article again.

The developer explicitly mentions the "small details" of what they're allowed and not allowed to do. And the only part of the game they mention are the campaigns.

If things outside the campaign (like the WC3 Goblin Tinker) also mattered for the canon, I imagine he'd say the word "game" instead of "campaign" when talking about the small details they're supposed to keep in mind when developing the franchise's story.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying that the pokemon that is in the pokedex is NOT canon because it has no bearing on the story and was added later despite the fact it has a pokedex entry?

Why are you asking a question he already answered?

But it is. That is a pokemon in the game, part of the lore, in the Pokedex. But because he's not a part of the actual story it's "not canon" do you realize how crazy that sounds?

That Pokemon is canon. You getting that specific pokemon from that mystery gift is not canon. Understand the difference?

[Rendark]

Read the quote from the article again.

The developer explicitly mentions the "small details" of what they're allowed and not allowed to do. And the only part of the game they mention are the campaigns.

If things outside the campaign (like the WC3 Goblin Tinker) also mattered for the canon, I imagine he'd say the word "game" instead of "campaign" when talking about the small details they're supposed to keep in mind when developing the franchise's story.

I did read it and all it says is one little part of the campaign "fettered" them. In no way is he saying that the campaign is the only canon in warcraft 3. So again ill ask, where does it say that the campaign is all that matters to the canon of warcraft 3?

[Triceron]

So you're saying that the pokemon that is in the pokedex is NOT canon because it has no bearing on the story and was added later despite the fact it has a pokedex entry?

No, sounds like that is what you are trying to say, while I clearly addressed that a few replies ago.

If you got bonus loot in WoW and rolled the Greatsword of Fools, that is game mechanics. The bonus dice you got is a game mechanic, the act of obtaining randomized loot is game mechanics.

The item itself and the boss that drops that loot can be considered canon to the game. That is because lore covers story and things that exist in the fictional universe pertaining to a story, stuff that falls into a continuity. Any of your actions that don't affect story, such as recieving bonus loot, is not canon. You slaying a boss and being recognized by an NPC for that action, then that is canon.

Now, if you are unable to differentiate a game mechanic from story, then there is no cure for this 'disease', though there may be certain caps you can wear that help clearly identify you for others to be aware of.

[DotEleven]

No, sounds like that is what you are trying to say, while I clearly addressed that a few replies ago.

If you got bonus loot in WoW and rolled the Greatsword of Fools, that is game mechanics. The bonus dice you got is a game mechanic, the act of obtaining randomized loot is game mechanics.

The item itself and the boss that drops that loot can be considered canon to the game. That is because lore covers story and things that exist in the fictional universe pertaining to a story, stuff that falls into a continuity. Any of your actions that don't affect story, such as recieving bonus loot, is not canon. You slaying a boss and being recognized by an NPC for that action, then that is canon.

Now, if you are unable to differentiate a game mechanic from story, then there is no cure for this 'disease', though there may be certain caps you can wear that help clearly identify you for others to be aware of.

Okay, then if the pokemon that was added to the game that has 0 bearing on the story itself is canon, why isn't the tinker which was also added to the game while having 0 bearing on the story.

You're admitting that it doesn't need to be a part of the story itself to be canon for the pokemon but then saying "no, the tinker isn't"

You really don't see how you're being contradictory?

[Triceron]

Okay, then if the pokemon that was added to the game that has 0 bearing on the story itself is canon, why isn't the tinker which was also added to the game while having 0 bearing on the story.

You're admitting that it doesn't need to be a part of the story itself to be canon for the pokemon but then saying "no, the tinker isn't"

You really don't see how you're being contradictory?

Canon is fictional story continuity.

If that pokemon ever appears in the universe in a story setting, it is canon. So even if you don't start with bulbasaur in your story and never encounter one, someone else could have in the story mode of the game.

WC3 Tinker has never been shown in any story mode in the game. And again, multiplayer melee is literally just mechanics. It is not lore because none of the actions or results ever affect the continuity of the story. You winning an online match has no correlation to the warcraft story.

Honestly, look up the definition of canon. You seem to be very unaware of its definition and meaning in context to games.

[DotEleven]

Canon is fictional story continuity.

If that pokemon ever appears in the universe in a story setting, it is canon. So even if you don't start with bulbasaur in your story and never encounter one, someone else could have in the story mode of the game.

WC3 Tinker has never been shown in any story mode in the game. And again, multiplayer melee is literally just mechanics. It is not lore because none of the actions or results ever affect the continuity of the story. You winning an online match has no correlation to the warcraft story.

Honestly, look up the definition of canon. You seem to be very unaware of its definition and meaning in context to games.

The canon isn't just the story but the universe surrounding it. If it exists in a canon work it is part of the world. Like we've acknowledged Hearthstone. The storylines in Hearthstone aren't canon, but Hearthstone itself as a game is. Despite the fact it has nothing to do with the story, it's only shown in toys but it's still canon. You seem to be the one unaware that canon is about the entire universe involving the franchise and not just the storylines we personally experience.

Let's bring this back to WC3. You're saying Firelords didn't exist.

[Triceron]

The canon isn't just the story but the universe surrounding it. If it exists in a canon work it is part of the world. Like we've acknowledged Hearthstone. The storylines in Hearthstone aren't canon, but Hearthstone itself as a game is. Despite the fact it has nothing to do with the story, it's only shown in toys but it's still canon. You seem to be the one unaware that canon is about the entire universe involving the franchise and not just the storylines we personally experience.

Let's bring this back to WC3. You're saying Firelords didn't exist.

Yes and of we are specifically talking about WC3 Tinkers, then we are talking about Gazz Stripbolt, Riket Contraption, Mekka Gobb, Tek Piecetinker, Plug Rattletrap, Ratso Steamwheedle. None of these characters appear in WoW.

None of the WC3 representatives exist in WoW or the Warcraft story. If Gazlowe is a Tinker, then it must be confirmed by an official story setting or canonical source such as novels or developer explanations.

So has Gazlowe been confirmed as a Tinker in the story? There is no evidence of this to date. That CAN change of course, but the possibility of change is not what defines canon. Canon is what things are right now.

So if Gazlowe isn't unambiguously a Tinker right now, then he is not canonically a Tinker. He can be assumed as one, and we should acknowledge that assumptions are not represented by the lore or canon, despite how true they may be

If Blizzard makes Gazlowe a Tinker in Reforged? That is a high chance, high possibility, is in the official story, and would make him a Tinker. Then we CAN say a WC3 Tinker appears in WoW, but inly AFTER Blizzard makes change.

If it is not story related it is not canon. And again, Tinkers exist in WoW, but not the named WC3 characters like Gazz Stripbolt, Riket Contraption, Mekka Gobb, Tek Piecetinker, Plug Rattletrap, Ratso Steamwheedle.

We are specifically talking about Gazz Stripbolt, Riket Contraption, Mekka Gobb, Tek Piecetinker, Plug Rattletrap, Ratso Steamwheedle.

[rhorle]

Note the word: campaign. The lore of Warcraft 3 is the official campaigns. If the entire game was canon, i.e. multiplayer-only features like the WC3 goblin tinker, then I imagine he'd say game instead of campaign.

Note how it doesn't say the only part of canon from WC3 is the campaign. It only says that they find themselves held back by small details of the campaign at times. You are the one attributing something to that quote that doesn't exist. And that is what me and others questioned. You'd imagined. You. You are trying to speak for others because you are the one trying force something to prove something it does not.

[Ielenia]

I did read it and all it says is one little part of the campaign "fettered" them. In no way is he saying that the campaign is the only canon in warcraft 3. So again ill ask, where does it say that the campaign is all that matters to the canon of warcraft 3?

It's in the phrasing. He explicitly said the word "campaign" and not "game" when he was talking about how they're supposed to be mindful of small details when working with the lore.