Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[SirCowdog]

y dark ranger is on a simlair angle to demon hunter hard to so many spec as i said befor i am suprised demon hunter even have a tank spec that was pretty much new lore that worked well with demon hunter so in way dark ranger can work on the same field but i can only see 1 spec so far

Oh, I don't disagree. There are a lot of complications with Dark Ranger. What's Blizzard going to do, drop another triple-DPS class into the game? It's hard to imagine a healing spec for Dark Ranger, or even a tank spec. That's just not their thing.

It's more likely that it would be implemented via a 4th spec system that many people have suggested. This could add a LOT of new aspects to the game, but without having to try and justify an entirely new class. Hell...Blizzard could even make the unlock of 4th specs for each class into something similar to Allied Races, requiring a massive rep grind and maybe some story quests.

That'd actually be kind of rad, now that I think about it. Something that a LOT of people really liked about Legion was the class-specific story lines and artifact. Giving every single class something new to add on would be a pretty nice addition to replace AP or Essence grinds maybe. Who knows?

- - - Updated - - -

That's a depressing thought. I would hope that they wouldn't change what we get for the sake of the Chinese market, but I guess we can't rule it out.

They already change forsaken in China. All those exposed bones get covered up over there, along with a bunch of other little changes.

I'm not saying it would completely rule out a Death-themed expansion with Dark Rangers as a hero class. I'm just saying it will add a significant complication.

[Kumorii]

Ok, I think I must have misunderstood a bit then. Because I completely agree the themes of BfA have been about the faction conflict, the old gods, and a decent helping of Titan influence via MOTHER and other such instances.

All the parts about Death have just been hints. Who Bwomsamdi's "boss" is. Sylvanas' unresolved deal with Helya. And a few other little things here and there. Mostly as setup for what I believe the next expansion will be.

We know with pretty good certainty that 8.3 is going to be focused on Ny'alotha and fighting N'zoth. That rules out both the Dragon Isles and Shadowlands concepts as an 8.3 zone. Meaning that either of those two things will mostly likely be the focus of the following expansion. There's been very little mention of the Dragon Isles outside of maybe Wrathion and tracking down the Essences. And if you go digging, I think you'll find that there are far more references and hints towards a Shadowlands/Death themed expansion next up.

Which is not to say Blizzard won't throw a curve ball at us. We can't ignore the fact that China is the elephant in the room right now. And any sort of Death-themed expansion is going to have all kinds of complications for the China market. They get REAL picky about that sort of thing. This is the wild-card that might see us going to the Dragon Isles(or somewhere else), which would make a Dark Ranger out of place.

I don't know. It all seems like a big fat roll of the dice at this point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets announced at Blizzcon.

Definitely. I don't agree on Shadowlands though. Unless they wanna keep the shadow/void theme for another expansion and I doubt they will go back to back on that. Ny'alotha sort of sealed the deal and put the nail in the coffin to all the shadowland speculation. Or they have to throw a curve ball after the N'Zoth fight that makes shadowlands happen.

I wouldn't mind if we actually LOST a fight lore wise. We kinda did in EP, but we still defeated Azshara and killed her we just got fooled when it comes to HoA.
If we fight N'Zoth and we lose and the next expac will be us gathering our forces and defeat him for real at the end would be a nice change of pace in the story telling. Then we have 2 raids that would be awfully similar in design aesthetically though. So dunno.
Sorta like how XCOM2 did, with it being canon that humans lost the fight and 2nd game is all about rebelling and pushing back.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

Definitely. I don't agree on Shadowlands though. Unless they wanna keep the shadow/void theme for another expansion and I doubt they will go back to back on that. Ny'alotha sort of sealed the deal and put the nail in the coffin to all the shadowland speculation. Or they have to throw a curve ball after the N'Zoth fight that makes shadowlands happen.

I wouldn't mind if we actually LOST a fight lore wise. We kinda did in EP, but we still defeated Azshara and killed her we just got fooled when it comes to HoA.
If we fight N'Zoth and we lose and the next expac will be us gathering our forces and defeat him for real at the end would be a nice change of pace in the story telling. Then we have 2 raids that would be awfully similar in design aesthetically though. So dunno.
Sorta like how XCOM2 did, with it being canon that humans lost the fight and 2nd game is all about rebelling and pushing back.

What makes you think that a Shadowlands expansion is out of question just because of Nya'lotha? I mean, we have gotten HFC with a Legion expansion right after even though we killed the second (or third if you calculate Sargeras) threat from the Burning Legion in WoD.

[Ielenia]

My point is that cohesion on its own is a pretty weak motivator. Draenei and Blood Elves were also added because they wanted a "pretty race" for the Horde and an "ugly race" for the Alliance.

I think you're hard-pressed to claim the draenei are an "ugly race", here. That sounds like a weak reasoning.

Pandaren had a singular perfect moment to be added in MoP, as did the monk class, but as you mentioned, they wanted to add these things already. Demon hunters, on the other hand, were planned for BC and didn't come around until the next expansion that featured them.

... Were they? When did Blizzard ever said that? I don't recall hearing or reading anything of the sort.

However, they weren't our allies until that point, whereas tinkers already are. Demon hunters were also the most requested class at that time, and that title now belongs to tinkers.

Being a popular request doesn't seem like it matters any for Blizzard when picking which class to add to the game, otherwise demon hunters and tinkers would have been the first two classes added. But that's not what happened, is it?

1/2 Why, in every case here, is engineering the specific kind of variety? Why not a death theme? Or a fel one? Why not taunka, or tuskarr? If variety is the goal, using the same fallback every time doesn't make sense.
3 Why didn't the mission table use tanks, healers, and dps, for example?
4 Why choose to develop that specific type of fantasy over anything else? There are endless choices.
5 Sure, Siegecrafter Blackfuse was an enemy, though. Only now have we gotten access to his technology as players, through the Blackrock orcs.
6 So at this point, you've claimed 6 times that there must be another explanation, but you haven't committed to anything specific. So in that case, why isn't a tinker an option? Is "cohesion" your only argument? Is there a simpler explanation for Blizzard choosing to feature "engineers" in this way?

(1/2) Taunka and Tuskarr, while having helped the Horde, are not truly Horde members. I don't think I've seen a single Taunka out of Northrend, and Tuskarr never joined any faction, I believe. On top of that, Occam's Razor: simplest explanation: they just wanted to do it for variety.
(3) Why should it? The missions weren't about about 'tank/dps/healer', but about combat, infiltration and sabotage.
(4) Void gained development in BfA. So did the Titans with the azerite. Azshara also got development. Technology wasn't the only development in BfA.
(5) Blackrocks orcs? What?
(6) You're going with the "argument from incredulity" fallacy, here: "I cannot think of anything else to explain this, so this must be true". There's also Occam's Razor we could also apply here: they simply wanted to expand on technology a little, and not because of some ulterior motive like "we'll use this to seed a new class."

Also, expanding on points #4 and #6 a little, technology has been expanded upon on every expansion. Why, I remember certain people saying that the expansion after WoD would bring tinkers, because of all the technology focus with the Iron Horde. I also remember certain people saying we'd get Tinkers after Cataclysm, since we got flying ships now! Etc, etc.

[Dragtox]

Oh, I don't disagree. There are a lot of complications with Dark Ranger. What's Blizzard going to do, drop another triple-DPS class into the game? It's hard to imagine a healing spec for Dark Ranger, or even a tank spec. That's just not their thing.

It's more likely that it would be implemented via a 4th spec system that many people have suggested. This could add a LOT of new aspects to the game, but without having to try and justify an entirely new class. Hell...Blizzard could even make the unlock of 4th specs for each class into something similar to Allied Races, requiring a massive rep grind and maybe some story quests.

That'd actually be kind of rad, now that I think about it. Something that a LOT of people really liked about Legion was the class-specific story lines and artifact. Giving every single class something new to add on would be a pretty nice addition to replace AP or Essence grinds maybe. Who knows?

y i can see necromancer have healing not sure where people even wuld get the healing on dark ranger
necromancer have this problem that people compare it diablo wich is kinda simlair to dk but in azaroth its but its wierd when we clearly can see how diffrent they are in wow
y i can see some 4th spec on many classes and i think hunter kinda needs 1 and i know i am really on the hunter topic it did impact me

[SirCowdog]

I wouldn't mind if we actually LOST a fight lore wise.

If we fight N'Zoth and we lose and the next expac will be us gathering our forces and defeat him for real at the end would be a nice change of pace in the story telling.

Just gonna throw this out there: Losing to N'zoth would be a REALLY good explanation for the level squish and the remastering of content that would go along with it. Place all existing current content in the Caverns of Time, and do a MASSIVE dump of re-tooled Azeroth zones as a new 1-60 experience.

Probably not gonna happen, but it's a nice thought.

- - - Updated - - -

... Were they? When did Blizzard ever said that? I don't recall hearing or reading anything of the sort.

There was a Demon Hunter on the box art for Vanilla. I don't recall any actual mention of them outside of that. Although that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

Just gonna throw this out there: Losing to N'zoth would be a REALLY good explanation for the level squish and the remastering of content that would go along with it. Place all existing current content in the Caverns of Time, and do a MASSIVE dump of re-tooled Azeroth zones as a new 1-60 experience.

Probably not gonna happen, but it's a nice thought.

Its hard to believe that we lose to him since Alleria and Turalyon talk about "the defeat of the Old God" and N'zoth specifically.

[SirCowdog]

y i can see necromancer have healing not sure where people even wuld get the healing on dark ranger
necromancer have this problem that people compare it diablo wich is kinda simlair to dk but in azaroth its but its wierd when we clearly can see how diffrent they are in wow
y i can see some 4th spec on many classes and i think hunter kinda needs 1 and i know i am really on the hunter topic it did impact me

Druid with 5 specs tho.... Uhg... XD

- - - Updated - - -

Its hard to believe that we lose to him since Alleria and Turalyon talk about "the defeat of the Old God" and N'zoth specifically.

Could be Blizzard dropping fake lines to mislead the data miners. I don't know. Like I said, probably not very likely.

There's a theory that everything we're doing right now on Azeroth is a dream. And when we wake up we discover that N'zoth "won" a long time ago, and we've just been having lucid nightmares about all our "victories" the entire time. Would explain a lot of the more ridiculous parts of the game, honestly.

[Dragtox]

Druid with 5 specs tho.... Uhg... XD

- - - Updated - - -



Could be Blizzard dropping fake lines to mislead the data miners. I don't know. Like I said, probably not very likely.

y i cant see it unless they did the wolf thing but we got worgen so most likly one of the classes that dont need more spec

[Teriz]

I understand where some might be coming from but Hunter has been stripped of what made it an amazing class

In your opinion.

a Ranger has the ability to fight in close combat with limited abilities where they excel at ranged combat sort of what we used to have

You mean like Survival Hunters?

with hunter until it all got stripped out and gutted, I seriously miss that class and I miss the dead zone it made the class unique and it's why i've played a fair bit on my hunter in classic as i loved having duel weapons for limited close combat utility and my bow for dealing the biggest damage.

The dead zone was removed because players didn't like it. If you put that in a Dark Ranger class, players will hate in there as well.

However, let's take a minute to analyze why you want a DR class; Because you want a better version of the existing Hunter class.

[Kumorii]

What makes you think that a Shadowlands expansion is out of question just because of Nya'lotha? I mean, we have gotten HFC with a Legion expansion right after even though we killed the second (or third if you calculate Sargeras) threat from the Burning Legion in WoD.

Mainly because everyone theorized about Ny'Alotha which is supposed to be one of the biggest(?) landmarks/cities for shadowlands afaik. But as I said, if they tie it in with us losing towards N'Zoth I would be fine with it. If we don't and finish the shadow part in 8.3 then I would find it kinda lazy to have two shadow themed expansion. Not only that they have to set up another old god or shadowlands enemy in 8.3 or 8.3.5 so people get hyped about it. Everything atm seems to point to that Shadow part will be resolved in 8.3 and most datamining are showing more and more death things being added which isn't mentioned in 8.3 content patch.

I never phrased it as out of the question, especially since the second paragraph is explaining how it could work. I just don't think it will be about it due to reasons I've mentioned.

[protip]

I think you're hard-pressed to claim the draenei are an "ugly race", here. That sounds like a weak reasoning.

That's not my reasoning, it's J. Allen Brack's. -> https://www.wired.com/2008/10/qa-world-of-war/

I think the way that we make decisions, once we’re sure about the next expansion, is we’ll talk about what the game needs. What does the game need? With The Burning Crusade we wanted to add a “pretty” race for the Horde and we wanted to add an "ugly" race for the Alliance, at some point we decided we wanted to do the Shaman/Paladin swap for Horde and Alliance – which I think worked out pretty well – and so that is how we’ll decide to do the next expansion as well: what are the possible ideas.

Y’know, the Deathknight was not the only class on the list that we came up with, so that will certainly be something that comes up was well: What about adding another class? Some people will talk about adding another race and what that means.

... Were they? When did Blizzard ever said that? I don't recall hearing or reading anything of the sort.

I mean, yeah, but that's a rabbit hole I don't want to jump into. It's not that important, anyway.

Being a popular request doesn't seem like it matters any for Blizzard when picking which class to add to the game, otherwise demon hunters and tinkers would have been the first two classes added. But that's not what happened, is it?

It's not direct causation, no, but it's certainly a bonus when you're deciding between a number of options.

(1/2)
(3) Why should it? The missions weren't about about 'tank/dps/healer', but about combat, infiltration and sabotage.

Right, but they could've been about anything, and we got goblins and gnomes. Not my strongest point, since they aren't really combatants, fair enough. Even still, it reinforces the focus on technology.

(4) Void gained development in BfA. So did the Titans with the azerite. Azshara also got development. Technology wasn't the only development in BfA.

Right, and all of those things lead somewhere. The Void gives us N'Zoth and our last raid, plus whatever happens with Xal'atath. Azshara also serves a role in Nyalotha. The Azerite story line tells us about the planet itself, presumably leading up to some big lore reveal. Why technology in combat though? Not just enemies, either, but specifically our allies. Why not simply feature them in sabotage roles as you mentioned regarding the mission table? They are clearly combatants.

(5) Blackrocks orcs? What?

Yes, the Blackrock orcs from AU Draenor. Garrosh brought the True Horde's technology (Siegecrafter Blackfuse & Co.) to AU Draenor, and shared it with the Blackrock orcs. Now that they've been recruited into the MU Horde, we have access to that technology.

(6) You're going with the "argument from incredulity" fallacy, here: "I cannot think of anything else to explain this, so this must be true". There's also Occam's Razor we could apply here, i.e., the simplest explanation: they simply wanted to expand on technology a little, and not because of some ulterior motive like "we'll use this to seed a new class."

Also, expanding on points #4 and #6 a little, technology has been expanded upon on every expansion. Why, I remember certain people saying that the expansion after WoD would bring tinkers, because of all the technology focus with the Iron Horde. I also remember certain people saying we'd get Tinkers after Cataclysm, since we got flying ships now! Etc, etc.

It's not that I can't think of any other options, it's specifically that I think that they are less likely than what I'm suggesting. Occam's Razor specifically refers to the simplest explanation for a set of data being the most likely one. I'm saying that the pattern we see here isn't likely to be a simple development to technology because of the volume and nature of the developments to technology based combat in BfA. As I mentioned, the Iron Horde stuff is only now available to the Horde. The Cataclysm argument was a weak one, but my argument is specifically related to the BfA developments. A full patch, major focus in the War Campaign, two dungeons, a zone, and even a demonstration of three specializations in island expeditions, and the recent addition of two allied races perfectly suited to the class. It's not just flying ships this time, eh?

[SirCowdog]

Even the Dark Ranger NPCs in game are just really emo looking hunters. I've given it a lot of thought. There's no way I can justify Dark Ranger getting added because they're not meant to be another class. None of their abilities differ from hunter.

Take this with a grain of salt, as I believe this is from the Warcraft RPG, quoted in the wiki:

"An elven ranger who dies and returns as a Forsaken undergoes a great shock. She can no longer cast elven ranger spells, and loses her woodland stride ability. While some may choose to let things be, most immediately seek out a dark ranger to relearn their arts.

An elven ranger seeking to convert to a dark ranger must, of course, have died, returned as a Forsaken, and seek to learn the arts of the shadow rather than the wild. This ordeal is difficult, as the dark ranger must twist everything she was taught about nature to start learning her darker trade. "

While I agree there would be many similarities between Hunter and Dark Ranger, I think what we'd see is a much more pure DPS class rather than a pet-based class of Hunter. They'd both use bows, but I suspect the Dark Ranger would use a mixture of shadow-type spells similar to Deathknights, Shadow Priests, and even Warlocks, but also have some physical types of practical "magic" or tricks that rogues use. There could even be some abilities copied or adapted from necromancer and Warden NPCs.

I'm not sure if there's enough there for 3 fulls specs. But like Demon Hunters, that's not really a barrier. If it's something Blizzard wants to do, they'll figure out a way to make it happen.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like Survival Hunters?

Side topics here, but....

Melee-based survival hunter is an abomination, and has it's origins in a joke/meme. Not saying that spoils the entire class. But that spec is ass, and the last thing the game needed was another melee DPS spec.

It's one of the few things I REALLY wish blizzard had never done with a class. If they were going to give hunters a melee spec, they could have had the decency to at least make it a tank spec. It's even named SURVIVAL ffs....

[Buliwyf the Omen]

I just cant, I died laughing making this.

[Dragtox]

Take this with a grain of salt, as I believe this is from the Warcraft RPG, quoted in the wiki:

"An elven ranger who dies and returns as a Forsaken undergoes a great shock. She can no longer cast elven ranger spells, and loses her woodland stride ability. While some may choose to let things be, most immediately seek out a dark ranger to relearn their arts.

An elven ranger seeking to convert to a dark ranger must, of course, have died, returned as a Forsaken, and seek to learn the arts of the shadow rather than the wild. This ordeal is difficult, as the dark ranger must twist everything she was taught about nature to start learning her darker trade. "

While I agree there would be many similarities between Hunter and Dark Ranger, I think what we'd see is a much more pure DPS class rather than a pet-based class of Hunter. They'd both use bows, but I suspect the Dark Ranger would use a mixture of shadow-type spells similar to Deathknights, Shadow Priests, and even Warlocks, but also have some physical types of practical "magic" or tricks that rogues use. There could even be some abilities copied or adapted from necromancer and Warden NPCs.

I'm not sure if there's enough there for 3 fulls specs. But like Demon Hunters, that's not really a barrier. If it's something Blizzard wants to do, they'll figure out a way to make it happen.

- - - Updated - - -



Side topics here, but....

Melee-based survival hunter is an abomination, and has it's origins in a joke/meme. Not saying that spoils the entire class. But that spec is ass, and the last thing the game needed was another melee DPS spec.

It's one of the few things I REALLY wish blizzard had never done with a class. If they were going to give hunters a melee spec, they could have had the decency to at least make it a tank spec. It's even named SURVIVAL ffs....

as i belive i think beast master had more to gain as meele then survival as meele

[DotEleven]

That was because they couldn't decide on a faction for them. They wanted Blood Elves for the Horde but it felt weird to have Pandaren join the Alliance when the only playable Pandaren helped found the Horde's capital city.

Really? Cause I thought that whole issue was due to complaints from the Chinese since the Pandas are a national symbol for them, but they kinda mixed Asian references (Like they used Japanese clothing or martial arts or something)

[Ielenia]

There was a Demon Hunter on the box art for Vanilla. I don't recall any actual mention of them outside of that. Although that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yes, I'm aware of the demon hunter art on the vanilla WoW box art, but that, at best, means they were intended for the base game. But to say they were "planned for TBC" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[DotEleven]

That's another possible angle that can contribute, if for some reason the Night Warrior thing on its own isn't enough. The more I look, the more I definitely see potential for "Dark Ranger" or a similar theme. I'm not sure what form, exactly, it would take. And there is a lot of supporting evidence for Tinker as well.

Honestly, at this point I think we'll end up getting both at some point. I suspect it's really just a matter of which comes first.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not so sure about this. Consider how much crossover there is between existing classes. Look at the crossover between warrior and DK. Both are plate wearers who tend to use large weapons. The difference between them is, again, largely stylistic. One has an aspect of undead and death-based magic, while the other uses a shield and rage.

That's just once example. I could draw more between other classes very easily. . After all, there are THREE cloth-wearing spellcasters, with balance druids and elem shammies also being casters. That's a LOT of crossover in what amounts to the same archetype of "caster" class.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the concept of a Dark Ranger simply because there's already a hunter. While I agree that it's more likely we'll see something else, after taking a good hard look at all the possibilities, I actually can't rule out Dark Ranger completely.

But look at how they play. A Death Knight is all about causing decay and empowering their weapons with dark powers while spreading disease. A Warrior is a martial master who charges into battle to overwhelm with sheer strength. A Paladin is all about inspiring and empowering themselves and allies in the light.

A Hunter is a scout, a trapper, a tracker, who flits around the battlefield keeping their opponent at am optimal distance and survives in the wilderness on bare bones.

A Dark ranger has the same training and skills, just altered to gain from their undead state. I've stated before, I honestly believe that if we named classes/specs based on race as well, Undead Hunters would be called Dark Rangers.

[Ielenia]

That's not my reasoning, it's J. Allen Brack's. -> https://www.wired.com/2008/10/qa-world-of-war/

I think the way that we make decisions, once we’re sure about the next expansion, is we’ll talk about what the game needs. What does the game need? With The Burning Crusade we wanted to add a “pretty” race for the Horde and we wanted to add an "ugly" race for the Alliance, at some point we decided we wanted to do the Shaman/Paladin swap for Horde and Alliance – which I think worked out pretty well – and so that is how we’ll decide to do the next expansion as well: what are the possible ideas.

Y’know, the Deathknight was not the only class on the list that we came up with, so that will certainly be something that comes up was well: What about adding another class? Some people will talk about adding another race and what that means.

I stand corrected, then. But even so, I have a hard time considering them "ugly". The worgen are "uglier" than the draenei. I'd agree if they added the draenei as they were before (i.e. the Broken) but not like this. Oh well.

I mean, yeah, but that's a rabbit hole I don't want to jump into. It's not that important, anyway.

As long as we agree there's no evidence whatsoever they were planned for TBC...

It's not direct causation, no, but it's certainly a bonus when you're deciding between a number of options.

Then why didn't necromancers were added in Wrath instead of the death knight? I don't think anyone ever asked for "death knights", but there was a clamor, however small, for necromancers.

Right, but they could've been about anything, and we got goblins and gnomes. Not my strongest point, since they aren't really combatants, fair enough. Even still, it reinforces the focus on technology.

Not really, but moving on...

Right, and all of those things lead somewhere. The Void gives us N'Zoth and our last raid, plus whatever happens with Xal'atath. Azshara also serves a role in Nyalotha. The Azerite story line tells us about the planet itself, presumably leading up to some big lore reveal. Why technology in combat though? Not just enemies, either, but specifically our allies. Why not simply feature them in sabotage roles as you mentioned regarding the mission table? They are clearly combatants.

Why do those have to "lead somewhere"? Mechagon's story was one and done. Its arc began and ended in the same patch. "Our allies using tech" is also nothing new. If you want, I can give you a long, long list of instance of our allies using technology in combat throughout almost every expansion, if not every single one of them.

Yes, the Blackrock orcs from AU Draenor. Garrosh brought the True Horde's technology (Siegecrafter Blackfuse & Co.) to AU Draenor, and shared it with the Blackrock orcs. Now that they've been recruited into the MU Horde, we have access to that technology.

I'm not sure it can work this way. Did you play the recruitment scenario for the Mag'har? The orcs of Draenor have been greatly diminished, and they don't have much technology left. We destroyed their foundries too, remember?

It's not that I can't think of any other options, it's specifically that I think that they are less likely than what I'm suggesting. Occam's Razor specifically refers to the simplest explanation for a set of data being the most likely one. I'm saying that the pattern we see here isn't likely to be a simple development to technology because of the volume and nature of the developments to technology based combat in BfA. As I mentioned, the Iron Horde stuff is only now available to the Horde. The Cataclysm argument was a weak one, but my argument is specifically related to the BfA developments. A full patch, major focus in the War Campaign, two dungeons, a zone, and even a demonstration of three specializations in island expeditions, and the recent addition of two allied races perfectly suited to the class. It's not just flying ships this time, eh?

Iron Horde technology is just goblin technology. And, again, the simplest explanation is just: "they thought it'd be fun." Technology has been developed throughout every single expansion. BfA is no different.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

It makes as much sense arguing for Tinkers with Ielenia than it makes sense to argue against Tinkers with Teriz.

Not very worthwhile for both sides.

I just hope cuz of your bitter hatred against poor Tinkers that you neither get Necromancer or Bard even if I dont get Tinkers, muhahahahah.