Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Read the first paragraph on that page. It has what you quoted here, only with links:

I... you really don't know how wiki's work do you?

The wiki is quoting from a in game book, The Schools of Arcane Magic - Necromancy. this is the content of said book.

<Penned by the skilled hand of Archmage Ansirem Runeweaver>

Necromancy is the study of magic involving the dead. It is highly illegal and should be avoided at all costs. I discuss necromancy here only because it is our obligation to have a basic understanding of the magic employed by our enemies - and make no mistake, any practitioner of necromancy is your enemy. Necromancers and their followers are the enemies of all living things. Their influence must be avoided at all costs.

Necromantic magic has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed.

The former archmage Kel'Thuzad is perhaps the most notable example of a modern necromancer. He greatly contributed to the initial spread of the Scourge and the fall of Lordaeron. Now, Kel'Thuzad reigns as a lich from the floating citadel of Naxxramas. His ongoing existence poses an imminent threat to us all.

There is no actual link to death Coil in the lore that's something a fan linked to for what ever reason. The book it self just list some of the powers necromancy has One of which is being able to call upon the chill of death which is what lich's and frost dk's do which you can see if you go through Amal'thazad teaching a frost disciple.

Its spells would be less threatening if its incantations were slowed by your icy touch...

You are not overwhelmed just yet disciple... let the hungering cold of death halt this onslaught.

You're talking about Gul'dan's draining in the Warcraft movie?

You think when I said we have multiple lore examples of this in multiple books I was talking about the warcraft movie?

You mean in-game? By the player? Because that's different than lore. We kill many demons on our journey. It doesn't all get added to the lore.

Brutallus die's twice in game but No, pitlords (and a ton of other demons) die along the path of glory in the Illidan novel with out any undead being raised.

[Sauredfangs]

Maybe were not getting a class but undead elves as allied races.

[Triceron]

You can clearly define the Dark Ranger, Night Warrior and Warden. Why not the Blademaster?

Define as what? NPCs?

"We already have Night Warrior because of black eyes"

We have Night Warrior customizations. That's as close as we'll get to Night Warriors, which remains as a super powered suicide mode in the lore. I doubt this would ever be represented through gameplay. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this, and if you really want to confirm, you can always try starting a poll about it or something.

Zero? It correctly predicted dragons.

So did many people, without using arbitrary patterns.

Do you think it's mere coincidence that 90% of the leaks this season was centered around Dragon Isles?

Falsely? So, it is a sure thing now?

It's a sure thing as far as 10.0 is concerned. Are you seriously still thinking Night Warrior will be its own class? Really? Even now?

How so?

Sylvanas doesn't have the means to empower or train others how to become Banshees or use Banshee powers. Illidari and Death Knights have a very clear origin based on having been granted the same powers as Illidan and Arthas. We already have the origins for Dark Rangers clearly explained, so unless you put forth a formal theory to explain away the inconsistencies, there's no reason to assume the Dark Rangers we know about now would suddenly exhibit Banshee Powers.

So did the Illidan novel provide background on the Illidari. Did it prevent Demon Hunter from being added?

The Illidan novel came after Legion was announced with Demon Hunters playable. The way they were portrayed in the novel fully supports how they were added in Legion, because it was a combined multimedia effort.

And have you read the Sylvanas novel? It doesn't leave much room for a standalone Banshee-themed Dark Ranger class. They literally treat it as a title for Darkfallen Hunters, and even associated it a such by literally calling Sylvanas a Darkfallen.

You're pushing me towards providing more and more because you're never satisfied. There's nothing wrong with current Dark Rangers, or whatever lies around in the graveyards around Azeroth.

I never said there's anything wrong with them.

I've been saying there isn't any indication of them becoming their own class, which makes the chances of it happening highly unlikely. And with the window of opportunity being filled by Evokers, there's very little chance of seeing one in the near future. So what this leaves us with is pointing at more Dark Ranger lore in 9.2.5, without a new class to go with.

Sylvanas raised skeletons during the Siege of Lordaeron.
Since then, her power grew. We can only assume that she can, or that her Mawsworn Kyrian can serve as a replacement for Val'kyr.

Skeletons aren't Forsaken or Dark Rangers. That's quite a huge difference.

IMO, in Sylvanas' absence and the loss of her Val'kyr, Blizzard may be positioning Calia as the one who may be able to create new Forsaken in the future. Cuz like, who else in the lore right now would be able to?

Not if Dark Ranger is possible.
If the standard Death Knight and Demon Hunter addition can be applied to Dark Rangers.

You aren't reading correctly to be giving me this response.


I asked you

Do you think that I am saying Dark Rangers are not possible?

Again, it doesn't have to be Maw souls. You just pushed me into providing an answer.

I'm asking you for a coherent theory for how it all works out, and how that would be worked into a future expansion. I'm asking you for a concept we can tangibly discuss.

I am not asking or expecting you to improvise answers for every issue I bring up. My questions are intended to open you up to asking yourself these questions, and furthering the concept as a cohesive theory. As I said, I'm open to discussion if we have something to discuss.

Right now, all the answers you have are taking us further and further away from your original concept of a Dark Ranger/Night Warrior/Dark Warden hybrid class. Mawsworn Kyrian serving Sylvanas to raise new Undead has become a completely disconnected idea to your original gameplay concept. I don't see how any of this is actually connected together; you're merely improvising answers without considering what the concept is actually supposed to be about.

Like for example; During BFA, we could theorize that Sylvanas could have introduced Dark Rangers into 9.0 because BFA opened up the precedent for Dark Rangers on both Alliance and Horde. How does it work? Well she used her Val'kyr to raise Forsaken Night Elf Sentinels into her service; Rangers who have already been trained in the use of Bows and ranged weapons. Their powers could be explained to be themed around Banshee powers similar to Sylvanas, with abilities like Wailing Arrow sourcing from their inner torment. The Dark Warden Sira Moonwarden could teach them to summon the powerful Avatar of Vengeance, calling forth Spirits of Vengeance to fully express their hatred of the Living. This would be a concept for Dark Rangers using what we knew of BFA lore; before Shadowlands came out. And all of this works, because the lore as ambiguous enough to allow this to be speculatively plausible.

Of course, Shadowlands told a very different story, and many of the concepts in this theory simply do not work today. She no longer has Val'kyr. Hunters are shown to have direct access to abilities like Wailing Arrow and Withering fire, meaning these abilities are no longer exclusive to the DR identity. Sira Moonwarden was a bloodthirsty renegade and clearly not a Sylvanas loyalist; she has no interest in the Dark Ranger group at all. Most of these ideas are left at a narrative dead end, which renders this theory moot if we consider current lore.

And to address your own concept; it's quite possible but it has no cohesive sense. Take some time to actually think about how the concept would work. Treat it as if you were explaining the Starting Zone narrative for a Dark Ranger class.

[ImTheMizAwesome]

I feel sorry for people like you who get angry or upset because people play a race they enjoy...

I'm trying to hold my anticipation to a minimum for the pre order bonus's.

Aren't you the person that was spewing shit like "noone plays ugly races"? and then someone posted the stats and few more answers made you very quiet in that discussion?

You can play all your pretty elven dolls probably in skimpy transmogs, but there's already too much of elves versions and Warcraft world is rich when it comes to unique races, so it would be another wasted rare AR slot, unless they just want to go for money then the chance for it increase.

buh bye

[Kiria]

Aren't you the person that was spewing shit like "noone plays ugly races"? and then someone posted the stats and few more answers made you very quiet in that discussion?

You can play all your pretty elven dolls probably in skimpy transmogs, but there's already too much of elves versions and Warcraft world is rich when it comes to unique races, so it would be another wasted rare AR slot, unless they just want to go for money then the chance for it increase.

buh bye

I see more elven races than bestial races when actually ingame and tbh polls dont have the evidence to back it up also you are the one who is triggered because other people play elves just like certain other posters on here...

Bye bye little elf hater

[username993720]

I... you really don't know how wiki's work do you?

The wiki is quoting from a in game book, The Schools of Arcane Magic - Necromancy. this is the content of said book.


There is no actual link to death Coil in the lore that's something a fan linked to for what ever reason. The book it self just list some of the powers necromancy has One of which is being able to call upon the chill of death which is what lich's and frost dk's do which you can see if you go through Amal'thazad teaching a frost disciple.

Why would a fan intentionally mislead us? It has been there since i can remember. Is the Bolt of incendiary Shadow being Shadowbolt also wrong? Or, are you being dismissive because it doesn't fit your theory?

You think when I said we have multiple lore examples of this in multiple books I was talking about the warcraft movie?

Because, in the case, it is most likely the draining of the soul, as we know souls fuel fel. Draining life, however, revitalizes the caster.

Brutallus die's twice in game but No, pitlords (and a ton of other demons) die along the path of glory in the Illidan novel with out any undead being raised.

Would be great if you provided some sources.

Define as what? NPCs?

As existing classes.

We have Night Warrior customizations. That's as close as we'll get to Night Warriors, which remains as a super powered suicide mode in the lore. I doubt this would ever be represented through gameplay. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this, and if you really want to confirm, you can always try starting a poll about it or something.

Could you have said the same for Demon Hunters back in vanilla?

So did many people, without using arbitrary patterns.

Do you think it's mere coincidence that 90% of the leaks this season was centered around Dragon Isles?

The Dragon Isles name drop.

It's a sure thing as far as 10.0 is concerned. Are you seriously still thinking Night Warrior will be its own class? Really? Even now?

Did you think Demon Hunters will be playable when TBC launched? How about Evokers?

Sylvanas doesn't have the means to empower or train others how to become Banshees or use Banshee powers. Illidari and Death Knights have a very clear origin based on having been granted the same powers as Illidan and Arthas. We already have the origins for Dark Rangers clearly explained, so unless you put forth a formal theory to explain away the inconsistencies, there's no reason to assume the Dark Rangers we know about now would suddenly exhibit Banshee Powers.

Who could? The Lich King.
Who beat the Lich King and was powered directly by the creator of the Lich King? Sylvanas.
I think it is safe to assume that at this point, she probably can.

The Illidan novel came after Legion was announced with Demon Hunters playable. The way they were portrayed in the novel fully supports how they were added in Legion, because it was a combined multimedia effort.

And have you read the Sylvanas novel? It doesn't leave much room for a standalone Banshee-themed Dark Ranger class. They literally treat it as a title for Darkfallen Hunters, and even associated it a such by literally calling Sylvanas a Darkfallen.

Well, if Sylvansas is a Darkfallen, you pretty much bridged other Darkfallen being like her. Thanks.
You can't say she's merely a Hunter.

I never said there's anything wrong with them.

I've been saying there isn't any indication of them becoming their own class, which makes the chances of it happening highly unlikely. And with the window of opportunity being filled by Evokers, there's very little chance of seeing one in the near future. So what this leaves us with is pointing at more Dark Ranger lore in 9.2.5, without a new class to go with.

Never said it's coming in 9.2.5.
But, grasping at the slightest bits and saying this is the end of all things isn't wise either.

Skeletons aren't Forsaken or Dark Rangers. That's quite a huge difference.

Given, it was before her Shadowlands appearance.

IMO, in Sylvanas' absence and the loss of her Val'kyr, Blizzard may be positioning Calia as the one who may be able to create new Forsaken in the future. Cuz like, who else in the lore right now would be able to?

Light?
I don't think she would want to create more suffering for others.

You aren't reading correctly to be giving me this response.


I asked you

Do you think that I am saying Dark Rangers are not possible?

In which i replied "i didn't refer to this". I'm talking about the way they are added. Which, you refuse to answer. Is there something wrong with Dark Rangers taking the route of Death Knights and Demon Hunters?

I'm asking you for a coherent theory for how it all works out, and how that would be worked into a future expansion. I'm asking you for a concept we can tangibly discuss.

I am not asking or expecting you to improvise answers for every issue I bring up. My questions are intended to open you up to asking yourself these questions, and furthering the concept as a cohesive theory. As I said, I'm open to discussion if we have something to discuss.

Right now, all the answers you have are taking us further and further away from your original concept of a Dark Ranger/Night Warrior/Dark Warden hybrid class. Mawsworn Kyrian serving Sylvanas to raise new Undead has become a completely disconnected idea to your original gameplay concept. I don't see how any of this is actually connected together; you're merely improvising answers without considering what the concept is actually supposed to be about.

Like for example; During BFA, we could theorize that Sylvanas could have introduced Dark Rangers into 9.0 because BFA opened up the precedent for Dark Rangers on both Alliance and Horde. How does it work? Well she used her Val'kyr to raise Forsaken Night Elf Sentinels into her service; Rangers who have already been trained in the use of Bows and ranged weapons. Their powers could be explained to be themed around Banshee powers similar to Sylvanas, with abilities like Wailing Arrow sourcing from their inner torment. The Dark Warden Sira Moonwarden could teach them to summon the powerful Avatar of Vengeance, calling forth Spirits of Vengeance to fully express their hatred of the Living. This would be a concept for Dark Rangers using what we knew of BFA lore; before Shadowlands came out. And all of this works, because the lore as ambiguous enough to allow this to be speculatively plausible.

Of course, Shadowlands told a very different story, and many of the concepts in this theory simply do not work today. She no longer has Val'kyr. Hunters are shown to have direct access to abilities like Wailing Arrow and Withering fire, meaning these abilities are no longer exclusive to the DR identity. Sira Moonwarden was a bloodthirsty renegade and clearly not a Sylvanas loyalist; she has no interest in the Dark Ranger group at all. Most of these ideas are left at a narrative dead end, which renders this theory moot if we consider current lore.

And to address your own concept; it's quite possible but it has no cohesive sense. Take some time to actually think about how the concept would work. Treat it as if you were explaining the Starting Zone narrative for a Dark Ranger class.

Apply all you wrote to a Dark Ranger introduction.
Again, i bring up the Death Knight and Demon Hunter introductions for that purpose exactly. Imagine it to be similar.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Why would a fan intentionally mislead us? It has been there since i can remember. Is the Bolt of incendiary Shadow being Shadowbolt also wrong? Or, are you being dismissive because it doesn't fit your theory?

I couldn’t tell you why people add random shit to the wiki but it happens all the time as has been evident through out this thread.

Because, in the case, it is most likely the draining of the soul, as we know souls fuel fel. Draining life, however, revitalizes the caster.

So you don’t even know how Fel works and didn’t even bother reading the Citations on its or even drain life’s page.

Tides of war “ripping into an undead warlock who was frantically trying to drain the druid's life to power his own magical abilities.”

The Warcraft comic.

Chronicles

Would be great if you provided some sources.

just as it would be great for you to have even a basic understanding of the lore, but alas neither of us is going to get what we want as the former is Prerequisite on the later.

[Triceron]

As existing classes.

I don't regard them as existing classes. I regard them as non-playable. None of these concepts are playable, they only exist as titles in the lore. Same with anything new or different like Bard, Tinker or Apothecary. These are merely names of characters and archetypes, not existing classes.

Could you have said the same for Demon Hunters back in vanilla?

We are well past talking about new classes for Vanilla. Like I said, the chances of DR becoming its own class literally got knocked down dramatically by the last couple years of lore additions and changes, and the future left in complete obscurity considering there isn't much chance of another Death theme related expansion in the near future. All this while the chances of even having any new class diminishes as time goes on.

The Dragon Isles name drop.

Exactly. So no need for 'Cataclysm 2.0' predictions to reach a very obvious conclusion of the Dragon Isles being the next place to explore. We could easily predict it was about Dragons because Dragon Isles was literally name dropped.

Did you think Demon Hunters will be playable when TBC launched? How about Evokers?

Demon Hunters were back on the list with Wrathion's mention of the Legion returning. This was a large part of the Demon Hunter vs Tinker debates in this forum between 2015 up into Legion. So yes, plenty of potential for them to be a new class.

Evokers are literally Dragonsworn in concept, so we also did discuss variations of the concept. Just because you denied it doesn't mean that everyone else did. There was compelling discussion around the concept.

Where is there any compelling DR class speculation and discussion now?

Who could? The Lich King.
Who beat the Lich King and was powered directly by the creator of the Lich King? Sylvanas.
I think it is safe to assume that at this point, she probably can.

Then formalize your theory and stop shifting goalposts when it becomes convenient to you, because I'm not interested in chasing answers until I get tired of asking questions. There's no point in this since it's not an actual discussion about Dark Rangers, its just you trying to prove it is possible. And I am not asking you to prove it being possible, I am asking how you think it makes sense.

Well, if Sylvansas is a Darkfallen, you pretty much bridged other Darkfallen being like her. Thanks.
You can't say she's merely a Hunter.

Sylvanas isn't merely a Hunter because she is Sylvanas. No other character has shown to have Banshee powers or use Dominance magic. That is the difference.

In which i replied "i didn't refer to this". I'm talking about the way they are added. Which, you refuse to answer. Is there something wrong with Dark Rangers taking the route of Death Knights and Demon Hunters?

Yes. Blizzard has already established the origins of the Dark Rangers in WoW.

If we had any DR playable, it would most likely be the ones we already know of. The Night Elf and Blood Elf ones that are now under Calia's leadership. And Blizzard pretty much treats them as Hunters.

The only eay I'd be convinced otherwise is if there was a compelling enough theory to show the alternative, a theory that makes sense with current lore moving forward and fully regards Dark Rangers as being different.

This is not comparable to DKs because Blizzard never regarded them simply as Warriors in the lore, and had them join a Warrior hall or have DK NPCs training Warriors etc. DKs had plenty benefit of the doubt, whereas Dark Rangers lost much of that potential over the course of the last couple years.

Apply all you wrote to a Dark Ranger introduction.
Again, i bring up the Death Knight and Demon Hunter introductions for that purpose exactly. Imagine it to be similar.

Then that would work exactly fine as a Darkfallen Allied Race introduction.
There wouldn't need to be a class introduction because I think Blizzard intends to represent them as Hunters.

Think about if we were talking about a Starting Zone for Blood Mage, I'm sure you'd say they already work fine represented by Fire Mage and wouldn't need an intro. The only way that changes is if there is a compelling enough concept to introduce them as their own class. Just saying 'it would be like Death Knights and Demon Hunters' doesn't mean anything. There is nothing to discuss here since Blood Mages and Dark Rangers are not Demon Hunters or Death Knights.

[username993720]

I couldn’t tell you why people add random shit to the wiki but it happens all the time as has been evident through out this thread.

So, tell them it is wrong if you're so sure about it.

So you don’t even know how Fel works and didn’t even bother reading the Citations on its or even drain life’s page.

Tides of war “ripping into an undead warlock who was frantically trying to drain the druid's life to power his own magical abilities.”

The Warcraft comic.

Chronicles

I guess it works both ways:
https://gamepedia.cursecdn.com/wowpe...c1dbbf3d7fd4c8

just as it would be great for you to have even a basic understanding of the lore, but alas neither of us is going to get what we want as the former is Prerequisite on the later.

Nice way to weasel out of it.
If you did it above, there shouldn't be a problem to do it here as well.

I don't regard them as existing classes. I regard them as non-playable. None of these concepts are playable, they only exist as titles in the lore. Same with anything new or different like Bard, Tinker or Apothecary. These are merely names of characters and archetypes, not existing classes.

So, why do you claim they are covered by existing classes?

We are well past talking about new classes for Vanilla. Like I said, the chances of DR becoming its own class literally got knocked down dramatically by the last couple years of lore additions and changes, and the future left in complete obscurity considering there isn't much chance of another Death theme related expansion in the near future. All this while the chances of even having any new class diminishes as time goes on.

Now replace what you wrote with Dragons and imagine we are at MoP era. What were the chances of yet another Dragon expansion, with a Dragon class at that?

Exactly. So no need for 'Cataclysm 2.0' predictions to reach a very obvious conclusion of the Dragon Isles being the next place to explore. We could easily predict it was about Dragons because Dragon Isles was literally name dropped.

Well, Dragon Isles is general. My prediction goes into what themes exactly. Wrathion, Ragnaros, Bronze Dragonflight, Void and perhaps even the Twilight' Hammer. But, all of this remains to be seen.

As for other expansion predicted by my analysis, which haven't got their locations' name dropped, are a Void vs Light expansion and recently, with the Dragonflight cinematic, the themes of Emerald Dream, Elementals, Titans, Light and perhaps even Fel.

Demon Hunters were back on the list with Wrathion's mention of the Legion returning. This was a large part of the Demon Hunter vs Tinker debates in this forum between 2015 up into Legion. So yes, plenty of potential for them to be a new class.

There's a 5 year gap between TBC and MoP. So, you basically didn't even imagine Demon Hunters happening during that period of time.

Evokers are literally Dragonsworn in concept, so we also did discuss variations of the concept. Just because you denied it doesn't mean that everyone else did. There was compelling discussion around the concept.

Only discussed recently, because the possibility of Dragons featuring again after losing their powers and fulfilling their purposes in Cataclysm pretty much pushed them into a corner. Until Blizzard came up with new lore. That's what is wrong with your examples. It's all wisdon in hindsight, after you got new information that allows for them to be discussed. You're not considering them when they are at their lowest possible chance of being added.

Where is there any compelling DR class speculation and discussion now?

Here?
I don't rely on discussion for class additions.
Class concepts are not gone once they are not discussed. It's like believing you don't exist if you don't upload pictures to social media every single minute.

Then formalize your theory and stop shifting goalposts when it becomes convenient to you, because I'm not interested in chasing answers until I get tired of asking questions. There's no point in this since it's not an actual discussion about Dark Rangers, its just you trying to prove it is possible. And I am not asking you to prove it being possible, I am asking how you think it makes sense.

Why wouldn't it make sense?

Sylvanas isn't merely a Hunter because she is Sylvanas. No other character has shown to have Banshee powers or use Dominance magic. That is the difference.

Just like Arthas, the Lich King, or Illidan, the Betrayer?
We've already gone through this and i knew you'd bring this up.
No NPC comes close to the original characters. Not Death Knights prior to WotLK and not Demon Hunters prior to Legion. And you know why? Because they are unique characers . That is the whole damn purpose about them. No Death Knight is the Lich King, wearing the Helm of Domination, and no Demon Hunter consumed the Skull of Gul'dan. The same applies to Sylvanas and Dark Ranger NPCs. She is unique and will remain to be unique. A class would only mimic her powers. Other NPCs can only dream to come close to her.

Yes. Blizzard has already established the origins of the Dark Rangers in WoW.

We knew the origins of Demon Hunters by the time of Legion, as well. They didn't change their method of becoming one.

If we had any DR playable, it would most likely be the ones we already know of. The Night Elf and Blood Elf ones that are now under Calia's leadership. And Blizzard pretty much treats them as Hunters.

Blizzard treats any insignificant NPC as an existing class. It's the major ones, like Sylvanas, you should look for when considering a class. Just like it was with previous classes. If Blizzard took inspiration from DK NPCs back in vanilla, you'd have Warrior\Warlock Death Knight wannabes today.

The only eay I'd be convinced otherwise is if there was a compelling enough theory to show the alternative, a theory that makes sense with current lore moving forward and fully regards Dark Rangers as being different.

Sylvanas is different enough. If she didn't exist, you might have a point.

This is not comparable to DKs because Blizzard never regarded them simply as Warriors in the lore, and had them join a Warrior hall or have DK NPCs training Warriors etc. DKs had plenty benefit of the doubt, whereas Dark Rangers lost much of that potential over the course of the last couple years.

They literally gave them Warrior and Warlock abilities back in vanilla. If we were discussing back then, you'd probably call them Warriors\Warlocks.

Then that would work exactly fine as a Darkfallen Allied Race introduction.
There wouldn't need to be a class introduction because I think Blizzard intends to represent them as Hunters.

Think about if we were talking about a Starting Zone for Blood Mage, I'm sure you'd say they already work fine represented by Fire Mage and wouldn't need an intro. The only way that changes is if there is a compelling enough concept to introduce them as their own class. Just saying 'it would be like Death Knights and Demon Hunters' doesn't mean anything. There is nothing to discuss here since Blood Mages and Dark Rangers are not Demon Hunters or Death Knights.

If the Hunter wasn't already fully represented by existing races, i'd might have agreed with you. But, it already is. There's no point for a Darkfallen race to represent the Dark Ranger through the Hunter. It already has its identities.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

So, tell them it is wrong if you're so sure about it.

I couldn’t care less about trying to correct wowpedia, it has so many flaws that it would takes ages to do so and there’s not even any reason for me to do when I can just point out the unsupported fanfic parts of it and use direct sources from blizzard.

I guess it works both ways:
https://gamepedia.cursecdn.com/wowpe...c1dbbf3d7fd4c8

yes souls are a stronger source of power for Fel this has been known since we first got proper lore on the dark portal.

Nice way to weasel out of it.
If you did it above, there shouldn't be a problem to do it here as well.

both the links above are from the same site and said site does not have any of the proper novels just chronicles 1-3 and most of the Warcraft comics (some manga is missing), if I had digital versions of any of the novels and could just Crit-F to find passages and copy and paste them id post them all day.

But I don’t own any digital copy’s and I’m not willing to go through the effort to find digital copy’s or dig through the copy’s i do have without a search function for some one as willfully ignorant as your self.

[pacotaco]

It's one of the wierd youtube metric things: faces are actually good for improving views

If you think about it, it's not weird at all. We humans tend to relate to facial expresions. Thats why you have happy smiley persons on the packaging of a lot of products.

[Triceron]

So, why do you claim they are covered by existing classes?

I didn't. You're projecting if you think I did.

I said if Blizzard officially makes them the same I would consider them the same,otherwise it remains ambiguous right now. How did you conclude that being a claim that they are covered by existing classes?

I said they could be, not that they are.

Now replace what you wrote with Dragons and imagine we are at MoP era. What were the chances of yet another Dragon expansion, with a Dragon class at that?

The chances were always possible, but would have been slim if there was nothing indicating a Dragon related expansion. Like I said, if there is nothing to hint or indicate it happening, it would merely be a wild guess. The chances didn't get any higher until we heard the Dragon Isles name drop.

And let's be clear, you are asking a subjective question. You are asking my opinion. There is no universal, objective way to define what chances are. That's how I've always operated on discussing speculation. If you have a different idea of what the chances are, then bring forth your argument and we can discuss on those merits.

That's exactly how class discussion happened after MoP. You-know-who speculated a 100% chance for Tinkers after MoP, and it has been discussed ad nauseum since 2013. Nothing about the discussion was a right or wrong answer. No one ever knew or knows whether Tinker would ever be playable, right? It's just that the chances of it happening would rise and drop depending on the information we have. I think the potential for it was always open after Cataclysm teased Kezan, and it remained fairly open ended for a long time. BFA certainly helped its chances as well with Mechagon. At this point, even the Tinker's chances might have significantly lowered, it remains as one of the potential future classes because Undermine still hasn't been explored, and Blizzard hasn't moved Engineering into any position to take that potential away from Tinkers as a class.

And there are different factors that could raise and drop those chances. If Undermine and the Tinkers Union was name-dropped for future expansion content, then it would rise. If Undermine was added as a mid-patch continent like Mechagon, then the chances go down. If Blizzard introduces new Tinker specific NPC characters who display unique Tinker abilities, then the chances could go up. If they provide all those unique Tinker abilities in Engineering, then the chances go down. And by no means am I saying this is a global standard that everyone needs to regard. This is me explaining my opinion, and my personal process for how I determine the likelyhood.

Nothing I say here is a factual standard; merely an interpreted one that builds up to my argument for why I think they would be likely or unlikely.

Well, Dragon Isles is general. My prediction goes into what themes exactly. Wrathion, Ragnaros, Bronze Dragonflight, Void and perhaps even the Twilight' Hammer. But, all of this remains to be seen.

As for other expansion predicted by my analysis, which haven't got their locations' name dropped, are a Void vs Light expansion and recently, with the Dragonflight cinematic, the themes of Emerald Dream, Elementals, Titans, Light and perhaps even Fel.

Weren't you also predicting time travel Zin Azshari expansion in the past? And Dragon Isles having connections to Cloud Serpents? You tend to involve a hefty dose of wild speculation too, so it's quite difficult to separate what you are actually analyzing logically, and what you are wildly speculating and merely applying confirmation bias to said wild speculation. "Dark Rangers will be playable because Sylvanas was in 3 cinematics" isn't what I would consider a logical analysis, after all.

There's a 5 year gap between TBC and MoP. So, you basically didn't even imagine Demon Hunters happening during that period of time.

Why would you say that?

Demon Hunters were always possible. I said the chances went up when MoP hinted at the Legion's return. Besides, any class discussion before MoP never would have discounted any class concept being playable. The whole trend of people dismissing classes on this forum literally started with you-know-who and his '5 Reasons why Demon Hunters won't be playable' thread. That coincided with his pro-Tinker discussion. Before that, people were quite open to discussing any and all classes regardless of narrative connections or gameplay options.

So no, you're wildly accusing something you clearly know nothing about. I can literally point you to messages I wrote prior to MoP about Demon Hunters being playable.

Only discussed recently, because the possibility of Dragons featuring again after losing their powers and fulfilling their purposes in Cataclysm pretty much pushed them into a corner. Until Blizzard came up with new lore. That's what is wrong with your examples. It's all wisdon in hindsight, after you got new information that allows for them to be discussed.

It's not hindsight at all, it's pragmatic analysis of the narrative and where it's heading in the future.

You're not considering them when they are at their lowest possible chance of being added.

The fuck I'm not? I said any class is always possible. Even Runemasters and Bards and Apothecaries. Always.

Just because I say the chances are low doesn't mean I stopped considering them.

Here?
I don't rely on discussion for class additions.
Class concepts are not gone once they are not discussed. It's like believing you don't exist if you don't upload pictures to social media every single minute.

I agree. Class concepts are not gone once they are not discussed.

Runemaster is still possible even though it's almost never discussed. Just because it's not gone doesn't make it likely to happen though. See the difference?

Why wouldn't it make sense?

You've made a theory that implies:
- Mawsworn Kyrian would swear loyalty to Sylvanas when they have no reason to, and suddenly having the ability to create new 'Forsaken'
- Night Elf souls of civilians choosing to become Banshees and Dark Rangers who are loyal to Sylvanas
- Night Elf souls being ressurected into new bodies out of nowhere
- Anduin allowing Sylvanas to train new Dark Rangers out of the Mawsworn
- All of these newly created Dark Rangers also having Warden and Night Warrior abilities

If this is what you're presenting, consider me unimpressed. I don't think any of this makes sense at all. I'm not even sure where I'd start with considering any of this being plausible.

But hey, feel free to start a new thread on this and prove me wrong. Maybe other people think what you said makes perfect sense and would be plausible as a way to explain a new class. Personally? I remain unconvinced, unmoved. I don't interpret the lore as moving in the direction you're implying in this concept.

Just like Arthas, the Lich King, or Illidan, the Betrayer?
We've already gone through this and i knew you'd bring this up.
No NPC comes close to the original characters. Not Death Knights prior to WotLK and not Demon Hunters prior to Legion. And you know why? Because they are unique characers . That is the whole damn purpose about them. No Death Knight is the Lich King, wearing the Helm of Domination, and no Demon Hunter consumed the Skull of Gul'dan. The same applies to Sylvanas and Dark Ranger NPCs. She is unique and will remain to be unique. A class would only mimic her powers. Other NPCs can only dream to come close to her.

Which is the whole problem with your entire concept trying to tie everything back to being sourced to Sylvanas and having to be a reflection of her and all her abilities.

No class comes close to the original characters either. That's my point. A class could easily represent original character archetypes without having all their abilities. You're okay with Hunters representing Rexxar and Mages representing Kael'thas, even though they don't have all their unique traits and abilities available to them. Yet you would pull a double standard on ever considering Tyrande or Sylvanas being represented the same way.

Blizzard from represent them however they want. It doesn't have to be consistent. Rexxar is currently being represented by a Ranged class that does not dual wield axes or have a Mok'nathal race available, and that's absolutely fine. Dark Ranger could easily be represented in the same way and not have every Sylvanas trait represented to become formally playable. That you believe they must have a standalone class is your own hangup.

I'd say the same of Tinkers or Dragonsworn or any other class really. Do they have to be their own class? No, they don't. If Blizzard wanted to make Dragonsworn Covenants a thing, they absolutely could have. I never argued against that possibility.

We knew the origins of Demon Hunters by the time of Legion, as well. They didn't change their method of becoming one.

And they didn't have to. Demon Hunter NPCs literally had all the abilities of a Demon Hunter clearly displayed in full. They could turn into demons, they bound them to their souls. That was the primary identity of the Demon Hunter's theme and gameplay.

Here, we never see any Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities the way we've seen Sylvanas use them. None at all. Sylvanas is singularly the only one capable of this, while Blizzard openly regards the Dark Ranger title for merely anyone who is a Darkfallen Hunter, and extends that even to Nathanos who has zero traditional Dark Ranger abilities.

They never diluted the Demon Hunter class by say incorporating Warlocks or Rogues as Demon Hunters. Demon Hunter ALWAYS remained its own identity, and exclusive to the Illidari. That's how it remains today.

You can't say that about the Dark Rangers at all. They're not exclusive, they're actually quite inclusive, and the identity has been broadened to literally becoming a title of a racial type of Hunter; much like how Sunwalker is a title for a racial type of Paladin. Again, it's not me doing any of this, it's literally Blizzard shifting the lore into this direction, including with the latest novel that literally retcons and shoehorns the Darkfallen name directly onto Dark Rangers.

Sylvanas is different enough. If she didn't exist, you might have a point.

She still exists. She isn't playable and never will be, that is my point.

They literally gave them Warrior and Warlock abilities back in vanilla. If we were discussing back then, you'd probably call them Warriors\Warlocks.

On what basis are you making these claims? You were never around to discuss back then at all, were you? You only started speculating just a few years ago. I don't imagine you understanding my position if you actually believe I would have ever called them Warriors and Warlocks.

As I stated before, Blizzard never directly associated Death Knights being Warriors in the lore. Order halls did not exist, there were not any major DK lore characters that retained a 'Warrior' status, and furthermore there was no real definition of a 'Hero class' so we couldn't even properly predict a playable Death Knight being any more plausible than any other class at the time. The chances of anything being playable was all up in the air. All we could do was speculate; and it was just as plausible for a DK to be anything from a 4th spec to a Hero class upgrade for existing classes (like the 2005 lvl 40 'Upgrade' of Warriors becoming Mountain Kings, Death Knights and Demon Hunters.

Even after TBC, we never knew if Blizzard would implement a Hero Class upgrade system that suddenly lets you play as MK, DK and DH all at the same time. And I will remind you, that this system was on listed on their website in 2005.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_class

All the hero units of Warcraft III were originally supposed to become hero classes in World of Warcraft. Hero classes were still listed in 2005 on the "Under Development" page of the original website.[4] When a character hit level 40, it could start specializing in skills to become the same kind of hero. However, as Blizzard developed talent trees, they dropped the idea as they believed that the trees would provide enough customization. For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or an undead warrior could become a death knight.

If the Hunter wasn't already fully represented by existing races, i'd might have agreed with you. But, it already is. There's no point for a Darkfallen race to represent the Dark Ranger through the Hunter. It already has its identities.

Well that's your problem, not mine.

I consider your reasoning to be absolutely arbitrary and unique to yourself. Do you know anyone who uses the same reasoning that you do in tying class/spec representation to single races? I don't.

Hunter actually covers a wide variety of race/class combos. Even if we just look at WC3 as a discussion point, we can see Hunters covered Night Elf Archers, Blood Elf Rangers, Dwarven Riflemen (Which appeared in the first WoW cinematic), Mok'nathal Beastmasters like Rexxar, Undead Dark Rangers and, to an extent, even the Goblin Tinker through the use of Rockets and explosives. A Dwarven Hunter in the style of the WC3 Rifleman features prominently in both the original WoW cinematic and on the box art cover. All of these different racial WC3 archetypes exist in the Hunter class.




https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hunter

I mean take your pick from the list of notable Hunters listed there. Everyone from Hemet Nessingwary to Rexxar to Shandris to Nathanos and Sylvanas herself are all listed as notable Hunters. If your arguments live and die by WoWpedia standards, then you have your answer here.

[Teriz]

What's interesting about this, is that the forum has been very good at predicting recent class inclusions. Dark Rangers, Necromancers, and similar concepts have never really done very well in polling or speculation here. Meanwhile, Demon Hunters and more recently Dragonsworn/borne/whatever did very well in polling and speculation leading up to their eventual implementation.

Tinker remains the weird outlier that polls well, is speculated highly, yet still has not been implemented.

[Triceron]

What's interesting about this, is that the forum has been very good at predicting recent class inclusions. Dark Rangers, Necromancers, and similar concepts have never really done very well in polling or speculation here. Meanwhile, Demon Hunters and more recently Dragonsworn/borne/whatever did very well in polling and speculation leading up to their eventual implementation.

Tinker remains the weird outlier that polls well, is speculated highly, yet still has not been implemented.

Bards, Dark Ranger and Necromancer do decently on polls, just not much hard speculation since BFA/Shadowlands hit.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s-2021-edition
https://www.strawpoll.me/42279947/r

I think there's a strong case for another bow user class. I don't know if the Dark Ranger would ever be included in that conversation, considering what Blizzard has done with them in the lore.

[Teriz]

Bards, Dark Ranger and Necromancer do decently on polls, just not much hard speculation since BFA/Shadowlands hit.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s-2021-edition
https://www.strawpoll.me/42279947/r

I think there's a strong case for another bow user class. I don't know if the Dark Ranger would ever be included in that conversation, considering what Blizzard has done with them in the lore.

True;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Both options definitely lost steam after Shadowlands. Bards definitely got an uptick for some odd reason. I think their upsurge was a result of people desiring something different.

I don't really see a new bow class ever entering the game. Blizzard couldn't make three bow specs in Hunter compelling, and had to make Survival melee because the Hunter specs were running together thematically at the end of WoD.

That said, I would like to see a bow-based Demon Hunter third spec;



Why Blizzard is sleeping on that concept I have no idea.

[username993720]

I couldn’t care less about trying to correct wowpedia, it has so many flaws that it would takes ages to do so and there’s not even any reason for me to do when I can just point out the unsupported fanfic parts of it and use direct sources from blizzard.

I'm inclined to take it over the words of some random user on a forum.

yes souls are a stronger source of power for Fel this has been known since we first got proper lore on the dark portal.

No. I'm talking about replenishing one's health. Did you not read what is said in the picture?

"Your soul will serve to replenish mine.

both the links above are from the same site and said site does not have any of the proper novels just chronicles 1-3 and most of the Warcraft comics (some manga is missing), if I had digital versions of any of the novels and could just Crit-F to find passages and copy and paste them id post them all day.

But I don’t own any digital copy’s and I’m not willing to go through the effort to find digital copy’s or dig through the copy’s i do have without a search function for some one as willfully ignorant as your self.

It's merely a section about the path of glory. It shouldn't be hard to find on WoWpedia.

I didn't. You're projecting if you think I did.

I said if Blizzard officially makes them the same I would consider them the same,otherwise it remains ambiguous right now. How did you conclude that being a claim that they are covered by existing classes?

I said they could be, not that they are.

-_-

I'm not gonna search the quote, but you said they are already covered by Hunters, Paladins and Priests.

The chances were always possible, but would have been slim if there was nothing indicating a Dragon related expansion. Like I said, if there is nothing to hint or indicate it happening, it would merely be a wild guess. The chances didn't get any higher until we heard the Dragon Isles name drop.

And let's be clear, you are asking a subjective question. You are asking my opinion. There is no universal, objective way to define what chances are. That's how I've always operated on discussing speculation. If you have a different idea of what the chances are, then bring forth your argument and we can discuss on those merits.

That's exactly how class discussion happened after MoP. You-know-who speculated a 100% chance for Tinkers after MoP, and it has been discussed ad nauseum since 2013. Nothing about the discussion was a right or wrong answer. No one ever knew or knows whether Tinker would ever be playable, right? It's just that the chances of it happening would rise and drop depending on the information we have. I think the potential for it was always open after Cataclysm teased Kezan, and it remained fairly open ended for a long time. BFA certainly helped its chances as well with Mechagon. At this point, even the Tinker's chances might have significantly lowered, it remains as one of the potential future classes because Undermine still hasn't been explored, and Blizzard hasn't moved Engineering into any position to take that potential away from Tinkers as a class.

And there are different factors that could raise and drop those chances. If Undermine and the Tinkers Union was name-dropped for future expansion content, then it would rise. If Undermine was added as a mid-patch continent like Mechagon, then the chances go down. If Blizzard introduces new Tinker specific NPC characters who display unique Tinker abilities, then the chances could go up. If they provide all those unique Tinker abilities in Engineering, then the chances go down. And by no means am I saying this is a global standard that everyone needs to regard. This is me explaining my opinion, and my personal process for how I determine the likelyhood.

Nothing I say here is a factual standard; merely an interpreted one that builds up to my argument for why I think they would be likely or unlikely.

So, do you understand what's wrong with your current speculation? It doesn't take future changes into account.

Weren't you also predicting time travel Zin Azshari expansion in the past? And Dragon Isles having connections to Cloud Serpents? You tend to involve a hefty dose of wild speculation too, so it's quite difficult to separate what you are actually analyzing logically, and what you are wildly speculating and merely applying confirmation bias to said wild speculation. "Dark Rangers will be playable because Sylvanas was in 3 cinematics" isn't what I would consider a logical analysis, after all.

I am still predicting an ancient Kalimdor expansion, because Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul from the Chronicles are still unaacounted for in-game while Zuldazar was taken straight from it.

My Dragon Isles concept was nothing but a concept. It wasn't a prediction.

Why would you say that?

Demon Hunters were always possible. I said the chances went up when MoP hinted at the Legion's return. Besides, any class discussion before MoP never would have discounted any class concept being playable. The whole trend of people dismissing classes on this forum literally started with you-know-who and his '5 Reasons why Demon Hunters won't be playable' thread. That coincided with his pro-Tinker discussion. Before that, people were quite open to discussing any and all classes regardless of narrative connections or gameplay options.

So no, you're wildly accusing something you clearly know nothing about. I can literally point you to messages I wrote prior to MoP about Demon Hunters being playable.

Bullshit.
With TBC not adding Demon Hunters, the chances of yet another Legion-themed expansion and the addition of what was regarded as a mix between Warlocks and Rogues was slim as ever. Not to mention the addition of a Metamorphosis gameplay to Warlocks during Wrath. It pretty much killed its chances in the eyes of the community. So, don't sit here and behave like you always knew and that it was a sure thing.

It's not hindsight at all, it's pragmatic analysis of the narrative and where it's heading in the future.

Only when you are provided with said information. You are not willing to discuss what does not exist at the moment.

The fuck I'm not? I said any class is always possible. Even Runemasters and Bards and Apothecaries. Always.

Just because I say the chances are low doesn't mean I stopped considering them.

So, you change teams every other day.
"I'm team Tinkers!" "Oh wait, they're not happening..." "actually, now they are happening" "i guess they're not" etc...etc...

I agree. Class concepts are not gone once they are not discussed.

Runemaster is still possible even though it's almost never discussed. Just because it's not gone doesn't make it likely to happen though. See the difference?

There a big difference between Runemasters and Dark Rangers. One have been considered twice, lost and was integrated into two different classes. Dark Ranger was never a candidate, as far as we know, was not formally integrated into a class and, unlike the Runemaster, has a clear representative in the form of Sylvanas. Not to mention it barely appeared in the game in contrast with the huge of amount of spotlight given to the main Dark Ranger and the development and expansion of her class as a Dark Ranger thoughout these 3 expansions.

You've made a theory that implies:
- Mawsworn Kyrian would swear loyalty to Sylvanas when they have no reason to, and suddenly having the ability to create new 'Forsaken'

A logical replacement. They are leaderless and Sylvanas is Val'kyr-less.

- Night Elf souls of civilians choosing to become Banshees and Dark Rangers who are loyal to Sylvanas
- Night Elf souls being ressurected into new bodies out of nowhere

Night elves raised by Sylvanas chose to ally with her. They weren't mind controlled. So, it is possible.

Is there a shortage of bodies?
https://preview.redd.it/qf62d0gn7o21...=webp&ffc06c4d

- Anduin allowing Sylvanas to train new Dark Rangers out of the Mawsworn

Allows? Anduin has nothing to do with this.
Mawsworn? Who said it will be Mawsworn Dark Rangers? You think it all takes place in the Maw?

- All of these newly created Dark Rangers also having Warden and Night Warrior abilities

I'm not sure about the Night Warrior. But, the Warden seems plausible.

If this is what you're presenting, consider me unimpressed. I don't think any of this makes sense at all. I'm not even sure where I'd start with considering any of this being plausible.

But hey, feel free to start a new thread on this and prove me wrong. Maybe other people think what you said makes perfect sense and would be plausible as a way to explain a new class. Personally? I remain unconvinced, unmoved. I don't interpret the lore as moving in the direction you're implying in this concept.

Then, you're disregarding things on purpose. Like the addition of Dark Wardens and nothing else for, apparently, no good reason. The redemption of Sylvanas after we had enough of her already. Tyrande's Night Warrior basically upgrading the PotM. etc...etc...

Which is the whole problem with your entire concept trying to tie everything back to being sourced to Sylvanas and having to be a reflection of her and all her abilities.

No class comes close to the original characters either. That's my point. A class could easily represent original character archetypes without having all their abilities. You're okay with Hunters representing Rexxar and Mages representing Kael'thas, even though they don't have all their unique traits and abilities available to them. Yet you would pull a double standard on ever considering Tyrande or Sylvanas being represented the same way.

Blizzard from represent them however they want. It doesn't have to be consistent. Rexxar is currently being represented by a Ranged class that does not dual wield axes or have a Mok'nathal race available, and that's absolutely fine. Dark Ranger could easily be represented in the same way and not have every Sylvanas trait represented to become formally playable. That you believe they must have a standalone class is your own hangup.

I'd say the same of Tinkers or Dragonsworn or any other class really. Do they have to be their own class? No, they don't. If Blizzard wanted to make Dragonsworn Covenants a thing, they absolutely could have. I never argued against that possibility.

What you are saying is that Death Knights can be represented by Warriors with Raise Dead and some Plagues and Demon Hunters by Warlocks with Metamorphosis. This is not the case.

Meanwhile, we know characters like Rexxar, as a Beastmaster, is already represented through the Beast Mastery specialization. It couldn't be any more obvious.
Blood Mages, according to my analysis, are supposed to be Fire Mages. As for their representation, i agree it can be better.
Dark Rangers, however, are not part of the Hunter's identity. Not in Beastmaster, not in Marksmanship and nor in Survival. You could argue that the Ranger identity is already covered, but the whole Banshee (or Dark) powers are not and that what makes the Dark Ranger. And no, two abilities associated with a weapon is not a representation. It's like tearing away the Death Knight's death abilities and leaving him with melee. Then, he's just a Warrior.

And they didn't have to. Demon Hunter NPCs literally had all the abilities of a Demon Hunter clearly displayed in full. They could turn into demons, they bound them to their souls. That was the primary identity of the Demon Hunter's theme and gameplay.

All? They maybe had Metamorphosis and one other ability. Just like Dark Ranger NPCs. They definitely didn't have half of the abilities Demon Hunters have today, or what Illidan had in TBC.

Here, we never see any Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities the way we've seen Sylvanas use them. None at all. Sylvanas is singularly the only one capable of this, while Blizzard openly regards the Dark Ranger title for merely anyone who is a Darkfallen Hunter, and extends that even to Nathanos who has zero traditional Dark Ranger abilities.

Much like how we didn't see Death Knight exhibiting Arthas' unique abilities. It seems you don't get the point of unique characters. NPCs are only a fraction of them.

They never diluted the Demon Hunter class by say incorporating Warlocks or Rogues as Demon Hunters. Demon Hunter ALWAYS remained its own identity, and exclusive to the Illidari. That's how it remains today.

They didn't? Warlocks had most of their repertoire and even got an armor set based around them.

You can't say that about the Dark Rangers at all. They're not exclusive, they're actually quite inclusive, and the identity has been broadened to literally becoming a title of a racial type of Hunter; much like how Sunwalker is a title for a racial type of Paladin. Again, it's not me doing any of this, it's literally Blizzard shifting the lore into this direction, including with the latest novel that literally retcons and shoehorns the Darkfallen name directly onto Dark Rangers.

Sunwalkers have no associated abilities. They were meant to be a race\class combination.
The only thing they did for Dark Rangers is add Hunters to the Forsaken back then. And we now know they aren't your typical Dark Rangers, but an Undead version of the Human Woodsman.

She still exists. She isn't playable and never will be, that is my point.

And opinion.
We'll see about that.

On what basis are you making these claims? You were never around to discuss back then at all, were you? You only started speculating just a few years ago. I don't imagine you understanding my position if you actually believe I would have ever called them Warriors and Warlocks.

As I stated before, Blizzard never directly associated Death Knights being Warriors in the lore. Order halls did not exist, there were not any major DK lore characters that retained a 'Warrior' status, and furthermore there was no real definition of a 'Hero class' so we couldn't even properly predict a playable Death Knight being any more plausible than any other class at the time. The chances of anything being playable was all up in the air. All we could do was speculate; and it was just as plausible for a DK to be anything from a 4th spec to a Hero class upgrade for existing classes (like the 2005 lvl 40 'Upgrade' of Warriors becoming Mountain Kings, Death Knights and Demon Hunters.

Even after TBC, we never knew if Blizzard would implement a Hero Class upgrade system that suddenly lets you play as MK, DK and DH all at the same time. And I will remind you, that this system was on listed on their website in 2005.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_class

All the hero units of Warcraft III were originally supposed to become hero classes in World of Warcraft. Hero classes were still listed in 2005 on the "Under Development" page of the original website.[4] When a character hit level 40, it could start specializing in skills to become the same kind of hero. However, as Blizzard developed talent trees, they dropped the idea as they believed that the trees would provide enough customization. For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or an undead warrior could become a death knight.

You're dismissing Dark Rangers on the basis of them not presenting Banshee abilities. But, if that is your standard, then Death Knights would have been consisered Warriors\Warlocks by you.
You can't use that standard because we know it has no foundation.

Well that's your problem, not mine.

I consider your reasoning to be absolutely arbitrary and unique to yourself. Do you know anyone who uses the same reasoning that you do in tying class/spec representation to single races? I don't.

Hunter actually covers a wide variety of race/class combos. Even if we just look at WC3 as a discussion point, we can see Hunters covered Night Elf Archers, Blood Elf Rangers, Dwarven Riflemen (Which appeared in the first WoW cinematic), Mok'nathal Beastmasters like Rexxar, Undead Dark Rangers and, to an extent, even the Goblin Tinker through the use of Rockets and explosives. A Dwarven Hunter in the style of the WC3 Rifleman features prominently in both the original WoW cinematic and on the box art cover. All of these different racial WC3 archetypes exist in the Hunter class.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hunter

I mean take your pick from the list of notable Hunters listed there. Everyone from Hemet Nessingwary to Rexxar to Shandris to Nathanos and Sylvanas herself are all listed as notable Hunters. If your arguments live and die by WoWpedia standards, then you have your answer here.

Yes, you are right. And those Undead Dark Rangers are Forsaken Woodsmen. Nothing less nothing more.
Wowpedia lists all kinds of characters like, for exmaple, Illidan as a Notable mage because he was a Sorcerer, or even Archimonde. Since Sylvanas was a former Ranger, it makes sense.

What's interesting about this, is that the forum has been very good at predicting recent class inclusions. Dark Rangers, Necromancers, and similar concepts have never really done very well in polling or speculation here. Meanwhile, Demon Hunters and more recently Dragonsworn/borne/whatever did very well in polling and speculation leading up to their eventual implementation.

Tinker remains the weird outlier that polls well, is speculated highly, yet still has not been implemented.

Said the guy who didn't believe Demon Hunters will be added.

Bards, Dark Ranger and Necromancer do decently on polls, just not much hard speculation since BFA/Shadowlands hit.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s-2021-edition
https://www.strawpoll.me/42279947/r

I think there's a strong case for another bow user class. I don't know if the Dark Ranger would ever be included in that conversation, considering what Blizzard has done with them in the lore.

Then, what would that be if not Dark Rangers or Priestesses of the Moon?

True;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Both options definitely lost steam after Shadowlands. Bards definitely got an uptick for some odd reason. I think their upsurge was a result of people desiring something different.

I don't really see a new bow class ever entering the game. Blizzard couldn't make three bow specs in Hunter compelling, and had to make Survival melee because the Hunter specs were running together thematically at the end of WoD.

Blizzard is lost. They could easily make a Beastmaster, Sapper and Headhunter specs out of the 3 Hunter specializations.

That said, I would like to see a bow-based Demon Hunter third spec;

Why Blizzard is sleeping on that concept I have no idea.

Why? It's missing a spellcasting aspect. Ever seen a Demon shoot a bow and arrow?

[Teriz]

Said the guy who didn't believe Demon Hunters will be added.

Correct. I didn't believe that Blizzard would rip apart an existing class to bring in a new class. I admit I was wrong about that.

Are you prepared to admit that you're wrong about Dark Rangers/Night Warrior/etc. ever becoming a class?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm inclined to take it over the words of some random user on a forum.

You must be aware that wowpeida is just the words of some random user on wowpedia right? putting random link's or fanfic that aren't supported by the actual cited lore doesn't become more valid then you or me making random claims on here and linking to unrelated wow cations just because it's on wowpeida and not mmo champion.

No. I'm talking about replenishing one's health. Did you not read what is said in the picture?

"Your soul will serve to replenish mine.

Felgrim is not injured when that panel takes place he take's his first blow in combat as he's giving his little monolog what ever he was gonna use said soul for it's not to replenish his health and he then turns it on the centaur that actually hit him before he is later healed by the light.

Do you maybe see why I prefer first hand sources with theses?

It's merely a section about the path of glory. It shouldn't be hard to find on WoWpedia.

The wowpeida page is on the path (and dark portal) is incredibly sparse about the retaking, Here the chronicle's mentions If you want more specifics about the battle you'll need to go read the illidan novel.

[Triceron]

Then, what would that be if not Dark Rangers or Priestesses of the Moon?

Blizzard has opened the precedent for anything absolutely new.

Look to the Evoker for an example. We now have precedent for existing themes and gameplay from different sources being packaged into a class that has never appeared in WoW ever before.

They are no longer restricted by old lore and are free to expand as they choose.

Priestess of the Moon is a very niche and Night Elf exclusive concept. It' much like how you thought "Dragonsworn" was limited to serving only one dragonflight at a time and already being represented as Mage or Druid servants of Dragons. Evoker completely bypasses those limits.

And while you may think Night Warrior fits this description, the problem is it remains niche and exlcusive to Elune, as well as directly implied in lore to be a literal power-up mode that ultimately results in the death of the individual. So it would not be an ideal concept for a new Class.

A future Bow user could be designed however they wish.

- - - Updated - - -

So, do you understand what's wrong with your current speculation? It doesn't take future changes into account.

Sure it does. I take all future changes into account as they come.

If you're implying a 'future change' that is wild speculation? Well what's the point in that, you can't make any accurate prediction on simply saying Blizzard could make a Bard class because they could. There's no way to gauge what the chances actually are if so.

I am still predicting an ancient Kalimdor expansion, because Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul from the Chronicles are still unaacounted for in-game while Zuldazar was taken straight from it.

It's history though. Same with War of the Ancients. Same with the events of Warcraft 1 and 2. It's doubtful that these will become playable in the future considering Blizzard seems to want to move forward rather from here on out. I'm not sure how much they wish to bank on having an entire expansion set in the past again, whether alternate universe or not.

But yes, you are fine to speculate such. I simply am not convinced it would be likely, even if Chronicles has official art for it and makes mention of it. It's all history.

Bullshit.
With TBC not adding Demon Hunters, the chances of yet another Legion-themed expansion and the addition of what was regarded as a mix between Warlocks and Rogues was slim as ever

At that point there was no precedent for any New Class being tied to Story and Setting, remember this. You're absolutely applying retroactive information to a time when we have not had ANY new class playable yet in any form. That's the difference. Back then, if they added Demon Hunter to Wrath of the Lich King, no one would bat an eye. I mean think about it, Runemaster was literally on the shortlist for Wrath, and Runemasters have almost zero connection to Northrend or the Lich King.

Like I said, if they went with Hero Class concept like they listed in 2005 on their official webpage, they could have rolled out multiple Hero Classes for existing class 'evolutions' without tying them into story or setting. We literally did not know how future class content was going to be rolled out. I remember seeing speculation, theories and 'leaks' of Hero classes as far back as in Vanilla.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Wor...volution_guide

The original concept for making a death knight was to have the player sacrifice a pre-existing high-level character in order to create the death knight.[38] The cut quest N [80] Kanrethad's Quest is presumably a remnant of that old quest chain.

There were some really interesting and out-there ideas for what a class could be. I mean if this were to have happened, then there's a precedent set where we could see existing classes literally training to be Demon Hunters, or becoming Dragonsworn, or becoming Dark Rangers and Necromancers. It wouldn't be a standalone class, it would be 'evolving' playable classes into something else. So like I said, speculating classes back then was WAY DIFFERENT than how we regard future classes now.

So, you change teams every other day.
"I'm team Tinkers!" "Oh wait, they're not happening..." "actually, now they are happening" "i guess they're not" etc...etc...

What are you even talking about? How does predicting what a future playable class would be have to do anything with 'Teams'?

You think there's a group that is 'Team Evoker' pushing for this class to exist or something? Because I don't see it that way at all. I don't make predictions based on being a hardcore fan of something, I make predictions based on what makes sense as being realistically made into a playable class in the future. That is, if we even have new classes in the future.

There a big difference between Runemasters and Dark Rangers.

Only in your opinion. And not everyone has to agree with that opinion.

A logical replacement. They are leaderless and Sylvanas is Val'kyr-less.

Not at all if you actually followed the story and not just apply confirmation bias towards every one of your arguments. I mean this is like arguing that Kael'thas should reclaim his position as Sun King because he turned good again. We need more than just a bare minimum regard of what's going on.

Night elves raised by Sylvanas chose to ally with her. They weren't mind controlled. So, it is possible.

We can clearly see that the Night Elves are also not fiercely loyal to Sylvanas and are now choosing to work under Calia, so their freedom works both ways. And as I've said, if Blizzard didn't already resolve their story to serving under Calia, then I'd agree we would still have potential to talk about Sylvanas maintaining influence over the Dark Rangers. I've been absolutely clear that what you're implying now goes against how the lore has literally moved forward from that.

The only other group out there would be the Loyalists, and we don't know where they are or what their intentions are. Would they still serve Sylvanas if they know she got her soul back and is choosing to redeem her past actions? We don't know.

Is there a shortage of bodies?

What are you implying? Another war to kill more Night Elves just so you can have new Dark Rangers?

If this is what you're implying, consider me unconvincned.

Allows? Anduin has nothing to do with this.
Mawsworn? Who said it will be Mawsworn Dark Rangers? You think it all takes place in the Maw?

Then explain your concept in full rather than giving me disjointed answers. Like I've asked you to from the start.

If you say Sylvanas gains leadership of the Mawsworn and Sylvanas is in the Maw, where the fuck do you think we're talking about here? Center of Orgrimmar?

Then, you're disregarding things on purpose. Like the addition of Dark Wardens and nothing else for, apparently, no good reason. The redemption of Sylvanas after we had enough of her already. Tyrande's Night Warrior basically upgrading the PotM. etc...etc...

If you aren't providing me a consistent theory that makes sense with current lore, then of course I'm going to disregard it. If the current lore is Genn is leader of the Gilneans and there is no implied narrative of him being removed from power, then I'm not gonna automatically assume that he's gonna get replaced.

Right now you're implying a narrative that is absolutely counter-intuitive to the ongoing narrative, and you aren't presenting any consistent theory as to how or why. Someone needs to present a theory for why and how Genn would be replaced in the future in order for anyone to actually discuss the plausability of it happening. Otherwise, would you just regard the idea of 'Genn will be replaced' just because someone says so? There's nothing to discuss because there's nothing pointing to it happening.

Even with Anduin, there's no reason to think he would step down from his position. But if we were to frame it with what we knew of Shadowlands and his turn to 'Arthas 2.0', then yes it makes sense to consider him stepping down as King, and the possibilities could be discussed. It doesn't make sense to discuss that just at the end of BFA before the events of Shadowlands though, since the automatic precedent is that he is King. Someone would need to present a theory on why and how it would happen. If someone speculated that Sylvanas' 'Master' was targetting Anduin to be his Darth Vader, then that would be something we could tangibly discuss.

What you are saying is that Death Knights can be represented by Warriors with Raise Dead and some Plagues and Demon Hunters by Warlocks with Metamorphosis. This is not the case.

This was absolutely the case if we regard the intent of the designers at certain points in WoW's development.

That this didn't end up being the outcome for WoW doesn't change the fact that this was a direction that the Designers themselves had originally planned at some point. So yes, it could have happened. Just like Mongrel Horde could have been a thing at one point in time.

You have to remember that at the time when they planned on MK, DK and DH all being 'Warrior Hero Class', WoW raiding was designed with literally ONE viable Tank class; Warrior. Druid and Paladin tanking was only viable for Dungeons, not Raid. If you played either a Druid or Paladin, you were either Healing or Buffing and decursing/cleansing. WoW was very much designed like Everquest at the start.

But the whole Banshee (or Dark) powers are not and that what makes the Dark Ranger.
---
You're dismissing Dark Rangers on the basis of them not presenting Banshee abilities.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I've said no one has presented a compelling speculation for how it all works out. Not even you, mind you.

And I've stated clearly that Blizzard does not seem to care to keep them exclusive either. All Hunters have access to Wailing Arrow and Withering fire; two abilities from HOTS which were exclusively tied to the Banshee theme. Blizzard themselves are open to having the Hunter represent Banshee abilities.

If all you are asking for is representation of Banshee abilities in the Hunter class, then that's no different than asking for Blood Mage representation in the Fire Mage class. They could be better represented, that's all. Otherwise, I would assume that Blizzard considers the gameplay of Dark Rangers and Blood Mages effectively filled, with little reason to pursue a future playable class for them.

Like I said many times; if there was any time for a new Dark Ranger class, then Shadowlands would have been it. If they took out the time and effort spent on Covenant abilities, they could easily have created a full Dark Ranger class.

Yes, you are right. And those Undead Dark Rangers are Forsaken Woodsmen. Nothing less nothing more.
Wowpedia lists all kinds of characters like, for exmaple, Illidan as a Notable mage because he was a Sorcerer, or even Archimonde. Since Sylvanas was a former Ranger, it makes sense.

The difference being Sylvanas is still a Hunter, by Blizzard's own standards. It's something I do not agree with, but regard as being true until they officially expand the Dark Ranger as being a standalone thing. And at this point in time, I consider it more likely for them to bridge them directly into the Hunter through customizations and through introducing Darkfallen more than I would consider them leaving room open to consider a Dark Ranger standalone class.

[username993720]

Correct. I didn't believe that Blizzard would rip apart an existing class to bring in a new class. I admit I was wrong about that.

Are you prepared to admit that you're wrong about Dark Rangers/Night Warrior/etc. ever becoming a class?

Why?

You must be aware that wowpeida is just the words of some random user on wowpedia right? putting random link's or fanfic that aren't supported by the actual cited lore doesn't become more valid then you or me making random claims on here and linking to unrelated wow cations just because it's on wowpeida and not mmo champion.

Then, i take it they are like you and perhaps even worse?
Becaue that sure doesn't look like WoWedia.

Felgrim is not injured when that panel takes place he take's his first blow in combat as he's giving his little monolog what ever he was gonna use said soul for it's not to replenish his health and he then turns it on the centaur that actually hit him before he is later healed by the light.

Do you maybe see why I prefer first hand sources with theses?

Nothing he says suggest he was using it to replenish his magic.
It might not be used to fix his hand, but his energy.

The wowpeida page is on the path (and dark portal) is incredibly sparse about the retaking, Here the chronicle's mentions If you want more specifics about the battle you'll need to go read the illidan novel.[/QUOTE]

So, look for the Pitlord who died there?

Blizzard has opened the precedent for anything absolutely new.

Look to the Evoker for an example. We now have precedent for existing themes and gameplay from different sources being packaged into a class that has never appeared in WoW ever before.

They are no longer restricted by old lore and are free to expand as they choose.

Priestess of the Moon is a very niche and Night Elf exclusive concept. It' much like how you thought "Dragonsworn" was limited to serving only one dragonflight at a time and already being represented as Mage or Druid servants of Dragons. Evoker completely bypasses those limits.

And while you may think Night Warrior fits this description, the problem is it remains niche and exlcusive to Elune, as well as directly implied in lore to be a literal power-up mode that ultimately results in the death of the individual. So it would not be an ideal concept for a new Class.

A future Bow user could be designed however they wish.

Evoker existed. As Dragonsworn.

Sure it does. I take all future changes into account as they come.

If you're implying a 'future change' that is wild speculation? Well what's the point in that, you can't make any accurate prediction on simply saying Blizzard could make a Bard class because they could. There's no way to gauge what the chances actually are if so.

While we can't say what the future holds, we also can't say the opening is closed for this or that.

It's history though. Same with War of the Ancients. Same with the events of Warcraft 1 and 2. It's doubtful that these will become playable in the future considering Blizzard seems to want to move forward rather from here on out. I'm not sure how much they wish to bank on having an entire expansion set in the past again, whether alternate universe or not.

But yes, you are fine to speculate such. I simply am not convinced it would be likely, even if Chronicles has official art for it and makes mention of it. It's all history.

Yet, here we are with a Warlords of Draenor expansion.

At that point there was no precedent for any New Class being tied to Story and Setting, remember this. You're absolutely applying retroactive information to a time when we have not had ANY new class playable yet in any form. That's the difference. Back then, if they added Demon Hunter to Wrath of the Lich King, no one would bat an eye. I mean think about it, Runemaster was literally on the shortlist for Wrath, and Runemasters have almost zero connection to Northrend or the Lich King.

Like I said, if they went with Hero Class concept like they listed in 2005 on their official webpage, they could have rolled out multiple Hero Classes for existing class 'evolutions' without tying them into story or setting. We literally did not know how future class content was going to be rolled out. I remember seeing speculation, theories and 'leaks' of Hero classes as far back as in Vanilla.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Wor...volution_guide

The original concept for making a death knight was to have the player sacrifice a pre-existing high-level character in order to create the death knight.[38] The cut quest N [80] Kanrethad's Quest is presumably a remnant of that old quest chain.

There were some really interesting and out-there ideas for what a class could be. I mean if this were to have happened, then there's a precedent set where we could see existing classes literally training to be Demon Hunters, or becoming Dragonsworn, or becoming Dark Rangers and Necromancers. It wouldn't be a standalone class, it would be 'evolving' playable classes into something else. So like I said, speculating classes back then was WAY DIFFERENT than how we regard future classes now.

Pretty sure we knew Death Knights were coming alongside a Lich King expansion.

What are you even talking about? How does predicting what a future playable class would be have to do anything with 'Teams'?

You think there's a group that is 'Team Evoker' pushing for this class to exist or something? Because I don't see it that way at all. I don't make predictions based on being a hardcore fan of something, I make predictions based on what makes sense as being realistically made into a playable class in the future. That is, if we even have new classes in the future.

Either way, you are quick to flip your opinion once the tiniest of bits are thrown out there.

Only in your opinion. And not everyone has to agree with that opinion.

In terms of what we've seen.

Not at all if you actually followed the story and not just apply confirmation bias towards every one of your arguments. I mean this is like arguing that Kael'thas should reclaim his position as Sun King because he turned good again. We need more than just a bare minimum regard of what's going on.

I wouldn't mind that. Blood elves need their identity back. As for his return, i don't know if he is planned to do so, but we know Vol'jin is, for example.

We can clearly see that the Night Elves are also not fiercely loyal to Sylvanas and are now choosing to work under Calia, so their freedom works both ways. And as I've said, if Blizzard didn't already resolve their story to serving under Calia, then I'd agree we would still have potential to talk about Sylvanas maintaining influence over the Dark Rangers. I've been absolutely clear that what you're implying now goes against how the lore has literally moved forward from that.

The only other group out there would be the Loyalists, and we don't know where they are or what their intentions are. Would they still serve Sylvanas if they know she got her soul back and is choosing to redeem her past actions? We don't know.

And Calia wouldn't be one to forgive her?

What are you implying? Another war to kill more Night Elves just so you can have new Dark Rangers?

No. Using other, existing corpses.

Then explain your concept in full rather than giving me disjointed answers. Like I've asked you to from the start.

If you say Sylvanas gains leadership of the Mawsworn and Sylvanas is in the Maw, where the fuck do you think we're talking about here? Center of Orgrimmar?

Azeroth.

If you aren't providing me a consistent theory that makes sense with current lore, then of course I'm going to disregard it. If the current lore is Genn is leader of the Gilneans and there is no implied narrative of him being removed from power, then I'm not gonna automatically assume that he's gonna get replaced.

Right now you're implying a narrative that is absolutely counter-intuitive to the ongoing narrative, and you aren't presenting any consistent theory as to how or why. Someone needs to present a theory for why and how Genn would be replaced in the future in order for anyone to actually discuss the plausability of it happening. Otherwise, would you just regard the idea of 'Genn will be replaced' just because someone says so? There's nothing to discuss because there's nothing pointing to it happening.

Even with Anduin, there's no reason to think he would step down from his position. But if we were to frame it with what we knew of Shadowlands and his turn to 'Arthas 2.0', then yes it makes sense to consider him stepping down as King, and the possibilities could be discussed. It doesn't make sense to discuss that just at the end of BFA before the events of Shadowlands though, since the automatic precedent is that he is King. Someone would need to present a theory on why and how it would happen. If someone speculated that Sylvanas' 'Master' was targetting Anduin to be his Darth Vader, then that would be something we could tangibly discuss.

Genn didn't get the development Sylvanas and Tyrande got.
We already have Death Knights, so Anduin's change isn't relevant.
Got any other potential classes getting such treatments?

This was absolutely the case if we regard the intent of the designers at certain points in WoW's development.

That this didn't end up being the outcome for WoW doesn't change the fact that this was a direction that the Designers themselves had originally planned at some point. So yes, it could have happened. Just like Mongrel Horde could have been a thing at one point in time.

You have to remember that at the time when they planned on MK, DK and DH all being 'Warrior Hero Class', WoW raiding was designed with literally ONE viable Tank class; Warrior. Druid and Paladin tanking was only viable for Dungeons, not Raid. If you played either a Druid or Paladin, you were either Healing or Buffing and decursing/cleansing. WoW was very much designed like Everquest at the start.

Right. It didn't happen. Because Arthas and Illidan were big enough characters to warrant their own classes.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I've said no one has presented a compelling speculation for how it all works out. Not even you, mind you.

And I've stated clearly that Blizzard does not seem to care to keep them exclusive either. All Hunters have access to Wailing Arrow and Withering fire; two abilities from HOTS which were exclusively tied to the Banshee theme. Blizzard themselves are open to having the Hunter represent Banshee abilities.

Two abilities based on an equippable item? That's not even on the Warlock Metamorphosis level, which was taken out in the end. That's a weak case right there. Ever heard of borrowed power? That's what it is.
Not to mention it is also present in the Rogue, which you keep forgetting.

If all you are asking for is representation of Banshee abilities in the Hunter class, then that's no different than asking for Blood Mage representation in the Fire Mage class. They could be better represented, that's all. Otherwise, I would assume that Blizzard considers the gameplay of Dark Rangers and Blood Mages effectively filled, with little reason to pursue a future playable class for them.

If i would, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Like I said many times; if there was any time for a new Dark Ranger class, then Shadowlands would have been it. If they took out the time and effort spent on Covenant abilities, they could easily have created a full Dark Ranger class.

You wouldn't get Evokers.
They planned Evokers years in advance. Dark Ranger never had a place in Shadowlands to begin with.

The difference being Sylvanas is still a Hunter, by Blizzard's own standards. It's something I do not agree with, but regard as being true until they officially expand the Dark Ranger as being a standalone thing. And at this point in time, I consider it more likely for them to bridge them directly into the Hunter through customizations and through introducing Darkfallen more than I would consider them leaving room open to consider a Dark Ranger standalone class.

Is she? I don't recall her being much of a Hunter in Sanctum of Domination.
They don't officially regard something as separate until they add it. So, you'll need to wait for its addition in order to discuss it.
What are Darkfallen Rogues? Also Dark Rangers?