If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Ielenia]

Again those changes emerged from balancing the spell. I'm not seeing why you're so confused about this. It's fairly obvious.

It's several changes that altered names, functionalities and gameplay. By your logic, they are not the same ability, balance or not.

Which was never my argument. I'm saying that simply because WC aspects aren't canon lore in WoW currently doesn't mean that Warcraft lore is "meaningless" because Blizzard can be pulled into the game and made canon lore. They've done it multiple times before.

Who the hell is saying "warcraft lore is meaningless"? Are you even reading what people is writing, here? Warcraft 3 lore is meaningful to the Warcraft franchise, but Warcraft 3 lore is only the official campaigns. Multiplayer maps and other multiplayer-only features, like the Goblin Tinker, are not canon.

Who knows. Maybe they felt skittish after taking Metamorphosis from Warlocks and didn't want it to occur with Rogues as well.

The "Mana Burn" name was not in use.

What abilities are you talking about?

Blur. Name, functionality and gameplay altered. By your logic, they are not the same thing.

Gazlowe appears in WC3:R with a claw pack, so yeah its canon.

And I'll repeat:

Warcraft 3: Reforged's canonicity is arguable thanks to all the lore inconsistencies, as well as a lack of statement from Blizzard about the canonicity of the game, considering it has a third party making alterations to it.

Yet we've had multiple HotS abilities show up in WoW.....

And, as I explained, that is irrelevant, because Heroes of the Storm is not a game canon to the Warcraft universe, therefore just because something exists in that game it doesn't mean it's canon to WoW.

Blizzard has said that all games released by them are canon lore and aspects of the story can be retconned but not the entire games themselves.

That statement was made long before a game of theirs was re-released after being altered by a third party, in this case, Warcraft 3: Reforged. That statement does not apply here.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I've been thoroughly turned off by tinkers simply because of all the bad-faith "arguments" and non sequiturs used by some of their proponents. Literally any other class would be better.

[Teriz]

They're all referred to as Engineers, just like Gazlowe is. And Gazlowe in WC3 was a Vendor, which reinforces the connection that Tinker has to Engineers and Professions.

Gotta love the semantics. Tinkers are a type of engineer, so you interchange the term "Engineer" to make it seem like we're actually talking about the profession instead of the engineers of WoW that include everything from Tinkers like Mekkatorque to Siegecrafters like Blackfuse, to baseline engineers like the profession trainers.

The abilities that the NPCs have are just Engineering abilities that aren't in the profession, much like what you can say about any NPC that has abilities that our classes can't do.

But the engineering profession isn't a class. Why would class-style NPC abilities be linked to a profession?

Actually not quite, because the Pandaren actually had lore in WC3. Chen was playable and used all of his abilities in the game. Tinker was never formally playable in lore at all, in any game.

Well yes because the Tinker was brought in after the game released. However it's quite obvious that Gazlowe was supposed to have the Tinker model in WC3. Also quite a few heroes weren't playable in the campaign, not just the Tinker.

It's a mechagnome. Even states it in the flavour text, lol!

"Mechagnomes were created by the titans, apparently as servants and caretakers, much like the earthen. This mechagnome was likely damaged because it is no longer focused on its original tasks and seems content to follow you."

So is it a Mechagnome or a Clockwork Gnome? Because the companion is called Clockwork Gnome.

[Triceron]

Gotta love the semantics. Tinkers are a type of engineer, so you interchange the term "Engineer" to make it seem like we're actually talking about the profession instead of the engineers of WoW

Isn't that what you've been doing with Clockwork Gnomes and Mechagnomes though? Just saying, Pot Kettle Black.

But the engineering profession isn't a class. Why would class-style NPC abilities be linked to a profession?

Because NPCs aren't bound by classes or professions? They're NPCs. A cook can have abilities like Cookie the Murloc boss in Deadmines. It doesn't mean we should have a Cook class just because Cookie exists. NPCs are just NPCs.

Well yes because the Tinker was brought in after the game released. However it's quite obvious that Gazlowe was supposed to have the Tinker model in WC3. Also quite a few heroes weren't playable in the campaign, not just the Tinker.

Yes, and most of those likely aren't playable classes in WoW either. They'd be designated as NPCs, bosses, vendors or other. We don't have Alchemists playable, but it's pretty clear that we can still be Alchemists through the profession.

So is it a Mechagnome or a Clockwork Gnome? Because the companion is called Clockwork Gnome.

There are different types of Clockwork Gnomes, this in particular being a name of a Pet.

[Teriz]

It's several changes that altered names, functionalities and gameplay. By your logic, they are not the same ability, balance or not.

If you're talking about "Blur", Blur isn't Evasion, it's a completely new ability created for Demon Hunters.

Who the hell is saying "warcraft lore is meaningless"? Are you even reading what people is writing, here? Warcraft 3 lore is meaningful to the Warcraft franchise, but Warcraft 3 lore is only the official campaigns. Multiplayer maps and other multiplayer-only features, like the Goblin Tinker, are not canon.

Which is why Gazlowe appears in WC3:R as a Tinker with a claw pack correct?

The "Mana Burn" name was not in use.

And they probably didn't want to use it because it doesn't do what Mana Burn did.

Blur. Name, functionality and gameplay altered. By your logic, they are not the same thing.

What WC3 ability is Blur supposed to be?

And I'll repeat:

Which is entirely your opinion. The FACT is that any game released by Blizzard is canon. You can't say WC3:R isn't canon until Blizzard comes out and says it.

And, as I explained, that is irrelevant, because Heroes of the Storm is not a game canon to the Warcraft universe, therefore just because something exists in that game it doesn't mean it's canon to WoW.

Yet it's canon enough to pull abilities from?

That statement was made long before a game of theirs was re-released after being altered by a third party, in this case, Warcraft 3: Reforged. That statement does not apply here.

LoL! That statement was made in 2012. Blizzard had worked with outside developers several times up to that point. Heck their WC comics are considered canon and they were produced by Wildstorm Comics which is now part of DC comics. Also Blizzard co-developed WC3:R.

In short, you're just making up crap at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't that what you've been doing with Clockwork Gnomes and Mechagnomes though? Just saying, Pot Kettle Black.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that we have a Clockwork Gnome being called a Mechagnome and saying it was built by titans. I'm also unaware of any Clockwork Gnomes/Mechagnomes that profession engineering can construct.

Care to point one out?

Because NPCs aren't bound by classes or professions? They're NPCs. A cook can have abilities like Cookie the Murloc boss in Deadmines. It doesn't mean we should have a Cook class just because Cookie exists. NPCs are just NPCs.

Yeah, but Cookie's ability was Acid Splash. That's also not in the profession.

In other words, Cookie was a cook, but he wasn't a profession cook. Just like the Island Expedition teams were engineers, but they're not engineers like the profession engineers.

Yes, and most of those likely aren't playable classes in WoW either. They'd be designated as NPCs, bosses, vendors or other. We don't have Alchemists playable, but it's pretty clear that we can still be Alchemists through the profession.

What about Dark Rangers? They weren't playable in the campaign either. Howabout Pit Lords? You couldn't play as a Pit Lord during the campaign.

Are we going to say that Dark Rangers and Pit Lords aren't in the lore because they were only playable in multiplayer maps?

There are different types of Clockwork Gnomes, just as there are different types of Mechagnomes. The one you are talking about specifically? I'd call it a Pet, since that's its formal designation. It is neither a Mechagnome or a Clockwork Gnome, it's a Pet that's called a Clockwork Gnome that formally was a Mechagnome but no longer functions as one.

Blame Blizzard for lacking clarification.

Yet it's lore states that it is a mechagnome and calls it a Clockwork Gnome. Are we going to now ignore lore because it doesn't jive with your head canon?

[Triceron]

Care to point one out?

You mean besides the one that you've been ignoring this entire time, Blingtron?

What would you consider Blingtron if not an Engineering constructed Mechagnome/Clockwork Gnome?

Yeah, but Cookie's ability was Acid Splash. That's also not in the profession.

Yes, because NPC abilities don't all get added to Classes and Professions. Sometimes they're just NPC abilities.

In other words, Cookie was a cook, but he wasn't a profession cook. Just like the Island Expedition teams were engineers, but they're not engineers like the profession engineers.

They're all NPCs, yes. Non-Player Characters. As in, none of their abilities suggest they should or would be professions or classes.

What about Dark Rangers? They weren't playable in the campaign either. Howabout Pit Lords? You couldn't play as a Pit Lord during the campaign.

Are we going to say that Dark Rangers and Pit Lords aren't in the lore because they were only playable in multiplayer maps?

You're confusing being playable with being in the campaign. Tinkers were never in the WC3 campaign, and even Gazlowe is referred to specifically as an Engineer and was a Vendor and Questgiver only.

Yet it's lore states that it is a mechagnome and calls it a Clockwork Gnome. Are we going to now ignore lore because it doesn't jive with your head canon?

But that isn't Blingtron, which is a construct like a Clockwork Goblin. That's a Pet that happens to be called a Clockwork Gnome. You're talking about the lore of a Pet, and Pets are just Pets.

Just like there is a Pet called a Pandaren Monk that isn't the same as the Monk class. I mean, do you consider the Monk class to only be Pandaren because of the Pandaren Monk Pets

[Teriz]

You mean besides the one that you've been ignoring this entire time, Blingtron?

According to this;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Blingtron

They resemble Mechagnomes, they’re not actual mechagnomes.

What would you consider Blingtron if not an Engineering constructed Mechagnome/Clockwork Gnome?

A robotic construct that resembles a Mechagnome.

Yes, because NPC abilities don't all get added to Classes and Professions. Sometimes they're just NPC abilities.

What NPC abilities have been added to professions?

They're all NPCs, yes. Non-Player Characters. As in, none of their abilities suggest they should or would be professions or classes.

Again, what NPC abilities have been added to professions?

You're confusing being playable with being in the campaign. Tinkers were never in the WC3 campaign, and even Gazlowe is referred to specifically as an Engineer and was a Vendor and Questgiver only.

But clearly Gazlowe is a Tinker. He’s pretty much pasted over from HotS.

But that isn't Blingtron, which is a construct like a Clockwork Goblin. That's a Pet that happens to be called a Clockwork Gnome. You're talking about the lore of a Pet, and Pets are just Pets.

Just like there is a Pet called a Pandaren Monk that isn't the same as the Monk class. I mean, do you consider the Monk class to only be Pandaren because of the Pandaren Monk Pets

Well according to the lore, Blingtrons aren’t mechagnomes either.

[Ielenia]

If you're talking about "Blur", Blur isn't Evasion, it's a completely new ability created for Demon Hunters.

In your opinion. Blur is supposed to be WC3 DH's evasion ability.

Which is why Gazlowe appears in WC3:R as a Tinker with a claw pack correct?

And I'll repeat:

Warcraft 3: Reforged's canonicity is arguable thanks to all the lore inconsistencies, as well as a lack of statement from Blizzard about the canonicity of the game, considering it has a third party making alterations to it.

And they probably didn't want to use it because it doesn't do what Mana Burn did.

And that is your opinion. An opinion that doesn't reflect what Blizzard has done in the past. On top of that, an interrupt called "mana burn" would still be a representative of the DH's ability.

What WC3 ability is Blur supposed to be?

The WC3 DH's Evasion.

The FACT is that any game released by Blizzard is canon. You can't say WC3:R isn't canon until Blizzard comes out and says it.

The actual fact is that statement covers only games released up until the moment that statement was made. It doesn't necessarily cover games released after said statement, and on top of that, I'll repeat:

Warcraft 3: Reforged's canonicity is arguable thanks to all the lore inconsistencies, as well as a lack of statement from Blizzard about the canonicity of the game, considering it has a third party making alterations to it.

Yet it's canon enough to pull abilities from?

It's not just "canon enough". It's plain and simply not canon at all.

LoL! That statement was made in 2012. Blizzard had worked with outside developers several times up to that point. Heck their WC comics are considered canon and they were produced by Wildstorm Comics which is now part of DC comics. Also Blizzard co-developed WC3:R.

In short, you're just making up crap at this point.

Re-read what I wrote, and realize your mistake:

That statement was made long before a game of theirs was re-released after being altered by a third party, in this case, Warcraft 3: Reforged. That statement does not apply here.

I specifically used Warcraft 3: Reforged as an example, because it's the only game in Blizzard's library that was altered by a third party.

[Triceron]

A robotic construct that resembles a Mechagnome.

Yep, I said that a few posts before. They are constructs, just like Clockwork Goblins are.

What NPC abilities have been added to professions?

None, which is why Tinker NPCs have no bearing on any new class.

But clearly Gazlowe is a Tinker. He’s pretty much pasted over from HotS.

Then he is also a vendor since that same lore you're drawing from had him as a vendor. Same as Tinkers in WoW.

Well according to the lore, Blingtrons aren’t mechagnomes either.

Yes. They're robotic constructs, like Clockwork goblins.

[Teriz]

In your opinion. Blur is supposed to be WC3 DH's evasion ability.

Blur is a replacement for Evasion. Evasion is in the Rogue class.

But let's remember the original point here; Evasion was translated rather faithfully to WoW.

And I'll repeat:

But we have a statement from Blizzard where they clearly say that any game they release is canon. In order to refute that you would need a more recent statement from Blizzard where they rescind that earlier proclamation.

And that is your opinion [about Mana Burn].

I never said differently.

The WC3 DH's Evasion.

No, that would be the Rogue ability.

The actual fact is that statement covers only games released up until the moment that statement was made. It doesn't necessarily cover games released after said statement, and on top of that, I'll repeat:

Nowhere in that statement does it say that it only applies to games released up until that point. Blizzard made a blanket statement in 2012, and thus far they have never went back on that blanket statement. You're attempting to apply your own set of rules here for obvious reasons.

It's not just "canon enough". It's plain and simply not canon at all.

Then why is Blizzard pulling abilities from it and placing them in WoW?

Re-read what I wrote, and realize your mistake:

I specifically used Warcraft 3: Reforged as an example, because it's the only game in Blizzard's library that was altered by a third party.

But Blizzard published it, thus it falls under their rule as a game released by them. Again, if you have a statement from Blizzard saying that WC3:R's lore is questionable or not canon, by all means provide it. Instead of your opinion some actual facts would be nice for a change.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, I said that a few posts before. They are constructs, just like Clockwork Goblins are.

That resemble Mechagnomes. They are not Mechagnomes or Clockwork Gnomes.

None, which is why Tinker NPCs have no bearing on any new class.

Why wouldn't they? If they're not designated for a profession (as you argued earlier), why wouldn't they go towards a new class? Why would Blizzard introduce a novel set of abilities to just sit in limbo for no purpose? Again, they could have just as easily used existing WoW tech abilities instead of the Tinker's abilities from HotS.

Then he is also a vendor since that same lore you're drawing from had him as a vendor. Same as Tinkers in WoW.

But he's not a vendor in WoW, he's an adventurer.

Yes. They're robotic constructs, like Clockwork goblins.

But you said they were one in the same, not copies of them created by a Gnome.

[Triceron]

That resemble Mechagnomes. They are not Mechagnomes or Clockwork Gnomes.

Semantics much?

They are Clockwork constructs resembling Gnomes, just like Clockwork Goblins resemble Goblins.

Why wouldn't they? If they're not designated for a profession (as you argued earlier), why wouldn't they go towards a new class?

Because they are NPCs?

But he's not a vendor in WoW, he's an adventurer.

He isn't a Tinker in WoW either, lol

But you said they were one in the same, not copies of them created by a Gnome.

When did I ever say they weren't created by a gnome??

You are mistaking your own confusion of the name and what the Blingtron actually is. It is a clockwork gnome, simple as that. You are mistaking it with a mechagnome or a Clockwork Mechagnome or the Clockwork Gnome Pet which is just a pet.

[Ielenia]

But we have a statement from Blizzard where they clearly say that any game they release is canon. In order to refute that you would need a more recent statement from Blizzard where they rescind that earlier proclamation.

That statement was valid at the time and still is valid right now for the games that were released up that point in time in which that statement was made. However, thanks to new developments today that add a new layer of caveats not considered at the time, that statement needs revision because it was made at a time in which Blizzard did not have their games remade by third parties.

Nowhere in that statement does it say that it only applies to games released up until that point.

As a certain someone said:

That's common sense dude.

Blizzard made a blanket statement in 2012, and thus far they have never went back on that blanket statement. You're attempting to apply your own set of rules here for obvious reasons.

I think you and I will agree that a lot has changed in these eight years. Again: that statement was made at a time in which certain things of today did not exist, namely an official Blizzard game being remade by a third party. We have to apply that statement to what existed at the time, and Blizzard games being remade by others did not exist at the time.

Then why is Blizzard pulling abilities from it and placing them in WoW?

Inspiration. The point of the matter is that Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone are not canon to the Warcraft universe. That is an indisputable fact. Unless you're going to say that you believe that Tracer, Zarya, Zeratul, The Skeleton King, Raynor, Kerrigan and others are also canon to the Warcraft universe?

But Blizzard published it, thus it falls under their rule as a game released by them.

Again: read above. That statement was made when certain factors that exist today did not exist at the time.

Again, if you have a statement from Blizzard saying that WC3:R's lore is questionable or not canon, by all means provide it.

I never said Blizzard made any statement of the sort.

Instead of your opinion some actual facts would be nice for a change.

It is an actual fact that the lore displayed in Warcraft 3: Reforged does not match the official lore of the Warcraft universe.

[Teriz]

Semantics much?

They are Clockwork constructs resembling Gnomes, just like Clockwork Goblins resemble Goblins.

Incorrect;

Blingtron is the name of a series of robo-unit constructs resembling gem-encrusted mechagnomes. Plated in gold and chrome with a variety of impressive inlaid jewels, these mechanical constructs are known for their endless generosity and gift-giving.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Blingtron

Further nothing states that mechagnomes or clockwork gnomes are built by gnomes. All sources state that clockwork gnomes are titan constructs;

Mechagnomes (also called mechanognomes,[1] and clockwork mechagnomes)[2] are a race of titan-forged creatures, resembling clockwork machines, who inhabit the Storm Peaks of Northrend. Creations of the titanic watcher Mimiron, they are the ancestors of the gnome race, having been transformed into them after falling victim to the Curse of Flesh.[3]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Mechagnome

Mechagnomes aren't actually clockwork, they simply resemble it. They're actually sentient beings, as is the Clockwork Gnome pet.

Because they are NPCs?

Yes, but in BFA those NPC abilities had level requirements just like class abilities. Why would abilities meant only for NPCs have level requirements? Also once again why would the Tinker NPCs be the only NPCs to get abilities from HotS instead of generic existing class and WoW NPC abilities?

He isn't a Tinker in WoW either, lol

Then what is he? He isn't a vendor, that's for certain. He isn't a profession engineer because he has abilities not found in the profession. Perhaps like Cookie he's an engineer, just not the profession engineer.

When did I ever say they weren't created by a gnome??

You are mistaking your own confusion of the name and what the Blingtron actually is. It is a clockwork gnome, simple as that. You are mistaking it with a mechagnome or a Clockwork Mechagnome or the Clockwork Gnome Pet which is just a pet.

This is the only verified Clockwork Gnome in the game;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Clockwork_Gnome

And yeah, it's the pet, and yeah it says it's a Mechagnome built by the titans.

If you have some other examples, please provide them.

- - - Updated - - -

That statement was valid at the time and still is valid right now for the games that were released up that point in time in which that statement was made. However, thanks to new developments today that add a new layer of caveats not considered at the time, that statement needs revision because it was made at a time in which Blizzard did not have their games remade by third parties.

I think you and I will agree that a lot has changed in these eight years. Again: that statement was made at a time in which certain things of today did not exist, namely an official Blizzard game being remade by a third party. We have to apply that statement to what existed at the time, and Blizzard games being remade by others did not exist at the time.

So I take it you have no statement from Blizzard to back up what you're saying.

Not surprising. Thanks for sharing your opinion on what Blizzard considers lore, but I'll stick to what Blizzard actually said about lore.

Inspiration. The point of the matter is that Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone are not canon to the Warcraft universe. That is an indisputable fact. Unless you're going to say that you believe that Tracer, Zarya, Zeratul, The Skeleton King, Raynor, Kerrigan and others are also canon to the Warcraft universe?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can't call the Warcraft material in those games "meaningless" because Blizzard pulls concepts and abilities from them.

It is an actual fact that the lore displayed in Warcraft 3: Reforged does not match the official lore of the Warcraft universe.

Cool. Find a statement from Blizzard backing up your claim that they find the lore in that game questionable and thus it's not canon. If you can't, then it is, despite any lore issues you believe it has.

[Triceron]

Mechagnomes aren't actually clockwork, they simply resemble it. They're actually sentient beings, as is the Clockwork Gnome pet.

So does this definition of Mechagnome make the Blingtron any more different from a Clockwork Goblin?

Yes, but in BFA those NPC abilities had level requirements just like class abilities.

NPCs aren't bound by player class limits.

Then what is he?

He's an NPC.

This is the only verified Clockwork Gnome in the game;

The Pandaren Monk was just a Pet and only verified Pandaren Monk in the game before MoP too. It wasn't the only type of Pandaren or Monk in the game.

There can be many types of Clockwork Gnome lol

[Teriz]

So does this definition of Mechagnome make the Blingtron any more different from a Clockwork Goblin?

The Blingtron is really nothing like the Clockwerk Goblin. One is a gift giving bot, the other is a wound up device that attacks and then explodes. One is manufactured by a hobbyist engineer, the other is manufactured by a miniaturized factory.

NPCs aren't bound by player class limits.

I'm pretty sure that NPC abilities don't have level requirements, only class abilities do. Those HotS abilities had level requirements.

He's an NPC.

He's also a lore character. So is he the Tinker vendor in WC3, or is he a Tinker adventurer in WoW?

You mean a Mechagnome Pet called a Clockwork Goblin, just like the Pandaren Monk was just a Pet and didn't really have any direct relation to the Monk class.

There can be many types of Clockwork Gnome lol

Well the Pandaren Monk was a hint towards the forthcoming Monk class. It even had a letter of introduction from Chen Stormstout.

However, we only have one example of a Clockwork Gnome, and now you're attempting to apply that definition to Blingtrons when that's not what they are.

[Ielenia]

So I take it you have no statement from Blizzard to back up what you're saying.

It's downright irritating how you blatantly ignore common sense when it suits you.

I'll stick to what Blizzard actually said about lore.

You mean you'll cherry-pick what Blizzard says about lore, right? Because, to this day, you still ignore Blizzard's statements about engineers being inventors in the lore. You still ignore that we have tinkers who are vendors and engineers who are adventurers. You still ignore that the lore has not demonstrated any real, tangible difference between the terms "engineer" and "tinker".

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can't call the Warcraft material in those games "meaningless" because Blizzard pulls concepts and abilities from them.

I can because they are. It doesn't matter if abilities from the Heroes of the Storm game were used as inspiration for new abilities for the World of Warcraft game. Those abilities are not evidence that HotS is canon to WoW any more than Diablo and WoW having an "appearance pane" and "transmogrification" means the two game franchises are canon to each other.

Cool. Find a statement from Blizzard backing up your claim that they find the lore in that game questionable and thus it's not canon. If you can't, then it is, despite any lore issues you believe it has.

We have a statement from Blizzard stating that games developed by third parties are not canon to WoW. Warcraft 3: Reforged was developed by a third party. That game fits in both statements about canon and non-canon, which is why it's canonicity is arguably in question.

- - - Updated - - -

a hobbyist engineer

The name of the feature is called "profession", not "hobby", therefore the player character is a professional, not a hobbyist.

[Teriz]

It's downright irritating how you blatantly ignore common sense when it suits you.

You mean you'll cherry-pick what Blizzard says about lore, right? Because, to this day, you still ignore Blizzard's statements about engineers being inventors in the lore. You still ignore that we have tinkers who are vendors and engineers who are adventurers. You still ignore that the lore has not demonstrated any real, tangible difference between the terms "engineer" and "tinker".

You mean I choose Blizzard's statements over your head canon.

Yes, that would be correct.

Look at what you wrote above for example. Tinkers are a type of engineer, so when Blizzard "says" that engineers are inventors, which engineers are they talking about? Tinkers? profession engineers? The engineers who built the tram? This is what I'm talking about when I say that all you're using is semantics, because you're lumping the term "engineer" completely into the profession, when the game shows that the profession doesn't cover every type of technology, and profession engineers don't reach the same heights as the class-level engineers.

I can because they are. It doesn't matter if abilities from the Heroes of the Storm game were used as inspiration for new abilities for the World of Warcraft game. Those abilities are not evidence that HotS is canon to WoW any more than Diablo and WoW having an "appearance pane" and "transmogrification" means the two game franchises are canon to each other.

So when those abilities enter WoW from HotS are they canon at that point, or are they still not canon since they came from HotS?

We have a statement from Blizzard stating that games developed by third parties are not canon to WoW.

Where is that statement?

The name of the feature is called "profession", not "hobby", therefore the player character is a professional, not a hobbyist.

So if they're a professional why do they lose all of their professional knowledge when they drop it for another hobby?

[Triceron]

The Blingtron is really nothing like the Clockwerk Goblin.

They're actually quite similar. They're both constructs created for utility and combat.

I'm pretty sure that NPC abilities don't have level requirements, only class abilities do. Those HotS abilities had level requirements.

Sure, but HOTS doesn't translate its stats, talents, levels
or resource systems over to WoW either. Different games, different mechanics. That's why they work on NPCs, because they don't need to be scaled or balanced.

He's also a lore character. So is he the Tinker vendor in WC3, or is he a Tinker adventurer in WoW?

He's an NPC and questgiver, that's about it. Not quite sure why you consider him an adventurer. Because he is in some Island Expeditions? That just makes him an enemy NPC.

However, we only have one example of a Clockwork Gnome, and now you're attempting to apply that definition to Blingtrons when that's not what they are.

Would it make you happier if I called them Clockwerk Gnomes instead?

[Unbelievable]

One day, you'll post without typing a condescending novel. Today is not that day. Notice how it says "voodoo and loa". Wanna know why? Because they're two different fucking things.

Read the whole thing. They are interconnected. The Shadow Hunter is a master of voodoo and a loa class for a reason.

Comment when you, actually, have a clue about lore.

I never said he wasn't. I'm saying his abilities aren't Tinker abilities. They possibly could be, but as of now they're less likely than what we're seeing out of Island Expeditions.



That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that Pandaren could have easily been designed to be villains if Blizzard so desired. Instead they simply them our sidekicks on their own continent.



You brought up that they don't use a mech in WC3 and HotS. I'm pointing out that Claw Pack was a type of mech.



You need to play HotS. The Tinker level 10 ability Robo Goblin is a passive that boosts armor and damage. It ALSO has a CD ability which is what you're talking about.



Nope, that would be an expansion of the Tinker concept.



In WC3 the Tinker could toggle in and out of mech form like a Druid ability.

Also in WC3 the Demon Hunter's metamorphosis was a temporary cooldown.

Well, so are Lady Sena's. Yet, you treat her like she has official Tinker abilities.

Yes, like making a villainous Vulpera. If i post a picture of a Vulpera Death Knight, it wouldn't be ridiculous anymore? Your argument is a joke.

No, i never said that. You are the one who, suddenly, uses the claw pack and Robo-goblin interchangeably, when we both know you want to get rid of the claw pack and have a permanent robo-goblin.

You mean this?:
Mecha-Lord
Basic Attacks increase Gazlowe's Armor by 10 for 10 seconds, up to a maximum of 30, and deal 50% bonus damage to Stunned or Slowed enemies.

The talent doesn't even state you need to be in Robo-Goblin form.

The passive associated with the active ability:
Passive: Basic Attacks deal 90 bonus damage over 5 seconds, stacking up to 3 times.

Nope. That would be an utter violation of the Tinker concept which you, strictly, advocated for. Once again, you're changing your agenda to suit whatever the hell you want. The Tinker in both WC3 and HotS can use his abilities, regardless if he's in mech form or not.

Not shit, sherlock.
The point is that the Robo-Goblin was more in-line with the power of Metamorphosis in WC3, than the power of a Bear form. They clarified that these two are powerful, for a reason.

To be fair, there is very much a connection between voodoo and loa in the real world, so associating the two in game really isn't a stretch. Plus, in game we have practitioners of voodoo venerating loa and interacting with them regularly.

Exactly.
He just want to dismiss class concepts, like Teriz.
What was the point of wanting a Shadow Hunter class really badly, and then opposing it a comment later?

And this is Gazlowe in WC3:R

Notice how he is depicted with a claw pack and not in mech, all the time.

Witch-doctor is an interesting way to make Necromancer more unique. There are virtually only a couple spells related to this in Shaman, and Warlocks don't have anywhere the same vibe a Witch Doctor would. Witch Doctor also has an angle of Shadow Hunter to work with as another spec in addition to others that can be made around curses, medicine, poisons, diseases, and reanimation I imagine would make up parts of the kit in addition to some other hexing and animal spirit powers. But admittedly there isn't a lot of precedent for other races reaching into deep troll magic unless we count Wild God or darker druidism magic in the same vein - then Night Elves, Draenei, Worgen, and Pandaren have precedent along with Orcs and of course Trolls and Tauren, plus Kul'Tiran and Mag'har and Zandalari and Vulpera as well. And considering it's a fairly primal class, there's a good amount of other non-playable races in the setting that can make use of it, too. There are a lot of 'hexers' and 'ritualists' and other kinds of dark voodoo npcs wandering around to pick abilities and lore from to flesh out such a class.

There are, already, Orc Witch Doctors like Jeeda. I can imagine Kul Tirans, with their Witchcraft and wicca Drust, being Witch Doctors.

Yeah, I agree with this. Mail has always seemed redundant and unnecessary with Leather there. I think Leather fits Hunters and Shaman better thematically, anyway. (And they could always put in an increased armor passive to make up the difference if need be for balance.)

Well, there are Shamans in plate armor, like Thrall:

Look at what you wrote above for example. Tinkers are a type of engineer, so when Blizzard "says" that engineers are inventors, which engineers are they talking about? Tinkers? profession engineers? The engineers who built the tram? This is what I'm talking about when I say that all you're using is semantics, because you're lumping the term "engineer" completely into the profession, when the game shows that the profession doesn't cover every type of technology, and profession engineers don't reach the same heights as the class-level engineers.

So if they're a professional why do they lose all of their professional knowledge when they drop it for another hobby?

In what terms? lore-wise, they're on the same level.

Dropping a profession is a game mechanic.

[Teriz]

They're actually quite similar. They're both constructs created for utility and combat.

Blingtrons aren’t created for combat, and Clockwerk Goblins aren’t created for utility. Also Clockwerk Goblins are built by pocket factories.

Sure, but HOTS doesn't translate its stats, talents, levels
or resource systems over to WoW either. Different games, different mechanics. That's why they work on NPCs, because they don't need to be scaled or balanced.

The HotS abilities on the IE team were already translated to WoW though, so I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here. Also we have Abilities from HotS within the class lineup already, like Sundering in the Shaman class, and The Hunt in the Demon Hunter class.

My point is that NPC abilities don’t have level requirements, yet these NPC abilities did. In addition they were the only team to have abilities from HotS. Why would that be the case?

He's an NPC and questgiver, that's about it. Not quite sure why you consider him an adventurer. Because he is in some Island Expeditions? That just makes him an enemy NPC.

He traveled with us to Draenor and helped us take down the Iron Horde’s technology. He defended Durator against the legion invasion (inside his mech), and he helped us liberate Mechagon.

Would it make you happier if I called them Clockwerk Gnomes instead?

It would be more helpful if we stopped with the semantics and identified things as what they are. Blingtrons aren’t clockwork Gnomes.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, so are Lady Sena's. Yet, you treat her like she has official Tinker abilities.

I’m more concerned about the abilities, not the characters housing them.

Yes, like making a villainous Vulpera. If i post a picture of a Vulpera Death Knight, it wouldn't be ridiculous anymore? Your argument is a joke.

I didn’t find that picture of the dark Pandaren ridiculous at all. I feel that it would have helped the expansion for us to encounter some evil Pandaren.

No, i never said that. You are the one who, suddenly, uses the claw pack and Robo-goblin interchangeably, when we both know you want to get rid of the claw pack and have a permanent robo-goblin.

You did say it. In fact you said it again in this post. Stay tuned....

I use the claw pack and Robo goblin interchangeably because the claw pack transforms into the mech in WC3 and HotS. Personal preference aside, I think that is a potential aspect of gameplay.

The passive associated with the active ability:
Passive: Basic Attacks deal 90 bonus damage over 5 seconds, stacking up to 3 times.

Nope. That would be an utter violation of the Tinker concept which you, strictly, advocated for. Once again, you're changing your agenda to suit whatever the hell you want. The Tinker in both WC3 and HotS can use his abilities, regardless if he's in mech form or not.

See, you said it again. Once again, the Tinker had a mech the entire time, since the claw pack is a mech.

Not shit, sherlock.
The point is that the Robo-Goblin was more in-line with the power of Metamorphosis in WC3, than the power of a Bear form. They clarified that these two are powerful, for a reason.

Irrelevant. Robo Goblin was permanent, and is permanent in both HotS and WC3. Thus it makes sense for it to be permanent in WoW. The permanent mech may be restricted to tank, but it’s going to be present in some capacity.

In what terms? lore-wise, they're on the same level.

Please provide an example of a profession trainer on the level of Mekkatorque, Thermaplugg, Gazlowe, or Blackfuse.

Dropping a profession is a game mechanic.

So is dropping your class. However when you drop your class the game ends. You must pick up a class to play the game. You never need to pick up a profession, and when you do, you can totally ignore it, or drop it. That indicates how important your class is, and how unimportant professions are.