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

[username993720]

Who said we have to have a class? Because it's an odd-numbered expansion patch? Shadowlands proved that this isn't the case.

I said it's not a guarantee. But, if you do add a class, only the Demon Hunter fits Legion.

Which Shadowlands has shown that this is nothing but our own brains seeking patterns that don't exist.

Until Shadowlands it was.

Again: confirmation bias. They're not "shoving" anything down our throats. And they're not "pushing" for any concept to be a class, at all.

No? 3 expansions straight of Sylvanas? No other character got that much spotlight. The most was an expansion and a half.

That's meaningless. Important NPCs get updated looks once in a while, especially when they are to be featured so prominently. Anduin also got updated twice. From child to young adult priest, and then from wearing robes to wearing plate. Tyrande also got updated twice.

Exactly. That's what i said. It's not the updated models, it's their prominence.

I can say the exact same thing for everything you used for this so-called "map" of yours: they're just fun little things. Again, this is confirmation bias.

Never have i pointed at toys, customization or interface options.

Class? Which class? There is no Blademaster class in WoW

-_-

The concept for the WC3 unit.

I'm talking about Warcraft, though, not HotS or Hearthstone.

And i'm talking about the Blademaster. Jube'ithos is not nearly as prominent as Samuro.

Why, it was never the case? Arthas didn't show up in a cinematic before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Or Chen Stormstout. Hell, Chen Stormstout never ever showed up on the actual WoW game aside from a tiny handful of side mentions. And Illidan showed up in the TBC cinematic because he was set up as the 'big bad' of the expansion.

I, already, explained Arthas and Chen had nothing hinting prior to their addition. Illidan had, though. You can expect, going forward, the use of foreshadowing.

That is not my argument. Your argument is that "Blizzard has been setting up the dark ranger to become a playable class", and my counter-argument to that is that Blizzard has never done any "set up" for future classes, and cited Illidan dying in TBC as an example of Blizzard going against that, by literally killing their icon that represented the demon hunter class.

Yea, i was referring to Triceron's argument.
You forgot to say "and then added multiple Legion hints throughout two expansion to hint at their upcoming Legion expansion (which, added the Demon Hunter). So, killing the main character doesn't mean shit.

Re-read your own statement, then re-read my answer to it.

Stop being so vague about things and just spill them out. What other things beside WoD?

I don't need to see your thread to give my own opinion regarding 4th specs. Not to mention adding one spec for every class is literally the same work, or even more so, than adding three classes at the same time.

It would improve RP a hell of a lot.

Yes.

Would you look at that. Too bad they don't use any Blood healing spells.

So what? It still fits the theme of necromancy. After all, the death knights do have a blood spec that uses blood magic?

I suppose you're correct.

And what stops studious necromancers from studying the blood magic used by the blood troll necromancers and using them for themselves, just like studious warlocks studied Illidan and copied his transformation?

Warlock studied that as long as they had Metamorphosis.

We had Illidan front and center of multiple cinematics and we didn't get Demon Hunters until after Monks.

What? all i can recall is the TBC cinematic.

Undermine - We've only been to a small section of Kezan and haven't actually been to Undermine. There's quite a bit of potential to explore here, but no direct indication in recent lore other than Gallywix having escaped. It remains fairly established since we know the Devs have been planning this one (like the Dragon Isles) since Vanilla, just never really fully formed. It remains to be seen whether they will give it a main expansion treatment. I almost see them treating this place more like Emerald Dream and Nazjatar, as a secondary setting to some bigger expansion plan.

No one has ever thought of Undermine until Teriz has brought it up as a concept for the Tinker. And, i'm telling you as someone who made a thread about future places that includes Undermine. It is just an unexplored place. Nothing indicative as of right of its plausibility.

Zin Ashari - Aszhara is still on the loose, so it's definitely a loose end that would need to be filled. However, Zin Ashari is simply a city within Nazjatar in the lore, and we've explored Nazjatar. What expansion setting are we looking at here exactly? Zin Aszhari itself as a continent? It's possible, but again no real hints towards this being a future setting yet. Just like Undermine, I would consider it plausible but not likely, especially so close after having explored Nazjatar and dealt with Azshara in BFA.

So did i think. But, if you noticed, they added Zandalar based on the depiction in the Chronicles. And we have yet seen a Moonlit Zin Azshari or Dire Maul.

Nathrezim Homeworld of Xoroth - this one is up in the air, because it seems Nathrezim have been given a new origin story and Xoroth remains a Legion-based planet in the lore. On one hand, Nathrezim have been brought back into the lore, on the other Xoroth is a Legion homeworld, so it's both likely and unlikely at the moment depending on whether Blizzard will give more hints at the planet in the future, or simply let the Nathrezim's origins be 'retconned' and have a passing relevance to the story simply through the Shadowlands. I personally don't see narrative hints towards exploring their homeworld yet, and I don't think many other people do, so I would chalk this one up more towards being a 'wild guess'.

I would have thought so, too, when i thought they could be playable. But, now that they were revealed to be part of Revendreth and were given Metamorphosis based skeletons, the relevancy of Xoroth has diminished. And, its Nathreza, actually. Xoroth is the place of the Dreadsteeds.

Illidan having been featured in cinematics was not a hint towards a Demon Hunter class, considering the times he was ever featured in a cinematic matches the timeline when no Demon Hunter class was ever actually planned to be made. Again, Xelnath illustrates this.

Again, what cinematics, in plural, are you talking about?

We are seeing this again now with Sylvanas being in multiple cinematics, and again with Blizzard making no moves *towards* a Dark Ranger as a playable class. Every move made in the narrative has actually gone in the other direction.

How do you know when they make a move or not before a class is, actually, added?

It's like if we were to discuss what hints there are in the game that Blizzard intends to add Murlocs as a race, I would be focused on looking for hints and directions in their design to have them playable. There's not just *one singular* thing to look at, it's looking at the full picture. For Murlocs, they don't have a narrative or lore problem for being added to the game, since it's pretty easy to just make up a reasoning similar to Goblin and Worgens having been refugees. Even being accepted into the Alliance and Horde is no problem since we've had fairly weak reasons for Pandaren to join. The problem of Murlocs comes from a visual and technical standpoint - they don't mesh as a playable Race. They don't talk, they don't fit the mold of wearing standard armor, they don't have visible gender differentiations, plenty of reasons why it would be unlikely (not impossible) to be added as a race.

Like any sane person would.
None of this Murloc argument applies to the Dark Ranger.

The way I see your argument is as if someone were trying to counter this analysis by saying there's nothing in the lore stopping Blizzard from adding them, and that there's hints that they would be playable because they are slaves of Azshara and we would be fighting Azshara in the future. And yes, all of that would be *possible*, but nothing about this is actually being hinted at or intended by Blizzard to happen in the first place. Instead of making a proper analysis based on what we know, this argument is formulated on taking a wild guess at what *could happen* to make Murlocs a playable race. And I'm not talking about what conditions *could* be created for a Murloc to be playable, I'm talking about what intentions Blizzard has to *make* them playable in the first place. As a whole, would Blizzard go out of their way to resolve all the visual and technical issues of a Murloc in order to make them playable, and if so what is the reason for them to devote all their resources to do so. It's simply unlikely because we already know the direction they take for Murlocs - they're intentionally designed to be creatures and creeps that we fight, and not as a playable race.

Again, what do you have to counter Dark Rangers except for the narrative going forward?

When I take a look at the Dark Ranger and how it would be deemed playable, we should address the full direction that Blizzard is intending for them. I'm looking at a bigger picture.
- Who would lead or train Dark Rangers? Well they've severed the Nathanos and Sylvanas connections. I mean, we're looking at a much smaller list of candidates, like Delaryn Summermoon and Dark Ranger Anya and Velonara.
- What races and factions would be Dark Ranger? BFA opened up Night Elves so we have a good Alliance connection, but the story had them all join the Forsaken with the rest of the Dark Rangers...
- What is their motivation to join the Alliance and Horde? Well traditionally, revenge is the strongest motivator for the Dark Rangers considering the origin of WC3 and how Sylvanas was driven to oppose Arthas; and now we have a situation where Dark Rangers were abandoned and betrayed by Sylvanas. Yet Blizzard chose to do nothing with this plot point, leaving the Dark Rangers without any real purpose in the story.
- What expansion setting could they introduce the Dark Ranger in the future? Yeah, about that....
- What special traits makes a Dark Ranger unique as its own class? There's plenty to build here like using Sylvanas as a prime model! And they're giving away two of her HOTS abilities to Hunters, while keeping her Banshee form and Maw-based powers exclusive to her, and having severed her connection to the other Dark Rangers all the while....

1. There's nothing wrong with other class trainers. Yes, it is always better that the main character do it, but it's not game breaking.
2. Both Alliance and Horde. I'd wager it'd be more ranger-inclined races in life, but Death Knights was spread to every race, so who knows...
3. A common goal? like Monks joining the factions out of new beginnings or Demon Hunter joining to defeat the Legion (and not their former master). The thing is, Elves could rally together to take out Azshara, just like they did against Elisande.
4. Told you, an ancient Kalimdor expansion.
5. Already showed you there are many potential abilities to be added to the class with the link to the thread i made. You just chose to ignore it.

Overall, the picture is pretty bleak. It's not full of potential, it's full of dead ends.

Only narratively.

If we look at something like the Tinker, we don't have these same types of issues in the way. If we look at the Bard, we don't have these same types of roadblocks in the way. These are fresh concepts with little known backgrounds, so Blizzard can build it up however they see fit. The Dark Ranger is different because _it is already an established faction_ that is part of the Horde, which has not splintered itself to both the Alliance and Horde, which remains to have zero purpose in the story. It's not like they can freshly re-introduce them with a new purpose. And when we consider that there's nothing really in the works for a future Dark Ranger-centric Expansion setting, the whole thing just doesn't seem worth Blizzard putting more resources into developing. Why go with Dark Ranger now when so much effort was put narratively to disconnect them from being playable?

Of course there is, because Bard is not established in any prior sources.
Dark Rangers are not a faction. They don't even have one like the Knights of the Ebon Blade or the Illidari.
Why do you think they introduce Night elf Dark Rangers? only to have them in the Horde? they could have just remained Forsaken and High elves.
They can't? oh, please tell me what Blizzard can't or can't do.
Dark Ranger is not a theme of an expansion. It's a byproduct. So, you don't know what they're planning or if they're planning in that regard.
Nothing was put to disconnect them. Having a bow with a couple of abilities is not that a disaster as you see it.

And what expansion setting are we looking at would support a future Dark Ranger class being added? One that we can see in the near future?

If they do plan to combine with the PotM and Warden, then probably an Elf-centric one.

Like I said, there's nothing to draw from cinematics here that would be relevant to the Dark Ranger situation, because it's already written itself into a hole and I don't think Blizzard is actively interested in digging them out of it. They've actively placed them there after BFA, even though the beginning of BFA set them up to absolutely be playable.

Weird how they're not part of the Shadowlands, despite the prominence of Sylvanas.

This is why I say they are not very plausible, and why the cinematics themselves are a poor way to construct an argument for them because it wholly ignores all the other pieces of information (as I have analyzed above) that formulate a bigger picture for what is likely or unlikely as a near-future playable class.

It's not just the cinematics. It's my WC3 Hero unit analysis. It's the prominence of Sylvanas through 3 expansions straight (unheard of before in terms of character spotlight). It's introducing Night elf Dark Rangers both in War of Thorns and the promotional WC3 Sentinels picture. It's Dark Wardens being introduced for no real reason in particular. It's the Night Warrior, suddenly, popping out of nowhere into the lore to expand upon the Priestess of the Moon. It's showcasing Sylvanas using specific abilities and not just showing off her character, narratively. And it's, probably, much more that i can't remember right now.

[Ielenia]

I said it's not a guarantee. But, if you do add a class, only the Demon Hunter fits Legion.

Not really. If you're going to say 'fits the best', I might agree with you. But "only one that fits", I'll disagree, as one can make other class concepts work for it. Runemaster, for example, could be tailored to fit the story being told. I'm not saying the class would be about demons, but the runemasters could know of special runic magic that could help against the demons. For instance, look at the vrykul in Stormheim, and there were magic runes around.

Until Shadowlands it was.

It was always that way. We expected a class. We thought it was guaranteed, but in no way, shape or form there was any guarantee that a new class would be added every odd-number expansion patch number.

No? 3 expansions straight of Sylvanas? No other character got that much spotlight. The most was an expansion and a half.

No. Really, no. The only reason we got "three expansions straight of Sylvanas" (two, really, since she was only relevant in a single zone of Legion then never again) is because she is a pivotal piece of the story being told, not because Blizzard is planning on releasing a new playable class based on her. And even if that was actually Blizzard's plan... guess what? People are basically sick and tired of Sylvanas, now. Way to backfire.

Exactly. That's what i said. It's not the updated models, it's their prominence.

Again, irrelevant. Their prominence is because of the story being told, not because Blizzard is "prepping us for a new class based on the character". Again, you're engaging in confirmation bias, here.

Never have i pointed at toys, customization or interface options.

I never said you did. But they're on the same level of what you're doing: "fun little things".

-_-

The concept for the WC3 unit.

You do know Samuro literally did not exist before Warcraft 3, right? The WC3 blademaster unit was based off on an artwork of a D&D orc wielding a two-handed sword by Samwise Didier who was called "Grumok the wanderer".

And i'm talking about the Blademaster. Jube'ithos is not nearly as prominent as Samuro.

And yet Jubei'thos was the one Blizzard picked to be the blademaster boss in the Hellfire Citadel raid, not Samuro.

I, already, explained Arthas and Chen had nothing hinting prior to their addition. Illidan had, though. You can expect, going forward, the use of foreshadowing.

Illidan had nothing. As far as we knew, Illidan was dead, and has been dead since the end of the Burning Crusade expansion.

Yea, i was referring to Triceron's argument.
You forgot to say "and then added multiple Legion hints throughout two expansion to hint at their upcoming Legion expansion (which, added the Demon Hunter). So, killing the main character doesn't mean shit.

I didn't forget. I just didn't do it because they're irrelevant to the topic at hand. Giving hints to a demon-themed expansion in no way, shape or form means "hints of a demon hunter class".

Stop being so vague about things and just spill them out. What other things beside WoD?

Dear god, you're so lazy. I literally mentioned the BfA expansion in my list of blademaster "hints".

It would improve RP a hell of a lot.

Not really. I don't see any way how giving the present classes a fourth spec would "improve RP a lot".

Would you look at that. Too bad they don't use any Blood healing spells.

Now you're moving the goalposts. There are blood trolls necromancers who use blood magic, and blood trolls can use blood magic to heal.

Warlock studied that as long as they had Metamorphosis.

Are you agreeing with me? That it's possible necromancers would study the kind of blood magic the blood trolls use?

[Triceron]

What? all i can recall is the TBC cinematic.

I've included appearances in TFT, since we're talking about hype for classes. I would assume that Arthas' appearances in previous cinematics would have contributed to the idea of 'We saw this dude in a cinematic and we want to play as him', otherwise cinematics wouldn't apply to Death Knight at all.

And if cinematics don't apply to a Death Knight and Monk, then really we're talking about even less reason to use cinematics as a hint or indicator of future prospects.

No one has ever thought of Undermine until Teriz has brought it up as a concept for the Tinker. And, i'm telling you as someone who made a thread about future places that includes Undermine. It is just an unexplored place. Nothing indicative as of right of its plausibility.

Agreed, which is actually what I consider against the Tinker concept. It's lack of relevancy to the current narrative makes it so there's no real reason to bring TInkers into the fray, other than Blizzard's own will to do so. It's not wholly predictable, and I don't consider there to be a precedent other than an open loose end of not having explored the place.

As I'm explaining, I would not use Undermine as a reason to prop up Tinkers as being playable. There are plenty of other reasons that a Tinker could be likely, which do not involve Undermine in the conversation. It's simply there to be used if convenient.

We don't have this at all for Dark Rangers. Dark Rangers are left without a setting or a story to move forward to, right now. If Blizzard chooses to pursue one, then it would be one that has not been hinted at right now. And no, I don't consider Sylvanas being in cinematics as being a hint, because Sylvanas is a prominent lore figure who has since disconnected herself from her Dark Ranger followers, and has displayed unique abilities that only she has access to without any indication that she was training any underlings the way we knew Arthas and Illidan had done.

How do you know when they make a move or not before a class is, actually, added?

I'm making a point that we don't. These plans usually *aren't* hinted at, they're simply presented. Yet when we see indications of them specifically moving *away* then it's also safe to assume that it's not being planned.

For example, let's talk about how a Necromancer would fit into WoW. We have plenty of loose ends like Cult of the Damned. They're still around in the lore, no matter what happens to other lore figures. Yet if we're talking about their likelyhood of being added as a class, there's really nothing to indicate it happening. It's not a matter of 'It can happen because they haven't explored that option yet', because that's asserting a 'wild guess'.

Death Knight was unpredictable but assumed, because practically any and every playable class would have been assumed early into the series. We'd expected playable Demon Hunters, Death Knights, Wardens, Dark Rangers; anything and everything because the game was in its infancy.

Monk was a surprise, and completely unexpected. I would not consider this to have been predictable because they literally dug into left field to do so. Let's consider that there was nothing in the lore that was actively preventing Monks to be added to the game, only an assumption that China wouldn't have allowed playable Pandaren being the key reason why not to expect them.

Demon Hunter was also a surprise, yet it *could* be considered predictable in retrospect, because we were given signs of a return of the Legion since MoP. Is it a solid proof that it was going to happen? No. It's only in retrospect because it actually happened. In an alternate world, we could say this about any number of classes like Tinker or Shadow Hunter if they were added too; yet they haven't actually been added to the game. The Demon Hunter was. And its reason is because they deliberately created an Expansion revolving around the return of the Legion which would have necessitated a return of this important lore-based Class.

So what comes next? It would be a class that fits the story and setting of their next planned expansion (that introduces a new class). We can't predict what expansion they choose to do after Shadowlands, because it can literally be anything. However we can narrow down the possible future outcomes. They are not going to revisit another Undeath-related realm since that's what's being covered in Shadowlands. We can assume it's not another Legion expansion, since that arc was recently finished and we know we are moving towards Shadow vs Light with some room to explore other themes in between.

Aszhara and Trolls were just recently covered by BFA, and even if these loose ends haven't been tied, I would doubt they would be revisited again so soon. We're more likely to tap into new locations like Dragon Isles and Undermine more than another set of Troll Islands and Nazjatar 2.0 as a means to bring in Shadow Hunters and Sea Witches.

Again, I'm taking strong consideration that Blizzard has to consider a setting and story that ties in a new class that is as strong as Demon Hunters connected to Legion, because even Dark Rangers and Necromancers were unable to meet this criteria for Shadowlands. This means it's not just a matter of having Shadow Hunters or Priestess of the Moon be playable in a Shadow vs Light expansion because they have some loose connections to both themes. It means Blizzard has to consider a strong setting for them to be established.

Like any sane person would.
None of this Murloc argument applies to the Dark Ranger.

It's an example of the type of argument you've been presenting for the Dark Ranger so far.

What you have presented has not been hints towards a Dark Ranger being playable, what you've been presenting is a possibility for Dark Rangers to exist. The Murloc example is to illustrate how we can imply possibility, and at the same time render it as unlikely because it requires so much work to actually fit into the game due to the way Blizzard has intentionally designed them. It's to the point where we may as well look towards a different race that could be similar and did not have the same intentional design problems.

Just like how you've been talking about Shadow Hunters being more sensible than Dark Rangers. I would agree with that since Shadow Hunters don't have the narrative and design 'dead ends' that Dark Rangers are now facing. It's as if Blizzard had intended to make Dark Rangers playable at the start of BFA, but over time decided not to by the time they started developing Shadowlands, and completely pivoted in the other direction. This would explain why all these Dark Ranger loose ends have suddenly been tied shortly before Shadowlands arrived, and why we are seeing Dark Ranger abilities being added onto Legendaries rather than being reserved for a class. Take this with a grain of salt - I'm simply observing and making a hypothesis, not applying this as a matter of fact.

Again, what do you have to counter Dark Rangers except for the narrative going forward?

There's nothing to *counter*.

I'm not dismissing them as a playable class in the future.

If someone were to say Ogres would be playable in the future, then I would look at what conditions there are to have them playable in the future. I can analyze the current narrative, and the prospects of Ogres as a race, and conclude that there is no indication that they would be playable; it's just a wild guess. There is no information that leads us to believe this would happen. It doesn't mean it's impossible for Blizzard to make some reason to add Ogres, but I would point out that there's nothing that indicates they would be playable. It remains that they simply could be playable.

This isn't *countering* Ogres being playable, it's pointing out that there's nothing in the works to hint at them being added as a playable race. Does this make sense?

1. There's nothing wrong with other class trainers. Yes, it is always better that the main character do it, but it's not game breaking.
2. Both Alliance and Horde. I'd wager it'd be more ranger-inclined races in life, but Death Knights was spread to every race, so who knows...
3. A common goal? like Monks joining the factions out of new beginnings or Demon Hunter joining to defeat the Legion (and not their former master). The thing is, Elves could rally together to take out Azshara, just like they did against Elisande.
4. Told you, an ancient Kalimdor expansion.
5. Already showed you there are many potential abilities to be added to the class with the link to the thread i made. You just chose to ignore it.

You're not addressing the current narrative. You're implying creative solutions.

I'm not asking for solutions, I'm pointing out where the narrative has headed towards.

Only narratively.

Mostly narratively, also mechanically.

Everything special about Dark Rangers is being disconnected from Sylvanas in the lore, meaning it's going to be more difficult to present a Dark Ranger class that has all the Banshee powers we'd expect them to have without having established any connection to Sylvanas or the Shadowlands.

Even with a flashback scenario, how do we explain that Dark Rangers suddenly had Banshee powers all this time and never used it during the events of Legion up to now? Death Knights could do this because they were mostly in Northrend and training in secret. Demon hunters could do this because a special force was sent into other worlds during TBC. What reason exists here? All the known Dark Rangers were Sylvanas' personal elite soldiers, and all of them are accounted for. There's no case to build up some 'secret Dark Ranger group' that is carrying out her orders off-world; we're already seeing Sylvanas enact her plans using the Mawsworn and allying with the Jailer, and retaining the Val'kyr at most. She's been effectively cut off from every other Dark Ranger in the game, narratively. They do not serve her, and they do not wish to serve her any more.

So yes, it's mostly a narrative thing, but it has implications on the future explanation of connecting Dark Ranger tropes to the class.

Of course there is, because Bard is not established in any prior sources.
Dark Rangers are not a faction. They don't even have one like the Knights of the Ebon Blade or the Illidari.

Right, and all the Dark Rangers known are accounted for. There is very little case to assume that there is some secret order out there in the world waiting for a chance to join the Alliance and Horde and display their secret Banshee powers.

Why do you think they introduce Night elf Dark Rangers? only to have them in the Horde? they could have just remained Forsaken and High elves.
They can't? oh, please tell me what Blizzard can't or can't do.

My personal interpretation is that they had planned for a Dark Ranger to be playable, and at the last minute decided against it. As the decision to not be playable came into effect, they had to bench the whole setup and cover all the loose ends by simply not addressing them in Shadowlands.



Now, if we are talking about what Blizzard *could* do for Dark Rangers, the nmaybe while we are in Shadowlands they are secretly doing something to perpetuate a Shadows vs Light conflict against Turalyon and the Alliance in our absence. This is what we call a wild guess. This is not something we can call a hint, because there's nothing to indicate this would happen. There's nothing to hint that Blizzard is seeding the Dark Rangers to play a bigger role after Shadowlands, even if they could use them to further the plot in the future. We're at a point in time where the likelyhood of them being significant in the near future is quite low. Just like I would say in Legion, the chance for Yrel to come back in the plot would have been quite low. We *need* to be shown some information that actually shows us they're interested in revisiting Yrel before we should simply take it into account, like how Blizzard seeded her leading the Army of the Light for the Mag'har Allied Race introduction. That is what I call an indication, because she isn't back but we know that it's being set up.

Otherwise we're literally just throwing around wild guesses of what could happen. Blizzard could make Aszhara an ally because Void Gods are trying to kill her. But that's not something we should regard as a legitimate theory, because there's really no indication in the narrative to suggest this is actually gonna happen. It's a wild guess, not an educated guess. It's not a sensible prediction, even if I make it sound very logical. There's not enough information for me to root this as an actual plausible outcome; it's a wild guess.


I'm not talking about a situation where we should be open to possibilities to _be able_ to predict the next class or expansion. That's just a matter of throwing random ideas on a dartboard; there's nothing to actually discuss. If Blizz wants Aszhara to be an ally to make Naga playable, they very well could do that. But we shouldn't be operating on theories that Naga will be playable just because it's possible for Blizzard to make Azshara an ally. That's a wild guess that has no actual roots in the current narrative. Just because it could happen doesn't mean it would happen. If we're talking about what could happen, then the chance of playable Naga is rhe same as playable elephant-people. These are all wild guesses.

As much as you want to pass off your idea of ancient Kalimdor, it's not really relevant to Dark Rangers or the current story at all. You're operating off of a wild guess.

It's not just the cinematics. It's my WC3 Hero unit analysis. It's the prominence of Sylvanas through 3 expansions straight (unheard of before in terms of character spotlight). It's introducing Night elf Dark Rangers both in War of Thorns and the promotional WC3 Sentinels picture. It's Dark Wardens being introduced for no real reason in particular. It's the Night Warrior, suddenly, popping out of nowhere into the lore to expand upon the Priestess of the Moon. It's showcasing Sylvanas using specific abilities and not just showing off her character, narratively. And it's, probably, much more that i can't remember right now.

I'm aware of this, and if we're talking about WC3 Hero unit analysis then Tinker and Shadow hunter has far more potential right now than Dark Ranger, because both of these have not been written narratively into dead ends.

Like I said, I'm considering a full picture. I'm not disregarding a connection to Warcraft 3. I'm not disregarding a creative potential. I'm differentiating a wild guess from an educated one.

The potential for a Tinker and Shadow Hunter had grown significantly with BFA, and remains fairly strong because their narrative potential is left open. Even with Shadowlands, we know there is a realm where all the Loa and Trolls reside, so there is ample place room to explore. There is nothing to suggest they would be explored, but the narrative potential remains viable.

The potential for a Dark Ranger grew very strong at the start of BFA, and was seemingly concluded by the end of it, with all of the known Dark Rangers settled under Calia/Lilian Voss' care. Even if they brought Sylvanas back (from the dead?), the Dark Rangers have no reason to taker her back as their leader. Narratively speaking, they could have had the Dark Rangers scattered in the world with the potential of joining as a playable class when the time calls; but they didn't. Instead, they are all brought back to the Horde, and the Night Elf Dark Rangers are resolved by acknowledging their existence as Forsaken.

There's a very big difference here when we regard Dark Rangers now in the lore. It's not a matter of 'well Blizzard can do it if they wanted', because we are seeing right now that Blizzard are doing things that indicate they actively *don't want* to leave it as an open thread left to be explored in the near future.

[username993720]

Not really. If you're going to say 'fits the best', I might agree with you. But "only one that fits", I'll disagree, as one can make other class concepts work for it. Runemaster, for example, could be tailored to fit the story being told. I'm not saying the class would be about demons, but the runemasters could know of special runic magic that could help against the demons. For instance, look at the vrykul in Stormheim, and there were magic runes around.

-_-

Demon Hunter. What can be more obvious than that?
I can tailor anything if i want to to fit this expansion. Doesn't mean it does. Runemasters are as much a stretch as Naga Sea Witches, because Nagas featured in Aszuna.

It was always that way. We expected a class. We thought it was guaranteed, but in no way, shape or form there was any guarantee that a new class would be added every odd-number expansion patch number.

Nothing is guaranteed in this life. So, just giving up an saying we can't predict things is pessimistic. As of then, it was a class every other expansion. Shadowlands taught us it is not the case anymore.

No. Really, no. The only reason we got "three expansions straight of Sylvanas" (two, really, since she was only relevant in a single zone of Legion then never again) is because she is a pivotal piece of the story being told, not because Blizzard is planning on releasing a new playable class based on her. And even if that was actually Blizzard's plan... guess what? People are basically sick and tired of Sylvanas, now. Way to backfire.

1. She was named Warchief in Legion. Pretty significant part of Legion. Not to mention the Broken Shore.
2. No other character that was pivotal to the story got that much screen time. Not Garrosh, Not Arthas, Not Illidan. Why did she, in particular?
3. Exactly. If you're gonna produce so much fatigue of her featuring in multiple expansion, why not act on it? That's just a waste of storyline. We had better characters than her. It's not like she is the most, and only, popular character out there. You see, it's a waste of character to be used so much yet not introduce a Dark Ranger in the end. She would have best stayed in the shadows as the Forsaken leader until Shadowlands. There was no need for her to feature so prominently in other expansions, when there are other, better characters that could have been used. And, if you're gonna say they were trying to set her up as a villain:
1. You don't require that much screen time.
2. She's not the big bad boss, in the end, only a sidekick. Azshara didn't require that much. Neither Gul'dan.

Again, irrelevant. Their prominence is because of the story being told, not because Blizzard is "prepping us for a new class based on the character". Again, you're engaging in confirmation bias, here.

Because of the story... That lasts for 3 expansions in a row. Does it seem reasonable to you? to anyone? Garrosh only needed an expansion and a half. So did Gul'dan. Azshara only required a patch or so. So 3 god damn expansion? what's the point in that? Does Danuser went off the rails and is controlling everything that goes on there?

I never said you did. But they're on the same level of what you're doing: "fun little things".

*Doubt.

You do know Samuro literally did not exist before Warcraft 3, right? The WC3 blademaster unit was based off on an artwork of a D&D orc wielding a two-handed sword by Samwise Didier who was called "Grumok the wanderer".

"Samuro was originally based on an old image done by Samwise Didier for a Dungeons & Dragons character named "Grumok the wanderer". Originally "just an orc character with a sword", the character design eventually made its way into Warcraft III as an orc hero, similar to Didier's creation of Chen Stormstout and the pandaren race."

And yet Jubei'thos was the one Blizzard picked to be the blademaster boss in the Hellfire Citadel raid, not Samuro.

That's because he's not that important. They didn't give him much abilities, either. Not to mention that he's a corrupted Blademaster, and not a standard one. Samuro is on the same level as Sylvanas, Illidan, Arthas, Chen are for Dark Ranger, Demon Hunter, Death Knight and Monk. He is the representative of the concept. You can see that by him being picked for HotS, like the rest of them, and not Jubei'thos.

Illidan had nothing. As far as we knew, Illidan was dead, and has been dead since the end of the Burning Crusade expansion.

Himself, no. But the demonic themes could only mean one thing (if they were to add a class).

I didn't forget. I just didn't do it because they're irrelevant to the topic at hand. Giving hints to a demon-themed expansion in no way, shape or form means "hints of a demon hunter class".

Really?
How many time must i repeat that? If a class is due and so is a demonic expansion, what else can they do? Just put 1+1.

Dear god, you're so lazy. I literally mentioned the BfA expansion in my list of blademaster "hints".

What's in BfA?
Well, you don't have to answer to Triceron, as well, and that guy writes like he's about to publish a book. It's exhausting.

Not really. I don't see any way how giving the present classes a fourth spec would "improve RP a lot".

Really? you don't?
More archetypes and more playstyles would give your character more options to roleplay. Same as new classes and their specs.

Now you're moving the goalposts. There are blood trolls necromancers who use blood magic, and blood trolls can use blood magic to heal.

I think what you linked as a Blood-healing spell was that of a Blood Troll priest.

Are you agreeing with me? That it's possible necromancers would study the kind of blood magic the blood trolls use?

Hmmm.... i'm more inclined to think of a necromancer using a Scourge blood magic, rather than primitive Blood Trolls or Bleeding Hollow Orcs. But, i guess that if they have necromancers among them, that it is possible.

I've included appearances in TFT, since we're talking about hype for classes. I would assume that Arthas' appearances in previous cinematics would have contributed to the idea of 'We saw this dude in a cinematic and we want to play as him', otherwise cinematics wouldn't apply to Death Knight at all.

And if cinematics don't apply to a Death Knight and Monk, then really we're talking about even less reason to use cinematics as a hint or indicator of future prospects.

That's a different timeline and game. It'd be like me using the Warcraft movie as an indicator. No, i'm talking about recent times and cinematics.

Agreed, which is actually what I consider against the Tinker concept. It's lack of relevancy to the current narrative makes it so there's no real reason to bring TInkers into the fray, other than Blizzard's own will to do so. It's not wholly predictable, and I don't consider there to be a precedent other than an open loose end of not having explored the place.

As I'm explaining, I would not use Undermine as a reason to prop up Tinkers as being playable. There are plenty of other reasons that a Tinker could be likely, which do not involve Undermine in the conversation. It's simply there to be used if convenient.

We don't have this at all for Dark Rangers. Dark Rangers are left without a setting or a story to move forward to, right now. If Blizzard chooses to pursue one, then it would be one that has not been hinted at right now. And no, I don't consider Sylvanas being in cinematics as being a hint, because Sylvanas is a prominent lore figure who has since disconnected herself from her Dark Ranger followers, and has displayed unique abilities that only she has access to without any indication that she was training any underlings the way we knew Arthas and Illidan had done.

Really, didn't they team up with her?
Besides, Arthas or Illidan training their trainees wasn't expressed at all with their followers having the same abilities. We were just told they were trained under them. So, Dark Ranger NPCs not possessing Sylvanas' abilities is not indicative of anything.

I'm making a point that we don't. These plans usually *aren't* hinted at, they're simply presented. Yet when we see indications of them specifically moving *away* then it's also safe to assume that it's not being planned.

For example, let's talk about how a Necromancer would fit into WoW. We have plenty of loose ends like Cult of the Damned. They're still around in the lore, no matter what happens to other lore figures. Yet if we're talking about their likelyhood of being added as a class, there's really nothing to indicate it happening. It's not a matter of 'It can happen because they haven't explored that option yet', because that's asserting a 'wild guess'.

Death Knight was unpredictable but assumed, because practically any and every playable class would have been assumed early into the series. We'd expected playable Demon Hunters, Death Knights, Wardens, Dark Rangers; anything and everything because the game was in its infancy.

Monk was a surprise, and completely unexpected. I would not consider this to have been predictable because they literally dug into left field to do so. Let's consider that there was nothing in the lore that was actively preventing Monks to be added to the game, only an assumption that China wouldn't have allowed playable Pandaren being the key reason why not to expect them.

Demon Hunter was also a surprise, yet it *could* be considered predictable in retrospect, because we were given signs of a return of the Legion since MoP. Is it a solid proof that it was going to happen? No. It's only in retrospect because it actually happened. In an alternate world, we could say this about any number of classes like Tinker or Shadow Hunter if they were added too; yet they haven't actually been added to the game. The Demon Hunter was. And its reason is because they deliberately created an Expansion revolving around the return of the Legion which would have necessitated a return of this important lore-based Class.

So what comes next? It would be a class that fits the story and setting of their next planned expansion. We can't predict what expansion they choose to do after Shadowlands, because it can literally be anything. However we can narrow down the possible future outcomes. They are not going to revisit another Undeath-related realm since that's what's being covered in Shadowlands. We can assume it's not another Legion expansion, since that arc was recently finished and we know we are moving towards Shadow vs Light with some room to explore other themes in between.

Aszhara and Trolls were just recently covered by BFA, and even if these loose ends haven't been tied, I would doubt they would be revisited again so soon. We're more likely to tap into new locations like Dragon Isles and Undermine more than another set of Troll Islands and Nazjatar 2.0 as a means to bring in Shadow Hunters and Sea Witches.

Again, I'm taking strong consideration that Blizzard has to consider a setting and story that ties in a new class that is as strong as Demon Hunters connected to Legion, because even Dark Rangers and Necromancers were unable to meet this criteria for Shadowlands. This means it's not just a matter of having Shadow Hunters or Priestess of the Moon be playable in a Shadow vs Light expansion because they have some loose connections to both themes. It means Blizzard has to consider a strong setting for them to be established.

You didn't, really answer my question. What moves are they making away from the Dark Ranger? the defeat of Sylvanas? Not introducing Dark Rangers this expansion?

What? How do Tinkers and Shadow Hunters fit Legion?

Undermine? You just said it was not relevant. You, probably, mean Ka'resh.

PotM have no connections, that i know of, to Light/Void. Shadow Hunters, on the other hand, are described as "walking the line between light and darkness".

It's an example of the type of argument you've been presenting for the Dark Ranger so far.

What you have presented has not been hints towards a Dark Ranger being playable, what you've been presenting is a possibility for Dark Rangers to exist. The Murloc example is to illustrate how we can imply possibility, and at the same time render it as unlikely because it requires so much work to actually fit into the game due to the way Blizzard has intentionally designed them. It's to the point where we may as well look towards a different race that could be similar and did not have the same intentional design problems.

Just like how you've been talking about Shadow Hunters being more sensible than Dark Rangers. I would agree with that since Shadow Hunters don't have the narrative and design 'dead ends' that Dark Rangers are now facing. It's as if Blizzard had intended to make Dark Rangers playable at the start of BFA, but over time decided not to by the time they started developing Shadowlands, and completely pivoted in the other direction. This would explain why all these Dark Ranger loose ends have suddenly been tied shortly before Shadowlands arrived, and why we are seeing Dark Ranger abilities being added onto Legendaries rather than being reserved for a class. Take this with a grain of salt - I'm simply observing and making a hypothesis, not applying this as a matter of fact.

Your Murloc argument vs the Dark Ranger

Are murlocs relevant to the story? no. Are Dark Rangers? yes.
Can Murloc speak anything but "Mrggglgl". No. Can Dark Ranger be part of WoW classes? yes.
Do Murlocs have a model and skeleton fit to be playable? no. Do Dark Rangers have enough potential abilities and talents to constitute a class/spec? yes.
Nothing that you said really invalidated the concept, except for the seemingly wrap up of Sylvanas' story.

There's nothing to *counter*.

I'm not dismissing them as a playable class in the future.

If someone were to say Ogres would be playable in the future, then I would look at what conditions there are to have them playable in the future. I can analyze the current narrative, and the prospects of Ogres as a race, and conclude that there is no indication that they would be playable; it's just a wild guess. There is no information that leads us to believe this would happen. It doesn't mean it's impossible for Blizzard to make some reason to add Ogres, but I would point out that there's nothing that indicates they would be playable. It remains that they simply could be playable.

This isn't *countering* Ogres being playable, it's pointing out that there's nothing in the works to hint at them being added as a playable race. Does this make sense?

Then, you've missed a lot of hints about them.
1. Stonemaul Ogres join the Horde alongside the Mag'har from alternate Draenor.
2. Rexxar uses a Kul Tiran skeleton that can be used for playable Ogres.
3. Maldraxxian Gladiators use a mix of Ogre and Kul Tiran animation rigs, or an Ogre with a different posture, that can be used for playable Ogres.
In conclusion, Kul Tirans were, probably, introduced as a new skeletal rig, unlike the other allied races, to introduce playable Ogres in the future.

You're not addressing the current narrative. You're implying creative solutions.

I'm not asking for solutions, I'm pointing out where the narrative has headed towards.

You're not looking at this from the perspective of a content creator, you're looking at this from the perspective of a fan who wants something made. From an authorial perspective, it makes no sense why Blizzard would actively dissuade adding the Night Elf Dark Rangers to the Alliance and instead have them denote themselves as Forsaken and remain with the Horde if the intention was to allow Dark Rangers on both factions. The move towards making Night Elves a Dark Ranger option has been creatively put into a dead end, because we are now shown that those Night Elves more closely associate themselves with the Forsaken than they would the Night Elves.

It's going to be counter-intuitive to rewrite again after they just established it.

So it would appear. But, what's exactly the point of introducing them if you're not going to make Dark Rangers playable? We know they expanded Dark Rangers to Forsaken to make them playable Hunters. The thing is, with Tyrande going through what she goes in the Shadowlands, she might forgive and repent those lost souls and accept them back to the Alliance. We just don't know her stance yet.

Mostly narratively, also mechanically.

Everything special about Dark Rangers is being disconnected from Sylvanas in the lore, meaning it's going to be more difficult to present a Dark Ranger class that has all the Banshee powers we'd expect them to have without having established any connection to Sylvanas or the Shadowlands.

Even with a flashback scenario, how do we explain that Dark Rangers suddenly had Banshee powers all this time and never used it during the events of Legion up to now? Death Knights could do this because they were mostly in Northrend and training in secret. Demon hunters could do this because a special force was sent into other worlds during TBC. What reason exists here? All the known Dark Rangers were Sylvanas' personal elite soldiers, and all of them are accounted for. There's no case to build up some 'secret Dark Ranger group' that is carrying out her orders off-world; we're already seeing Sylvanas enact her plans using the Mawsworn and allying with the Jailer, and retaining the Val'kyr at most. She's been effectively cut off from every other Dark Ranger in the game, narratively. They do not serve her, and they do not wish to serve her any more.

So yes, it's mostly a narrative thing, but it has implications on the future explanation of connecting Dark Ranger tropes to the class.

They do not?
One thing that can be done is creating a new generation of Dark Rangers, like there were 3 generation of Death Knights. These kinds of technicalities are mute, to be honest, and are in no way disrupting the addition of Dark Rangers. They could fart out whole specs for the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter that weren't there before. Blood and Frost. Mistweaver and Windwalker. Vengeance. So, claiming all of this was, apparently, established before is bullcrap.

Right, and all the Dark Rangers known are accounted for. There is very little case to assume that there is some secret order out there in the world waiting for a chance to join the Alliance and Horde and display their secret Banshee powers.

Who said there is?
You know, Knights of the Ebon Blade was created, purely, for Wrath.

My personal interpretation is that they had planned for a Dark Ranger to be playable, and at the last minute decided against it. As the decision to not be playable came into effect, they had to bench the whole setup and cover all the loose ends by simply not addressing them in Shadowlands.

This seems to be effectively how Yrel was treated in the lore. I very much felt that they were going to bring her into the MU timeline with the rest of the characters, but instead they benched her back in WoD, and eventually touched her story again by tying her into the Shadow and Light conflict.

Now, Blizzard *could* do this for Dark Rangers, and maybe while we are in Shadowlands they are secretly doing something to perpetuate a Shadows vs Light conflict against Turalyon and the Alliance in our absence, but this is not something we *should automatically assume* because there's nothing to indicate this would happen. There's nothing to hint that Blizzard is seeding the Dark Rangers to play a bigger role after Shadowlands, even if they could use them to further the plot in the future. We're at a point in time where the likelyhood of them being significant in the near future is quite low. Just like I would say in Legion, the chance for Yrel to come back in the plot would have been quite low. We *need* to be shown some information that actually shows us they're interested in using Yrel as a potential character before we should simply take it into account.

Otherwise we're literally just throwing around wild guesses of what could happen. Blizzard could make Aszhara an ally because Void Gods are trying to kill her. But that's not something we should regard as a legitimate theory, because there's really no indication in the narrative to suggest this is actually gonna happen. It's a wild guess, not an educated guess. It's not a sensible prediction, even if I make it sound very logical. There's not enough information for me to root this as an actual plausible outcome; it's a wild guess.

Not everything will be considered predictable or likely. WoD, for example, would likely never have been predictable. Anyone who would have predicted we would visit alternate universe and timeline Draenor would have been operating off of a lucky guess, and not at something that was hinted at before. However someone predicting Legion could have done so with the information we had in retrospect, that Wrathion mentioned would happen back in MoP. That is an educated guess.

I'm not talking about a situation where we should be open to possibilities to _be able_ to predict a Warlords of Draenor. That's just a matter of throwing random ideas on a dartboard; there's nothing to actually discuss. If Blizz wants Aszhara to be an ally to make Naga playable, they very well could do that, but that possibility should not be regarded as a hint or indication that makes playable Naga more likely to happen. We shouldn't be operating on theories that Naga will be playable because it's possible for Blizzard to make Azshara an ally. That's a wild guess that has no actual roots in the current narrative. Just because it could happen doesn't mean it would happen.

As much as you want to pass off your idea of ancient Kalimdor, it's not really relevant to Dark Rangers or the current story at all. You're operating off of a wild guess.

Are you saying they just hatchet-chopped the class idea mid-way? And i'm the conspiracy theorist... It, usually, gets scrapped in theory, not in practice, while actually implementing so many Dark Ranger elements, characters and storylines. That's what happened with Necromancers and Runemasters. They didn't heavily implement them and then decided, mid-way, that they don't actually want them. All of this is done when discussing potential classes, not while you're creating expansion narratives. That's just de-legitimates the whole storyline, time and effort put into it. That's like wasting the whole Night Warrior storyline, or Dark Wardens as well. Heck, they devoted outside sources for them, as well, like books. Do you expect them to throw it all away, because they simply decided they don't want it anymore? very unlikely. You don't set up something in game only to abandon it half-way. People work on it, you know.

As for your examples. Yrel is, definitely, being set up with the Mag'har recruitment scenario, showing her leading the Lightbound. They didn't abandon her storyline.
Same as with Azshara. She escaped through a portal. Do you think they'll just throw it away?
It's not like the Mongrel Horde, for example, that was only in concept art stages. Or even the Emerald Dream, that was in Alpha or Beta stages. Those things are in the game and part of the storyline.

As for playable Nagas, their current models aren't suited for playability. Yet, drawing from the Sethrak could be proved useful for them.

I'm aware of this, and if we're talking about WC3 Hero unit analysis then Tinker and Shadow hunter has far more potential right now than Dark Ranger, because both of these have not been written narratively into dead ends.

Like I said, I'm considering a full picture. I'm not disregarding a connection to Warcraft 3. I'm not disregarding a creative potential. I'm differentiating a wild guess from an educated one.

The potential for a Tinker and Shadow Hunter had grown significantly with BFA, and remains fairly strong because their narrative potential is left open. Even with Shadowlands, we know there is a realm where all the Loa and Trolls reside, so there is ample place room to explore. There is nothing to suggest they would be explored, but the narrative potential remains viable.

The potential for a Dark Ranger grew very strong at the start of BFA, and was seemingly concluded by the end of it, with all of the known Dark Rangers settled under Calia/Lilian Voss' care. Even if they brought Sylvanas back (from the dead?), the Dark Rangers have no reason to taker her back as their leader. Narratively speaking, they could have had the Dark Rangers scattered in the world with the potential of joining as a playable class when the time calls; but they didn't. Instead, they are all brought back to the Horde, and the Night Elf Dark Rangers are resolved by acknowledging their existence as Forsaken.

There's a very big difference here when we regard Dark Rangers now in the lore. It's not a matter of 'well Blizzard can do it if they wanted', because we are seeing right now that Blizzard are doing things that indicate they actively *don't want* to leave it as an open thread left to be explored in the near future.

Tinkers as much as Shadow Hunters? I don't think so. There's no apparent technological expansion on the horizon, the same as there isn't an Elf one. We have Light/Void and Dragon Isles.

Weren't there Dark Ranger defectors that still stayed loyal to Sylvanas? i'm pretty sure they were portrayed in the Shadows rising book.

Again, for what purpose? to expand the Calia and Derek racial diversity? They're just night elf models with grey skin and red eyes. Calia and Derek were given unique models with unique hairstyles and could be used as an allied race. What purpose do Night elf Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens serve? Why is there a need to expand upon the Priestess of the Moon with the Night Warrior?

Once again, i'm begging you: stop writing book-worth of comments. Look at lelenia's: short and simple.

[pacotaco]

And yet Jubei'thos was the one Blizzard picked to be the blademaster boss in the Hellfire Citadel raid, not Samuro.

That's because Samuro has a special place in the WoW lore: he helped with the foundation of Orgrimmar (alongside Rexxar, Rokhan and Chen). And it seems Blizzard is saving him for something, because it's clear that they didn't forgot about him (he's on HotS and the new The Barrens expansion in HS), but you can't find him anywhere in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

Demon Hunter. What can be more obvious than that?
I can tailor anything if i want to to fit this expansion. Doesn't mean it does. Runemasters are as much a stretch as Naga Sea Witches, because Nagas featured in Aszuna.

Confirmation bias. You know have the information that DH released with Legion, but the mere suposition of a demon-centric expansion doesn't warrant the it would have a new class and that it would be DH.
"If they publish a new Legion expansion, it would be the best moment to add Demon Hunter" != "The next expansion would have Demon Hunters because it would be demon themed"

1. She was named Warchief in Legion. Pretty significant part of Legion. Not to mention the Broken Shore.
2. No other character that was pivotal to the story got that much screen time. Not Garrosh, Not Arthas, Not Illidan. Why did she, in particular?
3. Exactly. If you're gonna produce so much fatigue of her featuring in multiple expansion, why not act on it? That's just a waste of storyline. We had better characters than her. It's not like she is the most, and only, popular character out there. You see, it's a waste of character to be used so much yet not introduce a Dark Ranger in the end. She would have best stayed in the shadows as the Forsaken leader until Shadowlands. There was no need for her to feature so prominently in other expansions, when there are other, better characters that could have been used. And, if you're gonna say they were trying to set her up as a villain:
1. You don't require that much screen time.
2. She's not the big bad boss, in the end, only a sidekick. Azshara didn't require that much. Neither Gul'dan.

Because of the story... That lasts for 3 expansions in a row. Does it seem reasonable to you? to anyone? Garrosh only needed an expansion and a half. So did Gul'dan. Azshara only required a patch or so. So 3 god damn expansion? what's the point in that? Does Danuser went off the rails and is controlling everything that goes on there?

You are seeing to much into it. She got more time because Blizzard wanted to give more spotlight to the existing women in the WoW universe. That's why they put so much a spotlight on Jaina and Sylvannas, and they killed Rastakhan to put her daughter on the front in BFA.

Himself, no. But the demonic themes could only mean one thing (if they were to add a class).

Not really. It's the best fit? Yes. It's the only fit? No. They could've added tinker and say "This time we won't rely on magic to defeat the Legion, because that's what it brought it to us in the first place. So we'll use now our technological marvels to defeat it again", and create a narrative around how we hijack Legion's technology to bring the battle to them instead of DHs spearheading the charge to steal the portal thingy.
Warcraft lore is pretty loose, so you can fit almost anything any time.

Really?
How many time must i repeat that? If a class is due and so is a demonic expansion, what else can they do? Just put 1+1.

Confirmation bias. Just look the previous note.

What's in BfA?
Well, you don't have to answer to Triceron, as well, and that guy writes like he's about to publish a book. It's exhausting.

BFA added:
- Blademaster Lightforged Draenei -> Blademaster on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Dark Ranger Nigh Elves -> Dark Ranger on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Dark Warden Nigh Elves -> Warden on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Tinker groups on Island Expeditions -> Tinkers on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.

That's a different timeline and game. It'd be like me using the Warcraft movie as an indicator. No, i'm talking about recent times and cinematics.

TFT is not another timeline like WoD. What are you talking about?

Really, didn't they team up with her?
Besides, Arthas or Illidan training their trainees wasn't expressed at all with their followers having the same abilities. We were just told they were trained under them. So, Dark Ranger NPCs not possessing Sylvanas' abilities is not indicative of anything.

Nope, just a very small group. The bulk of the group stayed on the Horde or went with Calia.

You didn't, really answer my question. What moves are they making away from the Dark Ranger? the defeat of Sylvanas? Not introducing Dark Rangers this expansion?

I think it's 50/50 on Blizzard adding DRs. On 1 hand, they best fit a Death Theme expansion, and the current one was maybe the best fit. On the other hand. they can just justify it on a later patch, e.g.: "The Jailer's plan went OK and he scaped to Azeroth. And one of the groups best prepared to stop him, along the Death Knights, is the Dark Rangers"

PotM have no connections, that i know of, to Light/Void. Shadow Hunters, on the other hand, are described as "walking the line between light and darkness".

The light and darkness that's quoted there refers to the line between life and death. It would actually be closer to a Death Shaman with the current lore.
And Vol'jin being a SH and a Loa, it's also another thing that Blizzard seed to make it able to be playable.

Your Murloc argument vs the Dark Ranger

Are murlocs relevant to the story? no. Are Dark Rangers? yes.
Can Murloc speak anything but "Mrggglgl". No. Can Dark Ranger be part of WoW classes? yes.
Do Murlocs have a model and skeleton fit to be playable? no. Do Dark Rangers have enough potential abilities and talents to constitute a class/spec? yes.
Nothing that you said really invalidated the concept, except for the seemingly wrap up of Sylvanas' story.

Actually:
- Dark Rangers are currently irrelevant. They didn't even appear on the expansion so far (barring Sylvannas).
- There's at least one who can speak common: Sir Finley Mrrgglton. Yeah, it started as a joke character on HS, but he made his way into WoW, so... anything is possible. They can even make that the playable ones are special mutant ones, made more intelligent by being exposed to some magical artifact, like the Gorlocs in Sholazar Basin.

Who said there is?
You know, Knights of the Ebon Blade was created, purely, for Wrath.

Even if there isn't one, they can make it up, they just need Val'kyr to make them. But we now know that Val'Kyr are just pseudo-kyrian. So:
- Horde: still has the last Val'Kyr that created the DRs in Darkshore, I think. So that ground is covered.
- Alliance: make Uther (or another forsworn, but I think he's probably the best fit) to come back to Azeroth to help raise new DRs for the Alliance.

[Triceron]

That's a different timeline and game. It'd be like me using the Warcraft movie as an indicator. No, i'm talking about recent times and cinematics.

WoW is a literal continuation of Warcraft 3's story, including the characters. Same timeline, just a continuation. That is why Arthas and Illidan and Sylvanas are still relevant.

Really, didn't they team up with her?
Besides, Arthas or Illidan training their trainees wasn't expressed at all with their followers having the same abilities. We were just told they were trained under them. So, Dark Ranger NPCs not possessing Sylvanas' abilities is not indicative of anything.

Have you followed the story? They're no longer working with Sylvanas and had their loyalty spurned by her abandoning them all and leaving them with no wherw else to turn.

Had it not been for Calia accepting them back, they could have just as easily been considered war criminals or traitors by the Horde Council, much as was the fate of Nathanos.

You didn't, really answer my question. What moves are they making away from the Dark Ranger? the defeat of Sylvanas? Not introducing Dark Rangers this expansion?

Are you not following the current story? Serious question here.

The Dark Rangers are already a part of the Horde. There is little possibility now for them to suddenly branch off to the Alliance as well. This is just one example of a move away from it being a playable class. They concluded a major potential opportunity for them to be seeded into both factions.

What move do you see there being to allow Dark Rangers on both factions with the way things are right now? Night Elves are going to have a sudden change of heart and leave for the Alliance again just because?

What? How do Tinkers and Shadow Hunters fit Legion?

My point is that Legion could have been a different expansion theme that introduced a different class.

For example, If Zandalar followed up after WoD instead of Broken Isles, then Shadow Hunters could have been introduced as classes. That is a possibility since Blizzard didn't _need_ to follow up WoD with Legion; these expansion concepts are flexible. We know WoD started as Mongrel Horde and Garrosh using a magical horn to raise the Warlords from the dead, and eventually settled on alternate universe Draenor. These are wildly different expansion settings for the same general concept of Garrosh building a new army.

If Mechagon or Undermine were introduced before Broken Isles, then Tinkers could have been added instead of Demon Hunters. Most of these expansion concepts are modular, and we know Blizzard designs them this way. They have multiple concepts planned, and they shift around what they want to approach next based on the narrative they want to tell. Legion happened to focus more on a demon invasion that involved the return of Illidan and an attack on the Vault of the Wardens which was conveniently on the Broken Isles.

Undermine? You just said it was not relevant. You, probably, mean Ka'resh.

Both are in the same situation. They both exist in the lore but we have no indication of going to either in the near future.

PotM have no connections, that i know of, to Light/Void. Shadow Hunters, on the other hand, are described as "walking the line between light and darkness".

Blizzard is indirectly connecting POTM to light and shadow through Elune's newly revealed connections to the Ordering of Light and Shadow.

Priestess of the Moon are servants of Elune. In Legion, X'era confirms that the prime Naaru were created by Elune. POTM channel the power of the light of the moon, and they have a 'Void state' in the form of the Night Warrior, a cycle that Naaru similarly go through. Elune's true origins and true power are still a mystery to us, but we are given more and more connections between her and the ordering of Light and Shadow than ever before, while POTM remain as her devoted servants and representatives.

Your Murloc argument vs the Dark Ranger

Are murlocs relevant to the story? no. Are Dark Rangers? yes.
Can Murloc speak anything but "Mrggglgl". No. Can Dark Ranger be part of WoW classes? yes.
Do Murlocs have a model and skeleton fit to be playable? no. Do Dark Rangers have enough potential abilities and talents to constitute a class/spec? yes.
Nothing that you said really invalidated the concept, except for the seemingly wrap up of Sylvanas' story.

All correct except Dark Rangers being relevant to the story. They do not appear at all in Shadowlands, and they have effectively been benched in Azeroth right now. They play no active role in the story as it stands. Same as Murlocs.

The only Dark Ranger in Shadowlands is Sylvanas, and her story is likely concluding next patch.

So it would appear. But, what's exactly the point of introducing them if you're not going to make Dark Rangers playable?

The obvious answer is surprise and drama. It was a way to show how evil Sylvanas was by not only killing all of the civilians, but forcefully raising dead warriors into her side amd having them hate Tyrande and force her to go Night Warrior.

It's a macguffin. Just like Azerite being the cause for a faction war. Blizzard is great at creating reasons for drama, but have a bad track record for resolving them. I mean, Azerite lost most of its purpose by mid expansion, and was pretty irrelevant to the narrative outside of Island Expeditions. And same goes with how they treated the Dark Rangers in the lore after they served their purpose.

I don't consider this to be a grand plan, I consider it an oversight. Look at how they introduced giant Draenei warships in Legion but you don't see one of em in BFA. What was the point? Surprise and drama. Rule of cool.

They do not?
One thing that can be done is creating a new generation of Dark Rangers, like there were 3 generation of Death Knights. These kinds of technicalities are mute, to be honest, and are in no way disrupting the addition of Dark Rangers. They could fart out whole specs for the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter that weren't there before. Blood and Frost. Mistweaver and Windwalker. Vengeance. So, claiming all of this was, apparently, established before is bullcrap.

Who creates this new generation of Dark Rangers, and how? Valkyr were the single reason why new Dark Ranger Night Elves could be created, and they all left in service with Sylvanas. We're killing them all in the next raid.

It's a narrative dead end.

Who said there is?
You know, Knights of the Ebon Blade was created, purely, for Wrath.

Ebon Blade may have been a new creation, but the second son of Mograine and the redemption of the Ashbringer was hinted at since Vanilla.

Are you saying they just hatchet-chopped the class idea mid-way? And i'm the conspiracy theorist... It, usually, gets scrapped in theory, not in practice, while actually implementing so many Dark Ranger elements, characters and storylines. That's what happened with Necromancers and Runemasters. They didn't heavily implement them and then decided, mid-way, that they don't actually want them. All of this is done when discussing potential classes, not while you're creating expansion narratives. That's just de-legitimates the whole storyline, time and effort put into it. That's like wasting the whole Night Warrior storyline, or Dark Wardens as well. Heck, they devoted outside sources for them, as well, like books. Do you expect them to throw it all away, because they simply decided they don't want it anymore? very unlikely. You don't set up something in game only to abandon it half-way. People work on it, you know.

You realize the Night Warrior plotline for Tyrande is ending next patch right? That is effectively abandoning it, and people are complaining and expressing disappointment already.

As for your examples. Yrel is, definitely, being set up with the Mag'har recruitment scenario, showing her leading the Lightbound. They didn't abandon her storyline.
Same as with Azshara. She escaped through a portal. Do you think they'll just throw it away?
It's not like the Mongrel Horde, for example, that was only in concept art stages. Or even the Emerald Dream, that was in Alpha or Beta stages. Those things are in the game and part of the storyline.

Consider that the Warchief after Garrosh waa a HUGE debate amongst fans. Major big deal. Was it going to be another Orc like Saurfang or Eitrigg? Could they give it to Sylvanas or Lorthemar? They eventually seated Voljin into the role of Warchief, and spent an entire next expansion doing nothing with It. Voljin dies st the beginning of Legion, and practically did nothing of significance during his reign.

This was not abandoned alpha or beta, it was literally written in to prop Sylvanas into the role to set up years of future conflict with the Alliance, and whatwver shenanigans happening now in Shadowlands.

Tinkers as much as Shadow Hunters? I don't think so. There's no apparent technological expansion on the horizon, the same as there isn't an Elf one. We have Light/Void and Dragon Isles.

Tinkers have relevance due to the recent introduction of Mechagnomes, and the appearance of Tinker-like NPCs in Island Expeditions.

But you are otherwise right about there being no apparant technological expansion in the works. I would expect to hear a hint for Undermine in the narrative before I give it stronger consideration.

Weren't there Dark Ranger defectors that still stayed loyal to Sylvanas? i'm pretty sure they were portrayed in the Shadows rising book.

So here is the paradox.

We have 3 groups of known Dark Rangers. Velonara stays loyal to Horde, Summermoon appeals to Calia to be broguht into the Forsaken, and we have stray Loyalists jn the world.

That sets up the ability for Sylvanas to continue her shenanigans through her loyalists, right? Except that they didn't do anything with this plot point

The current narrative does not involve any interactions with other Dark Rangers. If the Loyalists were up to something, they should have done it by now. Instead Sylvanas just uses Mawsworn and Valkyr ss substitutes, and Blizzard has abandoned the Loyalist plotlines completely in Shadowlands. There is no point in continuing the Loyalist narratives if Sylvanas is defeated.

Again, for what purpose? to expand the Calia and Derek racial diversity? They're just night elf models with grey skin and red eyes. Calia and Derek were given unique models with unique hairstyles and could be used as an allied race. What purpose do Night elf Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens serve? Why is there a need to expand upon the Priestess of the Moon with the Night Warrior?

This is a good question to ask, but ultimately the same lines of asking why give players a choice to be loyal to Sylvanas. Or why we had big laser ships in Legion and not use them in BFA.

Once again, i'm begging you: stop writing book-worth of comments. Look at lelenia's: short and simple.

If anything, we should simply take this to Discord and discuss properly. Easier to address an actual conversation than multiple little ones, and easier to communicate intentions rather than lose context over pages of replies with multiple people.

[username993720]

Confirmation bias. You know have the information that DH released with Legion, but the mere suposition of a demon-centric expansion doesn't warrant the it would have a new class and that it would be DH.
"If they publish a new Legion expansion, it would be the best moment to add Demon Hunter" != "The next expansion would have Demon Hunters because it would be demon themed"

What i told lelenia: it doesn't guarantee a new class. But given that there is a class addition, i don't see any other option. Do you?

You are seeing to much into it. She got more time because Blizzard wanted to give more spotlight to the existing women in the WoW universe. That's why they put so much a spotlight on Jaina and Sylvannas, and they killed Rastakhan to put her daughter on the front in BFA.

So, it's all a feminist decision? I don't think so because Jaina, or Talanji for that matter, didn't get as much spotlight as she did. Heck ,even Arthas or Illidan didn't get that much attention.

Not really. It's the best fit? Yes. It's the only fit? No. They could've added tinker and say "This time we won't rely on magic to defeat the Legion, because that's what it brought it to us in the first place. So we'll use now our technological marvels to defeat it again", and create a narrative around how we hijack Legion's technology to bring the battle to them instead of DHs spearheading the charge to steal the portal thingy.
Warcraft lore is pretty loose, so you can fit almost anything any time.

Nice try, but you can use it for every potential class available. "We are adding the Bard to use his musical powers against the Legion". -_- Come on, be realistic. The classes that were added fitted their expansions. Death Knights to WotLK, Monks to MoP and Demon Hunters to Legion.

Confirmation bias. Just look the previous note.

Go ahead. Suggest a class that fits the theme, without creating an imaginary situation.

BFA added:
- Blademaster Lightforged Draenei -> Blademaster on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Dark Ranger Nigh Elves -> Dark Ranger on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Dark Warden Nigh Elves -> Warden on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.
- Tinker groups on Island Expeditions -> Tinkers on both sides -> Blizzard planting seeds to make it able to be playable in the future, if they want.

Oh, you're right. I'm all for it, you know. Blademaster having its races expanded than just Orcs is great. Don't forget the Ankoan, the ultimate Blademaster race .
P.S. - Tinkers were always on both sides (Goblins and Gnomes). You, probably, mean the Island Expedition's abilities.

TFT is not another timeline like WoD. What are you talking about?

I meant that it is from another era. They didn't do back then what they do now with their cinematics.

Nope, just a very small group. The bulk of the group stayed on the Horde or went with Calia.

Can i a get a quote with a source? because in-game that group doesn't seem that large (probably like 10 NPCs).

I think it's 50/50 on Blizzard adding DRs. On 1 hand, they best fit a Death Theme expansion, and the current one was maybe the best fit. On the other hand. they can just justify it on a later patch, e.g.: "The Jailer's plan went OK and he scaped to Azeroth. And one of the groups best prepared to stop him, along the Death Knights, is the Dark Rangers"

*cringe*
Unlikely.
1. They don't add a class mid expansion.
2. I don't see Dark Rangers countering the Jailer (unless they have his powers, like Sylvanas)

The light and darkness that's quoted there refers to the line between life and death. It would actually be closer to a Death Shaman with the current lore.
And Vol'jin being a SH and a Loa, it's also another thing that Blizzard seed to make it able to be playable.

Yeah, i assumed it doesn't refer to light and shadow abilities (since the Shadow Hunter doesn't use 'em). But, that quote so perfectly lines up with the Light/Void theme. And Shadow Hunter kinda sounds like Demon Hunter (even though it doesn't hunt shadows).

Actually:
- Dark Rangers are currently irrelevant. They didn't even appear on the expansion so far (barring Sylvannas).
- There's at least one who can speak common: Sir Finley Mrrgglton. Yeah, it started as a joke character on HS, but he made his way into WoW, so... anything is possible. They can even make that the playable ones are special mutant ones, made more intelligent by being exposed to some magical artifact, like the Gorlocs in Sholazar Basin.

- That's my point. Why is that? if Dark Rangers have, seemingly, diminished their relevancy in this expansion.
- yeah... not gonna happen. It should stay a joke. You don't want WoW to turn into a childish game like HotS with playable fey dragons and such...

Even if there isn't one, they can make it up, they just need Val'kyr to make them. But we now know that Val'Kyr are just pseudo-kyrian. So:
- Horde: still has the last Val'Kyr that created the DRs in Darkshore, I think. So that ground is covered.
- Alliance: make Uther (or another forsworn, but I think he's probably the best fit) to come back to Azeroth to help raise new DRs for the Alliance.

Hmmm... are Dark Rangers only raised? Because Forsaken have learned how to become one, not raised into one. Yet, i suppose you need to be a former Banshee to justify a playable Dark Ranger with cool-ass Sylvanas abilities.

WoW is a literal continuation of Warcraft 3's story, including the characters. Same timeline, just a continuation. That is why Arthas and Illidan and Sylvanas are still relevant.

Lord have mercy on my soul with the amount you write down

I meant a different era of cinematic creation. They differ quite a lot from the current ones.

Have you followed the story? They're no longer working with Sylvanas and had their loyalty spurned by her abandoning them all and leaving them with no wherw else to turn.

Had it not been for Calia accepting them back, they could have just as easily been considered war criminals or traitors by the Horde Council, much as was the fate of Nathanos.

I'm pretty sure some of her were still working for her and Nathanos during Shadows Rising.

Are you not following the current story? Serious question here.

The Dark Rangers are already a part of the Horde. There is little possibility now for them to suddenly branch off to the Alliance as well. This is just one example of a move away from it being a playable class. They concluded a major potential opportunity for them to be seeded into both factions.

What move do you see there being to allow Dark Rangers on both factions with the way things are right now? Night Elves are going to have a sudden change of heart and leave for the Alliance again just because?

They were, almost, always part of the Horde. Nothing surprising here.

What do i see? Tyrande repenting them and them returning to Night elf society, just like Death Knight characters. It makes the most sense if they add a Dark Ranger class. And, looking at Tyrande and her personal transformation throughout Shadowlands, it might happen.

My point is that Legion could have been a different expansion theme that introduced a different class.

For example, If Zandalar followed up after WoD instead of Broken Isles, then Shadow Hunters could have been introduced as classes. That is a possibility since Blizzard didn't _need_ to follow up WoD with Legion; these expansion concepts are flexible. We know WoD started as Mongrel Horde and Garrosh using a magical horn to raise the Warlords from the dead, and eventually settled on alternate universe Draenor. These are wildly different expansion settings for the same general concept of Garrosh building a new army.

If Mechagon or Undermine were introduced before Broken Isles, then Tinkers could have been added instead of Demon Hunters. Most of these expansion concepts are modular, and we know Blizzard designs them this way. They have multiple concepts planned, and they shift around what they want to approach next based on the narrative they want to tell. Legion happened to focus more on a demon invasion that involved the return of Illidan and an attack on the Vault of the Wardens which was conveniently on the Broken Isles.

Like what? Show me an example of what Legion could have been and could have introduced.

WoD kinda needed to be followed by Legion due to the massive demonic themes from the beginning. They didn't add Mannoroth and Gul'dan in the middle of the expansion or towards the end. Besides, that expansion was so thin due to it being, mostly, a leverage to the Legion expansion.

You are right. They are flexible. Yet, developers don't just abandon something mid-expansion, unless they suffer a heavy subscriber loss (example: WoD). BfA could be seen as a disaster, but they didn't give up on Sylvanas due to it, why would they do so with the Dark Ranger?

Both are in the same situation. They both exist in the lore but we have no indication of going to either in the near future.

-_-
Void confrontation is not a sufficient indication? Heck, we went to Argus when we dealt with the Burning Legion.

Blizzard is indirectly connecting POTM to light and shadow through Elune's newly revealed connections to the Ordering of Light and Shadow.

Priestess of the Moon are servants of Elune. In Legion, X'era confirms that the prime Naaru were created by Elune. POTM channel the power of the light of the moon, and they have a 'Void state' in the form of the Night Warrior, a cycle that Naaru similarly go through. Elune's true origins and true power are still a mystery to us, but we are given more and more connections between her and the ordering of Light and Shadow than ever before, while POTM remain as her devoted servants and representatives.

Wait, wait... what? She was responsible for the ordering of light and shadow? can i get a source for that? i only heard of her being the sister of the Winter Queen (which, doesn't put her in a likely place to be a First one). If that is the case, then Light and Void do not indicate on a Shadow Hunter, but rather on a PotM.

Oh, you're just using some previous data about her. She was all over the place in terms of categorization. Arcane due to the Tears of Elune. Life due to the connection to Druids. Death due to her being the sister of the Winter Queen. You can't just assume she is the patron of Light and Void. Heck, she casts moon-based abilities, not Void nor Light. The same can be seen with the Stonewright.

All correct except Dark Rangers being relevant to the story. They do not appear at all in Shadowlands, and they have effectively been benched in Azeroth right now. They play no active role in the story as it stands. Same as Murlocs.

The only Dark Ranger in Shadowlands is Sylvanas, and her story is likely concluding next patch.

So, why claim Dark Rangers diminished their purpose with this expansion if they didn't feature in it?

The obvious answer is surprise and drama. It was a way to show how evil Sylvanas was by not only killing all of the civilians, but forcefully raising dead warriors into her side amd having them hate Tyrande and force her to go Night Warrior.

It's a macguffin. Just like Azerite being the cause for a faction war. Blizzard is great at creating reasons for drama, but have a bad track record for resolving them. I mean, Azerite lost most of its purpose by mid expansion, and was pretty irrelevant to the narrative outside of Island Expeditions. And same goes with how they treated the Dark Rangers in the lore after they served their purpose.

I don't consider this to be a grand plan, I consider it an oversight. Look at how they introduced giant Draenei warships in Legion but you don't see one of em in BFA. What was the point? Surprise and drama. Rule of cool.

She could have raised Dark Sentinels, Dark Druids, Dark Furbolgs, Dark Faeirie Dragons, Dark Dryads, Dark Ancients, Dark Highborne, Dark Priestesses of the Moon, Dark Demon Hunters or Dark 'whatever' that includes Night elves there. But, they purposefully chose Wardens and Night elf Dark Rangers. Why? i'll tell you why. Because they're planning to do something with that. Not seeing that is a real issue with people, because that's obviously intentional.

Azerite? what could azerite add to any potential future classes? nothing. Are you seeing a class based on azerite power? no. Any races? no. It was there for a feature. It had its purpose, unlike Dark Wardens and Dark Rangers.


Draenei ships were:
1. to get us to Argus.
2. Introduce the Lightforged as a playable race.
I wouldn't say they were just there to be cool. Besides, you can't do much with it in terms of a playable class (though, we got its ability as a lightforged racial).

Who creates this new generation of Dark Rangers, and how? Valkyr were the single reason why new Dark Ranger Night Elves could be created, and they all left in service with Sylvanas. We're killing them all in the next raid.

It's a narrative dead end.

Who? anyone with necromantic abilities, i guess. It can be taught, rather than granted by being raised. By who? any Dark Ranger NPC.
There are plenty of them left to fill that gap.

Ebon Blade may have been a new creation, but the second son of Mograine and the redemption of the Ashbringer was hinted at since Vanilla.

okay...and?
You say nothing is redemptive about Sylvanas or the Dark Rangers?

You realize the Night Warrior plotline for Tyrande is ending next patch right? That is effectively abandoning it, and people are complaining and expressing disappointment already.

Ending? because she went through an "exorcism"?
No, it's not going away... one thing is the discovery of other Night Warrior races, like the Venthyr.

Consider that the Warchief after Garrosh waa a HUGE debate amongst fans. Major big deal. Was it going to be another Orc like Saurfang or Eitrigg? Could they give it to Sylvanas or Lorthemar? They eventually seated Voljin into the role of Warchief, and spent an entire next expansion doing nothing with It. Voljin dies st the beginning of Legion, and practically did nothing of significance during his reign.

This was not abandoned alpha or beta, it was literally written in to prop Sylvanas into the role to set up years of future conflict with the Alliance, and whatwver shenanigans happening now in Shadowlands.

Exactly. Who said they had plans for him that they abandoned? Maybe he just served as a way to crown Sylvanas Warchief. You see, everything has a purpose, even if it doesn't seem like much. Eventually, we discover why they did those things in game.

Tinkers have relevance due to the recent introduction of Mechagnomes, and the appearance of Tinker-like NPCs in Island Expeditions.

But you are otherwise right about there being no apparant technological expansion in the works. I would expect to hear a hint for Undermine in the narrative before I give it stronger consideration.

I agree. These things were totally foreshadowing. as well as Mekkatorque's abilities as a raid boss, the new Mech appearances, Motherlode Dungeon and Chromie's alternate reality mechanical threat.

So here is the paradox.

We have 3 groups of known Dark Rangers. Velonara stays loyal to Horde, Summermoon appeals to Calia to be broguht into the Forsaken, and we have stray Loyalists jn the world.

That sets up the ability for Sylvanas to continue her shenanigans through her loyalists, right? Except that they didn't do anything with this plot point

The current narrative does not involve any interactions with other Dark Rangers. If the Loyalists were up to something, they should have done it by now. Instead Sylvanas just uses Mawsworn and Valkyr ss substitutes, and Blizzard has abandoned the Loyalist plotlines completely in Shadowlands. There is no point in continuing the Loyalist narratives if Sylvanas is defeated.

Those aren't established groups with a name and reputation like the Ebon Blade or the Illidari.

Precisely. Their absence in the Shadowlands means they can be used beyond it. They haven't diminished their relevancy by being overused and they weren't killed off this expansion. They are still out there, on Azeroth.

This is a good question to ask, but ultimately the same lines of asking why give players a choice to be loyal to Sylvanas. Or why we had big laser ships in Legion and not use them in BFA.

They wanted to give us a sense that we're making a choice, either with Sylvanas or N'zoth. It might pay off in the future. The point is, players were probably pissed off they had to be the good guys and go against Sylvanas. This could be expanded to, either, give players more choices in the future (in term of narrative) or letting them have the option to be villains and not just heroes all the time. I talked about it in my proposed changes and features thread.

Why not use them? because those ships would grant a particular side an unfair advantage. The Horde doesn't have these kind of ships.

If anything, we should simply take this to Discord and discuss properly. Easier to address an actual conversation than multiple little ones, and easier to communicate intentions rather than lose context over pages of replies with multiple people.

Which discord?
Anyway, i should get paid for the time i invest in answering these long-ass replies of yours

[Ielenia]

That's because Samuro has a special place in the WoW lore: he helped with the foundation of Orgrimmar (alongside Rexxar, Rokhan and Chen). And it seems Blizzard is saving him for something, because it's clear that they didn't forgot about him (he's on HotS and the new The Barrens expansion in HS), but you can't find him anywhere in WoW.

That's kind of irrelevant, though. Because WoD and the main timeline are separate threads of fate. What happens in one doesn't affect the other. So they could have made Samuro be a fel-corrupted boss in Hellfire Citadel in place of Jubei'thos, and kill him, and nothing at all would change for Samuro in the main timeline. After all, we kill uncorrupted Kargath Bladefist in WoD, and, as far as we know, he's still a fel orc boss in Shattered Halls in Outland. Same thing with Teron Gorefiend.

- - - Updated - - -

-_-

Demon Hunter. What can be more obvious than that?
I can tailor anything if i want to to fit this expansion. Doesn't mean it does. Runemasters are as much a stretch as Naga Sea Witches, because Nagas featured in Aszuna.

I'll repeat what I said: if you're going to claim the demon class fits the expansion's theme the best, I might agree with you. But if you're going to claim it's the ONLY one that fits, then I cannot agree with you.

Nothing is guaranteed in this life. So, just giving up an saying we can't predict things is pessimistic. As of then, it was a class every other expansion. Shadowlands taught us it is not the case anymore.

Apples and oranges. First and foremost, us expecting a new playable class every odd-numbered patch expansion number (3.x, 5.x, 7.x, etc) is not us making predictions. It's us making guesses. Predictions require data to be made, and we didn't have enough data to make predictions. And second, accepting we cannot predict things that we don't have anywhere near enough information for accurate predictions is not being pessimistic.

1. She was named Warchief in Legion. Pretty significant part of Legion. Not to mention the Broken Shore.

And aside from the expansion's intro scenario and seeing her almost never in Stormheim, she appeared nowhere else in the expansion. Azsuna, Val'sharah, Stormpeaks, Suramar, the Broken Shore (second time) and Argus. Nowhere to be seen.

2. No other character that was pivotal to the story got that much screen time. Not Garrosh, Not Arthas, Not Illidan. Why did she, in particular?

Garrosh was introduced in TBC. Was part of the main offensive and appeared a decent amount of times in Wrath. Was made Warchief in Cataclysm. Was the main antagonist in MoP, and kicked off the Iron Horde in WoD. If anything, so far, Garrosh is the one who got the most screen time.

3. Exactly. If you're gonna produce so much fatigue of her featuring in multiple expansion, why not act on it?

And what do you consider "acting on it"? Because if people are sick and tired of a certain character or storyline, in my opinion, the course of action would be to remove the character and/or close the storyline. And bringing a class based on said character and/or storyline is not the way to do it. Again, in my opinion.

You see, it's a waste of character to be used so much yet not introduce a Dark Ranger in the end.

In your opinion. Using a character and not making a playable class out of said character is not "waste" in my opinion.

She would have best stayed in the shadows as the Forsaken leader until Shadowlands. There was no need for her to feature so prominently in other expansions, when there are other, better characters that could have been used.

Not for the storyline Blizzard wanted to tell. None of the other Horde leaders are "MoRaLlY gReY" like Sylvanas was, and would never start an all-out war against the Alliance without the Alliance fucking up royally first. And none of the other Horde leaders have such a connection to the death realm like Sylvanas.

And, if you're gonna say they were trying to set her up as a villain:
1. You don't require that much screen time.

It does if you want to make it properly.

2. She's not the big bad boss, in the end, only a sidekick. Azshara didn't require that much. Neither Gul'dan.

Azshara has been set up as a big bad since WoW's inception, considering she is the leader of the naga, and was described as the most powerful sorceress of her time, if not even today, and one who was greedy for power, causing the Sundering due to her pursuit for power. And in almost every expansion we had to deal with the naga, one way or the other. And Gul'dan? He has been set up as a big bad since the RTS days, too.

Because of the story... That lasts for 3 expansions in a row. Does it seem reasonable to you? to anyone? Garrosh only needed an expansion and a half. So did Gul'dan. Azshara only required a patch or so. So 3 god damn expansion? what's the point in that? Does Danuser went off the rails and is controlling everything that goes on there?

Yeah. I do think it's reasonable. Look how people are complaining about the Jailer's threat having almost no weight to the players because the villain was never set up properly. And Garrosh? Five expansions: TBC, Wrath, Cata, MoP, WoD. We could already see Garrosh potentially becoming a problem during Wrath. Gul'dan? Since the RTS days. Gul'dan wasn't first introduced to Warcraft in WoD, mind you.

That's because he's not that important. They didn't give him much abilities, either. Not to mention that he's a corrupted Blademaster, and not a standard one. Samuro is on the same level as Sylvanas, Illidan, Arthas, Chen are for Dark Ranger, Demon Hunter, Death Knight and Monk. He is the representative of the concept. You can see that by him being picked for HotS, like the rest of them, and not Jubei'thos.

He is a blademaster, though. He has abilities reminscent of the RTS ones. And if Jubei'thos was not important (he is, but still), again, why not pick Samuro? They picked all the major orc figureheads (Kargath Bladefist, Blackhand, Kilrogg Deadeye, Orgrimm Doomhammer, etc) and yet they picked Jubei'thos, someone who is not important (in your opinion) instead of Samuro, someone who is much more important (again, in your opinion)?

Himself, no. But the demonic themes could only mean one thing (if they were to add a class).

No. No, they don't. They don't mean "demon hunter and demon hunter only and not any other class concept at all ever never".

Really?
How many time must i repeat that? If a class is due and so is a demonic expansion, what else can they do? Just put 1+1.

First off: "a class is due" is already fallacious as we never had any guarantee that we would get a class. Second: you can repeat it as much as you want until you're blue in the face, it won't make the statement true. An expansion revolving around demon themes does not mean "demon hunter and demon hunter only and not any other class concept at all ever never".

What's in BfA?

An orc blademaster, who uses fire in his attacks.

Really? you don't?
More archetypes and more playstyles would give your character more options to roleplay. Same as new classes and their specs.

Pressing buttons according to a guide after gearing your character following another guide is not "roleplay". Roleplay is interpretation.

I think what you linked as a Blood-healing spell was that of a Blood Troll priest.

Yes. Proof-of-concept that blood magic can be used for healing. And a character being named "priest" does not necessarily mean "priest player class", mind you.

Hmmm.... i'm more inclined to think of a necromancer using a Scourge blood magic, rather than primitive Blood Trolls or Bleeding Hollow Orcs. But, i guess that if they have necromancers among them, that it is possible.

You know, just because you consider them to be "primitive" does not preclude their magic from being effective, or even refined and improved upon by scholars.

[Triceron]

Lord have mercy on my soul with the amount you write down

Would you rather me answer you with one word replies?

I meant a different era of cinematic creation. They differ quite a lot from the current ones.

Nope.

I'm pretty sure some of her were still working for her and Nathanos during Shadows Rising.

Abandoned.

They were, almost, always part of the Horde. Nothing surprising here.

And?

What do i see? Tyrande repenting them and them returning to Night elf society, just like Death Knight characters. It makes the most sense if they add a Dark Ranger class. And, looking at Tyrande and her personal transformation throughout Shadowlands, it might happen.

"Might"

Like what? Show me an example of what Legion could have been and could have introduced.

Strawman.

WoD kinda needed to be followed by Legion due to the massive demonic themes from the beginning.

False.

You are right. They are flexible. Yet, developers don't just abandon something mid-expansion

Loyalty.

-_-
Void confrontation is not a sufficient indication? Heck, we went to Argus when we dealt with the Burning Legion.

And?

Wait, wait... what? She was responsible for the ordering of light and shadow?[/B]

Naaru.

So, why claim Dark Rangers diminished their purpose with this expansion if they didn't feature in it?

Abandoned.

She could have raised Dark Sentinels, Dark Druids, Dark Furbolgs, Dark Faeirie Dragons, Dark Dryads, Dark Ancients, Dark Highborne, Dark Priestesses of the Moon, Dark Demon Hunters or Dark 'whatever' that includes Night elves there. But, they purposefully chose Wardens and Night elf Dark Rangers. Why? i'll tell you why. Because they're planning to do something with that. Not seeing that is a real issue with people, because that's obviously intentional.

Proof?

Azerite? what could azerite add to any potential future classes? nothing. Are you seeing a class based on azerite power? no. Any races? no. It was there for a feature. It had its purpose, unlike Dark Wardens and Dark Rangers.

Macguffin.

Draenei ships were:
1. to get us to Argus.
2. Introduce the Lightforged as a playable race.
I wouldn't say they were just there to be cool. Besides, you can't do much with it in terms of a playable class (though, we got its ability as a lightforged racial).

LASERS

Who? anyone with necromantic abilities, i guess

Wrong.

It can be taught, rather than granted by being raised.

Abandoned.

By who? any Dark Ranger NPC.

Maybe.

There are plenty of them left to fill that gap.

Abandoned.

okay...and?
You say nothing is redemptive about Sylvanas

Narrative.

or the Dark Rangers?

Abandoned.

Ending? because she went through an "exorcism"?
No, it's not going away... one thing is the discovery of other Night Warrior races, like the Venthyr.

Venthyr?

Exactly. Who said they had plans for him that they abandoned? Maybe he just served as a way to crown Sylvanas Warchief. You see, everything has a purpose, even if it doesn't seem like much. Eventually, we discover why they did those things in game.

True.

Those aren't established groups with a name and reputation like the Ebon Blade or the Illidari.

Irrelevant.

Precisely. Their absence in the Shadowlands means they can be used beyond it. They haven't diminished their relevancy by being overused and they weren't killed off this expansion. They are still out there, on Azeroth.

Abandoned.

They wanted to give us a sense that we're making a choice, either with Sylvanas or N'zoth. It might pay off in the future. The point is, players were probably pissed off they had to be the good guys and go against Sylvanas. This could be expanded to, either, give players more choices in the future (in term of narrative) or letting them have the option to be villains and not just heroes all the time. I talked about it in my proposed changes and features thread.

Delusional.

Why not use them? because those ships would grant a particular side an unfair advantage. The Horde doesn't have these kind of ships.

Abandoned.

Which discord?
Anyway, i should get paid for the time i invest in answering these long-ass replies of yours

Hypocrite?

[username993720]

I'll repeat what I said: if you're going to claim the demon class fits the expansion's theme the best, I might agree with you. But if you're going to claim it's the ONLY one that fits, then I cannot agree with you.

Then, please bring other examples and explain why (and not that runemaster bullshit you made up).

Apples and oranges. First and foremost, us expecting a new playable class every odd-numbered patch expansion number (3.x, 5.x, 7.x, etc) is not us making predictions. It's us making guesses. Predictions require data to be made, and we didn't have enough data to make predictions. And second, accepting we cannot predict things that we don't have anywhere near enough information for accurate predictions is not being pessimistic.

Predictions and guesses are the same thing. They're not always right. Like the weather forecast.
So, let's just all stop debating because we can't be 100% right.

And aside from the expansion's intro scenario and seeing her almost never in Stormheim, she appeared nowhere else in the expansion. Azsuna, Val'sharah, Stormpeaks, Suramar, the Broken Shore (second time) and Argus. Nowhere to be seen.

She doesn't need to. Like she isn't in Revendreth, Ardenweald, Maldraxxus or Bastion. Or how she wasn't in Kul Tiras or in much of Zandalar. No main character features that much. Not Illidan in his expansion, not Arthas in his and not Chen in his.

Garrosh was introduced in TBC. Was part of the main offensive and appeared a decent amount of times in Wrath. Was made Warchief in Cataclysm. Was the main antagonist in MoP, and kicked off the Iron Horde in WoD. If anything, so far, Garrosh is the one who got the most screen time.

Hmmm... You're right, he was a major part through Cataclysm to WoD. There's not really a class associated with him that he can bring to the table. And, he's featuring in Shadowlands even though we were sure he was out of the picture. So *wink* *wink* Triceron.

And what do you consider "acting on it"? Because if people are sick and tired of a certain character or storyline, in my opinion, the course of action would be to remove the character and/or close the storyline. And bringing a class based on said character and/or storyline is not the way to do it. Again, in my opinion.

In everyone's opinion. I don't see a reason to drag it out just to make her a boss that falls at the first patch of an expansion.

In your opinion. Using a character and not making a playable class out of said character is not "waste" in my opinion.

No? If Kel'thuzad, in his human form, featured that much, wouldn't you expect a Necromancer to be introduced?

Not for the storyline Blizzard wanted to tell. None of the other Horde leaders are "MoRaLlY gReY" like Sylvanas was, and would never start an all-out war against the Alliance without the Alliance fucking up royally first. And none of the other Horde leaders have such a connection to the death realm like Sylvanas.

Garrosh.

It does if you want to make it properly.

Well, i guess you're right if we're comparing her to Garrosh.

Azshara has been set up as a big bad since WoW's inception, considering she is the leader of the naga, and was described as the most powerful sorceress of her time, if not even today, and one who was greedy for power, causing the Sundering due to her pursuit for power. And in almost every expansion we had to deal with the naga, one way or the other. And Gul'dan? He has been set up as a big bad since the RTS days, too.

She only featured in a quest in Darkshore during Cataclysm.
Gul'dan was dead. We didn't expect the whole alternate universe shenanigans.

Yeah. I do think it's reasonable. Look how people are complaining about the Jailer's threat having almost no weight to the players because the villain was never set up properly. And Garrosh? Five expansions: TBC, Wrath, Cata, MoP, WoD. We could already see Garrosh potentially becoming a problem during Wrath. Gul'dan? Since the RTS days. Gul'dan wasn't first introduced to Warcraft in WoD, mind you.

I guess you're right. yet, her downfall is the first patch of the expansion. Seems kinda anti-climatic, don't you think?

He is a blademaster, though. He has abilities reminscent of the RTS ones. And if Jubei'thos was not important (he is, but still), again, why not pick Samuro? They picked all the major orc figureheads (Kargath Bladefist, Blackhand, Kilrogg Deadeye, Orgrimm Doomhammer, etc) and yet they picked Jubei'thos, someone who is not important (in your opinion) instead of Samuro, someone who is much more important (again, in your opinion)?

Yes. because they're saving him for something important, like introducing the Blademaster. Why do you think he features in HotS and Hearthstone, as the Blademaster representative, if he's not that important?

No. No, they don't. They don't mean "demon hunter and demon hunter only and not any other class concept at all ever never".

Really? then, what other class could it mean?

First off: "a class is due" is already fallacious as we never had any guarantee that we would get a class. Second: you can repeat it as much as you want until you're blue in the face, it won't make the statement true. An expansion revolving around demon themes does not mean "demon hunter and demon hunter only and not any other class concept at all ever never".

It was, pretty much, a guarantee before Shadowlands. Like 2 races until MoP.
And, Again i'm asking, what other class could it mean?

An orc blademaster, who uses fire in his attacks.

Name, please?
WoD Blademasters, also, used fire in their attacks. It was an expansion of the Blademaster concept, based on the Burning Blade clan.

Pressing buttons according to a guide after gearing your character following another guide is not "roleplay". Roleplay is interpretation.

What?
What are you talking about?

Yes. Proof-of-concept that blood magic can be used for healing. And a character being named "priest" does not necessarily mean "priest player class", mind you.

Like a Rathma Priests of D3?
Can i have examples of WoW ones?

You know, just because you consider them to be "primitive" does not preclude their magic from being effective, or even refined and improved upon by scholars.

No, because that's not what i imagine when i picture a necromancer. That's what i imagine when thinking of primitive, tribal witch doctors with mysticism and voodoo. That's why i don't see Trolls and such as fitting the Death Knight, despite their death aspects. It seems much more fitting of a Knightly race.

Would you rather me answer you with one word replies?

No. Come on, You know what i mean. a sentence or two, or even a paragraph, like lelenia. Not 3 or 4 paragraphs per comment.

Now, you can reply to my previous comment seriously. Just don't take it too far because i have to answer lelenia, and sometimes potacaco, too.

[Triceron]

No. Come on, You know what i mean. a sentence or two, or even a paragraph, like lelenia. Not 3 or 4 paragraphs per comment.

Now, you can reply to my previous comment seriously. Just don't take it too far because i have to answer lelenia, and sometimes potacaco, too.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...st-Shadowlands

A few months ago, before Shadowlands came, I posed a question asking about the lore for the Loyalist Dark Rangers. People theorized that loyalist plot would continue in Shadowlands.

The Loyalist plot does not carry into Shadowlands at all, and will not even be addressed by the next raid. There is nothing we can point at as a _hint_ towards a playable Dark Ranger class.


Gul'dan was a macguffin for Legion and Sargeras, Sylvanas is the macguffin for Shadowlands and the Jailer. Gul'dan was important to WoD and Legion, and his story ended with his raid. Same appears to be happening to Sylvanas, with no Loyalist plot being addressed or resolved, only completely absent from the current plot.

Abandoned.


If you say Loyalists will come back into the plot, then you are talking about a theory. My position here is not to dismiss Loyalists as a plot point, it's to point out the fact that there aren't actually in the current plot and can not be regarded as a hint towards a Dark Ranger class. We can only regard possibilities through theories, not hints from the game.

We need to clarify that a theory is not a hint, and that it is not actually part of the plot. Classes featured in Cinematics and Warcraft 3 are also not hints, just observations. Things that are absent from the current plot should not be regarded as hints of the future.

My argument is focused on debunking Cinematics being hints by pointing out a lack of context to the current narrative. Fantazma implied Blizzard hints at new classes in cinematics. I am debunking by pointing out that it's not a hint due to their absence in the current plot.

Illidan in TBC cinematics was not a hint of a DH class because we know Blizzard had no plans to develop one until after MOP. We can't take that context away and pretend DH were always waiting to be made. Blizzard never hinted at playable Demon Hunters prior to its announcement in Legion, they just made it happen. Anyone right about Demon Hunters being playable would be a guess or theory, as there are no hints from the cinematics or game. TBC cinematics were not a hint at Illidan's/Illidaris return in Legion.

[Ielenia]

Then, please bring other examples and explain why (and not that runemaster bullshit you made up).

So you want me to make up examples... but you don't want me to make up examples?

She doesn't need to. Like she isn't in Revendreth, Ardenweald, Maldraxxus or Bastion. Or how she wasn't in Kul Tiras or in much of Zandalar. No main character features that much. Not Illidan in his expansion, not Arthas in his and not Chen in his.

You do know the nagas were doing constant raids into both Kul'tiras and Zandalar, right? By Azshara's orders? And as for Arthas? Are you kidding? As an Alliance player, we found Arthas for the first time in the first three levels in Howling Fjord. We also found him in Drak'tharon Keep. We also saw him in Zul'Drak. And I think in Icecrown, as well.

I don't see a reason to drag it out just to make her a boss that falls at the first patch of an expansion.

That's entirely on you. One reason could be that she already played her part in the major storyline, and now it's time to remove her from the chessboard. And by the way? I believe there are rumors that Sylvanas won't die in the raid.

No? If Kel'thuzad, in his human form, featured that much, wouldn't you expect a Necromancer to be introduced?

No. I would want one (still do, btw), but that doesn't mean I would expect one.

Garrosh.

I'm talking about in context of the story being told that led up to Shadowlands. None of the leaders of the Horde have a connection to death and the Shadowlands like Sylvanas.

Well, i guess you're right if we're comparing her to Garrosh.

It's about storytelling. Not "sylvanas vs garrosh". For example: how impactful do you think the fight between Harry Potter and Voldemort would be if Voldemort was never even alluded to exist in the entire story, until a few pages before the final confrontation?

She only featured in a quest in Darkshore during Cataclysm.
Gul'dan was dead. We didn't expect the whole alternate universe shenanigans.

It doesn't matter. She was still getting development by way of her plans slowly coming to fruition and to light. As for Gul'dan, it also doesn't matter, because we already knew of the character, from our RTS days.

I guess you're right. yet, her downfall is the first patch of the expansion. Seems kinda anti-climatic, don't you think?

So was Gul'dan's. His downfall was on the "first patch of the expansion". As for 'anti-climatic'? I don't know. I haven't seen her fight, or the in-game cinematic that is supposed to play out after her defeat.

Yes. because they're saving him for something important, like introducing the Blademaster.

Careful. You're stating your own opinion as fact, there. You don't know what Blizzard is planning for Samuro in the Warcraft franchise, or even IF they have any plans, at all.

Why do you think he features in HotS and Hearthstone, as the Blademaster representative, if he's not that important?

"Blademaster representative"? I wouldn't exactly call him a "representative" as he's just representing himself, but I also must remind you that in Hearthstone, Rexxar wields a bow, Tyrande is a priest class, and Garrosh uses mana. And Ragnaros is a Light lord, now.

Really? then, what other class could it mean?

Why should I bother responding to this if your very first line in your post was you basically saying you'll dismiss all of my ideas you don't agree with?

It was, pretty much, a guarantee before Shadowlands. Like 2 races until MoP.
And, Again i'm asking, what other class could it mean?

Except it was not. There was absolutely zero guarantees. Blizzard has never outright said "we are releasing new classes every two expansions". Any "guarantee" you think existed was just in your own mind.

Name, please?
WoD Blademasters, also, used fire in their attacks. It was an expansion of the Blademaster concept, based on the Burning Blade clan.

This guy.

What?
What are you talking about?

Let me make a D&D analogy: rolling the dice for an attack roll is not roleplaying. Deciding whether or not attacking is something your character would do is roleplaying.

Like a Rathma Priests of D3?
Can i have examples of WoW ones?

You literally have Tyrande, a priestess, who does not behave at all like the priest player class. The name "priest" is just a position, not an indication of player class.

No, because that's not what i imagine when i picture a necromancer. That's what i imagine when thinking of primitive, tribal witch doctors with mysticism and voodoo. That's why i don't see Trolls and such as fitting the Death Knight, despite their death aspects. It seems much more fitting of a Knightly race.

Except I never said the blood magic the necromancers would be using would be "primitive". I literally pointed out how scholars could have studied and either improved or refined their blood magic.

[Nightmare Queen]

No, because that's not what i imagine when i picture a necromancer. That's what i imagine when thinking of primitive, tribal witch doctors with mysticism and voodoo. That's why i don't see Trolls and such as fitting the Death Knight, despite their death aspects. It seems much more fitting of a Knightly race.

I guess Zandalari have 'knights', but regular trolls? Nah

[username993720]

Nope.

You wanna tell me they're the same kind of cinematics? you, clearly, haven't delved into analyzing them...

Abandoned

All of them? can you quote the book? or have they all been killed?

And?

So, saying they are now part of the Horde, and therefore irrelevant isn't an argument.

"Might"

Yes, might. What purpose do you think they serve there?

Strawman

You can't.

If it was so easy, you'd name one.

False.

It didn't? tell me what could followed up after they introduced Gul'dan and Mannoroth. Let me remind you that we freed Gul'dan, instead of killing him, in the starting experience. That was kind of a tool for future storytelling.

Loyalty.

I meant something on the scale of, suddenly, getting rid of Sylvanas as the main character, mid-expansion, through a patch or something, due to the distaste of players or something like that. And i don't mean features like azerite being replaced several times. More like narrative plots.

And?

There's sufficient evidence Ka'resh would, probably, feature.

Naaru.

-_-

Just because they said she created Xe'ra, she now, suddenly, responsible for the ordering of Light and Shadow? You know that would make her a First One, right?

Abandoned.

You say abandoned, i say "saved for a later time". If they squeezed the juice out of them i might have agreed with you.

Proof?

I just did. Why raise Night elf Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens and not anything else? you tell me.

Macguffin.

The Azerite or Dark Rangers/Wardens?
Because they could have used anything else for the storyline other than these two archetypes. It doesn't have to be night elf Dark Rangers and Wardens to piss off Tyrande. Heck, they could have used her surrogate daughter, Shandris, for that.

LASERS

Yes. Lasers. Were used in Legion. Was given to the Lightforged. And, probably, was not used to keep the balance between the factions, power-wise.

Wrong.

Only Val'kyr can raise them?
Arthas raised Sylvanas.
Nathanos was raised by the Scourge.
Delaryn was raised by Val'kyr.
Some Dark Rangers were raised by Sylvanas (don't know if through Val'kyr).
All sort of necromancy users. Powerful ones, yes, but diverse.

Abandoned.

When? Nathanos was training Forsaken in Cataclysm.

Abandoned.

Are they not out there?
Can they not step up and lead the Dark Rangers instead of Sylvanas/Nathanos?

Narrative.

Yea... the same narrative that points to redemptive qualities in Sylvanas. Like Illidan and, probably, Arthas.

Abandoned.

They are, already, part of the Horde, so they're redeemed, already. Even after all the things their kin did.

Venthyr?

Yes. The Stonewright is a Night Warrior in the PTR.

Irrelevant.

How is this irrelevant if we're comparing an unestablished group of Dark Rangers to the established Knights of the Ebon Blade and the Illidari?

Abandoned.

Oh yea, right. Forgot you worked for Blizzard. They could, definitely, not use them again in the future -_-

Delusional.

Okay. So, it probably was just a fun little thing.

Abandoned.

No, they weren't. Lightforged home-base is still the Vindicaar.

Hypocrite?

Try to reply to someone who writes as much as you do, while replying to other users. Let's see if you don't get fatigued...

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...st-Shadowlands

A few months ago, before Shadowlands came, I posed a question asking about the lore for the Loyalist Dark Rangers. People theorized that loyalist plot would continue in Shadowlands.

The Loyalist plot does not carry into Shadowlands at all, and will not even be addressed by the next raid. There is nothing we can point at as a _hint_ towards a playable Dark Ranger class.


Gul'dan was a macguffin for Legion and Sargeras, Sylvanas is the macguffin for Shadowlands and the Jailer. Gul'dan was important to WoD and Legion, and his story ended with his raid. Same appears to be happening to Sylvanas, with no Loyalist plot being addressed or resolved, only completely absent from the current plot.

Abandoned.


If you say Loyalists will come back into the plot, then you are talking about a theory. My position here is not to dismiss Loyalists as a plot point, it's to point out the fact that there aren't actually in the current plot and can not be regarded as a hint towards a Dark Ranger class. We can only regard possibilities through theories, not hints from the game.

We need to clarify that a theory is not a hint, and that it is not actually part of the plot. Classes featured in Cinematics and Warcraft 3 are also not hints, just observations. Things that are absent from the current plot should not be regarded as hints of the future.

My argument is focused on debunking Cinematics being hints by pointing out a lack of context to the current narrative. Fantazma implied Blizzard hints at new classes in cinematics. I am debunking by pointing out that it's not a hint due to their absence in the current plot.

Illidan in TBC cinematics was not a hint of a DH class because we know Blizzard had no plans to develop one until after MOP. We can't take that context away and pretend DH were always waiting to be made. Blizzard never hinted at playable Demon Hunters prior to its announcement in Legion, they just made it happen. Anyone right about Demon Hunters being playable would be a guess or theory, as there are no hints from the cinematics or game. TBC cinematics were not a hint at Illidan's/Illidaris return in Legion.

And N'zoth's gift? abandoned, as well?
I don't think you give them enough credit or can picture what will happen in the future because, while we dealt with N'zoth in a raid, it was so unsatisfying that he's probably bound to return at some point.

As for the cinematics, while i couldn't find anything in vanilla, TBC and Cataclysm ones, WotLK, MoP, WoD, Legion, BfA and Shadowlands are, definitely, hinting. Not at a particular class, but at a particular theme. We just have to associate a class with it in case they do add one.

So you want me to make up examples... but you don't want me to make up examples?

Not wild ones. Because Runemasters have nothing to do with the Legion.

You do know the nagas were doing constant raids into both Kul'tiras and Zandalar, right? By Azshara's orders? And as for Arthas? Are you kidding? As an Alliance player, we found Arthas for the first time in the first three levels in Howling Fjord. We also found him in Drak'tharon Keep. We also saw him in Zul'Drak. And I think in Icecrown, as well.

But she, herself, didn't feature. That's like using Dark Rangers as examples of Sylvanas showing up.
Yes, to provoke the player and laugh a villain's laugh. He didn't push the narratives of these zones forward.

That's entirely on you. One reason could be that she already played her part in the major storyline, and now it's time to remove her from the chessboard. And by the way? I believe there are rumors that Sylvanas won't die in the raid.

Garrosh got to be the last boss of MoP. So, if she was set up like him, why not treat her the same?
And, yeah, i believe so too. no need to show her having redemptive qualities, yet finishing her off for good this expansion (because everything that dies in the Shadowlands dies for good).

No. I would want one (still do, btw), but that doesn't mean I would expect one.

I bet my money you'd open threads here about his prominence these last few expansions and would argue with Teriz about that
Don't try to act like you won't.

I'm talking about in context of the story being told that led up to Shadowlands. None of the leaders of the Horde have a connection to death and the Shadowlands like Sylvanas.

Trolls have. Vol'jin and Talanji, through Bwonsamdi.

It's about storytelling. Not "sylvanas vs garrosh". For example: how impactful do you think the fight between Harry Potter and Voldemort would be if Voldemort was never even alluded to exist in the entire story, until a few pages before the final confrontation?

Lame. It would be lame.
Personally, i don't see the hype in taking out Sylvanas being expressed here.

It doesn't matter. She was still getting development by way of her plans slowly coming to fruition and to light. As for Gul'dan, it also doesn't matter, because we already knew of the character, from our RTS days.

I guess you could say they were bad before.

So was Gul'dan's. His downfall was on the "first patch of the expansion". As for 'anti-climatic'? I don't know. I haven't seen her fight, or the in-game cinematic that is supposed to play out after her defeat.

Gul'dan wasn't hyped for 3 expansions straight.
Regardless of the fight. Her being a sidekick of the Jailer, instead of the big bad boss. That wasn't the treatment Garrosh got. Doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of focusing so much on her? She could have been used for an expansion and a half, at most, like Gul'dan to end up being a pawn of a bigger threat.

Careful. You're stating your own opinion as fact, there. You don't know what Blizzard is planning for Samuro in the Warcraft franchise, or even IF they have any plans, at all.

-_-

Why would any of the WC3 Heroes feature in WoW, except for him?

"Blademaster representative"? I wouldn't exactly call him a "representative" as he's just representing himself, but I also must remind you that in Hearthstone, Rexxar wields a bow, Tyrande is a priest class, and Garrosh uses mana. And Ragnaros is a Light lord, now.

These major characters are still being used. Rexxar, and not his dad; Tyrande, and not some unnamed priestess; Garrosh and not a general grunt or something; Ragnaros and not that new Firelord we put instead of him. You see, these are the major, representative, characters. Not Jubei'thos. That's like putting Velonara instead of Sylvanas, or that Dark Warden instead of Maiev.

Why should I bother responding to this if your very first line in your post was you basically saying you'll dismiss all of my ideas you don't agree with?

Because you don't provide a good explanation. "Runemasters featured in Vrykul culture in Legion" is like saying Nagas, Druids or Tauren should have added a class based on them that expansion (Sea Witch, Keeper of the Grove, Chieftain).

Except it was not. There was absolutely zero guarantees. Blizzard has never outright said "we are releasing new classes every two expansions". Any "guarantee" you think existed was just in your own mind.

They didn't. But, they acted so. Everyone and their mothers expected a new class every other expansion. That wasn't just me.

This guy.

Yes. Like i said, like those in WoD.
Nonetheless, these definitely could be hints.

Let me make a D&D analogy: rolling the dice for an attack roll is not roleplaying. Deciding whether or not attacking is something your character would do is roleplaying.

If it's just your decision-making, why add more classes in the first place? Just use your imagination.

You literally have Tyrande, a priestess, who does not behave at all like the priest player class. The name "priest" is just a position, not an indication of player class.

I guess you could say so. A Priestess of G'huun.

Except I never said the blood magic the necromancers would be using would be "primitive". I literally pointed out how scholars could have studied and either improved or refined their blood magic.

Specifically theirs? or Blood magic, in general? because that seems awfully specific.

I guess Zandalari have 'knights', but regular trolls? Nah

Zanadalri prelates? I wouldn't say so. That's like saying Sunwalkers are.
And, check out Hearthstone. Jungle trolls there have access to Paladins, as well.

[Triceron]

Are they not out there?
Can they not step up and lead the Dark Rangers instead of Sylvanas/Nathanos?

Until we hear about them, Blizzard has done nothing with that plot in Shadowlands.

And as I pointed out, all Dark Rangers other than the unnamed Loyalists are joining the Horde. Alliance has no access to Dark Rangers. This is a narrative dead end. Doesn't matter if Summermoon and Velonara train a new generation of Forsaken, this is still a Horde only class concept in practice, because the Alliance has no reason to accept the Fordaken or the Loyalists at all.

They had a chance to have Night Elf Dark Rangers join the Night Elves, but Shadows Rising makes it clear they do not want to, and openly blame Elune for forsaking them. You suggest Tyrande would accept them back, but that's an unlikely theory because they don't want to be part of the Alliance. They consider themselves Forsaken.

As for the cinematics, while i couldn't find anything in vanilla, TBC and Cataclysm ones, WotLK, MoP, WoD, Legion, BfA and Shadowlands are, definitely, hinting. Not at a particular class, but at a particular theme. We just have to associate a class with it in case they do add one.

Er, that's not how Blizzard plans new classes. Again, we have literal blogs by developers showing us how they design new classes, and even they don't know what will be made into a class because everything has to be collectively decided on, not planned decades in advance.

It makes no sense that a hint exists years in advance when they actively haven't planned it until the time comes to develop a new class. This isn't the MCU we are talking about.

[KFPE]

Either a tinkerer or mesmer.
Would've said a necromancer, but we have the demo lock.

[Ielenia]

Not wild ones. Because Runemasters have nothing to do with the Legion.

So what? That doesn't deny their possibility. Runemasters had nothing to do with the Scourge and the Lich King, yet they were one of the three possibilities for an expansion class.

But she, herself, didn't feature. That's like using Dark Rangers as examples of Sylvanas showing up.
Yes, to provoke the player and laugh a villain's laugh. He didn't push the narratives of these zones forward.

I take it you didn't play Azsuna's main questline? The Court of Farondis' fate as ghosts was entirely done by Azsuna, and the Queen herself makes an appearance.

Garrosh got to be the last boss of MoP. So, if she was set up like him, why not treat her the same?

One: she was not set up like him. Second: Garrosh was the "big bad". Sylvanas was not supposed to be the "big bad". She's just a cog in the machine of the Jailer's plans.

I bet my money you'd open threads here about his prominence these last few expansions and would argue with Teriz about that
Don't try to act like you won't.

Considering I haven't done that, at all, for all these 10+ years I've been in this site, aside from making a fan concept for a necromancer class, I'll ask you to refrain from pretending you know what I'd do.

Trolls have. Vol'jin and Talanji, through Bwonsamdi.

Vol'jin is no longer a leader of the Horde, and hasn't been for two expansions' worth of time, now. As for Talanji, she doesn't like Bwonsamdi. Not to mention that she, along with the leaders of the allied races, have basically been forgotten past BfA, so far. Did you notice none of them were present in Icecrown for the quest-chain that takes you to Shadowlands for the first time?

Lame. It would be lame.
Personally, i don't see the hype in taking out Sylvanas being expressed here.

Because Sylvanas, up to this point, has been nothing but a PoS with zero redeemable qualities. And to make things worse, now Blizzard seemingly has decided to give her a semblance of consciousness and guilt over what happened to Anduin. By her own hand, no less.

Gul'dan wasn't hyped for 3 expansions straight.

Because he didn't need to. Gul'dan was an already well-established character with well-established motivations, and the consequences of his doings still lingered in WoW: Felwood, for example, was corrupted because of the demonic power of his skull. The tomb of Sargeras was first opened by him. He created the first death knights, one we meet in the Black Temple. Etc, etc.

Regardless of the fight. Her being a sidekick of the Jailer, instead of the big bad boss. That wasn't the treatment Garrosh got. Doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of focusing so much on her? She could have been used for an expansion and a half, at most, like Gul'dan to end up being a pawn of a bigger threat.

Apples and oranges. Sylvanas, much like Garrosh, had to be properly set up to become a villain (the success of each of their setups notwithstanding). They couldn't just simply make Sylvanas evil out of the blue.

-_-

Why would any of the WC3 Heroes feature in WoW, except for him?

The answer for that question is very simple: we don't know.

These major characters are still being used. Rexxar, and not his dad; Tyrande, and not some unnamed priestess; Garrosh and not a general grunt or something; Ragnaros and not that new Firelord we put instead of him. You see, these are the major, representative, characters. Not Jubei'thos. That's like putting Velonara instead of Sylvanas, or that Dark Warden instead of Maiev.

Why use Tyrande at all, if she is not a representative of the player priest class at all, though? Considering the original priest 'class' in Hearthstone is Anduin? But my point is: in my opinion, Samuro is not really more important than Jubei'thos.

Because you don't provide a good explanation. "Runemasters featured in Vrykul culture in Legion" is like saying Nagas, Druids or Tauren should have added a class based on them that expansion (Sea Witch, Keeper of the Grove, Chieftain).

"Runemasters featured in Vrykul culture in Legion" was not my argument. I said that the concept fits because runes and runic magic is a prevalent type of magic often found, and, in Legion, the vrykul culture exemplifies that the most. I must also remind you that the Tomb of Sargeras was sealed using two elven runestones.

They didn't. But, they acted so. Everyone and their mothers expected a new class every other expansion. That wasn't just me.

So what? None of that means there was a "guarantee" of a class being added every two expansions. Thousands upon thousands of people expecting so does not mean there was a "guarantee".

If it's just your decision-making, why add more classes in the first place? Just use your imagination.

Because Blizzard doesn't add classes for "roleplay purposes". They add classes to diversify the play style options. "Play" is not the same as "roleplay".

I guess you could say so. A Priestess of G'huun.

It's a position, not an indicative of player class.

Specifically theirs? or Blood magic, in general? because that seems awfully specific.

Specifically theirs, considering they're the only iteration of actual blood magic being functionally on its own in Warcraft, so far.

[pacotaco]

The Dark Rangers are already a part of the Horde. There is little possibility now for them to suddenly branch off to the Alliance as well. This is just one example of a move away from it being a playable class. They concluded a major potential opportunity for them to be seeded into both factions.

What move do you see there being to allow Dark Rangers on both factions with the way things are right now? Night Elves are going to have a sudden change of heart and leave for the Alliance again just because?

Well, at the end of the BFA campaign we see the NE Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens leave with Calia and Derek. It's implied that they're not joining the Horde.
We also know that Velonara (that is currently missing) and most of the BE Dark Rangers felt betrayed by Sylvanas.

It seems like they're planting the seed to create a group that encompasses both sides, like DKs and DHs.

Blizzard is indirectly connecting POTM to light and shadow through Elune's newly revealed connections to the Ordering of Light and Shadow.

Priestess of the Moon are servants of Elune. In Legion, X'era confirms that the prime Naaru were created by Elune. POTM channel the power of the light of the moon, and they have a 'Void state' in the form of the , a cycle that Naaru similarly go through. Elune's true origins and true power are still a mystery to us, but we are given more and more connections between her and the ordering of Light and Shadow than ever before, while POTM remain as her devoted servants and representatives.

What if the Night Warrior is the way to tie into the same class the PotM and the Wardens? Each spec representing one aspect of the moon:
- Full moon: the PotM, arcane archer healer
- New moon: Wardens, avatars of justice
It would explain too where the hell does the Wardens' shadowy magic comes from.

Who creates this new generation of Dark Rangers, and how? Valkyr were the single reason why new Dark Ranger Night Elves could be created, and they all left in service with Sylvanas. We're killing them all in the next raid.

It's a narrative dead end.

Aren't Val'kyr just copies of the Kyrian made by Odyn?
Blizzard could make that some Forsworn help create new Dark Rangers.

Ebon Blade may have been a new creation, but the second son of Mograine and the redemption of the Ashbringer was hinted at since Vanilla.

Just like we currently have all DRs missing, after the 2nd at command says that Sylvanas betrayed them.

[Triceron]

Well, at the end of the BFA campaign we see the NE Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens leave with Calia and Derek. It's implied that they're not joining the Horde.
We also know that Velonara (that is currently missing) and most of the BE Dark Rangers felt betrayed by Sylvanas.

It seems like they're planting the seed to create a group that encompasses both sides, like DKs and DHs.

Okay, now this one is an interesting theory that I can see happening. It's true that the Night Elves have not openly joined the Horde yet.

However, Calia is currently a part of the Horde council, so the Dark Ranger who join Calia are implied to be joining the Horde. She is a Horde-aligned diplomat and a Councilor of the Forsaken. Also, we have direct information from Shadows Rising telling us how the NE DR's felt betrayed by Elune, and do not wish to return to the Night Elves.

Even if we're not talking about the NE Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens joining the Horde, we're still not talking about them joining the Alliance either, they'd just be indirectly working under Calia, who's goal is to integrate them back into the Forsaken, since she is their intermediary.

I can see there being an independent group being formed, but narratively it leans towards being exclusive to the Horde.

What if the Night Warrior is the way to tie into the same class the PotM and the Wardens? Each spec representing one aspect of the moon:
- Full moon: the PotM, arcane archer healer
- New moon: Wardens, avatars of justice
It would explain too where the hell does the Wardens' shadowy magic comes from.

At the end of the day, POTM and Wardens aren't Dark Rangers.

Teriz for example suggested Tinkers could be tied to a Titan themed expansion by using Titan tech. This is a possibility, but let's recognize that a Tinker that uses Titan tech is a very different theme from a classic Tinker hero that simply uses scrappy Goblin and Gnome tech without other 'supernatural' themes being mixed in. It's a different class we're talking about.

The problem I see with this idea is that no one is asking for it.

Players expect a Warcraft 3 styled Dark Ranger, and not Dark Ranger that has Elune healing abilities and Moon themes of Justice. If we're talking about incorporating some Maw and Jailer themes, sure I can see that being expanded on. We can even add some elements from other games like Demon Hunters of D3 for that. But the truth is there are no Moon and Night Warrior connections to a Dark Ranger class, and even the Night Elf Dark Rangers have forsaken Elune completely.

This is a very big 'what if', and one that I'm not wholly convinced is a good direction for Dark Rangers.

Aren't Val'kyr just copies of the Kyrian made by Odyn?
Blizzard could make that some Forsworn help create new Dark Rangers.

Why would Forsworn want to create more 'Sylvanases' after seeing what she's been capable of?

Just like we currently have all DRs missing, after the 2nd at command says that Sylvanas betrayed them.

And that's already happened with nothing in effect.

Imagine if Wrath of the Lich King happened, we had Darion Mograine split away from the Scourge at the end of TBC, and then Blizzard omits them completely from Wrath's storyline.

We'd literally be waiting for the next relevant story and setting (like Shadowlands) for Death Knights to be introduced as a playable class. It's the same situation that the Demon Hunters faced where the Illidari were introduced back into the plot, but were given no chance to actually join. They had to wait to the next-relevant expansion for them to get that opportunity. And in the mean time, Blizzard looked towards adding a different class; Monks.


My personal theory is that Dark Rangers are currently shelved because of similar reasons to why Demon Hunters weren't created back in TBC. I believe they decided they were not ready to make and release a new class and would rather devote resources to better balancing the existing classes the way they focused on that in TBC. So instead of adding a new class, they devised a way to spread abilities out to all other classes (Covenants), and using these mechanics to explore the different realms they've planned for Shadowlands. This means Dark Rangers (and Necromancers) would be missing a current window of opportunity at this point in time.

Blizzard doesn't sweat it, since they have a whole list of potential Class concepts to work with, and a Dark Ranger still has the chance of seeing the light in the future. I just don't think it would be anytime in the near future.

As a developer, they are not singular in deciding what new class to make next. It's a collaborative decision. If not Dark Ranger now, then maybe Tinker or Dragonsworn or Bard or Shadow Hunter down the line. They aren't playing favourites here, otherwise they wouldn't come to a decision to omit a new class entirely in this expansion.

[draugril]

Yeah, given the status of the Legion, and Illidan's current role, I could definitely see a "Warden" spec being added for Demon Hunters. An expression of them finding their way in a universe left in the wake of the Burning Legion, but now absent of that threat.