Look how simple it is to give Dark Rangers fans some love:

[Kharadin]

Just make it a class skin 4head.

[Khaza-R]

I don't think they would ever touch this unless they are going to do class skins, fourth spec or sub-classes someday.

It might seem like an insignificant amount of work to add something like this but would basically forever impact future design. Since once you add something like this you are pretty much stuck supporting it. Definitely probably not something the devs want to design themselves into a corner doing.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What?

go through the Diablo demon hunter ability’s some time.

The use of aspects' powers.

they don’t actually all dragon sworn get is a + to spell class and the
Ability to temporarily grow wings and claws they don’t actually get any aspect related powers there dragon teaching just make there current magic stronger.

Which is a race at best.
https://media.wowdb.com/attachments/...8953772813.PNG

hate to break it to you but.

[username993720]

go through the Diablo demon hunter ability’s some time.

And it involves kicking a ferret?

they don’t actually all dragon sworn get is a + to spell class and the
Ability to temporarily grow wings and claws they don’t actually get any aspect related powers there dragon teaching just make there current magic stronger.

"Such devotees dedicate their lives to the protection and service of their dragonflights and reap the benefits of the great knowledge and power that their draconic masters share."

hate to break it to you but.

All i see are Darkfallen.

[Triceron]

You said the Hunter was created with Dark Ranger in mind, yet none of the WCIII abilities - which vanilla was a continuation of - appeared in the Hunter class.

Their Silence and Self Heal abilities are represented by Hunter abilities. Charm doesn't fit WoW at all, and Sylvanas doesn't even use this ever. Black Arrow is simply awaiting its return.

Yet, you'd consider black eyes as playable Night Warrior, wouldn't you?

I don't, because the lore for the customization wasn't about becoming Night Warriors, but being affected by Tyrande's ritual. I don't think any of her followers were turned into Night Warriors, were they? Only Tyrande.

Which is why it makes even less sense making this a playable class.

Or, maybe, players weren't requesting them so Blizzard didn't do an half-assed feature to try and please them. It doesn't have anything to do with what Blizzard regards Dark Rangers. It has something to do with pleasing the masses and making money. They were probably pressured. I don't believe they were planning on doing this for a long time now and that this is their perfect vision of a Dark Ranger.

Then your beliefs are wrong because Danuser already explained that these customizations are legitimately representing a Dark Ranger class, specifically through Hunters.

You can provide all the solutions you want, but the facts talk for themselves - Demon Hunters took the Warlock's Metamorphosis. And it wouldn't have been so if there was no connection between the two.

You're fighting a losing argument here. Would you consider the Druid to be a Priestess of the Moon because they have Starfall and a connection to Elune?

Didn't think so.

And does it hinder your gameplay like Dark Ranger customizations hinder the ability to play a fully fledged Dark Ranger?

Nothing is hindered since Dark Rangers are literally archers. As I've pointed out many times, there are more Dark Ranger NPCs that have Hunter abilities than those who have purely unique ones. Evidence jow proves that Blizzard is basing the Dark Ranger concept on those NPCs who are Hunter-based, like Velonara. You're literally ignoring this fact.

What about Warden? Does it make you a Dark Warden when picking the Rogue class?
Are you a San'layn Blood caster when picking the Mage class?

Warden's aren't playable. What makes you think they are or that we can discuss them in this way?

And what does a San'layn Blood caster have to do with anything? You're shifting goalposts here. Stay on topic.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And it involves kicking a ferret?

a ferret that kicks actually.

"Such devotees dedicate their lives to the protection and service of their dragonflights and reap the benefits of the great knowledge and power that their draconic masters share."

yes that “great knowledge and power” is just an increase to spell levels the only other thing they get is some temp wings and claws nothing actually related to the aspects.

All i see are Darkfallen.

Really? Because all I saw was a night elf who needs to put on some sun screen.

[Mace]

I'd be okay with talent trees actually giving you more choice in this way versus "So..do you want to waste points on a silence you have to get or not? lmfao"

It's okay for them to do that, it is also for them to give a glyph pack, dark ranger glyph pack that changes a few spell abilities round to reflect the dark ranger fantasy

[Rozz]

It's okay for them to do that, it is also for them to give a glyph pack, dark ranger glyph pack that changes a few spell abilities round to reflect the dark ranger fantasy

I'm just jaded towards talent trees is all

[Triceron]

It's okay for them to do that, it is also for them to give a glyph pack, dark ranger glyph pack that changes a few spell abilities round to reflect the dark ranger fantasy

I'd be completely happy with this idea.

I think many things can easily be represented through visuals, if they manage to put some effort into it.

[username993720]

Their Silence and Self Heal abilities are represented by Hunter abilities. Charm doesn't fit WoW at all, and Sylvanas doesn't even use this ever. Black Arrow is simply awaiting its return.

The only thing i can agree with is Hunters having a silencing shot. Never have they drained life or controlled others. Black arrows was added later in the Hunter's life cycle. So, basically, the Hunter wasn't created with Dark Ranger in mind and neither is it today, as no spec is really dedicated to the archetype.

I don't, because the lore for the customization wasn't about becoming Night Warriors, but being affected by Tyrande's ritual. I don't think any of her followers were turned into Night Warriors, were they? Only Tyrande.

Which is why it makes even less sense making this a playable class.

Being affected doesn't make them into Night Warriors? As you used to claim, they are merely eyes.

There weren't many Demon Hunters to begin with, yet here we are. So, numbers aren't really an issue. Not when introducing a race and neither when it comes to a class.

Then your beliefs are wrong because Danuser already explained that these customizations are legitimately representing a Dark Ranger class, specifically through Hunters.

Well, he kinda had to in order to sell the charade.

You're fighting a losing argument here. Would you consider the Druid to be a Priestess of the Moon because they have Starfall and a connection to Elune?

Didn't think so.

So, it was an arbitrary removal?
Weird, because the Metamorphosis looks exactly like a demonic Night elf.

Nothing is hindered since Dark Rangers are literally archers. As I've pointed out many times, there are more Dark Ranger NPCs that have Hunter abilities than those who have purely unique ones. Evidence jow proves that Blizzard is basing the Dark Ranger concept on those NPCs who are Hunter-based, like Velonara. You're literally ignoring this fact.

Why on earth would you base a concept on some trash NPCs? It's the major ones that matter.

Warden's aren't playable. What makes you think they are or that we can discuss them in this way?

And what does a San'layn Blood caster have to do with anything? You're shifting goalposts here. Stay on topic.

Due to the customization. If you're an Undead elf, a Darkfallen, then you should be able to be a Dark Warden and Blood Mage (the San'layn type).

a ferret that kicks actually.

Doesn't ring a bell to me. Can you be more specific?

yes that “great knowledge and power” is just an increase to spell levels the only other thing they get is some temp wings and claws nothing actually related to the aspects.

Outdated concept. Which is why it was made into the Evoker.

Really? Because all I saw was a night elf who needs to put on some sun screen.

Still a Darkfallen.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Doesn't ring a bell to me. Can you be more specific?

Animal companion, rune ferret.

[username993720]

Animal companion, rune ferret.

Okay. And what's wrong with it?

[Triceron]

The only thing i can agree with is Hunters having a silencing shot. Never have they drained life or controlled others. Black arrows was added later in the Hunter's life cycle. So, basically, the Hunter wasn't created with Dark Ranger in mind and neither is it today, as no spec is really dedicated to the archetype.

It doesn't matter if the Hunter was designed to be a Dark Ranger from beginning. It is intended to be the Dark Ranger today. It doesn't matter if you don't think the gameplay is represented or not, the identity is. This is beyond mere gameplay representation that we're talking about. I am literally pointing at the lore and Blizzard devs who are making it clear that they are playable through these customizations.

Being affected doesn't make them into Night Warriors? As you used to claim, they are merely eyes.

That was before I realized the quest did not empower everyone into Night Warriors, and that Tyrande was the only one who gained powers through the ritual. It was before I found out it was merely a residual cosmetic effect even in the lore.

Well, he kinda had to in order to sell the charade.

Except it's not a charade since he was in the same interview with Ion Hazzikostas, game director of WoW. These things were fully planned out and intentional.

So, it was an arbitrary removal?
Weird, because the Metamorphosis looks exactly like a demonic Night elf.

It was a removal for the sake of bringing the Warlock back to its Summoner fantasy. Would you call Survival becoming a Melee spec and losing its unique Ranged abilities to be arbitrary? I wouldn't, because their intention was to redesign the spec as a melee spec, and some things would obviously have to be cut to fulfill the new fantasy.

Let's put it this way - if Blizzard goes out of their way to make a new Priestess of the Moon Class, do you think they would keep Starfall on the Druid? I would not. And if they removed or replaced Starfall to give it to the POTM class, would that mean Druids have a connection with being Priestess of the Moon? No, it does not. Druids are Druids, even if they are able to use Starfall and tap into Elune's powers. They are not any other class than a Druid just because they are capable of using abilities of a Priestess of the Moon. Abilities do not define classes as becoming something else.

Why on earth would you base a concept on some trash NPCs? It's the major ones that matter.

Because they have no intention of making a playable representation of Sylvanas.

All they wish to present is the Dark Rangers as a customization option, and expand on the Hunter class with the cool tricks that Dark Rangers have at their disposal. That's the takeaway here.

There is no rule that any race or class has to be defined by major characters.

Due to the customization. If you're an Undead elf, a Darkfallen, then you should be able to be a Dark Warden and Blood Mage (the San'layn type).

None of that is supported in lore, considering Dark Wardens and Blood Mages did not join the Alliance or Horde, nor are part of the Lordaeron questline.

You're still not getting that the whole reason Dark Rangers are playable is 9.2.5's questline. If we're just talking about the Dark Ranger customizations without any lore to back it up, then you can make an argument that they're just visual changes and nothing more.

As far as I know, Sand Trolls on the Horde is still not rendered official. It's merely a customization option with no lore to back it up. This is an example of customizations merely given to players to RP. To my knowledge, there is no Sand Troll faction in lore that has joined the Horde for these customizations to represent. They're just there. Same applies to any non-Hunter Class combination for these Dark Ranger customizations; there is no canonical explanation to them so everything other than a Hunter is merely just a cosmetic option.

Blizzard hasn't shown us Darkfallen Night Elf Druids with red eyes as being Dark Rangers, so it's not exactly canonical. Neither would a Wildhammer Warlock or a Darkfallen (Blood Elf) Paladin be. The canonical ones would be the ones we actually know of and are supported in the lore. The rest is literally left open as RP options.

[username993720]

It doesn't matter if the Hunter was designed to be a Dark Ranger from beginning. It is intended to be the Dark Ranger today. It doesn't matter if you don't think the gameplay is represented or not, the identity is. This is beyond mere gameplay representation that we're talking about. I am literally pointing at the lore and Blizzard devs who are making it clear that they are playable through these customizations.

*in some form. Not fully.

That was before I realized the quest did not empower everyone into Night Warriors, and that Tyrande was the only one who gained powers through the ritual. It was before I found out it was merely a residual cosmetic effect even in the lore.

Maybe you'll realize these customizations are bullshit as well.
Take your time..

Except it's not a charade since he was in the same interview with Ion Hazzikostas, game director of WoW. These things were fully planned out and intentional.

They had to salvage some income from the shitshow that was Shadowlands.

It was a removal for the sake of bringing the Warlock back to its Summoner fantasy. Would you call Survival becoming a Melee spec and losing its unique Ranged abilities to be arbitrary? I wouldn't, because their intention was to redesign the spec as a melee spec, and some things would obviously have to be cut to fulfill the new fantasy.

Survival's capabilities weren't given to another class.
If a Ranger class was added and it took its abilities then, yes, i'd know that it was removed for that class.

Let's put it this way - if Blizzard goes out of their way to make a new Priestess of the Moon Class, do you think they would keep Starfall on the Druid? I would not. And if they removed or replaced Starfall to give it to the POTM class, would that mean Druids have a connection with being Priestess of the Moon? No, it does not. Druids are Druids, even if they are able to use Starfall and tap into Elune's powers. They are not any other class than a Druid just because they are capable of using abilities of a Priestess of the Moon. Abilities do not define classes as becoming something else.

1. They might come up with another spell.
2. As the only lunar caster out there, it badly fills part of the PotM role as Hunters do Dark Rangers.

Because they have no intention of making a playable representation of Sylvanas.

All they wish to present is the Dark Rangers as a customization option, and expand on the Hunter class with the cool tricks that Dark Rangers have at their disposal. That's the takeaway here.

Cool tricks? As in plural? You only have Wailing Arrow. So much for a Dark Ranger coolness...

There is no rule that any race or class has to be defined by major characters.

There kinda is, with classes like the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter.
None of the playable classes are based on some random, no-named, low-level NPC. Not even the vanilla ones.

None of that is supported in lore, considering Dark Wardens and Blood Mages did not join the Alliance or Horde, nor are part of the Lordaeron questline.

Dark Wardens joined the Horde during BfA. There was attempt to recruit the San'layn as well.

As far as I know, Sand Trolls on the Horde is still not rendered official. It's merely a customization option with no lore to back it up. This is an example of customizations merely given to players to RP. To my knowledge, there is no Sand Troll faction in lore that has joined the Horde for these customizations to represent. They're just there. Same applies to any non-Hunter Class combination for these Dark Ranger customizations; there is no canonical explanation to them so everything other than a Hunter is merely just a cosmetic option.

Aren't there emissaries from different tribes in Zandalar?

Blizzard hasn't shown us Darkfallen Night Elf Druids with red eyes as being Dark Rangers, so it's not exactly canonical. Neither would a Wildhammer Warlock or a Darkfallen (Blood Elf) Paladin be. The canonical ones would be the ones we actually know of and are supported in the lore. The rest is literally left open as RP options.

So, why not attach it to the Hunter class exclusively?

[Triceron]

*in some form. Not fully.

And the difference between that is subjective.

What does fully mean when we have no control over the concept itself?

If a Mage doesn't have lightning spells while they did in WC2 or mass Teleport like in WC3, would you call the Mage class fully represented? Whatever answer you give would be subjective. Understand?

The WoW Mage is representing its own concept. It does not just represent an Archmage Hero in its totality, nor a WC2 Mage in its totality. That is not the design goal of the Mage class. It merely taps into those previous units and heroes as inspiration for a completely new concept that fits WoW.

'In some form' is the form Blizzard has chosen the Mage to become. Just as it has chosen now for the Dark Ranger to be a Hunter and not as a standalone class.

Maybe you'll realize these customizations are bullshit as well.
Take your time..

They ARE bullshit, and they ARE official. The point I've been making is that the bullshit is INTENTIONAL and gat Blizzard has no intent on changing or removing it to make room for new material. We're given this BECAUSE they have no intention of releasing a full standalone option, and it is now definitive with the lore stating so.

Wailing Arrow on Hunter Talents is merely an example of their intent in action.

Good on you for still having hope, but you can't just ignore the Dark Ranger as though it is still not yet officially playable. It's official, and Danuser and Ion Hazzikostas were both in the interview that confirms it.

Survival's capabilities weren't given to another class.
If a Ranger class was added and it took its abilities then, yes, i'd know that it was removed for that class.

Death Knights lost Dual Wield Tanking when Monks came. Monks then lost Dual Wield Tanking when Demon Hunters came. You understand that Blizzard shifts gameplay mechanics around all the time, right?

Even DH's Sigil system is taken directly from Monk's Statue system. They're exactly the same mechanics. I bet you didn't even know it was taken away from Monks.

Cool tricks? As in plural? You only have Wailing Arrow. So much for a Dark Ranger coolness...

That you don't like it doesn't make it any less official.

Just like if you were a hardcore Sunwalker fan, you. Ould bitch and moan that there are no Sun based spells to represent the concept, but you couldn't argue that Sunwalkers aren't already playable and make an argument that Blizzard will eventually make a standalone class for them in the future. Blizzard has already tied them directly to Paladin lore. Understand?

My argument isn't whether what Blizzard did is best for fans or not. My argument is that they literally write the rules. We don't have to be happy about the rules, but we can't change them or pretend they don't exist just because we're not satisfied.

Make sense?

There kinda is, with classes like the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter.
None of the playable classes are based on some random, no-named, low-level NPC. Not even the vanilla ones.

Because they're not based on NPCs alone.

Every WoW class concept is its own standalone thing, and their identity starts and ends with Blizzard defining where the lines are drawn.

As I said before, if they went with Hero classes, then DH, MK and DK could have all been merged into the Warrior Class. They managed to make new classes out of DK and DH, while keeping the MK'a identity rooted in the Warrior. And even now, the MK is not 'fully represented' considering you can't be a dual wielding Warrior with all the MK's abilities; you either have all abilities in Prot or Dual Wield with Stormbolt only. And they're not going to make a separate class just because the MK isn't 'fully represented'.

Dark Wardens joined the Horde during BfA. There was attempt to recruit the San'layn as well.

Dark Wardens joined Sylvanas, not the Horde. Sira Moonwarden owes no allegience to the Horde. She doesn't even owe loyalty to Sylvanas, and this was made clear in the BFA novel. She is literally an independant character of no faction affiliation, especially after BFA.

So as ai said, all you're inplying is RP headcanon. Same as Sand Trolls at this point in time, we merely have them as customizations with no lore to support it as being canon.

Dark Rangers being playable is canon.

Aren't there emissaries from different tribes in Zandalar?

AFAIK, there is no lore to substantiate a formal inclusion of them into the Horde. This is like the Sanlayn thing you mentioned, they aren't formally part of the Horde.

And funny enough, the Revantusk and Stonemaul Ogres are part of the Horde but have zero customization or race representation. Same may be true of Mok'nathal, but so far I believe Rexxar is still the only one that actually joined the Horde.

So, why not attach it to the Hunter class exclusively?

Because Race customizations can't be class exclusive.

Do you see Wildhammer Tattoes exclusive to all Wildhammer specific classes like Shamans and Hunters? No, it is race-wide, meaning you can make a Wildhammer Paladin or Warlock even if it isn't canonical. Same as a Sand Troll Druid, Monk or DK which wouldn't really be canonical even if they just joined the Horde. They would need to provide lore (Like they did for Sunwalkers and Darkspear Druids) in order for it to be canon.

And Dark Rangers being Undead Elf Hunters has been canonized through 9.2.5.

Make sense?

[username993720]

And the difference between that is subjective.

What does fully mean when we have no control over the concept itself?

If a Mage doesn't have lightning spells while they did in WC2 or mass Teleport like in WC3, would you call the Mage class fully represented? Whatever answer you give would be subjective. Understand?

The WoW Mage is representing its own concept. It does not just represent an Archmage Hero in its totality, nor a WC2 Mage in its totality. That is not the design goal of the Mage class. It merely taps into those previous units and heroes as inspiration for a completely new concept that fits WoW.

'In some form' is the form Blizzard has chosen the Mage to become. Just as it has chosen now for the Dark Ranger to be a Hunter and not as a standalone class.

That's why lightning is a potential 4th Mage spec.
And you're comparing a 3-spec class to a 1 ability representation. The gap is enormous.

They ARE bullshit, and they ARE official. The point I've been making is that the bullshit is INTENTIONAL and gat Blizzard has no intent on changing or removing it to make room for new material. We're given this BECAUSE they have no intention of releasing a full standalone option, and it is now definitive with the lore stating so.

Wailing Arrow on Hunter Talents is merely an example of their intent in action.

Good on you for still having hope, but you can't just ignore the Dark Ranger as though it is still not yet officially playable. It's official, and Danuser and Ion Hazzikostas were both in the interview that confirms it.

There's no need to remove it. Just add a class on top of it.
And, by dismissing the Dark Ranger you're also dismissing the possibility for a Warden or PotM/Night Warrior, as they are unlikely to come on their own. Are they obsolete as well?

Death Knights lost Dual Wield Tanking when Monks came. Monks then lost Dual Wield Tanking when Demon Hunters came. You understand that Blizzard shifts gameplay mechanics around all the time, right?

Even DH's Sigil system is taken directly from Monk's Statue system. They're exactly the same mechanics. I bet you didn't even know it was taken away from Monks.

Are you implying each took from the other? Because this has no lore basis.
Monks still use statues, Death Knights still Dual-Wields.

That you don't like it doesn't make it any less official.

Just like if you were a hardcore Sunwalker fan, you. Ould bitch and moan that there are no Sun based spells to represent the concept, but you couldn't argue that Sunwalkers aren't already playable and make an argument that Blizzard will eventually make a standalone class for them in the future. Blizzard has already tied them directly to Paladin lore. Understand?

My argument isn't whether what Blizzard did is best for fans or not. My argument is that they literally write the rules. We don't have to be happy about the rules, but we can't change them or pretend they don't exist just because we're not satisfied.

Make sense?

I'm not a hardcore fan, as weird as it seems.
And Sunwalkers don't have any abilities associated with them.

Because they're not based on NPCs alone.

Every WoW class concept is its own standalone thing, and their identity starts and ends with Blizzard defining where the lines are drawn.

As I said before, if they went with Hero classes, then DH, MK and DK could have all been merged into the Warrior Class. They managed to make new classes out of DK and DH, while keeping the MK'a identity rooted in the Warrior. And even now, the MK is not 'fully represented' considering you can't be a dual wielding Warrior with all the MK's abilities; you either have all abilities in Prot or Dual Wield with Stormbolt only. And they're not going to make a separate class just because the MK isn't 'fully represented'.

Yet, the Mountain King fantasy is still based on Muradin and not some random dwarf guy.
You know they can still change talent placement and add more, do you? At one point, the talents we have right now were in a different spec.

Dark Wardens joined Sylvanas, not the Horde. Sira Moonwarden owes no allegience to the Horde. She doesn't even owe loyalty to Sylvanas, and this was made clear in the BFA novel. She is literally an independant character of no faction affiliation, especially after BFA.

So as ai said, all you're inplying is RP headcanon. Same as Sand Trolls at this point in time, we merely have them as customizations with no lore to support it as being canon.

Dark Rangers being playable is canon.

An undoubtedly Horde Dark Warden.
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Lyani_Shadestalker

AFAIK, there is no lore to substantiate a formal inclusion of them into the Horde. This is like the Sanlayn thing you mentioned, they aren't formally part of the Horde.

And funny enough, the Revantusk and Stonemaul Ogres are part of the Horde but have zero customization or race representation. Same may be true of Mok'nathal, but so far I believe Rexxar is still the only one that actually joined the Horde.

Ogre and Forest Troll cannot really be customizations options. Ogres are a totally different race and, therefore, skeleton and Forest Trolls are mostly muscular.

Because Race customizations can't be class exclusive.

Do you see Wildhammer Tattoes exclusive to all Wildhammer specific classes like Shamans and Hunters? No, it is race-wide, meaning you can make a Wildhammer Paladin or Warlock even if it isn't canonical. Same as a Sand Troll Druid, Monk or DK which wouldn't really be canonical even if they just joined the Horde. They would need to provide lore (Like they did for Sunwalkers and Darkspear Druids) in order for it to be canon.

And Dark Rangers being Undead Elf Hunters has been canonized through 9.2.5.

Make sense?

Then, you're talking about a Darkfallen customization, as the Dwarf customization isn't called Gryphon Rider customization.

You know, as much as you throw around the word Undead elf Hunter, there aren't many times where Dark Rangers are directly referred to as Hunters in lore:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_ranger

[Triceron]

That's why lightning is a potential 4th Mage spec.
And you're comparing a 3-spec class to a 1 ability representation. The gap is enormous.

Eh, I don't think that's on the table at all.

There's no need to remove it. Just add a class on top of it.
And, by dismissing the Dark Ranger you're also dismissing the possibility for a Warden or PotM/Night Warrior, as they are unlikely to come on their own. Are they obsolete as well?

I don't think those are on the table either.

Are you implying each took from the other? Because this has no lore basis.
Monks still use statues, Death Knights still Dual-Wields.

I'm implying Blizzard shifts mechanics around all the time, and they will give them to other classes as well.

This isn't something unique to Warlocks having a connection to Demon Hunters.

Ressurection was the name of the Paladin's ultimate in WC3. WoW Priests have Ressurection while WoW Paladins got Redemption instead. Nothing really suffered from both classes having the exact same spell and having their names swapped.

I'm not a hardcore fan, as weird as it seems.

Then you have weird hangups for personally investing yourself in defending a concept you aren't a fan of.

Then, you're talking about a Darkfallen customization, as the Dwarf customization isn't called Gryphon Rider customization.

You know, as much as you throw around the word Undead elf Hunter, there aren't many times where Dark Rangers are directly referred to as Hunters in lore:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_ranger

All ot needs is ONE time to be canonical

And we had it happen multiple times already. In the Twitter interview, in Sylvanas' novel, and now ultimately in 9.2.5.

Everything after 9.2.5 will regard Dark Ranger content as an extension of the Hunter.

[username993720]

Eh, I don't think that's on the table at all.

Who knows...

I don't think those are on the table either.

Then, replace the table.

I'm implying Blizzard shifts mechanics around all the time, and they will give them to other classes as well.

This isn't something unique to Warlocks having a connection to Demon Hunters.

Ressurection was the name of the Paladin's ultimate in WC3. WoW Priests have Ressurection while WoW Paladins got Redemption instead. Nothing really suffered from both classes having the exact same spell and having their names swapped.

Well, we know Paladins are former Priests.
And if it wouldn't have been an issue, it'd still be part of the Warlock kit.

Then you have weird hangups for personally investing yourself in defending a concept you aren't a fan of.

I hate being wrong

Plus, it kinda defeats logic.

All ot needs is ONE time to be canonical

And we had it happen multiple times already. In the Twitter interview, in Sylvanas' novel, and now ultimately in 9.2.5.

Everything after 9.2.5 will regard Dark Ranger content as an extension of the Hunter.

Then, why doesn't WoWpedia or the WoW site update their descriptions?

[Triceron]

Who knows...
Then, replace the table.

With the Talent Revamps, Blizzard has already done so.

And the table has been set in a way that seats Dark Rangers as a Hunter customization moving forward.

Well, we know Paladins are former Priests.
And if it wouldn't have been an issue, it'd still be part of the Warlock kit.

They still wouldn:t be the same class unless they definitively merged the class identities through lore or Dev acknowledgement the way they did for Dark Rangers being Hunters in 9.2.5 and the Twitter interview.

I hate being wrong

Plus, it kinda defeats logic.

The logic you're talking about is your personal subjective ability to grasp matters of fact. So what you're actually arguing is it doesn't make sense to you that Blizzard wouldn't make a Dark Ranger standalone class.

If we're defining the Dark Ranger as a standalone class, then we have to first acknowledge that it will never exist unless Blizzard intends to make one. And that's the key part of the equation. It may be logical to you that they should make one because of all the Dark Ranger material we have lying around. Yet it's pretty clear that they intend to only use material that fits a Hunter, and apply the entire Dark Ranger identity to the Hunter class.

Everything we've gotten since the Twitter Interview has been built around supporting this initiative, the latest which is Wailing Arrow on the Talents. We still haven't seen the full list of Hunter abilities in Dragonflight. For all we know, Black Arrow could be planned to become a baseline ability.

Then, why doesn't WoWpedia or the WoW site update their descriptions?

Because they are not a definitive source for WoW canon, they are a definitive source for all things Warcraft. That is why they include descriptions from other sources like the TCG and you had cards like Mekkatorque's defining him as a 'Warrior'.

WoWpedia is not a definitive source for WoW canon. It's a fan-driven encyclopedia of Warcraft information, that's all.

[Fantazma]

Triceron or Username, could you please post my thread (art and notes below) on the official Blizzard forum on the Hunters page and if possible on the Dragonflight hunters feed-back page just for yolo plz??
Use an alt and if you don't want to be tied to this idea just say you found it on mmochampion or something...!
I can't do that because I "exchanged curses" with a Blizzard GM from my country and got a nice Perma-ban. I can only post on the official forums again in 2999. hahaha...