As the Druid class grows, a new type of minion has effectively been added to the game in the form of Treants. Now, the Nightmare Amalgam is a Demon which for a long while was a warlock only type of minion excepting Illidan. It is also a Totem which is exclusive to Shamans and Shaman like cards, etc. Why isn’t it a Treant?
Because “Treants” isn’t a tribe (ditto for Undead).
It probably should be. I don’t know of any card that references undead. Most undead characters have deathrattle. But several cards reference Treant just the same as cards reference Demon.
A Treant is a Treant. It’s a 2/2 and will always be a 2/2. There are many types of demon, but a Treant will always remain a 2/2. There’s no tribe necessary for just one kind of minion.
You can read the devs’ logic regarding Treants as a tribe here: Rise of Shadows Q&A - April 22, 2019 - #230 by Celestalon-1160
treant is basically one minion with different images, sometimes names.
not really new its been in the game since forever.
Treants can be 5/5s now.
but it could be Oak, Willow or even General Sherman Here goes your so called demons
Those Ancients aren’t treants.
Yup. It’s one of the many stupid things Blizzard did to gimp synergies in the Druid class. It transforms your treants into treant ancients (which are still clearly treants) meaning you lose any ability to reduce the cost of mulcher.
Except they aren’t. Ancients are one thing, Treants are another. They both might be examples of a broader tree-based genus, but they’re still different entities. Just because dingoes and wolves are both members of the genus Canis, it doesn’t make them the same thing, either.
Dude, they’re called Ancients, they look like treants (walking trees), and can be generated from young treants. Clearly the implication is that they are old Treants, not a separate race.
The lore itself has several versions of ancient treants, some of which are just high level treants. Also problematic is that Ancients are a separate race of sentient trees shown in the card Ancient of Lore.
Likewise in the source material in DnD, virtually all sapient trees are termed Treants despite some wide variation.
Finally, given how some tribal affiliations are by, essentially, job description, (pirates) or vagaries of English semantics (beast), I don’t see how grouping all tree-based creatures into a tribe is a problem. Look at the dragons. All over the place in terms of morphology. Still one tribe.
They made a mess of Druids synergies, and they’ll probably fix it next expansion, but this particular explanation for why treants aren’t a tribe makes no sense.