All Treant, like minions should have the (Treant) type. There a few minions that look like a tree, but don’t classify as a (Treant)
7 Likes
I would support that, would like to see druid get another push for it.
3 Likes
That, or possibly “Plant”, just so they can throw in a couple neutrals and old cards into the category (like Biteweed). Maybe make some otherwise underwhelming cards retroactively useful.
9 Likes
I guess the only issue I would have with this is that all the buffs to teant cards out there would need to be looked at.
1 Like
Yep, that’s fair.
How many Treant-synergy cards have we got? I know there’s Treespeaker and Mulch Muncher, anything else I’m missing?
They’d probably have to be changed to something like Treespeaker giving +2/+2 instead (or is that a buff?), and Mulch Muncher becoming a little weaker. Some Wild cards might also be a factor if “plant” synergy turns out to be strong and Druid has access to Living Roots and various Adapts (into the deathrattle).
Still, thematically, a plant archetype might be fun for Druid. Rogue might be able to pull it off too, what with Biteweed, Razorleaf, Vilespine, and Corpse Flower all being Rogue cards, plus that one neutral legend (The Vorrax?). It would definitely need some serious balance testing, but it could open up some fun new archetypes.
1 Like
I’m honestly not sure why there aren’t a lot more tribes (minion types) in hearthstone. It seems it would open up a lot of design opportunity with virtually no drawback.
I seem to remember Blizz saying they didn’t want to do this though, because they’d feel it would complicate the game more, which is somewhat of a fair reason I guess. Although I may be misremembering this completely or just dreaming it up :S
1 Like
I’ve stated this broke down Every card at the time and made a forum/video on it.
Tree’s in Hearthstone
So I made a Video to show how much change can be done to bring in more synergistic cards.Changes I recommend
Dendrologist - Battlecry: If you control a Tree, Discover a spell.
Mulchmuncher - Rush. Costs (1) less for each friendly Tree that died this game.
Treespeaker - Transform your Saplings,Woodchips,Treants into 5/5 Ancients.List of cards that can be Tree (I might be missing some and a few I think would be under this catagory).
Woodchip
Sapling
Splitting Sapling
Treants
Mana Treant
Greed Sprite
Ancient
Ancient of Blossom
Ancient of Lore
Ancient of War
Forbidden Ancient
Ironbark Golem
Ironbark Protector
Rotten Applebaum
Splitting Festeroot
Splintergraft
Ixlid, Fungal Lord (Look like a Swamp Ancient)
Loatheb (Look like a Swamp Ancient)
Fen Creeper (Look like a Swamp Ancient)
Bog Creeper (Look like a Swamp Ancient)These are some Examples of Cards that can be “Tree” and help push this into synergy Decks, to be seen in play help improve old and future decks down the road.
Give proper Feedback or other options , I been saying this for Awhile now, and way before the Wild Growth Nerf. So don’t think this is just cause of the Wild Growth Nerf.
5 Likes
This makes a lot of sense flavor wise and gives some underplayed cards a chance to shine. Plus, it seems like Druid might get an archetype that could compete with token for the foreseeable future.
+1 from me
1 Like
I wondered why they are so limiting them-self with Tribes…
1 Like
Because it’s not necessary. Tribes interact. There are cards that interact with Pirates, Murlocs, Beasts, Mechs and Elementals. If a new tribe is introduced, there HAVE to be cards that interact with them, otherwise, what’s the point of the tribe?
“Ah!” you say, “I’ve got you there! There ARE cards that interact with Treants!”
Yes, but there are also cards that interact with Silverhand Recruits, and those aren’t a tribe.
“Well, yes, but that’s because if it were human it’d be totally OP and those cards are specifically with Silverhand Recruits in mind!”
Kinda like with Treants?
“Uh, yeah, but no, that’s different, you see? Because it’s a tree.”
Treants are Druid 2/2’s, just like Silverhand Recruits are Paladin 1/1’s. The moment a card says a Treant, you know it’s talking about a Druid-specific 2/2. Treants is an unnamed tribe, because there’s no need to name it.
The reason why people want to make Treants a tribe is because they want to include more minions in that tribe (there’s already a list further up this thread), causing them to become stronger than they are intended to be because they start to interact with cards that they’re not supposed to interact with.
Face it, Treants are they’re own thing. They’re the Druid version of the Silverhand Recruit. They don’t need a tribe. They already know they are.
3 Likes
I think you don’t know this, but Treants are the same as Ancients, only difference is the age and maturity of the druid.
Do some lore look up and you’ll see this is the case.
you must be pointing out at me, the fact i state the facts. No reason to not make them their own archetype also, as “Ancients” and “Treants” always been limited prints, much like tribes.
You can use the same statement for silverhands, sure, but the difference is, Treants and Ancients are literally the same type of creature.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Treant
there no reason if a card should affect treants not also affect Ancients as well. Treespeaker just help them grow up basically, while the other 2 just use young Ancient to push an experiments
I didn’t mean to say that Treants are druids, just that they are Druid minions and only Druid minions.
And it doesn’t matter that Treants grow up to be Ancients, once they are Ancients, they are no longer Treants. Also, in game, the case for Ancients is different, since there is an Ancient which isn’t Druid exclusive and isn’t a 5/5.
Also, Treants aren’t listed as Treants in WoW, but as Elementals.
1 Like
Yet cards like treespeaker prove that wrong.
you really don’t know your lore?
" Ancients are giant, sentient demigod-like trees that serve as protectors of nature. They were among the first creatures of [Azeroth], the first guardians of its life."
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Ancient
The acorn of an ancient looks like any other acorn but, in reality, is much rarer, much more powerful, and magical. It holds all the knowledge of its tree, and all the knowledge of the tree’s parent tree, and so on back to their origins. Some [treants] may grow to become [ancient protectors]. [Trees of life] can also become [trees of ages], and then [trees of eternity].
Your not well infrom on ur lore, nor read the books, you must’ve look at [Ruby Sapling] quote and took it serious, lmao you realize that a battlepet/baby?
Treants and Ancients just work closely with the druids, and Druid can use the same elemental force that the Ancients can treat to make druid into Tree-forms after a long time in the Dream.
You would know this if you knew anything you were talking.
How does the card prove me wrong? It says “Transform your Treants into 5/5 Ancients”. If you play two of them, back to back, your Ancients won’t tranform into new Ancients, because they’re Ancients, not Treants.
I’m not disputing the fact that Treants grow up to be Ancients, I’m just disputing the fact that Ancients are still Treants. Think of it like children. Children grow up to be adults, but once they’re adult, they’re no longer children (although that may up for debate, which doesn’t really help my case).
This has nothing to do with lore, or please, do point me to the lore where Cenarius said “and Ancients are all Druid minions and 5/5’s, by the way”, to which Illadan replied “a five what exactly? What are you talking about? Screw this, I’m going to the Legion”.
This is about cards, obviously, and the Ancient of Blossoms is a NEUTRAL 3/8 for 6. So, no Druid exclusive card and no 5/5.
Yes they are still the same creature. This invailid your statement right out? Tribes are a race of a type, Tinyfin is a baby murluc, then you have other murloc that are grown to behemoth through magical means but are still Murlocs.
They serve under him you would know this if you read the “war of the ancients” stories. It’s why Druids are natural with factions till you mess with them , then they side on the other side.
What statement? That children and adults are the same creature, but are named differently when they’ve aged? No… no it doesn’t… That’s… that’s pretty much the statement…
And again, a Treant grows up to be an Ancient and thus no longer is a Treant, but an Ancient. Your gamepedia link even says so, and never calls a Treant an Ancient or vice versa in any other context other than “in a different part of their life, they’re called…”
I guess I missed the part where he mentioned their stats. Again, I’m talking about CARDS, not lore. Or did you skip the part where I specifially named the NEUTRAL Ancient. So, how does he fit into the “druid exlusive CLASS minion”? And don’t start with lore again, lore has nothing to do with this.
I would enjoy treants as a tribe honestly.
3 Likes
- They could be a tribe. It is a job description, just like pirate. In what way would anything change if there was a little Silverhand at the bottom, under the minions. The same cards would still do the same thing.
- there aren’t any SH interacting cards in standard anymore. There are for treant (and they’re printing more.
- they’re not a radically different form of life. It would make intuitive sense for treants to be a tribe in the same way beasts, mechs, murlocs, elemental’s, demons and dragons are (non human beings of profoundly different biology or intelligence). For different classes of human, it makes less sense then it does for the rest. Pirate is really the odd man out, tribe wise. Silver hand would be like pirate, treant would be like most of the other tribes.
- druids hero power doesn’t generate them, so they are less ubiquitous than SH recruits. Not a major point, but worth mentioning.
Well, yeah, there’s that. Obviously. People suggest things they think would improve the game. Having a strong plant based class would be good for balance, since Druid is a one trick pony at the moment, and it wouldn’t require printing new cards. It also isn’t problem with the logical argument that many tribes are less coherent than the perceived race of tree people that Blizzard just pretends are unrelated.
I think the game would be better if each class had a strong (if not unique) tribal affiliation and cards to go with it. Shaman has totem already: give druid plant, warrior bomb, mage spellcaster, warlock demon, rogue lackey, hunter beast and priest shadows.
2 Likes
Only way treants could he strong is with lucentbark as a treant tag. Be there ultimate win condition. If not there wouldn’t be a point to it.
They’ve gone on record saying that they don’t plan to make Treants a tribe because they don’t plan to ever print another type of Treant - they’ll always be 2/2 vanilla minions with “Treant” in their name. Adding a tribe tag would be redundant, because you can already recognize a Treant easily without one.