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.
It sounds cool but we don’t really need class specific tribes, especially when that means rebalancing a bunch of other cards to make it work
why ? there are neutral cards which they could change to treants
and what do you mean by rebalancing
these child on the forums that lack common sense
people act like making an Tree archetype bad for the game when it hardly even powerful, even if they did what I said, it literally is just class filler for druid and other classes can get ‘druid’ cards , much like how rouge/priest copy or steal silverhand cards from paladin, there nothing wrong if a class has a harder time to get it, infact it would help those classes that take card/mimic decks to a new power level like it did in the past.
Humans are humans, Orcs are Orcs, Demons are demons, Dryad’s are Dryads , they could make Dryad’s there own tribe also, and look how limited print they are and THOSE ARE DRUID ONLY, Treants and Ancients are the same bloodly type of creature doesn’t matter if they’re old or young, I don’t see us calling making a difference when it came to animals in the game, cause Animals have a very different name Look at the Female dog name vs a Male dog name, 1 consider a curse word by young morons who never breed dogs, while the other it just call their creature type, an dog. I don’t see a creature being call a B in the game so we know if it’s a male or female, so treants should be the same, they call baby just the beast.
here a line from Hearthstone own thing.
" Hearthstone builds upon the existing lore of the [Warcraft] series by using the same elements, characters, and relics."
They’ve already stated in the ‘old gods’ expansion that was a alt. time line if the Old Gods lived and won for things like the “The Ancient one” to be made.
Hearthstone is base in warcraft lore and uses elements of it to inspire things.
2nd Let’s look at things like " Spirit of the " cards those are clearly totems, they should be label as such why they didn’t do it? cause they thought it be unfair if shamen can summon random totem to get these? Cause it dead most the time for the class? if so that stupid cause that rule can apply to Thief rouge some their cards are dead till they steal more, it’s why they made cards like they are now where you just hold an other class card to get a perk rather then able to trigger it affect.
Eh, it could be a cool theme for an expansion year.
And still, even WoW (or the gamepedia page for that matter) does not call an Ancient a Treant or vice versa, because there’s a distinct difference. A Treant is a 2/2 Druid minion that can only be generated by Druid cards. An Ancient on the other hand is not. Therefor, in game, it is not a Treant.
But you can argue with me all you want, point is:
And again, you did not address the fact that there is a neutral Ancient.
I did, you clearly miss the point I keep saying over and over, they served under Cenarius in ages past. They aren’t Druid protector they’re more of the dream protector , Druids just happen to become more around the Dream Cause of Malfurion and Druids learn over time how to become Treant which are now know more for their healing power over combact as they were where treating the world after the war with the Old Gods/Titans on the planet.
Again YOU would knew this if you knew anything you’re talking about, infact Ancients can revert to Treants if they choose to, also know as their “primitive form”
Infact the 1st Ancients where from the “World Tree” , which died during Rag storyline in WoW .
Also there 3 type of “Ancients” Azeroth, Draenor, and Outlands.
infact if you want a perfect treants not working with druids, look at “Old Whitebark” who uses the prim.form over the Ancient form.
He use to work with the local Elfs.
https://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Whitebark
All you have to do is take the time to look into this and you’ll see there are many cases of Treants/Ancients not working solely with Druids, some have turn their backs and double crosses them , or used them during the Warcraft 3 to save there selves, so Ancients And Treants retreated to the forest to rebuild, and they happen to be with druid who respect the Forest above all other ‘classes’ but it’s why Druids are able to be Horde vs Alliance but have to put aside everything when they’re in Druidic spaces by their code. In return of those places staying War Free, the Ancients agree to protect those area/creatures in it.
if you can’t take a moment to see the facts and look into it yourself , you prove that you don’t know anything your claiming.
It correct, That like saying Yeshra is a Druid card then also. Cause She aid the Druids above all, infact she was the one who pick and choose who could use the Dream, which she allowed Druids, now Druids are apart the dream as much as she was, but she’s not Not A druid card?
Oh wait that something you wouldn’t want to debate , or how Cairne Bloodhoof isn’t a Warrior Only card, when he was a Warrior! OH NO NOT EVERYTHING IS IN THE RIGHT CLASSES IT LIKE THEY WANTED SOEM CARDS BE USED BY EVERYONE WHILE OTHERS CAN’T! OH NO.
Grow the hell up and use facts to make any of ur statements. All you do is do “Oh this isn’t this way” and then the same can be said about the 2 i just point out. Just cause a Character isn’t lockdown in their class they should be, doesn’t mean anything so you can not use that as ur leg to stand on, cause they already stated some cards aren’t going be bound to X class as they shouldn’t be limited to those classes alone.
You miles throw out also cards like witch’s cauldron into Shamen cause it Generates Shamens cards, and we can’t let other classes get Shamen cards! That’s so unfair for other classes to use their cards (same can be said to how burgle rouge is, or Steal Priest). There other ways for them to get the cards in the game and they’ll most likely always have cards like that so eventually you’ll have each class be able to use cards from other classes that didn’t started in their deck anyways. Tri-class cards were a thing, so what make you so sure that no other class will ever get treants, they clearly don’t even use the same ‘art’ for the witchwood treants
I’m just saying treant as a tribe is rather pointless because it’s pretty druid specific. There are cards that have effects based on treants that would need to be looked at, also druid specific. That’s a lot of effort to put into a single class and probably not worth doing really.
So just leave it be and focus on all classes
Murloc/Shamen proves this point wrong.
They Always made Murloc for Shamens mainly while leaving other classes out.
pointed muted.
Murlocks buff each other, there are class specific cards and neutral cards.
How many neutral “treants” exist? Point stands. I’m not opposed to the idea but it’s too much effort for a single class. That’s my only point. Treant exists as a specific card similar to silver hand recruit, and it has buffs accordingly. Probably best to leave it that way and focus on other things
I will concede that if they made an expansion about it and offered all classes various cards associated, it could be cool. I’m only opposed on the grounds that existing cards make it a fruitless endeavor
Really… you want to limit to what there is “now” but not for the future?
Need some Examples?
So For Example they could make the Arcane Treants/Arcane Ancients and make those mage only, why? cause they do more the Arcane, Druid does some Arcane but it’s very limited.
Literallt the Arcane dude are more with mages over Druids.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Ancient_of_the_Arcane
That like saying Why make Beast Filler when only 1 class gain the most out of it (hunter) Druid get little beast support now but use to be a prime thing for druid to the point they added Beast to the tag of the beast forms druid have.
You’re trying to make a point out of not the point. The point is we don’t need class specific tribes.
Silver hand could be a tribe, also pointless because it’s effectively paladin only.
Beasts for hunters already exists, doesn’t mean it’s a great thing.
As I said, if you wanna make an expansion and call it “awakening of the ancients” make treant a tribe, and give supporting cards to multiple classes it could be a cool thing. But without that level of commitment, there is t any need to change what exists
That’s exactly what I’m doing.
I don’t remember the exact reason but Blizzard has specifically explained why they don’t want to make Treants a tribe and it made sense I think.
OMG you aren’t reading again they clearly stated
that not them saying “it’ll never happen” like your are claiming, it shows you MISS THE POINT
I look at this as yet another in game inconsistency by the design team. Creatures of this variety should all have the tag or none of them should have the tag. The fact that the tag actually has game play mechanical interaction means they actively know there are cards that can be comboed off the tag. So why the hell are they so inconsistent with the use of the tag???
This is the kind of mechanic you can build a class identity around and yet they continue to ignore its potential.