Nah, if they are going to come back, they should come back through Mage Tower; also to preface, I am not against Mage Tower skins coming back, cosmetics from MoP to now shouldn’t be removed from the game.
I would like they brought back the old MoP and WoD CM stuff too.
Thank you for wording it so beautifully.
I disagree, but it’s up to interpretation.
The only point of contention for me is the focus on the metric of volume for weapons, but on uniqueness for the bear.
If we use only volume, then it is reasonable and logical; weapons are much more abundant, pick something else. We only give bears because they are sorely lacking.
Yet they introduced the metric of uniqueness; There are no comparable (in many cases) appearances for weapons from the Mage Tower. Even base artifacts are utterly unique for the most part. If there were easy alternatives these threads probably wouldn’t exist. Therein lies the inconsistency.
If Blizzard caved because Druids found the bear to be entirely unique, other classes also share the same right to express these weapon appearances are the same. But again, up to interpretation, but I think it’s fair to say most classes would find them so.
Correct. Hence, discussions like this can serve to help Blizzard make more informed decisions at their discretion.
See that’s the thing. I don’t appreciate when Blizzard is dishonest. If it’s gone. It should remain gone. That’s how it was set up and that’s how it should be imo. Even if it’s a recolor of an exclusive. I feel the game would benefit far more if they came up with a new challenge each expansion instead of constantly trying to rescale each time a new patch/xpac drops.
I mean. Their silence on the matter and the lack of backing for this request suggests that this isn’t something that’s going to happen
Its not inconsistent at all. Their issue is volume, and they address that. The aspect of it being unique is itself an issue of volume.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it logically inconsistent.
it’s not the same, it won’t ever be the same. evidence is there for anyone to really see.
next 
And as I’ve explained, is subjective. The uniqueness of mage tower appearances are evident, even if you disagree artistically, you can infer logically as explained, from observations of the existence of these threads.
To reiterate, this was their explanation:
I think it’s only fair people get to express how they feel certain items are also equally unique, which is not contingent on volume.
Uncalled for and utterly useless commentary. Argue based on the merits of the discussion, not personal attacks.
The were bear is a unique model with unique animations, as was stated. The other mage tower skins do not meet that standard of rarity. As was previously stated in the thread, the only mage tower item that a similar argument could be made for was the flail as there were no other flails in the game that animated in the same way.
And, in a feat of logical consistency they added a flail to the first trading post.
can flip this to say:
don’t make it happen, no need to make the snowflakes feel extra special by reincorporating the mage tower models
I’ll assume by standard of rarity you mean uniqueness. Unique models, I’m fairly certain all artifact weapon models are unique. As for animations, these weapons have not only unique animations, but also particle effects, but we’re getting pedantic now, as I’ve said, it’s subjective. You’re entirely free to disagree artistically, but given the existence of these threads I think it’s an educated inference to conclude that people feel they are sufficiently so to complain about it.
As for the flail, I think I recall a few from shadowlands (i.e. Flail of Balletic Carnage). But to your point, it’s a logical consistency, how? It does nothing to detract from the idea that uniqueness and volume are separate concepts. Volume only comes at a cost to individuality when there is an increase in the volume of said individual (or comparable).
Flails are made less unique because they added another flail, not because they added other weapons, using your example.
Just like your parents beg you to get a job and do something with your life.
No, as was established its an issue of volume.
Their volume isn’t subjective. The mage tower skins for 2 handed swords, for example, are a few of hundreds of options for 2 handed swords. The werebear skin is one of only a handful of bear options.
More flails have been added, yes, but there are still relatively few options. Adding more flails adds to the volume of options in a more significant way due to the limited total pool of options. This is not subjective.
You can subjectively just want those mage tower skins because you just want them. That is a fine reason, some will agree and some will not but you have every right to feel however you feel. But there is not a logical argument here.
We can all dream… I don’t think anyone is going to complain about having more content, haha. I doubt Blizzard has the bandwidth to hammer out balanced, challenging content every expansion. They took all of shadowlands to even get Torghast right.
I wouldn’t be so sure. They have been silent on many things before implementation. They haven’t said much about heritage armors until the recent drop, among other things. Either way, it would be a mistake to think that they can’t change their minds going forward either way.
That’s not what is subjective. I think you’re misrepresenting or misunderstanding my reply, let me clarify with your own example:
You state this as though all 2 handed swords are homogenous. This is however directly contradicted with your following paragraph:
And yet, there a hundreds of options for 1 handed maces, are there not? However, you recognize that flails are unique, because there aren’t many of these models among 1 handed maces. The volume of maces is irrelevant because they are not homogeneous.
The point is, mage tower appearances are by far more unique that regular weapon type counterparts. This is evident in the observation of number of threads even if you wish to disagree on the subjective artistic aspect of the appearances. Do note that the subjectivity applies to the artistic interpretation, not observation of other facts.
I hope that clears things up.
Once again, an uncalled for and useless assumption that can neither be proven nor disproven.
This stems from your misrepresentation of what I stated really. Looking forward to your clarification.
No, its a true statement that assumes nothing.
No, not really. A mace and a flail are not the same weapon type even though they are shoehorned together by the game’s nomenclature. Even if you consider a flail a mace for the sake of sorting, not all maces are flails. The 2 handed swords are all just 2 handed swords, they might sparkle or glow differently but the choices are all swords.
Again,
You can quote me stating my desire for these items. Otherwise, they are assumptions at best, veiled insults at worse. Ball’s in your court.
Once again, we’re being pedantic about definitions. There are many types of 2 handed swords, and some of these appearances can scarcely be classified as swords. If this is truly your argument, a bear that stands up slightly taller is still a bear… not so great a rebuttal, if at all.
In fact, one paladin’s mage tower appearance is actually a flail, hilarious as it is. Given your point about uniqueness of flails, should paladins not have the right to ask for that? They do number less that bear transformations after all.
You can proclaim whatever conclusions you want. If that’s the extent of your understanding and arguments, I’ll accept your exit.
Re-read the original post that you quoted.
Yes, that tends to be important when discussing logic.
Nope, they are all swords. I’ve checked.
Its a werebear, which isn’t a bear. And even if it was a similar bear, the issue of volume is still what is at hand, which is what you keep forgetting.
Gee, I’m glad they added a flail to the trading post for those paladins to get.
Yes, I can. It just so happens that what I’ve proclaimed lines up with the facts at hand.
It tends to happen when you’re being a sophist, which is evident in the devolution of your replies. I think we can end our exchange here.
Being a sophist has nothing to do with defining terms. But if that is what you thought you could have at any point pointed out the fallacies at hand.
non sequitur