Not if the earlier version was part of 1.12.0, as that was still part of 1.12, which iscwhatbthey are using as a foundation.
You have yet to provide an official Blizzard statement stating that they are using 1.12.1 or 1.12.2 as a “reference client” or base.
nobody agrees with you kid.
I think it’s pretty selective of them to give people a second chance at pvp titles, raid legendaries and scarab lord, but somehow mounts are too much to ask for.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/unarmored-mounts-megathread/173722
please add these mounts to Classic WoW
If they don’t make it into Classic, this still sounds like a good feature for Classic+.
Do want!
The nice thing about Classic WoW is it is the first truly community driven version of WoW, so eventually we may get everything we ask for as long as it dosen’t remove Classic content or interfere with the game’s core design pillars the way modern WoW did.
I want TBC and a new Classic+ themed expansion servers. Classic+ for the win!
Whether or not you agree is irrelevant as the fact remains that 1.12.0 WAS part of 1.12.
No thanks. I want my museum piece.
yup why won’t they give us CLASSIC mounts in CLASSIC ?
#makeclassic…classic
Well shoot - only found out about this today.
The Palomino Bridle was one of my primary goals to work toward in Classic.
As a human mage I never wanted/needed armor on my horse.
I was sorely disappointed when that patch came out all those years ago…
Guess they’re going for the double-tap on my vision of Classic
Problem: ‘Players will feel rushed for the non-armored mounts and miss out.’
Root cause: Blizz will only include them if they are time-gated.
Solution: Don’t time-gate the non-armored mounts
For anyone unaware I highly encourage you to check out the Unarmored Mounts Megathread on this issue. A change .org petition has recently started up on this issue and is at the top of the forum over there at the time of writing this there are currently 111 signatures.
Whatever form implementing the unarmored mounts in Classic takes I support, whether that be temporarily or permanent.
Obtaining 1 or more of these mounts in Classic was the first prestigious moment I wanted to experience, without them I have no incentive to begin playing at launch.
These mounts were originally in Vanillas history for about 5.5 months. The decision to not include these mounts is a slippery slope. What will happen to events that were in the game for shorter time spans with this mentality (AQ opening, AQ black bug mount, Scourge Invasion, etc)?
I feel the argument for it affecting players play-styles is not strong either. The honor ranking system is much more intensive of players to attain, and speed levelers will exist regardless. Speed levelers race to level cap for various reasons but one of them is to capitalize on gathering nodes and the economy, which I feel could be more impactful to players than including these mounts are. There is no way to stop speed leveling or tell players the play-styles they should and should not find fun.
Many argue this is how it was in 1.12 and while true the mounts did not exist in game at that time, we are also not receiving 1.12 at launch. Blizzard is time gating content, items, vendor tables, etc to recreate a progressive Vanilla experience. Why are these mounts the only thing being excluded from a progressive vendor table?
I think these mounts should be viewed as an exclusive event in Vanilla’s history much like the AQ opening event, and Scourge Invasion event and be offered in game for the players of that time to experience once again.
Make sure to spread awareness of this issue, many players do not know these mounts are being excluded from the game because the old riding system is being implemented. They should be informed before it is too late so they have an opportunity to voice their opinion.
For anyone unaware the original Unarmored Mount Megathread was deleted I have created a new one for us to use at:
As long as everyone is respectful and follows the rules it should be okay.
bump because blizzard is trying to silence the player base on this issue.