The subject of this article has
an entry in the Editor's Handbook.
For background information and
guides on maintaining this article,
see Card art.
Many cards in Hearthstone use art which was previously used in the TCG. However, it's important to note that the use of this art in Hearthstone is not intended to represent the characters, spells, weapons, etc, from the TCG. This has been officially confirmed by Ben Brode.
For example, Frostwolf Warlord uses art which was originally of Eitrigg. However, Frostwolf Warlord is not supposed to be Eitrigg. This is even more obvious with Ogre Magi, which actually depicts Mogor. Ogre Magi is not supposed to be Mogor; Mogor the Ogre is supposed to be Mogor. There is no intention to put 2 versions of Mogor in the game; Ogre Magi is meant to be just that - a generic ogre magi. The same goes for spells. Even if the art was custom made to depict Chastise, the art in Hearthstone depicts Holy Smite, and that's it - there's no connection intended.
The artists select art which they think looks good and/or goes well with the card subject. That's really all there is to it - they seem to have little concern for even massive lore contradictions like Stampeding Kodo actually showing a clefthoof. This card's art doesn't mean some kodo look like clefthooves, it just means the devs don't really care about consistency to that degree. Again, this has been stated by Brode.
When it comes to lore sections on card pages, this is significant, because the lore for the card art's original purpose in the TCG is not the same as the lore for the Hearthstone card it is used on. For example, Rockbiter Weapon actually depicts the Axe of Cenarius, a powerful druid weapon. But the Hearthstone card is not about Cenarius or druids - it's about Rockbiter Weapon, a shaman spell, and not even a weapon at all. Likewise the art for Blackwing Corruptor actually depicts Gul'dan - but is not meant in any way to represent him in Hearthstone. So the lore on these pages should not be about Cenarius and Gul'dan, it should be about Rockbiter Weapon and Blackwing Corruptors.
This means TCG art info should be presented if at all in a lower position. My feeling is that it's basically lore trivia. It's lore-based, but it's completely trivial to the game because it has absolutely no relevance to Hearthstone in any way. In terms of section headers, it might be a bit weird to put a second Trivia sub-section within the lore section; I feel like moving TCG info to the Trivia section might be best. Alternatively we could keep it in lore, but if so it should definitely be marked down somehow, because it really has no relevance, and may be completely contradictory to the card's intended character. For example Muster for Battle is all about the Light, not about Aurius Rivendare dying and being turned to serve the Scourge. This takes the feel of the page in a whole different direction, and I don't think that's right. By listing it as trivia, though, that page makes it clear it is an aside to the rest of the page, rather than a part of the card concept itself.
Overall, adding TCG info can be interesting, but its relation to Hearthstone is trivial, and this needs to be clear on card pages. Feedback is welcome :) -- Taohinton (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you. A lot of what I have added is based off of the card art rather than the card. I can go back through and Trivia a lot of things and maybe remove others. For some cases where I have added a character's appearance in WoW, should those be deleted or changed to fit the card? Example: On Frostwolf Warlord's page I put "Eitrigg in WoW". Should that be removed or changed to something like "Frostwolf Warlord in WoW" or "A Frostwolf Warlord in WoW". Another page is Darkscale Healer. --Beanchagbear (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a tricky one. They definitely shouldn't be deleted. I feel like it's probably best to keep eg "Eitrigg in WoW". It might be a little confusing if people haven't read the section which explains that that's who is (or rather originally was intended to be) depicted in the art, but it also seems pretty clear. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
TCG-only content[edit source]
While TCG info can be interesting with regard to card art when that art depicts an established character or item from the Warcraft universe, I can't see any value to simply stating that the card art was used for a different card in the TCG. This also goes for art originally created to depict a character in the TCG that does not exist outside the TCG. We currently have examples of this on several pages, including Envenom and Arcane Missiles.
We've established above that the fact that the art represents a given character, weapon or ability in the TCG has no bearing on the identity or use of that art in Hearthstone, but when the character (etc) is an established one this can still be of interest. However, when it's a character that exists solely within the TCG, I can't see any relevance to stating this. This is true for abilities even if they do exist outside the TCG; if the art for Shadowstep was used in the TCG for Vanish, this still has no significance for Hearthstone; it's basically TCG trivia.
My feeling is we shouldn't list TCG-only information unless it has some relevance to Hearthstone - just because the art was made for the TCG doesn't give that inherent relevance to this game. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I searched through and removed a number of the Trivia bullets about the art being a TCG-only thing. I left a few that I felt were actually a trivia bit other than just this card was a card before, including things like Ogre Ninja, Shadow Word: Death, and Burgle. I also left Timmo Shadestep in for Assassinate and Backstab since he seemed a bit more prolific. Considered deleting Graccus in Argent Protector but he was a miniature as well, so I left it for later. --Beanchagbear (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you on all counts. The exceptions provide some additional information or trivia, which makes the TCG info relevant. I can't find the edit, but I likewise drew the line at Timmo Shadestep many moons ago, since he seems to be more of an actual character, appearing in multiple places, and also exists as a miniature. I'm fine with leaving Graccus too. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As a random note to all involved, when linking to TCG cards, I'd recommend something like wowcards.info. Some other sites such as wow.tcgbrowser have a long loading time, or smaller card images on the page; this one seems to be pretty good. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Boss art[edit source]
I thought I should state somewhere my feelings on the matter of boss cards in card art pages. Boss cards represent a massive body of art within the game, depicting all sorts of races and subjects. In theory they should be included in the card art pages. However, there are two points against doing so.
Firstly, they are exclusive to their particular adventures. As with all things adventure or Tavern Brawl, they can't be obtained or played with in normal play, and have no relevance outside of their specific encounters, essentially existing only in those very specific spaces. This makes them far less relevant than even the most obscure playable card. At the least this means they should be listed later, or separately.
Secondly, the list of boss cards is vast, and growing rapidly. Card art pages are already long, but boss cards might double some of them. This is a problem all card art pages are going to face as the game continues to grow, but adding boss cards would push it there much sooner.
The combination of these factors makes me disinclined to include them on card art pages. There's no reason we couldn't have separate 'boss card art' pages, though.
I feel like bosses themselves sit on the fence here. They are still adventure-specific, although they are much more prominent and memorable than your average boss card. But they are also far rarer than boss cards, by perhaps 10 times. This makes it a lot more viable to add them to pages. In most cases I don't see much *need* for this, although that doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. However in cases like Naga art, Trogg art and Ethereal art, bosses are some of the only examples in the game, making their presence feel more relevant. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Mounts/vehicles and art categories[edit source]
I'd like to acknowledge the question of how to handle minion card identity, specifically with mounts and vehicles.
The current model seems to be to determine the card's identity based on the title and/or minion type (assuming they agree), ignoring pilot/rider and quotes.
For example, a card like Wolfrider is considered an orc card, since the name refers to the orc, not the wolf mount, and it is not a Beast minion; it is therefore considered an orc card, with beast art. Likewise Warhorse Trainer is considered a blood elf card, with beast art. However, King's Elekk is considered a beast card, since its title refers to the mount (not the barely visible rider), and of course it is of the Beast minion type. Likewise, Flying Machine, Siege Engine and Spider Tank are all Mechs with gnome pilots, and the titles all refer to the vehicle, so they are considered mech cards, with gnome art.
An alternative approach might be to include cards as both rider and mount. Summoning or attacking with Flying Machine prompts quotes from the gnome pilot - and it might seem a bit odd to consider him only part of the art, when he's obviously the one doing the actual flying. Likewise, a lot of the value of Wolfrider (and presumably his Charge) comes from the wolf mount, not the riding orc, so it might feel odd to define Wolfrider as 100% orc, when it's clearly around 50% beast.
The current system seems fine for now, assuming we don't have any contradictory title/type cases, but I thought I'd put this out there for consideration, and for the record. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Determining card art categories[edit source]
There is currently no specific rule in place for what source or perspective we should use when deciding what card art category a card belongs to. Obviously, the category/ies should match the character/s in the card art, but in some cases there is a conflict of views on how to categorise those characters.
The most obvious approach is to match the minion type (where present), while the more 'serious' or canon approach would be to match the canon lore regarding the character's type; which answer is itself often determined by checking the creature type used for that character in World of Warcraft. The problem is, these approaches don't always agree.
For example, wildkin such as owlbeasts are considered humanoids in WoW and appear to be considered humanoids in canon lore, and yet Jungle Moonkin is a Beast minion in Hearthstone. Likewise Kindly Grandmother and Big Bad Wolf are clearly worgen, which are humanoids, but in Hearthstone they are marked as Beasts - despite all other worgen minions being generic in type. Then of course there are the plant-based creatures that are marked as elementals in WoW, but may not actually be elementals in the strict lore sense. Faerie Dragon is also not actually a dragon.
This raises the question of what exactly we're trying to list on the card art pages. Are we listing all the cards that are meant to depict e.g., beasts in Hearthstone, or all the cards in Hearthstone that actually depict beasts? If a card's minion type clearly conflicts with its canon lore type, should we list it as what is in Hearthstone, or what it is in the actual lore?
My feeling is that we should probably be aiming to follow the lore as much as possible, rather than the minion type. Cards like Big Bad Wolf are Beast cards for the purpose of game balance and synergy rather than due to lore, and the card art pages are ultimately about lore and not Hearthstone mechanics, hence why we have pages for types like undead and elemental that have no relevance to the game itself. This might feel odd in places though, such as intentionally not listing Beast minions like Big Bad Wolf and Jungle Moonkin on the Beast art page. I suspect this will feel less wrong than wrongly listing the bestial humanoids in with all the actual beasts, though, and we already have Beast to list the cards of that minion type for gameplay purposes.
- I would agree that for card art pages we should stick to canon lore even when they contradict game mechanics; in the case of your examples, that would mean including Kindly Grandmother and Jungle Moonkin on Beast, but not on Beast art. To use another example, I think Wrathion should be listed on Dragon art rather than something like Human art, because while his card depicts him in his human form and lacks the Dragon type, he is still a dragon lorewise and his card art category should reflect that. --DeludedTroll (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- A bit of a late reply, but for the record I agree with categorising Wrathion as a dragon. While it might not be clear to those new to the lore, since dragons can assume a variety of humanoid forms, as long as they're confirmed dragons it seems reasonable to tag them by their true nature.
- Another question is what we consider the definitive source for the card art, as discussed on Talk:Summoning Portal. As a rule I would say the original art should be considered the authority, as opposed to the golden art, since the latter is created far later on by unrelated artists simply to make the card a bit showier in Hearthstone; if the golden art adds something that isn't in the original art, I'm inclined to say that's not something we should be categorising the card based on. The golden art is also rarely seen in-game compared to the regular art.
- Also, as discussed elsewhere, in my opinion only things visible on the original card itself should be included: if there is for example an additional character that is in the full art but is not shown on the card itself, it doesn't seem right to tag them as being featured on the card; they are never seen in-game and belong to the full art, but not the card. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)