More stable slots now available on Wrath Beta

by Daniel Whitcomb Aug 2nd 2008 at 5:00PM

You may recall a few days back that we told you about new stable slots coming with Wrath of the Lich King. It looks like Blizzard wasn't just whistling dixie, because they're in. When I was switching from my level 65 devilsaur to my beefier level 70 dire raven for a Nexus run over on the Beta server, I noticed that the stable boy was offering me two more stable slots!

The stables slots costs 50 gold for the third one, and 150 gold for the fourth one, giving you a total of 4 slots. This means you have room for one pet from each talent tree, plus a spot for a specialized pet (such as a scorpid for PvP) or an exotic pet (and yes, devilsaurs will be exotic only) or two.

Combine this with the abolishing of the need to tame pets simply to learn skills and auto leveling, and it continues to look like pet management should be easier, funner, and more efficient in Wrath.

Tags: carrion-bird, cunning, devilsaur, dire-raven, exotic-pets, ferocity, hunter-pets, pets, scorpid, stable, stable-slots, tenacity

Filed under: Hunter, News items, Expansions, Wrath of the Lich King

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Gurluas Aug 2nd 2008 5:21PM

By the way, worth mentioning, Mania and Glassdragon found a tameable Chimaera in the current build confirming that Chimaeras will be exotic pets.

Illirien Aug 2nd 2008 5:23PM

I actually found it a very enjoyable challenge to explore around, finding and taming new animals I could learn new skills from. That's really the only reason I wanted more stable slots in the first place, so... /shrug I am happy we're getting more though, since I'm hopeful that searching for new exotics will be just as fun.

goliathsdkfz Aug 2nd 2008 5:38PM

I feel sorry for BRK, he was not beleiving just a while ago on the insider show :D

Badger Aug 2nd 2008 6:42PM

I wasn't believing it, either, when Amanda M. spotlighted it a few days ago. Ghostcrawler's word choice was ridiculously vague.

However, I'm glad to see I was wrong, and that Amanda M. was really vindicated.

Pucelle Aug 2nd 2008 8:56PM

I wouldn't feel sorry for him - his complete lack of any talent will keep him warm and comfy.

goliathsdkfz Aug 2nd 2008 10:28PM

Its okay Pucelle, you dont have to make everyone else feel bad because daddy abused you.

Arioch Aug 2nd 2008 5:41PM

To paraphrase a certain Terran marine: "It's about damn time."

Ben Aug 2nd 2008 6:15PM

There's no such word as "funner." The adjective phrase you're looking for is "more fun."

I rarely let my grammar nazi stripes show, but this is a big pet peeve of mine.

Oh, and yay for more positive hunter changes. Mine should be 70 just in time to see some of the Wrath buffs :D

ZUR13L Aug 2nd 2008 6:31PM

There is no such word as 'yay'.

The exclamation you're looking for is, "Huzzah!"

(For the record, I only use 'funner' tongue-in-cheek. Whether the same is true for the other poster remains to be seen.)

8P

Daniel Whitcomb Aug 2nd 2008 6:46PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funner

Eternalpayn Aug 2nd 2008 6:54PM

Roflstomped. Which yes, I acknowledge is not a real word.

Chris Anthony Aug 2nd 2008 7:40PM

Ben, you are a mere grammar sycophant, I'm afraid. "More fun" isn't even really valid if you're being a true stickler, because "fun" isn't an adjective; it's a noun. Its informal use as an attributive adjective only dates back to the 50s, even though "fun" itself is nearly 300 years old.

A true "grammar nazi" - how I hate the term - would have insisted on "more of a fun" - or "more a fun", were he or she feeling particularly flexible.

That said, carry on, Mr. Whitcomb.

Ben Aug 2nd 2008 8:40PM

I seem to have inadvertently created a microcosmic illustration of one of the great and eternal linguistic debates.

On the one hand we have free-wheeling descriptive definition (for which Merriam-Webster is notorious) which simply seeks to catalog language in its native habitat. Yes, some people use "funner" to intensify "fun," and some argue that the mere fact of this use, without any additional discussion of its grammatical "correctness," is enough to make it a word and justify its place in a dictionary.

Then on the other hand we have the excessively pedantic efforts to nitpick every infinitesimal rule ever written regarding "proper" usage, conveniently ignoring the fact that many of them contradict each other, and even more have fallen by the wayside with the natural evolution of language.

I have no doubt that as the formal rules of the English language adapt to reflect usage, "funner" will become acceptable, but for now I defer to this rule of thumb: what would a newspaper editor say if you handed him a story containing the word? I can guarantee you it would be corrected to read "more fun."

Chris Anthony Aug 2nd 2008 9:10PM

Ben, my point was that if you're going to call yourself a "grammar nazi", the least you can do is be one. Frankly, except in certain very specific cases (namely, where the actual meaning of the word is cooler than the meaning people ascribe to it), I'm a descriptivist. But I know the rules well enough to be able to argue the prescriptivist side if it suits the argument.

Incidentally, your example falls down too. You wouldn't see "more fun" in a straight newspaper article, unless it was in a quotation; the editor would have rewritten the passage in prose to remove the subjectivity, and a good editor wouldn't reword a quote. In a feature where "funner" or "more fun" might appear, the word choice would be a matter of the voice of the author and/or publication, and so the usage would be up for grabs.

You're trying hard, though, and I'll give you points for that.

ZekeGrimsblade Aug 2nd 2008 9:55PM

Complaining about creative use of language is pretty stupid, and makes you look like an idiot. However, if you are trying to be serious, which the author was obviously not doing, then you need to use proper grammar. Otherwise, who cares, as long as the information is understandable??

Ryou Aug 2nd 2008 7:05PM

wohoo more pet.
But I'm just wandering let say after you tamed an exotic pet then you respec to another talent, Survival, will the hunter still be able to use the pet?

Krick Aug 2nd 2008 7:11PM

As a huntard, I never really understood how the stable slots work. Can you currently have three pets now or just two? I was under the impression that you needed to always keep one slot open so that you could swap them in and out or something.

...
Krick
http://www.tankadin.com/forum/

Daniel Whitcomb Aug 2nd 2008 7:15PM

You have 3 slots total: 2 stables slots, and 1 active pet on your person.

However, you can essentially only have 2 pets, since you must have one slot open in order to train new skills by taming new beasts that know the skills and learning from them.

With these extra stable slots and the fact that all pets now automatically know all non-talent skills available to them, you can now have 5 unique pets, assuming you buy all slots.