Talk:Fungal monster

PROOF!!
This creature modification (of the timberling bog beast thistleshrub skin) and the warping of the trees in the plaugelands PROVES IT! FUNGI aRe ZOMBIE PLANTS!!! roflmao--Scorpx3 03:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)scorpx3


 * Despite it is somehow "pointless" to point things now, any chance that the plague "evolved" further enough to infect the flora and create "undead" versions of timberlings and such? I feel it like plausible, since the plague is a kind of mutating patogen, and like real life patogens can mutate from infect animals to infect humans, and viceversa... Err... Nevermind, but would be funny to see some of those Ancient of Lore or treants being plagued and walking mindlessly around, crushing rabbits and gnomes, and some old ancient lands of my race... /mourn --Ui-charactercreate-races troll-male.png Ravenore, the Necroshadowmancer 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note
Please note that this page’s name is the creatures’ model name in the files.-- 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bog beast
I'm pretty sure the living ones haven't been referred to bog beasts... and fungal monster is generic enough to work either dead or alive... Maybe someone is confused with the term Bog Lurker?Baggins (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I think it was based on a misinterpretation of Dawnbringer's description of Loatheb, which states that it is a creature created by corrupting the "bog beasts of Azeroth". Considering that most living fungal monsters are native to Outland, it kinda defies logic to consider them "bog beasts of Azeroth". Also point of note majority of ones that appear in outland are called "lurkers", but i'm not sure if that term is collaborated with any quests.Baggins (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are fungal beast mobs in Northrend now. Off the top of my head I can only think of the ones in Ahn'Kahet (down with Amanitar), but I think there are others as well. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The other danger here is trying to work backwords from one quote about the backstory for one character, loatheb and trying it to all other creatures that share the same model. Especially when it doesn't explain in detail how the mutations occured. Did loatheb look like an bog beast at one time, and then warped into fungal mass? Kinda like how the plague turned trees in eastern Plaguelands into mushrooms? The backstory for loatheb doesn't necessarily apply to all other craetures that share the model. Marsh beasts share the same model as bog beasts but are not apparently bog beasts. As we know from other bog creatures that share the same models may not necessarily share the same biological history.Baggins (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also we already acknowledge that fungal monster may not be an official term. Thus to imply that loatheb became one, and that there are no others, and that fungal monster specifically means "undead bog beast" makes even less sense. Too much in the realm of speculation.Baggins (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

https://colnect.com/en/trading_card_games/trading_card_game/68707-Loatheb-Naxxramas-World_of_Warcraft_TCG - The TCG has Loatheb as a bog beast so based on that this "Fungal monster" page should be merged into bog beast.Mrforesttroll (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't think so. TCG is non-canon. -- 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just a bog beast with fungal growths and not a "fungus-like creature" as it's described currently. And Eligor Dawnbringer quote has “Loatheb. The hideous result of fusing the living plague of the Plaguelands with the bog beasts of Azeroth, Loatheb is said to control the power of healing itself.” This could mean it's a corrupted bog beast and not a separated creature type. Mrforesttroll (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)