The problem is that "Create an account" requirement is set incorrectly, so it does not trigger, thus Getting Started achievement cannot be completed atm. If you've done everything else, once this issue is resolved, you should get the achievement.
Although summoning Ra with the usage of Conjurer's Calling or any other random-minion generating spells isn't possible, Ra isn't a collectible card, I believe there could be an alternative way in summoning him. People still need to play Mogu Cultists as usual, but tomorrow I would like to test a very specific interaction featuring some dormant creatures. IF my theory is right and the cultist functions just like Reliquary Seeker, dormant creatures would be skipped over and wouldn't hinder Ra's summoning ritual.
That's just a speculation though. I don't want to spread false hype, until I actually test it.
If someone is interested, I made some screenshots in the KoFT pve adventure, which display some of those interactions:
Your arena run would retire, you will get a reward depending on how many wins you have achieved and an extra arena ticket, so that you can enter the arena once SOU launches.
Everybody does it, in order to squeeze out some goodies for the new expansion. So don't worry.
Oh, I did not feel forced at all I just figured I'd give yours a look! I'm not here to tell you how to make your deck I just was making a friendly (opinionated) suggestion which I could see why you'd want to run Rotten Applebaum instead of Khartut Defender I was just hyped for it. I'm sorry if I gave the Wrong impression when commenting. I look forward to other decks that you make in the future
Bro, chill. :D
There is no need for you to apologize, since I was aware that you only wanted to share your opinion about some cards. I wanted to tell you what I think about them and start a discussion.
But I have to admit, that Khartut Defender might be good enough to be considered as an inclusion in one of my decks. Not in the warlock one, which you see here, but in my wild thief priest deck, because a single defender can bring 2 deathrattle minions in the ress pool and if I cast Twilight's Call and summon 2 defenders, all of them will have reborn. So with one spell I would be able to bring 2 1/1 and 2 3/1 taunt bodies and heal myself for 12. So thanks for the suggestion, I overlooked this interaction.
Am I the only one, who thinks this card is somewhat overrated? I mean, sure, it's flexible and it can be used in different situations. But it costs 7 mana (making him super slow) and it can't buff minions (unlike Zilliax). So, am very confident when I say this, but this won't be run in aggro or combo decks due to the reasons I mentioned above.
In control (Shudder shamy) and in some mid-range decks I guess this has some potential to appear, but it's definitely not as omnipotent as the 5-mana mech. Siamat is a killer in arena though.
My opinion on the different possibilities:
keyword\keyword
Rush
Taunt
Divine Shield
Windfury
Rush
0
+
++
++
Taunt
+
0
++
-
Divine Shield
++
++
0
++
Windfury
++
-
++
0
- weak; + situationally useful; ++ the most likely and optimal scenario.
I don't know if he would find a home in either formats - I have a feeling, that we would see a neutral legendary with a highlander effect - but he offers a lot of potential. Together with Elise he is one of the best heroes imho.
Yeah, I kinda take my words back. Now that SOU is revealed, I'm not really feeling Sir Finley is going to be played. Even in wild, where highlander decks actually have the chance to survive (Reno Jackson), this doesn't offer that big of a WOW effect. It's not really game winning unlike Brann's battlecry (Brann Bronzebeard + Dinotamer Brann). It doesn't justify sacrificing consistency for the sake of an upgraded HP.
As much as I like Zephrys the Great, I expected to see a legendary, which would remove all duplicates from your deck. If that had existed, then highlander strategies would have had better chances of becoming viable not only because of the highlander effect of their respective legendaries, but also because people could remove bombs from their decks and destroy worthless cards, in order to get to their combo pieces faster. Honestly, I would have preferred seeing both Zephrys and the proposed legendary being implemented together.
Dunno about you, Leute, but I am going to stick with the bad guys for now.
Probably only playable with deathrattle minions and you have to be careful not to cast the spell too early, or you would risk getting the minion silenced or transformed.
I suspected the cat would be underwhelming (not because her battlecry is weak or anything, but because the cards, which you would normally get from it, are bad). But with the reveal of the entire set, I'm confident that this would indeed be the case. There are only a handful of ok-ish and good reborn minions in that pool. If people are going to use the cat, it's only going to be a cheap combo activator. It's not even that good in thief rogue, because there are many neutral reborn minions and most of them are expensive and understatted.
I don't normally post here, but I might as well share my recent match with you. So a little while ago I started a standard game, because I wanted to try out Whizbang's new deck recipies and play with the SOU cards. I landed on an old ress priest deck and faced a tempo thief rogue opponent.
The game started off very slowly. Neither of us had an amazing start. Minions were played off curve, there wasn't any pressure going on and the opponent even decided to play Leeroy Jenkins on turn 5, because I guess they didn't have anything better to do? Anyway somewhere past turn 8 things became scary for me, because I couldn't deal with Hench-Clan Thug. Since the rogue ran a thief deck, they generated a lot of priest cards and one of those was Temple Enforcer, which made the thug even harder to kill. I kept it cool, I killed the enforcer with my Batterhead (which was already on the board) and Zilliax. But I just want to show you how lucky my opponent was and their luck didn't end up here.
Later in the game the rogue silenced my Witchwood Grizzly, their thug was a 7/10 and they had a Spellbreaker on the board. I attacked the Spellbreaker with the bear (it became a 3/6), traded my other minion, Injured Blademaster, into the thug (making him a 7/6), cast a top-decked Power Word: Shield on the bear (made it a 3/8) and cast Mass Hysteria, so that both minions could attack eachother and kill themselves. I then healed myself to 6 with the hero power.
The opponent plays Hench-Clan Burglar into a 4/4 Edwin VanCleef, I clear their threats with my last Hysteria and heal myself to 7. Leeroy was already played, so I didn't have anything to fear. WRONG. Apparently my opponent was lucky enough to get Gladiator's Longbow and even though I played [Hearthstone Card (mass resurrect) Not Found] and summoned a grizzly, the opponent's other randomly generated card was Mortal Strike just to bypass the bear and kill me.
Honestly, I'm not even salty, just slightly annoyed. I tried to play well, but it's kinda stupid to lose because RNG said so. This was one of those moments, when I really despised this aspect of hearthstone.
Hey, I decieded to look at some of the decks you made since you took the time to visit mine! I've shared my opinion on how I feel about Supreme Archeology but I will glady say I'm wrong if the some how becomes viable. I know you said you are going to be making a guide on the deck but I wanted to bring up that Khartut Defender could be utilized with Fel Lord Betrug and Dollmaster Dorian if you needed to utilize a bit of healing. Just something that could be interesting to consider
Hey, thanks for commenting here.
First of all, I would like to mention that I don't want anyone to feel forced checking my decks and my deck guides just because I shared my feedback on theirs. I happened to stumble upon your zoo and control decks randomly. I saw that you put a lot of effort to explain the strategies there, the decklists also looked promising, so the positive feedback was well deserved.
Secondly, I am just making this Quest warlock for fun. If you honestly ask me, a mid-range Tekahn zoo deck would be the best choice for laddering as a warlock next expansion. Every good deck has a busted strong side and in warlock's case that's the new legendary (and the hero power to fetch it faster) in combination with cheap lackeys and lackey generation. It should be something mid-rangy, in order to deal with warrior's stupid late-game. The purpose of my deck is to have fun while laddering in standard. I also think that the quest will be underwhelming now, because there isn't much support for it, in order to create a combo deck. And in wild, if someone tries to reach fatigue, they are better off running the well-known Mecha'thun package.
Lastly, I am aware of the Defender's presence, but I think that he is extremely weak and slow for what he does. I might get 6 health and a 3/1 body with taunt from Betrug, but to me he seems painfully understatted when played on curve. What if I play him and he gets silenced? I don't want to stick with a 3/4; Rotten Applebaum doesn't feel that bad as a 4/5 for 5. I will do some play-testing and tweak my deck depending on how the meta looks, but for now I'll avoid adding the tol'vir.
I should say, simple code is only as good as what it does, i.e. it is best to be simple but that comes after functionality. No doubt many of the bug fixes over the years have actually been making relatively simple bits of code a little bit more complicated.
In the case of the Mogu Cultist, we don't yet know what functionality they chose when writing the code (there is no explicit mention of 7 minions), so it could yet go either way. And honestly I want it to work with dormant minions because I have been struggling to come up with many ways to use the card outside of rogue.
The bolded part was one of my arguments as well, but I don't think that the devs would allow such free interpretation of the card description. Normally it's not their style, but just like you I am also curious to see whether this is the case.
I have a question regarding coding though. In which cases is functionality better than simple coding other than the example of fixing some bugs? Like you know, I'm not a programmer, but isn't writing a complex code more likely to cause a lot of bugs and weird scenarios?
(this is an old video, dunno if the bug is fixed by now)
This interaction was caused by an old patch (I think this is the one), because the devs wanted to change how copy effects work.
Anyway if you are looking for a fun deck, which aims to summon Highkeeper Ra, I would suggest building a duplicate druid deck and run Elise the Enlightened and Flobbidinous Floop. You would need the duplicates, in order to survive the early- and mid-game. And the combo would take place very late in the game anyway, so there's no need to make a highlander build. Once you draw enough cards and Elise starts to glow yellow, you could play the 5/5, Floop would turn into her and you would have two Elises in hand, allowing you to duplicate your hand again. Depending on how many cultists you had prior playing Elise, you would need either 1 or 2 turns in order to generate all needed cultists and go for the 20/20 afterwards.
I saw some warlock decks running the Quest, Glinda Crowskin, Baleful Banker (who will shuffle Glinda, you would be able to draw her with the HP and reduce her cost to 0), Mogu Cultist (obviously) and Demonbolt (in order to kill your Glinda on the final turn).
If you are looking for a somewhat competitive deck, then yeah, rogue decklists would be your best option. If the cultist-dormant combo does work like I want it to, cultist decks won't be viable yet, because Lucentbark takes a lot of time to be multiplied and the deck is super vulnerable to aggro, silence (Plague of Death) and transform effects (Plague of Murlocs).
Thank you so much for the highly informative post. If I could, I would have pinned it. You did a wonderful job at explaining the most likely coding possibilities for Reliquary Seeker, minions that don't require a full board (Frostwolf Warlord) and Mogu Cultist.
I just don't know how to continue our little conversation further. You are definitely right, that Mogu Cultist's code would look like so:
Quote From No Author Specified
for(i=1; i<=7; i++)
{if(space i != Mogu Cultist) {battlecry = fail; break;}}
if(battlecry != fail){activate battlecry;}
and won't contain any other variables, in order to keep things clean and simple. And like I said in my previous posts, I also expect seeing that outcome for the exact same reasons. Logic and practicality aren't on my side. But hope dies last, as the saying goes, so I look forward to Tuesday as well.
Come to think of it, the only logical explanation of why the seeker acts so strangely with dormant creatures is that she just checks whether or not the board is full. She doesn't care if I control minions or permanents, while Sea Giant cares. The cruicial part in her design is checking the board spaces themselves and not the type of creatures occupying them. So this could mean, that dormants don't really block board spaces like I thought. If this is the case, then I would curse Blizzard for their card text inconsistencies. :D I want to test this interaction on my own. It would be a pity if it doesn't work. I only wanted to gladden the community and myself with an interesting deckbuild.
Anyway sorry for the wall of text above. You don't have to reply to everything, if you don't want to.
Yes, yes, of course both lifesteal and the tribal tag open more synergies than the plain taunt keyword. That's why I said, that in most cases those would be better. I just pictured how the enemy would attack the demon once, and the 2-damage restore would be on par with the 2-damage block (although taunt minions can block bigger threats sometimes).
Look, I respect your interpretations of how Reliquary Seeker works with dormant creatures. But allow me to disagree, since there are tons of examples, which don't interact with them directly. If I have to take my knowledge of some hearthstone mechanics into consideration, I would say that it's way more confusing to create an exception of the rule, when there is absolutely no need for it. Why should the seeker act differently than the other minions? Dormant creatures were first implemented in ONiK, while the seeker was implemented 8 months before that. The devs couldn't have designed her differently, in order to let her buff herself in the pve adventures. If they had done that, they should have done the same to other minions, which were in the game since its creation.
I'm not a programmer myself, but I don't think it would be silly to implement an entire new card type. Entities have to be marked somehow, in order to trigger certain in-game effects. If I cast a spell, the game acknowledges it as a such and it allows some spell-benefiting or -countering events to take place (Counterspell, Wild Pyromancer). Same logic applies to minions - damaging spells, minion targeting battlecries, stealing minions based on their count ... - or weapons etc. Like I said, the game checks whether such entities exist on the board. Dormants aren't marked as minions, so they can't possibly count towards Reliquary Seeker's battlecry, else they would have triggered similar effects. Imho it's easier to mark them differently than to mark them as minions and write wall of codes explaining why they shouldn't get affected by anything. Furthermore
Quote From No Author Specified
There's further evidence they count as actual minions from them having the minion card type in game (i.e. with an oval image when hovered over), and that they can be moved around the board in exactly the same way as ordinary minions.
I'm sorry to say, but this argument isn't convincing me at all. I can argue, that that's just an outward appearence, because the devs want to make the game simpler and easier to understand. It's more logical for them to make the dormants look more like minions, so that people wouldn't be confused and would know what to expect, when they fulfil the cards' requirements. But just because dormants look like minions, just because they have an oval shaping, that doesn't mean that they are marked as such. Game mechanics are what it's important here. In order to prove my words, that looks can be deceiving, I would like to point to Enigmatic Portal.
I don't know if you played hs during the "The Dark Wanderer" tavern brawl, but this dormant-looking entity was actually marked as a minion. This is because people managed to remove it with destruction spells or to steal it and transform into the cow king. This isn't possible with typical dormant creatures.
I just logged into hearthstone and I wanted to test some of those interactions myself. Here are some screenshots I made (the game is in German, sorry):
The first Lone Champion died and I played a second one after already having Plated Beetle on the board. As you can see, its battlecry didn't trigger. Then I played Reliquary Seeker and she became a 5/5.
Btw if you want to see a whole list of permanents (both collectible and non-collectable), I would suggest you to go to this site:
(the list isn't updated, because the dormants form the RoS adventure are missing)
Regarding your argument for moving dormants left and right - I can say, that that's just for positioning purposes. Dorothee gives minions different benefits depending on where they are placed.
I will end this post like so - I am aware of both POVs and I've said before, that making Mogu Cultist check whether there are 6 other cultists on the board is more logical and practical. That's why I expect to be disappointed, when the expansion hits. But even though logic isn't on my side, the arguments, which I bring, are also valid only because there is an in-game minion with a similar effect supporting my thesis. If it wasn't for it, I would have never come up with a Mogu Cultist-Lucentbark theorycraft in the first place. That's why I hope, that the devs would allow this interaction to happen, so that we could experience a more fun side of the Ra-mechanic, even if it's not intended.
92
Although summoning Ra with the usage of Conjurer's Calling or any other random-minion generating spells isn't possible, Ra isn't a collectible card, I believe there could be an alternative way in summoning him. People still need to play Mogu Cultists as usual, but tomorrow I would like to test a very specific interaction featuring some dormant creatures. IF my theory is right and the cultist functions just like Reliquary Seeker, dormant creatures would be skipped over and wouldn't hinder Ra's summoning ritual.
That's just a speculation though. I don't want to spread false hype, until I actually test it.
If someone is interested, I made some screenshots in the KoFT pve adventure, which display some of those interactions:
^ Lone Champion.
Sorry, that the game is in German, but you can call the cards by looking at their artworks.
Can't wait to play Jade Shudder Shaman in wild.
Mate, Witching Hour can summon a bee.
Your arena run would retire, you will get a reward depending on how many wins you have achieved and an extra arena ticket, so that you can enter the arena once SOU launches.
Everybody does it, in order to squeeze out some goodies for the new expansion. So don't worry.
[edit] Sniped twice.
Bro, chill. :D
There is no need for you to apologize, since I was aware that you only wanted to share your opinion about some cards. I wanted to tell you what I think about them and start a discussion.
But I have to admit, that Khartut Defender might be good enough to be considered as an inclusion in one of my decks. Not in the warlock one, which you see here, but in my wild thief priest deck, because a single defender can bring 2 deathrattle minions in the ress pool and if I cast Twilight's Call and summon 2 defenders, all of them will have reborn. So with one spell I would be able to bring 2 1/1 and 2 3/1 taunt bodies and heal myself for 12. So thanks for the suggestion, I overlooked this interaction.
Am I the only one, who thinks this card is somewhat overrated? I mean, sure, it's flexible and it can be used in different situations. But it costs 7 mana (making him super slow) and it can't buff minions (unlike Zilliax). So, am very confident when I say this, but this won't be run in aggro or combo decks due to the reasons I mentioned above.
In control (Shudder shamy) and in some mid-range decks I guess this has some potential to appear, but it's definitely not as omnipotent as the 5-mana mech. Siamat is a killer in arena though.
My opinion on the different possibilities:
- weak;
+ situationally useful;
++ the most likely and optimal scenario.
Yeah, I kinda take my words back. Now that SOU is revealed, I'm not really feeling Sir Finley is going to be played. Even in wild, where highlander decks actually have the chance to survive (Reno Jackson), this doesn't offer that big of a WOW effect. It's not really game winning unlike Brann's battlecry (Brann Bronzebeard + Dinotamer Brann). It doesn't justify sacrificing consistency for the sake of an upgraded HP.
As much as I like Zephrys the Great, I expected to see a legendary, which would remove all duplicates from your deck. If that had existed, then highlander strategies would have had better chances of becoming viable not only because of the highlander effect of their respective legendaries, but also because people could remove bombs from their decks and destroy worthless cards, in order to get to their combo pieces faster. Honestly, I would have preferred seeing both Zephrys and the proposed legendary being implemented together.
Dunno about you, Leute, but I am going to stick with the bad guys for now.
Probably only playable with deathrattle minions and you have to be careful not to cast the spell too early, or you would risk getting the minion silenced or transformed.
I suspected the cat would be underwhelming (not because her battlecry is weak or anything, but because the cards, which you would normally get from it, are bad). But with the reveal of the entire set, I'm confident that this would indeed be the case. There are only a handful of ok-ish and good reborn minions in that pool. If people are going to use the cat, it's only going to be a cheap combo activator. It's not even that good in thief rogue, because there are many neutral reborn minions and most of them are expensive and understatted.
Gonna slap that bad boy in my Casino Mage and in my Randuin decks.
I don't normally post here, but I might as well share my recent match with you. So a little while ago I started a standard game, because I wanted to try out Whizbang's new deck recipies and play with the SOU cards. I landed on an old ress priest deck and faced a tempo thief rogue opponent.
The game started off very slowly. Neither of us had an amazing start. Minions were played off curve, there wasn't any pressure going on and the opponent even decided to play Leeroy Jenkins on turn 5, because I guess they didn't have anything better to do? Anyway somewhere past turn 8 things became scary for me, because I couldn't deal with Hench-Clan Thug. Since the rogue ran a thief deck, they generated a lot of priest cards and one of those was Temple Enforcer, which made the thug even harder to kill. I kept it cool, I killed the enforcer with my Batterhead (which was already on the board) and Zilliax. But I just want to show you how lucky my opponent was and their luck didn't end up here.
Later in the game the rogue silenced my Witchwood Grizzly, their thug was a 7/10 and they had a Spellbreaker on the board. I attacked the Spellbreaker with the bear (it became a 3/6), traded my other minion, Injured Blademaster, into the thug (making him a 7/6), cast a top-decked Power Word: Shield on the bear (made it a 3/8) and cast Mass Hysteria, so that both minions could attack eachother and kill themselves. I then healed myself to 6 with the hero power.
The opponent plays Hench-Clan Burglar into a 4/4 Edwin VanCleef, I clear their threats with my last Hysteria and heal myself to 7. Leeroy was already played, so I didn't have anything to fear. WRONG. Apparently my opponent was lucky enough to get Gladiator's Longbow and even though I played [Hearthstone Card (mass resurrect) Not Found] and summoned a grizzly, the opponent's other randomly generated card was Mortal Strike just to bypass the bear and kill me.
Honestly, I'm not even salty, just slightly annoyed. I tried to play well, but it's kinda stupid to lose because RNG said so. This was one of those moments, when I really despised this aspect of hearthstone.
Hey, thanks for commenting here.
First of all, I would like to mention that I don't want anyone to feel forced checking my decks and my deck guides just because I shared my feedback on theirs. I happened to stumble upon your zoo and control decks randomly. I saw that you put a lot of effort to explain the strategies there, the decklists also looked promising, so the positive feedback was well deserved.
Secondly, I am just making this Quest warlock for fun. If you honestly ask me, a mid-range Tekahn zoo deck would be the best choice for laddering as a warlock next expansion. Every good deck has a busted strong side and in warlock's case that's the new legendary (and the hero power to fetch it faster) in combination with cheap lackeys and lackey generation. It should be something mid-rangy, in order to deal with warrior's stupid late-game. The purpose of my deck is to have fun while laddering in standard. I also think that the quest will be underwhelming now, because there isn't much support for it, in order to create a combo deck. And in wild, if someone tries to reach fatigue, they are better off running the well-known Mecha'thun package.
Lastly, I am aware of the Defender's presence, but I think that he is extremely weak and slow for what he does. I might get 6 health and a 3/1 body with taunt from Betrug, but to me he seems painfully understatted when played on curve. What if I play him and he gets silenced? I don't want to stick with a 3/4; Rotten Applebaum doesn't feel that bad as a 4/5 for 5. I will do some play-testing and tweak my deck depending on how the meta looks, but for now I'll avoid adding the tol'vir.
Nice decks.
The bolded part was one of my arguments as well, but I don't think that the devs would allow such free interpretation of the card description. Normally it's not their style, but just like you I am also curious to see whether this is the case.
I have a question regarding coding though. In which cases is functionality better than simple coding other than the example of fixing some bugs? Like you know, I'm not a programmer, but isn't writing a complex code more likely to cause a lot of bugs and weird scenarios?
(this is an old video, dunno if the bug is fixed by now)
This interaction was caused by an old patch (I think this is the one), because the devs wanted to change how copy effects work.
Anyway if you are looking for a fun deck, which aims to summon Highkeeper Ra, I would suggest building a duplicate druid deck and run Elise the Enlightened and Flobbidinous Floop. You would need the duplicates, in order to survive the early- and mid-game. And the combo would take place very late in the game anyway, so there's no need to make a highlander build. Once you draw enough cards and Elise starts to glow yellow, you could play the 5/5, Floop would turn into her and you would have two Elises in hand, allowing you to duplicate your hand again. Depending on how many cultists you had prior playing Elise, you would need either 1 or 2 turns in order to generate all needed cultists and go for the 20/20 afterwards.
I saw some warlock decks running the Quest, Glinda Crowskin, Baleful Banker (who will shuffle Glinda, you would be able to draw her with the HP and reduce her cost to 0), Mogu Cultist (obviously) and Demonbolt (in order to kill your Glinda on the final turn).
If you are looking for a somewhat competitive deck, then yeah, rogue decklists would be your best option. If the cultist-dormant combo does work like I want it to, cultist decks won't be viable yet, because Lucentbark takes a lot of time to be multiplied and the deck is super vulnerable to aggro, silence (Plague of Death) and transform effects (Plague of Murlocs).
Thank you so much for the highly informative post. If I could, I would have pinned it. You did a wonderful job at explaining the most likely coding possibilities for Reliquary Seeker, minions that don't require a full board (Frostwolf Warlord) and Mogu Cultist.
I just don't know how to continue our little conversation further. You are definitely right, that Mogu Cultist's code would look like so:
and won't contain any other variables, in order to keep things clean and simple. And like I said in my previous posts, I also expect seeing that outcome for the exact same reasons. Logic and practicality aren't on my side. But hope dies last, as the saying goes, so I look forward to Tuesday as well.
Come to think of it, the only logical explanation of why the seeker acts so strangely with dormant creatures is that she just checks whether or not the board is full. She doesn't care if I control minions or permanents, while Sea Giant cares. The cruicial part in her design is checking the board spaces themselves and not the type of creatures occupying them. So this could mean, that dormants don't really block board spaces like I thought. If this is the case, then I would curse Blizzard for their card text inconsistencies. :D I want to test this interaction on my own. It would be a pity if it doesn't work. I only wanted to gladden the community and myself with an interesting deckbuild.
Anyway sorry for the wall of text above. You don't have to reply to everything, if you don't want to.
Yes, yes, of course both lifesteal and the tribal tag open more synergies than the plain taunt keyword. That's why I said, that in most cases those would be better. I just pictured how the enemy would attack the demon once, and the 2-damage restore would be on par with the 2-damage block (although taunt minions can block bigger threats sometimes).
Hi.
Look, I respect your interpretations of how Reliquary Seeker works with dormant creatures. But allow me to disagree, since there are tons of examples, which don't interact with them directly. If I have to take my knowledge of some hearthstone mechanics into consideration, I would say that it's way more confusing to create an exception of the rule, when there is absolutely no need for it. Why should the seeker act differently than the other minions? Dormant creatures were first implemented in ONiK, while the seeker was implemented 8 months before that. The devs couldn't have designed her differently, in order to let her buff herself in the pve adventures. If they had done that, they should have done the same to other minions, which were in the game since its creation.
I'm not a programmer myself, but I don't think it would be silly to implement an entire new card type. Entities have to be marked somehow, in order to trigger certain in-game effects. If I cast a spell, the game acknowledges it as a such and it allows some spell-benefiting or -countering events to take place (Counterspell, Wild Pyromancer). Same logic applies to minions - damaging spells, minion targeting battlecries, stealing minions based on their count ... - or weapons etc. Like I said, the game checks whether such entities exist on the board. Dormants aren't marked as minions, so they can't possibly count towards Reliquary Seeker's battlecry, else they would have triggered similar effects. Imho it's easier to mark them differently than to mark them as minions and write wall of codes explaining why they shouldn't get affected by anything. Furthermore
I'm sorry to say, but this argument isn't convincing me at all. I can argue, that that's just an outward appearence, because the devs want to make the game simpler and easier to understand. It's more logical for them to make the dormants look more like minions, so that people wouldn't be confused and would know what to expect, when they fulfil the cards' requirements. But just because dormants look like minions, just because they have an oval shaping, that doesn't mean that they are marked as such. Game mechanics are what it's important here. In order to prove my words, that looks can be deceiving, I would like to point to Enigmatic Portal.
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Enigmatic_Portal
I don't know if you played hs during the "The Dark Wanderer" tavern brawl, but this dormant-looking entity was actually marked as a minion. This is because people managed to remove it with destruction spells or to steal it and transform into the cow king. This isn't possible with typical dormant creatures.
I just logged into hearthstone and I wanted to test some of those interactions myself. Here are some screenshots I made (the game is in German, sorry):
Btw if you want to see a whole list of permanents (both collectible and non-collectable), I would suggest you to go to this site:
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Permanent
(the list isn't updated, because the dormants form the RoS adventure are missing)
Regarding your argument for moving dormants left and right - I can say, that that's just for positioning purposes. Dorothee gives minions different benefits depending on where they are placed.
I will end this post like so - I am aware of both POVs and I've said before, that making Mogu Cultist check whether there are 6 other cultists on the board is more logical and practical. That's why I expect to be disappointed, when the expansion hits. But even though logic isn't on my side, the arguments, which I bring, are also valid only because there is an in-game minion with a similar effect supporting my thesis. If it wasn't for it, I would have never come up with a Mogu Cultist-Lucentbark theorycraft in the first place. That's why I hope, that the devs would allow this interaction to happen, so that we could experience a more fun side of the Ra-mechanic, even if it's not intended.