Heroes of the Storm Wiki


I posted screenshots from the September's video preview, if anyone has the right screenshots from the game, feel free to update the images. Also, I haven't filled in its backstory.--Adunaii (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Demonic Hellsteed[]

What franchise does Demonic Hellsteed belong to? Diablo or HotS? I can't add this mount because I'm not sure about this.--Adunaii (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is Auriel's… so Diablo. It was in a bundle with her Demonic skin. — Rmkane (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I added a listing for the mount under the Purchased only via bundles section. — Rmkane (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But can the screenshots be updated? Now that I think of it, it's quite awkward. I didn't take them myself because my computer is a potato, so even at the highest quality it would look a bit subpar. I'm afraid, we're stuck with garbage though.--Adunaii (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Bundle Tints[]

Anyway I can preview the alternative tints (screen captures) for mounts within a bundle? — Thanks, Rmkane (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nimbus and Tiger[]

Now I'm quite pissed, I already said ingame the Nexus Tiger and the Nimbus Cloud are considered SC and WC mounts, but someone continue to remove it.
DAMN! If you don't belive me AT LEAST go to control yourself in 2.0 to see if I'm right or not, because look like nobody care to control OFFICIAL DATA about this 2 mounts. Just write "Starcraft" and you will see the Tiger will be considered a SC mount (if you have it), btw, OFFICIALLY they are listed to be WC and SC mounts, I know is strange, but officially is this.-- 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the Universe value for the Nexus Tiger. I think that may be a glitch when you type in StarCraft. It may be defined in the AbstractWolf, but I cannot view it. — Rmkane (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
    <CMount parent="AbstractCloud" id="MountCloudCommon" default="1">
        <HyperlinkId value="NimbusCloud"/>
        <MountCategory value="Ridesurf"/>
        <Universe value="Warcraft"/>
        <ReleaseDate Year="2017" Day="31"/>


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
    <CMount parent="AbstractWolf" id="MountTigerNexusCommon" default="1">
        <HyperlinkId value="NexusTiger"/>
        <MountCategory value="Ride"/>
        <Model value="MountTigerNexus"/>
        <ReleaseDate Year="2016" Day="25" Month="10"/>

Outdated categories?[]

The Felsaber, Nimbus Cloud and Heart Stonw mounts are now obtainable via Shards, yet they are still listed in the Purchased only via bundles category. And that's just a few cases. The Snowflake mounts are still restricted, however.--Adunaii (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


heya, what would you guys think of overhauling this page? personally i think dividing the mounts into sections by rarity (as the page currently is) is goofy, and i love when long lists of things are sortable... so i made a mockup on my user page where all of most of the mounts are there in a single, sortable table

possible issues:

  • removed the notes column and put them under the mount descriptions instead. saves a lot of unused space (since many mounts don't have any notes), but it makes the notes less visible
  • tints as a collapsible element; you can see this on the first few mount entries, like the horse & battle beast. would make the table much shorter, but the code from it would bloat the page's size quite a bit, and usability-wise it'd be a huge pain to browse through unless there's a way to make an "expand/collapse all" button
  • we might want things like current quest rewards or unavailable mounts to remain in separate sections?

lemme know what y'all think --Eithris (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I like it! I agree with the Notes column. Yours is cleaner and more similar to the list in Skin page. Goldernetriever (talk)
ohh, i really like the idea of showing release dates like on that page. unfortunately it'd probably take a ton of effort to gather the dates on all of em, since we haven't kept track so far --Eithris (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the mounts should be sorted by type (horses, beasts, mechanical, magical), as they appear in the collection menu. In any case, we should consider splitting this page into several separate subpages, as it's getting way too large, thereby making it difficult to navigate. MetricTrout (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It should be sorted like in-game and maybe even split into separate subpages. --LemonBaby (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
sorry for late reply, eheh. if we do split it into separate pages, should it be by rarity, like this page is right now; by type (event/horse/beast/etc.); or by something else, like availability (regular/limited-time/removed) or obtain method (purchase/ranked reward/etc)? --Eithris (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It should be sorted like in-game....--LemonBaby (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
oh-- i thought you were talking about sorting and splitting as two different points. so you're saying split it up into the subpages of Event mounts, Horse mounts, Beast mounts, Mechanical mounts, and Magical mounts?
(i don't mean to be annoying here, i just wanna be sure i'm not making any assumptions before i go ahead) --Eithris (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah okay, now I get it, sorry. I think both might be needed: Splitting it and sorting it. It is getting to large. But I might be wrong ;) --LemonBaby (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)