If they didn't, they would never have gone through. Thats made doubly clear by the fact that it was GC who commented on the nature of warlocks and tanking, as well as the Green Fire quest which established yet another link between the two classes AFTER the designer in question left.
Lore is easy to change. Game mechanics are not. It is too late to undo the design decisions of 6 years ago, especially when they now are seen as so important to the class.Illidan is also dead, and by fan decree, that is likely to be reversed. I believe 'too late' is an overstatement.
What you'll have are Warlocks rolling on Warlock loot. Somehow, I don't see that as a problem. Just as I don't see an arms warrior taking loot a Fury warrior can use as an issue.If DH is the reason people flock to Warlocks, it can have a massive negative impact on the existing Warlock community. Suddenly you have a slew of 'Demon Hunters' taking spots in raids, rolling on Warlock loot.
This argument is really weak. If you implement Demon Hunters as a Warlock subspec - they will be warlocks and fully entitled to roll on Warlock gear. They will even be expected to roll on Warlock gear. Just as Guardian Druids are fully entitled to roll on Druid gear.They might not be taking your role, but they're definitely taking your gear. If they were actually given armor-type appropriate specs and a new class, they would at least be on a different token, sharing appropriate gear with classes that would befit their role.
That's not to discount the possibility of an overall negative impact. But thats something neither you nor I can judge. And in that case, the most likely alternative is no DH class at all.
I do not understand - polarised opposite?The one class that Demon Hunters will be compared to are Death Knights, since that was their polarized opposite from Warcraft 3 TFT.
Monks didn't get those perks either. And they are a full class. And I'm not even counting the Warlocks fel steed.You can't have any of that because it's all tied to Warlocks. Specs don't get special priveldges that actual classes do.
But is your objection now going to be you don't want Warlokcs to be DHs because now you won't get a cool class mount? Granted, thats not as lame as the "I don't want Warlocks taking Warlock gear" objection you used above but still....
Big problem...lore nerd that I am....I don't see a retcon. I see an expansion of Warlock lore and story to encompass the DH. And I see enough overlap in theme and enough room in the lore of BOTH classes that Blizzard can get away with such a merger with no difficulties.that doesn't excuse the fact that this would be a massive retcon.
What seems to be the big issue is not what is changed in the actual lore; what seems to be the issue is that you can't see Warlocks as good guys, can't accept DHs may be evil. Your objections don't seem to be centered on the lore of the classes but more on how you think DH should look, how you think DHs and Warlocks should act, what you think the motivations and aims and goals of bother classes should be.
You think DHs have tattoos and blind themselves...but don't seem willing to ask - are these actually necessary to be a DH? Can you be a Demon Hunter who isn't tattooted? Who isn't blinded?
The answer is yes. Illidari DHs are neither tattooed nor blinded. Nor did anyone question whether they were or were not DHs until they were used as an example to show how you and some others were wrong in how you saw DHs.
And thats where we appear to be.
At a stage where you object to the idea that the DH class can be appended to Warlocks ina convincing manner because:
Illidan wasn't a Demon Hunter
Warlocks will steal Warlock loot
Those Demon Hunters with no tattoos or blindness? They aren't Demon Hunters.
DHs won't get a cool class mount if they are a Warlock sub spec
Of course, the most important one is "Warlocks as Demon Hunters does not match how I see Demon Hunters". Thats actually a very valid point. It is, however, a point that is all but destroyed by 6 years of class design convergence.