If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Ielenia]

Again, with another false equivalence,

Again, meaningless, empty attempt at rebuttal. You have to explain why you think it's a false equivalence. Just saying it is without explaining is the equivalent of saying "nuh uh!"

that is your opinion.,

Unlike you, I never claimed otherwise, so I don't see why you thought it necessary to point that out.

in other hand, they do that because is what they are

And that is your opinion, not fact.

just like Blizzard rightfully tagged Death knights under their 3 specs

Because death knights are an actual class and those characters are actual death knights.

fisherman area type of hunters lmao, they "hunt fish", you are just being short sighted.

Wow. By that logic, demon hunters are also "a type of hunter" because they "hunt demons", therefore they cannot exist as a class. Either that, or the existence of demon hunters, who are "a type of hunter", validate the blademasters as a separate class of their own.

that is of course, your opinion

I'll repeat: I never claimed otherwise, so I don't see why you thought it necessary to point that out. You, on the other hand, keep stating your opinion as if it's hard fact.

This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime

They may be "just warriors", or maybe they're not "just warriors". Blizzard has never unambiguously stated either way. As for the part I bolded out? That's false. Blademasters never had a single ability, warrior or otherwise, until WoD. And then came BfA with non-warrior abilities for the blademaster.

that is of course, your opinion,

This is getting tiresome. I never said this is anything but my opinion. I never stated things as fact.

they are training warriors, simple because they are warriors.

And that is your opinion. You're the one that need this reminder, not me. Again: Blizzard has never unambiguously stated if blademasters are "just warriors" or not.

the priest and paladin is another false equivalence, because they taught the first paladin when there was no paladin, obviously, a paladin cannot train a paladin because they didn't existed yet,

It's still the case of one class training another. And then we have Muradin (a warrior) training Arthas (a paladin) in Warcraft 3, a game in which paladins have already existed for quite some time, considering Uther was already a full-fledged, veteran paladin.

they i will consider your opinion other than rubbish.

It's downright amazing how you keep dismissing what I say as "opinion". It almost feels like you're trying to compensate for something.

once again, you dismisinng the evidences

I'm not dismissing evidence. I addressed all your points and every piece of evidence you brought to the table. If there is anyone dismissing anything here, it's you, as your rebuttals here are literally just "it's your opinion". With a "false equivalence" accusation. All of which boil down to "nuh-uh" because you never explain why you consider it a false equivalence.

and cherypicking other on top of your opinion,

REALLY overcompensating for something, there.

does not make then less true,

You haven't yet proven it as true, though. That's the problem. You think you have it proven as a fact, but you haven't. All those "smoking guns" you think you have, have been addressed by me and others and have revealed why they're not as "conclusive" as you think they are. And then you just dismiss and handwave away what we tell you.

You act as if saying "it's just your OpInIoN" makes you a master of rebuttal. It doesn't.

[Syegfryed]

Again, meaningless, empty attempt at rebuttal.

Like i said, gladly you shared your opinion, in this matter, giving your opinion, thinking you "addressed" or even "refuted" anything, but like i said before, i am tired of false equivalences, red hearing, cherry picking and always trying to revisit the same redundant and false argument, im waiting though, to see the same double standard and hypocrisy when you keep saying tinkers are just engineers, because the irony is almost solid.

you never explain why you consider it a false equivalence.

It is a false equivalence because they are not equivalent, already explained countless of times, warlocks having meta is not equal as warriors having bladestorm, a group of priests training a group of warrior to first create the class is not the same as having an actuall class trainner in wow, this is pure simple a fallacy, thinking just because two different things share a random property they are the same, is pathetic and there is no reason to further go down in this rabbit hole..

[Ielenia]

Like i said, gladly you shared your opinion, in this matter, giving your opinion,

Repeating this only makes you look like a fool. I have not proposed my opinion as fact here, and did not act as if what I'm writing is anything but my own opinion. Unlike you who have stated your own opinion as fact on every single post of yours in regard to this subject.

thinking you "addressed" or even "refuted" anything,but like i said before, i am tired of false equivalences, red hearing, cherry picking and always trying to revisit the same redundant and false argument,

We have, though. And it's really telling how you accuse of "cherry picking" and "dismissing" stuff when the only one-- and I repeat: the only one-- doing that here, is you. You never addressed a single argument. You just dismissed what people wrote as "false equivalence" and "just our opinion" like a young child says "nuh-uh!" when they try to argue.

im waiting though, to see the same double standard and hypocrisy when you keep saying tinkers are just engineers, because the irony is almost solid.

It's not, though. The only reason you believe it's double-standard is because you refuse to see the differences, here, between the blademaster concept and the warrior player class. Examples that have been demonstrated to you several times over, two of which being: agile quick fighters, and being able to use fire magic.

It is a false equivalence because they are not equivalent, already explained countless of times,

You haven't. Not a single time. You only asserted it is.

warlocks having meta is not equal as warriors having bladestorm,

Why not?

a group of priests training a group of warrior to first create the class is not the same as having an actuall class trainner in wow,

Why not? The World of Warcraft game is based off the same lore.

this is pure simple a fallacy,

Again: why? What fallacy is this?

thinking just because two different things share a random property they are the same, is pathetic

Once more: why? Not to mention you're misrepresenting the argument. It's not a "random property" but actually key abilities.

and there is no reason to further go down in this rabbit hole..

You dodged and weaseled your way of addressing the concerns and arguments presented, not a single time you properly responded to what people wrote in response to you. And again: saying "it's a fallacy" or "false equivalence" or "it's just your opinion" are not proper rebuttals.

[Triceron]

Again, with another false equivalence, i wonder how you guys cannot make an argument without goingo for absurd comparisons, none of those things happened in wow, none of those are ingame trainners, none, its not the same thing

When you find, a paladin trainner, in the game, training priests, or a Warlock trainner, training demon hunter, then, you can say thaey are the same.

No, even then you can't say they're the same. That is the case I point out. Game mechanics like class trainers are just representative of mechanics, not lore.

They could have a fisherman teach you Hunter abilities and it does not mean Hunters are Fishermen. You understand this right? NPCs are just NPCs.

- Blademaster as warriors trainner
- Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
- Blademasters NPCs being tagged as Warriors in different stances/Scenarios
- Arms spec literally called master of weapons IE. Master of blades too.
- Warrior having blademaster skills.
- Lore flat out stating that blademaster are legendary warriors
- Their theme and fantasy revolving around they being skilled and ultimate" warriors, pure warriors, fighting head-on into combat
- they both use plates, they both use blades, they both are melee focused fighters
- The blademaster being a title as much as far seer, just different ways to call warriors and shamans.(Far Seers are ancient Orcs who represent the pinnacle of Shamanistic power.)

None of that applies to the Warrior Player class. Everything mentioned here is either an example of an NPC or you literally making an observed comparison between two Plate wearing claases that uses blades. Guess what? DKs also use bladed weapons and wear plate. Also, Blademasters are depicted wearing very little armor in WC3 and Heroes of the storm, not heavy plate. Even in WoW we have many Blademasters who aren't heavily armored.

Come here and dare to say everything i pointed out happened to warlocks and shamans, i know you will do, but you have to understand the amount of bullshit you have to pull trying to

Half of the stuff you mentioned above was bullshit too. NPCs, and observations. You just believe it to be true when two classes using swords does not depict the Blademaster class fantasy.

Don't pick just one and nittpick that, that would be cherypicking fallacy, i want to know if they ahve all the same things.

Blademasters also need ALL of their fantasy yo be considered playable.

You won't see me making this same argument against the Miuntain King or Chieftain, because we see ALL of their abilities and the entire class fantasy being represented in the Warrior class.

Then why you think to represent the fantasy warriors should have windwalk/wrilind/ AKA having those abilities... IF YOU LITERALLY SAID HAVING AN ABILITY DOES NOT MEAN IT REPRESENT THE FANTASY?

Because ONE ability does not represent a class. ALL abilities and adhering to the class fantasy does. Same reason why I mention the warlock example, becaause just having Metamorphosis was not enough to be considered having the DH class fantasy.

Just having Bladestorm does not let Warriors play out the Blademaster class fantasy. If Blizzard did give them Windwalk and Mirror Image, then we can talk. But those abilities are NOT typical Warrior themed abilities, which is why Blizzard has not added them to the class.

So either two things happen to make a Warrior play like Blademaster
A) they give them Windwalk and Mirror Image and allow the Warrior to have stealth and deception mechanics, retconning the Warrior identity
B) they officially regard the Blademaster as a part of the Warrior class while leaving out Windwalk and Mirror Image, retconning the Blademaster identity.

Neither has officially happened.

You are literally refuting yourself, you said in all words, warriors don't need to have wind walk and mirror image to represent the blademaster fantasy, and that is completely right, because there is blademaster ingame who don't.

If that did count, then Shamans wear plate because Thrall could wear Doomhammer's plate armor. That is an NPC who is a Shaman who wears plate.

Or look how there were Druids who could use Elemental Fire abilities like Fandral Staghelm. This means Druids can use elemental fire magic, right?

NPCs are not bound to class restrictions, and do not represent player classes. Just because we have Druids in the game who use fire and even got a staff that let us use the fire cat model does not mean Druids use elemental fire as a part of their class identity.

You are purposefully being naive because you are only looking at WoW for examples of what a Blademaster is when the concept is already well defined in Warcraft 3, and WoW has done an inconsistent way of translating that identity into WoW just like it did a terrible job translating other NPCs.

How do you regard DK NPCs that used warrior abilities and did not have Death Coil? A Death Knight Player class is a sum of all parts. It is not just any one ability, it has all the Death Knight abilities and the full class fantasy of being a Death Knight. Whether you play Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm, the WoW DK class has a spec or build to play as that.

You want to play as a MK in WoW? You can. You want to play as a Chieftain? You can. All the abilities are available in the class.

You want to play as a Blademaster? Well you have to RP it just like people had to RP Demon Hunters before the class was added, or like Dark Rangers right now who have no true representation at all until next patch.

There is no way to get the full Blademaster experience of WC3 in WoW, and that is what we are collectively talking about when we talk about a Blademaster concept.

You are literally talking about RPing a Blademaster that does not have Windwalk and Mirror Image and wears heavy plate armor, and doesn't even need to use Bladed weapons. This is just describing the Warrior class.

[Syegfryed]

No, even then you can't say they're the same. That is the case I point out. Game mechanics like class trainers are just representative of mechanics, not lore.

They could have a fisherman teach you Hunter abilities and it does not mean Hunters are Fishermen. You understand this right? NPCs are just NPCs.

"npcs are just NPCS, but im basing things around npcs, i will use double standarts and only when they fit my perspective", beutiful.

None of that applies to the Warrior Player class.

ayyyy lmao

Guess what? DKs also use bladed weapons and wear plate

another false comparison

Also, Blademasters are depicted wearing very little armor in WC3 and Heroes of the storm, not heavy plate. Even in WoW we have many Blademasters who aren't heavily armored.

THeY aRe JuSt NpCs tHeY dO nOt CoUnT"


And even that you are wrong, since there is examples of blademasters using heavy armor, you are jsut, once again, chery picking and ignoring things, they do not use much armor, in general, because orcs, do not use much armor, just Like Garrosh only had his pauldrons and he was not a monk

Half of the stuff you mentioned above was bullshit too

you mean literal facts that you tried dismiss by simple saying THeY aRe JuSt NpCs tHeY dO nOt CoUnT"

You just believe it to be true when two classes using swords does not depict the Blademaster class fantasy.

I never said that, i said this was one of the reasons, together with all of the others, you of course, are nitpicking and focusing entierly on "they both use swords" part

Blademasters also need ALL of their fantasy yo be considered playable.

Who said that? and who is you to decide that? this is jsut your arbitrary take, blizzard don't agre with that, thats why tons of npcs and lore figures do not have mirror image and wind walk, therefore, you are wrong.

You can say "b-b-b-but its because the skills didn't exist, and thats why they can give the npcs those!", once again no, they give those skills only when they deem necessary.

By example LAntressor of the Blade is one of the blademaster most well knows in the game, they didn't give him those skills, neither in tbc or wod, but they ddi give to jubeithos, in hellfire citadel, you want to say only one is a blademaster, and the other is not, of just accept that blizzard see both as blademaster and those skills are not encessary?

You won't see me making this same argument against the Miuntain King or Chieftain, because we see ALL of their abilities and the entire class fantasy being represented in the Warrior class.

You are literally lying, Mountain king use magic

A magical hammer that is thrown at an enemy unit, causing damage and stunning the target.

he become immune to spells:

Activate Avatar to temporarily give the Mountain King 5 bonus armor, 500 bonus hit points, 20 bonus damage and spell immunity.

and had a bash passive ability that warriros don't have:

Gives a chance that the Mountain King's attack will do 25 bonus damage and stun his opponent for 2 seconds (1 second for Heroes).
Duration (Hero)
2 (1) sec.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mou..._III)#Reforged

With tauren chieftain, we literally have only one of their skills that is shockwave, we don't have war stomp, we don't have endurance aura and we don't have reincarnation.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Tau...(Warcraft_III)

what we take from this is: you are not making the same argument by pure bias and doble standards

Now this is a perfect and vallid comparison and equivalence, between those 3 heroes (not the kind of ones who guys are making up), Mountain king, Tauren chieftain, and blademaster are all warriors of their own race, that is their class, warrior. In wow, the warrior playable class, have elements of all of them and more, it cannot be just mountain king, it cannot be just tauren chieftain and it cannot be just blademaster, it need to be broad and adapted to fit different concepts, styles and fantasies

Because ONE ability does not represent a class. ALL abilities and adhering to the class fantasy does. Same reason why I mention the warlock example, becaause just having Metamorphosis was not enough to be considered having the DH class fantasy.

No, blizzard already gave plenty of examples of why it don't, by not giving npcs those.

Just having Bladestorm does not let Warriors play out the Blademaster class fantasy.

that is because you already put in your head, that blademaster class fantasy is fromm hots, when its not, we alreayd saw blademaster class fantasy in wow, several times, with several npcs, all of then is the same warrior-ish fantasy

So either two things happen to make a Warrior play like Blademaster
A) they give them Windwalk and Mirror Image and allow the Warrior to have stealth and deception mechanics, retconning the Warrior identity
B) they officially regard the Blademaster as a part of the Warrior class while leaving out Windwalk and Mirror Image, retconning the Blademaster identity.

Neither has officially happened.

You must be playing another game, because option B happened since vanilla, that blizzard showed, several times, that blademasters can be blademasters withut two two skills.

NPCs are not bound to class restrictions, and do not represent player classes. .

Then why are you using the npcs to make up that blademaster is their own class, if they cannot represent one?

Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes

[pacotaco]

I'm not sire thsI'm not sure that the interest is there for the Twilight Dragonflight. Most WoW fans are likely invested in the original flights. I could of course be wrong, but I think there would be some disappointment if those Flights weren't represented in the game.

The problem is that I can't see other lore-friendly way to make them to have all types of roles. The original flights are too restricted on that field, based on lore and different media.
- Black -> They are the most physical. So they fit the melee/tank role.
- Red and Green -> Healers
- Blue -> Casters
- Bronze -> They're the only ones shown in WoW to be able to fit any role, but they're mostly represented as casters.

Meanwhile, the Twilight Dragonflight is more viable because they are all eggs from those flights infused with the magic of all the 5 through the Dragon Soul. So, while I admit its a stretch, it's less screeching than a blue dragon using healing flames or tanking.

[jellmoo]

Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes

Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that I can't see other lore-friendly way to make them to have all types of roles. The original flights are too restricted on that field, based on lore and different media.
- Black -> They are the most physical. So they fit the melee/tank role.
- Red and Green -> Healers
- Blue -> Casters
- Bronze -> They're the only ones shown in WoW to be able to fit any role, but they're mostly represented as casters.

Meanwhile, the Twilight Dragonflight is more viable because they are all eggs from those flights infused with the magic of all the 5 through the Dragon Soul. So, while I admit its a stretch, it's less screeching than a blue dragon using healing flames or tanking.

It kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. Using the actual Dragonflights is cumbersome/requires a ton of compromise, or going the Twilight Dragonflight route and you risk giving people something they kinda want, but not exactly.

For the Flights, it could work if they essentially come together against a common foe, though this has essentially been done to death. So if you spec as a Tank, you are using the power of the Black Dragonflight. If you spec as a healer, you use the power of the Red. Spec as a DPS and you use the power of the Blue.

Again, it's not terribly elegant. As much as I hate the idea, it really is feeling like the covenant system is the best way to pull off Dragonflight type powers in player characters.

[Ielenia]

- Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions

You do know this is not only objectively false, but also it's a demonstrable lie, right?

Because there are blademasters who use abilities other than just the playable warrior class', (hence: the "objectively false" accusation) but also that you were already aware of that fact before you made that post because I pointed it out to you not just once, but twice. (Hence: the "demonstrable lie" accusation)

- - - Updated - - -

ayyyy lmao


another false comparison

This is the epitome of bad attempts at rebuttals. Literally "nuh-uh!" I'll repeat what I said multiple times, already: explain why you think they're wrong.

[Triceron]

By example LAntressor of the Blade is one of the blademaster most well knows in the game, they didn't give him those skills, neither in tbc or wod, but they ddi give to jubeithos, in hellfire citadel, you want to say only one is a blademaster, and the other is not, of just accept that blizzard see both as blademaster and those skills are not encessary?

In TBC, the Blademasters weren't represented at all. Same as DKs, there were few NPCs that properly had Army of the Dead or Frost spells or even used Death Coil. Windwalk wasn't even a spell in the game at that time, they only recently added this ability in WoD. They only gave this ability to two NPCs in WoD, Jubei'thos and Akatha Blazeburn.

Lantresor was purely modelled off a Warrior because he was a Follower who was built to be an Arms Warrior. No difference than Nat Pagle and Shadow Hunter Rala being classified as a Hunter in WoD. Lantresor was given Warrior abilities because the devs used him to represent Warriors in the Follower system. There is no 'Blademaster' with Blademaster abilities in the Follower system, and they modelled all of his abilities after a Warrior to maintain that consistency.

It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities, and none of them had a single Demon Hunter ability from WC3. Evasion at that point was given to the Rogue. They don't give NPCs consistent new class abilities unless there is an actual Player Class to take those abilities from. DK NPCs did not get actual DK abilities until Wrath, when the class was already designed. Before that they had Warrior abilities. If DK wasn't playable today, we'd still be looking at DK NPCs with Warrior abilities.

Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes

You are actually correct on the first half of that statement. I have been trying to show you this since the other thread, that none of these concepts are actually playable. But you seem to only reason that if the concept is not the same, then Blizzard should make it playable. I never said Blademaster _should_ be playable, this is your own projected argument. We are saying that it _could_ be playable, because Blizzard has not completely tied the concepts together as one.


https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_class

"All the hero units of Warcraft III were originally supposed to become hero classes in World of Warcraft. Hero classes were still listed in 2005 on the "Under Development" page of the original website.[4] When a character hit level 40, it could start specializing in skills to become the same kind of hero. However, as Blizzard developed talent trees, they dropped the idea as they believed that the trees would provide enough customization. For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or a undead warrior could become a death knight.[7]

It was stated at the time by Nethaera that current plans were to introduce one new hero class per expansion set.[8]"

https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comment...ordan_classes/

Our original goal for the 9 classes we settled on was to bring in all the hero classes from the Warcraft RTS games. We also wanted them to be open ended concepts so that various races could attach to it and make it their own. For example, we didn't set out to make the Dwarven Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain and Orc Berserker. We made the Warrior, so that any of those could become a reality based on other choices made by the player (race, weapons, etc., note that this was before talents were dreamed up).

We know the MK and Chieftain are in the Warrior class because the Devs formally mentioned them by name as an intentional part of its design. I even talked about this in another thread how Blizzard could do more to formally integrate MK and Chieftain themes into the Warrior class. You currently have to choose between MK talents, and can't even dual wield in the preferred spec. Racials also play into this, such as Dwarves having Stoneform (Avatar's stone form and spell immunity) to complete the Dwarven Mountain King fantasy, and Taurens having Warstomp which completes the Tauren Chieftain. Orcs don't actually have the racials that cover the Blademaster fantasy, they're more generalized towards the Grunts and Raiders.

The Warrior class was made so broadly that it was supposed to be able to cover all the melee classes; Demon Hunters, Blademasters, Mountain Kings and even Death Knights. Some of that design has changed, and we see DK and Demon Hunters having their own classes. The same could be said about Mountain Kings and Chieftains, but the difference is we're not talking about either of these classes or their fantasy, we're talking about a Blademaster. No one is asking for a Mountain King or Chieftain to be separated into its own class, there is no demand for this. Blademaster is a different concept altogether, because despite my personal thoughts that a Warrior is perfectly fine representing the Blademaster (if Blizzard added more themes to it), I recognize that there are people who think that it has potential as its own class. That is why I am arguing that it is possible, even if it is not very plausible.

We see NPCs with direct connections to the Warrior class because we are looking at design remnants that originally intended them to be playable through Warriors through this Hero system. Death Knights were a type of Warrior Hero class. You could argue personally that you don't view DK as a Warrior, but this is PROOF that Blizzard considered otherwise. Even with Demon Hunters, we see that there were *MULTIPLE* iterations of this from the perspective of different designers. This Hero system makes an example of Warriors as Demon Hunters. Xelnath tried to make the Warlock fully absorb the Demon Hunter identity. And now we have a Demon Hunter as a class. There is no one way to design any given concept, and that is why I am open to the Blademaster being its own concept. Not because Blizzard should do it, but because we can discuss it as a possibility based on Blizzard having shown they have considered other options.

The warrior class itself doesn't do anything to represent the Blademaster any more than a Monk does, because at the end if the day you're RPing a dude with a sword and that's it. Arms Warrior lore is a weapons master, meaning they master any weapon. Nothing specific to exclusively using blades. How many people have responded to you that Blademaster is a Monk? It proves to me one thing - Blademaster is what any individual considers them to be. You just think they are Arms Warrior, no different from someone thinking they are Monk, no different than saying they are their own class. None of us are right, none of us are wrong, because Blizzard has kept it ambiguous.

Warriors do not use the other Blademaster abilities EVEN THOUGH they are capable of using them, and that is the difference. The Warrior that can be RP'd as a Blademaster NPC from WoW, which is itself a representation of the Warrior class. The paradox is that the rest if the Blademaster theme, some elements which are covered by Rogues and Monks, are themes that the Warrior class does not reach into.

If we're to talk about future Class concepts, one should actually look into how Blizzard designs classes. The Demon Hunter is the ideal specimen to break down and analyze, because it gives us insight on Blizzard's own thought processes and considerations. That you personally believe a Blademaster is an Arms Warrior is simply your belief, while I'm trying to show you that Blizzard doesn't actually buy into these hard definitions considering the many transitions that Demon Hunters had to go through until it got its own class. And we have that same happening to Blademasters, Wardens, Shadow Hunters and Dark Rangers today. It's ambiguous because we know Blizzard does not have any singular plan for these concepts; they have many plans which are left in various incomplete states.

[pacotaco]

Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.

- - - Updated - - -



It kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. Using the actual Dragonflights is cumbersome/requires a ton of compromise, or going the Twilight Dragonflight route and you risk giving people something they kinda want, but not exactly.

For the Flights, it could work if they essentially come together against a common foe, though this has essentially been done to death. So if you spec as a Tank, you are using the power of the Black Dragonflight. If you spec as a healer, you use the power of the Red. Spec as a DPS and you use the power of the Blue.

Again, it's not terribly elegant. As much as I hate the idea, it really is feeling like the covenant system is the best way to pull off Dragonflight type powers in player characters.

Yeah, if they want to give specifically the 5 main dragonflight powers, the easy way is the borrow power way.

[Syegfryed]

Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.

nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer, we don't have the bash ability, we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3, meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster

by his logic of course

- - - Updated - - -

In TBC, the Blademasters weren't represented at all. Same as DKs, there were few NPCs that properly had Army of the Dead or Frost spells or even used Death Coil. Windwalk wasn't even a spell in the game at that time, they only recently added this ability in WoD. They only gave this ability to two NPCs in WoD, Jubei'thos and Akatha Blazeburn.

then why they didn't give these abilities to the new blademaster? why not give then mirror iamge if the ability was in the game since wtLK since that expansion to mop to wod we see blademasters? all i see is excuses


[QUOTE]It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities[/QUOTE

no it snot, we clearly can see its not, like i said,y ou would use this argument, by its fails when since vanilla to shadowlands blademaster description and abilities is pretty consistent.

You are actually correct on the first half of that statement. I have been trying to show you this since the other thread, that none of these concepts are actually playable. But you seem to only reason that if the concept is not the same, then Blizzard should make it playable. I never said Blademaster _should_ be playable, this is your own projected argument. We are saying that it _could_ be playable, because Blizzard has not completely tied the concepts together as one.

the thing is: you are wrong, we can play those 3 concepts, because blizzard already tied the concepts together, by giving us blademaster abilities, weapons, armor and etc, we can't play exactly like the RTS, and that is ok, because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway

We know the MK and Chieftain are in the Warrior class because the Devs formally mentioned them by name as an intentional part of its design.

And they did that is blademasters as well, cause what another orcish hero unit do you think they were talking about when they mention "orc berserker"? they even gave then blademaster later, clearly intentionally ting then together dude., the warrior ahve the 2 main abilities and ultimate from the mountain king and the blademaster, avatar and bladestorm.

I even talked about this in another thread how Blizzard could do more to formally integrate MK and Chieftain themes into the Warrior class. You currently have to choose between MK talents, and can't even dual wield in the preferred spec.

And they can do just that with blademaster as well, like i've being saying, no point in making another class and diluting warrior fantasy

The Warrior class was made so broadly that it was supposed to be able to cover all the melee classes; Demon Hunters, Blademasters, Mountain Kings and even Death Knights. Some of that design has changed, and we see DK and Demon Hunters having their own classes. The same could be said about Mountain Kings and Chieftains, but the difference is we're not talking about either of these classes or their fantasy, we're talking about a Blademaster.

first of all, no, it could not be said, dmoun hunters and death knight clearly used another form of magic, something warriros never did, death knight were also death and demon hunters use leather, warriors never had their skills, so there is a gigantic discrepancy to elave room for other classes, not the same thing as mudnane warriors.

And you said yourself why you don't talk about other, because you though we already had 100% their skills, and we clearly don't.

No one is asking for a Mountain King or Chieftain to be separated into its own class, there is no demand for this. Blademaster is a different concept altogether, because despite my personal thoughts that a Warrior is perfectly fine representing the Blademaster (if Blizzard added more themes to it), I recognize that there are people who think that it has potential as its own class. That is why I am arguing that it is possible, even if it is not very plausible.

there is no demand for blademaster either, just a random thread wanting then to be shamans mixed with a moba game,, and that is the point here, there is no reason to dilute their fantasy and make some weird shenanigan and create an entire new class diluting the warrior one, this is not like just taking metamorphosis from warlock, who never had in the first place., because warlocks were never night elves DH, while blademasters always were orc warriors


And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class, they will more likely do a ranged based spec after 3 melee, there is too many established non playable classes to come first, for they to need to think in diluting other classes to make new ones, its easier to see blademaster/mountain/tauren chieftain as 4spec or rpestige shenanigans like in the RPG

- - - Updated - - -

You do know this is not only objectively false, but also it's a demonstrable lie, right?

are you rly just want to make a scene? stop nittpicking, for a bit, i never said there was no npcs who do not use other things, i said that there are blademaster npcs who just use only warrior abilities like lantressor of the blade who only use warrior skills, like Mankrik, and other. Dear god, talking about epitome of bad attempts at rebutal, this is always ironic.

[jellmoo]

nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer, we don't have the bash ability, we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3, meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster

by his logic of course

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me when I look at what is and isn't playable in game, I'm looking at archetypes more than anything. So, if I look at the archetype that the Mountain King represents (Heavily armored Dwarf shock troop) I can say that it is easily playable in WoW with the Warrior. If I look at the Tauren Chieftain (Giant Battlefield Brute) I can see the concept filled in the Warrior and Shaman classes.

When it comes to the Blademaster, I struggle to see how I can lay that archetype in game. A lightly armored or unarmored sword wielder with Asian flavour and mystical abilities to deceive. The Warrior class doesn't cover it since it's heavily armored and has few mystical abilities. The Monk has the light armor and Asian flavour, but doesn't master weaponry nor do his abilities have a slant towards deception. Rogues have the deception and light armor, but no Asian flavour nor do they use large swords.

I don't particularly care one way or the other about Blademasters being incorporated into the Warrior class. What I personally care about is being able to fulfill classic fantasy archetypes in game. And I don't see a fun and engaging way to fulfill the archetype that the Blademaster represented in Warcraft 3.

[Ielenia]

nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer,

We do have Storm Bolt.

we don't have the bash ability,

Warriors did have "bash" at one point.

we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3,

We do have Avatar. And this "as it was in WC3" is a fallacy. Very few abilities in WoW are not "exactly like it was in WC3". I mean, look at the demon hunter. None of their abilities are like what it was in WC3: metamorphosis does not make the DH ranged. Self-immolation is not a toggle. Blur is not a passive 30% dodge bonus. And DHs don't have mana burn. By your logic, the WC3 demon hunter is not yet represented.

meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster

You're confusing "gameplay concept" with "having the exact same abilities". The two terms are not one and the same, and are barely related.

there is no demand for blademaster either

Was there any demand for the death knight class, or monk class?

And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class,

That is your opinion. I would not be against an agility-based melee class that wields two-handed swords, axes and polearms, who has the ability to create mirror images of itself and manipulate fire.

are you rly just want to make a scene? stop nittpicking, for a bit,

You're literally repeating false information. Worse: false information that has already been proven to be false. And also, you accuse us of 'double standards' and 'being wrong' and 'false equivalence'... yet not only this is a huge projection of yours, because we're not the ones doing anything of the sort, but you also adamantly refuse to explain why you believe we are "using double-standars" or "wrong" or "using false equivalences". And, to make matters even worse: you constantly state your opinion as if it's objective fact, despite it being anything but.

i never said there was no npcs who do not use other things, i said that there are blademaster npcs who just use only warrior abilities like lantressor of the blade who only use warrior skills, like Mankrik, and other. Dear god, talking about epitome of bad attempts at rebutal, this is always ironic.

You said, and I quote:

- Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions

In other words: you did not say "some blademasters NPCs use only warrior skills". You outright said that blademasters NPCs only have warrior skills. Which has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. By me, with this example, and by Triceron, with this example.

[Triceron]

then why they didn't give these abilities to the new blademaster? why not give then mirror iamge if the ability was in the game since wtLK since that expansion to mop to wod we see blademasters? all i see is excuses

Because they only give what they intended to make playable.

We're talking about Vanilla WoW where Shadow Hunters, Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Death Knights, Demon Hunters, Brewmasters and Wardens did not have any of their own abilities.

TBC is when they *started* adding some, and even then they didn't really do anything special for most NPCs. Demon Hunter NPCs outside Black Temple and the Demon Hunter in Nagrand didn't even have Metamorphosis even though the one in Aszhara did have it. I'm painting a picture here for you, that NPCs are inconsistent in their portrayal of the Warcraft 3 counterparts.

Look at Dark Rangers. None of them even portray the Warcraft 3 version that is based heavily on Sylvanas. WoW simply treats all Dark Rangers as her followers, and they leave all the unique Banshee stuff to her. Yet we don't actually know if any of the Dark Ranger history in WoW actually involves a Banshee influence or not, we're just left with the assumption that Sylvanas is the only one capable. And now we have her dropping weapons that allow any Hunter to use her Wailing Arrow (Banshee scream) and Withering Fire (Shadow Images). So what do we actually know about Dark Rangers? Overall it's *still* an inconsistent mystery of what these characters actually are meant to be, now that they are no longer in service of Sylvanas.

Blizzard would need to redefine the meaning behind these class concepts, and whether they are intended to be playable by existing classes or if there is room for a new class. Same question has existed for years for Demon Hunter, and people argued whether there was room for a Demon Hunter at all as its own class.

It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities[/QUOTE

no it snot, we clearly can see its not, like i said,y ou would use this argument, by its fails when since vanilla to shadowlands blademaster description and abilities is pretty consistent.

How is it consistent when we have WoD Blademasters who have Windwalk now, when they never had it before?

It's not consistent at all if you consider some have these abilities, and some don't. It's not consistent when you consider a Lightforged Draenei in Legion is able to have Mirror Image while a Burning Blade NPC from TBC is only using Cleave and Heroic Leap.

the thing is: you are wrong, we can play those 3 concepts, because blizzard already tied the concepts together, by giving us blademaster abilities, weapons, armor and etc, we can't play exactly like the RTS, and that is ok, because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway

That is okay *for you*. Because you regard the Blademaster as a Warrior.

That is no different than saying Demon Hunter doesn't need to be playable because Rogues could use Warglaives and Blindfolds and they don't need Metamorphosis because they don't need to play like the RTS, and that's okay because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway.

It's a terrible argument to use because you're using opinion to define it. It's no different than the very opinions you disagree on regarding the Demon Hunter. It's the same bad faith argument being used here.

And they did that is blademasters as well, cause what another orcish hero unit do you think they were talking about when they mention "orc berserker"? they even gave then blademaster later, clearly intentionally ting then together dude., the warrior ahve the 2 main abilities and ultimate from the mountain king and the blademaster, avatar and bladestorm.

Grunts and Raiders in Warcraft 3 have a passive upgrade called "Berserker Strength". There are also Orc Berserkers in WoW. It's an archetype of a bloodthirsty, battle-hardened warrior.

And they can do just that with blademaster as well, like i've being saying, no point in making another class and diluting warrior fantasy

I agree. They can, and they don't have to make another class. Have you seen me disagreeing this point?

first of all, no, it could not be said, dmoun hunters and death knight clearly used another form of magic, something warriros never did, death knight were also death and demon hunters use leather, warriors never had their skills, so there is a gigantic discrepancy to elave room for other classes, not the same thing as mudnane warriors.

We have proof of a developer saying otherwise, and that Warrior was broad enough to cover any use of magic regardless of its source.

And you said yourself why you don't talk about other, because you though we already had 100% their skills, and we clearly don't.

Because I don't regard the Warrior actually being able to play as a Mountain King or Chieftain either. What I've pointed out is that a Warrior can competently represent them, because Blizzard has added all the themes and abilities needed to represent them. However I personally feel that they could *do better* in solidifying that connection, since MK's can't have access to all their abilities and Tauren Chieftains don't really have any access to their Runespears, or for that matter, the giant Totem weapons that the regular Tauren are known for.

And in my opinion, Blizzard would not cross the line of their own Warrior design to give them Windwalk and Mirror Image, unless we're talking about a Weapon buff like we see with Sylvanas' bow, Cursed Vision of Sargeras for Rogues or the staff that turns Druids into a flaming kitty form. Nothing like this exists for Blademasters. And let me be clear - having access to these weapons simply enforces RP, not that you're actually playing as any of these classes.

there is no demand for blademaster either, just a random thread wanting then to be shamans mixed with a moba game

Then that is demand.

You can't point at something that exists and say it's proof that it doesn't exist. Stop this use of hyperbole.

My personal case to argue for Blademasters is because I believe Class Skins would be possible. Allied Races reskinned existing Races with new racials, visuals, customization and heritage armor/mounts. I can see them doing something similar for classes by adding new talents, themes, animations, transmog systems and spell visuals to completely retheme a class. These would be considered their own classes and not just a 'type of' the existing class it's based on.

The obvious example is Necromancer Class Skin that has its own lore, history and is its own class. It summons various types of skeletons and undead, uses dark magic, and spreads various poisons/diseases/curses. The gameplay would be based on the Warlock class, and certain Talents could be changed out to give this more flavour while still keeping the overall gameplay relatively balanced. This means they can add in specific Necromancer abilities as talents without having a Warlock's gameplay get too close to a Death Knight or vice versa.

This is where I see a Blademaster being possible since all you need is to apply a similar application to Warriors. A different set of talents allows you to have Mirror Image and Windwalk available to you. As a new class, the Weapon system can be altered to have an exclusivity to Polearms, Swords and Axes. New animations and transmogs could allow both specs to use a 2H weapon to maintain the Blademaster flavour.

This is the potential I see for the game, but it's really up to Blizzard to decide whether it's even worth pursuing. We all know people want a Necromancer, but we know there's no room for it. We know people want a Blademaster, but there's no room for it. A Class skin system is the best way to add it all in without worrying about designing a completely new class or shoe-horning the concepts into existing classes.

I point out the Blademaster in particular because I recognize that there is potential, and that there is demand, however small it may seem.

And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class, they will more likely do a ranged based spec after 3 melee, there is too many established non playable classes to come first, for they to need to think in diluting other classes to make new ones, its easier to see blademaster/mountain/tauren chieftain as 4spec or rpestige shenanigans like in the RPG

It will be whatever Blizzard chooses it to be, regardless of any actual discussion we have.

The point of discussion is to share ideas of what we'd like to see. There is no reason to actually answer the question of 'what it will be' because only Blizzard can provide the answer.

If this were 7 years ago, I would have just as easily said the Tinker is going to be the next class because there's no way Blizzard would add another Leather-wearing Agi-based Melee DPS/Tank that dual wields. But guess what? Blizzard added the Demon Hunter.

They added another Leather wearing Melee class after the Monk, instead of a Tinker that could easily be a Melee/Ranged hybrid with a unique Tech theme. Think about that smart guy.

[smityx]

Leather class: Genderbender.
Pronouns: He/She/WTF
Race: Elf
Prof: SJWarrior and White Knight Paladin
Racial: Influencer - Has a 15% bonus to moral superiority over lesser classes
Abilities: Can check almost all the Blue twitter check mark check boxes

[Syegfryed]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me when I look at what is and isn't playable in game, I'm looking at archetypes more than anything. So, if I look at the archetype that the Mountain King represents (Heavily armored Dwarf shock troop) I can say that it is easily playable in WoW with the Warrior. If I look at the Tauren Chieftain (Giant Battlefield Brute) I can see the concept filled in the Warrior and Shaman classes.

When it comes to the Blademaster, I struggle to see how I can lay that archetype in game. A lightly armored or unarmored sword wielder with Asian flavour and mystical abilities to deceive. .

thats because you have a wrong idea of what it is the archetype of the blademaster, blademasters use more armor than tauren chieftain, than grunts, wolf rainders and so this is not an argument. The blademaster archetype, to put simple like you did, is the good old master of blades warrior using a 2h weapon and you can play that:






If you want to include that warriors should be the "deceptive" then you ahve to include how mountain king can be immune to magic and tauren cheiftain can literally ressurect when killed

- - - Updated - - -

We do have Storm Bolt.

Warriors did have "bash" at one point.

We do have Avatar. And this "as it was in WC3" is a fallacy.

like i said, none of those skills are like what they were in the rts and we just have one abiliy of the tauren cheiftain as well, if we don't have all of their skil set, neither have their skills like it was, why blademaster need wind walk and mirror iamge, if blizzard showed countless of times its not encessary?

very few abilities in WoW are not "exactly like it was in WC3".

indeed, and some of then don't even need to be here in wow

You're confusing "gameplay concept" with "having the exact same abilities"

its not me who is saying that a blademaster to be playable it needs "the exact same 2 abilities of the RTS" buddy

You're literally repeating false information. Worse: false information that has already been proven to be false.

That is not false information, there are blademasters npcs who use only warrior skills, are you denying this hard fact?

In other words:

once again, your distortion come to play, i just said there are npcs blademasters who use warrior skills only, which is a fact, i never said that all blademasters npcs do that, anything else is you assuming and nitpicking, creating a strawman to attack because you can't form ana rgument without it.

[Ielenia]

thats because you have a wrong idea of what it is the archetype of the blademaster,

You're not the arbiter who decides what is a "right idea" or "wrong idea" about what the blademaster concept is.

like i said, none of those skills are like what they were in the rts and we just have one abiliy of the tauren cheiftain as well, if we don't have all of their skil set, neither have their skills like it was, why blademaster need wind walk and mirror iamge, if blizzard showed countless of times its not encessary?

Except absolutely no one is saying that the abilities have to be "exactly like they were in the RTS game", so this is a meaningless argument to make.

indeed, and some of then don't even need to be here in wow

And you're the one who decides that? Besides, Windwalk and Mirror Images do exist in WoW, though.

its not me who is saying that a blademaster to be playable it needs "the exact same 2 abilities of the RTS" buddy

Except no one is saying we "need the EXACT SAME abilities"? Asking to have Windwalk and Mirror Images is not the same as saying "we want the exact abilities how they are presented in WC3". Because we know they'd likely need to be altered to fit WoW's combat rules.

That is not false information, there are blademasters npcs who use only warrior skills, are you denying this hard fact?

I deny your claim that "blademasters have always been presented with warrior abilities" because blademasters never had a single ability until WoD. And if your claim is that "some blademasters use only warrior abilities", then it's a meaningless argument to make, because we do have blademasters that use abilities not present in the warrior class, and also do not fit the warrior class concept. That's like saying "monks shouldn't be their own class, because we have some monks who have only rogue abilities".

once again, your distortion come to play, i just said there are npcs blademasters who use warrior skills only, which is a fact, i never said that all blademasters npcs do that, anything else is you assuming and nitpicking, creating a strawman to attack because you can't form ana rgument without it.

Then read above. It's a meaningless argument to say "some only use warrior abilities".

[Syegfryed]

Because they only give what they intended to make playable.

??????? this make no sense a dn does notanswer why blizzard didn't give blademaster those two skills when they could, again,a ccept this is not as much iportant as you think it is, if tis not for then

How is it consistent when we have WoD Blademasters who have Windwalk now, when they never had it before?

do all blademasters have it? or just very, very few ones?

That is no different than saying Demon Hunter doesn't need to be playable because Rogues could use Warglaives and Blindfolds

once again with the false equivalence, ym dude, tr to make an example without restorting to absurd comparisons, you are saying since a kangaroo have nto feathers and is bideal they are humans.

Realize how absurd is to compare a rogue and a DH with warrior and blademaster, you already part in the false pressupost that warriors and blademaster are totally different because current warriors have no wind walk and mirror image, and try to say this is the same as DH and rogues or DH and warlocks, when they are totally different.

You don't even need to go far to see that DH swallow a fucking demon, don't use stealth and use fel magic, there is a gigantic gap between those two classes concepts and fantasies, while the fantasy of the blademaster is literally being legendary orc warriors, who mastered the use of blades, that is just a warrior in stereoids, they do not use death magic, like death knights, they do not use light like paladins, they do not use fel magic like Demon hunters, is simple plan old warrior-ish skills, even their "mystical abilities" is regard using their own warrior energies and this is completely vallid because warriors also use "mystical abilities" not tied to those forces,

you also have inherently accepted as truth that blademasters are kind of rogue, who fight is based entirely on "deception and stealth" when its not, those are just tools, they can use, their gameplay is based around killing, their playstyle in the RTS is making pressure, attacking and killing fast, being a key factor in the fights with bladestorm or focusing in one enemy hero, wind walk is more a tool of escape than stealth. You can ven see how a blademaster fought, like a gladiator against varian in the horde rings its not "deception and stealth" is not a rogue. is a fighter, is a warrior.

So, not just the Theme/lore/fantasy you got wrong, the playstyle is also wrong.

Then that is demand.

if there is more demand for BARDS, then its just pointless, demanding nonsensical and impossible things is a thing since vanilla, this don't mean they will do it, they didn't high elves, regardless of the massive outcry

It will be whatever Blizzard chooses it to be, regardless of any actual discussion we have.

I know that, and im saying the chances, or possibility of being mountain king, tauren chieftain and blademaster is low, because those heroes are alreayd playable in the warrior class.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not the arbiter who decides what is a "right idea" or "wrong idea" about what the blademaster concept is.

thats, right, its not me, tis blizzard, go check the blademasters in lore and ingame to see more about their cocnept.

Except absolutely no one is saying that the abilities have to be "exactly like they were in the RTS game", so this is a meaningless argument to make.

no.. that is exactly what people are arguing for, but sure you will pretend its not

And you're the one who decides that?

like i said, not me, its blizzard, since they didn't give those to the blademasters ingame and the plaayble one

I deny your claim that "blademasters have always been presented with warrior abilities"

Basically you are denying something you made up, a claim that i enver made, nice

cause what i said is "there are blademasters with warrior skills only" so, since you cannot refute that, because is a fact, you create a strawman, like always.

[Triceron]

??????? this make no sense a dn does notanswer why blizzard didn't give blademaster those two skills when they could, again,a ccept this is not as much iportant as you think it is, if tis not for then

I don't understand what you even mean.

They didn't give every DK Death Coil.

They didn't give every Demon Hunter Metamorphosis.

Why would you expect every Blademaster to have Windwalk and Mirror Image?

do all blademasters have it? or just very, very few ones?

If we're talking NPCs? No, they don't. Because NPCs aren't proper representations of the class, they're incomplete translations of the Warcraft 3 and Heroes of the Storm concept *WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT*.

once again with the false equivalence, ym dude, tr to make an example without restorting to absurd comparisons, you are saying since a kangaroo have nto feathers and is bideal they are humans.

I don't see how it's false equivalence when you're talking about NPCs, and I've been trying to hammer in your head that the Warrior class does not carry all the themes or fantasy of the Blademaster. It is an incomplete package which would need more to properly represent Blademasters.

If you want to talk about NPCs, then I'm going to use examples that show my point that NPCs poorly represent Class concepts like Demon Hunters and Death Knights before they had their own class.

I know that, and im saying the chances, or possibility of being mountain king, tauren chieftain and blademaster is low, because those heroes are alreayd playable in the warrior class.

Not only that, but you have made other baseless arguments like that there is no demand for it.

I don't even care about the Blademaster or Warriors, it's one of the classes I don't even play in WoW. But I'd be blind if I didn't recognize that people have been asking for a Blademaster to be represented better, whether as its own class or not. To say there is no demand is to plug your fingers in your ears. Have you not regarded any of the people you actually argue against as legitimate? Or is everyone just some figment of your imagination? Or maybe you think everyone arguing against you and saying Blademasters have merit are just one person with one account?

I've seen zero demand for MKs and Chieftains as their own class. I've seen numerous threads asking for Blademasters. If everyone regards Blademasters as Warriors, why would anyone be asking for Blademasters to be playable? Why do Blademaster threads exist, but not Mountain King or Chieftain threads? You regard that Chieftain has missing avilities too right? It's because there are people who identify the Blademaster as a concept that hasn't been fully represented by the Warrior class.

Same reason why people still ask for Dark Rangers and Necromancers, but no one asks for Beastmasters. The Necro and Dark Ranger are archetypes that people feel are not properly represented by any playable class, while the Beastmaster's concept is.

If Blizzard chooses to go the route of Class Skins, it would be able to be properly represented without having to muck up the Warrior class by adding Stealth mechanics. The Warrior's class fantasy can be retained and kept as is perfectly fine. That is what I see Blizzard doing in the future if they actually get down to the mechanics enough to balance out their Talent systems amongst multiple classes. And I see Covenants as their first step towards that, considering all the shared abilities and shared mechanics we've seen between classes that didn't exist before. We're one step closer to that possibility with each expansion that goes by..

[Ielenia]

thats, right, its not me, tis blizzard, go check the blademasters in lore and ingame to see more about their cocnept.

We already went through this. None of the evidence you provided conclusively and exclusively state that the blademaster is represented by the warrior class, or that "blademasters = warriors".

no.. that is exactly what people are arguing for, but sure you will pretend its not

No. They were talking about the abilities, but they never said "the exact same abilities as they are shown in the Warcraft 3 game with all of its stats and special traits". You accuse me of making things up, but here you are misrepresenting what people said.

like i said, not me, its blizzard, since they didn't give those to the blademasters ingame and the plaayble one

Except... they did? We have a blademaster with those abilities. And we have blademasters with non-warrior abilities, like fire magic.

Basically you are denying something you made up, a claim that i enver made, nice

You did:

This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime

Blademasters never had any abilities until WoD.