Warrior Appearance should not mean Horde + Spikes

[Deleted]

To start of, I didn't do too much playing in MoP + WoD so I might not exactly be hitting the nail on the head here and if someone thinks I'm wrong and can "prove it" (I guess?) I'll be more glad than anything else.

This came up in discussion with one of my friends who also play Warrior when we saw the new Class mount. While I'm not too excited about Galakras 2.0 my biggest issue isn't that he's just Galakras (slightly different proto drake? I dislike proto drakes overall but that's me), it's more the fact that everytime Blizzard makes something that is supposed too look "Warrior-ish" their designs are usually just darker metal + spikes.

When just looking at the tier sets, it feels like WOTLK was the last expansion that had good looking gear that didn't look like it was JUST intended for horde warriors (obvious one being Tier 9).

It's not a BIG deal but as an Alliance Warrior since Vanilla (played horde in Cata tho) it just feels off, the most "warrior" looking gear for me still being the Non-epic Vanilla PvP set.

Is it just me and my friend? If so, are blizzard aware? If this gets some attention I'll post on official blizz forums as well.

PS: I say this thinking we are Warriors (masters of war, usually part of an army or larger "squadrons") and not Berserkers/Barbarians (?).

[Deleted]

Yes, it's just you.
And yes, I share the sentiment that Warriors should be more blademasters/ battlemaster rather than berserkers/ barbarians, although that's the underlying difference between Fury and Arms.

About the topic at hand, there's the thing: the creative department seems to have no idea on how to lead Warriors.
This stems from our rehashed order hall down to kits and whatnot.

If you're worried about the balance of power between Horde and Alliance for everything Warrior related, just note how the Protection and Arms artifacts are led by strong alliance characters, one being tied to a dwarf and the other to a human king who mowed down entire troll tribes.