It is really simple. The representation made by SOE/DBG isn't "tanks better than". It's "warriors are unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles." Not "warriors attuned to nature", "holy warriors", or "unholy warriors". Just plain Warrior "warriors". Anything less than knights dying significantly more often while Warriors survive for the majority of each expansion is inadequate. If knights dependably survive just like Warriors for most of an expansion "unmatched survivability" is matched. Let's be honest here. No one is entitled to survive like a Warrior PLUS. Anyone who looked at the Warrior class description, then looked at the Ranger (or a knight) class description and said to themselves "ah, 'warrior attuned to nature" must be tanks like a Warrior AND gets all these other goodies too" is beyond deluded. Utility doesn't count? Then sirs why did you choose utility when there was a 100% tank in the offing? And there are several knights here that were very busy attacking the Warrior Class Defining Ability for years. (And for years they've watched Warriors MT raid boss mobs.) They know that's the way things have been, I know it, and you know it. So this is just a continuation of a let's steal the longstanding Warrior raid role that they've been obsessed with for more than a decade. Their class description? They aren't interested (unless it's a free bonus). The Warrior class description? They are very interested but not interested enough to roll one.