Will DK + 4 Shamans be more or less viable than Pally + 4 Shamans?

[Vyndree]

enhancement is not too bad like that while not drudging instances.

Yea, DKs with ENHANCEMENT shaman would make much more sense (though pally wouldn't be BAD -- I'd probably make it ret though). Melee class to buff a melee class.

The point of pallies is that most people run that comp with 1 or more ELE shaman, and pallies most definitely complement that comp better.

[offive]

Guess it doesn't matter to me. I will be rolling DKs and use them when it makes sense. I thought they were intended to be the anti-magic tank. Anyway I need more micro management issues in my life

[Hor]

Back to the topic, I have to agree with Vyn, I don't think DKs are going to replace Palis in boxer groups. They've got a place, definitely. But it's just like Druids, I don't think they'll replace Shamans for boxing. It's just another thing to consider when you're making group comps. I have a couple of groups I want to play around with using the DK, mainly mixed group stuff. I'm anxious to see what comes out of the Xpac really, I expect to see some interesting new boxer groups.

[Vyndree]

Same with Hor, I will most likely be incorporating a DK into my groups at some point, just for the fun of experiencing a DK. However if I was min/maxing a group I probably would choose to bring the pally over the DK.

I'm actually considering just going flat-out 5 DKs, regardless of them being melee, since there aren't many classes left that I want to level. I've already got shammies, hunters, druids, warlocks...

[algol]

You KNOW you want to cast 5x Army of the Dead. We can find a way to make melee behave. Maybe?

[Hor]

I'm really thinking about doing DK, 3 Locks, and a Shad Priest. I'm going to atleast give it a try.