Why would you want that? Without the defensive bonuses of cover you'd be a free kill to pretty much everyone and you wouldn't be more mobile considering all the abilities are channeled. But take the advice listed. Swap the short cut for "take cover" and "take cover in place" around, that way you'll be able to hit f and take cover easily while still being able to roll to good places if needed.

The problem is that the comparisons aren't really there. On paper a sith warrior would be very similar to a wow warrior, they both use rage, heavy armor and even share some of the same abilities like sunder armor. But as far as how it actually feels to play one it's just not the same. Rage is build with specific attacks and then you spend it on abilities, and to be frank it plays a lot more akin to how a wow rogue build and spent combo points than it does to how a wow warrior build and spend rage. So now you have a class that shares some abilities with a wow warriors but get to spend a lot of those abilities like a wow rogue would spend his finishing moves, and that is probably one of the classes with the closest comparison available. A mercenary would be one of the harder comparisons. They have abilities which have paladin/death knight traits, they have talent trees setup similar to a resto/balance druid, and mobility and attack mechanics similar to a hunter + a few channeled shots like a warlock. So they're basically a death knight/paladin/hunter/druid/warlock which in terms of ingame feel, feels like none of them at all. On top of that you have a game that's been running for so long that classes have changed a ton, and people havn't played or quit it at the same times. Take the sniper/gunslinger for instance, they're pretty stationary with long cast times, much like fire mages were when world of warcraft first released, but if you tell someone who has only played cataclysm a sniper/gunslinger is similar to a fire mage he/she'll think you're nuts.