In the end it was, and they absolutely failed that objective in the end. The Alliance sieged another city, practically handed the Horde what they desired out of the story… but crippled the navy and killed the interesting leader, King Rastakhan and replaced him with his less interesting daughter.
2 Likes
Do you horde players ever play both factions
1 Like
I’m sure plenty do.
3 Likes
It feels like only Alliance players say this. The overwhelming sentiment of Horde players is that the war campaign was poorly done Hordeside.
13 Likes
Just the war campaign?
8 Likes
I mean, a LOT of things were poorly done, but you can still find some people in support of certain points of the story, and there’s not so much agreement.
I feel like most Horde players are in agreement that the War Campaign was just flat bad.
19 Likes
Not really, 1) getting the Kul Tirans to finally join us and foil Ashvane’s plan was awesome 2) we killed and prevent the San’lyn from joining the Horde. 3) We managed to steal that scepter thing and used it against the Horde.
2 Likes
Cycles tend to flip between a few different scenarios like the turning of a wheel. If you repeat the same exact scenario over and over, I wouldn’t call that a cycle.
2 Likes
Cycle
noun
- a series of events that are regularly repeated in the same order.
The cycle thus far has been, Horde invades an Alliance city, they destroy it, we have a war across the world ending with the Horde leader being deposed. Maybe thrown in an Alliance character trying to pursue vengeance instead justice and we have the story of Warcraft’s faction conflict.
1 Like
Darkshore, and the other warfront, and the whole feel that we are fighting for justice and survival
2 Likes
Cause I´m a sadist -I play a rogue, you see??-
1 Like
Okay, I guess if you look at it that way, you can use the word. But to me, if you’re going to call it a cycle of hatred, there should be a spiral where hatred increases on both sides. There should be a pattern where Horde does something -> Alliance’s hatred increases -> Alliance does something -> Horde’s hatred increases -> rinse and repeat.
This is just a “cycle” of Horde does something -> Alliance’s hatred increases, over and over. A one-sided “cycle.”
16 Likes
For the record, I wouldn’t expect this to ever happen, or that it’d even make sense to.
But in theory, I’d think it’s extremely easy to punish Genn due to his vulnerable status as the couch-surfing king. You threaten to kick him and his people off your land if he gets out of line, since he remains there solely at the pleasure of his hosts.
4 Likes
Genn is Anduin’s closest advisor and Genn was using Alliance military assets. At the very least if Anduin seriously took issue with Genn’s attack he should have had Genn stand down from a position of authority when it came to using Stormwind’s assets and military.
As for the question of the Horde leaders knowing if he was actively punished, the public impression was he was not since it had no effect on his authority or position as Anduin’s top advisor. Further, this literally is brought up by Sylvanas to Saurfang in the pre War of Thorn’s novelle and it is one of the arguments Sylvanas used to convince Saurfang that eventually the Alliance would come after the Horde.
Lor’themar hasn’t exactly had great past experience with diplomacy with an angry Alliance. Remember the Purge? Even if Anduin was open to it, it is very likely much of the rest of the Alliance wouldn’t be. As for Baine, I suspect he was overruled. The guy isn’t exactly very pushy unless he is having a tantrum.
How would Baine rebelling then do anything for peace? If anything it would lessen the likelihood of negotiation since Baine is one of the most open to it and he would lose the ability to speak for the Horde after that. Jaina regained her power because the Horde agreed to withdraw and leave her people alive after her father was stopped. Baine couldn’t have done the same thing and it is unlikely the other Alliance leaders would have agreed to a situation where the rest of the Horde got off completely scott free.
Your under this weird mindset that the Horde should have logically assumed it could trust the Alliance leaders to agree to a peaceful outcome which didn’t cost the horde severely. If that was the case, many members of the Horde would probably not have ended up in the Horde in the first place. The Horde wasn’t the BEs first choice. Trolls have NEVER had a good deal when it comes to dealing with humans. Vol’jin himself said it always had ended badly. The Alliance tried to kill all the Goblins for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Forsaken call themselves that because in the past the Alliance has treated them as kill on sight regardless of what they did, and again they approached the Alliance first before they joined the Horde. The Orcs went through internment camps. Hell even the Tauren have had the Dwarves blatantly ignore the sovereignty of the Tauren homelands and even wipe out a Tauren Village and kill all the villages when the Tauren tried to stop them using explosives.
So why again would the Horde races feel they could expect a good outcome when dealing with the Alliance again, particularly with Genn ‘the only good horde is a dead horde’ Greymane whispering in a young inexperienced king’s ear?
17 Likes
Actually there is nothing that says the cycle of hatred has to be even remotely balance. Sure the Alliance probably does a few less then savory things but as the more righteous faction that mean it usually does it less often and with less severity then the Horde. The opposite is true for the Horde as the darker of the two.
Again, why should Genn be punished? He stopped of Sylvanas’ right in her track from possibly doing something evil. I am more curious if the rest of the Horde even know what Slyvanas was actually trying to do in Stormheim and if they would actually approve of it!
Because he lead an unprovoked attack on a horde fleet killing many horde soldiers in an attempt to assassinate a warchief. Maybe they didn’t know what she was doing, just like they didn’t know that Genn had no idea what she was doing there, something he admits in the Alliance questing.
It doesn’t change the fact that Genn tried to actively kill the Horde’s leader at a time when to the Horde’s understanding, we weren’t at war. Politically, allowing that to slide is as good as telling the Horde the Alliance has no respect for the horde’s sovereignty, any agreements of peace between the two groups and that the Alliance feels that it is entitled to kill members of the Horde, including its leaders, whenever it sees fit. Just look at the situation for the Horde’s perspective. Just imagine if a general of the Horde tried to kill Anduin in a similar situation when we weren’t at war and killed scores of Alliance soldiers and then the Horde leadership did nothing to rebuke or demote the general. The Alliance would see it as an act of war and demand the general’s head.
You have way to much of a narrow viewpoint. Your not looking at things from other’s perspective so you have the idea that because you are the ‘good guys’ everyone should trust everything your guys do because your in the right. That isn’t how reality works and anyone attempting diplomacy who thinks that way is doomed to failure.
21 Likes
You know, you’re telling the Ashran scenario with the opposite omens, honestly, in WOD the Horde did that as well, the only difference was: varian wasn’t there, but otherwise it was just as unprovoked an attack.
Really, I think it’s partly hypocritical to accuse the Alliance here and to overreact extremely when not even a year before the Horde did the same thing. And yet neither the Alliance Com nor the Lore ever picked it up.
That’s just like Taurajo again, considering the lacking possibility to defend the Horde’s actions you exaggerate events or play them over into extremmo.
2 Likes
Oh of course it is hypocritical the the Horde has been that almost constantly in BfA. It doesn’t change the fact that not only is it a logical reason as to why the Horde wouldn’t expect diplomacy to be a legitimate option at the Siege of the Undercity but also it is a reason Blizzard themselves gave as to how the Horde saw the political reality with Genn being a Horde hater and Anduin’s right hand. To the Horde it looked very like Genn being the power behind the throne and Genn isn’t someone any Horde leader is going to expect a diplomatic solution with. As I said, he was a guy that advocated the genocide of the orcs at the end of the second war and left the Alliance when they voted for the internment camps instead.
The Horde leaders weren’t open to considering a diplomatic solution because even if they could convince the Horde populous to hand over the Warchief to the Alliance, something that would be unpopular anyway since the Horde would expect that she answer to Horde law rather than Alliance law, they had plenty of reason to believe the Alliance would just settle for that.
2 Likes
The problem is, “punishing” Genn is tricky because he and his people are really in the Alliance at the pleasure of the night elves whose home they were still sharing at the time. Meaning Anduin would risk alienating them if he tried to exact some form of penalty from Genn.
It’s easy for the Horde to expect punishment because evidently Warchiefs have license to just clap the other racial leaders in irons and throw them in prison without fearing diplomatic reprisals, but any sort of actual punishment of another Alliance sovereign by Stormwind’s king could threaten the integrity of the whole Alliance, if not be considered an act of war by one nation upon another.
The attack in Stormheim is also hard to completely call unprovoked in-universe because to put it bluntly, while we knew the truth of how and why things went down as they did, Blizzard leaned hard into preserving the assumption throughout Legion (and beyond; early in BfA they still cited this event as a sticking point in continuing hostilities) that nobody had bothered in-lore to tell the Alliance what actually happened at the Broken Shore, so their lore characters all still believed they’d basically already been “attacked” by way of the Horde’s perceived betrayal there.
3 Likes
A valid reason though Anduin could have at least publicly denounced the attack and removed Genn from his role as chief advisor. Doing nothing effectively acted as approval of Genn’s attack on the Horde.
Plus Anduin did reprimand Genn, but only in private and without any further action. So clearly he was able to. Genn’s attack got a whole bunch of Stormwind soldiers killed and destroyed Stormwind’s flagship.
It is hardly the Horde’s fault if the Alliance didn’t bother to check. More over we learn in Before the Storm that it was communicated to the Alliance what happened through Baine but some, like Genn, didn’t want to believe it anyway.
To the Horde, nothing on the Broken Shore could be called provoking, particularly since the Horde suffered devastating loses including of their own Warchief. People involved in Diplomacy need to understand the realities of how other groups perceive events. At best it was a complete failure of Diplomacy on Anduin’s part to not realize that Genn’s attack would be seen as an unprovoked act of aggression. Even then, if Anduin was willing to allow an entire Horde fleet to be sunk without warning, why would they think he would be open to diplomacy after Teldressil?
10 Likes