It was still an Alliance victory, just not the one they were hoping for.
And we the player couldn’t defend our warchief from Genn who casually walks away after destroying Sylv’s lantern.
What’s your point?
12 Likes
It’s not a lantern, it was a Soul Cage.
And stromheim was a Horde win just not the one they were hoping for.
Agreed?
And Alliance couldn’t protect Genn from getting shot by an arrow.
What’s your point? I can move goal posts around all day too.
1 Like
Maybe cause it’s a blighted wasteland inhabited by nobody, whereas if Sylvanas didn’t bomb Undercity and the Alliance took it then they would just give it up when the war was over and put Calia in charge.
I would, cause Anduin would be like, “Just cause the Night Elves don’t have a capital doesn’t give us the right to deprive the Forsaken of one”
I am talking about punishment, not for a crime, not the neccesary prevention.
I have said it like 100 times in this thread, the consequences I am talking about are the sentencing you receive for a crime, not the arresting part.
The Horde has received no punishment for their crimes AFTER the fact. To say that they were punished because Alliance had to invade their lands to stop them…like seriously how dumb does a person have to be to believe that.
They aren’t defending their homes because the Alliance isn’t attacking their homes, just getting to their king. If anything the Alliance is defending their homes by destroying the navy of a nation helping the Horde declare war on them.
We’re the alliance, we’re here to defend you savages from yourselves, because we know what’s best for you
That is a really stupid hill to want to die on…just saying. At least that’s the impression you just gave
14 Likes
They have the right to defend themselves but after the battle they should ask themselves why the Alliance was attacking them in the first place from their leaders.
This little buttkicking didn’t just happen out of the blue because Alliance is racist or evil.
If there is one thing Horde lacks is its credible reasoning for attacking people.
1 Like
I’m doing the doggie head tilt thing trying to read this take. You kinda…have to invade their home to get at their king.
And that second sentence just parses bizarrely. It reads like you’re trying to say the alliance is actually defending the Zandalari’s homes by destroying their navy.
7 Likes
Not just the Horde. The Story doesn’t. The writers don’t. They are always insulated from their own few acts of grey. As few as they are. And if they aren’t immediately, Blizz will always retcon it so they are in the end. On top of this, with how Blizz writes Alliance justifications … the do equate to invalidations.
So, we have Garrosh’s conflict. Where the Alliance declares war on the Horde in WotLK. But Garrosh “started it” in Cata. Because of a convenient Peace Treaty created in an a between expansion book. Just in time to “invalidate” Varian’s actions, and have the Horde “start it”. While the Horde is still forced to psudo react to the consequences of that declaration (like the severing of trade) to justify that aggression; which are now left totally invalid. A similar, lesser repeat instance of this occurred with the lead up to Theramore.
Or we have the WoT. Where every single instance of aggression leading up to the conflict comes from the Alliance, but they aren’t allowed to count. Stormheim is totally justified and handwaved, even by the Horde (beyond a single passing thought from SAURFANG; not Sylvie). Silithus gets retconned because Blizz realized their original “invalidating excuse” wouldn’t work. So “thur Goblins lol!” Both of these instances are clear of Acts of War against the Horde by the Alliance, that aren’t allowed to count.
All so the Horde can “start it” for “no reason, and out of nowhere”… While still “psudo-reacting” to those events that are not allowed to count, and thus just like with the Garrosh conflict … the Horde is forced to play the aggressors and villains in a Faction Conflict stories operating off of invalid motives. Since all of the Alliance “acts of grey” are whitewashed, retconned, excused and invalidated.
6 Likes
There’s even a name for that hill!
It’s called imperialism. 
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again:
When you begin an expansion with some gigantic, horrific act of genocide like the Burning of Teldrassil, you’re effectively giving the A-OK for the victim side (in this case, the Alliance) to commit whatever atrocities it wants to, and get away with them scott-free. As long as they don’t repeat the initial act of genocide, literally anything else is considered fair game.
That’s what is meant by "the Alliance’s moral absolutism. Now, certain people can be sick of hearing that word—I certainly am—but let’s not pretend as if Horde players are simply making this up.
10 Likes
It’s worded really weird and I seriously hope he didn’t mean what he just implied with that second part, because it comes off as tone deaf
3 Likes
What you want is a morally black Alliance not morally grey.
BoZ was a perfect grey situation. Both sides had a reason to fight and put themselves in that situation. If there is anything wrong with the Alliance is that they did not leave zuldarar in a more broken ruin than they first arrived.
1 Like
I know…I’m just personally tired/sad at how tone deaf the current writing team is. It’s like none of them even played WC 3 and are ignorant of the whole purpose of what Thralls New Horde was supposed to represent. You know?
11 Likes
Baalsamael has noted the leaving of longtime employees Chris Metzen and Alex Afrasiabi, so tragically, I think you may be onto something.
Which is pretty disturbing, because it’s literally a case of, “Current company is ignorant of the story/games that literally jumpstarted said company’s biggest money-maker.”
1 Like
The events leading up to it in the initial release content sure, but preceding the invasion in the alliance war campaign, the Zandalari fight alongside the horde in a failed attack on Kul’tiras. Isn’t that just making the raid an alliance counterattack?
So you just ignored the tangible instances of Blizz whitewashing and invalidating Alliance acts of grey “as few as they are” to ensure the “Horde Starts it” (while being allowed no valid motives to do so thanks to those invalidations)? Sure, dude. At this point, I don’t even think Alliance players know what “morally grey” is. And to them, anything short of being always right, always flawless, and always pure … is “Morally Black”.
Yes, me expecting Alliance actions (that do make sense from their perspective as they are presented) actually be allowed to count for ones they are doing those acts to, and have consequences … is me expecting the Alliance to be “morally black”.
6 Likes
Great so make Alliance commit something just as bad but we both know that whenever this is suggested Horde players will begin a great symphony of… dont you dare, humiliation, horde has nothing, we are the real victims here and etc.
1 Like
Its the series of events that makes something morally grey.
It just doesn’t happen on a individual basis.
The problem with Teldrassil is mostly the idiotic excuses Sylvanas came up with and Saurfang accepted.
There was barely any justifiable or understandable reasoning that brought them there.
Well, no we don’t, actually, considering Droite has literally said the exact opposite, several times.
I’m going to put this in as simple terms as I possibly can:
The Horde playerbase isn’t angry because the Alliance “never starts anything.”
They’re angry because the Alliance always gets excused for it.
8 Likes
Hot take. The end result of Storheim was a net loss for the Horde. SoL was a net win.
I don’t think you know what this means since you and other posters do it so frequently. If you think the story has some come of parity between stormheim and the SoL, well…
But that’s OK. We’ve already established that this assertion 
Is not accurate.
God that was so frustrating when I was reading the prepatch dialogue.
Something something THINK OF THE HORDE CHILDREN by the way Malfurion needs to die
Like, I knew it was coming from datamined stuff but what a whiplash.
1 Like