Kaldorei Revenge:How long?

[Jellex-wyrmrest-accord (Jellex)]

she believes she can seize control of all the Azerite.

Hey, remember when this was a plot point?

[Zuleika-hyjal (Zuleika)]

It is from A Good War and Before the Storm.

No, Asher specifically said that it is Horde players who “constantly” talk about wanting to eliminate the Alliance.

What I see on this forum is Horde players complaining that they have no reason to want to eliminate the Alliance.

[Saiphas-ravencrest (Saiphas)]

well, she tbf, she did not realize that Azerite was popping up beyond just Kalimdor, which was bad on her (and the writer of a good war for not knowing that/the person who did not let the writer know).

[Jellex-wyrmrest-accord (Jellex)]

well, she tbf, she did not realize that Azerite was popping up beyond just Kalimdor, which was bad on her (and the writer of a good war for not knowing that/the person who did not let the writer know).

I know, I’m just generally throwing shade in the direction of Azerite and its greatly diminished role in the plot.

[Pellex-hyjal (Pellex)]

Speaking of: SoO is considered by Horde players to be an example of the Alliance winning, the majority of the Alliance playerbase disagree, because the Horde is absolved of all wrong doing as illustrated in War Crimes. This is why you have threads like this and Hordehacker’s thread, because the Alliance is equally frustrated being the impotent victim of the Horde

See, I believe it was the devs’ intent for you to separate Garrosh’s Horde from Vol’jin’s Horde. You were supposed to feel satisfied at defeating Garrosh’s Horde and telling Vol’jin’s Horde that you would watch to be sure they didn’t become Garrosh’s Horde. You were not supposed to transfer your anger at Garrosh’s Horde to Vol’jins Horde, or to feel that Vol’jin’s Horde had gotten away with something.

Obviously, from your comments, it didn’t work. But I think that was how they intended for you to see it.

[Kelrexia-proudmoore (Kelrexia)]

Where do I sign up to join your merry band?

I’ll send you an information packet and application. We offer medical, dental and a generous retirement package…though as a Night Elf I usually negotiate some other benefit. I don’t want to be discriminatory, mind, it’s just practicality…it’s great when an elf contributes to the retirement kitty for 5,000 years, but then absolutely murder when they finally draw their benefit.

As part of signing the contract, you agree to donate your body to science (specifically, my science) upon your death, or sooner if necessary, and you understand that any form of undeath or post-life existence does not exempt you from this clause. Additionally, if you produce a ghost, banshee, or other such incorporeal apparition, I gain rights to that as well.

I would go for this. Most of the time we have mirrored Horde and Alliance organizations - Kelrexia’s Laboratory Division can be your Apothecaries.

I need a cool acronym or something. “KLD” is usable, but for preference it should spell something. Like PHANTOM or MALICE or something like that.

[Drahliana-earthen-ring (Drahliana)]

And the idea that she inflicted very heavy casualties is based on a scene where the exclamation was “She’s killing her own people”?

A Horde Warchief killing Alliance soldiers wouldn’t have been a shocker… the shocker was that she was killing soldiers on both sides with the Blight.

[Saiphas-ravencrest (Saiphas)]

Pellex, that is the intent, I agree. However, when the exact same structural forces create similar circumstances, we arrive at the problem. The Horde as an entity is the same as it was under Garrosh, both institutionally and its inability to handle extreme executive power. That the Alliance winds up in a similar, or worse position, makes Alliance players wonder “what was the point?” It is the same problem as our characters going neutral. What good is saving Azeroth if all of the Alliance is in flames due to Horde aggression?

[Unholyfear-proudmoore (Unholyfear)]

See, I believe it was the devs’ intent for you to separate Garrosh’s Horde from Vol’jin’s Horde. You were supposed to feel satisfied at defeating Garrosh’s Horde and telling Vol’jin’s Horde that you would watch to be sure they didn’t become Garrosh’s Horde. You were not supposed to transfer your anger at Garrosh’s Horde to Vol’jins Horde, or to feel that Vol’jin’s Horde had gotten away with something.

Because the Horde never changes. After losing a war, the Horde remains docile for a while under a new good Warchief. But then something happens and another Warchief takes over. And we hit the same stuff again, blaming the Alliance, acting aggressively, starting war, making WMDs, committing what in our world would be viewed as war crimes, land grabs, using forbidden types of magic to further their agenda, causing a split in the faction and having a civil war erupt.

We don’t feel satisfied because it keeps happening. And it’s an MMO so we’ll never be able to truly “defeat” the Horde. All we can do is say GG and hope this is the last time this happens until the next invasion of a planet, or the destruction of a planet, or the death of a demi god, or the nuking of a city, or the blighting of a zone, or the raising of the dead, or the unleashing of an old god, or making a deal with water satan and enslaving an angel.

[Irenaus-wyrmrest-accord (Irenaus)]

Undercity was nothing like Teldrassil.

Really? Nothing like it? We can look at the qualifiers Ethel listed.

• Stomp our way until we reach a capital before the reinforcements arrive. Yeah. Brill’s destruction and the retreating are testament.
• Murder all the civilians possible in a particularly painful way. No, but let’s not pretend death was not brought to a fair degree.
• Destroy a city. Undercity was destroyed, whether you feel satisfied by it or not.

[Etheldald-ragnaros (Etheldald)]

Stomp our way until we reach a capital before the reinforcements arrive. Yeah. Brill’s destruction and the retreating are testament.

you don’t know that.

Murder all the civilians possible in a particularly painful way. No, but let’s not pretend death was not brought to a fair degree.

no civillians were killed

Destroy a city. Undercity was destroyed, whether you feel satisfied by it or not.

Not by the alliance.

[Irenaus-wyrmrest-accord (Irenaus)]

you don’t know that.

I don’t know what, that the Alliance stomped up to Undercity? Do you think it was a feat of divine intervention that they got there? Unless you mean ‘before reinforcements arrive’, to which I’d say that part shouldn’t matter.

no civillians were killed

You’re free to believe what you want.

Not by the alliance.

Whether you feel satisfied by it, it was destroyed. This is why I wanted to establish ‘actual revenge’ because the standards will either be egregiously high or never satisfied.

[Zuleika-hyjal (Zuleika)]

murder all the civilians possible,in a particularly painful way

Does it still count as “particularly painful” if their goddess eases the pain?

[Etheldald-ragnaros (Etheldald)]

Does it still count as “particularly painful” if their goddess eases the pain?

if i remember correctly only a few of them died peacefully.

[Pellex-hyjal (Pellex)]

However, when the exact same structural forces create similar circumstances, we arrive at the problem. The Horde as an entity is the same as it was under Garrosh, both institutionally and its inability to handle extreme executive power.

You and I both know that’s not actually a problem with the structure of the Horde. It’s a problem that Blizzard’s writers like “evil warchief” as their go-to plot when they need to stir up faction tension. There is zero reason why the leader of the Alliance couldn’t be the warmongering figure–in fact, it would be more realistic (IMHO) because most of the Alliance leadership positions are hereditary, so you’re stuck with whoever happens to be born to the right family. The Horde’s system should actually be more stable because they’d be choosing leaders with a proven track record.

But the fact that it’s easier to change warchiefs than kings (because you don’t have to wait for the current warchief to have an adult heir), coupled with the fact that they have already established Anduin as a peace-seeking character, means that warchiefs are easier to mold to Blizzard’s story demands. I hasten to say that I honestly don’t mind Anduin as a character, but I do feel and resent that he’s partly responsible for the current predicament the Horde players are in.

Because the Horde never changes. After losing a war, the Horde remains docile for a while under a new good Warchief. But then something happens and another Warchief takes over. And we hit the same stuff again, blaming the Alliance, acting aggressively, starting war, making WMDs, committing what in our world would be viewed as war crimes, land grabs, using forbidden types of magic to further their agenda, causing a split in the faction and having a civil war erupt.

You talk as if the writers weren’t free to make the Horde any way they want. All those things you list that make you want to punish the Horde are only in the story because the writers put them there to make you feel that way. They could have written a stable Horde with a warchief who kept all those things in check, but they chose not to.

[Tannaril-area-52 (Tannaril)]

Many posters here will NEVER be satisfied, because they want a disproportionate amount of revenge. Currently, the “score” between Forsaken and NEs is nearly equal, at least from a meta perspective.

Genocide is not a game.

You gave me a good chuckle. Where was there a genocide? If I say “I want Bob’s house” and I drive Bob out of his house, killing a few of his kids in the process, and Bob and his wife swear revenge, did I GENOCIDE Bob?

That and they want revenge against anyone who happens to be a Horde race. (While getting a pass on every revenge worthy thing they have done.)

[Tannaril-area-52 (Tannaril)]

Stomp our way until we reach a capital before the reinforcements arrive. Yeah. Brill’s destruction and the retreating are testament.

you don’t know that.

I agree we don’t know for sure, anymore than we know the Alliance took heavier casualties. Though, IMO, it is implausible (given the portrayal of human attitudes in BtS) that humans were managing to kill civilians (you never evacuate everyone) and killing anyone who tried to surrender.

I think that is why the taking of Brill wasn’t covered in game. They couldn’t show such stuff and have the Alliance be the good guys and having the Alliance take prisoners just didn’t ring true.

Murder all the civilians possible in a particularly painful way. No, but let’s not pretend death was not brought to a fair degree.

no civillians were killed

Not by PCs. Wether any were killed at all was not shown.

Destroy a city. Undercity was destroyed, whether you feel satisfied by it or not.

Not by the alliance.

[/quote]

Not directly. They forced Syvlanas to destroy it herself in a failed attempt to lay a trap.

That is a victory in any objective view. The fact that they didn’t have Anduin do it directly, and have civilians evacuated, was to keep Anduin’s hand nice an clean and heroic.

[Etheldald-ragnaros (Etheldald)]

I agree we don’t know for sure, anymore than we know the Alliance took heavier casualties.

look at lost honor, and if you see stormwind harbor after lordaeron you will see a lot of bodies.

They couldn’t show such stuff and have the Alliance be the good guys and having the Alliance take prisoners just didn’t ring true.

what are you talking about ? murdering everyone in our path would be justified, we would still be the good guys.

Not by PCs. Wether any were killed at all was not shown.

because maybe it didn’t happen? we don’t have a single evidence of the alliance killing a single civilian in the pre-patch or maybe there is something that i missed.

That is a victory in any objective view. The fact that they didn’t have Anduin do it directly, and have civilians evacuated, was to keep Anduin’s hand nice an clean and heroic.

i would have preferred that it was the alliance objective from the start and avoid so many deaths.
when you fail your objective then you lose. we only achieved secondary objectives, the plan was to capture and end the war.

[Saiphas-ravencrest (Saiphas)]

There is zero reason why the leader of the Alliance couldn’t be the warmongering figure–in fact, it would be more realistic (IMHO) because most of the Alliance leadership positions are hereditary, so you’re stuck with whoever happens to be born to the right family

This is…more impracticle than you give credit for… The Alliance is a coalition of independent states. The horde is a unitary government. This is a significant structural difference. The High King (GOD I HATE THAT TITLE) can not demand nor force contribution of forces like the warchief can. We see this explicitly both textually in scenes like the Darkshore council meeting, and OOU via statements from CDev.

In short any of the coalition OR the High King wanting to pursue war must get the buy in from all parts of the faction. Any part of the coalition who does not believe in the war would be able to just withhold forces with zero political repercussions. That is fundamentally different than the Horde’s structure.

Edit: re:Brill, we DO know that Sylvanas set about evacuating Tirisfal and the Undercity while Teldrasil was still burning that is pretty significant evidence of the likely scenario re:brill

[Tannaril-area-52 (Tannaril)]

I agree we don’t know for sure, anymore than we know the Alliance took heavier casualties.

look at lost honor, and if you see stormwind harbor after lordaeron you will see a lot of bodies.

First of all, those are, given the time frame, not from Lordaeron. Second of all, even if they were, without a comparison to Horde casualties (which are all lying in blight and/or enemy territory) it still means nothing.

The cinematic shows the Alliance paying a heavy price (so Anduin can agonize about it), it doesn’t say the Horde isn’t playing as heavy (or even heavier) price. (Which Sylvanas wouldn’t agonize over, hence no cinematic.)

They couldn’t show such stuff and have the Alliance be the good guys and having the Alliance take prisoners just didn’t ring true.

what are you talking about ? murdering everyone in our path would be justified, we would still be the good guys.

Ah so the good guys respond to an evil by killing everyone of the same race? There is a term for that, and it isn’t “good”.

Not by PCs. Wether any were killed at all was not shown.

because maybe it didn’t happen? we don’t have a single evidence of the alliance killing a single civilian in the pre-patch or maybe there is something that i missed.

There is no evidence either way (which if course also works against those who assert there weren’t any).

But I have to say, if you have an army that over runs a people who they hate and explicitly deny any right to even exist, what do you expect? The fact that is wasn’t shown really seems like avoidance.

That is a victory in any objective view. The fact that they didn’t have Anduin do it directly, and have civilians evacuated, was to keep Anduin’s hand nice an clean and heroic.

i would have preferred that it was the alliance objective from the start and avoid so many deaths.
when you fail your objective then you lose. we only achieved secondary objectives, the plan was to capture and end the war.

The plan in both Teldrassil and in Undercity was to “end the war”. Neither succeeded.

And no, “defeat” is not “failing to get all you wanted”.