The Horde was away with the suicide army in the north, the Alliance doesn’t face the actual Horde until later. Thats why the Horde section happens after the Alliance and two Alliance faction leaders face and lose against the Horde to cover their escape.
They don’t die though so there was that at least.
The first two bosses are groups of Horde, the monks are an Orc and Blood Elf.
1 Like
The Horde army and the Zandalari army did not show up until the second half of the raid. That is the fact. The Alliance had to do a quick attack and run away because Horde > Alliance.
Not sure why you are arguing this but what I am saying is true.
There were still Horde combatants before the second part of the raid
1 Like
As I have explained, until the Alliance actually faces the Horde defeats indisputably and takes a landmark from the Horde as they have done numerous times before I am afraid it just won’t do.
The faction wars have allowed the Horde to best the Alliance over and over again on the screen before they take away a city, a town or a whole kingdom not once but thrice.
I think Alliance players have earned the right to get that sort of content at least once.
I am not sure why you are defending the writing right now or the writer’s logic like “We allowed Rastakhan to die! Surely this makes up for everything!”
It just doesn’t. I am not asking for something unprecedented here, its content that Horde players have gotten numerous times.
Not their entire army and Zandalar still stands. We can’t say the same for Teldrassil, Gilneas or Theramore. Lordaeron would have counted if they just let the Alliance destroy it rather than let the Horde destroy it instead.
1 Like
Strictly speaking from a historic and military viewpoint.
The Alliance army was in enemy territory and besieging an enemy stronghold. From the perspective of war that’s not a fair fight with those who are in enemy territory and besieging being at the distinct disadvantage.
If you’re in enemy territory then the enemy is better able to bring resources to bear, whereas the attacking force requires that their resources be brought from their own territory. The local population also generally can be mobilised in the service of the defenders.
Similarly, if besieging a city then the defenders are in a position of strength and have the force multiplier of their fortifications and strength of position. The layout of Zuldazar, while a nightmare for players to navigate daily, actually made it very defensible.
Sieges are often broken when reinforcing armies arrive, not specifically because had the armies met in the open field that the besieging army would lose - but because having enemies arriving on the scene while you’re in the midst of siege generally didn’t bode well for the attackers.
Obviously WoW isn’t real life, but from a tactical standpoint I don’t know that the Alliance breaking the siege at the threat that reinforcements pose necessarily indicates that the Alliance was just outright weaker.
4 Likes
Those are all fine Finge but besieging a strong position has never stopped the Horde from destroying the enemy anyway.
Teldrassil, Theramore and Gilneas were all bastions against invaders and were still burned and swept away by the Horde.
If Blizzard can contrive circumstances so that the Horde can shatter through any defense and destroy their intended target and leave unmolested when they wish they can extend the same courtesy to the Alliance.
I think the problem is that the Alliance is always limited by these logistical problems or always too slow when the Horde sneaks one last punch in before leaving. Even when the event is supposed to be an Alliance “victory”. I don’t think I am being unreasonable but asking both factions be treated equally.
5 Likes
The Alliance was given victories on screen, you’re ignoring that because of faction favoritism. The Horde is fought throughout the majority of Dazar’Alor, there’s barely anyone else that was fought there. There’s also Stromgarde, which was taken by the Alliance and featured as a warfront, where both militaries fought each other. If played through as Alliance, that’s the player experiencing the canon victory. The Alliance took Stromgarde.
2 Likes
I think I have been quite clear with what I meant. Considering the impressive amounts of Horde victories over the Alliance resulting in the destruction of their lands and landmarks.
If I am still unable to communicate to you what I mean then I think there is little point in continuing this discussion.
If you want to make Dazaralor equivalent to Theramore, Gilneas or Teldrassil then we would just need to agree to disagree.
1 Like
You want to destroy a bunch of Horde land, but it’s better that we not have any AvH conflict anymore
2 Likes
The Horde has destroyed many Alliance lands and landmarks. After each faction war we were promised that if we waited and saw it would be worth it with plenty fist pumps and cheers.
I am still waiting for that. What did Alliance get in the last faction war? The Horde got story focus and really great cinematics and whole new story about re-affirming their identity.
I can’t help but feel in every faction war I was left holding the bag. I want that to change and set right by another faction war or an alternative measure to justifies all this loss.
Even justice against 1 single character is denied in both cases.
1 Like
Blizzard lies, you should know better by now.
It’s not going to be. Another faction war would double down on what you don’t like and give more frustration. You should let it go otherwise you’ll never be fine with what we have.
3 Likes
Are you saying you want the Alliance to be the aggressor? There’s a difference between asking for that and asking for an alliance victory. You can ask for both.
I am going to choose to be optimistic and hope for something better. I would be satisfied with what I have if it was worth being happy over. I don’t think what I am asking is unreasonable or unfair, as long as thats true I don’t think there is anything wrong in what I am doing.
Sure I think they have enough pent up issues to warrant it.
So what do you want? A genocide to repay genocide?
I don’t think a genocide is necessary. More like Alliance bests the Horde army and destroy a recognizable landmark that looked imposing to take over.
If Blizzard let the Alliance destroy Lordaeron instead of Sylvanas I would have been very happy.
Instead we looked like idiots and Sylvanas just smirked and floated away for the hundredth time.
Maybe Tyrande should have gotten some cinematic too instead of JUST Saurfang and the Horde.
4 Likes
Like what?
Technically Bwonsamdi killed Rastakhan.
3 Likes
A portion of Orgrimmar to show Alliance means business. Kind of like how the SW park was destroyed for years.
This could work in a world revamp that the Alliance is more protective of its assets and people. So what is holding the Horde back from attacking Alliance isn’t their good humor or a piece of paper but actual strategic and military threats a short trip away.
Or
Sunwell for a Void vs Light storyline if thats where we are heading. Its going to impact the story for an entire expansion and we could get cinematics about Turalyon and Alleria and their Light vs Shadow dynamic in their relationship.
2 Likes
I don’t think those situations are exactly the same, but let me know if I get details wrong - I’m a little fuzzy on some of it.
Teldrassil:
My understanding is that the main Alliance army that was in a position to break the siege was significantly further away from said siege than the Horde army was during the siege of Zuldazar. To me this seems more a case of the Horde executing a similar plan better (which you can absolutely attribute to the writers, that’s fair). The Alliance probably should have drawn the Horde army further than the next zone over if they planned to besiege the capital of Zandalar.
Theramore
My understanding here is that the Alliance successfully pushed the Horde back, Theramore was then bombed.
Gilneas
Similar to Theramore, Gilneas was arguably turning in favour of the Alliance until Sylvanas used the blight to end the conflict and remove Gilneas as a feasible Alliance stronghold.
You could bring up the Vindicaar and would absolutely be justified in doing so. I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in that the Alliance often seems to fight with a sort of self-imposed handicap, the Vindicaar in BfA is probably one of the more egregious cases of this.
That said, if I were to offer another perspective. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to frame it as all being Horde biased.
It’s the Horde who have lost the most, when it comes to named characters and leaders, throughout the history of WoW. It’s the Horde who are most often placed in a position of antagonism. Multiple Horde leaders have seemingly gone off the rails and betrayed the Horde as a whole. I don’t recall a situation where a major Alliance leader stood outside of the gates of Stormwind and essentially told the Alliance that they meant nothing, as Sylvanas did in BfA. You talk about the Alliance looking like idiots while Sylvanas smirked and floated away; but does that not ring true for the Horde too (if not more true)? The Horde followed Sylvanas only to be told that they were nothing at the end of it all.
So while I would agree that there’s been a narrative of the Alliance “restraining” themselves, I think if you’re looking at the overall narrative it’s important to recognise the issues with how the Horde has been treated as well.
I don’t know that this is specifically a situation of the Alliance being treated worse than the Horde but more the way that Blizz have mishandled both the Horde and Alliance.
Unfortunately they seem to have long had this idea that the Alliance must always be super good with restraint, honour and compassion abound - while the Horde must always be scrappy and unscrupulous, with little issue when it comes to underhanded tactics and using questionable methods to get their way.
The issue with such linear depictions is that we arrive at the situation we currently have - where one side is almost always treated one particular way and the other side is almost always treated in another particular way. Which isn’t a particularly balanced approach and is prone to both sides feeling burnt out when it comes to said depictions.
4 Likes