Siege of Orgrimmar Raid Bosses

Indeed. Wasn't me, but that thought crossed my mind too. We're naming possible bosses here, not saying that our logic is certain, and that there can be no other combinations.

She can DEFINITELY be an Orgrimmar boss for the reasons we made. Its a possibility that has been explained, and makes sense. We wouldn't LIKE it to lose one of the most interesting characters that have been introduced Alliance-side. But it can happen.


Agreed. I probably wouldn't go the route of an "Alliance civil war" if it was completely up to me, but the basic idea is plausible enough and could be done fairly well if it came to it.

However if Sky-Admiral Rodgers is a raid boss, the Skyfire better make it out intact. It's one of the Alliance's most powerful weapons, and I could see it becoming incredibly useful going forward no matter who is commanding it. Maybe we could install a small Naaru dimensional engine in it and use it to attack the Burning Legion...
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Paladin
14910
It doesn't matter if Garrosh wins. If Garrosh wins, the oathbreakers get wiped out and take alot of Garrosh's followers with them. Then the Alliance can destroy the Horde. Really, acting like Garrosh winning would cause the Horde to simply reset like it didn't even fight a civil war.
Reply Quote
11/26/2012 08:23 AMPosted by Falrinn
Who would've thought that Horde would be so ravenously upset at being defeated in a battle that they'd declare it a sign of the inevitable transformation into a raid boss of the general who beat them?


I think there may be a clash between Sky-Admiral Rodgers and King Varian once it becomes clear that Varian intends to make common cause with the Horde rebellion against Garrosh. However there are plenty of ways for that to happen, and her becoming a raid boss in the Siege of Orgrimmar is just one of several possibilities.

It all depends on when the rift is initially formed and how serious it is. If it isn't that serious, she might simply decide that her duty to the King outweighs her hatred of the Horde and enact Varian's orders under protest.

If it's extremely serious, the Alliance could end up fighting it's own civil war between radicals lead by Rodgers who want to continue the war against the Horde at all costs, and moderates lead by Varian who believe that working with the Horde rebellion is in everyone's best interests at least for the foreseeable future. Obviously this would be much smaller scale then the Horde civil war, and while it could spill into the Siege of Orgrimmar raid the radicals will never have a serious chance at taking over the main Alliance military.


I'm convinced that the Sha in the siege is the Sha of Recklessness. Having it start to twist people in such a catalyst of a fight would have a lot of potential, before finally taking it out.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Warrior
4790
The only Horde leader that would possibly help Garrosh would be Galleywix only if he is payed enough, all of the other Horde leaders hate Garrosh
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
6120
If it's extremely serious, the Alliance could end up fighting it's own civil war between radicals lead by Rodgers who want to continue the war against the Horde at all costs, and moderates lead by Varian who believe that working with the Horde rebellion is in everyone's best interests at least for the foreseeable future. Obviously this would be much smaller scale then the Horde civil war, and while it could spill into the Siege of Orgrimmar raid the radicals will never have a serious chance at taking over the main Alliance military.


I would quit. I would quit if it ever got to the point where not considering the Horde to be a bunch of poor abused victims made you a "radical" in the Alliance. I barely log on anymore as it is, and this would be the final straw.

I'm frigging sick of Blizzard taking every step possible to ensure that the Alliance is forced to be as passive and stupid as possible, and your proposal, where thinking that sacrificing Alliance lives for no good reason other than to help the Horde, the same group that's been slaughtering Alliance en masse for years now, is a bad move gets you killed.

Why can people not comprehend the idea that the Alliance can wage total war on the Horde in its entirety and not suddenly be villains? Why does the Horde get this extra plot protection?

Fun fact, the person who brought it up was an Alliance player.

It's like you're complaining for the sake of hearing yourself whine.


Because as we all know, the character you post as is what dictates your faction affiliations. I'm living proof of that!
Edited by Vyrin on 11/27/2012 8:19 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
11/27/2012 08:15 AMPosted by Vyrin
Because as we all know, the character you post as is what dictates your faction affiliations. I'm living proof of that!

I take it you didn't take the time to read up on the poster's history before inserting your foot even further in your mouth?

It doesn't matter if Garrosh wins. If Garrosh wins, the oathbreakers get wiped out and take alot of Garrosh's followers with them. Then the Alliance can destroy the Horde. Really, acting like Garrosh winning would cause the Horde to simply reset like it didn't even fight a civil war.

Unless, as it's been proposed umpteen thousand times, the non-traditionally Horde forces Garrosh has built up under his thumb present so great a threat that even after having duked it out with and ultimately beaten the rebels, the Alliance isn't in a solid position to deal with him.

In which case, the Alliance sitting back and laughing as the rebels actually address a major world threat would result in the Alliance subsequently getting its !@# handed to it by Garrosh's forces as they've no one to turn to for help.

It could very much be that the Alliance forces and Horde rebels need to coordinate their attacks (not necessarily work together, but at the very least concurrently, to force Garrosh to fight on two sides) in order to even stand a chance.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Paladin
14910
Unless, as it's been proposed umpteen thousand times, the non-traditionally Horde forces Garrosh has built up under his thumb present so great a threat that even after having duked it out with and ultimately beaten the rebels, the Alliance isn't in a solid position to deal with him.

In which case, the Alliance sitting back and laughing as the rebels actually address a major world threat would result in the Alliance subsequently getting its !@# handed to it by Garrosh's forces as they've no one to turn to for help.

It could very much be that the Alliance forces and Horde rebels need to coordinate their attacks (not necessarily work together, but at the very least concurrently, to force Garrosh to fight on two sides) in order to even stand a chance.


In that vein, everyone may as well surrender to Garrosh right now because the Burning Legion might attack next week.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
6120
11/27/2012 08:35 AMPosted by Kellick
I take it you didn't take the time to read up on the poster's history before inserting your foot even further in your mouth?


I judge people by what they're saying, not what they've said. I don't care if they made a post yesterday about how much they hate the Horde, saying that Rogers should die for not liking the Horde is a product of Horde bias.
Reply Quote
11/27/2012 08:15 AMPosted by Vyrin
I would quit. I would quit if it ever got to the point where not considering the Horde to be a bunch of poor abused victims made you a "radical" in the Alliance. I barely log on anymore as it is, and this would be the final straw.


When did I say the Horde is a bunch of "poor abused victims"?

It's all a matter of practicality. While the Alliance may be able to morally justify even a total war against the Horde, it might not be practical to actually do so for the time needed to defeat the Horde completely. Because the truth is the Horde/Alliance conflict doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Fighting the Horde costs lives, and as long as there are cosmic forces trying to destroy Azeroth, there are only so many lives the Alliance can afford to spare in that endevor. If peace can be attained with the Horde, even if everyone involved knows it probably won't last forever, only a madman would not take advantage of the opportunity. Yes, a new conflict with the Horde may be inevitable or even necessary in the long term, but it's best to ensure there is still a planet upon which to fight said war.

A "radical" by my definitions would be someone who simply doesn't care if the world ends as long as they get to kill a few more greenskins before it does.

Mind you I would extend this logic to any group that has nothing to gain in the end of the world, and is rational enough to realize that fighting a war on more fronts then absolutely necessary is a really bad idea, the Horde is simply the most significant one from an Alliance perspective. The Venture Co., various pirate organizations, the Defias, maybe some Troll tribes, etc. would all be included in this.
Edited by Falrinn on 11/27/2012 8:58 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
11/27/2012 08:45 AMPosted by Vyrin
I judge people by what they're saying, not what they've said. I don't care if they made a post yesterday about how much they hate the Horde, saying that Rogers should die for not liking the Horde is a product of Horde bias.

It's more of a product of Alliance whining.

11/27/2012 08:45 AMPosted by Cbredbeard
In that vein, everyone may as well surrender to Garrosh right now because the Burning Legion might attack next week.

Unless Garrosh is liable to keep fighting everyone else in spite of a Legion invasion.

Which, let's face it, he's more than stupid enough to do.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
6120
It's all a matter of practicality. While the Alliance may be able to morally justify even a total war against the Horde, it might not be practical to actually do so for the time needed to defeat the Horde completely. Because the truth is the Horde/Alliance conflict doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Fighting the Horde costs lives, and as long as there are cosmic forces trying to destroy Azeroth, there are only so many lives the Alliance can afford to spare in that endevor. If peace can be attained with the Horde, even if everyone involved knows it probably won't last forever, only a madman would not take advantage of the opportunity. Yes, a new conflict with the Horde may be inevitable or even necessary in the long term, but it's best to ensure there is still a planet upon which to fight said war.


A) Why would the Alliance suddenly be out of resources to wage war NOW and not after any of the several total wars they waged against other factions over the past decade?

B) Why should the Alliance consider any PvE faction to be a greater threat than the Horde at this point? As has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't matter if you're killed by demonfire or by an Orcish axe; you're still dead either way.

C) The Burning Legion is never going to stop being a threat. Neither are the Old Gods or any cosmic force. Never. But by your logic, because there exists a possibility of invasion at any time, the Alliance should literally NEVER fight the Horde.

It's not like this threat of the Burning Legion invading didn't exist back in Cataclysm, so why weren't people citing it as a reason that the Alliance needs to scrap together a peace with the Horde ASAP?

D) I don't get the vibe of "they'll watch the world burn as long as they get to kill a few Orcs while it does" from ANY of the characters people keep citing as potential raid bosses. Rogers is calm and collected while in command and while she obviously doesn't like the Horde, she has never let that override her better judgment. Vereesa doesn't like the Blood Elves but she was willing to at the very least tolerate their presence in Dalaran and even fought alongside them in the Zandalari patch.

People who are proposing that either of these characters become raid bosses are only doing so out of butthurt over the fact that both characters have a record of decisively beating the Horde at their own game or the misinformed belief that the Horde has some sort of right to kill Alliance in the Orgrimmar raid out of a misplaced sense of pride.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8985
In which case, the Alliance sitting back and laughing as the rebels actually address a major world threat would result in the Alliance subsequently getting its !@# handed to it by Garrosh's forces as they've no one to turn to for help.

It could very much be that the Alliance forces and Horde rebels need to coordinate their attacks (not necessarily work together, but at the very least concurrently, to force Garrosh to fight on two sides) in order to even stand a chance.


Which you think would be second-nature for us as players now considering that's the basic storyline every expansion that has a "Big Bad". How some players still seem surprised by this is beyond me.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Paladin
14910
Another thing, the only reason why there's going to be any Horde rebels against Garrosh is because they don't like him and as a result he doesn't like them. Everything the Horde has done to the Alliance doesn't factor into the oathbreakers actions at all, so why should the Alliance treat the Oathbreakers any differently from the rest of the Horde? Because Garrosh has the support of villians we've beaten the crap out of in previous expansions?
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13505
Because they had to silently *Obey* Garrosh's orders until the time was right.
Reply Quote
You know what Vyrin, I think we've reached a point where all we can do is agree to disagree.

I could do a round of rebuttals, but honestly I don't think it would accomplish much. I've said what I'm going to say more then once by now, and if you haven't changed your mind it's unlikely you ever will. Likewise it's very unlikely you'll ever be able to say something to change my mind.

We see the lore from radically different perspectives. I can't speak for you, but I feel that the Horde/Alliance conflict is highly detrimental to the overall story, so I tend to favor any option that deescalates the conflict.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
6120
11/27/2012 10:03 AMPosted by Valius
Because they had to silently *Obey* Garrosh's orders until the time was right.


Except they have no problem with fighting the Alliance. The things they're rebelling against Garrosh for is because he's mistreating THEM. Not because of anything he's done to the Alliance. Treating them as victims who are equal to the Alliance because they had to obey his orders is nonsense. Especially since they could've rebelled at any time.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8985
We see the lore from radically different perspectives. I can't speak for you, but I feel that the Horde/Alliance conflict is highly detrimental to the overall story, so I tend to favor any option that deescalates the conflict.


I think it presents another layer that makes an already tangled story become ever more entangled and opens Blizzard up to writing things into corners and having to retcon things.

I thought I would enjoy the Alliance-Horde conflict escalating, but as it happens I'm finding I don't enjoy the storyline as much as I thought I would.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
6120
The storyline would be more enjoyable if Blizzard wasn't such a slave to the status quo and abandoned the whole "Humans vs. Orcs" thing and shifted it to Night Elves vs. Orcs and Humans vs. Undead.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13505
11/27/2012 10:20 AMPosted by Bullcowsby
We see the lore from radically different perspectives. I can't speak for you, but I feel that the Horde/Alliance conflict is highly detrimental to the overall story, so I tend to favor any option that deescalates the conflict.


I think it presents another layer that makes an already tangled story become ever more entangled and opens Blizzard up to writing things into corners and having to retcon things.

I thought I would enjoy the Alliance-Horde conflict escalating, but as it happens I'm finding I don't enjoy the storyline as much as I thought I would.


I enjoy it, I just consider it just another part of the puzzle.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]