Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
LastLast
  1. #181
    Stood in the Fire Actarius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Newport Beach, CA
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Don't get me started on how last time Archimonde was like a force of nature that none of us - not even our arrayed heroes or armies - could stand up to...and then in WoD we walk in with <group of dudes> and stomp him.
    Almost feels like DBZ with the power creep. First time Goku faces Frieza? A world is destroyed and he barely survives after unlocking the most powerful form of Saiyan. Next time? Lol Gohan punches him through the chest, killing him, without even powering into SS1. Or Trunks going SS1, obliterating Frieza and then slaughtering King Cold.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    I won't fault your feelings on the matter, but I think Varian and Vol'jin made the mistake based on faulty intelligence (in this case due to the leader of SI:7, Matthias Shaw, currently being impersonated by the Dreadlord Detheroc). They likely thought the Broken Shore was a minor Legion beachhead, a prelude to the primary invasion that if they could shut down would also scuttle the Legion's overall plans. But it wasn't a simple beachhead, they instead went head-long into an established foothold against a foe who knew their plans, knew their stratagems, and was fully prepared to crush them under foot. Perhaps the arrogance was in staying after killing Azgalor and seeing exactly how entrenched the Legion truly was before rushing in - that's certainly a way to see it. But I think the main thrust is that they were purposefully misled and betrayed from within.
    I could see that. But you do need to keep in mind the Broken Shore isn't a few hours away. Sure, in game we're close, but in an actual time line, it's around 7-10 days between the legion first landing and us stepping foot on the shoreline. Getting to Northrend isn't a quick jaunt, going from SW to Borean Tundra is like a month or something.

    With that understanding, a minor beachhead could transform into a major entrenched encampment, especially since the Legion use the Nether to get to Azeroth, instead of having to physically travel.

    Scrub Resto Druid Trying to Make a Difference

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Friendlyimmolation View Post
    Its almost like Not every member is an Orc or something.
    oh right, whats that the forsaken say? "suffer well?" I guess various elements of the horde didnt live up to their own "lok'tar ogar". Although Vol'jin did live up to "Spirits be with ya mon" I guess...well live is a bit of a misnomer...I know, too soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    And the objective fact that victory wasn't one of the available outcomes on the Broken Shore? "Death or Death" isn't the idea.
    so its "lok'tar if we dont have to Ogar?" or maybe "you can Lok'tar if you want to, you can leave your friends behind" I never really took Orcs or the Horde for "in-between-the-line" types (well....Blood elves maybe)

  3. #183
    There is a prevalent strawman argument in play here that "Lok'tar Ogar" is a credo that means "zergrush the first obstacle you encounter no matter how insurmountable, until you die, period".

    And my point that the Fel Reaver was coming no matter what wasn't meant to suggest anyone was blaming Sylvanas for it arriving -- it's to point out that no matter what Sylvanas had done to try to help the Alliance escape, or to fight alongside them, Gul'dan was going to play that trump card the second his prey tried to wriggle out of his trap.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    There is a prevalent strawman argument in play here that "Lok'tar Ogar" is a credo that means "zergrush the first obstacle you encounter no matter how insurmountable, until you die, period".
    Cool, illuminate what Lok'tar Ogar means

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimDesign View Post
    Cool, illuminate what Lok'tar Ogar means
    It doesn't mean that, because certainly it's never been acted on in that way by... any Orc NPCs ever, basically. Just in WoD, take Talador's cinematic; Durotan didn't swim back over to burn himself in the wreckage of the Iron Horde ship because "victory or death" required him to, nor did Blackhand for that matter. Drek'thar, Ganar, and Thrall all were willing to make for the ships at the end of the Tanaan invasion. It didn't mean that in any of the Cata/MOP tie-in novels about Garrosh.

    I don't need to have an degree in fake-video game race anthropology to understand definitively that "lok'tar ogar" has never meant "the second you face an enemy, you have to die to him immediately if you don't know how to defeat him immediately". And everybody trying to insist that's what the standard is, is just being willfully obtuse and ignorant of lore.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Shampro View Post
    Lol this topic is borderline cringeworthy. You all take this so seriously, Blizzard has you by the balls.
    This ... I've seen RL friends get into real fights over this (not real life friends of mine, but I mean people I follow on twitter who are friends with each other).
    They're fake characters who exist in a fake world. It's all just shallow "story" that exists purely as backdrop for gameplay. It's not worth fighting over or picking a "side".

    It's cool that the story exists, but just enjoy it for what it is and move on.

  7. #187
    Bloodsail Admiral Mustardisbad's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Grizzly Hills
    Posts
    1,224
    Im pretty sure most people actually know the horde were overran by way more demons. People just continue to say "Horde are cowards!" to troll people, like I do with my horde friend.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    It doesn't mean that, because certainly it's never been acted on in that way by... any Orc NPCs ever, basically. Just in WoD, take Talador's cinematic; Durotan didn't swim back over to burn himself in the wreckage of the Iron Horde ship because "victory or death" required him to, nor did Blackhand for that matter. Drek'thar, Ganar, and Thrall all were willing to make for the ships at the end of the Tanaan invasion. It didn't mean that in any of the Cata/MOP tie-in novels about Garrosh.

    I don't need to have an degree in fake-video game race anthropology to understand definitively that "lok'tar ogar" has never meant "the second you face an enemy, you have to die to him immediately if you don't know how to defeat him immediately". And everybody trying to insist that's what the standard is, is just being willfully obtuse and ignorant of lore.

    That's saying "not one step back" and inferring "not one step back, unless that's like a hastle or something, then proceed to step back"which is against both the spirit of the statement and "as written".

    So again I ask...what does Lok'tar ogar (victory or death) mean?

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    It's kinda like Samurai. (Or any number of real-world warrior codes, really. A lot of them are similar.)

    You don't shirk from a good battle, you don't fear death, and indeed death in honorable battle is a great honor. That doesn't mean that you just mindlessly rush into a completely unwinnable battle for no reason, though. You still try to win the war, even if you have to withdraw from one battle.
    I ask what does "victory or death" mean because people seem to be take it to mean everything but "victory or death". If you read/hear it as written or are approaching it in "spirit" then the meaning becomes pretty clear. Victory or death, there is no asterisk attached to that statement.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimDesign View Post
    I ask what does "victory or death" mean because people seem to be take it to mean everything but "victory or death". If you read/hear it as written or are approaching it in "spirit" then the meaning becomes pretty clear. Victory or death, there is no asterisk attached to that statement.
    You are approaching this as though "victory or death" means that if an Orc drops his phone on the train tracks, he must jump down and get it immediately and let himself get hit by the train if he can't get his hands on it before the train arrives. That is why I called it "willfully obtuse".

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    You are approaching this as though "victory or death" means that if an Orc drops his phone on the train tracks, he must jump down and get it immediately and let himself get hit by the train if he can't get his hands on it before the train arrives. That is why I called it "willfully obtuse".
    I can safely say that when a local from any warrior culture, be it Orc, Klingon or House Stark, states anything along the lines of "victory or death" they are referring to combat or a combat operation, thinking otherwise would be..."willfully obtuse". As hilarious as it would be to imagine an Orc screaming Lok'tar Ogar!! from a toilet seat, I can imagine they would use "blood and thunder" during such times and in other more mundane out of combat pastimes.

  12. #192
    Merely a Setback Trassk's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Having a beer with dad'hardt
    Posts
    26,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustardisbad View Post
    Im pretty sure most people actually know the horde were overran by way more demons. People just continue to say "Horde are cowards!" to troll people, like I do with my horde friend.
    some people are so deep in their faction bias though its sometimes hard to tell if its trolling or if they really are that clueless.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Like I said, you try to win the war, even if that means you withdraw from any one particular battle.

    "Victory or Death" doesn't mean that you have to turn into a frothing berserker every battle and never consider any of the overarching strategy or anything else. That wouldn't make you a warrior, it would just make you stupid.
    I agree, definitely no berzerking or frothing going on here. Considering how we are talking about Orcs in Warcraft, it simply says "we win or we die" similar to the Spartan "come back with your shield, or on it" (implying that you not throw your shield away while retreating)

    Berzerk? nope, that was never part of "victory or death"

    Keep in mind, I am not arguing that the Horde wasnt being overrun, I am not arguing that the Horde shouldnt have retreated. I am simply stating that they were all "lok'tar Ogar" until it was time to do "lok'tar Ogar".

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Sure, and Spartan forces surrendered/retreated from some battles, too.

    Just because you have a general philosophic statement in your warrior code doesn't mean that you abandon all sense and reason in every individual battle.
    And in those instances of retreat/surrender it was heavily frowned upon. That doesn't disprove my point.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Sure it does. It just goes to show that even in the real world, general "warrior code" stuff doesn't mean that you mindlessly follow it to the letter in every single instance. Because that would just make you - and your commanders - shitty warriors and leaders.
    To use the samurai example that you used earlier, They committed ritual suicide when they dis-honored themselves, the only time retreat was considered an honorable action was in the protection of the Samurai's damyo. Fighting overwhelming odds and getting killed in the process was a culturally acceptable way of war even if it was a forlorn hope (they thought getting killed was preferable to retreating). The strategies of that era revolved around this. Western Cultures disliked this sort of warfare and would rather not engage in a hopeless battle.

    Now...if we are talking about shitty commanders and leadership....The Horde and Alliance have that in Spades (hey lets go put our king into combat, what could go wrong?) now to us, this is pretty asinine, in game this is the norm.

    I am not arguing that they shouldn't have retreated, but to a culture where honor is a notable and defining aspect, retreat would be less preferable than death. In the case of the Spartans, they would only regain their honor back by getting killed in battle (they surrendered only once and were shunned from society, being referred to as tremblers)

    If you want to use "real world, general warrior code stuff" then maybe the horde should go kill themselves to restore their honor? or are we going to operate under the assumption that Horde are not honorable and that all talk of honor within the horde is merely BS?

    I am operating under the assumption that they "want to lok'tar ogar until its time to "lok'tar ogar"
    which was my original statement.

  16. #196
    Immortal Schattenlied's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    7,475
    Quote Originally Posted by mumufu View Post
    With Sylvanas, Baine, Voljin and Thrall dead, the horde would be RIP.
    No, Saurfang would just finally be Warchief, and lead the horde to awesomeness.
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.

  17. #197
    The Unstoppable Force Friendlyimmolation's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Dreadfort, or Korriban. You never know.
    Posts
    20,441
    I am operating under the assumption that they "want to lok'tar ogar until its time to "lok'tar ogar"
    which was my original statement.
    So basically you can't accept that they don't believe in Victory or death when victory isnt an option.
    Quote Originally Posted by WoWKnight65 View Post
    That's same excuse from you and so many others on this website and your right some of threads do bully high elf fans to a point where they might end up losing their minds to a point of a mass shooting.
    Holy shit lol

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimDesign View Post
    I can safely say that when a local from any warrior culture, be it Orc, Klingon or House Stark, states anything along the lines of "victory or death" they are referring to combat or a combat operation, thinking otherwise would be..."willfully obtuse". As hilarious as it would be to imagine an Orc screaming Lok'tar Ogar!! from a toilet seat, I can imagine they would use "blood and thunder" during such times and in other more mundane out of combat pastimes.
    The analogy still holds. Find me a warrior culture whose notion of "victory or death" means... mindlessly beating one's self to death against the first sign of resistance, because to withdraw and come up with a plan for ultimate victory would be cowardice.

    You won't be able to, because if there ever was such an ethos, it died out the first time it went into battle with a foe of equal quality.

    So, right back where we started -- "Lok'tar Ogar" strawman argument, that it means "never show any discretion, wisdom, or ability to learn -- the first time you run up against a problem in battle, you are obligated to DIE right then and there because trying to get a better shot at the problem is defeat and cowardice. Nonsense, inane nonsense.

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Schattenlied View Post
    No, Saurfang would just finally be Warchief, and lead the horde to awesomeness.
    Nope, you can't be warchief without voodoo endorsements.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Actarius View Post
    The Horde has shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted, because they routinely let pride, honor, and arrogance supersede sound judgement, resulting in common failure and the collapse of forces.
    Would you care to provide an example of this that isn't a total asspull, seeing as you seem to think that this is a routine occurrance in the horde, that the alliance is somehow equally free from? Cause I guarantee you, pretty much every single example I imagine you are going to cite, could easily be counter pointed by a shining example of equal arrogance / stupidity / machismo from the Alliance that somehow get glossed over every time we bring them up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    And if you had any understanding of what warcraft world was like between TFT and Wrath you'd understand the valid reason WHY the plague was created. The hwole point of the plague was to stop the dead becoming your enemy. What was the point of killing alliance troops (or scarlets) that came into your lands, or areas near scourge control if within 5s of them being killed Arthas just upped and raised them into his own near infinite army?
    Not only that, but I am pretty sure from what I remember of the vanilla plague related quest lines that the overall goal she had tasked the Royal Apothecary Society with was to create a strain of the plague that actually only targeted scourge undead, whereby she could effectively turn Arthas' own weapon against him by turning it into something that would destroy his forces and permanently render them un-recoverable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •