Wait, Nazgrim?...

[Deleted]

have you all never thought that Nazgrim has his own brain, he does know when to quit, but he has a lot of hate for the alliance, MoP will see alot of strife between two sides, but nazgrim has witnessed what the sha can do first hand, both as a control of emotion or a physical manifestation. I think with what garrosh plans to do with the sha (control it) nazgrim will see the faults in garrosh, and i personally think he will be the sword that takes garrosh's head from its shoulders.

[Crashdummy]

Because as a community manager he is not allowed to lie out of his ass. It's bad for the company to say "Oh that information was incorrect" only for it to come out he was lying.

As for your points, we already know Thrall is returning to the Horde. That was never disputed. Metzen saying "...Is that thunder I hear?" was not answering the question "Is Thrall becoming Warchief again?" it was answering "When it Thrall coming back to the Horde?" Thrall can be a part of the Horde without being the Warchief.

Now we have this amazing thing called "time", it means things can change as more "time" passes. Allan may have let slip that they planned to bring back Thrall as Warchief. Later on him and Metzen changed their mind and decided to bring him back in another capacity, thus informed Zarhym to tell people the blurt was not accurate. A New Warchief AND Thrall in the Horde? INCONCIEVABLE!

Can it still change further? Yes. Everything can, thus WHY WE SPECULATE.

Yes, Thrall coming back to the horde, involved in the politics of the horde and not being Warchief is inconcievable, because it would be plain stupid.

And metzen didnt need to say it was going to return as Warchief a second time, he had already say it once. Community Managers have lied a lot before, but Zarhym would be lying, you may not be familiarized with the meaning of the word "might", but saying that the information given MIGHT not be entirely accurate is not lying is the info given ends up being entirely accurate.

But ok, keep denying yourself about what two important people from Blizzard have directly told you just because a blue without influence whatsoever made an ambiguous post.

[Grocalis]

But ok, keep denying yourself about what two important people from Blizzard have directly told you just because a blue without influence whatsoever made an ambiguous post.

And you keep bitterly holding to their words without taking into account time and context. In the end, we will see what happens by the end of this expansion. It's obvious you can't accept Thrall outside of a single role, I am perfectly happy to get my "Warchief" back without the title hanging over his dead.

[Miralynn]

Are you people not aware that J. Allen Brack (lead producer of MoP), when asked about the new orgrimmar raid stated (quoting):
"We haven't designed very much of it right now, we just know we do want to have the recognition from the Horde and Alliance that we have to depose Garrosh as the leader of the Horde and reinstate Thrall as Warchief."

this info is pretty old, so maybe it isn't true anymore, but if it is all the "who will be the next warchief?" threads i have seen lately are pretty pointless.

You might have missed it - there was at one point a blue post stating that 'we originally said Thrall was returning to the Horde, but that might not be the case'. Blizz has very much left themselves room to put someone else in power -- and given Thrall's response to Jaina in the novel, that his work with the Earthen Ring healing the damage done by Deathwing was more important than dealing with Garrosh and taking his throne back _even in the wake of the bombing of Theramore_, it seems increasingly likely that Blizz is going to take option B.

[SherbertLand]

I wouldn't really enjoy Nazgrim as Warchief. He isn't really a hero of the horde like Thrall or even the son of a hero like Garrosh.

[Dreknar20]

Also the fact Nazgrim doesn't seem to get anything right, and needs the player to bail him out of trouble every single time doesn't make him in any way a suitable leader.
.

Have you ever even played WoW?
Do you even know how questing works?
You seem unable to make the distinction between things done for gameplay and things done for lore.

If Nazgrim fails, so does Nazgrel and Thrall, go ahead and admitt that then

---------- Post added 2012-10-16 at 04:25 PM ----------

I wouldn't really enjoy Nazgrim as Warchief. He isn't really a hero of the horde like Thrall or even the son of a hero like Garrosh.

Same.
To me he is only a minor character.

[Grocalis]

The issue with Nazgrim is that he is a true soldier. He does as he is ordered and does not question it. This is a bad trait to have in a future leader, because it means he has a harder time challenging questionable actions and can't come to his own conclusions.

[Justignoreme]

Exactly, he's been building up in character all through Pandaria! I need to admit, meeting him in Kun summit, with Taylor at the other side of the room bickering was one of my most favourable parts of this expansion, he hates the alliance like any good warchief should, he can lead men into battle, he's an experienced killing machine, yet he's able to stand-by Anduin and treat him as an equal for the time being. He's a good guy.

He doesn't hate the Alliance. The Alliance is his opponent but there's very little to lead me to believe he *hates* the Alliance. HATE is not what any Warchief should have. He's the only Orc in Mists so far that I like. In Kun-lai the Horde and Alliance quests are mirrored; the exact same ones just done on opposite sides. Nazgrim wants to help the Pandaren with their Yaungol and Mogu problems in Kun-lai, lending aid rather than storming around making threats like Garrosh. We'll see what happens in 5.1, but if Nazgrim unquestioningly followed Garrosh you'd think he'd be ordering raids on Westwind immediately. Arguably, he tows the Garrosh propaganda in Orgrimmar cause he knows dissent could get him killed.

Lore-themar has a point. The horde only exists because the alliance is racist.

The Horde is equally bigoted though, in many cases far worse since they murder and pillage with their bigotry as justification.

[Galbrei]

If Vol'jin doesn't becoem warchief, Nazgrim would be my 2nd choice.

[Dreknar20]

In Kun-lai the Horde and Alliance quests are mirrored; the exact same ones just done on opposite sides. Nazgrim wants to help the Pandaren with their Yaungol and Mogu problems in Kun-lai, lending aid rather than storming around making threats like Garrosh. .

Those actions were not as kind-hearted as you think.
Both sides were just trying to gain a base of operations and gather a new army in prep for round 2.

[Deleted]

Nazgrim as Warchief? No

Nazgrim as Boss in Siege of Orgrimmar? Pretty possible

[Crashdummy]

And you keep bitterly holding to their words without taking into account time and context. In the end, we will see what happens by the end of this expansion. It's obvious you can't accept Thrall outside of a single role, I am perfectly happy to get my "Warchief" back without the title hanging over his dead.

I take into account time and context. We have two confirmation, in two different times and context, while we have no confirmation against it, just an ambiguous posts of soemone that doesnt hold any part in the development of a game and in which he doesnt say anything for sure.

---------- Post added 2012-10-16 at 01:42 PM ----------

You might have missed it - there was at one point a blue post stating that 'we originally said Thrall was returning to the Horde, but that might not be the case'. Blizz has very much left themselves room to put someone else in power -- and given Thrall's response to Jaina in the novel, that his work with the Earthen Ring healing the damage done by Deathwing was more important than dealing with Garrosh and taking his throne back _even in the wake of the bombing of Theramore_, it seems increasingly likely that Blizz is going to take option B.

The blue didnt say that.

The blue post said that the information provided MIGHT (keyword MIGHT) not be entirely accurate. Which could mean anything at all really or could mean nothing, its very ambiguous and probably just an attempt to hold some suspense for soemthing already confirmed.

[ChaosWolf]

Exactly, he's been building up in character all through Pandaria! I need to admit, meeting him in Kun summit, with Taylor at the other side of the room bickering was one of my most favourable parts of this expansion, he hates the alliance like any good warchief should, he can lead men into battle, he's an experienced killing machine, yet he's able to stand-by Anduin and treat him as an equal for the time being. He's a good guy.

Nazgrim for Warchief!

[nir115]

I dont think Nazgrim would be warchief. Its either Thrall will take back his throne, or it's gonna be Vol'jin. I mean, who doesnt remember Vol'Jin's speach when he said :"Ya will spend ya reign glancin' over ya shoulda and fearin' tha shadows, for when tha time comes and ya blood be slowly drainin' out, ya will know exactly who fired da arrow dat pierced ya heart." The lore-wise assassin of Garrosh is going to be Vol'Jin for sure. Altough it is tradition that an orc stands as warchief, since they are basicly the most infuential race in the horde.

[Dreknar20]

The blue post said that the information provided MIGHT (keyword MIGHT) not be entirely accurate. Which could mean anything at all really or could mean nothing, its very ambiguous and probably just an attempt to hold some suspense for soemthing already confirmed.

For all we know the inaccurate information could be the name of the patch......

[Crashdummy]

For all we know the inaccurate information could be the name of the patch......

The inacurate information can be anything, or nothing, he is not saying without discussion that some information given is false. He is saying that part of it MIGHT not be ENTIRELY accurate. I cant think of a way to say that in a more ambiguous form, and therefore cant be taken as ture or false, because it can mean anything,

Thta's kidna my point, two VIP from Blizzard say the same thing wityhout being ambiguous, one blue without any influence in the development of the game is extremely ambiguous about the subject. yet some people take the blue word as more reliable than the other two.

[SherbertLand]

The issue with Nazgrim is that he is a true soldier. He does as he is ordered and does not question it. This is a bad trait to have in a future leader, because it means he has a harder time challenging questionable actions and can't come to his own conclusions.

You know what's also a bad trait in a future leader? Being dead. Just because Nazgrim doesn't get his head cut off by questioning his war chief at every chance doesn't mean he has problems asking questions. Questioning Garrosh is suicide.

[Florena]

Nazgrim COULD become Warchief, but he would have to get some serious development time. And with him and Kunlai seemingly untouched by 5.1 I don't see it as likely.

As for being a garrosh supporter, he could yet turn against Garrosh in the future. He seemed a bit bewildered by Garrosh in the cut scene pre Pandaria. As Garrosh gets worse and worse, he could decide there's no honor in following him. But I think he's an unlikely candidate right now.

[Deleted]

I like the thought of Nazgrim as Warchief.

The fact that Nazgrim has actively been 'with us' throughout several expansions, developing, gaining reputation and promotion, satisfies me.

Excellent soldier and apparently also an excellent leader.

[Grocalis]

You know what's also a bad trait in a future leader? Being dead. Just because Nazgrim doesn't get his head cut off by questioning his war chief at every chance doesn't mean he has problems asking questions. Questioning Garrosh is suicide.

One does not have to question openly to question at all. He does not show any type of disdain for the actions of Garrosh, so either he is really good at hiding it, or all he cares about is doing as he is told.