New Warchief in Siege of Orgrimmar Ending Cinematic

[Deadhank]

Made me ROFL. I see it happening right now, after that Vol'jin/Saurfang/Baine/Gamon/basic campfire will be sitting on Garrosh throne, begging Thrall to put the heart on his head while getting covered by slugs, and tells him to tell the world that the warchief is dead and that [insert name here] died with him. Not much later Garrosh shoulder pads will be set up for display in pandaria at the lorewalkers hangout to be clicked on for a short flashback.

I wish the "flashback thing" (like Dalaran fountain and Deathwing's chin) would be a Gorehowl in Grommash Hold for Horde and Mannoroth's teeth (his shoulderpads) for Alliance...

[Archangel Tyrael]

In a not so distant future, in WoW's next expansion, in a new 5-man Heroic Dungeon...

''Don't look so smug! I know what you're thinking, but Siege of Orgrimmar was merely a set back. Did you honestly believe I would trust the future to some slimy, dead Old God's heart? Hahahaha... Oh no, no, no, it was merely an instrument, a stepping stone to a much larger plan! It has all led to this...and this time, you will not interfere!''

[Florena]

I wish the "flashback thing" (like Dalaran fountain and Deathwing's chin) would be a Gorehowl in Grommash Hold for Horde and Mannoroth's teeth (his shoulderpads) for Alliance...

IMO put it in the Vale.

[Deadhank]

IMO put it in the Vale.

It's nice idea as well, specially since he destroyed the place...

But where'll Gorehowl be? I don't want it to be another Doomhammer plate, erased from existance! Imo the Doomhammer Plate should be worn by every warchief in his honor. I don't want that for Gorehowl tho, I just want it to be exposed somewhere. :]

[Felarion]

It's nice idea as well, specially since he destroyed the place...

But where'll Gorehowl be? I don't want it to be another Doomhammer plate, erased from existance! Imo the Doomhammer Plate should be worn by every warchief in his honor. I don't want that for Gorehowl tho, I just want it to be exposed somewhere. :]

That's right. I still can't believe in garrosh encounter Thrall is in his shaman cloths instead of Doomhammer Armor, but maybe then it would be too obvious who will become warchief .

[Falrinn]

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't expect the Alliance to be free to do whatever they please, or even wish to. But they would definitely want to maintain a presence in Orgrimmar. There is simply no way they would participate in dethroning Garrosh, then simply hand the keys to Vol'jin, when the Horde has been belligerent to the point of total war not once, not twice, but thrice.



Destroying the Underhold would have all the impact of destroying Hitler's bunker. It does absolutely nothing to promote the Alliance's future security. The only way to do that is to maintain a presence in the city.



The Italians deposed Mussolini and flipped sides on their own, before the war ended. Ergo, it's not a relevant analogy. Heck, the Russians occupied Paris for a while after the Napoleonic Wars.

There is just no realistic way the Alliance simply hands the next warchief the keys and leaves, short of the intervention of something like the Burning Legion invading. Not after two previous Horde instigated wars, the Wrathgate, and Garrosh's war.

You know what also wouldn't promote the Alliance's security? Vindicating Garrosh's views towards the Alliance, which is what occupying the city over the objections of the rebel leadership would likely do. It would also send a message to the entire world that the Alliance does not honor it's strategic alliances, making those almost impossible to make going forward.

The Alliance has to tread a careful line. They are in a position to gain some concessions, and that is a position that shouldn't be squandered, but push too hard and all they'll do is make a new war with the Horde an absolute guarantee even in the short term.

Destroying the Underhold (and perhaps more importantly, the weapons housed within it) might be one way to do this. Another would be press forward against loyalist strongholds elsewhere in the world, regaining much of the territory Garrosh conquered. Since only loyalists were harmed and the Alliance mainly seized territory they had a historical claim to, the new Horde leadership would be more willing to accept the loss.

[Cooper]

You know what also wouldn't promote the Alliance's security? Vindicating Garrosh's views towards the Alliance, which is what occupying the city over the objections of the rebel leadership would likely do. It would also send a message to the entire world that the Alliance does not honor it's strategic alliances, making those almost impossible to make going forward.

The Alliance has to tread a careful line. They are in a position to gain some concessions, and that is a position that shouldn't be squandered, but push too hard and all they'll do is make a new war with the Horde an absolute guarantee even in the short term.

Destroying the Underhold (and perhaps more importantly, the weapons housed within it) might be one way to do this. Another would be press forward against loyalist strongholds elsewhere in the world, regaining much of the territory Garrosh conquered. Since only loyalists were harmed and the Alliance mainly seized territory they had a historical claim to, the new Horde leadership would be more willing to accept the loss.

It's not about concessions. It's about keeping this from happening yet again. The same reason Berlin and Vienna were occupied, or Japan, or Paris, or why the former Confederate States underwent reconstruction. If a new war is what it takes to finish this once and for all, so be it. Because if the Alliance doesn't put itself in a position to say, "Maybe stop worshiping stupid things like 'BLOOD AND THUNDER'" or "Hey, is that demon blood? Spill that out right the fuck now" then it will happen again. The Horde has proven itself to be recklessly belligerent both under and outside the influence of the Burning Legion, and just getting Ashenvale back is not enough anymore.

[Falrinn]

It's not about concessions. It's about keeping this from happening yet again. The same reason Berlin and Vienna were occupied, or Japan, or Paris, or why the former Conferderate States underwent reconstruction. If a new war is what it takes to finish this once and for all, so be it. Because if the Alliance doesn't put itself in a position to say, "Maybe stop worshiping stupid things like 'BLOOD AND THUNDER'" or "Hey, is that demon blood? Spill that out right the fuck now" then it will happen again. The Horde has proven itself to be recklessly belligerent both under and outside the influence of the Burning Legion, and just getting Ashenvale back is not enough anymore.

So lets say the Alliance does continue the war. Since they would be on the offensive, the Alliance would need to completely conquer the Horde to attain victory while the Horde would just need to hold out until the Alliance's casualties mount to the point of either breaking the population's will to fight or (if the Alliance is really determined) where the Alliance runs out of bodies to ship to Kalimdor or the Northern Eastern Kingdoms.

Even if the Alliance does manage to conquer the Horde completely, it would come at such a high cost in manpower that there would be almost stopping anyone from the Burning Legion to the Vul'gol Ogres from walking into Stormwind and taking over. And with how frequently cosmic horrors have been cropping up in recent years, I don't think the Alliance will want to keep the war going to the point of compromising their own defenses even if there isn't anything visible on the horizon.

[Talen]

You know what also wouldn't promote the Alliance's security? Vindicating Garrosh's views towards the Alliance

That they are weak, spineless and can't hold onto lands they don't deserve.

It would also send a message to the entire world that the Alliance does not honor it's strategic alliances, making those almost impossible to make going forward.

Strategic alliance? What strategic alliance?

They are in a position to gain some concessions

They are in a position to utterly destroy the Horde. It'll cost them...but the pay off is they won't face yet another war in another few years.

push too hard and all they'll do is make a new war with the Horde an absolute guarantee even in the short term.

"Shiort term" being a continuing thewar thgey are already fighting because the new Horde leadership proved themselves justs as power hungry as Garrosh....and this instead of an absolute guarantee for a new war against a stronger foe in the medium term.

Destroying the Underhold (and perhaps more importantly, the weapons housed within it) might be one way to do this. Another would be press forward against loyalist strongholds elsewhere in the world, regaining much of the territory Garrosh conquered. Since only loyalists were harmed and the Alliance mainly seized territory they had a historical claim to, the new Horde leadership would be more willing to accept the loss.

Telling the Horde to leave ALL the lands the Alliance has a historical claim to - Azshara, Gilneas, Ashenvale, Stonetalon, Feralas etc is the LEAST the Alliance can expect. After all thats happened, the Horde leadership should be expecting the Alliance to "ask" for more.

Since they would be on the offensive, the Alliance would need to completely conquer the Horde to attain victory while the Horde would just need to hold out until the Alliance's casualties mount to the point of either breaking the population's will to fight or (if the Alliance is really determined) where the Alliance runs out of bodies to ship to Kalimdor or the Northern Eastern Kingdoms.

All signs show the Alliance is in a position to defeat the Horde once and for all. Your conditions don't seem to apply. The Alliance spent 50,000 mean against the Lich King. And for their reward, the Horde launched an unprovoked attack against them taking advantage of Deathwing and the chaos of the Cataclysm.


They've seen towns and villages and nations overrun. They've seen their friends and family raised into eternal servitude and others sentenced to horrrific deaths with Garrosh and his mana bomb. The Horde has backstabbed and betrayed and attacked the Alliance time after time after time.


You think that after all that, there is going to be a "Breaking the will of the Alliance to fight"...when they are winning?

Even if the Alliance does manage to conquer the Horde completely, it would come at such a high cost in manpower that there would be almost stopping anyone from the Burning Legion

Noone else seems to think so. It'd cost the Alliance, sure. And in return they get security, peace and their lands back.

I don't think the Alliance will want to keep the war going to the point of compromising their own defenses even if there isn't anything visible on the horizon.

You assume that defeating the Horde will end up compromising the Alliances defence.


EJL

[arcaneshot]

Noone else seems to think so. It'd cost the Alliance, sure. And in return they get security, peace and their lands back.

You assume that defeating the Horde will end up compromising the Alliances defence.

And you're assuming that defeating the Horde is in the Alliance's interests in the long term. What you're actually talking about are short term goals.

[Octavius]

I don't think the total destruction of the horde is in alliance's interest: some race of the horde are respected by the alliance (tauren, maybe troll) and a great war with heavy casualties would bring useless and barren territories (barrens, stonetalon, azshara). The only true point of interest for the alliance in horde's hands is lordaeron, but that is another story. And the eastern half of ashenvale.

[Sierra85]

I don't think the total destruction of the horde is in alliance's interest: some race of the horde are respected by the alliance (tauren, maybe troll) and a great war with heavy casualties would bring useless and barren territories (barrens, stonetalon, azshara). The only true point of interest for the alliance in horde's hands is lordaeron, but that is another story. And the eastern half of ashenvale.

There are a lot of complexities in war, and unfortunately because the tauren and trolls have aligned themselves with the orcs, the alliance has no choice but to brand them enemies. There is alot of racism towards anything not Human and the tauren / trolls would be seen as filth/impure by alot of humans and those within the alliance.

[Powerogue]

Gamon honestly sounds like a legitimate possibility at this point. That or maybe Saurfang.

[Talen]

And you're assuming that defeating the Horde is in the Alliance's interests in the long term. What you're actually talking about are short term goals.

Defeating an enemy who has stated a desire to rule the world - which includes your kingdoms and lands - and shown themselves to be unstable, aggressive, warmongering, cruel and led by a maniac is indeed something I consider a suitable long term goal for the Alliance.

It is little use ignoring the maniac pointing a shotgun at your head and getting ready to pull the trigger simply because you think the last bullet might be better used against the brute down the street.

EJL

[Pengalor]

I'll say what I've said in every Warchief topic, if it's not Vol'jin then they've wasted even MORE story development than they did when they made Garrosh the 'bad guy'. Vol'jin is by far the best choice for the position.

[Tokru]

Varian will be the new Warchief.

[ILoveLoreALot]

Eitrigg, Saurfang and Drek'Thar are too old. Thrall had the same thoughts when choosing a new leader before his departure to Nagrand and ruled them three out. Orks value strength in their leaders, an old person will not work there.

That's not why an elder wouldn't work. And elder wouldn't work because they'd just be too old to carry it out before dying, and it wouldn't be a very lasting position.

Anyways, the "The most unexpected Warchief would be Garrosh" post was a good one, but it's very, very unlikely that will happen.

Personally, I'm on board with Lor'thremar being a really, really interesting and somewhat unexpected choice.

[Deleted]

It's gonna be Lor'themar, screencap for future reference.

[Deleted]

Lor Themar would make sense.

If we expect Varian to closely monitore and influenses the election, he deffiantely woudl rather see a civilised, rational and inteligent Elf on the throne than a barbaric, brutal savage that the orcs and trolls represent.

Also there have been already talkings between the Alliance and the Bloodelves to lead them back into the Alliance. So I can totally see the reason for Lor Themar to become the next warchief since he is the only one Varian could accept. The only otehr solution would be conquering all of Kalimdor now once the Horde is weak and lost its fortress.


Also keep in mind, despite they are not the most vocal, the Blood Elves are the most played Horde race to this point.
So from a point of catering towards the majority, it has to be Lor Themar.


Personally I'd rally look forward to it, just because it is finally something different. It would be pretty boring to have another Orc after 2 Orcs who will make the Horde again that savage underdogs.

With Lor Themar on the throne the Horde can become a civilised and respected union.

[Florena]

Lor Themar would make sense.

If we expect Varian to closely monitore and influenses the election, he deffiantely woudl rather see a civilised, rational and inteligent Elf on the throne than a barbaric, brutal savage that the orcs and trolls represent.

Also there have been already talkings between the Alliance and the Bloodelves to lead them back into the Alliance. So I can totally see the reason for Lor Themar to become the next warchief since he is the only one Varian could accept. The only otehr solution would be conquering all of Kalimdor now once the Horde is weak and lost its fortress.


Also keep in mind, despite they are not the most vocal, the Blood Elves are the most played Horde race to this point.
So from a point of catering towards the majority, it has to be Lor Themar.


Personally I'd rally look forward to it, just because it is finally something different. It would be pretty boring to have another Orc after 2 Orcs who will make the Horde again that savage underdogs.

With Lor Themar on the throne the Horde can become a civilised and respected union.

So it'll be more like the ALLIANCE and less distinct? As an Alliance player I say no thank you, I like the contrast between the two factions. And I'm sure horde players don't want to become more alliance like.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not why an elder wouldn't work. And elder wouldn't work because they'd just be too old to carry it out before dying, and it wouldn't be a very lasting position.

Anyways, the "The most unexpected Warchief would be Garrosh" post was a good one, but it's very, very unlikely that will happen.

Personally, I'm on board with Lor'thremar being a really, really interesting and somewhat unexpected choice.

Even young warchiefs aren't having very long reigns. How long was Blackhand warchief before Doomhammer killed him? Most of Doomhammer's time as Warchief was spent on the run from the Alliance after the second war failed. Then we have Thrall, who had a respectable time but it was far from a lifetime, and now Garrosh who's only lasting a few years. Who says an elderly orc couldn't take the position and reign a good ten years before having to step down?