This war ruins the horde reclaimed honor

[Talen]

It doesn't. It provides a quote that you take out of context. It does not provide any explicit statement that says that Stormwind is not at war, it does not provide any explicit statement that is a retcon to WotLK.

A member of the Horde refers to the alliance as allies. Thats difficult to do if they're at war.

Provide a source that explicitly retcons Grizzly Hills, Icecrown, and the Gunship battle.

I don't have to. First...battles happen in Vanilla WoW. In TBC. You're pointing out more of the same and using it as proof. Second, the game timeline and events aren't necessarily what actually happens. As pointed out...there are events in game which don't happen in the story.

King Varian Wrynn says: I was away for too long. My absence cost us the lives of some of our greatest heroes. Trash like you and this evil witch were allowed to roam free -- unchecked.
King Varian Wrynn says: The time has come to make things right. To disband your treacherous kingdom of murderers and thieves. Putress was the first strike. Many more will come.
King Varian Wrynn says: I've waited a long time for this, Thrall. For every time I was thrown into one of your damned arenas... for every time I killed a green-skinned aberration like you... I could only think of one thing.
King Varian Wrynn says: What our world could be without you and your twisted Horde... It ends now, Warchief.
King Varian Wrynn says: ATTACK! FOR STORMWIND! FOR BOLVAR! FOR THE ALLIANCE!
Couldn't be more clear.

Not a declaration of war. Not proof that war actually began afterwards. As I said...an act of war. Neither side appears to have followed up.

War doesn't work that way. Saying "I'M NOT PLAYING" does not negate a declaration of war. War is not consensual by necessity.

Which assumes that one side actually went to war. There's no sign the Alliance did either. Yes, theres' fighting. Theres' ALWAYs been fighting so the fighting you point out doens't mean a thing. Maybe its a sign of war. Possibly. OTOH, maybe it just the Allaince and Horde back to their usual skirmishes. How can we tell the difference? We can't. We need to rely on other sources.

That's daft. The issue is there is very narrowly specific: the actions of a player are not necessarily cannon, because there 6 million of us doing the same thing. You have no grounds to extend that to story elements explicitly communicated by WoW through events like Battle for Undercity. WoW is the primary source of Warcraft lore available to us. You might theorize otherwise but you don't have grounds for dismissing in game events.

Cataclysm shows us in game events don't necessarily happen in the timeline. You extending this to just player driven events is itself an assumption.

So once a war is declared... industry grinds a halt, the armies all skip off to the battle field in whatever equipment they have on themselves at the time, no one bothers to pack any more lunches because the preparations all stopped!!!

Preparations have stopped because they are now in the war carryign out action needed for war. You doin't prepare for something after its begun.

Hasn't been a member of the Alliance since the 2nd war. Isn't a member of the Grand Alliance. Alliance friendly state =/= Alliance state.

Strom **IS** actually a fully fledged member of the Alliance. It rejoined.

Even if Galen can be considered an Alliance leader, which is a weak supposition, the difference is that that assassination didn't have a formal declaration of war conveniently tacked onto it. The Alliance states are autonomous, they can choose how to react to things as they wish. Nothing about this example refutes Varian's declaration of war... a declaration for which your best argument against is "he didn't mean it, he was mad."

No, its the fact this war isn't mentioned anywhere else in the game to date. Theres no sign of it. No evidence it takes place. There is the usual fighting but that is it. And before you poitn out this supposed timeline...the Forsaken are attacking Alliance troops and shipping in the Howling Fjord, and thats the first zone.

Your definition of "evidence" is very liberal, since Stormrage doesn't deal with the issue in any meaningful sense. An off hand comment is made, but nothing directly refutes WotLK lore.

That is true. WotLK lore isn't contradicted by the statement a member of the Horde sees the Horde and Alliance as allies after the battle for Undercity. It does contradict the supposition that Varian initiated war at Undercity.

So... what, you are saying Stormrage is an actual retcon that says things like the Gunship battle never happened?

No. I'm saying Stormrage is stating that a state of war between the Horde and Alliance doens't exist after the Battle for undercity up until the fall of the LK.

Irony, party of one. There is a declaration of war, then war is waged. Older conflicts were border skirmishes, without declarations of war. The difference is clearly in the declaration.

You see...here is where you are wrong. First...no declaration of war. Theres an act of war...Which neither side appears to have followed up on...and a subsequent return to normal peacetime activities...ie the usual skirmishes. But no actual declaration of war.

The major point here is that, for all the you like to throw the word "official" around and pretend to be some kind of guardian knight of the canon, you have literally nothing solid to base your "officially, Garrosh declared the war" statement on.

That statement seems quite clear. As it stands, taking into account the novel blurb, both sides are preparing for war. Not at war, but preparing for it. I don't know how or why the war starts. I don't know who starts it. It would indeed be better, in some ways, if the Alliance started it.

I'm contesting the assertion Varian started it at undercity by providing quotes or whatever which show neither side is actually at war with the other.

Gladly.
http://s1189.photobucket.com/albums/...nt=Kilrok1.jpg
http://s1189.photobucket.com/albums/...nt=Kilrok2.jpg

Thanks.

Is that also a "WoW doesn't tell the real story" moment because it says something you don't like?

WoW doesn't tell the real story of the WoW universe. The number of quests in cataclysm which contradict the events in WoW is poof of that so theres no point trying to argue it does.
As it is, all this says is that the Alliance attacked after the events in the book. It says nothign about how or why or when the war started.

To clarify in case it got missed...I'm not saying it won't turn out the Alliance started the war. I'm sayinf Varian didn't start it in undercity.

EJL

[Sarog]

This argument is quickly getting consumed in semantics. There's really nothing that you just said that I don't feel I have already dealt with, or that I think is properly evidenced for you to reach the conclusions that you do. But you know what, whatever. As I said it is a moot point because the novel will explain everything shortly.

WoW doesn't tell the real story of the WoW universe. The number of quests in cataclysm which contradict the events in WoW is poof of that so theres no point trying to argue it does.

But this... this is some seriously fallacious reasoning. You are extending things far, far, far to generally. Cataclysm shows us that not all player actions are considered part of the canon. You have no basis for extending it elsewhere. WoW is the primary source for the story of Warcraft. You are just using specific uncertainty in certain areas in order to apply a blanket "If I choose to believe so, it doesn't count" defense that you can use to selectively blind yourself to things that you don't like. It isn't up to you to decide when and where WoW isn't "the real story", it is up to Blizzard to specifically determine what is canon. If you continue to cling to this attitude, any conversation with you is meaningless because it all comes round to "it might not count".

I'm contesting the assertion Varian started it at undercity by providing quotes or whatever which show neither side is actually at war with the other.

No, you are also repeating falsehoods and misinformation saying that the current "official" story is that Garrosh started the war. And you literally do not have a single good point, or valid piece of evidence, that suggests that there is anything "official" about that. In short, you tell lies and it provokes me to refute them.

It says nothign about how or why or when the war started.

Absolutely correct. It doesn't say anything about how the war started. However, I never used it as evidence for such. You might want to reread my post. What it does prove - beyond reasonable doubt given our current knowledge of things - that Garrosh did not start the war with Alliance on his ascension to the throne, because the Alliance is already waging war prior to the event that causes Thrall to abdicate. Be a good sport now and admit that you were repeating nonsense that isn't in evidence.

[Haven]

Absolutely correct. It doesn't say anything about how the war started. However, I never used it as evidence for such. You might want to reread my post. What it does prove - beyond reasonable doubt given our current knowledge of things - that Garrosh did not start the war with Alliance on his ascension to the throne, because the Alliance is already waging war prior to the event that causes Thrall to abdicate. Be a good sport now and admit that you were repeating nonsense that isn't in evidence.

I'll just rephrase it for Talen, to show the timeline:
1. Alliance deploys in Durotar
2. Alliance pushes to Barrens, breaks through Honor's Stand, besieges Crossroads
3. Cataclysm happens, Barrens broken in two
4. Thrall leaves to fix the world, leaving Garrosh in charge
5. Garrosh is in charge; Alliance intercepts Thrall in the sea

[Talen]

I'll just rephrase it for Talen, to show the timeline:
1. Alliance deploys in Durotar
2. Alliance pushes to Barrens, breaks through Honor's Stand, besieges Crossroads
3. Cataclysm happens, Barrens broken in two
4. Thrall leaves to fix the world, leaving Garrosh in charge
5. Garrosh is in charge; Alliance intercepts Thrall in the sea

All of which happenes after the LK falls.

Therfore, all of which ahve no berain ont eh argument on if Varian declared war at Undercity.

As it is, it is somewhat hard for me to see an Orc describe the Alliance as "allies" if they are indeed at war. Yes relations are breaking down...but allies, even reluctant allies, aren't allies if they are at war with each other.

People saying there is a war after UC point to two things...Varians speech and the fact that there is fighting. They have yet to show that a state of war actively exists beyong the normal skirmishes that have taken place throughout the game history. Somehow, Varians spech means those fights are somehow different than the fighting that takes place in Howling Fjord with the Forsaken and the Alliance troops there.

Why does fighting in Grizzly Hills mean the Horde and Alliance are in an all out war situation but the fighting in Howling Fjord does not?

What it does prove - beyond reasonable doubt given our current knowledge of things - that Garrosh did not start the war with Alliance on his ascension to the throne, because the Alliance is already waging war prior to the event that causes Thrall to abdicate. Be a good sport now and admit that you were repeating nonsense that isn't in evidence.

At the minute we don't know the timeline of events. For example, the quote I used for Garrosh is from Blizzard themselves. He is preparing for a war to claim Kalimdor for the Horde. I used that to illustrate that a state of war didn't exist...not that Garrosh started it.

And please....if you're going to argue, at least use the "Blizzard may not have been clear or said exactly what they meant" excuse rather than try to say you prepare for an act after its begun.

It isn't up to you to decide when and where WoW isn't "the real story", it is up to Blizzard to specifically determine what is canon.

It is ironic then that people are not applying this to the novel Stormrage where the post UC relationship between the Horde and Alliance is shown to be...not at war.

EJL

[blazeskies117]

War is hell.

/Second. That's how war goes and with the LK dead now it's time to create some new lore...yea it has its ups and downs but still a pretty amazing story if you ask me.
And on top of it all if people actually knew their lorecraft they'd know that this is how the story goes...one warchief makes peace while the next makes chaos. Greatly reflects actual personalities of people that come to power etc.
Just take a look at the world around you and don't focus solely on your warcrafts.

[Haven]

All of which happenes after the LK falls.

Therfore, all of which ahve no berain ont eh argument on if Varian declared war at Undercity.

Seriously, dude, were you drinking while typing this? Screw Undercity, what happened in Durotar shows pure and clean Alliance aggression on the heart of Horde's territory while Thrall was still in charge of the Horde - and we know that Thrall never declared any war. So sober up and come up with a more entertaining explanation about how invasion into Durotar and Barrens is not war started by Alliance. Because when you come to other nation's territory killing everyone in your way, I don't know how else to call it.

[Katanasteel]

"Come on, you sons of B!7<#E$! Do you want to live forever?"

War is what we need, For the Horde!

Someone start the "Bring War back into Warcraft" Thread!

[Sarog]

At the minute we don't know the timeline of events. For example, the quote I used for Garrosh is from Blizzard themselves. He is preparing for a war to claim Kalimdor for the Horde. I used that to illustrate that a state of war didn't exist...not that Garrosh started it.

Don't backpedal when your arguments are confounded. Have some intellectual integrity and own up to your argument even though it has been disproved.

That is the official story now...for now at least. Blizzard MAY retcon it but given their recent "Garrosh started the war to claim Kalimdor for the Horde" routine thats looking doubtful at the minute. They could easily do so.

Or from the Q&A on Azshara:
"Having recently gained the mantle of warchief, Garrosh Hellscream is preparing for war to claim all of Kalimdor for the Horde."

Or the well known reports from Blizzcon that had Garrosh start the war in Gilneas becasue he wanted a port.

And I've heard it said from some Beta testers Garrosh started the war to take advatage of a weakened Alliance.

You tried to make a case as if it was the official story so far that Garrosh started the war. You misinterpreted and misrepresented sources to try to use them as evidence for that, when in fact they say no such thing. I provided that evidence that establishes that, according to our current knowledge, it is impossible for Garrosh to start the war... because the war is being waged before Garrosh is in the position to start it. Own up to the failure of your argument.

It is ironic then that people are not applying this to the novel Stormrage where the post UC relationship between the Horde and Alliance is shown to be...not at war.

See... here is the deal. I look at this...

King Varian Wrynn says: I was away for too long. My absence cost us the lives of some of our greatest heroes. Trash like you and this evil witch were allowed to roam free -- unchecked.
King Varian Wrynn says: The time has come to make things right. To disband your treacherous kingdom of murderers and thieves. Putress was the first strike. Many more will come.
King Varian Wrynn says: I've waited a long time for this, Thrall. For every time I was thrown into one of your damned arenas... for every time I killed a green-skinned aberration like you... I could only think of one thing.
King Varian Wrynn says: What our world could be without you and your twisted Horde... It ends now, Warchief.
King Varian Wrynn says: ATTACK! FOR STORMWIND! FOR BOLVAR! FOR THE ALLIANCE!

I see this, I connect the dots between this and the hostilities in Northrend that follow, and from that to the Alliance's preCataclysm aggression in the barrens. That makes for a nice, clear progression of war in which everything makes sense. For all that you wave STORMRAGE! STORMRAGE! around... as I have said continuously in this thread... Stormrage does nothing but provide one off hand, throwaway line that does not deal explicitly with the political events of WotLK and that can be explained away in several different ways that do not lessen the events of WotLK to "but he didn't mean it" and "but they didn't do anything, it is just more of the same" as you continually try so desperately to prove. It is easy for me to explain it away, which is what I do because it does not explicitly deal with the issues involved and therefore it does not overshadow the events of WotLK.

In your case, you take this throwaway comment out of context and treat it as gospel that binds the lore in ways that it doesn't actually deal with explicitly. So, whereas I have to explain away one flimsy line of text that the author might have put a mere ten seconds of thought into, you have to explain away a hell of a lot more for your interpretation to be sensible. You say that Varian's speech and the conflicts of Northrend are not enough to prove a state of war... I say that you certainly cannot, given these things, prove a state of alliance either. Allies don't attack each other with gunships, or tell each other "I'm done with your Horde... death god take you all". In order for your interpretation to make sense, you have to cheapen Valian's very explicit declaration of intent at the Undercity by saying "he didn't mean it lol, he wus mad!" and you have to cheapen the Horde's reaction to it as "I'm sure he didn't mean it, let's give him a chance ", and then you have to explain away how spitting at each other from across a tournament and attacking each other with gunships constitutes being "allies".

At the end of the day, I'd rather work the throwaway comment from Stormrage into the bigger picture than work the bigger picture into the throwaway comment from Stormrage. It leaves me with a more sensible picture, and it leaves me with less to explain away against the grain. You wouldn't be putting the use of the word "allies" on a pedestal if you were looking at this objectively, because on its own it really doesn't have much credibility if you try to apply it as an explanation for political events that it obviously isn't intended to explain.

Bottom line... the Shattering will explain everything, but given what we know I'm sticking with my reading of events for the moment because I feel it is the more rational interpretation of facts and sources. Disagree if you want, but at least be aware of the whole issue and of the weakness of your source rather than just powering forward with tunnel vision.

[Nahte]

Why the Hell would anyone in the Warcraft universe know to plug in a toaster before using it?

[Talen]

Don't backpedal when your arguments are confounded. Have some intellectual integrity and own up to your argument even though it has been disproved.

No...I think my case is clear. Varian didn't start the war in Undercity.

You tried to make a case as if it was the official story so far that Garrosh started the war.

No...I made the case by showing that the Horde was not in a state of war. If you took that to mean I was blaming Garrosh, then my apologies. I'll try to be clearer next time I have this debate.

I see this, I connect the dots between this and the hostilities in Northrend that follow

Hostilities which are meaningless as far as this point is concerned.. There were hostilities in Northrend before the Wrathgate. There were hostilites afterwards.

and from that to the Alliance's preCataclysm aggression in the barrens.

Which presumably take place after the LK fell. According to some sources which provide a possible timeline for Cataclysm, several years after the LK fell.

And therefore have little if any bearing on my contention about what happeend at BfUC.

that can be explained away in several different ways

Provide one. An Orc, on a mission to kill Malfurion, views the Horde and Alliance as being allies sometime after the BfUC.

I say that you certainly cannot, given these things, prove a state of alliance either. Allies don't attack each other with gunships, or tell each other "I'm done with your Horde... death god take you all". In order for your interpretation to make sense, you have to cheapen Valian's very explicit declaration of intent at the Undercity by saying "he didn't mean it lol, he wus mad!" and you have to cheapen the Horde's reaction to it as "I'm sure he didn't mean it, let's give him a chance ", and then you have to explain away how spitting at each other from across a tournament and attacking each other with gunships constitutes being "allies".

Well....no. UC had ramifications. All I'm saying is war wasn't one of them.

As it is, you said its easy for you to explain away. Do so.

EJL

[Sarog]

Varian didn't start the war in Undercity.

What Varian said is, to my thinking, about as formal a declaration of war as you can get. But sure, disagree. Doesn't change the fact that he said what he said "disband (the Horde)" "(this) was the first strike. Many more will follow." He said these things, and the Alliance is following through with what he said in Cataclysm. I've demonstrated that Garrosh didn't start the war, since the war was in full swing before Garrosh was in a position to start it. So unless Thrall declared war in an extremely out of character moment, then Varian Wrynn remains the likely culprit.

No...I made the case by showing that the Horde was not in a state of war. If you took that to mean I was blaming Garrosh, then my apologies. I'll try to be clearer next time I have this debate.

Lol so you are ignoring your own text where you said that Garrosh started it? Ok buddy. You don't need to face up to being wrong, we both see how I've talked you into a corner there. It takes a rare person to admit anything on the internet, you're off the hook.

And therefore have little if any bearing on my contention about what happeend at BfUC.

Merely speculative.

Provide one. An Orc, on a mission to kill Malfurion, views the Horde and Alliance as being allies sometime after the BfUC.

Because it is a throwaway comment, and because there certainly is no formal state of alliance between the Alliance and Horde, the following are sound conclusions to draw:

1) The orc refers to the races of the Alliance as allies because of the history of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type partnerships that the factions have had, and does not reflect on current political status.
2) The Alliance is an alliance, and Varian's actions are binding only to Stormwind. The hostilities are limited to Stormwind, and the rest of the Alliance has not gotten on the bandwagon yet.

Since the factions clearly are not allied as of the end of WotLK, the only conclusion that would make that statement abjectly true would be if the Alliance and Horde reconciled in between the Lich King's death and the events of the novel... which is highly unlikely.

I maintain that it is more rational to work the throwaway comment from Stormrage into the bigger picture rather than work the bigger picture into the throwaway comment from Stormrage.