Kinda fed up with the horde being lead by Villains.

[Amathricus]

Baine would be a horrible choice, it's not surprising the people that want him as Warchief are mostly Alliance. The person I would love to see as Warchief is Rexxar. He is no warmonger, but he would not sit idle and take action if the Horde was threatened. Plus they seem to set him up for more stuff in BfA. Only problem with Rexxar is he prefers solitude in the wilds.

Rexxar is a great character, but probably a bad choice as he doesn't like the spotlight, tends to be a loner.

I agree that Baine would be a lousy choice. He hasn't shown much initiative with anything and he's friends with the opposing factions leader. That would be great for peace, but this is World of Warcraft. As much as I love Saurfang, his blind honour and 'woe is me' attitude lately would serve to breed undermining from other more motivated faction leaders (Lor'themar, Gallywix, Rokhan, or maybe one of the newer Allied Races when they get established within the fold).

[Gurmech]

Gallywix is already Warchief in all but name.

[Florena]

Rexxar as warchief would require a massive character arc. He's a loner who prefers to be off int he wilds, sure he's good for charging into battle but when ti comes to politics, and the actual logistics of running a multi nation military aliance? I don't think that's the role for him. Great champion, good character, but political leader? I think not. Without a long story arc putting him in that role would be as silly as when the Kirn Tor put Jaina on the council of six at the end of tides of war.

[Aeula]

Saurfang = Leader of Horde AND Alliance against ages old evil, which as we see now, could be even greater than Legion. Result: sucessfuly fucked up an Old God manifestation.
Garrosh = Leader of tiny fraction of Horde, who antagonized even his own race. Result: partially succumbed to same Old Gods, led Horde's capital to ruin.

And for that Saurfang - spineless, Garosh - better leader. Just whose boots are you licking? Old Gods?

Saurfang let an Alliance leader escape and abandoned his own people, leaving them leaderless, because he was pissed Sylvanas wouldn't let him get his suicide on the field of battle.

Whatever Saurfang was isn't who he is anymore.

[steelballfc]

Better a villain than a spineless coward such as Baine and Saurfang.

i figure it out
med'an will lead the horde

[The Stormbringer]

Gallywix is already Warchief in all but name.

Thrall should've never let him stay in charge.

[Aeula]

i figure it out
med'an will lead the horde

404. Canon not found.

Med'an doesn't exist.

[Gavll]

We need more playable factions, including one whose sole purpose is to do evil, instead of having a faction like the Horde that does evil, but is presented as benevolent due to the reasos you've mentioned. Both the Horde and the Alliance need to be proper protagonists in their own respective ways, whether it is the way of the shaman, priests or druids, but other and new factions would make everything else right.

The Scourge would be an ideal third faction.

The Alliance and Horde would be better as opt-in concepts for some races. Obv Human, Dwarf, Gnome would be Alliance. Orc, Tauren, Troll would be Horde. But Goblin, Belf etc would all be neutral and you could join whichever faction appealed to you conceptually.

Sylvanas would be the obvious evil faction leader.
Jaina would be a great warmongering human faction leader. I'd have joined her at the start of Legion to purge Dalaran of the Horde (or was that WoD?).

More player agency!

[Jastall]

If you're getting mad that a villain/antagonist doesn't face consequences in a single patch of a two-three year expansion, it's time to play another game.

They said Garrosh was the endboss at Mists launch: you couldn't do shit about it until the final raid.

EDIT: And that's implying Sylvanas doesn't face consequences, when Baine and Saurfang are fed up with her to the point where one of them leaves the Horde as obvious set up for future plot developments.

That's not quite true. You personally thwart Garrosh's assassination attempt on old Vol'jin as early as 5.1 which would surely be seen as treason if he knew about it. The Sunreaver's invasion of the Isle of Thunder in 5.2 is partly motivated by Lor'themar wanting new weapons with which to defend himself against Garrosh. And 5.3 has the Horde PC enter open rebellion. There was a build-up to the Siege of Orgrimmar.

We'll see what the future holds of course. But I don't think another open Horde rebellion will take place. Either Blizzard just gives up on gray morality and makes the Horde the willing servants of Sylvanas forevermore, she gets redeemed (yuck), or she gets removed, either by circumstances or a more civilized coup since, unlike Garrosh, she's unlikely to cling to a clearly falling power stubbornly. I very much doubt she dies, the fandom power is too strong with her.

[Rendark]

Blizzard really shouldn't have killed off Vol'jin. The fact that they did shows to me they don't know what to do with the story anymore.

[Kiri]

I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm saying is that killing them is not disproportionate, given what their defection would entail and that the order to kill came only after she learned about Calia. Before hand she was content to test their loyalty by recalling them.

Actually, the only ones she allowed to survive were those that left before she recalled them. The agreed upon procedure was that if the horns sounded, no matter what was going on, the Forsaken had to return. A bunch of them did. They walked towards the wall before Sylvanas started attacking. And yet, she had them cut down anyway, deliberately, simply because she felt that she could not completely trust them. As she put it herself there, the test of loyalty was not recalling them, it was being rejected by their loved ones. Or rejecting them themselves.
So yeah, the killing is a tad more disproportionate, since apparently in order to survive, you need not only follow orders, but absolutely reject the living. Basically, just having a good or even neutral time with families constitutes a thought crime, punishable by death.

Thus far the Horde has been led by 4 individuals, only one of which was a confirmed and eventually executed villain (i.e. Garrosh). Thrall and Vol'jin were more or less heroic, and Sylvanas *may* be a villain or may be an anti-hero depending on how things go.

To be honest, Vol'jin was not even given proper time/spotlight to lead. All he had was like, some quest appearances and dying.

[Super Dickmann]

Actually, the only ones she allowed to survive were those that left before she recalled them. The agreed upon procedure was that if the horns sounded, no matter what was going on, the Forsaken had to return. A bunch of them did. They walked towards the wall before Sylvanas started attacking. And yet, she had them cut down anyway, deliberately, simply because she felt that she could not completely trust them. As she put it herself there, the test of loyalty was not recalling them, it was being rejected by their loved ones. Or rejecting them themselves.
So yeah, the killing is a tad more disproportionate, since apparently in order to survive, you need not only follow orders, but absolutely reject the living. Basically, just having a good or even neutral time with families constitutes a thought crime, punishable by death.

By the recall I'm referring to her sounding the horn before, a little later, the batrider shows up to tell her Calia is there. I.e, she only decides to kill them impulsively once she assumes this is a coup attempt by the Alliance and Calia and by the time she figures better, they're already being killed and she does her spiel to Nathanos. I'm not making a moral defense of her killing those pulling back, so much as a practical one and a defense of her initial position.

[Florena]

More factions would just be a mess.

I don't think it will ever happen but I wouldn't mind having the two factions go away though. Remove that barrier and let people play with who they want to play as, but too much of the game is built around horde vs alliance, I don't think it could ever work without an outright WoW 2.

[Kharli]

Lets face is, getting past all the shallow fanboys and girls unable to accept the hordes currently leadership is that of a villain with saturday morning cartoon villain ethics, one thats obviously being set up to fall, as it stands, I'm just so bored of this repeated plot dynamic.

The horde as a group are not villains, they consist of a mixture of different races just trying to survive, and so often that leads to them working alongside alliance races to ensure their survival when a major threat looms over them.

We just went though defeating the legion, from the start the petty rivalry between factions lead to nothing when we were defeated at the broken shore, and only when our characters acted on their own agency to lead their own group into battle did we defeat the legion, thats how blizzard wrote it, thats what happned.

So why after that, do we suddenly just fold back into the same crap of 'follow your faction leader you have no choice'? It makes our characters appear to have no agency or freedom to choose, despite showing how shallow the faction war is. Hell in the questline with teldrassil, we see how it effects Saurfang finally questioning his place in the current horde.

Sylvanas is following the exact same methods that Garrosh did, maybe with more success, but that just makes her into a successful bad guy all the more, and its so obvious she's being set up for a fall. The reason for that is just in the story alone, when you have someone like Saurfang just giving up and letting the alliance capture him, its obvious he sees nothing of honor and value in the horde. And he wouldn't be the only one thinking this.

When Sylvanas does some bad shit, we're forced to go along with it because the writers can't make a game with some agency in our choices, but in the end, we know the horde isn't going to be defeated for this, because that would be game breaking. Instead it will be the lore characters who are defeated while the faction survives, just like it happened with Garrosh.

This is why this repeated bs of having the warchief turn out to be a villain just pisses me off, because it just leads to the same conclusion, horde follows them because they have no choice because the plot demands it, plot goes the horde will survive but only when said warchief goes to far off the rails and they need to be taken out, rivalry continues between factions, rinse and repeat.

I just hope this is the last time in warchiefs story they do this, when syvlanas is dead or removed, whoever takes over just remains so, maybe have the alliance taken over by the villain for once and see how they turns out, or just end the faction bs, because it will never go anywhere outside of how it ended at the end of mists of pandaria.

I completely agree with you Trassk, and this is coming from someone mains Alliance.

The "ebil" people we get on Alliance is morally grey at best(greymane) and yes Sky Admiral Rogers, but I would Love to see Alliance being led by the evil one for a change.

[Kralljin]

I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm saying is that killing them is not disproportionate, given what their defection would entail and that the order to kill came only after she learned about Calia. Before hand she was content to test their loyalty by recalling them.

Yes but they were not defecting in any manner, Calia has nothing to do with that, the horn was sounded, they went back, that's how it's supposed to go. Sylvanas simply killed them because they were enjoying it, which undermined Sylvanas narrative of "all humans hate the Forsaken".

[MechaCThun]

Sylvanas isn't a villain.

[shise]

No worries, I have a feeling that Saurfang will soon be your Warchief. Fishing clues all over the beta but I won´t spoil it, just next week you will notice things with the BfA event quests.

Sylvanas has totally lost the plot, she is literally sacrificing horde lifes for her selfish end.
I think the orcs values are soon gonna kick her butt even before the Alliance stops her.

[Super Dickmann]

Yes but they were not defecting in any manner, Calia has nothing to do with that, the horn was sounded, they went back, that's how it's supposed to go. Sylvanas simply killed them because they were enjoying it, which undermined Sylvanas narrative of "all humans hate the Forsaken".

At the time the horn sounded Sylvanas gave the order to kill on the assumption they were defectors. As some number of them came back, they got killed and it triggered Nathanos' reaction, and Sylvanas only then gave said explanation. It was basically a post-hoc rationalization.

[steelballfc]

No worries, I have a feeling that Saurfang will soon be your Warchief. Fishing clues all over the beta but I won´t spoil it, just next week you will notice things with the BfA event quests.

Sylvanas has totally lost the plot, she is literally sacrificing horde lifes for her selfish end.
I think the orcs values are soon gonna kick her butt even before the Alliance stops her.

this is the worst.

[Kralljin]

At the time the horn sounded Sylvanas gave the order to kill on the assumption they were defectors.

Sylvanas sounded the horn after she realized they were enjoying it, because that meant the meeting has gone south for her.

There was no indication they were traitors, nor did Sylvanas "have the assumption", she didn't reason "i thought they were traitors", there was no hestitation, no regret.
In fact, the whole Calia thing gave her enough room to simply kill all of them to twist the story in a way she wants, without any witnesses that might question her version of the story.

If there were Forsaken spilling out that in fact some humans are willing to accept them and Sylvanas killed Forsaken because they wanted to live with their families, that would have split the Forsaken society.