Horde lost in the Battle for the Undercity

[Eazy]

You would be a terrible strategist.

That's not the point of this thread.

So I guess getting personal = not having a proper arguments and accepting defeat.

omg you are one stubborn Ally fanboy.

Can't handle the truth? lol
I'm not even ally-fanboy. I'm just saying it from the obejctive point of view. Just because someone is narrow-minded and obtuse I'm not going to agree with him.

What part of sacrificing the UC as part of the plan do you not understand? UC was worthless, Sylvanas knows that Kalimdor is what's important for the Horde. UC was merely used as a trap to lure the Alliance leadership and army into one spot and wipe them out. The Alliance lost a good portion of their army and would have lost 99% of its leadership was it not for Jaina.
Just because YOU see a faction losing a City as an automatic loss, despite sylvanas' strategy, just to mend your sensitive alliance ego doesn't make it so.
The Alliance lost that battle, get over your self. In fact they've lost every major battle this expansion so far lmao. Keep your chin up though it's only the beginning.

As I wrote above. I'm neither Horde/Alliance, I just enjoy the lore.

You just said that Horde wants Kalimdor and they don't care about UC. That's fine.
You said that Horde had bigger planes. That's fine.
But when someone says that Battle fot the Undercity is Hordes victory? That's just foolish.

"And why would..."? Ok. Y'know what? I'm done with your trolling. If your plan was to make me give up through use of blatant trolling, congratulation, you won the battle. Good day.

That's an answer from someone who clearly lack arguments and cannot answer a simple question with something other than "but horde warchief wanted to lost that battle! so that means horde won!!111one". I wasn't even trolling or anything. I was just saying the obejctively truth.

Thanks for the discussion, with that resposne you just prove my point.

"If you lose your city and kill your own soldiers you win!"

The sylvanas worshipers make that one fake Trudeau quote look smart by comparison.

To be honest I didn't know there were so many obtuse people who believe in made up situations and head-canon in the Lore forum untill I mentioned that Sylvanas lost the battle, lol.

[Blacktales]

Actually, i would call it a "Draw"

[Deleted]

"If you lose your city and kill your own soldiers you win!"

The sylvanas worshipers make that one fake Trudeau quote look smart by comparison.

As I said earlier, the aim for Sylvanas was never to keep the Undercity, she didn't care about it because she knew the inevitable Alliance retaliation would vastly outnumber them and take the city anyway. So therefore, her aim was to use it to draw the Alliance in to a battle with a vastly inferior Horde force and inflict as many massive losses on the Alliance army as possible in the process, knowing almost certainly that it would fall anyway. This is why the throne room had already been set up with blight as a contingency well in advance, to take out the Alliance leadership when it did fall. In other words, following Teldrassil Sylvanas planned to turn an inevitable defeat to her advantage by weakening as much of the Alliance forces as possible, and that's exactly what happened.

When you consider this along with the new War Table missions that show us the Forsaken actual control a large number of territories, and are pushing for more still (i.e Deathknell, Calston Estate, The Bulwark, Shadowfang Keep, Ruins of Alterac, Andorhal, Fenris Isle, Dun Gorak, and also rebuilding Durnholde Keep and Southshore) you can now understand that the Alliance got absolutely nothing from that battle because even though the Forsaken lost their main city, they still have plenty of control in the remaining Lordaeron region - quite literally, all the Alliance got was a ruined city they cannot reclaim, massive losses to military forces, no captured Sylvanas, and one can imagine a real drop in moral too upon seeing all that loss was for nothing.

So to address your point, the answer is yes - Sylvanas's tactics did actually work, because despite losing a city and a large portion of her own forces, the Horde's losses were still less than the Alliance's, and she still has much control over the rest of Lordaeron anyway.

[Zulkhan]

To be honest I didn't know there were so many obtuse people who believe in made up situations and head-canon in the Lore forum untill I mentioned that Sylvanas lost the battle, lol.

Compared to what? "Admit you did lose !1!!1!" regardless of circumstances? You people want an acknowledgement for a "victory" that clearly wasn't, something quite easy to determine once you weighed the losses compared to the gains.

I understand some Alliance players are still fucking obsessed about the "fist bumping" thingy and the lack of some incredibly outstanding victory to be proud of but this is getting ridiculous honestly.

[Deleted]

Horde has done nothing but losing for quiet some time now.

Teldrassil?

[Kwento]

Teldrassil?

First “win” since the First War, and even that one left us worce then we were before.

[Deleted]

First “win” since the First War, and even that one left us worce then we were before.

What game have you been playing?

[Kwento]

What game have you been playing?

The same one as you. Name another war that the horde has won against the Alliance.

[ro9ue]

Considering it was a trap, I think Horde won.

[Skulltaker]

Teldrassil?

Lost. Sylvans attempted to gain a strategic advantage, but in the process gained nothing, lost troops, divided the Horde leadership and lost her High Overlord.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering it was a trap, I think Horde won.

And germans thought they'd win WW2 early 1945. Horde hasn't won anything for ages.

[Deleted]

Lost. Sylvans attempted to gain a strategic advantage, but in the process gained nothing, lost troops, divided the Horde leadership and lost her High Overlord.

You'll even see the burning down of Teldrassil as a loss? How dishonest can you be. You just don't want to admit the Horde won a battle, so you can keep pretending that the Horde loses all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

The same one as you. Name another war that the horde has won against the Alliance.

There weren't that many to begin with, so there weren't that many that either side has won. There essentially were only two, the first and second one, both sides won one. The third war ended with both factions uniting against the Legion, and the war Garrosh started in Cataclysm ended with both factions uniting against Garrosh. There wasn't full-out war in WoD or Legion. So you're essentially just left with two wars. To say that the Horde hasn't won a war against the Alliance since the first war is as significant of a statement as saying that the Alliance hasn't won a war against the Horde since the second war. Meaningless.

Much more interesting to look at what small battles each faction has won, and the Horde has won almost all battles against the Alliance. Cataclysm was basically just one expansion about the Horde fucking the Alliance left and right, culminating in Theramore. The Alliance story sucked throughout Cataclysm and MoP and didn't even get better at the end.

[Kwento]

You'll even see the burning down of Teldrassil as a loss? How dishonest can you be. You just don't want to admit the Horde won a battle, so you can keep pretending that the Horde loses all the time.

- - - Updated - - -



There weren't that many to begin with, so there weren't that many that either side has won. There essentially were only two, the first and second one, both sides won one. The third war ended with both factions uniting against the Legion, and the war Garrosh started in Cataclysm ended with both factions uniting against Garrosh. There wasn't full-out war in WoD or Legion. So you're essentially just left with two wars. To say that the Horde hasn't won a war against the Alliance since the first war is as significant of a statement as saying that the Alliance hasn't won a war against the Horde since the second war. Meaningless.

Much more interesting to look at what small battles each faction has won, and the Horde has won almost all battles against the Alliance. Cataclysm was basically just one expansion about the Horde fucking the Alliance left and right, culminating in Theramore. The Alliance story sucked throughout Cataclysm and MoP and didn't even get better at the end.

War that started in WotLK, when Varian swore to take the Horde apart, ended with the Siege of Orgrimmar. There was the True Horde and Darkspear Rebels. It’s a bit of a morality question, but at the time it was a clear Alliance win.

[Sunderella]

seems to me like the plan was to have the Alliance leaders in the throne room an plague them to death. Which by the way almost came to pass if not for Deus Ex Jaina.

Still I would have been better for Sylv to kill Jaina by banshee possession and leave everybody else to die there. THAT would have been the intelligent thing to do. You just dont trap a mage and hope she desnt realize she can teleport ppl out.

[The Stormbringer]

Considering it was a trap, I think Horde won.

According to him it makes as much sense as sacrificing all your soldiers and territory to kill one enemy soldier.

[Skulltaker]

You'll even see the burning down of Teldrassil as a loss? How dishonest can you be. You just don't want to admit the Horde won a battle, so you can keep pretending that the Horde loses all the time.

No no. They won the battle. They still lost. Winning a battle means nothing if it only weakens your position. See Game of Thrones, books 1 and 2. Rob Stark has never lost a battle, but won nothing. Same holds true for the Horde.

[Ielenia]

That's an answer from someone who clearly lack arguments and cannot answer a simple question with something other than "but horde warchief wanted to lost that battle! so that means horde won!!111one".

"Sylvanas wanted to lose the battle" is nothing but your strawman. I've already pointed that out several times, yet you keep arguing against your own strawman.

I was totally trolling of course. I was just saying objective falsehoods.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, dude. Dudette. Whatever. Stop arguing against your own strawman and start engaging in the actual argument here. Go read the novelas. Inform yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

First “win” since the First War, and even that one left us worce then we were before.

Theramore? Southshore?

[Goldielocks]

Anduin showed complete incompetence in leadership during the battle for Undercity, getting saved not once, but twice by two OP powerhouses. Gotta love deus ex machinas. Yet Alliance fanboys still want to mental gymnastics their way into thinking the Alliance showed any form of upper hand lmaooo

Maybe if the battle was written better the Alliance would have unequivocally won, but it wasn't. The battle between the Alliance and Horde is like one side being full of badass OP fucks and the other side is just a bit smarter so they can avoid being wrecked every time the two meet.

[Kwento]

Theramore? Southshore?

Both parts of the same war that the Horde lost

[Ielenia]

Both parts of the same war that the Horde lost

You're talking about wars or battles? Big difference there. If you're talking wars, the ofc the Horde would not win wars, from a game- and story-telling standpoint, considering the Horde's goal has been total genocide in basically every war. That would mean the end of the game.

[Kwento]

You're talking about wars or battles? Big difference there. If you're talking wars, the ofc the Horde would not win wars, from a game- and story-telling standpoint, considering the Horde's goal has been total genocide in basically every war. That would mean the end of the game.

We were talking about War of Thorns, so yeah, I was talking about wars.