[Spoiler] The Alliance does X in Zuldazar and Baine's immidiate reaction is:

[Magicon]

Because Blizzard writing is childish trash now

+1 /10char

[Donald Hellscream]

Well duh, they've just been dealt a grievous blow, obviously Baine isn't super hyped about the idea of running face first into the enemy again.

[Duckz0rs]

They attempt to retake the Scepter in Siege of Zuldazar. Whether or not they're successful is anyone's guess. For what it's worth, it seems to be part of the "Gnome Section" of the raid, and we know that ends at least somewhat poorly for Mekkatorque. That, in conjunction with the fact that it's not mentioned in the recap among their victories suggests that they might not have been successful.

Breaking into the treasury seems to be part of the Alliance preparations in Nazmir per Wowhead, so before the raid even starts time-wise. They break into the vault using Jaina and the infuriating Deus Ex Void Elf, so I'm going to assume it's going to work for some nebulous reason. Having three magic-centric societies in the Horde seems to count for nothing.

On a seperate not that kinda means literally everything the Horde did since the start of the expansion has been for nothing so far.

[Wildberry]

To be fair that was due to the dragons riders intervening, chronicle made it very clear that the Kul'tirans were utterly wrecking the orcs on the sea.

It was 100% the Dragonriders, but the Alliance's great naval power couldn't sink bad Orc ships the minute they had aerial backup and a bit of fire. We don't have Red Dragons anymore, but Proto-Drakes might be on the table and Troll Bat Riders definitely are.

[Super Dickmann]

On a seperate not that kinda means literally everything the Horde did since the start of the expansion has been for nothing so far.

Hey, if we lose the Scepter to plot magic we still have Derek's corpse and the smoldering wreckage of 60% of the Zandalari fleet. Those've got to count for something.

[Octavius]

They attempt to retake the Scepter in Siege of Zuldazar. Whether or not they're successful is anyone's guess. For what it's worth, it seems to be part of the "Gnome Section" of the raid, and we know that ends at least somewhat poorly for Mekkatorque. That, in conjunction with the fact that it's not mentioned in the recap among their victories suggests that they might not have been successful.



If Kalimdor is unattackable, why negotiate?


Just because they sunk part of a navy we weren't counting on when we started the war doesn't mean we auto-lose all sea battles from here on out, or are unable to make any meaningful deployments on the Eastern Kingdoms.

For what it's worth, the Kul Tiran fleet is just a little overhyped. The Orcs managed to do serious damage to it in the Second War, and they had a fear of sailing prior to the war.

-Could be, we knew mekkatorque ends frozen from a strange magic, could be the scepter.

-Dude, again, try to be serious: negotiating because the horde would be cut off from the world, if the hostilities are to continue for long. Because we know there are old gods around. Because Silvermoon would be bloody raped by Alleria if not. And because if you give indefinite time to the alliance to build up barricking yourself in Kalimdor, while staying hostile, sooner or later the Alliance will strenghten itself and perhaps bring the war there too.

-No, does not mean you start to lose all naval engagements, but on equal terms (at the battle for zuldazar) the kul tirans clearly won, partly because the sabotages made in the war campaign, but apparently partly because of the tidesages. What meaningful operation could do the remaning horde fleet against the full kul tiran fleet and the rest of the alliance fleets, at least in the EK (where the alliance is strongest, if not the whole world outside Kalimdor)?

-As said, with dragons, wow, great orcish naval achivement. In Tides of Darkness is incredibly clear how Delin's fleet was smashing the horde fleet before (and after, see battle of crestfall) the dragons.
Ah, yes, but we have gryphons and wildhammers.

[Terongor]

It's called 'surrender' and it's literally the smartest thing you can do in a war you have no chance of winning.

The current trajectory for the Horde, as Baine sees it, is: "Start a war we can't possibly win, never give up, get completely wiped out by fighting to the last man standing."

He wants the Horde to not be wiped out.


Mind you, it won't be. There's gonna be some stupid ex-machina that gives the Horde a sudden massive advantage in 8.2. But Baine doesn't know that. No one in-universe knows that. It's not like the Horde can go "Okay we lost this fight but the Naga or something will come in and destroy the Kul'tiran fleet and put us back on equal footing before the Alliance has a chance to finish us off!"

Right now, from the in-universe perspective... simply surrendering to the Alliance - lead by the most peaceful, forgiving boi that's ever existed, mind - and accepting their terms is the best way to minimise the Horde's inevitable loss.

Surrender would cause zandalari to leave, lor'themar would lose silvermoon and alleria or someone else alliance minded would be palaced in leadership, eitrigg would probably be executed or banished for loyally serving sylvanas, sylvanas and nathanos executed with gallywix and horde would have to pay huge reperations. Only one who wouldn't suffer much is baine and the taurens.

[Mirn]

This is just more of Blizzard being incapable of writing anything other than cliches when they're trying to tell a story. Cairne had all the hallmarks of a gentle giant, but he had no problem stomping skulls as soon as they where threatened. His solution for the Garrosh problem was stand down or die and he may have made good on that.

Because you can be a rational, kind, empathetic leader without having to be a simpering, weak, coward whose only capability as a leader is to cave to the demands of a beatable enemy.

It's half the reason the Horde feels like such an unsatisfying faction at the moment. People who enjoy playing under a cruel, ruthless and questionably evil leader have to watch Garrosh and Sylvanas SUDDENLY become mustachioed villains who love WMDs and are now okay with all the awful things they weren't okay with earlier. BECAUSE EVUUUUUL.

People who like following leaders that are rational, moral and not warmongers have to run with simpering wimps who can't stand their own ground, forgive wholesale slaughter of their own people, constantly demonize themselves and their own people and make friends with enemy leaders without seeking any kind of reconciliation on their part. Or just give up and feel sorry for themselves and whinge about how us and our entire faction are, yet again, too shit to be a part of.

It doesn't matter who you identify with in the Horde leadership, they're all cheap and watered down versions of what they where or what they could have been. That's not to say the Alliance have it much better with child-goodness and his good boi hound. But they get to, at the very least, explore ideas of redemption and forgiveness and see their formerly cruel leaders become something better.

The Horde are just going to dump another ruined OG on the pile of corpses and be expected to see this as the same thing. It isn't, just ask the Alliance if taking Jaina, whose probably one of the better characters on their roster, and seeing her character development be 'She bad now, kill her. She dead now, Feel good moment, right? RIGHT?!".

#NotmyWarchief isn't good story telling or an exciting prospect for the Horde. And as fun as Old Soldier was, having our roster of characters thinned in number and in character isn't worth a hundred cinematics about how we're totally good because this one character isn't totally washed out.

Y'know, until he was, sitting in the Stockades.

[Thage]

He was actually the last leader to join the rebellion (or any rebellion). Baine even after the 5.3 stuff basically says "I'm sympathetic but can't commit now, k thnx bye." and wanders off. Meanwhile Lor'themar had already dealt with his issues on Isle of Thunder. Going so far as to tell Jaina his actions are to fight Garrosh. Sylvanas was always anti Garrosh since she knew he tried to wipe out the forsaken for the crime of existing.

Hell the only leader to be hostile to Garrosh after Baine was Ji. Does he even exist?

Lor'themar and Sylvanas weren't active in the Darkspear Rebellion until we went knocking on Garrosh's front door (at least until developer comments about cut content manage to be woven into canon later). Lor'themar was considering a separate bid for Warchief, and Sylvanas seemed content to simply ignore Garrosh's orders and do her own thing; meanwhile once the rebellion actually started, Thrall and Saurfang went off to try and get the orcs in Orgrimmar to turn on Garrosh while Baine and Vol'jin were in active revolt. Hence why I specified Baine being the first to join Vol'jin's rebellion; the other Horde leaders were doing their own thing until Vol'jin started making real headway in isolating Orgrimmar.

[Wildberry]

-Could be, we knew mekkatorque ends frozen from a strange magic, could be the scepter.

Unlikely considering the text refers to a freezing mechanism.

-Dude, again, try to be serious: negotiating because the horde would be cut off from the world, if the hostilities are to continue for long. Because we know there are old gods around. Because Silvermoon would be bloody raped by Alleria if not. And because if you give indefinite time to the alliance to build up barricking yourself in Kalimdor, while staying hostile, sooner or later the Alliance will strenghten itself and perhaps bring the war there too.

I am being serious. You don't want us to "go meta" by assuming Azshara will happen to the Alliance, why should we go meta with Old Gods in general? You can't have it both ways. Beyond that, we're capable of steamrolling over the Exodar if they focus on Silvermoon.

And again, we are not confined to Kalimdor. We started an intercontinental war before the Zandalari fleet, we can continue it without part of it.

If the Alliance are incapable of attacking us, why would we negotiate after burning a large amount of civilians? There's not a favorable outcome for the Horde in that.

-No, does not mean you start to lose all naval engagements, but on equal terms (ate the battle for zuldazar) the kul tirans clearly won, partly because the sabotages made in the war campaign, but apparently partly because of the tidesages. What meaningful operation could do the remaning horde fleet against the full kul tiran fleet and the rest of the alliance fleets, at least in the EK (where the alliance is strongest, if not the whole world outside Kalimdor)?

If the Kul Tirans "Clearly won," why is Zuldazar not occupied?

We don't need to engage them on the seas, we just have to land troops.

-As said, with dragons, wow, great orcish naval achivement. In Tides of Darkness is incredibly clear how Delin's fleet was smashing the horde fleet before (and after, see battle of crestfall) the dragons.
Ah, yes, but we have gryphons and wildhammers.

Yes, Daelin's fleet in its prime managed to beat a people that had virtually no experience on the seas before. Until dragons happened. The minute a bit of fire comes down from the skies, "The world's greatest navy" really can't do much against ramshackle boats manned by a group of people who don't sail.

We have more experience now, we have part of the Zandalari fleet and we're still capable of making fire rain down from the skies.

You had gryphon riders and Wildhammers in the Second War too. Didn't really help Kul Tiras too much.

This is all ignoring that Airships are a thing, for what it's worth. Airships, zeppelins, etc. Really the Horde has quite a few ways to transport troops that don't involve touching the water.

[steelballfc]

Baine is the worst character in all the horde.

he became the worst char.

[Magnagarde]

Notice how this response addresses practically none of the criticisms I've made of your posts. You didn't merely elaborate in other posts, you changed course pretty sharply. That much is obvious.

Your "criticism" is well-addressed in the post you quoted. You're simply unable to understand that someone's initial post in a discussion, that is no longer than a few sentences, won't encompass the entirety of one's reasoning behind it.

Every single one of your posts start or end with you having to reassure yourself of your own arguements, either by saying that you've blown someone away, that something is obvious or with you having to explicitly imply that you have a superior intelligence. That's really symptomatic and very telling of the worth of what you've written. I'm sure that it'll become the truth if give it enough repetitions.

[Claymore]

I have to admit... I'm quickly getting sick of Baine. Which is a shame, because I'd had really high hopes for him.

I was bummed that Cairne got killed, but I'd really hoped in Baine, we would see a tougher, more rugged sort of Tauren leader. What the Tauren needs is a character who actually *acts* like a bull. Someone who doesn't seek out needless bloodshed, but when conflict is clearly necessary, has no qualms about asserting his authority.

I really wanted to like Baine, but he's just consistently proving to be a useless characters. It really feels like Blizzard's characters are either "complete pacifists" or "absolute warmongers", with not a lot of middle-ground going on. And then you're got this whole "Heart of Azeroth" situation where Magni Bronzebeard clearly ought to be shaming players for getting caught up in a faction war -- especially Horde players, because at the end of the day, he WAS a leader of the Alliance -- but instead, it's just easier to pretend that whole thing is completely disconnected from the war.

I just don't know, man. I'm loving the zones in BfA, but I'm really not sure about some of the storytelling that's going on. Killing off Rastakhan just to promote Talanji sucks, and then yeah, Baine is just being a big baby who lacks any sort of backbone. If they really want to make Baine seem cool, he needs to start being openly vocal and tell some people off. I would love to just have a seen of him threatening to leave the Horde if Sylvanas doesn't sort some shit out (ie. "My father pledged our loyalty to Thrall. I am not my father, and you are not Thrall. And if you do not begin acting with some semblance of honor, then you may not be Warchief, either.")

[Wildberry]

Your "criticism" is well-addressed in the post you quoted. You're simply unable to understand that someone's initial post in a discussion, that is no longer than a few sentences, won't encompass the entirety of one's reasoning behind it.

It's really not considering "I was just elaborating!!" doesn't cover the fact that you kept saying Sylvanas fanboys were responsible for riding a hate-wave against Baine, only for someone this forum has tarred as a Sylvanas fanboy to tell you that they disliked Baine prior to him coming into conflict with her, and you immediately shifted to: "Well SoO happened, who's the loser now?!"

You have no evidence for that claim, none of the people who this forum has called Sylvanas fanboys started criticizing Baine recently, and it's pretty clear that even chalking up the other goalpost shifts to "elaboration" on your part (ignoring the fact that foundational bits of the argument change, rather than the argument being better contextualized) it still wouldn't cover the aforementioned bit.

But hey, I guess I'm just to dumb to understand that if Baine were written completely differently, he'd be a cool character so it's not okay to hate him as he is.

[Varitok]

Sylvannas really brought out the edgy 12 years olds again in the horde. Its extremely cringey.

[Magnagarde]

only for someone this forum has tarred as a Sylvanas fanboy to tell you that they disliked Baine prior to him coming into conflict with her, and you immediately shifted to: "Well SoO happened, who's the loser now?!"

That is a great sample size you have right there.

[Wildberry]

That is a great sample size you have right there.

Hey feel free to prove me wrong with literally any piece of evidence. You're the one making the claim after all, it's yours to prove. I don't have to prove a thing.

Of course you wouldn't understand burden of proof, though.

[Magnagarde]

Hey feel free to prove me wrong with literally any piece of evidence.

The evidence is encompassed in a number of posts which you qualified as 'gear-shifting'.

[Kraddark]

The horde attacked themselves in Stormheim? Yeah... don't think so.

They didnt though the Alliance started this when they attacked the Horde in Stormheim!!

The two forces negotiated a peace and worked together against the Legion. Then, after the Legion was defeated, they organized a joint event to unite Forsaken citizens with their living relatives.

They were at peace until the Horde burned Teldrassil.

No there was not.

The call was for a one day ceasefire and no peace agreement. You can't have that without there being a state of war and the lie from the boy king being "We're not at war." was a stupid line.

To call for a ceasefire you have to be at war, fullstop/period/whatever you call the dot at the end of a sentance.

If Anduin cared about peace instead of "Bad doggy." to Genn. It would have been "Guards, put cuffs on him, sail to Orgrimmar and offer him as a gift and apology. Oh do the same to Rogers too."

It wasn't a "one day ceasefire" and even if it was, you don't end a joint agreed ceasefire with a surprise attack and genocide...Again, they worked together in Legion and then continued to organize joint events throughout the book.

Saurfang saw the truth behind this sham. His rebellion will put the Horde back on the right course.

[Wildberry]

The evidence is encompassed in a number of posts which you qualified as 'gear-shifting'.

You latched on to me calling him a traitor elsewhere, and then took my statement that they're all traitors as proof that people complain more about Baine than Sylvanas. That's the closest you came to providing evidence and unfortunately:
A.) That's not Evidence
B.) There are more reasons to dislike Baine than just the fact that he's a traitor
C.) Baine's treason against Garrosh involved the Alliance and rebelling against the Warchief, Sylvanas' just involved rebelling against the Warchief. It's not 1:1
D.) My statement, while correct, doesn't appear to be held by the majority. Trying to use a Garrosh fans statement to condemn Sylvanas fans is fantastically stupid.

If you're going to respond make sure it worthwhile. These responses of yours have been lacking.