(SPOILERS!!!) 8.2 PTR summary

[Mehrunes]

The content is the same, but the dialogues and thus the outcomes are not. In every case you inform Sylvanas about what's up and she has you play along - but you are very much her agent. In the case of the Saurfang escape scenario you end it early, telling Zekhan off, and opting out of the cosmetic reward. It also appears the Baine rescue scenario plays out quite differently for loyalists as well, and the version you get seems dependent on prior choices. This is more agency than WoW ever offered before - especially in contrast to MoP, where a PC had zero agency in joining Vol'jin to oppose Garrosh's regime.

"This is more agency than WoW ever offered before" isn't really an argument because it offered no agency before. So yes, this mere illusion of choice, that will culminate with Sylvanas getting deposed by the "righteous" Blanduin sycophants (and her loyalists probably handwaved away) barely manages to go beyond the non-existent bar of having "more agency than WoW ever offered before". That doesn't make it anything else than mere illusion.

Petty fangirling, but then I don't expect a higher standard for this level of cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure why you insist on making these "pot coated in vantablack 2.0 calling the kettle black" posts.

[Aucald]

"This is more agency than WoW ever offered before" isn't really an argument because it offered no agency before. So yes, this mere illusion of choice, that will culminate with Sylvanas getting deposed by the "righteous" Blanduin sycophants (and her loyalists probably handwaved away) barely manages to go beyond the non-existent bar of having "more agency than WoW ever offered before". That doesn't make it anything else than mere illusion.

It's less of an argument and more of an objective statement - still true either way, and the argument becomes more about comparison than it does shaking a stick at something missing or removed. You're still basically saying "it's not substantial/meaningful/impactful enough" which I acknowledge as valid criticism, though the excess of hyperbole does that argument no real favors, either.

[KrakHed]

Sure she's stupidly paranoid, since Anduin's Alliance would never dream of doing such a thing, but her underlying morality doesn't seem any different to yours- genocide is justified if it saves the lives of people from my faction at the expense of the innocents of the other faction. It seems you have more in common with Sylvanas than you know lol.

As I have said, I am not an Alliance player. And of course, her pretense that it's for the greater Horde good is what allows idiots to be duped and continue to follow her. The problem with Sylvanas's argument is that it is, as you said, stupidly paranoid.

If her argument was right, then it'd be a justifiable evil. If the Alliance was truly hellbent on exterminating the Horde, the Horde could justify returning that attitude. If there was regular precedent for the Alliance blowing up Horde cities without regard for civilian cost and the Alliance had begun mobilizing their armies, it might be justified.

It depends on how you weigh these matters. People have done much worse than Theramore in reality, and found reasonable justification, if you look at it as a numbers game of innocent lives lost. Many evil acts are committed with perceived justification. In the end, we must weigh if that justification actually holds any validity. In the case of the Alliance, they have far more recent examples and motives to take such an extreme approach.

I make no claims to righteousness here. I don't play Alliance, and the Alliance never does anywhere near as much as would be reasonably justified. As such, the Alliance are inarguably far too genuinely righteous for their own good. They refuse to take the proportionate response, no matter how many reasons the Horde gives them, no matter how genuine and verifiable the threat to their lives.

They are naive idiots and have demonstrably paid the rather exorbitant price for it.

You are not a horde player. You are a plant poster trying to convince every other one to love the alliance as much as you do.

If you actually believe that, I'm not sure what to say. Do you think anyone is so obsessed with the faction war, so obsessed with you, that they'd what? Prop themselves up as a double agent just to demoralize Horde players?

I am simply a Horde player who thinks Sylvanas is unbelievably idiotic unless she literally only intends to create chaos as a smokescreen for what she actually wants. Also, unlike you, I am not obsessed with the Alliance. I'm not terrified of somehow being tainted. I'm not jealous of them.

They are so boring that I simply don't care about them. They provoke no response beyond apathy.

[Mehrunes]

It's less of an argument and more of an objective statement - still true either way, and the argument becomes more about comparison than it does shaking a stick at something missing or removed. You're still basically saying "it's not substantial/meaningful/impactful enough" which I acknowledge as valid criticism, though the excess of hyperbole does that argument no real favors, either.

Except it's not what I'm basically saying. What I am basically and actually saying that going along with the traitors and do the same exact shit as you'd do if you chose to betray the Horde in the first place isn't an actual choice. It's just an illusion made to silence people that were against a retreat of MoP in the name of singing kumbaya with Alliance because we didn't "get that lesson" after SoO long enough until Blizzard can deliver that story uninterrupted. Not "not substantial enough", not "not meaningful enough" and not "not impactful enough". All three of those imply it's actually choice to begin with and that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

[KrakHed]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=291267....-text-spoilers

"With Saurfang branded a traitor by Sylvanas, the guards will attack us on sight. So we will avoid their notice.
Rokhan's totem will grant us stealth for a limited time and even so wary guards may spot us, but I do not wish to leave a trail of bodies in our wake. They are still part of the Horde."

Another Horde leader on team anti-Sylvanas. That makes it Saurfang, Baine, Thrall, Lor'themar, Rokhan, and Thalyssra. With that roster in mind, Rexxar, Mayla, and Eitrigg are likely to join at the drop of a hat. Lor'themar could easily grab in the rest of his buddies too.

So who does that leave on the other side? Gallywix and the Mag'har? Unless Sylvanas starts propping up puppet leaders, she's going to hemorrhage even more influence.

[EbaumsTipster]

So who does that leave on the other side? Gallywix and the Mag'har? Unless Sylvanas starts propping up puppet leaders, she's going to hemorrhage even more influence.

Gallywix and the Mag'har are her closest allies because it's a direct allusion to Garrosh (Blackfuse Company and the Iron Horde). Which I think is a cute nod.

I do think Gallywix will split when he realizes everyone else is and Thrall will talk to Geyarah (because they are effectively the "same person") but as of now it's the most "Garrosh" allies that are with her.

EDIT: I do think that Goblins, Forsaken and Mag'har will be kind of "connected" after BFA/Sylvanas leaves because they are all kind of the "dicks" of the Horde and have some pretty cool similarities, but they won't be a villain faction or something. they'll be similar to the ties that Worgen/Night Elves/Draenei have

[Super Dickmann]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=291267....-text-spoilers
Another Horde leader on team anti-Sylvanas. That makes it Saurfang, Baine, Thrall, Lor'themar, Rokhan, and Thalyssra. With that roster in mind, Rexxar, Mayla, and Eitrigg are likely to join at the drop of a hat. Lor'themar could easily grab in the rest of his buddies too.

So who does that leave on the other side? Gallywix and the Mag'har? Unless Sylvanas starts propping up puppet leaders, she's going to hemorrhage even more influence.

It's fine. Sylvanas is the people's choice:

Lor'themar: Sylvanas has the loyalty of the people. So long as she is warchief, this war will rage within their hearts. We cannot stop it.

[EbaumsTipster]

It's fine. Sylvanas is the people's choice:

Blizzard calling the Horde player character subhuman??? outrage???

[KrakHed]

It's fine. Sylvanas is the people's choice:

Honestly, this story is fucking stupid. If anything, I'd expect Orgrimmar to have a major Forsaken lynching problem.

[Super Dickmann]

Honestly, this story is fucking stupid. If anything, I'd expect Orgrimmar to have a major Forsaken lynching problem.

It's nothing I haven't been telling you about for ages now. The orcs were all in with the war at the start and have acted in every massacre up to this point. The rebellion needs to subvert them ideologically and sneak around loyal troops to rescue someone who's the 'last shred of honor' in the Horde. We've seen this constantly, now it's just Blizzard confirming it being the intent.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard calling the Horde player character subhuman??? outrage???

The lessons of Pandaria are that the people are untrustworthy plebs who think they want things, but they don't, and that only by guidance from above (by the Alliance) will they align. Vol'jin didn't learn the lesson of Pandaria because he actually attempted to solve his problem himself.

[KrakHed]

It's nothing I haven't been telling you about for ages now. The orcs were all in with the war at the start and have acted in every massacre up to this point. The rebellion needs to subvert them ideologically and sneak around loyal troops to rescue someone who's the 'last shred of honor' in the Horde. We've seen this constantly, now it's just Blizzard confirming it being the intent.

Yeah, but proper plebs would at least lynch zombie Lordaeronians. Why aren't we being lynched on the streets by uneducated bigots?

[EbaumsTipster]

I originally thought that Sylvanas might kill Saurfang as the "last straw" moment that kicks her out of Orgrimmar without a raid... but what if she kills Thrall instead?

[Super Dickmann]

Yeah, but proper plebs would at least lynch zombie Lordaeronians. Why aren't we being lynched on the streets by uneducated bigots?

Because bigotry no longer exists in Warcraft. Grug blaming the zombies because they dragged him into a war of extermination, gassed the land that he wanted to wage the war for in the first place and are now being opposed by his cultural heroes would be wrong, because Grug would be making a collective judgment and that's wrong.

@EbaumsTipster

Don't tease me like that.

Also, I don't think any of the rebels will die, at least not by Sylvanas' hand. Discounting throw-away pathos characters like Zelling. Saurfang might be set up to die, but it'll likely be against N'zoth or the big baddie to give him the meaningful ending he's after and reunite him with his son. Baine and Thrall are immortal.

[Aucald]

Except it's not what I'm basically saying. What I am basically and actually saying that going along with the traitors and do the same exact shit as you'd do if you chose to betray the Horde in the first place isn't an actual choice. It's just an illusion made to silence people that were against a retreat of MoP in the name of singing kumbaya with Alliance because we didn't "get that lesson" after SoO long enough until Blizzard can deliver that story uninterrupted. Not "not substantial enough", not "not meaningful enough" and not "not impactful enough". All three of those imply it's actually choice to begin with and that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

Well, then, you're going to have to successfully argue how it isn't objectively a choice - but so far, you haven't done that. An "illusion" isn't real, so it would be as if the option to make the choice disappeared on approach, or wasn't ever there to begin with, and since it is as we can see the dialogue option as well as the outcome(s) then that isn't a true statement. I've already said the choice may not ultimately be meaningful, but it is certainly present and certainly has an effect on the game world itself. If you're not categorically denying an objective fact of reality, then you'll need to restate your argument.

[Arrashi]

I originally thought that Sylvanas might kill Saurfang as the "last straw" moment that kicks her out of Orgrimmar without a raid... but what if she kills Thrall instead?

So thrall dies for our sins ? Honestly i can see that happening.

[KrakHed]

Because bigotry no longer exists in Warcraft. Grug blaming the zombies because they dragged him into a war of extermination, gassed the land that he wanted to wage the war for in the first place and are now being opposed by his cultural heroes would be wrong, because Grug would be making a collective judgment and that's wrong.

Back in Wrath, Orcs understood that Undead were just Humans. The same Humans who used to run the internment camps, in fact. Back in Cata, you fucking green pansies had some pride. Grow some balls and fucking lynch us! Give us a real moral conflict!

[Super Dickmann]

Back in Wrath, Orcs understood that Undead were just Humans. The same Humans who used to run the internment camps, in fact. Back in Cata, you fucking green pansies had some pride. Grow some balls and fucking lynch us! Give us a real moral conflict!

This is your daily reminder that the last time anyone outside of the Forsaken story ghetto acknowledged that the Forsaken were the people of Lordaeron was when Garrosh gave them a pep talk before throwing them at the Gilnean wall. I'm unquantifiably salty that the only one who even mentions losing Capital City a second time is part of Chadwick's crew as a one-off joke. We won't get any better, will we?

[EbaumsTipster]

I think Sylvanas is the only one who could kill Thrall and not have Blizzard HQ go into lockdown for their safety.

On the other hand, I think Thrall is the only one who could disband the position of Warchief permanently, and not have Blizz HQ go into lockdown for their safety.

[zlygork]

I'd be very surprised if they gave Thrall this new shiny green Durotan model only to kill him. My vote goes to him abolishing the warchief position (srsly, it was established by the freaking fel horde)

[Aucald]

I'd be very surprised if they gave Thrall this new shiny green Durotan model only to kill him. My vote goes to him abolishing the warchief position (srsly, it was established by the freaking fel horde)

In WoD it's implied that the position of "Warchief" existed before the Fel Horde. Ga'nar says that the Frostwolves "need a Warchief" when the threat of the Iron Horde is prophesied by Drek'thar. It seems like it is meant to be an interim position during wartime, a military commander for a given clan. The original Old Horde seems to have taken that and ran with it, and the New Horde of Thrall has known little else but war in its time on Azeroth, so it may just be an acknowledgement of that fact.