Who do you think really "won" the Fourth War? The status of Ashenvale and Lordaeron?

[OwenBurton]

The Fourth War is over, and ended in an uneasy armistice. Sylvanas abandoned the Horde. The Horde gained new racial leaders, and a new ruling council. Both sides gained permanent valuable new allies and lands. Most of the Alliance and Horde's military forces are completely decimated, and their resources largely depleted. But ultimately - who really "won" the Fourth War? The previous three wars had pretty clear victories, but this conclusion seems really unclear and poorly defined.

For example, what happened to the territories of Ashenvale and Lordaeron? It's difficult to imagine thousands of orcs and Horde soldiers just calmly withdrawing from Ashenvale with their heads bowed, but I don't see how the Alliance or at least the night elves could accept an armistice without Ashenvale returned. And what about Tirisfal Glades, and the lands of Lordaeron? Are they all considered Alliance territory - or do they still belong to the Forsaken after the conflict ended, even after the Undercity was destroyed?

Edit: I personally think as a compromise solution - part of Ashenvale, perhaps a fourth of Ashenvale at least near the Warsong Gulch area, should belong to the Horde, and an equivalent amount of Tirisfal Glades should belong to the Alliance. That way the usual "return to the older status quo" can be avoided, and the hardliners can be somewhat satisfied. The Horde gets to "win" some new territory, the Alliance gets to "reclaim" some of Lordaeron. There should be some change of sovereignty in both continents after such a massive conflict and a monstrous war - just like in real life. Or else it is just not realistic, frankly.

What really constitutes victory - at the end of the day? In your personal opinion, and that of most people, who really won the war in the end? Are you personally satisfied with the ending?

[Varodoc]

The Alliance won in Arathi.

The Alliance won in Darkshore.

I'd say the answer is rather obvious honestly.

I'm satisfied with this Faction war, I am particularly happy that Blizzard did not forsake the Allied races, but actually gave them a ton of spotlight. And so for example you had Magister Umbric of the Ren'dorei as a major character for the Alliance War Campaign. This exceeded my expectations pleasantly.

[Caerule]

Alliance won. The Alliance did suffer the most victims, for sure. But so did Russia against Germany.

Alliance lost a capitol, but so did the Horde. The Alliance retained their lands, and gained dominance in Arathi. They also conquered Southshore, which would give them the south of Hillsbrad. I could mention the Siege of Dazar'alor, but I'll call that one a tie, as the Alliance may technically have won, but gained nothing but death.

I am never a fan of the faction war. Especially as we'll have to wait a long time before we can hope to see any new home built for the Forsaken and Night Elves.

But yeah. Horde really doesn't come favorable out of this. Rastakhan, Saurfang and Sylvanas are gone. They lost territory across the board. Overall, the Alliance bled more, but gained more.

[Soon-TM]

The Fourth War is over, and ended in an uneasy armistice. Sylvanas abandoned the Horde. The Horde gained new racial leaders, and a new ruling council. Both sides gained permanent valuable new allies and lands. Most of the Alliance and Horde's military forces are completely decimated, and their resources largely depleted. But ultimately - who really "won" the Fourth War? The previous three wars had pretty clear victories, but this conclusion seems really unclear and poorly defined.

For example, what happened to the territories of Ashenvale and Lordaeron? It's difficult to imagine thousands of orcs and Horde soldiers just calmly withdrawing from Ashenvale with their heads bowed, but I don't see how the Alliance or at least the night elves could accept an armistice without Ashenvale returned. And what about Tirisfal Glades, and the lands of Lordaeron? Are they all considered Alliance territory - or do they still belong to the Forsaken after the conflict ended, even after the Undercity was destroyed?

Edit: I personally think as a compromise solution - part of Ashenvale, perhaps a fourth of Ashenvale at least near the Warsong Gulch area, should belong to the Horde, and an equivalent amount of Tirisfal Glades should belong to the Alliance. That way the usual "return to the older status quo" can be avoided, and the hardliners can be somewhat satisfied. The Horde gets to "win" some new territory, the Alliance gets to "reclaim" some of Lordaeron. There should be some change of sovereignty in both continents after such a massive conflict and a monstrous war - just like in real life. Or else it is just not realistic, frankly.

What really constitutes victory - at the end of the day? In your personal opinion, and that of most people, who really won the war in the end? Are you personally satisfied with the ending?

Man, that isn't even a rhetorical question. Alliance successfully repelled the Horde invasion at Darkshore despite Teldrassil being reduced to a smoldering husk, stopped the offensive at Arathi dead in its tracks, stormed Dazar'alor and killed their king with little to no casualties, instituted a puppet government in Orgrimmar and to top it all installed one of their own as queen-to-be of the Forsaken. It was so laughably one sided, especially when some idiot at Irvine spoke of Morally Grey world

[Rendark]

The horde is not allowed to have nice things, so the alliance had to win.

[huth]

The horde is not allowed to have nice things, so the alliance had to win.

The Horde isn't allowed to have nice things because they keep breaking them.

[Rendark]

The Horde isn't allowed to have nice things because they keep breaking them.

Because Blizzard makes them break things i think you mean.

[Syegfryed]

No one won this shit, rly, everyone was fucked in the end, alliance got territories but the horde army is bigger and still functional

[Maljinwo]

The alliance. Theres no doubt

[Aucald]

Based on the official conclusion of the Warfronts and other engagements, the Alliance appear to have largely "won" it even though the ultimate result was an armistice.

[Raisei]

Man, that isn't even a rhetorical question. Alliance successfully repelled the Horde invasion at Darkshore despite Teldrassil being reduced to a smoldering husk, stopped the offensive at Arathi dead in its tracks, stormed Dazar'alor and killed their king with little to no casualties, instituted a puppet government in Orgrimmar and to top it all installed one of their own as queen-to-be of the Forsaken. It was so laughably one sided, especially when some idiot at Irvine spoke of Morally Grey world

And all those victories despite the writers doing their outmost to remove the advantage of the Alliance in ridiculous ways, like reducing our army by 90% because 3 boats fell into Nazjatar, preventing us from calling in help from the Dragonflights and denying us the use of the Vindicaar to melt Orgrimmar into slack. Not to mention our moral compulsions that prevented us from forcing our advantage after Dazar'alor.

[OwenBurton]

And all those victories despite the writers doing their outmost to remove the advantage of the Alliance in ridiculous ways, like reducing our army by 90% because 3 boats fell into Nazjatar, preventing us from calling in help from the Dragonflights and denying us the use of the Vindicaar to melt Orgrimmar into slack. Not to mention our moral compulsions that prevented us from forcing our advantage after Dazar'alor.

The Alliance apparently would have lost the war (at least without Saurfang's assistance). According to Jaina, Saurfang's mak'gora prevented the potential destruction of the Alliance, and Anduin told him that he could muster enough for one final assault, and if that failed, they were essentially "finished".

At the Battle before the Gates of Orgrimmar, even their combined forces seemed uncertain if they could prevail against Sylvanas and her Loyalists, and Alleria also mentioned that she and her army were the only ones capable of standing against N'Zoth, implying their forces were insufficient to the task of fighting him.

[huth]

The Alliance apparently would have lost the war (at least without Saurfang's assistance). According to Jaina, Saurfang's mak'gora prevented the potential destruction of the Alliance, and Anduin told him that he could muster enough for one final assault, and if that failed, they were essentially "finished".

I'm pretty sure they were talking about the local forces. The largest army in the universe doesn't help you any when it is on the wrong continent.

There's also that at that point, N'zoth was a very real issue. Fighting against him and the Horde would have been a very big problem.

[Raisei]

The Alliance apparently would have lost the war (at least without Saurfang's assistance). According to Jaina, Saurfang's mak'gora prevented the potential destruction of the Alliance, and Anduin told him that he could muster enough for one final assault, and if that failed, they were essentially "finished".

Yep, those are the in-game statements and they are ridiculous. After Dazar'alor the Horde was on the verge of loosing and because we then lost 3 ships in Nazjatar suddenly the Horde has an unsurmountable number-advantage? Riiiight.
It was purely written this way to make the final confrontation more dramatic of course, but as usual that ended up giving the Horde an advantage that it never should have posessed.
Just think: We had the full might of the Alliance on our side, plus every Horde leader except for a fat goblin and the leader of the Mag'har. The combined magical power of our named NPCs alone could have vaporized Orgrimmar. Hell, we had the teleportation magic of the Nightborne, we could have teleported Sylvanas into space and ended this charade.
But no, the Alliance had to be artifically weakend so that the Horde loyalists get to feel superior and make Sylvanas the masterful tactician that she never was.

At the Battle before the Gates of Orgrimmar, even their combined forces seemed uncertain if they could prevail against Sylvanas and her Loyalists, and Alleria also mentioned that she and her army were the only ones capable of standing against N'Zoth, implying their forces were insufficient to the task of fighting him.

I think what Alleria meant was that Sylvanas has an army of undead who are resistant to N'zoths powers. Anything else is just ridiculous.

[Thundering]

No one won this shit, rly, everyone was fucked in the end, alliance got territories but the horde army is bigger and still functional

This pretty much the truth, the Alliance is pretty much leaderless now.

[TheFirstOnes]

Alliance kinda? Was kinda a stalemate tho, with no real winner + an armistice being made.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure they were talking about the local forces. The largest army in the universe doesn't help you any when it is on the wrong continent.

There's also that at that point, N'zoth was a very real issue. Fighting against him and the Horde would have been a very big problem.

Yep. Especially since N’Zoth has peak mind manipulation.

Also, yeah, the Army of the Light’s mere existence kinda doesn’t help the Hordes case in this war...

Like at all lmao

[Syegfryed]

This pretty much the truth, the Alliance is pretty much leaderless now.

they have Turalyon which is a leader, better than they had

the horde in other hand is on the dumpster with that meme concil

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure they were talking about the local forces. The largest army in the universe doesn't help you any when it is on the wrong continent.

There's also that at that point, N'zoth was a very real issue. Fighting against him and the Horde would have been a very big problem.

Bold of you to think that blizzard would think like that, what they meant is the whole thing.

Especially when some cinematic back we see how alliance was sending civilians next

Which is what happens when you are attacking with the a bad leadership, forces go too thin, you win but lost more, especially against an enemy who force increase by the margin of the enemy dying, The attack of zandalar to kill the king by example? pointless and cost way too much for the alliance

Zandalar being a bigger empire than Kul'tiras also increased a bit the horde edgy in the end events, they even got vulperas, and tortolans(kind off), and im not sure if mecagon is rly a potency to fill the gap after the incidents.

[VladlTutushkin]

they have Turalyon which is a leader, better than they had

the horde in other hand is on the dumpster with that meme concil

- - - Updated - - -



Bold of you to think that blizzard would think like that, what they meant is the whole thing.

Especially when some cinematic back we see how alliance was sending civilians next

Which is what happens when you are attacking with the a bad leadership, forces go too thin, you win but lost more, especially against an enemy who force increase by the margin of the enemy dying, The attack of zandalar to kill the king by example? pointless and cost way too much for the alliance

Zandalar being a bigger empire than Kul'tiras also increased a bit the horde edgy in the end events, they even got vulperas, and tortolans(kind off), and im not sure if mecagon is rly a potency to fill the gap after the incidents.

Mechagon should be the strongest addition to Alliance in whole BfA. Its a treasure trove of technology and previously would be only rivaled by Gnomeregan and some Titan facilities.

[StationaryHawk]

This pretty much the truth, the Alliance is pretty much leaderless now.

Anduin was replaced the moment he left, Jaina's position will be filled by Katherine and Tandred, and Malfurion will continue to lead in Tyrande's absence. Their leadership is doing fine.

[tromage2]

Horde died with Garrosh.

And what ever we had in the fourth war lets call it the traitor alliance also lost on every border.
The only good thing right now is that blizzard has no beloved Horde members anymore to kill since they are all alrdy dead so now they can only get to Baine, Thrall and the other traitors to kill or turn them into villians.