This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
New Warchief?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Too bad Orgrim didn't have a son......Damn you Tagra......now you've got me thinking about a What If? for Warcraft.......
and as long as Varian Wrynn is king of Stormwind and de facto leader of the Alliance (yeaaaaaaah I don't get it either - the NEs are too #$%^&*y to let that happen. The rest have decent explanations if you just think about it some), the war will go on.Wolfheart sorta explains that; apparently Tyrande has been receiving visions from Elune that the Alliance needs a military leader, and both her and Mal, after the recent events that have happened: Wrath, the Nightmare War, the Shattering and all, find Varian to be the best choice for that....and now that he has Lo'gosh under control, we'll have to see if it sticks or not.
And yeah, as Patty says: Thrall is the ruler of the Horde, so what he says go; the Alliance doesn't have that...and has never really had that: As proved time and again over the years what with groups leaving and rejoining and all.
On Topic: Metzen has said Thrall will be back; hasn't said what will happen yet to Garrosh. Since you know, we have confirmation from a Blizzard spokesman, why bother hypothesizing about a new leader? Especially when the choices given have already been jossed by Cata and the Lore itself?
Post by
Rankkor
Again, you can have your opinions and I can have mine as well. You are not going to convince me otherwiseSo your opinions are greater then the actual lore? Okay then; if you want to keep believing that your 'truth' is right, go ahead; the rest of us here on the L&RP forum, we'll follow the actual lore.
I hate to break this to you, well not really, but your opinions are not the actual lore. You can make any claim you want, but it is not fact. The lore is written by Blizzard, not by you.
dude, its you who is in the wrong here.
If there's something "in the lore" but you have a different interpretation for it because its "your opinion" it still doesn't make it a valid argument for a discussion.
Arthas killing his father is canon, if I say that "in my opinion" he didn't do it because we never saw him do it and we only saw shadows that could had come from someone else, that still means squat. My opinion aside, its stated as canon that it was Arthas who slayed Terenas, and no ammount of wishful thinking on my part will change that.
Again, its your opinion that the treaty only applies to those nations.
Only Thrall and Jaina signed the treaty, making it, according to you, only liable to them.
Tell me then why Vol'jin and Cairne agreed to it as well and followed it, and its okay for the other Alliance leaders not to do the same?
All of the Horde honored to the treaty, why is it okay for only one Alliance kingdom to do the same and not the others?
It is his opinion because it is not the actual canon lore.
I've already provided the lore that proves my points however.
As for the first underlined part: no, this is not a matter of opinion, its stated in a very solid canon that only Theramoore signed a peace treaty with the horde.
As for the second underlined part: Because the horde and the alliance are 2 different forms of government, so while on the Horde, Thrall as Warchief has the authority to act on behalf of the other leaders unilaterally, on the alliance Jaina (Who was not a queen, nor one of the founding members) lacks the same authority to speak on behalf of Varian, Gelbin, Magni, Daelin, and the rest of the Kings.
The rest of the horde honored the treaty because Thrall said so, and the Warchief's word is the law. The alliance on the other hand, doesn't have a Warchief, each individual King has to agree to something individually. Nobody makes a unilateral decision for them. The closest equivalent to a Warchief the alliance ever had was Anduin Lothar, and even HE didn't had the authority to be signing peace treaties on behalf of the 7 kings.
Again, this is not opinion, this is not subjective, this is not speculative, this is hard canon lore here. IF you wanna ignore this, well........ these aren't the right forums for ya bro'
and as for the third underlined part: Again, one thing is an opinion about something (When there is no clear clarification on the matter, such as how does nozdormu exactly became murozond, or the elements choose who's worthy to be shaman, or whether or not Moira secretly has a mustache she must shave daily.) and another his hard canon (Such as who killed Terenas, how is the alliance ruled in comparison to the horde, how many children had Varian, and how many nations signed the peace treaty).
Post by
Rankkor
and as for who would had made a great warchief.........
I read in an interview a while ago, that the devs originally intended to make Draenosh Saurfang the new warchief, and have Garrosh die at the Wrathgate.
T_T WHY BLIZZARD WHY? he could had been AWESOME!.
Fierce = Check, he's a saurfang after all. He charged the frikking LICH KING. (Granted, he was slain in a single blow, but he was no coward)
Strong in combat = Its in the blood, if you're saurfang, your made of awesomenium.
Honorable = Check, he was actually willing to put bias aside and work side by side with the alliance against the greater good.
Badass = This dude is so far the only one who's ever defeated Saurfang Senior in combat, you can't get any more badass than that.
Angsty attitude = none whatsoever, he knows who he is, he knows his lineage and is damn proud of it.
Diplomatic = Check, he even asked permission to the dragons to fight the frost wyrms before assaulting the wrathgate. Unlike Garrosh who would had scoffed and said "pff, ALL OF THE WORLD BELONGS TO THE HORDE, IF I WANNA FIGHT IN THIS HALLOWED DRACONIC GROUND, NOBODY CAN STOP ME!"
Efficient as a tactical commander = He and bolvar together planned the whole attack, and unlike angsty garrosh, this guy leads from the front. He will NOT ask of his troops something he aint willing to sacrifice himself.
He is everything garrosh isn't, and that alone is enough to make him a much more worthy Warchief than Mister "I.MUST.SPEAK.LIKE.THIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSS!"
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4dehorde
There is a huge difference in your comparrisons Rankkorr. Its in actual written lore that Arthas killed his father, but it is only speculation as to whether or not the treaty between Durotar and Theramore was binding all all Horde and Alliance nations. Your opinion is that because of their different governments, it did not apply to all of the Alliance. My opinion is that is bogus and it did apply to all of them.
Back on topic: Yes, Metzen only said Thrall would be back in the Horde, he didn't say he would be back as warchief. Granted though I imagine if Thrall is returning it is to return as warchief. Regardless this is more of a "what if" thread. Personally I don't know how I would have felt if younger Saurfang was warchief. Truth to be told I don't know that much about him, aside from him being mag'har and Varok's son.
Post by
Patty
There is a huge difference in your comparrisons Rankkorr. Its in actual written lore that Arthas killed his father, but it is only speculation as to whether or not the treaty between Durotar and Theramore was binding all all Horde and Alliance nations. Your opinion is that because of their different governments, it did not apply to all of the Alliance. My opinion is that is bogus and it did apply to all of them.
I don't remember other Alliance envoys actually being noted in the canon novel that the treaty takes place in (Cycle of Hatred... I might actually have a look a little later). Again, if they were not said to be there, they most likely weren't, and Jaina did not have the authority to speak on the behalf of the entire Alliance.
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4dehorde
4dehorde: Metzen explicitly stated "One day, come on, your Warchief is coming back. Right? There's more with Thrall" That's a funny way of putting it if Thrall isn't meant to be warchief again.
Source? That can be taken to mean differen things, purposely ambiguous for fan speculation perhaps. Regardless I said myself it is likely if Thrall is returning to the Horde he will return as Warchief again.
Post by
751416
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
4dehorde: Metzen explicitly stated "One day, come on, your Warchief is coming back. Right? There's more with Thrall" That's a funny way of putting it if Thrall isn't meant to be warchief again.
Source? That can be taken to mean differen things, purposely ambiguous for fan speculation perhaps. Regardless I said myself it is likely if Thrall is returning to the Horde he will return as Warchief again.
The actual quote from this years San Diego Comic Con is: "Horde, your get your warchief back, theres more with Thrall."
Mean different things? what ELSE could it mean? the horde has only had 4 warchiefs (Blackhand, Doomhammer, Thrall, and Garrosh) the first 2 are dead, and the fourth one is the current one. If he says our warchief will be back, that can only mean Thrall.
Unless you know of another warchief I dont (which is HIGHLY unlikely xD)
Post by
Adamsm
Too bad Orgrim didn't have a son......Damn you Tagra......now you've got me thinking about a What If? for Warcraft.......
Is that a bad thing? lol
Is it for certain that Orgrim didn't have a son, even? I've gotta say, having a Doomhammer in charge would be interesting, and I especially think Varian would flip his lid if it happened. No, Doomhammer never found the mate that would be like what Durotan and Draka had; that's what he was looking for, so there is no illegitimate Doomhammer running around.
Wolfheart sorta explains that; apparently Tyrande has been receiving visions from Elune that the Alliance needs a military leader, and both her and Mal, after the recent events that have happened: Wrath, the Nightmare War, the Shattering and all, find Varian to be the best choice for that....and now that he has Lo'gosh under control, we'll have to see if it sticks or not.
And, I dunno, Jarod Shadowsong didn't fit the bill? Or had he already been captured by the Twilight's Hammer around the time Wolfheart takes place? My memory's a little fuzzy about that questline.Jarod actually just came back in the book; till that point, everyone thought he was dead. And Jarod was put in charge of the Watchers, but then was kidnapped after that point, as Wolfheart happens just before the actual start of Cata, same as the Shattering.
On the subject of Draenosh, was there a reason given why the switch was made? And what do you think Garrosh would have done at the Wrathgate? Would he have charged the Lich King like that?Probably to make the actual impact of his death and return in ICC mean something more since they'd have Saurfang there. And Garrosh would have charged the Lich King as well heh.
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
That's the thing that bothers me with this interpretation. It's so "obvious" that I'm thinking we're missing something.
It's possible, yeah. The thing is, what other ways could Thrall come back to the Horde, in full, besides being warchief? I can't imagine him in an adviser role to Garrosh.
That's why I think it will change; Thrall as the overall leader but Garrosh in charge of the armies of the Orcs and the Horde; that way Garrosh can remain as the opposite to Wrynn, but Thrall can still stay his standard self without have to pick up the warmonger hat.
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
That's the thing that bothers me with this interpretation. It's so "obvious" that I'm thinking we're missing something.
It's possible, yeah. The thing is, what other ways could Thrall come back to the Horde, in full, besides being warchief? I can't imagine him in an adviser role to Garrosh.
dude, sometimes people should just stop trying to see a hidden meaning to what someone says. Sometimes if a dev says "the spoon is white" maybe that's all they meant to say.
They said "the warchief is comming back" that's all they meant to say, is that he's coming back. If he was gonna return as something other than warchief, they would had just said "Thrall will return". The fact that they addressed him with his old Title, means he's gonna get it back.
Whether or not he uses his black plate of awesomeness is still up in the air though.
Post by
Adamsm
That's why I think it will change; Thrall as the overall leader but Garrosh in charge of the armies of the Orcs and the Horde; that way Garrosh can remain as the opposite to Wrynn, but Thrall can still stay his standard self without have to pick up the warmonger hat.
So, the Northrend scenario? Where Garrosh was in-charge on the ground but Thrall was the head-honcho?
Bingo; and we've seen it before in all honesty: Rexxar was it for the Founding of Durotar, Saurfang in the Might of Kalimdor, so not out of character for Thrall to have a strong military arm....and say what you will about Garrosh, but he's definitely that.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Levarus
I think Saurfang is going to be Warchief. /agree ?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.