The accusation of horde bias is a little premature for sure, but it's easy to see the signs. Even though the horde leader is getting axed, it doesn't necessarily mean "Win for the alliance", especially if the whole story is still revolving around horde actions and characters. Why is that so hard to see?

If it goes like this for instance... I can still see merit in the "horde bias" claims (how can you not!).

Horde defeats Alliance militarily and destroys Theramore
Horde under Garrosh commits MAJOR additional war crimes (defeats alliance)
Alliance grumbles and wants revenge. Tyrande prays and a level 32 warrior is temporarily blinded before proceeding to almost kill her. Alliance offensive stymied
Horde is pissed at Garrosh.
Horde leader (Vol'jin or Baine) is nice and says "Hey little alliance, don't feel sad, we don't like Garrosh either, join us."
Horde allows alliance into Org
Horde takes left side, alliance takes right, they combo to take down Garrosh.

Hooray everybody.

Horde says: "Thanks alliance, maybe now we can be friends! Go home though or we will kick your ass again. Sorry about Theramore, Ashenvale, Gilenas, Southshore, the way we routed the Draenei's ass, our destruction of Stormwind, how we own Lorederon and all... but hey there were those two years in the internment camp, and you'll always have Camp Taurajo.

BTW - Look who's back? Thrall! What sage advice does he have now? Can't wait...

The End.

So yeah, even a siege of Org might seem pretty horde centric...

(honestly, I'd say "Horde bias" is a bit overblown it's more like "Orc Bias" that is a bit tiresome")

Reply