Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Nico]

Quote

Free spirit hunters can move in the hero phase as if it were the movement phase and then move again in the movement phase. You're arguing that Navigate Realmroots doesn't count as retreating, so effectively freespirit hunters could leave combat via the realmroots to within 9", move again in the movement phase (5") and then charge, 4" is an easy charge to make. Likewise Durthu with his +2 to the realmroots chart effectively gives him a second move on a 4+, and then a charge (by your interpretation). I don't care what you say, 6 damage -2 rend coming at you is scary as fk. 400pts or not. 

This has already been comped at one major event. I strongly suspect it's going to be FAQ'ed the same way. So prety soon, it's no longer going to be relevant. Any imbalance there is going to cease. I've made plans to avoid a Free Spirits list precisely because it's likely to be comped in the future. Hopefully, the comp will not take out the intended alpha strike list (i.e. the Dreadwood Wargrove) as collateral damage.

Sylvaneth don't have a monopoly on movement tricks. When they start winning events as regularly as the Stormcast with the Warrior Brotherhood, it might be time to think that they could be overpowered.

It's also better to comp Free Spirits only, than to comp Navigate Realmroots/ interpret it so as to nerf all Sylvaneth armies.

Quote

"Purposive interpretation" is just another way of saying, "the rules say one thing, but they mean another". It reminds me when AoS first dropped and people argued that double hand weapons gave you an extra attack "because two weapons twice as many attacks right?". Nope, the rules stated they get to reroll 1's. FAQ confirmed "rules as written".  Rules as written is, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters. If something isn't clear, i.e. your not sure how something works, then you can take a stab at "Purposive interpretation". There isn't anything not clear about this. It's pretty black and white.

This isn't an accurate description of purposive interpretation. I always find it amazing that in England all documents are interpreted purposively - seemingly except for some of the rules of wargames. I suspect that non-literal interpretation is the norm in the US as well and that it's not confined only to cases where things aren't clear.

Those are all straw man examples.

I've already conceded that the Navigate Realmroots issue is capable of being interpreted both ways and should be FAQed one way or the other and stated my reasons for doing so in one way. I've also addressed the perceived imbalance of Free Spirits above (expect it will be comped out - and would advise against making it the core of your list if you want the army to have longevity).

Quote

It's also not complicated. There are unit abilities that forbid you from using one of your models weapons (gutrot spume for example). It's not confusing to have a "half-model that can use some weapons and some not." Same with Wyldwoods, you can't use its two scenery rules, and it no longer gives cover. That's what it says. It says nothing about losing keywords. It's still a wyldwood. There is no precedent for models or scenery losing keywords in the entire game (as far as I'm aware. And if there is, it probably explicitly says it loses keywords).
 

I should have just said that it should be amended in the next FAQ so as to make it so that it takes out keywords as well as Scenery Rules, rather than trying to achieve that (I still think sensible) goal via interpretation. Perhaps it is too much of a stretch.

Quote

That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I know plenty of Destruction players (nearly all of them) that take Nothing left Standing for game with objectives. Destructing armies are already hella fast, (my ogre opponent was in combat turn 1)  and +1 to hit is nice, but there are other ways to get hit bonuses that don't require you to be within a random distance from your general.

I'm genuinely interested in how they take this, considering you need to move to the objective first and then get rid of the scenery in the next hero phase - if it was in the movement phase it would be way better. 

For Bellowing Shout, you just have to stand adjacent (or within 1 inch), or you use the Rampage move to close the distance (if necessary from both the hero and the target).

I think "+1 to hit is nice" could be considered an understatement.

I can think of Damned Terrain and Battlebrew for Heroes of course, there are other faction specific buffs (Spirits spell for Bonesplitterz and Warchanters for Ironjawz). Order have a lot of options on that front.

Quote

Yeah, if you can't figure out how it's useful, Im not going to explain it to you lol. But I will say that our free woods go down before deployment, kind hard to keep it away from the general when there isn't a general on the board yet. 

A good point. 

You would deploy your Les Martin Cluster or double Citadel Wood line 6.5 inches away from their deployment zone then. 

It just strikes me as very situational when often you will have other compelling reasons to have your general elsewhere (e.g. at the back behind walls of bodies). I'm not saying it's useless by any means, but I would be surprised to see people take it for an event where the Command Trait has to be the same and submitted in advance for all 5-6 games over Bellowing Shout or Ravagers.

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

This has already been comped at one major event. I strongly suspect it's going to be FAQ'ed the same way. So prety soon, it's no longer going to be relevant. Any imbalance there is going to cease. I've made plans to avoid a Free Spirits list precisely because it's likely to be comped in the future. Hopefully, the comp will not take out the intended alpha strike list (i.e. the Dreadwood Wargrove) as collateral damage.

 

Being "comped" is one thing. Thats when you make changes to how the core rules work in order to correct a perceived "imbalance". Comping something is not a comment on how the rules work. Incidentally,  blood and glory wasn't a comp, it was an interpretation, (and clearly a wrong one due to ignoring the FAQ on rampaging destroyers.)

And if the FAQ comes out and supports that interpretation,  that's fine I'll play it RAW (rules as written). But as of right now, at this moment in time, it is useable as I described above. It is imbalanced, but its only because your reading the rules surrounding retreating wrong. I know you disagree, but you still haven't given me any reason to think retreating ONLY applies to moves. No rules, no FAQ's, no dice. 
 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I should have just said that it should be amended in the next FAQ so as to make it so that it takes out keywords as well as Scenery Rules, rather than trying to achieve that (I still think sensible) goal via interpretation. Perhaps it is too much of a stretch.

At last we agree on something. That's totally a stretch and I doubt that would happen. 
 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I can think of Damned Terrain and Battlebrew for Heroes of course, there are other faction specific buffs (Spirits spell for Bonesplitterz and Warchanters for Ironjawz). Order have a lot of options on that front.

Also butchers with a great cauldron. 
 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I'm genuinely interested in how they take this, considering you need to move to the objective first and then get rid of the scenery in the next hero phase - if it was in the movement phase it would be way better. 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

You would deploy your Les Martin Cluster or double Citadel Wood line 6.5 inches away from their deployment zone then. 

Nothing left standing says it's used in your hero phase, not "at the start of your hero phase".  Same with "rampaging destroyers". 6.5 inches from my deployment zone would be fine. All I would need to do is roll a 1 or higher on rampaging destroyers on 2 units (not hard lol) to be within 6". Then they could move regularly and charge without fear of rolling 1's during a charge (since that's one of scenery rules).
 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

This isn't an accurate description of purposive interpretation. I always find it amazing that in England all documents are interpreted purposively - seemingly except for some of the rules of wargames. I suspect that non-literal interpretation is the norm in the US as well and that it's not confined only to cases where things aren't clear.

Actually its a perfect description. It's also often referred to a RAI "rules as intended."

Usually legal documents have a bunch of explanations and insight into why things are written the way they are. Wargame rules don't have that, so RAI or "purposive interpretation" is basically just guessing at what the designers intended. Trying to guess at the what they "meant" when writing a rule that clearly states "you can do x", doesn't matter. If the rule says you can; you can.

In wargaming rules are interpreted as written, or "rules as written."  Trying to argue that rules mean something other than they say just opens a whole damn unnecessary can of worms, because you can pretty much do that with anything.

Above, those were not straw man arguments. They were examples where "purposive interpretation" said one thing, and were FAQ'd to be taken as written. In nearly every case where it's a question of "RAW" vs "did you intend this?", they've ALWAYS come down on the RAW side; 1's being auto-hit (pre-generals handook), modifiers being able to take dice rolls above 6, The phrase "as if it were the movement phase" being treated as a movement phase. So on and so forth. When it's been a question of RAI vs RAW GW has always come down on the side of RAW (unless it was a misprint. In which case they issue an eratta.) 

The rule says "scenery rules cannot be used", not "keywords cannot be used". Two totally different things. RAW. You can't argue that it "says one" but "means the other". 

 

[Nico]

 

Quote

Usually legal documents have a bunch of explanations and insight into why things are written the way they are. Wargame rules don't have that, so RAI or "purposive interpretation" is basically just guessing at what the designers intended. Trying to guess at the what they "meant" when writing a rule that clearly states "you can do x", doesn't matter. If the rule says you can; you can.

Sometimes the rules do have some fluffy text etc. which could be of some use when determining what something means or you can look at other similar rules and try to derive some conclusion from those (which is not the same thing as importing text wholesale from those rules which the FAQ doesn't support). A Warscroll could have a photograph of a battalion for example (which illustrates one but not the only possible combination of units that validly fit the battalion). 

Quote

Above, those were not straw man arguments. They were examples where "purposive interpretation" said one thing, and were FAQ'd to be taken as written. In nearly every case where it's a question of "RAW" vs "did you intend this?", they've ALWAYS come down on the RAW side; 1's being auto-hit (pre-generals handook), modifiers being able to take dice rolls above 6, The phrase "as if it were the movement phase" being treated as a movement phase. So on and so forth. When it's been a question of RAI vs RAW GW has always come down on the side of RAW (unless it was a misprint. In which case they issue an eratta.) 

There are a lot of questions (on the FB page particularly), which boil down to the person asking the question didn't read the rules properly at all or is willfully pushing the boundary. Some of these have found their way into the FAQs and are the ones that you cite. 

A much better example of when purposive interpretation is useful is Red Reaper. I believe that if you take the Rule of One literally (i.e. narrowly), then Red Reaper doesn't actually fall within it - which means that you would get an infinite loop problem, where a beatstick would keep on piling in. At the very least, people could argue (and do argue) that it doesn't fall within that Rule of One.

However, looking at it purposively, GW have acknowledged and done a good job of banishing the well known infinite loops problem with the rules of one, so it would be very odd for the GH to create a brand new infinite loop a few pages later. Thus, on a purposive interpretation of Red Reaper, you would read in an unstated assumption into the rule that it only works once per turn and doesn't chain (it is of course silent as to whether it chains or not - another presumption you could throw in to achieve the same result is to interpret it against the person relying on the rule - if there's nothing pointing one way or another).

GW have sporadically indicated that they do look at they do take a purposive interpretation for AoS at least (which would principles like if something leads to an absurd conclusion then interpret it the other way for example).

One example in an email to me is that you cannot choose to attack your own unit in the combat phase (surprisingly - rules as written this is actually possible - they acknowledged this) - however - purposively - they said no. We had a good laugh about Archaon eating his own Skaven allies to buff Dorghar. On reflection, this would be pretty overpowered on a Mourngul.

Quote

Trying to argue that rules mean something other than they say just opens a whole damn unnecessary can of worms, because you can pretty much do that with anything.

You can try it, but there are always the safeguards of ask the TO or dice it off to see who is right (which is actually part of the core rules under The Most Important Rule). I'm usually happy to dice something off unless I'm very confident that I'm right and/or if it's pivotal to a list or combo. I'm 60-40 confident about Navigate Realmroots (which isn't that confident), but I'm reluctant to concede any ground on Sylvaneth rules (even though I play all 4 Grand Alliances and like to think I'm quite neutral on balance issues).

Quote

The rule says "scenery rules cannot be used", not "keywords cannot be used". Two totally different things. RAW. You can't argue that it "says one" but "means the other". 

I've already conceded that this is too much of a stretch for interpretation to bridge this gap. They should FAQ this to also take out keywords, just so that the legitimate expectations of Destruction players aren't denied. 

Quote

Nothing left standing says it's used in your hero phase, not "at the start of your hero phase".  Same with "rampaging destroyers". 6.5 inches from my deployment zone would be fine. All I would need to do is roll a 1 or higher on rampaging destroyers on 2 units (not hard lol) to be within 6". Then they could move regularly and charge without fear of rolling 1's during a charge (since that's one of scenery rules).

Thank you for the explanation. I should have thought of the Rampaging Destroyers first point. 

I'm more of a Grot player so I don't care very much about losing models to the Wyldwood rule (Gordrakk is immune to it, but not Deadly Terrain). If you're playing Ironjawz, then I can see the advantage of this to stop Brutes dropping like flies (and as you say, they have Warchanters). 

Quote

Also butchers with a great cauldron. 

Good spot - I'm very pleased to see that this is a random buff and only affects Ogors. It's still slightly scary in the context of Stonelords (if you took 2 for example).

[MidasKiss]

Without going into our suspected answers, would you guys help me create a list of general questions we'd like FAQd from GW, but more immediately for tournaments in the immediate future. From the recent discussion I've got:

1. Does the bonus movement from the Free Spirits battalion allow you to move between woods using the navigate realmroots battle trait?
2. Does removing from play / redeploying using the Navigate Realmroots (or tree revenants ability) count as a retreat?
3. Can warscroll abilities like the skinks "Wary Fighters" leave combat with units from the Household battalion (who normally prevent retreating in the normal sense)?
4. Does rampaging destroyers remove the actual Sylvaneth Wyldwood keyword from the wood, or just get rid of its special rules? For example, if they destroyed it they wouldn't have to roll on it as deadly terrain, but would dryads still get -1 to hit if within 3"?
5. Does the Gnarlroot Battalion give an extra spell cast to each Treelord Ancient, Branchwych and Branchwraith, or do we choose one wizard?
    

[Nico]

There's a good example of where purposive construction could be useful on Facehammer at 1 hour, 35 minutes in regarding the "must attempt to charge" rule of a Stonelord. Byron mentioned "the intent is obvious".

The next sentence is "After this model completes its charge move" which points towards it being a mandatory charge (not just that you have to roll the dice and then decide not to charge - which is an absurd result).   

[Nico]

Quote

Without going into our suspected answers, would you guys help me create a list of general questions we'd like FAQd from GW, but more immediately for tournaments in the immediate future. From the recent discussion I've got:

1. Does the bonus movement from the Free Spirits battalion allow you to move between woods using the navigate realmroots battle trait?
2. Does removing from play / redeploying using the Navigate Realmroots (or tree revenants ability) count as a retreat?
3. Can warscroll abilities like the skinks "Wary Fighters" leave combat with units from the Household battalion (who normally prevent retreating in the normal sense)?
4. Does rampaging destroyers remove the actual Sylvaneth Wyldwood keyword from the wood, or just get rid of its special rules? For example, if they destroyed it they wouldn't have to roll on it as deadly terrain, but would dryads still get -1 to hit if within 3"?
5. Does the Gnarlroot Battalion give an extra spell cast to each Treelord Ancient, Branchwych and Branchwraith, or do we choose one wizard?

Good idea.

I would tweak the questions as:

1. We understand from (a) the existing FAQs (columns on page 2); and (b) this description on the Community website - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/29/top-5-lists-from-blood-glory/ "Ben’s army comprises a single Warscroll Battalion – the ‘Warrior Brotherhood’. What’s great about this particular battalion is that it allows every unit to deploy using Lightening Strikes. This means you don’t need to set them up on the board and can instead deploy your army within 3″ of the enemy (it’s normally further away than this, but clever placement of the two Knight-Azyros models reduce this)!" - that there is a clear distinction between "moves" and "set up" rules. In particular, we understand that a set up rule cannot also be a move rule (since this leads to contradictions - see for example below), notwithstanding the presence of wording such as "This is its move for the movement phase." Please confirm.
2. In relation to 1, wording such as "This is its move for the movement phase." (Warrior Brotherhood) means the same as "the unit cannot move in the following movement phase" (Bloodletter summoning spell). Please confirm. 
3. Noting that the retreat rules are part of the Movement Phase in the Core Rules, is a retreat a subset of the possible "moves"?
4. Given the answer to 3, can a set up rule never be a retreat?
5. Does the bonus movement from the Free Spirits battalion allow you to set up onto the table using the Forest Spirits battle trait? We assume not, given the answer to 2 (as Forest Spirits contains that kind of wording).
6. Does the bonus movement from the Free Spirits battalion allow you to set up next to a target Sylvaneth Wyldwood using the Navigate Realmroots battle trait if the units in the battalion are within 3" of a different Sylvaneth Wyldwood in the hero phase (since Navigate Realmroots is an option "instead of moving normally.")?
7. Does setting up units using the Navigate Realmroots at the start of the Movement Phase count as a retreat if the unit began that Movement phase within 3" of an enemy unit.
8. Can warscroll abilities like the Skinks "Wary Fighters" leave combat with units from the Household battalion (which normally prevent retreating in the normal sense)?
9. We understand that the Destruction Command Trait Nothing Left Standing only removes its Scenery Rules at the moment. For example, if they used Nothing Left Standing at present, then they wouldn't have to roll on it for the Wyldwood scenery rule when they run/charge, but Dryads would still get -1 to hit protection if they were within 3" as the Sylvaneth Wyldwood still has its keywords. Could you please amend or clarify Nothing Left Standing so as to remove the actual Sylvaneth Wyldwood keyword from the Sylvaneth Wyldwood or confirm that the rule doesn't do so.
10. Does the Gnarlroot Battalion give an extra spell cast to each Treelord Ancient, Branchwych and Branchwraith, or do we have to choose one of them only? Effectively does "A Gnarlroot Treelord Ancient, Branchwych or Branchwraith" mean "any" or "one"?
11. Noting that battalion requirements are always keywords, can a Household Battalion contain a Treelord Ancient (which does have the required Treelord keyword) or is your intention that it must be a regular Treelord (except in the special case of the Gnarlroot Wargrove)? This would be an indirect buff to the Gnarlroot Wargrove (if it becomes the only way to get a Treelord Ancient in a Household Battalion).

[Nico]

Really enjoying the discussion of the Sylvaneth army @Lez used in Facehammer Episode 31. Obviously feel encouraged to comment here too.

Clever use of the Household Tree Revenants to tag the end of a unit in combat with Durthu (to stop them retreating). That's genius!

Finished show now - very interesting all round. Something for everyone as all 4 Grand Alliances featured.

[Aezeal]

Official FAQ on the wildwood deployment. Or was that massage thing we read in here already official?

[Stevewren]

14 hours ago, Forestreveries said:

 

 

Is this the one from the battletome? Or a slightly altered version?

I keep saying I really want to play @Chris Tomlins Ironjawz in the island raid scenario. Seems so cool!


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

 

 

It's changed a bit, but I can't remember which bits we altered. 

[Nico]

Quote

Official FAQ on the wildwood deployment. Or was that massage thing we read in here already official?

As close to being official as it can be. Will presumably be in the FAQ. So Les Martin Cluster if you do a 3-Wood. You can still put a 2-Wood in a line.

[Knight of Ruin]

 

2 hours ago, Nico said:

 

 

I've already conceded that this is too much of a stretch for interpretation to bridge this gap. They should FAQ this to also take out keywords, just so that the legitimate expectations of Destruction players aren't denied. 

 

 

Or... it should be FAQ'd to not deny the legitimate expectations of Sylvaneth players? I.e, it actually does remove only the special rules, and NOT a very KEY factor of a single Allegiance's war strategies.

 

I mean, isn't it only the Sylvaneth Wyldwood that falls under this really? I can't think of any other army that relies for real, on a single Keyword as much as Sylvaneth. Then giving ALL destruction armies access to a rule to obliterate said Keyword with relative ease... I'm really sceptical about that tbf.

 

Ie. Removing the rules. Sure, that affects everybody, regardless of it being a Realmgate, Archway or Skull Tower. But removing Keywords, and suddenly affecting Sylvaneth much much worse than any other allegiance? Yeh, not buying that.

[Nico]

Quote

Or... it should be FAQ'd to not deny the legitimate expectations of Sylvaneth players? I.e, it actually does remove only the special rules, and NOT a very KEY factor of a single Allegiance's war strategies.

I can sympathise with that view.

However, I'd trade being able to Navigate Realmroots not counting as a retreat in exchange for Destruction having a fiddly optional hard counter to one Wyldwood per turn (assuming you don't just take turn one as you will be able to choose and just kill their general turn one) any day of the week. Especially if they have to give up +1 to hit or +2 to Ravaging Destroyers in exchange for taking Nothing Left Standing.

For completeness I've also suggested nerfs to the Husktusk and Battlebrew elsewhere; and a fundamental fix to Arrer Boyz that doesn't cripple melee Kunning Rukk - making the model cap 20 for Arrerboyz instead of 40 and increasing their cost. 

The only buff that Sylvaneth could do with would be making Spite Revenants inherent Battleline. A nice to have would be Tree Revenants going down to 90 or 80 points. My view of them has been nudging up recently (thanks to comments from @MidasKiss and demonstrations from @Lez.

Much of the community thinks that Sylvaneth are really overpowered (especially Kurnoth Hunters). I don't share this view. I think they are comfortably behind Stormcast (with Order units popped in) and Mixed Beastclaw Raiders (and the primary test shouldn't be whether Sylvaneth are better than those two armies; it's how they each compete against all of the other possible armies on the 6 battleplans at 2,000 points). I believe that new allegiance packs and new factions will level up the playing field in the future. 

People also think Death are OP, yet they rarely win AoS events, are the least popular Grand Alliance and are overly dependent on Tomb Kings. Again I think they are actually the worst of the four Grand Alliances, despite having some good lists.

[Aezeal]

 

 

Well it might be my lack of comprehension of the subtleties of the language but:

First het said Les was spot on (which means no line but cluster)

Then he said

Quote

Hi All,

We have spoken about this rule today and feel the intent is clear in that all of the Citadel Woods need to be within 1" of any of the other Citadel Woods making up the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 

I hope this clears thing up for you all. 

This seems the definitive answer... but can it not still be interpreted as allowing a line? If the ANY was ALL it would certainly be a cluster.. but to me it just says they all need to be within 1" of  (any) one of the woods... right?

[Nico]

If you only have 2 Citadel Woods in the Wyldwood, then there isn't an issue. Hence you can put them end to end. It's only the line of 3 Citadel Woods which is affected in a single Sylvaneth Wyldwood - it now needs to be put in a Les Martin Cluster.

[Forestreveries]

If you only have 2 Citadel Woods in the Wyldwood, then there isn't an issue. Hence you can put them end to end. It's only the line of 3 Citadel Woods which is affected in a single Sylvaneth Wyldwood - it now needs to be put in a Les Martin Cluster.

I read this the other way; it actually doesn't clear it up I don't think haha


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

If there are only 2 Citadel Woods, then as long as they are within 1 inch then they also satisfy "within 1" of each other". So there's no shape restrictions, they can be end to end or parallel longwise etc. or in an "L" shape. 

Conversely for a 3-Wyldwood, the 3 Citadel Woods need to be in a cluster around a central point (it could be triangular for example) and not in a line of 3 Citadel Woods end to end.

Hopefully that's now clear.

[Forestreveries]

If there are only 2 Citadel Woods, then as long as they are within 1 inch then they also satisfy "within 1" of each other". So there's no shape restrictions, they can be end to end or parallel longwise etc. or in an "L" shape. 

Conversely for a 3-Wyldwood, the 3 Citadel Woods need to be in a cluster around a central point (it could be triangular for example) and not in a line of 3 Citadel Woods end to end.

Hopefully that's now clear.

I understand what you're saying...

But Bens post says "any of the other" not "all of the other".

Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

This is why it needed to be clarified (because "any" isn't a precise word in English, nor is "a" which can be used to mean "any" or "one" - the Gnarlroot conundrum).

Quote

Hi All,
We have spoken about this rule today and feel the intent is clear in that all of the Citadel Woods need to be within 1" of any of the other Citadel Woods making up the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 
I hope this clears thing up for you all. 

The emphasis is on the word "all" in Ben's post. I've added the emphasis.

This was my second attempt to spell it out:

"If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 3 Citadel Woods, then each of the 3 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods.

If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 2 Citadel Woods, then each of the 2 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of the other Citadel Wood."

 

[Aezeal]

Yes... all of them... needing to be within 1" of any wild wood since the 2nd word isn't all too it's still ambiguous. actually I'd say it specifically allows a line." All of the woods must be within 1" of all other citadel woods in the sylvaneth wildwood" would be clearly allowing no line. And your longer lines say the same.... but that is NOT what HE said right? Or just : stringing isnt' allowed  

Quote

I hope this clears thing up for you all.

Sorry Ben. Still not clear enough for me :D.

[Forestreveries]

This is why it needed to be clarified (because "any" isn't a precise word in English, nor is "a" which can be used to mean "any" or "one" - the Gnarlroot conundrum).

Hi All,
We have spoken about this rule today and feel the intent is clear in that all of the Citadel Woods need to be within 1" of any of the other Citadel Woods making up the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 
I hope this clears thing up for you all. 

The emphasis is on the word "all" in Ben's post. I've added the emphasis.
This was my second attempt to spell it out:

"If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 3 Citadel Woods, then each of the 3 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods.

If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 2 Citadel Woods, then each of the 2 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of the other Citadel Wood."

 



I agree that that is the intention, but it's still not what it says.

I've not got involved with yours and Frank's exchanges (and don't want to get sucked into one now) because it's just not productive in my eyes.

I think (as with a lot of things at the moment) you just have to have the discussion with your opponent and play it as agreed until there is an FAQ.

What@MidasKiss is doing is a much more productive use of this forum so kudos there.




Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

I've not got involved with yours and Frank's exchanges (and don't want to get sucked into one now) because it's just not productive in my eyes. 

We'll just have to await an FAQ on the points above (in the list of FAQ questions). You're right that it was starting to become repetitive.

[Aezeal]

Well to be honest their discussion was nice to clarify both views on the matter and where the difference in interpretation are... at least the first time around. MidasKiss' list is nice.. IF the FAQ team gets it and acts on it.

[Aezeal]

31 minutes ago, Nico said:

This is why it needed to be clarified (because "any" isn't a precise word in English, nor is "a" which can be used to mean "any" or "one" - the Gnarlroot conundrum).

The emphasis is on the word "all" in Ben's post. I've added the emphasis.

This was my second attempt to spell it out:

"If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 3 Citadel Woods, then each of the 3 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods.

If a Sylvaneth Wyldwood comprises 2 Citadel Woods, then each of the 2 Citadel Woods in that Sylvaneth Wyldwood must be within 1" of the other Citadel Wood."

 

It's true the shouldn't use a or any in the rules. They should use things like: all, one, one or more etc

[MidasKiss]

An official FAQ is a bonus, but if TOs can just start ruling on it maybe we can reach a consensus and at least have reliably expectations

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Aezeal]

So far I've got a distinct feeling TO's don't play Sylvaneth and consider every thing OP while not addressing other armies OP-ness... FAQ is what I want