Sylvaneth Wyldwood: "Wyldwood" scenery rule question

[Walrustaco]

My gaming buddy plays Sylvaneth and is more experienced than I. I've naturally tried to learn as much as I could about his army's rules, especially since I wasn't too confident about playing around his wyldwoods. I was told that any movement ending on, or run or charge across or ending on the wood would cause non heroes to die on a roll of 1.

Upon studying their warscroll I noticed the wording was 'Roll a dice for each model that makes a run or charge move across, or finishing on, a Sylvaneth Wyldwood...' 

Nowhere does this mention straight up movement. I brought this up with him and he insisted that was how it was done when he played others, including other sylvaneth players.

He's very reasonable and I enjoy playing him but who is in the right here? 

[Tokyo Nift]

On 4/6/2017 at 4:37 PM, Mossback said:

 See that little part, right after it says, "a run or charge move across"? It says finishing on. That means if you finish a move on the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. It is pretty clear to me that any movement short of a normal movement pace, or ending up your movement on the woods will result in a roll.

This is not a valid interpretation.

Let's assume we're not talking about running or charging - you're saying the rules read "Roll a dice for each model that [...] finishing on a Sylvaneth Wyldwood". That's not a valid grammatical parse of the sentence. 

"Finishing on" can only validly refer to runs or charges which finish on the Wyldwood.. 

[Sleboda]

22 minutes ago, TheInsideMan said:

Interesting statement, do you find your students are confused often lol 

That's the sad part. I don't have students.  These are adults. Full grown,  English speaking, American adults. 

 

Btw, I edited my post to make it more friendly. I'm sorry if my initial language was inflammatory.  That was not my intent. 

[BaldoBeardo]

If we're claiming that that the commas encapsulate a discrete option, then what exactly "finishes on" the WW? If you remove the run and charge, the word "move" has to go too.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Mossback]

Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative on this. Reading the warscroll for the Wyldwoods, I can see how that interpretation is being made. But the Wyldwoods are just basically deadly terrain that has the benefit of not harming the Sylvaneth. If deadly terrain is only deadly if you run or charge across it, it doesn't seem all that effective. If I can walk and park myself inside of deadly terrain, then what is the point of being deadly? Maybe roots to trip over, or low hanging branches to knock you off your mount or feet? I think this could definitely use a FAQ. I don't recall any previous FAQ addressing deadly terrain, Sylvaneth or otherwise.

[duneraider1978]

Yeah it's deadly if you rush through it. Go slow be carefully. Sounds like you are playing deadly terrain wrong? The main rules have it written exactly the same

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Spinsane]

Wow, just realized what you guys meant when you said ending a move in the forest would apply.

I can't, however, even then, read it as anything other than "a charge or run accross or (a charge or run) ending"...

I guess a FAQ actually is a necessity... /sigh

[Aggesut]

20 hours ago, Mossback said:

...the Wyldwoods are just basically deadly terrain that has the benefit of not harming the Sylvaneth. If deadly terrain is only deadly if you run or charge across it, it doesn't seem all that effective. If I can walk and park myself inside of deadly terrain, then what is the point of being deadly? 

To be fair mate, Deadly Terrain does need an update to say Run/Charge as it basically creates a black hole in the world that no one would touch with Gnoblar-stick and there's not much point in having it in the first place. But again, that's just my opinion.

You're completely entitled to your opinion, however don't expect people to just accept Sylvaneth players to cover the map in Wyldwoods and saying no one can sit in it without dying a horrible death. Which is also why 90% of Sylvaneth players play with Run/Charge only, and the last 10% tantrums when you call them out on it.

[Mossback]

30 minutes ago, Aggesut said:

To be fair mate, Deadly Terrain does need an update to say Run/Charge as it basically creates a black hole in the world that no one would touch with Gnoblar-stick and there's not much point in having it in the first place. But again, that's just my opinion.

You're completely entitled to your opinion, however don't expect people to just accept Sylvaneth players to cover the map in Wyldwoods and saying no one can sit in it without dying a horrible death. Which is also why 90% of Sylvaneth players play with Run/Charge only, and the last 10% tantrums when you call them out on it.

I'm perfectly happy to accept an official response from GW on this. The way the wording is on the warscroll and deadly terrain description leaves too much room for confusion. It is not a matter if just saying the run/charge is what GW meant, because for over a year, everyone was playing the placement of the Wyldwoods wrong. Nearly every game I saw on the battle reports showed them strung out in a line or other varied configurations. It wasn't until the FAQ hit last fall that is said each wood must be within 1" of each other, and visual descriptions of what they intended were posted.

If I'm playing a game and either the other player or a TO says it is run/charge, I'm not going to fall on my sword over the ambiguity. Keeping the game fun is what is important, and there shouldn't need to be a team of rules lawyers and grammar police on call to intervene.

[BaldoBeardo]

The FAQ on wildwood placement has no bearing, neither does deadly terrain.
The former is because GW intended 'blobs', but there was no mention of that so people used entirely legal (at the time) lines.
Deadly terrain is deadly terrain, it's not the wildwood. FAQ states that you shouldn't use one rule to infer meaning on another.
The rule doesn't need clarification because it is grammatically correct and accurate.
The ambiguity is caused by people misreading the rule as it is written.
The 'finishing on' part is the subordinate clause in the sentence; it has no independent meaning without the main clause. Hence the commas.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Squirrelmaster]

Treat it as 3 distinct options and what you have is 

1. Each model that makes a run across
2. Each model that makes a charge across
3. What, exactly? "Each model that makes a finishing on" isn't coherent or grammatically correct. "Each model that finishing on" isn't either. It doesn't say "finishes on", which would be a verb and therefore potentially ambiguous. "Finishing on" is a modifier — it has to be modifying something. The only available option is "a run or charge move".

Also, I don't think charging across 2 ww requires two rolls — the same as other effects that either stack or don't stack, this rule says "a Wyldwood", not "this Wyldwood".

[Squirrelmaster]

On 06/04/2017 at 5:14 PM, TheInsideMan said:

Someone's opinion is never wrong as its their opinion not yours. One person is not more valid than another. Let's please respect each other.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” 
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[TheInsideMan]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not to be all grammar king or whatevs, but don't blame GW on this one.  The sentence is accurately constructed to convey the rule. 

It's the inability of others to read that is the issue.  

In my job,  I must write to a 6th grade reading level - basically assuming that people are dumb.  If GW tales any blame here,  it is maybe for giving their players too much credit for being able to comprehend the language.

Interesting statement, do you find your students are confused often lol 

[Tokyo Nift]

On 4/6/2017 at 5:14 PM, TheInsideMan said:

Someone's opinion is never wrong as its their opinion not yours. One person is not more valid than another. Let's please respect each other.

This is obviously and demonstrably not true in many, many walks of life. If my opinion is that I have brain cancer and my neurosurgeon's opinion is that I have a headache, those opinions are not equally valid. 

If a 2 year old child's opinion is that eating nothing but ice cream would make for a great life, that is not as valid as other more informed dietary opinions. 

[TheInsideMan]

12 minutes ago, Tokyo Nift said:

This is obviously and demonstrably not true in many, many walks of life. If my opinion is that I have brain cancer and my neurosurgeon's opinion is that I have a headache, those opinions are not equally valid. 

If a 2 year old child's opinion is that eating nothing but ice cream would make for a great life, that is not as valid as other more informed dietary opinions. 

As observers, we can make our own decisions comparing two sides of an argument, but for the people defending their views we should respect their opinions and remember its their right to express them. This is one of the pillars of civilization. 

Unless of course we stop respecting other people's views, maybe we should all just shout as load as we can at each other. 

[Tokyo Nift]

41 minutes ago, TheInsideMan said:

As observers, we can make our own decisions comparing two sides of an argument, but for the people defending their views we should respect their opinions and remember its their right to express them. This is one of the pillars of civilization. 

Unless of course we stop respecting other people's views, maybe we should all just shout as load as we can at each other. 

There are views that are not worth respecting. Racism, bigotry, and misinterpretation of Sylvaneth grammar are 3 evils that have plagued humanity since our inception. 

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, TheInsideMan said:

As observers, we can make our own decisions comparing two sides of an argument, but for the people defending their views we should respect their opinions and remember its their right to express them. This is one of the pillars of civilization. 

Unless of course we stop respecting other people's views, maybe we should all just shout as load as we can at each other. 

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm disrespecting you, or trying to take away your right to express an opinion. Nor is anyone on this thread shouting at anyone else. We are just telling you that you are provably wrong.

I have to say though, what you are saying sounds more and more like "stop disagreeing with me, it's mean".

My opinion is that this rule is absolutely, 100% clear, and that anyone who thinks a regular move triggers the wyldwood either hasn't read the rules carefully enough, doesn't understand English very well, and/or is trying to cheat.

Are you telling me that I should not express my opinion?

[TheInsideMan]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm disrespecting you, or trying to take away your right to express an opinion. Nor is anyone on this thread shouting at anyone else. We are just telling you that you are provably wrong.

I have to say though, what you are saying sounds more and more like "stop disagreeing with me, it's mean".

My opinion is that this rule is absolutely, 100% clear, and that anyone who thinks a regular move triggers the wyldwood either hasn't read the rules carefully enough, doesn't understand English very well, and/or is trying to cheat.

Are you telling me that I should not express my opinion?

Read the thread... Im not arguing with the consensus. I'm defending someone's right to express an opinion. 

[Squirrelmaster]

36 minutes ago, TheInsideMan said:

Read the thread... Im not arguing with the consensus. I'm defending someone's right to express an opinion. 

Against what or whom? I don't see anything on this thread attacking anyone's right to express an opinion. Attempting to defend against a non-existent attack is a straw man fallacy.

On the other hand, you've said:

On 06/04/2017 at 5:14 PM, TheInsideMan said:

Someone's opinion is never wrong as its their opinion not yours.

That's not just defending someone's right to express an opinion — that's attempting to claim that all opinions, even those concern objective facts, as being above criticism.

Again, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I am not respecting your right to have, and express, an opinion — it just means that I have, and am expressing, a different opinion.

[Sleboda]

On 4/5/2017 at 8:35 PM, Walrustaco said:

but who is in the right here?

English sentence syntax is right here.

I get that some folks are confused, I really do, but that does't mean there is room for two opinions here.

It's not ambiguous at all. It's just that some people are not familiar enough with the language to follow what was written. I blame our school system.

[Mossback]

This is seriously one of the most hateful threads I've come across here. It has gone beyond a simple question and disagreement over a game rule to personal attacks on my reading comprehension, education, and ability to voice an opinion. If the question was posted, then it means others didn't like the wording on the warscroll either. To appease the forum vigilantes, I will agree the warscroll intends it to be only a run or charge move, and does not relate to a regular movement. To those here that supported my opinion the wording could be clearer, I appreciate it. To those that felt the need to be nasty, insulting and unhelpful, you can imagine my opinion I hold of you. You can put away your torches and pitchforks now; the dissenting opinion has been squashed.

[BaldoBeardo]

You can put away your torches and pitchforks now; the dissenting opinion has been squashed.

Having reread my responses in this thread I'm hoping I'm not classified as a torch/pitchfork bearer - but I couldn't let that last part go.
The aim is to find an objective, not subjective result.
Opinions have absolutely no bearing on the objective.
That's not to say there aren't situations where the best we can hope for is a collective opinion - and that's where GW need to be prompted for an FAQ.
The wording for the wildwood *could* be clearer, but it doesn't change the fact that it is entirely accurate and functional as written.
No slight on educational capabilities intended.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Jimbo]

If your opponent has to take a deadly terrain roll to charge your unit in a wyldwood, I'd say that it's pretty effective!! 

From a personal point of view, every Sylvaneth player I know and every TO at every tournament/event I've been to, all play this rule that you roll if you run or charge across/onto but not if you move across or finish on a wyldwood i.e. Exactly the same as normal Deadly terrain.

If you asked an opponent at a tournament/event to roll if they moved across or finished on a wyldwood, you should expect it to be queried and the TO to rule against you.

jimbo

[Aggesut]

13 hours ago, Walrustaco said:

My gaming buddy plays Sylvaneth and is more experienced than I. I've naturally tried to learn as much as I could about his army's rules, especially since I wasn't too confident about playing around his wyldwoods. I was told that any movement ending on, or run or charge across or ending on the wood would cause non heroes to die on a roll of 1.

Upon studying their warscroll I noticed the wording was 'Roll a dice for each model that makes a run or charge move across, or finishing on, a Sylvaneth Wyldwood...' 

Nowhere does this mention straight up movement. I brought this up with him and he insisted that was how it was done when he played others, including other sylvaneth players.

He's very reasonable and I enjoy playing him but who is in the right here? 

You're right and your friend is a boob. Don't be afraid to tell him he's wrong, and if he says otherwise you can always pull up the rule.

It's people like him who gives Sylvaneth a bad rep. The written word is law, and it states run or charge. Nowhere does it say move/end movement.

Where it gets tricky is the wording "...that makes a run or charge move across, or finishing on, a Sylvaneth Wyldwood" the 'finishing on' is what people mistake for finishing anything (including moves). It's just bad wording from GW (as per usual) and the rule only applies to running or charging. Again, this is how the writing is interpreted, but it is accepted by most Sylvaneth players, and if they say otherwise to get an advantage they're not worth playing with.

5 hours ago, Walrustaco said:

 

[mdkinker]

It's as you read it. If you simply move across or onto it, you don't have to roll.

[Mossback]

Run across the woods=roll.

Charge across the woods=roll.

End movement on the woods=roll.

Hero or Monster=don't roll.

Sylvaneth=don't roll.