Attack on teldrassil


(Alphawolff) #1

I believe the attack on teldrassil is a direct respones to the goings on in stormhiem. I think sylvannas kept her cool because there was a bigger and more [Immediate problem (legion), but never forgot ! Once the legion was put down it was time to deal with the alliance and put them in their place. After this betrayal , I would have burned down more than Teldrassil. I want to see the little lion kneel before sylvannas!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACOJhoZmttY
.


(Etheldald) #2

that’s cool and all, but you may want to go here:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/c/lore/worlds-end-tavern

wait… i can post links? :open_mouth:


(Rothiron) #3

Vengeance best served cold I guess.

If you ask me, she should’ve just kept the Night Elves on that island-tree, maybe with a helping of special abomination type creatures, maybe some flesh Titans if you will. Sew some Night Elves into them if you want to get real messed up.

We can even use “Attack of Teldrassil” as the name of this venture. Abbreviate it to AoT, of course.


(Anyaka) #4

Maybe if Sylvanas wasn’t always up to something shady, people wouldn’t assume she’s up to something shady all the time and keep taking potshots.


(Rothiron) #5

You backstab ONE Alliance Grand Marshall, and suddenly you’re on the watchlist for life…

Besides, he was a racist, that’s should be like a freebie.


(Cursewords) #6

Personally - I think Stormheim was enough reason to burn Teldrassil and declare total war on the Alliance. To end only when the Alliance apologizes, and offers Genn to Sylvanas as recompense. Genn disobeyed the High King, usurped Alliance command for his personal vendetta, and attempted to assassinate the Horde Warchief. Both Factions have good cause to behead him.

But Sylvanas never mentions Stormheim as a reason for the coming battle in A Good War. And I love that.

The author hit every note perfectly, imo. By having Sylvanas never mention it, and Saurfang consider it as cause to concede to her without her mentioning it - this really secured the gravity to me.

If Sylvanas went on about it - it would be self serving. She does not mention Stormheim as an assault on her - but as an assault on the Forsaken that she wanted to save.

It is in Saurfang’s mind that we first see Stormheim mentioned as an act of unbridled aggression that can not be left unanswered. It showed that left to their devices, the Alliance will attack at any opportunity. It showed Genn will never suffer a consequence for his assaults on the Horde, and that can not stand as the status quo.

Did Sylvanas consider all this at very moment she decided to burn Teldrassil instead of occupy it? We may never know - but I hope Blizzard mentions Stormheim more.


(Tomlyn) #7

Well—if Saurfang reaches a conclusion, then that’s that. We agree with him on all the important stuff! Don’t we, Cursewords?


(Cursewords) #8

Of course not.

You seem to miss the obvious point. No surprise.

Saurfang is the Horde leader most diametrically opposed to Sylvanas in BtS, and onward.

Sylvanas intones he will be her enemy should they come to a head.

Saurfang considered a Mak’gora if Sylvanas commanded an assault on Stormwind.

Despite all this - even he sees the assault on the Warchief at Stormhiem as unbridled aggression on the part of the Alliance towards the Horde.

Even Anduin “forcefully rebuked” Genn for it (but for all we know, that only means he denied Genn satisfaction for an evening.)

Saurfang is wrong often. But even a man Sylvanas sees as an enemy agrees Stormheim was wrong. Well, 2 men she sees as an enemy. The Alliance High King and the High Overlord of the Orcs and Horde both saw Genn’s assault on the Warchief as wrong.


(Serevèn) #9

Wrong would imply Sylvanas is in the moral right against Genn overall. Stormheim was problematic for the Horde. Genn is part of the Horde’s bigger problem: Sylvanas. She’s just good at confusing dumb orcs into following her genocide campaigns for reasons other than her, you know, actual stated reasons.

He turned to look at her. “They think they’re come home,” he said. “Is this not the case?”

“It is, for the moment,” she said. “Injuries need time to heal. Crops need to be planted. But soon, I will call upon the brave fighters of the Horde for another battle. The one you and I have both longed for.”

Nathanos was silent. She did not take that for disagreement of disapproval. He was often silent. That he did not press her for more details meant that he understood what she wanted.

Stormwind.

This is why the war is happening. Every other reason stated is Saurfang conceding because the old dumb orc is bad at debate and being outright lied to, or is Horde players wishing really hard their warchief’s prime motivation for burning a bunch of elven children wasn’t because she has greater goals for the blood of human babies.


(AelĂ s) #10

Ah yes. What better way to avenge a failed assassination plot than burning thousands of innocents. I’d agree with it more if on the way to lordaeron I got to put a few more forsaken civis on pikes. But blizz is making it awful clear who had the “moral superiority” and all that boringness.


(Cursewords) #11

Pure supposition on your part.

Wrong does not imply anything. It equates to objection. Disagreement. Which is how Saurfang and Anduin saw Genn’s actions at Stormheim. They both objected.

Saurfang objected to Genn assaulting the Warchief without punishment. Anduin objected enough with Genn to forcefully rebuke a racial leader of the Alliance.

So yes. The High King and the High Overlord saw the assault at Stormheim as wrong, before the War of Thorns.

Also - “Dumb Orc” is countered in the narrative.

And when you say “reasons other than her reasons?”… Well… you admit that there are justifiable reasons other than her secret motivations. Reason enough to convince an Orc who just a moment before considered a Mak’gora. I am glad you made that clear.

Again, pure supposition with no basis in events.

The laundry lists of "and"s and "or"s in this statement of yours lays bare how there is no concrete foundation in your statement. It is purely supposition.


(Tomlyn) #12

Thanks for answering my rhetorical. That won’t be necessary in future.

I understood you point perfectly; English is my first language and I comprehend it just fine. There’s certainly no long record of me being accused of obtuseness, Cursewords.

Most diametrically opposed in nothing relevant. He’s certainly not an Alliance partisan. Or have his actions and wars against them (including the most recent one) not made this clear.

But really, you mistrust Saurfang’s reasoning in most matters—but now that his conclusions align with yours he’s an argument to authority? Even if he had went against strong biases—and I am entirely unconvinced that the man who spent his whole life fighting for the Horde, much of it against the Alliance, did—to take someone’s bias into account when evaluating an argument is categorically fallacious. Which incidentally, is why I selected that particular prong over your other, bad arguments.


(Rothiron) #13

To provide a more substantial contribution to the thread, even if you presume that Genn’s vigilante attack on Sylvanas in Stormheim justified full scale war against the Alliance, the burning of Teldrassil is both disproportionate and an escalation.

The Stormheim incident was months ago. The general principle of retaliations is that they happen while the incident is fresh, and the reaction is seen as justified. In WWI, when Ferdinand was assassinated, there was a lot of push for the war to get going very quickly, not only because they wanted to move before Russia could mobilize, but also because any time spent delaying would allow the sympathies of the world to waver (part of the reason why Serbia accepting all but . In this case, Sylvanas had bigger fish to fry, and it was a year or two before she could get around to a proper retaliation. The iron has undoubtedly cooled. Genn is no longer a five star criminal in GTA:V. It’s a legit grudge, but its value as a rallying cry for war has faded.

And second, to respond to a failed assassination attempt of a military leader, no matter how high up the military hierarchy, with a slaughter of innocent civilians, is a clear escalation. Sylvanas would’ve never gotten Saurfang behind her if she indicated this was anywhere near her intent. There’d probably be many Horde no on board, as the burning of Teldrassil is described as having stunned many of the troops that were there, including one of Saurfang’s personal guards. Even Nathanos was hesitant and stunned.

The fact that Stormheim has been all but forgotten by both factions, overshadowed by Teldrassil, is indicative that any moral license it should have granted to pursue a conflict in retribution has long since shriveled up in the burnt out husk of that world tree.


(Cursewords) #14

Forgive me for not noticing…


(Tomlyn) #15

You seldom do.


(Tannaril) #16

Direct response? Sure.

Buning of Telrassil a proportionate response? No.


(Vashk) #17

Yes this is what I have been saying, in Legion, the story starts out with the Horde and Alliance working together on the Broken Shore battle, but as soon as you land on Stormheim they backstab us. It shows even with a threat to Azeroth like the Legion the Alliance can’t be trusted. Night Elves fault for joining such an alliance that put the world at risk for petty vengeance. Greymane was the main instigator, but he also had 7th legion forces with all alliance races besides his worgens.


(Alphawolff) #18

if this was the case ,she could have just let the legion have them and not fought by their side , which she did even after stormhiem !


(Serevèn) #19

You know for as much as the Horde needs Medivh’s prophecy stating that the world needs to stand united against the Legion to mean that they have a place on Azeroth, it also means that prophecy meant killing the Alliance off while there was an active Legion threat would have been equally stupid.

The boat sails both ways and Sylvanas knew it. Its why immediately after the Legion falls this happens:

He turned to look at her. “They think they’re come home,” he said. “Is this not the case?”

“It is, for the moment,” she said. “Injuries need time to heal. Crops need to be planted. But soon, I will call upon the brave fighters of the Horde for another battle. The one you and I have both longed for.”

Nathanos was silent. She did not take that for disagreement of disapproval. He was often silent. That he did not press her for more details meant that he understood what she wanted.

Stormwind.

So no. That is not what would be if it were the case. She attacks the Alliance after the Legion because she wants Stormwind and wasn’t stupid enough to do it while the Legion loomed.


(Alphawolff) #20

how did the yanks get the Japanese to submit ? burnt down the world tree. while not the most favorable solution , it is effective!

[quote=“Rothiron-maelstrom, post:13, topic:56638”]
he Stormheim incident was months ago. The general principle of retaliations is that they happen while the incident is fresh, and the reaction is seen as justified
[/quote] at the time we hade a bigger foe to worry about, she knew this . the alliance clearly did not