Sylvanas and Teldrassil [SPOILERS]

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

https://youtu.be/4SD6iTKfhLo?t=1121
Sylvanas wished to capture Teldrassil to end the war before it even began by massacring all of leaders in one glorious day for the Horde to inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry of its morale.



It would seem Sylvanas never intended to burn down the tree but capture it. Which means
A: She or someone else accidentally burned it down.
B: Someone of the Alliance wished it to be burned.

TLDR:
Sylvanas tried to avoid BfA by CAPTURING Teldrassil and killing Tyrande, Shandris and Malfurion.

[Koraggar]

I could see a "scorched tree" scenario happen here. As in, the Night Elves are about to lose Teldrassil to the Horde but they choose to blow it up instead in order to deny the Horde a key strategic target. Malfurion did something similar with Nordrassil in WC3 - and that world tree was far more important to them than Staghelm's arrogance project.

It would also mirror the Lordaeron scenario where Sylvanas blows up the Undercity to keep the Alliance from conquering it completely. Additionally, it would give the Night Elves a chance to show some agency and lose on their own terms.

-

Burned by a third party scenario would be interesting, but they have to do it in a way where both sides think it was the other that did it without revealing the true perpetrator to the audience. Though I'm struggiling to see who exactly benefits from burning it down when the two sides are at war either way.

[Doffen]

Good possibility that malfurion scorch it. And good point from Koraggar here.

Scorcher 6: Azeroth Meltdown

[Bwgmon]

something something faction war rabble rabble old gods

I'm going to make an oddball guess and predict that Maiev got super pissed that she'll never see her Illidreamboat again and went on another spree, just arson instead of murder this time.

It absolutely won't be the case though.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Here's more to stir the pot: What -if- ELUNE burned it down?

[Qualia]

Or Blizzard simply forgot that they had changed the plot slightly, or too lazy to record a new line for that.

Edit: to clarify, an earlier build on Beta (26530), Sylvanas said the same thing in the voice over in the datamined broadcast text ("Our strike on Teldrassil was meant to end a war before it began... to take an enemy's home and destroy their leaders in one stroke. To inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry"). In a later build (26567), however, they changed it from "take" to "destroy" instead: "Our attack was meant to end a war before it began... to destroy an enemy's home and their leaders in one stroke. To inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry". The question is - what does this new voice over implemented in build 26707 mean? Did Blizzard decide to scrap the newly updated line? Did they simply not think the line was important enough to waste time and resource for a new recording session for a new line? Or is this voice over scheduled to be updated in a future build?

[Vakir]

The inside job/someone in the shadows theories are so ridiculous when the amount of subtlety lent to the Azerite aesthetic on how the tree looks when burning is comparable to a sledgehammer to a geriatric's knee.

It's an accident and it's supposed to highlight that Azerite is effectively plutonium. Welcome to the new age of warfare, "I am become Death" something something. This was always the case for anyone paying attention. This is why Sylvanas doesn't immediately go "What the actual fuck was that thing that seemed to come literally out of nowhere," just that she didn't see this particular outcome.

How this is still a mystery is just...WHY.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

There's also a repetitive quote in BfA: "A single spark can set the whole world aflame.". A single ember or an Azerite explosion may set Teldrassil aflame.

[Deleted]

Ofc this wa the case. Blizzard is so lazy at writing it hurts. but Dont get it twisted SHE still started a war of mass murder of Any night elven lives. It was to"stop a war" it was to end the alliance chance of ever going aginst them.

But yea, ofc it was someome else. Battle of wraftgate all over... Or Sunreaves spies.. or that 1 orc general that stone talon mountains. This is blizzard writing to make the Horde "win" battels without ever doing anything MAJORLY wrong.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

The inside job/someone in the shadows theories are so ridiculous when the amount of subtlety lent to the Azerite aesthetic on how the tree looks when burning is comparable to a sledgehammer to a geriatric's knee.

It's an accident and it's supposed to highlight that Azerite is effectively plutonium. Welcome to the new age of warfare, "I am become Death" something something. This was always the case for anyone paying attention.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" - man who made the nuclear bomb.

[Vakir]

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" - man who made the nuclear bomb.

You realize the implication is that it's so rote and over-utilized that I was leaving the blanks deliberately, right?

This is not revolutionary storytelling.

[Koraggar]

Or Blizzard simply forgot that they had changed the plot slightly, or too lazy to record a new line for that.

Edit: to clarify, an earlier build on Beta (26530), Sylvanas said the same thing in the voice over in the datamined broadcast text ("Our strike on Teldrassil was meant to end a war before it began... to take an enemy's home and destroy their leaders in one stroke. To inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry"). In a later build (26567), however, they changed it from "take" to "destroy" instead: "Our attack was meant to end a war before it began... to destroy an enemy's home and their leaders in one stroke. To inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry". The question is - what does this new voice over implemented in build 26707 mean? Did Blizzard decide to scrap the newly updated line? Did they simply not think the line was important enough to waste time and resource for a new recording session for a new line? Or is this voice over scheduled to be updated in a future build?

Maybe wowhead just got it wrong? It's worth noting that neither version was actually correct. They had it as "take" and "destroy" when the actual line was "capture".

Or aybe the datamining fakes some people were memeing about was actually true.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Maybe wowhead just got it wrong? It's worth noting that neither version was actually correct. They had it as "take" and "destroy" when the actual line was "capture".

Or aybe the datamining fakes some people were memeing about was actually true.

Normally when this happens they change the direction of the story in the future. In the alpha/beta Sylvanas had a quest at 101 for you to go meet Anduin Wrynn and reestablish peace as a Horde character.

[Vakir]

There were no datamined fakes. When you're written by committee, Golden collaboration or not to stabilize it, and a community is bound to immediately lose their absolute shit over any story change that they don't identify with personally - which means you're now altering things based on popularity - you will inevitably find that any given line of dialogue tied to a contentious-yet-popular character that routinely warps the internal logic of the story will inevitably see multiple revisions that lack consistency.

In the alpha/beta Sylvanas had a quest at 101 for you to go meet Anduin Wrynn and reestablish peace as a Horde character.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a citation on that one, honeybear. I've been in Alpha since close to the first pass. Can't recall that one unless it was purely dry quest text that completely falls off.

[Qualia]

Maybe wowhead just got it wrong? It's worth noting that neither version was actually correct. They had it as "take" and "destroy" when the actual line was "capture".

Or aybe the datamining fakes some people were memeing about was actually true.

You don't get it wrong with a datamined broadcast text - it's pretty much just copy and paste. Although, it's true that it could be an updated line. However, the meaning of "take" and "capture" isn't quite different from each other in this case, so I'm not sure what's the reason for the change (other than some mere miscommunication during the recording session).

I doubt the meme is true, though. Blizzard can, and do update their data (after all, that's why it's beta), but as I and others have said, I doubt they have so much spare resources to waste on an intentionally fake build.

[TheRagebear]

Man, at least the Garrosh fans (myself included) weren't so obsessed with optics they tried to say he wasn't actually responsible for all the reprehensible stuff he did. It was part of the adventure.

[Felixon]

https://youtu.be/4SD6iTKfhLo?t=1121
Sylvanas wished to capture Teldrassil to end the war before it even began by massacring all of leaders in one glorious day for the Horde to inflict a wound that would bleed the Alliance dry of its morale.



It would seem Sylvanas never intended to burn down the tree but capture it. Which means
A: She or someone else accidentally burned it down.
B: Someone of the Alliance wished it to be burned.

TLDR:
Sylvanas tried to avoid BfA by CAPTURING Teldrassil and killing Tyrande, Shandris and Malfurion.

Nomi lead a cooking master class in Teldrassil and then...

[Magnagarde]

In the newest MMOC lore subsection spin news:

Sylvanas tried avoiding the BfA conflict through mass murder at Teldrassil and an outright conquest of it, which would prevent the mass murder at Teldrassil during BfA! Clearly guilty of nothing! Remember, murder is good as long as the home is conquered and not burned down.

[Vakir]

Man, at least the Garrosh fans (myself included) weren't so obsessed with optics they tried to say he wasn't actually responsible for all the reprehensible stuff he did. It was part of the adventure.

It's so bizarrely unnecessary and tone-deaf, too.

Capturing Teldrassil to foster a false and completely fear-driven peace, burning down Teldrassil, or accidentally burning down Teldrassil all carry similar negative implications of intent with different outcomes. It doesn't actually lend itself to nuance if it IS done by someone else (which it wasn't, just clearly unintentional) due to the other mounting evidence and history pitted against Sylvanas and her general expected M.O.

Basically, it doesn't matter if I kicked your puppy or if it was a pure accident and it happened to step in my way (or there was an invisible person in the room that kicked the puppy), I still shit on your rug and put mayonnaise in your air vent, so it doesn't really matter all that much.

So basically the only reason the debate for the sake of optics happens is...manufactured by Blizzard themselves and purely for marketing reasons, actually. Nothing with soul or meaning. It's a cool trailer image and piece of concept art to sell at auctions.

"What do YOU guys think happened? Eh? Eh?!"

I don't give a fuck, Alex/Christie/whoever. Try another hook.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

There were no datamined fakes. When you're written by committee, Golden collaboration or not to stabilize it, and a community is bound to immediately lose their absolute shit over any story change that they don't identify with personally - which means you're now altering things based on popularity - you will inevitably find that any given line of dialogue tied to a contentious-yet-popular character that routinely warps the internal logic of the story will inevitably see multiple revisions that lack consistency.



Yeah, I'm gonna need a citation on that one, honeybear. I've been in Alpha since close to the first pass. Can't recall that one unless it was purely dry quest text that completely falls off.

So have I and good luck googling it on Wowhead.