Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

cygnnus wrote:
Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite

I don't think this is accurate. Maybe GW does do things this far in advance, but people keep saying they'd need to start producing by now or sooner to make the July 14th date, and I don't think that's accurate. It doesn't take that long to print up new rules books. They need to have a slot at the printers reserved by now, but they don't actually need to have the final version ready yet. They could probably start printing as late as late May and still make it, though late April is a more likely start, which means lockdown wouldn't need to happen until early April/late March. They might do things earlier, but they don't have to.

Not that I think this was an intentional leak. Even if it is legit, I doubt they would intentionally slip this to us. As a corporation, the leak probably caught them by surprise.

PhantomViper wrote:Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...

You mean someone's who has a professional competence in gamedesign, lots and lots of time, lexical knowledge of GW material and maybe even insight into future releases?

Yeah, the document could be many things, but a mere wishlist?

Posit wrote:

cygnnus wrote:
Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite

I don't think this is accurate. Maybe GW does do things this far in advance, but people keep saying they'd need to start producing by now or sooner to make the July 14th date, and I don't think that's accurate. It doesn't take that long to print up new rules books. They need to have a slot at the printers reserved by now, but they don't actually need to have the final version ready yet. They could probably start printing as late as late May and still make it, though late April is a more likely start, which means lockdown wouldn't need to happen until early April/late March. They might do things earlier, but they don't have to.

Not that I think this was an intentional leak. Even if it is legit, I doubt they would intentionally slip this to us. As a corporation, the leak probably caught them by surprise.

They wouldn't need the final version done now, but there's a lot that would need to be do be done to turn the "leak" into a finished product. Proofing, indexing (hah!), typesetting, getting the art together, getting the fluff together. Then they have to back out the printing, shipping and distribution for a world-wide release? None of which can really be started until you are at least very close to final with the rules. "Leaking" a document for blind testing this close to the production date makes no sense at all.

Not to try to argue from authority, but I've been involved in playtesting of rules for several companies over the years (both as a tester as well as running play test programs myself) blind testing,even with the interwebs to speed the process up, is not something you can really donthis late in the game.

Yeah... I'm comfortable saying its not at all likely that this "leak" was done to get blind testing of the rules done in time for the scheduled v6 release.

Valete,

JohnS

cygnnus wrote:

They wouldn't need the final version done now, but there's a lot that would need to be do be done to turn the "leak" into a finished product. Proofing, indexing (hah!), typesetting, getting the art together, getting the fluff together. Then they have to back out the printing, shipping and distribution for a world-wide release? None of which can really be started until you are at least very close to final with the rules. "Leaking" a document for blind testing this close to the production date makes no sense at all.

Not to try to argue from authority, but I've been involved in playtesting of rules for several companies over the years (both as a tester as well as running play test programs myself) blind testing,even with the interwebs to speed the process up, is not something you can really donthis late in the game.

Yeah... I'm comfortable saying its not at all likely that this "leak" was done to get blind testing of the rules done in time for the scheduled v6 release.

Valete,

JohnS

Well, assuming this is an intentional GW leak, this is probably the playtest version, and the ball will already be rolling on what's actually coming out as the formal rulebook, which is most likely already tweaked from the version we see. Fluff, proofing, indexing, typesetting, art, all of that can be done by now.

But releasing this a little in advance, at no cost or lost profits, to have the massive fanbase take a look over it, and get excited? If there's anything glaring unbalanced in there, it'll be all over the interwebs by mid-feb. You're probably right Cygnnus, but I still get the feel it's intentional, for what reason I'm unsure but I think given their current much tighter focus on secrecy, I doubt it was just a disgruntled playtester. Maybe they even released it themselves to pre-empt such an occurence?

I'm just rolling hard to the 'GW knows what it's doing' angle I suppose. I mean, if BL can plan the next 11 HH books by now:

Dan Abnett wrote:
The Motorway into Bristol.
Twatted By A Bloodthirster.
[rude word I really can't write here on a public blog] Attack.
C*ckblocked
Hammer In The Face.
Bastards Of Evil.
Fungus And Poo.
Traitor To The Traitors.
Wobbly Rum Baba In A Big Pond Of Chaos.
Khorne Worshipping Asshats.
Big Crystal B*ner.

Maybe the longer-running games design office can plan ahead to play their fans like ocarinas as well?

Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.

It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?

Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.

erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.

It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?

Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.

At its core, evasion, is really just a "to hit" modifier which GW has used in the past for 40k, and still does in WHFB. Not to mention it's a common mechanic in just about every other tabletop wargame out there.

This "leaked" set of rules definitely looks more complex, but don't forget there is a reference to a (as of yet missing) set of "basic" rules.

Valete,

JohnS

It's honestly not that complex, it's just explained poorly. in a failed attempt at PP-style technical writing.

Im remaining hopeful myself.
This strikes me as an early draft perhaps a proposed rule set..? IMHO we may see a 6th edition heavly based around this...while it is very wishlisty GW would have to be plain old blind to not see the competition nipping at their heels. The long term rule set makes alot of sense as well, like others stated it will give time to pump out models and codexes via e-releases and "premium" content add ons. Regardless if it is legit or not it would take hundreds of man hours to achieve the level of detail in these rules. Again also stated it is very hard to believe GW had nothing to do with this "Timely" leak, whether it be intentional or not. The level of thought put into this leak is on par to a high profile game design studio...if GW didnt write these rules they should seek out and hire who ever did. I look forward to see what happens in the next six months, also BOW may have several 6th ed related videos coming up.
Cheers hope to see this become a reality!

This thread is about the rumour about the master plan behind this.
The discussion about the validity of the leak itself has its place in the other thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422519.page
So please lets keep these things separate to avoid duplicity.

Of course you are free to state that you don't believe in a 6th edition and/or the leak and therefore don't believe these rumours based on it either, just keep the discussion of the leak itself elsewhere.

No offence to the OP but this is a bit too much of the "I overheard a guy saying his 3rd cousin on his mothers-side's girlsfriend talked to a GW employee who claimed the rules were legit" for me. GW ha s got its head so far up its own that it can see the inside of its brain. Consequentaly the day GW actually listens to its customers will be the day I take over the world

I think the leak was legit, but my conspiracy theory is it was leaked on purpose because they want to get people talking about the new version, all the while not saying there's a new version coming so all us interweb nerds that feel like we're in the know will start frothing at the mouth.

But I like the One rulebook to rule them all idea. I don't like getting a new version every few years. I have a hard enough time remembering rules as it is. Soon as I figure out my army, it's time to relearn everything and buy all the new models since they're the only ones that will work.

erewego86 wrote: If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

Wyches' dodge applies to h2h only.

I reckon there's something to it but the finished product will be considerably less 'out there' than this.

erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.

It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?

Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.

Yes.

I think it's pretty obviously a fandex, though I could, of course, be wrong. I suspect too many people are mistaking 'thinks just like the internet forum fanbase' for 'professional game design', and projecting collective hopes and wishes onto it. The departure from the path GW has taken over the past 15 years is so radical that it seems unlikely that they would do it now without substantial change in top-level management. Some believe this is one of Alessio Cavatore's original drafts, while forgetting that Alessio's design philosophy was more and more vanilla and generic, not more and more complex rules.

That said, it's certainly generating interest, so more power.

The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.

This book reminds me a lot of the MTG comprehensive rules and that is a very very very good thing.

Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.

This book reminds me a lot of the MTG comprehensive rules and that is a very very very good thing.

That may be the thing i love about them the most. They seem very clearly constructed rules with types, categories and restrictions. The beauty of that, is it gives them a framework for all new rules to written the same way. If they cover how those interact clearly enough, there is less confusion upon release of a new book.

Love or hate MTG, ts rules are the most comprehensive i've ever seen.

Darkseid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...

You mean someone's who has a professional competence in gamedesign, lots and lots of time, lexical knowledge of GW material and maybe even insight into future releases?

Yeah, the document could be many things, but a mere wishlist?

No he is talking about the subject of this thread, the 'master plan'. Not the 'leaked' rulebook.

Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.

Sure, and that's probably why it's, on the face, a pretty good ruleset.

But that's how fans write rules. It's how I'd write rules, and you, and most of us. Very few games out there are so obviously mishmashes of other rulesets by other companies, using their ideas or style.

Could be false, but IMO, lately GW has been doing a good job of slowly pulling their gigantic heads out of their asses, so me being the optimist that I am I think this sounds pretty legit.

I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.

The previous strategy of send black boxes, have pre-orders for several weeks, yadda yadda, misses both demographics. Timmys get bored, and webbites don't have enough time or enough special leaked info to get excited.

The way it is now, we interwebs trolls get "leaks", so we feel like we have super secret squirrel info and can plan our super awesums buying plans. Little Timmy can walk into the store on release and go, "Whoa OMG coolest thing EVAR! Mom buy it for me right NOWWWWWW!"

So anyway this falls right into that mentality. Completely deny these are the rules (cause they're NOT, see, they are a DRAFT tee hee). This gets us webbanauts all super duper excited. We talk amongst ourselves and plan it all out, teach ourselves the rules... and when the for reals version drops? We're all there waiting to buy because we've convinced ourselves of the awesomeness.

In the mean time, we are also training ourselves to teach Timmy how to play.

It is simple and brilliant, which is probably why GW is not doing it.

Edit: anyway this is sort of a "bigger plan behind leaks" concept.

More directly on topic, it is feasible that GW would want to try a different direction, i.e. core rules, with core and advanced, that stay put for a while, then focus on armies and models. Codex updates and model releases sell models, obviously. I've seen it said many times that GW says that they are a "model" company, not a "game" company. This really does match up with that concept.

Relic_OMO wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.

Sure, and that's probably why it's, on the face, a pretty good ruleset.

But that's how fans write rules. It's how I'd write rules, and you, and most of us. Very few games out there are so obviously mishmashes of other rulesets by other companies, using their ideas or style.

5th edition 40k is a mishmash of other rulesets by other companies using their ideas or style

The plot thickens....

I believe that all of this is plausible, but until release day we're not going to know for sure either way.

For me, I just hope that, when 6th Edition comes out:

a) I can still use all my slightly-crazy-but-legal units (like Biker Command Squads with Thunder Hammers, Storm Shields, and Plasma Guns),
b) 6th Edition is fun to play both casually and, perhaps to a lesser extent, competitively, and
c) There's still plenty of mystery, scope, and overall epicness in the 40K setting.

ShatteredBlade wrote:I'm starting to wonder if they're going to start to follow the Privateer Press tactics of releasing new models and rules. Except GW would be " Hey, new Space Marine Terminator Type, they have two assault cannons! Oh, the rules are in the up coming white dwarf."

What you forget is that they used to do this, it was called chapter approved. Every so often they would release some new models and print rules in the white dwarf, a couple i remember off hand were pathfinder Rail rifles, Gaunt's ghosts and Tyrannic War veterans, with WHFB they did similar, off hand examples are the priests of ulric and those two elf assasin dudes.

Obviously this wasnt very profitable as ~ 4th edition (forgive me as this was my non-wargaming phase, restarted last year) came out they stopped doing it.

Yeah perkustin, I believe it was right around the start of 4th that it ended. The problem with it was that they didn't promote it well and didn't make a big deal about the new stuff, so it languished. With competent marketing, adding new models randomly would be quite good.

Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.

There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.

I'm 31 ... and spend a good bit of time on the boards ... What are you trying to say loki?

You know in the south east tournament scene I rarely see any teens. I would say the average age is around 35. I think "little timmys" are the minority of Gdubs customer base.

-Loki- wrote:

Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.

There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.

Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.

Let's face it, that's why GW have been able to get away with such shoddy quality control over finecast.

If any significant percentage of buyers were people who frequented message boards or blogs, GW would be facing administration right now.

Rented Tritium wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.

There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.

Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Out of everyone I know what plays wargames, I'm the only one that uses message boards.

My brother talks to FLGS and GW staff about products, and has good knowledge of hobby related stuff simply from being in the hobby for as long as I have, around 20 years.

I have another three friends who simply avoid message boards because, well, it really is a waste of time. They have other commitments. They still plan their lists in advance before buying things, they don't walk in and make impulse purchases every month like your 'timmy' example.

From talking to beople at my FLGS, most of them fall into this category as well. So simply throwing them in with your '12 year old who doesn't know any better' is pretty unfair. They simply do not sit on message boards debating the latest rumour or how GW is dooooooooooooooomed because of their current descision. They just, well, play it as a hobby.

And really, the only reason I sit on Dakka is because I have some free time at work. If I had no free time at work, I wouldn't be on Dakka.

This sounds... good. Almost... no. GW can't be behind this. This... shows way too much forethought.

Unless, of course, this is a new GW we're dealing which which I am completely OK with.

-Loki- wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.

There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.

Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Out of everyone I know what plays wargames, I'm the only one that uses message boards.

My brother talks to FLGS and GW staff about products, and has good knowledge of hobby related stuff simply from being in the hobby for as long as I have, around 20 years.

I have another three friends who simply avoid message boards because, well, it really is a waste of time. They have other commitments. They still plan their lists in advance before buying things, they don't walk in and make impulse purchases every month like your 'timmy' example.

From talking to beople at my FLGS, most of them fall into this category as well. So simply throwing them in with your '12 year old who doesn't know any better' is pretty unfair. They simply do not sit on message boards debating the latest rumour or how GW is dooooooooooooooomed because of their current descision. They just, well, play it as a hobby.

And really, the only reason I sit on Dakka is because I have some free time at work. If I had no free time at work, I wouldn't be on Dakka.

In terms of customer behavior, for the purposes of this discussion, they behave the same way. They come into a shop with limited to no information and they make their purchases.

There really are 2 categories of purchasing pattern. Instead of getting offended, you should go read the quote tree and understand what we're actually discussing.