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.

I wasn't counting a lot of stuff from the week before since most of it wasn't rumors at that point. That post would get BOLS a mostly good rating since they had almost all of it down. I may add it tomorrow when I'm at a computer.

Eldar rumors added.

This feels like it is done in poor taste. Just my 2 cents.

jspyd3rx wrote:This feels like it is done in poor taste. Just my 2 cents.

Explain

Slinky wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote:This feels like it is done in poor taste. Just my 2 cents.

Explain

Well, for one it unfairly lists/numbers certain people, and leaves them open to undue criticism. For example, Natfka (i.e., Faeit 212) doesn't create rumours, nor is he particularly known for providing rumour leaks on upcoming releases. What he is known for, however, is scouring the web and compileing the rumours that are already floating around, providing the source of the rumours (if available). This thread and its objectives doesn't acknowledge that, and instead only provides some arbitrary "4 rumours right, 6 rumours wrong, 10 pending" count, which in itself means nothing.

Actually, what is this thread's objective? Just a running tally of who's rumours are correct? What for?

I find it hard to believe you cannot understand the threads objective, especially given the opening post.

Some of us are tired of reading a rumor and wondering whether the guy giving it is just spouting gak or knows whats up.

Referencing this thread I could probably decide that a rumor by Heresy Online isn't worth even posting over, but if it comes from Yakface or Whitehat, it's likely something substantial.

I can't imagine that concept is hard to grasp, although I can understand someone not thinking it's entirely fruitful or necessary.

If thats the case, then whatever, cuz folk gon' do what folk gon' do whether or not you think its a worthwhile expenditure of effort.

Finally, take a quick glance through the thread. Even if you truley don't get it , about 5 pages of other people do and are appreciative of the OPs efforts.

The reference of who said what is invaluable. The poster ratings themselves are rather off (arbitrary and inaccurate)

You're right, I don't understand the necessity of it. Particularly in the means by which it's done. I understand a lot of work has gone into compiling this, but rumours are called rumours for a reason. There's always a possibility that they're not true, for a variety of reasons. Either because the poster is talking gak, or GW has had a sudden change of plans, or a myriad of other factors. Everyone understands that.
Except now there's a list of rumour posters, the purpose of which is so you can decide if a rumour, and the person posting it, is worth discussing. But there's an inherent danger in that kind of thinking. How are you deciding if someone's rumours are more trustworthy than another?
Just because they have a distinctly better ratio of True-to-False rumours? As I said, rumours are rumours, and many may not come true for a variety of reasons. If someone were to get something wrong, what kind of flaming or criticism would they receive over it? Not only that, some of the sources posted in the OP are a little misleading. I already mentioned that Faeit 212 does not post his own rumours, he only compiles rumours other people have posted, and appropriately credits them. Last I checked, BoLS did the same (unless I missed something). So what if a rumour they reported was wrong? Are they at fault for it? Why is there now another big red FALSE on their record, when it wasnt even their own rumour to begin with?
People didn't need a neatly compiled (and it is rather neatly compiled) list to do the thinking for them before. People understand that rumours are rumours, and that your own scrutiny, judgement, and salt was required. Any reasonable person is going to know how strong a rumour is. This list skips that step entirely.

Anyways, them my 2 cents. Disregard as you will, and keep up the good work

Ronin wrote:Well, for one it unfairly lists/numbers certain people, and leaves them open to undue criticism. For example, Natfka (i.e., Faeit 212) doesn't create rumours, nor is he particularly known for providing rumour leaks on upcoming releases. What he is known for, however, is scouring the web and compileing the rumours that are already floating around, providing the source of the rumours (if available). This thread and its objectives doesn't acknowledge that, and instead only provides some arbitrary "4 rumours right, 6 rumours wrong, 10 pending" count, which in itself means nothing.

Actually, what is this thread's objective? Just a running tally of who's rumours are correct? What for?

Natfka does generally repost, but occasionally he receives rumors in his comments or through e-mail that he posts. Hence the reason he has his own category. Where he reposts, the original author gets credit. Where he does not provide a source (because he is posting it as an original rumor), he does not and it goes under him.

The number of right and wrong rumors shows us how reliable a rumor monger is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_blackfang wrote: The poster ratings themselves are rather off (arbitrary and inaccurate)

How so? They are simple lists of what they said and whether it was true or not. If there is an inaccuracy, please note it in the thread so I can update it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ronin wrote: There's always a possibility that they're not true, for a variety of reasons. Either because the poster is talking gak, or GW has had a sudden change of plans, or a myriad of other factors. Everyone understands that.

Exactly my point, the Gak talkers need to get sorted from the people who are generally right.

Except now there's a list of rumour posters, the purpose of which is so you can decide if a rumour, and the person posting it, is worth discussing. But there's an inherent danger in that kind of thinking. How are you deciding if someone's rumours are more trustworthy than another?

Do they have a history of accuracy or not?

Just because they have a distinctly better ratio of True-to-False rumours? As I said, rumours are rumours, and many may not come true for a variety of reasons. If someone were to get something wrong, what kind of flaming or criticism would they receive over it? Not only that, some of the sources posted in the OP are a little misleading. I already mentioned that Faeit 212 does not post his own rumours, he only compiles rumours other people have posted, and appropriately credits them. Last I checked, BoLS did the same (unless I missed something). So what if a rumour they reported was wrong? Are they at fault for it? Why is there now another big red FALSE on their record, when it wasnt even their own rumour to begin with?

Again, although Faeit and BOLs are generally aggregators, sometimes they provide their own rumors without source. If they do that then they are responsible. If there are inaccurate postings, please list them so they can be corrected.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Updated Faeit based on his post on his blog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had an interesting discussion with Faeit in the comments on one of his threads on what this thread is about:

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/07/rumor-track-records-for-faeit-212-your.html

Big Red
Default power + roll for powers, Casting costs, some race specific lores FALSE

How the hell is this false?

Chipstar
"snapshop" = stand and shoot for an assaulted unit, BS1, no template or blast FALSE

Why is this false?

Grant
*Some usr names are "strike down", "blind", and "un-weilding". PENDING

TRUE. All of these USRs are in the main rulebook.

Heresy Online
Vehicles being hit in combat auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out. TRUE

Ummm... no.

Logan on Faeit 212
Codex at Warehouse PENDING

How exactly do you propose to confirm this?

Also note that the scope of individual rumours varies wildly and the scoring does nothing to reflect that. yakface only got 1 TRUE for many pages of accurate info on Necrons, while someone posting a dozen tiny scraps would get 12 TRUEs. The reverse also applies, people with long rumours just get one big FALSE if they get even a tiny part wrong, others get separate grades for each bit.

L_BF: Thanks for the feedback, let me address!

lord_blackfang wrote:

Big Red
Default power + roll for powers, Casting costs, some race specific lores FALSE

How the hell is this false?

Race Specific lores. I will split it into two items. One true and one pending. Since we haven't seen race specific lores yet.

Chipstar
"snapshop" = stand and shoot for an assaulted unit, BS1, no template or blast FALSE

Why is this false?

Overwatch, or stand and shoot allows for Wall of Death attacks. I can see the point though. I will update

Grant
*Some usr names are "strike down", "blind", and "un-weilding". PENDING

TRUE. All of these USRs are in the main rulebook.

Updated. It was part of the CSM rumors so was pending until we saw the book, but it looks like it might be about 6th instead.

Heresy Online
Vehicles being hit in combat auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out. TRUE

Ummm... no.

Updated. I must have confirmed based on a poor reading on my part. Thanks!

Logan on Faeit 212
Codex at Warehouse PENDING

How exactly do you propose to confirm this?

Tough to confirm. I'll leave as not enough info.

Also note that the scope of individual rumours varies wildly and the scoring does nothing to reflect that. yakface only got 1 TRUE for many pages of accurate info on Necrons, while someone posting a dozen tiny scraps would get 12 TRUEs. The reverse also applies, people with long rumours just get one big FALSE if they get even a tiny part wrong, others get separate grades for each bit.

In my opinion, number of trues aren't as important as percentage. If anyone finds ones that can be split out more, I'll update them more. We only went so far back for some and yak's was one of them. As he really has only a couple rumors, having a full true rating makes it more important than how many pieces there were.

That being said, I really appreciate the help. If you find anymore I can split up or update, please post and I will do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, my original rating strategy was to rate rumor POSTs as opposed to RUMORs themselves (breaking down posts into sub rumors). This has led to a change in a lot of the ratings, but some of them have not been updated (Yak's is a good example).

I update more as I find them, but there are an awful lot that I haven't gotten to yet. I'll try to do a big update next week or this weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I managed to split up all of them except Yak. If anyone wants to do Yak and post it, I'll update it.

Thanks again, L_BF!

Updated a ton from this weekend.

I'll put a personal, positive spin on this thread:

When Beasts of War released their 6th Ed rumor videos, quite of few people doubted their validity. In general, I've been told on here that Beasts of War is not the most credible source for rumors or rules interpretation. Now, my opinion of them has changed and I look forward to following their content in the future.

Probably a bad example as those videos had their own thread, but a lot of these rumors get buried in huge rumor threads which I don't always have time to follow.

I'm a fan of this thread.

Good call. BoW did get poo-poo'd a lot (including by me). I still think they are a hit factory, but at least they give one piece of info per video. lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I added Blood of Kitten's rumors but not his rehash of Skcuzzlebumm's.

I like this post! I don't know why it isn't on N&R thread, as I can find any rumour here! Apart from the intention, is a good source to see what is suppossed to happen in the next months with a deeper treatment than the current rumours sticky thread by Kroothawk (even being a good job too).

Said that, I want to help to make this post greater with some opinions/questions/advices/whatever:

BEASTS OF WAR:
and each Pskyer in the 40K universe will have access to a limited number of them FALSE
NOTE: AFAIK, No army can take every psychic discipline, so every army has access to a limited number of them (even if this limit is zero). I think this should be marked TRUE.

BOLS:
No more multi-wave releases when 6th launches 1 FALSE Finecast waves disprove this?
NOTE: we should wait until the next army book/codex release to see if this is true. Of course, a flyers wave doesn't disprove this, as many of them are presumably not included in their current codexes. I'm not sure if finecast disproves this. Maybe IC are not a problem, but do are units (as flayed ones). Anyway I think this should be marked PENDING.

Bramgaunt:
Expensive Flayed Ones, Imm/Deathm one kit TRUE
NOTE: This deserves split.

Reecius/frontline:
FW to be sold in GW stores FALSE
FW to be allowed in normal 40k PENDING
NOTE: withouth a date, this is soooo vague. We could wait for years and this never happen, but we couldn't mark it as FALSE. I think this should be marked as TOO VAGUE. Even if it becomes true, We couldn't mark it true. I can say that GW will release a new army but I don't say when. Is my statement false? No. If in 2025, GW creates a new army, does my rumour become true? Not necessarily. I said something plausible but I didn't provide any other hint (a date, for example).

So, keep working on it, and I expect to see this post on the N&R forum!!!

garrapignado wrote:I like this post! I don't know why it isn't on N&R thread, as I can find any rumour here! Apart from the intention, is a good source to see what is suppossed to happen in the next months with a deeper treatment than the current rumours sticky thread by Kroothawk (even being a good job too).

Said that, I want to help to make this post greater with some opinions/questions/advices/whatever:

BEASTS OF WAR:
and each Pskyer in the 40K universe will have access to a limited number of them FALSE
NOTE: AFAIK, No army can take every psychic discipline, so every army has access to a limited number of them (even if this limit is zero). I think this should be marked TRUE.

Thanks for the help! I went with false on this because there are clearly some races that were stiffed by the new psychic disciplines.

BOLS:
No more multi-wave releases when 6th launches 1 FALSE Finecast waves disprove this?
NOTE: we should wait until the next army book/codex release to see if this is true. Of course, a flyers wave doesn't disprove this, as many of them are presumably not included in their current codexes. I'm not sure if finecast disproves this. Maybe IC are not a problem, but do are units (as flayed ones). Anyway I think this should be marked PENDING.

We just had a multi-wave release didn't we? Finecast and Necron special characters. Daemons this month. Or you think it means that the whole codex comes out at once? I'll go ahead and move this to pending.

Bramgaunt:
Expensive Flayed Ones, Imm/Deathm one kit TRUE
NOTE: This deserves split.

Can do.

Reecius/frontline:
FW to be sold in GW stores FALSE
FW to be allowed in normal 40k PENDING
NOTE: withouth a date, this is soooo vague. We could wait for years and this never happen, but we couldn't mark it as FALSE. I think this should be marked as TOO VAGUE. Even if it becomes true, We couldn't mark it true. I can say that GW will release a new army but I don't say when. Is my statement false? No. If in 2025, GW creates a new army, does my rumour become true? Not necessarily. I said something plausible but I didn't provide any other hint (a date, for example).

It had a 'soon' attached to the rumor and both GW and FW shot it down.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Update BOLS and Bramgaunt per last post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Move BoK to Tastytaste at BoK. Realpha'd.

Thanks for taking my notes into account!

pretre wrote:
It had a 'soon' attached to the rumor and both GW and FW shot it down.

About this, I missed the "soon" and the GW/FW reaction. So it's OK.

As for your broader question, if they don't give a date and it is waaay too vague, I'll just put 'Too Vague'. This also applies if it is a rumor that we have no way of verifying.

Updated Hastings and Erazmus chaos rumors


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added more rumors from Faeit users.

Added updates for Kirby and Faeit 212.

Just updated August rumors and Daemon's releases since those are locked down now. A lot of good confirmations in there.

Added Ornithopter's rumors from the Tau thread.

Added Starter Set rumors from Demiurg and Harry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Digital release rumors added.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added Stickmonkey rumors for Tau.

Huge update from FAeit212


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added Faeit 212 DA rumors.

Whoa, those are some sweet rumors. It would be nice to see Whirlwinds used more often.

I popped them into a N&R thread as well.

Stickmonkey: 2012 Q3 - 6 Ed FALSE

6th edition rules were released one day before Q3, but basically are a July release, starter expected September, also Q3.
As a veteran, he is of course aware of all new editions being released July/September.
So calling this rumour false is harsh or even misleading.

Stickmonkey is usually the first to post most rumours, this one half a year ahead (repeating his prediction from several months before that). In this special case, you should take into account that he posts rumours of things far ahead in the future, so a certain blurriness is unavoidable esp with exact release dates. You can't compare that with people getting the WD a few days early and copying the content to the internet.

Oh, and the wrong date on second wave Tyranids is rumoured to be caused by the Chapterhouse lawsuit that started after he posted the rumour, so could have been correct at the time of writing (one year ahead of the predicted release date).

Also:

Tyrannofex not dual with Tervigon (different posts) FALSE

is in contradiction to the quote you linked:

stickmonkey wrote:Tyrannofex plastic with options to build as Tervigon - unreliable rumor as to the optional build, but I'm throwing it in

even if he later gets some fuzzy doubts:

This is where it gets fuzzy. The tyrranofex is not at all shaped or sized IMO like the tervigon model. I did not have them side by side to compare, but lot of Internet speculation these kits would be combined. I don't see it. Some pieces like legs might have dual use, but I didn't see sprue cuts to tell there. If they are one kit, it will surprise me.

K. I can update some of that tomorrow when I get in.

I'll give him the 6th thing and the tyrannofex. The wrong date doesn't count against him.

I'm trying to avoid judgement on dates though. I realize he posts well ahead but I don't want to give a blanket exemption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, even if we hear rumOr of why something ended up not being true (chapter house issue, 6th problems, etc) we can never confirm them so can't really use them.

Same with this part.

Rumored July release: 6th Ed hard back, 6th Ed special edition, Limited templates, game aids, and what not for 6th edition... TRUEWRONG DATE

Yeah, wrong date doesn't tally against your true false count. I can update it but it doesn't matter. I'll add it to my list for tomorrow.