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.

It doesn't matter. That cover is totally a fake. Photoshopped, probably. I've seen a lot of photos and been in plenty of shops, so trust me.

But have you worked in a shop? That's the deal breaker here.

I worked in a shop with photos in it, yes.

Specifically in the gardening section, but that's beside the point.

You sir, are a true expert on this matter and I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say, thank you for lending us your expertise.

Why is it, in this day and age, that all the leaked photos are low resolution squintfests?

I'd assume that a requirement of being a super spy is a shaky hand, poor focus and a low res camera? That said the cover doesn't look too objectionable, I'm not blown away by it at any rate but it looks 40Kish and I enjoy marines so... eh.

I don't often spend alot of time staring at my current rulebooks cover though so as long as the rules are sound I'll be happy.

That looks more like a book (Black Library) cover.. Specially since the last 2 (mebes 3) 40k Rule Books have not had characters on them just a hammer

Kristobai wrote: the last 2 (mebes 3) 40k Rule Books have not had characters on them just a hammer

One and a half.

Davylove21 wrote:Why is it, in this day and age, that all the leaked photos are low resolution squintfests?

Not everybody has a nice cameraphone I guess.

Davylove21 wrote:Why is it, in this day and age, that all the leaked photos are low resolution squintfests?

Mobile phone camera?

Davylove21 wrote:Why is it, in this day and age, that all the leaked photos are low resolution squintfests?

Because manual focus has become a lost art.

loki old fart wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:Why is it, in this day and age, that all the leaked photos are low resolution squintfests?

Mobile phone camera?

My phone camera can take some pretty decent pictures.

Pacific wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

RatBot wrote:"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.

So is it an acronym, or does it have a punchline, or anything like that? Or is it arbitrary?

I hope it doesn't sound like I expect you to personally answer that, btw, since you seem to be a helpful bystander rather than an actual practitioner of the wordplay in question. But if one of those dudes could answer I'd be obliged.

I believe it was a reference to a character sketch on a comedy show. I can't remember the name of it unfortunately, it's got one of the guys from the show 'Big Train' doing a mock-TV show about different types of hobby. Basically he's a bit of a nerdy lunatic, and uses the word 'hobby' about 100 times. Sorry I can't be more specific, perhaps someone else remembers the name?

it was from "fist of fun" with the hhhobby master simon quinlank who's hhhobys included train ignoreing / old person collecting / antique smashing . and of course dont forget your flask of weak lemon drink !

Other thread locked...

It is now confirmed that the trade sales managers have seen the new rule book.

Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?

oni wrote:Other thread locked...

It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.

Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?

Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.

Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.

Kanluwen wrote:

oni wrote:Other thread locked...

It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.

Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?

Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.

Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.

My mistake, thank you. Post corrected.

And I'm not sure that 'confirmed' was quite the word for it. It was 'alleged' that TSM have seen it.

oni wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

oni wrote:Other thread locked...

It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.

Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?

Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.

Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.

My mistake, thank you. Post corrected.

Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you for it; just wanted to make sure people don't start mobbing their local shop managers with accusations of lying.

pretre wrote:And I'm not sure that 'confirmed' was quite the word for it. It was 'alleged' that TSM have seen it.

Well if they can confirm or deny the legitimacy of the leaked picture then I guess we'll know for sure.

oni wrote:

pretre wrote:And I'm not sure that 'confirmed' was quite the word for it. It was 'alleged' that TSM have seen it.

Well if they can confirm or deny the legitimacy of the leaked picture then I guess we'll know for sure.

Well then they will have allegedly seen the alleged leaked picture and confirmed (or denied) that is is real or not.

lol

Kanluwen wrote:

oni wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

oni wrote:Other thread locked...

It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.

Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?

Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.

Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.

My mistake, thank you. Post corrected.

Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you for it; just wanted to make sure people don't start mobbing their local shop managers with accusations of lying.

No worries, and you make an excellent point. I can picture the teeming masses rushing the counter screaming and yelling to sate their curiosity.

3rd Edition had Black Templars in the starter set, and the front cover of both the set and the rulebook was Black Templars.

Seeing as the rumours about Dark Angels being in the starter set popped up a while back (before we saw the book cover), and now a book cover has been leaked with Dark Angels on the front (in a very similar style to 3rd), you can bet your arse that this is the 6th Edition rulebook. There's not even any point in deliberating over it anymore.

I'm somewhat confused by how much everyone seems to care about what picture is on the cover of one of the three potentially different-covered books.

It's not what's on the outside that counts

d-usa wrote:Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.

"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"

Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...

What purpose did this post provide, I am just curious. The 40k rulebooks of old depicted scenes of space marines for the first 3 books, the warhammer thing is new only for the last 2 editions, anyone who says otherwise is nuts.

Farseer Jenkins wrote:

d-usa wrote:Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.

"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"

Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...

What purpose did this post provide, I am just curious. The 40k rulebooks of old depicted scenes of space marines for the first 3 books, the warhammer thing is new only for the last 2 editions, anyone who says otherwise is nuts.

It provided the exact same purpose as your post. To point out that "GW is getting more SM focused" is not some new development.

So, just as a thought... would it not be possible that what we're looking at is a WIP of the Dark Angels codex? I mean, it follows the 'cool dude posing surrounded by other cool posing dudes' method of other recent codices.

Also, remembering GW's target market - 10-18 year old boys - wouldn't it make more sense to continue using the hammer?

infinite_array wrote:
Also, remembering GW's target market - 10-18 year old boys - wouldn't it make more sense to continue using the hammer?

Do boys have a strange attraction to hammers during puberty? I know I got all the way through highschool without any explicit desire to use a hammer.

Facetiousness aside, I don't know exactly what you're getting at here.

Brother SRM wrote:

infinite_array wrote:
Also, remembering GW's target market - 10-18 year old boys - wouldn't it make more sense to continue using the hammer?

Do boys have a strange attraction to hammers during puberty? I know I got all the way through highschool without any explicit desire to use a hammer.

Facetiousness aside, I don't know exactly what you're getting at here.

Right, sorry. Should've explained there more.

What I meant was, the continued use of a similar image. If the person who GW wants to keep buying their stuff has only been in the game for 2 editions at most, and only 1 edition being more likely, why make a switch to a different cover? 6th, 7th, and 8th Editions of Fantasy, and 4th and 5th Editions of 40k have used the Hammer motif. To them, Fantasy and 40k is instantly recognizable by the hammer on the cover, so why change it now?

Because SPHESS MAHRINES are even more recognizable, no matter how you cut it.