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.

pretre wrote:

Breotan wrote:

gannam wrote:I really wanted pre measuring in 40K. I think that the lack of it contributes to a great deal of asshattery in tournaments.

That and the Realm of Battle stuff pretty much provide pre-measuring anyway, at least to those who can judge distances easy. Geometry-challenged people (and there are many) will be the only ones penalized if the current system stays in place.

40k basically provides pre-measuring for anyone with knowledge of the game mechanics and board sizes, even outside of the RoB.

I think you are misinterpreting what my intention of the post was. I think most long time 40K players can eyeball 18 inches on the table. range guessing though leads to loads of cheating.

gannam wrote:I think you are misinterpreting what my intention of the post was. I think most long time 40K players can eyeball 18 inches on the table. range guessing though leads to loads of cheating.

I think we got the point. Asshats will be asshats with or without pre-measuring. I've caught over movers before without pre-measuring just fine. ("Oh, you're in range for assault? That's weird. We're playing Pitched Battle and it is turn 1. How'd you get 24*"?")

If this turns out to be the case it fits in with my feeling that the rules were too much of a departure and too much of a risk to take with their biggest money earner - hence my feeling the leakhammer rules would not turn out to be 6th Ed

Rented Tritium wrote:

puma713 wrote: Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens.

Why?

Why is it such a problem that we're playing with rules that aren't valid yet? Does that hurt you somehow? I'm sorry people are playing and discussing a game with toy soldiers in a way you don't approve of.

And what does "valid" even mean here anyway? It's not like we need GWs permission to play any game we want with "their" figures... Rules are "valid" if the people playing agree to use them.

Valete,

JohnS

Kazwulf wrote:

Without that consistent voice of 'official' information, no matter what role they expect White Dwarf to take. Games Workshop is always going to fall into this same morass of customer confusion and misinformation every couple of months.

Isn't the morass of confusion and misinformation created by us the cutomers and not GW though?
GW are consistent in that they release no official information until White Dwarf and advance orders are available. All the necessary information is then given through their official mediums in one go. They've stuck to that for the past 6 months and look like they'll be keeping with this into the future.
Whether we all think it's a good idea or not, it is what's happening.

People like to speculate and wonder. We all do. And everyone has a right to do that. But doesn't it go a bit far when people get so wound up over pure hear-say?
Spend time enjoying your hobby and deal with what's new when it arrives.

Who knows what is going to make it into 6th. Who knows how much of this won't be in 6th. The problem I see GW having is that the current buzz says that it won't be much like pancake edition at all...and people liked it. alot. it's highly playable right off the pdf. a few house rules or some local faq creation and you have an enjoyable, fresh, NEW game.

I think that's what drew so many of us to really backing this as a viable IDEA. If I played 5th and I wanted to play something else, but yet something still 40k, then I was totally for Pancake Edition. (after typo fixes etc)

It made so many, and I can't stress many, old units playable. As far as one codex being AbSolUtely BroK3n!? hell, IDK but there were a few trends I thought were pretty strong. To me, that didn't outweigh the "new game'ness" that Pancake Edition debuted or the revival of old dusty models now given new life. It certainly didn't hurt that it smacked the current metagame around. Again, new edition, NEW GAME.

This article reaks of 6th being 5.5 (still going to play) but I really thought my FLGS was going to get a new game. I have a funny feeling that 6th will just be a FaQ'less bandaid for 5th edition, with little true change.

This whole thing is starting to get silly. 3 months ago we were rage hating about GW lack of leaks and effort to try to keep secrets...

Now we are surprised the 6e leak isn't the 6e leak.

alarmingrick wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Lame. I liked the shook up turn structure. Probably will quit 40k now.

There's an original response.....

This post needs a like button.

Again as I have stated this has become viral advertising for GW. Free advertisement for a product that is coming in the summer.

Sounds truly GW to me in their actions.

I'll be kinda sad if Super-heavies and Gargantuan creatures aren't in. Everything else that is apparently 'out', I'm fine with. The Evasion element would be been fantastic, though. Ah well.

Just so long as Preferred Enemy applies to shooting, and AP3 negates FNP, I'l be pretty happy.

azazel the cat wrote:I'll be kinda sad if Super-heavies and Gargantuan creatures aren't in. Everything else that is apparently 'out', I'm fine with. The Evasion element would be been fantastic, though. Ah well.

Just so long as Preferred Enemy applies to shooting, and AP3 negates FNP, I'l be pretty happy.

I hope they don't add them in. It will open the door to all kinds of unbalanced lists and abuse. Titan's are supposed to be "God's of War" who can level a city with one
volley of their weaponry. The last thing the game needs are for players to be fielding them like Dreadnoughts.

They need to keep those units in an optional expansion; i.e. Apocalypse, only playable at the 3,000+ point level.

Adam LongWalker wrote:Again as I have stated this has become viral advertising for GW. Free advertisement for a product that is coming in the summer.

Sounds truly GW to me in their actions.

You appear to be confusing GW with a company that has a marketing department. Not just a marketing department, but one capable of running a viral campaign. Evidence to date says that the latter assumption, at least, is incorrect.

NoArmorSave wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I'll be kinda sad if Super-heavies and Gargantuan creatures aren't in. Everything else that is apparently 'out', I'm fine with. The Evasion element would be been fantastic, though. Ah well.

Just so long as Preferred Enemy applies to shooting, and AP3 negates FNP, I'l be pretty happy.

I hope they don't add them in. It will open the door to all kinds of unbalanced lists and abuse. Titan's are supposed to be "God's of War" who can level a city with one
volley of their weaponry. The last thing the game needs are for players to be fielding them like Dreadnoughts.

They need to keep those units in an optional expansion; i.e. Apocalypse, only playable at the 3,000+ point level.

There's nothing wrong with having the core rules for super-heavy vehicles and flyers in the core book - all they need to do is reiterate the point that super-heavies require their own FOC. Given the limit for FOC #2 was (last I checked) 2,500 points, that should cover the Apocalypse scenario (given the majority of super-heavies are 500+ points.

And before anyone kicks off about people fielding just SHTs as their first FOC, as far as I'm aware your first FOC has to be picked from a Codex (or equivalent) army list. To date, none of them include super-heavy vehicles.

At least if the core rules for them are in the rulebook, everyone has access to them - even the people who don't own Apocalypse or the appropriate FW books. It also means that we have one standard set of rules for them, rather than different ones depending on which book you own.

Dynamix wrote:If this turns out to be the case it fits in with my feeling that the rules were too much of a departure and too much of a risk to take with their biggest money earner - hence my feeling the leakhammer rules would not turn out to be 6th Ed

You guys are reading way more into the BoW rumour than what is actually said. While the new BoW rumour says that the turn order remains the same, nothing is said the about the movement. They could keep the one move mechanic while just resolving shooting before assaults. What I mean is that you still move at combat, engage or flat out and if you move the into btb then the assaulting unit does not get to shoot nor can the unit assaulted be targeted for shooting attacks.

I feel that the above fits better with the "Early Playtest" story that the rumour throws out, in that the rules would show an evolution rather than a "throw everything that we spent money on developing" out the window.

The same can be applied to the EV being gone. They could be talking about removing the overly confusing/complex chart. Modifiers to BS could still be in from the wording. Personally, I hope that BS modifiers would be based upon target size and the distance moved by the shooting unit(Trying to shoot on the move affects accuracy way more than any movement by the target).

Painnen wrote:This article reaks of 6th being 5.5 (still going to play) but I really thought my FLGS was going to get a new game. I have a funny feeling that 6th will just be a FaQ'less bandaid for 5th edition, with little true change.

Try reading the rumour again...like you would with 40K rules when there is a question. There is a slick inference of things being 5.5 while the substance indicates that the Pancake Heretic PDF has the majority of it right.

Byte wrote:This whole thing is starting to get silly. 3 months ago we were rage hating about GW lack of leaks and effort to try to keep secrets...

Now we are surprised the 6e leak isn't the 6e leak.

What I've noticed is that ever since the 4th day of the Pacake Heretic leak, there has been absolutely no speculation on the next codex release. This rumor has worked amazingly well as a smoke screen against other rumors......hmmmm.

NoArmorSave wrote:I hope they don't add them in. It will open the door to all kinds of unbalanced lists and abuse. Titan's are supposed to be "God's of War" who can level a city with one
volley of their weaponry. The last thing the game needs are for players to be fielding them like Dreadnoughts.

They need to keep those units in an optional expansion; i.e. Apocalypse, only playable at the 3,000+ point level.

Why?
Remember, 40K is a game based upon both you and your opponents consent. If you don't want to take on the challenge of a titan, thats ok, but don't expect the rest of us to be limited by your preference.
Personally, I don't like how the expansions detract from the codex release cycle. I would much rather have one inclusive ruleset that allows for all armies to be updated in a timely manner as oppossed to the overcosted and isolated expansions that take up release slots.

Rented Tritium wrote:

puma713 wrote: Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens.

Why?

Why is it such a problem that we're playing with rules that aren't valid yet? Does that hurt you somehow?

Because speculation has a way of becoming fact in many circles. If someone goes to Frontline Gaming and watches a batrep with the leaked 6th Ed. rules, then I play against them in a tournament, I have to listen to, "I can't wait for 6th! Then you won't be able to do [x] anymore." To which my answer would be, "Have you read the rules yet?"

That's the point. There are people who may use the leaked book instead of actually purchasing 6th Ed, there are people talking about quitting if x, or y or z doesn't happen. To perpetuate the leak in all mediums is irresonsible at best. To think that what I was talking about was the conversation of a handful of forumgoers on Dakka is being a little short-sighted. This way of thinking and the two sides forming over it spreads much further than that. I wasn't commenting about poor lil' ole me. I was commenting on how it affects the gaming landscape in the near future.

Rented Tritium wrote: I'm sorry people are playing and discussing a game with toy soldiers in a way you don't approve of.

It's cute to add little snarky jabs at the end of your posts, but they really don't get the conversation anywhere.

I always think it's funny when people are threatening to quit a game, for whatever reason. They make the assumption that we, as a community, really care about that, and I'm quite often skeptical that they will actually quit. Despite the drawbacks, this hobby has a very interesting (to me) allure that seems to get its claws into lots of people. The initial time/effort/money investment to start the hobby is a big reason I think it's not even more popular.

I'm also with Puma in that I'm not looking forward to the local gamers talking up the Pancake rules as if they're gospel. There's been a lot of back and forth on the topic locally, but there are some firm believers out there. I'm all for playing the game as it stands now, and waiting for the new rulebook to come out before I even start to think of how I might change my current armies.

Who knows, maybe GW got a nice little sales boost out of this leak.

SALVATION!!!

I knew it was a fake, and I knew I'd be proven right. I feel slightly sorry for people who were looking forward to something unique, but meh, all is fair in love and war

Now, I'm expecting apologies from people who dismissed me as a naysayer and grumpy old man. I won't mention names, but you know who you are

Lorek wrote:I always think it's funny when people are threatening to quit a game, for whatever reason. They make the assumption that we, as a community, really care about that, and I'm quite often skeptical that they will actually quit. Despite the drawbacks, this hobby has a very interesting (to me) allure that seems to get its claws into lots of people. The initial time/effort/money investment to start the hobby is a big reason I think it's not even more popular.

I'm also with Puma in that I'm not looking forward to the local gamers talking up the Pancake rules as if they're gospel. There's been a lot of back and forth on the topic locally, but there are some firm believers out there. I'm all for playing the game as it stands now, and waiting for the new rulebook to come out before I even start to think of how I might change my current armies.

I agree with the above totally.

I spend most of my time painting now a days, but that is due to the style a lot of gamers have adopted. Heavy Mech lists and the like. I hope that 6th changes that a little. For now I will just aim to get some small point games in.

puma713 wrote:Because speculation has a way of becoming fact in many circles. If someone goes to Frontline Gaming and watches a batrep with the leaked 6th Ed. rules, then I play against them in a tournament, I have to listen to, "I can't wait for 6th! Then you won't be able to do [x] anymore." To which my answer would be, "Have you read the rules yet?"

That's the point. There are people who may use the leaked book instead of actually purchasing 6th Ed, there are people talking about quitting if x, or y or z doesn't happen. To perpetuate the leak in all mediums is irresonsible at best. To think that what I was talking about was the conversation of a handful of forumgoers on Dakka is being a little short-sighted. This way of thinking and the two sides forming over it spreads much further than that. I wasn't commenting about poor lil' ole me. I was commenting on how it affects the gaming landscape in the near future.

The PDF showed the potential for a ruleset that many people find much more fun to play than the path we've been on with 5th edition. I take your post as essentially telling those of us who like the general direction that the PDF is going to "sit down, shut up, and take whatever GW decides to give you." I'm sorry but the fact is, amongst like-minded players, we don't have to play by GW's rules, and there are enough of us to warrant discussion of how these rules affect us and the game as we currently know it. Now if the Dakka mods want to limit that discussion, that is their choice and perogative to do so...it is their boards after all. I do think it would be wise at this point to limit posts to the News & Rumors boards and the Proposed Rule sections. I see little difference between discussion of these rules and discussion of any other home-brewed rules.

If people are bored with the current rules, it is better to discuss them and put on the table what excites people, and what people are looking forward to then have 6th come out and lose players to disinterest. It gives GW a chance to read the pulse of the players to a small degree, and that is never a bad thing...even if they don't listen to it. The poll on how people felt about the PDF rules showed an overwhelmingly positive response to it, at least amongst people who frequent these boards. That shows that there is more than just a small contingent of people interested in what this PDF has to offer, and that is worth discussion.

I still to this day do not understand GW's marketing approach though....

It is Jan this month.... Why dont they come out and say "hey guys welcome to 2012, this is what we have planned for you guys....

LOTR - Jan
LOTR - Feb
Tau - Mar
LOTR - APR
6E - May

etc....

Why is that so hard for them? Every other company on earth that I know love to hype up gear coming out.... I have never seen a car released with no fan fare! Christ even Apple hype there Iphones up months ahead of time and people line up for the shyte around the block!!!

I can see 6E coming out and I will not run for it like a fanboy.... Ill come on here and see what people say about it first... Im not wasting $90 on a book that im not going to even enjoy.

However if GW did what Flames of War are doing right now, with the hey guys this is the new rules coming out and this is how they work and this is what is being fixed etc.... You bet your ass im pre ordering it or at least going out on March 10th to buy it... I even know the DAY it comes out so I can get all hyped over the release..... 6E Release? Dont know, frankly without the hype.... Dont care either.

Make me excited for your product and stop assuming im going to buy it because its the newer version....

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:SALVATION!!!

I knew it was a fake, and I knew I'd be proven right.

Except you weren't. BoW states it's a early draft. So while it's probably not 100% how the rules will look like, it seems to be a GW production and some of it might end up in the 6th ed rulebook.

Milisim wrote:I still to this day do not understand GW's marketing approach though....

It is Jan this month.... Why dont they come out and say "hey guys welcome to 2012, this is what we have planned for you guys....

LOTR - Jan
LOTR - Feb
Tau - Mar
LOTR - APR
6E - May

etc....

Why is that so hard for them? Every other company on earth that I know love to hype up gear coming out.... I have never seen a car released with no fan fare! Christ even Apple hype there Iphones up months ahead of time and people line up for the shyte around the block!!!

I can see 6E coming out and I will not run for it like a fanboy.... Ill come on here and see what people say about it first... Im not wasting $90 on a book that im not going to even enjoy.

However if GW did what Flames of War are doing right now, with the hey guys this is the new rules coming out and this is how they work and this is what is being fixed etc.... You bet your ass im pre ordering it or at least going out on March 10th to buy it... I even know the DAY it comes out so I can get all hyped over the release..... 6E Release? Dont know, frankly without the hype.... Dont care either.

Make me excited for your product and stop assuming im going to buy it because its the newer version....

Plus eleventy billion...

I think GW is so afraid of bad hype, they don't create any hype at all....of course leading to bad hype of a different sort

Lorek wrote:I always think it's funny when people are threatening to quit a game, for whatever reason.

It's even more amusing to me when their reason for quitting is the 40k rules.

Warhammer 40,000 5th edition, page 2, top:

THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE! wrote:The most important rule then, is that the rules aren't all that important!

Warhammer 40,000 5th Edition, inside cover
(reprinted from Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader, inside cover):

But the universe is a very big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed...

By my reckoning, they ignored the most important rule and the most important fluff, so what game were they even playing?

- H8

I don't see how people can't understand GWs approach to things.

GW believe everyone has limited resources and limited capacity for hype. If they say "In the next 6 months we have X,Y, and Z coming out" then people will get excited about X, Y, or Z and allocate funds accordingly. GW believes if they spring a 'surprise' release on you then you will have 2 things...

1) A neutral standing
2) Free cash

This in turn means your 'hype' is let loose around release, with cash and in turn will either give in and buy an army or at least impulsively buy one of the shiny new products that caught your eye. Hell i certainly have done it with pretty much all of the releases as of late.

If GW told you in advance would you realistically go out and buy something from the launch or X or Y if you knew you were saving for Z? It makes sense to them to get something from you for X and Y if they know you will probably spend on Z anyway.

It has nothing to do with 'bad' hype. People talking about something, in any fashion is a good thing. It means there is emotional connection to the product and as such it will be more than likely people will buy the product. Sure you might say you won't buy 6th ed cause you don't like it but you will still buy the minis and who knows, after 3 months of playing the only other person that doesn't want to try out the new set for more than a handful of games you'll probably cave in and buy it.

If you are in this hobby and earn your own money then chances are you are in it for the long haul... It's kind of like a marriage in that sure, they do your head in and take all your money but it's better than the other option.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

The PDF showed the potential for a ruleset that many people find much more fun to play than the path we've been on with 5th edition.

This is a gross overgeneralization.

Maelstrom808 wrote:I take your post as essentially telling those of us who like the general direction that the PDF is going to "sit down, shut up, and take whatever GW decides to give you." I'm sorry but the fact is, amongst like-minded players, we don't have to play by GW's rules, and there are enough of us to warrant discussion of how these rules affect us and the game as we currently know it.

Sure, a discussion amongst like-minded people is natural. However, posting these rules in played-format and showing example of what it will do to current armies, the current meta and possibly the future is taking it a step over the line. Now, people that weren't like-minded might be confused when 6th Ed. actually hits. "Hm," they may say, "I thought assault came before shooting now. Drat!"

Maelstrom808 wrote:Now if the Dakka mods want to limit that discussion, that is their choice and perogative to do so...it is their boards after all. I do think it would be wise at this point to limit posts to the News & Rumors boards and the Proposed Rule sections. I see little difference between discussion of these rules and discussion of any other home-brewed rules.

I agree. This "leak" is no longer News and Rumor. Not only that, but discussing how it will change the face of 40K is as invalid as talking about how the Pan-Fo codex will change the way you think about 40K.

Maelstrom808 wrote:If people are bored with the current rules, it is better to discuss them and put on the table what excites people, and what people are looking forward to then have 6th come out and lose players to disinterest. It gives GW a chance to read the pulse of the players to a small degree, and that is never a bad thing...even if they don't listen to it. The poll on how people felt about the PDF rules showed an overwhelmingly positive response to it, at least amongst people who frequent these boards. That shows that there is more than just a small contingent of people interested in what this PDF has to offer, and that is worth discussion.

True, but you have to realize that people happy about it are being much more vocal. They are generating the buzz - they are creating the groundswell around it. The people that are not happy with it are biding their time, or mumbling in a corner. They are waiting to see what happens instead of pontificating page after page of how [x] rule works with [y] movement now.

And to say that I am saying you have to "sit there, shut up and take it", isn't that what they'd be telling me if they force this encyclopedia of rules down my throat? It's two sides of the same coin.

jamin p wrote:I don't see how people can't understand GWs approach to things.

<snip>

- I set aside a particular amount of money every few months to spend on gaming. This includes GW, but also other table top games, RPGs, and board games. GW loses out on a signifigant amount of that money simply because since I do not know what is going to be available ahead of time, so it goes to other systems. By the time I have the money again for something they finally released, it's lost it's "oh shiney!" factor, and gets dropped down the priority list. Giving me 2-3 months advance notice of exactly what they intend to release helps me earmark money for that purchase, thus gaining them revenue.

- In the circle of gamers I run with, I've been able to turn twice the number of people on to other game systems than I have GWs stuff simply because of the rep that GW has, so no...any hype is not good hype.

- In the past, I have put the game down until a better edition cane out, and in fact was close to doing so again until this PDF came out. I have plenty of other options to play.

Maybe I am unique, or in a very small minority, but most of the gamers I play with have similar habits.

Hatemonger wrote:

Lorek wrote:I always think it's funny when people are threatening to quit a game, for whatever reason.

It's even more amusing to me when their reason for quitting is the 40k rules.

And to go a step farther, rules that aren't even known yet!

puma713 wrote:This is a gross overgeneralization.

I mostly disagree. You have several hundred people on this site alone that have shown support for these rules. Maybe saying they find the potential for it to be much more fun is a little OTT, but they see the potential for them to be at least as fun if not more.

Sure, a discussion amongst like-minded people is natural. However, posting these rules in played-format and showing example of what it will do to current armies, the current meta and possibly the future is taking it a step over the line. Now, people that weren't like-minded might be confused when 6th Ed. actually hits. "Hm," they may say, "I thought assault came before shooting now. Drat!"

Really, what discussion should we have then?

"I like these rules"
"yeah, me too"
"Yeah"
"I, don't"
"ok..."

It's not our fault that people can't do a little research or ask what it's about. You don't come into a conversation that has been going on for an hour and start putting your two cents in without learning what the conversation is about first, and if you do, you don't blame the people having the conversation for you getting the facts wrong.

I agree. This "leak" is no longer News and Rumor. Not only that, but discussing how it will change the face of 40K is as invalid as talking about how the Pan-Fo codex will change the way you think about 40K.

Again, I disagree. It's still a rumor...just like it being a long invalidated by GW is a rumor...or that it is 6th edition is a rumor...or that it was written by the flying spaghetti monster is a rumor (I swear I heard that one somewhere). Being that the most likely truth is that it is the result of a very early brainstorming session for 6th, there is some creditability in at least some of what we see in the PDF will actually make it into 6th. Discussion of what implications that will have is most certainly a valid topic of discussion. However, I don't think it has any business in any of the other 40k sections that are designed for discussion of current rules or tactics.

True, but you have to realize that people happy about it are being much more vocal. They are generating the buzz - they are creating the groundswell around it. The people that are not happy with it are biding their time, or mumbling in a corner. They are waiting to see what happens instead of pontificating page after page of how [x] rule works with [y] movement now.

No there are plenty of people being as vocal as possible about how it will mean the end of 40k. There certainly is a vocal minority, but I think in saying that people that are unhappy about it are simply not saying anything is being as naive as thinking that the majority of 40k players are posting their thoughts on the forums.

And to say that I am saying you have to "sit there, shut up and take it", isn't that what they'd be telling me if they force this encyclopedia of rules down my throat? It's two sides of the same coin.

No, the same thing would be if I told you that you couldn't talk about how much you dislike it and think it would ruin the game and why it would do so..

Maelstrom808 wrote:

puma713 wrote:This is a gross overgeneralization.

I mostly disagree. You have several hundred people on this site alone that have shown support for these rules. Maybe saying they find the potential for it to be much more fun is a little OTT, but they see the potential for them to be at least as fun if not more.

Several hundred? Really? Like how many? I've been following the threads too and a lot of it are the same people going on and on about the rules. And even if it was several hundred, the entire gaming fanbase of 40K divided by several hundred is not "most people".

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Sure, a discussion amongst like-minded people is natural. However, posting these rules in played-format and showing example of what it will do to current armies, the current meta and possibly the future is taking it a step over the line. Now, people that weren't like-minded might be confused when 6th Ed. actually hits. "Hm," they may say, "I thought assault came before shooting now. Drat!"

It's not our fault that people can't do a little research or ask what it's about. You don't come into a conversation that has been going on for an hour and start putting your two cents in without learning what the conversation is about first, and if you do, you don't blame the people having the conversation for you getting the facts wrong.

An hour-long conversation likened to the internet? That's a poor analogy. Yes, people can research, but it doesn't mean they will. Researching is tougher than watching a batrep. If I have a 100-page thread to go through, or a batrep to watch, which one am I going to go through? I am going to watch the batrep and think, "Hey, that'll be neat!" And, instead of any blame being placed on the website that is broadcasting, it is all borne by the watcher to make sure he goes through the 100-page thread, or he finds the link on the internet so he can research himself?

I agree that people need to check their facts (hence my aggravation at having to listen to "I can't wait till 6th comes so. . . this. . . is gone!"), but there has to be a responsibility upon the people discussing as well. If you don't want me adding my 2 cents into the "hour-long" conversation, then tell me so.

Someone that comes into a 100-page thread usually doesn't start at the beginning. They will come in and see that people are discussing how blast markers don't scatter now. Then they say, "Really?" And they go to look for the leaked rulebook. Then, upon looking for it, they find a batrep and watch with amazement. Then, they read the thread a bit more, interest piqued. Finally, they see other threads about how this is just a mashup and not truly representative of 6th Ed. Then they start thinking of quitting.

A bit exaggerated? Maybe. But you read the posts here.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

I agree. This "leak" is no longer News and Rumor. Not only that, but discussing how it will change the face of 40K is as invalid as talking about how the Pan-Fo codex will change the way you think about 40K.

Again, I disagree. It's still a rumor...just like it being a long invalidated by GW is a rumor...or that it is 6th edition is a rumor...or that it was written by the flying spaghetti monster is a rumor (I swear I heard that one somewhere). Being that the most likely truth is that it is the result of a very early brainstorming session for 6th, there is some creditability in at least some of what we see in the PDF will actually make it into 6th. Discussion of what implications that will have is most certainly a valid topic of discussion.

Really, so if a leaked codex came out, you'd start thinking about reworking your army and how you're going to counter it, without waiting on any sort of evidence? I wonder how many threads I can dig up that end with "Just wait until it comes out."

Maelstrom808 wrote:

True, but you have to realize that people happy about it are being much more vocal. They are generating the buzz - they are creating the groundswell around it. The people that are not happy with it are biding their time, or mumbling in a corner. They are waiting to see what happens instead of pontificating page after page of how [x] rule works with [y] movement now.

No there are plenty of people being as vocal as possible about how it will mean the end of 40k. There certainly is a vocal minority, but I think in saying that people that are unhappy about it are simply not saying anything is being as naive as thinking that the majority of 40k players are posting their thoughts on the forums.

Really? My brother is unhappy about it. Unhappy enough to go to Warmachine, but he hasn't posted about it once. There are extremes. The people that are very happy (that are going to be overly vocal), the people that are very unhappy (the people that promise they will quit if this comes about) and then the middle. I think, in this case, it is fair to say that the positive middle has been more vocal than the negative middle. Threads oozing with positivity toward the changes aren't going to attract your middling negatives. Those people are just going to skip it.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

And to say that I am saying you have to "sit there, shut up and take it", isn't that what they'd be telling me if they force this encyclopedia of rules down my throat? It's two sides of the same coin.

No, the same thing would be if I told you that you couldn't talk about how much you dislike it and think it would ruin the game and why it would do so..

But I haven't said that. I've said that I think when a rumors thread develops into a 50-page rules thread, there is more going on than thinking about the possiblity of a rumor. I've said that publishing batreps to the internet playing in the leaked format is irresponsible. I've said that we should "wait and see". I've never said that you couldn't talk about how much you like the rumors.

They are still rumors right?

puma713 wrote:Several hundred? Really? Like how many? I've been following the threads too and a lot of it are the same people going on and on about the rules. And even if it was several hundred, the entire gaming fanbase of 40K divided by several hundred is not "most people".

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/423049.page

350 out of 437 voted favorably. There were more people that voted that it would bring them back to the game than the total number of people that voted that they had some form of negative opinion about the rules...and note that I had said "on this site alone", not in all of 40k. Percentages will vary from site to site and people off the forums, but I'd expect that if you were able to run a poll, the numbers would end up on the side of general support of some form of these rules.

An hour-long conversation likened to the internet? That's a poor analogy. Yes, people can research, but it doesn't mean they will. Researching is tougher than watching a batrep. If I have a 100-page thread to go through, or a batrep to watch, which one am I going to go through? I am going to watch the batrep and think, "Hey, that'll be neat!" And, instead of any blame being placed on the website that is broadcasting, it is all borne by the watcher to make sure he goes through the 100-page thread, or he finds the link on the internet so he can research himself?

I agree that people need to check their facts (hence my aggravation at having to listen to "I can't wait till 6th comes so. . . this. . . is gone!"), but there has to be a responsibility upon the people discussing as well. If you don't want me adding my 2 cents into the "hour-long" conversation, then tell me so.

Someone that comes into a 100-page thread usually doesn't start at the beginning. They will come in and see that people are discussing how blast markers don't scatter now. Then they say, "Really?" And they go to look for the leaked rulebook. Then, upon looking for it, they find a batrep and watch with amazement. Then, they read the thread a bit more, interest piqued. Finally, they see other threads about how this is just a mashup and not truly representative of 6th Ed. Then they start thinking of quitting.

A bit exaggerated? Maybe. But you read the posts here.

Yes, I expect people to do the research. I do. Being lazy is no excuse for being ignorant. If you can't spend the time to research what you are interested in, you have no one but yourself to blame for being disapointed. If you don't want to hear people getting things wrong, then learn about it and educate them. I've spent the majority of my posts about the PDF correcting misconceptions and trying to help people understand how things actually work. I've also tried (I'm sure I haven't gotten it 100%) to at least hint in every post that the rumors are just that...rumors.

Really, so if a leaked codex came out, you'd start thinking about reworking your army and how you're going to counter it, without waiting on any sort of evidence? I wonder how many threads I can dig up that end with "Just wait until it comes out."

Heh, go read the Necron rumor thread...or the Grey Knights rumor thread....or the Dark Eldar rumor thread...etc, etc, etc. It's what we do around here, and personally I enjoy it. I also do it understanding that it might be completely different when the actual books hit the shelves. Part of that is because I do the research and find out what basis is behind the rumors and what sort of validity they might have.

Really? My brother is unhappy about it. Unhappy enough to go to Warmachine, but he hasn't posted about it once. There are extremes. The people that are very happy (that are going to be overly vocal), the people that are very unhappy (the people that promise they will quit if this comes about) and then the middle. I think, in this case, it is fair to say that the positive middle has been more vocal than the negative middle. Threads oozing with positivity toward the changes aren't going to attract your middling negatives. Those people are just going to skip it.

Most of my gaming group is thrilled about the PDF and haven't posted a peep...and if you read through the thread, there are plenty of people who came in and posted "meh" "or this sucks" and left it at that.

But I haven't said that. I've said that I think when a rumors thread develops into a 50-page rules thread, there is more going on than thinking about the possiblity of a rumor. I've said that publishing batreps to the internet playing in the leaked format is irresponsible. I've said that we should "wait and see". I've never said that you couldn't talk about how much you like the rumors.

They are still rumors right?

I didn't say you actually said that. It was an example. And of course there is more going on than it simply being a rumor. It is a rule set that may have deep ties to the finished product of 6th, which as I said before, is going to have it's hefty share of discusion about possible impact on the game, as well as some playtesting, but beyond that there is a contingent of people who might end up using these rules if 6th edition ends up being a regurgitated version of 5th. That is going to add a higher level of discussion than normally seen. The only thing irresponsible about the batreps is if they proclaim that it is in fact "6th edition" rather than a a ruleset that could possibly be a precursor to 6th. The truely irresponsible parties are the ones who read it and take it as the gospel without finding out how valid the rules actually are.

Simply having a circle jerk thread where we all talk about how much we like the rules is worthless content. If we like a change to a rule, why do we like it? Does it actually work they way we think it works? What impact does that have on various armies? How does it affect the balance of the game in general? Pro or against, these are the important topics and worthy of discussion. You are essentially telling me that, no we shouldn't talk about these things and just do the circle jerk because little timmy got his hopes crushed when he finds out that yes, his army sucks just as much in 6th as it does in 5th, because he failed to read and understand what was being talked about. If we are scared of that, why have any discussion of rumors at all?

gannam wrote:the fact that they aren't overhauling the basic turn structure saddens me. I really wanted pre measuring in 40K. I think that the lack of it contributes to a great deal of asshattery in tournaments.

Example, pretty much everything in the Eldar army wears a war mask. Why does it not have a fething rangefinder? What about SM's? CSM's? Nids would have instinctive rangefinding, Necrons are robots... almost everything in 40k can easily enable pre-measuring...why not? Leave it up to more dice and more guesswork? That's not strategy, that's suicide.