Ravenous D wrote:
Here is some helpful info for you guys.

One apple ID can support up to 10 devices, so 9 of your buddies and yourself can all have a full interactive codex for less then $6 each (more so with cheap iTunes cards).

Also if GW screws up and falsely advertises it like they did with the army builder feature for marines, you can get the book for free.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Does no one else think that the drop of an entirely new set of rules that would cause instant demand and boost sales, right before financial statements are calculated, seems both totally plausible and entirely fishy at the same time?

Plausible, because it seems like a mad grab for cash from a business that had bad mid-year financials. The main rule book is the only product that everyone needs in order to play the game.

Fishy, because it would be a blatant bilking of their customer base and a slap in the face to those that have given money to the company in the past.

The fiscal year ends in May, the new set would go on sale in June which is FY 2015, too late to actually affect this year.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Here is some helpful info for you guys.

One apple ID can support up to 10 devices, so 9 of your buddies and yourself can all have a full interactive codex for less then $6 each (more so with cheap iTunes cards).

Also if GW screws up and falsely advertises it like they did with the army builder feature for marines, you can get the book for free.

Unfortunately that solution relies on befriending someone with a high enough Pretension Quotient to own an Apple device, and I'm afraid I just don't have that much time spare to spend sitting in a Starbucks drinking unpronouncable pseudocoffee and listening to them talk about the novel they're never actually going to write.

Kidding, kidding, pitchforks down.

As for the rumour....eh, I'm struggling to find a way to sufficiently express the level of total apathy I feel at this news. I'd love to get all excited at the possibility of rule fixes, or Pancake 2 - The Fantasy Battlening, but after years of Tauroxes & Iron Hands retcons & the Ward/Kirby combo-team I'm just not naive enough to believe this will be anything other than a cynical cash-grab right before the end of year financials. I'd love to be wrong, but I suspect that the best we can hope for out of this is that they don't somehow make things worse.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Does no one else think that the drop of an entirely new set of rules that would cause instant demand and boost sales, right before financial statements are calculated, seems both totally plausible and entirely fishy at the same time?

Plausible, because it seems like a mad grab for cash from a business that had bad mid-year financials. The main rule book is the only product that everyone needs in order to play the game.

Fishy, because it would be a blatant bilking of their customer base and a slap in the face to those that have given money to the company in the past.

The fiscal year ends in May, the new set would go on sale in June which is FY 2015, too late to actually affect this year.

No, the preorders (where you give a company money for a product that they haven't given you yet) and sales to retail establishments that will offer them for sale at a later date are all sales accounted for in the month of May. Not sure how they account for the sales of product from their in-house retail establishments, but those sales begin on May 31, at Saturday. Now fiscal years for every company that I have worked at have all begun on a Monday. Meaning that the last day attributed to the fiscal month of May would be June 1. Giving the company two days of physical sales from their own retail establishments as well as all the pre-orders and units that were purchased by independent retail establishments.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Except GW doesn't actually collect the money until they ship so if they did that they'd have a balance in "accounts payable" (aka product due out) and "accounts receivable" (aka money due in) meaning more headache for the accountants but not much in terms of a revenue gain. I don't think they'd handle it that way honestly because of the extra paperwork.

Of course I could be wrong as I don't know the full ins and outs of British accounting practices but that seems like a lot of extra work to fluff a financial report that has to be completed and independently audited in a short amount of time for the end of year statements.

Altayre wrote:
CEO: "Ok guys, we've created this messy and convoluted edition where we just release things too quickly for anyone to keep track of. Let's learn from our mistakes!"
GW idiot: "I've got it! Let's do another release!"
CEO: "That's brilliant!"

If they make a new edition of rules people who like this edition/are just getting used to it/enjoyed an army that may be nerfed will be angry and lose even more interest.

If they just consolidate all the rules into one edition, it will still be bloated and messy.

Really the only way this release could help, is if they include all rules, but organise it into something like 'basic' and 'expanded' or something. Basically so there's liscence for a player to say "I would like a 1500 point game, but i don't want to use super heavies etc. so let's just play 'basic'."

It means basic could include a lot of the core rules, which could be balanced so that tournament play works better, then expanded can be all the crazy gak that allows people to go wild with their models. I could even see justification for putting some things like flyers and allies in the expanded section, so the core game stays way simpler and therefore balanced and competitive.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Does no one else think that the drop of an entirely new set of rules that would cause instant demand and boost sales, right before financial statements are calculated, seems both totally plausible and entirely fishy at the same time?

Plausible, because it seems like a mad grab for cash from a business that had bad mid-year financials. The main rule book is the only product that everyone needs in order to play the game.

Fishy, because it would be a blatant bilking of their customer base and a slap in the face to those that have given money to the company in the past.

The fiscal year ends in May, the new set would go on sale in June which is FY 2015, too late to actually affect this year.

No, the preorders (where you give a company money for a product that they haven't given you yet) and sales to retail establishments that will offer them for sale at a later date are all sales accounted for in the month of May. Not sure how they account for the sales of product from their in-house retail establishments, but those sales begin on May 31, at Saturday. Now fiscal years for every company that I have worked at have all begun on a Monday. Meaning that the last day attributed to the fiscal month of May would be June 1. Giving the company two days of physical sales from their own retail establishments as well as all the pre-orders and units that were purchased by independent retail establishments.

Except GW doesn't actually collect the money until they ship so if they did that they'd have a balance in "accounts payable" (aka product due out) and "accounts receivable" (aka money due in) meaning more headache for the accountants but not much in terms of a revenue gain. I don't think they'd handle it that way honestly because of the extra paperwork.

Of course I could be wrong as I don't know the full ins and outs of British accounting practices but that seems like a lot of extra work to fluff a financial report that has to be completed and independently audited in a short amount of time for the end of year statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and they'd have to basically say that the influx at the end of the year was because of a new edition launch which would not attract investors looking for a stable, slow growing stock (which is what GW tries to market themselves as).

Altayre wrote:
Really the only way this release could help, is if they include all rules, but organise it into something like 'basic' and 'expanded' or something. Basically so there's liscence for a player to say "I would like a 1500 point game, but i don't want to use super heavies etc. so let's just play 'basic'."

It means basic could include a lot of the core rules, which could be balanced so that tournament play works better, then expanded can be all the crazy gak that allows people to go wild with their models. I could even see justification for putting some things like flyers and allies in the expanded section, so the core game stays way simpler and therefore balanced and competitive.

 xttz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Except GW doesn't actually collect the money until they ship so if they did that they'd have a balance in "accounts payable" (aka product due out) and "accounts receivable" (aka money due in) meaning more headache for the accountants but not much in terms of a revenue gain. I don't think they'd handle it that way honestly because of the extra paperwork.

Of course I could be wrong as I don't know the full ins and outs of British accounting practices but that seems like a lot of extra work to fluff a financial report that has to be completed and independently audited in a short amount of time for the end of year statements.

Generally, sales (and purchase) orders are assigned to the date in which they are created, regardless of when the goods / money change hands. If an order is placed on May 31st, it's classed as a sale made in May, even if the cash isn't received until June. Should the order be cancelled in June, they will just issue a credit dated for May that cancels out the transaction in the accounts.

 Idolator wrote:
The product shipped out to the independent retailers go on the books the moment that they ship as those units have been sold and are no longer in their inventory. The revenue from pre-orders also goes on the books the moment that they ship, putting all digital purchases on the books on May 31 and revenues from physical preorders from the day that they ship which doesn't have to be on or after May 31. Looking at their financials, they don't seem to have a timeline for when sales occurred. I can't even find quarterly breakdowns, just mid year and end year reports. (If anyone has a link to quarterly reports I would love to give them a once over) Meaning that all sales from that division are lumped together for the investors with no discernible way to determine when that revenue was generated, except for a six month window.

Davor wrote:
I am curious, you can't buy a Hard Copy of the rules, but you can still buy an electric version of the rules.

I wonder for those who have a e-version of the rules, if they will be updated and don't have to buy anything then.

tag8833 wrote:
There was a detail leak a while back:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?43705-GIANT-40k-WFB-Rumordump-WARNING-NaCl-ALERT!!!

I've tried to distilled the 40k specific rules from that giant chat log:

Spoiler:

Movement:
Run: D6 or 2D6 for Flying Monstrous Creatures that are Swooping.
>>Makes sense... but no added bonus to Jump/Jet Pack units?
Consolidations: 2D6 pick one, but you only consolidate on your turn. You can charge with your consolidation move. Opponent can overwatch. You only get to fight once per turn, so if you consolidate into a new combat you don’t get to fight, unless your fist combat didn’t fight (opponent flees).
>>This is cool. Adds the idea of 'momentum' to melee troops. Will nearby 6" Tau units be able to overwatch again, if they did use Suppressing Fire in the previous charge?
Retreats: 6 + D6
Charge: 2D6, not affected by difficult terrain.
Move through Difficult: 2D6 pick one.
Charge through Difficult: 2D6 (The same, but -2 iniative).
>>This helps melee units without assault grenades (Howling Banshees and Tyranid Warriors/Ravagers).

Reserves:
Coming in from Reserves: If there is no enemy in 24” of a particular table edge, units from reserve that use this edge to enter the table can march an additional 12”
>>Very interesting; the game becomes more dynamic. But this isn't very clearly worded. Can I come from a DE player's edge if he brought everything to the center of the table? How about Outflank and Acute Senses?
Flyers have the “Patient Hunter” special rule which means they can choose to stay in ongoing reserves.

Assault:
Flee: You can chose to immediately lose combat after Hammer of Wrath, before any blows are struck. Iniative roll off as if you had lost combat. If you win, you do a normal Retreat. It happens before pile-ins.
>>Looks a bit like old 5e SM Combat Tactics. If you do receive another charge, would you be able to try Retreat again? Is there a limit/turn per unit?
Overwatch: Must win or tie an iniative roll off to overwatch. Cannot overwatch if Gone to Ground or Pinned.
>>I don't like this. Eldar gunline becomes much better than everyone's else (as if they needed the boost). Tau and IG/AM, on the other hand, suffer a lot receiving a charge with this rule, so they'll probably castle even more and buying very long range stuff to kill chargers before they arrive. Or force these armies to throw everything at the enemy. At least Tau, with Supporting Fire, will have some luck getting a 2 in 3-4 units overwatching. More MoS to CSM?Necrons will depend even more on their Flyers to attack before being attacked.
Charge through Cover: -2 to initiative unless assault grenades or unit being assaulted has Gone to Ground or been Pinned.
Initiative: All models strike at their common Initiative unless they are in a Challenge, or are using Unwieldy weapons like power fists. If a unit has 3 Power Fists, and 2 Chainswords they all strike at Initiative 1.
>>Whoa, this is a big one. No matter how many Power Swords you have with your Honour Guard, the CM with a TH/SS would make all of them strike at Init 1. Poor Blood Angels and their ICs with Power Axes everywhere.
Hammer of Wrath: Counts as part of combat resolution.
Assaulting Vehicles and Buildings: If the vehicle doesn’t have a WS (walker), then you Sweep Attack them rather than Assault them.
>>Seems very strange to sweep a vehicle. Non-Walkers do not possess initative; how the test would be done?

Psychic Powers:
Most happen at the end of the movement phase rather than the start. You have to roll for Warp charges like fantasy (complexity 4?)
Psychic powers do not require line of sight.
>>End of movement phase means blessings and maledictions from Deep Strike/Reserve fellas. Not requiring line of sight? Why? And they could add a line to clarify if the same PP stack or not (AFAIK they do now, don't they?)

Unit Types:
Jump Infantry: Can use jump packs in all phases. If In difficult, and you use Jump pack, must take dangerous terrain test. Jump Packs in assault give HOW but not Rerolls.
>>I think re-rolling the charge distance is better than HoW, but ok. This eats a lot on RG chapter tactics, but at least they'll be the only ones re-rolling charge with jump units
Chariots: can Sweep Attack
Bikes: can Sweep Attack
>>They can in 6th, can't they?
Vehicles: D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath and have Sweep Attack which seems to replace Tank Shock. Walkers do D6 S:Unit Hammer of Wrath. “Death or Glory” against vehicle sweep attacks mean all models in unit Snapshoot at rear armor, or all models within 3” do CC attacks against rear armor. Must take fear test or WS:1. If they fail to stop the vehicle, then they take 2D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath. Only get cover saves against other vehicles.
>>HoW on vehicles not only makes a lot of sense, it's more fluid than Tank Shock. But why does DoG hit REAR armour? AV 10 is too fragile. I'd do this with a vehicle that has nothing else to add in the battle or a LR/Sicaran/IK and stuff like that. And not getting cover from infantry? Why? MCs are generally as big as vehicles (if not bigger) and have none of this.
Light Walkers: Only do 1 Hammer of Wrath. I’m thinking Killa Kans, Scout Sentinal, War Walkers.
Swarms: Take D3 wounds to Template weapons (flamers).

Special Rules:
Fleet add an extra D6, and can discard a D6 in all random moves. No Rerolls.
Move through cover, and you ignore the effects of Difficult Terrain (6” move, no iniative penalty for assault), but not Dangerous.
>>I like both changes.
Shrouded: -2 to BS
>>Wow. Guardsmen shooting at BS 1, Marines/'Low' Eldar at 2, 'High' Eldar at 3 against Nurgle stuff, Venomthrope-supported Nids, Stealth Suits, Invisilble enemies... Will Ignores Cover apply to it as well? I think this is even better than +2 cover saves
Stealth: +1 to Cover
Fearless: Cannot chose to Flee
Preferred Enemy: +1 to hit for both Melee and Shooting.
>>I think this translates the idea of such USR better than just re-rolling 1s. BS5 doesn't need it, however.
Bulky: gives Hammer of Wrath.
>>Termies with HoW? hooray! Suits, Centurions and a lot of other things will get it as well.
Hit and Run: Gives Sweep Attack, cannot leave combat.
Sweep Attack: Close combat attack in the movement phase can only hit ground targets, and can be hit back. Pause during movement, cannot be within 1”. Any model within 3” can attack, and then finish movement. No Pile-ins allowed. Can be part of a Run Move. You can still shoot after a Sweep Attack. Does include Hammer of Wrath.
>>This seems to translate H&R better than jumping in-and-out of combat, but sounds very complicated.
Vector Strike: D6 S:Unit AP:- auto hits. Hits Rear Armor. Swooping must pass within 3” of model being vector strike (no longer have to pass over). Does not count as shooting a weapon. All hits are precision hits.
>>Lost AP3, but double hitting possibility and REAR armour. Chance to eliminate important people down there. I'd call it a sound buff
Look Out Sir: On a 2+ the next closest model takes the wounds. Only 1 Look Out Sir roll for all allocated wounds. Look Out Sir is available to all models with special weapons.
>>Harder to snipe special weapon, but way easier to get the warlord/support IC.
Regeneration: 4+ to recover a wound. Grants Feel No Pain.
>>More buffs to MCs!

Other Rules:
Snapshooting: -3 BS.
High BS: No Rerolls for BS > 6. 1 always misses, 6 always hits.
>>re-rolls make the game slower. The less we have, the better. Snapshooting at -3 BS is a small buff to 'High' Eldar/ICs.

FOC:
HQ: 0-25%, must have 1 warlord
Elite: 0-25%
Troops: 20-75%
Fast Attack: 0-25%
Heavy Support: 0-25%
Secondary Detachments: 0-25%, it includes Allies, Fortifications, Formations, Lords of War and can also include units from your primary codex. You can have 3, but must pick one after rolling for game, deployment and first turn. The player who wins first turn must select first. See example below.
Allies: Allies are part of the Secondary Detachment, but count in Primary FOC. They do not have a troop or HQ limit, and you must have only 1 ally per Secondary detachment, but you can take formations from other allies.
Fortifications: Fortifications are part of the Secondary Detachment.
Formations: Formations are part of the Secondary Detachment, and don’t count in the Primary FOC.
Lords of War: If one player brings a Lord of war and the other player does not, the first player must declare his Secondary Detachment first, and the opponent has a chance to bring fourth Secondary Detachment. Any Heavy Support in this special Secondary Detachment do not count against the Heavy Support Limit.
>>These rules are a bit confusing. They're trying to rein in allies shenanigans, but this picking before the game even began strikes me unnecessarily complex. And, of course, Formations do not eat FOC.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Except GW doesn't actually collect the money until they ship so if they did that they'd have a balance in "accounts payable" (aka product due out) and "accounts receivable" (aka money due in) meaning more headache for the accountants but not much in terms of a revenue gain. I don't think they'd handle it that way honestly because of the extra paperwork.

Of course I could be wrong as I don't know the full ins and outs of British accounting practices but that seems like a lot of extra work to fluff a financial report that has to be completed and independently audited in a short amount of time for the end of year statements.

Generally, sales (and purchase) orders are assigned to the date in which they are created, regardless of when the goods / money change hands. If an order is placed on May 31st, it's classed as a sale made in May, even if the cash isn't received until June. Should the order be cancelled in June, they will just issue a credit dated for May that cancels out the transaction in the accounts.

In the US you'd have to separate cash you've actually collected (as "Cash") and still need to collect ("Accounts Receivable" since you need to still receive them), hence my skeptism on it working quite that way. Like I said, it adds a lot on top of the accounting department's workload while they're already trying to put together the report so it can be audited in time for the release. The auditing will be the big part of the delay in it's release of course.

The sale event may be recorded in May but it doesn't count as actual Cash until June in that respect.

Plus GW has to be open and honest with stockholders and no misrepresent things (there are laws, at least in the US against such practices) meaning if they run up revenue at the last minute they need to say that they did to not misrepresent their normal business cycle.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Except GW doesn't actually collect the money until they ship so if they did that they'd have a balance in "accounts payable" (aka product due out) and "accounts receivable" (aka money due in) meaning more headache for the accountants but not much in terms of a revenue gain. I don't think they'd handle it that way honestly because of the extra paperwork.

Of course I could be wrong as I don't know the full ins and outs of British accounting practices but that seems like a lot of extra work to fluff a financial report that has to be completed and independently audited in a short amount of time for the end of year statements.

Generally, sales (and purchase) orders are assigned to the date in which they are created, regardless of when the goods / money change hands. If an order is placed on May 31st, it's classed as a sale made in May, even if the cash isn't received until June. Should the order be cancelled in June, they will just issue a credit dated for May that cancels out the transaction in the accounts.

In the US you'd have to separate cash you've actually collected (as "Cash") and still need to collect ("Accounts Receivable" since you need to still receive them), hence my skeptism on it working quite that way. Like I said, it adds a lot on top of the accounting department's workload while they're already trying to put together the report so it can be audited in time for the release. The auditing will be the big part of the delay in it's release of course.

The sale event may be recorded in May but it doesn't count as actual Cash until June in that respect.

Plus GW has to be open and honest with stockholders and no misrepresent things (there are laws, at least in the US against such practices) meaning if they run up revenue at the last minute they need to say that they did to not misrepresent their normal business cycle.

They don't release the mid year report on June 1. They have to conglomerate all sales and expenses from all the months in the period into an investor report that's easy for "little johnny investor" to read.Computers track and calculate the amounts of sales, these are done instantaneously at the time of sale. It is then merely a number that has to be placed on a certain line of the report which is then also calculated by a computer. That part is incredibly simple. When working retail I could tell you the sales of every store from the chain in any country for any given day. If I wanted to tell you the figures for the whole company for the entire year, all I had to do was use two scroll down menus and wait less than a second. They aren't slaving away somewhere adding numbers together with a pencil from sales reports coming in on a ticker tape machine.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You do know that if it doesn't go on the books until it ships (as you put it there) it won't be in May's report right?

And if you think GW's 6 month window is bad Disney doesn't separate any of it's income (like splitting sales from movies and the parks) and and only seems to have a end-of-year report. It's the bare minimum they need by GAAP and no more. GW does a lot more to split their stuff up than most (like actually telling you what the cost of sales is).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Don't forget that a large portion of that is the report being audited though. The mid-year report comes out by the middle of January so that 2 month time lag for the annual one isn't all the accounting department by themselves. It looks like ~45 days is an independent auditor.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You do know that if it doesn't go on the books until it ships (as you put it there) it won't be in May's report right?

And if you think GW's 6 month window is bad Disney doesn't separate any of it's income (like splitting sales from movies and the parks) and and only seems to have a end-of-year report. It's the bare minimum they need by GAAP and no more. GW does a lot more to split their stuff up than most (like actually telling you what the cost of sales is).

Several things here.
I stated that it could be shipped before the official release date.
That the release date is in May, and should be shipped that day. They don't just sit around in a warehouse and start packaging these things at midnight of the release day. They have them all ready to go and have the mailman/fed-ex guy pick them all up that day.
Money changed hands prior to the end of the month.
Product has changed hands before the end of the month. By shipping to retailers, shipping to consumers and downloading product.

 Idolator wrote:
I would think that placing sales figures from one year to the other and denying this knowledge to their investors would constitute a fairly major crime in the UK. It is here in the States.

I do think that it is bad, but that's the way that it is. There is no way to discern if the sales occurred in January or May, no way to tell if it was from an unexpected Codex Space Marine sales jump or the latest book released.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You do know that if it doesn't go on the books until it ships (as you put it there) it won't be in May's report right?

And if you think GW's 6 month window is bad Disney doesn't separate any of it's income (like splitting sales from movies and the parks) and and only seems to have a end-of-year report. It's the bare minimum they need by GAAP and no more. GW does a lot more to split their stuff up than most (like actually telling you what the cost of sales is).

Several things here.
I stated that it could be shipped before the official release date.
That the release date is in May, and should be shipped that day. They don't just sit around in a warehouse and start packaging these things at midnight of the release day. They have them all ready to go and have the mailman/fed-ex guy pick them all up that day.
Money changed hands prior to the end of the month.
Product has changed hands before the end of the month. By shipping to retailers, shipping to consumers and downloading product.

Pre-orders go up the last Saturday of the month and are released the following Saturday. They wouldn't ship until after May ended in this case since the following Monday is in June.

Money doesn't actually enter GW's hands until the product is in the mail (I just cancelled an order last week and they didn't have to process a refund, they just cancelled a hold on the funds and the bank gave it back pretty quickly).

 Idolator wrote:
I would think that placing sales figures from one year to the other and denying this knowledge to their investors would constitute a fairly major crime in the UK. It is here in the States.

I do think that it is bad, but that's the way that it is. There is no way to discern if the sales occurred in January or May, no way to tell if it was from an unexpected Codex Space Marine sales jump or the latest book released.

Which is basically my point, using this to "fluff" the sales data wouldn't actually help the company since they'd have to admit that they did just that and it wouldn't do anything to help the company or its stock prices. Basically it's a conspiracy that wouldn't do a single bit of good.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I would think that placing sales figures from one year to the other and denying this knowledge to their investors would constitute a fairly major crime in the UK. It is here in the States.

I do think that it is bad, but that's the way that it is. There is no way to discern if the sales occurred in January or May, no way to tell if it was from an unexpected Codex Space Marine sales jump or the latest book released.

Which is basically my point, using this to "fluff" the sales data wouldn't actually help the company since they'd have to admit that they did just that and it wouldn't do anything to help the company or its stock prices. Basically it's a conspiracy that wouldn't do a single bit of good.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I would think that placing sales figures from one year to the other and denying this knowledge to their investors would constitute a fairly major crime in the UK. It is here in the States.

I do think that it is bad, but that's the way that it is. There is no way to discern if the sales occurred in January or May, no way to tell if it was from an unexpected Codex Space Marine sales jump or the latest book released.

Which is basically my point, using this to "fluff" the sales data wouldn't actually help the company since they'd have to admit that they did just that and it wouldn't do anything to help the company or its stock prices. Basically it's a conspiracy that wouldn't do a single bit of good.

What!?! They wouldn't have to admit anything. They just tell you that they made X amount of money within a six month period without having to tell you that they made it all in the last few days. Companies do this all the time. Blow out sales at the end of a quarter to boost the numbers without ever having to mention that it was just the blowout sale that saved their bottom line.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pre-orders being that early in the month is unusual (not the first time it's been done, but it is unusual).

And no I didn't see that because the last I read it was rumored to be the 31st not the 24th for pre-orders.

How hard is it to not assume things about people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, at this point the rumors for when 7th is coming seem to change from the morning to the afternoon.

And nothing about when GW gets the money invalidates the fact it can't work as a strategy to fluff their numbers because they have to openly admit just that.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pre-orders being that early in the month is unusual (not the first time it's been done, but it is unusual).

And no I didn't see that because the last I read it was rumored to be the 31st not the 24th for pre-orders.

How hard is it to not assume things about people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, at this point the rumors for when 7th is coming seem to change from the morning to the afternoon.

And nothing about when GW gets the money invalidates the fact it can't work as a strategy to fluff their numbers because they have to openly admit just that.

How hard is it not to assume things about people??? You've been going on and on basing your statements on incorrect data. I had no idea that you didn't read it. The only assumption that I had was that you had a working knowledge of the facts (rumors).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:


What!?! They wouldn't have to admit anything. They just tell you that they made X amount of money within a six month period without having to tell you that they made it all in the last few days. Companies do this all the time. Blow out sales at the end of a quarter to boost the numbers without ever having to mention that it was just the blowout sale that saved their bottom line.

I'm pretty sure there are some issues regarding falsely representing how "healthy" the company is by doing that actually. If they don't report it I'm pretty sure they can get slammed legally for it, at least in the long run since it can be considered misleading investors.