Rumour 50-page "scaramouche" 10ed leak transcript

[Noserenda]

People will absolutely put this much effort into a fake, it feels off to me but i wouldnt discount it, i could see how this all might come together with a better explanation and pictures.

[KnightofSigismund]

I honestly kind of like what I read. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Better than Season 8 of Game of Thrones. But that's a mighty low bar.

[Urauloth]

Whatever this is it's pretty funny. I'm not inclined to read more into it than that, really.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

"Rupture Squad."

 

"Do WHAT to my Squad?"

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Lord Nord

[Misterduch]

At page 14 atm, seems pretty funny.

 

It does have some good ideas, Stratagems sound like they would be better under this supposed system. Morale being more unit dependend is good.

 

The whole "phases in any order you want thing" tough? That's a the biggest red flag for me, not because it's a bad idea, but because it's an ok  idea and too drastic of a change for GW to go trough with it. Hell, the removal of toughness and their use of traits sounds more believable and honestly...pretty easy to understand if the symbols/names are properly distinct. 

 

The guy doing this for a 40 bucks discount on terrain comission is next level tough, and honestly? not even in the top 1000 dumbest reasons to break a NDA

 

Edit 1: Stuff having different profiles based on the model that carries it is solid.

Edit 2: I can't wait to play a game using a weapon with pulse, shoot at someone with flicker and then say "Flikker op" ( just dutch things... )

Edit 3: The drama at the end lol. Yeah the whole thing read as the scaramouche guy trying his best to extract info and nothing more, so the instant melt down of the deal was funny 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Misterduch

[TheMawr]

57 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Seems very fake. The idea of someone going against NDA to use that protected material just to try and get a $40 discount on a commission for some terrain is just absurd. That he denies there's any potential trouble from it after the other guy expresses doubt and then starts to become insulting further supports it being fake.

 

While it looks that simple at first sight thats not really whats happening.  When reading trough there are obviously parts missing, and from back references in the conversation it reads to me as if they have had previous business and personal communication, they know each other family names and many references are made regarding previous cooperation. It also seems implied to me, that the "leaker" needed new kind of terrain (damagable) ready for when 10th edition hits and came to this previous contact.. and to me at least, it sounds as if this contact started prying for me information regarding 10th edition ,and he keeps doing that troughout the conversation, even though the "leaker" only wants to talk about rules as miniature info etc. would get other people in trouble... the "victim" constantly reassuring that he wont share anything (wich he does.) the "leaker" after telling so much tries more and more to talk about the terrain commission wich they both agreed one at wich point the "victim" not only tries to back out of the deal they made (after he got plenty of info) he also breaks every promise he made and.. its hilarious to me that everybody threat the leaker as the scammer (fake or not) while the "victim" really acts extremely scummy. (keep in mind that the other guy wanted a 15% sale on 10th edition terrain that the terrain guy keeps the rights of... thats in no way a financial scam, but are things that regularily happen between aquintances commissioning aquintances for all kind of work.)

 

But looking at it from that context.. ( people who worked together before.) it increases the possibiliy of either the leaks being real or the whole conversation being a clever fake (honestly.. wouldnt suprise me either by this time.) its actually not that hard to discover considering all the personal information shared...

 

 

As for the things described themselves, I havent really taken in a lot of the rules, but what I read didnt seem that extreme as they sound to be honest. the leaker doesnt necessarily explain them easy enough but alot of current game elements seem to be replaced by a visual boardgamey/videogamey component, but the way I read it, it doesnt necessarily change the game as much as it changes the flow of the game. Perhaps its just that I incorrectly fill in blanks as its a very similar mechanic to a game Ive worked on before. (never finished)

 

The destroyable terrain rules, changes to keywords/subfactions .. these all sound as a logical direction they have been going for a half year already. Other changes sound like AoS kind of stuff.. not necessarily farfetched either.

 

To me the only truelly farfetched/suspect things are about the lore part the soft schism in the imperium (though not in rules and factions), vashtorr succeeding and becoming a fifth chaos god etc. but to be honest.. for a while now GW has less problem with having actual gods as characters in the game (mostly AoS) rather than avatars/greater daemons etc.

 

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

It's all just too complicated for even GW to break a game with. I'm fairly sure I'll have to attend a course on just building an armylist and there's no way GW will require people to use their app exclusively to play the game. "No app? Can't play!" Just seems too much.

[Valkyrion]

would a transcript programme add in the :D for smiley faces?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Remember pancake edition… somewhere somebody is laughing hard !!

[Noserenda]

It does show you really cant trust Sven by the end though eh? A lot of names in there that someone connected might well be able to work out who the two sides are though.

[Khornestar]

Not sure whether or not it’s true, but I could believe it. If the person had a better mastery of English (not an insult) perhaps they could have done a slightly better job explaining? Was just kinda confusing in a lot of ways, but at its core I think this could be a very interesting edition if this is true.
 

At any rate, I kind of like the sound of it, but at the same time I’m not sure I really understand it. XD

 

2 hours ago, Boyadventurer said:

That drama at the end tho

 

2 hours ago, Doghouse said:

What on earth did I read at the end?

Easily the best part of this is the drama, absolutely loved the ending.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Khornestar

[AenarIT]

Still a better love story than Twilight.

Jokes aside, I'm leaning towards it being fake. But it's so insane that it could actually be true, in classic GW style.

[Tokugawa]

Many consequences in this rumor can't be easily performed by normal human players on table, with models and dices. But easily to apply in video games. The conversation may be created by ai.

[Felix Antipodes]

Very surprised if this wasn’t a fake.  Codexes not required?  GW wouldn’t leave that amount of cash on the table 

[Kastor Krieg]

OTOH, "we've noticed terrain sells like hot cakes, and carry the sales of huge Kill Team and Starter boxes, so now you have to have both destroyed and normal versions of each terrain piece" is absolute top-tier GW style. I'm willing to believe there's at least some truth to this, because the glove fits just too well.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Djangomatic82]

About halfway through it, overall hoping its fake. There are a few things that seem plausible, moving all datasheet info to symbols feels inline with what GW has been doing to cut back on localization costs. The whole detachment system and unit upgrade options look terrible, overly complicated for no reason, maybe only appropriate for crusade.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I stopped reading when it said "all armies scrapped, put into warhosts book"

 

Nope. I'd quit 40k right then and there. We did that for 8th...I am NOT doing that again for 10th.

 

I certainly hope this is fake.

[WrathOfTheLion]

6 hours ago, Joe said:

I've minuted a few meetings that were hosted via Teams recently; the transcript function basically looks like this document at its absolute best. 

That said, confident this is fake.

Now that I think about it, that'd be an easy way for someone to generate something like this. Make up a few bullet points, act it out, get the document as the output. Highly doubt they actually penned it.

[Scribe]

Making a more complex game, wouldn't be the way.

[Kastor Krieg]

16 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I stopped reading when it said "all armies scrapped, put into warhosts book"

 

Nope. I'd quit 40k right then and there. We did that for 8th...I am NOT doing that again for 10th.

 

I certainly hope this is fake.

THAT part was mentioned by several people, IIRC Valrak included. We can pretty much accept that Index 10e is what's likely to happen.

 

If the, also mentioned by several people, loss of Toughness stat is true - Index books are a 100% certainty. That's the only way to pull this off.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Lord_Ikka]

My take is fake, until we see something confirming some of the more extreme things (destructable terrain, choosing your phase timing, etc...). Definetely doesn't seem like a way to play a game in 90 minutes like the leaker originally stated.

[Cpt_Reaper]

16 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

THAT part was mentioned by several people, IIRC Valrak included. We can pretty much accept that Index 10e is what's likely to happen.

 

If the, also mentioned by several people, loss of Toughness stat is true - Index books are a 100% certainty. That's the only way to pull this off.

I had heard that mentioned, and every time I prayed that dropping toughness was BS as well.

[darkangels91]

7 hours ago, Shinespider said:

Not 100% sold on it, but... interesting. I skipped around a lot, won't claim to have read the whole thing. 

I do like the idea of morale being changed from a flat system that simply kills models to something where different units can suffer different consequences. 

 

Phases being per-unit, and being able to do the phases on whatever order you want is wild. 

Take it back to I think end of 6th maybe 7th where when you failed morale on some units they would turn and physically run toward the nearest table edge. You role morale each turn until they either pass and are back in the game or completely flee the board. 
 

Pinning was also cool too. 

[twopounder]

Decided to do a bit of ChatGPT testing.

 

Test 1 - write a text conversation with one person explaining a new edition of warhammer 40k to another

Quote

Person 1: Hey, have you heard about the new edition of Warhammer 40k?

Person 2: No, I haven't. What's new about it?

Person 1: There are a lot of changes, actually. The main goal of the new edition is to make the game more accessible while still maintaining the strategic depth that has made Warhammer 40k such a popular game for over 30 years.

Person 2: That sounds interesting. What are some of the changes?

Person 1: One of the key changes is the way that armies are constructed. In previous editions, it could be difficult to build an army that was both effective and thematically consistent because of the sheer number of unit types and special rules you had to choose from. In the new edition, armies are built around detachments, which are groups of units that share a common theme or purpose. This makes it easier to build an army that fits your playstyle.

Person 2: That sounds like a good change. What else is new?

Person 1: Another big change is the way that terrain is handled. In previous editions, terrain was mostly just decorative, but in the new edition, it plays a much more significant role in the game. Terrain now has specific rules and effects that can have a big impact on the outcome of battles.

Person 2: That sounds cool. Anything else?

Person 1: There are a lot of smaller changes too. The game has been streamlined in a lot of ways to make it easier to learn and play. For example, the way that shooting and melee attacks are resolved has been simplified to speed up gameplay.

Person 2: That's good to hear. So overall, would you say that the new edition is an improvement?

Person 1: Definitely. It's still Warhammer 40k, but the changes make it feel like a fresh take on the game. It's easier to get into for new players, but there's still a lot of depth for experienced players to explore. If you haven't tried it yet, I'd definitely recommend giving it a shot.

 

Test 2 - write a text conversation with one person explaining detailed rules of a new edition of warhammer 40k to another

 

Quote

Person 1: So, let's talk about the detailed rules of the new edition of Warhammer 40k.

Person 2: Sure thing. What are some of the key changes we should be aware of?

Person 1: Well, one of the biggest changes is the way that armies are constructed. In the new edition, armies are built around detachments, which are groups of units that share a common theme or purpose. Each detachment has a set number of slots for units, and you can't have more than one of the same unit in each slot. This makes it easier to build an army that fits your playstyle and encourages thematic armies.

Person 2: That sounds like a good change. What about the actual gameplay?

Person 1: There have been some significant changes to the way that shooting and melee attacks are resolved. The biggest change is that each unit now has a set number of attacks, which can be made with different weapons. Each attack has a specific strength and damage characteristic, which determines how likely it is to hit and how much damage it does.

Person 2: Interesting. How does terrain come into play in the new edition?

Person 1: Terrain plays a much bigger role in the new edition. Each piece of terrain now has specific rules and effects that can impact gameplay. For example, a piece of terrain might provide cover to units that are within a certain distance, or it might have an effect that slows down movement. This makes terrain a much more strategic consideration during gameplay.

Person 2: That sounds like it could be a lot of fun. Are there any other big changes we should know about?

Person 1: One other big change is the way that command points work. Each army now starts with a set number of command points, which can be used to perform special abilities or re-roll dice during gameplay. This adds a new level of strategy to the game, as players need to decide when to use their command points and when to save them for later.

Person 2: Wow, it sounds like there are a lot of changes to get used to. Do you think it's still a good game for beginners to learn?

Person 1: Absolutely. While there are some new rules to learn, the game has been streamlined in a lot of ways to make it easier to learn and play. The changes to army construction and the use of detachments make it easier to build a cohesive army, while the changes to terrain and command points add new layers of strategy to the game.

 

 

Test 3 - add explanation of new shooting rules to conversation

Quote

Person 1: You know, I forgot to mention one of the most significant changes to the game's rules: the new shooting rules.

Person 2: Oh, what's different about them?

Person 1: Well, in previous editions, when a unit wanted to shoot, it could fire at any enemy unit within range. But in the new edition, units can only shoot at enemy units that they can see. This means that terrain and line of sight play a much bigger role in the game, and it makes the use of terrain even more important.

Person 2: That does sound like a big change. How does it affect gameplay?

Person 1: It makes positioning even more important than before. You need to be strategic about where you place your units on the battlefield to ensure that they have good lines of sight to enemy units. You also need to be careful about placing your own units in cover or behind terrain, to protect them from enemy fire.

Person 2: That definitely sounds like it would make the game more tactical.

Person 1: Yes, it does. It also means that certain units, like snipers, are now much more valuable than they were before, because they can take advantage of cover and line of sight to pick off enemy units from a distance. But it also means that some units, like heavy weapons teams, might struggle to find good positions from which to fire.

Person 2: That makes sense. It sounds like it would take some getting used to, but it also sounds like it could add a lot of depth to the game.

Person 1: Definitely. It's just one of many changes in the new edition that add new layers of strategy and tactics to the game. I think it's a really exciting time to be playing Warhammer 40k!

 

Test 4 - add example of new roll mechanics using a d6 and advantage or disadvantage to get glancing or critical hit that replaces ballistic skill

 

Quote

Person 1: Actually, I need to correct myself. I misspoke earlier about the hit roll mechanic. In the new edition, units no longer have a Ballistic Skill (BS) or Weapon Skill (WS) stat. Instead, when you want to make an attack, you simply roll a d6 and add any modifiers from your unit's weapons or abilities.

Person 2: Oh, I see. So how does the advantage and disadvantage mechanic work in this case?

Person 1: It's still the same. If you have an advantage, you roll two d6 and choose the higher result for your hit and wound rolls, which increases your chances of getting a critical hit. If you have a disadvantage, you roll two d6 and choose the lower result for your hit and wound rolls, which increases your chances of getting a glancing hit.

Person 2: That makes sense. So what does a glancing hit do in this new system?

Person 1: A glancing hit is still when you roll a 1 or 2 to wound, but it doesn't do as much damage as a regular hit or a critical hit. Instead, it might cause a unit to lose a point of its armor save or make it harder for the unit to move or shoot.

Person 2: Okay, I think I understand. It sounds like the new edition has simplified some aspects of the game, but still added more depth and complexity in other areas.

Person 1: Exactly. The new edition is designed to be more accessible to new players, but it still has plenty of strategic depth for experienced players to explore. And I think the changes to the roll mechanics, like the advantage and disadvantage mechanic, add a lot of new layers of strategy to the game.

 

 

This was a fun experiment, and I might do more later, but it would take some mentoring to get ChatGPT to make up a conversation with very detailed rules in the OP. Basically you'd have to feed it an alternate form of 40k to use as a base for the conversation. However, once this is done, it would be pretty easy to pull together a pretty basic amount of banter.

 

Only thing though - there was a lot of misspelling and random grammatical issues in the OP. It would be a lot more difficult to simulate this. The response model is very specific and even when asking to inject bad grammar, it could only do it in an authored way. As an example, this was bad grammar - "Person 2: Nah, not really. I ain't played it in ages. What's new about it?"

 

So could it be real? Sure, I suppose. I think it would be far more suspect if the grammar was good. That doesn't mean that the leak has any real information though. It could still be fabricated.

 

One of the thing that stands out to me is that the "leaker" repeatedly says "It sounds complicated, but its easy when you see it". This doesn't make sense, as they give a paragraph + explanation of a "simple mechanic" that still cannot clearly explain it.