Rumour 50-page "scaramouche" 10ed leak transcript

[phandaal]

57 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

This means that between your turn and your opponent's, you can and often do find a huge amount of your army is gone without you having done anything.

 

Maybe the worst example of this is playing against psyker-heavy armies. Unless you have Feel No Pain, Mortal Wound protection, or your own set of psykers for denies, a significant portion of the game is just your opponent telling you how many wounds you can allocate to your models. Not even a saving throw for your trouble. Honestly feels like a waste of time.

 

In general though, people are not willing to show up for games if they think they are only there to be your target dummy.

[Noserenda]

Good call on bolt action, im currently using a version of that system in my own skirmish rules! 

Thing is, that flyer example could potentially happen in an alternating activation system too depending on how it alternates, the real problem is lethality, like if that chain goes off and your troops are mostly alive to react thats fine but if an opponent can blow through half your army thats not great regardless of exactly how it happened.

Well unless you were doing something risky and it went wrong, which always calls to mind a time i essentially lost a game in 5th or 6th with an extremely aggressive deployment but got the initiative stolen :D 

[Khornestar]

Not saying it’s real, not saying it’s fake. Not saying it’s apples to apples, but how many people were CERTAIN the world eaters army list was fake, only to have it be completely real? 
 

We’ll see… I don’t buy rumors wholesale, nor do I buy the certainty that something is fake. We only find out for sure when we see some picture leaks of rules or previews from GW.

 

”There’s no way they would do x!” Is sometimes wrong. Sometimes they do, sometimes they will. Not wanting to believe something is not solid proof of anything. Nor are random chat logs. Just food for thought.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Khornestar

[Aarik]

In case it matters to anyone, there was a person in the Dakka Dakka thread linked earlier who said that he created the transcript document by throwing the .txt file he received from somewhere into a word processor and adding the headings.  I would link to his specific post, but I couldn't quickly figure out how to do it. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

To me it’s so vague I don’t get much of anything from it.

[TheMawr]

Fake or not.. it really isnt that vague and complicated, its however a bit more gamey, I used the bloodangels forum rumor to analyze things and this is what I got, I think it covers more than half of the conversation;

 

Spoiler

Army building

This one is very very simple, its basically the pre-8th edition detachment system. But instead of listing units you take it lists keywords you take. For example the mentioned Devourer detachment wich lets you take units with Tyranid, GSC and Astra militarum keyword units. There are likely extra restrictions though I saw none mentioned so far. But troops got a mention in another rule, so likely roles are still there. Like the old system you also get special rules from these detachments.

 

Unit building

The Datasheet & Battle profile thing sounds confusing how its described, but its basically a RPG style visualisation of things we already have now. Datasheet shows all unit options and stats, battleprofile is the adjusted datasheet for use in the game. Stratagems, Optional equipment, special rules ( like those from detachment.), psychic powers etc. all these things you add to the battle profile. This isnt different from how it is now, you always already did that when making your armylist, they now just made a special sheet for it.

 

Stats

Stats resemble rolls ( like WS and BS are now.) and offensive stats (attacks/hitting) are moved to the weapons, I dont think this is that different in practice than how things work now, to me it actually sounds simpler ( but I havent played a 40k game since 2nd edition where you needed tables ;))

Weaponstats and rules seem to be tied to the phase they are used in as opposed to what kind of rule it is, I assume that you have on each datasheet a block for say Movement phase, Combat phase, Shooting phase etc.

Its just a layout change from the sound of it. And it sounds easier to work with.

 

Battleprofile slots

He did mention there is a variable limit to applyable rules  on the battle profile and that troops have the most open slots. I can imagine this being something like Incubi having 2 slots, but Kabalites having 4. imagine hypothetically you want to fill the slots with stratagems, then Incubi can have no more than 2, and kabalites can take 4... giving at one side more significance and flexibility to troops, however stuff like a trueborn upgrade, a standardbearer, a medic etc.  also would hypothetically take slots, and troops usually have more of those.

Again this is not too different from things in the current system where units can have various upgrades, its just universalised.. it sounds like an evolution of stratagems to me.

 

Then there is a system of advantaged and disadvantaged... sounds complex, but it isnt.... its at its core rock-paper-scissors, paper is advantaged against rock, but disadvantaged against scissors.. its more detailed than that, but thats the core of it. Imagine the element fire... a flamer weapon would have this element and possibly a disadvantage against vehicle units, this decreacing its potency against vehicles, but an avatar of khaine would have the fire element in his save and is advantaged against fire weapons, thus increasing the potency of his save against flaming weapons.

Its unclear but I think advantaged and disadvantaged is not only used in the rock-paper-scissor element. I can see for example an Intercessor having a 3+ save, but a veteran Intercessor having a 3+ advantaged save, and a scout having a 3+ disadvantaged save. That way you add simple distinction in the narrow D6 spectrum.

 

You could basically visualise this system in a single table.

This actually already exists in the game now through many special rules, its just layed out more gamey and more universal.

 

Regarding rolling rules
First I have to admit that I dont fully know how it works now, as far as I understand now you calculate modifiers first then roll accordingly ; read result.. how he describes the new system is; Roll the dice first then calculate the modifiers (advantaged/disadvantaged) ; read result. the only real change is in the order where you apply modifiers ( I think)

 

 

Now I must admit it could be I completely misunderstand some things (and it doesnt help that Im not sure if I have a good grasp of the current rules.) its also possible that I do understand, but sound just as confusing to you as the scaramouche text...

 

And for the record, I still expect this to be an elaborate fake between several people that will be going on for about 27 days ( nor do I really believe some of valraks rumors because exodites, but I dont think things are as mutually exclusive as he thinks they are.. honestly at this point I still doubt wether tyranids are the big bad XD )

 

 

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’m not liking what I’m reading.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

They have really thematic and interesting destructible terrain rules in AT.

 

And no one ever uses them. Because it's too time consuming, expensive and defeats the point of terrain in a wargame 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I thought there is supposed to be less bloat as well.

[Orange Knight]

I don't like the idea of moving or removing terrain, personally. 

 

Some terrain pieces that I typically play with are quite elaborate, and simply moving them around/removing them from the table carries a risk of nicking or knocking models and potentially damaging them.

 

If it's true that we are returning to the 7th edition Detachment system or anything similar to it I will have no interest in returning to 40k for 10th. I prefer the tradition Detachments, with some additional variations like those found in the Horus Heresy.

[phandaal]

11 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

I feel bad for the leaker; Scaramouche clearly agreed on 240 euros and then at the end he changed his mind and instead asked for 280 euro, while using "You shouldn't be giving me NDA stuff" as an excuse; bet he wouldn't have a problem if the leaker agreed to 280 euro though. Real scummy move 

 

There is nothing to feel bad about, because the conversation is fake. Now you could say it is a scummy move to publish fake leaks, of course.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

There is nothing to feel bad about, because the conversation is fake. Now you could say it is a scummy move to publish fake leaks, of course.

I mean is that a fact you can evidence, or are you in turn falsely representing things as fact?

[Noserenda]

8 hours ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

They have really thematic and interesting destructible terrain rules in AT.

 

And no one ever uses them. Because it's too time consuming, expensive and defeats the point of terrain in a wargame 

Madness, setting up a dense urban board and blowing up is big fun :D The terrain killing rules in AT are piss simple.

[Kastor Krieg]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

There is nothing to feel bad about, because the conversation is fake. Now you could say it is a scummy move to publish fake leaks, of course.

This sounds like a fake leak. Present your proof?

[phandaal]

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I mean is that a fact you can evidence, or are you in turn falsely representing things as fact?

 

I am correctly representing my ability to determine fact from fiction.

 

6 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

This sounds like a fake leak. Present your proof?

 

I suggest asking yourself why someone calling a leak false elicits this response.

 

"No, YOU'RE a fake leak!" This might be one of my favorite replies, if I remember this in the future it will definitely cause a sensible chuckle.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

41 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Madness, setting up a dense urban board and blowing up is big fun :D The terrain killing rules in AT are piss simple.

They're not difficult rules, but I've consistently heard that the time factor is considerable on top of a normal game, and to do it properly you need a lot of destroyed versions of your normal terrain, which would make it expensive.

 

Also, the fact that you can't really put units INSIDE terrain in AT makes it much easier to destroy the terrain and replace it. That's less straightforward in 40k.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Sword Brother Adelard

[Shield-Captain]

Just to reiterate something that’s been bothering me: why is it called a transcript? Isn’t a transcript usually used to take, say verbal conversation, and render it in text format? If this is a transcript, it lacks any of the mistakes closed captioning software makes. If it’s a recording, why was it recorded? Who records conversations like this for a terrain commission? Better yet who breaks an NDA for a terrain commission?

 

I also realize it was translated or could have been translated from another language but it seems to lack the simple cultural mistakes that are made between translation. At parts it is inscrutable but it just doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t seem to be a simple mistranslation.

 

None of it seems valid to me, or a part of the direction the last two editions of the game have been going. 
 

It just seems indescribably fake to me. There’s so much missing context. Is there an original untranslated version? 
 

It seems to pose more questions about its validity than it answers.

[twopounder]

Destroyed terrain isn't completely new. There was the intact building and fortification rule that allowed you to treat buildings like vehicles with an armor value and blow them up. But that was also very dangerous to anything you put inside so wasn't practical. Not sure if they kept it in 8.x.

 

If every weapon has its own stats per model type, it's going to be a nightmare of balance OR there will be no options. HQ models will have set weapons and nothing extra. Imagine giving all the weapon options in HH a unique profile for each unit list...

 

No thanks.

 

[Evil Eye]

Terrain demolition rules sound like they could be interesting if used well. They probably won't be, but it's not like they've never existed before (remember Planetstrike?). The problem is that rather than an optional rule for certain types of terrain for particular games, GW will probably try and push it as another tabletop-videogame type thing where every piece of Citadel Terrain comes with a Citadel Rubble counterpart (sold separately). And they STILL won't re-implement proper Difficult Terrain rules!

[Captain Idaho]

=][= Play nice, Frater. =][=

[Kastor Krieg]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

I am correctly representing my ability to determine fact from fiction.

You're guessing and presenting the result of the guesswork as "known fact", and your "ability" as somehow superior to that of those Frater who say "I don't know".

And then you have the gall to call my sharing the excerpt "scummy".

Unless you have proof to both this conversation being fake, as well as my somehow ill-intentioned sharing of it with the community, I'd rather you took those words back.

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

You're guessing and presenting the result of the guesswork as "known fact", and your "ability" as somehow superior to that of those Frater who say "I don't know".

And then you have the gall to call my sharing the excerpt "scummy".

Unless you have proof to both this conversation being fake, as well as my somehow ill-intentioned sharing of it with the community, I'd rather you took those words back.

 

I am not calling you scummy. I am saying the original person who created this fake leak could be considered scummy. Making stupid unprovoked personal comments about people here is not really my thing.

 

As for my assertiveness, I am free to say this fake leak is fake as often as I like. I do not have to qualify that statement. If you think I am wrong and this leak is real, by all means say why.

[TheMawr]

16 minutes ago, Shield-Captain said:

Just to reiterate something that’s been bothering me: why is it called a transcript? Isn’t a transcript usually used to take, say verbal conversation, and render it in text format? If this is a transcript, it lacks any of the mistakes closed captioning software makes. If it’s a recording, why was it recorded? Who records conversations like this for a terrain commission? Better yet who breaks an NDA for a terrain commission?

 

I also realize it was translated or could have been translated from another language but it seems to lack the simple cultural mistakes that are made between translation. At parts it is inscrutable but it just doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t seem to be a simple mistranslation.

 

None of it seems valid to me, or a part of the direction the last two editions of the game have been going. 
 

It just seems indescribably fake to me. There’s so much missing context. Is there an original untranslated version? 
 

It seems to pose more questions about its validity than it answers.

 

I dont think its translated/ai chat software/transcripted.. there are some common handtyping mistakes in there that wont happen in those things ( liek instead of like at one point, there are some others)

Its a chat between two people, or at least a document made to reflect that.. I think people believe its a transcript or ai generated thing because they cant imagine a person or multiple persons going trough this length to make up fake stuff... but people certainly would, none of it is an argument for or against its validity.

 

-- Who records conversations like this for a terrain commission?

That would be your computer

 

-- Better yet who breaks an NDA for a terrain commission?
As I said before, this kind of stuff happens all the time in all industries, it is the most realistic part of the entire conversation, especially when they know each other for longer (wich these two obviously do)

The way something like this could realistically happen is the leaker wants to commission some damagable terrain, they obviously worked together before and probably scaramouche knows the leaker has access to inside info (probably gotten tidbits of info before) and deduces that it has to do with 10th edition, so asks for more info, now we all love discounts.. if you say you dont.. you are likely lying, the leaker has info so wants to trade it for a discount, happens alot, and thats where the chat starts.

 

 

Not meant as a "the leaks are real, you are wrong" but those arguments dont really work against it either.

 

 

An interesting thing though wich I realise today, there is a constant assumption that its the scaramouche person who shared the document, but in many chat transcript text files you dont see the name from your own messages, only the name of the other person... we only see the name of the leaker at one point when scaramouche quotes a previous message.

 

So this document actually comes from the leaker.. not scaramouche. (again, wether its fake or not.)

[twopounder]

35 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Terrain demolition rules sound like they could be interesting if used well. They probably won't be, but it's not like they've never existed before (remember Planetstrike?). The problem is that rather than an optional rule for certain types of terrain for particular games, GW will probably try and push it as another tabletop-videogame type thing where every piece of Citadel Terrain comes with a Citadel Rubble counterpart (sold separately). And they STILL won't re-implement proper Difficult Terrain rules!

Cities of death also had rules for destroying terrain .

[Mazer Rackham]

No-one can prove this is fake any better than anyone can prove it's true, other than the people who put it together.

 

Who makes their mind up (or doesn't) as to the veracity of the document/leak etc, or what faith they do or don't credit a system for using little plastic fantasy spacemen with, is their prerogative.

 

I can hear a melta getting unslung.

 

My tuppence ha'penny is to crunch the merits of how the supposed/theoretical changes would affect the game for good or ill, and stop throwing rocks.

 

Imma get back in my lane now.