Rumour 50-page "scaramouche" 10ed leak transcript

[Noserenda]

Honestly id rather see a fake or dubious rumour and have something to talk/think about than just nothing or the endless circles of rumour threads a few days after they go up sometimes :D 

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Honestly id rather see a fake or dubious rumour and have something to talk/think about than just nothing or the endless circles of rumour threads a few days after they go up sometimes :D 

This is it for me, even if its fake the entertainment value is still fairly high for a cheap thrill and mental exercise if nothing else.

[AenarIT]

Even if it is fake, on top of the entertainment value I like reading about possible new game mechanics.
Not having played a lot of other game systems out there, reading about how the 40K ruleset could implement new stuff (like destructible terrain, unit-by-unit turn with flexible phases, ...) gets the brain running. Maybe not a single one of those things will be there in 10th, but I like thinking about silly stuff like this.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Shield-Captain said:

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.

 

Yeah. The whole thing feels "off." Does not pass the smell test.

[Captain Idaho]

Just logically, knowing what we know about GW games and how they behave, we know they wouldn't create a main game with this radical departure from EVERYTHING else they do. Regardless how it reads.

 

If GW were to radically change 40K, they'd make it more similar AoS.

[Blindhamster]

Unless their goal is to have three noticeably different games (like how the lotr games always work differently)

[Taliesin]

Some of the fluff stuff he mentioned at the start seems to correspond with what we hear from some of the Valrak videos.

Sanguinor buffed up we heard before, same about the stuff about there being a split in Imperial forces, and that Tyranids are the spotlight.

Whats new is that he mentions the T'au are massively expanding right?

[Clockworkchris]

I have been doing a summary of the leaks. this contains about 40% of the info. I have been asking questions since my source when I was leaking the CSM codex has gone dark. One thing I can say is that some of the info lines up with what my original source told me. I have read on the Night lord discord server that one of the WE leakers, Sirsarge confirmed it. Furthermore one of my close friends who knows someone in the know told me to believe the transcript. I dont know what to think but lets discuss.

10th_ed summary Ver.2.pdf

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Unless their goal is to have three noticeably different games (like how the lotr games always work differently)

Kinda? Like its generally separate teams for each game at the mo so things vary a bit anyway but they do cross pollinate, like Aos and 40k often borrow or modify ideas of each other, hell the specialist team even used some stuff from AoS in 30k. 

LoTR is a special case because the original license meant they had to change things, specifically the wound chart for example so it wasnt too similar to their existing games of the time. They could change it now but LoTR is genuinely a very good system for what it does so they tend to only do minor changes.

[TheMawr]

3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Just logically, knowing what we know about GW games and how they behave, we know they wouldn't create a main game with this radical departure from EVERYTHING else they do. Regardless how it reads.

 

If GW were to radically change 40K, they'd make it more similar AoS.

 

Thats the thing though... to me none of it actually is a radical departure except for the things that are more like AoS.

Having played none of the games it sounds like a hybrid between pre-8th edition 40k, mixed with current edition AoS and especially Kill team, beyond that alot of things do the same stuff as they do now only universalised.

To me the rules sound like a very natural evolution of 40k (from GWs perspective), the conversation sounds like an expectable client/commissioner conversation, and the 2 other rumor sources convincingly sound as different independent people having access to the same game.

 

What creates doubt to me is;

-- the (small) part of the lore.. vashtorr achieving his goal to become a fifth chaos god wich has the other chaos forces competing for the other 3 spots (whut!?), and the soft schism in the imperium whereas guillemans side is semi pro-xenos... none of this sounds like a direction GW would go to... it definitely fits the memes.. but it doesnt fit actual lore.

 

--  there are 7 starter detachments to get playing straight away without codex or index; Imperium, Chaos, Imperium nihilus and Devourer (Tyranids, GSC) are mentioned.. that leaves 3 for; Eldar (any), Tau, Orks, LoV and Necron.. this can be a miscalculation, but its a weird one.,, because the 7 is not so random, I myself among others have said in years past that there are only 7 true factions in 40k ( Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Necron, Tau ) and everything else is a subfaction.. however the moment you add to those 7 (like in this rumor; Imperium Nihilus as well as GW adding leagues of votann since then), you leave somehting else behind.

 

-- the fact that the 3 linked rumors dont connect the dots themselves... imagine you share info you have of a new edition, you are not going to completely ignore another rumor that validates your rumor, however thats exactly what all 3 of them do... completely ignoring the info the other 2 gave, despite being shared on the internet in a couple of days and confirming they read other rumors by saying they are wrong. This one might actually be the most significant indentification of a tightly coordinated trolling effort to me.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, talking about this is fun.. Im a big fan of the enhancement slots concept. Its the streamline that stratagems/upgrades etc. really need as well as a very necessary advantage to taking troops (because they can carry more enhancement slots than others.) its a system that has a lot of potential if it was/is real.

GWs speed of pumping in new miniatures exceeds the speed in wich rules can evolve, resulting in day 1 FaQs etc. with the enhancement slot concept, you can add things (veteran units, upgrade sprues like kill team)  to a existing datasheet without changing said datasheet.

Something like Beast snagga boyz could be released post-codex just as an enhancement to boyz inside the codex... Codexes being invalidated within months is a regular conplaint that would get slightly fixed by such a concept.

 

I also like terrain being more significant, but I dont think destructable terrain is the way to do that.. through price and complexity this would mean people will use less terrain in games instead of more. If they want terrain as a third player, the most important thing is cheaper modulable terrain that is more varied, not a tight ruleset tied to/requiring specific terrain.
 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If destructible terrain is a ploy to sell more product I don’t think it’ll be well received.

[Ahzek451]

Anyone else showing the summary document as unavailable?

Edited March 5, 2023 by Ahzek451

[Omega-soul]

Finally I've read it all.

What can I say then.

Even if this is a fake - it is that kind of fake that becomes masterpiece itself. It have all the checkpoints to be real. It's not AI-generated that's for sure. The system in question is cross referenced all the way in text. Then mixed with real-life people chat - that's a genious thing to forge. 

If that is all forged - I have to admit it is better that any GW narrative  came up with in a years.

 

So the real thing comes down to a question - do you belive GW could make all those drastic changes?

Those who do not belive will surely deem this script to be fake. But if you think that GW is capable of radical changes - there is nothing inherently false in this text itself.

I mean there should be a distinct line between - "I don't want those changes of system" and "I don't belive in A-B-C parts because reasons".

[Lagrath]

It would be absolutely insane to me if GW took by far the most successful and popular edition they've ever had, full of rich, in-depth codexes that people patiently waited for since years and some of which only came out recently, and then they just threw the entire thing in the trash so they could instead force a totally different, heavily dumbed-down version on people.

 

Then again I've seen GW do so many stupid or unpopular things over the last 25 years that at this point maybe no move is too aggrovating or dumb to put past them. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Lagrath

[AenarIT]

Destructible terrain fits the usual GW modus operandi: a commercial decision, also good on paper if you have infinite resources (who wouldn’t like that?), that they try to impose on players without realizing the real world of hobbyists is different that what they think it is. 
If you have a lot of money (to buy the new bespoke terrain) or 3D printers (to print the inevitable third party alternatives), you won’t mind that. But if you already barely have enough terrain to play with, you won’t enjoy that very much as you’d be constantly thinking about a part of the ruleset you can’t fully use due to a lack of resources. Bad feel.

 

As for the lore (imperium split, guilliman xenos-friendly, …) I can’t think of anything that would disprove these leaks. With the last innovative edition (8th), they introduced new-marines-but-better. Who would’ve guessed that? 
 

Its the actual rules that look less plausible to me. They seem a major departure from the current ruleset, probably the biggest in the history of 40k. The game designers must be pretty confident it’s a better game, and pretty convincing to make the higher ups green light such massive changes to GW’s golden goose.

If I were one of their superiors (or the CEO), I’d be pretty skeptical about massively diverging from the usual game system that has been in place for many years and was arguably part of the game’s success.

[MadDokta]

As someone who doesn’t play and is primarily into the fluff, could someone be ever so kind enough to summarise the lore parts of this “leak”, pretty please?

[Mandragola]

15 minutes ago, Lagrath said:

It would be absolutely insane to me if GW took by far the most successful and popular edition they've ever had, full of rich, in-depth codexes that people patiently waited for since years and some of which only came out recently, and then they just threw the entire thing in the trash so they could instead force a totally different, heavily dumbed-down version on people.

 

Then again I've seen GW do so many stupid or unpopular things over the last 25 years that at this point maybe no move is too aggrovating or dumb to put past them. 

I think this point is well made. "Would GW do this?" - yes, they often have. They totally re-wrote 40k for 3rd and 8th editions. They blew up the old world and wrote a completely different game using the minis from the old one. This will be the 10th edition. They are not scared of big changes to core rules.

 

I don't know if these rules are real, though as others have said it would be an extraordinarily well made fake if so, for which I'd congratulate whoever made it. 

 

As for the ethics, well no. At some point in this process (or at several points) somebody has betrayed a trust. The leaker has broken the NDA for financial gain (albeit just a discount on terrain) and then somehow the conversation was recorded and shared. I'm not accusing anyone on these boards of being part of that sequence of events but clearly this isn't what any of us would want to happen to our own data, or that of a business we owned or worked for.

[Captain Idaho]

Looking at the advantage/disadvantage system and the example that really wasn't that rare a thing to happen when people stack buffs and debuffs into their armies, then the army building method that requires 40 different cards per unit, it just isn't going to be true.

 

It's just so difficult to set up a game and play for any casual, it won't happen.

 

I've been wrong before but if I'm wrong on this I'll shave my head.

[Lexington]

9 hours ago, Lagrath said:

It would be absolutely insane to me if GW took by far the most successful and popular edition they've ever had, full of rich, in-depth codexes […]

I dunno, it’s seemed to me that a significant chunk of the player base is simply exhausted by the mountain of books, FAQs and other materials required to play 9th Ed in an “official” capacity. If these rumors bear out, I think it’ll be a pretty good indication that 9th, while initially quite popular, managed to alienate a lot of the player base through its Codex/supplement release cycle, and that they’re looking at how to fix that.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Lexington

[jimbo1701]

18 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I dunno, it’s seemed to me that a significant chunk of the player base is simply exhausted by the mountain of books, FAQs and other materials required to play 9th Ed in an “official” capacity. If these rumors bear out, I think it’ll be a pretty good indication that 9th, while initially quite popular, managed to alienate a lot of the player base through its Codex/supplement release cycle.

There’s truth in this. I’ve been into 40k since just before second ed dropped (with a hiatus for 3rd) and while I welcomed the inclusion of more Subfactions, the rules bloat and rapidly changing pace has just worn me down over the past 2 years to the point I’m struggling to maintain enthusiasm for the game now. 
 

I hope these rumours have no truth to them as I’d rather see a revised version of the 9th rules than a complete rewrite as I genuinely think the core rules are among the best they’ve produced. Keep subfactions but just cut out the ridiculous tiers of additional rules for everything and / or make it so the basic game is much more streamlined for intro / casual - male crusade and competitive the more complex and in depth game for those of that persuasion. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

"I hope these rumours have no truth to them as I’d rather see a revised version of the 9th rules than a complete rewrite as I genuinely think the core rules are among the best they’ve produced. Keep subfactions but just cut out the ridiculous tiers of additional rules for everything and / or make it so the basic game is much more streamlined for intro / casual - male crusade and competitive the more complex and in depth game for those of that persuasion."

 

Exactly this.

Edited March 5, 2023 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Evil Eye]

28 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I dunno, it’s seemed to me that a significant chunk of the player base is simply exhausted by the mountain of books, FAQs and other materials required to play 9th Ed in an “official” capacity. If these rumors bear out, I think it’ll be a pretty good indication that 9th, while initially quite popular, managed to alienate a lot of the player base through its Codex/supplement release cycle.

This is how I feel. The effort to keep up with the "current" ruleset is such a drag that I just gave up. If 10th at the very least moves on from that I might actually jump back in, assuming the core rules don't completely suck.

[AenarIT]

37 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I dunno, it’s seemed to me that a significant chunk of the player base is simply exhausted by the mountain of books, FAQs and other materials required to play 9th Ed in an “official” capacity. If these rumors bear out, I think it’ll be a pretty good indication that 9th, while initially quite popular, managed to alienate a lot of the player base through its Codex/supplement release cycle, and that they’re looking at how to fix that.

I agree with this sentiment, but:
1) GW does not take commercial decisions based on the sentiment of (part of) the playerbase
2) even if they did, their commercial model relies on relentless release schedules, with new books adding complexity on the previous ones. A reset would just be a way to start the cycle again, those players exhausted with the mountain of books would soon find themselves with a new mountain to climb

[WrathOfTheLion]

Did they ever explain why someone with just an NDA would have access to something like this? Normally a transcript or meeting recording would be internal company access only. I know at the place I work that would be the case.

 

At most the attendees if external would have access, but that would be easily tracked.

Edited March 5, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Did they ever explain why someone with just an NDA would have access to something like this? Normally a transcript or meeting recording would be internal company access only. I know at the place I work that would be the case.

 

At most the attendees if external would have access, but that would be easily tracked.

The transcript is between a playtester I believe operating under an NDA, contacting a commission terrain builder to create a "ruined copy" of the originals in the box set. 

 

The transcript is their chat log over several sessions. They appear to agree a fee for the terrain and chip off a little in return for the info. There's I feel some missing as it's largely implied the person asking for the commission tries to pay in info and/or gives them NDA breaching materials.