6th Edition 40K Rules Leak

[eldargal]

The point is something copying something else doesn't mean it is genuine. Nor does a previous hoax not doing so mean this isn't a hoax.

No one has provided any convincing evidence that this isn't a hoax beyond 'it is too elaborate'.

[Defenestratus]

And what evidence could there be besides GW coming out and admitting that its theirs, which they would NEVER EVER do - could there be?

If something like that Tyranid bug and the other "mystery references" turn out to be real GW intellectual property in the future, would that be adequate proof?

[DrLove42]

I think you've touched on something there and in the voting thread on the subject

I feel that a lot of people who advocate it being real are saying that because they want it to be real. They want this to be real and if they say it is enough it will be (i'm one of them I know....I take it cautiously, but want to believe)

And at the same time im sure theres some people who dismiss them are because they don't want to get their hopes up too much

And Defenes has got a point. If the Nid wave in February contains this mysterious transport bug, would that be proof? Its the same argument as the Necrons references, minus the uncertainity of the metadata date on it. But then if the bug doesn't get released, it doesn't mean its not true either

[eldargal]

If the tyranid release next month includes the references mentioned in the leaked ruleset then that would certainly be strong evidence that they are genuine. I don't say it would prove beyond all doubt as until GW releases it nothing is confirmed as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sceptical because I don't want them to be real, I'm not trying to troll people who think they are real, I just don't see any evidence YET. If evidence is forthcoming, all the better.

[Lord Azaghul]

I'm not sceptical because I don't want them to be real, I'm not trying to troll people who think they are real, I just don't see any evidence YET. If evidence is forthcoming, all the better.

Perhaps I'm misreading the above.

But are you simply saying 'you aren't decided or sure either way'
or that you 'don't want the rule set to be real'?

[eldargal]

I'm not certain they are genuine, I'm not certain they are fake. I think they are probably fake simply because there is no evidence to the contrary and it is safer to be sceptical than get all excited over a ruleset onl to find it isn't real.

[Lord Azaghul]

Perfectly reasonable.

I hope they are real, but I'm doubtful.

[flekkzo]

"Apparently, GW game design has wanted to get away from the edition cycle they’ve been in for the past 3 editions, and want to move towards a core rule set that they can rely on for a long period of time, updating with FAQ’s and Erratas as needed. They want to avoid sweeping changes that leave certain armies in the dust, and therefore with lagging sales."

Of course, that's what they said with 7th ed fantasy, that they were finally happy with rule set, weren't going to make any more big changes, just up date army books and so on and so forth. Then they did 8th ed.

Maybe they were happy with 7th but the players weren't? Which would make 8th a business decision.

The only evidence I've seen is the documents. Nobody is claiming ownership. It's like the famous cat in the box, until we read about it in WD/GW's blog it's neither real nor anything else.

[DrLove42]

Problem is the only way we'll know is when 6th ed shows up on store shelves or GW confirms it to be theirs (which won't happen).

If someone else says its a fake, why should we believe them?
If GW says its a fake, of course they'd say that, why should we believe them?
Ifa third part says it real why should we believe them?

[eldargal]

Given the language inconsistencies, nonsensical formatting and radical changes to a successful games system I personally feel we can lean towards 'hoax' more than the opposite.