Mr Mystery
02-06-2013, 08:58 AM
Yes it's here and not the rumour section because this is not in itself either news or rumour, just a discussion about rumours.
So, without further ado.....
It seems these days the rumours we're reading just aren't as reliable as they once were. Why? I honestly don't want to speculate for fear of causing unintended offence and derailing my thread before it gets started. But like it or not, the accuracy just isn't there. We know rumours overall are much harder to obtain, simply because GW is (really quite successfully, compared to the old days) playing Tight Mouth Larry.
Now, how do you sort the noise from the signal, the wheat from the chaffe, and the rumour from the wishlist? See. This is a discussion, not a lecture! Though I will kick off to get things going...
1. The amount of info given.
This can be quite varied, and the overall trustworthiness depends on where the rumour is said to be sourced from. For instance, someone claiming 'a friend of a friend whose cousin is a redshirt that may have met Jes Goodwin once' as their source, and then posting up apparently detailed info? Nope, not buying it myself. They've gone too far. But, had they mentioned something vague, such as 'Marine are getting a flyer, apparently bigger than the Stormraven'.... ok, valid rumour. Given the steps removed from the alleged source, what they have said isn't inherently implausible.
2. The type of info given.
Someone claims to have seen the playtesting being conducted. Fair enough. Playtesting is done, so not inherently implausible. Mentions a new unit. Again, plausible if not on it's own persuasive. Then goes on to give a brief, comparative description of the model - Right there, I call that plausible and persuasive, as they are trying to describe something I haven't seen by comparing to something I might have. BUT.... I also tread carefully. Have they then undermined their own claim, with too much of a description of the unit and rules? Fairly rare, but it happens
3. The source.
No, not a Matrix type reference, let's face it our lives simply aren't that sexycool. But where do they claim the rumour stemmed from? If it's a Redshirt? Almost certainly not true (speaking a former redshirt, most of my info came from online too!). A friend of a friend who works in the studio? Keep your salt handy. Again, think plausible and persuasive. Is it terribly likely someone in Alabama (to choose randomly, sorry if I've inadvertantly described someone) would have all the the most tenuous of links to someone in Nottingham, and thus the Design Studio? Probably not. But someone in Nottingham? Yeah okay, I can go with that. Plausible bit is down, the persuasive comes from the rest!
4. Can it be fact checked?
This normally applies to the bigger rumours, like the list of alleged releases that did the rounds. Whilst many felt it was both plausible and persusaive, I (not entirely politely I'm sorry to say) disagreed, applying what little I knew about GW's internal processes and that. It can also be done by cross referencing the rumours, if you're careful and have an eye for detail. For instance, it might seem three known rumour mongers are claiming the same thing, but with a little investigation (yeah, I'm a bit odd like that..caused by my professional life!) you may discover only a single source, which has then been repeated, with each poster claiming to have announced first. The best rumour mongers also 'fact check' each other. For instance, the current Tau rumours. Seems to be a large, Dreadknightesque suit coming out. This is a fairly consistent rumour, and thus persuasive. That it would seem to fit the Tau, makes it plausible. But....it is slightly undermined by the varying reports in it's stats and abilities. Overall, I'm prepared to believe it's coming, but stats wise? Yeah I'll wait for the book :)
5. If it sounds good, it's probably not...
Yeah. Wishlists tend to be pretty obvious, rumouring as they do everything getting upgunned, gaining rending and dropping in points. But what about the borderline cases? Again to continue the Tau theme...rumours of BS4 Firewarriors being an upgrade option. Plausible? Yes. BS4 Firewarriors already exist within the army. Persuasive? Yeah I'll give it that, on account it's something all the rumour mongers seem to be agreeing on (though exact mechanic varies.) Seems wishlisty, but not massively so. Now if suddenly it was rumoured Tau were getting a CC suit which had Ninjarailguns and that? Best not believe that one if you ask me :p.
6. Look at each rumours individually.
Just because some parts are plausible and persuasive, doesn't mean they all are! Can't really say much more here, but again keep your salt cellar close to hand :)
7. Timescale?
If a specific month is mentioned, and it's not too far away? Yeah cool, I can go with that. But if it's a nebulous 'some point 2 years from now'? Not so much...
So, that's how I filter out the rumours, and probably why I might seem a right naysaying spoilsport swine!
How about you BOLSters?
So, without further ado.....
It seems these days the rumours we're reading just aren't as reliable as they once were. Why? I honestly don't want to speculate for fear of causing unintended offence and derailing my thread before it gets started. But like it or not, the accuracy just isn't there. We know rumours overall are much harder to obtain, simply because GW is (really quite successfully, compared to the old days) playing Tight Mouth Larry.
Now, how do you sort the noise from the signal, the wheat from the chaffe, and the rumour from the wishlist? See. This is a discussion, not a lecture! Though I will kick off to get things going...
1. The amount of info given.
This can be quite varied, and the overall trustworthiness depends on where the rumour is said to be sourced from. For instance, someone claiming 'a friend of a friend whose cousin is a redshirt that may have met Jes Goodwin once' as their source, and then posting up apparently detailed info? Nope, not buying it myself. They've gone too far. But, had they mentioned something vague, such as 'Marine are getting a flyer, apparently bigger than the Stormraven'.... ok, valid rumour. Given the steps removed from the alleged source, what they have said isn't inherently implausible.
2. The type of info given.
Someone claims to have seen the playtesting being conducted. Fair enough. Playtesting is done, so not inherently implausible. Mentions a new unit. Again, plausible if not on it's own persuasive. Then goes on to give a brief, comparative description of the model - Right there, I call that plausible and persuasive, as they are trying to describe something I haven't seen by comparing to something I might have. BUT.... I also tread carefully. Have they then undermined their own claim, with too much of a description of the unit and rules? Fairly rare, but it happens
3. The source.
No, not a Matrix type reference, let's face it our lives simply aren't that sexycool. But where do they claim the rumour stemmed from? If it's a Redshirt? Almost certainly not true (speaking a former redshirt, most of my info came from online too!). A friend of a friend who works in the studio? Keep your salt handy. Again, think plausible and persuasive. Is it terribly likely someone in Alabama (to choose randomly, sorry if I've inadvertantly described someone) would have all the the most tenuous of links to someone in Nottingham, and thus the Design Studio? Probably not. But someone in Nottingham? Yeah okay, I can go with that. Plausible bit is down, the persuasive comes from the rest!
4. Can it be fact checked?
This normally applies to the bigger rumours, like the list of alleged releases that did the rounds. Whilst many felt it was both plausible and persusaive, I (not entirely politely I'm sorry to say) disagreed, applying what little I knew about GW's internal processes and that. It can also be done by cross referencing the rumours, if you're careful and have an eye for detail. For instance, it might seem three known rumour mongers are claiming the same thing, but with a little investigation (yeah, I'm a bit odd like that..caused by my professional life!) you may discover only a single source, which has then been repeated, with each poster claiming to have announced first. The best rumour mongers also 'fact check' each other. For instance, the current Tau rumours. Seems to be a large, Dreadknightesque suit coming out. This is a fairly consistent rumour, and thus persuasive. That it would seem to fit the Tau, makes it plausible. But....it is slightly undermined by the varying reports in it's stats and abilities. Overall, I'm prepared to believe it's coming, but stats wise? Yeah I'll wait for the book :)
5. If it sounds good, it's probably not...
Yeah. Wishlists tend to be pretty obvious, rumouring as they do everything getting upgunned, gaining rending and dropping in points. But what about the borderline cases? Again to continue the Tau theme...rumours of BS4 Firewarriors being an upgrade option. Plausible? Yes. BS4 Firewarriors already exist within the army. Persuasive? Yeah I'll give it that, on account it's something all the rumour mongers seem to be agreeing on (though exact mechanic varies.) Seems wishlisty, but not massively so. Now if suddenly it was rumoured Tau were getting a CC suit which had Ninjarailguns and that? Best not believe that one if you ask me :p.
6. Look at each rumours individually.
Just because some parts are plausible and persuasive, doesn't mean they all are! Can't really say much more here, but again keep your salt cellar close to hand :)
7. Timescale?
If a specific month is mentioned, and it's not too far away? Yeah cool, I can go with that. But if it's a nebulous 'some point 2 years from now'? Not so much...
So, that's how I filter out the rumours, and probably why I might seem a right naysaying spoilsport swine!
How about you BOLSters?