Yesterday I posted up a rumor regarding an apocalypse rumor that was sent my way. "When I received, it was all in one paragraph, so I decided to just rewrite it, and in doing so (I normally dont rewrite rumors but was trying to make it much easier to read for everyone) created an error from what was told me. This is the now the second time I have made a mistake like this in the life of the blog, but I thought it was important enough to correct it.

Basically what I added was the word Forgeworld to the rumor, when it was not in the email. The only excuse I can give is that I made a mistake in it, is that I tend sometimes to type faster than I am reading, and my fingers fill in the gaps.

I did correct the original post though, rather quickly I thought, but I underestimated how fast things spread from here and how many people actually read this site. (I still always feel like I the site is hidden away in its own little corner of the web with only a few readers.

So I apologize for the mistake, both to the source, Jon, and to the readers that got the information before I corrected it. In the future when re-writing rumors for an easier read, I will take more care, and fire the editing team.

Here is the rumor once again the way it was supposed to be read. Once again I apologize for adding the word forgeworld to the rumor.

via Jon (not his real name, no permission was given) from the Faeit 212 inbox
*New Apocalypse book set for release in June/ July
*Contents Include
-Rules for 6th edition including new point costs
-New formations including flying squadrons
-New Asset Card
-New Scenarios
-Battle Reports


  1. Thanks for the clarification :]

  2. It's cool. We all appreciate your hard work here, and frankly given the sheer volume of material I'm impressed there's only been two errors in the entire life of the site.

    Must admit I'm excited about an updated Apoc rules set. ( hope they ditch flank march)

  3. This is a real bad rumor: the Forge World's books are better than the GW's.

    1. But what if it was written by the FW crew for full use in 40k? This would kill the "permission" hurdle that's been in FW selling more of its models.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. I have to admit Natfka, that I have been reading your blog for about 2 years... before it was off and on a few times a month, now I read it everyday during the week. It is one of the first cites I load it in the morning and I follow all day. Not that I am an internet troll with nothing better to do, but I enjoy this site and most of the comments are great and really interesting. I just want to thank you for add content to the internet that I think adds value to it. This is not a hack site ripping my hobby run by people whom no-longer play the GW games but still have something to say, but instead you add articles all the time about the active game we already have and that you play and new articles everyday(sans moving or sick) about new stuff. Thanks from some random guy in KC. Everyone knows mistakes happen. Thanks for being so prompt with drawing attention to it so we knew the quality of your ethics in " journalism".

    1. I think Seventy really hit the nail on the head. I want to echo his thoughts and say thanks Natfka! You make this hobby more enjoyable with all the work you do.

  6. Yes another reason why this site is more often than not my first stop for any form of rumors or news.

    I more than appreciate the hard work you put in day in and day out and the standard you hold yourself to.

  7. Thank the Emperor, you had me scared there for a minute since locally there is a strong hurdle to clear for playing Forgeworld supplements.

    Thanks for the continued good reads Naftka.

    1. My apologies to you, Harley, for my rant last night...

      Thanks, Natfka

  8. Thank you for the correction.
    I am about to place an order on Forgeworld and almost got rid of the IA Apoc books I planned to get.
    I guess they'll update them sometime in the near future though.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...