6th Edition 40K Rules Leak

[Defenestratus]

Lets also realize that the placeholders look exactly like they did in the leaked 5th edition rulebook that came out which was, IIRC, 100% accurate rules-wise and hit the internet 2months before the official release.

[DrLove42]

The wya i look at it its one of three things. Genuine, groups playbook or troll

It could be genuine.

It strikes me as being too close to the real thing for a local playbook. Lets face it if you're writing a rule book for your local group would you really go to all the effort of identical formatting and describing even the most basic rules.

And on the other closeness to the real thing makes it too good to be a troll. The attention to detail makes it the most effort anyone has ever spent on a troll, and with no one coming forward to take the praise for his work is just doesn't seem right either.

Or maybe I just want to believe

[Lord Azaghul]

But why have placeholder images to get the paragraph length and whatnot right when you will have to go back and change everything so people aren't trawling through 100+ pages just to find out what a fast skimmer, or whatever else, can do? I'm not exactly an expert but I helped out at a friends magazine once and that sort of thing was finalised BEFORE placeholder images went in, not after. I'd be surprised if GW did it differently, it doesn't make sense.

Until recently GW hasn't exactly been know for 'well organized rule books'.

If its the real deal, it could be assumed that the author started by working off a draft copy of the current edition, or a template, I would be surprised is GW didn't have a template for this sort of thing, allowing the author the freedom of adding deleting cutting...etc, perhaps the spacing for the diagrams were already there?

[Black Dragon]

I'm surprised people are still talking about this thing that is so obviously not real. A GW employee that has worked for the company for 12 years and is connected to everything going on says these are fake and told me where they came from. Some disgruntled designer that used to work for the company.

[Gotthammer]

^ Lol

Well I was talking to Jervis' father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate and he tells me they're totally legit.

Unless by "has worked for the company for 12 years and is connected to everything going on" you mean "is Phil Kelly", your claim, or even this mystery connected person's, has as much substance as anyone elses. Which is not a whole lot, I'm afraid.


Case in point:

More noise via Reecius of Frontline Gaming (http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/) claiming it's all part of some grand master plan... make of it what you will:


So, we heard a doozy of a rumor today that I wanted to share with the community.

A source of ours who knows people who knows people, etc. often shares tidbits of juicy rumors. Today he and I were talking about 6th ed and whether or not the leaked rules were legit.

He told me that a friend of his who works for GW not only confirmed that this rule-set was legit, but that it was the culmination of a master plan, so to speak, that has been in the works for years.

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.

This would allow them to focus on the model line to a greater degree, and to expand the game into different directions. They would be able to explore the game story both forwards and backwards, and a Warhammer 30K supplement was mentioned (which we’ve been hearing about multiple times). He also mentioned the possibility of progressing the story-line, which we have also been hearing from multiple sources.

The following are my thoughts on that information.

Forgeworld is already fleshing out the backstory with all of their preheresy and heresy era kits. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to see FW doing a supplement for this period much as they did with the Badab War books, or at least making the models (Primarchs, anyone?).

This would allow GW to keep all books current, and to focus on the models, updating books as they need to.

Is this true? Who can say. Do I want it to be true? Yeah! It is criminal that GW has not made a game supplement for the most exciting part of the game background (Horus Heresy) and who wouldn’t want to use Primarchs and the Emperor and Horus in games? That would be awesome. Who wouldn’t want to see the story advance? That would be awesome, too!

And a lot of what we see in books that don’t make sense now, in the context of the new 6th ed rules we think are real, start to make sense. Maybe that is a case of fitting the system to the existing rules, or perhaps it was all part of a master plan. Who knows? Time will tell what we actually get, but all I can say is that I am very excited for what is to come.

What do you all think about this rumor? Would you like to see these things come true?

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/

[DarkLink]

I have to say, arguing over when GW likes to format their books and add in pictures when none of us have any clue what process GW actually uses is kind of a pointless tangent.



Case in point:

More noise via Reecius of Frontline Gaming (http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/) claiming it's all part of some grand master plan... make of it what you will:

I already linked to that like three days ago;):p. As I mentioned before, they do know people who genuinely know things.

[Wildeybeast]

"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.

[eldargal]

So this hoax copies a previous leak.

Lets also realize that the placeholders look exactly like they did in the leaked 5th edition rulebook that came out which was, IIRC, 100% accurate rules-wise and hit the internet 2months before the official release.

[Defenestratus]

So this hoax copies a previous leak.

Why would a set of homegrown rules follow a previous leak? Why would you waste the time formatting it.

The hoax blood angels codex didn't follow the "GW standard" formatting cues.

[DrLove42]

Copying the previous leak formatting doesn't same home grown. Its screams deliberate fakery/trolling.

And I don't think a troll would make as good a set of rules. Why would they? Thats like anti-trolling. If you faked something you'd make something barely playable that caused a lot of people to disown it.

[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.

[Defenestratus]

Just to be absolutely clear - I'm not confident in its legitimacy because I *want* them to be true - its because I got my information on its legitimacy from a source that I trust more than 100%


nonsensical formatting

I thought the same thing initially. Set Acrobat pro to view 2-up and it all of a sudden looks like a professional document except for the minor typos which are more than excusable given the date of its "publication" and where the rules would be in the development cycle.

[Kawauso]

What about the timestamp on this document?
It's May of last year.

I'd say it's pretty certain the document is legit, given that it mentions things by name such as the Catacomb Command Barge.

It also mentions weapons like the Zeal Bolt Pistol for (presumably) BT, which is one of the codices rumoured to be in the very near future.

Combined with everything else...the correct fonts, the formatting...I think this looks like the real deal.

If it were a hoax, I don't think people quite understand how vast an undertaking this would be...
I've worked in the development of 8 or so games at a professional capacity and a design document/rule set like this isn't something that's easy to accomplish.

[DrLove42]

It also signals "rail" out as a weapons profile, like "Lance". And in the current books, only Tau have Rail guns and its not listed in the same way.

Edit - Updated

Taken from Natfka at Faeit 212 (http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/01/6th-edition-leak-source-found.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Faeit212+%28Faeit+212%29)


Apparently someone has claimed on 4chan that the leak is actually their gameclub's homebrew rules, which a member gave a 'GW' look to. Must have plenty of time on their hands!

There's even a report that the person who made it recently got in touch with GW Legal to see if there was any liability on their part. The guys from GW informed him that as it wasn't an official GW product he was fine!

If this is true I'd hate to be those people who, thinking it was the new 6th Ed., had started buying units for armies to use with these rules.



So someones come out of the woodwork claiming its theres. Was only a matter of time.

And it really proves nothing. Anyone posting on 4chan is probably a troll....

[Galadren]

Someone on another board with contacts at GW (he's been quite reliable in the past) said he's seen 6th edition and this isn't it but the "fingerprints" are there, which has me leaning towards this was a test copy and not the final product. I'm personally waiting till I have the rules in a hardback form before I start learning a new system.

[Kawauso]

Well of course it wouldn't be the final form if the timestamp is anything to go by.

And I'm not sure I believe the random 4chan claim...because, again, of the timestamp and the explicit mention of the Catacomb Command Barge.

But I too am going to hold off learning a new rule system until an actual 6th edition book is out.

[Wildeybeast]

Here's a thought that just ocured to me. Assuming this is genuine, why would GW not admit it? Think about it. When 6th ed rolls up, we'll all know one way or the other. If this turns out to be legit, GW look pretty damn stupid for not admitting it. If they have a rogue employee they can't control, they should go into full damage control now to reasure shareholders. If it has been deliberately leaked, people will be saying - 'we know you leaked that, why didn't you say so at the time, you just shamelessly (and rather cack handedly) used it to generate hype'. Either way, GW comes out of it looking like a company that doesn't know what it is doing, which I just can't see given how much they have done to shape up over the last couple of years.

[DarkLink]

One, because GW has explicitly denied things like this in the past when they were true, and two, because of the whole Hobbit thing. If they really are supposed to be keeping a tight lid on the Hobbit stuff, a major leak right now would do some serious damage. Their natural recourse is to deny it. Presuming this isn't the final document, there could be enough differences from the final 6th ed that their denial is plausible even if this is legitimate. So why would they admit it? They don't care much about looking stupid, just look around and see what most people already think of GW's business decisions.

[HsojVvad]

Another reason GW will not admit to this, If true, is that someone new coming into the hobby, they don't want them to wait to buy the 6th edtion, they want them to buy NOW, so basically GW wants you to buy something that will be obosolete in a few months.

Hell I even saw GW try to sell something to someone when the sales person knew the codex was going to be obosolete soon but had to follow GW policy.

Heaven forbid treating your customers with respect. Just goes to show you that GW doesn't really care about vetrans just wants "fresh blood" in and out.

[Aervyper]

Since the release of these rumors i have to admit that my interests have risen. I, like a lot of you out there, have the entire rule-set printed and have started reading it over. I've watched the you-tube videos. I have jumped over all the web sites and combed over dozens of pages for opinions. Having seen this i would like to include my 2 cents, to a hobby i have recently been drifting away from. For starters i am a casual Warhammer 40K'er, i've got a few armies all in various sizes, a tonne of novels and a bookshelf full of codex's. So that is where i stand.

Opinions:

ON GW: i like all have you, have probably in the last week spent way too much time thinking about this leak. Let us be honest we ALL LOVE OUR HOBBY. GW is doing the only thing it can by denying this rumor. This is their only option. I know a lot of you think that if the rumor is real (i am one of them it's an early draft just like the 5th ed rumor was), that GW should admit it and come out into the light but they just can't.

1. GW has a timeline for them of what is coming out. Whether they care to include us in this process is another thing. Your talking to a guy that had his wife get him a 2 year subscription to White Dwarf last august and didn't receive my first issue til November. That is another story though.

For GW this "leak" must just be watched, just like they watched the 5th edition leak. That is all they can do. To admit to anything other than an all out denial would force GW to move ahead their timeline and i'm sure with the real 6th edition under 6 months out that's probably impossible to shift. Your talking about a codex, a sweet starter pack deal, a tonne of helpful accessories, and a new shiny collectors edition (drools). All of these things are somewhere between final check, quality control, or the printers. You also factor in to this that if they say it's real, then 5th IS DEAD AS A DOORNAIL, and they have nothing to fill the stores for for a day, a week, a month or months. If they were to admit that it was real, every minute they don't have 6th on shelves they are losing money.

2. The Hobbit has nothing to do with this denial. Absolutely nothing! GW isn't scared about the integrity of their licensing rights because:
a: if it's a real GW leak, the people at the HOBBIT knew about the leak before it became a leak.
b: this is some professional fake by the .0001% bracket and GW really is telling the truth that it is fake.
c: Warhammer 40K is property of Games Workshop and they can do what they want with it. I seen nothing in the 'leaked' 6th edition that had anything to do with hobbits or Gandolf.
d: If this was an unauthorized company leak than the person that did it has already been fired, if not buried in a deep hole. DO NOT think for 1 minute that if this came from the hallowed houses of GW that all those errors and spelling mistakes link this to an exact copy that one person has. Come on people GW might sound and look stupid sometimes but they aren't that dumb if this copy came from GW i'd bet all the gold in fort knox that they know exactly who's copy it was.

ON THE TOURNAMENT GROUP: I'd hate to be one of these guys, or maybe i'd love to be one of these guys i don't quite know where i stand. I say this with absolutely no insight, this is just a speculation. I would guess a lot of this group know's 5th edition forwards, backwards, and side ways. Having said that with tournament season around the corner. I would bet my golden land raider that almost each and every one of this crowd has a printed out copy and is studying it like a final if not having already began playing it. This "leaked" copy is like a cheat sheet for a final. You never know if it's the real thing but you know what it doesn't hurt to learn this copy inside out, forwards and backwards. If this 'leak' is the real thing or a close proximity than your gonna be ahead of the curve, and in a competition environment you definitely can't be behind.

To all the rest of us: IT IS FREAKING AWESOME. PERIOD. END OF STORY. I don't know about the rest of you but this "leak" has got me painting models, building armies, and reading. Thank you whoever released this because i'm falling back into this pit of a game that i love and i like feeling dirty about it. LOL.


Question about the rule set. There is no place anywhere in it that lists the tiers of Eternal Warrior Special Characters and their ranks is there? The following is a small list of what i could find through all the books that i have. As it stand's in the 6th FAQ i can find nothing on any of these characters being anything other than Eternal Warrior 1. I would like to know if any of you think that they should be anything besides that. I hope to hear some opinions on this area.
Marneus Calgar (i think 2)
Lysander
Draigo (i think 2)
Yarrick
Dazhar
Logan Grimnar
The Sanguinor
Pheonix Lords (i think 3)

I hope to hear back from all of you and i hope you enjoy my insight on the 6th edition leak as i have enjoyed reading your comments.

TTFN

[eldargal]

Well the big formatting problem I have is special rules. Instead of turning to a specific page to see what a fast skimmer or a tank does under the current layout I have to flick through 100 odd pages looking for nine special rules, some of which have tiers), which I then have to remember. That is no way to lay-out a rulebook for ease of use and it isn't something GW does in its rulebooks, or not for many years anyway.

Just to be absolutely clear - I'm not confident in its legitimacy because I *want* them to be true - its because I got my information on its legitimacy from a source that I trust more than 100%



I thought the same thing initially. Set Acrobat pro to view 2-up and it all of a sudden looks like a professional document except for the minor typos which are more than excusable given the date of its "publication" and where the rules would be in the development cycle.

[Guidebot]

Well the big formatting problem I have is special rules. Instead of turning to a specific page to see what a fast skimmer or a tank does under the current layout I have to flick through 100 odd pages looking for nine special rules, some of which have tiers), which I then have to remember. That is no way to lay-out a rulebook for ease of use and it isn't something GW does in its rulebooks, or not for many years anyway.

That's something they'll almsot certainly sort out for release.

@Aervyper: I concur; this is GW's only possible response. We shouldn't read much into it.

[gcsmith]

Another reason GW will not admit to this, If true, is that someone new coming into the hobby, they don't want them to wait to buy the 6th edtion, they want them to buy NOW, so basically GW wants you to buy something that will be obosolete in a few months.

Hell I even saw GW try to sell something to someone when the sales person knew the codex was going to be obosolete soon but had to follow GW policy.

Heaven forbid treating your customers with respect. Just goes to show you that GW doesn't really care about vetrans just wants "fresh blood" in and out.

When I started playing I started around the end of 3rd and do you know wat the GW staff sed when I tried to buy certain things? he told me straight up that he reckons I should w8 since the next edition is coming in a few months. I said thanks but since I wanted to play during those months I still needed to buy that stuff now.

Also since when does this show they dnt care about vets?
So VETS night held by every GW store shows they dnt care about VETS?

[Defenestratus]

Well the big formatting problem I have is special rules. Instead of turning to a specific page to see what a fast skimmer or a tank does under the current layout I have to flick through 100 odd pages looking for nine special rules, some of which have tiers), which I then have to remember. That is no way to lay-out a rulebook for ease of use and it isn't something GW does in its rulebooks, or not for many years anyway.

So?

Instead of fast skimmer being its own special rule that needs its own explanation, its a collection of existing special rules that are clearly, explicitly defined. Once you learn what these rules are - its really simple.

[eldargal]

As it stands now everything you need to know about fast skimmers is spread over pages 70-71 in the BRB, I don't see how anyone can possibly think forcing people to check nine rules on eight pages sspread accross one hundred more is an improvement. People whine constantly about 40k being convoluted and needing to check things in books enough as it is, this would only make it worse. It is also amateurish and inefficient. If you must give units seperate USRs, put all the USRs together in one section. Otherwise give all the information a unit needs on one or two pages close together.

Things like this can really damage rulesets, Dystopian Wars hasn't taken off in the way it should because hte ruleset isn't that well set out and rules are spread out or not in the obvious section. For the industry flagship game to suffer from such poor set-up would be inexcusable.

[pgmason]

Question about the rule set. There is no place anywhere in it that lists the tiers of Eternal Warrior Special Characters and their ranks is there? The following is a small list of what i could find through all the books that i have. As it stand's in the 6th FAQ i can find nothing on any of these characters being anything other than Eternal Warrior 1. I would like to know if any of you think that they should be anything besides that. I hope to hear some opinions on this area.
Marneus Calgar (i think 2)
Lysander
Draigo (i think 2)
Yarrick
Dazhar
Logan Grimnar
The Sanguinor
Pheonix Lords (i think 3)



Unless it's explicitly stated otherwise in their codex update it's Eternal Warrior 1.

[Defenestratus]

As it stands now everything you need to know about fast skimmers is spread over pages 70-71 in the BRB, I don't see how anyone can possibly think forcing people to check nine rules on eight pages sspread accross one hundred more is an improvement. People whine constantly about 40k being convoluted and needing to check things in books enough as it is, this would only make it worse. It is also amateurish and inefficient. If you must give units seperate USRs, put all the USRs together in one section. Otherwise give all the information a unit needs on one or two pages close together.

Things like this can really damage rulesets, Dystopian Wars hasn't taken off in the way it should because hte ruleset isn't that well set out and rules are spread out or not in the obvious section. For the industry flagship game to suffer from such poor set-up would be inexcusable.

All the rules for fast skimmers aren't in one place because the same rules elements for fast skimmers are used for other unit types too and reprinting them in different places is a faux-pas in document creation. It creates the possibility of having differences of wording within the same document (something that we've seen already from GW). Putting all the rules for fast skimmers under fast skimmers wouldn't make sense since those rules are shared by other units as well, such as jump infantry, aerial units, etc.

Plus, this isn't by any means "finished". The fact that some re-organization was done after this version is more than possible - its likely.

Saying that its "fake" because its not a finalized, ready for publication document is stupid since all indications are that this was an early early version of the book.

It seems that you're making up reasons to think that its false.

[Aervyper]

Unless it's explicitly stated otherwise in their codex update it's Eternal Warrior1.

Fair enough point and you are correct. Why then have a tier system for Eternal Warrior? Your saying that in the future there's going to be even more powerful Special Characters, I highly doubt that. If you can't justify at least one of those special characters, especially phoenix warriors, to be above Eternal Warrior 1 then it seems stupid to include this rule if it is a fandex. This is one of the main reason that i think this is an early draft of the REAL 6th edition rule set. If this would be a fandex then they would have addressed at least one of these characters having something above Eternal Warrior 1. If your not making anything above the base than it's pointless to include it in the ruleset. It's not like your going to be publishing future fancodexs. I think that when this was printed it was before they tested it out. It's a small thing that would probably take a day to go through and examine and test. Do a quality control on it and add to the Ruleset. It's a small inclusion to the FAQ and probably would take a day or two of testing and maybe a 1/2 hour typing. So they wrote a 150 page rule set, a FAQ and then didn't include this minute detail. Seems fishy to me.


To the people out there that believe that this rule set is a total Fandex i hope that you are wrong. If this leak isn't close to or an early copy of the real 6th edition then GW is in a lot of trouble. GW would have to make 100% sure their 6th edition is better because you could have people leaving in droves. At the minimal worst i would think that if true then 6th edition will be pushed back months maybe until 2013. For all of us out there let's hope that the leak is a true rough draft of GW's 6th and enjoy testing it out before it becomes real. If it's a hoax then GW better stick more than their finger into the Dam to plug the water pouring out.

TTFN

[Albavar]

As it stands now everything you need to know about fast skimmers is spread over pages 70-71 in the BRB, I don't see how anyone can possibly think forcing people to check nine rules on eight pages sspread accross one hundred more is an improvement.

Actually, you need to reference to movement rules section to find the specifics regarding vehicle movement and terrain interactions, then you need the shooting rules RE: vehicles, etc. I went through and put together sheets for each unit in my Tau army that goes phase by phase with what the unit can do once special rules and interactions between special rules are taken into account. A bunch of the rules for fast skimmers are there, but a lot of rules get left by the wayside because they are a small aside in another section.

[HsojVvad]

When I started playing I started around the end of 3rd and do you know wat the GW staff sed when I tried to buy certain things? he told me straight up that he reckons I should w8 since the next edition is coming in a few months. I said thanks but since I wanted to play during those months I still needed to buy that stuff now.

Also since when does this show they dnt care about vets?
So VETS night held by every GW store shows they dnt care about VETS?

3rd/4th edition was a different time period, where GW had a different philosphy how to sell games. It has changed in 4th/5th edition. I have read this alot on peoples comments on the interent, but it was backed up when going into GW stores, when I had them.

I even spoke to the workers and manager about this and they said, if people knew a new editon was coming (5th back then) they can't sell the stock they have now so they don't say it.

Another time, I was talking to a worker and as soon as some "fresh meat" came in they abrublty and went to them. Talk about being rude. I have seen it time and again, and I thought us Canadians were suppose to be polite. I guess that is what GW does to you LOL :P.

You can see in in WD magazines, and the web site. It's no longer for vetrans or even for people who are in the hobby for 6 months or more. No more articles about do things, or make things and no Official Forums. The WD magazine is basically one big advertising. No more Chapter Approved, no more tutorials on the Hobby.

So the WD and Web Site is just to buy buy buy. Rumour is, it's suppose to change, but after SoB have been released from what I herd (since I haven't bought a WD in about 5 years) that WD has gotten back to it's same old same old, just a big advertisement.

So maybe with 6th edtion about to kick off we will see if it is "vetran" friendly or not.

[dawnofthedead]

You know ladies and gentleman I have read a lot of people saying how great these leaked rules are. I hate them. 5th edition is a pretty good edition. It needs some work but over all not bad. It is pretty simply to teach new players how to play and it runs pretty smooth and fast. I have played since 1988. I stopped playing in 2nd edition because of a horrible rule set (in my opinion). Got back into in 3rd and have played and run tournaments every since. I will probably stop playing if this leaked rules are the way the game is going to be played. It is one thing to change certain rules but another thing to change core mechanic of the game(Turn sequence). If GW adds to 5th edition and makes it better they are not going to be in trouble like I have read on some posts. Most gamers that I know love the game as is.

When Warmachine's rules are easier and runs smoother than 40k's (leaked rules) then GW has a problem. Just my two cents worth.

[Defenestratus]

You know ladies and gentleman I have read a lot of people saying how great these leaked rules are. I hate them. 5th edition is a pretty good edition. It needs some work but over all not bad. It is pretty simply to teach new players how to play and it runs pretty smooth and fast. I have played since 1988. I stopped playing in 2nd edition because of a horrible rule set (in my opinion). Got back into in 3rd and have played and run tournaments every since. I will probably stop playing if this leaked rules are the way the game is going to be played. It is one thing to change certain rules but another thing to change core mechanic of the game(Turn sequence). If GW adds to 5th edition and makes it better they are not going to be in trouble like I have read on some posts. Most gamers that I know love the game as is.

When Warmachine's rules are easier and runs smoother than 40k's (leaked rules) then GW has a problem. Just my two cents worth.

Just a quick question,

Did you actually play using these "unsmooth" rules before you made seemingly unsubstantiated claims about how much trouble GW is in?

Go check out the poll on the Lounge thread. People there pretty much all love the new rules.

I call dibs on your stuff if you ragequit.

[DarkLink]

Right, if you actually look at how the rules work they're significantly smoother than current 40k, while reducing randomness and increasing tactical options. The only complaint, as Eldargal pointed out, is that the document itself is a little sloppily organized (though I'd argue that's par for the course for GW).

Think about this. Currently, if you want to move, run and assault say, an ork horde, you have to move all 180 models 3 times, and one of those moves requires a dice roll. More dice rolls are required if difficult terrain comes into play. No wonder horde armies like orks and nidz are notorious for slow play.

Under the 6th ed rules, however, you move once. No dice rolls, no waiting 'till the shooting or assault phases to complete the next part of your movement, no need to figure out what order you want to move everything in order to get your units into position without blocking each other three times per turn. You only move once, and aside from dangerous terrain there are absolutely no dice involved. You just move. Even difficult terrain is simplified now, as all it does is prevent you from Running through it.

That in and of itself is a significant step forward in making games go faster without sacrificing anything. That system is quantifiable and unarguably better than current 5th ed movement rules. Incidentally, it's very similar to Warmachine's movement system.



Now, I do think the document takes too many words to describe some of the rules, and with better organization the rules could be presented much more clearly and concisely. But if this is legit I'm sure it's just a draft, so we'll have to wait and see.

[dawnofthedead]

You guys can have your own opinions. A large group were I come from doesn't like the leaked rules. We don't think it is smooth. In my opinion they suck. Just because the majority of the people on this forum likes them doesn't mean that most people like them who play 40k. But maybe they do. I don't know that and nobody else on this forum knows that either. Not by a long shot is every 40k player weighing in on this.

The trouble statement came from early statements that if GW doesn't go to the leaked rules they are going to have trouble. I am not making an unsubstantiated claim. If you like these rules good on you. We don't.

And just for the record we did try these "unsmooth" rules.

[eldargal]

I'm not saying it is fake because it isn't finalised, I'm saying it is another inconsistency (why have early formatting but placeholder images when final formatting will necessitate the movement of the placeholders?). The inconsistencies make me suspect it is a hoax, I do not claim to be certain of it.

But I can turn that back on you and say you're making up excuses for inconsistencies so you can convince yourself it is real. The fact is we simply don't have enough information to make a judgement one way or the other and all I'm saying is don't go getting your hopes up.

Want to explain why a development team with no German speakers would use German words in a an early draft of the 40k ruleset?:)

Plus, this isn't by any means "finished". The fact that some re-organization was done after this version is more than possible - its likely.

Saying that its "fake" because its not a finalized, ready for publication document is stupid since all indications are that this was an early early version of the book.

It seems that you're making up reasons to think that its false.

[Wrath]

lol, I have this crazy desire to outflank a 5 man Chosen squad all with flamers. XD

[DarkLink]

You guys can have your own opinions. A large group were I come from doesn't like the leaked rules. We don't think it is smooth. In my opinion they suck.

Justification? I can't see how taking something like separate move, run and assault moves that require you to roll dice and then streamlining it into a single move that does not require any dice rolling while still retaining all the tactical options (in fact, it actually opens up more options) could be considered unsmooth. And while that's only one specific case, the rest of the rules are similar. Assault moves? No more twelve step "move the first closest model in a perfectly straight line into contact, then the next, then the next, and if anyone goes through terrain you take the difficult terrain you have to roll and if it turns out that makes you fail the charge you have to go back and un-move all those models you already moved, sucks to be you". Mech spam a problem? Not anymore, you can't score while embarked. Spending too much time playing wound allocation games? Not any more, it's more or less back to the 4th ed rule that was so much easier. Deepstriking, reserves and outflanking are all awesome now, and are unquestionably better than the 5th ed reserve system.

I can think of examples of stuff that got significantly easier under the new rules. I can think of dozens of interesting new tactical options that the new rules allow that 5th ed didn't. I can't, however, think of anything that got more complicated.

You can stick to your opinion if you want, but I cannot see any rational justification to actually back up your opinion.

Edit: Oh, I guess the bidding for first turn thing is more complicated than a simple dice roll, though it is more tactical and requires more thought. That's about the only aspect of the rules themselves that I think needs a lot of work. The rest of it is just formatting and improving the organization of the document itself.

[dawnofthedead]

Look, I could go point by point on why I don't like the leaked rules but I am not going too. If you think the rules are great wonderful. I don't. I am not try to convince you that the rules suck. I am just saying that there are people out there that don't like them. That doesn't make our opinion wrong. You don't have to see a rational justification for my opinion. Points that you think are valid I may not. And no offense but it seems like I am getting attacked because I don't agree with the general opinion that these rules are good. This is why I don't post.

[DarkLink]

I'm not disagreeing because I want to attack you, I'm genuinely wondering what about the rules could be flawed or if I missed something. I mean sure, the layout of the document is a little sloppy but it's a draft so you kinda have to ignore that. And the vast majority of the rules themselves are either pretty much the same as they currently are, or patently obvious improvements over the current rules. There are some rough spots that need to be ironed out of course, but again this is likely a draft. So, am I missing something?

[Lexington]

I'm not saying it is fake because it isn't finalised, I'm saying it is another inconsistency (why have early formatting but placeholder images when final formatting will necessitate the movement of the placeholders?).
IIRC, the completely legitimate 5th Edition leak also had this, and the leaked GK book even featured a lot of completed art, despite changes being made in the final release. I suspect that layout and playtesting are actually done concurrently, and that there's an assumption that not many large blocks of text will be added or subtracted from the document at this stage. Or it's a mixed process, and all gets sorted in a final pass. Either way, we know that there's not a strict "finish rules, start layout" process within GW.

[gendoikari87]

all I know is if you can fire heavy weapons from out of a vehicle like it says I'll start playing again.

[DarkLink]

You can. You're limited to an 18" range when shooting out of a vehicle, though. Makes multi-meltas pretty good.

[Gir]

Had a game with these rules last night. So much better then 5th ed. Also, tau are pretty scarey now, twin-link rail guns hitting on 2+ a lot.

[Vangrail]

I play tested the rules also goes very smoothly and its much more tactical. me and my friends were a little confused on how the hull breached rules worked. Like it happens when a unit with a av is stunned or immobilized? and the next shot that hits the tank and pens gets its damage dice bumped up one?

[DarkLink]

Basically, when you cause one damage result subsequent ones get bumped up to do more damage. The second Immobilized result, for example, becomes a Wrecked. Techmarines and the like can repair hull breaches, though. So damage accumulates more quickly, but it can be repaired and you don't lose your best gun first anymore.

[Defenestratus]

Basically, when you cause one damage result subsequent ones get bumped up to do more damage. The second Immobilized result, for example, becomes a Wrecked. Techmarines and the like can repair hull breaches, though. So damage accumulates more quickly, but it can be repaired and you don't lose your best gun first anymore.

Yes,

Fire Prisms, Hammerheads and Vindicators are all rejoicing with this ruleset.

[Vangrail]

ok in the rules there is a example of havocs shooting a land speeder and it says it first gets rid of mult targeting then its shooting capabilities all together. so does it get rid of the the rule then its actual guns or what? or is it like the heavy bolter then assault cannon?

[Gir]

ok in the rules there is a example of havocs shooting a land speeder and it says it first gets rid of mult targeting then its shooting capabilities all together. so does it get rid of the the rule then its actual guns or what? or is it like the heavy bolter then assault cannon?

As rules say, you loose your muti-tracking value, meaning you can only shoot a single gun, and don't get to fire twice for stationary. Then the next weapon destroyed removes the ability to shoot at all. You don't need to get rid of each gun, as that negates the point of these rules (i.e, to reduce book keeping).

[Wildcard]

Multi-Tracking():

Yeah, there are some points to note with this multi-tracking rule:
- Ordnance takes two shots, or "2 multi-tracking values".
- Meaning when you reach multi-tracking(1), you can only shoot ordnance stationary (when you get to double the multi-tracking value)
- When you lose multi-tracking(), you lose the ability to fire ordnance alltogether

However, even with no multi-tracking(), you can still fire weapons that require heavy-fire action (your basic heavy weapon: Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Assault Cannon etc..), tho you are limited only to one weapon, moving or stationary.

Hull Breach:

Hull Breaches work as stated before, however, hull breaches only work on 'subsequent' damaging attacks, meaning that even if your devastators fired 4 missiles and scored 4 immobilise results, you still don't do anything else than 1 immobilised result (rest 3 are discarded as in the example from the rules)

Next squad firing at the target however, will benefit from every breach caused before they themselves fired.

- And as far as i've understood, same goes for the close combat attacks, with the difference the breaches are not looked from the whole squads attacks, but from the iniative values (so, a tank gets a hull breach from I5, all following iniative steps benefit from the breach, but no other possible I5 attacks)

[HsojVvad]

Look, I could go point by point on why I don't like the leaked rules but I am not going too. If you think the rules are great wonderful. I don't. I am not try to convince you that the rules suck. I am just saying that there are people out there that don't like them. That doesn't make our opinion wrong. You don't have to see a rational justification for my opinion. Points that you think are valid I may not. And no offense but it seems like I am getting attacked because I don't agree with the general opinion that these rules are good. This is why I don't post.

Wait a second, you say on one hand you are not trying to change our minds, but on the other hand you say they suck. Well if you are not trying to "convice" us, you shouldn't be using the words "suck" then.

If you feel like you are getting attacked, it's because of the wording you are using. Do not use "suck" to explain something. That is attacking a person who believes that the rules are good. Would you like a debate where you like something, say 5th edition and people say it sucks? Using the words "suck" is an attack. You can be using other words, and then maybe you will feel like people are not attacking you then.

:)

[Vangrail]

Also another question do u still have to fight a walkers front armor in cc? cant find in the new rules if u have to or not.

[TheDirtyHippy]

Also, it appears that Walkers take critical hits from No Retreat. They would get the Ld 10 from Fearless (2), but this is still pretty brutal. I can't find any mention of how glancing penetrating hits affect combat resolution for Walkers either.

Other Vehicles have Intractable and ignore the No Retreat critical hits, though glancing/penetrating hits count as wounds for combat resolution (page 64).

Anyone else see something I'm missing?

[Vangrail]

just finished reading all the vehicle rules and i cant find anything that says walkers front armor is fought in cc. my dreads might be very sad :(

[DrLove42]

Updatey Updatey

Available from multiple sources, but all point the finger back at Beast of War


The 40K Heretics Rulebook is Real… Only it’s Not!
Yes… you heard that correctly. After a lot of digging and snooping around the inside of the great citadel (or should that be Citadel) that is Games Workshop, we have some very interesting news about the so-called Heretics 40K Rulebook… or the 6th Edition Leak for those with little flair for the dramatic!
It turns out that this is in fact an actual early version of the 6th Edition rules… but not quite. Apparently the Design department were let loose on the 40K system… they were allowed to try anything they fancied… we’re told that nothing was off the table. This “no-holds-barred” version was then edited down with the truly unworkable ideas removed and those that could prove to be exciting or contentious left in to be play-tested… so was born the Heretics 40K Rulebook!
This version was sent to trusted play-testers. Who like all trusted minions… were turned by the promise of power… or in this case internet notoriety and likely splurted the document all over the web!
I actually found this explanation to be not just more plausible (than the lone gunman theory) but a real breath of fresh air from the ‘Ivory Citadel’, and to me at least it shows a high level of innovation within the design team, and also shows that there is no shortage of ideas knocking around in there.
Word has it the design team had a real blast with this iteration of the rules (loved it apparently) but spotted alot of potential for asshats to ruin it for everyone else with unbalanced lists etc.
And there you have the crux of the issue the design team face, they could probably create a massively fun game at the drop of the hat, and simple folk like me wold love them dearly for it, but alas there is a whole other side (some say dark, Darrel says only!) to our hobby and that is the competitive win at all costs play.
So, fun as they may be, they’re not the final (or indeed likely to be anything like the complete) rule set for 6th edition… but what were we told about the actual 6th Edition Rules?
Well some really interesting stuff. For a start here’s what will not be included from the Heretics Rulebook:
Evasion Values are Out – well this was a given… I’m sure every Dark Eldar player was praying for the day that their skimmers and flyers didn’t fall over in a stiff breeze, but that’s not all. Our Man in Havana has told us that Dark Eldar players will be very pleased with the 6th Edition updates.
Could that mean an overhaul of the skimmer rules… could it mean more deadly flyers?
Of course it could mean one, both or neither. However, more robust transports would make the Dark Eldar much more deadly… so keep your eyes peeled for more revelations.
The Turn Sequence will remain the same – The biggest shake-up and the one that would mean a rewrite of Assault weapons and the death of certain “shooty armies” ( Tao ), was the turn structure that put charging/melee before shooting. I would say it was unrealistic, but in a world of extra-terrestrial and supernatural horrors, where mankind has moved to the stars… that’s probably a bit redundant.
Anyway… the turn structure will remain the same as it is now.
No Unit by Unit Activation – Yup that was pretty disappointing for me, (but who knows everything we have been told could well be misinformation too!) I was sooo looking forward to faster more intricate games with that option.
Gargantuan Creatures will remain with Forge World & Apocalypse Games – That’s right… probably no supersized tanks and critters for the main rulebook… but does that mean we won’t get any Aracknarok-sized monsters?
Well it hasn’t been ruled out, and as Land Raiders are already that size, it’s doesn’t take a genius to think we’ll be getting more big kits.
In fact that was one of the discussions… we all like to gripe about GW prices.
However, it was explained that GW are investing all the time in new kits, new moulds, more people (sculpting team is largest its ever been apparently) and a bigger and better gaming experience… you can take that at face value if you wish… but if it means more plastic kits (and fewer Finecast), and more big bad creatures and machines is it worth it?
So who will be writing this new 6th Edition Rulebook I hear you cry?
Well as you can imagine the creation of a new rule set of this scale is a team effort… but some poor soul has to captain this vessel… so who is it?
Well… that really is top secret and even we couldn’t get the name (and you can’t use thumbscrews these days!)… but we did find out who it isn’t.
So here are a few names who might be involved, but won’t be the lead writer… Matt Ward, Robin Cruddace and Phil Kelly… but if not one of them… then who?
Will you need an update to your existing Codex when 6th Edition launches?
We’re told that the new rule book was written to take into account the latest releases and so there’s no need to post a massive errata.
However, we know that there are many codices that need a revamp. So I’m very sceptical that there will be “no need for an FAQ”.
Although I’m always prepared to be proven wrong.
So, there you go… that was an interesting conversation… and it doesn’t stop there.
We got some more great bits of info that we’ll be able to share with you… but not quite yet… you’ll need to be patient.
However, until then… feel free to speculate all you want… or post a question. Perhaps we can call a few guys and see if we can get you the inside track.
Big caveats on this guys, in that while we’re confident that the contents of the article are accurate you are relying on our sources, and… well… there could be many ways in which it may not be accurate (not necessarily deliberate by a source either!) so take it that its just part of the business these days that while we do our best, there are no guarantees!
All of that aside, is the Heretics 40K Rulebook good enough, different enough to warrant a following of its own? (I’m so tempted its unreal!)
BoW Warren

So (if this is believed) its real, but not real, but is real, but won't happen but is real?

I'm confused....

[Wrath]

So (if this is believed) its real, but not real, but is real, but won't happen but is real?

I'm confused....

lol, Warren summed it up nicely in the comments. It is GW, it is not 6th.

Damn shame too, haven't been this excited about 40K in a LONG time. Well back to lurk mode for me. =]

[GrenAcid]

And there you have the crux of the issue the design team face, they could probably create a massively fun game at the drop of the hat, and simple folk like me wold love them dearly for it, but alas there is a whole other side (some say dark, Darrel says only!) to our hobby and that is the competitive win at all costs play.
LMAO thats the most retarded thing I read on BoW ever, wargamming nerds gonna abuse any rulebook even if you try hard to make it balanced, Wh40k is not meant for balanced turnament play, be a man and face it.

I hope realy-realy-realy hard that BoW team drop dead & their souls will burn in hell, If GW are going to F up 6ed to be just spin off 3ed-4ed-5ed Im going on HERESY SIDE!

[Kawauso]

Updatey Updatey

Available from multiple sources, but all point the finger back at Beast of War



So (if this is believed) its real, but not real, but is real, but won't happen but is real?

I'm confused....

What's confusing about it?

Sounds like a really, really, -really- long-winded way of saying that this was an early playtest version of 6th Ed. rules...

...Which is exactly what a number of people have been saying from the start, and makes a lot of sense.

If true, it gives a good insight into what 6th will be like, but the crazier ideas will obviously be toned down or adjusted to work better with the game as we know it.

Makes sense to me. This is probably a 'kitchen sink' rulebook that was the result of a brainstorming session, and would have received a lot of pruning over the last year.

[Wildcard]

Really shame, if that is true, that there would be no possibility for super heavies in the normal sized 40k games.

[DrLove42]

its the way it says this was written as a rule book

Then taken edited to tone it down

Then released to play testers

Then its the "heretic" book not the real thing?

So its is both real and not at the same time? Obviously its is real and an early playtest like i've always wanted to believe, but at the same time, its not real because this became the "heretic" rules not the real 6th ed rules?

And why get the studio to write a crazy rule book, send it out to playtesters and sort it out IF its not even the real thing?

Also Wildcard, we play an annual tournement with super heavies and gargants allowed in standard games purely for stupid fun (2000points last year, 2250 this year...next week in fact). It doesn't work in any sense of balence AT ALL. They are so incredibly overpowered, and the 6th ed "leaked" rules only made them more so. They should in my opinion always stay seperate

[Wildcard]

@DRLove: I know :( .. I mean, i have the understanding that super-heavies pack quite a punch, and since my fellow gamers wont agree to play apoc-sized games (fearing super-heavies, having smaller armies or due to the time constrains..) Hence i was hoping for a ruleset that would make my own super-heavy babes legal in games up to 3k points / side.. :)

On the almost 4-year period with this gaming group, i've been allowed to only take one of my big-ones to the table, and it was a only time we tried planetary defence game.. i was defending, and on the first turn of the game, my oppoenents concentrated all of their assault units arriving from reserves to nuke the stationary bane blade down.. So, only time i ever had gotten one into the table, i didn't even got the change to move or shoot with it :) (and they did have apoc vehicle: that LandRaider with total of 5 lascannons..)

Anyway, i do understand that if the devs couldn't make them playable (not in a competitive manner, but in a way that is fun, yet possibly challenging), then it is better that they were left out..

[Kawauso]

And why get the studio to write a crazy rule book, send it out to playtesters and sort it out IF its not even the real thing?



That's...kind of the point of playtesting. To see what ideas work versus those that do not. Because it's impossible to know how well a game mechanic will work until it's been played with extensively.

[gannam]

Well, hell, if they play tested it and it wasn't fun then we should be thankful........unless what they release sucks worse. Then **** em. I will play heretic 40K

[DarkLink]

LMAO thats the most retarded thing I read on BoW ever, wargamming nerds gonna abuse any rulebook even if you try hard to make it balanced, Wh40k is not meant for balanced turnament play, be a man and face it.

The very fact that a very significant portion of the gaming community strongly disagrees with you about the competitiveness of 40k simply highlights the need for balanced gameplay. Regardless, the idea that an activity that involves any significant amount of player skill cannot be competitive just because that's not necessarily what the creators intended is laughable.





I hope realy-realy-realy hard that BoW team drop dead & their souls will burn in hell

Ummm... I think you might want to see a psychiatrist about that. Seriously.

[Porty1119]

I hope realy-realy-realy hard that BoW team drop dead & their souls will burn in hell!

That's not scary at all.

I wonder if this was a calculated plan by GW to leak the rules and see how people liked it in the inevitable playtesting that would occur?? ;);)

[JxKxR]

Could someone please PM me where to find the rules leak. I can't get it from BoK for some reason.

[HsojVvad]

Could someone please PM me where to find the rules leak. I can't get it from BoK for some reason.

Leaked rules seemed to be an early draft if true. Not sure if you really want them since I believe 6th edition will look like nothing like this. Too many complaints from SM players to like these rule set. Maybe not SM players per se, but people who said it was "too complicated" or to much change play SM it seems.

[JxKxR]

I just like what I hear about them. I don't really care if they are real or not.

[odinsgrandson]

LMAO thats the most retarded thing I read on BoW ever, wargamming nerds gonna abuse any rulebook even if you try hard to make it balanced, Wh40k is not meant for balanced turnament play, be a man and face it.



You know, it pains me that I think you're kind of right. I'd love it if GW made games that were very well balanced, and the better played game almost always won. But the culture surrounding GW games completely subverts this.

We have words like Cheesy or Beardy for times when someone is using their codex to the fullest. I'd really like to play a game where both players can bring everything they have, play their top tier A game and leave happy.

I actually think that Blood Bowl looks like this. Of course, the game balance there has kind of left the hands of GW a little while ago.