6th Edition 40K Rules Leak

[Bigred]

BASICS
A document has appeared on the internet on multiple sites that appears to be a version of the upcoming 6th edition rules.

GROUNDRULES
THERE WILL BE NO LINKS TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENT ALLOWED. Any links will be deleted immediately, and posters will be turned over to Duke's loving hands...

Other than that, feel free to discus anything you like about the ruleset in this thread. Its content, validity, what have you. Have fun.

NO LINKS - WE MEAN IT!

-Your friendly neighborhood Bigred :)

[eldargal]

If it is fake it is an incredibly elaborate one and given that most leaks have some kind of GW approval it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that they have leaked this to gauge community view and get some playtesting via forums and such.

Still I think it best to work under the assumption it is a hoax, it would be just like the online community (well, Warseer and 40konlinemostly) to get all enthusiastic over this leak and then when it turns out to be a hoax blame GW.:rolleyes:

[Mr.Pickelz]

With the way GW is tightening up their security on info, I personally view it as a bit of a hoax, with some practical wish-listing to add credit to it.

[Bigred]

I agree eldargal. Having worked on our campaign books and videogames design documents in the past, the sheer size, formatting and completeness of the document points to it being real. It bears a marked resemblance in scope, word choice, and layout to the leaked version of 5th edition that broke a couple of months ahead of time.

It could indeed be a hoax, bit if so, its more like a big group effort to produce an alternative ruleset that could work with the existing codices over many months of work.

That said, having studied lots of these things professionally over the years, it has a "stitched together" feel to it, like a Frankenstein amalgam of 40k, WFB, with even some Flames of War, Dystopian, and Warmachine tossed in for good measure. All the overlapping and abundant special rules and abilities almost have a DnD 4.0 vibe as well.

I could see this as a starting point to put in front of playtesters to start to pare down and remove the overcomplex fiddly bits (there are many). It doesn't have that clear coherent "vision-feel" of a single individual. Still, 6th Edition would be the first post Alessio/Priestly major system update, so who knows how far the design studio might go, with so much institutional memory having left the building.

This would definitely be the biggest change to the game since 2nd edition.

[Dalleron]

This "rules leak" is news to me, spending all my time on SW:TOR and whatnot.

But I offer something regarding the "Frankenstein-ing" as you put it. They did the same thing to WFB with it's 8th ed. So something similiar happening to 6th ed 40k isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I hope the next rules shake things up alot, this edition is kinda boring.

[flatdice]

Based on my skim read so far it strikes me a probably being not a hoax, that being said if it is a fake its a dam good one if only for its consistency.

Assuming its legit the rules seems interesting, AP for close combat weapons being notable to me, changing what you need to with shooting makes sense as well.

[flatdice]

Looking through the document a second time i noticed what should be a typo of power armour being a 2+ save in one of the charts.

lol now i hope its a fake.

[eldargal]

Reading through bits of now I'm thinking more and more it is a hoax, the way it is set out is unlike GWs usual method and is more than a little amateurish. I'm reminded of some of the less logical layout choices in Dystopian Wars.

For example, all Fast Skimmers have nine special rules on pages 110, 41, 47 54, 64, 72, and 73. Really? So instead to turning to the Fast Skimmer section and reading what it does I have to go through eight more pages and remember what each ability does? Not only that some of the abilities have tiers (Fearless (2) for example) so you have to remember that as well.

This is common to all the special rules sections, every other special rule has 'see page ***'.

There is a weapons section in the book which includes weapon stats AND prices. GW have never done that before? It is also completely inconsistent, star cannons are now S7 Assault 2 with a 10 point price reduction but bright lances who need readjustment even more aren't mentioned.

Something just feels so off. I'm not saying it couldn't be real but I'm highly sceptical.

Oh and in the rulebook it says th best human pskers are Mastery 3 while the best Eldar are 5, but Eldrad is Mastery 2 thank to his Spirit Stones which give Mastery 2. So the best psyker in the damned galaxy is inferior to the best human battle psykers? That makes perfect sense.

Ghosthelm gets an update despite the update not updating anything, along with several other rules. It is like they were just filling in slots to make it look like it was the rumoured codex update that was coming with 6th rather than it being a real update.

[flekkzo]

I've tried to figure out which version of Eternal Warrior Lysander gets, but I haven't figured out which one he has. I'm hoping for 3, but that is hoping :)

Rules looks interesting, got quite a lot of stuff in there. Wish I could be part of the play test, bet I would have a lot of feedback:)

[fuzzbuket]

im not asking for links but as someone who dosnt go to dakka/warseer could someone point me to a site where the document is. again no links because i dont think bigred wants any :L

[eldargal]

Someone said the document was dated May 2011, so if not a hoax it could be a very, very early, very, very rough draft. Playing devils advocate, I'm more inclined to think it a hoax.

Another thing, Veiled(3) involves calculating spotting distance (like Veil of Tears) by rollind 2D6 and multiplying by 1.5". To my knowledge GW have never had a rule involving calculating by 1.5 anything.

If these rules are accurate then 6th is going from complicated to ridiculously convoluted.

[03bbrevenge]

in skimming through the updates I am praying to the emperor that they are fake, after all of the work done to speed the game up, if these rules were to be implemented the backlash could be worse than the initial 8th edition fantasy Backlash.


fuzzbucket, check Blood of kittens

[eldargal]

The backlash aginst 8th was at least completely ****** stupid, in this case it would be entirely warranted.

in skimming through the updates I am praying to the emperor that they are fake, after all of the work done to speed the game up, if these rules were to be implemented the backlash could be worse than the initial 8th edition fantasy Backlash.


fuzzbucket, check Blood of kittens

[BuFFo]

The backlash aginst 8th was at least completely ****** stupid, in this case it would be entirely warranted.

I am unsure about the rules themselves. I wouldn't put it past GW to trash their flagship game so much. Codices have been shat on, 8th edition was shat on, so why not 6th edition?

[Entropic]

For example, all Fast Skimmers have nine special rules on pages 110, 41, 47 54, 64, 72, and 73. Really? So instead to turning to the Fast Skimmer section and reading what it does I have to go through eight more pages and remember what each ability does? Not only that some of the abilities have tiers (Fearless (2) for example) so you have to remember that as well.

This is common to all the special rules sections, every other special rule has 'see page ***'.

Have you seen the more recent codices they've put out? This wouldn't be the first time.

Someone said the document was dated May 2011, so if not a hoax it could be a very, very early, very, very rough draft. Playing devils advocate, I'm more inclined to think it a hoax. This is believable, and about what I was thinking. I wouldn't call it a very rough draft, it's actually done up fairly well and looks like it's not too far from completion, but I did notice a number of errors, so I would assume that it hasn't been past an editor yet. It's clearly been through a good deal of editing already though. The sheer work involved in this leads me to believe that this is accurate, though it might not be the final product. If it's a hoax, somebody has crazy amounts of free time on their hands.


Another thing, Veiled(3) involves calculating spotting distance (like Veil of Tears) by rollind 2D6 and multiplying by 1.5". To my knowledge GW have never had a rule involving calculating by 1.5 anything. That stuck out to me too. Seems a poor choice, if this sticks.


If these rules are accurate then 6th is going from complicated to ridiculously convoluted. I wouldn't say that. They're different, but after going over it all it doesn't seem too much more complicated than 5th, it's just complicated in different ways.

----

One thing that I noticed is that a lot of it is pretty similar to the rules dump about 6th that we got earlier. Not everything matches, but it's close enough that it's completely believable that both that dump and this leak were accurate, but seen at different times in development.

In the codex updates that was 'leaked' alongside it, they have Tau errata. Could somebody with the current codex check to see if things match up? I'm assuming that it does. If Tau does get released in the next couple months like it's rumored, that would indicate that this leak is a hoax or came from early in development, before Tau release plans were solidified. Necron errata is notably absent, which would suggest that when this was written the writer's didn't have access to the final version of the Necron codex. Again, could either mean early version, or hoax started months ago.

[Entropic]

For example, all Fast Skimmers have nine special rules on pages 110, 41, 47 54, 64, 72, and 73. Really? So instead to turning to the Fast Skimmer section and reading what it does I have to go through eight more pages and remember what each ability does? Not only that some of the abilities have tiers (Fearless (2) for example) so you have to remember that as well.

This is common to all the special rules sections, every other special rule has 'see page ***'.

Have you seen the more recent codices they've put out? This wouldn't be the first time.

Someone said the document was dated May 2011, so if not a hoax it could be a very, very early, very, very rough draft. Playing devils advocate, I'm more inclined to think it a hoax. This is believable, and about what I was thinking. I wouldn't call it a very rough draft, it's actually done up fairly well and looks like it's not too far from completion, but I did notice a number of errors, so I would assume that it hasn't been past an editor yet. It's clearly been through a good deal of editing already though. The sheer work involved in this leads me to believe that this is accurate, though it might not be the final product. If it's a hoax, somebody has crazy amounts of free time on their hands.


Another thing, Veiled(3) involves calculating spotting distance (like Veil of Tears) by rollind 2D6 and multiplying by 1.5". To my knowledge GW have never had a rule involving calculating by 1.5 anything. That stuck out to me too. Seems a poor choice, if this sticks.


If these rules are accurate then 6th is going from complicated to ridiculously convoluted. I wouldn't say that. They're different, but after going over it all it doesn't seem too much more complicated than 5th, it's just complicated in different ways.

----

One thing that I noticed is that a lot of it is pretty similar to the rules dump about 6th that we got earlier. Not everything matches, but it's close enough that it's completely believable that both that dump and this leak were accurate, but seen at different times in development.

In the codex updates that was 'leaked' alongside it, they have Tau errata. Could somebody with the current codex check to see if things match up? I'm assuming that it does. If Tau does get released in the next couple months like it's rumored, that would indicate that this leak is a hoax or came from early in development, before Tau release plans were solidified. Necron errata is notably absent, which would suggest that when this was written the writer's didn't have access to the final version of the Necron codex. Again, could either mean early version, or hoax started months ago.

[eldargal]

Well its possible if Cruddace is writing it.:rolleyes: But really 8th and the 8th ed army books are so superior to 7th it isn't funny, I doubt they would suddenly come along and completely **** over their flagship.

[flatdice]

I hope for GW sake that we don't see a repeat of 8ed for WH with 40k for the simple reason that GW learned their lesson last time around

[SotonShades]

For anyone interested (unless my internet-search-fu is failing me) the file in question appears to have been deleted.

At least on the link on BoK...

And before anyone gets jumped up on "it must be real or GW wouldn't have gotten it deleted", they would have had to to protect their trademarks and copyrights even if it was/is fake. As we know from Chapterhouse Studios, GW's legal team caan be heavy handed, so a quick "Delete this or we will see your proverbial in court..." would probably get the job done.

[eldargal]

40k is in fairly good shape, it doesn't need a complete revamp like 7th WFB did. I will also point out my sources within GW all say 8th has been a raging success.

I hope for GW sake that we don't see a repeat of 8ed for WH with 40k for the simple reason that GW learned their lesson last time around

Yup, it being deleted means nothing for its authenticity one way or the other.

For anyone interested (unless my internet-search-fu is failing me) the file in question appears to have been deleted.

At least on the link on BoK...

And before anyone gets jumped up on "it must be real or GW wouldn't have gotten it deleted", they would have had to to protect their trademarks and copyrights even if it was/is fake. As we know from Chapterhouse Studios, GW's legal team caan be heavy handed, so a quick "Delete this or we will see your proverbial in court..." would probably get the job done.

[DrLove42]

I know people say 8th wss bad, but from my perspective it seemed chock full of missions and good rules. With the exception of premeasuring its good from my perspective (a newbie to fantasy in 8th).

Even if this thing was covered in official gw stickers and jervis piped up in gws website and said yes its official i still wouldbt read it. i dont want to ruin the new book.

But could someone post some of the main points that'd be grand

[Entropic]

For example, all Fast Skimmers have nine special rules on pages 110, 41, 47 54, 64, 72, and 73. Really? So instead to turning to the Fast Skimmer section and reading what it does I have to go through eight more pages and remember what each ability does? Not only that some of the abilities have tiers (Fearless (2) for example) so you have to remember that as well.

This is common to all the special rules sections, every other special rule has 'see page ***'.

Have you seen the more recent codices they've put out? This wouldn't be the first time.

Someone said the document was dated May 2011, so if not a hoax it could be a very, very early, very, very rough draft. Playing devils advocate, I'm more inclined to think it a hoax. This is believable, and about what I was thinking. I wouldn't call it a very rough draft, it's actually done up fairly well and looks like it's not too far from completion, but I did notice a number of errors, so I would assume that it hasn't gotten a final editor's pass yet. It's clearly been through a good deal of editing already though. The sheer work involved in this leads me to believe that this is accurate, though it might not be the final product. If it's a hoax, somebody has crazy amounts of free time on their hands.


Another thing, Veiled(3) involves calculating spotting distance (like Veil of Tears) by rollind 2D6 and multiplying by 1.5". To my knowledge GW have never had a rule involving calculating by 1.5 anything. That stuck out to me too. Seems a poor choice, if this sticks.


If these rules are accurate then 6th is going from complicated to ridiculously convoluted. I wouldn't say that. They're different, but after going over it all it doesn't seem too much more complicated than 5th, it's just complicated in different ways.

----

One thing that I noticed is that a lot of it is pretty similar to the rules dump about 6th that we got earlier. Not everything matches, but it's close enough that it's completely believable that both that dump and this leak were accurate, but seen at different times in development.

In the codex updates that was 'leaked' alongside it, they have Tau errata. Could somebody with the current codex check to see if things match up? I'm assuming that it does. If Tau does get released in the next couple months like it's rumored, that would indicate that this leak is a hoax or came from early in development, before Tau release plans were solidified. Necron errata is notably absent, which would suggest that when this was written the writer's didn't have access to the final version of the Necron codex. Again, could either mean early version, or hoax started months ago.

edit: Timestamp is May 17th & May 20th, so definitely earlier version. I think that might lend more credibility to the not-a-hoax theory, simply because I wouldn't expect a hoaxer to go through the trouble of faking a timestamp, even as easy as that is. What's the point, when a more recent timestamp doesn't mean a damn thing?

[Entropic]

I'm starting to grok the rules now as I continue to read and reread the rulebook. I'm starting to like the new ruleset and the implications of these changes, assuming this is a real leak.

Vehicles get a few nerfs and a few buffs, which overall is probably a wash, but the results I think make more sense.

I think I like these reserve rules better than the previously rumored ones - you can do it like in fifth, or do things to increase the chances of a critical unit coming in at the right time, and you also don't need to worry about units coming in too early. Whether it's overall better than fifth is still unclear - those eldar bikes that always get a last turn objective contest and can't be shot beforehand are going to be obnoxious. Outflanking got a slight nerf.

Deepstriking in general is less risky, which I like - you don't scatter at all if you deploy away from the enemy, and even if you mishap the unit is just stunned. Deepstriking assault units is viable now, even if still pretty dangerous (if you deepstrike close enough to assault, you scatter, and enemies get to take shots at you, but you can assault that turn).

First turn assaults are now possible with the faster units and correct deployment. Tyranid players are probably going to start running a lot more shrikes.

The Annihilation object is a lot less unbalanced. Kill points are based on point value ranges of the units, with some randomness to make it harder to min-max unit point values for this mission type. At higher point values, each army can be expected to be fielding roughly same number of kill points, regardless of how many units they drop on the table. A good deal for armies like Orks and Tyranids.

The evasion stat is an odd way to phrase the associated rules, but my guess is that this is really preparation for a future 7th edition, and it's done this way with the intention of giving GW time to add EV to everything's stat line.

One other thing that seems to suggest this is legit - some of the stratagems rules seem to be specifically engineered to increase sales of GW terrain. Speaking of stragems, I like the core idea, but not having a cap on first turn bidding seems like a bad idea. I'm hoping the final rules are more like what was rumored before - that both players are just given a number of stratagem points and bid from that pool, and use the rest.

Also liking the inclusion of Apocalypse rules in the main rulebook. I hope this will encourage GW and others to make Forgeworld units acceptable in general play. Honestly, the main thing stopping me from buying more forgeworld is the knowledge that I won't be allowed to play with those toys in most games.

[Entropic]

I'm starting to grok the rules now as I continue to read and reread the rulebook. I'm starting to like the new ruleset and the implications of these changes, assuming this is a real leak.

Vehicles get a few nerfs and a few buffs, which overall is probably a wash, but the results I think make more sense.

I think I like these reserve rules better than the previously rumored ones - you can do it like in fifth, or do things to increase the chances of a critical unit coming in at the right time, and you also don't need to worry about units coming in too early. Whether it's overall better than fifth is still unclear - those eldar bikes that always get a last turn objective contest and can't be shot beforehand are going to be obnoxious. Outflanking got a slight nerf.

Deepstriking in general is less risky, which I like - you don't scatter at all if you deploy away from the enemy, and even if you mishap the unit is just stunned. Deepstriking assault units is viable now, even if still pretty dangerous (if you deepstrike close enough to assault, you scatter, and enemies get to take shots at you, but you can assault that turn).

First turn assaults are now possible with the faster units and correct deployment. Tyranid players are probably going to start running a lot more shrikes.

The Annihilation object is a lot less unbalanced. Kill points are based on point value ranges of the units, with some randomness to make it harder to min-max unit point values for this mission type. At higher point values, each army can be expected to be fielding roughly same number of kill points, regardless of how many units they drop on the table. A good deal for armies like Orks and Tyranids.

The evasion stat is an odd way to phrase the associated rules, but my guess is that this is really preparation for a future 7th edition, and it's done this way with the intention of giving GW time to add EV to everything's stat line.

One other thing that seems to suggest this is legit - some of the stratagems rules seem to be specifically engineered to increase sales of GW terrain. Speaking of stragems, I like the core idea, but not having a cap on first turn bidding seems like a bad idea. I'm hoping the final rules are more like what was rumored before - that both players are just given a number of stratagem points and bid from that pool, and use the rest.

Also liking the inclusion of Apocalypse rules in the main rulebook. I hope this will encourage GW and others to make Forgeworld units acceptable in general play. Honestly, the main thing stopping me from buying more forgeworld is the knowledge that I won't be allowed to play with those toys in most games.

[deadmanwade]

Having quickly scanned the document, it does look like a very rough draft. More than a few typos and some obviously convoluted rules and layouts. Now, since I am assuming that rulebooks dont spring fully formed from the minds of the writers and instead go through numerous revisions and extensive playtesting (despite what frothing internet users may say), it is entirely possible that a great deal of it will be changed, amended or even just deleted in the final version.
Assuming that it must be a hoax because the rules are poorly laid out is just as invalid an argument as claiming it must be legit because the page layout is the same as current 40k rulebooks. Drafts do get edited and rewritten before going to print and internet trolls can copy fonts and styles if they try. It is impossible to confirm it either way without GW officially doing so. Even if they claim it is not official, there is every possibility that they could be lying.
I think it is best to assume that it might be legit but whether or not it bears any resemblance to the final product is anybody's guess, so it is pointless getting all excited over it or ranting about how it totally nerfs your army or whatever. For the time being it is just an interesting diversion in our otherwise normal 5th edition lives.

[Capn Stoogey]

Forgive my ignorance but why is there no linkage allowed? Is it a "cover you arse in case GW get nasty" type thing?

[Strangleweb]

Interestingly, while being dated back in May, it contains references to the Necron's Eternity Gate special rule.

If this were a hoax, it's either been edited recently, or been done by someone with early sight of the Necron book.

I think it is likely to be an initial GW draft, or perhaps an idea. How much this correlates to the final 6th Edition rules remains to be seen. I remember something similar to this happening with 5th Edition, and the document was about 65% accurate.

Only time will tell...

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, I am tending to be on these like St Thomas...

Until I see it REALLY on a reliable GW source, won´t believe it...

No one can assure if this is not a joke or a hard work coming from a fanboy group...

So I will have a good amount of salt

[harveydent]

i agree with eldargal's first post. the sheer number of special rules that seem to be cross-referenced throughout the text are ridiculous.

the organization of this leaked rulebook is pretty bad. it's completely discombobulated, and even worse than some of the older whfb rulebooks.

i like the turn-by-turn accumulation of points for scoring. i also think that the new to-hit/to-wound charts look like they would work. the turn sequence change seems like it would work, as do the wound allocation rule changes.

but i cannot imagine sitting there with my ***** up my *** waiting for my opponent to try to remember what each of his dozen movement/assault/shooting special rules options are every phase, OR what special rules can or can't be used while utilizing those options. that part is completely effed up, and i would never play 40k if it were all implemented that way.

i just cannot believe that gw would make you remember lists of loaded keywords in conjunction with other lists of loaded keywords and expect you to cross-reference them ever phase. if this seems like a difficult task for ME, and i'm a veteran player, i cannot imagine a newb trying to figure it all out.

[Latro_]

as i said on bloodofkittens comments

This all sounds good but then think about one small application:
Run = x2 movement.
Fleet = +2m
Assault = x2 movement.
Means an entire ork army when they call the waaaaarrgghh can all charge 18″...

And they would of been getting there every turn before that at 12" a turn. So assuming 12" deployment they will be 42" onto the board by turn 2...

:eek:

Then again they cant fire and rapid fire/blast looks more effective so maybe its balanced but you would have ONE turn to shoot at them before they easily hit your lines enmass (if they go first)

perhaps this is their counter to so much mech lol. In fact reading it further, according to this ground vehicles and infantry move at the same speed :D. So just hide ye bezerkers behind your rhino :)

Edit: omg i cant add up its 16" so 40" onto the board not 42" still beats the best possible you can get atm which is 42 if you roll 2 6's

[gwensdad]

It could be an early playtest but parts of the "voice" seem a bit off for a GW product. The "gets hot" section seems like it could have been cut and pasted (since the rules appear the same) from 5th but isn't. Too many rules that reference other rules making you have to flip though the book (unless they plan on publishing a hyperlinked version?)

Still looking over it-for a few hours anyway.

[eldargal]

I don't understand why it would be set out thus even if it is just a draft. Obviously I have no idea if this is a hoax or not but something just feel really, really off. We are looking at far bigger changes going from 5th to 6th than WFB saw going into 8th and there is no reason why GW would be so drastic with its flagship that is performing perfectly well.

It wouldn't be the first elaborate hoax the community has suffered through, either. Entire fake codices have popped up in the past and god knows there are enough idiots with too much time on their hands to throw together something like this.

[Latro_]

Well unless anyone has any first hand knowledge of GW's specific development style / playtesting then it might not be as black and white as hoax/real leak.


Could be a playtest version, of which there could be many iterations of. e.g. a quick set of 'this rule idea + that rule idea' given to playtesters to find an issue.

There could be many versions of this document e.g. some might have 'another rule idea + one from the one above' - here go playtest that.

etc...

Thats if they work that way.

[UltramarineFan]

I think it's a hoax simply because there are so many inconsistencies of a level that even GW at their worst don't do
For example the characteristics section is a straight copy and paste from the current rules book which just evasion and move added in. Not added in to the example statline though just on the page where each stat gets a paragraph description. They're not even mentioned in the paragraph about characteristics on the page previous.
On top of all the other flaws that other people have pointed out, yeh I'm not buying this.

[Defenestratus]

This is confirmed as being one of the playtesting drafts. The rules presented here may or may not be the ones ended up being used in the final version - which has likely already been finalized. In effect, these documents are likely already outdated.

Unfortunately I cannot give more details as to the source of this confirmation for obvious reasons.

[Blood Angel]

Rigid saves allowing save stacking,
lots of rules for Titans
Lots of rules for Flyers including strafing runs and supersonic,
Lots of amendments on little things
full out rules for titan weapons and damage,
Still can't measure firing range before firing, I guess the fantasy guys stole all the rangefinders from the future.
Rules for cohesion of troops on different levels of buildings
Rail Gun

Just skimming now, This looks like its 40k mixed with Apocalypse!!

The only thing I can say is at first glance they make me think 6th better come with some plastic Titans and tons more flyers!!!

[Wrath]

This is confirmed as being one of the playtesting drafts. The rules presented here may or may not be the ones ended up being used in the final version - which has likely already been finalized. In effect, these documents are likely already outdated.

Unfortunately I cannot give more details as to the source of this confirmation for obvious reasons.

I think these are the codex play test rules. By that I mean the core rules were done <more or less> and they were testing the codex changes.

[DadExtraordinaire]

Capn Stoogey < Because Bigred does not want to lose his revenue from this site as if a link did go up, I would expect GW to be mightily miffed and with no GW no punters at BOLS (well not many...just us diehards)

[Blood Angel]

What I got was also accompanied by a codex update too. Every codex is updated, even the newer ones. I really think if this is a hoax, they did an awful lot of work. And a lot of the new stuff really makes sense. (Except no range finders in the far future) lol, just a pet peeve of mine.
Well, it looks like they are integrating apoc size units with 40k, so here's hoping that they have the model range to support it. I for one would love to field titans that I could afford to buy, plus flyers. They mention bombing runs, and the supersonic rule makes sense at least on the surface. They have rules in here for lumbering that would count toward titans, as well as their weapons being of a class not previously available in 40k, and void shields as well.

[DadExtraordinaire]

This is confirmed as being one of the playtesting drafts. The rules presented here may or may not be the ones ended up being used in the final version - which has likely already been finalized. In effect, these documents are likely already outdated.

Unfortunately I cannot give more details as to the source of this confirmation for obvious reasons.

Such mystery!

[lunoh]

as i said on bloodofkittens comments

This all sounds good but then think about one small application:
Run = x2 movement.
Fleet = +2m
Assault = x2 movement.
Means an entire ork army when they call the waaaaarrgghh can all charge 18″...



you must choose either Move or Assault, or better say you may only choose 1 movement action.

[DAPHEEL]

Reading through them I'd say they're legit. Judging by the amount of cross ref. though I'd say It's the playtest version and they'll work out the logical layout based on feedback, especially with the add-on for updates.

BUT WHY NO TEMPLAR LOVE‽

[lunoh]

because the Writer didnt have acces to the Necron SoB and probably BT Erratas, thats why no update for these 3. So its possible BT gets new codex next months

[Wrath]

BUT WHY NO TEMPLAR LOVE‽


Cause they taste bad. To much gristle.

[DrLove42]

Still havent read it, still dont want to. bht what im hearing about the strategems isnt good.

Nor is the mixing of apoc and regular games. signing of on fw in regular games im fine with, encourage in fact. But apoc should be a different game to regular games

[wittdooley]

Okay, Okay. The Jig is up! I admit it. I wrote the damn thing. I am actually Matt Ward. :eek:

[celestialatc]

Okay, Okay. The Jig is up! I admit it. I wrote the damn thing. I am actually Matt Ward. :eek:

Prove it! Give us a copy of your passport and bank account numbers....for reference....yea....

[celestialatc]

Excited about Titans being in the actual rule book. There are some neat changes....I would not mind seeing a high level mastery psyker. As a GK I am a little sad that we don't have access to high level psyker but as an Eldar player, I am excited about the changes!

Also I find it surprising Chaos space marines did not get more of an update....maybe that points to a new book soon? Or they just did not get to it yet...

[sangrail777]

I gotta say I'm in the camp thinking somethings not right here. All this talk about not allowing any leaks and we get this. It really does seem like a huge leap in rules. Most of which have all been rumered on the forums. I don't know this could be a haox. Still it's very intresting layout. The codex update along with it is intresting too. Alot of the content in these I could see as doable. Would take some getting used to. I do like that alot of Apocalypse stuff is mentioned in it. Expecially the Titans. Ahhh tuff call, will be intresting to compare the real rule book to this when it comes out.

[wittdooley]

OHMYGOD. I have a sweet idea. I think we need to start a meme like in the HH books, except instead of saying, "I am Alpharius," we say "I am Mat Ward."

Need help with proper implemenation. Advise.

[Latro_]

Thinking about it this afternoon, the movement changes are by far the stand out game changers if this is real.

Most Eldar on foot will be able to outrun a rhino everytime... mull that over for a second.

[isotope99]

Titans sounds tres iffy, they already unbalance apocalypse quite a lot.

On the other hand will make army building faster. My new 2,000 point army, 2 warhound titans, one draigo and a couple of paladins :D

[Admiral Kenaris]

Hit stationery vehicles on a 2+? Looks like the sponsons will be coming off the Lemans again.

[whitestar333]

Hit stationery vehicles on a 2+? Looks like the sponsons will be coming off the Lemans again.
Even with the -1 on the damage chart and multiple targeting?

[DrLove42]

I've played tournements with titans (was 2,000 points, normal FOC, normal missions but including one superheavy/gargant

They unbalence games beyond all reasonable doubt. If they allow Titans in 40k I will refuse to play them.

I'm still refusing to read it but can someone just explain some of the points? How bad is it?

[Latro_]

Hit stationery vehicles on a 2+? Looks like the sponsons will be coming off the Lemans again.

But you can move and fire Russ sponsons...

In the leaked book seemingly you have it better as a russ because:

1. new rules they have lumbering (this only lets you move 6" but you ignore all movement restrictions)
2. new rules have something called multi-tracking(x), tanks are multi tracking(3) lets you fire 3 shots. IF you do not move you can DOUBLE this.

I take that to mean leaman russes can move 6" and fire 6 times! (since they ignore movement special rules) (not the same weapon twice thou :( ) HOWEVER, it says you can sacrifice 'shots' to target multiple units and a shot is defined by the multi tracking so I also take that to mean you can sacrifice 2 of ya 6 = 4, fire the lascannon at x the heavy bolters and y, the battle cannon at z lol

Keep the sponsons on there dear boy, keep them on.

This is all speculation ofc though, i doubt the doc that was leaked is 60-70% the same as the final version.

[pathwinder14]

GW has been tightening up their security on rumors and leaks due to the impending Hobbit franchise. However this could be a legit leak to distract the gaming community from Hobbit related game info.

[Entropic]

My opinion is that this is probably legit, it's not the final version, but the final version won't be very different. I've done work similar to this before, and I don't think most people realize just how much work these leaked documents represent. It's pretty massive. That said, it's also clearly not finished. It obviously needs more time with an editor, and there's still room for tweaking and balance changing. Since this is a document from May, they can probably squeeze in another six months of tweaks and changes. But don't fool yourself into thinking this means there'll be huge, drastic changes before release - all the rules look too tightly integrated for that. Changes that happen are going to be mostly at the edges of the system - special rules, some numbers, and maybe things like objectives and such. The system of movement, commands, turn order, and the rest of the core can probably be expected to stick. Changing any of those would pretty much invalidate all the work done up to the point that the document was written.

[Defenestratus]

Hit stationery vehicles on a 2+? Looks like the sponsons will be coming off the Lemans again.

You wont need to since all tanks have Multi targetting 2 at least.

[Defenestratus]

I'm still refusing to read it but can someone just explain some of the points? How bad is it?

Its actually brilliant IMO.

No longer are models afflicted with "ambiguous" abilities... they all have a action type thats very explicit in what can be done and what cannot be done.

The titan thing is superfluous as the unit entries for titans aren't actually going to be in codexes. They'll still be in supplemental books which require a specific type of player consent. There's also a section in the rulebook called "ruleset". So I wouldn't worry about titans showing up in regular games of 40k. I think what they're trying to do is to unify the rules under a single book so you don't have inconsistencies between an Apoc rulebook and a core rulebook.

In this I agree with them.

To me the biggest boon of this is the covering fire rule - which quite simply is the most awesome thing ever implemented in a table top wargame.

Ok maybe thats a stretch. But it is pretty cool.

[Wrath]

I take that to mean leaman russes can move 6" and fire 6 times! (since they ignore movement special rules) (not the same weapon twice thou :( ) HOWEVER, it says you can sacrifice 'shots' to target multiple units and a shot is defined by the multi tracking so I also take that to mean you can sacrifice 2 of ya 6 = 4, fire the lascannon at x the heavy bolters and y, the battle cannon at z lol


Actually it reads that if you sacrifice 1 shoot action all weapons may target whoever you damned well please.

[Defenestratus]

I just came across a rule for fliers that I REALLY don't like at all.

The "Incoming!" rule that can be used against fliers. This really, really hurts fliers horribly in games of apocalypse, especially on a crowded board. Certainly it makes my vampire nigh unusable since its base is a whole square foot and pretty much impossible to actually keep a distance away from units on the board.

[Lockark]

Its actually brilliant IMO.

No longer are models afflicted with "ambiguous" abilities... they all have a action type thats very explicit in what can be done and what cannot be done.

The titan thing is superfluous as the unit entries for titans aren't actually going to be in codexes. They'll still be in supplemental books which require a specific type of player consent. There's also a section in the rulebook called "ruleset". So I wouldn't worry about titans showing up in regular games of 40k. I think what they're trying to do is to unify the rules under a single book so you don't have inconsistencies between an Apoc rulebook and a core rulebook.

In this I agree with them.

To me the biggest boon of this is the covering fire rule - which quite simply is the most awesome thing ever implemented in a table top wargame.

Ok maybe thats a stretch. But it is pretty cool.

That was kinda the impression I was getting too from the rules. With no table of contents or books marks in the PDF it has been a slow read, so personaly I'm still not 100% sure how I feel just yet thow.

@.@

edit:One bit of info of note is vheclie cover saves. Wargear that makes a vheclie obscured even when in the open is only a +5 unless stated other wise.

If obscured from terriean, the save is the same as what infantry would get. (Ie. +6 for a hedge row, +4 for a bunker, or a +3 for a building.)

I'm not sure why you get a better cover save from a ruined building, then you would a bunker thow...

[gcsmith]

Can i ask anyone who has read it, how would current BT and tau fare, I mean current just incase we dnt get books b4 the rules

[celestialatc]

Support Platforms for the Eldar are now vehicles....thought that was cool!

[celestialatc]

Can i ask anyone who has read it, how would current BT and tau fare, I mean current just incase we dnt get books b4 the rules


No BT update....maybe that means there is a New book coming or maybe they just have not gotten to them yet in this leak, who knows.

Tau I think get some nice updates...multi-tracker makes them target units like a tank (gives them multi-tracking 2).

The enemy killing an Ethereal now grants Preferred Enemy to all Tau units against the enemy unit(s) that killed the Ethereal. And that is on a pass or fail of the morale test...that is interesting.

I think Burst Cannons are now better much Auto-Cannons.

[Entropic]

Can i ask anyone who has read it, how would current BT and tau fare, I mean current just incase we dnt get books b4 the rules

Don't know enough about BT and how they differ from other marines, but tau I think will see a relative buff. That goes for most non-marine forces. Generalist units like marines aren't going to be as powerful because it's a lot harder to do everything they're good at in one turn, but outside of marine forces most units aren't generalists and have well defined roles on the battlefield. Rapid fire and tau's mobility will also be improved. They'll still be in need of a new codex, though.

Rolling the ideas around in my mind a bit more, I think this is going to be a good ruleset for combined arms, and those lists are going to be overall better than spammy lists. For example, artillery is great for shaking/stunning your targets before you move in for the assault, to prevent casualties from defensive fire.

[Defenestratus]

Can i ask anyone who has read it, how would current BT and tau fare, I mean current just incase we dnt get books b4 the rules

I'm not familiar enough with BT to really comment, but Tau will really enjoy the defensive fire rules.

While you can "engage" off the deepstrike (assault), units without the Deep strike (heroic) action can be shot at when they land close to you.

This should really soften up incoming close combat squads.

Along with the covering fire rules and some of the vehicle rules, I think the current tau would be ok - I haven't gone over their codex updates however yet.

[Lockark]

Can i ask anyone who has read it, how would current BT and tau fare, I mean current just incase we dnt get books b4 the rules

Well. Thier is now a new weapon type called "rail". You don't need LOS to target a unit, and uses a blast templet from how I understand. After it scatters and you resolve all hits the templet got, draw a line from the centre of the blast to the unit firing.

Every unit is auto hit by this line, by a number equal to the number of models under it.

With out saying Tau Rail guns get this in their book update PDF, and their the example given in the main rules.

The Tau update PDF seems to be written with the current book in mind, and has alot of stuff replacing old/outdated rules with new ones that will be useful in the new rule set.


Interestingly enough. 'Crons and Black Templar are the only codexs that didn't get a 6th ed update PDF in what was given as far as I see.

[gcsmith]

So i gather its move or assault? and assault from deepstrike? oh great, absolute crap. for tau

Altho a BT Termy squad with FC and preffered enemy from DS? yes please.
and and I can do tw weapons better than sallies with current vows.

[Defenestratus]

but tau I think will see a relative buff. That goes for most non-marine forces. Generalist units like marines aren't going to be as powerful because it's a lot harder to do everything they're good at in one turn, but outside of marine forces most units aren't generalists and have well defined roles on the battlefield.

Taking my time nitpicking through it today, I've come to the same conclusion. My Eldar seem rather cut and dry as to how to make them perform - however I'm having real difficulty seeing how my BA are going to fare. They will have to weather some horrible defensive fire before they get into the choppy bits... I think you'll see that min sized unit charges aren't going to be nearly as fruitful as they were before unless they are very tough.

[Defenestratus]

So i gather its move or assault? and assault from deepstrike? oh great, absolute crap. for tau


I don't understand what you mean by "its move or assault?"

The turn sequence is move (in which assault moves are made), assault, shooting, consolidation.

And yes, you can perform an "engage" action off the deepstrike. Basically its a move to get in assault, but I believe, according to the way I'm reading it, that tau would get a defensive fire on both the deep strike, and on the engage.

[gcsmith]

since tau dnt have the ability to spread heavy fire amognst their army say good buy to fire warriors. and Well since u assault in the move phase u cant move and assault and therfore tau lose their jet pack benefits

well we will see wat happens on release.
reason i havnt read it yet is to stop me qq ing too much

[DrLove42]

So I buckled. Blame people saying "this rule is awesome!"

A few things....theres a lot of errors. One page says a marines save is 2+, then says its 3+ 2 lines later.

Also - Allocating wounds is quite different. Nob bikers and other wound allocation douchbaggery won't work anymore

[Wrath]

according to the way I'm reading it, that tau would get a defensive fire on both the deep strike, and on the engage.

Should only be on the DS, you need Overwatch to trigger Def-fire on assaults. <I think =] >

[random_dylan]

I'm just glad that psychic hoods can't be used in vehicles anymore. I found the whole one sided nature of vehicles incredibly frustrating as a 'Nid player - I'm referring to the fact that embarked units could should and negate my powers, but I couldn't affect them.

[faeslayer]

So according to this document... how does assaulting with assault weapons work, exactly? Do you still move, shoot, then assault?

Also, if I'm reading this right, orks can disembark from a trukk, make an Engage move (6") into close combat with a rhino, and then (if the rhino is destroyed) they can shoot the rhino's occupants?

I'm so confused.

[Gir]

since tau dnt have the ability to spread heavy fire amognst their army say good buy to fire warriors. and Well since u assault in the move phase u cant move and assault and therfore tau lose their jet pack benefits



Except jetpack rules are completely different. Maybe you should read it before *****ing? Or not applying snippets of the new rules to the current rules?

[gcsmith]

maybe u should read i sed i dnt read the rules to stop TOO much QQ, if I had read the rules id be head banging in frustration.

[Wrath]

maybe u should read i sed i dnt read the rules to stop TOO much QQ, if I had read the rules id be head banging in frustration.

so you leave the head shattering facepalms to us while we hold your hand through rules you cannot be bothered to read? Perhaps Silence on your part would of been better.

[gcsmith]

I was asking how the rules would affect armies, and no one mentioned a change in the jet pack rules, therefore I assumed there was no change.
but maybe shouldnt of complained as much sorry

[Necron2.0]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zp2NucwsU

... or not.

[Wrath]

I was asking how the rules would affect armies, and no one mentioned a change in the jet pack rules, therefore I assumed there was no change.

:confused::confused:

Well I guess you could try reading the.... know what never mind. carry on.

[gcsmith]

:confused::confused:

Well I guess you could try reading the.... know what never mind. carry on.

well firstly if I read the thing id qq more as id misunderstan it. 2nd im busy with uni work.
and 3rd If i read id be soo busy planning armies i wouldnt be playing till 6th

and i dnt have any links to it

[DadExtraordinaire]

BASICS
A document has appeared on the internet on multiple sites that appears to be a version of the upcoming 6th edition rules.

GROUNDRULES
THERE WILL BE NO LINKS TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENT ALLOWED. Any links will be deleted immediately, and posters will be turned over to Duke's loving hands...

Other than that, feel free to discus anything you like about the ruleset in this thread. Its content, validity, what have you. Have fun.

NO LINKS - WE MEAN IT!

-Your friendly neighborhood Bigred :)

What on earth are you afraid of if the article is fake?..........Just asking..........

[Defenestratus]

well firstly if I read the thing id qq more as id misunderstan it. 2nd im busy with uni work.
and 3rd If i read id be soo busy planning armies i wouldnt be playing till 6th

and i dnt have any links to it

You really should read the rules before you come to any conclusions worthy of qq'ing over.

The game is fundamentally changed with these rules.

As for Defensive fire, I think you're correct that only units with overwatch can use it when an enemy moves within a certain distance of the unit.

However, it seems like ANY unit can defensively fire on incoming deep striking units - which ... for a blood angels player, feels rough.

[DrLove42]

Its moe do not post because BoLs has a zero tolerance on posting official leaks. And its always better to be safe than sorry

On the subject of it....pistols don't count as a 2nd CCW unless you have 2 pistols of the same type, but any other assault weapon does count? What?

[Necron2.0]

What on earth are you afraid of if the article is fake?..........Just asking..........

Probably it's just a headache they don't need ... a bit like repeatedly slamming your head into the wall. Nothing's stopping you except prudent judgement.

[Wrath]

Its moe do not post because BoLs has a zero tolerance on posting official leaks. And its always better to be safe than sorry

On the subject of it....pistols don't count as a 2nd CCW unless you have 2 pistols of the same type, but any other assault weapon does count? What?

yes and no, if you use it as your main CC weapon you can fire it in CC and get an extra shot if the off hand is a pistol too. if you use it as an off hand then it just adds +1A.

[Porty1119]

I'm just wondering who's going to ragequit immediately after the final release comes out. That will probably be a riot :rolleyes:

[gcsmith]

TBH i do think there is an over change of rules but who knows.

[Slacker]

Another thing, Veiled(3) involves calculating spotting distance (like Veil of Tears) by rollind 2D6 and multiplying by 1.5". To my knowledge GW have never had a rule involving calculating by 1.5 anything.

If these rules are accurate then 6th is going from complicated to ridiculously convoluted.

Mathematically this is no different than The Deathleaper's current "Where is it?" rule (night fighting distance halved.) While technically 1.5" makes the math 'simpler' by removing a step, I would agree that it seems more awkward and would be more difficult for the more mathematically challenged to do in their heads.

[Entropic]

Taking my time nitpicking through it today, I've come to the same conclusion. My Eldar seem rather cut and dry as to how to make them perform - however I'm having real difficulty seeing how my BA are going to fare. They will have to weather some horrible defensive fire before they get into the choppy bits... I think you'll see that min sized unit charges aren't going to be nearly as fruitful as they were before unless they are very tough.

Yeah. My three armies are Tyranids, Eldar, and Grey Knights.

With the Tyranids, I think I can still be effective with the lists I've been running, but with some modifications I'd be way more effective in 6th. A lot of units that were poor choices in 5th are actually useful now in the right armies. Overall, 6th is a win for the bugs if Tyranid players are willing to adapt their tactics.

With Eldar, I can use the same list and roughly the same tactics, and they'll be even more effective. It also opens up some new tactics that can be used. There are also, again, a few units that make more sense than they did before. Again, overall a win.

Grey Knights, on the other hand, seem to be overall losers. No more wound allocation hax on Paladins, Purifiers are more vulnerable if they try to sit in their rhinos, or stand still to get their heavy psycannon shots, and overall grey knights suffer from their low unit counts and relative lack of mobility. It's not all losses for them, and I think they'll still be competitive, but they're not going to be the obvious most powerful army anymore.

6th might wind up being a bitter pill for marine players to swallow, but I think it's needed for the overall health and long term view of the game. I look forward to being able to go play a game and not know with certainty that I'm going to be playing a marine variant.

[Defenestratus]

yes and no, if you use it as your main CC weapon you can fire it in CC and get an extra shot if the off hand is a pistol too. if you use it as an off hand then it just adds +1A.

This is correct. If you have a chainsword and a plasma pistol, you can use the chainsword profile with +1A. OR you can attack with your number of base attacks with the pistol CCW profile but without the +1 for a 2nd CCW (unless you had a second plasma pistol lodged somewhere).

This is rather awesome since I always thought it stupid that you couldn't use a pistol's strength in CC.

On a note of validity, its said that the design team has officially said "this isn't ours". However, I trust my original source more than anything from GW.

Some people on other online 40k forums claim that the Chinese printers say that its fake because it doesn't match what they were sent... and that makes sense since its clearly an early playtesting edition that wouldn't be even considered for printing.

[Bigred]

NOTE TO IMPENDING RAGE-QUITTERS

Any and all players with high quality painted armies who are tempted to rage-quit due to this document are to immediately:

1) type up an inventory of your army
2) snap 3-5 pictures of it and any key units
3) mail them to [email protected]

We will be in touch with a far and balanced offer.

-Bigred

[Defenestratus]

Comparing the document with the copy I had of the leaked 5e rulebook, I see several consistencies.

The 5e leaked rulebook ended up being pretty much what was in the final released version IIRC - but comparing the two I can say this:

1) The development of the leaked 5e rulebook was further along in the process than this 6e one is (if it is indeed what it claims to be)
2) It uses the very same layout, margins, even color of picture placement blocks that the 5e leaked book did.
3) The type face seems to be different between the two versions but I"m not sure if that indicates its validity.

[DrLove42]

LOL. The rage quitters are always funny.

Reading it, it so far seems good. Common sense seems to be in the rules a lot, like models that get in the way and give a cover save are now hit as well, pistols in CC etc.

My big comment is on vehicles. Dark Eldar are now winning. Hard...no more penalites for open topped vehicles? yay!. Super heavies seem horrificly hard to kill (-3 to all shots? How do i hurt it then?), transports seem to do less damage to guys on the inside (1 in 6 chance of wounding, instead of 50% or so), but the reduction in fire point range will change a lot of armies just sitting back in their rhinos...And "weapon damaged" no longer destroying weapons, but reducing the number of shots that can be made? Means vehicles are more survivable than ever, as they don't get neutered after 1 hit.

Its going to be interesting adapting to this

Of my 3 armies, it seems like a boost to all of them. DE as mentioned benefit from vehicles, but alss from poisoned weapons in combat (higher strength now rerolls normal wound rolls, not just the 4+?) and maybe poisoned pistols in combat...i'm not sure on that.

Eldar seem to be better from vehicles, eldar holofields seem better (confer "veiled"), and assaults, not to mention physkers

And Tau....well rail guns and lots of defensive fire.

[Wrath]

My big comment is on vehicles. Dark Eldar are now winning. Hard...no more penalites for open topped vehicles?

The only things I have seen so far is that Open-topped tanks do not benefit from the -1 to damage roll and Flamers hit D3 passengers. <actually this is all transports with fire points>

[Entropic]

The only things I have seen so far is that Open-topped tanks do not benefit from the -1 to damage roll and Flamers hit D3 passengers. <actually this is all transports with fire points>

I don't have the rules with me right now, but wasn't there some sort of bigger penalty to open-topped transports?

[Wrath]

I don't have the rules with me right now, but wasn't there some sort of bigger penalty to open-topped transports?

I'm not seeing anything, but it could easily be buried elsewhere in the document.

[Lord Azaghul]

I actually hope even half this crap is true.

It would make for a much more dynamic game...here's to hoping!

[gcsmith]

NOTE TO IMPENDING RAGE-QUITTERS

Any and all players with high quality painted armies who are tempted to rage-quit due to this document are to immediately:

1) type up an inventory of your army
2) snap 3-5 pictures of it and any key units
3) mail them to [email protected]

We will be in touch with a far and balanced offer.

-Bigred


U can never make me rage quit. besides my templar army looks bad

[Gir]

The only things I have seen so far is that Open-topped tanks do not benefit from the -1 to damage roll and Flamers hit D3 passengers. <actually this is all transports with fire points>

I'm 99% sure I read in it that open topped are at +1 on the table.

[Night System]

It does look good, im of the opinion that is an early playtest ruleset.

My only concern is that they have made vehicles even harder to kill.
Rhinos are only destroyed on a roll of a 6.. eww....

That said, for pure speed, it is more efficient to footslog it rather than mount up, and with the changes to fire points it is nowhere near as effective to sit in tanks all day, so it may shift the meta in such a way that this is no longer a problem, in which case bring it on.

But to echo some earlier points, it does make squadrons of Leman Russ tanks filthy, firing up to 6 Battlecannon shells a turn + other weapons, and any damage result other than destroyed is Nulified on a 2+..

[odinsgrandson]

...There is a weapons section in the book which includes weapon stats AND prices. GW have never done that before? It is also completely inconsistent, star cannons are now S7 Assault 2 with a 10 point price reduction but bright lances who need readjustment even more aren't mentioned.

Something just feels so off. I'm not saying it couldn't be real but I'm highly sceptical....


Hm... Well, sort of. Everyone used the same weapons in the Rogue Trader days, but I don't think the prices were conveniently located with the rules.

In 2nd edition, they decided that the same weapon was worth more in the hands of a Space Marine than it was in the hands of a Ork or Imperial Guardman. Before that, everyone used the same weapons list- and there are actually minis of Marines holding Shurikan Rifles and Zoats (an old kind of Tyranid) had power fists.

So, funny piece of related history. When they split up the weapons tables, they printed up a separate book with all of the rules for the weapons in it. One of the most complex weapons was the conversion beamer, but they must have overlooked the fact that absolutely no one in the game could use it.


I'm not saying that the document is valid. However, all of the rumors I've heard of 6th ed leading up to now have been that there would be a lot of substantial changes. So I'm not sure that the differences between this and earlier editions is any evidence.

I mean, I remember when I was first hearing rumors of the 3rd ed and I thought "What are you smoking!? GW isn't going to get rid of movement values and turn every armor saving throw into a force field."

[lobster-overlord]

I am in love with the "Game Cycle" As a former player of void 1.1, I never did like GW's need to have me go, you go, me go, you go...

[Uncle Nutsy]

yes and no, if you use it as your main CC weapon you can fire it in CC and get an extra shot if the off hand is a pistol too. if you use it as an off hand then it just adds +1A.

I must have missed this part when I read the whole thing last night. this is just, in a word, awesome.

I LOVE the idea of being able to shoot the other guy during a brawl.

[Gir]

It does look good, im of the opinion that is an early playtest ruleset.

My only concern is that they have made vehicles even harder to kill.
Rhinos are only destroyed on a roll of a 6.. eww....

But now if you get 2 stunned a turn, it becomes a weapon detroyed. Also, if you immobilize an immobilized vehicle it straight away becomes wreaked (No need to strip all those guns).

[Professor_Kylan]

Hm... Well, sort of. Everyone used the same weapons in the Rogue Trader days, but I don't think the prices were conveniently located with the rules.

In 2nd edition, they decided that the same weapon was worth more in the hands of a Space Marine than it was in the hands of a Ork or Imperial Guardman. Before that, everyone used the same weapons list- and there are actually minis of Marines holding Shurikan Rifles and Zoats (an old kind of Tyranid) had power fists.

So, funny piece of related history. When they split up the weapons tables, they printed up a separate book with all of the rules for the weapons in it. One of the most complex weapons was the conversion beamer, but they must have overlooked the fact that absolutely no one in the game could use it.


I'm not saying that the document is valid. However, all of the rumors I've heard of 6th ed leading up to now have been that there would be a lot of substantial changes. So I'm not sure that the differences between this and earlier editions is any evidence.

I mean, I remember when I was first hearing rumors of the 3rd ed and I thought "What are you smoking!? GW isn't going to get rid of movement values and turn every armor saving throw into a force field."

I'm pretty sure that the points costs are only included in the wargear section as a pricing guide to the strategum "Weathered Bastion" to upgrade the flamers.

First impressions? If this was edited and laid out a little nicer, I'd be very happy if this was the new official rules for 40k. All of the armies I collect seem to have been made more fun (IG, Tau, SM, Eldar - please note the phrase "more fun" rather than "more powerful - that's yet to be seen) and the addition of keywords I think will make the game easier to learn in the long run and a LOT easier to play.

Now, to play the waiting game...

[Waiting game: Unit, Support - Wait until 6th ed is released. Unit may attempt to not spend all money on the new Vampire Counts models. Roll a d6, on a 2+ unit gives in to base instinct and buys Vampire models.]

[Lucidum]

There's obviously been a great deal of effort put into the creation of this thing, so I agree that if it is indeed a hoax then it's elaborate. What does worry me is that nearly every rumor from the last 6 months or so is in it, from the new way "Rail" weapons work to the shift from Move-Shoot-Assault to Move-Assault-Shoot. It could, in all reality, be the work of a rumormongering fan who's just absurdly meticulous.

[Wrath]

I'm 99% sure I read in it that open topped are at +1 on the table.

There are no positives on the damage chart anymore.

[leth]

Hoax or not, I don't really care. All I know is that it looks like a lot of fun and I hope to try playing it. A lot of pricing especially for dark eldar and necron vehicles are starting to make sense. Everything about the broken mechanic appeals to me. Scouts are worth taking.

Overall I am happy with the entire book. Everything I am not happy with I could chalk up to editing and all the page flipping I have to do. Still that is no different than the current 8th edition book where you are constantly referencing different rules that are later in the book.

Honestly all this complaining about it being complicated I know that within a month we would all be playing it as fluently as we do for 5th now. It would just become blocks of information, also with a large selection of special rules it would be easy to see how a new unit operated. "This unit has x" instead of "this unit has this special rule that works like this".

Also just getting as many rules in the main rulebook as possible seems to be the trend seen in 8th. Also the inclusion of the apocalypse rules in the main book means that everyone has access to them and they might be able to make an appearance in regular games. Finally I can justify buying from forgeworld.

I hope it is mostly real, i have not been this excited about 40k in nearly a year.

[GR00V3R]

Having read through everyone's thoughts (pro and con), I am more excited about 6th Ed than I have been about 40K for a long, long time. Talk of Overwatch, Covering Fire, ability to assault of a deep-strike...it all bodes very, very well.

That sort of degree of change is exactly the shot in the arm 40K needs after the failboat that is 5th Ed.

Reckon I'll check out the doc and maybe dust off my 40K minis when I get home tonight. :)

[flatdice]

So if this is a early play testing draft has anyone actually tried playing a game of 40k using this mysterious document ?

If any one does play a game using these rules any chance they could give us their experiences ?

[Night System]

But now if you get 2 stunned a turn, it becomes a weapon detroyed. Also, if you immobilize an immobilized vehicle it straight away becomes wreaked (No need to strip all those guns).

The problem is that if you get an immobilized result on an *already* immobilized vehicle. Ergo, you need to immobilize it with one unit damaging it, and THEN do it again with another unit. Being able to spread the damage around 3 Leman Russ tanks mitigates that. And immobilized squadron vehicles no longer are wrecked automatically.

To destroy the Leman Russ squadron that way, you would have to immobilize a tank, hope they fail there 2+ squadron save, and then repeat that 3 more times. It would be easier and more likely to go for 6 needed to kill the tank initially.

Again this is all conjecture, these rules might very well be fake, and without play testing and studying the rules further than a skim read we wont know how it will all wrap up.

[DrLove42]

I like it. With the exception of a few bits, it all seems good

Parking lots are dead. A combination of shorter ranged shooting from embarked units, scoring in every turn and embarked units not being eligable to hold objectives means holing up in your tank is no longer a realistic strategy.

Also Orks...they get hurt most out of all the armies in this I think. CCW's are AP6, so no armour saves, basically ever. Nob bikers suffer from changes to wound allocation and multiwound squads. Their shooting will improve against a stationairy army but thats not going to save them

Also PEOPLE THERES NO SUCH THING AS WEAPON DESTROYED ANYMORE. It reduces the number of shots a vehicle can make, it doesn't destroy the gun itself.

Eldar vectored engines are going to make a comeback...from a basically useless upgrade, to downgrading the first immobilised result to shaken instead

[Guidebot]

This is awesome. But awesome.

Seriously, a lot of my 6th ed wishlist boxes are ticked. Wound allocation stupidity? Boom, baby. More dynamic game allowing you to do more than sit and watch (and roll saves) during you opponents move and shoot? Hoo-hah-hwuh-hah, done.

Can anyone who's read any of this leaked document offer any clarification on:
-Covering fire. What is it and how does it work?
-Fearless / no retreat!: Is it still godawful and utterly immersion breaking (speaking as a tyranid player who can lose MCs because termagants got multi-charged)?

Many thanks.

[eldargal]

Yep, if these are an early draft and not indicative of final formatting these rules do appear to be quite decent now I've gone over them more. Though I still have a hard time believing they would make such considerable changes to the ruleset.

[DrLove42]

Covering fire, from memory, is that if a squad that can do it shoots at a target (even if they can't hurt it), if you roll 3 or more 6's on the to hit rolls then one shot from the squad can be directed.

For instance if a squad of DE Warriors fire at a squad of marines with a captain in the squad, if you score 3 or more 6's from the splinter rifles then the dark lance shot can be directed onto the captain.

Least thats my understnading of it


Some new evidence for it being a "fake" taken from Imperiatus Dominatui. http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/01/proof-that-leaked-6th-rules-are-fake.html


It was done on a home edition of the program that GW use the professional version of, this version was 1.5 vs the 1.6 that GW use for all their other (older) published files. The files origin is Glasgow not Lenton unlike all their published files and the file author is named Robert Smithe, not GWPLC like all their other published files.

Would need a bit more evidence than that, but this would be the most elaborate fake in history, and proff that people RELLY need to get out more

And if it is a fake, it'd be a shame...this is really exactly what i'd want

[Guidebot]

Covering fire, from memory, is that if a squad that can do it shoots at a target (even if they can't hurt it), if you roll 3 or more 6's on the to hit rolls then one shot from the squad can be directed.

For instance if a squad of DE Warriors fire at a squad of marines with a captain in the squad, if you score 3 or more 6's from the splinter rifles then the dark lance shot can be directed onto the captain.

Least thats my understnading of it



That sounds glorious.

Cheers.

[The Twilight Fade]

but alss from poisoned weapons in combat (higher strength now rerolls normal wound rolls, not just the 4+

Which would make sense for giving carnifexes toxin sacs I guess, rather than it just being the most pointless upgrade in the history of pointless upgrades

[eldargal]

I wouldn't call that conclusive evidence, but if accurate it is certainly a blow to its claims of authenticity. Which is precisely why I always assume these things are a hoax. If they turn out to be a hoax I'm not dissapointed, if they are real all the better.

[Wrath]

So if this is a early play testing draft has anyone actually tried playing a game of 40k using this mysterious document ?

If any one does play a game using these rules any chance they could give us their experiences ?

I am trying to talk a couple friends into playing this Sat. Assuming we can muddle through the rule book in a single weekend. =]

[celestialatc]

It looks like they upped psychic defense in this version. Now if you have a psychic unit near a psyker who is casting a power you can try to negate it on a 5 up. Also psychic hood is no longer a leadership roll off, it uses your mastery.

If your psyker is master 1 and my librarian is level 3, you get +1 and I get +3. I think that is better then the leadership roll.


Also cover has been weaken...to get a 4+ cover you need to have a fortification or models are not viable....everything else is a 5+....we are going to see more death in this edition!

[Guidebot]

Someone earlier in the thread was saying that they found it hard to believe that this was a fake, if only because if it is then someone has put in A LOT of time and effort into developing it.

Well consider this.

We've been told that the new deal with new line cinema (or whoever the hobbit crew is these days) carries strict non-disclosure stipulations for GW. We've been told that it would not be in GWs interests if any leaks occurred.

So, who might benefit if a leak were to occur/ appear to have occurred?

See where I'm going?

Now, I'm not saying it is or is not a fake, all I'm saying is that there are parties for whom an apparent leak right now might not be the worst thing.

We can't know for sure either way, it's just something to think about - the motivation for manufacturing a fake of this calibre might actually be there.

[L192837465]

The problem is that if you get an immobilized result on an *already* immobilized vehicle. Ergo, you need to immobilize it with one unit damaging it, and THEN do it again with another unit. Being able to spread the damage around 3 Leman Russ tanks mitigates that. And immobilized squadron vehicles no longer are wrecked automatically.

To destroy the Leman Russ squadron that way, you would have to immobilize a tank, hope they fail there 2+ squadron save, and then repeat that 3 more times. It would be easier and more likely to go for 6 needed to kill the tank initially.


You should try reading the rules next time, champ. If you immobilize one vehicle in the formation, all vehicles suffer the same consequences.

[DrLove42]

You should try reading the rules next time, champ. If you immobilize one vehicle in the formation, all vehicles suffer the same consequences.

Maybe you should try reading them

What it says is that vehicles in a squadron get a "save" against shaken, stunned and immobilised. You roll a dice and add 1 for every vehcicle in the squadron. on a result of 5+ you ignore it. If you fail THEN everyone gets the result

So shoot at 3 russes in a sqn. Immobilise one. They then get to roll a dice. 3 guys in a sqn, so on a 2+ its ignored. Only on a roll of a 1 do they all get immobilised

[Xenith]

There's obviously been a great deal of effort put into the creation of this thing, so I agree that if it is indeed a hoax then it's elaborate. What does worry me is that nearly every rumor from the last 6 months or so is in it, from the new way "Rail" weapons work to the shift from Move-Shoot-Assault to Move-Assault-Shoot. It could, in all reality, be the work of a rumormongering fan who's just absurdly meticulous.

Or that the rumours came from this document?

[Night System]

You should try reading the rules next time, champ. If you immobilize one vehicle in the formation, all vehicles suffer the same consequences.

As i previously said, i had only skim read the rules at best.
But still, a 5/6 chance to ignore all results otherwise it affects all units in sqaudron? Sounds like a good deal to me.

[Xenith]

Someone earlier in the thread was saying that they found it hard to believe that this was a fake, if only because if it is then someone has put in A LOT of time and effort into developing it.

Well consider this.

We've been told that the new deal with new line cinema (or whoever the hobbit crew is these days) carries strict non-disclosure stipulations for GW. We've been told that it would not be in GWs interests if any leaks occurred.

So, who might benefit if a leak were to occur/ appear to have occurred?

See where I'm going?

Now, I'm not saying it is or is not a fake, all I'm saying is that there are parties for whom an apparent leak right now might not be the worst thing.

We can't know for sure either way, it's just something to think about - the motivation for manufacturing a fake of this calibre might actually be there.

If only we could think of another games company that has on its workforce someone that would have access to this information, that has a grievance with games workshop...



As i previously said, i had only skim read the rules at best.
But still, a 5/6 chance to ignore all results otherwise it affects all units in sqaudron? Sounds like a good deal to me.

As he said, you should read the rules.

It's a +1 to the save for each vehicle after the first. So your leman russ squadron of 3 gets a 3+ save against results, and if they fail it they all get immobilised. Once they are immobilised, another fail on that roll sees all 3 tanks wrecked with a single shot, as the second immobilised result is applied to all 3.

[Admiral Kenaris]

One thing that makes me wonder about the authenticity of the document is all the new terminology that you normally don't see in a 40k corebook. Terms like "action" or even "free action" which sounds more like something out of a D&D book.

[Wildcard]

Yay and uh-oh from the point of Grey Knights:

- Terminators would be getting +2 attacks on the charge (normal charge bonus + assault weapon bonus)
- Terminators with heavy weapon will have 3 attacks base (4 with falchions)
- Purifiers without special weapons would be getting + attacks on charge (normal charge + assault weapon bonus)
- No cleansing flame if IC attached to squad
- Dreadknight always strikes at str 10 (from the monstrous creature weapon rule)
- Master Crafting paladin weapons is a lot more usefull now.
- Loadouts for sergeants (charachters) will be much more important now due to the sniping possibilities..

Interestings for Imperial Guard:

- You are more likely to hit larger targets, yet smaller or more agile targets its gonna be a hit or miss type of event (With large blasts that is).
- Blast rules are gonna make missile/plasma groups a lot more devastating (again, depending on the evasion of the target)

O_o for necrons:
Monolith is a one structure point super heavy (with apparently all the pros and cons it gives, would make sence from the weapon etc options (and weapon amounts))


All in all, the stupidiest "cheat" seems to be fixed (multi wound allocation stuff), and of that i am most pleased.

One thing that i can't seem to get a hang onto is burna boy squads. With their own special rules, plus the new rules for a)power weapon and b) flamers own special rules in close combat..

:)

[Alessander]

If its real,eldar are cheering and Daemons are crying.

Daemon nerf: Deep strike got more dangerous (you gto shot at TWICE) and (IIRC) you still can't assault after DSing, icon or not. Everyone else's power seapons gained parry, but the hellblades already have the same effect at parry.

Only pluses to daemons is that daemonettes are faster now.

Eldar, however... Fire dragons w an exarch with the flamer will be soooooo good. They excel in combat now, probably the best assault troops the eldar have now. They became mini-banshees now since they can use the fusion guns in combat.
Pathfinders and rangers rock due to new sniper rules. All psykers now have rerollable saves due to the new witchblade rules. Only complaint is that Eldrad is base psyker Mastery 2 (but would the spirit stones make him mastery 3?...)

[Wrath]

If its real,eldar are cheering and Daemons are crying.

Daemon nerf: Deep strike got more dangerous (you gto shot at TWICE) and (IIRC) you still can't assault after DSing, icon or not. Everyone else's power seapons gained parry, but the hellblades already have the same effect at parry.


<pardon any incorrect assumptions but I do not know daemons well... at all>
Why do you get shot twice? I know if you land within 12 you do but I don't know any other reason.

You cannot assault but if you get close enough with the scatter roll you can Engage. Engage allows you to move into HtH but only at M speed.

lol yea you got boned on the Parry bit. =]

[DrLove42]

Pathfinders, Tanks with Vectored Engines, Fire Dragons, Banshee's (all get a 5++ in combat now), Witchblades, Physkers....its all getting good for the Eldar....we've had it hard for 5th edition and now the goods are coming in!

Wraithlords take a bit of a hit, now that grenades and guns can be used in combat

[Wildcard]

All psykers now have rerollable saves due to the new witchblade rules.
And all psykers can attempt to nullify psychic stuff (Hood just makes it better). This does help Grey Knights as well tho, and most likely most in all of dexes (since they are all psykers :) )


Only complaint is that Eldrad is base psyker Mastery 2 (but would the spirit stones make him mastery 3?...)

It was stated in the rules that mastery is 1-6, and the best of the best of eldar (and most gifted of daemons) got 'only' a 5. So, if Eldrad is 2-3, who is gonna be that 5 (unless the new rumoured eldar 'dex is gonna fix that or introduce a whole new super psyker..)

------------

As for the vehicle squadrons. Immobilize result (even tho it can come from 1 shot to whole squad), wont make them wrecks anymore. And it all works the other way around. One techpriest can repair every models immo, stun or shake in one round.. Talking about making them a bit more usefull eh?

[Defenestratus]

One thing that I've found confusing is who gets what type of Action.

For example - the psychic defense is an action, but nowhere in the Psyker section does it say that all Psykers get these actions.

The same goes for defensive fire.

[L192837465]

Maybe you should try reading them

What it says is that vehicles in a squadron get a "save" against shaken, stunned and immobilised. You roll a dice and add 1 for every vehcicle in the squadron. on a result of 5+ you ignore it. If you fail THEN everyone gets the result

So shoot at 3 russes in a sqn. Immobilise one. They then get to roll a dice. 3 guys in a sqn, so on a 2+ its ignored. Only on a roll of a 1 do they all get immobilised

No, you're wrong.

Whenever a vehicle in a
squadron suffers a Crew - Shaken, Crew - Stunned
or Damaged - Immobilised result, roll a D6 and
add +1 for each vehicle in the squadron after the
first to the roll. If the result is a 5 or more, the
damage is ignored. On any other result, the
whole squadron suffers the result.

You roll one die. For the whole unit.


Actually, I think we're both saying the exact same damned thing. Why are we arguing? All I know is the new rule is way better!

[Wrath]

The same goes for defensive fire.

I play Tau so no idea about the psychic question :D but for Def-fire it has no built in trigger. You need Overwatch to fire at enemies within 12", Deepstrike within 12" is a trigger, and "Trapped" under destroyed transport provide a trigger. At least those are the ones I have seen.

[Lokken]

I'm sure you have all seen it but the heavy weapon points costs (pg 90) listed in the document directly relate to the Weathered Bastion entry PG 147. So that explains that!

I am very very excited by this document and the depth of tactical options that will be availale. Also my Sisters will be a bit better, immolater can now add 6" to its range as its a twin linked hvy flamer and if I flame a vehicle I can cause an automatic D3 wounds to its occupants (with sv throw).

Most impressed...plus we can make some order cards!!Yay!!

[Ravariel]

If its real,eldar are cheering and Daemons are crying.

Daemon nerf: Deep strike got more dangerous (you gto shot at TWICE) and (IIRC) you still can't assault after DSing, icon or not. Everyone else's power seapons gained parry, but the hellblades already have the same effect at parry.

Only pluses to daemons is that daemonettes are faster now.

Eldar, however... Fire dragons w an exarch with the flamer will be soooooo good. They excel in combat now, probably the best assault troops the eldar have now. They became mini-banshees now since they can use the fusion guns in combat.
Pathfinders and rangers rock due to new sniper rules. All psykers now have rerollable saves due to the new witchblade rules. Only complaint is that Eldrad is base psyker Mastery 2 (but would the spirit stones make him mastery 3?...)

Actually, most of this is wrong by a little bit. But that little bit is important.

1) Deep Strike is LESS dangerous. You only scatter if you're within 18" of an enemy. If you're within 18" you scatter as normal UNLESS you have a beacon (Icon). You can make a combat OR ENGAGE (i.e. assault at your base move stat) action after deepstriking. And if you scatter into mishap territory you only take d6 critical hits (which, for daemons, you get your invuln against). No more repositioning/back in reserves/destroyed bull. With things like fiends being fleeting beasts (i.e. movement of 9") this is HUGE. Yes, any squad that they arrive within 12" of can shoot at them, but only units with overwatch get to shoot if they charge, so usually only one salvo.

2) Flame sweep. Tzeench flamers just got ridiculous in cc.

3) wings = flying infantry (read: NOT Jump Infantry). HUGE for thirsters and princes.

4) Seekers and Fiends now charge 27", hounds charge 21". :eek:

Daemons got wtfbusted by the new edition. They may be new top-tier. Seriously. Will need a lot of testing, but they got powered up like whoa.

Eldar did get boosts. However, re-read the rules for assault weapons. You only get the bonus attack for an assault weapon if you have a dedicated CC wep in your wargear. Avengers, Guardians, and Dragons do not, so they are the same in cc as they ever were: mediocre at best. DBFs are good now because of the extra 3" fire and flame sweep in CC (also fun for covering fire).

Banshees got ridiculous with the new fleet and power weapon rules, but Scorpions kinda got left by the wayside.

Also, you can now make an engage move out of a (combat-) moving transport. Yes, you get to assault out of ALL transports now. Eldar around the globe leap for joy.

Eldar jetbikes got a HUGE boost, so did rangers/pathfinders. Storm Guardians being able to use flame sweep or fusion pistols in CC is pretty big, too. All-in-all, both armies got MUCH much better.

Even if this is a fake, I don't care, because it looks like it will be a fun game to play. If it's fake, GW has it's work cut out to put up something that's better than this.

[flekkzo]

And all psykers can attempt to nullify psychic stuff (Hood just makes it better). This does help Grey Knights as well tho, and most likely most in all of dexes (since they are all psykers :) )



It was stated in the rules that mastery is 1-6, and the best of the best of eldar (and most gifted of daemons) got 'only' a 5. So, if Eldrad is 2-3, who is gonna be that 5 (unless the new rumoured eldar 'dex is gonna fix that or introduce a whole new super psyker..)


On account of Eldrad being dead/not around it would be nice with an updated Eldar codex that did not include him but new guys and gals. Maybe Ulthwé has a new level 5 guy around to take his place? Maybe Eldar can be the master of psykers once again :)

[Bigred]

This story keeps on getting stickier by the hour...

Mercer at Imperius Dominatus (http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/01/proof-that-leaked-6th-rules-are-fake.html) posted the following last night:


It was done on a home edition of the program that GW use the professional version of, this version was 1.5 vs the 1.6 that GW use for all their other (older) published files. The files origin is Glasgow not Lenton unlike all their published files and the file author is named Robert Smithe, not GWPLC like all their other published files.

Now that is a lot of insider information there, such as exactly what software and versions of it GW internally uses. The problem is that the metadata embedded in the leaked files doesn't support any of those assertions. Also the version numbers listed make no sense compared to current versions of Acrobat, Indesign, Pagemaker, or QuarkExpress (the professional layout software packages for document creation).

Another poster said that the "Robert Smithe" listed is a layout employee in Lenton. Finally, the original file download links that appeared all over the place have been taken down over the last 24 hours.

GW has never lifted a finger whatsoever in the past when hoaxes appeared online (such as the fake Blood Angel codex).

Something very fishy is going on.

[Porty1119]

I probably won't play this (much), but I suspect I'll take cues from it in future game design. I'm already playing around with ideas of activation order based on unit type :cool:

[Wrath]

This story keeps on getting stickier by the hour...

Mercer at Imperius Dominatus (http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/01/proof-that-leaked-6th-rules-are-fake.html) posted the following last night:


Now that is a lot of insider information there, such as exactly what software and versions of it GW internally uses. The problem is that the metadata embedded in the leaked files doesn't support any of those assertions. Also the version numbers listed make no sense compared to current versions of Acrobat, Indesign, Pagemaker, or QuarkExpress (the professional layout software packages for document creation).

Another poster said that the "Robert Smithe" listed is a layout employee in Lenton. Finally, the original file download links that appeared all over the place have been taken down over the last 24 hours.

GW has never lifted a finger whatsoever in the past when hoaxes appeared online (such as the fake Blood Angel codex).

Something very fishy is going on.

Nothing here proves anything. Most likely the playtest rules were in a .Doc format of some sort and whoever just compiled it into a PDF, the codex update especially looks like it was compiled into a single document after the fact.

All that being said this has to be a hoax. The rules are just to damned good to be GW.

[Bigred]

Playtest documents don't have final layout applied to them.

This document is fully formatted, in dual column, with fonts in place, art placeholders, headers, footers, cross referenced page numbers and more.

That is a job in an of itself.

[Madjob]

I'm not convinced Nob Bikers have been completely brought in line. It is certainly much easier to whittle them down with focused fire and templates, but that's always been the case. What's more, Flesh and Steel ensures that nothing short of Lascannon fire will be inflicting instant death on them (though they are still vulnerable to power fists in CC)

Where the wound allocation really mattered for me was in CC, and nothing changes here where it is immediately important. If I manage to get all my hits in within the first round of combat, which I will because Patch Up occurs at the end of the turn, I've accomplished my goals. What's more I usually run a few cheap nobs in the squad anyways that I can afford to have die off if necessary.

AP 3 weapons ignoring FnP is a pain though. Seems like that rule has been progressively downgraded with each edition.

Setting aside all that, though, Orks really didn't get a lot of beneficial stuff in this. Guaranteed 12" movement every turn was the best thing. That and Alpha Strike, but no armor saves for anything but 'Ard Boyz or tougher in any circumstances but AP - fire and No Retreat being critical hits means that Boyz are going to lose combat a lot, and by large margins. What are the chances you're going to be able to keep a mob engaged for a full turn in order to get an Alpha Strike off? Meanwhile, while our Trukks and Battlewagons are a fraction more survivable, they've become moving land mines when they explode. If a trukk dies, your mob inside is literally completely gone unless you get a lucky "wrecked" with ramshackle. And if you're unlucky, anyone nearby also dies. Same deal with Battlewagons but if you're not an idiot it wont be happening quite as often as the trukks. KFF got another downgrade since vehicles can only get a 5+ cover from it now as well.

If this is legit I'm hoping Orks will get an update fast and hard, otherwise they will likely be shelved in favor of the Tyranids, who have gotten almost nothing BUT upgrades from these rules. All MCs hit with s10? Excellent. Carnifex squads making ram movements and critical hitting any unfortunate souls who can't clear the 6" to move out of the way? Lovely. Poison changes meaning toxin sacs on MCs is an excellent choice with re-rollable 2+ wounding 90% of the time? Delicious. Lictors finally being worth their points, being able to DS without scatter 13" away from a vulnerable vehicle and charge in the same turn, and giving their reserve bonus on or off table? Glory be!

[Wrath]

Playtest documents don't have final layout applied to them.

This document is fully formatted, in dual column, with fonts in place, art placeholders, headers, footers, cross referenced page numbers and more.

That is a job in an of itself.

I don't think these were playtest rules for the Main rule book. I get the feeling that this was playtesting for the Codex changes.

I just realized that we can confirm these either true or false in a couple months, when BT or Tau come out. If it is Tau next both the MP and BC changed and if it is BT then that codex may include the Zeal Pistol. Either way it should be able to confirm or deny these rules.

[Entropic]

Playtest documents don't have final layout applied to them.

This document is fully formatted, in dual column, with fonts in place, art placeholders, headers, footers, cross referenced page numbers and more.

That is a job in an of itself.

It looks to me like it's a document approaching the home stretch. I'd expect it to look like it does when it's in the final tweaking & design review phase, before it goes off for the last round of editing and final layout.

[Bigred]

Wrath said:


I just realized that we can confirm these either true or false in a couple months, when BT or Tau come out. If it is Tau next both the MP and BC changed and if it is BT then that codex may include the Zeal Pistol. Either way it should be able to confirm or deny these rules.

Good point, and whichever is next, its due in the March timeslot... which means its been send off to the printers already, so there is no time to change things.

tick tock, tick tock...

[HsojVvad]

Big Red has said something very interesting. GW has NEVER taken down hoax PDF or rules set/codicies. Funny this was done. Thing is, do we have Proof that GW has ordered for the "leaked ruleset/FAQ" to be taken down or was it taken down by the "hoaxster"?

Well put it this way. In about 8 months from now, we will know if these are fake or not. :)

[Bigred]

This showed up on the frontpage:

Just got this from reds8n, over on Dakka:


"Stores in the UK have received/are about to get an email stating thiat these rules are not genuine and are not anything to do with GW."

Also, there was a post on /tg/ - a reasonable, apologetic post, something you wouldn't expect from the internet's trashbin - that claimed the 'leaked' ruleset was a group's collaborative set of homegrown rules, which they made to play 40k the way they wanted to.

If you look over the first few paragraphs on the document, the whole thing comes off as a supplement to 5th edition, not an entirely new edition.

Regarding the files that were taken down, they are simply not appearing anymore, with no indication of who took them down, or for what reason. So you have to look at the both of possibilities of hoax and legit rules and ask yourself which would most justify the behavior of files being pulled down within 24 hours - and a "reasonable, well worded apology" being posted on 4chan.

The plot thickens...

[eldargal]

Someone could have reported the files and the host simply removed them to avoid any conflict without GW getting involved at all.

[Strangleweb]

I normally try and avoid asking too many questions of people I know at GWHQ as it's not fair on them, but this was such a big 'leak' that it came up in conversation yesterday. The response...

"It's an impressive document, but it didn't come from us."

[Big Jim]

That's not surprising it's not like they would admit it 6 months out. :cool:

[DrLove42]

So its looking more likely to be a fake

But I still have a few doubts about its fakery that seem to point to it being real.

1) Name Dropping
On page 49 (or 70 depending on what number you go off - see point 2) it specifically mentions the Necron Catacomb command barge. It also mentions Tesla weapons on page 71 (92).

This document was last edited in May of last year. At that point the Necrons were still a complete unknown. The rumour mill was talking about very little, and what it was was things like No more C'tan, and Bronze, Silver & Gold level Overlords. The barge and Tesla weapons were never "leaked" or rumoured. They only became known at launch (or the BoW leak). That wasn't for a few months after this document was last edited. So the only was for them to be mentioned is someone on the inside.

2) Page Numbering and Formatting

As previously mentioned the page numbering is off. If you're going to write your own rules expansion why start it at at page 22 and not 1? For that matter why leave spaces for pictures (not talking diagrams here, theres spaces for the artwork that is in the rule book) and format it so clearly for a rough house rules book?

3) Things that now make sense
GK Falchions. Deathmarks DS. The ability to upgrade the Squad leaders armour in DE. These things never made any sense under the old rules. They do now. And while I admit theres a chance the rules were written for these things, it seems more likely it was the other way around. And remember the Deathmarks are another unit that weren't known when this book was written

For these 3 reasons, it being a "fake" doesn't sit right with me

[stebloke]

I'm totally with DrLove42. There are too many things in these documents we had no idea about last May, so the chances of it being fake are very small (unless whoever made it knew what was coming up in the Necron dex).
Also consider the effort required to make a file this big, and all the Codex updates, and make them look just like (or at least very similar to) GW's other documents.
Also consider the possibility (yes, very small possibility) that GW have leaked these on purpose, to gauge our reactions to them.
Now of course GW will deny this is from them. It's all they can do. At least they can be happy that so many people seem to like the rule changes that these documents contain.
I'm still unsure about them myself. I'm just waiting to see if people do some playtests and see if some of the problems in the current rules are balanced out.

[ozeo]

So its looking more likely to be a fake

But I still have a few doubts about its fakery that seem to point to it being real.

1) Name Dropping
On page 49 (or 70 depending on what number you go off - see point 2) it specifically mentions the Necron Catacomb command barge. It also mentions Tesla weapons on page 71 (92).

This document was last edited in May of last year. At that point the Necrons were still a complete unknown. The rumour mill was talking about very little, and what it was was things like No more C'tan, and Bronze, Silver & Gold level Overlords. The barge and Tesla weapons were never "leaked" or rumoured. They only became known at launch (or the BoW leak). That wasn't for a few months after this document was last edited. So the only was for them to be mentioned is someone on the inside.

2) Page Numbering and Formatting

As previously mentioned the page numbering is off. If you're going to write your own rules expansion why start it at at page 22 and not 1? For that matter why leave spaces for pictures (not talking diagrams here, theres spaces for the artwork that is in the rule book) and format it so clearly for a rough house rules book?

3) Things that now make sense
GK Falchions. Deathmarks DS. The ability to upgrade the Squad leaders armour in DE. These things never made any sense under the old rules. They do now. And while I admit theres a chance the rules were written for these things, it seems more likely it was the other way around. And remember the Deathmarks are another unit that weren't known when this book was written

For these 3 reasons, it being a "fake" doesn't sit right with me

Necrons have been done for a long long time, you do realize for them to have the codex for october, it would of needed to be at the printers by around may/june? This is GW, of course they will have the codex's planned well in advance. You do realize, that this document has Tesla weapons in it, and it was edited last may right? So is the guy who made this psychic?

The numbering and formatting is for the background info etc the 5th edition BRD doesnt start till like page 15, how is this so hard to swallow that it starts at page 20 now? They left it out since it's mostly artwork, pictures of tables etc, they left all the artwork out. If it's a house rule book, you do realize I can use your own argument against you, why start at page 22 unless they are leaving something out on purpose?

Once again, unless this dude is psychic, the deathmarks ability is utterly broken in 5th edition, same as lictors, but yet in this edition they make perfect sense, and remember this book was done 6 months before the realease of the necrons. So how did this fake BRB make the deathmarks perfectly usable?

[gcsmith]

I'm totally with DrLove42. There are too many things in these documents we had no idea about last May, so the chances of it being fake are very small (unless whoever made it knew what was coming up in the Necron dex).
Also consider the effort required to make a file this big, and all the Codex updates, and make them look just like (or at least very similar to) GW's other documents.
Also consider the possibility (yes, very small possibility) that GW have leaked these on purpose, to gauge our reactions to them.
Now of course GW will deny this is from them. It's all they can do. At least they can be happy that so many people seem to like the rule changes that these documents contain.
I'm still unsure about them myself. I'm just waiting to see if people do some playtests and see if some of the problems in the current rules are balanced out.

You know they could just say we leaked rather than deny???

[Surendil]

The document seems quite feasible, but with so many denials around... I don't know what to think. Anyway, it seems to change quite a lot of things... and one I've found most interesting is the evasion attribute.

Seeing the BS vs evasion skill goes up to evasion 10 and the higher evasion I've found is 6, if this model were genuine, could we expect some codex upgrades? Anyway, I'd like to see more modifiers, to be true (like the jink bonus, make it greater for flat out movements, for example)...



1) Name Dropping
(...)
This document was last edited in May of last year.
Just to point a detail... This could be an easy trick, just change the date on your computer and then create/edit a document :P

[eldargal]

Indeed, and given that in May last year Mr Ward was writing Codex: Grey Knights it is entirely possible GW may not have known the final names for the Necron units and whatnot mentioned in the leaked rules. Or they may have done, we don't know. :rolleyes:

[Denzark]

Just getting used to a streamlined 5th. This could be bad. The nasty formatting, levels of special rules.

Does noone else think this makes mech even more king if true? Potentially LR firing 2 sponmsons, 1 turret, 1 hull and 1 pintle at least twice in a turn?

Pin those nasty I6 GK with a tarpit, then charge them from behind with Auto I10? The whole fleet/assault/I can ponce the entire length of a 72" table in one turn?

I hope this does not pan out without big changes.

[pgmason]

Potentially LR firing 2 sponmsons, 1 turret, 1 hull and 1 pintle at least twice in a turn?


You can't fire the same weapon more than once no matter how many shooting actions you have.

[Defenestratus]

Does noone else think this makes mech even more king if true? Potentially LR firing 2 sponmsons, 1 turret, 1 hull and 1 pintle at least twice in a turn?

The rule specifically says you can't fire the same weapon more than once.

The difference now is that units with MT will be able to shoot at different targets, which, honestly they always should have been able to.

Also realize just how easy it is to Stun a vehicle.

[Defenestratus]

The 4chan explanation doesn't jive either. If its homegrown rules, why go through all the effort of basically rewriting the first half of the "Basics" rules. Also, why purposely set the date to 2011 to publish the document if its *not* just some elaborate hoax. The dropping of names in the book are simply too concise given its publication date.

For this reason and this reason alone - I think this document has legitimacy.



So its looking more likely to be a fake

But I still have a few doubts about its fakery that seem to point to it being real.

1) Name Dropping
On page 49 (or 70 depending on what number you go off - see point 2) it specifically mentions the Necron Catacomb command barge. It also mentions Tesla weapons on page 71 (92).

This document was last edited in May of last year. At that point the Necrons were still a complete unknown. The rumour mill was talking about very little, and what it was was things like No more C'tan, and Bronze, Silver & Gold level Overlords. The barge and Tesla weapons were never "leaked" or rumoured. They only became known at launch (or the BoW leak). That wasn't for a few months after this document was last edited. So the only was for them to be mentioned is someone on the inside.

2) Page Numbering and Formatting

As previously mentioned the page numbering is off. If you're going to write your own rules expansion why start it at at page 22 and not 1? For that matter why leave spaces for pictures (not talking diagrams here, theres spaces for the artwork that is in the rule book) and format it so clearly for a rough house rules book?

3) Things that now make sense
GK Falchions. Deathmarks DS. The ability to upgrade the Squad leaders armour in DE. These things never made any sense under the old rules. They do now. And while I admit theres a chance the rules were written for these things, it seems more likely it was the other way around. And remember the Deathmarks are another unit that weren't known when this book was written

For these 3 reasons, it being a "fake" doesn't sit right with me

[pgmason]

"It's an impressive document, but it didn't come from us."

Which could mean one of several things:

1. It's a complete fabrication, nothing to do with GW.
2. The person you asked didn't know either way and was repeating what they'd been told.
3. It's a genuine GW document, leaked without their knowledge or consent, say by a disgruntled ex-employee or playtester.
4. It's an early draft of the rules for playtesting which may have substantially changed since.
5. It's an unofficial proposal by one or more of the developers for how they'd like to do 6th edition, which may or may not bear any relation to what they're actually doing.

It's not just a binary real/fake situation. It could be a genuine document and nothing like what 6th will actually be like, or it could be made by someone else but startlingly close to reality.

[Lexington]

I severely doubt that this is a hoax. Non-final? Obviously. A playtest version? Sure. However, it's just too complicated, too clever and too in-tune with recent releases to dismiss as a fake. Given the direction of recent Codexes, this seems entirely plausible, and I'm excited as all get-out for it. :D


Indeed, and given that in May last year Mr Ward was writing Codex: Grey Knights it is entirely possible GW may not have known the final names for the Necron units and whatnot mentioned in the leaked rules.
Wasn't the GK book released last May? AFAIK, this means the final draft of the Codex was finished sometime in mid-to-late 2010.

[L192837465]

I, for one, and using this ruleset (fake or real) if 6th sucks (and this isn't even remotely what we get).

[Hokiecow]

I'm definitely in the camp it's real, and unpolished.

I'm not sure why people are getting worried about the complexity. For the most part it keeps the stream line of 5th but adds a few modifiers. Nothing that can be solved with a few look up tables. What they gain in speeding up wound allocation, the use it up somewhere else. Over all I believe some of the rules listed will get modified or removed if it over complicates things too much.

[Ravariel]

If this is a fake, GW has their work cut out for themselves to release something that is better. If their version isn't, then expect quite a few people to be playing this version, me included.

[GrenAcid]

If this is a fake, GW has their work cut out for themselves to release something that is better. If their version isn't, then expect quite a few people to be playing this version, me included.
+1

[Defenestratus]

What particular model or unit that has been consigned to the display shelf for eternity do these rules get you excited about?

Personally, I'm looking forward to using my shining spears again. Now that they won't need their exarch to withdrawal from combat, and the fact that they can charge in, jump out, then shoot whatever is left with their shuriken cats (and laser lances...I think, since MT+Fast+Charge lets you fire as if you are stationary and that lets you double your multitargeting rule... I'm pretty sure I have this right) I'm liking them quite a bit.

[Wrath]

Personally, I'm looking forward to using my shining spears again. Now that they won't need their exarch to withdrawal from combat, and the fact that they can charge in, jump out, then shoot whatever is left with their shuriken cats (and laser lances...I think, since MT+Fast+Charge lets you fire as if you are stationary and that lets you double your multitargeting rule... I'm pretty sure I have this right) I'm liking them quite a bit.

What? How are they getting out of CC?

[Defenestratus]

Eldar Jetbikes have Drawback.

.... which... happens in the consolidation phase.. so they wouldn't get to shoot then. Still.. its better than getting the exarch's head sniped off and being worthless for the rest of the game.

[L192837465]

What particular model or unit that has been consigned to the display shelf for eternity do these rules get you excited about?



1) Chaos *u**ing dreads. No more shooting my own dudes, acts normally when the result doesn't apply. SWEET.

2) Chaos spawn. The new rules make them... you know... not suck so hard.

3) sisters Seraphim: SO MANY PISTOLS! SO AWESOME! melta pistols on one of those broads is gonna be brutal. Not to mention how fast jump packs are!

4) PREDATORS. Oh god yes predators. Being able to move and fire its full load out makes me moist.

[Wrath]

Eldar Jetbikes have Drawback.

.... which... happens in the consolidation phase.. so they wouldn't get to shoot then. Still.. its better than getting the exarch's head sniped off and being worthless for the rest of the game.

Ahhh I understand, but I think this is in error. Drawback is listed as a shooting action and you cannot use shooting actions in CC.

[Defenestratus]

Ahhh I understand, but I think this is in error. Drawback is listed as a shooting action and you cannot use shooting actions in CC.

Actually looking at it again... here's the low down.

If you DO take the exarch's hit-and-run, then you can do this -

Charge in the movement phase (20" charge like whoa). Then if the exarch survives, he can use the hit and run power to move out of combat 3". Then the squad can blast away in the shooting phase since they are fast, and they can shoot with both guns, and then in the consolidation phase they can go 2d6" away.

Draw Back by itself doesn't mean you can get out of combat - so my assertion that the Exarch can die and them still get out of combat is false - however, all Eldar jetbikes can make a consolidation move of 2d6" if not engaged in combat.

Still might be fuzzy about it all but thats what it seems like.

[Wrath]

Actually looking at it again... here's the low down.

If you DO take the exarch's hit-and-run, then you can do this -

Charge in the movement phase (20" charge like whoa). Then if the exarch survives, he can use the hit and run power to move out of combat 3". Then the squad can blast away in the shooting phase since they are fast, and they can shoot with both guns, and then in the consolidation phase they can go 2d6" away.

Draw Back by itself doesn't mean you can get out of combat - so my assertion that the Exarch can die and them still get out of combat is false - however, all Eldar jetbikes can make a consolidation move of 2d6" if not engaged in combat.

Still might be fuzzy about it all but thats what it seems like.

yep that is it exactly, you can hit and run THEN draw back. <I was REALLY hoping you had found a way to get out of combat> 20" in and up to 15" back out. That is the quick Eldar that they should be.

[DrLove42]

3) sisters Seraphim: SO MANY PISTOLS! SO AWESOME! melta pistols on one of those broads is gonna be brutal. Not to mention how fast jump packs are!

I get the feeling (again...IF THIS IS REAL :P) that the sisters codex, though devoid of life, individuality, style, flavour and character seems almost custom written for these rules, not 5th.

As for models that will be awesome suddenly...I feel mandrakes in a DE list may be a little better with changes to inflitration.

Howling Banshees (not that they were ever on the shelf) seem to be a big up and coming unit...now wave serpents seem to be assault ramped (i got that from something) and they get a 5++ in CC.

And Tau...not a unit but that upgrade that allows a single unit to enter play on a 2+....you could put that on a regiment/ group reserve thing and get everything on turn 2 if you wanted....

[Wildcard]

@DrLove42


3) Things that now make sense
GK Falchions.

In what way does this make sense?

I find greatness in:
-The assault weapons (+1 attack in charge on top of the normal bonus attack, making it total +2A when charging)
-Terminators getting same (+2A total in charge, and if equipped with heavy/assault weapon, +1A to base aswell, from relentless..)
- Dreadknight = relentless, also gets +1A in CC from one equipped shooty weapon. (so it doesn't harm in the number of cc attacks if you take a sword in stead of 2 fists)
- Same for dreadnoughts, since all vehicles are relentless, DCCW + ranged weapon = one extra attack in cc
-Master Crafting whole squads (paladins basically), cos now it lets you re-roll as many dice that you have mastercrafteds, not just model-to-model basis..

But what of the GK Falchions?
Only thing that i can think of, is that since both of your hands are 'occupied', you can't use secondary weapon (stormbolter) when chargin.. But seems a far fetched in my opinion..

Also, force weapons being instant death(2), does this mean that when each causes 2 extra wounds, they are caused only to the target model, or each of the three wounds (one 'basic' + 2 extras) to a different model? So will i kill one or three ork boyz with one swing? :)
And on the other hand, do instant deaths stack; Hitting with str10 nemesis daemonhammer a t4 marine, will i get loads of extra wounds to cause, or is it only one or the another?

[GrenAcid]

How about Pyrovores???.....hahah just kidding :p

[Wrath]

Also, force weapons being instant death(2), does this mean that when each causes 2 extra wounds, they are caused only to the target model, or each of the three wounds (one 'basic' + 2 extras) to a different model? So will i kill one or three ork boyz with one swing? :)
And on the other hand, do instant deaths stack; Hitting with str10 nemesis daemonhammer a t4 marine, will i get loads of extra wounds to cause, or is it only one or the another?

From what I understand you only get 1 extra W unless the Strength based ID also kicks in.

ID2 = 1 extra W and ignores ID1
ID3 = 1 extra W and ignores ID2

[robrodgers46]

Had some spare time last night, and re-read the whole thing through. I think it's a fake, for two reasons.

1) Just too much is different. I play two armies, IG and SW, and both will play so much different now. It's like having to re-learn the whole game. It's hard to believe that so many changes would come at once. I haven't played forever like some, but has there ever been an edition change that is so drastic?

2) If it is real, it is going to be completely re-written for tone, style, and grammar. So much so that it feels almost like a draft written by an intern as a training exercise.

Just my two cents.

[Gir]

1) Just too much is different. I play two armies, IG and SW, and both will play so much different now. It's like having to re-learn the whole game. It's hard to believe that so many changes would come at once. I haven't played forever like some, but has there ever been an edition change that is so drastic?

2nd -> 3rd.

[Wrath]

2nd -> 3rd.

Don't play myself but I understand WH 8E was pretty radical too.

[Sardukar]

No info on fake vs. real, but... In answer to the 'too much change' concept...

I have played since Rogue Trader, and we have seen DRASTIC changes between editions in the early sets. Hasn't been GW's style in the last couple, but that hardly prohibits them. And we had weapon cost charts before.

[evilamericorp]

How about Pyrovores???.....hahah just kidding :p

HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAH... I see what you did there.

For all those calling it fake, you clearly haven't worked on any sort of game rule system before. This document wold take a team of people months to put together. As rough as it is in layout and grammar, there is a tremendous amount of work that has been put into it. Far too much for anyone to do "for teh lulz." That would be like someone curing cancer and then dumping the cure into the water supply because it would be funny to watch the doctors be mystified when all their patients were mysteriously better.

[eldargal]

People said the same thing about the fake Blood Angel an Tyranid codices. They were still fake. No one is arguing that this wasn't put together by a team of people either, doesn't mean it is automatically real. My brothers could turn our altered and expanded Dreadfleet ruleset into a convincing Man O'War rulebook with a few weeks work.

Point is GW have apparently denied it is their work, and if true then there is no reason to doubt their word without going into tinhat conspiracy theory 'Well they would deny it woudn't they?' territory.

[flekkzo]

People said the same thing about the fake Blood Angel an Tyranid codices. They were still fake. No one is arguing that this wasn't put together by a team of people either, doesn't mean it is automatically real. My brothers could turn our altered and expanded Dreadfleet ruleset into a convincing Man O'War rulebook with a few weeks work.

Point is GW have apparently denied it is their work, and if true then there is no reason to doubt their word without going into tinhat conspiracy theory 'Well they would deny it woudn't they?' territory.

First of all, you should, sounds awesome!

My guess is that it's easier to fake a codex than a rulebook. A codex is naturally divided into units, and each unit is pretty simple to put together (especially for marines). The trick is to make them all work together and make sense of the special rules, but quicker to throw together.

The rules on the other hand has to match up more. I can't tell if it is fake or not, but what I can tell is that it is fairly complex and I am not alone in wishing that 6th ed can be a departure from 5th to shake new life into the game.

[Maine]

Point is GW have apparently denied it is their work

Can you please cite/link to a first hand denial?

[eldargal]

Can you please read and understand the words 'apparently' and 'if true'.

[Wildeybeast]

HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAH... I see what you did there.

For all those calling it fake, you clearly haven't worked on any sort of game rule system before. This document wold take a team of people months to put together. As rough as it is in layout and grammar, there is a tremendous amount of work that has been put into it. Far too much for anyone to do "for teh lulz." That would be like someone curing cancer and then dumping the cure into the water supply because it would be funny to watch the doctors be mystified when all their patients were mysteriously better.

Really. You think a team of people could cure cancer in a few months? And that writing a rough draft set of rules on which you can't even be bothered to sort out the grammar is in some way comparable to curing cancer (and since you use the general term cancer I'm assuming you refer to all types, making this an even more staggering achievement)? I think your use of analogies could do with some work. :D

[eldargal]

Someone on Warseer also mentioned there are words from the German ruleset sprinkled in in places, and none of the development team have a German speaking background. Unfortunately the thread on Warseer has been deleted and I don't remember the specifics, something to do with vehicle rear armour and some German word starting with 'h'.

[Entropic]

heck = rear.

[eldargal]

Right, thanks!

The Weathered Bastion has seven fire
points - three at the front, one at the heck and
one at either side.

[Borin]

The book seems bad writen and that being said by a non native english.

But if it's a fake GW could learn a few things. The only thing that make me believe it's GW made it's the always error of making MC (Mounstrous Creatures) too good.
Improving their CC weapons to 2S making it equal to dreadnoughts but giving also 2D6 armour penetration? ...
Also making the scoring if they are troops when vehicles never can be scoring ....... (yes I'm looking at tyranids tevigons, who in their right mind makes an T6 W6 Sv 3+ a scoring unit?)
Also some rumours where pointing to changes in vehicles rules.

But the best part of this rules are the misions, scoring objectives before last turn and have to be outside of transports? ... that i'ts the best change to spice the game. No more last turn fast moving wins, you have work the full game for the objectives.

[Borin]

The book seems bad writen and that being said by a non native english.

But if it's a fake GW could learn a few things. The only thing that make me believe it's GW made it's the always error of making MC (Mounstrous Creatures) too good.
Improving their CC weapons to 2S making it equal to dreadnoughts but giving also 2D6 armour penetration? ...
Also making the scoring if they are troops when vehicles never can be scoring ....... (yes I'm looking at tyranids tevigons, who in their right mind makes an T6 W6 Sv 3+ a scoring unit?)
Also some rumours where pointing to changes in vehicles rules.

But the best part of this rules are the misions, scoring objectives before last turn and have to be outside of transports? ... that i'ts the best change to spice the game. No more last turn fast moving wins, you have work the full game for the objectives.

[Wrath]

heck = rear.

I was under the impression that Heck = Deck.

[eldargal]

Not according to google translate.:)

[Necron_Lord]

I was under the impression that Heck = Deck.

Looking at my German dictionary, 'heck' is defined as follows:

Heck <n.; -e(s), -e od. -s> 1 hinterer Teil des Schiffes, Autos od. Flugzeugs; hinten am Heck stehen; bei diesem Autotyp liegt der Motor im Heck

RAW it means rear for ships, cars, or aircraft. It doesn't say anything about transports or tanks though. Looks like we're going to have to wait for the FAQ. ;)

[Wrath]

Looking at my German dictionary, 'heck' is defined as follows:

Heck <n.; -e(s), -e od. -s> 1 hinterer Teil des Schiffes, Autos od. Flugzeugs; hinten am Heck stehen; bei diesem Autotyp liegt der Motor im Heck

RAW it means rear for ships, cars, or aircraft. It doesn't say anything about transports or tanks though. Looks like we're going to have to wait for the FAQ. ;)

interesting, in the book it is referring to a building.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Good thing I grabbed a copy when I did.

[Wildeybeast]

So, if the design team would be working in English, it could be a fake made in Germany which would also account for the grammar. But then again, reading a copy of WD will tell you that GW's view of grammar is somewhat unorthodox.

[flekkzo]

So, if the design team would be working in English, it could be a fake made in Germany which would also account for the grammar. But then again, reading a copy of WD will tell you that GW's view of grammar is somewhat unorthodox.

You'd think there would be plenty of unemployed English Majors around for GW to hire for cheap to *write* :)

[Hokiecow]

Someone on Warseer also mentioned there are words from the German ruleset sprinkled in in places, and none of the development team have a German speaking background. Unfortunately the thread on Warseer has been deleted and I don't remember the specifics, something to do with vehicle rear armour and some German word starting with 'h'.

You don't think it's odd Warseer will have nothing to do with the "leaked rules"? No threads on the topic allowed even though it's a relevant topic in the community?

The rules have not been debunked, no one has stepped forward saying they did it. So as far as anyone is concerned they are valid rumours for 6th, yet threads are getting removed that discuss it.

[Necropolis]

I hope this isn't real. Orks would totally dominate the game with these rules. Everything they have is assault BS2 and they would see a huge bonus in the number of hits scored against ... everything.

Not to mention that the all-powerful Initiative score, though not as critical in sweeps, is even more important overall due to Evade.

Looks like this will be a repeat of 5e for the poor Necrons.

[DarkLink]

You don't think it's odd Warseer will have nothing to do with the "leaked rules"? No threads on the topic allowed even though it's a relevant topic in the community?

The rules have not been debunked, no one has stepped forward saying they did it. So as far as anyone is concerned they are valid rumours for 6th, yet threads are getting removed that discuss it.

First off, warseer mods are notorious for shutting down threads at the slightest provocation. Secondly, people there kept trying to post links to the pdf, which is against forum rules there (and here). Real or not, none of the big forums are going to risk legal action over something stupid like that.

Anyways, if the rumors about GW and the Hobbit are true then GW has a good reason to disavow any leaks that they reasonably can. If this was a draft of 6th ed, there isn't any direct proof and GW can just deny it. Conversely, the only real way to prove a rumor is to wait until release.

[Lactose The Intolerant]

How about Pyrovores???.....hahah just kidding :p

Aaaactually, with d6 armor ignoring attacks that automatically hit on the charge...

Still, those elites slots are awfully crowded.

[Madjob]

I hope this isn't real. Orks would totally dominate the game with these rules. Everything they have is assault BS2 and they would see a huge bonus in the number of hits scored against ... everything.

What gives you that idea?

Nobody stays still against Orks these days anyways, meaning it's rare that we're going to be hitting better than 5s on anything except monstrous creatures.

We might as well have no armor save at all. I would honestly be perfectly fine with a 1 point reduction for everything that currently has a 6+ save to get rid of said save, because we're never going to use it outside of CC and now we're never going to use it in CC either.

We no longer get to pepper our targets and immediately assault them, which means we now have to keep our Orks sitting and shooting for an extra turn first before assaulting to get the CC odds we used to get from a single turn. What did we get in exchange? Well, we get to shoot a different target if we manage to win CC, if we used Engage. And then get shot to crap or counter-assaulted on the opponent's turn.

'Ard Boyz are no longer worth the investment due to critical hit No Retreat.

Our vehicles are now several times more deadly when exploding to the heavier troops we use them to transport.

[EnragedTemplar]

I hope this isn't real. Orks would totally dominate the game with these rules. Everything they have is assault BS2 and they would see a huge bonus in the number of hits scored against ... everything.



if my understanding of this is correct, a Bs2 would still mean a 5+ to hit if the unit has moved at all. i dont see any difference between that and the current rules

[Wildcard]

So much makes sence in many codices ive seen that has left me wonder..
Also, all the rumours heard about 6th ed, are backed up by this document.. (atleast most of them)..

The feeling I have now, is that the game will be a lot more brutal in every aspect (although it is equally likely that i just have not understood the stuff in those pages correctly..


Looks like this will be a repeat of 5e for the poor Necrons.

How so?
- We have no idea of the multi-targeting() value of the necron vehicles (aside from monolith, its gonna be around 7 i think? (1 for the 1 structure point, and 6 for being super-heavy)
- Monolith type heavy means its super heavy -> -3 to the weapon damage tables, and it ignores Destroyed - Weapon results... Talking about the might of the Citadel it ought to have, eh?
- Prefered enemy: Heavy destroyers are gonna be hitting stuff with either 3+ or 2+ (str9 AP2/AP1, cant remember), talking about rather scary amount of accurate long range firepower that can stay save with relatively small ease..
- Those Necron skinfreaks (totally forgot their name) is most likely to have DeepStrike(Ambush), that is gonna be devastating (aye, charge from deepstrike without scatter O_o)
- Necrons are best at "slowly" eating away enemy vehicles -> Hull Breach is gonna be major for them.. (two immobile is enough for a wreck)
- Vehicle explosion are now gonna be serious threat to any passenger (Critical Hits) -> Necron transport just teleports its cargo back to base to be safe..
- If Monstrous Weapon-is left as it is stated, all monstrous creatures with a CCW will be Double str, no armor saves, 2d6 armor pen.. cheap spyders practically auto penetrating everything aside from landraiders (and other necron factions Monoliths)
- Their +2 to front and side armor skill (forgot name, but making them 13/13/something) is gonna be insane, because melta wont be giving +1 to damage table anymore, meaning they are gonna be way harder to destroy unless you get real close with them.
- Cant tell if necron immortal gauss blaster is gonna be rapid fire 1 or 2.. potential 18" relentless heavy bolters in the squad that glan everything on a natural 6..
- Deathmarks: 2+ hit, 2+ wound, and shooter allocates wounds.. not too bad (plus they rend)..

Maybe I just haven't read the leaked rules right.. but this surely feel like not that bad situation for them..

[Wildcard]

Bs2 would still mean a 5+

Orks hit with BS 2:

Stationary tank (and walker, monstrous etc, big targets) 3+
tank (and walker, monstrous etc, big targets) 4+
stationary troop 4+
moving troop 5+
stationary swarms 5+
fast moving stuff 6+
moving swarms 6+

------------------

Burnas and Scorchas are gonna be deadly in close combat, other than that, I feel ork close combat profiency got lessened a lot by this (compared to other races, who mostly seems to be getting buffs towards cc)
----------------
Edit1
What I am hoping, is that the Landraider(all variants) would be made vehicle(Heavy,Tank).. This would make it the beast it should be.. One of the hardest vehicles to destroy in the whole 40k universe, able to drive forward with all guns blasting on different targets.. And worth the investment of points you have to sink to get one..

On the other hand, based on that "shooting: to hit chart", Devastators and Havocs and others with bs4+ are gonna be devastating with blast-weapons against hordes, and as deadly against tanks..

-To moving infantry: Maximum scatter is 4"
-To stationary infantry: Maximum scatter is 2"

- And they hit tanks (other than fast skimmers), regardless if targets are moving or not, on a 2+

How do you like the sound of that? :p

/Edit1

[Madjob]

Burnas and Scorchas are gonna be deadly in close combat

Using up your kombi-skorcha for a fire sweep sounds like a pretty bad idea, especially since most Orks packing those are going to also be packing PKs or something. Here's how it breaks down for the Burnas, though.

5 Burnas (power weapon) vs. MEQ: 3.75 wounds average
5 Burnas (fire sweep) vs. MEQ: 5 wounds average

5 Burnas (power weapon) vs. GEQ: 6.67 wounds average
5 Burnas (fire sweep) vs. GEQ: 10 wounds average

All calculations assumed Burnas received charge. The nice thing about the fire sweep on that unit is that we don't suffer from loss of strength from furious charge or loss of attacks in ensuing rounds.

[DarkLink]

Even if ork shooting gets any real boost, remember that every other army gets a similar boost, and orks will also be hurt by the fact that cover is weaker now. It works out pretty well. Plus, the green tide isn't quite a power list anyways. While I've seen plenty of orks in the top placements at tournaments all over the place, it's usually more balanced lists than 180 boyz.


So much makes sence in many codices ive seen that has left me wonder..
Also, all the rumours heard about 6th ed, are backed up by this document.. (atleast most of them)..


Right, this is what is making me still consider these even if GW has denied them. There's a lot of stuff here that really balances out problems with 5th ed, and while there is some weird stuff the majority of this document is pretty good quality rules for a draft. MSU vehicle spam a problem? Not any more, now that you can't score inside a transport, or shoot out of fire ports beyond 18", or hide your psychic hood inside a vehicle, etc.

So even if these are fake, there's a lot of stuff in these rules that I would really like GW to copy. In general, these rules make games go faster, your units more deadly, deployment and reserves more tactical, less randomness overall, and while boosting a lot of weaker armies while nerfing some of the more annoying armies (razorback spam, driagowing/multi wound rocks, stationary units like long fang spam).

I mean, currently a lot of people including myself simply Run during the movement phase, even though you technically wait till the shooting phase to do it. This takes it one step further and combines the assault move into this as well. No more need to move each unit, then Run each unit, then charge with each unit. That's three moves per turn per unit. These rules consolidate that all down to one single move per turn per unit. And they still retain some bonuses for having ranged weapons in assault units (assault weapons grant extra attacks, flamers cause free hits, etc), so even though you can't shoot before you assault there are still benefits. Plus, now you can charge that wimpy unit of Grots, kill them, then redirect your fire to an actual important target like a nearby Battlewagon or unit of Boyz. Before you would have been stuck shooting the Grots, or not shooting at all.

[DarkLink]

Oh, and I though that this would be relevant: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/

Here's the important part:

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.

I happen to know some of the guys from the zero comp team, and know that their 'friend of a friend' source has accurately predicted stuff in the past. I've met at least one source in person before and he knew exactly what was going on with the Sister's WD codex months before it came out. So while it's obviously no guarantee, I'm inclined to trust their source.

[Hokiecow]

First off, warseer mods are notorious for shutting down threads at the slightest provocation. Secondly, people there kept trying to post links to the pdf, which is against forum rules there (and here). Real or not, none of the big forums are going to risk legal action over something stupid like that.


No one said anything about posting links, just discussions. They now have a discussion thread the mods created, it's starts out with declaring it a hoax just because and email is going to be sent from GW to stores. That was supposed to happen ... 4 days ago? And no one has said if the letter has hit the stores yet.

[Necropolis]

What gives you that idea?

Nobody stays still against Orks these days anyways, meaning it's rare that we're going to be hitting better than 5s on anything except monstrous creatures.

We might as well have no armor save at all. I would honestly be perfectly fine with a 1 point reduction for everything that currently has a 6+ save to get rid of said save, because we're never going to use it outside of CC and now we're never going to use it in CC either.

We no longer get to pepper our targets and immediately assault them, which means we now have to keep our Orks sitting and shooting for an extra turn first before assaulting to get the CC odds we used to get from a single turn. What did we get in exchange? Well, we get to shoot a different target if we manage to win CC, if we used Engage. And then get shot to crap or counter-assaulted on the opponent's turn.

'Ard Boyz are no longer worth the investment due to critical hit No Retreat.

Our vehicles are now several times more deadly when exploding to the heavier troops we use them to transport.

You're probably correct. (I'm by no means an expert here.) With BS2 in 5e, a unit needs a 5+ to hit everything. With these new rules, a BS2 unit would hit as follows.

Stationary massive unit (tank?): 3+
Stationary unit: 4+
Moving unit: 5+
Moving swarm: 6+ (yay Scarabs!)
Flyers: 6+
In general, I think you are probably correct (i.e. that this isn't a boon for Orks) as most enemies will move to make sure they get the EV advantage. I hope they prevent people from just moving them half an inch to get the advantage. I think they need to have moved at least 6" or something.

"t does not matter how far the unit has moved as long as it counts as moving."

Thanks for the reply...

[Necropolis]

Interesting that the AP1 bonus is now missing from the vehicle damage table. I'm a little disappointed to see "tank" get a -1. (Isn't IG good enough.) I wish they could work in some kind of AP modifier when rolling to penetrate (rather than just strength); not that it wouldn't also give IG an advantage.

On a side note, the Monolith is indicated has Heavy.

"Heavy
Super-heavy vehicles with a single Structure point
are sometimes referred to as ‘Heavy’"

Would it be cool if the Monolith was considered a Super-Heavy. F-ya!! (One can dream.)

[DarkLink]

AP 1 negates the -1 that tanks get, so it's still there. And while the -1 makes tanks a bit tougher in one way, there are plenty of ways that most tanks (and in particular transports) have been nerfed. The new damage table is more punishing of multiple damage results, so it's easier to damage a vehicle to death. Passengers shooting out of a vehicle has been nerfed to an 18" max range. Cover saves are worse in general. Units inside a transport cannot claim objectives. You also have to hold an objective for the entire turn to claim it, so no driving onto the objective on the last turn and sneaking in a win.

Edit: Dangerous terrain can also be a lot worse for vehicles. Now instead of immobilizing the vehicle, it causes a penetrating hit.


I hope they prevent people from just moving them half an inch to get the advantage. I think they need to have moved at least 6" or something.


No.While moving comes with the advantage of the Ev boost, it also comes with inherent disadvantages. Namely, you can't shoot as effectively. Weapons that can move and shoot, or units with relentless, are very good because they can benefit from moving without sacrificing their Ev, but most units will have to choose between shooting to their full effect or gaining the Ev bonus.

[Necron_Lord]

On a side note, the Monolith is indicated has Heavy.

"Heavy
Super-heavy vehicles with a single Structure point
are sometimes referred to as ‘Heavy’"

Would it be cool if the Monolith was considered a Super-Heavy. F-ya!! (One can dream.)

I wish! It has a special rule which is more like 'Lumbering'. That means that it can only move at combat speed, which now is 8" since it is a skimmer. It also has mulit-targeting (3) and always counts as stationary when firing weapons, so it can shoot double the weapons of whatever multi-targeting value it has at the time. With the new damage table, mass melta is the only thing it really needs to fear now. Lance en masse can still hurt, but there is only a 1 in 6 chance of destroying it and a 1 in 3 chance to pen, which means around 21 shots with BS 4.

[Wildcard]

Yeah, monolith is going to be a beast :)

Super heavy says:
- Multitargeting value is 6+number of structure points (1 in monoliths situation)
- -3 to damage table rolls: With no bonus modifiers, it means that you practically have to grind it to death via stuns and Destroyed: Weapon hits.

On a note, a natural 6 on the damage table will remove its structure point, and hence the -3 modifier

What intriques me is that i think i saw it mentioned that you cant modify super-heavys multitargeting-number, so does this mean that you can take like 100+ Weapon destroyed results and ignore them :)

I cant remember how hull breach was worded though, was it automatically immobile result if you had hull breach on destroyed: weapon, or only after you have no weapons left?

Anyway, back to the reading :)

[Wrath]

No one said anything about posting links, just discussions. They now have a discussion thread the mods created, it's starts out with declaring it a hoax just because and email is going to be sent from GW to stores. That was supposed to happen ... 4 days ago? And no one has said if the letter has hit the stores yet.

I am starting to think that "Hoax" tag comes with a *nudge nudge wink wink*. IF they are a Hoax they can talk about them as much as they please. If they are real then we are back to **** rumor control.

[leth]

I have gotten in two games with the leak and I must say it plays very well and is pretty complete. I am having no more difficulty than I did with the jump from 4th to 5th. I really need to print off a copy so I can sit and read it(not good with pdfs) but other than that it is pretty solid.

Eldar vrs Crons and Daemons vrs Nurgle Marines

Daemons got scary fast in the new book. However they have to be very careful of defensive fire.

[Necron_Lord]

Yeah, monolith is going to be a beast :)

Super heavy says:
- Multitargeting value is 6+number of structure points (1 in monoliths situation)
- -3 to damage table rolls: With no bonus modifiers, it means that you practically have to grind it to death via stuns and Destroyed: Weapon hits.

On a note, a natural 6 on the damage table will remove its structure point, and hence the -3 modifier

What intriques me is that i think i saw it mentioned that you cant modify super-heavys multitargeting-number, so does this mean that you can take like 100+ Weapon destroyed results and ignore them :)

I cant remember how hull breach was worded though, was it automatically immobile result if you had hull breach on destroyed: weapon, or only after you have no weapons left?

Anyway, back to the reading :)

Holy crap, you're right! Reading the Super heavy rule more closely, it is a super heavy with 1 SP. The Monolith didn't get hit with the nerf bat after all. That means that it will take 7 weapon destroyed results before the particle whip can't fire. With living metal, any shaken or stunned results can get ignored, so that route with hull breach can keep the mono in action longer. Gates of Eternity makes sense now and it's a lot less vulnerable to PF Wolf Lords haywire grenades, etc. I guess Mat Ward wasn't high or full of sh*t afterall when describing the monolith. Hull breach and immobilized is going to be the 'quick' way to kill it. I'm going to have to do the mathhammer for meltas now vs a SUPER HEAVY mono!:D

[Wrath]

Holy crap, you're right! Reading the Super heavy rule more closely, it is a super heavy with 1 SP. The Monolith didn't get hit with the nerf bat after all. That means that it will take 7 weapon destroyed results before the particle whip can't fire. With living metal, any shaken or stunned results can get ignored, so that route with hull breach can keep the mono in action longer. Gates of Eternity makes sense now and it's a lot less vulnerable to PF Wolf Lords haywire grenades, etc. I guess Mat Ward wasn't high or full of sh*t afterall when describing the monolith. Hull breach and immobilized is going to be the 'quick' way to kill it. I'm going to have to do the mathhammer for meltas now vs a SUPER HEAVY mono!:D

8 weapon destroyed.
6 for the Super heavy
1 for the structure point
1 because the vehicle can still fire after MT is gone it just loses the benefits of MT <everyone forgets this one>

"Reduce the multi-targeting value of the vehicle
by 1 for the rest of the game. If the value is
reduced to zero, the vehicle loses the multitargeting
rule and is only able to perform a
single Shooting action. If the vehicle suffers
another Damaged - Weapons result, it cannot
perform Shooting actions for the rest of the
game."

[Wildcard]

If i remember right, particle whip is an ordnance, thus requiring two heavy fire actions to be fired, so after monolith has lost its multi targeting, it cannot fire the whip, because it has only one heavy fire action left.

Unless if it has a special rule that it only requires one action to shoot its whip that is..

And now i repeat my previous statement:

I wish that the mighty landraider (14/14/14 armor) would get the "Vehicle (Heavy, Tank)" rules aswell.. :)

[DarkLink]

I also found this: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/


It took 48 hours of investigation, but now I can say that with almost 99% certainty that the leaked 6th ed pdf is a total fake.

[Necron_Lord]

I also found this: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

BoK also said that Necrons would get an SC to allow Flayed Ones to become a Troops choice among other false rumors. There are some phrases that make it look like there were some German-speakers who wrote it, but I still think that this is going to be what 6e will be like. I want to believe ...

[gcsmith]

I call bull on monolith, for it to become cheaper and even harder to kill is absolute crap

[HsojVvad]

I also found this: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

Funny how he doesn't really explain how it's a fake.

Oh well even if it's a fake, I think I will be trying to get people to be playing by this ruleset. Do you really think GW can make a better gaming system than this?

As someone said a few pages ago, GW really has a hard time not trying to make a better gaming system than this "fake" ruleset.

[HsojVvad]

Forgot about this one. Even if Game Workshop does deny that this is their work, did we all forget about Space Hulk? I clearly remember reading forums where it was said the GW denied that the mystery box was SH.

[oneking]

played this "leak" today and gotta say, I like it alot, much preferable to 5th ed. and if this thing is a total fake and 6th is nothing like it, well I will still play this leak, maybe call it leakhammer 40.5k or something. its alot of fun :D

[DarkLink]

BoK also said that Necrons would get an SC to allow Flayed Ones to become a Troops choice among other false rumors.


Funny how he doesn't really explain how it's a fake.


I've actually met Tastytaste, and he does have reliable sources. He doesn't know everything (no one outside of the actual codex writers do), and sometimes his info is a little outdated, but I can verify that he genuinely sees some stuff before it gets released. He doesn't always have first hand knowlege, but just because he isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that he isn't a pretty good source. He certainly knows more than any of us do.


I want to believe ...

Same here. The rules are a little rough, but with a little bit of polish these rules not only fix virtually every balance problem with both the weaker current codices ('nidz) but also making most of the older codices much more viable (tau, eldar), while nerfing some of the OP stuff that no one really likes such as MSU vehicle spam. And it makes the game much more streamlined and quicker to play, while simultaneously opening up more tactical options. All without requiring new codex updates.

[eldargal]

No rumourmonger is 100% accurate, getting a few things wrong is no indication that their sources are all bad. To illustrate I asked the two sources I have within GW about it and one said it was fake and the other said he thought it was real.:rolleyes: Both of these have been right and wrong about things.

[HsojVvad]

Yes this is fake just like Space Hulk is not the Surprise Box. Can't believe anything what GW says.

[DarkLink]

Right, GW may just be covering their bases. They can just say "I don't know what you're talking about" and whistle innocently, whether or not this is actually a legit leak.

[Maine]

I can say that this seems to be a ruleset that not only would I play, I'd pick up another army. It could definitely use some simplification (change Evasion to a BS mod with a couple rules to handle edge cases), but otherwise it looks really good.

If 6th edition isn't nearly as interesting as this ruleset seems to be, I will probably sell most of my armies (Guards, Nids, Necrons, SM-Salamanders), keeping only a handful of models. I haven't been motivated to bring model to table in nearly a year, and my club has mostly switched to Warmahordes (which I dislike) anyway.

[Guidebot]

Come on everyone. GW would never confirm if this was their 6th ed rules.

Like they'd ever send out an email to all their people saying, "yeap, guys, about this alleged leak, well yes, that's our 6th ed, the leak is real, so now you know".

See it from their point of view. The only email they'd ever send out is the one they did. It means nothing regarding the veracity of the 'leaked' document.

I'm not saying the document is or is not genuine (because actually, I don't know). All I'm saying is that this email from gw means nothing.

[Wolfshade]

I quite like this, though I agree with people regarding the wording of it. Some phraseology is just weird and while some are technically correct do not reflect how a native speaker *should* write.

There is quite a bit of a change, but lets not forget the huge changes that have happend previously like from 2nd to 3rd.

I hope that when 6th ed comes out (if it does) then some of the flavour of these would be kept.

[Thornoo1]

Id di this up:
Table of Contents (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516555/Page-of-Contents-1-2)

Word wizardry at its best

[Galadren]

As has been stated before this is an early version from last year. The final rules arent going to look like this.

[DarkLink]

There is quite a bit of a change, but lets not forget the huge changes that have happend previously like from 2nd to 3rd.

Actually, there isn't as much change as you might think. It's almost entirely formatting and organization that's been streamlined, and everything has been more precisely defined, but when you actually start playing it's very similar. Even though there's all this stuff about engage moves and charge moves and combat moves and cruise/run moves and such, really it's still just a 6" move and a 6" run or charge, only you do them at the same time. It sounds different, but really it's the same thing just organized better. Same thing with most of the other big changes.




Speaking of movement, I do wonder why they define four types of general moves (combat, engage, run/cruise, charge). Combat and engage moves are exactly the same, just that if you end the move locked in combat it's an engage move and if not it's a combat move. Same thing with run and charge moves, both are exactly the same just one ends in combat and one doesn't. They could just have two moves (combat and run/cruise) and give you the option of ending the moves with an assault as per the assault rules.

[Gir]

Speaking of movement, I do wonder why they define four types of general moves (combat, engage, run/cruise, charge). Combat and engage moves are exactly the same, just that if you end the move locked in combat it's an engage move and if not it's a combat move. Same thing with run and charge moves, both are exactly the same just one ends in combat and one doesn't. They could just have two moves (combat and run/cruise) and give you the option of ending the moves with an assault as per the assault rules.

It seems like they're just trying to close out an possible ambiguities and loop holes that might show up.

[Wildcard]

Move Actions:

Turn (what we now know as pivot)
- You can turn on the spot, clear and simple

Combat move (combat speed)
- You can move your move distance and still shoot, but you cannot go into melee

Run
- Infantry can double its move distance, but cannot shoot or go into melee

Cruise (cruising speed)
- Same as run for the infantry, double the move distance, cannot shoot weapons unless special rule "fast" (that case, you shoot as stationary)

Assault Actions

Charge
- Unit can move up to double its movement value and end the movement in melee, however, if they win the melee on that round, they cannot shoot another enemy (that is in range, and not tied into melee)

Engage
- Unit can move its move value and end the movement in melee. If they destroy the enemy on that round, they are free to shoot another enemy unit in the same turn (if the enemy is within range, you got line of sight and it is not tied into melee)

Notable points linked to these moves:

-Assault Transport
-- Unit may do a combat or engage move if the transport made a cruise move
(note that this means that you are not required to assault enemy, but instead can use your move (combat move) and still be able to move. Also, you can only do engage move if you want to get into melee)

-Open topped
-- Unit is allowed to make a run or charge move to disembarg if the open topped transport made a combat move.

Note that there is a fundamental difference of how assault- and open topped transports work. In the assault transport you can make a long move with vehicle, and short move with your troops. And in the open topped you can make a 'short' move (because some open topped transports are fast, and you can move a bit further on combat move), and then make a long movement out of the harms way, or long charge move to get into melee.


That said, we don't know what GWs got in mind for us, so its impossible to tell how these will affect overall gameplay, yet with such a many options for different kinds of movements, it is easier to make different units work in a different way, still being able to achieve a similar goal.

Just a quick example taken from the races I know:
-Landraider: You can get your land raider to shield you from enemy LoS, and if you so choose to bring up its big guns to wreck some havock amongst enemy lines
(marines basically have up to 24" range, that goes with LRs assault cannons, hurricane bolters, not to mention lascannons and heavy bolters.. on the other hand, rapid fire etc. is 12" which means that your redeemer flamestorm? cannons and flamers/heavy flamers/ incinerators are gonna be in range aswell (~8" template + 3" basic template range)

-Trukk: Fragile & fast vehicle with only one purpose: to get your boyz (and nobs) in to the fray. Now, it doesn't boast that impressive weaponry (and bigshootas range is 36"? anyway). From the trukk (and battlewagon) you are gonna launch bigger mobs of orks than you do from LandRaider(generally atleast). You dont want that trukk to be on the way of your moves, pile-ins, consolidations etc. And even less now that the hit is 'critical' strike you get from exploding vehicle not resolved with strenght/toughness, but on a D6 roll for every model, and on a roll of 1 you take automatic wound (invul saves allowed) :)

So get those trukks exploding near your orks and watch as they get blown to pieces by the shrapnel.. ;)

[HsojVvad]

One thing I do not understand with people saying it's an "early draft" or what not. If it's an early draft, why bother with place holder for pics?

So for me, this is eithe what 6th edition is going to be, or it's a fake. I can't see an early draft have place holders for pics. How is this going to help the beta testers then? Also if this is like 5th edition, where the first few pages are just filler, why start on page 10 then? what are the first few pages and why not include them? Where are the basic rules?

[Wildcard]

@HsojVvad:


Where are the basic rules?

What basic rules do you mean?


I can't see an early draft have place holders for pics. How is this going to help the beta testers then?

How about general readability? While you are trying to learn and play by the experimental rules, you are gonna need to browse through the pages. All info on how to 'group' stuff together for the ease of browsing is gonna be helpful. Also about the placeholders, if some situation feels a lot more complicated thus requiring bigger picture, those issues can be addressed aswell..

Just my thoughts though..

Back to my previous post: Just re-read the disembarking rules.. It says that if a transport has made combat move, disembarking unit can perform a combat or engage move! Every transport did just become 'assault vehicle' by the standards we know it now..

So, only bonus to the "Assault Transport" special rule is that the transport can make a cruise move and after that squad inside can make combat or engage move..

[Big Jim]

These are not the finished 6th edition rules, lets get that outta the way up front. So GW's denial is totally valid and not a lie. ;) However, I do believe them to be a rough playtest version of the new edition of the game.

The rules are consistent and have obviously been playtested, but there are rough spots which is what you would see in a playtest document. Through playtesting they will have been smoothed out and polished with some rules changing or disappearing completely in the final document that is out for printing.

Besides like has been said before GW would never admit that a leak of this magnitude is/was real.

[DarkLink]

One thing I do not understand with people saying it's an "early draft" or what not. If it's an early draft, why bother with place holder for pics?


Organizing the layout of the document is an important part of the development process, and one that has to be done alongside the writing as the length of the paragraphs depends on the wording used. It isn't the earliest draft, but that's far from saying that it's the final version. It could be about anywhere in between.

[eldargal]

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.

[Wildcard]

If the placeholders would contain something not important (gameplay wise) like illustrations of some huge battles, or art of other sort, then yes these would sound silly to have a spot reserved for them.

However, those pics where you can see how some action is meant to be taken are directly linked to the ruling right next to it, so it cannot be moved around, or tossed outright to the other side of the book. And many (if not all) of those place holders are reserved for a such role.