The Leak - A tally

[DrLove42]

Theres been a lot of comments on the appropriate threads about the rules. And through it all people have argued both sides a lot of opinions have been lost.

So. In strict a democratic way.

What do people think? Have a vote

And jsut to clarify - trolling means someones faked this to deliberatly pretend its 6th ed and mess with people.

A groups homebrew rules, means this is a set of rules, written by a gaming community to update their own games, and was never written to pretend to be 6th ed

[SeattleDV8]

I ignored it as a waste of time.
When GW releases an actual rule set then I will check it out.

[eldargal]

I'd vote 'I don't know but I think it is safer to err on the side of caution to avoid dissapointment'.

[Lord Azaghul]

I voted. I think we're being trolled but the rules are awesome.

I really hope its true and GW has finally decided to make a game not aimed at little kids - but employed, intelligent adults to want to buy their stuff, and play a well written game!

But my gut tells me GW just isn't capable of making these awesome rules.

The rules set just seems...too good, to have come from GW.

Hopefully I will be wrong about that.

[wittdooley]

I ignored it as a waste of time.
When GW releases an actual rule set then I will check it out.

You're missing out. It's a really wonderful ruleset. People around my neck-o-tha-woods are already playing it, and may continue even if it doesn't turn out to be 6th.

[Deadlift]

You're missing out. It's a really wonderful ruleset. People around my neck-o-tha-woods are already playing it, and may continue even if it doesn't turn out to be 6th.

That would be hilarious really if these rules turned out to be written by someone other than GW. I agree they do look good but Personally not had chance to play them yet.

If they are bogus I wonder if the writers responsible for 6th are looking at them and thinking " **** these are better than ours" lol

They could also be prototype rules and not actually the finished article. Either way I have faith 6th will be fun and I am actually looking forward more to seeing which direction the fluff is going to be taken.

[Charistoph]

I'd vote 'I don't know but I think it is safer to err on the side of caution to avoid dissapointment'.

This is my camp.

[L192837465]

The rules in that book are too good. I'll get my hopes up, because if they turn out to be wrong, I'm still using them.

[SotonShades]

I'd vote 'I don't know but I think it is safer to err on the side of caution to avoid dissapointment'.

Ditto.

I haven't actually read the original file, so I can't comment on how good, bad or indifferent they are. As for whether or not they are real; my gut tells me no, but I have nothing to support for or against this other than the idea that GW wouldn't purposefully let the rules out ('cus who is going to buy it when there is a free pdf floating about?) and I doubt they would be so careless to let the ruleset out of the studio. Ok, so there is the chance of a disgruntled employee, but I doubt it.

So homebre or trolling? From what I've heard the rules are too good to be trolling. Again, that is only what I've heard. A ruleset written the way hobbiests want to play it, written by the only people who know what that actually is? Makes sense to me. Yes, something of this magnitude is a big project, but it wouldn't be the first or even biggest I've seen... we nerds/geeks/whatever do seem to bring up the crazy in amazing ways; full-sized, fully-functional Halo Worthogs, people building 40k armies from Inquisator scale models; have you seen some of the homemade Star Wars films!?!

So yeh, I don't know. I reckon it is probably homebrew if anything, but haven't read it because I don't want to be dissapointed one way or another when I get to enjoy that new book smell!

[Denied]

I voted that I like it, but the reality is I still have a few mixed feelings about things. Not sure yet I need to get play testing in with it, but I have been too busy play testing for up coming GT's !

[yrdetraxe]

I actually think they are genuine. And I hope I'm right, because from what I've read, and I've read everything, this is a very good alpha version for solid and balanced rulesystem. The best I've seen so far for GW. ^^

And if it turns out to be a homebrow I hope GW will dump their own rules and use these. LOL

I cannot imagine it to be a deliberat fake, too much work was invested in these pages.

[Lexington]

I'm definitely in the 'it's real' camp. For one thing, there's just too much in this document that explains odd decisions and wordings in the recent Necron Codex, and the mechanics involved are too integral to the system to have just been bolted on since.


As for whether or not they are real; my gut tells me no, but I have nothing to support for or against this other than the idea that GW wouldn't purposefully let the rules out ('cus who is going to buy it when there is a free pdf floating about?) and I doubt they would be so careless to let the ruleset out of the studio.
Happened before. A nearly complete copy of 5th Edition leaked a number of months before the actual book came out. The final product had a few changes, but it was almost exactly the same. I doubt this iteration is as complete as the 5th Edition leak was, but it's almost certainly the shape of what 6th will look like.

[Lockark]

I like them, but not going to say one way or the other if thier real or fake.

@M@

Hopeing their realy, and thinking their realy are to different things. XD

[DrLove42]

I have to say the vote is a pretty clear indication of people today.

How many of the "genuine" votes are people saying its real cos they want it to be i don't know, but it seems to be winning.

At the same time, regardless of the source they seem to be very well liked as a rule system

[jeffersonian000]

I voted " I think its offical, and it sucks". Looks like a pre-beta release ruleset, but I'm not happy with the special rules with special rules within special rules dynamic, would rather they go with an easier to follow clearly written ruleset. 5th is fine, just needs a once over by a competent editor to clarify the wording so that intent is clear rather than guessed at. The "leaked" ruleset appears to be attempting to address this, yet in a more convoluted rather than simplified way. I like seeing apocalypse rules rolled into the general ruleset, and most of the rules seem workable if not outright improvements to the existing ruleset.

But come on! We don't need 3 levels of complexity for Instant Death and Eternal Warrior! We don't need overly complex multi-layered movement/terrain interaction rules!

The attempt to clarify known problem areas is a valid effort. Please do it in an easier to follow formate.

SJ

[St.Germaine]

I voted in the first category as it's the closest thing to what I really think - I hope it's real because these are better than GW's.

While I personally hope this a draft version from GW (disgruntled employee or GW finally pulled their collective heads out of you-know-where and looking for consumer input (without admitting they're doing so) doesn't matter to me), I admit that this could be a group effort. I was involved in the project over at B&C when they came up with a viable fix for the monkey-frak that GW handed us for chapter traits in the Space Marine codex a few years ago. Something this complex could easily have been done by a group but, I am completely skeptical that a project of this size could have been done without somebody on some forum having mentioned it. And once it got mentioned somewhere, it would be talked about everywhere.