6th leak vs actual

[Azazel665]

So, can anyone with a book confirm how much/little overlap there is with the leak/hoax earlier this year? For all the furor about it at the time, I've not seen any analysis.

[daboarder]

very little overlap, infact I think the leak is superior to the actual.

[evilamericorp]

I agree with daboarder. The leak would have made for a much more fun game, and would have totally thrown the power balance into confusion. 6th is just going to cement the top tier in place. They are doing nothing to address the fundamental imbalance present in the codices.

[DarkLink]

The general changes in the leak were superior, but no, there is absolutely no relations to the leak and actual 6th ed.

About the only thing that both had was AP in close combat, and even that was implemented differently.

[Lexington]

Seems to me that it was definitely an early version, from what we know from people who've got the book. Mechanics may not be the same, but the ideas are there. Lots more granularity, differentiation of weapon types, directed wound allocation by snipers, 5+ as basic cover, etc. You can see the remnants of Evasion scores in Jink saves and Hull Points. "Look Out, Sir!" and a version of Overwatch stuck around. Flyers show alot of similarities, including Supersonic moves. You can buy terrain.

Really, more than any specifics, the final version of 6th seems to have the same goal as the leak - opening up new avenues of play, bringing new utility to existing units and making things more narrative. That's what really makes me confident that it was far from a fake.

[antennafarm]

agreed here. it's like looking at australopithecus vs homo sapiens. i dig the new edition (with some minor exceptions, and i suspect that these will at least in some respects be curtailed when certain codexes get updated). opens up a lot, revitalizes a lot (holy crap are eldar extra fast now), i think there's going to be A LOT of shakeup. hopefully GW doesn't waste it (did i just jinx it?).

[daboarder]

I have to disagree with you guys there, I think that while the goal of the new rules was to open up new play style I think ultimately all they have done is reinforce the strengths of 5th. Take for example the infamous aplha strike mech lists, the easiest way to level the playing field against such armies if you got stuck with the second turn was to reserve your whole army to at least give you a chance, this is no longer possible under the new rules.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Lots more granularity

Granularity? What is that?

[The Shadow King]

The difference is the leaked version was a pile of pants and the real one is decent...

[DrLove42]

The difference is the leaked version was a pile of pants and the real one is decent...

Think you'll find yourself in a minority with that opinion. Most people seemed to regard the "Heretic" rulebook as brilliant

[eldargal]

I thought the leaked hoax edition was ridiculously convoluted and rather horrible myself. There are a few issues with codex-6th ed relations but I'm quite pleased with the ruleset as a whole.

[DrLove42]

It wasn't the best organised no. Lots of flicking back and forth.

But once you got through that I think the rules were great and helped a lot

[Defenestratus]

very little overlap, infact I think the leak is superior to the actual.

This.

6th seems like a patch to me. Not nearly as big of changes as people think.

Psychics, Fliers, Fortifications, Allies

Then a bunch of overall meaningless updates as a whole.

[Lexington]

Granularity? What is that?
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granularity)!

In terms of this rules set, it's the focus on individual models rather than squad-wide actions, at least compared to the other 3rd Edition-based sets. 40K's always split the skirmish/army focus a little awkwardly, and this time's no different, but it looks to be a ton of fun.

[eldargal]

Having read over 6th edition twice I disagree, I think it is excellent and the leak was far too convoluted with far, far too many USRs on things like fast vehicles (eight or so!).

This.

6th seems like a patch to me. Not nearly as big of changes as people think.

Psychics, Fliers, Fortifications, Allies

Then a bunch of overall meaningless updates as a whole.

[jonsgot]

I think if the leaked rule had been finished, which it clearly wasn't it would have been an exciting change to the game.

I think there was a lot more more conman ground that people realised. Reduced number of moves per turn (No extra run move), reduced cover saves, look out sir (sort of), inclusion of flyers to name a few (and that's without looking ).

[Darnath Lysander]

When the leaked 5th edition came out, our group started playing by those rules immediately and felt really ahead of the game (so to speak) when 5th officially launched.

we considered doing the same with this leaked version. But, after looking through it. It just didn't seem as "real." I'm glad we didn't waste our time learning to play by a set of rules that turned out to be SO far off the mark of what the final rule-set has turned out to be.

The internet giveth, and the internet taketh away.

[Black Hydra]

I have but one question-was assaulting before shooting really that magnificent?

[Mr Mystery]

Wow! I guess some people have had their hands on BOTH for some time now!

You lucky devils, being able to avoid snap decisions and hyperbole like that!

[Wildcard]

Personally i think that in the "leaked" were lots of rules i would have loved to see in the tru6.

- Multitracker() etc, the one that allowed vehicles to shoot at multiple targets.
- Heavy- vehicle type (1 struckture point super- heavies)
- Multiple MasterCrafteds in a squad would reroll all together
- Assault weapons were 2nd ccw for the first round of combat when charging
- Heavyweapos (among others) were +1A when charging for MCs

None (that i know of) from those rules i was expecting are present in 6th ed book (i am not yet having one tho, gonna get my copy in 9hours when the shops open up) :)

[DarkLink]

I have but one question-was assaulting before shooting really that magnificent?

In and of itself, no. But the implications thereof, in particular consolidating all movement into a single action, was a huge, huge improvement. Ask the guys at Frontline gaming, they did a lot of playtesting and that single bit of streamlining cut out 20-30 min of unnecessary measuring and moving models from your average game, without losing any of the tactical options of moving/shooting/running/etc.

[Black Hydra]

@DarkLink: That is true. All the movement being done at once would be a great help. I'm still glad we're keeping the current phase line up, but I wouldn't mind trying a game that forces you to shoot or assault or something different.

[Azazel665]

@Darklink, you got a link to that? It wasn't evident from Frontline's front page.

[DarkLink]

They talk about it in their podcast, which, admittedly, would require a fair amount of searching to find. I'm lazy, so you'll have to take my word for it. I'm friends with Reece, though, so I spent a fair amount of time discussing the leak with him at the last Bay Area Open. Which, btw, I highly recommend everyone goes to. Even if it is in Antioch:rolleyes:.

Here's their news page, if you feel like searching for it: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/blog/

They did a couple of video battle reports as well, I think, but I'm not sure about that.