6th Edition 40K Rules Leak

[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. 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.