Topic: 40K Sixth edition "leak" - Ooooh nurse!

[Gerald_Tremblay]

The rules could be fanmade, but were formated in the GW format seen in the 5th ed leaked pdf a few years ago to look like a 6th ed leaked rulebook

[Shas'Oink]

GW claim that the rules are fake. That's fine, whether it be true or not. But interestingly, there will probably be a scrambled to lay claim over them because there are lots of things in teh rules that people like and I can see someone taking them, adapting them and publishing them.

If GW are lying (and they are a real leak) then they'd rue the day they admitted the rules didn't belong to them!

[Benis]

I can see someone taking them, adapting them and publishing them.

You mean like 2nd edition, 5th edition, WHFB, Epic and Warmahordes?

[Alienscar]

Not to fear, it's a hoax.  Two new stats were added and described, yet not included in the example statline.

Check out pages 28 & 70 of the leaked rule book which explains exactly why Move and Evasion aren't listed as a characteristic or included in the statline.

[HORDE]

So far, I don't like what I'm hearing.  Granted, I haven't read these rules myself, and my fellow eldar players seem to like them so far, but most of what I've heard is a bit of a turn-off. 

Sounds like mechanized armies will be even more prevalent, if more killable.  I sort of wanted to see infantry armies become more viable, not less.  If any more emphasis is put on purchasing vehicles for the game, I'm not sure you'll see me playing much in the future.

infantry got a boost in terms of vulnerability to being hit by shooting and movement. Infantry armies tend to be assault based (orks, tyranids, jump pack blood angels) and got a much improvement movement. You say mech would be much more prevalent - big gun tanks like predators, russes, hammerheads and land raiders? yes. how many of those do you see on the competitive scene? off the top of my head, only really predators with regularity. The current way to go with mech is transport based and being in a transport for infantry is quite a danger - no armour saves if the tank gets blowed up? no thanks. you also can't claim objectives while embarked, which is a huge change.

Flamers hitting infantry inside of vehicles sounds nice and all, but then I realize that my eldar are currently pretty dependent on *not* getting hit by incoming attacks before they leave their transport.  At least spiders and hawks can potentially arrive with scattering and all that, but that hasn't generally been a problem for me in the past.

how often do people get close enough to put a flamer template on your wave serpant before its delivered its cargo?

Is there anything positive in there for those of us who like relatively small armies with a low number of vehicles?
[/quote]

While its hard to say for sure without some actual play testing, I actually don't feel like tanks gain much in power overall with this, and non-tank non-skimmer vehicles actually took a nerf.  Yeah, the tanks got some bonuses, but I feel like those are balanced out by the downsides of being far easier to hit with shooting attacks now and the way vehicle damage stacks.

agreed, but it encourages MSU style shooting as glances all from 1 squad count as being resolved simultaneously, so to stack damage you need multiple units shooting at the target.

we might see the return of lascannons though, which would be nice.

For infantry, I haven't spotted the actual rule for this yet (I've been doing a lot of jumping around and skimming not a proper cover to cover read) so if someone else has, please point it out, but there are several references that indicate/imply that regular gropos might get to fire twice when stationary.

Yes, but you are still limited to firing each gun only once, so you could be within 12 inches and rapid fire, then pistol shoot as marines if you really didn't want to charge.

  And there are conditions where they can fire in enemy turns, including into a unit about to assault them in some cases.

This is being argued to death over on dakka dakka. yes its possible to have a "stand and shoot" reaction to being charged but currently there's only 1 unit in the game with that ability - Coteaz. What units can do, is fire on a unit that deepstrikes within 6 inches of them.

Movement for infantry in general is now faster due to a run roll effectively always being a 6 now.  Overall, I feel that infantry, particularly shootie infantry, gain more then vehicles do.

I think shooty infantry lose out, actually. BS4 models hit infantry who are standing still (say, long fangs?) on a 2+. With the way blast templates are changed, i can see a lot more plasma cannons appearing.

But that's just my initial impression.  Playtesting would be needed for an accurate assessment, and even then who knows what might change between now and publication.

given that, if this is legit (and i'm inclined to believe it is, at the moment), it is likely a draft copy for playtesting use - GW have a playtesting group in Germany. the "Heck" typo and poor linguisitics make sense when you think that "Heck" is rear in German. There will probably be a fair amount of change. I do expect, though, to see 60-70% of these rules implemented. They make a far better game system.

[Commissar Fuklaw]

What's the theory? An American got a German playtest copy and translated it?

It's been pointed out that British English/American English is completely inconsistent throughout this rules set.

[murgel]

that mixing could indicate in the direction of a German doing the translation.

It is a real problem over here that people really do not differentiate between English and American. To the extent that they actually do not know what would be what.

[angel of death 007]

After finally reading thru it I am really on the fence over if it is real or not.   GW has been moving forward in a more simplistic route (even in their tournaments) The introduction of a more complex rule system I dunno if I can see it.   Yes it fixes some of the problems current in 5th edition but it also has a decent amount of change as well.   

I am still leaning toward the side that it is fan based.   When you look at such things as "Death Squads" you realize that fans are very capable of creating a decent set of rules.   The reason why I say it is fan based is because it is like "death squads", it tries to do way to much.   I can see how some of the rules might make the game go faster yet there are other parts that look like they will slow the game up almost as much as it fixes it.   

"Death squads" suffers from the over abundance of rules, which is hard for the average person to pick up and play having never played it before.   Could GW do a simplier version in their battle box, possibly.  I dunno, it seems a little off base for me to buy into at this point in time.   

I have always been a fan of overwatch though, so we will see, I definately can't say I hate the possible new rules but they seem to be going more toward complex than simple.  Also the fact that they did a revision for the codex's really pushed me toward the fact that this is more a hoax then GW.   Since when has GW done an update or a FAQ prior to a release.  They always seem to do it several months after and codex updates don't really happen or rather might happen in WD.  The inclusion of apocalypse rules makes me believe that they are atleast following all the "rumors".

[Judderr]

I'm on the fence on this one, if I'm honest, but I have previously discessed leaks with my Local GW manager and he said that GW actually make different 'fake' versions of rules and publish them on the internet as leaks, to throw people off the scent of the actual rules.

Not my words, so take it with some salt.   

[Disciple of Nagash: GT]

GW claim that the rules are fake. That's fine, whether it be true or not. But interestingly, there will probably be a scrambled to lay claim over them because there are lots of things in teh rules that people like and I can see someone taking them, adapting them and publishing them.

Link to this? And if it's true, I'm officially claiming that I created them and will be publishing them as a set of rules for my own game in the near future called "Humanity in the 41st Millennium"...

[Spacefrisian]

Its the amount of pages that some claim this to be the real deal, not realising that going around forum for some days copy and paste everything in 1 document can amount to the same number of pages with an hour.

Ill only believe a rules set if i have thactual thing in my hands.

[THE Dwarf]

Firstly sorry if what I say may of been repeated
Just came across this post - and well too lazy to read through all three pages in one go
So sorry if this is repeated from what may of been said in one of the many many posts on here

Anyway I got copy of the so called 6th Ed book
Only flicked through it a bit so far

There is, to me, a good idea that this is a leaked section of the 6th Ed rule book
 As surely GW 'leak' some information, images, rules etc... to get hype up
So people want it, and therefore buy it
Anyway... if it is or isn't here some notes I just came across

It does more complex than 4th Ed, which could be better for the game I feel
But hopefully wont over complicate things, as could risk slowing the game down

I like how blast weapons against vehicles now have a better chance to damage if 'hole' scatters off the target - and not going to half strength
That annoyed me and other players my area as the blast same strength against infantry if they under hole or not
But it good how it reduces what you can roll on the damage chart (which still not seen of the To Hit charts etc...)

Interesting how Cover has changed, with 4th Ed 4+ was EVERYWHERE
Amazing how a bunch of trees caused a Fire Prism focused blast made them get 4+ cover
Not that realistic
Where as now 5+ seems to be all the range - unless in a bastion or alike
So may open the game more
Plus, be able to kill the damn Orks and 'Nids quicker
But will still "Need more guns!!!" 

Also, I not too keen on how EVERY weapon - ranged and combat - now have a myriad of 'types' which gonna get confusing for a while I feel

I also got the Codex Update - boy are there a lot

GW claim that the rules are fake. That's fine, whether it be true or not. But interestingly, there will probably be a scrambled to lay claim over them because there are lots of things in the rules that people like and I can see someone taking them, adapting them and publishing them.

Link to this? And if it's true, I'm officially claiming that I created them and will be publishing them as a set of rules for my own game in the near future called "Humanity in the 41st Millennium"...

That sounds like a great idea
Damn my slowness
lol

[Azonalanthious]

Its the amount of pages that some claim this to be the real deal, not realising that going around forum for some days copy and paste everything in 1 document can amount to the same number of pages with an hour.

Ill only believe a rules set if i have thactual thing in my hands.

Eh, again, I'm not sold its legit.  But its also not an hour's worth of work Space.  Even if someone was purely stealing work from things like the forge on this board and tossing it into a document, the amount of cross referencing within the document and formatting would run more then an hour.  Not weeks or months, but more then an hour.

[DarthChaos]

There isnt much I can say on the real vs fake debate that has not been said, but I do know that with my game group it has had a positive effect.  Unfortunately my group has moved away from 40k due to the ever present rules issues and lawyering that is involved with 40k (mostly cover debates or rule interpretations).  When those kind of game slowing discussions dont occur in games like warmachine or malifaux.  The only way lately I have been able to get my group to get into 40k at all is by buying necrons when they came out and turning it to "randomly determine which game system we are doing next week" luckily getting 40k instead of malifaux or warmachine.  Point being my group has all but abandoned 40k, then this rule set hits the interwebs and someone gets a hold of it, shows it to the group and now we are discussing 40k like children up late at a sleep over.  Whether it is real or not, I dont know, I would like to think it is due to all the different rules coming out but I am glad for the excitement it has generated for my group for 40k as they all really like the way the rules are written. 

Being a Chaos player and greatly anticipating the new legions dex  I can see how a lot of the rules could play into customizing many of the legions. It could open it up to having all the legions having the same core units but each legions units would have different rules.  An Alpha legions units get veil, and so forth and so on, it could lead to interesting flavor in the new dexes that quite frankly (at least in the chaos dex) is missing. 

If it is real, I am with the crowd that thinks its a alpha/beta rule set, hastily thrown together to get early playtests in before the polishing, and the whole done in german and translated to english has a decent amount of believability for me.  I know GW hasnt done a game wide codex update but for playtesting purposes only, to make them viable with the new rule set... I think they would for just in house, it makes a lot of sense to me, but then again, it is me.  I also agree with those that say if it is a hoax, GW give that writer a job.  As pointed out on the first page of this thread though this is the first dex without Priestly and we could see a very big change, bottom line is we will all have to wait and see but until then, I am glad to have this little nugget of info getting my 40k thoughts flowing and those of my game group.

[Judderr]

I've spoken to a manager at my local store about it, and he says that he believes it is the real deal.  He believes it is the first play-test of the new rules, so they will be tweaked compared to what they are now.

And about the fact that it looks like 2nd edition, GW think that the 2nd edition and the 5th edition were the best two so far, and therefore mashed them together to get what they think are the best rules so far.

So, that's what I heard... 

[Guildmage Aech]

GW think that the 2nd edition and the 5th edition were the best two so far...

Do they now? Seems a bit far fetched a suggestion to me.

[High Grandmaster smithmyster666 of the Grey Knights]

I can't agree with you on that judderr, its common belief that 4th was the golden age of gaming

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Really?  We must have played different editions of the game as there were a lot of problems with 4th ed.

[Pershore]

People think that the first edition they play is the best.

[NightMoor]

Oh dear god 4th ed was so horrible in so many ways. 5th ed has rejuvenated the game in sales and player base so I wouldn't be surprised if GW view it rather positively .