Flashman wrote:So... fake then. I'm kind of relieved. Those rules actually made my head hurt.

Managed reserves would have been good though

Are you basing this on the 4chan post or the denial by gw? Because neither of those is actually reliable as evidence.

Well, it Seems to be too Good to Be written by a gw employee.

We won't know for sure if these are fake or not for awhile, I'm still under the impression they are real

Rented Tritium wrote:

Flashman wrote:So... fake then. I'm kind of relieved. Those rules actually made my head hurt.

Managed reserves would have been good though

Are you basing this on the 4chan post or the denial by gw? Because neither of those is actually reliable as evidence.

Both, in fact, point towards true they are so bad.

Flashman wrote:So... fake then. I'm kind of relieved. Those rules actually made my head hurt.

Managed reserves would have been good though

Where are you getting this information?

The secret box is NOT Space Hulk...

These rules are NOT 6th Edition....

Satan wrote:

Posts like this don't add anything to the discussion - I don't mean to be rude, but if you know something then spill some beans.

.

No worries mate, it doesn't come across as rude.

I'm not able to say anything else unfortunately, as I've been told in confidence.

Is this ruleset fake? Maybe. Still, when the Grey Knight codex leak happened, I thought they were pure bunk - a fan-made, drug induced wishlist at best. Boy, was I wrong.

Real or fake, we should petition GW to make this a reality. So many here have said they like what they see and it would be a good time to tell GW to listen to the gamers!

It'd be funny if these were fake, and ended up coming out as generic miniature rules after the official GW 6th came out, and vast amounts of 40k players played these underground rules instead.

"Oh, I only play the official 6th edition rules at tournies. Otherwise I use these better rules that appeared back in January..."

Pacific wrote:No worries mate, it doesn't come across as rude.

I'm not able to say anything else unfortunately, as I've been told in confidence.

and yet you said something, which makes it unlikely that you actually know something.

Breotan wrote: a fan-made, drug induced wishlist at best. Boy, was I wrong.

No, you were right.

Pacific wrote:

Satan wrote:

Posts like this don't add anything to the discussion - I don't mean to be rude, but if you know something then spill some beans.

.

No worries mate, it doesn't come across as rude.

I'm not able to say anything else unfortunately, as I've been told in confidence.

Ok, but I take it you can, according to your source - say that these aren't the rules/droids we're looking for. As far as you've heard that is. :-)

I definitely like the look of these rules a lot more than the messy imbalance of 5th, and am looking forward to hearing back from people who've playtested them.

agnosto wrote:The secret box is NOT Space Hulk...

That one's a classic.

Satan wrote:

Ok, but I take it you can, according to your source - say that these aren't the rules/droids we're looking for. As far as you've heard that is. :-)

In any case, I think it's out of the bag now, as messages went out to all the GW stores about it today.

Pacific wrote:

Satan wrote:

Ok, but I take it you can, according to your source - say that these aren't the rules/droids we're looking for. As far as you've heard that is. :-)

In any case, I think it's out of the bag now, as messages went out to all the GW stores about it today.

But a GW denial is not proof either way. They would deny it no matter what.

I would consider using these even if they turn out to be fake! I like the idea of grouping movements and assaults at the beginning of the turn and the tweaks to template/blast weapons. Perhaps the greatest is the wound allocation nerf and KP change that makes a death star unit a juicy target. =]

Guys no one is going to convince the other-side of one way or the other, each side will be able to debase any argument the other side puts forward so lets drop it. That is unless you take pride in wasting your time. So for the sake of continued dialogue that is worthwhile I am going to treat it as a early draft of some rules we can expect in 6th and go from there. Does not matter if they are real or not I can still have fun with them.

As I am sure it has been stated before, the GK codex was a good example of a leak that became true. Now the 6th ed rules? Im going to wait and see on this one, but my gut tells me its the real thing maybe with a few tweeks here and there.

Another note, lack of templars on the codex update, which just seems to fit perfectly with other rumors out there as templars being the launch bed for 6th ed.

I want to go on record to vouch for Pacific. Not that it may mean anything to anyone.

Concerning the "leaked" rules: Maybe I'm crazy, but I was reminded of playing in 2nd edition as I read through it.

agnosto wrote:The secret box is NOT Space Hulk...

These rules are NOT 6th Edition....

Yeah, the space hulk denial weeks before its release (and after months of rumors about it being space hulk) will pretty much get me to not believe any further denials.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:

Concerning the "leaked" rules: Maybe I'm crazy, but I was reminded of playing in 2nd edition as I read through it.

I was, too. That's why I'm hoping these aren't the real 6th ed rules.

Knowing my luck, they will be and it'll finally push me from "not buying GW anymore" to full "done with buying AND playing GW" status.

Leth wrote:Guys no one is going to convince the other-side of one way or the other, each side will be able to debase any argument the other side puts forward so lets drop it.

Rubbing in one's standpoint makes the I-told-you-so moment much much sweeter. That's what it's about.

If these rules are fake, we've been handed a golden opportunity. Strip out all the GW stuff, reduce them to bare rules, and disseminate them. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but game rules themselves are not copyrightable or trademarkable, so we could take the rules content itself and reword them if necessary for release.

If Kenzer & Company can manage to do it with Kingdoms of Kalamar (and against the industry titan WOTC, no less), I see no reason why we could not do the same here.

pretre wrote:

Pacific wrote:

Satan wrote:

Ok, but I take it you can, according to your source - say that these aren't the rules/droids we're looking for. As far as you've heard that is. :-)

In any case, I think it's out of the bag now, as messages went out to all the GW stores about it today.

But a GW denial is not proof either way. They would deny it no matter what.

Reminds me of Life of Brian and that only the true Messiah would deny his divinty

You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

A poll about this being real or fake would be fun.

Easier to count how many I-told-yo-so will have.

Andrew1975 wrote:You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

Yeah, because people have never gone on suicide missions to take out high value targets in literature, movies, video games or reality.

Wouldn't they need to deny this in any case?
If it was a Intentional leak, so as it get us excited or playtest the rules, or gauge response, our feedback could be biased if we knew it was real, thus we wouldn't poke the same kind of holes in the idea.
If it was an accidental leak of the real/early product, they need to deny it was so that they can keep up IP rights on their own merchandise. Otherwise any fake codex that doesn't say "I'm fake" could claim precedent from this one for being real.
If it is a fan/troll dex, they are in all rights to deny it since such is true and has caused enough of a stir that they need to shut it up.

GW's biggest problem is if real 6th edition is an exact or exact enough copy of these rules that people now no longer have to buy the codex when 6th comes out, they can just play with what we all have now, (with minor edits if necessary).

Of course, there is the chance that GW's marketing staff determined that releasing this leak would drive up excitement/rumors/emotions about their product enough that the few people who print out this thing and don't just buy a codex anyway lose them less money than they gain from all this chatter making people want the new edition.

You get a heck of a lot more sales by getting people exicted about buying something BEFORE it's avaliable, than you do making it avaliable and telling everyone it's good afterward. I'm looking at you video game pre-orders.

Edit: Especially if it turns out to suck afterwards. ::has buyers remorse::

I can honestly say that if the 6th ed rules from games-workshop don't look like this "leak" then it looks like I'm going to be playing some fan made rules. If someone knows something, just confirm it....damn.

In any case: The mystery release is NOT Space Hulk. Being reminded of that got me laughing pretty hard

otakutaylor wrote:GW's biggest problem is if real 6th edition is an exact or exact enough copy of these rules that people now no longer have to buy the codex when 6th comes out, they can just play with what we all have now, (with minor edits if necessary).

The internet forums base is a small percentage of their overall sales base. As well, the ready availability of PDF copies has not really done much to sales in the past for them.

You get a heck of a lot more sales by getting people exicted about buying something BEFORE it's avaliable, than you do making it avaliable and telling everyone it's good afterward. I'm looking at you video game pre-orders.

God, I hope they go back to this idea. Although that hobbit rumor may be why they had to move away from it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:If these rules are fake, we've been handed a golden opportunity. Strip out all the GW stuff, reduce them to bare rules, and disseminate them. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but game rules themselves are not copyrightable or trademarkable, so we could take the rules content itself and reword them if necessary for release.

If Kenzer & Company can manage to do it with Kingdoms of Kalamar (and against the industry titan WOTC, no less), I see no reason why we could not do the same here.

I'd be totally down on helping with this. My first reaction was, "Hey, the INAT people could run with this!" but they would probably rather not due to workload/legal issues/conflicts of interest/etc. A decentralized, Tree House style of editing may work significantly better. If it is all fake, I'll take this rules set over what GW plans on releasing. It won't work for tourneys, but most (99%) of our games out here in Van are casual and we already have a great deal of buzz going over this.

Hehe, perhaps the spirit of the game will truly take on a life of its own now, eh?

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

Yeah, because people have never gone on suicide missions to take out high value targets in literature, movies, video games or reality.

Not at the rate they do in 40K. And not as boldly either. I mean where does IG get all these vets from anyway, if IG die by the waves would you really always use your vets for almost certain suicide missions? Rarely have I seen anyone with enough IG on the field at the end of a battle to even be able to field so many vets in the next game.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:Concerning the "leaked" rules: Maybe I'm crazy, but I was reminded of playing in 2nd edition as I read through it.

Pretre has heard this one before, but I'm pretty sure that the missing pages 1-21 are Strategy Cards. Virus Outbreak, anyone?

Andrew1975 wrote:

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

Yeah, because people have never gone on suicide missions to take out high value targets in literature, movies, video games or reality.

Not at the rate they do in 40K. And not as boldly either. I mean where does IG get all these vets from anyway, if IG die by the waves would you really always use your vets for almost certain suicide missions?

If you read anything regard IG in the fluff and books(aside from Gaunt's Ghosts), pretty much all the IG DO when attacking is suicide runs using wave after wave of bodies. They become Vets by surviving that a couple times.

So yeah, Vets making suicide runs with meltas is totally in character and fitting.

Absolutionis wrote:

Flashman wrote:So... fake then. I'm kind of relieved. Those rules actually made my head hurt.

Managed reserves would have been good though

Where are you getting this information?

I'm going by what reds8n said earlier. He usually has a good nose for this kind of thing.

Platuan4th wrote:If you read anything regard IG in the fluff and books(aside from Gaunt's Ghosts), pretty much all the IG DO is suicide runs using wave after wave of bodies. They become Vets by surviving that a couple times.

So yeah, Vets making suicide runs with meltas is totally in character and fitting.

This is IG basis, indeed. Any other modus operandi in a IG commander should be punished...

It's not like GW would ever admit that they are real, even if they are. Of course they are denying it, and saying that they are fake, they've done this sort of thing in the past like with Space Hulk as already brought up.

These are obviously not the finished rules, so them saying that they are not sixth ed is not a total lie.

GW are simply in damage control mode.

Andrew1975 wrote:Not at the rate they do in 40K. And not as boldly either. I mean where does IG get all these vets from anyway, if IG die by the waves would you really always use your vets for almost certain suicide missions? Rarely have I seen anyone with enough IG on the field at the end of a battle to even be able to field so many vets in the next game.

Nothing, even in the fluff, happens as much as it does on the table and certainly not in reality. I hate to break it to you but it is a game. A simulation. We don't have lasers, space elves or Space Marines in real life. Maybe in the far future, it really is worth trading 10 vets for a single tank.

Platuan4th wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

Yeah, because people have never gone on suicide missions to take out high value targets in literature, movies, video games or reality.

Not at the rate they do in 40K. And not as boldly either. I mean where does IG get all these vets from anyway, if IG die by the waves would you really always use your vets for almost certain suicide missions?

If you read anything regard IG in the fluff and books(aside from Gaunt's Ghosts), all the IG DO is suicide runs using wave after wave of bodies. They become Vets by surviving that a couple ties.

Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

Andrew1975 wrote:You know. I'm sad about one thing, nothing has been done to curtail the melta suicide squad that I feel as really ruined the game. It's completely unrealistic.

You can't disembark at cruising speed. AP1 only ignores the -1 damage for tanks, no effect on other vehicles.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

If they want to fix it, give units experience points. . .somehow.

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

Andrew1975, meet 40k. 40k, meet Andrew1975. I know you guys might not be familiar, but I'm sure you'll become great friends.

Practically every book about Imperial Guard is about throwing bodies into the meat grinder. It is what they do. What part of dystopian future in space is not clicking? The Imperium would throw vets away like that because life is the cheapest thing they have.

otakutay wrote:

GW's biggest problem is if real 6th edition is an exact or exact enough copy of these rules that people now no longer have to buy the codex when 6th comes out, they can just play with what we all have now, (with minor edits if necessary).

GW did a net release of 4th edition prior to printing and encouraged play testing and feedback.

Maybe this is the same thing, but with a viral marketing approach.

puma713 wrote:If they want to fix it, give units experience points. . .somehow.

Oh dear lord no. Then we'll all be grinding boars to get our squads up to snuff before going to a tournament and Emperor help you if you run into the guy who just plays 24/7.

Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

Andrew1975, meet 40k. 40k, meet Andrew1975. I know you guys might not be familiar, but I'm sure you'll become great friends.

Practically every book about Imperial Guard is about throwing bodies into the meat grinder. It is what they do. What part of dystopian future in space is not clicking? The Imperium would throw vets away like that because life is the cheapest thing they have.

Doesn't one of the rulebook intros end with something like 'whatever happens, you won't be missed.'?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

No, it's not. The IG fluff has been like that longer than the army played that way. IG were exceedingly static in 2nd and early 3rd despite the fluff talking about sending wave after wave of squads to their death.

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Not at the rate they do in 40K. And not as boldly either. I mean where does IG get all these vets from anyway, if IG die by the waves would you really always use your vets for almost certain suicide missions? Rarely have I seen anyone with enough IG on the field at the end of a battle to even be able to field so many vets in the next game.

Nothing, even in the fluff, happens as much as it does on the table and certainly not in reality. I hate to break it to you but it is a game. A simulation. We don't have lasers, space elves or Space Marines in real life. Maybe in the far future, it really is worth trading 10 vets for a single tank.

Yes I know, as usual trying to crate anything that resembles a rational real situation in 40k is verboten. What was I thinking, trying to inject a modicum of reality in this game. God forbid we have some actual real life tactics.

I digress, PEW-PEW-PEW.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes I know, as usual trying to crate anything that resembles a rational real situation in 40k is verboten. What was I thinking, trying to inject a modicum of reality in this game. God forbid we have some actual real life tactics.

I digress, PEW-PEW-PEW.

you're looking for the historicals forum. Try scrolling down the main page a bit more.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

*raises hand*

Tin-foil Conspiracy: This ruleset was made by one of GW's competitors. It was made to get whomever is left playing 40k really excited.

The plan is when GW actually releases 6th edition it will naturally be bad, piss off people, invalidate armies, and be so far away from this write up that the 40k players give up on the game and go to the other Miniature Companies!!

PP has been stockpiling miniatures in a secret bunker in St. Joeseph, Missouri awaiting the release.

Sorry I couldn't help myself with all the silliness

You know that on the table just because a model is removed from the table, dosen't mean he's really dead. It shows that he is not able to continue the battle so he/she may have crawled off to a medic or something.

Platuan4th wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

No, it's not. The IG fluff has been like that longer than the army played that way. IG were exceedingly static in 2nd and early 3rd despite the fluff talking about sending wave after wave of squads to their death.

Yes they were sent in waves to their deaths, but they were not all hell bent to be in suicide squads is all I'm saying. That's what human bombs and penal legions were for, not your average guardsmen. They were to busy gaking themselves behind some cover. A much more realistic way to portray the situation. With mind you the same basic effect.

I think we should commit to official "yes/no" camps regarding the validity of this leak.

I propose the great The 6th Edition Leak Told You So Campaign. Choose your side! Are you Team True or Team Fake? Post it in your signature, let's just run with this.

I am also still on the record about the whole "Project Prisoner" rumor meaning that the box is Dark Angels v. Chaos Space Marines to take a fallen prisoner. If I am going to be wrong I might as well get on the record and be wrong about as many things as possible.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes they were sent in waves to their deaths, but they were not all hell bent to be in suicide squads is all I'm saying. That's what human bombs and penal legions were for, not your average guardsmen. They were to busy gaking themselves behind some cover. A much more realistic way to portray the situation.

I'm not sure that you are at all familiar with the fluff.

Andrew1975 wrote: What was I thinking, trying to inject a modicum of reality in this game. God forbid we have some actual real life tactics.

This is year 40K stuff, space ships, psychic powers, mutants and aliens. If I want reality, there are other games.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes I know, as usual trying to crate anything that resembles a rational real situation in 40k is verboten. What was I thinking, trying to inject a modicum of reality in this game.

I think partly their point is that the nature of IG's attitude to the value of experienced warriors is realistic.

It probably takes more effort and is less efficient to let a Vet live and retain him for special purpose than to blindly throw bodies at a problem until it dies.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

Yes.

I mean, you must be.

Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

-Loki- wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

Okay, I don't know that any part of that sentence is true, unless you are only talking about the vocal folks. We have no data on whether the majority of GW's customers or even dakka's members like or dislike GW rules, although one might assume since they all came to hang out on a site called DakkaDakka, they might like them a little. Also, we don't know yet who likes or dislikes the new rules, although the anecdotal response from the folks who have responded to the threads has been positive.

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

Andrew1975, meet 40k. 40k, meet Andrew1975. I know you guys might not be familiar, but I'm sure you'll become great friends.

Practically every book about Imperial Guard is about throwing bodies into the meat grinder. It is what they do. What part of dystopian future in space is not clicking? The Imperium would throw vets away like that because life is the cheapest thing they have.

In the Grimdark Future, the IG doesn't fight for the Emperor, they die for the Emperor.

Aren't units that are removed as casualties not always considered to have died?
Sometimes they're just too wounded to fight, turned tail and ran, or were separated under fire and lost.
I would venture to guess that even the suicide squads that assault a tank with a single meltagun might just scatter when they get shot at. True some of them die, but most get captured by the enemy, flee, or hide till the fights over.

Surviving war in 40k would make anyone a veteran, even if he did it hiding in the hole the tank that was just firing at him made in the side of a building till it rolled past.

Of course, the game is as stated earlier a simulation, so we can't know what exactally happened, so instead they default to the coolest possible thing happening, which is in almost every case the choice that involved death and/or explosion.

Also, I'm curious. the new rulebook doesn't state the rules for a laspistol in CC. I would guess that's because nothing that has a laspistol would use it over their basic CC since it lacks AP. Dunno if it was said already, but IG veterans with free shotguns and their CC weapon. Not a terrible cheap CC choice.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Just migrated over from Warseer as the mods haven't yet figured out how they want to deal with this topic yet and are removing all threads relating to it...

I agree that a denial from GW means nothing, particularly if we aren't given the specific nature of the denial. I was a solicitor for years - believe me there are dozens of ways to put something ambiguously so that it could mean any number of things.

If it's a legit early draft/play-test version, GW could say 'this isn't 6th edition' and later justify that statement by saying that it was just a draft and they didn't want customers misled as to the final content of the 6th ed rulebook. Even an absolute denial has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

And if it is fake, it will be interesting to see if the 'perpetrator' comes forward. This would be on a completely different level from the faked BA codex - several levels above in fact. I'm pretty sure I could write a decent codex with a bit of playtesting that would at least be as balanced as some of the recent GW efforts.

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

DarknessEternal wrote:I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Reasons being?

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

I doubt you could make them work, this is one of the reasons GW went away from the more intuitive +/- modifiers to the more convoluted style you see here. I believe most of the mechanics are GW IP. So you would have to find new mechanics to make the game work. Even the basic lay out of the stat line is a GW IP.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Isn't that kinda how it is supposed to work when you have a healthy respect for your own life. I mean i know the future is grim but is everybody suicidal, it's not just guard that do this?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

You can all continue to play whatever editon fo 40K you want.

Or you could go play Warmachine or some other game.

Crisis averted...

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Yeah, it was like watching full lenght Sumo match.

Andrew1975 wrote:

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

I doubt you could make them work, this is one of the reasons GW went away from the more intuitive +/- modifiers to the more convoluted style you see here. I believe most of the mechanics are GW IP. So you would have to find new mechanics to make the game work. Even the basic lay out of the stat line is a GW IP.

Game mechanics are not copyrightable. Their expression as rules text is, but the method of play of a game, fundamentally, is not.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Just asking for clarification, do you consider them badly written/unbalanced? or a bad set of rules for 40k?

Would you play this if it was a different game, that was just remarkably similar to 40k? while the actual 40k we know and love is the same as it was before (or hopefully slightly fixed)

Not trying to be mean or anything. But what if GW, or even a competeing company, wrote up these rules as a means to play the game differently, yet using the same models? Like playing checkers with chess pieces or something.

What if we end up with warhammer 40k (move, shoot, assault), and warhammer 40k bloody battlefields (move, assault, shoot, consolidate)? Are they still bad rules?

Of course, you could certainly still think they're stupid. I may love being able to hop out of a tank, shoot and hop back in. But it does seem rather overpowered.

We all dealt with this when 5th edition was due. There was a PDF that looked like 5th edition running around. When 5th finally released the PDF was about 75% acurate.

The fact is the PDF was professionally formatted like this one sans pictures. It's probably an early write up that got thrown out due to changes in the rules.

CT GAMER wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

You can all continue to play whatever editon fo 40K you want.

Or you could go play Warmachine or some other game.

Crisis averted...

Stop impinging on message board posters' inalienable right to nerd rage with such rational suggestions.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I don't like the stratagems thing one bit. I'm not totally excited about the rules as a whole but I'm not disappointed by them - they look interesting and I wouldn't be upset if they turned out to be 6th edition. I'm pretty ambivalent about them to be honest.

I don't love or hate 5th ed either - I just enjoy playing 40K.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

umm no? We used indirect fire to break overwatch, Psy powers to bypass fire arcs<Gate the obvious one>, and vehicles to screen troop movement.

But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I don't love or hate 5th ed either - I just enjoy playing 40K.

Exactly.

Agamemnon2 wrote:But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

Usually mine were dead from Virus Outbreak.

pretre wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

Okay, I don't know that any part of that sentence is true, unless you are only talking about the vocal folks. We have no data on whether the majority of GW's customers or even dakka's members like or dislike GW rules, although one might assume since they all came to hang out on a site called DakkaDakka, they might like them a little. Also, we don't know yet who likes or dislikes the new rules, although the anecdotal response from the folks who have responded to the threads has been positive.

I think many of the folks on here are tournament players or at least regular/very experienced players so the added complexity and what seems to be a balancing of the armies/buffing of the xenos appeals to them. I'm neither very experienced nor a tournament player. I consider myself to be an amateur player (albeit an opinionated one at times ) and I have to say that they do look a lot more complex which is worrying in terms of game time. But I'd still happily play and learn.

The way they are laid out does appear a little confusing. Set out properly they are actually quite simple and much more explicit in their descriptions (baring the typos).

Dribble Joy wrote:The way they are laid out does appear a little confusing. Set out properly they are actually quite simple and much more explicit in their descriptions (baring the typos).

There are certain things in the PDF which make me think that it could be fake. Then again there are other factors which make me lean towards it being geniune. Clearly no one can say with any certainty whether it is real of not (it won't stop some from trying).

It's worthy of discussion discuss either way.

I wan't to go back to Rogue Trader rules!

Agamemnon2 wrote:But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

Yes, but before they actually had to dodge shots to get to melta range. Now they will be fearless, unless of course the one unit with over-watch is by them.

As far as mechanics being copy-written. I think you are right about basic mechanics, such as rolling a die or turning a card. But after that I think if someone wanted to steal this (if this is in fact a copy that GW passed on) then that is were is ends. Beside basic IP stuff like the names, you could not use the profiles, you would have to replace the artillery and scatter dice, you could use any of the charts. This is again why I think GW went away from the simple intuitive +/- mechanics. These mechanics could be protected while +/- could not.

See Cyanide's Chaos league vs GW bloodbowl. That was a video game that was slightly inspired by the GW boardgame and had some similar names and abilities. GW came after them and eventually allowed them the use of the Bloodbowl IP after GW threatened to sue.

So if you were to take these and try to make a different game out of them it would take a lot of work to change it enough to make it legal. Even then you had better be ready for a long and expensive fight when GW comes knocking.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:I wan't to go back to Rogue Trader rules!

Ew, no even I don't want that. Something closer to 2nd ed, but clearer,more streamlined and better defined would be fine. This is much better than the last few editions, but I still find it lacking in parts. It will still be fun mind you, I've enjoyed most of the editions. But lets be honest there is no perfect system for everybody.

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

Huh, must be going dyslexic. I read through that as armor 13, nasty type for eldar playtesters

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

Darkseid wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Yeah, it was like watching full lenght Sumo match.

Hmm, given that only rarely Sumo match reaches 15 seconds, doesn't sound too bad!

Nightwatch wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

You said they would get the their Heck Armour sorted out which i took to mean you think they would proofread and fix it. But the codices and rulebooks have a lot of errors

Nightwatch wrote:I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

His point is that mistakes happen, and the presence of a mistake isn't enough to prove or disprove something's validity.

Ok, after reading through most of it seems to be 50-50 on real or fake. One thing I don't get is way are they puting titans in the game they seem a little big for normal games.

Also can someone explain when Defensive Fire is usable as it says

Every model has to fire at the target unit that triggered the response,

which means the enemy must somehow set off Defensive fire reaction or is it used only for overwatch.

Personally I still think the document is genuine. The main reason being is because there isn’t enough “solid evidence” to disprove that it is. Given the depth, style of wording, coherence and level of polish, it’s easier to give the document the “benefit of the doubt”.

I reckon the email response from GW as well as the troll post on 4Chan is probably a classic game if misdirection by GW. GW seems to want to maximise the amount of “surprise” in their releases (and thus cut down on all leaks and previews). Hypothetically if this document is a fairly accurate of what to expect in 6th, it means the players would have in-depth prior knowledge of how 6th works before it is officially released and thus GW would be of the opinion that they lose somehow. If the final product turns out anything similar to the document, I’d be very tempted to buy a copy.

As a side note, I’m wondering what the introductory rules would be like. If they’re half decent, they might be a good substitute for fast paced, small points games (40k in 40min).

Platuan4th wrote:If you read anything regard IG in the fluff and books(aside from Gaunt's Ghosts), pretty much all the IG DO when attacking is suicide runs using wave after wave of bodies. They become Vets by surviving that a couple times.

So yeah, Vets making suicide runs with meltas is totally in character and fitting.

That's actually what Gaunt's Ghosts do most of the time honestly... they just happen to make it through better than most. All the original Tanith troopers are essentially Stormtroopers at this point, with the Vergashites being Vets and the rest being infantry.

GW denying it doesn't really prove anything. GW denied they were making Space Hulk... right before announcing Space Hulk. They even threatened the jobs of their staff for even discussing Space Hulk before the announcement came out.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

His point is that mistakes happen, and the presence of a mistake isn't enough to prove or disprove something's validity.

Especially in the case of G.W, I agree 100%.

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

You said they would get the their Heck Armour sorted out which i took to mean you think they would proofread and fix it. But the codices and rulebooks have a lot of errors

Ah, ok, I seem to understand now what you're talking about. In this case, however, I really do think it would be sorted out. Look for references to "heck" armour on the following pages: 126/129 and 89/129 of the pdf. On page 89, it actually has "H" printed in the statline of the Walker mentioned in the rules, where we would normally put "R" for rear armour. Well, maybe they won't. But this seems to me like a pretty egregious error on their part, and likely to be fixed. I do know what you mean about the terrible proofreading though, I've shuddered from time to time at some of the mistakes.

Maybe it's some kind of covert 'Open Beta Testing'.

With Harry confirming the Tyranid second wave next month, it'll be interesting to see if we really do get a Tervigon/Cerebore. If we do, it lends credibility to this leak.

Le Grognard wrote:Maybe it's some kind of covert 'Open Beta Testing'.

In some ways this can make quite a bit of sense.

I read some of the rules and I think this is getting more and more like fantasy and I DON'T like it

Now its just so hard to understand the game, so much more to remember, And now you can't play a game without the FAQ which adds special rules to your units.

I think the whole meta will change, GK will probably suck and tau will probaly be amazing (overwatch the hell out of everyone)

Seems too unorganized to be a finalized product. Also transports got the nerf bat (only being able to shoot 1 weapon out at a time if you move and only 18"), which I can't see gw doing as you would expect they want to sell one of those with every infantry unit to make more money. Also it seems like fliers are very op especially the vendetta and valkyries, but a lot of updates do make sense (check the eldar rules update).
I agree it seems far too complicated - especially after it states in the beginning to veteran players the game is meant to play faster than before.

michaelcycle wrote:Seems too unorganized to be a finalized product. Also transports got the nerf bat (only being able to shoot 1 weapon out at a time if you move and only 18"), which I can't see gw doing as you would expect they want to sell one of those with every infantry unit to make more money. Also it seems like fliers are very op especially the vendetta and valkyries, but a lot of updates do make sense (check the eldar rules update).

Yeah, now your tanks are tougher but you can't do anything with it.

From the rule it sound like if you get a weapons destroyed result on a rhino then it can't shoot because it has no weapons then you can't fire out of it because the fire point is destroyed.

Tanks got real nerf, maybe I should stock up on storm ravens LOLOL

timd wrote:
Bingo!

Background/Disclaimer: I published 18 issues of Inquisitor magazine with three different editions of Titan, superheavy and other vehicle rules and started Armorcast to be able to continue the large vehicle/Titan License. Our gaming group (all started with Rogue Trader) played 5-6 games of 3rd edition before dropping 40K permanently because 3rd edition sucked so bad. I have played 5th edition a grand total of three times, soon after it came out (in a 6 player tournament against regular tournament players, which I won using Land Raider and Land Speeder spam). That got me painting my Tyranids again after many years of not painting. 5th edition was a huge improvement over 3rd edition, but these rules (assuming they are real) will kick my interest back into high gear. They do a very good job of dealing with MANY of the problems with 5th edition.

Am really looking forward to 6th edition. I am, however, very glad I already have Tyranid, Dark Angel (black of course), Eldar, Imperial Guard, Ork and (unbuilt) Nurgle, Sisters and AdMech armies. Most of the armies need to be updated and the Orks are getting sold, but still I'm looking good for armies.

Tim DuPertuis

I have been playing since the end of RT/start of 2nd edition I loved the Armorcast line and Inquisitor magazine. I spent way more money on resin than my budget should have allowed, and the great Armorcast pieces are why I still hoard Eldar and Tyranids.

I just had diner with a chap (Joel P.) that did some illustrations in at least one of the Inquisitor issues. We both like the feel/spirit of these rules and really hope that this is the look of 6th edition.

Marthike wrote:

michaelcycle wrote:Seems too unorganized to be a finalized product. Also transports got the nerf bat (only being able to shoot 1 weapon out at a time if you move and only 18"), which I can't see gw doing as you would expect they want to sell one of those with every infantry unit to make more money. Also it seems like fliers are very op especially the vendetta and valkyries, but a lot of updates do make sense (check the eldar rules update).

Yeah, now your tanks are tougher but you can't do anything with it.

From the rule it sound like if you get a weapons destroyed result on a rhino then it can't shoot because it has no weapons then you can't fire out of it because the fire point is destroyed.

Tanks got real nerf, maybe I should stock up on storm ravens LOLOL

Hold on, hold on, hold on -

Let's take a common transport vehicle - the space marine razorback. Usually equipped with a twin-linked assault cannon or lascannon, sometimes with a lascannon/plasmagun combo.

In the current system, when you hold still you may fire everything. If you move combat speed (6" only) you may fire 1 weapon plus all defensive weapons - in most cases the lascannon. When you move cruising speed, you fire nothing at all.

In this rumored 6th system, all vehicles have multiple-fire(1) at least, which doubles if you're stationary. therefore in the new system if you hold still you get 2 fire actions, which means you can fire the lascannon and another weapon (storm bolter or plasmagun depending on what you've got on there usually). If you move combat speed (still 6") you still get 1 fire action - there goes your lascannon shot. If you go run/cruise speed, then you still can fire no weapons.

So, vehicles work the same as before.

Now to weapon destroyed results - Normally if i roll a weapon destroyed result i'll take off your biggest gun (lascannon, or demolisher cannon in the case of a vindicator, etc). In the new rules vehicles don't lose the ability to fire until they've lost all their multi-target points, plus 1. So the multi-targeting(1) ground vehicle needs to have 2 weapon destroyed results applied before losing the ability to fire. heavier tanks have more M-
T points to lose before they're neutered.

Overall I think the vehicles in the game will be fine, if not brought to a more even playing field with infantry (which is honestly what needed to happen. I for one am SICK of seeing parking lots in 40K games)

(marinas instead of parking lots if your opponent is DE...so many boats)

Over on TWF there are people who I know have actually done playtesting for GW that confirmed that this mirrors what GW's playtest materials look like.

That's not absolute proof that this is genuine, but it lends some credibility.

Has any one taken this into their GW store and asked a red shirt? I want to know how that turns out.

Bex wrote:Has any one taken this into their GW store and asked a red shirt? I want to know how that turns out.

I wrote a short scathing email to their customer service team, demanding justice. No reply.

I would be more worried if GW confirmed this, than if they Denied or kept silent.

Any changes in the Slow-&-Purposeful special rule?

thunderingjove wrote:Any changes in the Slow-&-Purposeful special rule?

Slow and Purposeful Units gain the Lumbering USR and the Relentless USR


Lumbering - units that are Lumbering cannot perform Run and Cruise actions.


I have my copy of the PDF printed and tabbed in a 3 ring binder for fast reference. As disjointed as the rules seem at first, once you've tabbed them out it is really easier to find pertinent rules.

In this instance i first checked the movement section for rules, to no avail, but the S&P rule is in the shooting rules section, and it references the page numbers of Lumbering and Relentless.

tetrisphreak wrote:Slow and Purposeful Units gain the Lumbering USR and the Relentless USR


Lumbering - units that are Lumbering cannot perform Run and Cruise actions.

So, they don't count as moving through difficult terrain?

thunderingjove wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Slow and Purposeful Units gain the Lumbering USR and the Relentless USR


Lumbering - units that are Lumbering cannot perform Run and Cruise actions.

So, they don't count as moving through difficult terrain?

Other than the fact that they can't go faster than combat speed (so in an Oliterator or Thousand Son's case, 6"), nope.

Units embarked in transports gain the relentless USR.

Bring on the Kannon-Mounted Meganobs!

michaelcycle wrote:
Overall I think the vehicles in the game will be fine, if not brought to a more even playing field with infantry (which is honestly what needed to happen. I for one am SICK of seeing parking lots in 40K games)

(marinas instead of parking lots if your opponent is DE...so many boats)

The tanks don't come out so bad. Its the transport rules that are harsher. Taking "critical" hits on explosions will mean that an expensive space marine fares no better than a ork boy or conscript. Not that space marines don't need some toning down in the rules...

These rules really seem like a playing field leveler, xenos armies are getting a nice boost. Which makes it questionable how authentic they are. GW loves their poster boys in power armor.

Kevlar wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:
Overall I think the vehicles in the game will be fine, if not brought to a more even playing field with infantry (which is honestly what needed to happen. I for one am SICK of seeing parking lots in 40K games)

(marinas instead of parking lots if your opponent is DE...so many boats)

The tanks don't come out so bad. Its the transport rules that are harsher. Taking "critical" hits on explosions will mean that an expensive space marine fares no better than a ork boy or conscript. Not that space marines don't need some toning down in the rules...

These rules really seem like a playing field leveler, xenos armies are getting a nice boost. Which makes it questionable how authentic they are. GW loves their poster boys in power armor.

Fixed the quote for you, that was my post.
Critical hits are only dealt on a roll of 1 for each model embarked. So a 1/6 chance to lose models vs a 1/2 chance to take a (saveable) wound? Power armored guys will still be fine...once they're in the open they have their 3+ to keep them safe, unlike the xenos where 5+ and 6+ saves are the norm.

tetrisphreak wrote:
I have my copy of the PDF printed and tabbed in a 3 ring binder for fast reference. As disjointed as the rules seem at first, once you've tabbed them out it is really easier to find pertinent rules.

In this instance i first checked the movement section for rules, to no avail, but the S&P rule is in the shooting rules section, and it references the page numbers of Lumbering and Relentless.

We have done a few copies like that here as well, makes this playtest ruleset much more manageable.

Wait, GW said it is not official? Them it is a Beta... and Beying it official or not, it is better than 5th, and so deserve some love, i would call it "fanhammer 40k" if ithey dont release it as the 6th

So, as i understood, units shooting from a vehicle firepoint shoot from themselves (they shoot, not the vehicle), so their shoots are not affected by the multiple-fire(x) o the vehicle.

Using that with the fact that embarked units receive relentless rule, but have the range of their weapons reduced to 18" (minimum), we got a new nice scenario where you can shoot heavy weapons, or always rapid fire (relentless means you can rapid fire from 18").

Hm, that is just sweet for kabalyte embarked Dark Eldar armys

candy.man wrote:
I reckon the email response from GW as well as the troll post on 4Chan is probably a classic game if misdirection by GW. GW seems to want to maximise the amount of “surprise” in their releases (and thus cut down on all leaks and previews). Hypothetically if this document is a fairly accurate of what to expect in 6th, it means the players would have in-depth prior knowledge of how 6th works before it is officially released and thus GW would be of the opinion that they lose somehow. If the final product turns out anything similar to the document, I’d be very tempted to buy a copy.

It would only make sense for GW to release something like this for two reasons (at least I'm just seeing 2 in my head..)

1. They want a comparably large part of 40k players to know the rules a long time prior release, so the average performance of players at tournaments is higher. Highly unlikely, as GW rarely organizes tournaments / campaign games by themselves. However, the playerbase will begin to alter their armylists, purchasing more models BEFORE a probably costly new Main Rulebook hit the shelves. I doubt that every player will buy the Main RULEbook just for the rules, now with this pdf release even moreso, so there better be a major fluff-shift / expansion to be worth 50€ / 60$.

2. GW crawls through Dakka / Warseer / Bols forum to get opinions of the playerbase. Maybe beta-testing... which is actually good for us!


Anyone out there who prefers a pdf-version more than the physical version? I enjoy the search-function within the pdf to find rule-references all over the book.

motorhead1945 wrote:

candy.man wrote:
I reckon the email response from GW as well as the troll post on 4Chan is probably a classic game if misdirection by GW. GW seems to want to maximise the amount of “surprise” in their releases (and thus cut down on all leaks and previews). Hypothetically if this document is a fairly accurate of what to expect in 6th, it means the players would have in-depth prior knowledge of how 6th works before it is officially released and thus GW would be of the opinion that they lose somehow. If the final product turns out anything similar to the document, I’d be very tempted to buy a copy.

It would only make sense for GW to release something like this for two reasons (at least I'm just seeing 2 in my head..)

1. They want a comparably large part of 40k players to know the rules a long time prior release, so the average performance of players at tournaments is higher. Highly unlikely, as GW rarely organizes tournaments / campaign games by themselves. However, the playerbase will begin to alter their armylists, purchasing more models BEFORE a probably costly new Main Rulebook hit the shelves. I doubt that every player will buy the Main RULEbook just for the rules, now with this pdf release even moreso, so there better be a major fluff-shift / expansion to be worth 50€ / 60$.

2. GW crawls through Dakka / Warseer / Bols forum to get opinions of the playerbase. Maybe beta-testing... which is actually good for us!


Anyone out there who prefers a pdf-version more than the physical version? I enjoy the search-function within the pdf to find rule-references all over the book.

I have most of the codices in pdf format myself, and the armies I actually play (and then some) in actual book format. I find the pdfs a pain to flip through, but the search function (on those it works for) is invaluable. GW should consider releasing pdfs of plain rules (no fluff) , though i imagine they'd think that would cut sales.

I would be super cool with an electronic download made available with purchase of physical book, even at a small cost $5 or less. I could even see GW getting away with it being a Corporate store/GW online exclusive perk.

nathan2195 wrote:Ok, after reading through most of it seems to be 50-50 on real or fake. One thing I don't get is way are they puting titans in the game they seem a little big for normal games.

Also can someone explain when Defensive Fire is usable as it says

Every model has to fire at the target unit that triggered the response,

which means the enemy must somehow set off Defensive fire reaction or is it used only for overwatch.

One of the triggers for Defensive fire is a unit deep striking within 12". However, since there are units that can assault in the same turn they deep struck, and assaulting is now a move action, it makes it possible for the Deep Striking units to be in CC before the trigger would occur. Therefore they added this exception to the shooting rules so the targeted squad still gets it shooting in.

candy.man wrote:

2. GW crawls through Dakka / Warseer / Bols forum to get opinions of the playerbase. Maybe beta-testing... which is actually good for us!

Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

Kevlar wrote:
Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

It's just a case of Warseer being too spineless. I can understand taking down the download links, but banning any discussion whatsoever is absolutely ridiculous.

Kevlar wrote:

candy.man wrote:

2. GW crawls through Dakka / Warseer / Bols forum to get opinions of the playerbase. Maybe beta-testing... which is actually good for us!

Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

They should take their whole forum down just to be sure...

So played necrons vrs eldar and it was a lot of fun. Even with looking up rules and the like it took around 2 hours. One of the biggest things we found was with a squadron was that double immobilized destroys the entire thing. He failed the saves with two immobilized and the entire squadron disappeared. Also annihilation barges are amazing since the - is no longer -1

Biggest thing we learned is that not going first is crazy against a shooting army. Basically everything is +1 to hit if you have not moved and it makes a huge difference. Now I see why that stratagem is 3 points. The bidding was easy because neither of us was willing to give the other 4 points.

Seize is sweet now since it gives you additional stratagem points instead of taking first turn. The person who wins the bidding ALWAYS goes first.

Banshees are pretty good, pathfinders are awesome, The storm guardians with a warlock are actually pretty scary in combat. Three flame templates one of them at str 5 ap 4 can really put the hurt out.

There were other things but those were the main ones that come to mind. IT was really weird getting used to the different movement speeds but other than that it ran really well and the fleet additional movement really helped the eldar get around.

We played this without lists tailored for 6th edition. I look forward to trying a zandrekh list. Also heavy destroyers are CRAZY good with the new prefered enemy. Hitting vehicles on a 2 almost all the time. Also twin linking from the triarch stalker is really helpful against those skimmers, especially since they dont get those saves anymore

Leth wrote:So played necrons vrs eldar and it was a lot of fun. Even with looking up rules and the like it took around 2 hours. One of the biggest things we found was with a squadron was that double immobilized destroys the entire thing. He failed the saves with two immobilized and the entire squadron disappeared. Also annihilation barges are amazing since the - is no longer -1

Biggest thing we learned is that not going first is crazy against a shooting army. Basically everything is +1 to hit if you have not moved and it makes a huge difference. Now I see why that stratagem is 3 points. The bidding was easy because neither of us was willing to give the other 4 points.

Seize is sweet now since it gives you additional stratagem points instead of taking first turn. The person who wins the bidding ALWAYS goes first.

Banshees are pretty good, pathfinders are awesome, The storm guardians with a warlock are actually pretty scary in combat. Three flame templates one of them at str 5 ap 4 can really put the hurt out.

There were other things but those were the main ones that come to mind. IT was really weird getting used to the different movement speeds but other than that it ran really well and the fleet additional movement really helped the eldar get around.

We played this without lists tailored for 6th edition. I look forward to trying a zandrekh list. Also heavy destroyers are CRAZY good with the new prefered enemy. Hitting vehicles on a 2 almost all the time. Also twin linking from the triarch stalker is really helpful against those skimmers, especially since they dont get those saves anymore

Let us know if you play any more games with the ruleset and how they go.

You mentioned fleet helped the eldar get around the table - would you say in general infantry are more maneuverable on foot with these new rules than before?

Part of me is hoping that these new rules are real since it's a huge wrench into how the game functions.

Another part of me hopes that these are fake because I just got over the hurdle of learning 5th edition, which took about 6 months. The main thing that concerns me is that adaptation of Warmahorde's "every unit has its own turn" functionality.

Basically, I hope the final version takes the same basic turn mechanics that we already know but changes up what you can do in each phase.

From what I gather on page 21 (1st page of the leaked pdf) the statement that 'units can take their own turns' is a reference to a narrative mission or two, or upcoming expansions to even further vary how the game plays out.

I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems. The assault phase would be the wrench in that cog, because all engaged models must fight, but i think it might just work. We'll have to see and wait on the final document, along with the first 21 pages and the last 25 or more pages for the narrative missions.


Unless we've all been hoaxed, which would suck because I like this rule set.

The I-go-you-go is an optional way to play, and is recommended for the multiplayer free-for-all type mission.

FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

tetrisphreak wrote:
I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems.

Actually, 40k does have the I-go-you-go system. Malifaux and other games that have players alternate unit/model activation is called the 'integrated turns' system.

nathan2195 wrote:Also can someone explain when Defensive Fire is usable as it says

Every model has to fire at the target unit that triggered the response,

which means the enemy must somehow set off Defensive fire reaction or is it used only for overwatch.

It doesn't seem to be very clear. From some of the other sections it seems like defensive fire might be intented to funcion more like "if a unit comes within 12 inches of you, you get a defensive fire reaction" but that is never made very clear in the main section for the rule.

If it is a "unit gets within 12, use defensive fire" kind of deal, then that wording would make sense to keep people from using defensive fire to shoot a lascannon at a transport 18 inches away because a unit of grunts 12 inches away triggered the reaction.

Pfft, that BoK post is worthless.

"I've done some research and now i know its fake!" .....okay...

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

He doesn't even say why they're fake. Worthless post indeed.

But... hes researched for 48hrs...!

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

When someone who I know is in the know, like Harry or Reds8n says it's a fake, then I'll buy that it's a fake. He says he heard from people who aren't his usual sources, so I'm pretty happy to keep believing.

Considering this is a drastic leap from how the game functioned before, I wonder if there is the chance this is intentional to a degree.

If GW released this rule set at 6th edition, each and everyone of us would do, essentially, what we already have with the pdf. Either read the whole thing front to back (as I did) or skim it over and see what drastically stands out. The problem being we would do this, on the day of release, and attempt to still hold games/tournaments/test matches we had prepared for that day expecting 5.5.

Next to no one would know what has going on with M.A.S.C. A number of players may agree to play 5th edition for the days match and later try to understand the new rules. Some people would refuse to play until they're read the whole thing, but they'd have no one but GW's website and hopefully a TO to ask questions to. New players would have questions and no one would be able to help because they don't understand what the rules are yet for defensive fire.

If GW is changing the game this much, it almost HAS to be leaked/beta'd/pre-released. Or the first week or so of gameplay would be so hectic that they could very well lose customers over simple first day frustration, ESPECIALLY moody teenagers who are not pleased their fancy marines are getting shot at just for deepstriking.

There is a chance, I think, that this could be an elaborate plot on GW's behalf to make sure at least one 40k players knows what the rules are for 6th edition. So when it drops proper we have someone to ask "Why does my tank have relentless?" To which we can answer "It does the same thing as before, allowing it to fire heavy weapons regardless of being stationary. But it also means any rapid fire weapons it's mounting (not that I can think of any), or are embarked inside it, can rapid fire at 18""

Maybe they just wanted us to be prepared for what is coming, and not throw an epic tantrum in store when we see it?

d-usa wrote:

nathan2195 wrote:Also can someone explain when Defensive Fire is usable as it says

Every model has to fire at the target unit that triggered the response,

which means the enemy must somehow set off Defensive fire reaction or is it used only for overwatch.

It doesn't seem to be very clear. From some of the other sections it seems like defensive fire might be intented to funcion more like "if a unit comes within 12 inches of you, you get a defensive fire reaction" but that is never made very clear in the main section for the rule.

If it is a "unit gets within 12, use defensive fire" kind of deal, then that wording would make sense to keep people from using defensive fire to shoot a lascannon at a transport 18 inches away because a unit of grunts 12 inches away triggered the reaction.

The only way you get to defensive fire at 12 inches is if you have the Overwatch USR. You may however use defensive fire of you are not locked in combat and are assaulted. HTH

@otaku: I highly doubt it tbh.

I see where you're coming from though, at least we'll be prepared should it happen!

otakutaylor wrote:Considering this is a drastic leap from how the game functioned before, I wonder if there is the chance this is intentional to a degree.

If GW released this rule set at 6th edition, each and everyone of us would do, essentially, what we already have with the pdf. Either read the whole thing front to back (as I did) or skim it over and see what drastically stands out. The problem being we would do this, on the day of release, and attempt to still hold games/tournaments/test matches we had prepared for that day expecting 5.5.

Next to no one would know what has going on with M.A.S.C. A number of players may agree to play 5th edition for the days match and later try to understand the new rules. Some people would refuse to play until they're read the whole thing, but they'd have no one but GW's website and hopefully a TO to ask questions to. New players would have questions and no one would be able to help because they don't understand what the rules are yet for defensive fire.

If GW is changing the game this much, it almost HAS to be leaked/beta'd/pre-released. Or the first week or so of gameplay would be so hectic that they could very well lose customers over simple first day frustration, ESPECIALLY moody teenagers who are not pleased their fancy marines are getting shot at just for deepstriking.

There is a chance, I think, that this could be an elaborate plot on GW's behalf to make sure at least one 40k players knows what the rules are for 6th edition. So when it drops proper we have someone to ask "Why does my tank have relentless?" To which we can answer "It does the same thing as before, allowing it to fire heavy weapons regardless of being stationary. But it also means any rapid fire weapons it's mounting (not that I can think of any), or are embarked inside it, can rapid fire at 18""

Maybe they just wanted us to be prepared for what is coming, and not throw an epic tantrum in store when we see it?

From any other company, yes. From a logical mind, yes. From Games Workshop, no.

AresX8 wrote:

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

He doesn't even say why they're fake. Worthless post indeed.

It does all certainly sound dubious. This whole thing is a weird and shady debaucle. I suspect foul play on the part of BOK, GWs legal team, or someone else. I'm still not at all convinced that this is fake.. Or real.

Maybe its all an illusion.... o.0

But I really really want it to be real. I really want sixth edition to actually be a better game, not just a different one like fifth was.

Didn't Yakface actually get his hands on a playtest codex for the Necrons? I would like to hear his opinion on how legit this document looks by comparison.

If these rules are fake 6th edition is gonna suck.

tetrisphreak wrote:From what I gather on page 21 (1st page of the leaked pdf) the statement that 'units can take their own turns' is a reference to a narrative mission or two, or upcoming expansions to even further vary how the game plays out.

I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems. The assault phase would be the wrench in that cog, because all engaged models must fight, but i think it might just work. We'll have to see and wait on the final document, along with the first 21 pages and the last 25 or more pages for the narrative missions.


Unless we've all been hoaxed, which would suck because I like this rule set.

I can calm down now. After doing careful reading, this ruleset doesn't share Warmahorde's turn mechanics. Even though I loved Warmahordes for the time when I played it, I can't possibly figure out how 40k would play using those turn mechanics.

Bring on this ruleset!

@branderic: Indeed, i'll probably just wind up using these.

I have seen the light, and i will not turn back...

Wow. Being able to DS and not scatter unless within 18" of an enemy is really interesting. The one problem is see is that no codex thus far has an evasion value.

Also, some of the language is sort of vague and needs to be solidified and written better.

I doubt this is the final version of the rulebook. It's rumored to be released next summer (I think), so that means tons of changes could occur between then and now.

As it is, this rulebook looks promising, if a bit disorganized.

6th edition is rumored to be released this summer.

Evasion values are already given. Check pg 70 of the rulebook (pg 49 of the PDF). It's explain there.

Vitruvian XVII wrote:@otaku: I highly doubt it tbh.

I see where you're coming from though, at least we'll be prepared should it happen!

Oh I doubt it too, But I think it at least has a 1% chance of being correct. Maybe 5% if it wasn't GW, but at least a greater chance than a toaster remaining just a toaster after an ork has 5 minutes with it.

I just like thinking up possible reasons, not likely ones.

Maybe, in a desperate bit to throw the 40k community into chaos and by extension destroying 40k some elaborate vengeful troll wasted months of his life writing up this "leak" codex that sounds awesome, great, perfect, amazing, and awesome again. Not everyone likes it of course, but a large enough group of players would. Doing so gets our hopes up for a game fated never to exist. When 6th edition finally drops, we end up with 5.25 and are so incredibly bummed that a number of us do not buy it. We printout these rules and play them instead, or decide it's finally worth looking at warmachine. The troll managed to make 40k look boring, and thus, lost tons of money.

Maybe, in an attempt to awaken GW to the demands of it's fans, an die-hard fan cooked up this elaborate codex contaning a horse of ideas and changes that other fans had at one point considered for the game. I myself relished in the idea of sisters of battle getting to use their pistols for CC, which may now be true. This fan-dex has enough visual credibility to sound real enough for us to discuss at length, guaranteeing GW will pick it over pixel by pixel to see who did it. Gw will not be able to ignore their fans wishes since they won't just have their own opinions to reference, but a (pretend) GW document, asking "Please let these rules or something like it be true." Should GW end up releasing 5.5, it makes it quite clear that GW does not care about it's fans (not that we expected any different) and suffers a significant rage storm, OR GW realizes they must include the changes and ideas we've been clamoring for or they will lose their players and their money to nothing more than a fan who listens to fans.

Maybe filthy Xenos did it.

All possible, none likely, but fun to think about. ^_^

Anyone that says the 6thEd rules are too dynamic of a change clearly wasn't around for 3rdEd's creation.

LeakedText wrote:Base Evasion value: 3
Modifiers:
Target unit is massive. -1
Target unit has remained stationary. -1
Target unit with Jink has moved. +1
Target unit is swarm. +1

Flyers are always 6 as well.

AresX8 wrote:6th edition is rumored to be released this summer.

Evasion values are already given. Check pg 70 of the rulebook (pg 49 of the PDF). It's explain there.

Sorry, that's what I meant. Dunno why I said next summer. I keep thinking its last year.

And I guess I skipped over that part. I'm going to spend tomorrow reading the new rulebook in its entirety, and in the meantime creating army lists for my Necrons that will probably be terrible after I finish reading the new rules.

Absolutionis wrote:Anyone that says the 6thEd rules are too dynamic of a change clearly wasn't around for 3rdEd's creation.

I think what they mean is that's it's too dynamic of a change for the company that GW is at the moment.

ShumaGorath wrote:It does all certainly sound dubious. This whole thing is a weird and shady debaucle. I suspect foul play on the part of BOK, GWs legal team, or someone else. I'm still not at all convinced that this is fake.. Or real.

But Shummy, he researched it, and for a whole two days. You can't argue with research!!!



Yes I agree with you.

tetrisphreak wrote:From what I gather on page 21 (1st page of the leaked pdf) the statement that 'units can take their own turns' is a reference to a narrative mission or two, or upcoming expansions to even further vary how the game plays out.

I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems. The assault phase would be the wrench in that cog, because all engaged models must fight, but i think it might just work. We'll have to see and wait on the final document, along with the first 21 pages and the last 25 or more pages for the narrative missions.

It actually feels well with the UGO IGO system as I've tried it out years ago in 4th edition with some friends. The catch is that you just have to resolve the assaults AFTER all the units are activated at the end of the turn which makes close combat less deadly (since you're effectively getting one assault phase per game turn instead of 2).

michaelcycle wrote:
I agree it seems far too complicated - especially after it states in the beginning to veteran players the game is meant to play faster than before.

I'm sure that one we play a few games we will pick up the changes pretty quickly. The game will likely be faster because more stuff is dying sooner and you have less stuff to move and shoot in later turns...

Quoting a friendly GW manager - "yeah the official word is - its a fake.. just had an email from head office, seems someone had a lot of time on his hands.."
Still, fun to read through

Aquaterry

Aquaterry wrote:Quoting a friendly GW manager - "yeah the official word is - its a fake.. just had an email from head office, seems someone had a lot of time on his hands.."
Still, fun to read through

Aquaterry

Isn't that what the higher-ups said about the Space Hulk box not being Space Hulk?

Absolutionis wrote:

Aquaterry wrote:Quoting a friendly GW manager - "yeah the official word is - its a fake.. just had an email from head office, seems someone had a lot of time on his hands.."
Still, fun to read through

Aquaterry

Isn't that what the higher-ups said about the Space Hulk box not being Space Hulk?

Oddly enough, they did indeed!

BDJV wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

Aquaterry wrote:Quoting a friendly GW manager - "yeah the official word is - its a fake.. just had an email from head office, seems someone had a lot of time on his hands.."
Still, fun to read through

Aquaterry

Isn't that what the higher-ups said about the Space Hulk box not being Space Hulk?

Oddly enough, they did indeed!

Denial is just GW's way of confirming it for us

Wait...Did anybody note how boss Banshees, Incubi, and GKs got with the power weapon parry? Swords on Strike squads now make sense.

ph34r wrote:

BDJV wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

Aquaterry wrote:Quoting a friendly GW manager - "yeah the official word is - its a fake.. just had an email from head office, seems someone had a lot of time on his hands.."
Still, fun to read through

Aquaterry

Isn't that what the higher-ups said about the Space Hulk box not being Space Hulk?

Oddly enough, they did indeed!

Denial is just GW's way of confirming it for us

I suspect this may be an early draft and not the "polished" article as some of it hands together nicely and some seems very clunky .
fake or true ??? .
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle - as was said before GW's denial is pretty much worthless .

AdeptSister wrote:Wait...Did anybody note how boss Banshees, Incubi, and GKs got with the power weapon parry? Swords on Strike squads now make sense.

Only power weapons that don't have any extra rules grant the parry save. So only banshees will get the bonus. Incubis weapons give +1 S and GKs are all force weapons.

And gaining the Invul save is a bit of a double-edged sword (pun not intended) as you're now a different save bracket, so could end up very dead if the squad takes a lot of wounds in a single heap.

airmang wrote:

AdeptSister wrote:Wait...Did anybody note how boss Banshees, Incubi, and GKs got with the power weapon parry? Swords on Strike squads now make sense.

Only power weapons that don't have any extra rules grant the parry save. So only banshees will get the bonus. Incubis weapons give +1 S and GKs are all force weapons.

Not to mention Necron Overlords. You can now get a Power Weapon and a 5+ Inv save for free.

Oh, and every single SM sergeant and squad leader that didn't have an Inv save already.

I think it is a first draft of the rules given to internal play testers, I'd say most of it is 70% complete with some revision coming to it. Odds are that GW has furthered these rules and will go to printing by late march to early April.

airmang wrote:

AdeptSister wrote:Wait...Did anybody note how boss Banshees, Incubi, and GKs got with the power weapon parry? Swords on Strike squads now make sense.

Only power weapons that don't have any extra rules grant the parry save. So only banshees will get the bonus. Incubis weapons give +1 S and GKs are all force weapons.

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. I am really happy for banshees. It makes sense and they are a little more survivable.


Also, Triach Praetorians and Spyders got a boost as well. I am really liking this.

I just played 6th edition.

Well, we playtested whatever this is at the LGS anyway.

It works pretty well. I'm tired and need to go to bed so I can't say anything too ridiculously detailed, but I'll sum it up a bit and give some quick observations.

We played a 1v1 game @1000 pts. My Blood Angels Sanguinary Guard Army vs my friend's Green Tide Orks.

The biggest surprise and ultimately the most noticeable impact on the game was the Tactical Gambit. It took us about a half hour just to figure out what the hell was going on there and who deployed when and how. The key is that you roll off to determine who deploys first, but then you bid strategy points on who actually takes the first turn. So my opponent won the roll off and chose to deploy first, but I won the bid, which meant that I got to look at how he was deployed and take the first turn. It was like I seized the initiative in 5th, so I had a big advantage...

...except he used all the strategy points to make his ENTIRE Ork army STUBBORN. You ever try killing a stubborn green tide with 16 gold space marines? I have. It ain't pretty.

It took us about 3 hours to play 5 turns. Almost all of that was searching through the rules. Actual time spent playing the game/ moving dudes/ rolling dice was very minimal. This ruleset moves much quicker than the 5th edition set. You wouldn't expect that from all the extra complexity, but it does. You only move units once per turn (for the most part) and that really speeds it up.

We didn't use any vehicles except for one ork buggy, which I destroyed by charging and attacking with infernus pistols in close combat, then shooting in the shooting phase with the same infernus pistols. I threw away 5 sanguinary guard to do it, but I wanted to see how the rules for all of that played out. The vehicle exploded and explosions are quite a bit more dangerous now. They basically work like 5th edition dangerous terrain checks. No armor saves.

He won in the end by charging his last 2 mobs of boyz (40 orks) in to alpha strike my last sanguinary guard that was tied up fighting a warboss with 1 wound left. Alpha strike is mean. Those boyz wrecked that Sanguinary Guard at I10.

Overall, I like this ruleset far more than the current 5th edition set. The best thing is just the lack of random dice rolls. It is subtle on paper but when we actually started moving dudes around it was like "wait I don't have to roll to run/move through terrain/charge" the movement values are arbitrary so you can plan everything ahead without worrying that 1 bad dice roll will ruin everything. You can premeasure movement and if you fail a charge it actually specifically states that you can choose to just move some other way. No more "Oops my unit is .01 inches out of charge range, guess they're screwed"

I like it a lot. Here's to hoping this is the real thing and not some internet hoax.

mondo80 wrote:I think it is a first draft of the rules given to internal play testers, I'd say most of it is 70% complete with some revision coming to it. Odds are that GW has furthered these rules and will go to printing by late march to early April.

Apparently the 6th ed rules are already in China for printing.

BDJV wrote:

mondo80 wrote:I think it is a first draft of the rules given to internal play testers, I'd say most of it is 70% complete with some revision coming to it. Odds are that GW has furthered these rules and will go to printing by late march to early April.

Apparently the 6th ed rules are already in China for printing.

I'm not surprised, seeing as most video games go gold (code gets copied and put on DVDs and shipped to stores) around 4 months out. I doubt printing a book takes much longer, so we could be looking at a May/June release date if this happens to be even remotely likely.

Yeah the release of 6th is rumored for sometime in July.

Dribble Joy wrote:The way they are laid out does appear a little confusing. Set out properly they are actually quite simple and much more explicit in their descriptions (baring the typos).

I really hope the bolded part was deliberate...

I want these rules to be true, but we shall see.

OK, these are the instances where you can perform Defensive Fire:

OVERWATCH
Universal, Shooting special rule
If an enemy unit ends a Move action within 12”, a
unit with this ability may perform a Defensive Fire
action and shoot at the intruding unit. If the unit
was assaulted by the enemy it can shoot
nonetheless. If the units lose contact, they
consolidate at the end of the phase as normal.

Note: The Universal rule does NOT mean all units can perform it.

...Universal special rules are conferred
to every model in the unit if at least one
model has this rule....

DEEP STRIKE
....Units within 12” of one or more enemy units that
arrived via deep strike may perform a Defensive
Fire action and target one of the units. If units
from more than one player can shoot, resolve this
in turn order.....

Trapped!
....Every enemy unit that blocks one or more access
points of the transport can immediately execute
either a Defensive Fire or Charge by Chance
action at the disembarking unit.....

Death or Glory
....A unit that does not dodge (involuntarily or not)
may carry out a Defensive fire action, targeting
the ramming unit....

Under no other circumstances can a unit perform Defensive Fire.

I've just realised what this ruleset reminds me of, with its individual boxed-out actions that you choose from.

4th edition D&D...

anyway, thanks for trying them out and reporting back, Mike

I think I might of just figured it out......

so we know the document was done back in may of last year right? Well.....if that's the case, not a single rumour pertained to the fact that necrons where getting Tesla weapons back in may, hell not up until a month before necrons came out did we know about tesla weapons.

But yet there it sits in the pdf leak, and remember this document is from may.....so ether the person's who created this are psychic or this is infact the real deal.

Dribble Joy wrote:OK, these are the instances where you can perform Defensive Fire:

OVERWATCH
Universal, Shooting special rule
If an enemy unit ends a Move action within 12”, a
unit with this ability may perform a Defensive Fire
action and shoot at the intruding unit. If the unit
was assaulted by the enemy it can shoot
nonetheless. If the units lose contact, they
consolidate at the end of the phase as normal.

Note: The Universal rule does NOT mean all units can perform it.

...Universal special rules are conferred
to every model in the unit if at least one
model has this rule....

DEEP STRIKE
....Units within 12” of one or more enemy units that
arrived via deep strike may perform a Defensive
Fire action and target one of the units. If units
from more than one player can shoot, resolve this
in turn order.....

Trapped!
....Every enemy unit that blocks one or more access
points of the transport can immediately execute
either a Defensive Fire or Charge by Chance
action at the disembarking unit.....

Death or Glory
....A unit that does not dodge (involuntarily or not)
may carry out a Defensive fire action, targeting
the ramming unit....

Under no other circumstances can a unit perform Defensive Fire.

Not quite, if a unit is assaulted and satisfies the following criteria it can Defensive fire:

If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.

That is right out of the defensive fire rule.

Could someone PM me a copy please?

The college computers wont let me access it and i have no computer at home

I would be really gratful if someone could

Yes, if a unit is assaulted it can perform Defensive Fire:

If the unit is allowed to perform Defensive Fire in the first place.

Getting assaulted does NOT trigger Defensive Fire. That part of the Defensive Fire rule only pertains to when a unit performing Defensive Fire gets assaulted (models from Deep Strike or during Overwatch).

Read my post up! I think i figured this all out!

Metadata can be modified as it uses computer time. Change it, and you have changed metadata I think.

Just a question:

Since the draw back move of jetpack troops is a shooting action, do you have to spend
a shooting action on it, or do you just have to able to make shooting actions in general?

The first would mean, a model without multi-targeting can only either shoot or draw back?

You can do a drawback move as long as you can use shooting actions, even if you shot already.

Hmm... with the upcoming wave of Tyranid models, there is talk of a new White Dwarf unit... if that is true, and that unit is in fact this "Cerebore" that the codex speaks of, then that will basically confirm the document's validity as a GW rules set of at least some stage of 6th Ed.

Ozeo wrote:Read my post up! I think i figured this all out!

It's been mentioned numerous times here and in other parts and it does lend some credence to the document. However, as other have mentioned, the date stamp can be altered so if someone was building this prior to the Necron codex coming out, they could add the tesla rules afterwards.

azazel the cat wrote:Hmm... with the upcoming wave of Tyranid models, there is talk of a new White Dwarf unit... if that is true, and that unit is in fact this "Cerebore" that the codex speaks of, then that will basically confirm the document's validity as a GW rules set of at least some stage of 6th Ed.

Likewise the appearance of Zeal Bolt Pistols in the soon upcoming BT codex, etc.

Just because I desperately want these rules to be real, I'm gonna call this one now:

The next battle box is Black Templars vs. Necrons

Ozeo wrote:I think I might of just figured it out......

so we know the document was done back in may of last year right? Well.....if that's the case, not a single rumour pertained to the fact that necrons where getting Tesla weapons back in may, hell not up until a month before necrons came out did we know about tesla weapons.

But yet there it sits in the pdf leak, and remember this document is from may.....so ether the person's who created this are psychic or this is infact the real deal.

It's pretty trivial to fake a date on a file. I could go upload a PDF now of 7th Edition written in 1892.

Having said that I hope this is real. I'm also buying into the 'intentional GW leak' theory - they dropped this out early to get feedback and to get people used to the rules in time for all the 6th ed. events in the summer. And if not I'm still using these rules anyway. Lictors are good now, yay!

BDJV wrote:

Dribble Joy wrote:OK, these are the instances where you can perform Defensive Fire:

<snip>

Not quite, if a unit is assaulted and satisfies the following criteria it can Defensive fire:

If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.

That is right out of the defensive fire rule.

Many people misunderstand this at first glance. I had to read the section a few times before I figured it out.

Defensive Fire has no triggers that allow you to use it within the rule itself. The part you quoted is preceeded by this:

The rules for Shooting actions apply with the
following exceptions:

Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

Im of the opinion that it's real, for various reasons including the fact that GW was super quick to respond. The other reason and one that I feel quite a few forum members have missed is if you read the introduction you will notice in the pre-amble that these rules are the advanced rules set, not the beginner rules set. To me this makes perfect sense if you're going to do a change. Make a "basic" version easy for kids and adults to get the basics and then have the ""advanced version, aka tourney rules"". Its little details like that that make me think the document is real even if it is just an alpha test.

So for everyone claiming this is too radical a rules set for GW to do then youre right. But its like buying a new video game and skipping right to the last level.

xttz wrote:....and to get people used to the rules in time for all the 6th ed. events in the summer.

I think that's probably the only reason they might leak it. 4th and 5th were so close to the basic rules of 3rd that people could pick up the changes almost immediately. While much of the system is the same (toughness, weapons skill, armour values, etc.) the mechanics are quite different so 'lessening the blow' could help.

I don't think a leak this early would be useful for feedback regarding the rules themselves, the rulebook is probably at the printers or in the final stages of QA by now, so it's too late for any drastic changes.

Unless of course this was planned with say... 1-2 months before sending off to the printers. Two weeks to a month to see how people react and a frenzy of changes and QA for a few weeks before sending.

That said, I find it highly unlikely this was an intentional leak.

power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Blackgaze wrote:power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Only if they have no other special rules, so hyperphase swords gives you a 5++ parry. Warscythes do not since they already give you +2 S and the 2d6 AP.

Blackgaze wrote:power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Only applies to power weapons without special rules.

Blackgaze wrote:power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Not quite. They're not 'generic' power weapons. They have other special rules to them, thus not power weapons. Power Weapon is a power weapon. Warscythe is a Warscythe. Bonesword is a bonesword.

Besides, if these are legit Tyranids already got a crazy boost in effectiveness from the ID changes alone.

Hah! Ninjaed by three people .

DarkStarSabre wrote:Besides, if these are legit Tyranids already got a crazy boost in effectiveness from the ID changes alone.

My Super Kannons still make warriors cry .

Dribble Joy wrote:Hah! Ninjaed by three people .

DarkStarSabre wrote:Besides, if these are legit Tyranids already got a crazy boost in effectiveness from the ID changes alone.

My Super Kannons still make warriors cry .

Everytime an imperial guard grunt denies a Boy his armor save in CC, a Tyranid Warrior gets his wings...

Man that defensive fire would really screw the hell out of my wyches

OK, these are the instances where you can perform Defensive Fire:

OVERWATCH
Universal, Shooting special rule
If an enemy unit ends a Move action within 12”, a
unit with this ability may perform a Defensive Fire
action and shoot at the intruding unit. If the unit
was assaulted by the enemy it can shoot
nonetheless. If the units lose contact, they
consolidate at the end of the phase as normal.

Note: The Universal rule does NOT mean all units can perform it.

...Universal special rules are conferred
to every model in the unit if at least one
model has this rule....

DEEP STRIKE
....Units within 12” of one or more enemy units that
arrived via deep strike may perform a Defensive
Fire action and target one of the units. If units
from more than one player can shoot, resolve this
in turn order.....

Trapped!
....Every enemy unit that blocks one or more access
points of the transport can immediately execute
either a Defensive Fire or Charge by Chance
action at the disembarking unit.....

Death or Glory
....A unit that does not dodge (involuntarily or not)
may carry out a Defensive fire action, targeting
the ramming unit....

Under no other circumstances can a unit perform Defensive Fire

After a fairly close read I agree with Dribble Joy's post as quoted above.

I do not believe all unengaged units can defensive fire as a 'charge reaction' as some propose. I belive that only units that are in the above situations or those that have gained the "Overwatch Rules" can use defensive fire. Of further interest is the fact that units can gain the Overwatch via the Strategem "Fire at will" and that many space marine armies and some others (check the FAQ) have wargear/equipment that negate enemy defensive fire reactions when they deepstrike. Inquisitor Corteaz also is the only model listed in the FAQ that confers the overwatch ability to units he has joined...

Heroic Intervention - now called Deep Strike (Heroic) and Rapid Insertion avoid Defensive Fire, though the latter is because though the models disembark in the manner of Deep Strike, it's not a 'true' Deep Strike.

Deep Strike (Heroic) only seems to appear for Vanguard squads (and the BA equivalent) and Zagstruk.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

So it is in fact saying I can shoot the unit that is charging into melee with me before the assault starts? Because it sounds both ways to me so far. They must finish their move, enter assault, therefore not be able to shoot due to standard . But in the next breath say I can shoot as long as I'm not already previously engaged in combat? Or is it trying to say (for example) that if there are two squads there, both with overwatch ability, that the second squad not charged can still fire into them before the assault rolls begin.

"If the unit was assaulted by the enemy it can shoot nonetheless."

It's mostly that line I'm hung up on. Because it sounds like it tells you to disregard the normal shooting rules and fire a volley before the assault rolls begin. As if your firing at them while they're charging, but it says wait for the move to finish for simplicity of the matter.

If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.

It's pretty clear that you shoot after they move into base contact.

Dantalian wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

So it is in fact saying I can shoot the unit that is charging into melee with me before the assault starts? Because it sounds both ways to me so far. They must finish their move, enter assault, therefore not be able to shoot. But in the next breath say I can shoot as long as I'm not already previously engaged in combat? Or is it trying to say (for example) that if there are two squads there, both with overwatch ability, that the second squad not charged can still fire into them before the assault rolls begin.

What it's saying is that if both squads are on overwatch they can both fire.

I've just been seeing a lot of people posting their reasoning why this won't work if the assault is successful, but the rules seems to state very clearly you can still shoot.

Melee is going to be a little rough if there are multiple overwatch squads covering each other.

No, the charged unit gets to use defensive fire on the attacking unit. The first part of his post says that normal shooting rules would disallow this, and then he goes on to say how the DF rules specifically overturn this prohibition. So charging anything into an unit with Overwatch will get them riddled with bullets.

Dantalian wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

So it is in fact saying I can shoot the unit that is charging into melee with me before the assault starts? Because it sounds both ways to me so far. They must finish their move, enter assault, therefore not be able to shoot. But in the next breath say I can shoot as long as I'm not already previously engaged in combat? Or is it trying to say (for example) that if there are two squads there, both with overwatch ability, that the second squad not charged can still fire into them before the assault rolls begin.

When you try to perform defensive fire, you must let the opponent to finish his movement, so you are engaged, so you can't fire because you are previously engaged (previously not only means "last turn"). And the other squad can't fire, as would be firing at a engaged unit.

Defensive fire only punishes slow troops trying to approach. Faster troops can surprise the defender.

That's how I see it (maybe wrong).

garrapignado wrote:
When you try to perform defensive fire, you must let the opponent to finish his movement, so you are engaged, so you can't fire because you are previously engaged (previously not only means "last turn")

Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Speed won't matter, Overwatch triggers DF when an enemy unit ends a Move action within 12", so even if you start a charge over 12" away it still triggers.

lord_blackfang wrote:Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Actually he's right in a manner of speaking;

Defensive Fire
....Resolve the action that triggered this
action completely before you interrupt the turn
to resolve the defensive fire...

If assaulted, then at the end of the move action you are engaged, which would normally prevent you from performing shooting actions (and thus DF), the DF rules included the clause so that this doesn't happen.

garrapignado wrote:When you try to perform defensive fire, you must let the opponent to finish his movement, so you are engaged, so you can't fire because you are previously engaged (previously not only means "last turn"). And the other squad can't fire, as would be firing at a engaged unit.

No. It means "previous to the movement". If unit A with overwatch is already fighting unit B when unit C moves into the 12" DF range, it cannot pause that ongoing close combat and fire at C. If it was unable to fire at a unit it would read "currently unengaged", and the status of the firing unit would therefore be checked during firing.

It just means you move them all before you remove models as casualties, makes it less confusing.

lord_blackfang wrote:
Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Ok at least I know now I'm not on the crazy train and overwatch does exactly as it reads.

lord_blackfang wrote:
Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Your answer helps me to understand this rule.

But, as other people said (and I didn't see in time), Overwatch allows specifically that shooting.

The point is: are there so many units with overwatch rule to care so much about it?

What units do we even know have overwatch? For all we know every Tau Firewarrior may get it with some crazy upgrade (though EXTREMELY unlikely).

At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

Edit: I mean Coteaz, not Karamazov, sorry

garrapignado wrote:The point is: are there so many units with overwatch rule to care so much about it?

No. There is one unit in the game that currently has it - Coteaz.

A stratagem gives a unit Overwatch when within 3" of an objective.

The likelihood of overwatch appearing regularly is minimal.

Dantalian wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

So it is in fact saying I can shoot the unit that is charging into melee with me before the assault starts? Because it sounds both ways to me so far. They must finish their move, enter assault, therefore not be able to shoot. But in the next breath say I can shoot as long as I'm not already previously engaged in combat? Or is it trying to say (for example) that if there are two squads there, both with overwatch ability, that the second squad not charged can still fire into them before the assault rolls begin.

1) You need Overwatch on any squad that wants to use Defensive Fire against an assault, or an enemy unit that moves within 12" of that squad.

2) Normal shooting rules prohibit you from taking any shooting actions (which Defensive Fire is) if you are locked in assault.

3) Defensive Fire forces you to wait until the triggering action is complete before you can utilize the Defensive Fire rule.

4) The passage that Lord Blackfang quoted gives you permission to bypass number 2, once the move is complete, as long as you were not previously locked in assault before the enemy unit you want to shoot assaulted you (or moved within 12"). It also tells you that if you shoot it up so bad that it has no more models left in base contact with your unit, you refer to the rules on lost contact outside of the assault phase for what to do next.

Dribble Joy wrote:
No. There is one unit in the game that currently has it - Coteaz.

A stratagem gives a unit Overwatch when within 3" of an objective.

The likelihood of overwatch appearing regularly is minimal.

Thanks.

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

The part in the pdf that refers to 'basic rules' is indeed how the Fantasy 8th ed book is organized - as a beginner you can use only the first chapters for your games and get used to them, before you move on to the advanced rules further back. Sounds exactly what GW would do in a new 40K edition.

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Fire at Will explicitly states that it affects units from both sides, regardless of who choses the stratagem

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

I tend to be a person who surrenders first turn and deploy according to that. And with some of these stratagems that wouldn't be a bad idea to continue. For example I could force night fighting first turn and use Tau's blacksun filters and acute senses to my advantage. But the main reason I see the Fire at Will being worth it for Tau is because you generally won't be assaulting units off objectives. I tend to play kroot heavy, but even then my opponent would had to of done something wrong to let it get to the point my kroot are assaulting his objectives.. Most games I end up shooting people off objectives.

Speaking of things that would make me and my kroot happy. The Surprise Attack stratagem would really play well with my play style. I think what would make this a lot more discernible is if we knew how many stratagem points we would be allocated. Because there are a few there that cost 12, so I'm assuming that there is a way for one player to get 12 points to spend. I'm very interested/excited to see how these stratagems will play out in the meta-game.

Charax wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Fire at Will explicitly states that it affects units from both sides, regardless of who choses the stratagem

Ah, so it does. Carry on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantalian wrote:

Speaking of things that would make me and my kroot happy. The Surprise Attack stratagem would really play well with my play style. I think what would make this a lot more discernible is if we knew how many stratagem points we would be allocated. Because there are a few there that cost 12, so I'm assuming that there is a way for one player to get 12 points to spend. I'm very interested/excited to see how these stratagems will play out in the meta-game.

Well, like I said, it's a bidding thing, detail under Tactical Gambit on pg 134 of the document.

If your oppenent is mad enough to give you 12 sp for the first turn...^^

Then again in games like Tau vs IG on a rather open board I can easily see a 12 sp bet...
I mean you can litterally whipe the opponent off the board with your first turn. 0o

FAKE...I could make this just using word. This is someones unilateral wet dream. It's too radical a departure from 5th edition.

I'm pretty sure that the Overwatch special rule is just for when enemy units come within 12". Defensive fire can be used by any unit that is assaulted whether they have Overwatch or not.

That's why it says in the Overwatch segment that if the unit is assaulted, it can shoot nonetheless.

Drake118 wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Overwatch special rule is just for when enemy units come within 12". Defensive fire can be used by any unit that is assaulted whether they have Overwatch or not.

That's why it says in the Overwatch segment that if the unit is assaulted, it can shoot nonetheless.

NO..and if you read the last couple pages, you will see why.

I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

Black Dragon wrote:FAKE...I could make this just using word. This is someones unilateral wet dream. It's too radical a departure from 5th edition.

Show us. Write a rulebook better than 5th in word.

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That's a good point. The Baron's text in the DE codex reads that he "adds +1 to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment". It had to be FAQ'd to make clear sense in 5th, but it suits what's described in the leaked document, where players roll for deployment instead of rolling who goes first, fantastically well.

Edit: Of course, I suppose someone could argue that someone could just have read the Baron's text in the DE codex, and have just been inspired to write that as a rule in a fandex.

I'm waiting to see the Cerebore/Tervigon dual kit in White Dwarf at the end of this month for my 100% confirmation. We should all thank Chapterhouse studios for their tervigon kit (which i'm not a fan of) because otherwise the litigious GW wouldn't have had to create a new unit to make a dual-kit for that particular model. (as I understand it GW cannot make a straight-up Tervigon kit because that IP is now owned by CH studios, the first to create such a kit. By doing a dual version with something else they can still produce the model....I may have a misunderstanding of the actual situation but that's what i thought anyway)

Also the inclusion of a weapon called a Zeal Bolt Pistol for Black Templars (fits their fluff with that title, don't it?).

You really think the tervigon is in one box with a "caterpillar-like" unit?

Yes, i really do.

Edit - A really big, fat caterpillar like unit that much like a tervigon, houses other tyranids inside of it. i think a dual kit for that wouldn't be a stretch to believe at all.

Kharrak wrote:

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That's a good point. The Baron's text in the DE codex reads that he "adds +1 to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment". It had to be FAQ'd to make clear sense in 5th, but it suits what's described in the leaked document, where players roll for deployment instead of rolling who goes first, fantastically well.

Edit: Of course, I suppose someone could argue that someone could just have read the Baron's text in the DE codex, and have just been inspired to write that as a rule in a fandex.

This is the kind of evidence we need. Good point!

IPS wrote:You really think the tervigon is in one box with a "caterpillar-like" unit?

I agree the Cerebore doesn't really look like the Tervigon artwork, but then there were some earlier rumors floating about that the Tervigon model is a little different than the artwork. So rumors might be fitting into place there.
Back on topic, I played a game with these last night and posted some random thoughts in the other thread.

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That is a brilliant point! Good find Sir!

SoI

tetrisphreak wrote: (as I understand it GW cannot make a straight-up Tervigon kit because that IP is now owned by CH studios, the first to create such a kit. By doing a dual version with something else they can still produce the model....I may have a misunderstanding of the actual situation but that's what i thought anyway)

a) CH doesn't make a Tervigon kit. They make some parts you can add to a Carnifex (which they don't sell) to make their version of a Tervigon, but not a complete kit.
b) The case to decide who owns what IP is still ongoing, so anyone that says CH stopped GW from releasing a Tervigon kit is premature.

Well, however the situation is, I still have hope for a neat new bio-transport for my bugs...and if it also makes the baby-factory of a tervigon I'll have to get a couple for those too.

That being said, a cerebore is referenced in the leak pdf so seeing a kit for such a model with such a name will also lend veracity to the 6th ed playtest rules (which i will myself be playtesting this weekend and i'm fairly excited about it).

Either it's a fake and someone really put a lot of hours on this or it's legit. Please let it be fake. Not to keen on terminator lists just dropping right next to me and assaulting that same turn. Oh and the missile launcher nerf would really kill my space wolves lists

2 things there - deep striking in critical range is dangerous because you have to scatter, and you can only engage on a deep strike so that's a 6" move for tactical or assault terminators. IF you expect such a tactic you simply wrap your units with transports so that the terminators can't get to your good stuff. Plus you'll bring more plasmaguns than before, so you'll get free AP2 shots on the terminators thanks to the Defensive Fire rule...and if they 'mishap' they become stunned which means they basically can't do anything that turn at all and count as stationary when you fire at them (thus making all your shots hit on 1 better than usual). No, i don't think you'll auto-lose to deep striking terminators if you prepare for them properly with sound tactics.

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

Brother SRM wrote:

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

When someone who I know is in the know, like Harry or Reds8n says it's a fake, then I'll buy that it's a fake. He says he heard from people who aren't his usual sources, so I'm pretty happy to keep believing.

Didn't Reds8n say that it was fake? Or that we shouldn't be getting our hopes up or something? I dunno, I'll have to find the post.

Reds8n GW were sending notices to stores that it was fake, kinda like how they denied a new Space Hulk existed and then announced Space Hulk.

Black Dragon wrote:FAKE...I could make this just using word.

Oh yeah? Well I could do it in Notepad... so there!!!

Seriously, what difference does the application make?

I have started a poll to guage folks opinions here on Dakka, for those interested in 40K general.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/423049.page

puma713 wrote:

Didn't Reds8n say that it was fake? Or that we shouldn't be getting our hopes up or something? I dunno, I'll have to find the post.

He said it was fake because GW said its fake. Just like Space Hulk.

So either it is fake and they are just making us aware of it or its legit but they are saying its fake, ala space hulk.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Reds8n GW were sending notices to stores that it was fake, kinda like how they denied a new Space Hulk existed and then announced Space Hulk.

Yeah, but he also mentioned the fact that he wasn't putting weight on the rumors. Here it is:

reds8n wrote: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.

.. given the fact that these rules would largely render much of FW's work irrelevant and OOD , and given how successful this arm of GW is, I wouod be inclined to write this off as the proverbial storm in a teacup.

The lack of action from GW legal persuades me of this further.

Robbietobbie wrote: Oh and the missile launcher nerf would really kill my space wolves lists

Most people would be 200% ok with this though what nerf you are referring to I'm not quite sure.

tetrisphreak wrote:

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf

edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook

puma713 wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

When someone who I know is in the know, like Harry or Reds8n says it's a fake, then I'll buy that it's a fake. He says he heard from people who aren't his usual sources, so I'm pretty happy to keep believing.

Didn't Reds8n say that it was fake? Or that we shouldn't be getting our hopes up or something? I dunno, I'll have to find the post.

Reds8n didn't support it... anyone seen yakface? No?

The document is a nice read.
The thread was a bit of a challenge, as I found it rather late ( work. ) and adding 10-15 pages in a few hours

It could be an early playtest document, but it also contains things like weapons with a point cost in a Rulebook without a army list in sight.
( page 90 , Selection of weapons )

1hadhq wrote:
It could be an early playtest document, but it also contains things like weapons with a point cost in a Rulebook without a army list in sight.
( page 90 , Selection of weapons )

As pointed out earlier, those are upgrade costs for the Weathered Bastion.

"The bastion can replace the
flamers with weapons that are listed both in the
Wargear section of this book and in the summary
of the army’s Codex. All flamers are replaced at
once, using the point cost listed next to the
weapon on page 90 and following pages. If the
weapon is listed without a point cost, it cannot be
taken for the bastion."

Robbietobbie wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf

edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook

Those are grenade profiles. You still use the weapon profiles in the codex when firing your weapons.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Black Dragon wrote:FAKE...I could make this just using word.

Oh yeah? Well I could do it in Notepad... so there!!!

Seriously, what difference does the application make?

Actually, quite a bit. I doubt you could make this in Word, and know absolutely that you could not in notepad. But file formats is kind of my area of expertise.

Robbietobbie wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf

edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook

You're looking at Grenade Launchers. Your Long Fangs should be more abusive than ever with the new rules system.

wow i hope you're right. I just noticed that they're assault btw, so I think I might have been a bit early calling this was a nerf. Always expect the worst

I've seen a few people mention critical hits in their experience in trying this rule set out - though I'm still unsure as to what actually causes critical hits. Is it a weapon quality - can only certain weapons case it, like Directed Wounds? Or is there always a condition that may trigger them?

Kharrak wrote:I've seen a few people mention critical hits in their experience in trying this rule set out - though I'm still unsure as to what actually causes critical hits. Is it a weapon quality - can only certain weapons case it, like Directed Wounds?

Deep strike mishaps, exploding vehicles and some other stuff. Not a weapon quality that I am aware of.

Critical hits are caused by ramming, no retreat, dangerous terrain tests, and being inside an exploded vehicle. With the exception to ramming and no retreat, they're basically roll a dice, if you roll a 1 take an invuln save or be wounded for each model in the unit that has to test (all done in one roll, not model-per-model like DT tests are now). No retreat is a critical hit for every casualty you lost by (like the Ld modifier is now)...but you can avoid those critical hits if you pass a Ld check with the same modifier - so fearless units have at least a shot to stay stuck in with no damage. A ram causes an automatic critical hit, which is a penetrating hit on a vehicle, with modifiers to the damage roll depending on whether or not it was a tank that did the ramming as well as the difference in Armor values...

They're not across the board OMG i'm losing models, but very well implemented.
It makes sense that being in an exploding vehicle could be quite deadly, even if it is only a 1/6 chance to die.

Ah, I see, thanks!

...huh... Interesting about how ramming works against vehicles now - both take a critical hit, but have modifiers depending on their armour value. I'm assuming then that a Deffrolla just inflicts d6 str10 hits in addition to the single critical hit from ramming, and NOT d6+1 critical hits

It's nice to know that driving over enemy units can cause some nice damage now, though.

Yeah it's d6 s10 hits, plus the critical hit with the appropriate modifiers. It's actually one of the examples used in the rules if i remember correctly.

Anyone else notice that Carnifexes can Ram also?

Yes - not great vs tanks but you can run over infantry (provided they can't move 6" out of the way) and really steamroll them down. - Or force their movement such that another unit will be in charge range to attack them better. Plus it forces a pinning test which can cause the unit to be shaken, slowing them down and reducing their shooting to just 1 weapon/model.

tetrisphreak wrote:Yeah it's d6 s10 hits, plus the critical hit with the appropriate modifiers. It's actually one of the examples used in the rules if i remember correctly.

Which leads me to an interesting realization. 'Ard Case now suddenly becomes a very interesting upgrade in keeping ones battlewagon a healthy ramming unit with the additional -1 modifier for being a tank WITHOUT open topped.

For something like the battlewagon, it makes ramming weaker vehicles absolutely devestating to their target with certainly that the battlewagon will be hardly effected, but ramming sturdier vehicles is much more risky than before.

Kharrak wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Yeah it's d6 s10 hits, plus the critical hit with the appropriate modifiers. It's actually one of the examples used in the rules if i remember correctly.

Which leads me to an interesting realization. 'Ard Case now suddenly becomes a very interesting upgrade in keeping ones battlewagon a healthy ramming unit with the additional -1 modifier for being a tank WITHOUT open topped.

Interestingly enough they don't mention the -1 tank modifier, but rather a -1 from the fact that a ram is a spread-out collision and not precise damage.

Only tanks can ram, which matters i guess. They can ram non-tank models, however. The description uses a leman russ ramming a rhino, so it gets -4 on it's return damage roll (14 is 3 higher than 11, so -3, plus the generic ram -1 = -4 modifier) while the rhino's damage roll is only -1 (ram modifier only).

Until such time that the document is made official and updated etc I will be going explicitly by that scenario and just do a generic -1 for the tank shock plus the difference in AV on the damage roll. I think it's the best way to play it while we're playtesting this ruleset.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Blackgaze wrote:power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Only if they have no other special rules, so hyperphase swords gives you a 5++ parry. Warscythes do not since they already give you +2 S and the 2d6 AP.

Ah....see that's interesting. In the Necron codex, it states that armour saves are not allowed against a Warscythe. I wondered why they didn't just call a Warscythe a Power Weapon. If this is a real 6E book, we now know that there is an additional benefit to Power Weapons in the future. Hence, the distiction. Not sure if it's real or not, but I want to believe it!!!

Kharrak wrote:I've seen a few people mention critical hits in their experience in trying this rule set out - though I'm still unsure as to what actually causes critical hits. Is it a weapon quality - can only certain weapons case it, like Directed Wounds? Or is there always a condition that may trigger them?

Also 'look out sarge' causes them.

Ok, I see the confusion here:

A Defensive Fire action may be taken if

A) An enemy unit DSes within 12" of your unit.

B) Your unit is assaulted. Defensive Fire represents the assaulted unit firing on the attackers before melee begins.

C) Your unit has the Overwatch special rule, any enemy unit that ends a move within 12" can be shot.

Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move action within 12" of you, you can shoot it on the enemy turn. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.

Madmax1 wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Blackgaze wrote:power weapons = 5+ inv parry save in combat?

Then warscythe Lychguard might actually be worth taking over shields sometimes. As well as lords having this as well.

More importantly

>Tyranid boneswords
>warriors and hive tyrant

Only if they have no other special rules, so hyperphase swords gives you a 5++ parry. Warscythes do not since they already give you +2 S and the 2d6 AP.

Ah....see that's interesting. In the Necron codex, it states that armour saves are not allowed against a Warscythe. I wondered why they didn't just call a Warscythe a Power Weapon. If this is a real 6E book, we now know that there is an additional benefit to Power Weapons in the future. Hence, the distiction. Not sure if it's real or not, but I want to believe it!!!

It wouldn't have mattered if they did call it a power weapon though. The fact that it has additional rules is what keeps it from getting the 5++ parry save.

K, someone needs to explain to me why the prevailing opinion is that defensive fire cannot be used every time you get assaulted.

Looking at the rulebook, defensive fire is an action, not a USR. On p. 56 of the PDF, under 'actions in the enemy turn', it states you can defensive fire as long as you meet certain criteria. Nowhere does it say you require Overwatch.

To me, it sounds like Overwatch is simply a more effective Defensive Fire since it not only allows you to fire at a unit that assaults you, but you can fire if they do so much as move within 12".

So where are people getting you NEED Overwatch to fire at assaulting units?

SoulGazer wrote:Ok, I see the confusion here:

A Defensive Fire action may be taken if

A) An enemy unit DSes within 12" of your unit.

B) Your unit is assaulted. Defensive Fire represents the assaulted unit firing on the attackers before melee begins. <- Wrong!

C) Your unit has the Overwatch special rule, any enemy unit that ends a move within 12" can be shot. <- This is what allows you to use DF if assaulted

Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move action within 12" of you, you can shoot it. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.

NO! nononononono....

There is noooooo trigger in the Defensive Fire rule to allow you to use it.

Maelstrom808 wrote:There is noooooo trigger in the Defensive Fire rule to allow you to use it.

There is no mention of Overwatch in the Defensive Fire rules text block(pg. 77). Why do you think that is if Overwatch is so necessary to the rule?

Blood of Kittens is saying this is a fake.

Anyone have any evidence of this?

creeping-deth87 wrote:K, someone needs to explain to me why the prevailing opinion is that defensive fire cannot be used every time you get assaulted.

Looking at the rulebook, defensive fire is an action, not a USR. On p. 56 of the PDF, under 'actions in the enemy turn', it states you can defensive fire as long as you meet certain criteria. Nowhere does it say you require Overwatch.

To me, it sounds like Overwatch is simply a more effective Defensive Fire since it not only allows you to fire at a unit that assaults you, but you can fire if they do so much as move within 12".

So where are people getting you NEED Overwatch to fire at assaulting units?

ACTIONS IN THE ENEMY TURN
Normally units only act in their own turn. In some
situations like suddenly appearing reinforcements
or a tank that tries to steamroll the warriors, a
squad is forced to react quickly. To represent this,
units can perform the following actions in an
enemy turn if and only if the rules explicitly allow
it.

This means you need a trigger to allow the action. There is no trigger listed in the rules for Defensive Fire. The triggers are listed in other rules.

Eilif wrote:Blood of Kittens is saying this is a fake.

Anyone have any evidence of this?

Evidence that BoK says it is fake? Yeah, it's right on their webpage.

Evidence that is a fake? Go ahead and read through the 50+ pages of this thread and you tell me.