Kirasu wrote:Yeah the charge distances havent really changed much to be honest.. Usually just a few inches due to fleet changes
Moving vehicle 6" then charging 6" is the same as getting out beforehand and just charging 12"
Its just a different way of doing it
It makes quite a bit of difference if a unit has Overwatch though. If you did it the old way, they'd shoot the Battlewagon. With the new way, they'll get to shoot the assaluting unit.
If this is real, it will spell the return of nob bikers to the tournament scene. No more instant-death by S8, and other shots have a harder time hitting them, while they keep their 4+ cover save. In addition they can now fire shootas or kombi weapons on top of their dakka gunz. The new wound allocation 'fix' also prevents losing the Waagh! Banner or the Dok by accident, while you can kill off big choppas or even slugga/choppa models to heal them. You can also pick a nob with a combi-rokkit and ammo runt as a squad leader to have him snipe special weapons/leaders out of marine squads. When he dies, the nob with the W! banner even becomes a new character. Being able to shoot after stomping a unit into the ground is also nice.
Regular nobz took a bit of a hit, but you can still get 'eavy armor for your important models to prevent the opponent from sniping them, same for the nob in boyz units.
Burnaz will be awesome at charging hordes - 1d6 attacks AP5 on the charge is very nice..
In addition, rokkits and deff gunz got a lot more dangerous to vehicles, warbosses and nobz with banners hit vehicles on a 5+ (thrakka on a 4+) and you get all those nifty advantages of assaulting transports, like charge by chance if you are within 2" of all their access points. Thanks to being tanks, all those rhinos and chimeras are no longer going to blow up in our faces either, while wrecking them with glances has become much easier and the even count as massive.
On the other hand, trukks and buggies can now get cover and are hit like infantry (non-tanks are not massive!), battlewagons can no longer be wrecked by a single glance and tank shocks actually kill models. Hurray trukk list?
Wondering about Sieze the Initiative. Instead of going first, it now grants the player 25% of the strategem points he or she bet. That's going to change the perception on the Initiative stealing guys like Imotekh and Vect - not to mention how Baron's ability now rather allows you +1 to your deployment zone roll off, rather than strictly allowing you to choose to go first or second.
Jidmah wrote:
Regular nobz took a bit of a hit, but you can still get 'eavy armor for your important models to prevent the opponent from sniping them, same for the nob in boyz units.
The whole unit has to take 'eavy armour or not afaik. But yes, 'eavy armour on nobs in boys mobs will be essential, as will combat shields for sergeants.
Shandara wrote:Also, if you engage you can shoot afterwards no? And with charge you can't.
Cerebrium wrote:I can't hold a rational conversation? All because I disagreed with something you maintain to be true?
How very mature of you.
Probably more to do with you insisting that there's no evidence that this might be a real GW document when in fact, there is. Insisting upon something that is easily disproven and has in fact been disproven is not very rational and you are doing Hitchens a great disservice by using his name as a magic bullet to prop up your deficient reasoning.
The heuristic lex parsimoniae, or Occam's Razor if you prefer, dictates that the simplest answer is usually the correct one and the most plausible until evidence can show it to be incorrect. To me, the simplest explanation for this is that it's a real GW document used during the development cycle for 6th Ed. that has been leaked; an assertion that requires no great leap. This being an 'elaborate troll' requires an unconnected party (or parties) to have significant skill in rules-writing in the 40k tradition (see the overwhelmingly positive reaction) and to have invested significant time and effort to no real end. That's a far greater leap and is, accordingly, not the most plausible answer.
Jidmah wrote:
Regular nobz took a bit of a hit, but you can still get 'eavy armor for your important models to prevent the opponent from sniping them, same for the nob in boyz units.
The whole unit has to take 'eavy armour or not afaik. But yes, 'eavy armour on nobs in boys mobs will be essential, as will combat shields for sergeants.
You are thinking of cybork. 'eavy armor is on a per model basis (listed in the same category as boss pole and ammo runt).
What's a bit 'yawn' is Assault Vehicles - They can go at Cruising speed and the occupants can Combat Move/Engage from it. Same assault range as open topped vehicle allow, but you get to do some dakka afterwards and still be close to the vehicle to hop back in in the consolidation phase.
Jidmah wrote:You are thinking of cybork. 'eavy armor is on a per model basis (listed in the same category as boss pole and ammo runt).
Huzzah!
(I would have looked it up, but my codex is like.. 7 feet away in my case... )
You can now move a vehicle, disembark, engage (Assault that you can shoot after) and if you wipe out the unit then you can shoot and get back in the transport
ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I like how gw thinks were all idiots. They take away hit modifiers for a clunky ev stat, that then as the same dang hit modifiers. Ive played battletech so hit modifier is easy. Skimmer with jinks, your at +1 to hit. Massive, your at -1 to hit. Ect.
Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!
I too always thought it was a shame modifiers disappeared, and in trying to reintroduce variables that affect how that probability changes (in the form of more named special rules) it actually makes things more difficult.
Infinity has a far more complex variables system, but it's amazing how quickly you can pick it up (and it becomes second nature) after just a few games.
ChocolateGork wrote:Land Raiders dont have fire points.
No number of rolleye emotes can express how I feel right now....
Fine, I'll just have to tear the bloody thing open with power klaws and then burn the poncy beakies.
ChocolateGork wrote:Does anyone see the boost for Leman Russ? They can now fire three weapons on the move.
All tanks got an upgrade for firing on the move (MT(2)).
Remember however that firing an Ordinance weapon costs two Heavy Fire actions, so they will only be able to fire one other weapon.
Sit still though and you can fire everything at different targets (6 actions, two to fire the big gun, one to divide fire and three left for the other weapons).
Jodiju wrote:
The heuristic lex parsimoniae, or Occam's Razor if you prefer, dictates that the simplest answer is usually the correct one and the most plausible until evidence can show it to be incorrect. To me, the simplest explanation for this is that it's a real GW document used during the development cycle for 6th Ed. that has been leaked; an assertion that requires no great leap. This being an 'elaborate troll' requires an unconnected party (or parties) to have significant skill in rules-writing in the 40k tradition (see the overwhelmingly positive reaction) and to have invested significant time and effort to no real end. That's a far greater leap and is, accordingly, not the most plausible answer.
This is how I feel about it.
All other things aside, the quality of the rules and the design are enough to establish them in my mind as a professionally written book. I've read a lot of fan dexes and to my knowledge, almost nobody in the community has ever made anything quite this good.
lilith is now going to be the dark eldar hero that she was meant to be.
if this goes to print she is going to single out and kill anything that has as a unique dent in their power armor when she charges a marine squad. being able to single out that PF at I9, as well as another special weopon etc, is going to make CC all about speed, speEED, and more SPEED. mark my words.
Painnen wrote:if this goes to print she is going to single out and kill anything that has as a unique dent in their power armor when she charges a marine squad. being able to single out that PF at I9, as well as another special weopon etc,
Directed attacks are chosen after the opponent allocates them to armour groups, so as long as a special model has a different set of armour saves, they can avoid it. Though of course the flamer, PF, icon, etc. probably won't have anything special, but it means that the various armour upgrades for squad leaders that are pretty much useless at current will be virtually auto-includes.
just read that part myself and you certainly are correct about useless upgrades being important! lol
Automatically Appended Next Post: someone mentioned Crypteks with Lances being the Be-All, End-All snipers, this little snipet shoots that down as well...
Shooting actions use
the Directed Hits rule as well if the target unit is
within point blank range. -this is in reference to charactors.
zilegil wrote:Jidmha you genius as always. Nob bikers are going to be scary.
Explain? Wound groups are different there.
If your opponent directs attacks at your painboy or waagh! banner without killing them, and you have a wounded big choppa left, you can kill that big choppa to heal your important nob back to full health.
In addition, nothing forces you to remove unwounded models as casualties anymore, you can do all the wound shenanigans you did before, only patch up will start killing them. So it's possible for ten nobz to suffer ten wounds in assault without casualties, then maybe have all ten of them shooting. Once the turn has ended, and only at the end of the turn, you lose five of them of your choice, while healing the other five to full health.
necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.
So basically every time someone new comes into this thread you want us to reinterate the last 25 pages of comments........Just read the thread! I mean you're asking for opinions on opinions on a spurious text....Just read the thread!
No I just do not have time to read every thing and this the only time I will do that.
This ruleset means the death of hero sniping with power fists. Infact with the new sniper rules being so cool (Directed hits and effective pinning) and independent characters being able to snipe we might see a major decrease of pimped out squad leaders. (cept for orks who can just give the nob eavy armour
ChocolateGork wrote:This ruleset means the death of hero sniping with power fists. Infact with the new sniper rules being so cool (Directed hits and effective pinning) and independent characters being able to snipe we might see a major decrease of pimped out squad leaders. (cept for orks who can just give the nob eavy armour
Kirasu wrote:Yeah the charge distances havent really changed much to be honest.. Usually just a few inches due to fleet changes
Moving vehicle 6" then charging 6" is the same as getting out beforehand and just charging 12"
Its just a different way of doing it
It makes quite a bit of difference if a unit has Overwatch though. If you did it the old way, they'd shoot the Battlewagon. With the new way, they'll get to shoot the assaluting unit.
I may be missing something, but my reading of DF and OW is that DF is a Shooting action that can only be used when the unit is assaulted. Meanwhile, OW is a special rule that allows a DF action vs units "ending a move action within 12."
So OW isn't a requirement for DF actions, it's a special rule expanding the circumstances under which DF actions can take place.
I definitely welcome the new To-Hit chart in close combat. When I first started playing this game, the very first army I picked was Chaos Daemons (yeah, it was a REAL bad idea). I immediately got latched on to the Bloodthirster because of how big and impressive it looked. When I started playing, though, I realized that he is probably the worst model ever. WS10 was 100000% useless because of the way the To-Hit chart worked. Average ol' Marines needed 5's to hit and I needed 3's to hit. If I was fighting a WS5 unit, they instead needed 4's to hit and I still needed 3's to hit. I have TWICE your weapon skill and I am the most feared close combat being in the entire universe. How are you hitting me with "average" rolls?
The new To-Hit chart is soooOoOOOoOoOoOOOo much better. Now, I hit you on 2's and you need 6's. Like it should f'n be. I should be so god damn badass in close combat that it should be sheer stroke of luck that you are hitting me (assuming that you are a Tac Squad).
Anyone else notice that not only can units now voluntarily move off the board, but units that fall back off the board or intentionally move off no longer count as destroyed?
Also, I cannot find any caveat about losing a mission if your army leaves the board (I may just be missing it though), if it's not actually there then coupled with the above it could lead to a lot of "I shoot turn 1, you don't do enough back, I withdraw at the beginning of my turn 2 and game ends in victory for me!" games.
Kirasu wrote:Yeah the charge distances havent really changed much to be honest.. Usually just a few inches due to fleet changes
Moving vehicle 6" then charging 6" is the same as getting out beforehand and just charging 12"
Its just a different way of doing it
It makes quite a bit of difference if a unit has Overwatch though. If you did it the old way, they'd shoot the Battlewagon. With the new way, they'll get to shoot the assaluting unit.
I may be missing something, but my reading of DF and OW is that DF is a Shooting action that can only be used when the unit is assaulted. Meanwhile, OW is a special rule that allows a DF action vs units "ending their move within 12."
So OW isn't a requirement for DF actions, it's a special rule expanding the circumstances under which DF actions can take place.
Am I wrong?
Yeah, you are sort of wrong. OW isn't the only time you can use DF, but it is the only trigger that allows you to use DF against an assault. Nothing in DF tells you when it triggers. The triggers are in other sections (like OW, and under Deep Striking). The only part of the DF rule that deals with assaults is handling this situation: DF 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, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and DF as a result). 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.
gorgon wrote:I may be missing something, but my reading of DF and OW is that DF is a Shooting action that can only be used when the unit is assaulted. Meanwhile, OW is a special rule that allows a DF action vs units "ending a move action within 12."
So OW isn't a requirement for DF actions, it's a special rule expanding the circumstances under which DF actions can take place.
Am I wrong?
DF is special action that you can use at your enemy's turn, only at specific cases, like an enemy unit Deep Striking in 12" of you. Overwatch simply adds another case of enemy assaulting you.
Vaktathi wrote:Anyone else notice that not only can units now voluntarily move off the board, but units that fall back off the board or intentionally move off no longer count as destroyed?
Also, I cannot find any caveat about losing a mission if your army leaves the board (I may just be missing it though), if it's not actually there then coupled with the above it could lead to a lot of "I shoot turn 1, you don't do enough back, I withdraw at the beginning of my turn 2 and game ends in victory for me!" games.
The unit has to be Broken to voluntarily leave the table.
benogham wrote:There is something stated elsewhere that is a bit disturbing :
page 147, "Fire Points" of the bastion. The "heck" of the bastion is mentionned. Heck is GERMAN for the "back" and not english.
Can it be an german playtest version translated in english by a native german speaker, or a hoax from a german fanboy ? I don't know the policy og GW regarding playtesting, so, do they playtest abroad ?
One of GW's handful of playtest groups is in Germany.
Also note that, and believe this true across the board, the use of the German "heck" for rear is with in the unit profile. These profiles are created early on and it is likely it just did not get changed.
This document looks exactly like hundreds of final draft documents i have worked with that are being passed between developers as they look for missed typos and things like "heck" still showing up in a profile created by a german dev group.
While this document was originally created in Apple Pages and converted to PDF with Adobe last May that does not show the final state of the document. It could have been saved 1/09/12 and we would not necessarily see that time stamp.
There is very little doubt among any of my fellow developers that this is real. I think there may be a few more changes before release, maybe May/June, but this is a final stage development document folks. This is not the work of a "lone gunman". That makes no sense at all.
If there was any doubt concerning it being real GW put all that to bed by the amount of money they are spending having their legal council track down and send take down notices. That is not cheap but it is what they have to do if they do not want a case of their not defending a claimed IP to exist. That could cause the loss of IP. Were this no a true document, even a fake one that referenced their IP, they would not be required to defend it under law. The only reason for that is one of copyright. That means the language used in the document is virtually identical to what will be the final copyrighted publication.
That said sites that are removing comment threads are acting on a lack of understanding pertaining to their rights. any person has the right to reproduce parts of a copyright document for the purposes of review/ critique etc.
I for one as a 25 year veteran of this game am very excited to start playing games with the new rules and look forward to buying the full book when it comes out. This will be the first time 40K as a game will approach being a game that compares well with other games.
Don't worry about getting copies of the new rules PDF. Bits want to be free and now that there is a copy out there eventual the now free roaming bits will find their way to your Mac. Or Windows machine if you are stuck with that.
I really hope that df is almost like stand and shoot in whfb. Hate how my guardsmen stand there and let someone charge them. And now that charges are longer...
From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.
ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I really hope that df is almost like stand and shoot in whfb. Hate how my guardsmen stand there and let someone charge them. And now that charges are longer...
Charges aren't longer and in fact if you stay in terrain they cant double their movement to get to you. But it seems you have a lot more to fear from deep-striking units.
Sephyr wrote:From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.
My assessment of it in general terms is shooting is now the focus of the game (as it should be in a sci-fi based game). You have many more options when it comes to shooting, and it is woven into just about every aspect of the game. Assaulting is still a more decisive way of removing an enemy unit (and in many ways more decisive than it was before), but shooting is going to be involved in almost everything you do, one way or another.
Vaktathi wrote:Anyone else notice that not only can units now voluntarily move off the board, but units that fall back off the board or intentionally move off no longer count as destroyed?
Also, I cannot find any caveat about losing a mission if your army leaves the board (I may just be missing it though), if it's not actually there then coupled with the above it could lead to a lot of "I shoot turn 1, you don't do enough back, I withdraw at the beginning of my turn 2 and game ends in victory for me!" games.
The unit has to be Broken to voluntarily leave the table.
im starting to notice errors popping up which is increasing my doubt for this being legit., one refering to fantasy rather than 40k "the canny Mekboys of the Orcs" the math for the instant dead example is off as well, ill keep looking but begins to feel unprofessional
tkrettler91 wrote:im starting to notice error after error popping up which is increasing my doubt for this being legit., one refering to fantasy rather than 40k "the canny Mekboys of the Orcs" the math for the instant dead example is off as well, ill keep looking but begins to feel unprofessional
You mine, just like the real books?
Ork vs Orc is just one of dozens of typos in that document. It is a working copy, after all.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Read through most of it. I'm at a crossroads as to whether or not it could potentially be testing rules or not. I only read the first page of this thread, so if the following has been said over and over again within the first 32+ pages... Sorry. Also, this is by far not an organized post from me.
The rules seem to be both fan made, a throwback to previous editions (Evasion, really?) and an update. Along with being at a crossroads as to whether or not this is legit, I am in the same boat concerning whether or not I like them. I didn't like 4th or 5th edition when they first came out and I ultimately probably won't like these.
Something that I didn't get to last night, and I don't even know if they're in there (though I saw reference to them): I like the idea of narrative combat missions. I'm a huge fan of campaigns in 40k, which I hope this may potentially lend assistance toward. I am a much bigger fan of campaigns than tournaments since it sometimes breaks players out of their ultra-competitive list building mode and turns them toward thinking up unique stories and backgrounds and building lists that fit it (again, sometimes).
Regardless, the ultimate thing concerning the rules is that I stopped caring much about them long ago(oh, I'll learn them from top to bottom, front to back, page to page) and just use 40k as an excuse to socialize and have fun in a competitive atmosphere.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
Yeah, I was just about to edit out my post, but since you ninja'ed me, I'll just leave it. However, with Scarabs being so prevalent so far, I wonder if this will remain in the release version.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
The one scarab that fist smashed into dust didn't find it funny ...although his 29 friends are laughing their asses off
tkrettler91 wrote:im starting to notice errors popping up which is increasing my doubt for this being legit., one refering to fantasy rather than 40k "the canny Mekboys of the Orcs" the math for the instant dead example is off as well, ill keep looking but begins to feel unprofessional
As someone stated just earlier, spelling errors are often intentionally used to identify different copies, so if it leaks, one knows exactly which one leaked, and who leaked it.
It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.
It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.
Which feels more fluffy. I like it.
Yar, single big hits shouldn't really do jack to them, but big AE attacks should just sweep them from the table. I like it.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.
Which feels more fluffy. I like it.
Missed that part. So, a regular Frag Missile uses a 10" blast and causes ID (2)? Yeah, good luck getting into hand-to-hand with the powerfist if that is true.
gorgon wrote:It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.
It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.
Persnoally, I'd rather have them stunned then lose them altogether, and the drop pods and spores offer valuable protection from defensive fire. I'm mostly depressed that they STILL won't allow primes to accompany a unit of warriors in a pod.
I think the 10" blasts vs. swarms is an error. It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules text as far as I can see and only pops up in that one table that is supposed to only list the names of various blast sizes, not how big they should be depending on the target.
lord_blackfang wrote:I think the 10" blasts vs. swarms is an error. It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules text as far as I can see and only pops up in that one table that is supposed to only list the names of various blast sizes, not how big they should be depending on the target.
Yeah, I REALLY don't get that part of it. That should be labeled the Apoc Blast. I almost think that it might of originally been for another table.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
And a squad of killa kanz gets 6 10" S6 blasts when shooting them.
"I wanted to shoot your scarabs, but accidentally bombarded your entire army with scrap metal."
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
This basically confirms that it's made by GW. Someone on 4chan is trying to discredit it and make people feel bad.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".
The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".
I agree that's strange. Really not sure what to make of it.
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".
The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".
They have rules for gargantuan creatures and superheavies, so they could just be covering their bases.
Sephyr wrote:From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.
My assessment of it in general terms is shooting is now the focus of the game (as it should be in a sci-fi based game). You have many more options when it comes to shooting, and it is woven into just about every aspect of the game. Assaulting is still a more decisive way of removing an enemy unit (and in many ways more decisive than it was before), but shooting is going to be involved in almost everything you do, one way or another.
Except some armies don't have good/effective shooting options. The current metagame is actually quite shooty if you go competitive: meltavets, Long Fang ML spam, BA razorspam. And now those same twin-linked lascannons and plasma guns hit Daemon Princes, Trygons and vehicles reliably on a 2+? I see many CC units being scrapped.
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".
The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".
They have rules for gargantuan creatures and superheavies, so they could just be covering their bases.
Hellstorm, Bombing Run and Apocalyptic Barrage are also explained, why not 7" and 10" blasts?
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Yeah...I think I'll be adding as much salt to a post on 4chan as I do about every other possibility for this document. If him and his buddies are telling the truth, GW needs to get them on their writting staff asap.
Can anyone tell me if it's possible for units to assault imidiately after deepstrike? That portion of rules is written in quite a messy way; as far as I read it they can not.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.
Agamemnon2 wrote:The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".
The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".
Nice catch. Classic copy/paste error!
(Ir)regarding the 4chan thing, sounds like a troll to me. Why would a fanbook skip a bunch of pages, refer to nonexistent basic rules and narrative sections, have exactly the kind of blank spaces for art and illustrations as real playtest copies do...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darkseid wrote:Can anyone tell me if it's possible for units to assault imidiately after deepstrike? That portion of rules is written in quite a messy way; as far as I read it they can not.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!
You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.
pretre wrote:Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!
You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.
I lol'd.
Seriously though, I think it is really up in the air. I need to create a sock puppet on here and pretend to be the disgruntled GW employee who leaked it now.
You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.
I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.
Perkustin wrote: but are vehicles effected at all, will mech still be the Norm?
if these are the rules, then there's lots of things affecting lots of things. Very little, if anything, didn't get changed.
For instance, you cannot hold objectives while embarked, and you have to hold an objective for an entire turn before you get a VP for it. That alone affects vehicles and parking lots.
I wonder how the new Look out Sarge! Rule could interact with the "if an attack can target a single model in a unit it becomes a new unit" does that mean that snipers can target a mini all they want but because there may be "another unit" infront of it (with that single mini counting as a unit) then the larger unit could take a "critical hit" to give their character/special weapon a cover save?
You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Hhaha, you've given everything away. I know which rules are which!
Sephyr wrote:From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.
My assessment of it in general terms is shooting is now the focus of the game (as it should be in a sci-fi based game). You have many more options when it comes to shooting, and it is woven into just about every aspect of the game. Assaulting is still a more decisive way of removing an enemy unit (and in many ways more decisive than it was before), but shooting is going to be involved in almost everything you do, one way or another.
Except some armies don't have good/effective shooting options. The current metagame is actually quite shooty if you go competitive: meltavets, Long Fang ML spam, BA razorspam. And now those same twin-linked lascannons and plasma guns hit Daemon Princes, Trygons and vehicles reliably on a 2+? I see many CC units being scrapped.
You endup with a trade off though. On MCs, while they are getting hit more reliably, they also don't have the insane fear of a single hit wiping them from the table. Instead of a few armies being able to laugh them off, while others struggle, everyone's ability to deal with them has become more leveled. On vehicles, I think they generally took a hit in overall power levels, but personally, I'm happy to see that. Obviously others may not agree. CC should be very risky to encourage you to shoot a unit into the ground before you mop it up by overrunning it, rather than try to build insane CC units to wipe everything from straightaway.
Obviously, that's just my take on it. I'm sure plenty would disagree.
gorgon wrote:It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.
It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.
Persnoally, I'd rather have them stunned then lose them altogether, and the drop pods and spores offer valuable protection from defensive fire. I'm mostly depressed that they STILL won't allow primes to accompany a unit of warriors in a pod.
You have a good chance of losing the unit if it's stunned. Trygons in particular would face a round of DF at EV1, then be unable to move, shoot, etc. Then it'd suffer more shooting at EV1 in the opponent's turn. This is going to force more conservative drops...since stunned is a bad place to be, you won't want to use scatter shenangians to ensure point-blank arrivals like you can now.
Regarding that comment on /tg/, if it was written by random /tg/ users, it would have been incomprehensibly written and scribed in oil crayon on paper towels, complete with smudges and fingerprints. That comment is either someone having fun or some disinformation from GW itself. Who'd add in the stuff about vehicle dice and hobby centers if it was a homebrewed, just-for-fun thing? And how did a doc written in May have accurate info on Tesla weapons?
Perkustin wrote:I am sorry for being a lazy bum and not reading the thread (bar the bookends) but are vehicles effected at all, will mech still be the Norm?
Vehicles in general haven't changed much. Maybe took a little hit overall in resilliance. Transports took a pretty decent kick in the nuts as safe, reliable means of moving units from point A to B.
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.
I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.
It's not that you can't make a document like this look real. It's that you don't make a clearly pre production version of the rules with blanks for diagrams and illustrations and references to nonexistent text for the purpose of your local gaming group.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.
Which feels more fluffy. I like it.
I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds. Template weapons getting ID(2) simply allows the weapon to bypass the ED(1) on swarms. A heavy flamer (S5) against a T3 swarm will still only cause 1 wound. A frag missle/grenade will still only cover one, maybe two models (2" coherency, 1.5" radius on the small template), will not cause extra wounds (S isn't high enough; "Vulnerable to Blasts" only causes double hits on vehicle units) and will basically be less effective than they are now.
Now, if it's true that a frag grenade/missle suddenly uses the 10" pie plate when targeting swarms (which I doubt) then sure, those weapons got better in that they'll hit more models. Overall killing power of said weapon has gone down, however.
Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.
No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers
I know there is a section in the book dedicated to flyers. If you reread it, you will notice that in that "Flyers" section it clearly says that there is no Flyers Unit Type and that units become Flyers by making Supersonic Moves. So a unit can Take on the Flyer Special Rule until the start of its next turn, in which case it can Supersonic again, keeping the rules for Flying.
There are no flyer units, however there are units that inherently have the Flyer USR always, (eg. Stormraven, Necron Scythes, etc.) Other vehicles that move supersonic gain the flyer USR for the turn they moved supersonic.
I like this as it makes the Night Scythes much more desirable for the necrons, along with the new reserve rules it makes it a safe, hard to hit flying transport, while the stormraven while still hard to hit if you have any embarked units they are now lost if the raven is destroyed or immobilized.
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.
I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.
If you're just whipping up something to use among friends, why include spaces for diagrams and suggest using Official GW Damage Dice?
His Master's Voice wrote:
It's not that you can't make a document like this look real. It's that you don't make a clearly pre production version of the rules with blanks for diagrams and illustrations and references to nonexistent text for the purpose of your local gaming group.
Unless your intent is to fool everyone, using your FLGS rules as a base... but still a -lot- of work for a troll.
Sephyr wrote:From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.
My assessment of it in general terms is shooting is now the focus of the game (as it should be in a sci-fi based game). You have many more options when it comes to shooting, and it is woven into just about every aspect of the game. Assaulting is still a more decisive way of removing an enemy unit (and in many ways more decisive than it was before), but shooting is going to be involved in almost everything you do, one way or another.
Except some armies don't have good/effective shooting options. The current metagame is actually quite shooty if you go competitive: meltavets, Long Fang ML spam, BA razorspam. And now those same twin-linked lascannons and plasma guns hit Daemon Princes, Trygons and vehicles reliably on a 2+? I see many CC units being scrapped.
You endup with a trade off though. On MCs, while they are getting hit more reliably, they also don't have the insane fear of a single hit wiping them from the table. Instead of a few armies being able to laugh them off, while others struggle, everyone's ability to deal with them has become more leveled. On vehicles, I think they generally took a hit in overall power levels, but personally, I'm happy to see that. Obviously others may not agree. CC should be very risky to encourage you to shoot a unit into the ground before you mop it up by overrunning it, rather than try to build insane CC units to wipe everything from straightaway.
Obviously, that's just my take on it. I'm sure plenty would disagree.
Guntanks got significantly better, transports used in the role got worse. It's nice.
streamdragon wrote:If you're just whipping up something to use among friends, why include spaces for diagrams and suggest using Official GW Damage Dice?
IF that scenario is correct, then the official GW damage dice thing is just taking the piss.
They seem to reference a "Look Here First" type of rules, probably the first 21 or so missing pages, or a extra booklet. Not likely a fan produced set unless they meant to be a hoax.
gorgon wrote:It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.
It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.
Persnoally, I'd rather have them stunned then lose them altogether, and the drop pods and spores offer valuable protection from defensive fire. I'm mostly depressed that they STILL won't allow primes to accompany a unit of warriors in a pod.
You have a good chance of losing the unit if it's stunned. Trygons in particular would face a round of DF at EV1, then be unable to move, shoot, etc. Then it'd suffer more shooting at EV1 in the opponent's turn. This is going to force more conservative drops...since stunned is a bad place to be, you won't want to use scatter shenangians to ensure point-blank arrivals like you can now.
Regarding that comment on /tg/, if it was written by random /tg/ users, it would have been incomprehensibly written and scribed in oil crayon on paper towels, complete with smudges and fingerprints. That comment is either someone having fun or some disinformation from GW itself. Who'd add in the stuff about vehicle dice and hobby centers if it was a homebrewed, just-for-fun thing? And how did a doc written in May have accurate info on Tesla weapons?
Honestly, it's up to the player to judge the risk, just like it has always been for deep striking, only now you have much better options for protecting the unit. There are heavy risks involved, but they are also easier to avoid.
Like I said, if the new Tyranid creature is a Cerebore, that should pretty much nail down the rules' authenticity. Unless you want to believe this gaming group also magically guessed that one in addition to Tesla weapons. Also kinda funny how Preferred Enemy on Destroyers suddenly makes some sense under these new rules. Guess this gaming group also anticipated Destroyers getting a useless PE rule in a codex that wasn't released yet and worked up a solution. Man, those guys are AMAZING.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.
Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.
So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.
Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.
On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.
So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.
Which feels more fluffy. I like it.
I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds. Template weapons getting ID(2) simply allows the weapon to bypass the ED(1) on swarms. A heavy flamer (S5) against a T3 swarm will still only cause 1 wound. A frag missle/grenade will still only cover one, maybe two models (2" coherency, 1.5" radius on the small template), will not cause extra wounds (S isn't high enough; "Vulnerable to Blasts" only causes double hits on vehicle units) and will basically be less effective than they are now.
.
This is incorrect. Just like current rules, ID can happen from one of two sources: Either a weapon with S above a particular threshold, or a specific special rule on the weapon or attack. Neither has any reliance on the other.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!
Yea cause a group would totally write a fwd to veteran players if it was for their own group only!
This is incorrect. Just like current rules, ID can happen from one of two sources: Either a weapon with S above a particular threshold, or a specific special rule on the weapon or attack. Neither has any reliance on the other.
And swarms are going to be more vulnerable, since they cannot hide behind other units. So, you either keep them hidden behind cover in fear of blasts (and then they have a tough time using Bounding Leap/Gallop), or you keep them out in the open and weather the storm.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Painnen wrote:I think vehicles got a boost in the sense that all their occupants can now assault out of them depending on speed of course.
i also think that 'weopon destroyed' going away was big too. no longer can you just knock off the deathray, battlecannon, phelm, etc.
Yeah, but now it takes much fewer weapons destroyed results to glance something to death. It only takes two weapons destroyed results to completely knockout a vehicle's shooting, regardless of if it has 2 weapons or 20.
lord_blackfang wrote:I would say Transports are a bit less appealing and shooty vehicles a bit more.
Overall they are a bit tougher to damage initially but more vulnerable to stacking minor damage results.
Yeah, I'd agree with that...and it's a lot easier for bad things to happen to a transport's contents now.
In addition to the other problems pointed out by the "it's our house rules" claim; if this is just some gaming group's house rules why does the document start on p22?
I'm not 100% sold on these being real but I don't believe the /tg/ post for a second.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.
ID2 doesn't negate EW1 it just adds an extra wound. the unit is still immune to Standard ID
Oh my apologies it does in fact say that it negates lower levels. so yea stay the hell away from str 7 blasts.
I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.
Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.
I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.
I can say in almost absolute surety that this project has absolutely nothing to do with /tg/. I peruse 4chan daily, and /tg/ along with /v/ is more or less my "home base" when it comes to boards. A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery. Any results of this would have taken a large thread of conversation, debate, and general questioning from those interested. I'm not exactly awake 24/7, nor am I at the computer all day every day, but the board's slow and the possibility of such a mega-thread being made, commented upon and worked on, and then deleted without me ever seeing it or any thread bringing it up again is frankly pretty small.
And given the fact that I had never heard about it prior to a day or two ago, and judging by the fact that /tg/ positively exploded with massive threads of discussion on the subject when the subject did come up...the product has never been seen on 4chan, or the widest majority of the internet being that /tg/ is a fairly popular stomping ground for tabletop gamers in general. Given it's a document from May of 2011, it would have been posted ad nauseum on the board by now, and discussion of it would be old hat. And again given that the document was made more than half a year ago, the possibility of it being some material used for trolling 8 months down the line sounds fairly preposterous. Thus I either have to conclude that it's an effort by a group to put together an official-looking homebrew for completely personal use who happen to never show huge products to the internet for discussion, or an earlier working form of another edition made by Games Workshop employees, even if only to test out some new ideas.
As for the time it took to come out, I am guessing that with later editions came more difficulty to track copies and laxer security in general as newer working models came out. Whoever released it, disgruntled employee or not, probably felt they were not going to be caught. There is also the possibility that it's an intentional leak, but given that it's an old document you would figure they would not throw out eight months of work to get commentary on what must be an incredibly aged model.
streamdragon wrote:
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.
Ah, I think I see what you are getting at. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you are saying that the ID(2) would negate EW(1) completely, thus allowing the ID from high str or ID(S) to take effect. If that's the case, let's take a look.
1 wound from S1-S5 blast (current rules) = 2 wounds
1 wound from S6-S10 blast (current rules) = 6 wounds
1 wound from S1-S7 blast (new rules) = 2 wounds (ID2 so 1+1)
1 wound from S8 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID(S) comes into play so 1+2)
1 wound from S9 blast (new rules) = 4 wounds (now you have 3 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+3)
1 wound from S10 blast (new rules) = 5 wounds (4 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+4)
Edited for failed reading comprehension on my part
As for writing rules and/or existance on /tg/ for myself, I'm aware of their pain in the ass levels. Librarian Watt Mard here, Obstinate Marine codex and all that fun stuff. :3 MOVE EVER ONWARDS BROTHER. Etc. (Seriously want to model a small army of them some day. Contemptor with jetpack included.
Anyways, some of the statements made in reaction to my quote from /tg/ somewhat reinforces my opinion that this is a real document (6th)
streamdragon wrote:
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.
I disagree, it should be :
Hence I would think a S8 BLAST weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.
If the weapon is a simple missile launcher, the eternal warrior (1) rule that swarm has negates ID from the hit. Standard loss of only 1 wound.
If the hit is a blast (for example a LRBT shot), the vulnerability of the swarm to explosions gives ID (2) to the shot. Then it nullifies EW (1) so that the swarm suffers (Str:8) - (T:3) -4 = 2 additional wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.
No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.
I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.
Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.
And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.
Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.
Ah, I think I see what you are getting at. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you are saying that the ID(2) would negate EW(1) completely, thus allowing the ID from high str or ID(S) to take effect. If that's the case, let's take a look.
1 wound from S6-S10 blast (current rules) = 6 wounds
1 wound from S6 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID2 so 1+2) NO !
1 wound from S7 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID2 and ID(S) comes into play but for now I'm assuming no stacking so 1+2)
1 wound from S8 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (same)
1 wound from S9 blast (new rules) = 4 wounds (now you have 3 extra wounds from ID(S) so it takes over so 1+3)
1 wound from S10 blast (new rules) = 5 wounds (4 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+4)
Now if they stack, it'd be
S6 = 3
S7 = 4
S8 = 5
S9 = 6
S10 = 7
So you'd still need at least a S9 blast/template before you equaled what the current S6 blast/template does. Although if the 10" blast marker thing is somehow correct...you most likelyy endup with a lot more original wounds so...ouch.
You are getting it wrong here. Instant death (2) does not mean 2 additional wounds. Number (2) only purpose is to be compared to Eternal Warrior number, to see which one nullifies the other.
So for T:3 swarms, all template hits from the lowest strenght, up to 7 trigger a simple instant death, that causes only ONE additional wound. To wipe out the swarm from the table a Str 8 blast is required.
STUCARIUS wrote:There is very little doubt among any of my fellow developers that this is real. I think there may be a few more changes before release, maybe May/June, but this is a final stage development document folks. This is not the work of a "lone gunman". That makes no sense at all.
If there was any doubt concerning it being real GW put all that to bed by the amount of money they are spending having their legal council track down and send take down notices. That is not cheap but it is what they have to do if they do not want a case of their not defending a claimed IP to exist. That could cause the loss of IP. Were this no a true document, even a fake one that referenced their IP, they would not be required to defend it under law. The only reason for that is one of copyright. That means the language used in the document is virtually identical to what will be the final copyrighted publication.
I would agree. I thought that there might be the possibility that this is a well-executed viral marketing campaign for a new scifi rules system but it's just dripping with GW IP. 'Oops, we are going to remove all GW IP before publication; they were included for internal review so that playtesters would have a better grasp of how the rules worked.' ain't gonna cut it, from what I understand. Even if GW didn't write this they're going to own it, if that makes any sense (and based on my understanding of IP law).
I think (I hope) it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example. GD's in the CSM codex count as being in defensive fire... erm... with what exactly? Hopes and dreams they'll not get killed by the arsenal now hitting on a 2+?
CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.
Shooting AFTER assault? How is that justified? Does one generally shoot something as it's charging towards you with murder in it's eyes or after it's killed a few of you enough to notice...
EDIT: MC's being hit on a 2+? Seems a bit overkill.... They're tough but my god they're not THAT tough. Half of them don't reach the other line as it is..
CCW's with an AP value? I actually don't mind this idea.. but it still seems very unGW.
It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.
Regarding Apoc. stuff: Could it be that given this is most likely a play test version, they added them so Apoc. could be tested at the same time to see how the rules blend with the standard ones and they may/may not actually see the main rule book but a future Apoc. (re)release?
Gram wrote:A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery.
I've produced no fewer than three projects like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's scribbled in the margins of a notebook.
There's no requirement this be some kind of huge, elaborate, team-based effort. "Production values" is no indicator of fake or real.
Gram wrote:A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery.
I've produced no fewer than three projects like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's scribbled in the margins of a notebook.
There's no requirement this be some kind of huge, elaborate, team-based effort.
I often times like to sculpt full sized human figures out of bronze myself. The stuff in museums is pretty standard faire.
Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Ummm... that's already true with regards to Ahriman and Eldrad.
Dribble Joy wrote:Regarding Apoc. stuff: Could it be that given this is most likely a play test version, they added them so Apoc. could be tested at the same time to see how the rules blend with the standard ones and they may/may not actually see the main rule book but a future Apoc. (re)release?
Is eternal warrior and instant death 1,2,3 tied in to apoc, or is that something new? I assume it is for (1) normal stuff (2) big stuff and (3) titan stuff. It seems they are integrating titans into standard rules, hopefully only in games above 3000 points or so. With expanded force org charts.
Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Well, considering Mastery level in essence is just how many powers a model can use a turn, this didn't change anything from the current dexes. Especially since they left Eldrad's staff alone.
Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example.
Unless noted otherwise, the current Eternal Warrior special rule gives Eternal Warrior (1) in these rules.
CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.
Meh...
Shooting AFTER assault?
Meh...
It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I often times like to sculpt full sized human figures our of bronze myself. The stuff in museums is pretty standard faire.
The guy is insisting something of this scope is unproducable by one person. He's incorrect.
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well, and that you use industry professional tools to do so.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well, and that you use industry professional tools to do so.
3 in 34 years isn't very routine. If I had steak for dinner three times in my life, would you say I routinely ate steak?
Dribble Joy wrote:Regarding Apoc. stuff: Could it be that given this is most likely a play test version, they added them so Apoc. could be tested at the same time to see how the rules blend with the standard ones and they may/may not actually see the main rule book but a future Apoc. (re)release?
Is eternal warrior and instant death 1,2,3 tied in to apoc, or is that something new? I assume it is for (1) normal stuff (2) big stuff and (3) titan stuff. It seems they are integrating titans into standard rules, hopefully only in games above 3000 points or so. With expanded force org charts.
It's new, and to a degree I think there is some consolidation of a few expansions here. The big thing at the moment is there is no allowance in the missons given for anything outside of standard force org that I've seen.
More examples of non-standard missions can be
found in the Narrative games section on page
182. Those pages are a rich repertoire of new
modules that can be used for your own missions.
The section introduces alternative deployment
methods, new mission objectives, plenty of
additional stratagems and mission special rules.
This is where the apocalypse level stuff probably lurks.
Also note that there are 30 more pages missing between the end of the document and the start of the Narrative section.
Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example.
CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.
Shooting AFTER assault?
It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.
They're simply basing the psychic level off of the number of powers you can use every turn (so mephy gets 3 and eldrad gets 2 before his staff bumps him to 3) and not the fluff. The codex updates are stopgap measures that shoehorn in years-old books into a system that is yet to be released.
If eternal warrior doesn't have a classification, it's automatically a (1) as clearly stated in the rule.
Chaos marines (I assume that's what "CMS's" means) have long been rumored to be a part of the upcoming starter set for the same edition. It meshes perfectly with them being one of the standard go-to examples in the rules and lends credence to both rumors.
Shooting after assault is a staple of tons of other game systems and even Rogue Trader charges happened before shooting.
If you apply a bit more common sense and perception to the rules, you'll see that the little indicators actually do point towards it being legitimate. This meshes with alot of the rumors from the past year about both the starter set contents and the rules.. if it's fake, it must be some seriously long term disinformation that's been passed around the some inner gaming circles.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well,
Never fail to respect the lengths bored nerds will go to if driven enough and with enough time on their hands.
and that you use industry professional tools to do so.
you mean widely pirated MS Word/Adobe Acrobat? Such a piece is entirely possible to construct in Word and port to a PDF.
Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Well, considering Mastery level in essence is just how many powers a model can use a turn, this didn't change anything from the current dexes. Especially since they left Eldrad's staff alone.
Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example.
Unless noted otherwise, the current Eternal Warrior special rule gives Eternal Warrior (1) in these rules.
CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.
Meh...
Shooting AFTER assault?
Meh...
It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.
Entirely possible, we'll just have to wait.
Meh. , lol. Indeed.. it is all speculation but in regards to the first.. i'd say the language used to describe what's going on implies something more than it's essence. The term 'Mastery Level' is a little misleading and i'm happy to be told otherwise as I genuinely cannot recall but even GW usually seem a little more on the ball then that.
I do agree with Darkness Eternal on the above issue aswell. For a practised writer and skilled word processor (of which there are MANY in this hobby) putting something together like this wouldn't be too much of a stretch even a lone.
Kevlar wrote:Is eternal warrior and instant death 1,2,3 tied in to apoc, or is that something new? I assume it is for (1) normal stuff (2) big stuff and (3) titan stuff.
Generally seems a place holder (there is only two examples of ID(2)) and D weapons (the preserve of super-heavies/Apoc.) is only ID(1).
But who knows.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well,
Never fail to respect the lengths bored nerds will go to if driven enough and with enough time on their hands.
and that you use industry professional tools to do so.
you mean widely pirated MS Word/Adobe Acrobat? Such a piece is entirely possible to construct in Word and port to a PDF.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well,
Never fail to respect the lengths bored nerds will go to if driven enough and with enough time on their hands.
While I actually think the ruleset is legit, I do agree with the last comment. I hear that some of those bored nerds even spend many hours painting up hundreds of toy soldiers!!!
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know, I was simply mocking your inference that you routinely write 160+ page game systems to patch up other systems for the fun of it, that you format it fairly well, and that you use industry professional tools to do so.
3 in 34 years isn't very routine. If I had steak for dinner three times in my life, would you say I routinely ate steak?
I would if you said:
I've eaten no fewer than three 30 pound steaks like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's childs cutlet from arbies.
Semper wrote:Meh. , lol. Indeed.. it is all speculation but in regards to the first.. i'd say the language used to describe what's going on implies something more than it's essence. The term 'Mastery Level' is a little misleading and i'm happy to be told otherwise as I genuinely cannot recall but even GW usually seem a little more on the ball then that.
That's essentailly it's purpose already in the GK codex. As stated earlier in the thread. Much of what this document is about is taking all the scattered rules in the dexes that say the same thing but say it 4 different ways, and it puts those rules into one place with common wording that will translate from codex to codex. It provides easier and more consistant standards with which to build new dexes from.
Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example.
CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.
Shooting AFTER assault?
It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.
They're simply basing the psychic level off of the number of powers you can use every turn (so mephy gets 3 and eldrad gets 2 before his staff bumps him to 3) and not the fluff. The codex updates are stopgap measures that shoehorn in years-old books into a system that is yet to be released.
If eternal warrior doesn't have a classification, it's automatically a (1) as clearly stated in the rule.
Chaos marines (I assume that's what "CMS's" means) have long been rumored to be a part of the upcoming starter set for the same edition. It meshes perfectly with them being one of the standard go-to examples in the rules and lends credence to both rumors.
Shooting after assault is a staple of tons of other game systems and even Rogue Trader charges happened before shooting.
If you apply a bit more common sense and perception to the rules, you'll see that the little indicators actually do point towards it being legitimate. This meshes with alot of the rumors from the past year about both the starter set contents and the rules.. if it's fake, it must be some seriously long term disinformation that's been passed around the some inner gaming circles.
I have gathered that for the first point upon mastery levels, but as I pointed out to my first contender it's a somewhat misleading object of language that doesn't really stand commercially in my opinion when their fluff belches otherwise at you.
As for the EW point. The implied problem is not the mere fact they havn't clarified it being the actual problem, rather the fact they've not clarified it thus making the point of having a tier system somewhat redundant in the entirety. Yes I have seen similar things but an entire new system made for the benefit of one or two units that have a level 2 or 3 tier? (I am under selling the number, I know).
At the same time with your point in regards to my applications of common sense and perception.. well the same can be said to little indicators pointing out it's false nature. Admittedly I have not thoroughly read the rules, merely skimmed them but your rebuttal is limited in this sense as it's a vice-versa situation whereby I could say any number of similarly subjective things in return, as I have, to highlight (at least for myself) the futility of having faith in this piece of work.
A piece of work like that can take a month or so to produce.. a very dedicated nerd.. such as the fellow who created a scale model of the enterprise on minecraft could do it and WOULD do it fairly willingly i'm sure and nothing included in this that's been a rumour is prior November 2011. On another note.. I may have overlooked them.. but I didn't see anything Necron in the codex updates. Perhaps they don't need it.. perhaps the codex updates were done prior to a necron/document release.
EDIT:
@ Maelstrom88. And? Their desire to correlate the varying terms wasn't the subject of my query. It's the inconsistency in calling it mastery level, pointing out even the best eldar seers couldn't hope to exceed level 5 (the implication of which is they can/have reached 5 and as well all are lead to believe Eldrad is the top dog in that department) then slumping him with a 2 in the codex updates, behind Meth and Ahriman. I'm saying the fluff doesn't match the standards/ratios/thingymabobs of the rules but it does match the name. To me it's like saying you have three cans of blue paint but only two of them have blue and the third is merely green. Perhaps it's a more generalised issue with GW.. but it's one someone would hope corrected in a new rule system....
Semper wrote:
I do agree with Darkness Eternal on the above issue aswell. For a practised writer and skilled word processor (of which there are MANY in this hobby) putting something together like this wouldn't be too much of a stretch even a lone.
Barfing out 130 pages of text isn't much of an issue. But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter. And all for a few lulz? Unlikely. There's also the compliance to many recent rumours. So either the work was done incredibly fast, or it's part of a huge troll campaign spanning years.
lord_blackfang wrote:But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter.
To be fair, and you called this out yourself, you could basically go through the rumors forum for things that people liked out of various out there rumors and assemble them together to make 'an instant hit'. It's basically design by committee.
I'm not saying it is real or fake, but I'm saying that a savvy person could easily play to the masses with this kind of thing if they knew their audience.
Semper wrote:
I do agree with Darkness Eternal on the above issue aswell. For a practised writer and skilled word processor (of which there are MANY in this hobby) putting something together like this wouldn't be too much of a stretch even a lone.
Barfing out 130 pages of text isn't much of an issue. But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter. And all for a few lulz? Unlikely. There's also the compliance to many recent rumours. So either the work was done incredibly fast, or it's part of a huge troll campaign spanning years.
This is the crux of it, yes. It's not JUST that is long. It's not JUST that it is laid out like a rulebook. It's not JUST that the rules are really good. It is that it is all of those things and then some.
I have read a LOT of fanmade rules and they don't look like this. It's not just layout. The language and design are nothing like fan-made rules ever are. Let's face it, fanmade rules tend to really stink. Most of the time they have either an amateur feel to them or a wordy powergamer style. This is a balance between those that I've only ever seen an actual professional book do properly.
lord_blackfang wrote:
Barfing out 130 pages of text isn't much of an issue. But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter. And all for a few lulz? Unlikely. There's also the compliance to many recent rumours. So either the work was done incredibly fast, or it's part of a huge troll campaign spanning years.
I suggest visiting the Proposed Rules forum. There's a new codex every week.
And a great deal of these rules are just a compilation of what people already said they wanted on this very forum.
There's nothing in this document to mark it as real. There's also nothing that marks it as fake. It just is.
pretre wrote:
I'm not saying it is real or fake, but I'm saying that a savvy person could easily play to the masses with this kind of thing if they knew their audience.
They could, yes, but not in the amount of time that they've actually HAD since the rumours first started and STILL have it be coherent and playable.
lord_blackfang wrote:
Barfing out 130 pages of text isn't much of an issue. But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter. And all for a few lulz? Unlikely. There's also the compliance to many recent rumours. So either the work was done incredibly fast, or it's part of a huge troll campaign spanning years.
I suggest visiting the Proposed Rules forum. There's a new codex every week.
And a great deal of these rules are just a compilation of what people already said they wanted on this very forum.
Which were based on the previous sixth edition rumor leak themselves.
If it's a fake I tip my hat to the faker because he even went to the trouble of editing the date it was made (May 17 2011) and having the stats for Necron stuff in it. Would that all trolls and hoaxers do such sterling work.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
This confession is a troll, and not even a well thought-out troll at that. The quote denies personal responsibility because they are scared of legal department bloodhounds pursuing him as well as hoping that saying "it wasn't me, it was my friend" would shield him from being unable to answer intricate questions without doing the research. I'd bet that the person who posted this confession never even looked at the actual document. This confession is simply lazy, and to be taken no more seriously than any living person claiming to have assassinated a Kennedy.
Semper wrote:I think (I hope) it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?
Uh, Mephiston can already use 3 psychic powers per turn.
DarknessEternal wrote:
Gram wrote:A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery.
I've produced no fewer than three projects like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's scribbled in the margins of a notebook.
There's no requirement this be some kind of huge, elaborate, team-based effort. "Production values" is no indicator of fake or real.
"Production values" in this sense should not refer to placeholders for images, but to similarity of writing and work. Now, you have made a claim without much foresight, and I feel the need to call you on it: I would like see your magnum opus that puts this document to shame. I hope it is a project of comparable scope and relevance.
Semper wrote:I do agree with Darkness Eternal on the above issue aswell. For a practised writer and skilled word processor (of which there are MANY in this hobby) putting something together like this wouldn't be too much of a stretch even a lone.
As a practiced writer and skilled and word processor, I feel comfortable in saying that something like this would definitely be a stretch to create alone, as it also requires a near-encyclopaedic knowledge of Warhammer 40k.
Semper wrote:
I do agree with Darkness Eternal on the above issue aswell. For a practised writer and skilled word processor (of which there are MANY in this hobby) putting something together like this wouldn't be too much of a stretch even a lone.
Barfing out 130 pages of text isn't much of an issue. But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter. And all for a few lulz? Unlikely. There's also the compliance to many recent rumours. So either the work was done incredibly fast, or it's part of a huge troll campaign spanning years.
Or it's someone insanely clever, lucky and skillful? All discussions of probability aside... there are 7bill people on this planet... im 100% certain there is someone, people in fact out there that can and would and yes... for the lulz and YES... it could well be an instant hit. It could well have been being made for months and adjusted for rumours. I find all to often people think because it's miles beyond themselves then it's next to winning the lotto odds that anyone even remotely linked to them could be within their limits to do something like this. My apologies but it's an ignorant assumption when you've ultimately only got conjecture to go off. Yes it fits in with rumours that are themselves nothing but rumours.
The point of my objections to this work are if summer rolls around and everyone is expecting these to appear in hardback and they don't get it.. there's just going to be another thread with double the winging as everyone complains how let down they are. The ultimate fact being none of you know whether they're real or not.. no matter how good they are or how many signs you see and in the case of GW when it seems too good to be true.. it 99% of the time absolutely is.
I dunno. I've seen an unusually significant increase in the number of natural disasters recently, coinciding with the build up to 2012. Next i'll see a thread with everyone certain it's going to be yet another apocalypse that everyone has rumoured to be coming.
PS. I'm also a sucker for being a devils advocate.
lord_blackfang wrote:But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter.
To be fair, and you called this out yourself, you could basically go through the rumors forum for things that people liked out of various out there rumors and assemble them together to make 'an instant hit'. It's basically design by committee.
I'm not saying it is real or fake, but I'm saying that a savvy person could easily play to the masses with this kind of thing if they knew their audience.
You make it sound like a guy could just copy/paste all the various rumours from the past year together and instantly get a 130 page document that had any internal logic. This thing took hundreds of man-hours and if it was made from existing internet rumours, it had to be done in a matter of months. So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.
Are you seriously thinking that you could write, design and then create a pdf by copying rumors? This isn't some kitbash of internet posts..
My gut says it would take a single person around a year to craft this.. The real book is coming out in 5 months anyway so its even a larger waste of time
lord_blackfang wrote:But designing a coherent game system that is an instant hit on Dakka is another matter.
To be fair, and you called this out yourself, you could basically go through the rumors forum for things that people liked out of various out there rumors and assemble them together to make 'an instant hit'. It's basically design by committee.
I'm not saying it is real or fake, but I'm saying that a savvy person could easily play to the masses with this kind of thing if they knew their audience.
You make it sound like a guy could just copy/paste all the various rumours from the past year together and instantly get a 130 page document that had any internal logic. This thing took hundreds of man-hours and if it was made from existing internet rumours, it had to be done in a matter of months. So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.
You're also definitely over-selling the writer of this. Great grasp of geek psychology or a fairly mediocre ability to mimic GW's publishing and writing style? Not to mention i'm fairly certain there actually are many who fit your above description...
EDIT:
(clarification: The standard of the ability is not mediocre, merely the value of the ability)
Forum member Cruentus and I actually faked a game based on the old batch of rumors. Believe me, it was full of holes (when in doubt we just used the 5th ed rule). This document is MANY times more comprehensive -- AND many things have changed.
Semper wrote:@ Maelstrom88. And? Their desire to correlate the varying terms wasn't the subject of my query. It's the inconsistency in calling it mastery level, pointing out even the best eldar seers couldn't hope to exceed level 5 (the implication of which is they can/have reached 5 and as well all are lead to believe Eldrad is the top dog in that department) then slumping him with a 2 in the codex updates, behind Meth and Ahriman. I'm saying the fluff doesn't match the standards/ratios/thingymabobs of the rules but it does match the name. To me it's like saying you have three cans of blue paint but only two of them have blue and the third is merely green. Perhaps it's a more generalised issue with GW.. but it's one someone would hope corrected in a new rule system....
In why name it Mastery Level, you'd have to ask GW. I am simply pointing out that it's a system they have already implemented in one of the most recent dexes, already built with 6th edition in mind. Due to this, I hardly think that the mastery level system itself is any evidence that it is a fake. In regards to how it relates to Eldrad on a fluff level, I think keeping individual codex rules consistant while improving how the base system itself interacted within those dexes was the priority rather than trying to fix or update individual codex rules. I would say this applies even more so when the codex in question will most likely be getting a rewrite within a year or so.
I think that if this is the real thing, it represents the laying of ground work from a much different system than we have been used to in 3rd-5th. The inclusion of things normally limited to Apoc, 3+ player games, etc. all point to a more fundamental change in the game and I think this system is begining to build the foundation for that. That being the case, it is scattered and hard to understand initially, but once you really dig into it and take the time to learn it, it seems to be a pretty elegant system contrary to how it's layout in this document would suggest.
Of course, then again it could all just be the work of someone with entirely too much time on their hands that should be applying for either a job with a major game designer or a loan to start their own game company, imo.
Jidmah wrote:On the other hand, trukks and buggies can now get cover and are hit like infantry (non-tanks are not massive!), battlewagons can no longer be wrecked by a single glance and tank shocks actually kill models. Hurray trukk list?
Urm Jidmah can you eloborate? Because right now the only thing I see from my army's point of view (assuming these rules are final), everything's gotten worse somewhat.
lord_blackfang wrote:
You make it sound like a guy could just copy/paste all the various rumours from the past year together and instantly get a 130 page document that had any internal logic. This thing took hundreds of man-hours and if it was made from existing internet rumours, it had to be done in a matter of months. So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.
Lets take a look at where this document first appeared and then the average denizen of said realm. Theatrics, no life, geek psychology, no job, yeah, sounds about right for said typical dwellers.
ChocolateGork wrote:The lack of a limit on the amount of stratagems you are able to bet would lead to ridiculous situation with hundreds of strategy points being bet.
And because some of the stratagems affect terrain they would need players to affect the set up of the board and in a competitive setting they could be so easily abused.
EG lining the board with weathered bastinons
They would take too much time to resolve and are to easy to break.
And as such a tourney will have a few options
Modify them in a way as to reduce the possible amount (not a good solution because players can just bet the maximum)
Give the players stratagem points to spend with their army and then use the same stratagem for the rest of the tourney (would let stratagems be used but not a deciding factor of who goes first)
Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)
The way the betting system is designed would make it impossible for that to occur unless both you and your opponent are total morons. The bidding system actually rewards you for bidding low, the problem is everyone is only looking at the cool toys you can get with SP and not WHO gets the SP, the who being the person that caves in first. The higher the SP count goes, the more likely it is that someone will give in and take the second turn, the chances of the SP count even getting high enough for 1 weathered bastion are slim to none, most intelligent players will take the 2nd turn very early on in the bidding process, 2-3 SP is more than enough of an advantage to warrant it, and the last thing you want to do in that situation is to bid 6SP and to let your opponent take those advantages instead...
Well other than TOs making their own stratagems and giving each player access to one OR a certain amount of points for each player to spend before the tournament starts to spend on the home-brew stratagems.
One of the other solutions would be give each player 2 points or more than 2 and restrict the higher levels. Because some of those stratagems are ridiculously powerful.
The TO that did this would actually be setting his tournament up for failure. Those ridiculously powerful strategems are incentive to stop the bidding early. Both you and your opponent want those strategems but neither you nor your opponent wants to see your opponent gain them. Its a game of chicken , and most sane people will call it quits very early on. (BTW, if you ever play a game and your opponent starts the bid at like 6SP or higher... just take the second turn and enjoy your SP, your opponent either has no clue what hes doing or youre in for a very entertaining match... probably both lol)
JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
I don't believe it... too coincidental and well written, and way way beyond a simple mod of the 5th edition rules.... Doesn't look at all like it was written with house rules in mind
@ Maelstrom88. And? Their desire to correlate the varying terms wasn't the subject of my query. It's the inconsistency in calling it mastery level, pointing out even the best eldar seers couldn't hope to exceed level 5 (the implication of which is they can/have reached 5 and as well all are lead to believe Eldrad is the top dog in that department) then slumping him with a 2 in the codex updates, behind Meth and Ahriman. I'm saying the fluff doesn't match the standards/ratios/thingymabobs of the rules but it does match the name. To me it's like saying you have three cans of blue paint but only two of them have blue and the third is merely green. Perhaps it's a more generalised issue with GW.. but it's one someone would hope corrected in a new rule system....
Eldrad is currently a Psychic Mastery (2) psyker as per the current Eldar codex, technically being a Psychic Mastery (3) psyker due to his staff. This hasn't changed with the FAQ. The point of the faqs was to allow the current books to be usable with the new rules, not to re-write the current books so that they ARE new rules. Calm down and carry on, nothing to see here. No doubt this will no longer be the case when the new Eldar dex is released.
lord_blackfang wrote: You make it sound like a guy could just copy/paste all the various rumours from the past year together and instantly get a 130 page document that had any internal logic. This thing took hundreds of man-hours and if it was made from existing internet rumours, it had to be done in a matter of months. So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.
Lets take a look at where this document first appeared and then the average denizen of said realm. Theatrics, no life, geek psychology, no job, yeah, sounds about right for said typical dwellers.
In my experience the idea that the average denizen of that sub realm that writes its own codexes and rulesets has a great grasp of game design is a bit unrealistic. Most of them couldn't game design themselves out of a wet paper codex.
Vaktathi wrote:
Lets take a look at where this document first appeared and then the average denizen of said realm. Theatrics, no life, geek psychology, no job, yeah, sounds about right for said typical dwellers.
While all that may be true, I don't believe GW would get so worked up over it if it was a fake. Its far to professional looking to be just a fandex or a hoax. So all that together, this is more then likely some variation of the rules we are going to get this summer and I'm happy about that.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
I don't believe it... too coincidental and well written, and way way beyond a simple mod of the 5th edition rules.... Doesn't look at all like it was written with house rules in mind
'We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games'
Honestly, it's believable to me. You don't need to have some sort of inbred ability to write rules, nor do you need any sort of training. And from what the rules look/sound like, it could simply be someone's home made ruleset. You'd be surprised at how many free sets of expertly written and decently formatted rulesets are available on the internet.
I think it's the Evasion value that tipped it off. 8th edition for fantasy was a big mix-up for the game, but fundamentals stayed the same, especially the stat blocks. 5th edition is working perfectly fine for GW's sales - why fix what, for them, isn't broken?
Thimn wrote:While all that may be true, I don't believe GW would get so worked up over it if it was a fake.
Umm. You don't know GW or IP very well, do you?
GWaggressively defends their IP, even in cases of no financial harm, because they believe that not doing so could hurt their claim to said IP. Whether they are right or not, there is a long history of this (The Great Internet Fansite Shutdown, Chapterhouse, etc).
Whether this is real or fake, GW would have come down on it like a ton of bricks because it both contains and proports to be their IP. For them, that is a VERY big deal.
Jidmah wrote:On the other hand, trukks and buggies can now get cover and are hit like infantry (non-tanks are not massive!), battlewagons can no longer be wrecked by a single glance and tank shocks actually kill models. Hurray trukk list?
Urm Jidmah can you eloborate? Because right now the only thing I see from my army's point of view (assuming these rules are final), everything's gotten worse somewhat.
Well all our non-tank vehicles are more survivable (and just as hard to hit as they aren't massive). Buggies are much more effective anti-tank platforms since they will be hitting most things on 4+ or even 3s (with a re-roll), their speed often allowing them to get into point blank.
Our assault range is about the same (if not more on average, +4 with fleet when charging as opposed to +D6).
Shokk Attack Guns, while Ordinance, only require a single Heavy Fire action to use, so they can be fired from a moving wagon or cruising trukk. A Combat speed trukk would allow lootas/bustas/burnas inside to all fire.
What list do you run? If you post it I'm sure we can find some silver linings.
Semper wrote:The point of my objections to this work are if summer rolls around and everyone is expecting these to appear in hardback and they don't get it.. there's just going to be another thread with double the winging as everyone complains how let down they are. The ultimate fact being none of you know whether they're real or not.. no matter how good they are or how many signs you see and in the case of GW when it seems too good to be true.. it 99% of the time absolutely is.
Hey, remember that fake Necron codex that someone was posting on Dakka a few months ago? Totally fake. You should boycott any site that would put something like that up in its rumours section.
Semper wrote:I dunno. I've seen an unusually significant increase in the number of natural disasters recently, coinciding with the build up to 2012. Next i'll see a thread with everyone certain it's going to be yet another apocalypse that everyone has rumoured to be coming.
So now you're preaching that "correlation =/= causation" has anything at all to do with this?
Semper wrote:PS. I'm also a sucker for being a devils advocate.
You don't understand what playing the Devil's Advocate actually means.
The purpose of a Devil's Advocate is to engage others in a discussion so as to test the quality of the argument. You are not attempting to do that, as you have not pointed out any actual flaws in the document or any logical reasoning as to why the document is a fake. Instead, you are patronizing the thread like a fool by saying that it could be a fake and therefore we should place equal value on that possibility. That is not a Devil's Advocate; that is either a massive tool or else a troll, depending on the level of malice in the motivation.
Why would this "fan " rule set include advertisements for Vehicle Damage dice and have Super Heavy rules reference the necron codex when Super Heavy rules have been out for years, and the necron codex is new
Also, why make a FAQ for all armies except Black Templars which are a VERY OLD army that probably needs a FAQ yet they are probably next in line for a new book. They wouldnt know that
Presumably they wrote this ENTIRE book earlier than 1 month ago.
Jidmah wrote:On the other hand, trukks and buggies can now get cover and are hit like infantry (non-tanks are not massive!), battlewagons can no longer be wrecked by a single glance and tank shocks actually kill models. Hurray trukk list?
Urm Jidmah can you eloborate? Because right now the only thing I see from my army's point of view (assuming these rules are final), everything's gotten worse somewhat.
Well all our non-tank vehicles are more survivable (and just as hard to hit as they aren't massive). Buggies are much more effective anti-tank platforms since they will be hitting most things on 4+ or even 3s (with a re-roll), their speed often allowing them to get into point blank.
Our assault range is about the same (if not more on average, +4 with fleet when charging as opposed to +D6).
Shokk Attack Guns, while Ordinance, only require a single Heavy Fire action to use, so they can be fired from a moving wagon or cruising trukk. A Combat speed trukk would allow lootas/bustas/burnas inside to all fire.
What list do you run? If you post it I'm sure we can find some silver linings.
Trukker list at 1500pts. So 4 squads of 12 boyz with PK/BP nob leaders in trukks with rams, 2 squads of 6 bikers with PK/BP nob leaders, squad of diversified nobz in ram trukk, tricked out warboss and a KFF big mek. So far what from my understanding Boyz have no saves and my Nobz are still stuck on invuns which isn't the greatest thing. That and my bikers aren't going to be so handy in CC with T4 instead of T5...
Kirasu wrote:Why would this "fan " rule set include advertisements for Vehicle Damage dice and have Super Heavy rules reference the necron codex when Super Heavy rules have been out for years, and the necron codex is new
Also, why make a FAQ for all armies except Black Templars which are a VERY OLD army that probably needs a FAQ yet they are probably next in line for a new book. They wouldnt know that
Presumably they wrote this ENTIRE book earlier than 1 month ago.
OR, they wrote them all and chopped out BT, Necrons and SoB right before they released it so that it would look like they knew about it the whole time. Those BASTARDS.
Personally, I thought the vehicle dice thing was a nice touch, kind of a poke at GW's style of sales.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dynamix wrote:The reaction of GW to the 'leak ' may provide an indicator to its truth or not
Read my response above. GW will squish this hard whether it is a leak or a fake. That's what they do. Unless they suddenly decide to become very open and communicative and say "Lol, you guys got us, that is SOOO 6th edition", we're not going to know until 6th hits.
ShumaGorath wrote:
In my experience the idea that the average denizen of that sub realm that writes its own codexes and rulesets has a great grasp of game design is a bit unrealistic. Most of them couldn't game design themselves out of a wet paper codex.
Looking at this document, it doesn't appear splendidly designed either, with huge numbers of special rules for each unit type, an entirely new stat and chart to do what BS modifiers do for every other system I can think of, significantly more convoluted vehicle rules, and rules the reference each other across the entire rulebook and have to constantly be flipped back and forth between in multiple places. Lets not lie here, while they may be interesting, these rules aren't exactly a paragon of tabletop game rules design and the layout could be significantly improved.
You'd be surprised at how many free sets of expertly written and decently formatted rulesets are available on the internet.
No, for the simple reason that Fanmade content is always biaised by how the maker view the game/army.
Most of the time there is no "balanced" view or "neutral" view on what the fanmade content wants to convey.
Everyone wants what he does to be special, so they go a bit overboard with the house made rules, an example is the amount of Chaos fandex that you can find, and that at first glance they seems balanced and good, but once you look deeply into it, you see the flaws and whats the reasons why it won't work.
Here after taking time to read a good portion of it, the only clunky bit of rule i've found is about the Tactical Gambit, wich is at best hazzy for me, for the rest, even if at first you are in a WTF state, once you read it thoroughly you are more like" okaaay, i get it, it make sens now!"
infinite_array wrote:Honestly, it's believable to me. You don't need to have some sort of inbred ability to write rules, nor do you need any sort of training. And from what the rules look/sound like, it could simply be someone's home made ruleset. You'd be surprised at how many free sets of expertly written and decently formatted rulesets are available on the internet.
I would be surprised: the Internet is very big, and I would expect there to be a number greater than zero. And I am always surprised to see that this is not the case. (apologies to anyone who has posted their own codices in the proposed rules forums)
pretre wrote:
Personally, I thought the vehicle dice thing was a nice touch, kind of a poke at GW's style of sales.
While I think this is real, I will definitely give you this point. If I were making a fandex or a fake, I could TOTALLY see myself putting stuff like that just to be funny.
ShumaGorath wrote:
In my experience the idea that the average denizen of that sub realm that writes its own codexes and rulesets has a great grasp of game design is a bit unrealistic. Most of them couldn't game design themselves out of a wet paper codex.
Looking at this document, it doesn't appear splendidly designed either, with huge numbers of special rules for each unit type, an entirely new stat and chart to do what BS modifiers do for every other system I can think of, significantly more convoluted vehicle rules, and rules the reference each other across the entire rulebook and have to constantly be flipped back and forth between in multiple places. Lets not lie here, while they may be interesting, these rules aren't exactly a paragon of tabletop game rules design and the layout could be significantly improved.
Fair enough... although, I need you to use the BGB right now and tell me how many pages you have to flip to in order to determine if a Jet Bike can fire a Heavy Weapon and move in the same turn.
ShumaGorath wrote: In my experience the idea that the average denizen of that sub realm that writes its own codexes and rulesets has a great grasp of game design is a bit unrealistic. Most of them couldn't game design themselves out of a wet paper codex.
Looking at this document, it doesn't appear splendidly designed either, with huge numbers of special rules for each unit type, an entirely new stat and chart to do what BS modifiers do for every other system I can think of, significantly more convoluted vehicle rules, and rules the reference each other across the entire rulebook and have to constantly be flipped back and forth between in multiple places. Lets not lie here, while they may be interesting, these rules aren't exactly a paragon of tabletop game rules design and the layout could be significantly improved.
I wouldn't say the rules for vehicles are convoluted. They're just explicit. Half the rules for vehicles before were never written or stated, but they still existed in fifth (what is a hull, what does the base do, do the wings count, what if its too big to fit onto the board, do fixed mounts work vertically, does a vehicle shooting through itself give cover, where are fire points, are fire points taken from the hull, where are entry/exit points, etc). You're a pessimist though, so I'll let you keep your empty half of that glass.
ShumaGorath wrote:
In my experience the idea that the average denizen of that sub realm that writes its own codexes and rulesets has a great grasp of game design is a bit unrealistic. Most of them couldn't game design themselves out of a wet paper codex.
Looking at this document, it doesn't appear splendidly designed either, with huge numbers of special rules for each unit type, an entirely new stat and chart to do what BS modifiers do for every other system I can think of, significantly more convoluted vehicle rules, and rules the reference each other across the entire rulebook and have to constantly be flipped back and forth between in multiple places. Lets not lie here, while they may be interesting, these rules aren't exactly a paragon of tabletop game rules design and the layout could be significantly improved.
Hence why people think it is an actual GW product. This is par for the course.
And what I've quoted from you is BS. If you look at most of the stuff that comes from fan-made rules, especially when it's one of those 'check out the super-cool space marine chapter I made, guys!' posts. Then yeah. There's going to be a bias.
If it's a group of people who came together to create a game that they wanted to play, then a collaborative ruleset could be balanced and relatively unbiased. One example that hit it off pretty big is Rick Priestly's and Jervis Johnson's historical rulesets, which their gaming group used before putting it into production with Warlord Games.
Also:
They actually made these things? That's both a little sad, and a little funny.
It's interesting to see how some of the... "disregarded" HQ's from recent Codices suddenly show very interesting potential with the new FAQ's and the new rulebook.
Kheradruakh for example, shunned and laughed at, can now Ambush Deep Strike, allowing him to deep strike within 18" of an enemy without scatter, and can then engage the enemy the same turn.
Not entirely sure if you put him in another deep striking unit with other rules, and retain the Ambush quality - but then Mandrakes may get Ambush Deep Strike as well later on.
pretre wrote:
Umm. You don't know GW or IP very well, do you?
GWaggressively defends their IP, even in cases of no financial harm, because they believe that not doing so could hurt their claim to said IP. Whether they are right or not, there is a long history of this (The Great Internet Fansite Shutdown, Chapterhouse, etc).
Whether this is real or fake, GW would have come down on it like a ton of bricks because it both contains and proports to be their IP. For them, that is a VERY big deal.
I'm quite familiar with GW and their zealous lawyers, but I have never seen them go after a fan made codex or rules update before. The internet is full of fan made army lists and yet we don't see legal action against any of those, so either they are taking special interest because it claims to be the 6th ed rules, or its because it is the 6th ed rules.
I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...
The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.
Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.
You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."
Thimn wrote:I'm quite familiar with GW and their zealous lawyers, but I have never seen them go after a fan made codex or rules update before. The internet is full of fan made army lists and yet we don't see legal action against any of those, so either they are taking special interest because it claims to be the 6th ed rules, or its because it is the 6th ed rules.
Well, I cited one time when they went after Fan Made Rule-Sets and Expansions (The Great Internet Fansite Shutdown) for their other games, so yeah, there is precedent. Even without that, this is masquerading as something from GW which is a bit different than a Fandex.
Thimn wrote:All of those sites weren't using made up rules and army lists, they were posting the actual rules and values for things. So its not quite the same.
Not quite, but pretty similar. Documents that are proporting to be official GW (whether they are or not) are considered a violation of their IP. Insert my whole spiel about aggressive IP defense.
ShumaGorath wrote: Half the rules for vehicles before were never written or stated, but they still existed in fifth (what is a hull, what does the base do, do the wings count, what if its too big to fit onto the board, do fixed mounts work vertically, does a vehicle shooting through itself give cover, where are fire points, are fire points taken from the hull, where are entry/exit points, etc). You're a pessimist though, so I'll let you keep your empty half of that glass.
Call me whatever label you need for validation, I'm not making a judgement call on anything passed the fact that it's not the greatest example of rules design when units needs 9 different special rules on 7 different pages spread across the breadth of the rules section to function, and that's before they even get codex rules and wargear . The rules may turn out to work just fine, but they certainly are more complex than many other systems which manage the same thing with less text and lookup.
Indeed, proporting to be someone when you are not is not just a violation of IP, it's illegal in many cases.
Vaktathi wrote:The rules may turn out to work just fine, but they certainly are more complex than many other systems which manage the same thing with less text and lookup.
Vaktathi wrote:I'm not making a judgement call on anything passed the fact that it's not the greatest example of rules design when units needs 9 different special rules on 7 different pages spread across the breadth of the rules section to function, and that's before they even get codex rules and wargear . The rules may turn out to work just fine, but they certainly are more complex than many other systems which manage the same thing with less text and lookup.
Actually... Damn, but that sounds like GW to me!
Oh, and as for the whole 'pretending to be GW' thing - 'Games Workshop' is only mentioned once in the document, and 'Citadel Miniatures' is mentioned twice.
ShumaGorath wrote: Half the rules for vehicles before were never written or stated, but they still existed in fifth (what is a hull, what does the base do, do the wings count, what if its too big to fit onto the board, do fixed mounts work vertically, does a vehicle shooting through itself give cover, where are fire points, are fire points taken from the hull, where are entry/exit points, etc). You're a pessimist though, so I'll let you keep your empty half of that glass.
Call me whatever label you need for validation, I'm not making a judgement call on anything passed the fact that it's not the greatest example of rules design when units needs 9 different special rules on 7 different pages spread across the breadth of the rules section to function, and that's before they even get codex rules and wargear . The rules may turn out to work just fine, but they certainly are more complex than many other systems which manage the same thing with less text and lookup.
Hence the fact that it's merely a draft. I don't understand why so much judgment is being hurled at this thing. Yea its' still rough, wait for the actual 6th RB to hit shelves then tear up the format of the text.
Right now I am looking at this thing for it's content. How well the rules are designed. I am sure the presentation will be better in final drafts. I also expect most of the fat to be trimmed out as well. Don't be surprised if half gets cut.
Thimn wrote:All of those sites weren't using made up rules and army lists, they were posting the actual rules and values for things. So its not quite the same.
Not quite, but pretty similar. Documents that are proporting to be official GW (whether they are or not) are considered a violation of their IP. Insert my whole spiel about aggressive IP defense.
Red Corsair wrote:OK, a well made point but still doesn't refute the potential for this to be real.
Refute the potential? No. But it does cancel out the argument that 'GW is using legal action therefore these must be the real rules'.
@ Pretre: While I admit that I really am hoping these are the 6th Ed. rules, I do appreciate the excellent job you're doing of playing Devil's Advocate. I hope that Semper can learn from you.
It sure sounds as if it was written by GW but there isn't any out right claims in the ruleset either that state it was made by GW. If you search for Games Workshop you only get a result saying you can use the ruleset to play at GW hobby centers.
So sure it could be faked and GW just wants to protect their IP, but it sure looks very real.
Thimn wrote:It sure sounds as if it was written by GW but there isn't any out right claims in the ruleset either that state it was made by GW. If you search for Games Workshop you only get a result saying you can use the ruleset to play at GW hobby centers.
So sure it could be faked and GW just wants to protect their IP, but it sure looks very real.
When was the last time you saw a 5th Ed. rule that said "roll 2D6 because we are GW and this is what we, as GW writers who work for GW, have written here in this official book of GW rules"?
Also, I find the introduction in the document to be a bit odd:
Strange leaked document wrote:'We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to
immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe
of the 41st Millennium...
You will discover that there are fewer
explanations than in the introductory rules. If you
are not sure how a rule works, you can go back to
the basic rulebook at any time. The introductory
rules stay valid to the point but all the rules that
were marked as advanced rules are now directly
incorporated into the rule text. The rules are
compiled in a way that makes it easy to find a
specific rule during a fervid game. Therefore the
structure in which the rules are presented is a bit
different from that of the basic rules.'
Now, say this is an actual GW document. Does this indicate 2 rulesets for 6th? Eh.
Kevlar wrote:Happy to see a healthy discussion on this. One of the most exciting things to hit 40k in years.
I just came over from whineseer where the anal retentiveness from the mod staff is off the charts.
I'm not happy to see titan rules in the standard book, but knowing how GW likes to sell expensive minis I'm not surprised.
Keep in mind, with the imperial armour 2nd edition book, it does say which models are meant for 40k and which are meant for apoc, so I can still see titans being outlawed in regular play.
azazel the cat wrote:@ Petre: While I admit that I really am hoping these are the 6th Ed. rules, I do appreciate the excellent job you're doing of playing Devil's Advocate. I hope that Semper can learn from you.
Thanks, azazel the cat! I'll even forgive the mis-spell
Most people think I'm an apologist, but mostly I'm a DA that hates whiners.
Mr.Church13 wrote:Anyone care to explain to me how shooting is not completely ineffective or am I just looking at it wrong?
Looks to me like if a unit moves at all it becomes nigh on impossible to hit with theese modifiers.
Most units that move will be a Ev of 3 with a +1 modifier, meaning you will hit on a 4+ if you have a BS of 4. (I think. I don't have the table in front of me right now). This is no different than BA getting a FNP roll of 4+.
Generally, it makes it slightly harder to hit units, but much easier to hurt units when you do hit.
Mr.Church13 wrote:Anyone care to explain to me how shooting is not completely ineffective or am I just looking at it wrong?
Looks to me like if a unit moves at all it becomes nigh on impossible to hit with theese modifiers.
Moving does not make it harder. A normal unit that moves is hit on a normal roll.
You get '+1 to hit' if the unit is Stationary.
You get '+1 to hit' if the unit is Massive (tank, walker, etc.).
You get '-1 to hit' if the unit is a model with Jink that also moved.
You get '-1 to hit' if the unit is a Swarm.
infinite_array wrote:Also, I find the introduction in the document to be a bit odd:
Strange leaked document wrote:'We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
edit: You know... infinite_array makes me think...
So far everyone has assumed that this intro meant that there were two rules documents. One 'basic set' and then this one. Not once in this document does it proport to be the 6th edition though. What if the stupid /tg/ thing is right and this is someone's companion ruleset to 5th edition and the introduction is telling us to play with the 'basic rules to learn the core mechanics' (i.e. 5th) before using their weird house rules.
Interesting thought. Seems like too much work, but I hadn't thought of the intro in that way before now.
azazel the cat wrote:
When was the last time you saw a 5th Ed. rule that said "roll 2D6 because we are GW and this is what we, as GW writers who work for GW, have written here in this official book of GW rules"?
I was more looking for a reference for copyright, and trademark since we were discussing that this file is claiming to be from GW. I didn't find any wording stating that GW made this ruleset. It would probably be in those first 20 pages that aren't included in this copy of the file.
infinite_array wrote:Also, I find the introduction in the document to be a bit odd:
Strange leaked document wrote:'We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to
immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe
of the 41st Millennium...
You will discover that there are fewer
explanations than in the introductory rules. If you
are not sure how a rule works, you can go back to
the basic rulebook at any time. The introductory
rules stay valid to the point but all the rules that
were marked as advanced rules are now directly
incorporated into the rule text. The rules are
compiled in a way that makes it easy to find a
specific rule during a fervid game. Therefore the
structure in which the rules are presented is a bit
different from that of the basic rules.'
Now, say this is an actual GW document. Does this indicate 2 rulesets for 6th? Eh.
I bet the first 22 pages are a simplified rules set, probably akin to the AoBR rules.
Thimn wrote:It sure sounds as if it was written by GW but there isn't any out right claims in the ruleset either that state it was made by GW. If you search for Games Workshop you only get a result saying you can use the ruleset to play at GW hobby centers.
But that implies that they're real, beause you wouldn't be allowed to use a fake core ruleset (i.e. "not 40k") in a hobby centre! LOGIC!
azazel the cat wrote:
When was the last time you saw a 5th Ed. rule that said "roll 2D6 because we are GW and this is what we, as GW writers who work for GW, have written here in this official book of GW rules"?
I was more looking for a reference for copyright, and trademark since we were discussing that this file is claiming to be from GW. I didn't find any wording stating that GW made this ruleset. It would probably be in those first 20 pages that aren't included in this copy of the file.
That would be page 1. Always, page 1. Which would never be included in a draft/playtest copy, as its dating requires the time of printing and publication, and not drafting or creation.
Remember, petre, that the world of wargaming welcomes all types.
There could be hundreds of thousands of potential rulesets that could be amazingly fun and fantastic, and it'd only take a single person, or even a group, to get the rules out.
After all, isn't that where GW games came from? Rulesets developed by friends with a passion for pushing little painted lead miniatures across tables?
infinite_array wrote:Remember, petre, that the world of wargaming welcomes all types.
There could be hundreds of thousands of potential rulesets that could be amazingly fun and fantastic, and it'd only take a single person, or even a group, to get the rules out.
After all, isn't that where GW games came from? Rulesets developed by friends with a passion for pushing little painted lead miniatures across tables?
pretre. R.
I agree. My edit got response buried but... From above:
So far everyone has assumed that this intro meant that there were two rules documents. One 'basic set' and then this one. Not once in this document does it proport to be the 6th edition though. What if the stupid /tg/ thing is right and this is someone's companion ruleset to 5th edition and the introduction is telling us to play with the 'basic rules to learn the core mechanics' (i.e. 5th) before using their weird house rules.
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.
That would be page 1. Always, page 1. Which would never be included in a draft/playtest copy, as its dating requires the time of printing and publication, and not drafting or creation.
I understand what you are saying, but I'm just pointing that no where is the document claiming its from GW. Since we were discussing GW's legal team going after it for claiming to be a GW ruleset, we can't find any where saying its 6th edition or even from GW.
reds8n wrote:
.. given the fact that these rules would largely render much of FW's work irrelevant and OOD
What? What does it take away from Forgeworld? Does anyone buy a Forgeworld book just for the generic Flyer and Superheavy rules that are also in Apocalypse?
I'm glad members like infinite array haven't morphed into sheep like the rest of these posters. It's like the forum has gone to sleep and that real dakka members have been replaced by clones like invasion of the bodysnatchers!!
I'm suspicious because
1) too many people on this site agree the rules are great (never a good sign)
and
2) In the past whenever people like Andy Chambers or Rick Priestly have tried something radical, GW has forced them out. These rules are far too complicated for GW's target base of spotty teenagers.
And, yes, that is a disservice to teenagers. They make too much noise, get in the way at hobby shops, and ask daft questions!!!
In the name of God, wake up this is GW. I've dealt with this company for 20+ years, more than most people on this site. I was killing space marines and slitting throats when most members were swimming around in their father's nether regions!!! You'll see a gretchin codex before you ever see a rulebook this good.
Trust me, these nostrils are familiar with the smell of brown stuff!
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.
Isn't it the first time GW acknowledges the existence of rumors and leaks outside of legal dept action?
reds8n wrote:.. 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.
FW is successful because it sells models, not because it produces rules (which are notoriously unbalanced). If anything, having a use for a Squiggoth or Taurus in normal games would be a huge boon for FW sales.
Thimn wrote:we can't find any where saying its 6th edition
Have you tried the Codex Updates file?
That actually speaks against it. When's the last time any of their documents had editions? All of the FAQs and Codexes are generic and only have versions in them, never editions. I could be misremembering though.
Thimn wrote:we can't find any where saying its 6th edition
Have you tried the Codex Updates file?
That actually speaks against it. When's the last time any of their documents had editions? All of the FAQs and Codexes are generic and only have versions in them, never editions. I could be misremembering though.
If you look carefully, the "title page" for the Codex Updates is the part referencing 6th, whereas each codex begins on a fresh page. It is entirely possible that these updates were written together for the sake of clarity and ease of editing, but are to be split up into separate .pdfs when 6th is released.
A lot of what I have read is interesting. Hard to form an opinion on 2nd hand reading of the material as I can not download any of it from work. I would like to point out that even if it's real its going to be about a year of editing old by the time we see the real 6th ed.
reds8n wrote:.. 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.
I agree with His Master's Voice; FW exclusive rules have more dire concerns than an overhaul of the game system. Lot's of turnaments don't allow them and even of friendly basis it's not always easy to include them. That said FW rules got invalidated a few times; take their various IG lists which had to be rewritten because a new official codex was released.
At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok pretre, we get it. You don't think it's real. Must we spent page after page going over why it is/isn't real?
H.B.M.C, why do you love me so much? Geeze, it is getting embarrassing.
I'm playing the devil's advocate. If you read back through, I've gone for and against it both being real and fake both because I am not convinced that it is either and because that is how I like to discuss things. If you're not a fan of discussing things... well you know how that old chestnut goes.
ColdSadHungry wrote:At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
That would be a very notorious tactic; quite amusing one though.
You'll see a gretchin codex before you ever see a rulebook this good.
As much as Id like this leak to be near a truth or at least on the road to some nifty ideas I sincerly hope to at least one god and possibly even a sacred cow that the quoted statment could be true. I would love to see a gretchin war stomper of any sorts.
His Master's Voice wrote:
It's not that you can't make a document like this look real. It's that you don't make a clearly pre production version of the rules with blanks for diagrams and illustrations and references to nonexistent text for the purpose of your local gaming group.
Unless your intent is to fool everyone, using your FLGS rules as a base... but still a -lot- of work for a troll.
You have to go beyond 'troll' really, as someone else pointed out in the thread 'nutcase' would be a better term for anyone who has gone to this length.
I'm not in a position to say what I know about this but... I wish, really, really, to the people already re-working your army lists, spending so much time doing so and trying to work the lists out - please spend that time doing something else.
pretre wrote:
I'm playing the devil's advocate. If you read back through, I've gone for and against it both being real and fake both because I am not convinced that it is either and because that is how I like to discuss things. If you're not a fan of discussing things... well you know how that old chestnut goes.
I think H.B.M.C. is a fan of discussing the rules, not people like you completely taking over the thread just to tell him that they might be fake, when we've all known that from page 1.
ShumaGorath wrote:Someone should really just split this thread off so that a discussion of the rules themselves can be revived. The conspiracy gak is out of hand.
Shouldn't the actual discussion of the rules be put into another thread, preferably in the discussions subforum? That way, the rest of us can try to figure out if this is real or not.
A lot of us on here have played 20+ years. A few of us started when the game started. I don't see these as overly complex, especially compared with what they have done in the past. Whether these were an early Playtest rules set for a version of 6th, or someone's wish list it doesn't matter. they are not all that complex, and have some rather well thought out changes without really invalidating anything in existence. It's not a far stretch to say that these were made by GW, but it's not a far stretch to say that this could be a complicated hoax. It's a lot of work for a hoax though.
I will say this though after looking through these rules. I like them. I would have to say that if GW doesn't release something comparable. Something that fixes as much as this set does or even adds as much tactically, I will be sorely disappointed. But, I can see them going either way.
And really, in the absence of any actual real proof of it being a fake or real, any discussion on that line is pointless. The discussion of the rules contained within however is not. So lets keep the discussion of it's validity to a minimum until there is further solid evidence to discuss.
Assuming this is real, here is the introduction. The 3rd paragraph basically says that there is also a simplified rules section as well:
Spoiler:
We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to
immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe
of the 41st Millennium. It doesn’t matter if you
are a valiant tank commander, who vanquishes
droves of foes beneath the tracks of mighty tank
squadrons, a rising hero of many star systems,
who rallies fellow warriors of renown to its cause,
a far sighted field commander, who alters the
battlefield conditions to his favour before a single
shot is fired, or a sharpshooter, who holds the
enemy with supreme firepower at bay. This rule
set will give you the instruments to do all of this
and more.
You will discover that there are fewer
explanations than in the introductory rules. If you
are not sure how a rule works, you can go back to
the basic rulebook at any time. The introductory
rules stay valid to the point but all the rules that
were marked as advanced rules are now directly
incorporated into the rule text. The rules are
compiled in a way that makes it easy to find a
specific rule during a fervid game. Therefore the
structure in which the rules are presented is a bit
different from that of the basic rules.
If you are a die-hard and want to learn the game
with the complete rules, this is manageable,
though a bit more demanding than with the basic
rules. Our advice is to have a quick look through
the rules once. You don’t have to read every
word, just get an idea of what’s going on and
where different rules can be found. After that,
the best idea is to get stuck in and play a few
games!
By starting this way you’ll find that you pick up
the core rules in a few sessions and will be able to
play most games with just the information on the
reference sheet at the back of the book. As you
introduce other elements into your games, such as
heroic characters, heavily armoured tanks and
rampaging monstrous creatures, read through the
appropriate rules and refer to them while playing.
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.
It saddens me to suspect you are right. History seems to indicate that whatever GW comes out with will be 1/5 as good as this, have twice the typos, won't bother with errata, and be marketed as better than Finecast.
His Master's Voice wrote:Isn't it the first time GW acknowledges the existence of rumors and leaks outside of legal dept action?
No.
For example whilst it was incredibly vague and generally unhelpful the stores received a missive concerning changes to part of the GW sales range around the end of March.
We should be careful of covering things with broad strokes yes ?
reds8n wrote:.. 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.
FW is successful because it sells models, not because it produces rules (which are notoriously unbalanced). If anything, having a use for a Squiggoth or Taurus in normal games would be a huge boon for FW sales.
Key words there being Forgeworld is successful.
So successful in fact they're using the well established template they've ..well.. stumbled upon more than developed I guess .. for their 40k releases for the burgeoning fantasy side of things.
I really don't think that GW would willing kneecap a very profitable part of their business in the way that this book would.
ShumaGorath wrote:Someone should really just split this thread off so that a discussion of the rules themselves can be revived. The conspiracy gak is out of hand.
Shouldn't the actual discussion of the rules be put into another thread, preferably in the discussions subforum? That way, the rest of us can try to figure out if this is real or not.
lord_blackfang wrote:I think H.B.M.C. is a fan of discussing the rules, not people like you completely taking over the thread just to tell him that they might be fake, when we've all known that from page 1.
Or is that just me?
I'm sorry, am I discussing News and Rumors in the News and Rumors forum? My bad.
ColdSadHungry wrote:At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
That would be a very notorious tactic; quite amusing one though.
I can see an ethereal wandering the battlefield a la Connor MacLeod at the beginning of Highlander. 'Why will no one fight me?'
Rafi wrote:I can see an ethereal wandering the battlefield a la Connor MacLeod at the beginning of Highlander. 'Why will no one fight me?'
Hmm. Can you flat-out a transport or something and ram it into an opponent hoping you get immobilized or wrecked and can't disembark? You could have a guided ethereal missile.
His Master's Voice wrote:Isn't it the first time GW acknowledges the existence of rumors and leaks outside of legal dept action?
No.
For example whilst it was incredibly vague and generally unhelpful the stores received a missive concerning changes to part of the GW sales range around the end of March.
We should be careful of covering things with broad strokes yes ?
Not really getting the last part, but I get GW reacts to Internet gossip.
reds8n wrote: I really don't think that GW would willing kneecap a very profitable part of their business in the way that this book would.
YMMV of course.
It does, as I cannot see how this set of rules could potentially hurt FW, instead of helping them to sell more.
Pacific wrote:
I'm not in a position to say what I know about this but... I wish, really, really, to the people already re-working your army lists, spending so much time doing so and trying to work the lists out - please spend that time doing something else.
Just leave it at the fun speculation.
Pacific's got it! This was an intentional leak by GW to get people to buy miniatures. Then, they'll release the actual 6th edition, where all the models bought previously off of the speculation will do bugger all, forcing players to buy even more miniatures!
Also, the moon landing was done with Citadel Miniatures, and Tom Kirby shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
How GW reacts basically tells us nothing. Any response by them could be a genuine one or a damage control misdirection. How large companies react to leaks has a lot of layers to it and is not actually indicative one way or the other.
pretre wrote:I'm sorry, am I discussing News and Rumors in the News and Rumors forum? My bad.
Yes, your bad. You're being purposefully argumentative for your own enjoyment and derailing the thread.
What were we talking about again?
Rented Tritium wrote:How GW reacts basically tells us nothing. Any response by them could be a genuine one or a damage control misdirection. How large companies react to leaks has a lot of layers to it and is not actually indicative one way or the other.
I agree. GW coming down on this 'leak' isn't indicative of their authenticity. Actually, it may be the exact opposite - GW's current and actual iteration of 6th could be radically different from these rules. So any attempt to get rid of them could be actual damage control.
After reds8n's post in this thread and DCM, I'm 90-10 in favour of this being fake.
I'd only give a slim 10% chance GW would bother sending out a hoax 'its not us' email to their UK stores.
It'll be a real shame as these rules seemed interesting and fresh, and I will hold a little hope of being surprised in July, but in general I think 5.5 is looking more likely than this overhaul.
infinite_array wrote:Pacific's got it! This was an intentional leak by GW to get people to buy miniatures. Then, they'll release the actual 6th edition, where all the models bought previously off of the speculation will do bugger all, forcing players to buy even more miniatures!
Now that's the most evil speculation yet, that the ruleset is the opposite of what will actually be coming to throw us as far off as possible. So it would be not only fake but also from GW, making all of us wrong. muhahaha
pretre wrote:
Now that's the most evil speculation yet, that the ruleset is the opposite of what will actually be coming to throw us as far off as possible. So it would be not only fake but also from GW, making all of us wrong. muhahaha
I call it 'Infinite Array's Razor'. The most probable solution is the one that is the most improbable.
Pacific wrote:
I'm not in a position to say what I know about this but... I wish, really, really, to the people already re-working your army lists, spending so much time doing so and trying to work the lists out - please spend that time doing something else.
Just leave it at the fun speculation.
Pacific's got it! This was an intentional leak by GW to get people to buy miniatures. Then, they'll release the actual 6th edition, where all the models bought previously off of the speculation will do bugger all, forcing players to buy even more miniatures!
Also, the moon landing was done with Citadel Miniatures, and Tom Kirby shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
Haha yes, well the old Citadel logo is actually the design of rocket that travelled to the moon (crewed by vampires).
Pacific wrote:
I'm not in a position to say what I know about this but... I wish, really, really, to the people already re-working your army lists, spending so much time doing so and trying to work the lists out - please spend that time doing something else.
Just leave it at the fun speculation.
But... making army lists is one of my favourite parts of 40k...
lord_blackfang wrote:
pretre wrote:I'm sorry, am I discussing News and Rumors in the News and Rumors forum? My bad.
Yes, your bad. You're being purposefully argumentative for your own enjoyment and derailing the thread.
But he's not. He's engaging Dakka to examine this document with a fine-toothed comb in a very rational and logical manner, so as to gain as much evidence both for and against the validity of this document. And that is exactly what should be happening in this thread, as it is a New & Rumours board. There is already a dedicated Rules Discussions thread elsewhere. Not one thing has Pretre (spelled it right this time) posted that makes me think he's trolling.
I'm not in a position to say what I know about this but... I wish, really, really, to the people already re-working your army lists, spending so much time doing so and trying to work the lists out - please spend that time doing something else.
Just leave it at the fun speculation.
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.
reds8n wrote:.. 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.
How does it render FW's work irrelevant? I would assume that the new edition would require FW to publish some sort of FAQs in any case unless it more or less incorporates large parts of it.
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.
Will be great to see the e-mail when/if it turns up. As somebody already stated - the possibility that this is fake has been there from page 1, but I had to register in order to comment because seriously, some of the posts on here are basically at the tinfoil hat level in regards to this. If people have information to the contrary, then post it and stop being vague.
reds8ns post above is the closest so far to debunking this, and pertaining the content of above mentioned letter it may turn out to be:
A) Genuine, but GW will claim otherwise
B) A draft
C) Fake
Pretty much which was established at page 1-2 of this thread already...
This might be pre-6th edition, it might be a fandex, it might be a crazy elaborate troll, it might be a scrapped pre-6th edition thanks to authors getting fired.
I'm gonna place guessing which aside.
Instead, I shall state that this rule set works quite a few wonders for my sisters of battle, and I think I would enjoy playing it in place of the current edition rules. It seems as though a number of people agree with me in that they'd like to be able to play with these listed rules as well. If they turn out to be official, then we don't have to be playing unofficial games to use these rules.
I want to ask the question however: What if these rules are not real?
If these turn out to be anything besides a test version of true 6th edition, what does that mean for when 6th edition comes out? Will we all look at 6th edition and see it as 5.5, wishing instead GW had hired the fake-dex guys? Will we feel distraught over the fact that some of us had gotten our hopes up over a fake, and the real thing isn't quite as "good" (good being subjective to the view of the individual player)
In the current rules, I was quite bummed over some of the changes to my sisters. But one I loved was the inclusion of bolt pistols, allowing me to get a mild round of shooty against close enemies before assaulting them. (typically done, if rarely, so that I could prevent their furious assault next turn) Although not an amazing benefit, but it was quite a nice one considering it along with 6++ and grenades cost me 1 point per model. These new rules make the pistols a whole different beast, being fired in CC, but essentially do the same thing if I were to assault an enemy. Instead of a round of shooty with pistols and flamers, I assault with flamers and my CC is my round of shooty.
When 6th hits, if I find out this rather awesome sounding change to the way combat is done is not part of it, will I feel as though it's taking a step back? It's quite possible, but then again, I was quite happy to just have my pistols.
This leak is well written enough that we get to see what could have been. If it is true, then there's the normal amount of yay and nay going around for the changes. But if it's not, some of us may feel like we're missing out on something that could have been great.
It's almost as if we had a choice of two prizes. Prize number one is a boat, Prize number two is the mystery box. It very well might be a F-15 fighter, a sherman tank, or a boat. But it's going to suck, and suck hard, if it's two tickets to a comedy club and GW decided on Prize number two for us. Especially since it doesn't matter where the boat was made, since many of us like it.
Also... They didn't make mention of the old or new SoB inferno pistols. Infernus, but not Inferno.
His Master's Voice wrote:Isn't it the first time GW acknowledges the existence of rumors and leaks outside of legal dept action?
No.
For example whilst it was incredibly vague and generally unhelpful the stores received a missive concerning changes to part of the GW sales range around the end of March.
We should be careful of covering things with broad strokes yes ?
Not really getting the last part, but I get GW reacts to Internet gossip.
.
otakutaylor wrote:
I want to ask the question however: What if these rules are not real?
If these turn out to be anything besides a test version of true 6th edition, what does that mean for when 6th edition comes out? Will we all look at 6th edition and see it as 5.5, wishing instead GW had hired the fake-dex guys? Will we feel distraught over the fact that some of us had gotten our hopes up over a fake, and the real thing isn't quite as "good" (good being subjective to the view of the individual player)
This is why I think we'll be seeing that email go out to GW stores. If it's not real - especially if it's not real - GW doesn't want this ruleset getting out.
I think we can agree that the rules have, so far, been met with a positive response, right? Now, what happens when 6th edition is actually released, and the first few people to get it reveal that it's actually just a 'refinement' of 5th edition, and that the fabled 6th edition that people have been dreaming of is shattered?
Sales of the new rules - something that GW relies on for a cash injection every 2-3 years - plummet.
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.
It's the 40k 25 year anniversary. If this is not 6e, GW had better release a 6e that is just as groundbreaking, or else it will be a pretty boring 25th.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah it means Marines hit Firewarriors on 2's, but really who cares - it's not like you were going to beat them in the first place. This just makes the inevitable a bit quicker.
Death in general will be much quicker in this version of the rules, both from shooting and in close combat. As someone else said, you and your opponent are likely to be pulling piles of minis off the table each turn.
azazel the cat wrote:
Wanna know the general theme here? A large community of generally cynical people are almost unanimously in favour of these changes. That's rare.. like, the-Grinch's-heart-growing-three-sizes rare to make most of Dakka welcome these changes. So I'd say that this isn't change for the sake of change; I would say it's change for the sake of getting the old guard to rediscover their love for the game (and thus re-ignite the passion of some jaded customers)
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.
ColdSadHungry wrote:At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
That would be a very notorious tactic; quite amusing one though.
I can see an ethereal wandering the battlefield a la Connor MacLeod at the beginning of Highlander. 'Why will no one fight me?'
LOL, yeah, he'd be the ONLY enemy in the game that people try to avoid killing. Stick him on an objective and dare your opponent to go move him off it. Personally, I'd just charge him into CC with the meanest unit I could find, even if I had to alpha strike him giving him and his honour guard I10, how good can he be? Surely he'd get wiped - I'd make sure of it by turn 2.
Oh, and about the ethereal: you can always assault with him, you know. Just plunk him at the very front of your lines and have him charge in to the enemy. If your enemy is close combat oriented, they'll have to run a 12" ring around him to get to you, which is certainly a good thing, and if they're shooting oriented, they won't be able to run away as fast. Certainly he'll be dead by turn two.
ColdSadHungry wrote:At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
That would be a very notorious tactic; quite amusing one though.
I can see an ethereal wandering the battlefield a la Connor MacLeod at the beginning of Highlander. 'Why will no one fight me?'
LOL, yeah, he'd be the ONLY enemy in the game that people try to avoid killing. Stick him on an objective and dare your opponent to go move him off it. Personally, I'd just charge him into CC with the meanest unit I could find, even if I had to alpha strike him giving him and his honour guard I10, how good can he be? Surely he'd get wiped - I'd make sure of it by turn 2.
That's brilliant. Attach him to a scoring unit and let him sit on an objective. "Heh, go head and TL the Tau. Let's see how that works for ya. "
timd wrote:
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.
Your exocrine model actually got me into this game.. so hi
The "everything dies fast" thing is kind of disheartening, I mean we all know armies are going to get bigger and bigger so GW can sell more and more mini's to smaller and smaller playerbase for the same profits every year.
I think that the swarmy armies like orcs and guard have pretty much reached saturation, I cant put more than 150 men on the table without it getting stupid and confusing for my opponent, I cant imagine if guardsmen get cheaper and I field more how the logistics of spreading out and playing properly will work.
ColdSadHungry wrote:At least Tau have a use for the ethereal now - suicide him and gain preferred enemy which works in shooting now. AND the Tau don't run off the board when he dies, the failed morale test just 'shakes' them.
Time to buy an Ethereal then. 50 points for a boss, army-wide USR? I think that's legit...
I only hope we can give him a razorblade or suicide-bomber vest as wargear.
)
However, with Scarabs being so prevalent so far, I wonder if this will remain in the release version.
