Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

lord_blackfang wrote:

pretre wrote:

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)

lord_blackfang wrote:So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.

Wherever would you find such a man?

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.

daedalus wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:So we're looking at a guy with no job, no life, but with a great grasp of theatrics, game design, and geek psychology.

Wherever would you find such a man?

Oh I don't know...

Well, now that we've killed any meaningful discussion regarding the rules themselves...

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.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

Quick question- I haven't read the rules, but do they, and the erratas, happen to make GKs- dare I say it- [i]balanced/i]?

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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

'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?

GW aggressively 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.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Quick question- I haven't read the rules, but do they, and the erratas, happen to make GKs- dare I say it- [i]balanced/i]?

Time will tell if "balanced" is the right word. But yeah, it seems like they're a little more reasonable while still getting to enjoy their cool toys.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:

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.

Dribble Joy wrote:

Juvieus Kaine wrote:

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...

The reaction of GW to the 'leak ' may provide an indicator to its truth or not

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.

OK, here's a question:

How many times can a unit perform an action in the enemy turn?

For example, lets say I have a unit of Shootas and four units all DS within 12" of it. Can they shoot just one unit, or all of them?

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.

infinite_array wrote:


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.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

infinite_array wrote:
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.

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/

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.