Definitely Not a Leaked 6th Rulebook, Don't Even Bother Looking

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.

**Kharrak**

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.

**Dribble Joy**

All psykers have the Psykic Counter rule - Wierdboys become far more useful.

**Thimn**

pretre wrote:
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.

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.

**krazynadechukr**

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."

NO! I'm Spartacus!

**Vitruvian XVII**

Dribble Joy wrote:All psykers have the Psykic Counter rule - Wierdboys become far more useful.

As do lots of Nids...

Tasty

**pretre**

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**

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.

**pretre**

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**

OK, a well made point but still doesn't refute the potential for this to be real.

**Vaktathi**

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.

**Dribble Joy**

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.

Have you read the WM and Infinity rulebooks?

My god...

**infinite_array**

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.

**Vaktathi**

infinite_array wrote:
Actually... Damn, but that sounds like GW to me!

Very true, which is why I've been leaning more towards seeing it as a genuine leak.

**Red Corsair**

Vaktathi wrote:
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.

**azazel the cat**

pretre wrote:
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.

**Thimn**

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.

**Mr.Church13**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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"?

**infinite_array**

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.

**Cryage**

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.

**pretre**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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.

@Pretre: Sorry. Fixed. My bad.

**Dribble Joy**

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.

**pretre**

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.

**Thimn**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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.

**Vampirate of Sartosa**

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!

**lord_blackfang**

infinite_array wrote:Now, say this is an actual GW document. Does this indicate 2 rulesets for 6th? Eh.

It indicated a better "Getting Started" booklet than last time.

**azazel the cat**

Thimn wrote:
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.

**infinite_array**

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?