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.

**pretre**

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.

**reds8n**

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.

**Thimn**

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.

**lord_blackfang**

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?

**pretre**

Thimn wrote: we can't find any where saying its 6th edition or even from GW.

To be fair, do you know how many times it says 5th edition and games workshop in the 5th edition book? Not much.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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!

**lord_blackfang**

Thimn wrote:we can't find any where saying its 6th edition

Have you tried the Codex Updates file?

**His Master's Voice**

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.

**pretre**

lord_blackfang wrote:
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.

**pgmason**

The 5th edition book doesn't say anything very obvious about being 5th edition either. They've never been big on edition numbers.

**H.B.M.C.**

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?

**Nightwatch**

pretre wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
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.

**runmymouth**

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.

**Darkseid**

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.

**ColdSadHungry**

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.

**pretre**

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.

**Darkseid**

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.

**1-i**

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.

**lunarman**

Is it possible to suicide him though? Dangerous terrain I suppose?

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Pacific**

JoeyFox wrote:
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.

Just leave it at the fun speculation.

**lord_blackfang**

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.

Or is that just me?

**infinite_array**

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.

**Toreador**

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.

**azazel the cat**

Assuming this is real, here is the introduction. The 3rd paragraph basically says that there is also a simplified rules section as well:

Spoiler:

**Shotgun**

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.

**reds8n**

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.

**pretre**

infinite_array wrote:
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.

liveblog rulebook breakdown thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422569.page

What do you think of the rules thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422793.page

Orks are bad now thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422672.page

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

**Rafi**

Darkseid wrote:
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?'

**pretre**

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.