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.

Nightwatch wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

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

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

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


Go ahead and pick!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

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

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

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

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

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


Go ahead and pick!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

timd wrote:
Bingo!

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

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

Tim DuPertuis

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

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

Marthike wrote:

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

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

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

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

Hold on, hold on, hold on -

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

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

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

So, vehicles work the same as before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

thunderingjove wrote:

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


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

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

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

Units embarked in transports gain the relentless USR.

Bring on the Kannon-Mounted Meganobs!

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

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

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

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

Kevlar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

motorhead1945 wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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