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.

I would be super cool with an electronic download made available with purchase of physical book, even at a small cost $5 or less. I could even see GW getting away with it being a Corporate store/GW online exclusive perk.

nathan2195 wrote: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.

One of the triggers for Defensive fire is a unit deep striking within 12". However, since there are units that can assault in the same turn they deep struck, and assaulting is now a move action, it makes it possible for the Deep Striking units to be in CC before the trigger would occur. Therefore they added this exception to the shooting rules so the targeted squad still gets it shooting in.

candy.man wrote:

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

Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

Kevlar wrote:
Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

It's just a case of Warseer being too spineless. I can understand taking down the download links, but banning any discussion whatsoever is absolutely ridiculous.

Kevlar wrote:

candy.man wrote:

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

Take warseer off the list, they are deleting any thread to do with the leak. Dumb move by them, especially if it was a viral marketing leak by GW

They should take their whole forum down just to be sure...

So played necrons vrs eldar and it was a lot of fun. Even with looking up rules and the like it took around 2 hours. One of the biggest things we found was with a squadron was that double immobilized destroys the entire thing. He failed the saves with two immobilized and the entire squadron disappeared. Also annihilation barges are amazing since the - is no longer -1

Biggest thing we learned is that not going first is crazy against a shooting army. Basically everything is +1 to hit if you have not moved and it makes a huge difference. Now I see why that stratagem is 3 points. The bidding was easy because neither of us was willing to give the other 4 points.

Seize is sweet now since it gives you additional stratagem points instead of taking first turn. The person who wins the bidding ALWAYS goes first.

Banshees are pretty good, pathfinders are awesome, The storm guardians with a warlock are actually pretty scary in combat. Three flame templates one of them at str 5 ap 4 can really put the hurt out.

There were other things but those were the main ones that come to mind. IT was really weird getting used to the different movement speeds but other than that it ran really well and the fleet additional movement really helped the eldar get around.

We played this without lists tailored for 6th edition. I look forward to trying a zandrekh list. Also heavy destroyers are CRAZY good with the new prefered enemy. Hitting vehicles on a 2 almost all the time. Also twin linking from the triarch stalker is really helpful against those skimmers, especially since they dont get those saves anymore

Leth wrote:So played necrons vrs eldar and it was a lot of fun. Even with looking up rules and the like it took around 2 hours. One of the biggest things we found was with a squadron was that double immobilized destroys the entire thing. He failed the saves with two immobilized and the entire squadron disappeared. Also annihilation barges are amazing since the - is no longer -1

Biggest thing we learned is that not going first is crazy against a shooting army. Basically everything is +1 to hit if you have not moved and it makes a huge difference. Now I see why that stratagem is 3 points. The bidding was easy because neither of us was willing to give the other 4 points.

Seize is sweet now since it gives you additional stratagem points instead of taking first turn. The person who wins the bidding ALWAYS goes first.

Banshees are pretty good, pathfinders are awesome, The storm guardians with a warlock are actually pretty scary in combat. Three flame templates one of them at str 5 ap 4 can really put the hurt out.

There were other things but those were the main ones that come to mind. IT was really weird getting used to the different movement speeds but other than that it ran really well and the fleet additional movement really helped the eldar get around.

We played this without lists tailored for 6th edition. I look forward to trying a zandrekh list. Also heavy destroyers are CRAZY good with the new prefered enemy. Hitting vehicles on a 2 almost all the time. Also twin linking from the triarch stalker is really helpful against those skimmers, especially since they dont get those saves anymore

Let us know if you play any more games with the ruleset and how they go.

You mentioned fleet helped the eldar get around the table - would you say in general infantry are more maneuverable on foot with these new rules than before?

Part of me is hoping that these new rules are real since it's a huge wrench into how the game functions.

Another part of me hopes that these are fake because I just got over the hurdle of learning 5th edition, which took about 6 months. The main thing that concerns me is that adaptation of Warmahorde's "every unit has its own turn" functionality.

Basically, I hope the final version takes the same basic turn mechanics that we already know but changes up what you can do in each phase.

From what I gather on page 21 (1st page of the leaked pdf) the statement that 'units can take their own turns' is a reference to a narrative mission or two, or upcoming expansions to even further vary how the game plays out.

I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems. The assault phase would be the wrench in that cog, because all engaged models must fight, but i think it might just work. We'll have to see and wait on the final document, along with the first 21 pages and the last 25 or more pages for the narrative missions.


Unless we've all been hoaxed, which would suck because I like this rule set.

The I-go-you-go is an optional way to play, and is recommended for the multiplayer free-for-all type mission.

FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

tetrisphreak wrote:
I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems.

Actually, 40k does have the I-go-you-go system. Malifaux and other games that have players alternate unit/model activation is called the 'integrated turns' system.

nathan2195 wrote: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.

It doesn't seem to be very clear. From some of the other sections it seems like defensive fire might be intented to funcion more like "if a unit comes within 12 inches of you, you get a defensive fire reaction" but that is never made very clear in the main section for the rule.

If it is a "unit gets within 12, use defensive fire" kind of deal, then that wording would make sense to keep people from using defensive fire to shoot a lascannon at a transport 18 inches away because a unit of grunts 12 inches away triggered the reaction.

Pfft, that BoK post is worthless.

"I've done some research and now i know its fake!" .....okay...

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

He doesn't even say why they're fake. Worthless post indeed.

But... hes researched for 48hrs...!

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

When someone who I know is in the know, like Harry or Reds8n says it's a fake, then I'll buy that it's a fake. He says he heard from people who aren't his usual sources, so I'm pretty happy to keep believing.

Considering this is a drastic leap from how the game functioned before, I wonder if there is the chance this is intentional to a degree.

If GW released this rule set at 6th edition, each and everyone of us would do, essentially, what we already have with the pdf. Either read the whole thing front to back (as I did) or skim it over and see what drastically stands out. The problem being we would do this, on the day of release, and attempt to still hold games/tournaments/test matches we had prepared for that day expecting 5.5.

Next to no one would know what has going on with M.A.S.C. A number of players may agree to play 5th edition for the days match and later try to understand the new rules. Some people would refuse to play until they're read the whole thing, but they'd have no one but GW's website and hopefully a TO to ask questions to. New players would have questions and no one would be able to help because they don't understand what the rules are yet for defensive fire.

If GW is changing the game this much, it almost HAS to be leaked/beta'd/pre-released. Or the first week or so of gameplay would be so hectic that they could very well lose customers over simple first day frustration, ESPECIALLY moody teenagers who are not pleased their fancy marines are getting shot at just for deepstriking.

There is a chance, I think, that this could be an elaborate plot on GW's behalf to make sure at least one 40k players knows what the rules are for 6th edition. So when it drops proper we have someone to ask "Why does my tank have relentless?" To which we can answer "It does the same thing as before, allowing it to fire heavy weapons regardless of being stationary. But it also means any rapid fire weapons it's mounting (not that I can think of any), or are embarked inside it, can rapid fire at 18""

Maybe they just wanted us to be prepared for what is coming, and not throw an epic tantrum in store when we see it?

d-usa wrote:

nathan2195 wrote: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.

It doesn't seem to be very clear. From some of the other sections it seems like defensive fire might be intented to funcion more like "if a unit comes within 12 inches of you, you get a defensive fire reaction" but that is never made very clear in the main section for the rule.

If it is a "unit gets within 12, use defensive fire" kind of deal, then that wording would make sense to keep people from using defensive fire to shoot a lascannon at a transport 18 inches away because a unit of grunts 12 inches away triggered the reaction.

The only way you get to defensive fire at 12 inches is if you have the Overwatch USR. You may however use defensive fire of you are not locked in combat and are assaulted. HTH

@otaku: I highly doubt it tbh.

I see where you're coming from though, at least we'll be prepared should it happen!

otakutaylor wrote:Considering this is a drastic leap from how the game functioned before, I wonder if there is the chance this is intentional to a degree.

If GW released this rule set at 6th edition, each and everyone of us would do, essentially, what we already have with the pdf. Either read the whole thing front to back (as I did) or skim it over and see what drastically stands out. The problem being we would do this, on the day of release, and attempt to still hold games/tournaments/test matches we had prepared for that day expecting 5.5.

Next to no one would know what has going on with M.A.S.C. A number of players may agree to play 5th edition for the days match and later try to understand the new rules. Some people would refuse to play until they're read the whole thing, but they'd have no one but GW's website and hopefully a TO to ask questions to. New players would have questions and no one would be able to help because they don't understand what the rules are yet for defensive fire.

If GW is changing the game this much, it almost HAS to be leaked/beta'd/pre-released. Or the first week or so of gameplay would be so hectic that they could very well lose customers over simple first day frustration, ESPECIALLY moody teenagers who are not pleased their fancy marines are getting shot at just for deepstriking.

There is a chance, I think, that this could be an elaborate plot on GW's behalf to make sure at least one 40k players knows what the rules are for 6th edition. So when it drops proper we have someone to ask "Why does my tank have relentless?" To which we can answer "It does the same thing as before, allowing it to fire heavy weapons regardless of being stationary. But it also means any rapid fire weapons it's mounting (not that I can think of any), or are embarked inside it, can rapid fire at 18""

Maybe they just wanted us to be prepared for what is coming, and not throw an epic tantrum in store when we see it?

From any other company, yes. From a logical mind, yes. From Games Workshop, no.

AresX8 wrote:

BDJV wrote:FWIW, Tasty Taste is now claiming the rules are Fake! http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/12/network-news-it-is-a-fake/

I still don't buy it is a fake.

He doesn't even say why they're fake. Worthless post indeed.

It does all certainly sound dubious. This whole thing is a weird and shady debaucle. I suspect foul play on the part of BOK, GWs legal team, or someone else. I'm still not at all convinced that this is fake.. Or real.

Maybe its all an illusion.... o.0

But I really really want it to be real. I really want sixth edition to actually be a better game, not just a different one like fifth was.

Didn't Yakface actually get his hands on a playtest codex for the Necrons? I would like to hear his opinion on how legit this document looks by comparison.

If these rules are fake 6th edition is gonna suck.

tetrisphreak wrote:From what I gather on page 21 (1st page of the leaked pdf) the statement that 'units can take their own turns' is a reference to a narrative mission or two, or upcoming expansions to even further vary how the game plays out.

I've personally always wondered how 40K would fare with a you-go I-go system like malifaux and some other game systems. The assault phase would be the wrench in that cog, because all engaged models must fight, but i think it might just work. We'll have to see and wait on the final document, along with the first 21 pages and the last 25 or more pages for the narrative missions.


Unless we've all been hoaxed, which would suck because I like this rule set.

I can calm down now. After doing careful reading, this ruleset doesn't share Warmahorde's turn mechanics. Even though I loved Warmahordes for the time when I played it, I can't possibly figure out how 40k would play using those turn mechanics.

Bring on this ruleset!

@branderic: Indeed, i'll probably just wind up using these.

I have seen the light, and i will not turn back...

Wow. Being able to DS and not scatter unless within 18" of an enemy is really interesting. The one problem is see is that no codex thus far has an evasion value.

Also, some of the language is sort of vague and needs to be solidified and written better.

I doubt this is the final version of the rulebook. It's rumored to be released next summer (I think), so that means tons of changes could occur between then and now.

As it is, this rulebook looks promising, if a bit disorganized.

6th edition is rumored to be released this summer.

Evasion values are already given. Check pg 70 of the rulebook (pg 49 of the PDF). It's explain there.