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.

Kroothawk wrote:Yet, 5th edition did ... a bit (e.g. failing golden throne).

Which would be epic to continue in 6th, and explain the fact that armies that AREN'T Imperial armies (like the new DE and Necrons) can actually can win battles now. The Golden Throne finally fails and the Astronomican dies out. THe larger psychic choirs (like the ones in the Ultramar Empire) could still keep things going to a degree, but the Imperium would suffer a major relapse and allow the expansion of...well...ever non-Imperium race, givign them a chance to shin and fight on more even grounds, thus letting non-Space Marine players feel like that their army-the one they've invested so much into-would actually be able to DO something worhtwhile in the grand scheme of things, unlike the way it's been (imperium loses, but exterminatuses the planet and wins anyways). Chaos resurfacing as the big-badguy, the Tyranids no longer being drawn to the Astronomican like a moth to a flame (and thus perhaps letting them "nest" in part of the galaxy?), the necron Dynasties would truly begin to make their mark, the Tau Emprie could expand and truly become a big-league player fluff-wise, and both varieties of Eldar attemptign to manipulate/make the best of the newfound madness.

Well, aside from the staggering assumption (based off an anonymous friend of a friend who works for GW... which is ALWAYS accurate) that this leak is remotely real, I think it is giving GW far too much credit to believe they are capable of such a scheme, much less a rules rewrite of this magnitude. They have proven this... never. They have prioritized cohesive rulebooks and technical writing... never. They have had a sustained ruleset and no lapses in codexes... never.

As much as I would like many of the proposed changes, the leap of faith is far too great to outweigh the sucker's bet that this is true. Sorry.

I would put WHFB 8th ed. up as an answer to your statements, Skarboy. Except for the last one, which time itself can only answer.

I see how Non-webbite adult gamers can be classified into the "Timmy" group but i feel like many of these adult gamers chat frequently around the game table with Forum using gamers, thus gleaning some of their insight a board user would have. I think Forum using Gamers often influence non forum using gamers , hyping them up making them plan, dream and etc....
In a way i dont think the Timmy group is so cut and dry...

Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.

People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.

No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.

Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.

It's not a deliberate leak. If it was, we could assume that the date on the document was not tampered with, yes? Because why would GW falsify that?

An if the date was not tampered with, it means that they would be deliberately leaking a version of playtest rules from May 2011, that doesn't include any of the work that has been done between then and now. If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version? What benefit is there to collecting feedback on items that no longer exist?

erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.

It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?

Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.

This sort of argument is completely worthless, imo. You ever watch The Colbert Report? He's made an entire career out of satirizing political and cultural figures who depend on their "feeling" to make assumptions about the world or impactful decisions. Do you realize that your feeling about the quality/complexity of the history of GW rulesets is a fine-tuned personal opinion? And that you're assigning an immutable level of stability and predictability to GW by basically claiming that they will continue living up to your exact expectations forever and ever until the end of time?

If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?

If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?

If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?

I dont care, these rules (fake or not) are fun to play. I plan on piddling through them until this summer.

I had my 2nd game with the new rules tonight and I have to say - They're not bad. I lost horribly (50 to 13 vs Dark Eldar with 'nids) but honestly It was about half to do with my poor decisions in-game and the other half was the worst dice rolling i've ever done in a game session in the past 2 months. The mechanics of the game itself were cogent and responsive to the situation. Move speeds being enhanced for fleet units really makes them stand out for getting across the table on foot.

I was disheartened immediately after my tremendous loss but I plan on sticking with it and going forward with playtesting.

Also to note - placing the first objective can be a big deal. Since the deployment zone and objective placement are done first, You can effectively give yourself more objectives than the enemy from the start of the game forward.

Alot of people seem to assume a expansion book has to be 30k or 41k. Personally if GW dose it, I could see them putting out campaign books like they did for fantsey with "Blood in the bad lands." It could add new rules for units and terriean everyone could use.

(As opposed to a 30k book that only matters of Imperial and Chaos Players....)

Could even add new units for all the armies, so everyone will want to buy it to see what new stuff their army got.


I try to view the "6th ed rules" with restrained excitement. Their a very good rule set that seems to make both old and new players happy. Surprisingly solid if they are fake.

Davor wrote:

Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.

People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.

No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.

Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.

The official 'company line' (i.e. from GW) is that it's fake. There have been multiple sources on this.

However, they also said that about the 'secret box' (Hence all the 'it's not Space Hulk' jokes). Also, even though it might well be a fake, it might be something approaching what we will actually see when 6th edition appears. It is therefore worthy of discussion I think.

There was also the issue raised on BoLS that apparently this was written by someone who worked in GW Lenton, looking at the file history, which lends credence that it could be a semi-official publication. Either done at GW's behest, or a produced by a staff member off their own back. That would at least explain how it manages to tie in with rule elements that have only been shown in very recent codex releases.

Very interesting Pacific.

Okay, I respond to some off-topic talk.

I still can't follow the argument that these rules are too complex.
- There are basic rules mentioned for starters.
- We don't have the layout with boxes and all, facilitating readability.
- If played, the rules work and feel essentially like the old rules, only better.

I also can't follow the argument, that the rules are too complex for a professional team to do, so it must have been written by a random fan. Erm ... are you serious?

I can understand people saying, these rules work and the masterplan sounds reasonable, so it must be fake. But I don't follow that argument.

Davor wrote:Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.

BTW I heard "Comical Ali" got a new job

When GW says it's 'fake', I have to wonder what their defenition of 'fake' is. Is it fake if it is not 100% accurate to the 6th edition that will be released?

I just find it hard to believe that someone would write a huge document that is as intricate and well designed as this one, and then also write up an accompanying FAQ for existing codices as a joke. Like they said on the podcast linked in this thread, it would be like writing a PhD thesis as a joke.

Also the argument that 'I hate GW, thus it is fake' is about as reasonable as 'unicorns exist because I saw one'. We get it, the internet hates GW. Move along.

The most important changes will be after 6th is released. If GW follow the ideas laid out in this rumour, than we will see a lot more campaign books (blood in the badlands) better quality codexes (hard back 8th edition books) and a rapid release of extremely game changing suppliments (storm of magic)

I would say look to 8th edition WHFB. does it seem like GW will be changing that ruleset in 3-4 years?

Just want to touch on the topic of this system being too complicated.

We (local group that meets at my house) played 3 games this past weekend after a few of us read through the book a couple times. All were 1k points switching up partners each time. The first game took a while to get through (probably 2ish hours) but then after that the second game only took over and hour and the third was even faster.

Point being, that the rules look daunting at first, but once you grasp them they are faster and more consistent than the 5th edition. Most of the play errors came from assuming rules from 5th still applied and I have a feeling that will be the major hurdle by most of the players who are used to 5th.

Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.

I really hope these rules become reality. After looking at how they change armies for the better, it really would make 40k enter into a new golden age. These rules make seemingly unplayable units, playable again. That is a good thing. More diversity of usable units will make for more interesting army builds.

I think ill keep my stance that I have kept in other threads related to what 6th ed (and any leaks real or not) may mean.

I will remain on the fence but hopeful that some of these may be true.

Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst ...

Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.

Doesn't sound to likely to me. Increasing the model count & price of the starter set are just further impediments to newcomers who actually want to use it as a starter set.

My starter set prediction is that the starter rulebook could consist of these mysterious "basic rules" and nothing more. GW has to have realized that they're hemorrhaging profits to the ebay resellers who hawk the mini rulebooks by themselves.

Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.

Battleforce cost, but not battleforce usage. I'd challenge anyone to make a 1000 pt list from a Battleforce.

Also, two 1000 point armies for less than $100 apiece? Not likely from GW.

infinite_array wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.

Battleforce cost, but not battleforce usage. I'd challenge anyone to make a 1000 pt list from a Battleforce.

Also, two 1000 point armies for less than $100 apiece? Not likely from GW.

I'd forgotten that the starter box from GW now has a MSRP of close to $150 (maybe to cut back on those ebay sellers getting $25 for the mini-rule book and $50 for each of the armies). AOBR has 1000+ points WYSIWYG, and was about $100 when it came out.

It'll probably be 2 boxes, each in the area of 1000 points for $150 each. Keep in mind, the basic mission in the leak is designed for 1-3k armies. While I can see GW saying "Here... buy this box, which is unplayable without buying another $150 worth of models... have fun!" you aren't going to get old-timers to buy it like they bought AoBR.

40k will be going like fantasy... 1000 is the new 500, and most tournaments will be run at 2k or higher.

cyphertheory wrote:I would say look to 8th edition WHFB. does it seem like GW will be changing that ruleset in 3-4 years?

I'd think that they will follow a pattern of 'major rules revision, ~3 years later minor rules revision, ~3 years later minor rules revision, ~3 years later repeat'.

Altruizine wrote:It's not a deliberate leak. If it was, we could assume that the date on the document was not tampered with, yes? Because why would GW falsify that?

An if the date was not tampered with, it means that they would be deliberately leaking a version of playtest rules from May 2011, that doesn't include any of the work that has been done between then and now. If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version? What benefit is there to collecting feedback on items that no longer exist?

erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.

It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?

Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?

I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.

This sort of argument is completely worthless, imo. You ever watch The Colbert Report? He's made an entire career out of satirizing political and cultural figures who depend on their "feeling" to make assumptions about the world or impactful decisions. Do you realize that your feeling about the quality/complexity of the history of GW rulesets is a fine-tuned personal opinion? And that you're assigning an immutable level of stability and predictability to GW by basically claiming that they will continue living up to your exact expectations forever and ever until the end of time?

If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?

If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?

If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?

I would leak a draft version so that the purchase of a final version was still necessary. Following your logic they should leak the final draft and cost themselves money

Here is my problem with the 6th edition rules (if they are true).
I dont know what to think about assault before shooting. It seems like it could be effective and helpful for a lot of armies (tau ignore assault and orks and tyranids just jump into it) but what about the average marine or guard? they are just okay at either, so if they assault, they have to win combat in order to shoot. And I'll admit, sometimes as a space marine it takes more than one round of combat to win. Also, you have to assault the squad at its full strength. Flamers and the like are worthless. What you could originally fire (literally) into an enemy before an assault is useless! Same goes for the nice ability to shoot into a squad before assaulting it. They took out the ability to cripple the enemy with shooting then clean up with an assault. Now sure, assault seems rather nice with pistols being primary or secondary weapons, and weapons having an ap value rather than stating "no armour save" (because now chainswords have an ability again) but still, my main concern is the useless flamers and shooting. I'll definitely need to redesign my GK.
(Speaking of GK, when would I be able to use shrouding with my librarian if I go flat out in a stormraven?)

Flamers give you "fire sweep" in assault. Worse against super bunched enemies, but decent.

Assault weapons (and pistols?) give you your second ccw attack on the charge.

Oh, didnt see that part, I think I saw fire sweep, but I linked it to be a flyer doing a bombing run but with fire. Dont know why.
Anyway, flamers now have some more purpose, but more short range dont. But I LOVE pistols in assault. Using the pistol stats (depending on pistol) would be wonderful! (especially for pistols on guardsmen). Zeal pistols sound heavenly as a primary assault weapon.
Oh wow, what about a Vindicare assassin? He has an execticus pistol, it may become awesome.

Altruizine wrote:

If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?

If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?

If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?

I wouldnt find any of these unbelievable - 2nd ed to 5th though ? - we are looking now at a major change in one ed - however I concede there was a major change from 2nd to 3rd - that would probably be a better example .

ShottyScotty wrote:Oh, didnt see that part, I think I saw fire sweep, but I linked it to be a flyer doing a bombing run but with fire. Dont know why.
Anyway, flamers now have some more purpose, but more short range dont. But I LOVE pistols in assault. Using the pistol stats (depending on pistol) would be wonderful! (especially for pistols on guardsmen). Zeal pistols sound heavenly as a primary assault weapon.
Oh wow, what about a Vindicare assassin? He has an execticus pistol, it may become awesome.

It will be interesting to see what the liquifier guns do in CC. I can see wracks doing much better in CC with 2 in each squad and a hammy holding a 3rd if they can get a good AP roll

Red Corsair wrote:

I would leak a draft version so that the purchase of a final version was still necessary. Following your logic they should leak the final draft and cost themselves money

The only plausible reason for them to leak it would be for feedback. Seeking feedback implies a willingness and an intention to tweak the rules based on that feedback. Changing the rules would render the leaked version irrelevant.

And anyone who is capable of downloading the leak is probably equally capable of loading a torrent and downloading a full-colour scan of the official rulebook. It's not like the leak is openly available on GW's site.

I remember 2nd to 3rd was a pretty big change. I had to read the rulebook over and over to finally settle into it.

However, when I read these leaked 'rules', they really reminded me of 2nd edition. Things were a bit more complex then. The shift from 2nd to 3rd was a shift toward simplification.

The idea of a rulebook with some staying power is very appealing to me. I am just not convinced of the validity of the leaked rules. I refuse to believe until 6th edition actually gets here or the evidence becomes much more convincing.

*edit: corrected spelling error