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.

**Squidmanlolz**

How long was it between the leaked "5th ed." and the real codex release?

**Dribble Joy**

Units within 12” of one or more enemy units that
arrived via deep strike may perform a Defensive
Fire action and target one of the units.

Each unit can only make one DF action as a result of DS.

**Maelstrom808**

Ah good catch. Missed that part.

**ChocolateGork**

Dribble Joy wrote:
Units within 12” of one or more enemy units that
arrived via deep strike may perform a Defensive
Fire action and target one of the units.

Each unit can only make one DF action as a result of DS.

Ah ok then

**davethepak**

Mike Leon wrote:I just played 6th edition.

Well, we playtested whatever this is at the LGS anyway.

It works pretty well. I'm tired and need to go to bed so I can't say anything too ridiculously detailed, but I'll sum it up a bit and give some quick observations.

We played a 1v1 game @1000 pts. My Blood Angels Sanguinary Guard Army vs my friend's Green Tide Orks.

The biggest surprise and ultimately the most noticeable impact on the game was the Tactical Gambit. It took us about a half hour just to figure out what the hell was going on there and who deployed when and how. The key is that you roll off to determine who deploys first, but then you bid strategy points on who actually takes the first turn. So my opponent won the roll off and chose to deploy first, but I won the bid, which meant that I got to look at how he was deployed and take the first turn. It was like I seized the initiative in 5th, so I had a big advantage...

...except he used all the strategy points to make his ENTIRE Ork army STUBBORN. You ever try killing a stubborn green tide with 16 gold space marines? I have. It ain't pretty.

It took us about 3 hours to play 5 turns. Almost all of that was searching through the rules. Actual time spent playing the game/ moving dudes/ rolling dice was very minimal. This ruleset moves much quicker than the 5th edition set. You wouldn't expect that from all the extra complexity, but it does. You only move units once per turn (for the most part) and that really speeds it up.

We didn't use any vehicles except for one ork buggy, which I destroyed by charging and attacking with infernus pistols in close combat, then shooting in the shooting phase with the same infernus pistols. I threw away 5 sanguinary guard to do it, but I wanted to see how the rules for all of that played out. The vehicle exploded and explosions are quite a bit more dangerous now. They basically work like 5th edition dangerous terrain checks. No armor saves.

He won in the end by charging his last 2 mobs of boyz (40 orks) in to alpha strike my last sanguinary guard that was tied up fighting a warboss with 1 wound left. Alpha strike is mean. Those boyz wrecked that Sanguinary Guard at I10.

Overall, I like this ruleset far more than the current 5th edition set. The best thing is just the lack of random dice rolls. It is subtle on paper but when we actually started moving dudes around it was like "wait I don't have to roll to run/move through terrain/charge" the movement values are arbitrary so you can plan everything ahead without worrying that 1 bad dice roll will ruin everything. You can premeasure movement and if you fail a charge it actually specifically states that you can choose to just move some other way. No more "Oops my unit is .01 inches out of charge range, guess they're screwed"

I like it a lot. Here's to hoping this is the real thing and not some internet hoax.

to be honest, this is one of the reasons I think that they are not fake, or if they are, somehow contain a lot of real stuff.

The changes in moving and taking out the randomness and measuring seem very similar to fantasy, and according to my friends who play it this has streamlined the game a lot.

However, I admit that I personally do not play fantasy (any more) so others who do, may have other opinions.

One final note: just as it says in the book, and this person's report confirms, one should not judge the simplicity/complexity until they actually play.

thank you very much for the report.

GW: if this indeed fake, make it so....

**winterman**

Squidmanlolz wrote:How long was it between the leaked "5th ed." and the real codex release?

Rumors based verbatim on the pdf started coming out early spring, like march and I think pdf leaked fully shortly after. 5ed released in July. So this is a tad earlier but in the general time frame.

**Dribble Joy**

Defensive Fire allows the unit to take a Shooting action. I've been through pretty much the whole document, but I can't find anything to say that that can't be anything other than a normal Fire action.

Covering Fire against DSing units? The Directed Hits rules don't mention Defensive Fire or DS, though as DF is a Support action, I'm wondering if there might be a clause about that.

**wuestenfux**

To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!

Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.

**decoste007xt**

I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.

Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.

Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

I'm 99% sure its a fake.

**timd**

azazel the cat wrote:Just because I desperately want these rules to be real, I'm gonna call this one now:

The next battle box is Black Templars vs. Necrons

Necrons will have had their day in the sun before the release.

Given all CSM discussion recently I think that Black Templars (or Dark Angels) vs CSM more likely.

Tim

**Darkseid**

wuestenfux wrote:
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!

Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.

This is very simmilar to one of chaos missions from the Battlemissions book. I played it a few times and consider it really good.

**Squidmanlolz**

decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.

Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.

Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

I'm 99% sure its a fake.

Remember, necrons are still only a 5th edition codex, they can't give away rules from the next edition, especially if the change is dramatic, it wouldn't make sense in the current rules. A lot of the new rules seem to make more sense to be honest, it seems to make everything more reasonable, more tactical and less-forgiving than the standard of 40k that we're used to.

**boyd**

decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.

Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.

Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

I'm 99% sure its a fake.

Defensive Fire would be the Old Overwatch. It turned 2nd Edition into a Cold War Game and setting up fire lanes, etc. It wouldn't be bad if in the scenario you list above do not allow the marines to strike at the orks because they spent their time shooting...

**Gavin Thorne**

wuestenfux wrote:
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!

Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.

This was my initial concern as well. My Saim-Hann list is going to play very differently. Sitting min-size squads of DA's with a Falcon or Wave Serpent to block LOS might work, but they'd fold to any firing or assault. On the plus side, the Power Weapon/Shimmer Shield option has become much more appealing.

**Squidmanlolz**

timd wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Just because I desperately want these rules to be real, I'm gonna call this one now:

The next battle box is Black Templars vs. Necrons

Necrons will have had their day in the sun before the release.

Given all CSM discussion recently I think that Black Templars (or Dark Angels) vs CSM more likely.

Tim

Pehaps Tau vs CSM, those are supposedly two of the earliest 6th ed codexes, unless Tau get squeezed into 5th at the last minute.

**SoulGazer**

decoste007xt wrote:what are they just boned now?

Monoliths are now Super-heavies with 1 Structure point. They can DS safely and blast things easily. Not to mention Warriors aren't 100% guaranteed to crumble in CC anymore. There are more things to list, but there's no need. If this is what being boned feels like, I'd hate to think what being blessed feels like.

**ph34r**

decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.

Nope

decoste007xt wrote:Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that?

Like 2nd edition? For 40k's 25th anniversary?

Yes.

decoste007xt wrote:Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

No. The PM can't just DF whenever it wants. RTFM.

decoste007xt wrote:There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

Most recent ones already have, the Update fixes those that haven't, and the others will get new codexes soon.

decoste007xt wrote:Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this.

They do. Heavily. See:

decoste007xt wrote:Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

Opposite. DE, Necrons, GK, etc have all clearly laid the groundwork for these rules. Also see the Codex Update.

decoste007xt wrote:I'm 99% sure its a fake.

Based on what?

**agnosto**

Gavin Thorne wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!

Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.

This was my initial concern as well. My Saim-Hann list is going to play very differently. Sitting min-size squads of DA's with a Falcon or Wave Serpent to block LOS might work, but they'd fold to any firing or assault. On the plus side, the Power Weapon/Shimmer Shield option has become much more appealing.

Except the rules say skimmers don't block LoS....

**Wrath**

Dribble Joy wrote:Defensive Fire allows the unit to take a Shooting action. I've been through pretty much the whole document, but I can't find anything to say that that can't be anything other than a normal Fire action.

You can use either a Fire or Heavy fire. You get relentless for the action so hvy weapons are a go, you get sustained fire just because it is built into the rapid fire rules, and for template and blast attacks it has special rules under DF.

**Slayer le boucher**

decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.

Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.

Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

I'm 99% sure its a fake.

I like how people makes statements like this when they obviously din't read the whole subject or the whole ruleset...

A bit like someone who read the 3 first pages of the User manual of a Combat Aircraft and say" WTF how are you supposed to work that thing!?!"

**Dribble Joy**

My mistake, I meant to imply the firing of a weapon as opposed to a different Shooting action.

**StraightSilver**

I have to say that I have had a good look through these rules and the more I do I believe they are a genuine early draft of 6th Edition.

If they aren't they are a very elaborate, but very clever and informed fake. But I don't honestly believe that to be the case.

There are some very subtle returns to 2nd Edition. Let's face it, over the last several Codexes GW have introduced nostalgic nods to earlier editions with unit choices.

But things like to hit modifiers, parrying, overwatch, strategy cards etc seem to have all been retconned into these rules, and have been done very well.

But it's the fact that games will allegedly be much quicker that makes me believe these are real.

Quicker games means bigger games, which allows GW to sell more minis. Plus the fact that infantry are now much more viable, and that they are less resilient holding objectives means you need more of them.

It was always believed that this edition would encourage players to buy more infantry, and these rules seem to back this up.

Plus scenery seems to take a more active role, meaning GW can sell more kits.

I don't mean that in an entirely cynical way, I accept the the rules may be a way to push sales, but I do really like what I have seen so far.

However as I believe this is a very early draft I would anticipate some changes, but the bones are there in this document.

I for one am quite excited, 40K needed a change, and this does it whilst also harking back to the "good old days", which I think is a good thing.

**ColdSadHungry**

Robbietobbie wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf

edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook

NOOOOOOOOO!

And the last competitive element of the Dark Angels book just goes 'poof!' No update to the codex on the horizon either. That is a really crappy change making Kraks S6 AP4. The rending rule hasn't changed AFAIK and is just as crappy as 5th ed so switching cyclones to assault cannons doesn't exactly excite me - it's basically a toss up between an extra 12" or a chance to rend on 4 shots. Wow. Plus I'd lose a thunder hammer and storm shield as well a a cyclone to take an ass can :( I'm gonna go read the PDF and try to find something that doesn't kill my Deathwing now....

EDIT* Just seen that it's actually only the grenades that have the crappy stats. Wow. crisis averted - Must admit that would have been a super nerf - ignore me anyway

**Rented Tritium**

I love the argument that tiered systems are too complicated.

We have them right now. They are just sucky and inconsistent with random codexes avoiding using keywords and random abilities "always" or "never" doing something. Codex writers are constantly pushing the limit by making things ignore other keywords.

Tiered keywords just codify what already exists.

**Mar'tacus**

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Pehaps Tau vs CSM, those are supposedly two of the earliest 6th ed codexes, unless Tau get squeezed into 5th at the last minute.

No imperials?

Heresy.

That would be awesome though, since I play Tau now and am looking to start CSMs as soon as they're finished.

**pgmason**

decoste007xt wrote:
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.

Only if:

a) The 30 orks just arrived by deepstrike within 6" of your plague marines and made an engage move (not a charge - they can't charge after DS) to get into combat

or

b) Your plague marines have somehow gained the Overwatch special rule, which they don't have (for example by using the 'fire at will' strategem)

Otherwise you don't get to do defensive fire when getting charged.

**Dytalus**

ColdSadHungry wrote:
Robbietobbie wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:

As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.

I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf

edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook

NOOOOOOOOO!

And the last competitive element of the Dark Angels book just goes 'poof!' No update to the codex on the horizon either. That is a really crappy change making Kraks S6 AP4. The rending rule hasn't changed AFAIK and is just as crappy as 5th ed so switching cyclones to assault cannons doesn't exactly excite me - it's basically a toss up between an extra 12" or a chance to rend on 4 shots. Wow. Plus I'd lose a thunder hammer and storm shield as well a a cyclone to take an ass can :( I'm gonna go read the PDF and try to find something that doesn't kill my Deathwing now....

Those are the stats for grenade launchers, not missiles.

**Maelstrom808**

EDIT: Ninja'd, mis-formatted, and ninja'd again..

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Let's apply some logic and common sense here. In the past, people have highlighted the fact that Games Developers such as Chambers/PriestlyCavatore etc have wanted to be radical with 40k but the bosses refused. As a result, they left.
Now compare these rules with Chambers' Starship rules, (or whatever they are called, help me out here) Priestly's historical stuff, and the stuff Alessio did for Warpath. Are there similarities? Is there anything in the independant stuff to compare with these rules?

I know I've ranted on in the past about giving the hobby 200+ years and 4 wives or rubbish like that, but in all honesty, this is way to far out for GW. Look at their track record the past few years. As long as they're making cash, do they care? We know the answer. Don't be fooled by sentimental talk of 25th anniversary. 6th edition will be 5th with some minor tweaks. In their heart of hearts, most people know this.
If I'm right, people will be happy. If I'm wrong, a few geeks get upset, but most people will buy 6th even if it is a steaming pile. It's the beautiful poison

**Absolutionis**

People are severely misreading the thread and making the same fundamental mistakes over and over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes:
1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.

2- The points costs listed next to each weapon in the book refers purely to the strategem that summons buildings; nothing more.

3- The stats listed for krak grenades and frag grenades being used in close combat refer only to them being used in close combat against units such as vehicles and MCs. It has nothing to do with missile launchers.

4- If your army doesn't have a Codex Update, don't have wild conjectures yet. Sisters of Battle on forward are too recent of Codecies to have been considered for the Summer 2011 release of this .pdf.

5- The rephrasing of the meaning of "Heavy" is just a casual mention. Considering the datemark of this .pdf is well before the Necron Codex release, the meaning of 'heavy' is well subject to change. Note that Necrons don't even have a Codex Update section yet.

6- "Flyer" is not a unit type. It's not listed as a unit type. The heading you see listed as "Flyer" is a set of rules for movement.

7- Only units that underwent a "Flyer" move are immune to assault from non-jump non-airborne units. Not all Skimmers have this immunity.

8- "Critical Hit" is just a keyword for an automatic-wound that ignores armor. It has nothing to do with conventional dice rolls.

9- The 10" Apocalypse Template being used against swarms is just a hasty copy+paste from the evasion chart likely done purely for templating.

10- This is quite likely an incomplete draft or a playtest ruleset. It's not finalized. The formatting and such are very well subject to change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this clears things up for newcomers and we don't have the same kneejerk reactions circulating around all the time.