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.

Palindrome wrote:I have heard it suggested that this is a non English version that has been translated. Is this plausible, does GW produce non english language versions of its playtest lists?

I don't see why they would, and I'd expect to see some other translation artifacts in the text, in that case.

It has armour and colour, that's good enough for me (but not for Firefox's spellchecker)

A book of this size is certaily a collaborative effort leading to a mix and mach of different ways of spelling. It raises some suspicion but it doesnt kill it, not by a long shot.

Isn't this a draft complied by a non-native english speaking game designer who presented this to the board and left the company after a disagreement with the management about the content?

Hence, some of the ideas may be incorporated and others not.

Please, no rules arguments over rules not in place yet. Heh.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Pacific wrote:Sorry if this has been posted already, but a pretty interesting video review of the rules in action on Beasts of War's website

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

Nice.

So while Whineseer buries its head in the sand, BoW is actually considering dropping 5th edition and only using the leak for their videos until 6th comes out.

As far as I know, only Warseer is completely prohibiting it's discussion. BoLS forum and even B&C are allowing discussion about it.

Personally, I think it's a questionable tactic. Yes, an email may have gone out from HQ saying that the leak is a fake, but then they would say that, even if it wasn't. It also excludes the fact that not only might it be similar to the final release of 6th edition, but it's a damned interesting discussion in it's own right, and it also let's the internet community do what it does best - hypothesise about everything!

So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.

Palindrome wrote:Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.

This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.

To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.

Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?

Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.

There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.


We discussed this in the DCM forum (the land of honey, milk and beer)--and my thoughts were;

For someone to hoax it, someone had to;


Intentionally start on a page other than 1.
Immediately update the ruleset with GK information (meta data reads 5, GK released less than a month before)
Have inside knowledge of the new Necron codex (Or, retroactively update the rulebook with the correct rulings directly after the Necron codex--change the date time for each individual codex update and rulebook to edit Metadata for the PDF--then reupload the documents directly)
Copy GW style
Organize and write the document with the proper columns
Reference within the document appropriately
Have a pretty intimate knowledge of most every codex
Know the rumors that were currently floating around about 6th and knowingly insert them into the document
Keep this copy and release it months later (Or someone just sat on this information for that many months before it hitting the net?)
Insert place holder photos like the 5th leak



As Red stated, it's possible--but not very plausible. So that leaves 3 choices;


1. It's a very early draft of the rules--GW's statement is 'technically' correct in that it is not 6th edition's rules. Maybe written by a former designer.
2. It's a hoax--and someone went to an inordinate amount of time/effort to not only make the rules good--but to fake metadata, update as new codices came out and then not take credit for any of it.
3. It was a fan dex--which refers to other fan dex writings--and would take an inordinate amount of time/effort--yet they do not step forward to take credit about (and no one within the community knows the group that painstakingly wrote it)


While anything is possible, I'm inclined to believe it was an early draft.

Pacific wrote:So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.

Warseer's mods love their power, this just gives them an excuse. I once got a strike for typing "Are we reading the same file, Charax?" when they decided that we shouldn't mention some leaked codex scan, I forget which one. What I do remember is that a few days later a mod posted a huge codex review based on the scan.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Pacific wrote:So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.

Warseer's mods love their power, this just gives them an excuse. I once got a strike for typing "Are we reading the same file, Charax?" when they decided that we shouldn't mention some leaked codex scan, I forget which one. What I do remember is that a few days later a mod posted a huge codex review based on the scan.

When you are 40+ and your wife spends more time with the gardener, the milkman and the plumber than with you, you got to went somewhere.

Actually my bad, Warseer does have a sticky thread discussing 6th edition.

Re. the topic of the thread, what I find amusing is that as quickly as BoK jumped on the 'wow new edition rules, 100%!' rumour, it has now switched to 'wow no new edition, 100% fake!'

Even if it is 'fake', there are many unanswered question (as Age of Egos wrote above):

Are we seeing something that has been produced by the shaking, sweat-soaked hands of a lunatic trapped in his mother's basement? Is this an early draft for the actual rules release, and so perhaps 95% accurate? Is it a draft that was made by a designer at GW (either on their orders, or just a private project) but then subsequently rejected? And if so, who was responsible for leaking it and why? Was it an elaborate hoax just to try and catch a 'leak' in the studio prior to GW focusing on the Hobbit and requirements from New Line that will supposedly mean an even tighter control of information?

Technically, GW could have said it is a 'fake' because it is only 90% accurate. That is indeed correct, but it still doesn't exclude the fact that the rules we have seen might well be largely accurate. It's also a damned interesting discussion in it's own right.

AgeOfEgos wrote:[


There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.

The Bajonet spelling worries me a little I have to say although I have found instances of the correct english spelling. Bajonet appears to be the dutch/slovakian spelling and it occurs at least twice, enough to suggest that it is the result of more than an errant key press. UK/US spelling isn't that much of an issue as they are quite interchangeable in practise, especially if more than one person wrote this.

As far as I know, only Warseer is completely prohibiting it's discussion.

WIntermute, in his usual lovable style, has set up a dedicated thread on 6th ed prefaced by saying that this leak is a fake based upon the GW email (and the Warseer mods knew it all along, obviously).

Palindrome wrote:

The Bajonet spelling worries me a little I have to say although I have found instances of the correct english spelling. Bajonet appears to be the dutch/slovakian spelling and it occurs at least twice, enough to suggest that it is the result of more than an errant key press. UK/US spelling isn't that much of an issue as they are quite interchangeable in practise, especially if more than one person wrote this.

That is a good catch--as the one correct spelling of 'bayonet' is a copy/paste paragraph from 5th Ed. rules--and the incorrect instances are in paragraphs not found in 5th's rules.

It could be nothing more than someone not being able to spell of course

What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.

So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?

Because if it is real GW will send in the lawyers. The problem is that GW would have to acknowledge this as belonging to them first. I suspect that people have simply become so used to GW flexing its legal muscle that they are scared to test them. Once it is released (if it ever is) GW is certain to take an active interest so on the whole people are playing it safe.

It is also possible that this is real and forums/websites have already been warned off but if this is the case how come BoW didn't mention this?

Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.

So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?

The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.

I like some rule changes, EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move. A rule change like this makes melta vet lists worthless and also makes ghost arks a dumb choice for necrons. The 18" max range is ok but nerfs de.

It seems silly to nerf guard and de to put them on an equal playing field with marines shooting a single melta out of their rhinos. Guard and de dont get that nice 3+ thats why they get tin cans and paper planes.

michaelcycle wrote: EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move..

While think that this is an EXTREMELY good rule, In fact I would prefer it if firepoints were simply removed from the game.

michaelcycle wrote:I like some rule changes, EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move. A rule change like this makes melta vet lists worthless and also makes ghost arks a dumb choice for necrons. The 18" max range is ok but nerfs de.

Actually I think you only shoot one weapon out of a fire point if the vehicle is stunned or if you lose MT, which is one more than you could fire in 5th.

wuestenfux wrote:

Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.

So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?

The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.

Interestingly enough, it may not be. You can't copyright game mechanics.

From how i read it if you move at all you can shoot only 1?

infinite_array wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.

So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?

The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.

Interestingly enough, it may not be. You can't copyright game mechanics.

References are made to GW trademarks so....

Unless open topped, in which case you can fire everything out of the vehicle. And are relentless.

So it is only a nerf bat to the guard. Awesome so necrons, dark eldar, and orks all get to shoot when they move and the ig get to shoot how power armored space marines did in 5th. Now rhino marines are as potent as flak armor vets in a chimera. Time to shelf another army i put a good grand into atleast. Ugh such a waste of good forgeworld models.

I think you mean that t is time to rethink cheesy 'hide in my transports' tactics?

AgeOfEgos wrote:There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.

Another potential explanation for the mixed spellings is a pretty simple one. With all the time we spend on the Internet interacting with others spellings can often get muddled if we aren't careful. As a Canadian I was taught to spell British English. So I spell it Armour, Honour and Colour. Those are words that I use often enough that I don't have to think twice. Meanwhile due to various Spell Checks not being set to non-American English by default I often find myself doing center instead of centre, maneuver instead of manoeuvre or any number of other ways.

I've done up a few games in the past of lesser size than this and by the end of it they end up looking very disjointed because I've worked on different computers or the software was being uppity (some times the spell check isn't switched on when opening a file up so you don't notice when you spell things differently).

All this tells me is that this document hasn't seen an Editor or Proof Reader yet which makes sense when it looks like it was the living rules document that has recently been sent in for rudimentary layout.

I figure most of the devs at GW will have similar troubles if they spend any amount of time on the Internet and since they haven't been actively proof reading the document yet it wont be caught until it is sent off for that kind of work.

So like most other "definitive" pieces of proof this one is open to a lot of interpretation one way or the other. All I know is that if this is not a hoax then it is, by far, the earliest state we have ever seen a leaked document in. Even the 5th Edition leak and Grey Knight leak, despite having some changes, we very late in the development cycle. Both of them seemed to be done layout and were probably just getting their final editing and proofing passes before getting compiled and sent to the printers. Meanwhile, this thing looks like it was only just starting to get the bits of polish we would expect from a professional product. So if it is real it is very interesting to see a document this early. Too bad we probably wont even know for sure even after the rules are released unless they don't change too much (which I doubt).

Either way this thing is a keeper because these rules are dynamite compared to the last decade of design we've seen from GW. Some proofreading and a few editing passes plus some art assets and this thing would make an excellent alternative to 40k if 6th-proper is more of the same from the devs at GW. Just the fact that everything in it is getting standardized and explained and delineated is awesome and I hope it is real just so I can give the guys at GW kudos for finally taking a look at design [b]and[/i] presentation in their rules. This seems much more tightly engineered and more well thought out than 3rd, 4th and 5th combined. This is honestly what 3rd should have been, it keeps ideas that worked from 2nd while still streamlining things and making play quicker. And all without sacrificing minute to minute choices.

Hell the rules have finally made the Assault Phase interesting after all this time. Between engaging, charging, planning alpha strikes and all the rest of it you now have some actual choices to make when you go to assault. The new turn order is also great and it is a nice compromise between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition. I may have to dust off my Dark Angels and give these a go.

HiddenPower wrote:LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking. Remember that GW targets 11yo so theres no way this is 6th ed. If anything 6th ed will be far more simplistic.

Compare 8th edition Warhammer to 7th edition Warhammer.

Then compare 6th edition Warhammer to 5th edition Warhammer.

Complicated is not an issue. They've been known to add rules, remove them, overhaul and then revisit them on a regular basis between editions. A lot of these rules seem to be a nod toward 2nd edition rules, which, considering a lot of the codices seem to have a 2nd edition feel makes some degree of sense.

And they only 'look' complicated. In truth they're quite simple once you get the hang of them. It's just the fact that we're used to 5th edition that makes us go 'woah, different'.

It isn't really cheesy its a mechanized company. No other army gets it as bad as ig. Actually now tac marine in rhino spam is better you get relentless multi meltas 9" melta range is way better than 6". Ill just end up rumning 9 demolishers with las cannons and 6-9 vendettas and 2 ccs with master of ordinance.

This could be 99.9% correct and GW would call it a fake, and yet they would be right. Regardless of what it actually is I think we should be able to discuss this.

The internet is the internet let those people wishlist, fake things, and masterbate that want to. Above all else let us have our grain of salt!

michaelcycle wrote:So it is only a nerf bat to the guard. Awesome so necrons, dark eldar, and orks all get to shoot when they move and the ig get to shoot how power armored space marines did in 5th. Now rhino marines are as potent as flak armor vets in a chimera. Time to shelf another army i put a good grand into atleast. Ugh such a waste of good forgeworld models.

Yeah, I feel really bad that your squad that is a third the cost of mine no longer has five times the firepower. I'm tearing up. Can you see these tears? They are crocodile tears, this is delicious to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

michaelcycle wrote:It isn't really cheesy its a mechanized company. No other army gets it as bad as ig. Actually now tac marine in rhino spam is better you get relentless multi meltas 9" melta range is way better than 6". Ill just end up rumning 9 demolishers with las cannons and 6-9 vendettas and 2 ccs with master of ordinance.

Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle.


Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle.

Bad player complaining about IG?

ShumaGorath wrote:Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?

Confirmed.

Seriously though. The amount of exaggeration you are employing to make IG seem unrealistically OP is staggering. Marines are just as powerful if not more than IG, you just have to try a little harder than the awful 250 point full rhino build.