Feldmarshal Goehring wrote: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

IPS wrote:The rules themselfs are much simpler and more exact than the 5th ed rules.
However, they leave much more space for extremely complex tactics that use every aspect of the game.

In my personal oppinion, that's how every game should be.

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 If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version?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?

Perkustin wrote:Now i am questioning the legitimacy of the rules, as this is just a great big wish list.

Some of these claims are the things fans have been saying for about five or six years. This would mean GW has actually listened to fans.....

Kroothawk wrote: BTW I heard "Comical Ali" got a new job

junk wrote:If games workshop did come out with a list building or an inventory program like army builder or battlescribe, I'm pretty sure I'd end up using it; especially if it kept my rules up to date with erratas and faqs.

junk wrote:Right, I forgot the qualifier - *If was led to believe that games workshop actually had a quality control agenda*

junk wrote:If games workshop did come out with a list building or an inventory program like army builder or battlescribe, I'm pretty sure I'd end up using it; especially if it kept my rules up to date with erratas and faqs.

junk wrote:I still think that Vanilla Marines improved massively due to the leakset - I'd really love to see what salamanders can do with all the new rules about assault weapons and template weapons. It also seems like Legion of the Damned became a great choice, sternguard got even better, and guys like Shrike, Khan, and Kantor will all see new life in all new lists.

junk wrote:Be fair; the VSM book has taken a back seat to Vampires, Vikings, and Monochrome Marines... it's good to see everyone who hasn't dipped their space marines in adeptus battlegrey and/or blood red get back in the fight.

Ozeo wrote:They aren't just going to make up BS and will have to ether concede the point that it's not there's, or that it's for something they created.

otakutaylor wrote:I thought since the initial password for the .rar file was pancake that they'd be called pancake edition.

Though the pun JUST hit me, if they turn out to be fake...

"The pancake is a lie."

I wonder, if they are real, does using the word pancake have any significance?