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.

Maelstrom808 wrote:... Terror from the Derp...

I like the sound of this rule

scuddman wrote:<shrug> LIke I said, I don't have proof. I just have a gut feeling about it because it doesn't feel like everything adds up. The way the rules are written clash with what I know about GW...it's like the writer doesn't have the right attitude or GWness. It's kinda like how a foreigner stands out just walking around. You notice because the person seems strange, but you can't articulate why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Writing a linear walkthrough is far easier than writing a self-referencial set of playable rules for 18 different variable armies. By your logic, Marcel Proust is the greatest writer in the history of the Western world, because he wrote the longest book. But I assure you, Proust is not the greatest author"

No, this is wrong. In our day, it was hardly linear. Fighting game engine mechanics were discovered through painstaking trial and error. That's why, if you look at Kao Megura's system faqs, many of them were written with revisions coming over the course of 2 years.

...Which also validates the idea that one person couldn't have written this document for the lolz in a short timeframe.

Kroothawk wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:... Terror from the Derp...

I like the sound of this rule

Fully intentional It's pretty rediculous how good this ability works in the new rules as long as you don't have to worry about a serious CC threat or scattering into impassable terrain.

Kroothawk wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:... Terror from the Derp...

I like the sound of this rule

Heh, if this is that Tyranid rule about the template thing, then it is positively horrifying in 6th Ed.

azazel the cat wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:... Terror from the Derp...

I like the sound of this rule

Heh, if this is that Tyranid rule about the template thing, then it is positively horrifying in 6th Ed.

Yarp

I've been wondering something ever since I started reading this thread (quite awhile ago, by the time I was up to page 50, it'd gotten to page 70, I am reminded of that "theory" which involved Achilles and a tortoise, anyway...), and that something is this:

These rules may or may not be real, to which I answer: So what?

So what if they aren't real? The vocal response has been almost overwhelmingly positive, an incredibly rare response on any internet forum, almost unheard of on any Warhammer forum that I have frequented. Unless there is a very quiet majority who hate them, we can safely say that if these rules were implemented, most people would welcome them with open arms and open minds.

Aren't we, as a community, cohesive enough to say: okay, we will adapt these rules, plugging what holes we find, adding that final polish, and creating something great? Don't we have that power? I don't know how many of us are confident enough to go through this PDF and make changes, but even I'd be willing to modify the layout so that every rule is clear, and in the right section, so we don't have to bounce around to various pages to find out how to use a special rule.

Can't we, as gamers, as players, do this? I reckon we can.

Not sure if this was covered in the previous 70 + pages..

There is no Virus on the File however my UK Govt Firewall is having a fit due to redirects to known Trojan Websites.
Most likely they wont even show up with normal Anti Virus / Malware.

Redirecting to clk.secureintl.com

Under the patch up rules... can you exploit this rule by taking wounds on a hard to wound/more valuable model and then replemish it up to full wounds again from other multi-wound models that have taken wounds?

Dr. Delorean wrote:I've been wondering something ever since I started reading this thread (quite awhile ago, by the time I was up to page 50, it'd gotten to page 70, I am reminded of that "theory" which involved Achilles and a tortoise, anyway...), and that something is this:

These rules may or may not be real, to which I answer: So what?

So what if they aren't real? The vocal response has been almost overwhelmingly positive, an incredibly rare response on any internet forum, almost unheard of on any Warhammer forum that I have frequented. Unless there is a very quiet majority who hate them, we can safely say that if these rules were implemented, most people would welcome them with open arms and open minds.

Aren't we, as a community, cohesive enough to say: okay, we will adapt these rules, plugging what holes we find, adding that final polish, and creating something great? Don't we have that power? I don't know how many of us are confident enough to go through this PDF and make changes, but even I'd be willing to modify the layout so that every rule is clear, and in the right section, so we don't have to bounce around to various pages to find out how to use a special rule.

Can't we, as gamers, as players, do this? I reckon we can.

Well, we can.

But then again some players will refuse to play against armies like Tau by the new rules just because of railguns...
Or others whining about the new deepstrike/outflank rules.

While I personally love the rules, most players in my gaming groupe are just not creative enough to adept to something this new when it's fanmade.
+I do not want to hear that "ohh you only won because of some fan made rules, waffel waffel" every time I won a good match. -.-

So I just hope for an official release.

obsidianaura wrote:Under the patch up rules... can you exploit this rule by taking wounds on a hard to wound/more valuable model and then replemish it up to full wounds again from other multi-wound models that have taken wounds?

It specifically excludes Independent Characters from this rule, so they'll remain wounded. I can see a use in negating the effectiveness of directed hits though. For example, you could choose to patch up a Tyranid Warrior with a venom cannon after someone attempts to snipe it.

KOS wrote:So you are telling that someone did a prank or anyway worked on these rules just for fun ? It is absurd you know that don't you ? 129 pages of rules (written in a good way) seems a bit too hard to accept as fake.

Dorn's Heresy , being fan written is not even close to this pdf. It can't be fan work.

Not commenting on if it IS actually fake or not - but plenty of people will make a large well formatted document, simply because they want to.
I mean - I'm in the process of making 4 different extended codexes, all laid out properly and nicely, and I'm not the only one to do that.
There's also all these people who write game guides - I remember one for Septerra Core being around 150 pages of solid text and diagrams.

And as for pranks - there's plenty of people that put inordinate amounts of time and money into playing jokes on people.

Never underestimate how far people will go for a hobby they like or a prank.

This may help you all find stuff:
Table of Contents
Word wizardry at its best

Thornoo1 wrote:This may help you all find stuff:
Table of Contents
Word wizardry at its best

Bloody fantastic! Thanks, considerably appreciate is being directed to you at this moment! (I hope you're wearing lead underwear!)

Thornoo1 wrote:This may help you all find stuff:
Table of Contents
Word wizardry at its best

Awesome!

Shame I fully bookmarked the PDF file the other day. Took me about two hours, but is so worth it!

Mandor wrote:

Thornoo1 wrote:This may help you all find stuff:
Table of Contents
Word wizardry at its best

Awesome!

Shame I fully bookmarked the PDF file the other day. Took me about two hours, but is so worth it!

I did the same thing. Much better than a ToC.

Things I think will change if this is real/early:
• Difficult Terrain denies the use of "Charge" moves.
• Walkers hit on Front AV in C/C.


I will add to this as I find them.

I have been combing the document, and I watched the batrep here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/16/video-battle-report-40k-6th-ed-leaked-rules-necrons-vs-tyranids/

Where does it way you can assault from deepstrike?

Mahu wrote:I have been combing the document, and I watched the batrep here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/16/video-battle-report-40k-6th-ed-leaked-rules-necrons-vs-tyranids/

Where does it way you can assault from deepstrike?

I believe it's you can use the Engage action which is a normal movement charge (no double). Let me go look at the PDF and get the page.

Mahu wrote:I have been combing the document, and I watched the batrep here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/16/video-battle-report-40k-6th-ed-leaked-rules-necrons-vs-tyranids/

Where does it way you can assault from deepstrike?

page 140
"There are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn. "

Shandara wrote:

Mahu wrote:I have been combing the document, and I watched the batrep here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/16/video-battle-report-40k-6th-ed-leaked-rules-necrons-vs-tyranids/

Where does it way you can assault from deepstrike?

page 140
"There are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn. "

He beat me to it : P

I hope that sentence gets reworded though. The first few times I read it I thought they couldn't engage (I'm dyslexic, lol)

Yeah, that was my error as well, it is horribly worded. It is missing the word "other" .

Mahu wrote:Yeah, that was my error as well, it is horribly worded. It is missing the word "other" .

Yeah, that would make my brain much more happy. I'm glad I have a paper copy at home that I can write on. Dyslexia makes reading GW stuff really hard sometimes.

AND just to make sure I really AM reading it right. You could technically DS at 18", not scatter, move 6", and rapid fire 12" .. right? Or DP within 12", scatter, get shot at, and then Engage.

Mahu wrote:AND just to make sure I really AM reading it right. You could technically DS at 18", not scatter, move 6", and rapid fire 12" .. right? Or DP within 12", scatter, get shot at, and then Engage.

To be within 12" to shoot, you'd have to be within 18" when DSing.

Models with relentless of course (like termis) can Sustained fire (what getting the extra shot 12" with a Rapid Fire weapon is now called) at 18".

GBDarkAngel wrote:Not sure if this was covered in the previous 70 + pages..

There is no Virus on the File however my UK Govt Firewall is having a fit due to redirects to known Trojan Websites.
Most likely they wont even show up with normal Anti Virus / Malware.

Redirecting to clk.secureintl.com

Well, there you go. The '6th edition' rules were created by Iran as a carrier for their response to the Stuxnet virus.

I don't think this is a prank, not because someone wouldn't write 180 pages of awesomesauce, but because no one would just give this away as a prank unless they had head trauma. In which case they wouldn't write this so well

Dodge IP issues with a solid thesaurus and you could market this for yourself. It would make no sense as a prank.

I've got a combined / bookmarked PDF done if anyone wants it, PM me with your e-mail. Alternately, if anyone has made those missing charts or diagrams, please send them my way.

I have a "6ed Reference sheet" I made if anyone is interested as well.

http://www.mediafire.com/?icy2ee22g8c7fla

Its an early draft, so please let me know of any errors/omissions.

If this is indeed a prank, then consider the following: it has the 40k community more engaged and buzzing than any official release in a long time. What's that say about GW's customer relationship and marketing strategy?

If the community is buzzing at these new rules right now , wait until they are released , and witness the great Gnashing of teeth and great wailing as the unavoidable result of so drastic a change will be the Nerfing and instant obsolescence of many unit / models / investment

Edit , oh and the opposite " Your Army is sooo OP "

Dynamix wrote:If the community is buzzing at these new rules right now , wait until they are released , and witness the great Gnashing of teeth and great wailing as the unavoidable result of so drastic a change will be the Nerfing and instant obsolescence of many unit / models / investment

Edit , oh and the opposite " Your Army is sooo OP "

Happens every edition and with every new codex. Nothing new there.

Honestly, I think this edition goes a long way to allowing players to dust off armies and units that have had limited effectiveness in 5th edition and bring them back to the table. I, for one, am looking forward to fielding Banshees again.

Dynamix wrote:If the community is buzzing at these new rules right now , wait until they are released , and witness the great Gnashing of teeth and great wailing as the unavoidable result of so drastic a change will be the Nerfing and instant obsolescence of many unit / models / investment

Edit , oh and the opposite " Your Army is sooo OP "

I've gone through all of my armies and I am pretty sure more things become playable than stop being playable. These rules have a LOT of balancing mechanics.