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.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:"Move along, nothing to see here..."

Also, they never actually told you that you can or cannot post it.

If GW claims not to own it, then they have no authority over who can publish it. They can't give an answer.

I'm sure they'd have a leg to stand on with its references to their IP and the way it is formatted in respect to 5th Edition.

Marthike wrote:This is not a fake. However, this is a earlier version of the rule book, might even been a very early one because alot of the rules will not be in the real 6th ed rulebook

You seem to be quite certain of that. Why?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:"Move along, nothing to see here..."

Also, they never actually told you that you can or cannot post it.

If GW claims not to own it, then they have no authority over who can publish it. They can't give an answer.

Claiming not to own something is entirely different from actually owning something. If GW did not own the document, then they would have no authority. However, if they did own the document, then they would confirm their ownership by either denying or granting permission.

Hence, the evasion to the actual question asked of them.

You should just send a follow up, stating that if you don't receive an explicit response preventing you from posting it, then you will accept that as tacit permission to redistribute this 'parody' document.

junk wrote:You should just send a follow up, stating that if you don't receive an explicit response preventing you from posting it, then you will accept that as tacit permission to redistribute this 'parody' document.

I still don't think it's that simple. I could write a novel including characters named Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn and others, set in a world of trolls, goblins and talking spiders, and then post it online. Tolkein Enterprises may not own the novel, but it is their IP that I am toying with and that would probably make them very grumpy.

So, they'd either tell me, "Yes, we own it and we say ______ to you posting it." or "No, we do not own it, but we own some of the information in the work and therefore we say _______ to you posting it."

I am no white knight for GW, but evasion doesn't really mean much in this situation.

They could simply say, "I would advise you not to publish it." And that is basically the same thing as evading the question altogether.

Yeah, they would probably say not to distribute it as it contains GW IP.

Considering most opinions on this are favorable, I think whether its genuine or fake is meaningless.

1 If its genuine, the player base will rejoice in GW's new direction, and lots of people will be playing by the these rules.
except in GW stores, where simpler rules will be used.

2 If they're fakes, And GW produces 5.5 edition. Lots of people will play by these rules.
Except in GW stores where GW rules will be used.

I hope they're fake, so that I don't feel the need to use GW models.

It doesn't look like anyone has brought this up, but there was a group on 4chan that claimed these to be their own set of homebrew rules.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/01/6th-edition-leak-source-found.html

Of course, any claim on 4chan is meant to be filtered through a salt mine; but this is the only report of anyone actually stepping up an taking credit, even if it's undeserved credit, for the leakhammer rules.

junk wrote:It doesn't look like anyone has brought this up, but there was a group on 4chan that claimed these to be their own set of homebrew rules.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/01/6th-edition-leak-source-found.html

Of course, any claim on 4chan is meant to be filtered through a salt mine; but this is the only report of anyone actually stepping up an taking credit, even if it's undeserved credit, for the leakhammer rules.

Old news

puma713 wrote:

junk wrote:You should just send a follow up, stating that if you don't receive an explicit response preventing you from posting it, then you will accept that as tacit permission to redistribute this 'parody' document.

I still don't think it's that simple. I could write a novel including characters named Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn and others, set in a world of trolls, goblins and talking spiders, and then post it online. Tolkein Enterprises may not own the novel, but it is their IP that I am toying with and that would probably make them very grumpy.

So, they'd either tell me, "Yes, we own it and we say ______ to you posting it." or "No, we do not own it, but we own some of the information in the work and therefore we say _______ to you posting it."

I am no white knight for GW, but evasion doesn't really mean much in this situation.

They could simply say, "I would advise you not to publish it." And that is basically the same thing as evading the question altogether.

Except, that if you did all that and called it a "Parody," you would legally have a leg to stand on as parody and satire are protected speech in the US. Since the GW rep called it "a parody work," you can probably redistribute it with impunity.

junk wrote:It doesn't look like anyone has brought this up, but there was a group on 4chan that claimed these to be their own set of homebrew rules.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/01/6th-edition-leak-source-found.html

Of course, any claim on 4chan is meant to be filtered through a salt mine; but this is the only report of anyone actually stepping up an taking credit, even if it's undeserved credit, for the leakhammer rules.

Old news... but I never knew about the part where they claim that GW legal said that it's okay because it is not an official GW product. That element of the story immediately outs the 'confession' as fake (over and above how BS it sounded to begin with) as GW's legal team would NEVER advise someone in such a fashion, because the document contains GW's intellectual property, and such advice would be in direct conflict with the last dozen or so lawsuits that GW has filed against companies that have not come anywhere near as close to stealing their intellectual property as this document does (assuming it's not legit).

That being said, I think everyone can just about ignore 4chan regarding this subject by this point.

Nagashek wrote:

puma713 wrote:

junk wrote:You should just send a follow up, stating that if you don't receive an explicit response preventing you from posting it, then you will accept that as tacit permission to redistribute this 'parody' document.

I still don't think it's that simple. I could write a novel including characters named Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn and others, set in a world of trolls, goblins and talking spiders, and then post it online. Tolkein Enterprises may not own the novel, but it is their IP that I am toying with and that would probably make them very grumpy.

So, they'd either tell me, "Yes, we own it and we say ______ to you posting it." or "No, we do not own it, but we own some of the information in the work and therefore we say _______ to you posting it."

I am no white knight for GW, but evasion doesn't really mean much in this situation.

They could simply say, "I would advise you not to publish it." And that is basically the same thing as evading the question altogether.

Except, that if you did all that and called it a "Parody," you would legally have a leg to stand on as parody and satire are protected speech in the US. Since the GW rep called it "a parody work," you can probably redistribute it with impunity.

That rep has probably already been fired.

If you really wanted GW to put their cards on the table, so to speak, a cool idea would be this:

You go through the entire book and change or remove every reference to Space Marines, Orks, etc. Everything that is obviously GW property.

Insert references to your own generic fantasy creatures and objects instead.

Repost the rules EVERYWHERE and claim them as your own new game that you wrote. Tell people that what was posted on all the 40k forums over the last few weeks was actually your ruleset altered by some pranksters to look like a 40k ruleset.

If GW still sends you a cease and desist (or outright sues you) then you will know at least that something is up with them. Not necessarily confirmation that the rules are real, but at least that GW created them or has some hand in them.

I doubt that. He's most likely replying with canned company approved verbiage. They would have come up with a sript after the first few inquiries.

I've written an new email to GW thanking them for replying and stating it's not their work. That since they said it's not their work I will put it up for download on a forum as the rules are pretty interesting.

Depending on the answer to this we might get a better answer to the question if it's real or not. Probably not, but it's still worth a try.

Mike Leon wrote:If you really wanted GW to put their cards on the table, so to speak, a cool idea would be this:

You go through the entire book and change or remove every reference to Space Marines, Orks, etc. Everything that is obviously GW property.

Insert references to your own generic fantasy creatures and objects instead.

Repost the rules EVERYWHERE and claim them as your own new game that you wrote. Tell people that what was posted on all the 40k forums over the last few weeks was actually your ruleset altered by some pranksters to look like a 40k ruleset.

If GW still sends you a cease and desist (or outright sues you) then you will know at least that something is up with them. Not necessarily confirmation that the rules are real, but at least that GW created them or has some hand in them.

I desperately want someone to do this.

Altruizine wrote:

Mike Leon wrote:If you really wanted GW to put their cards on the table, so to speak, a cool idea would be this:

You go through the entire book and change or remove every reference to Space Marines, Orks, etc. Everything that is obviously GW property.

Insert references to your own generic fantasy creatures and objects instead.

Repost the rules EVERYWHERE and claim them as your own new game that you wrote. Tell people that what was posted on all the 40k forums over the last few weeks was actually your ruleset altered by some pranksters to look like a 40k ruleset.

If GW still sends you a cease and desist (or outright sues you) then you will know at least that something is up with them. Not necessarily confirmation that the rules are real, but at least that GW created them or has some hand in them.

I desperately want someone to do this.

Let us know how it turns out for you.....

Davor wrote:I don't spend much time on Warseer. They know claim they were right all this time that this is a fake. So where is their proof? I haven't seen any "Proof" yet that this is a fake.

Wintermute said, the official GW email to their stores claiming it to be a fake is proof enough.
By the same reasoning, GW sold me fake Space Hulk boxes and forgot to release the real special box two years ago
And calling this ruleset a parody is completely missing the point and shows how desperate their argumentation is.
Guess both Warseer and GW hope that we will forget what they currently say, when 6th edition comes in July.

BTW, the (currently unknown) author still HAS the copyright on the ruleset, so reprinting and making money with them might not be a good idea.

Warseer can be infuriating...however in this case I somehow have a feeling that they know it's legit and are just playing the good soldier. Which they do a lot for GW.

Of course, it may technically not be the final version. In fact, I'm fairly confident it's not 100% final, from the things that need cleaning up in the doc.

Kroothawk wrote:BTW, the (currently unknown) author still HAS the copyright on the ruleset, so reprinting and making money with them might not be a good idea.

Game mechanics in of themselves are not copywritable. You couldn't just go around selling this pdf, but the game mechanics rewritten and repackaged is legal.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:BTW, the (currently unknown) author still HAS the copyright on the ruleset, so reprinting and making money with them might not be a good idea.

Game mechanics in of themselves are not copywritable. You couldn't just go around selling this pdf, but the game mechanics rewritten and repackaged is legal.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Heck yeah. You could market it yourself and have a council to update the rules' balance with patches. Call it Pancake Edition.

Seen it, read it, pondered on it. Here's my Pennies worth, It looks far too much effort to be a hoax, it probably is a draft (considering the amount of glaring errors e.g 2+ SM armour save anyone?) being firmed up ready for translation etc. It could change massively since it is only a draft.

Items of concern for me.....3 - Levels of Fearless? FNP is a rigid dice roll of 4+, unless otherwise stated in brackets after the rule (Way to go with ambiguity, it's always 4+ regardless, never changes, under any circumstances, ever....unless the following)

EDIT definition of "Rigid"
a : deficient in or devoid of flexibility <rigid price controls>
b : appearing stiff and unyielding <his face rigid with pain>
2
a : inflexibly set in opinion
b : strictly observed <adheres to a rigid schedule>

Any of this look like the rule above? I didn't think so, so why use the term rigid save? Do we not have enough words in the English language to accurately describe a rule? Or are we simply ignoring words meaning altogether? Rigid rule with a caveat, making at best dynamic and worst flexible, any one fancy a new definition of Oxymoron?

They better avoid this kind of thing otherwise their FAQ's will be bigger than the rule book!

mwnciboo wrote:Seen it, read it, pondered on it. Here's my Pennies worth, It looks far too much effort to be a hoax, it probably is a draft (considering the amount of glaring errors e.g 2+ SM armour save anyone?) being firmed up ready for translation etc. It could change massively since it is only a draft.

Items of concern for me.....3 - Levels of Fearless? FNP is a rigid dice roll of 4+, unless otherwise stated in brackets after the rule (Way to go with ambiguity, it's always 4+ regardless, never changes, under any circumstances, ever....unless the following)

EDIT definition of "Rigid"
a : deficient in or devoid of flexibility <rigid price controls>
b : appearing stiff and unyielding <his face rigid with pain>
2
a : inflexibly set in opinion
b : strictly observed <adheres to a rigid schedule>

Any of this look like the rule above? I didn't think so, so why use the term rigid save? Do we not have enough words in the English language to accurately describe a rule? Or are we simply ignoring words meaning altogether? Rigid rule with a caveat, making at best dynamic and worst flexible, any one fancy a new definition of Oxymoron?

They better avoid this kind of thing otherwise their FAQ's will be bigger than the rule book!

I'd imagine the save is called a "rigid save" because it represents the model taking it being "stiff and unyielding" as in taking a shot and shrugging it off. I think you're misreading the sentence; it's not a "rigid dice roll of 4+", but rather a "'rigid' (as in the USR "rigid save") dice roll of 4+".

I browsed through the thread and through the PDf - Can a unit of Wyches use both the Invulnerable save and then their FNP Rigid save?

Yes, FNP still works as in 5th.

EDIT: With the exception that it is now also negated by AP3.

I find the use of 'parody' in the GW reply quite interesting. The word is imbued with a generally negative connotation, as though it is somehow a poor and shallow copy of a superior original. Not enough that they just say it is a fan made project.. ?

Funny that everyone who has played it has said the opposite is true

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Yes, FNP still works as in 5th.

EDIT: With the exception that it is now also negated by AP3.

Cool, thanks

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:Seen it, read it, pondered on it. Here's my Pennies worth, It looks far too much effort to be a hoax, it probably is a draft (considering the amount of glaring errors e.g 2+ SM armour save anyone?) being firmed up ready for translation etc. It could change massively since it is only a draft.

Items of concern for me.....3 - Levels of Fearless? FNP is a rigid dice roll of 4+, unless otherwise stated in brackets after the rule (Way to go with ambiguity, it's always 4+ regardless, never changes, under any circumstances, ever....unless the following)

EDIT definition of "Rigid"
a : deficient in or devoid of flexibility <rigid price controls>
b : appearing stiff and unyielding <his face rigid with pain>
2
a : inflexibly set in opinion
b : strictly observed <adheres to a rigid schedule>

Any of this look like the rule above? I didn't think so, so why use the term rigid save? Do we not have enough words in the English language to accurately describe a rule? Or are we simply ignoring words meaning altogether? Rigid rule with a caveat, making at best dynamic and worst flexible, any one fancy a new definition of Oxymoron?

They better avoid this kind of thing otherwise their FAQ's will be bigger than the rule book!

I'd imagine the save is called a "rigid save" because it represents the model taking it being "stiff and unyielding" as in taking a shot and shrugging it off. I think you're misreading the sentence; it's not a "rigid dice roll of 4+", but rather a "'rigid' (as in the USR "rigid save") dice roll of 4+".

This in a nutshell proves my point of FAQ's the size of Phonebooks !

I tried the rules out this saturday, 1500 point game, nids vs guard. I was going to compile a battle report, with pictures, examples of rules being used, etc.

It was possibly the worst 40k game I ever played. Not because I had to refer back to the rules a dozen times, but because despite wishing it was streamlined, it turned out to be as complicated (if not more so) than 5th ed.

Evasion, while interesting, made it too easy to hit vehicles. The hive guards were hitting their favorite targets (vehicles) on a two plus, even if they moved. Zoanthropes had the same effect, and so did meltas/plasmas against carnifexes. Plasma cannons rarely missed, artillery as well, or even MRP. The chances of something NOT hitting were so low, it hardly mattered to roll the die.

Defensive fire is a horrible idea. Storm Troopers deepstruck, instantly died because they were in 12" of everything it turned out. Same thing happened for the Trygon (The executioner had a line of sight, and despite being stunned last round, had regained combat readiness).

Moving is so important to survive, that anything that requires you to be stationary to use is not worth taking. Thus Heavy Weapons teams in IS were useless, because if they didn't move, their Ev fell to 2 points, meaning even termagants hit them on a 3+. So I had to keep the squads moving all the time, thus couldnt shoot with them.

Transports were useless as transports; they're now moving armor, that you need to disembark from in order to fire more than one weapon, after which you can re-embark in the same phase. Oh, and they can't move more than 6" if you want to do that, because your embarked units cant disembark. Fast Vehicles included (they only count as slower for shooting).

These rules are nice, one by one, but they need a lot more work as a whole; in other words, you can't use these rules by themselves, even if you like them more than 5th ed rules; they just don't work yet!

DPsing ONE unit infront of a half dozen, isn't the brighest idea in the whole univers...

When doing this you must send in at least 3 units that DS togheter in a strike force...

And has of the rest, everyone who tried it said that there is much more casualty's and much faster in the few first turns, and that if you got all sentimental over the loss of your minis, 6th wasn't for you.

Transports were useless as transports; they're now moving armor, that you need to disembark from in order to fire more than one weapon, after which you can re-embark in the same phase. Oh, and they can't move more than 6" if you want to do that, because your embarked units cant disembark. Fast Vehicles included (they only count as slower for shooting).

Wow!thats a huge change!!,...wait no it isn't...,seriously wheres is the difference between that and how shooting from a vehicle goes in 5th?...

Yeah you got to shot only 1 weapon...but you count as been Relentless!!!, now you can fire that Missile or Lazcan!

Termas can hit you on 3+?, you can divide your shots with your vehicles!!

Well, playing the same way as you do now is going to get you minced. And 'Nids being able to deal with mech-IG? Perish the thought.

Also, I'd hardly say transports are useless, you just need to use them differently.

Oh, and you can only regain combat readiness in your own Consolidation phase, otherwise you'd never be able to stun something to any effect.