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.

**Rafi**

Quick question on the leaked rules: Can more than one friendly unit claim a the same Objective each turn?

**Tapeworm711**

creeping-deth87 wrote:Has anyone else realized assalting armies pretty much auto-win in the new rules? If you beat a unit in combat, you can do a sweeping advance to kill them completely, but if this FAILS... well, under the new rules, if a broken unit is within 12" of an unengaged enemy unit at the BEGINNING of its movement phase, it is immediately destroyed. Since a fall back move is your base move + D6, and since Consolidation after combat is now an auto-3" for victories units, there is literally no way a broken unit would ever NOT get caught by this unless it was jump infantry, and that's if you roll high.

That really sucks.

Wrong:

Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.

So you can choose to "Run" away if you need the distance, or move and shoot if you are already at a safe distance. This essentially avoids the whole immersion breaking escorting of a unit off the table. Now it just happens immediately.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rafi wrote:Quick question on the leaked rules: Can more than one friendly unit claim a the same Objective each turn?

No.

But since there is no more contesting, both a friendly and an enemy can claim an objective in the same cycle if they are in range.

**ShumaGorath**

But since there is no more contesting, both a friendly and an enemy can claim an objective in the same cycle if they are in range.

I didn't realize this. That's going to be weird.

**Morehammer**

Played a few rounds of 500 pointers last night. Tau vs Dark eldar and Tau vs Eldar

A few quick observations:

The being limited to a vanilla mission makes sense because a lot of the flavor (complexity and diversity) comes from the bidding and consequently the strategic points.

Kroot are really useful as the show up on which ever short edge that you want (outflank) and have a beautiful 18 inch threat range), though a little later than usual.

Fast skimmers are not killed on an immobilize result when moving flat-out, but rather get stunned to death (so to speak) which balances things out . But coupled with this, Dark Eldar Raiders with aether (sp?) sails coming in from reserves get to move a whopping 30 + 2d6 inches on to the board when they arrive from (deploy up to 6 inches before moving).

I am liking the overall direction of these rules. Will do more play-testing and posting results later.

**Hatemonger**

Nalathani wrote:What I've come up with is that after lots of playtesting, the creators of this realized that lists would only be used that maximized their kill point/army point ratio.

That is exactly the way it used to be in (I think?) 2nd edition. A unit was worth 1 VP for every 100 points or part thereof, so if your favorite squad came out to 201 points, you went back to the drawing board.

junk wrote:Assuming this document is a fake, we have to also assume, based on the coherence and elegance of the rules, that it was written by a dedicated group of intelligent gamers that vigorously playtested it.

Dedicated? Yes. Intelligent? Presumably so. Vigorously playtested... I'm not so sure. I think it's another option along with your other theories:

2. These rules were written by a consortium of autistic savants who use tabletop wargaming as their only means of communication
4. It's an early work draft of a GW rulebook.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much difference there is between those three.

- H8

**ShumaGorath**

Honestly, I'm not sure how much difference there is between those three.

The word "Savant" implies a very large difference.

**Hatemonger**

ShumaGorath wrote:
But since there is no more contesting, both a friendly and an enemy can claim an objective in the same cycle if they are in range.

I didn't realize this. That's going to be weird.

Not as much as you might think. If you have both units on the objective, they both get points, which cancel each other out - exactly the same as contesting. The difference is, a large, resilient scoring unit can try to outlast a more elite non-scoring unit, and still scrape out a larger margin of VP. Another way of balancing larger squads vs. MSU.

- H8

**ShumaGorath**

Hatemonger wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
But since there is no more contesting, both a friendly and an enemy can claim an objective in the same cycle if they are in range.

I didn't realize this. That's going to be weird.

Not as much as you might think. If you have both units on the objective, they both get points, which cancel each other out - exactly the same as contesting. The difference is, a large, resilient scoring unit can try to outlast a more elite non-scoring unit, and still scrape out a larger margin of VP. Another way of balancing larger squads vs. MSU.

- H8

No, I mean there are going to be instances where two tactical squads sit 10 feet from eachother and just fire point blank (doing nothing because they both suck) and gathering points. I can only imagine what they would talk about while they bounce off of eachother the entire game.

**Dribble Joy**

The Surrounded rule is harsh, but as mentioned, you check at the end of the movement phase. It also ignores units in combat, so you can 'save' the unit by assaulting the threatening enemy unit(s).

It also places more emphasis on fast moving flanking units and higher mobility in general.

**gorgon**

Okay, per the pancake edition, going to ground makes the unit shaken, and shaken does not prohibit engage actions.

So that means that you could (for instance) DS a Lictor unit into cover and within 6" of a enemy unit, go to ground when hit with defensive fire (claiming +2 to the cover save), then still engage the enemy with anything that survives the defensive fire. Or am I wrong?

**timd**

Agamemnon2 wrote:Game rules should not operate based on implicit assumptions, though. They must be codified, unequivocal and free of any ambiguity.

From GW? LOL! Certainly not in the last 25 years... If this really a 6th edition preview/playtest, it looks like GW is changing their rules writing style to be a bit more coherent and tighter, which would be an amazing change.

**Marrak**

gorgon wrote:Okay, per the pancake edition, going to ground makes the unit shaken, and shaken does not prohibit engage actions.

So that means that you could (for instance) DS a Lictor unit into cover and within 6" of a enemy unit, go to ground when hit with defensive fire (claiming +2 to the cover save), then still engage the enemy with anything that survives the defensive fire. Or am I wrong?

If that's true, Lictors suddenly become a true pain for armies to deal with.

**ShumaGorath**

Marrak wrote:
gorgon wrote:Okay, per the pancake edition, going to ground makes the unit shaken, and shaken does not prohibit engage actions.

So that means that you could (for instance) DS a Lictor unit into cover and within 6" of a enemy unit, go to ground when hit with defensive fire (claiming +2 to the cover save), then still engage the enemy with anything that survives the defensive fire. Or am I wrong?

If that's true, Lictors suddenly become a true pain for armies to deal with.

They'll just kill it in combat. Lone lictors aren't particularly hardy.

**AresX8**

Interesting info from Beasts of War:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

**gorgon**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Marrak wrote:
gorgon wrote:Okay, per the pancake edition, going to ground makes the unit shaken, and shaken does not prohibit engage actions.

So that means that you could (for instance) DS a Lictor unit into cover and within 6" of a enemy unit, go to ground when hit with defensive fire (claiming +2 to the cover save), then still engage the enemy with anything that survives the defensive fire. Or am I wrong?

If that's true, Lictors suddenly become a true pain for armies to deal with.

They'll just kill it in combat. Lone lictors aren't particularly hardy.

Well, I can't imagine dropping a unit smaller than 3 in a normal-sized game. The key is obviously making a ton of cover saves. Or maybe not *that* many depending on how you can position the unit.

**ShumaGorath**

AresX8 wrote:Interesting info from Beasts of War:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

This version was sent to trusted play-testers. Who like all trusted minions… were turned by the promise of power… or in this case internet notoriety and likely splurted the document all over the web!

apparently wanting notoriety means leaking it in secret months after the fact. Beasts of War, this is why no one likes you.

**creeping-deth87**

Yeah, it seems going to ground is pretty much a no-brainer and means that we're still going to see 4+ cover saves everywhere. There's practically no disadvantage, as shaken units can still make combat moves or engage and every model in the unit can perform a single shooting action, which is usually the number of shooting actions the models would be legally allowed to make anyway.

So pretty much the only units that don't want to go to ground are units that NEED to run or charge, which is kind of dumb.

I also really hate that MCs can go to ground, it's totally rdiciulous and makes Venomthropes a no-brainer for Tyranid players. 4+ cover save for MCs if they go to ground? AND they can still assault stuff? Yeah, no.

**Mandor**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Marrak wrote:
gorgon wrote:Okay, per the pancake edition, going to ground makes the unit shaken, and shaken does not prohibit engage actions.

So that means that you could (for instance) DS a Lictor unit into cover and within 6" of a enemy unit, go to ground when hit with defensive fire (claiming +2 to the cover save), then still engage the enemy with anything that survives the defensive fire. Or am I wrong?

If that's true, Lictors suddenly become a true pain for armies to deal with.

They'll just kill it in combat. Lone lictors aren't particularly hardy.

Except now, you can only go to ground to ONE enemy unit's shooting. So you only receive the +1 to cover save from GtG once per enemy Shooting Phase.

**Illumini**

Indeed, going to ground needs to be fixed, as it is pretty much an auto-choice for anything that is not about to charge. The only negative is that if you get stunned again, you break. But of course, going to ground is likely to keep you from taking a morale check in the first place anyways.

**gorgon**

AresX8 wrote:Interesting info from Beasts of War:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

Y'know, I was just thinking about this recently. What if that batch of rumors from a few months ago actually reflects not an older version, but a more recent version? There were some important differences.

Note that EV is out in those rumored rules in favor of a unit type-based to hit chart (which would make DE players happy per the BoW rumors). Note that in the rumored rules, the main mission gives each player two objectives to place and places the fifth in the table center. Might suggest the rumored rules are an evolution from the pancake edition.

Will be certainly be interesting to see what the final rules are. Although honestly, I tend to think the final version won't be *radically* different from the pancake version. They've already laid groundwork for 6th in their recent codicies that fits the pancake edition well. A lot of concepts will probably still carry over, such as some kind of hit table based on speed or unit type.

**elrabin**

Illumini wrote:Indeed, going to ground needs to be fixed, as it is pretty much an auto-choice for anything that is not about to charge. The only negative is that if you get stunned again, you break. But of course, going to ground is likely to keep you from taking a morale check in the first place anyways.

I don't think so. It keeps your unit from Running or Charging, which means they are going to be moving across the board quite slowly. If you are in or will be crossing difficult terrain, then there's no reason not to do it. Otherwise enjoy your slow march.

And since shaken units can't use support actions, you won't be able to Charge by Chance, use Look Out Sergeant, or Defensive Fire (though this is hardly a drawback in a normal 2p game).

**Kharrak**

Aw poop. Rather liked the turn structure, and the EV stuff. That said, assuming that BoW article is accurate, I'm also happy that that's all that's gone (in regards to significant changes).

**Swara**

Kharrak wrote:Aw poop. Rather liked the turn structure, and the EV stuff. That said, assuming that BoW article is accurate, I'm also happy that that's all that's gone (in regards to significant changes).

I would of liked EV to stay. Though there isn't any real way to say BoW is accurate either.

**ph34r**

That BoW article has basically zero substance.

**BEASTSOFWAR**

ph34r wrote:That BoW article has basically zero substance.

What additional detail were you looking for?

**Kroothawk**

Just copied here for easier reading http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/ :

The 40K Heretics Rulebook is Real… Only it’s Not!

Yes… you heard that correctly. After a lot of digging and snooping around the inside of the great citadel (or should that be Citadel) that is Games Workshop, we have some very interesting news about the so-called Heretics 40K Rulebook… or the 6th Edition Leak for those with little flair for the dramatic!

It turns out that this is in fact an actual early version of the 6th Edition rules… but not quite. Apparently the Design department were let loose on the 40K system… they were allowed to try anything they fancied… we’re told that nothing was off the table. This “no-holds-barred” version was then edited down with the truly unworkable ideas removed and those that could prove to be exciting or contentious left in to be play-tested… so was born the Heretics 40K Rulebook!

This version was sent to trusted play-testers. Who like all trusted minions… were turned by the promise of power… or in this case internet notoriety and likely splurted the document all over the web!

I actually found this explanation to be not just more plausible (than the lone gunman theory) but a real breath of fresh air from the ‘Ivory Citadel’, and to me at least it shows a high level of innovation within the design team, and also shows that there is no shortage of ideas knocking around in there.

Word has it the design team had a real blast with this iteration of the rules (loved it apparently) but spotted alot of potential for asshats to ruin it for everyone else with unbalanced lists etc.

And there you have the crux of the issue the design team face, they could probably create a massively fun game at the drop of the hat, and simple folk like me wold love them dearly for it, but alas there is a whole other side (some say dark, Darrel says only!) to our hobby and that is the competitive win at all costs play.

So, fun as they may be, they’re not the final (or indeed likely to be anything like the complete) rule set for 6th edition… but what were we told about the actual 6th Edition Rules?

Well some really interesting stuff. For a start here’s what will not be included from the Heretics Rulebook:

Evasion Values are Out – well this was a given… I’m sure every Dark Eldar player was praying for the day that their skimmers and flyers didn’t fall over in a stiff breeze, but that’s not all. Our Man in Havana has told us that Dark Eldar players will be very pleased with the 6th Edition updates.
Could that mean an overhaul of the skimmer rules… could it mean more deadly flyers?
Of course it could mean one, both or neither. However, more robust transports would make the Dark Eldar much more deadly… so keep your eyes peeled for more revelations.

The Turn Sequence will remain the same – The biggest shake-up and the one that would mean a rewrite of Assault weapons and the death of certain “shooty armies” ( Tao ), was the turn structure that put charging/melee before shooting. I would say it was unrealistic, but in a world of extra-terrestrial and supernatural horrors, where mankind has moved to the stars… that’s probably a bit redundant.
Anyway… the turn structure will remain the same as it is now.

No Unit by Unit Activation – Yup that was pretty disappointing for me, (but who knows everything we have been told could well be misinformation too!) I was sooo looking forward to faster more intricate games with that option.

Gargantuan Creatures will remain with Forge World & Apocalypse Games – That’s right… probably no supersized tanks and critters for the main rulebook… but does that mean we won’t get any Aracknarok-sized monsters?
Well it hasn’t been ruled out, and as Land Raiders are already that size, it’s doesn’t take a genius to think we’ll be getting more big kits.
In fact that was one of the discussions… we all like to gripe about GW prices.

However, it was explained that GW are investing all the time in new kits, new moulds, more people (sculpting team is largest its ever been apparently) and a bigger and better gaming experience… you can take that at face value if you wish… but if it means more plastic kits (and fewer Finecast), and more big bad creatures and machines is it worth it?

So who will be writing this new 6th Edition Rulebook I hear you cry?

Well as you can imagine the creation of a new rule set of this scale is a team effort… but some poor soul has to captain this vessel… so who is it?

Well… that really is top secret and even we couldn’t get the name (and you can’t use thumbscrews these days!)… but we did find out who it isn’t.

So here are a few names who might be involved, but won’t be the lead writer… Matt Ward, Robin Cruddace and Phil Kelly… but if not one of them… then who?

Will you need an update to your existing Codex when 6th Edition launches?

We’re told that the new rule book was written to take into account the latest releases and so there’s no need to post a massive errata.
However, we know that there are many codices that need a revamp. So I’m very sceptical that there will be “no need for an FAQ”.

Although I’m always prepared to be proven wrong.

So, there you go… that was an interesting conversation… and it doesn’t stop there.

We got some more great bits of info that we’ll be able to share with you… but not quite yet… you’ll need to be patient.

However, until then… feel free to speculate all you want… or post a question. Perhaps we can call a few guys and see if we can get you the inside track.

Big caveats on this guys, in that while we’re confident that the contents of the article are accurate you are relying on our sources, and… well… there could be many ways in which it may not be accurate (not necessarily deliberate by a source either!) so take it that its just part of the business these days that while we do our best, there are no guarantees!

All of that aside, is the Heretics 40K Rulebook good enough, different enough to warrant a following of its own? (I’m so tempted its unreal!)

BoW Warren

**Nalathani**

creeping-deth87 wrote:Yeah, it seems going to ground is pretty much a no-brainer and means that we're still going to see 4+ cover saves everywhere. There's practically no disadvantage, as shaken units can still make combat moves or engage and every model in the unit can perform a single shooting action, which is usually the number of shooting actions the models would be legally allowed to make anyway.

So pretty much the only units that don't want to go to ground are units that NEED to run or charge, which is kind of dumb.

I also really hate that MCs can go to ground, it's totally rdiciulous and makes Venomthropes a no-brainer for Tyranid players. 4+ cover save for MCs if they go to ground? AND they can still assault stuff? Yeah, no.

I disagree. As a Tyranid player it makes sense for me to get into close combat as fast as possible. Going to ground slows you down tremendously and probably will end up giving your opponent an entire free round of shooting. Example:

Pitched battle, my opponent and I are 12 inches from our deployment zone, 24 inches from each other. I've got 30 gargs, 2 venoms with a prime, and 2 trygons. He's got 2 tac squads and 3 predators. I go first. All my units run. Gargs move 18 inches, Trygons 16 inches, venom unit 12 inches. That puts me 6 inches, 8 inches, and 12 inches away from those marines. His turn, he moves backwards 6 inches, and shoots. He rapid fires into the gargs, sends Frag missles into them, and some heavy bolter shots. Going to ground is a no-brainer, so I do it. Next, his Preds shoot at my trygons, they go to ground. My turn. Since I can only do a combat move, the gargs move up 9 inches, Trygons 8 inches, and warriors can go 12 since they didn't go to ground. No assault, I get shot at for another whole round.

So, going to ground gives me an extra 1/6 chance to ignore wounds, but makes me take another full round of shooting. Worth it? I think not. I'd rather not go to ground and assault his face on turn 2. Going to ground was and is a tactical decision. If you need something to live (it's holding an objective), you gtg. If you're already in assault range (lictors, as mentioned previoiusly), you gtg. If your MC is going to die because its likely to take 5 wounds, go to ground, you might get lucky!

**Wrath**

DarknessEternal wrote:
elrabin wrote:Whether you believe that line is flavor or not, it's clear that it is intended for the Rail Rifle and Rail Gun (solid shot) to be Rail weapons. Since it's obvious this is the intent,

So I guess you also believe psychic lances and alien sonic weapons also implicitly have the Rail special rule.

More buffs for tyranids, I guess. And I suppose an argument about whether Noise Marine weapons count as "alien" or not.

If it said "Tyranid psy lances" or "Noise marine sonic weapons" then yes? It is ambiguous on the first 2 and then names Tau Rail weapons.....
You know what, I am just going to assume Trolling on any future posts on this topic. You guys have fun with it.

gorgon wrote:
AresX8 wrote:Interesting info from Beasts of War:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

Y'know, I was just thinking about this recently. What if that batch of rumors from a few months ago actually reflects not an older version, but a more recent version? There were some important differences.

Note that EV is out in those rumored rules in favor of a unit type-based to hit chart (which would make DE players happy per the BoW rumors). Note that in the rumored rules, the main mission gives each player two objectives to place and places the fifth in the table center. Might suggest the rumored rules are an evolution from the pancake edition.

Will be certainly be interesting to see what the final rules are. Although honestly, I tend to think the final version won't be *radically* different from the pancake version. They've already laid groundwork for 6th in their recent codicies that fits the pancake edition well. A lot of concepts will probably still carry over, such as some kind of hit table based on speed or unit type.

I think this would be a best case scenario, but it still calls it EV value. <although this could be a residual terminology from the earlier testing>

**junk**

Well, looks like I was right.
Beasts of war confirmed my theory, though carefully, and without mentioning the 40k Fairy liberation front. We know the truth.

**Nightwatch**

I don't understand how pancake edition is hard on Tau, especially when dealing with the change-up of turn structure. Surely if the assault phase comes second, there is a greater chance to free up enemy units engaged with your bubble wrap so as to shoot them in the next phase? In 5th edition it was quite frustrating to have a protective layer survive an assault, only to prevent you from shooting its assailants in your turn. This eliminates that negative effect, or at least reduces it significantly by adding an extra turn of combat for your sacrificial squads to bleed out.