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.

[Edit: Ninja'd by Anvildude, we say practically the same thing]

I think you should always assign wounds by picking up the Die that failed each wound and rolling it like a bowling ball towards the squad, or just use a bowling ball, or a baseball bat. In fact, you should just play baseball or go bowling instead of playing 40k. Actually, both those sports are lame. Instead of playing 40k, everyone should play a homebrew variant of basketball that involves the following elements: Skydiving, Revolvers, and pirate ships.

junk wrote:[Edit: Ninja'd by Anvildude, we say practically the same thing]

I think you should always assign wounds by picking up the Die that failed each wound and rolling it like a bowling ball towards the squad, or just use a bowling ball, or a baseball bat. In fact, you should just play baseball or go bowling instead of playing 40k. Actually, both those sports are lame. Instead of playing 40k, everyone should play a homebrew variant of basketball that involves the following elements: Skydiving, Revolvers, and pirate ships.

Can we involve bikini-wearing sharks in that game? If so, I'm sold-Junk for the president of the NBA.

While saying that taking casualty's in the back in case of frontline gunning or otherwise with assault troops, you can assume and its not that far fetched that the ranks are filed, or that the guys standing in the back fil the line so that the gunline won't broke.

Same for assault troops, if they have casualty's they will run just as fast to get their.

I don't think this is a true issue or anything, just the way you see it, and how you imagine the reactions on a battlefield.

Well, with BOK newsest rumors which re-stated that the leak is a fake and Warseer's ever-reliable Hastings stating that BOK is pretty much on the ball, I think we can put a nail in this coffin.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411404.page?userfilterid=24567

The birth of 5.5ed? Since so many people love these rules over the current set. Maybe it would be a mistake at this point for GW to completely ignore the mechanics proposed in this older test set.

wyomingfox wrote:Well, with BOK newsest rumors which re-stated that the leak is a fake and Warseer's ever-reliable Hastings stating that BOK is pretty much on the ball, I think we can put a nail in this coffin.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411404.page?userfilterid=24567

I thought he was mainly talking about the starter box. Saying he also debunked the leaked ruleset is a bit daring ATM.

He has now confirmed exactly this:

Having re-read this thread I want to point out that I am only confirming the starter as DA vs chaos NOT the DA & CSM codex release dates. The next 40k releases are :- 'nids, SW, necrons (all models only no codex)

Okay, but then he adds:

BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Ninja'd

Yeah, you may be right Kroot.

He did state the following inregards to the previous Tau, Eldar, BT rumors posted on Warseer.

75hastings69 wrote:

gunmnky wrote:No, there are rumors that may be complete fabrications about BT, Tau, Eldar, and Chaos. Strangers on the net don't trump White Dwarf.

Agreed (etc. etc.)

75hastings69 wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote:Wow, blown away by this news. Never saw that coming. How can there be absolutely zero rumors about DA and more about everything else?

Because about 80% of the stuff about everything else has been, without trying to cause upset, made up.

And Hastings just said this in reagrds to the DA rumored codex:

75hastings69 wrote:

Ba'al Starslayer wrote:My point exactly - I doubt DA will get a Codex before Templars. Harry's seen the models, and other sources have "confirmed" that they're coming soon (even if the specifics they delivered weren't accurate). I'm betting on Black Templars as the next Codex.

Has he????

I'll take that bet

- Starter Set includes Dark Angels vs. Chaos.

Called it.

- Chaos includes CSM, some traitor guard/cultists

Didn't expect cultists.

- and a CSM deadnought.

Nor this. It seems odd that consecutive sets would include similar vehicles.

Most of those rumours were by ghost21 who posted new facts every day on whatever fraction you liked, including Insectoids for Fantasy, Hrud Codex, and a whole list for Tau (after a while I was reluctant to post his stuff). If you take that away, the rest 20% are not that bad

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

You know, I think I will stand by my previous statement

75hastings69 wrote:Lol, oh yea, sorry got a bit carried away

BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Dammit Kroot stop ninjaing me

That's how it looks when ninjas discuss rumours

Kroothawk wrote:Most of those rumours were by ghost21

Yep, you can also add "The Dark General" to the list as well...

Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

Celtic Strike wrote:Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

So your sales person is in the know? Are we at least talking trade sales?

And this is basically just the BoW rumor.

Celtic Strike wrote:Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

Now we know this statement is fake. We all know GW doesn't Playtest anything. Just kidding here in case anyone things i am serious. Thanks for sharing Celtic Strike. I tend to believe you than what they are saying on Warseer that it was just "a fake".

Kroothawk wrote:

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

He thinks doesn't really mean he knows...

So until he clearly state that the Leakhammer is fake like in a kind of sentence like " i've seen/know the true 6th, and can declare that this leakhammer is fake" i won't buy it...

Now if he say so, then yeah no other choice.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

He thinks doesn't really mean he knows...

So until he clearly state that the Leakhammer is fake like in a kind of sentence like " i've seen/know the true 6th, and can declare that this leakhammer is fake" i won't buy it...

Now if he say so, then yeah no other choice.

Let's try again then

75hastings69 wrote:BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Assuming that the rules are at least somewhat legitimate, I have a few questions about movement:

1) What exactly is an "Engage" move? A normal assault move that can be followed up by shooting if the assaulting squad begins the shooting phase not locked in combat?
2) What exactly is a "Charge" move? A double-distance assault move that prevents subsequent shooting?
3) Are Engage and Charge moves supplemented by the Fleet USR?
4) Are Engage and Charge moves available to everyone?

I'm only asking because per my current understanding, something like a hormagaunt or banshee would have a 32" effective assault radius (8" move + 8" run + 16" charge), which is way further than my Guardsmen can fire their lasguns (even with the new rapid fire rules).

If I'm right, then are you guys sure that defensive fire can't be used in assaults? Because as one of the only IG players in the world who owns a single chimera, it looks a little skewed to me atm.

Charge is a type of Move that lets you get into close combat. In these rules, you only move once, no matter what. You either Charge, which is Assaulting, Move regularly, or do a sort of Double Move, which replaces Running. So instead of Move during the Move phase, Run during the Shooting phase and Assault during the Assault phase, you just Move/Charge/Run during the Movement phase.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:Assuming that the rules are at least somewhat legitimate, I have a few questions about movement:

1) What exactly is an "Engage" move? A normal assault move that can be followed up by shooting if the assaulting squad begins the shooting phase not locked in combat?
2) What exactly is a "Charge" move? A double-distance assault move that prevents subsequent shooting?
3) Are Engage and Charge moves supplemented by the Fleet USR?
4) Are Engage and Charge moves available to everyone?

I'm only asking because per my current understanding, something like a hormagaunt or banshee would have a 32" effective assault radius (8" move + 8" run + 16" charge), which is way further than my Guardsmen can fire their lasguns (even with the new rapid fire rules).

If I'm right, then are you guys sure that defensive fire can't be used in assaults? Because as one of the only IG players in the world who owns a single chimera, it looks a little skewed to me atm.

1-4 correct.

Your off on the Movement. Gaunts must choose between fleet and and Leap. So, 16" run or 18" charge?

Def-fire only works against Deep-strikers, in a Death or Glory attempt, and if the unit has Overwatch. If you have overwatch you can use it against assaults even if they end in B2B.

Hormagaunts can either run 16 inches (6 move +2 fleet x 2 for run)
or Charge 21 inches (7 for bounding leap, x 3 for bounding leap charge)

The rules for bounding leap gives them 7 movement and a x3 charge, but you can't add the +2 from fleet if you use bounding leap.

All the people freaking out about how fast horms can get into assault are using the 7 for bounding leap, adding 2 for fleet, and then multiplying by 3, giving a value of 27 inches.

Hormagaunts don't "move as cavalry" so don't get the 7" normal move. Their normal move is 6" so will charge 18" with Bounding Leap.

Dynamix wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
If they deny it, but then in court they can produce proof that they really were theirs, then no, they don't lose IP protection.

Thats interesting considering the current dispute with Chapterhouse . I guess the GW denial could be used against them but the playtesters and staff would be able to attest to GW IP ownership / origin I suppose , but if someone was to publish first , is this like Science papers where the first to publish gets the credit ?



Anyway , fun to hypothesise , but the above isnt going to happen , shame , that would have been amusing

*puts on IP/copyright specialist hat on* (and Hi, by the way eventually made my way from the FFG forums and elsewhere to Dakka - mainly due to Warseer looking like an elitist hole with mods with GW-based paranoia and power issues)

Basically, no. Whether someone else published it before GW would be entirely immaterial. If GW could pull out their manuscript/playtest document, and have their writers testify in court as to it's validity, GW would win any IP lawsuit, because denial of ownership of an item that is able to be covered by copyright does not void the copyright, as copyright always exists - you don't need to claim it, and you can't get rid of it once you have it (only exceptions being that if you write/draw/etc something as part of a job, your employer owns the copyright).

So yea, even with GW saying "Nope, it's not the real 6th ed", you will still be liable for breach of copyright law if you copied it if it does actually belong to GW. It doesn't matter what they say, in effect, it's what the truth is (whether it was written by GW or not) that matters. All that would have resulted from someone else publishing it without mostly rewriting it to remove every single IP reference would be that GW would sue them, win, and take all the profit they made from the rules, as well as damages, and possibly prison time for the person publishing it illegally (as this would be breach of copyright for commercial purposes, which is a HUGE no-no).

In my experience this looks like a playtest document, and a late stage one at that - from my work with several companies I playtest for, the vast majority don't bother with layout and the like until relatively late in the process, given how even a few changes to the document would require the whole thing to have to go through layout again. I'd bet on these being legit, and the end-product rules being relatively similar to what we see here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timd wrote: I find the use of the word 'parody' in the GW response quite amazing. I'm assuming that since MadCowCrazy
is from Finland, he contacted GWUK. Perhaps GWUK legal does not know that parody is protected in the US? I would assume that it is also protected speech in the UK? As Nagashek says below, parody is protected speech in the US and if GW legal thinks its a parody, they should not have any problems with it being distributed on the net, or even printed out and sold as a parody

Nagashek wrote: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.

Pacific wrote: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..

The lady doth protest too much... and as many have said, it appears to be a big improvement of the current version of 40K. This GW response is probably closer to parody than the leak is.

Actually, in the UK, parody is still restricted by copyright in the same way as any work is restricted - it has no special legal standing here (yet, they're working on it), so the use of the term 'parody' is more than likely just them referring to it as a cheap immitation or fake, which is another meaning of the word 'parody'.

Just Googling it would have told you it means nothing, legally speaking, in the UK.

So am I the only one that feels the list of what was not being kept from this play test version was very specific. Like they never said anything about the strategem point system not carrying over.

Is this thing even a rumour any more?

Grey elder wrote:Is this thing even a rumour any more?

Well, it could still be an extremely elaborate hoax, or an early playtest version, or a late playtest version. We don't know.

some of the rules in it are really cool and I would like to see them.

But some of the stuff in this is just not believable - titans and superheavies in normal 40 k .....

Though forgeworld does have chaos dreadnaughts on it now that are halfway in size between the current ones and titans..... they could be the normal dreadnaughts with the titan close comat weapons attached as mentioned in the "leaked" test rules

Though it would be odd playing a 1000 point game where 888 points are taken up by my ANGRON

sumi808 wrote:some of the rules in it are really cool and I would like to see them.

But some of the stuff in this is just not believable - titans and superheavies in normal 40 k .....

Though forgeworld does have chaos dreadnaughts on it now that are halfway in size between the current ones and titans..... they could be the normal dreadnaughts with the titan close comat weapons attached as mentioned in the "leaked" test rules

Though it would be odd playing a 1000 point game where 888 points are taken up by my ANGRON

Really? Why necro a month old thread to reinstate something that has already been said countless times?

PhantomViper is exactly right.

Locking thread.