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.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

Watch it. They talk about the rumoured 6th ed rules, which have been circulating.

For those who don't have access to sound/video atm, care to give a brief overview of the rumours?

Joey wrote:For those who don't have access to sound/video atm, care to give a brief overview of the rumours?

One book to rule them all. Apocolypse, Planetstrike etc are in the rulebook.
Turn order has changed: it's move/assault then shooting (charge is part of movement, assault phase is the resolution to combat)
Unit types move at different speed: infantry move 6 inches, beasts/cav is 7 inches, FLYING INFANTRY get 8inches, jetpacks get 6 inches. Gargantuan creatures get 9 inches.
New "Behemoth" viechle class.
Options to create own types of missions etc, with encouragement of creation of "house rules"
Option of "you go, I go" unit by unit.

That's all I can remember without re-watching.

In other words it's a brief synopsis on the "leaked" 6th Ed rulebook everyone is fighting over whether it's a fake or not.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Joey wrote:For those who don't have access to sound/video atm, care to give a brief overview of the rumours?

One book to rule them all. Apocolypse, Planetstrike etc are in the rulebook.
Turn order has changed: it's move/assault then shooting (charge is part of movement, assault phase is the resolution to combat)
Unit types move at different speed: infantry move 6 inches, beasts/cav is 7 inches, FLYING INFANTRY get 8inches, jetpacks get 6 inches. Gargantuan creatures get 9 inches.
New "Behemoth" viechle class.
Options to create own types of missions etc, with encouragement of creation of "house rules"
Option of "you go, I go" unit by unit.

That's all I can remember without re-watching.

Oh, cheers dude.

King Pariah wrote:In other words it's a brief synopsis on the "leaked" 6th Ed rulebook everyone is fighting over whether it's a fake or not.

There's no argument, it's a fake.

Joey wrote:

King Pariah wrote:In other words it's a brief synopsis on the "leaked" 6th Ed rulebook everyone is fighting over whether it's a fake or not.

There's no argument, it's a fake.

Actually there is an argument:

It is going on here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422793.page

Oh I totally agree it's fake, all it took was glancing at the Rail rule to convince me 100% that it's fake.

Fake or not, just thought this video needed posting as it is a good run-down of it, and how it will effect units if it IS real.

EDIT: aswell as this, apparently any mention of this is getting removed from Whinseer, so I thought it should get put here for those who missed it.

Joey wrote:
There's no argument, it's a fake.

Lol, Joey, say it a few more times.

For me, please?

Maybe I will believe you eventually.

DeathReaper wrote:

Joey wrote:

King Pariah wrote:In other words it's a brief synopsis on the "leaked" 6th Ed rulebook everyone is fighting over whether it's a fake or not.

There's no argument, it's a fake.

Actually there is an argument:

It is going on here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422793.page

"argument" the way evolution is an "argument"
On the one hand the literary style is far, far bellow Games Workshop's, the rules are confusing and contradictory, they fixed a gak load of obscure things that only internet neckbeards care about, everything is much much more complicated than it should be (and against GW's simplification), and they gave a vehicle a Weapon Skill.
Against this you have
"Well you can't prove it".
So yeah, it's a fake. I'm starting to see threads based around these rules spring up, hopefully the mods will keep it contained.

It's a fake. Everybody stop talking about it now. You can't prove it's real. So stop having fun guys. Stop right now.

There is no argument over that leak. Most people believe and hope, that it is a real playtest copy.
Very few people think that a capable and unemployed game developer not connected to GW spend a year of unpaid work to make a fine rulebook in GW style with FAQs for most Codices and posted it for no gain at all.

Kroothawk wrote:
Very few people think that a capable and unemployed game developer not connected to GW spend a year of unpaid work to make a fine rulebook in GW style with FAQs for most Codices and posted it for no gain at all.

It's not "GW style" at all unless you're incapable of evaluating literature. It's obviously intended to seem like the GW style with its clauses about how people should get along and agree on things, etc etc, add to that the fact that it resolves every single internet complaint (Jaws of the White Wolf, there were a couple of others I saw that I can't remember), and the generally very poor prose (for all its faults GW literature is usually pretty lucid). Oh yeah and every single rule is complicated and seems like it was made up on page 14 of an internet discussion board, rather than the accessable rules that GW is focussed on.

Well, the Whineseer version of my thread was removed, with the last post being something akin to:

"Warseer are more afraid of GW lawyers than your average forum."

Does the lady protest too much? Also, what do you guys think of BoW possibly using these 40k rules rather than the current ones?

Joey wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:
Very few people think that a capable and unemployed game developer not connected to GW spend a year of unpaid work to make a fine rulebook in GW style with FAQs for most Codices and posted it for no gain at all.

It's not "GW style" at all unless you're incapable of evaluating literature. It's obviously intended to seem like the GW style with its clauses about how people should get along and agree on things, etc etc, add to that the fact that it resolves every single internet complaint (Jaws of the White Wolf, there were a couple of others I saw that I can't remember), and the generally very poor prose (for all its faults GW literature is usually pretty lucid). Oh yeah and every single rule is complicated and seems like it was made up on page 14 of an internet discussion board, rather than the accessable rules that GW is focussed on.

The prose problems most likely stem from it being translated from a non-english version. Looks like german or possibly dutch.

Had problems understanding them with their accents.. Sweet lord that's a thick accent.

Kevlar wrote:

Joey wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:
Very few people think that a capable and unemployed game developer not connected to GW spend a year of unpaid work to make a fine rulebook in GW style with FAQs for most Codices and posted it for no gain at all.

It's not "GW style" at all unless you're incapable of evaluating literature. It's obviously intended to seem like the GW style with its clauses about how people should get along and agree on things, etc etc, add to that the fact that it resolves every single internet complaint (Jaws of the White Wolf, there were a couple of others I saw that I can't remember), and the generally very poor prose (for all its faults GW literature is usually pretty lucid). Oh yeah and every single rule is complicated and seems like it was made up on page 14 of an internet discussion board, rather than the accessable rules that GW is focussed on.

The prose problems most likely stem from it being translated from a non-english version. Looks like german or possibly dutch.

Why would it be translated from a foreign language when all the head office staff speak English? Bare in mind it's a play test version, as far as I'm aware there are no parts of the "inner company" that are not British.

Joey wrote:Why would it be translated from a foreign language when all the head office staff speak English? Bare in mind it's a play test version, as far as I'm aware there are no parts of the "inner company" that are not British.

Do you think they are only going to limit their play testing to a few people at HQ? I'm sure that the play testing books are given out to different branches of the company. Do you think no one in the USA for instance has had any input or feedback on 6th edition?

Why would American gamers play differently than any other gamers?

One of the playtesting groups is located in Germany and as evidenced in the Bastion entry, "heck" (German for rear) in place of "rear" armor does provide a small bit of evidence of being a translated playtesting book.

Has nothing to do with how one nationality plays differently than another and more to do with how well the rules translate and are understandable. IF this is a GW-written document, it's obvious that it lacks the polish (lolz... it is GW we're talking about) of a finished book, so much of the ill-fitting formatting and clunky grammar would be corrected before publishing.

There are a few things that point away from the "lone gunman" theory behind the document, but there's a whole thread dedicated to that discussion.

Too bad I can't visit BoW while I'm at work, I'd love to see what they have to say about it. Anyone care to summarize their reactions?

Gavin Thorne wrote:Too bad I can't visit BoW while I'm at work, I'd love to see what they have to say about it. Anyone care to summarize their reactions?

They love it. They are debating as to whether or not to adopt it over the current WH40K rules. They are also doing many more videos based on the new rules to help explain it. They're convinced it's real.

Tried, can't sit through it. I'll never understand why people subject themselves to BoW videos.

Joey, I know you're oh so much smarter than the rest of us, but there's hardly any proof either way of the documents validity.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Gavin Thorne wrote:Too bad I can't visit BoW while I'm at work, I'd love to see what they have to say about it. Anyone care to summarize their reactions?

They love it. They are debating as to whether or not to adopt it over the current WH40K rules. They are also doing many more videos based on the new rules to help explain it. They're convinced it's real.

Do they have more information than you?
No.
There's a lot of evidence that this is not genuine, there's very little evidence that it is.

Posit wrote:It's a fake. Everybody stop talking about it now. You can't prove it's real. So stop having fun guys. Stop right now.

Can't prove it's real? Must be fake. /sarcasm

Just because proving something is beyond our current means does not mean it's fake. If I found a government document on the floor RIGHT NOW, and showed it to you, I'd have zero proof it is real and would have no way to prove it, but that doesn't make it fake. It just means we don't know for sure.

So for all you hopeful optimists and obnoxiously cynical negative folk, maybe stop saying "It's real! Look! It has ____" or "It's fake. Fact. I'm right, you're wrong." And instead say we can't prove if it is real or fake untill GW says something. To continue flooding the boards saying "It's real/fake" is just unbacked, childish spam.

/endrant.

Joey wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Gavin Thorne wrote:Too bad I can't visit BoW while I'm at work, I'd love to see what they have to say about it. Anyone care to summarize their reactions?

They love it. They are debating as to whether or not to adopt it over the current WH40K rules. They are also doing many more videos based on the new rules to help explain it. They're convinced it's real.

Do they have more information than you?
No.
There's a lot of evidence that this is not genuine, there's very little evidence that it is.

I doubt it is genuine also. But they seem to think it's real, or at least worth playing.

TheCaptain wrote:

Posit wrote:It's a fake. Everybody stop talking about it now. You can't prove it's real. So stop having fun guys. Stop right now.

Can't prove it's real? Must be fake. /sarcasm

Well...yes. There is one GW in the world and there are billions of people capable of producing this. What evidence have you that point to it being GW? None. Then we should assume it is not.

Guys, let's try to stay on topic and leave the fake/real argument for the thread design to handle that exact discussion.

But it's sooo cool to call things "FAAAAAKE!!"

just ready any Youtube comments.

Joey wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:
Very few people think that a capable and unemployed game developer not connected to GW spend a year of unpaid work to make a fine rulebook in GW style with FAQs for most Codices and posted it for no gain at all.

add to that the fact that it resolves every single internet complaint (Jaws of the White Wolf, there were a couple of others I saw that I can't remember)

You mean... kinda like the FAQ's posted on GW's own website? Thats kind of the point of a new edition, is to plug holes in the existing rules (and create news ones in the process so that the cycle of planned obsolescence can begin anew).

That's exactly what the 4th to 5th change did as well. Fixed a plethora of questions and gripes we all had back then.