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.

**ShumaGorath**

evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet

Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.

**Maelstrom808**

gorgon wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
knightpredator wrote:
jspyd3rx wrote:Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(

Did you see in the Nid update that he also does 2 wounds for each point they fail leadership by now instead of 1.

At a glance tyranids just became a powerdex of immense proportions, though there is significant minutia that we haven't experienced and the ranged game of 40k is a lot more lethal now then it was with this edition.

Yeah, consider that MCs will get hit with even more of those krak missiles, and the gribblies will have to endure a turn of defensive fire before assaulting. This would seem to hit Genestealers fairly hard given their 5+ save. Think this lends itself to "wave" tactics, with large cheap units absorbing the defensive fire and tying up units, with more elite units ready to charge in the following turn.

Overall it seems a net gain for Tyranids at first glance, but there are some drawbacks in the equation.

Yeah, but there are also things like the "Look out, Sarge!" action that will help them out as well (also, lending to the wave attacks you described). The ID and reserve changes are simply huge though, and eliminate the vast majority of what was holding Nids back.

**lord_blackfang**

ShumaGorath wrote:
evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet

Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.

Or a Dropbox password.

Fun fact: Scourges and Hellions charge 22".

**The Dwarf Wolf**

Hm, thats i nice, very nice, and looking it all organized that way i must say i want to use it, official or not.

What make me believe it is true is that those rules are on par with the rumors we saw at the end of last year.

Great rules...

**Kalamadea**

man, all this has me so excited! I generally liked 4th ed over 3rd, but couldn't stand 5th ed. 5th had some really awesome improvements, but it was so marred by things like TLOS, 4+ cover saves, bad wound allocation and cheap, hard to kill vehicles everywhere. Add in kill points, terrible basic missions and horrendous codex creep and I think I maybe played 2 dozen games total. These rules can't really solve the codex creep, but holy crap do they sound promising! REALLY hope this isn't a hoax!

**gorgon**

Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, but there are also things like the "Look out, Sarge!" action that will help them out as well (also, lending to the wave attacks you described). The ID and reserve changes are simply huge though, and eliminate the vast majority of what was holding Nids back.

Movement is really the big one for me. Means stuff can get in charge position after 1 turn.

Ya gotta really see Trygons moving 16" every turn guaranteed to fully appreciate it.

I'm pretty sure this would start a run on Hormagaunts. Termagants won't be able to stay in front of the faster stuff without slowing it all down. Fortunately I have a metric crapton of Hormagaunts.

**evilsponge**

ShumaGorath wrote:
evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet

Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.

True, maybe im just suffering from terrible GW ideas-itis cause those rules look really good

**lord_blackfang**

Fun fact: the Valkyrie and Vendetta are Gunships, but the Stormraven Gunship is not.

**OverwatchCNC**

lord_blackfang wrote:Fun fact: the Valkyrie and Vendetta are Gunships, but the Stormraven Gunship is not.

Of course.

**Absolutionis**

Kroothawk wrote:Another thing:
Flyers is not a unit type. They remain skimmers or monstrous creatures or whatever. Only when they make the supersonic move (added in FAQ to Harpy), do they gain the special rules of being worse to be shot at etc.

"Flyer" is a unit type.
Supersonic is only an ability granted to non-flyer Skimmers that allows them to act as a Flyer.
Other vehicles such as Marauders, Nightwings, Vampires, and other Apocalypse vehicles are likely still fliers unless they release an update for that.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:In the name of God, I urge my fellow Dakka members to watch this video. Never trust GW or internet leaks!

*It's a Trap!*

Yeah, GW thought of even that. Check pg147

**MasterSlowPoke**

Absolutionis wrote:]"Flyer" is a unit type.

"‘Flyer’ is not a unit type. Instead, every unit that conducts a supersonic move becomes subject to the flyer special rule until its next turn." p126

Flyer is also not on the list of unit types.

**Maelstrom808**

In apoc units, it is listed as a unit type...in this ruleset, it is a special rule

**crisps not chips**

Chill, mate. A lot of bothans died to bring us this information.
I may actually play instead of just collect expensive plastic. To save me looking, do any guard units get defensive fire, or is it just strategem? I like the idea of deepstriking loads of stormtroopers, now, amongst all the other good shizzle.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

**SickSix**

Anyone got cliff notes for this? At least a summary...

**Absolutionis**

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

All Skimmers have an innate "Multi-Targeting (1)" for simply being a skimmer.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:]"Flyer" is a unit type.

"‘Flyer’ is not a unit type. Instead, every unit that conducts a supersonic move becomes subject to the flyer special rule until its next turn." p126

Flyer is also not on the list of unit types.

Pardon me then. It's a movement special rule (pg54) akin to "fast" and "lumbering".
How this interacts with Imperial Armor units is up in the air.

**wuestenfux**

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Pacific wrote:
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!

But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.

This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.

It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.

Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

Good point. The rules changes in this 'leak' would require at least a reprinting of every codex, or army lists in the big book. That would be a massive change of policy. I think it would be great if the game was redesigned and all the books set at a rebalanced level - but it seems like a long shot. I am leaning more and more to this being fake.

This is where the codex updates in a separate PDF come in.

I agree that the new ruleset is too radical. It changes not only BS but also the dynamics of the game which seems to make up for a totally new game.

**Andrew1975**

Anybody think GW did this on purpose just to keep people form posting on boards about failcast for a couple of days?

**Maelstrom808**

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.

**ShumaGorath**

Andrew1975 wrote:Anybody think GW did this on purpose just to keep people form posting on boards about failcast for a couple of days?

No, that's silly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.

18 Lascanon shots..? Or six?

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.

Aren't they fast, so would gain that if they go combat speed as well?

**Maelstrom808**

wuestenfux wrote:
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Pacific wrote:
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!

But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.

This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.

It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.

Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

Good point. The rules changes in this 'leak' would require at least a reprinting of every codex, or army lists in the big book. That would be a massive change of policy. I think it would be great if the game was redesigned and all the books set at a rebalanced level - but it seems like a long shot. I am leaning more and more to this being fake.

This is where the codex updates in a separate PDF come in.

I agree that the new ruleset is too radical. It changes not only BS but also the dynamics of the game which seems to make up for a totally new game.

Well 1) the game needs changes on this level imo, and 2) the last edition of fantasy apparently had changes on a similar scale.

**lord_blackfang**

ShumaGorath wrote:18 Lascanon shots..? Or six?

3. You can't fire the same gun multiple times. But you can spend1 MT to split fire and blow up 3 tanks.

**ShumaGorath**

lord_blackfang wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:18 Lascanon shots..? Or six?

3. You can't fire the same gun multiple times. But you can spend1 MT to split fire and blow up 3 tanks.

How are fixed weapons ruled? Would it actually be capable of that or would they all have to be in a line?

**Rented Tritium**

The odds that a random fan could completely redevelop the game AND end up with something that appears this well thought-out and balanced are next to nothing.

**Maelstrom808**

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?

MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.

Aren't they fast, so would gain that if they go combat speed as well?

Yar, missed that.

**ShumaGorath**

Rented Tritium wrote:The odds that a random fan could completely redevelop the game AND end up with something that appears this well thought-out and balanced are next to nothing.

I was considering doing it, but the time investment would be extreme and I don't want to be a nerd.

**Maelstrom808**

ShumaGorath wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:18 Lascanon shots..? Or six?

3. You can't fire the same gun multiple times. But you can spend1 MT to split fire and blow up 3 tanks.

How are fixed weapons ruled? Would it actually be capable of that or would they all have to be in a line?

I haven't looked at weapon mounts yet, but with the current 45 degrees for a hull mount, and a standoff range of up to 48", you should still be able to get three tanks in most cases if you have LOS.

**lord_blackfang**

ShumaGorath wrote:How are fixed weapons ruled? Would it actually be capable of that or would they all have to be in a line?

Same as before, 45 degree cone. Not really that hard to line up from a flank...

**Nightwatch**

Well, at least we know who wrote it.

Games Workshop has hired a new writer name John Rigid, whose first act was to invent a new save named after himself, in keeping with the precedent set by Mat Ward in the current Fantasy book.