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.

**gorgon**

Anpu-adom wrote:I'm not getting too worked up about this... I'm fairly comfortable in what I'm about to say.

Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company and that the design had been complete for a long time. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company). That original design would have since been trimmed to be more in line with what we are currently playing.

I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?) It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.

Actually, I believe the rumor was the reverse -- that Alessio was a proponent of more streamlined rulesets, and that his departure opened up the possibility for more changes to the system.

Edit: So what's a "Zeal Bolt Pistol"? See page 96. A BT weapon?

**ph34r**

I like what I see.

**His Master's Voice**

pretre wrote:
Anpu-adom wrote:Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company).

Wasn't this the story at the beginning of 4th?

This "rumor" is most likely the bastard child of tales that kept circulating around the time Andy Chambers left the company, about him wanting to push the game mechanics in an even more extreme direction compared to what 3rd edition brought. Supposedly the Starship Troopers rules set was close to what he wanted to do with 40k.

Also, as gorgon pointed out, Cavatore was a big streamlining proponent. This doesn't read like something he could write.

**ShumaGorath**

Anpu-adom wrote:
Redbeard wrote:I like the reserve rules presented here.

So I'm going second in an annihilation mission, I can reserve my whole army, guarantee that nothing shows up until the bottom of 'Game Cycle' 4, and that it all shows up together, and proceed to give my opponent a mere two turns to do any damage (while I get three).

Said it was Dawn of War... meaning that you start with 2 troops and a HQ on the board. Do you think you'll still be alive to see turn 4?

Dawn of war no longer exists as it does in fifth. It is a totally different scenario. Objectives are also handled differently in the edition. You have to be on an objective from the beginning of the turn to claim it, so an army coming on turn 4 is going to have major issues displacing one that has taken all this time to become entrenched. There is no random game length, it's always six, so you're only chance would be to move onto everything turn five and weather the storm until the end of six.

**ColdSadHungry**

Some of the stuff in this 'leak' does tie in with some of the new rule types in the Necron codex

**pretre**

ColdSadHungry wrote:Some of the stuff in this 'leak' does tie in with some of the new rule types in the Necron codex

Every good myth starts with a nugget of fact.

**garrapignado**

I have read about half the rules (and took a look to the rest) and I like it. Hope this is the actual rulebook to be. If not, I dreamt for free.

**DarknessEternal**

ColdSadHungry wrote:Some of the stuff in this 'leak' does tie in with some of the new rule types in the Necron codex

And most of it doesn't.

**Kroothawk**

Might be interesting to check if the source on BoK got most things right mid of June 2011. I'd say: Impressive!
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377248.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370/377248.page

Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).

BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time

As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

**optimusprime14**

pretre wrote:
ColdSadHungry wrote:Some of the stuff in this 'leak' does tie in with some of the new rule types in the Necron codex

Every good myth starts with a nugget of fact.

Fact: 6th ed. is coming out

Myth: Everything else

**pretre**

Kroothawk wrote:Might be interesting to check if the source on BoK got most things right mid of June 2011. I'd say: Impressive!
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377248.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370/377248.page

Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).

BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time

As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

My bet is the long con.

**Thimn**

If this is what we are getting in 6th edition, I say go ahead and publish this now. The rules seem be better thought out and fixes a few of the problems i had with 5th.

**Xca|iber**

I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

**Sephyr**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I predict it now, the release of 6th gets pushed back as GW does some retooling ie gaks itslef and has to rewrite the entire new edition because it sucks compared to this!

Oh and there will be a price hike to recuperate all the lost resources put into the sad 6th that they were going to release.

I'm calling this one.

Is GW -that- keen on losing player base to Warmachine, Infinity...hell, even paper-rock-scissors? If so, they might want to see if their board members are buying stock in rival companies....

Their horrible player relations and obsession with being tight-lipped is a big factor in why the gamer base is so damn anxious.

**MoD_Legion**

Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.

**daedalus**

Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but you should read the "Patch Up" rules.

**ColdSadHungry**

The annoying thing is, even though I don't know whether this is real or not, I'm going to be assuming it is and planning for it being true - damn you internet!

**garrapignado**

MoD_Legion wrote:
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.

Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.

**Starfarer**

Kroothawk wrote:Might be interesting to check if the source on BoK got most things right mid of June 2011. I'd say: Impressive!
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377248.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370/377248.page

Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).

BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time

Heh, they're calling the leaked documents an out and out fake on their site now. They have a shorter memory than you, it seems.

Kroothawk wrote:
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

I'm assuming this is a quote from Alessio? I hadn't seen that before. Out of curiosity, what was the context he provided this? Was it an editorial, or at a seminar of some sort?

I find the alleged new rules promising, and as I was planning on coming back to 40k anyway, this seems a great time to do so. Now let's just hope Chaos gets some love by the time 6th edition hits the shelves.

**wuestenfux**

Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Yeah, there is no part saying to remove multiply-wound models as it is now. But this could still be added.

**Redbeard**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Dawn of war no longer exists as it does in fifth. It is a totally different scenario. Objectives are also handled differently in the edition. You have to be on an objective from the beginning of the turn to claim it, so an army coming on turn 4 is going to have major issues displacing one that has taken all this time to become entrenched. There is no random game length, it's always six, so you're only chance would be to move onto everything turn five and weather the storm until the end of six.

Redbeard wrote:
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission,...

Yup, reading comprehension is strong here.

What's more, if you read the document, and not the analysis others have posted, you'll see that you also get victory points for holding an objective at the end of the game - at double rate even. Page 136.

**Platuan4th**

wuestenfux wrote:
Yeah, there is no part saying to remove multiply-wound models as it is now.

Except that there is.

Patch Up Compulsory Action:

"If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action. Choose one
model that you deem to be too badly wounded to
fight on and reduce its Wounds by one, even it is
consequently removed as a casualty. This wound
cannot be prevented by any kind of saving throw.
In return, you can choose one model whose
injuries turn out to be nothing more than a
scratch for a mighty warrior like this and restore a
single lost Wound, up to its starting number of
Wounds. Repeat this until not more than a single
model remains with less than its full Wounds.

**Xca|iber**

garrapignado wrote:
MoD_Legion wrote:
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.

Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.

Ugh, why the hell is that on a separate page?

**Andrew1975**

Sephyr wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I predict it now, the release of 6th gets pushed back as GW does some retooling ie gaks itslef and has to rewrite the entire new edition because it sucks compared to this!

Oh and there will be a price hike to recuperate all the lost resources put into the sad 6th that they were going to release.

I'm calling this one.

Is GW -that- keen on losing player base to Warmachine, Infinity...hell, even paper-rock-scissors? If so, they might want to see if their board members are buying stock in rival companies....

Their horrible player relations and obsession with being tight-lipped is a big factor in why the gamer base is so damn anxious.

Well if the rumor is true that these are rules that GW declined, then the new 6th edition may be completely different and more in line with what they have done in the past, which in players estimates has generally been shoddy work. With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules. As GW is already ramping up to the release of 6th this would definitely put a cramp in their release schedule costing them greatly.....knowing GW they would recoup those costs with a price increase as per standard GW policy.

**Cruentus**

Xca|iber wrote:
garrapignado wrote:
MoD_Legion wrote:
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.

So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).

*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.

Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.

Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.

Ugh, why the hell is that on a separate page?

Why are profiles and special rules separate from the army list?

I like these rules, and plan to try them out soon.

I just hope the book has a decent Table of Contents and Index. Please.

**pretre**

Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.

Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.

**Cruentus**

pretre wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.

Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.

Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.

If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.

**Acardia**

Personally I think I played about a dozen 40k games last year, I've been so hopped up on fantasy that it's got my drive, I think if this ends up being the rules I dunno what to do with myself.

**pretre**

Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.

If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.

That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.

Also, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how GW works if you think they would change their entire strategy 6 months from a release for something that was leaked on the internet based on customer interest.

**Zyllos**

The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?