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.

It looks very shooting oriented. You get to make an Overwatch or defensive fire action when assaulted in most cases, or when a unit deep strikes within 12", and then still get to perform your normal shooting action.

Very shooting focused. Also, don't be stationary (like long fangs) because you're easier to hit as well.

Seems to me like this will make assault armies even less viable in 6th edition.

puma713 wrote:The first paragraph of this text makes it sound like a supplement, not a rulebook:

Leaked Text wrote:If you are reading this, you are probably either a veteran of a
hundred games or have already mastered the basic rules and are up for a new
challenge.

We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.

there appear to be 'introductory rules' which are not included. What these are I cannot imagine. For all we know the 'introductory rules' could be the small tutorial game at the local GW (as a ploy to bring more people into the stores) or part of the upcomming starter set (whatever it might be).

kenshin620 wrote:Hmm idk, the skeptical part of my brain has its alarms beeping everywhere. I can easily see a group of 5 or so friends spending a week typing this up, taking various rumors out there for 6th and combing it with their own ideas

I'm hoping for this.

The metadata indicates that these were created in may 2011 on the mac version of the adobe compiler. That data is pretty easy to fake, but I think it's worth bringing up either way.

Someone with better utilities than me can probably dig deeper and search the rest of the metadata for inconsistencies. I know we cracked a lot of fake magic cards that way back when I followed that mill.

im a bit worried...


5+ big mek FF saves

directed fire

and patch up....


my poor orks =(

Rented Tritium wrote:The metadata indicates that these were created in may 2011 on the mac version of the adobe compiler. That data is pretty easy to fake, but I think it's worth bringing up either way.

Maybe GW leaked it themself to see what kind of "sky is falling" reaction they would get.

Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.

It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.

I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.

I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.

Cruentus wrote:Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.

It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.

I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.

I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.

It baffles me, though, to take a system that was fairly streamlined and easy to play and complete;y upheave it. Granted, this could be a hoax, it could be early testing stages (alpha testing), or it could be extremely streamlined once you get the whole thing down. But adages like "if it's not broken, don't fix it" are adages for a reason.

Leaked 6th Ed 40k rule book.
Rumor of Matt Ward canned.
Coincidence?

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.


Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.

Well it certainly reads like a GW rulebook - tons of pages of special rules that tell you to look at other pages in the book...

puma713 wrote:

Cruentus wrote:Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.

It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.

I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.

I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.

It baffles me, though, to take a system that was fairly streamlined and easy to play and complete;y upheave it. Granted, this could be a hoax, it could be early testing stages (alpha testing), or it could be extremely streamlined once you get the whole thing down. But adages like "if it's not broken, don't fix it" are adages for a reason.

Agree, I'm not getting any younger, and massive changes and added complexity aren't my idea of fun. It could certainly be that it'll play easier once the basics are understood.

It could also be GW's typical hamfisted way to fix what they perceive as imbalances in the way the game plays - i.e. mech spam, parking lots, lots of assault, etc. Now, granted, they caused it all with their constant changes and never being able to finish a codex cycle within an edition. They also clearly 'intend' the game to play a certain way, and continue to be baffled by players who spam units, use wound allocation to make tough units, etc., all completely legal, but GW wonders "why would you do that?".

The date code on the material is 5-17-11, it looks like it could fit into the timeline for a playtest set

agnosto wrote:

Deathly Angel wrote:My computer doesn't have any program that supports it; would anyone by willing to make an Adobe Reader version?

It's already in adobe, you need to unrar it. Download winrar or the like.

Thanks, I'm not all too familiar with most computer software despite my age .

As a primarily Eldar/Tyranid player, the following strike me as odd:

-Monstrous Close Combat weapons are Strength 2S. My Carnifex strikes at S18 now? Even if it's max-of-10, Trygons are going to be attacking with an incredibly large amount of armor-ignoring rerollable S10 attacks.

-Eldar Scatter Lasers are 5pt less than anywhere else in the codex.

-Eldar Starcannons are +1Str.

-Eldar Farseers and Warlocks have an inexplicably innate reroll to their Invul saves.

-Bikers and Space Wolves on Thunderwolves and all dudes riding things are their original toughness value in close combat.

-Swarms have eternal warrior. They're not useless anymore!

-Instant Death Weapons and shots with double toughness are not automatically instant-death! Warriors with their W3 simply take an additional wound! They're not useless anymore! Eternal Warrior isn't also so greatly needed on MCs anymore!

I got the codex update file done but the rulebook file threw an error "corrupt file or wrong password"

whitedragon wrote:

Seems to me like this will make assault armies even less viable in 6th edition.

Yeah, because 5th edition doesn't favor melee or anything...

Absolutionis wrote:As a primarily Eldar/Tyranid player, the following strike me as odd:

-Monstrous Close Combat weapons are Strength 2S. My Carnifex strikes at S18 now? Even if it's max-of-10, Trygons are going to be attacking with an incredibly large amount of armor-ignoring rerollable S10 attacks.

-Eldar Scatter Lasers are 5pt less than anywhere else in the codex.

-Eldar Starcannons are +1Str.

-Eldar Farseers and Warlocks have an inexplicably innate reroll to their Invul saves.

-Bikers and Space Wolves on Thunderwolves and all dudes riding things are their original toughness value in close combat.

-Swarms have eternal warrior. They're not useless anymore!

The Innate Reroll to invulns for eldar psykers could be their "Channelling" ability with their forcesword/spears

Swarms might also have 'Vulnerable to Blasts" which means they suffer ID from them now, so a mixed bag.

I think the others still max out at 10, but I'd have to look specifically.

And Kill Points based on how many points a unit costs. Just like 2nd Ed.

Absolutionis wrote:*snip*

Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action.

So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?

Whoa. Instant-Death changed a lot. It's no longer an outright instant-kill, but it's extra wounds dealt. Tyranids actually stand a chance against Grey Knights and their force weapons now.

Warriors can actually take a krak missile the the face and still be standing (barely).

Wound allocation on page 35 is way different! Now it it based on armour saves rather then wargear. In the example given, a 5 man tactical squad is wounded 8 times. The models in the unit is a sergeant, a flamer and a missile launcher. They allocated 2 wounds to the sergeant because he had a different save and 6 to the remaining 4 modes. The sergeant dies and the other four took 3 wounds and the player chose to have the missile launcher live. This can benefit a lot of armies and lower the effectiveness of cheesy nob units and such.

Multi-Targeting.

(/thread)

That rule alone fixes my single biggest complaint of 3rd-5th Editions. If that is real, I could actually see myself playing 'official' 40K again.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Multi-Targeting.

(/thread)

That rule alone fixes my single biggest complaint of 3rd-5th Editions. If that is real, I could actually see myself playing 'official' 40K again.

Too bad there are other rules that will create brand new gripes. 'Tactical Gambit' alone may have me turning away, if this is true.

puma713 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:*snip*

Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action.

So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?

Yeah but any blast weapon targeting a swarm uses a Apoc size template. Take all the swarms you want, 3 marines with missile launchers clears the field.

BLAST SIZES
Blast marker come in different sizes.
The diameter of the blast marker is
clearly indicated in the weapon’s
profile. The following notations are
used for the four most common sizes.
Type Diameter
Blast 3”
Large Blast 5”
Massive Blast 7”
Target unit is swarm. 10”

agnosto wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:*snip*

Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action.

So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?

Yeah but any blast weapon targeting a swarm uses a Apoc size template. Take all the swarms you want, 3 marines with missile launchers clears the field.

That really seems justified and fluffy. If I'm throwing hordes of Rippers or Scarabs at you, the shrapnel from an explosion should be able to clear them rather well. I like it this way.

The question is whether or not this Swarm thing can make blast weapons explode into non-swarm units. If I have a single ripper standing around and you decide to shoot at it with a Frag missile, are you suddenly launching Apocalypse-Sized Blast Templates at my entire army centered on the swarm?

It is interesting that everything to do with a unit is handled by the Squad Leader:

Leaked Text wrote:

Whenever one of your units must take a
Characteristic test, use the respective value of
the squad leader.

When a unit checks if an enemy unit is in cover,
use the perspective of the squad leader.

If you check if an enemy unit is in point blank
range, your squad leader must be within 12” of
the unit.

To determine in which vehicle’s facing a unit is,
use the squad leader’s position.

And if your squad leader dies, your opponent gets to choose which model leads the squad next. Unless there is an icon or standard bearer, then he immediately becomes the squad leader and a Character.

This seems more and more salty. . .

That was my thought as well; don't recall reading anything about it. I'll have another look.

Medium of Death wrote:Necrons are missing from that Codex update...

That's because they were written with 6E in mind and don't need an update.

If this is a Hoax, people sure put a lot of effort into it.

I really like some of the changes I've read about, but I'm not going to become vested in this.