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.

daedalus wrote:
Weapons that are said to 'ignore armor' (power weapons) count as being AP2

Ah my bad! Thanks for clearing that up.

Savnock wrote:

Kirasu wrote:If this is also a fake rulebook.. GW should hire the guy since he can design an ENTIRE book (Not just write but design the book) all by himself

If it is a fake, it might not be malicious, it might be a labor of love. Someone might be using this as a forum to get GW to consider a decent set of rules that they didn't originate. It would be both a hell of a stunt and a hilarious way to advertise your own skills to GW (Who would probably be very amused by it).

And either way, we gamers win. If this isn't real and the real 6th sucks, I'm playing with these rules (modded as my gaming group sees fit). Hell, a lot of people might do so. It could make a fandex actually have clout.

Well it's possible that someone wrote it because they were unsatisfied with 5th Ed rules and decided to make a custom rulebook for their gaming group. I'd say that this is either that or a legit leak.

No way this is fake, it would take months at least to write this and format it. That would be the work of a crazy person, it's just too big. We're talking 170+ pages of formatted, coherent work. I'm not buying that.

This is legit, either a draft or the final version, IMO.

Reecius wrote:No way this is fake, it would take months at least to write this and format it. That would be the work of a crazy person, it's just too big. We're talking 170+ pages of formatted, coherent work. I'm not buying that.

This is legit, either a draft or the final version, IMO.

I concur, this is legit in some form, as someone who has written rules mods (Killzone) and multiple fandexs the formatting alone would take way to long to make this a worthwhile endeavor to fake.

While I'm inclined to see it as genuine, never underestimate the ability of one rabid 'sperging fan with an internet connection and a ton of time to spare.

I'm more inclined of being cynical about the leaked aspect. Regardless, this is generating interest and the buzz for 6th ED.

Basic "FREE" advertising at one of the largest (if not largest) sites for 40k gaming. Looks fishy to me.

And of course, this has spread like wildfire across the interwebs.

GW loves free advertising don't they? they don't have to spend a damn thing.

Indeed, it does look fishy, hence why only "inclined" at this point, with a healthy dose of skepticism, if only because I *could* see GW pushing out a giant mess of a core rulebook that's nothing but special rules like this.

ShumaGorath wrote:GKs got a huge nerf. Everything that they relied on (aside from pure cost effectiveness) changed. They can't KP deny very well any more, the unkillable blob is a lot more killable, they can't instant death everything, and they can't reliably shoot then assault in the same turn. My assumption is that this edition pretty much totally destroys the previous meta, though other then the nids bumping up a few spots on the ladder I can't say how.

I don't think that's necessarily true. With the "Engage move" you can still perform a shooting attack after assaulting if you wipe the squad you assaulted. I think this will just encourage people to take bigger units of GK.
Draigowing will still be very difficult to deal with as paladins are hard as heck to kill regardless. They may be more vulnerable to small arms fire, but this will just encourage people to take the apothecary.
They still cause instant death, it's just not as good against models with more than 2 wounds.
The meta will definitely change, as it should imo, but I think for the better.

The guys that got the most help were eldar/dark eldar. I wrote up a quick thing talking about how this helps the eldar http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html. But the removal of the +1 to damage for open topped is huge.

Adam LongWalker wrote:I'm more inclined of being cynical about the leaked aspect. Regardless, this is generating interest and the buzz for 6th ED.

Basic "FREE" advertising at one of the largest (if not largest) sites for 40k gaming. Looks fishy to me.

And of course, this has spread like wildfire across the interwebs.

GW loves free advertising don't they? they don't have to spend a damn thing.

It is a win win tactic as proved by Privateer Press when they did open playtesting. You get immediate and massive amounts of feedback on rules items you may be deciding on keeping/modifying/using PRIOR to release.

Of course being GW they cant admit they want the same feedback prior to release so they "leak" it and say nothing. They get the benefit of not having to admit what they are doing, getting valuable feedback before final draft is made, and if it was universally panned they could declare it a fake and never admit to anything.

Genius.

Who cares if this is fake. This might be a good set of rules, and might be better than what GW puts out.

So fake or not, it could be fun to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andilus Greatsword wrote:Interesting to see that they've ruled that JotWW doesn't require a roll to hit. Obviously this isn't "official" until this stuff gets released by GW tho, but I take it as a vindication.

I thought they would clarify the Tyranid Spirit Leech rule. It still says non vehicles and doesn't say what happens when units in vehicles get effected or not. Did I miss something with my quick glance?

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/11/signals-from-the-frontline-leaked-6th-ed-rules-rundown/

Podcast summary

Okay, posting this here because of the quality (high) and quantity (low) of posts so far in this thread:

The file info says that this file:

-Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
-Is version 1.4 of the document (whatever that's worth);
-And was created with Acrobat Distiller 9 for Mac.

Not a lot of info, but at least it tell us a possible timeframe for when the author published it (to, say a GW review group).

Dating it back that far would also be unlikely for anything but a very thorough fake (not that a 120-page opus wouldn't count as a very thorough fake).

If it was a fan made piece the fact is I'm pretty sure the fan would have been pumping it out all over the shop of the last year (assume those dates are correct). Someone would recognise it I'm sure?

That doesn't preclude a hoax but makes a fan based thing less likely IMO.

I would err in the side of a GW publicity release of very early drafts. I have thought that GW have been doing this sort of thing for a while, with Necrons for example.

Savnock wrote:Okay, posting this here because of the quality (high) and quantity (low) of posts so far in this thread:

The file info says that this file:

-Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
-Is version 1.4 of the document (whatever that's worth);
-And was created with Acrobat Distiller 9 for Mac.

Not a lot of info, but at least it tell us a possible timeframe for when the author published it (to, say a GW review group).

Dating it back that far would also be unlikely for anything but a very thorough fake (not that a 120-page opus wouldn't count as a very thorough fake).

It's [the bold part] just what version it's backwards compatible with. In this case PDF readers that support 1.4 and upwards (Acrobat 5+). So it has nothing to do with the actual document (could be revision 1.9.2 for all we know).

Using Distiller for actual PDF-creation shows that there's at least someone who knows what they're doing that has created this PDF.

Vaktathi wrote:Indeed, it does look fishy, hence why only "inclined" at this point, with a healthy dose of skepticism, if only because I *could* see GW pushing out a giant mess of a core rulebook that's nothing but special rules like this.

The thing is, who ever wrote this is consolidating special rules more than anything. If you totalled up the special rules currently in the dexes, it would crush this document and they are a mess. Many of them do essentially the same thing, but may have slightly different wording, or a different name. It's one of the biggest hurdles I've had in getting new people involved in the game. This document takes them and consolidates them again so they all share the same name, and the same wording. I'd guesstimate 70% of the "new" rules in this document are simply things that are already in the dexes but rewritten so they are again unified.

Also other rules are a just a simpler way of applying rules to units in new dexes and making sure they rules don't get warped or changed. Things like Hulk and Intractable fall under this catagory. Rather than explain that vehicles can't fight back in CC - except for walkers,and they can't be locked in CC - except for walkers, you simple have a universal special rule that has these qualities and apply it to the unit types you want to have it. It also can give you more flexibility in unit design in the future.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Couple of things on the Podcast:

◦Fast rule: shoot twice if stationary, shoot normally after moving or charging

Technically, you don't shoot twice, it gives you a second shooting action which can be used to fire a second weapon, or split fire, etc, but you can't shoot the same weapon twice.

◦Multi-Targeting: if you have this rule, you can double your shots if you hold still!! Wowzers. If you have multi-targeting(3) you can shoot three times. If you hold still, you shoot 6 times

See above

ShumaGorath wrote:GKs got a huge nerf. Everything that they relied on (aside from pure cost effectiveness) changed. They can't KP deny very well any more, the unkillable blob is a lot more killable, they can't instant death everything, and they can't reliably shoot then assault in the same turn. My assumption is that this edition pretty much totally destroys the previous meta, though other then the nids bumping up a few spots on the ladder I can't say how.

Actually, GK Terminators suddenly became much better. Think about it. Deep strike no longer scatters if you DS 18" or more away. All GKT ranged weaponry is 24" range. You can drop and bring EVERY GUN TO BEAR turn 1, safely.

They've gone from either DSing into a safe spot out of reach of the enemy to being able to bring the fight to the enemy.

This could be, or could become policy. Leak the proposed ruleset, lurk on the forums and then edit.

Its a bit too open minded for GW to have leaked it deliberately, but even they might see the advantage in now shutting up and seeing what is posted on Warseer and Dakka, Especially Dakka, they know our rep for rule analysis.

This is a proper leak, look at the meta data for the PDF and compare it to the meta data on any recent PDF you can get off of GW's website. Its made by the same version down to the byte.

Is it a dirty rough copy? yes, but is it a legit draft copy? definitely

Yes but that's not taking account of the fact that it could be an earlier draft of a proposed set of rules that has been rejected.

Hmm well if this is legit, and was written way back in May, then there has obviously been refinements since then. I'll be curious to see when it hits how much lines up.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If half these rules are true tyranids just got gangbusters. Also everything just got a lot more lethal, I'd expect games to end with tabling much more often.

See my grin? My cheshire cat grin? If these rules are half true a lot of the codexes start making more sense and looking more balance as a whole.

Also, didja notice?

Meltabombs are melta weapons.

It's like someone stopped taking RAW literally and realised that fluff matters.

Well I will remain on the fence until I see a finished product ... but this could be fun ...

Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Force Weapons get ID(2) which makes the able to instantly kill anything not protected by EW(2) or EW(3). I'm not sure though which units will recieve which level of EW; it might be possible that Forceweapons will work against deamons now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.

They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.

They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.

Thanks. I sure hope this edition doesn't make my Huskblade/Soultrap useless. The S3 is a liabiility, but not much of one if you only have to get one wound through. If you suddenly have to get two or three through to kill your opponent, it wouldn't be worth the points.

Is there a password for the FAQ portion? It was locke for me.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.

They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.

No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)

Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.

They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.

No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.

Isn't that what he said?