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.

Oh and "Jaws of the White Wolf" has been "fixed". So yeah definitely fan fiction. GW don't care what people on the internet think, whoever made this clearly does.

So the crew's weapon skill is 0?
I'm all for discussing hypothetical rules but these are just farsical. Open a page at random and you'll see something rediculous and convoluted.

artillery in general works like this, they use the WS of what is crewing them, the SM faq clarifies how the techmarine works, individual model for all purposes that must be with in 2" or the gun cant shoot. this way you still keep a techmarine when the gun dies. Which is very nice as you can now repair undamaged vehicles to buff their shooting that turn.

Joey wrote:The piss-poor quality of the literature, the jumbled and complicated rules structure, the disjointed syntax of the rules, ...

That actually sounds exactly like how the GW staff writes.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:I'm vaguely surprised about the new turn order- I assumed that, since shooting in 40k is much more important than in Fantasy, there'd be more need to keep people shootable.

I think that putting assault in front of shooting makes assault a lot more of a gamble and makes shooting less of a 'oh, well might as well pop a few shots off before going in to give them the sword'. Because you want to be free to shoot. Plus with Alpha Strike you REALLY don't want to be stuck in combat at the end of your turn because if you get counter-charged on your opponent's turn with a new unit that new unit strikes at I10.

I'm leaning towards fake now as well. It's all just too complicated and the layout is jumbled in places. Some of the names for rules are also poorly thought out.

Even if it was real, I severely doubt it will reach publication in anything like its present form.

DeathReaper wrote:

Joey wrote:The piss-poor quality of the literature, the jumbled and complicated rules structure, the disjointed syntax of the rules, ...

That actually sounds exactly like how the GW staff writes.

That's it!!! This 'leaked rules' whatever-thing must be Vetok's super-secret-project!

You know it's true too - instead of adding even more pages to the Skaven FAQ, he wrote this in his spare time!

Flashman wrote:I'm leaning towards fake now as well. It's all just too complicated and the layout is jumbled in places. Some of the names for rules are also poorly thought out.

Even if it was real, I severely doubt it will reach publication in anything like its present form.

I think the general consensus is that if it is real it is in no way the finalised version.

I'm already shelving my 40k stuff for a few years - I was doing this BEFORE this "rules" leak.

It's about time for a change for me. I'm focusing more on Infinity and on WHFB (which I have not played in 18 or so years) for a while. I might come back with 7th edition.

- And I have armies that aren't too badly nerfed by these changes (pending codex changes).

It's definitely a "rough draft" version though. Artwork and illustrations still need to go into it.
I did like that they cleared up a few things like conflicting rules issues, and that there will still be a way to kill off Eternal Warriors (1).

Count me in the ranks of the skeptics.

Phrasing (tests on the leadership?... that sounds like translating the spanish "chequeos de liderazgo" straight into english), odd choices of words (such as referring to armies as 'races'), lack of some hallmark GW terms, the fact that some chunks of text are lifted straight from 5th ed. without taking the very changes they're introducing into account (such as unit profiles not listing the 'evasion' characteristic)...

I've yet to give the entire document a relaxed read. Some things I like, others I don't. I just wouldn't get over-excited around this.

The EV characteristic is explained as not being in the profile of a unit at the very beginning when the characteristics are discussed.

Grey Templar wrote:The EV characteristic is explained as not being in the profile of a unit at the very beginning when the characteristics are discussed.

Same with the ‘Move’ value.

Then, if it's something situational (such as cover) and doesn't belong in the unit's profile why list it as a characteristic?

Agent_Tremolo wrote:Then, if it's something situational (such as cover) and doesn't belong in the unit's profile why list it as a characteristic?

Evasion (EV)
The Evasion Value indicates how hard it is to hit
the model. The smaller and faster, the better the
Evasion Value of a warrior. This characteristic is
not part of the model’s profile as it depends on
the speed of the model. A moving Tau Fire
Warrior has an Evasion of 3, a stationary Land
Raider tank only an Evasion of 1. This
characteristic is described on page 70.

and on page 70:

Evasion is not a characteristic and you cannot find
it in the model’s profile, because it can change
during the course of the game. You have to
determine it every time the unit is fired on.

I've had a skim through the pages and there doesnt seem to be an ig side to this. I for one, do not care for these rules. I've just made up my suitable army which i like and now this comes and says to me "Yeah, you know how you wanted to play fun? Thats not gunna be happening anymore.." If it is real, i'll play it for a while, if it feels totally weighed against my army, i'll just paint/collect until GW gain some sense(assuming that i roll really good all the time and always lose kinda thing)

Also, fake or no. My opinion is that i hope they're fake as i'd prefer not to play them

From reading some of the changes it is going to be an entirely different game. This does not surprise me, as they did the same thing in fantasy. Fantasy 8th was a complete rewrite and turned the game upside down, mostly to effect sales, which could be what we are seeing here. As for its authenticity, a lot of people are concerned over it being a PDF. I have had a few play test copies of codexes come my way from former employees. Many people can testify to the fact that the play test GK was all over the net, so I don’t think we can dismiss this just because it is a PDF, it might just be a play test copy.

Yarrick The Necron wrote:I've had a skim through the pages and there doesnt seem to be an ig side to this. I for one, do not care for these rules. I've just made up my suitable army which i like and now this comes and says to me "Yeah, you know how you wanted to play fun? Thats not gunna be happening anymore.." If it is real, i'll play it for a while, if it feels totally weighed against my army, i'll just paint/collect until GW gain some sense(assuming that i roll really good all the time and always lose kinda thing)

Also, fake or no. My opinion is that i hope they're fake as i'd prefer not to play them

For IG, there were quite a few changes that I think were positive: the super heavies rules: I've always wanted to field my baneblade, dunno about you

snipers are far more effective, bring back the ratlings. targeted strikes, multiple pinning, what's not to like?

transports - now it's much easier for blobs of IG to enter transports as long as your squad leader is near the entrance.

templates are far more effective now. IG got some of the best templates and can probably dump more templates out than just bout anyone. Flamers are making a come back. Hell hounds are definately going to be worth it as well as the toxic gun one (was it bane wolf?) will melt through the new FNP (rigid) very well.

Flyers are now immune to ground assaults. That's huge for air cav IG. Screw the scarab swarm. Just fly over them. Heck, you can tank shock straight through a bunch and just park it in the middle of a bunch safely.

And the BIGGEST buff to IG as far as I can tell is the new area weapon/scattering rules, p62.

"Roll to hit as normal... If it missed, THEN you roll the scatter dice" you then scatter 2x the miss range which if you have Pask on board, hitting on 3's, you'd only miss on 2 and 1, thus scattering at most just 4 inches. Up to 6' for other misses if you roll a 3.

Holy moly can you see the massive plasma cannon spam that will be on all your LR's? Battle cannons yes please, demolishers? yes please. Come on, if that rule stayed in place for 6th. It'd make me want to play MORE Ig than not. I got so many pie plates it's crazy. Armored sentinels might be swapping out the AC's for PC's

I think they're trying to make gunlines as extinct as possible.

Other than that I think the whole 'Strike Group' thing for Reserves is silly.

sudojoe wrote:For IG, there were quite a few changes that I think were positive.

Grenade launchers seem pretty nifty. With the 'Covering Fire' rule you can, say, fire with a squad that has a Lascannon and a GL in it. If you get 3 6's and the Lascannon hits you can make the Lascannon hit a Directed Hit. If you hit any model with a Blast (like from a frag grenade from the GL) it counts as a 6 for the purposes of 'Covering Fire', so it makes it easier to snipe dudes with your Lascannon. You can also use a GL to assault vehicles and Massive foes, and it halves the foe's WS and allows the GL model to attack with his WS, which is nice if you're trying to attack a moving tank (WS10!).

I'm really keen on the ability to fire and assault during your opponent's turn. It won't give one army a particular advantage over another, but it will add a huge layer of planning to your movement and consolidation phases.

Ignoring the presentation, these rules look a lot cleaner and faster than 5th edition. Regardless of whether this is real or not, I think my local group is going to play under these.

Thousand Sons' Inferno Bolters piercing feel no pain and cover saves are worse? Aw yeah.

Wow, just read page one. Seems alot of people here like to play with Nintendo type games and not 360/PS3 or adult games where you have to actually think for a change.

By that I mean alot of people are complaining the game is becoming complicated. Well that is what people want more complication, not simplification.

While the last 5 or even 10 years GW wanted the "little kiddies" 10-15 year olds to come in and have the parents spend the $500 or so bucks and don't care if they even ever come back in again, these "little kiddies" are not grown up, anywhere from 18-25 years old, these "little kiddies" don't want to be playing simple games anymore. They are looking else where now.

With the economy as it is now, GW can't rely on Little Timmy to bring in the parents to buy the $500 worth of GW stuff. Little Timmy is grown up now and doesn't want to keep playing Simplified Nintendo games and wants the more action oriented, more decisions games to play with now.

A more simplified version of 5th edition, will just turn alot of us away. WE are looking at other gaming systems now. Alot of the Little Timmes want more grown up games now. While Nintendo games are great fun, it's only fun for a while before we more "Oommph" to the game.

So I am sure GW "leaked" this out and will make fast changes to what we don't like or complaining about.

Davor wrote:Wow, just read page one. Seems alot of people here like to play with Nintendo type games and not 360/PS3 or adult games where you have to actually think for a change.

People my age tend to equate "Nintendo" with "vastly more difficult than any game on 360/PS3".

Hold on, I just realized something. If this Alpha Strike rule turns out to be legit, then Praetorians and Lychguard are suddenly a lot more viable.

I honestly am not worried because I highly doubt this is the real thing. If it is, welcome to 40k DnD! Get your pencils and paper gents.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Davor wrote:Wow, just read page one. Seems alot of people here like to play with Nintendo type games and not 360/PS3 or adult games where you have to actually think for a change.

People my age tend to equate "Nintendo" with "vastly more difficult than any game on 360/PS3".

Oh I knew I made a mistake when I said Nintendo. I should have said the Wii looks childish. Alot of Nintendo Wii games have the childish avatars with no arms and now people want Hard Drives and extra and High Defiinetion. Basically 40K 5th edition has no High Definition and is "standard".

Thing is, people grow up, and don't want to keep playing the same "simple" games they have been when as a kid.

(I know the Wii has some adult complex games, but in general the Wii looks so childish with "gimmicks" to attrack people. After the gimmick wears off, it needs substance wich the Wii just doesn't have compared to the 360, and PS3 where you can even surf the net if you wanted to. The PS3/360 offers so much more than the Wii.

That is what I am trying to say, that other games offer so much more than 40K now. After all GW admits they are a miniture company not a rules company and people are looking for Rules Games now, not just minitures.

Sorry if my above post came out saying Nintendo was a poor console. Nintendo is not, and is a great gaming system. It's just the Wii doesn't seem much play. Even my kids, wich are young gave up on the Wii since they wanted more substance.

sudojoe wrote:

Yarrick The Necron wrote:I've had a skim through the pages and there doesnt seem to be an ig side to this. I for one, do not care for these rules. I've just made up my suitable army which i like and now this comes and says to me "Yeah, you know how you wanted to play fun? Thats not gunna be happening anymore.." If it is real, i'll play it for a while, if it feels totally weighed against my army, i'll just paint/collect until GW gain some sense(assuming that i roll really good all the time and always lose kinda thing)

Also, fake or no. My opinion is that i hope they're fake as i'd prefer not to play them

For IG, there were quite a few changes that I think were positive: the super heavies rules: I've always wanted to field my baneblade, dunno about you

snipers are far more effective, bring back the ratlings. targeted strikes, multiple pinning, what's not to like?

transports - now it's much easier for blobs of IG to enter transports as long as your squad leader is near the entrance.

templates are far more effective now. IG got some of the best templates and can probably dump more templates out than just bout anyone. Flamers are making a come back. Hell hounds are definately going to be worth it as well as the toxic gun one (was it bane wolf?) will melt through the new FNP (rigid) very well.

Flyers are now immune to ground assaults. That's huge for air cav IG. Screw the scarab swarm. Just fly over them. Heck, you can tank shock straight through a bunch and just park it in the middle of a bunch safely.

And the BIGGEST buff to IG as far as I can tell is the new area weapon/scattering rules, p62.

"Roll to hit as normal... If it missed, THEN you roll the scatter dice" you then scatter 2x the miss range which if you have Pask on board, hitting on 3's, you'd only miss on 2 and 1, thus scattering at most just 4 inches. Up to 6' for other misses if you roll a 3.

Holy moly can you see the massive plasma cannon spam that will be on all your LR's? Battle cannons yes please, demolishers? yes please. Come on, if that rule stayed in place for 6th. It'd make me want to play MORE Ig than not. I got so many pie plates it's crazy. Armored sentinels might be swapping out the AC's for PC's

I can see what you're saying and i was talking about my personal army, rather than in general. i too have alot of blast templates but to be honest i still don't feel that its upping me as much as it is everyone else. 2's on me in combat nearly all the time? My guardsmen will be sprinting round the field!

Did a quick check myself, and indeed it is PDF 1.5, whereas every PDF I checked on the errata pages is 1.6 - including January 2011 Space Wolf FAQ.

Conclusion: points to not being GW, as it is unlikely they would produce 2 different PDF versions. This is a balance of probabilities thing

Distiller (Mac) V9.0.0 used for all FAQs i could find, and that is a "pro" version - not sure where Mercer got the info that the leak was a home version from. COuld be missing something obvious:

Conclusion: neutral. Distiller is fairly common, 9 is recent

Indeed the creation date is May 2011, putting this at LEAST 1 year before earliest publication - they never publish rulesets outside of summer time.

Conclusion: NOT the final ruleset - not even close - EVEN IF it is GW published. Rulesets are not fixed 1 year out.

Textual analysis (limted): some obvious non-native speaker sentence construction throughout, glaring when compared to the straight c&p from 5th ed sections. Armour save example table, a straight cut and paste from 4th and 5th, lists power armour as a 2+. Invulnerable SaveS as a heading. Authorization. Etc

Conclusion: if it IS GW, it is far and away their least well written document I have ever seen. Points to, at best, this being a *very* early playtest - for example the C&P armour save example table could be a way of watermarking which group got the playtest rules, so they can track leaks. This is a common tactic.

So, we now look at the two hypotheses

As ever, our first hypothesis is null: this thing isnt true. It isnt the final ruleset. It isnt a playtest. It has nothing to do with real GW

H1: it is a playtest close to final

H2: It is the final ruleset

H2 is easy: there is no evidence that points towards this. None whatsoever

H1 is slightly closer - however the early date, the poor english construction (i've seen GW playtest - its better than this, which is shocking to some im sure!) and so on, dont provide enough evidence to lean towards this. Damning is the PDF version - it is VERY unlikely they would swap PDF version deliberately, and it is awkward to do by mistake.

This leaves H0. Being unable to prove the others, you are left with H0 - which is that it is a fake

So, to those saying "we" need to prove it is a fake? We have done - the lack of evidence it is realy points to it being fake.

DeffDred wrote:If these are the new rules...

I'll be selling my armies cheap and may actually start playing Warmahordes.

Send a PM here as well. Though like all the people that said they'd move to Canada if such-and-such president was elected, I doubt you'll do it.

Have any of the rules been released at all?

I know they did previews with some of the last edition rules.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Have any of the rules been released at all?

No, this is a fake.