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.

That's the thing I find interesting is that people spent more time arguing about them being real or not instead of just enjoying the possibilities it offered. Would it hurt you so hard to just try something and have fun? Or does the fact that they are not official somehow take all the fun our of learning something new?

My friends and I invested maybe 3-4 hours into the rules and have had more fun with them than we have in the last few years of fifth. We basically have stopped playing and just done modeling. For us this was finally something exciting and fun. I will still pick up 6th edition regardless but I will be sad if it does not energize me like this has done.

So...Why is this credible?

Suddenly a few designers "claim" and come out suddenly about all this, risking their careers after GW has literally sent out emails and letters to various Games workshop locations in Europe? That this was not a version of 6th edition, nor was made by Games workshop at all?

I need actual details on why this is completely Credible.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:So...Why is this credible?

That this was not a version of 6th edition, nor was made by Games workshop at all?

I need actual details on why this is completely Credible.

Did you actually read the article?

Actually I am a bit more excited now. There were elements to the leak that I didn't like, the turn order especially (mostly because I didn't understand how it was supposed to work and it didn't allow for units to blast something before they charged it), the ease of killing models (I just spent all that time painting 100 models. Why do I want to spend more time placing them on the table than actually getting to use them?) and also the EV chart. Having pluses/minuses to things for your BS doesn't bother me, but that chart was confusing at worst and utterly unnecessary at best. I did however love the WS change (which is long overdue, IMO).

If this is true, and GW allowed some writers to go nuts brainstorming, then *gasp* playtested the rules, then that bodes well for 6th ed. Unless they decided to stick with the status quo anyway. Like the leaked rules or hate them, they have energized the community, and whatever does come out has a heck of alot to live up to.

SSDD...

infinite_array wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:So...Why is this credible?

That this was not a version of 6th edition, nor was made by Games workshop at all?

I need actual details on why this is completely Credible.

Did you actually read the article?

Yeah, but I prefer having sources that are fully verified.

Though hopefully the new version won't be a 5.5, but at least a 5.7 or 5.8. The leaked rules were actually quite good.

Nothing to see here really. This BoW "news item" is really nothing new. Its basically the same thing as other "news items" from other blogs we've seen already:

"So guys, its an early playtest version, some things have changed, some things haven't, word on the street is this is whats gone, but we can't be 100% certain. K, thnx, bai"

chaos0xomega wrote:"So guys, its an early playtest version, some things have changed, some things haven't, word on the street is this is whats gone, but we can't be 100% certain. K, thnx, bai"

Basically, this. Anyone with half a brain can throw out a bunch of slightly different changes from the 6e rules, claim their info is from an XYZ version playtest, and then they will seem credible if even a bit of it turns out to be true.

So we still have nothing concrete. CONTINUE SPECULATION!

Platuan4th wrote:Sweet. If 6th is simply 5.5 and nothing like the leak, I may come back to 40K.

Well, this is the the thing, I think for a lot of people who have played 40k for a long time, the current rules are more like ver. 3.2. I for one was hoping for something fresh simply because, as fun as it sometimes is, 40k has got a little stale for me. I thought about it the other day, and I've essentially been playing the same game (with minor tweaks) for about 12 years. That's probably why, while I love the background and miniatures for the game (and the idea of an assembled army and how cool it looks on the tabletop), I've not been playing any games of it recently and have instead moved on to other systems.

But, I realise I'm not GWs target demographic - there is no reason for them to upset the applecart and produce something radical, I would say 95% of the people buying 6th edition will have no idea of what 'overwatch' is, or the guy in my avatar. Anyway, I'll just grab my rose-tinted spectacles, head back to my rocking chair and start grumbling wistfully about 'what might have been'

Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

It just seems that there is so much angst and arguments over something that may or may not be true:and that we cannot possibly know for certain until July.

Why not save all the speculation/anger, channel all that energy into doing some cool hobby-releated stuff and just wait and see what July brings..?

spireland wrote:This is awful. This means the people that said it wasn't legit were right. This also means the people that said it was legit were right. No one wins the argument?? Ugh.

Not quite, as the argument never was whether this is the final version or not but whether it came from GW or from an insanely dedicated and talented troll. Proponents of the latter clearly lost

So basically the same deal as with the leaked GK codex of super cheese that proved to be a early everything-possible draft.

Of course it could mean one, both or neither. However, more robust transports would make the Dark Eldar much more deadly… so keep your eyes peeled for more revelations.

Yeah because the DE really need their f***** boatspam to be even more deadly
Removing the main weakness of that army will send it into OP orbit. Nice thinking design team.

Lorizael wrote:Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

+1

Lorizael wrote:Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

It just seems that there is so much angst and arguments over something that may or may not be true:and that we cannot possibly know for certain until July.

Why not save all the speculation/anger, channel all that energy into doing some cool hobby-releated stuff and just wait and see what July brings..?

I dunno, it seems to me that people are free to play and discuss whatever ruleset they desire. Also, none of the "6th edition" threads seem particularly heated by Dakka standards.

Not sure I see the point in positioning yourself as a voice of reason in a discussion that's already pretty reasonable.

Agreed it's not that heated here- other forums seem to have gone a bit crazy though...

I dunno, it's cool to discuss them as a ruleset I guess, whatever floats people's boats- but maybe not in relation to 40K..?
People are saying they want to see this stuff or they'll quit 40k- seems a bit much based on something that in all likely hood has nothing to do with GW at all.

I think I could drive myself crazy speculating over every GW release and ruleset. Or I could save myself the time and effort and just wait and see what comes...

gorgon wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

It just seems that there is so much angst and arguments over something that may or may not be true:and that we cannot possibly know for certain until July.

Why not save all the speculation/anger, channel all that energy into doing some cool hobby-releated stuff and just wait and see what July brings..?

I dunno, it seems to me that people are free to play and discuss whatever ruleset they desire. Also, none of the "6th edition" threads seem particularly heated by Dakka standards.

Not sure I see the point in positioning yourself as a voice of reason in a discussion that's already pretty reasonable.

I took his statement as more general, as in referencing all of the 6th Ed. craze, not just what's going on on Dakka. Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens. Instead, we have websites posting these things as if this rulebook has already gone to print and we have people correcting others about how different rules are supposed to work, before anything has even been published.

It's like creating armies out of rumoured codices, which some people do, but this is on a much larger scale, it seems.

I think it is the absence of information that is really driving the vociferous debate ...

We can all agree that Games Workshop has one of the worst records when it comes to these things. Personally, I think they need to take a moment and delve into their own PR policies/department (I assume they have one, despite evidence to the contrary) and appoint someone as the official corporate mouthpiece for moments like these.

Without that consistent voice of 'official' information, no matter what role they expect White Dwarf to take. Games Workshop is always going to fall into this same morass of customer confusion and misinformation every couple of months.

Revarien wrote:Pistols in close combat and even more deadly flamers.... that's all I care about.


/SoB player

The pistols in CC might still make it, just because they're not going with that complete set of rules, doesn't mean that they won't use bits and pieces of it. My khans hope it doesn't make the final cut though

As an ork I was really loving the ramming rules and the bonus to shoot stuff with EV and keeping the Alpha strike would make me happy, orks going at I10, how sweet would that be

but either way it is a rule set that you can use and modify to your liking, just to try something different.

puma713 wrote: Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens.

Why?

Why is it such a problem that we're playing with rules that aren't valid yet? Does that hurt you somehow? I'm sorry people are playing and discussing a game with toy soldiers in a way you don't approve of.

gannam wrote:I really wanted pre measuring in 40K. I think that the lack of it contributes to a great deal of asshattery in tournaments.

That and the Realm of Battle stuff pretty much provide pre-measuring anyway, at least to those who can judge distances easy. Geometry-challenged people (and there are many) will be the only ones penalized if the current system stays in place.

I think it will be very disappointing and a mistake if the rules do not offer a truly 'fresh' take on 40k. Especially if the rumor is true that they plan to keep the coming rulebook for a longer period. If that is the case why just release what to all intents and purposes will be a smell step away from the previous set?
Regardless where you stand on this leaked ruleset you have to agree that it has got players excited about the game again, why spoil that?

Kazwulf wrote:We can all agree that Games Workshop has one of the worst records when it comes to these things.

I can't! And nothing you write, including actual evidence showing their record, will convince me otherwise!


So there!

puma713 wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

It just seems that there is so much angst and arguments over something that may or may not be true:and that we cannot possibly know for certain until July.

Why not save all the speculation/anger, channel all that energy into doing some cool hobby-releated stuff and just wait and see what July brings..?

I dunno, it seems to me that people are free to play and discuss whatever ruleset they desire. Also, none of the "6th edition" threads seem particularly heated by Dakka standards.

Not sure I see the point in positioning yourself as a voice of reason in a discussion that's already pretty reasonable.

I took his statement as more general, as in referencing all of the 6th Ed. craze, not just what's going on on Dakka. Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens. Instead, we have websites posting these things as if this rulebook has already gone to print and we have people correcting others about how different rules are supposed to work, before anything has even been published.

It's like creating armies out of rumoured codices, which some people do, but this is on a much larger scale, it seems.

It seems to me that a leaked ruleset is both discussion-worthy and playtest-worthy. And I don't know of one good reason why the things you mention should be bothering anyone as long as posters and bloggers clearly say they're discussing the leaked ruleset. If you don't like that content, then don't consume it.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll bow out on this subject.

Beasts of War is usually pretty solid, except for Darrell. I don't take anything he says seriously.

The guy is like one of the 3 stooges for the Warhammer 40K game. He posts videos of 40K tactics that are not only bad from a tactical perspective, he usually is wrong
about the rules in every video. I have seen him post some truly screwed up stuff.

Rented Tritium wrote:

puma713 wrote: Instead of building armies for 6th Ed. and creating batreps for a rules system that isn't valid yet, let's wait and see what happens.

Why?

Why is it such a problem that we're playing with rules that aren't valid yet? Does that hurt you somehow? I'm sorry people are playing and discussing a game with toy soldiers in a way you don't approve of.

I don't think the issue here is people playing the leaked rules. Rather, it's that people are getting upset that those are not finalized rules, and threatening to quit the game based on rumors or automatically assuming 6th Edition will now be terrible because it will be different in some measure from the leaked playtest rules. So I think his point is, why not wait until we actually know what the actual rules are before jumping to conclusions about them being good or not.

puma713 wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Does anyone think that it may just be best to wait until 6th edition arrives and see what it brings?

+1

+1

I find the assumptions people are making about the BoW rumour amusing. People are reading more into what was said than what was really said. When you consider how many of these individuals argue RaW, an element of irony comes into play.

Examples:

Turn order remains the same /= moving units 3 time as in 5th ed. There could still be the one move mechanic where units move at combat, engage or flat out but that shooting just goes first. Models that move into btb contact during their movement just don't get to shoot.

EV being gone /= movement modifiers to shooting being gone. Imo, a units movement should effect thier BS more than an enemies evasion moves(a unit moves x = -1 to bs stands still =+1 to bs). Size modifiers could also be differrently named and still present in the final draft.

Basically, eveything in this last rumour could be true while not really changing the heretic rules, except giving the SM(including variants) & Eldar armies a little boost.

Heres hoping they include Titans in the rule book. That might actually inspire them to make plastic titans and take more $ from me!

Breotan wrote:

gannam wrote:I really wanted pre measuring in 40K. I think that the lack of it contributes to a great deal of asshattery in tournaments.

That and the Realm of Battle stuff pretty much provide pre-measuring anyway, at least to those who can judge distances easy. Geometry-challenged people (and there are many) will be the only ones penalized if the current system stays in place.

40k basically provides pre-measuring for anyone with knowledge of the game mechanics and board sizes, even outside of the RoB.