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.

**pretre**

ShumaGorath wrote:It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Exactly my point and the reason I compared it to the 'Move to Canada' thing. I'm not familiar with the 'Horse Ebooks' thing, but maybe I should have used that.

**Brother SRM**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.

Except Dakka is a miniscule part of the greater 40k community, and just a very vocal minority. The books would still sell. Your posts in this thread have ranged from inane conspiracy theories to random GW bashing with no clear goal in sight. Please stop.

I read through most of this ruleset and I'm happier and happier the more I read. Vehicles being able to target multiple enemy units, bikes being way harder to hit, defensive fire, I don't know where to begin with how awesome these rules are. I really welcome the level of complexity on display here, and I can tell after a few games I'll pick it right up.

**ShumaGorath**

pretre wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Exactly my point and the reason I compared it to the 'Move to Canada' thing. I'm not familiar with the 'Horse Ebooks' thing, but maybe I should have used that.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/horseebooks

Either way, the conversation isn't even academic. It's largely speculative, conspiratorial, and hyperbolic. Put it to rest.

**kirsanth**

I am intrigued.

**TheMind**

Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

**ShumaGorath**

TheMind wrote:
Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

Codex space marines is arguably the weakest codex in the game. It beats tau for win loss against everything except IG and GKs, but they're two of the three most prevalent tournament armies out there. Please calm down and gain some perspective. He didn't say gray knights or space wolves, he said "My marines".

**tetrisphreak**

Rams don't connect with smaller models, so infantry get out of the way instead of getting squashed. Trygons and other mcs take damage from a RAM but also inflict a pen on the tank that did it, and can charge by chance as well.. Balanced, I say!

**Gram**

pretre wrote:No, I'm saying you're not going to get a pick-up game with a fandex or be able to play it at a RTT/GT.

Is he only allowed to play in tournaments or something? I don't see why mentioning sanctioned events is relevant to what he was saying.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

How can you possibly validate that evaluation without any evidence?

**daedalus**

Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

**chaos0xomega**

pretre wrote:
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.

Except that you can still cause half a dozen shaken results to a raider/ravager and still end up blowing it up as a result of hull breaching...

**Kroothawk**

Cadaver wrote:
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?

This is the quote from the anonymous source of the June leak, see second link. And BoK calls it a fake? Really?

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

Didn't Priestly leave because he wasn't allowed to something radical with a game he pretty much invented?

His Master's Voice wrote:Bingo. I knew this was somewhat familiar. I could easily believe Priestley either wrote the thing or it's at least a derivative of his work.

No, it actually were his great plans for Warhammer Forge that got denied. He wanted to kill the Warhammer universe in about 4 books, succumbing to Chaos in the end (while a Halfling is Emperor). Was too radical for GW management and it became just one book, to be followed by a generic Monster book.

Flashman wrote:A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.

... that he freshly made for the pic, so they said. I am not cnvinced.

**ShumaGorath**

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

That's part of why this new edition looks so great to me. There are actual decisions to be made. There are a series of risk/reward scenarios in every turn that simply didn't exist in fifth and it seemingly guts the auto win tendencies of KP denial armies or all reserve objective taker lists.

**Flashman**

Kroothawk wrote:
Flashman wrote:A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.

... that he freshly made for the pic, so they said. I am not convinced.

Me neither TBH

**Absolutionis**

...and Kroothawk again renews my faith that these rules are real and not the reject of a former GW employee.

I was getting doubts for a moment.

**Surtur**

ShumaGorath wrote:
TheMind wrote:
Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

Codex space marines is arguably the weakest codex in the game. It beats tau for win loss against everything except IG and GKs, but they're two of the three most prevalent tournament armies out there. Please calm down and gain some perspective. He didn't say gray knights or space wolves, he said "My marines".

This Ultramarine thanks you Shuma.

**ShumaGorath**

chaos0xomega wrote:
pretre wrote:
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.

Except that you can still cause half a dozen shaken results to a raider/ravager and still end up blowing it up as a result of hull breaching...

Splitting fire severely reduces the effectiveness of MSU builds. A hydra can engage three seperate vehicles at the same time for instance. DE transports got better, but the ranged game got a lot more lethal on the other side of the table as well.

**Brother SRM**

ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

That's part of why this new edition looks so great to me. There are actual decisions to be made. There are a series of risk/reward scenarios in every turn that simply didn't exist in fifth and it seemingly guts the auto win tendencies of KP denial armies or all reserve objective taker lists.

Shuma, you're my new favorite poster. Your insight on this leak has been head and shoulders better than just about anyone else's, and I share the same opinions on about 90% of this.

**daedalus**

ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

Well, I guess that's one of the disadvantages of getting the early update when the new edition drops; that you quickly become outpaced by every other codex that comes out afterwards. I can understand the bitterness. I've not won many games with my Relictors, but that's mostly because I disdain special characters. Technically speaking, the way I play them, I could switch out for the BA codex and have a much better chance of winning. I don't though, because they're my 'fun' army, along with 'nids.

**deathnid**

This is actualy quite nice... i can't wait for 6th edd!

**torgoch**

I think its legit.

Aim of the rules re-write was to remove a load of the randomness of the game. This does that in bucket loads. I understand an earlier playtested rule was vehicle hit-points (every vehicle got 3 hit points, you lost one for every penetrating hit) and hull breach looks like a much more refined version of that mechanic. So yeah, I'm going for legit.

**ShumaGorath**

daedalus wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

Well, I guess that's one of the disadvantages of getting the early update when the new edition drops; that you quickly become outpaced by every other codex that comes out afterwards. I can understand the bitterness. I've not won many games with my Relictors, but that's mostly because I disdain special characters. Technically speaking, the way I play them, I could switch out for the BA codex and have a much better chance of winning. I don't though, because they're my 'fun' army, along with 'nids.

It goes beyond that. The marine codex is also the most internally inconsistent book that they've released in the edition. The number of truly useful units can be counted on one hand and the over-costed derivations of those units with comical upgrade pointing (35 point heavy flamers on legion of the damned!) composes most of it's pages. I play space sharks with the badaab war 2 special character. My army is actually model for model a fairly standard blood angels army (the SS special character lets you make assault oriented tac marines). Except I pay more for everything, nothing is fast, my furious charge has a drawback, and I don't have army wide FNP. The only reason I don't counts as is because the sharks have a character and a codex and I don't want to be "That guy".

At least in the theoretical new edition I can get back to outplaying people for victories, rather then exploiting cheesy maneuvers or just getting lucky. I know quite a few tau players who are at the same level of burn out.

**Zomjie**

skimmer are airborne so they can only get assaulted by other airborne units right?

Hurray Necron vehicles!!!!

**Starfarer**

Kroothawk wrote:
Cadaver wrote:
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?

This is the quote from the anonymous source of the June leak, see second link. And BoK calls it a fake? Really?

Whoops, I confused my 40k rumors sites there. 3++ called it a fake. I only did a quick skim through the links to the old rumor posts and for some reason thought the source was 3++.

Hmmm, ok, the quote seemed a little suspect. Sounded more like the rant of a fervent anti-GW forum-goer than an actual employee. I was curious because I found it hard to believe Alessio, or any other former GW employee for that matter, would air their dirty laundry to some random person to disseminate across the internet.

**Andrew1975**

Wasn't GW security recently being scrutinized in order to get the hobbit ip .....uh ow!

**Absolutionis**

Zomjie wrote:skimmer are airborne so they can only get assaulted by other airborne units right?

Hurray Necron vehicles!!!!

No.

Only units with the "flyer" special movement have that quality. Fliers can only be assaulted by units with "airborne" or "jump".

**ChocolateGork**

Note that the ravager isn't being given aerial assault or gunship. So it is now pretty crap

**ColdSadHungry**

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

The deepstrike thing is really good news - I was hoping for an improvement to deep striking and we have it. Actually, talking of deep striking units, Interceptors look interesting now. Warp Quake is better with deep striking units landing within 12" receiving critical hits. I'm a little worried about where it says that units teleporting are barred from using 'stationary actions'. Exactly what things are stationary I don't know yet but since interceptors use teleporters to do their jump move, this would apply to them every turn. I hope it's nothing too important. But they can also ignore dangerous/difficult terrain when they land in it and they don't have to expend any movement to 'climb' levels of terrain. They also get to move 9" instead of 6". They look quite good from a tactical standpoint.

**Valkyrie**

I'm still a bit dubious about the new Damage Results. It's still the -2 for Glancing Hits, but with an additional -1 if the target is a tank? Seems like transports are getting even more resiliant. Also, Weapon Destroyed results don't seem to actually destroy weapons, they just mess up the targeting systems a bit.

**Kurce**

I was ultra-pumped until I read "True Line of Sight."

See you guys when 7th ed comes out!!

(half-sarcasm, half-not. srsly, TLOS sucks beyond all belief. why is it still here?!)

**daedalus**

ColdSadHungry wrote:
daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

The deepstrike thing is really good news - I was hoping for an improvement to deep striking and we have it. Actually, talking of deep striking units, Interceptors look interesting now. Warp Quake is better with deep striking units landing within 12" receiving critical hits. I'm a little worried about where it says that units teleporting are barred from using 'stationary actions'. Exactly what things are stationary I don't know yet but since interceptors use teleporters to do their jump move, this would apply to them every turn. I hope it's nothing too important. But they can also ignore dangerous/difficult terrain when they land in it and they don't have to expend any movement to 'climb' levels of terrain. They also get to move 9" instead of 6". They look quite good from a tactical standpoint.

I wouldn't read too much into the 'stationary actions' bit. I think that just means mostly "no firing heavy weapons", which would apply in the same situations this edition.