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.

**Andrew1975**

Kurce wrote: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?!)

Well it's "True line if sight light" There are things you can't see through (even if you physically can) like forests. So it is an improvement.

**Absolutionis**

Valkyrie wrote: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.

They're more resilient, but they're easier to hit. Tanks have an innate -1 to evasion just for being tanks.

Seems fair.

**Maelstrom808**

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.

The big things for stationary are you can't move or assault at double your speed, and you can't use the Heavy firing option.

Overall, deepstriking got a pretty nice improvement imo. Sure you have to face defensive fire if you DS within 12" of the enemy unit, but if you land in the right place, it's not that big of a deal. I'll take that trade for being able to assault after deepstriking, not having to risk flat out losing the unit if I get a bad scatter, being able to deepstrike with no scatter if I land 18" away from an enemy unit, being able to time when my unit comes in, and being able to sync that with the arrival of other units for reserve...and that's just the normal version. The ambush and heroic deep strikes are even better.

**Shandara**

And instead of being lucky and having only non-wrecking damage results, hull breaches will ensure you pop a transport quick enough, given enough fire.

**Maelstrom808**

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

Ravager comes with Aerial Assault already.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:
Valkyrie wrote: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.
They're more resilient, but they're easier to hit. Tanks have an innate -1 to evasion just for being tanks.

Seems fair.

And on the weapons destroyed, the first result reduces the number of shooting actions you can take by one, the second shuts down all shooting for the rest of the game. So even if you have four weapons, it only takes 2 weapons destroyed results to knock them all out, but the trade off is, your main or most desireable weapon can still do it's thing until the second weapons destroyed result.

**Cryage**

The more I read, the more I like.

Will be interesting to see what Ev stats are on a bunch of things if this is real

**Pacific**

I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

I think instead it's because everyone wants to believe, that they are willing to completely ignore GW's track record, it's modus operandi, over the last 5 years or more. They want a system that will change so much in the game, open up so many opportunities. Sadly, if you take even a moment to look at previous releases you will see that this is very unlikely. Every release, without exception, has been an exercise in conservatism. We just see version +0.1, nothing that will fundamentally alter the way the game is played. Even really WFB ver. 8 was not such a radical departure, it just so happened that those changes (again, prioritised to sell more kits) just so happened to underwhelm the balance and nuances of the game, at least according to popular opinion.

Several games designers - going from Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, Alessio Calvatore and no doubt more, have left the company after trying to introduce a fresh formula to a game system. Rick Priestly said in a recent interview that ever since GW became a publicly owned company, the sales department have called the shots in rule development, and the hands of the rules designers are tied. So we will see a fresh development of the rules that might tweak a thing or two, perhaps reverse the rules on LoS for a third time, but will stimulate a fresh round of boxset and book sales, and more interest in the game.

To do anything more would damage the sales of existing lines and recently produced codecies - and there is absolutely no chance that this would get the go ahead. The letters of resignations of all of those designers, surely some of the most well known and talented within the industry, are testament to that.

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

**azazel the cat**

PREFERRED ENEMY
Universal Damage special rule
Some warriors are able to predict the moves of
the enemies they are used to fight. They have
developed special techniques that enable them to
counter such enemies more effectively. Such
troops hit always on a roll of 3+ for Shooting and
Combat actions against their preferred enemy. If
they would hit on a 3+ anyway, they hit on a 2+
instead. This ability cannot be used against
vehicles. Vehicles don’t show emotions and are
unpredictable for this reason.
If a shooting unit with this ability targets a unit
that is not a preferred enemy, check if the unit
could have successfully targeted a preferred
enemy instead (i.e. it is in range, in line of sight
and is not out of distance for the Veiled special
rule, etc). If a model in the unit attacks a unit that
is not a preferred enemy, check if it could have
attacked a preferred enemy instead. If the model
or unit could have attacked or shot at a preferred
enemy (even if it could not damage it), the unit
loses this special rule for the rest of the game.

They all laughed at me for still using Destroyers in the new codex... the fools! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaa

puma713 wrote:Ha! FNP fails on a AP1, AP2 and AP3 weapons, and weapons that cause Instant Death.

Holding my Destroyers while rubbing my nipples now...

H.B.M.C. wrote:And Kill Points based on how many points a unit costs. Just like 2nd Ed.

This should've always been the case.

Cryage wrote:HOLY CRAP

Monoliths are super heavies (read the superheavies on page 96 of the .pdf, but is written "117" on the bottom right)

Heavy - Super-heavy vehicles with a single structure point are sometimes referred to as 'heavy'

-3 on the damage chart against the monolith (until you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart then that structure point is gone... then I believe its just treated as a tank which is still -1 on the damage chart)

So a roll of 5 will actually just be a 2, which the Monoliths can ignore on a roll of 4+

H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.

The Monoliths... they are rising again...

Overall, I want to desperately believe all of this. But I remain sceptical, as it is just too good to be true.

As a side note, I'm certain that the 2+ power armour bit is a misprint, if for no other reason than because that would render Terminator Armour pointless.

**Maelstrom808**

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

I think instead it's because everyone wants to believe, that they are willing to completely ignore GW's track record, it's modus operandi, over the last 5 years or more. They want a system that will change so much in the game, open up so many opportunities. Sadly, if you take even a moment to look at the releases over the last 10 years, you will see that this is very unlikely. Every release, without exception, has been an exercise in conservatism. We just see version +0.1, nothing that will fundamentally alter the way the game is played. Even really WFB ver. 8 was not such a radical departure, it just so happened that those changes (again, prioritised to sell more kits) just so happened to underwhelm the balance and nuances of the game, at least according to popular opinion.

Several games designers - going from Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, Alessio Calvatore and no doubt more, have left the company after trying to introduce a fresh formula to a game system. Rick Priestly said in a recent interview that ever since GW became a publicly owned company, the sales department have called the shots in rule development, and the hands of the rules designers are tied. So we will see a fresh development of the rules that might tweak a thing or two, perhaps reverse the rules on LoS for a third time, but will stimulate a fresh round of boxset and book sales, and more interest in the game.

To do anything more would damage the sales of existing lines and recently produced codecies - and there is absolutely no chance that this would get the go ahead. The letters of resignations of all of those designers, surely some of the most well known and talented within the industry, are testament to that.

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be. I

We get it, it's probablly not real. Personally, it doesn't matter for me as most of my gaming is done within a closed group, and GW can shove it if 6th ed is just a tweaked 5th. Aside from it being real or not, I think the response that we've seen so far has indicated that GW's world would not crash and burn with such radical changes, if done properly.

**His Master's Voice**

Pacific wrote:People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

Possibly because the most radical change those rules come up with is the swapping of Assault and Shooting phases. Everything else is just a natural evolution or clarification of existing rules. While giving pistols some functionality or adding Patch Up may seem "radical" it doesn't affect anything in the core rules of the game which is still about massive amounts of dice being rolled to determine who slaughters who. I read the rules and saw something perfectly familiar with the same 3rd edition concepts behind justs about every major rule.

We don't believe this because it's so different. It isn't. We (or at least I) think this might be real because it doesn't look or read as someone's spare time trolling attempt.

Additionally, I find the possibility that this is some sort of reject from a former developer rather minuscule.

**Maelstrom808**

azazel the cat wrote:

Cryage wrote:HOLY CRAP

Monoliths are super heavies (read the superheavies on page 96 of the .pdf, but is written "117" on the bottom right)

Heavy - Super-heavy vehicles with a single structure point are sometimes referred to as 'heavy'

-3 on the damage chart against the monolith (until you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart then that structure point is gone... then I believe its just treated as a tank which is still -1 on the damage chart)

So a roll of 5 will actually just be a 2, which the Monoliths can ignore on a roll of 4+

H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.

The Monoliths... they are rising again...

I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

**Kroothawk**

Cryage wrote:Will be interesting to see what Ev stats are on a bunch of things if this is real

There is no Evasion stat. It has a base value of 3 with modifiers (massive, movement, swarm).

Small tidbits:
All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
Movement to regain coherency is free and before movement.

**azazel the cat**

@Maelstrom808: I think that a massive change-up like this is EXACTLY the way to sell the most models. A small tweak or evolution is the way to make most established players happy, but in GW's opinion,

those guys, because GW would rather hope to see people completely re-buy new armies, which is the sort of thing that a shake-up would facilitate.

Cynical, yes. But I really want to believe this leak is for real, because it gives four weaker armies some sharp new knives to play with.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

I am sceptical, however the asterisk in the Necron codex is what leaves the door open for me to believe this a little... the actual rule is "Heavy*", which I think does sync up with the bit in the 6th Ed. leak about "some Super-Heavies with a single structure point are referred to as Heavy"

**tongalad**

scarletsquig wrote:
tongalad wrote:I just tried to download it but it's been deleted.

anyone know where it can be accessed?

Yes.

I should have been more specific - can anyone PM me a link?

**Voodoo Boyz**

I can't believe that this thread hasn't been closed down.

**Luke_Prowler**

I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

**Maelstrom808**

@ azazel Agreed in pretty much every way.

..and if we thought people bitched a lot about monoliths before, just wait till that super heavy version hits the table. I could probably surf home form the game on the tears of my opponents

**CT GAMER**

Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

**Cryage**

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I can't believe that this thread hasn't been closed down.

Why? It's not official GW product. If GW came out and said "That IS the 6th edition rulebook" pretty sure it would get torn down, but it's all speculation right now.

**jb50c**

Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

**Kroothawk**

tongalad wrote:I should have been more specific - can anyone PM me a link?

No problem. Here is a link to the first post of this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422519.page

**pretre**

Also, you might want to check out:

http://www.google.com

**Maelstrom808**

jb50c wrote:Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

Tanks get Multi-targeting (2). With multi-targeting, if you remain stationary, you double your shooting actions, so that gives you four.

**Luke_Prowler**

CT GAMER wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

Oh, I understand that Ork do benefit from the new rules, and I'm still going to play because I love the the greenskins and the setting, I just feel that the the rest of the armies benefit far greater from the same rules, don't lose quite as much, and even shooting armies benefit from the assault rules while they also got a boost for their shooting (like deepstriking GKs) to better cut the boyz down.

**rigeld2**

For those that keep bringing up Evasion - it's not that difficult..
Page 49 (70 in the doc) says that you can still do 7-BS, just modify it for the EV mods (-1 for massive, -1 stationary, +1 moving Jink, +1 swarm).

If adding 4 more potential modifiers is enough to make the game much longer I'd say there are other things you need to look at to speed up your games.

**Maelstrom808**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

Oh, I understand that Ork do benefit from the new rules, and I'm still going to play because I love the the greenskins and the setting, I just feel that the the rest of the armies benefit far greater from the same rules, don't lose quite as much, and even shooting armies benefit from the assault rules while they also got a boost for their shooting (like deepstriking GKs) to better cut the boyz down.

At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

**Dribble Joy**

And if you're a Behemoth you get MT(3), or 6 if stationary. Killkannon + 4 rokkits = 6.

I like the way the MT rules make vehicle firepower more maneoverable.

No disembarking at cruising speed will help tone down the mech aspect of the game.

**Luke_Prowler**

Maelstrom808 wrote:At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

Ah course! If we win, we win! If we lose deys all dead so it don't count, an' if we run away it just mean we'z coming back for anna go!

**chaos0xomega**

jb50c wrote:Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

As I understand it, if you remain stationary you double your number of shooting actions (thus 4 heavy fire actions)

**Fishboy**

2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.