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.

**Zomjie**

azazel the cat wrote:

Zomjie wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...

EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HtH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

I can't use the AP 1 Abyssal Staff template at 18".

ah true, well we all gotta adapt our play styles when new rules come out, I for one will be investing in some destroyers and monoliths

**Rafi**

CT GAMER wrote:Bring on the change to 40k, because to be honest it was getting kind of stale. Orks will find a way to soldier on like they always have...

The changes (if true) have me a bit excited about my Warbike army.

**Slayer le boucher**

ShumaGorath wrote:

It goes beyond that. The Chaos 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

Here i Fixed your typo for you, don't need to thank me ^^

**insaniak**

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

It's still here for the same reason it's been there since 40K was first born... It's a more 'cinematic' way of playing the game. It's not as precise as some of the more abstract systems out there, but it gets players more involved. Or at least that's how GW have rationalised it in previous editions, and I somewhat agree with them. There's a certain cool factor to getting down and seeing what your minis can see, particularly when you're playing with decent minis on a decent table. It's like a little movie action shot.

**Epicwargamer**

I believe this is in fact a TRUE draft copy. This is made too well, too detailed.

It might say MAY on it, but if you create it on a computer that has an internal clock which is set to MAY then you could have made it yesterday. But we knew the rules for 6th were done a long time ago, so it makes sense that it was may.

The fact that this is TOO close to the rumors we already have heard
How it is written in GW format
The Eldar Starcannon is accurate to the rumors of Str 7 Ap2 2 shots...
We knew 6th was going to be a complete departure from 3-5th. Otherwise... why republish 5th???
Black Templars are the new dex.... confirmed by NOT being in the Codex Updates section along with Necrons
New Necron rules are posted through the rulebook
Rules are GW quality.
This is NOT dumbed down!!! Its harder to play!!!! YAY!!!!!!

Sorry, but you can remind me when the 6th Rulebook comes out... that I was right and this is too good to be **edit** fake!

**SoulGazer**

I really like these rules. Let's hope it's the real deal.... Yay for the return of Monoliths!

**faeslayer**

haendas wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
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)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

I'm thinking about how I always destroy a Rhino in CC, only to have the marines inside perforate my boyz on their next turn... wouldn't these supposed rules let 20 boyz with a PK nob destroy a rhino, then open up with 40ish shots on the juicy troops within?

Because that seems really great, but I worry I'm missing something.

Also, what makes warbikes so good in this ruleset? I'm so confused by this whole thing.

**-Loki-**

Epicwargamer wrote:I believe this is in fact a TRUE draft copy. This is made too well, too detailed.

This is a hobby where, quite often, people do write their own rules, be it codices or rulebooks.

The fact that it's close to the rumours doesn't mean it's real, it means the person faking it just read those rumours and ran with it making this.

This is also a hobby where some of the players base has entirely too much free time.

It's possible this is fake. if it is, 10/10 troll attempt. If it's not, it's a good look into the future of 40k. But there's no way to be sure this is actually a leak and not an elaborate hoax.

**puma713**

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

It's still here for the same reason it's been there since 40K was first born... It's a more 'cinematic' way of playing the game. It's not as precise as some of the more abstract systems out there, but it gets players more involved. Or at least that's how GW have rationalised it in previous editions, and I somewhat agree with them. There's a certain cool factor to getting down and seeing what your minis can see, particularly when you're playing with decent minis on a decent table. It's like a little movie action shot.

But TLOS isn't really here to stay - you can draw LOS through any model with a base, as if it wasn't there, according to these rules.

**Noisy_Marine**

I really hope this isn't real. If 6th edition is that complicated I will probably not play.

**lucasbuffalo**

If these rules are fake, GW needs to fire their staff and hire this guy.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

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 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.

See I would probably fully agree with you, if Warhammer 8th hadn't happened. When the pre release rumours started breaking, folks where laughing at the idea of random charges, Horde units and the like. Then 8th arrived, and lots of the pre release rumours made it, and has changed Warhammer fantasy vastly for the first time in years.

It might well be fake, but after 8th, I will not bat an eyelid if all of this is accurate.

**Angel_of_Rust**

faeslayer wrote:
I'm thinking about how I always destroy a Rhino in CC, only to have the marines inside perforate my boyz on their next turn... wouldn't these supposed rules let 20 boyz with a PK nob destroy a rhino, then open up with 40ish shots on the juicy troops within?

Because that seems really great, but I worry I'm missing something.

Also, what makes warbikes so good in this ruleset? I'm so confused by this whole thing.

Assuming you use the engage (1x Movement) as opposed to the charge (2x) it certainly seems that way.

**walledin**

haendas wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
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)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

**H.B.M.C.**

It’s kinda weird looking at the people who dislike these rules and then realising that almost all of them are people who have tended to fall into line right behind me whenever I go off on one of my ‘Chaos’ Codex rants.

I sense a schism in the faith... but stay the course brothers, and as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

Let us not wallow in this valley of rules despair, I say to you today, my brothers.

And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Warp.

I have a dream that one day Chaos players will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "Let the galaxy burn!" I have a dream that one day within the Eye of Terror, the former sons of the False Emperor and the minions of Chaos will be able to walk upon terra as conquerors.

I have a dream that one day even the Realm of Ultramar, a state sweltering with the heat of the much-hated loyalists, sweltering without the power that Chaos brings, will be transformed into an daemon saturated vortex of slaughter and Chaos.

I have a dream that our four Chaos Gods will one day exist in a Codex where they will be judged by the rules they provide and not by the generic-ness of their daemons.

I have a dream today!

(With apologies to Martin Luther King Jr.)

**candy.man**

I honestly think the final version of the rules probably won’t be as bloated as the play test version we have now. This version probably has extra rules in order to make testing of subcomponents easier. Judging by how the GK playtest version compared with the final product, I’m going to guess the final version will probably remain largely the same with some of the excess fat trimmed/refined. Personally I think this play test version is already far superior to 5th and if 6th is largely similar to 5th, I’ll bet a lot of people will use the play test rules instead.

As a small niggle, since the rules state a lot of new ways to play out your turn, depending if you move, make a stationary action, heavy fire, multi targeting, engage etc. Hopefully a quick reference table of some sorts is compiled. As it stands now, one has to flip back and forth through several pages just to get a basic understanding of how a basic turn can be played out.

**Vaktathi**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

So a 700 point palladin squad being worth 1 kill point is the same as the same squad being worth 14. Yes, that is exactly the same.

The actual number is irrelevant, victory with such a unit/army can still be attain by losing a greater proportion of your force and fighting power and defeating a much less relevant and less capable portion of the enemy force. For example, bare bones basic IG infantry squads can still be worth 2 KP's each, meaning 350pts of basic IG infantry can be worth as much as 700pts of Paladins.

**chaos0xomega**

lucasbuffalo wrote:If these rules are fake, GW needs to fire their staff and hire this guy.

If these rules are fake, I need to hire this guy before someone else does... me and him could make some truly epic game systems together lol

As for quick reference charts, etc. I believe that is referenced on the first page of the pdf

**Andrew1975**

Noisy_Marine wrote:I really hope this isn't real. If 6th edition is that complicated I will probably not play.

It's not that complicated. It's just that every edition after 1st has been dumbed down to the point where the game lost most of it's tactical and strategic qualities in order for it to be played by 8 year olds. Granted I still thing some things are very clunky for simplicity sake. Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

**puma713**

chaos0xomega wrote:
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)

But. . .

Leaked Text wrote:If its unit had remained
stationary, the firing model could even double
the number of Shooting actions. Models with the
Fast special rule can do this even if they have
cruised or charged. Note that the model still
cannot fire the same weapon twice.

Edit: Sorry, thought you were talking about firing, not the manticore, per se.

**MasterSlowPoke**

walledin wrote:Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

Shoota boys cannot take advantage of that rule, as they don't have a primary weapon. They have to attack with the "Basic Attack", which doesn't allow additional CCWs.

**The Crippler**

I can't tell you if the rules are 'good' or 'bad' yet, but I am impressed by the increase in complexity. I would not have guessed a new edition would have gone that way.

**Malakai**

What's with the title of the thread, has it been proven a fake?

The new rules allow us to expand the ways
the game is played - first and foremost the option
to give each unit its own turn instead of the usual
unified player turn.

If not does this statement mean 1 unit moves then opponent unit moves?

**spyguyyoda**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream.

This is why I play the Daemons codex (also, I'm a glutton for punishment).

So...I was unable to get my copy (forwarded from a friend) to work...Any hope for us Tzeentchy guys?

**-Loki-**

spyguyyoda wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream.

This is why I play the Daemons codex (also, I'm a glutton for punishment).

The complaint about generic daemons stems from them being in the Chaos Space Marine book. Being able to play god specific daemons in the daemon book has absolutely no bearing on people not being able to use, say, Bloodletters in a Khornate Chaos marine force. Saying 'use the daemon book' isn't a solution in any sense of the word.

**Xca|iber**

Do any of the GW writers draft in German? Or are any parts of the codex known to be written up in Germany?

This might seem like a weird question, but I just noticed that on page 110 (p89 of the pdf) lists the "rear armor" of the vehicle as "Heck Armour." Obviously the English use of "heck" makes no sense here as a replacement for "rear," but the German translation of "heck" is exactly "rear."

I can't really think of any reason this kind of "translation-typo" would appear in any official rulebook draft, unless parts of the document were made in German and then translated.

Just some food for thought. Since Germany is pretty well known (afaik) for it's large wargaming fanbase, this could mean that either:
a) this is an elaborate hoax manufactured by/alongside dedicated German gamers.
OR
b) GW had some/all of the document written up in German for playtesting purposes, and some subsequent edits were not translated.

**gorgon**

Surprised there are people that think it's an obvious fake. It may be fake, but it's not an obvious one, and IMO it's almost certainly a real draft doc. I mean, a viable, interesting ruleset, codex updates, and little touches like mentions of "Games Workshop Hobby Centres"? Utterly brilliant hoax if it is one.

We may have confirmation soon if we get a new Tyranid kit next month that makes a creature called a Cerebore.

**insaniak**

puma713 wrote:But TLOS isn't really here to stay - you can draw LOS through any model with a base, as if it wasn't there, according to these rules.

Exactly what does or does not block LOS has varied in each edition. Right now, friendly models in the same unit don't block LOS. Not so long ago, no friendly model blocked LOS. But the core of the mechanic, which is tracing actual LOS from the head of the firing model, has been there in each edition of the game to date.

**chaos0xomega**

Xca|iber wrote:Do any of the GW writers draft in German? Or are any parts of the codex known to be written up in Germany?

This might seem like a weird question, but I just noticed that on page 110 (p89 of the pdf) lists the "rear armor" of the vehicle as "Heck Armour." Obviously the English use of "heck" makes no sense here as a replacement for "rear," but the German translation of "heck" is exactly "rear."

I can't really think of any reason this kind of "translation-typo" would appear in any official rulebook draft, unless parts of the document were made in German and then translated.

Just some food for thought. Since Germany is pretty well known (afaik) for it's large wargaming fanbase, this could mean that either:
a) this is an elaborate hoax manufactured by/alongside dedicated German gamers.
OR
b) GW had some/all of the document written up in German for playtesting purposes, and some subsequent edits were not translated.

That would explain the seemingly odd and sometimes complex grammatical structures of sentences/paragraphs

**Painnen**

I'm pretty excited to once again be able to use the term "make thier points back" and have it be a relative towards determining a unit's value.

i like what i've read and am happy to playtest this around the FLGS and see what we come up with.

i also think that this is a very sneaky way of getting free playtesting out of a gaming system. they get to see if these changes are solid enough to both keep a fanbase and/or grow business.