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.

Cerebrium wrote:Oh, I know I can't get angry at rumours. However, people aren't treating these AS rumours. People are treating this as absolute gospel that couldn't possibly be a massive troll.

We've been over this discussion near the start of the thread. The odds of it being real are good enough that discussing the rules is sensible.

Again: Until someone can, without a shadow of a doubt, PROVE these are real, there's a rather huge chance that they're an elaborate hoax.

No, the chance that someone wrote 130 pages of coherent and rather excellent rules for gaks and giggles is not "rather huge". It's possible, but not likely.

You can prove certain kinds of negative, for instance the absence of wine in my glass. Bertrand russell was referring to a certain definition of the word theory.

No matter, i agree with the spirit of your post. Maybe it would be better to paraphrase sherlock holmes at this stage and say that all possibilities are valid until proved otherwise. Once we have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth.

Cerebrium, welcome to my Ignore list in the fine company of other posters who cannot hold a rational conversation.

Yes, there is a chance that this isn't real, but lack of definitive proof that it is real does not make the chance it is fake 100% (does god exist?).

I can't hold a rational conversation? All because I disagreed with something you maintain to be true?

How very mature of you.

This is actually more than just likely a early playtestversion.

- The document is from early may of last year
--> yet it knew the exact profiles and mechanics of the new Necron weapons

- Relevant Data has been taken down from filehosters.
--> uncited sources say that upon inquiry, this happened as per request of GW legal dept

- original source of the thing on 4chan said that it was an early playtest version

- BOLS says it was an early playtest version

- Warseer is removing threads pertaining to the leaked document, citing copyright issues

- the document is coherent with rumours we have been hearing as soon as mid of last year (for example on Blood of Kittens)

.

Last but certainly not least, this definitely has to be the work of a professional gamesdesign team. The manhours required to put together such a document have to be in the mid hundreds, this being the effort of a lone person just for gaks and giggles is highly unlikely.

lord_blackfang wrote:
No, the chance that someone wrote 130 pages of coherent and rather excellent rules for gaks and giggles is not "rather huge". It's possible, but not likely.

The fake Blood Angels dex was quite impressive also. Not as impressive as this document though.

Cerebrium wrote:

Nice. Is that a standard ccw, or can it negate perils of the warp?

Cerebrium wrote:I can't hold a rational conversation? All because I disagreed with something you maintain to be true?

How very mature of you.

I maintain nothing, I said it's likely real. You insist that it's definitely not. You're the one blindly insisting on an absolute, not I.
Now by bye for real, I'm not really interested in what shallow philosophy catchphrase you pull off Wikipedia next.

Another fun saying that can fit in this:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

(Not just some wikipedia fancy catchphrase I pulled up. Working in the medical field we actually use this saying alot.

There is something stated elsewhere that is a bit disturbing :
page 147, "Fire Points" of the bastion. The "heck" of the bastion is mentionned. Heck is GERMAN for the "back" and not english.

Can it be an german playtest version translated in english by a native german speaker, or a hoax from a german fanboy ? I don't know the policy og GW regarding playtesting, so, do they playtest abroad ?

Fun facts:

Units with Rage cannot perform Stationary-type actions as long as they can see an enemy, but are not actually compelled to move unless an enemy is within 12". If so, they must pass a Ld test or be forced to Charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

benogham wrote:There is something stated elsewhere that is a bit disturbing :
page 147, "Fire Points" of the bastion. The "heck" of the bastion is mentionned. Heck is GERMAN for the "back" and not english.

Can it be an german playtest version translated in english by a native german speaker, or a hoax from a german fanboy ? I don't know the policy og GW regarding playtesting, so, do they playtest abroad ?

Or it could be that someone made a typo and then maybe the spellchecker helped make it worse.

lord_blackfang wrote:Fun facts:

Units with Rage cannot perform Stationary-type actions as long as they can see an enemy, but are not actually compelled to move unless an enemy is within 12". If so, they must pass a Ld test or be forced to Charge.

Makes DC somewhat less terrible, which I like.

BA devastators succumbing to the Red Thirst?

No dakka for YOU!

The leaked stuff is quite interesting because the codex updates refer to some new units, like Warlock Support Platform:

If a Warlock is purchased for the unit, one of the
artillery model’s profile is updated with the following
profile.
Armour
WS BS S F S R I A
Warlock Support Platform 4 4 3 10 10 10 4 1
The shuriken catapult of the model is replaced with a
witchblade and a shuriken pistol. The model has a 4+
invulnerable save and is a psyker. It uses Ld 8 for its
Psychic tests. The model can be upgraded with the
Warlock options listed the unit’s army list entry.

The internet wargaming community is going crazy.

Though I'm going to guess from the discussion that this link is safe, so I'll have a read through and make my say on validity.

For what it's worth, the layout and style of document exactly matches the layout and style of documents we used to get as playtesters back when I did such things back in the front half of the last decade (And no I'm not blowing smoke, my name is in the front of what I playtested for GW, and I will respond to a PM if people want proof). Even down to the yellow blocks that deliniate forthcoming illustrations.

Of course this isn't "proof", but it is good evidence. And when it comes to matters of this sort there is no such thing as absolute proof in the scientific sense, "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" is about as much as can be hoped for.

There is such a thing as skepticism to the point of stupidity.

With regard to this particular document I think there is very strong evidence given all the observations made so far that it is what it purports to be: a draft of 6th edition. In addition, there is very little to no positive evidence that it is *not* a legitimate draft of 6th edition. (Skepticism is *not* evidence).

With the balance of evidence as it is therefore, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would be entirely rational were he to take the document at face value and proceed accordingly. If at a later stage, more evidence emerges, than opinions can rationally be altered.

Continued skepticism in the face of a convincing balance of evidence to the contrary is in itself evidence of irrational behaviour, and I suggest those persisting in this opinion invest in a tin foil beanie to prevent evil government rays further scrambling their brains.

lord_blackfang wrote:

benogham wrote:There is something stated elsewhere that is a bit disturbing :
page 147, "Fire Points" of the bastion. The "heck" of the bastion is mentionned. Heck is GERMAN for the "back" and not english.

Can it be an german playtest version translated in english by a native german speaker, or a hoax from a german fanboy ? I don't know the policy og GW regarding playtesting, so, do they playtest abroad ?

Or it could be that someone made a typo and then maybe the spellchecker helped make it worse.

There are enough typos in that document, so it would not be surprising.

They may very well have talked about "one at the deck" or something like that. They way it reads it does not really come across as a translation error to me.

Edited to add:

If we look at the orginal, if heck was truly rear, then we are a firepoint short:

Fire Points: The Weathered Bastion has seven fire
points - three at the front, one at the heck and
one at either side.

7 Fire points:

3 at the front + 1 at the heck (rear) + one at either side (left & right) = 6 fire points.
3 at the front + 1 at the deck + one at either side (left & right & rear) = 7 fire points.

wuestenfux wrote:The leaked stuff is quite interesting because the codex updates refer to some new units, like Warlock Support Platform:

That's not a new unit, a Support Battery can be upgraded with a Warlock in the current Codex.

Dribble Joy wrote:BA devastators succumbing to the Red Thirst?

No dakka for YOU!

Huh? Furious charge and fearless doesn't sound like rage to me...

Oh, was probably thinking of either an old rule or got it wrong.

Oddly enough we don't get many BA players down my heck of the woods.

Fun fact, typos are often used to identify individual copies of a proprietary document so that when it leaks, you can easily track down who leaked it.

Also fun:

Moving vehicles are WS10, meaning WS4 hits on a 5+ and WS6 hits on 4+

I like that flamers can hit embarked troops if they cover a fire point (or any bit of an open-topped transport)

To write this book on your own some guy would have taken like a year of his life.. For what? To trick the internet right before the real book comes out? Jokes on him for wasting an awful amount of time

This leaked copy even has GW advertisements for vehicle damage dice!

Other fun fact!

You can again perform "mini" Rhino rushes!!!

Page 102 of the PDF ,Disembarking;

One of the points says;

-If the Transport has already conduncted a Combat move in this game cycle, the disembarking unit can performe a Combat or Engage Move of its own.
The transport cannot move afterwards, as a unit can only perform one Move action per game cycle.

So you can move Rhino of 6", disembark and Move for 6 and then shoot or Engage in combat a ennemy unit!

Slayer le boucher wrote:
So you can move Rhino of 6", disembark and Move for 6 and then shoot or Engage in combat a ennemy unit!

There's no 'disembarking move' as such, you simply measure the move distance from the access point, meaning that the models will actually be about 5" from the hull.

But yes, you can assault out of vehicles. You can Run/Charge out of open topped ones that move at combat speed too.

Call Waaagh! (beginning of movement phase) - Wagon goes 7" - Boyz charge 16". 23" is more or less what we have now, just less random.

What my Deffwing will be mostly up to if I can pull it off is drive up, Engage a unit that I'll hopefully mince, consolidate back, dakka something else and then hop back in the wagon in the end phase.

Well at first is was like" mmh too many cool things for shooty stuff, not good for CC army's...", but the more i read it the more i like it actually...

Damn if it is an Hoax its a good one...

Yeah the charge distances havent really changed much to be honest.. Usually just a few inches due to fleet changes

Moving vehicle 6" then charging 6" is the same as getting out beforehand and just charging 12"

Its just a different way of doing it