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.

I'm not even touching that one. I just pulled out a good generalist unit off the top of my head.

Theduke07 wrote:I'm not even touching that one. I just pulled out a good generalist unit off the top of my head.

You picked one that is more than capable of wiping a unit in the assault and then proceeding to fire in the new edition though. Units with good firepower and the ability to decisively win combats in one round are actually better under these rules. Standard marine terminators will function similarly. The gray knights get nerfed in a bunch of small ways, but the phase swap doesn't really effect them all that much.

Byte wrote:I don't think the leaked rules are legit.

They're legitimately better than 5th edition, which makes them too legit to quit.

ShumaGorath wrote:Units with good firepower and the ability to decisively win combats in one round are actually better under these rules.

I think this is a good thing. I've been saying for years now - even back in 3rd - that units only ever do one thing and one thing well and that attempting to do multiple things just 'confuses the unit's role' (quite a common phrase back in my Guard days). It's great that these rules support diverse units.

puma713 wrote:You'd think that all the "sense-making" that GW is rumored to be doing with all these changes would throw up red flags for all the fans who have been in the hobby for a long time and have come to learn how GW functions.

Well, that would be terrible logic. In fact, it wouldn't be logic at all.

I'm assuming you wouldn't claim that GW intentionally did things that didn't make sense. If that is accurate then your central claim would be something like, "GW tried to do things that they thought made sense, but these things did not in fact make sense". Which in no way translates to "nothing GW can ever do can ever make sense". Given long enough, they will eventually do something that makes sense!

If not, they would be infallible at doing things that don't make sense, and we all know GW isn't infallible in any regard.

They won't change up their market strategy, 6th edition will not be radical because as GW has to say, their profits are up 40%. They won't take risks

I was thinking more the lines of units that fire to soften up than charge to clean up like Grey Hunters, Sternguard or even Tacts to an extension.

Don't think there will be much risk. These rules through a little tweaking, am sure will rock. This leak is the best thing for vets. We can get a jump and learn the rules early. Come launch day, there will be many players ready to help new players from the get go. Not really sure why they aren't embracing this?

riverhawks32 wrote:They won't change up their market strategy, 6th edition will not be radical because as GW has to say, their profits are up 40%. They won't take risks

Due to royalties, not any sustainable profit model.

Think about it this way: with these new 6th Ed. Rules, GW gets to move away from creating rules and just pump out models. After are, they are a miniatures company. They can cut out expensive rules writers and printing runs, and even create some new armies, because that will also allow for more models.

Story lines have to be advanced because the books sell, and Forgeworld needed to be incorporated because it is hugely profitable despite being small-scale by comparison, and the best way to expand that market is to remove its only real impediment: the fact that you can't use it in a force org chart.

And as to the short-term, GW gets a nice sales boost as everyone buys new models to update their armies, since diversity seems to be the names of the game under these new rules. Also, lots of previously useless units are hoot now, which will also give sales a quick boost.

Yeah, I'd say that these rules are likely legit.

Good points.....I still won't commit to believing these are legit.....yet

There's plenty of evidence already mentioned that this leaked codex is supposedly real. Granted I don't 100% believe it, but it's certainly looking nice.
It's almost hard to believe there isn't some form on intelligent thought behind this leak if it is real, however, due to some of the changes/rules in the recent codexs.

Since it's the codex I've read the most...
Sisters of Battle (WD)
It seems like the sisters little codex could have very well been a deliberate attempt to write up a codex that could work in 5th and 6th, so they could test 6th rules with "older" units.
1. The sisters dex is in WD, and if they really want to they can post a Part 3 of 2 after 6th drops and add in any and all units they had to hold back to be sure that 6th edition wasn't alluded to.
2. The Sisters faith points, almost universally seen as a horrible change, are rolled for at the begining of "each movement phase" As opposed to the begin on your turn. Meaning a unit by unit style gameplay is freaking awesome with them as each unit individually would have d6 faith points. (and the supposed codex updates did not change this)
3. The SoB are given a universal 6++ save, which would be useful for testing out critical hits.
4. The sisters can temporarily gain a variety of special rules like relentless, so they can test out their changes with a single army.
5. The sisters have bolters to test out the new rapidfire rules, plus were given pistols and grenades for trying out CC. (and no longer being terrible at it)
6. Battle conclaves are now a mish-mash of armor groups, and the DCA is given a 5++ save from uncanny reflexes which is just the same save they'd have from the power swords. (cept also outside of CC)
7. The repentia had their leadership increased (from the old edition's 6) to deal with the effects of rage and can also test out the use of rigid saves and fleet.
8. The penitent engine is a walker, open-topped, squadroned and has heavy flamers. Which makes me wonder if battle frenzy triggers off of shooting the flamers in CC instead of attacking with the DCCW.
9. The battle sisters roll for their auto regroup at the beginning of the movement phase, which would prevent them from dieing if broken when they're unable to get outside 12" of an enemy unit.
10. The Dominions can now twin-link their flamers temporarily, which gives them a 9" range with a flamer for a shooting round.
11. Seraphim test hit and run and jump troops, have dual pistols to try those rules out, and though they lost 1 initiative from their old codex are now prime candidates to test out Alpha striking a unit tied up in combat with sisters (who are arguably great at surviving longer than they should)
12. Retributors can now be quite deadly even cruising around inside a rhino, thanks to relentless firepoints, even if it's only at 18" range that's all flamers need and melta are pretty close.
13. The exorcist could be drastically changed with the new MT rules with a codex update, having only a single weapon to fire. If it were say MT(2) it could fire twice rolling, or 4 times sitting still. Fixing it's dang randomness.
14. The immolator lost it's old codex ability to move 12" and fire it's TL heavy flamer. Which rather destroyed it's original purpose (although as a melta scout it's still pretty sweet) The new rules give that gun a 9" range. Which means in a single turn it can still light models on fire that were 15" away from it at the beginning of it's movement phase. 6" move, 9" flamer range.
15. I wonder if celestines sword, that also counts as an assault weapon, can now give itself an additional attack in CC. Hehe, not likely though.

Not only do the sisters pretty much gain all over the place, there's only one thing I've noticed so far that they failed to address. The Inferno pistol is not mentioned on the list of CC capable guns. Infernus, but not Inferno. Which might mean the same thing and is just a change in wording.

True, the sisters old tactics are drastically different but that's true of all armies since we don't shoot before we assault. SoB's prevelance for flamers, pistols, and such make them a perfect candidate for a shooty army that can assault if it needs to.

This seems too good to be true at this point. Could GW really have planned on making the sisters codex viable to a degree in 5th so that when 6th dropped they'd jump to being competitive? Or is it SOO good that some nerd must have felt bad for the sisters of battle and done everything he can in the leaked dex to make them a viable choice without just writing a codex update to make them better.
It's so much evidence, it's almost evidence against itself.

The other armies people have mentioned, Necrons in particular but GK to an extent, units that were seen as useless, or at least underpowered, become viable again thanks to these rules. Were they designed to mesh with 6th and still be capable of 5th somehow?

Eventually we will know. But this is GW we are talking about. Eventually we will be disappointed.

if they actually would put faqs, errata, updates, new units, actual content back into WD I think that would be a great way to maintain the rules and still allow them to make money buy getting people to buy WD. Man I remember when there was actually content in that mag. It was great. Before Mordheim came out there was full playtest rules in WD. Same with BFG, they had rules and counters to play with. They actually used to put new units in there, legion of the damned, chaos cultists (now nonexistent), emperors champ all were in WD first. I havent bought it in years but there was a time when I eagerly looked forward to it every month.

All I can say is

candy.man wrote:If this rumour is true then I’ll have to agree that the restructure is probably a case of GW taking a cue from the growing success of other companies. Heck, the 6th Ed proposal sounds identical to how PP runs WM/H right now:

• Long life rule set? Check
• Updates via errata? Check
• Expansion Books? Check
• Advancing Storyline? Check

It would be interesting if the HH expansion rumour pans out as it means GW would be using their “get of out jail free” card. That being said, the primarch models would most likely be in finecast (which would suck lol).

Haven't GW already started making expansion books like Storm of Magic, and more recent Blood in the Badlands? The latter being a campaign system that also "contains rules that can be used in any Warhammer game, form massive multi-player scenarios featuring new magic items and spells, rules for underground battles and a complete siege expansion"

If they've already started on this type of thing for Fantasy, it's really not hard to see it jumping over to 40k. Then again, one could argue that Imperial Armour fills this role already - each book has it's own campaigns, and some introduce new gameplay styles, like ship boarding game types.

This may partly explain why GW has recently really been pushing Forgeworld into the limelight - showcasing Forgeworld units in their news, as well as showcasing and advertising Forgeworld/Warhammer Forge books in their features and "what to buy" articles. Not to mention the push on Forgeworld's side to make their stuff a bit more "official".

A long enduring rule set would allow for more often codex updates. Good for us, of course, but great for GW.

"DE not selling well? Hmmm, three new models, and POW, new codex!"

It would certainly allow the creation of MORE new codex, like is currently done with the various Space Marine chapters.

Think of it, their own book for Death Corps, Farsight Enclaves, Thousand Suns, different Hive Fleets.

From a business perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Simply look at GW's competition, who have been gaining ground for some time. The argument that "GW would never do something that makes sense!" is as spiteful as it is ignorant. Business needs to change as the market demands. The recording industry has long refused change, and look where it's getting them.

The drastic change in the rules concerns the single largest complaint from long time players about the 3-4-5 evolution: the disappearance of depth.

This rumored new strategy simply makes sense from many perspectives. Let's hope it's at least halfway true.


Also: WH30K should mean SQUATS! YAY!

I'm starting to wonder if they're going to start to follow the Privateer Press tactics of releasing new models and rules. Except GW would be " Hey, new Space Marine Terminator Type, they have two assault cannons! Oh, the rules are in the up coming white dwarf."

By changing the rules and making more diverse units viable, GW can indeed make money as people will buy previously undesirable models in order to access there abilities.

I see this as following wyrds format (I dont play any pp games so I don't know if they follow a similar format) of needing to have a large range of models to choose your force from, to deal with a given scenario/objective rather than the pre-planned army build that is the norm for a GW game.

Dynamix wrote:
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care

Right. 3rd sentence, stop there. Releasing a new edition is something that generates a massive surge of interest (and therefore sales) every few years. Why on God's earth would they stop doing that? So there, at the very beginning, is a sentence that makes absolutely no sense in terms of GW's business model and its track record.

Besides which, as Biccat mentioned:

Question: How do the (hypothetical) 6th edition rules have any increased permanency above the 5th, 4th, or 3rd edition rules?

Couldn't GW achieve the same objective here by not publishing a 6th edition?

If 1, then why make such a drastic change with 6th edition? If the rules are supposedly getting better, why change to a new rules set?

1 can also be disproved by the staggering imbalance that has resulted in each edition as new codices are released that drastically change the meta.

If 2, then why would they stop with 6th edition? If a new edition brings in new players/sales, why not go with 7th, 8th, and 9th editions?

I really don't see any argument for GW to stop at 6th edition that wouldn't work for them stopping at 5th edition.

How would a new section of the rules be any more of a 'final edition' than any of the others that has come before it?

Finally. allows for expansions (30k, 41k?)

Some time ago, when the HH book series had just begun, there was apparently a discussion at HQ about creating a Warhammer 30,000 line. The decision was made not to do this, for whatever reason (confusing the customer, a split universe? Who knows). As such, the '30k sprue' that had been made was split, components from which have subsequently appeared in the AoBR box and Blood Angels amongst others. FW releases (under the guise of 'Badab War') have subsequently catered to the Pre-Heresy market.
This would mean a reversal of that supposedly executive level decision.

So, several strong indicators that this is a fake. I would love it not to be, but I think for something like this to happen, someone would have had to have kidnapped the entire management team of GW HQ and replace them with hobbyists.

Walls wrote:No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.

Welcome to the world of rumours

riverhawks32 wrote:They won't change up their market strategy, 6th edition will not be radical because as GW has to say, their profits are up 40%. They won't take risks

1.) They made radical changes with 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy, the most recent major rulebook.
2.) The changes are not that radical as they might look. The game feel stays the same.
3.) The profits do not come from the core business: The revenue from selling miniatures stays flat or is declining (considering the average 10% price hike each year, it is declining by 10% in sales every year). So a change of whatever they call market strategy might be advised.

Please let this be true. I don't even care about plot advancement. But I'd be all over some kind of HH expansion.

Juicifer wrote:

Byte wrote:I don't think the leaked rules are legit.

They're legitimately better than 5th edition, which makes them too legit to quit.

Seems more do believe the leak is real.

Byte wrote:

Juicifer wrote:

Byte wrote:I don't think the leaked rules are legit.

They're legitimately better than 5th edition, which makes them too legit to quit.

Seems more do believe the leak is real.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Byte wrote:

Juicifer wrote:

Byte wrote:I don't think the leaked rules are legit.

They're legitimately better than 5th edition, which makes them too legit to quit.

Seems more do believe the leak is real.

edit - nevermind, my embed-fu is weak today

What are you talking about?

Fix'd!

See above

The four year edition cycle allows GW to regularly tap their core audience for income, but at the price of retarding growth of the game's fanbase. By giving 6th edition an eight year cycle, they would give the game a period of stability and consistency that would make it easier to bring in (and more importantly keep) new blood, which could easily offset the income lost by skipping the release of a new edition at the four year mark.

I expect that Games Workshop will come up with a subscription service that grants access to expanded online content, like rules PDFs, alternative army lists, units and priority updates. We already see something comparable to this from WotC/Dungeons and Dragons, and it would allow Games Workshop to profit from previously free content while pushing a new support/distribution channel. They could also tie access to this subscription service to a person's White Dwarf subscription.

The need to generate sales by pushing through army and rules revisions can be mitigated by an expanded opportunity to release more new content. The release of Storm of Chaos drove sales in Warhammer Fantasy by producing a handful of new models in support of new lists that gave people new ways to play/use existing figures. Warhammer 40k is uniquely suited to releases like this thanks to the setting's multiple variations on a theme (Space Marine Chapters, Eldar Craftworlds, Chaos Legions, Tyranid Hive Fleets, etc).

This is all just my take on the situation. There don't seem to be many practical negatives at work in this new scheme, though. People seem to decry this possibility (with good reason) as being beyond Games Workshop's limited business sense, but I think it represents an acknowledgement by the company that their old ways aren't working. Right now the 40k brand is more visible than ever (thanks to some smart license deals that have paid dividends), but sales continue to slip. I've seen more people quit the GW hobby in the past two years than I did in the fifteen years before it, and that speaks to me that the company has pushed to the limit of wrong-headedness. A dramatic change doesn't surprise me, I've been expecting it for the past several months. What does surprise me is that (unlike with Warhammer Fantasy), I like so much of what I'm seeing from this change.

tetrisphreak wrote:Fix'd!

See above

O goodness.

Dynamix wrote:

Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care

1. Of course they are not legit...they are an earlier (now obsolete) version...and we should believe 'the company' that said its current 'no marketing/no preview' policy is their voluntary response to Weta's concern they cannot keep secrets...if you believe that - woulld you like to buy a bridge?
2. Why can't this happen? Their rules books cost $40 to $60. They have priced themselves out of the market (where you can get paper editions ar $20-$30 and digitial editions at $15-$30)...we are buying rules manuals not coffee table books. A 'core' hard-cover edition would justify the pricing. Also consider GW's MOST successful division (CONSISTENTLT successful BTW)...FW. FW sells models (expensive resin models..hummm...see any commonality with failcaste and where GW core seems to be going) with high-quality story driven publications to support those high-priced (prfitable) models. Having a core book (hard cover expensive high-quality tomb) that is supported by stroy driven suppliments aligns with what FW does and it works...
3. You are confusing quality with quatity
4. Why is this important i.e. the rules are designed to appeal to a broad audience not just your personal tastes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:The big problem with this is that it directly goes against the established GW 'cycle' method, i.e. constantly update rules purely for economic reasons. I don't think that this is very efficient but GW are a very conservative company and don't like to change. Its always possible that GW have finally noticed their ever declining sales figures and actually attempted to do something about it of course.

I would be very impressed if GW actually did change its stance and I think it is highly unlikely. In addition the source of this rumour is more than a little unreliable.

Possible but not probable.

The drivers are:

* GW's sales are declining because of price and competition
* Environmental changes - their over-priced (even with higher quality) books are getting slammed in the 'digital' age...the folks who can afford to buy the hard-cover manuals are the same ones who own eReaders, smart-phones, tablets, etc. These folks want digital editions not expensive paper-weights coffee table books. GW hired expensive consultatns to told them the obvious and they are slowly adapting the recommendations. Think we'll the market/space will be in 3-5 years not where it is today. This level of change has 3+ year horizons.
- A core book justifies the edition price, allows digitial derivitives, etc.

I am also standing in the 'legitimate leak' camp, and give some credence to OP as well. My reasons, in summary:

1. GW leaked a not-quite-finished 5th ed rulebook in exactly the same style as this, about the same time before the proper release. I therefore think (and hope!) the finished version of 6th will be broadly similar to this leaked copy.

2. I have a good friend whom, on his orientation days upon becoming a staff member, accidentally saw some things about 4 years before they were released. GW does think ahead; they've lasted nigh-on 30 years and are a large, successful business, that needs to adapt, and has done plenty of times in the past.

3. The move toward more mobile, larger, multi-player battles with giant expensive gribblies everywhere.

I personally don't like quite a few things that GW's done over the years - being a fan and all - but I don't think they're stupid. This leaked ruleset was a deliberate move to get thousands of free playtesters giving their opinions online, and test the waters with the fanbase. A more balanced game (to start with, at least) will encourage people to have more options in their armies, rather than 'lock in' to one list, and someone's point above about picking the right tools for the mission makes sense to me as well.


That's my tuppence anyway, and yes, it is an opinion with justifications, not fact

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't believe that about the "rules cycles". It seems clear that GW are happy to reinvent the game and rewrite the books continuously as a means to get everyone to regularly buy the game again and for them to invalidate old models and make new ones.

Otherwise you will have people buying a book and models and hardly purchasing anything over the next 8 years because the game remains largely static.

Overall, looks like wishlisting.

This men speaks the TRUTH!

Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...

Captain Roderick wrote:I am also standing in the 'legitimate leak' camp, and give some credence to OP as well. My reasons, in summary:

1. GW leaked a not-quite-finished 5th ed rulebook in exactly the same style as this, about the same time before the proper release. I therefore think (and hope!) the finished version of 6th will be broadly similar to this leaked copy.

2. I have a good friend whom, on his orientation days upon becoming a staff member, accidentally saw some things about 4 years before they were released. GW does think ahead; they've lasted nigh-on 30 years and are a large, successful business, that needs to adapt, and has done plenty of times in the past.

3. The move toward more mobile, larger, multi-player battles with giant expensive gribblies everywhere.

I personally don't like quite a few things that GW's done over the years - being a fan and all - but I don't think they're stupid. This leaked ruleset was a deliberate move to get thousands of free playtesters giving their opinions online, and test the waters with the fanbase. A more balanced game (to start with, at least) will encourage people to have more options in their armies, rather than 'lock in' to one list, and someone's point above about picking the right tools for the mission makes sense to me as well.


That's my tuppence anyway, and yes, it is an opinion with justifications, not fact

While I tend to agree that it's likely a leak, I do see some issues with a couple of the points above.

First, on the issue of style, presumably the putative "forgers" would know about the v5 "leak" and could use that to make their own work more realistic/believable. The style's just not really a solid reason to suggest it's legit per se.

Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite

My sense would be that, most likely, this was a leak that GW didn't condone. There's the old saying that, if two people know something it's not a secret. There have to be a bunch of folks who could have access to the play test rules, and it only takes one person who's disgruntled, wants to share with a mate, or just makes a mistake. GWs had all kinds of trouble with leaks in the recent past, and -likely- none of them were deliberate. Don't see why that would change now.

Valete,

JohnS