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.

**Rented Tritium**

lord_blackfang wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.

So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.

Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.

On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.

Which feels more fluffy. I like it.

**Drachii**

lord_blackfang wrote:
busby wrote:Regardless,

Don't you mean irregardless?

Be nice P:

**Maelstrom808**

lord_blackfang wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.

So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.

Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.

The one scarab that fist smashed into dust didn't find it funny ...although his 29 friends are laughing their asses off

**Kharrak**

tkrettler91 wrote:im starting to notice errors popping up which is increasing my doubt for this being legit., one refering to fantasy rather than 40k "the canny Mekboys of the Orcs" the math for the instant dead example is off as well, ill keep looking but begins to feel unprofessional

As someone stated just earlier, spelling errors are often intentionally used to identify different copies, so if it leaks, one knows exactly which one leaked, and who leaked it.

**gorgon**

It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.

It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.

**Maelstrom808**

Rented Tritium wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.

So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.

Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.

On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.

Which feels more fluffy. I like it.

Yar, single big hits shouldn't really do jack to them, but big AE attacks should just sweep them from the table. I like it.

**puma713**

Rented Tritium wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.

So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.

Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.

On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

So they'll work a lot better against powefists and plasma guns, but they'll die like crazy to virtually any blast or template.

Which feels more fluffy. I like it.

Missed that part. So, a regular Frag Missile uses a 10" blast and causes ID (2)? Yeah, good luck getting into hand-to-hand with the powerfist if that is true.

**Maelstrom808**

gorgon wrote:It appears that Drop Pods, Trygons and Mycetic Spores don't necessarily land "safely" anymore. The codex updates point to using the regular DS rules, under which units landing on top of models, etc. do the minimum distance scatter thing and are then stunned. Ouch. That's a bit of a downer, although I understand that it's a balancing thing for the chance to assault after DSing if you nail the landing.

It's kinda funny...they fixed Trygon tunnels but now I'm not sure if you really want to DS them. Or at least I'm not sure if you want to DS them overly aggressively.

Persnoally, I'd rather have them stunned then lose them altogether, and the drop pods and spores offer valuable protection from defensive fire. I'm mostly depressed that they STILL won't allow primes to accompany a unit of warriors in a pod.

**rigeld2**

Maelstrom808 wrote:I'm mostly depressed that they STILL won't allow primes to accompany a unit of warriors in a pod.

goddammitthis. This is the one thing that depresses me most about the Tyranid FAQ.

**lord_blackfang**

I think the 10" blasts vs. swarms is an error. It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules text as far as I can see and only pops up in that one table that is supposed to only list the names of various blast sizes, not how big they should be depending on the target.

**Maelstrom808**

lord_blackfang wrote:I think the 10" blasts vs. swarms is an error. It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules text as far as I can see and only pops up in that one table that is supposed to only list the names of various blast sizes, not how big they should be depending on the target.

Yeah, I REALLY don't get that part of it. That should be labeled the Apoc Blast. I almost think that it might of originally been for another table.

**ShumaGorath**

lord_blackfang wrote:
busby wrote:Regardless,

Don't you mean irregardless?

That's not an actual word.

**JoeyFox**

This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

**Jidmah**

lord_blackfang wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Clay Williams wrote:Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

Incorrect. You're applying 5th edition ID rules to this leaked text. In this case, you take an additional wound for when the strength of the weapon is 4 more than your toughness. 2 additional wounds if the strength is 5 more than your toughness.

So a Str. 8 Power Fist will cause 3 wounds per hit on a scarab swarm.

Incorrect. Swarms have Eternal Warrior (1) and laugh at your puny fist.

And a squad of killa kanz gets 6 10" S6 blasts when shooting them.

"I wanted to shoot your scarabs, but accidentally bombarded your entire army with scrap metal."

**ShumaGorath**

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

This basically confirms that it's made by GW. Someone on 4chan is trying to discredit it and make people feel bad.

**puma713**

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

lol wow

**Agamemnon2**

Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".

The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".

**Vitruvian XVII**

I for one still think theyre real, seem very interesting.

**Rented Tritium**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".

I agree that's strange. Really not sure what to make of it.

**ShumaGorath**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".

The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".

They have rules for gargantuan creatures and superheavies, so they could just be covering their bases.

**Agamemnon2**

I'm curious to see how they'd play. I wonder if a pair of noble volunteers could find out?

**Sephyr**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Sephyr wrote:From what I heard so far, this edition will be -far- shootier than stabbier. With DF, OW, shooting at things deepstriking too close, sharper blast scattering, the ability to easily target a specific model in a unit, flamers hittim embarked units through fire points and most vehicles and MCs being quite easy to hit, CC looks riskier than ever.

My assessment of it in general terms is shooting is now the focus of the game (as it should be in a sci-fi based game). You have many more options when it comes to shooting, and it is woven into just about every aspect of the game. Assaulting is still a more decisive way of removing an enemy unit (and in many ways more decisive than it was before), but shooting is going to be involved in almost everything you do, one way or another.

Except some armies don't have good/effective shooting options. The current metagame is actually quite shooty if you go competitive: meltavets, Long Fang ML spam, BA razorspam. And now those same twin-linked lascannons and plasma guns hit Daemon Princes, Trygons and vehicles reliably on a 2+? I see many CC units being scrapped.

**ShumaGorath**

Agamemnon2 wrote:I'm curious to see how they'd play. I wonder if a pair of noble volunteers could find out?

I want to try out the new ruleset but we're mid blizzard up in the northeast so I don't think anyone's going to be at FLGS except the magic players.

**Jidmah**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:On the flipside, vulnerable to blasts got way worse for them, causing instant death 2 REGARDLESS of the strength AND using a larger template.

The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".

The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".

They have rules for gargantuan creatures and superheavies, so they could just be covering their bases.

Hellstorm, Bombing Run and Apocalyptic Barrage are also explained, why not 7" and 10" blasts?

**haendas**

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.

**Maelstrom808**

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

Yeah...I think I'll be adding as much salt to a post on 4chan as I do about every other possibility for this document. If him and his buddies are telling the truth, GW needs to get them on their writting staff asap.

**Darkseid**

Can anyone tell me if it's possible for units to assault imidiately after deepstrike? That portion of rules is written in quite a messy way; as far as I read it they can not.

**Rented Tritium**

haendas wrote:
JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.

Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.

**lord_blackfang**

Agamemnon2 wrote:The "weapons use a larger blast marker against swarms" ruling seems really, really weird, and strangely placed, too. Doubly so because according to that table, no weapons natively use the 10" blast. I wondered if the author hadn't simply copypasted the Evasion modifiers table (page 70), whose last row is also "Target unit is a swarm", filled it in with new data, and accidentally forgotten to replace "Target unit is a swarm" with "Apocalyptic Blast".

The text accompanying the table on page 84 supports this, since it talks about the "four most common sizes".

Nice catch. Classic copy/paste error!

(Ir)regarding the 4chan thing, sounds like a troll to me. Why would a fanbook skip a bunch of pages, refer to nonexistent basic rules and narrative sections, have exactly the kind of blank spaces for art and illustrations as real playtest copies do...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkseid wrote:Can anyone tell me if it's possible for units to assault imidiately after deepstrike? That portion of rules is written in quite a messy way; as far as I read it they can not.

You can Engage but not Charge after a DS.

**pretre**

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The 6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly rules into "real GW rules."

Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!