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**

pretre 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."

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

You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.

**pretre**

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

You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.

I lol'd.

Seriously though, I think it is really up in the air. I need to create a sock puppet on here and pretend to be the disgruntled GW employee who leaked it now.

**puma713**

Rented Tritium wrote:

You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

**decoy101**

has anyone tryed these rules yet?

**Perkustin**

Yeah cant help but feel that disclaimer is soon to have a post from the OP saying 'lolololololololol got you Warhamz F*GS!'.

I am sorry for being a lazy bum and not reading the thread (bar the bookends) but are vehicles effected at all, will mech still be the Norm?

**JoeyFox**

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

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.

I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.

**puma713**

Perkustin wrote: but are vehicles effected at all, will mech still be the Norm?

if these are the rules, then there's lots of things affecting lots of things. Very little, if anything, didn't get changed.

For instance, you cannot hold objectives while embarked, and you have to hold an objective for an entire turn before you get a VP for it. That alone affects vehicles and parking lots.

**Bulkoth**

I wonder how the new Look out Sarge! Rule could interact with the "if an attack can target a single model in a unit it becomes a new unit" does that mean that snipers can target a mini all they want but because there may be "another unit" infront of it (with that single mini counting as a unit) then the larger unit could take a "critical hit" to give their character/special weapon a cover save?

**lunarman**

puma713 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

You know how to fake rules, so clearly I shouldn't read the rulebook in front of you, but knowing that the rules were fake, you would put them far from yourself, so clearly I should not read the rules in front of me.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Hhaha, you've given everything away. I know which rules are which!

**Maelstrom808**

Sephyr wrote:
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.

You endup with a trade off though. On MCs, while they are getting hit more reliably, they also don't have the insane fear of a single hit wiping them from the table. Instead of a few armies being able to laugh them off, while others struggle, everyone's ability to deal with them has become more leveled. On vehicles, I think they generally took a hit in overall power levels, but personally, I'm happy to see that. Obviously others may not agree. CC should be very risky to encourage you to shoot a unit into the ground before you mop it up by overrunning it, rather than try to build insane CC units to wipe everything from straightaway.

Obviously, that's just my take on it. I'm sure plenty would disagree.

**gorgon**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
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.

You have a good chance of losing the unit if it's stunned. Trygons in particular would face a round of DF at EV1, then be unable to move, shoot, etc. Then it'd suffer more shooting at EV1 in the opponent's turn. This is going to force more conservative drops...since stunned is a bad place to be, you won't want to use scatter shenangians to ensure point-blank arrivals like you can now.

Regarding that comment on /tg/, if it was written by random /tg/ users, it would have been incomprehensibly written and scribed in oil crayon on paper towels, complete with smudges and fingerprints. That comment is either someone having fun or some disinformation from GW itself. Who'd add in the stuff about vehicle dice and hobby centers if it was a homebrewed, just-for-fun thing? And how did a doc written in May have accurate info on Tesla weapons?

**Maelstrom808**

Perkustin wrote:I am sorry for being a lazy bum and not reading the thread (bar the bookends) but are vehicles effected at all, will mech still be the Norm?

Vehicles in general haven't changed much. Maybe took a little hit overall in resilliance. Transports took a pretty decent kick in the nuts as safe, reliable means of moving units from point A to B.

**His Master's Voice**

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

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.

I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.

It's not that you can't make a document like this look real. It's that you don't make a clearly pre production version of the rules with blanks for diagrams and illustrations and references to nonexistent text for the purpose of your local gaming group.

**streamdragon**

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.

I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds. Template weapons getting ID(2) simply allows the weapon to bypass the ED(1) on swarms. A heavy flamer (S5) against a T3 swarm will still only cause 1 wound. A frag missle/grenade will still only cover one, maybe two models (2" coherency, 1.5" radius on the small template), will not cause extra wounds (S isn't high enough; "Vulnerable to Blasts" only causes double hits on vehicle units) and will basically be less effective than they are now.

Now, if it's true that a frag grenade/missle suddenly uses the 10" pie plate when targeting swarms (which I doubt) then sure, those weapons got better in that they'll hit more models. Overall killing power of said weapon has gone down, however.

**Necronic Angel**

Drake118 wrote:
Zomjie wrote:
Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers

I know there is a section in the book dedicated to flyers. If you reread it, you will notice that in that "Flyers" section it clearly says that there is no Flyers Unit Type and that units become Flyers by making Supersonic Moves. So a unit can Take on the Flyer Special Rule until the start of its next turn, in which case it can Supersonic again, keeping the rules for Flying.

There are no flyer units, however there are units that inherently have the Flyer USR always, (eg. Stormraven, Necron Scythes, etc.) Other vehicles that move supersonic gain the flyer USR for the turn they moved supersonic.

I like this as it makes the Night Scythes much more desirable for the necrons, along with the new reserve rules it makes it a safe, hard to hit flying transport, while the stormraven while still hard to hit if you have any embarked units they are now lost if the raven is destroyed or immobilized.

**streamdragon**

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

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.

I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.

If you're just whipping up something to use among friends, why include spaces for diagrams and suggest using Official GW Damage Dice?

**JoeyFox**

His Master's Voice wrote:
It's not that you can't make a document like this look real. It's that you don't make a clearly pre production version of the rules with blanks for diagrams and illustrations and references to nonexistent text for the purpose of your local gaming group.

Unless your intent is to fool everyone, using your FLGS rules as a base... but still a -lot- of work for a troll.

**ShumaGorath**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Sephyr wrote:
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.

You endup with a trade off though. On MCs, while they are getting hit more reliably, they also don't have the insane fear of a single hit wiping them from the table. Instead of a few armies being able to laugh them off, while others struggle, everyone's ability to deal with them has become more leveled. On vehicles, I think they generally took a hit in overall power levels, but personally, I'm happy to see that. Obviously others may not agree. CC should be very risky to encourage you to shoot a unit into the ground before you mop it up by overrunning it, rather than try to build insane CC units to wipe everything from straightaway.

Obviously, that's just my take on it. I'm sure plenty would disagree.

Guntanks got significantly better, transports used in the role got worse. It's nice.

**pretre**

streamdragon wrote:If you're just whipping up something to use among friends, why include spaces for diagrams and suggest using Official GW Damage Dice?

IF that scenario is correct, then the official GW damage dice thing is just taking the piss.

**hypertreeman**

They seem to reference a "Look Here First" type of rules, probably the first 21 or so missing pages, or a extra booklet. Not likely a fan produced set unless they meant to be a hoax.

**Maelstrom808**

gorgon wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
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.

You have a good chance of losing the unit if it's stunned. Trygons in particular would face a round of DF at EV1, then be unable to move, shoot, etc. Then it'd suffer more shooting at EV1 in the opponent's turn. This is going to force more conservative drops...since stunned is a bad place to be, you won't want to use scatter shenangians to ensure point-blank arrivals like you can now.

Regarding that comment on /tg/, if it was written by random /tg/ users, it would have been incomprehensibly written and scribed in oil crayon on paper towels, complete with smudges and fingerprints. That comment is either someone having fun or some disinformation from GW itself. Who'd add in the stuff about vehicle dice and hobby centers if it was a homebrewed, just-for-fun thing? And how did a doc written in May have accurate info on Tesla weapons?

Honestly, it's up to the player to judge the risk, just like it has always been for deep striking, only now you have much better options for protecting the unit. There are heavy risks involved, but they are also easier to avoid.

**gorgon**

Like I said, if the new Tyranid creature is a Cerebore, that should pretty much nail down the rules' authenticity. Unless you want to believe this gaming group also magically guessed that one in addition to Tesla weapons. Also kinda funny how Preferred Enemy on Destroyers suddenly makes some sense under these new rules. Guess this gaming group also anticipated Destroyers getting a useless PE rule in a codex that wasn't released yet and worked up a solution. Man, those guys are AMAZING.

**lord_blackfang**

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

**Painnen**

I think vehicles got a boost in the sense that all their occupants can now assault out of them depending on speed of course.

i also think that 'weopon destroyed' going away was big too. no longer can you just knock off the deathray, battlecannon, phelm, etc.

**lord_blackfang**

I would say Transports are a bit less appealing and shooty vehicles a bit more.

Overall they are a bit tougher to damage initially but more vulnerable to stacking minor damage results.

**Cult of My Boy Blue**

Can not get to them at work, can someone send me a copy of the rules PDF... please

mlamonda2012@gmail.com

**Maelstrom808**

streamdragon wrote:
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.

I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds. Template weapons getting ID(2) simply allows the weapon to bypass the ED(1) on swarms. A heavy flamer (S5) against a T3 swarm will still only cause 1 wound. A frag missle/grenade will still only cover one, maybe two models (2" coherency, 1.5" radius on the small template), will not cause extra wounds (S isn't high enough; "Vulnerable to Blasts" only causes double hits on vehicle units) and will basically be less effective than they are now.

.

This is incorrect. Just like current rules, ID can happen from one of two sources: Either a weapon with S above a particular threshold, or a specific special rule on the weapon or attack. Neither has any reliance on the other.

**frgsinwntr**

pretre 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."

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

Yea cause a group would totally write a fwd to veteran players if it was for their own group only!

**puma713**

Maelstrom808 wrote:

This is incorrect. Just like current rules, ID can happen from one of two sources: Either a weapon with S above a particular threshold, or a specific special rule on the weapon or attack. Neither has any reliance on the other.

And swarms are going to be more vulnerable, since they cannot hide behind other units. So, you either keep them hidden behind cover in fear of blasts (and then they have a tough time using Bounding Leap/Gallop), or you keep them out in the open and weather the storm.

**streamdragon**

lord_blackfang wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.