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.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

I agree, oddly having a daft typo such as having 4 shoulder weapons is probably more of a feather in the real cap, it's on form.

*looks at Chaos Fellblade entry in Imperial Armour Compendium *

*reads*

Transport:This model has a transport capacity of 25 <LEGION> INFANTRY models. Each JUMP PACK or TERMINATOR model takes up the space of two models and each CULT OF DESTRUCTION model takes up the space of 3 models.

Yup, definitely makes it look more authentic.

 Kanluwen wrote:
From OK_Entrepeneur over on the Reddits:

No new models for imperial Two new models for chaos

A rule about how heroic your army is doing in four different categories and as you become more heroic the more abilities you gain

A squirre mechanic where your big knights can tell a little knight to just be better

Also, says the datasheets are fakes.

I vaguely remember a statement from around the start of 9th saying every book would get a minimum of one new model/sculpt to go with it - if the above is true, I believe IK would be the first to break that pattern, which seems a little odd, though I acknowledge that Knights are a tricky one to add a new model/sculpt to. Can't remember who made the statement, either, or whether it was something the community came up with.

@Gadzilla - The issue there being that the Fellblade isn't meant to be a transport, right?

 Dysartes wrote:
@Gadzilla - The issue there being that the Fellblade isn't meant to be a transport, right?

Yes. It appears to be a copy & paste from the Chaos Spartan, and was 'fixed' via FAQ.

beast_gts wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
@Gadzilla - The issue there being that the Fellblade isn't meant to be a transport, right?

Yes. It appears to be a copy & paste from the Chaos Spartan, and was 'fixed' via FAQ.

Yeah, which is why "little mistakes" in a datasheet don't necessarily make them look less authentic. But if this OK_ENTREPENEUR individual says that these are fakes, I'll take their word on it, because they've been pretty accurate in the past.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

I wonder if this was a real leak but GW pulled one of those leaker bait things again with different fake books given to different printers to track down who is doing all the leaking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

Mild compared to what fakers done before.

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

Mild compared to what fakers done before.

Anybody else remember the fake 6th edition rules? What was it that it was called online, pancake edition?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

Mild compared to what fakers done before.

Anybody else remember the fake 6th edition rules? What was it that it was called online, pancake edition?

Pancake edition?

A much better set of rules than what we got from GW

M.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lot of effort for fake sheets.

Mild compared to what fakers done before.

Anybody else remember the fake 6th edition rules? What was it that it was called online, pancake edition?

Pancake edition?

Yeah, supposedly someone got hold of a draft of the mechanical rules (so, just the mechanics, no fluff or pictures etc.) from the upcoming 6th edition, in pdf form.

The password of the pdf was pancake, hence "pancake edition". It was a total fabrication, someone went to the effort of writing their own complete overhaul of 40k's rules and then "leaking" it online.

Where they better then the GW original 6th ed core rules ?

Karol wrote:
Where they better then the GW original 6th ed core rules ?

YES

M.

Must have been nice to see the real thing. I for one hope that the knight players get a win rate even higher then the 98% (excluding mirrors) harlis have around here. If any players deserve some fun it is them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
someone went to the effort of writing their own complete overhaul of 40k's rules and then "leaking" it online.

wich was legit by the time, as a lot of people/groups wrote their version of 40k by that time for different reason
and you got no one to play with them, even finding testers outside the design groups was nearly impossible because "not official"

but as soon as community written rules were "a leak from GW" random people played it and gave feedback online of their impression

and writing the core of 40k is not that hard, even GW can come up with decent core rules, but getting the army rules right is

Karol wrote:
Must have been nice to see the real thing. I for one hope that the knight players get a win rate even higher then the 98% (excluding mirrors) harlis have around here. If any players deserve some fun it is them.

I'd like them to land at 50% ideally but appreciate that's unlikely. Note: still no quad Hammerhead lists topping anything.