New Warhammer 40k ruleset?

**jettzypher** · 14th January 2012 16:20

some of these supposed changes i like, others i think are plain silly. theres a chance if a lot of these wind up being true and i dont like the direction it takes the game, then its easy enough to just play 5th edition or not at all.

**SonsOfStalingrad** · 14th January 2012 16:32

I eavesdropped on someone asking 'bout this in my store today.
They said GW head office is telling the stores to say it's a fake.
He also mentioned that if it were an outdated playtest or leaked copy of some test version of the rules, they would not legally be allowed to claim it was a fake.
Ergo, it is probably fake.

**SourImplant** · 14th January 2012 17:04

Originally Posted by SonsOfStalingrad

I eavesdropped on someone asking 'bout this in my store today.
They said GW head office is telling the stores to say it's a fake.
He also mentioned that if it were an outdated playtest or leaked copy of some test version of the rules, they would not legally be allowed to claim it was a fake.
Ergo, it is probably fake.

It's illegal to lie in the UK? Hell, in my country we look for the best liars every four years and give them new high profile jobs.

**SonsOfStalingrad** · 14th January 2012 17:14

Well, sour, my source IS a redshirt. Take the statement with a pinch of salt.

**SourImplant** · 14th January 2012 17:37

Originally Posted by SonsOfStalingrad

Well, sour, my source IS a redshirt. Take the statement with a pinch of salt.

**PyroSikTh** · 14th January 2012 18:25

Originally Posted by Pox

(though if it was a real document would have figured GW would have done steps to remove it, as everyone knows how tight they are on IP - this kinda lends some credence to it being an eloborate hoax by virtue of it still being around.)

It's still around? From what I've been reading (and searching myself), it became suddenly really hard to get hold of after a day or so.

Originally Posted by daddy4count

The BoK article is replaced with one that says it's a fake...

The BoK articles are constantly being changed on the subject. One says it's the real deal, then they go back and say it must be a fake, and then they come back again saying they're wrong and it is real and...whatever dudes, just admit you know as much as we do.

If it is a fake, I honestly don't care. With a few tweaks to make the space elves less broken, this is one of the best rulesets I've seen.

The other thing to consider, of course, is it's neither real nor fake. It's not the rules we'll be playing with in summer, but some uber-nerd with no job and no life didn't spend pointless hours making it look authentic either. My personal belief is it's a playtest, possibly an early one, possibly not, but either way it's not the final rules.

**Gendoikari87** · 18th January 2012 23:16

Originally Posted by SourImplant

It's illegal to lie in the UK? Hell, in my country we look for the best liars every four years and give them new high profile jobs.

I laughed because it was funny, I cried because it was true.

**Beastarino** · 19th January 2012 17:23

as i was too lazy to read the whole thing i might just know a guy who has a copy of them and that guy might be willing to share for enough internet cookies.

**Ribber** · 20th January 2012 02:46

Take it for what you will...

I work in a hobby store and received a call from the GW rep today, for yet another round of high pressure sales. After a bit of chatting, the subject of these "leaked" rules came up. He denied there's any credibility to them. Also, Matt Ward has not been fired but is likely going to be heading the 40K department. Good fight, xeno players

**SourImplant** · 2nd February 2012 17:17

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/...ter-boxed.html

Originally Posted by 75hastings69

I don't know if the spine images are anything to do with DA, 6th starter or the 25th year of 40k but I do know that most of the stuff posted is correct. 6th starter does indeed feature DA and the forces of chaos, including a nice plastic chaos dread

I'm also willing to add (and you'll need to forgive my weak 40k fu here) that the CSM in the starter are Chosen? (hope that's the right name - 40k really isn't my thing!!)

**Morr** · 2nd February 2012 22:25

Dont trust any BOLS rumours. All that templar and Tau stuff? Yeah? the guy who is regarded as a reliable source who started that stuff just came out and admitted it was a load of crap. Who knows what people come up with and decide to post.

Also with regards to GW staff denying it, havent we learned this lesson yet? GW staff chat absolute bullshit. Ive been readily assured that Eldar,Darkeldar and harlequins are going to get a combined codex since before the last eldar one came out. If GW couldnt bullshit customers the stores would be an aweful lot quieter.

**Badarmies2** · 5th February 2012 12:32

The rules are not fake, and if they are, GW is done because these rules are the best rule set ever for 40k. Anyhow I wonder if all the people saying they are fake will still be so brash when 6th comes out and it turns out they are leaked play test rules.

**Morr** · 5th February 2012 19:12

The best rules set ever? Its an early playtest version which doesnt run well as an actuall game. enough people have playtested it on the net to test how good it is and have run up against all sorts of problems in the mechnics of the rules set. Just because it has a lot of things in it you think would be fun/better than now doesnt mean it would be a good ruleset. Overwatch in particular is something im dead against. Remember the blue reaction decks of MTG? no one wants to play a game where the loser is whoever gets bored first and moves into range. Im not saying this is real or fake, just that it doesnt matter either way as its not a finished product yet. Also a number of the ideas are possible and may well make it into 6th regardless of if they are from this document or not. There will be no more evidence then than there is now so all the "brash" people will not have been proved wrong.

Point being "brash" people are entitled to their opinions. And if either side is proved wrong making an issue of it discourages people to express their opinions. which defeats the object of having a forum.

**Gendoikari87** · 5th February 2012 20:13

I like overwatch, I mean who's going to get the drop on who, the guys running into a building or the guys already set up there waiting for dumbass #1 and dumbass #2 to run into the open.

**wookieplus** · 5th February 2012 21:39

Overwatch has its place in wargames attempting to mirror real life action.

WH40k is not that - the lack of overwatch means that fragile units like Wyches can charge into combat - which lets face it isnt how 'hi tech' battles happen. Overwatch would mean IG troopers would suddenly become king - able to gun down anything that had the temerity to try and assault them.

Overwatch would therefore both unbalance the game and turn it into far more static firefights (as @Morr suggests)

**iceizzle** · 7th February 2012 15:08

I didn't know exactly where to post this question, but with all the rumors of 6th edition and being a new player; do you think it is wise to begin purchasing models ahead of the new rumored edition?

I'm assuming the core units and core rules of the game wouldn't change much so it would most likely be a safe bet to purchase things such as troops choices and transports?

Concerned noob

**The Dark Pwner** · 7th February 2012 16:29

The rules wont change that much mate. continue buying your models.

**Badarmies2** · 10th February 2012 01:16

We have been playing the 6th fake/real/leak/playtest whatever you want to call them, and while yes there are a few holes (tiny to be honest) overall the flow is good. Much faster than 5th. All of your movement is essentially done in one phase which when playing a horde list like orks shaves and easy 15 minutes off of every turn. We have pretty much decided if it is fake we will clean up the few errors and mistakes and probably keep it if sixth isn't damn close to it.

**jettzypher** · 10th February 2012 03:46

All of your movement is essentially done in one phase

correct me if im wrong, but i thought everything was already done that way? >.>

some of the "proposed" changes look good, and others flat out suck. if when this gets released and it seems like the ruleset blows, the dudes i play with have decided we'll just continue on with version five and not think twice on it. seems the way to go. dont like the system? find people who prefer an older/newer one and stick to that. unless of course you plan on playing in major tournaments and such.

**commandojimbob** · 14th February 2012 10:36

Just spotted something interesting in the GK codex under the Personal teleporter rules on page 28

The last 6 words of the rule (which in itself is a sentance, all be it small) say "The unit counts as having moved."

Currently within 5th Edition, I cannot think of any occassion where tracking whether infantry have moved or not makes any difference. In the leaked 6th edition rules (still dont believe its fake), infantry that has moved affects its "Evasion" value -I cant remember but I think jump infantry get a specific modifier as well (maybe wrong).

Is this a hint of 6th edition - which if it is corresponds to a small part of the leaked rules.

Interesting ?