Jan 15, 2012
Judging from the comments it seems everyone has an opinion on the fake 6th edition leak. I want to reiterate that I still think it is fake– I trust my sources until they fail me. With that said I got an email from a reader that laid out the major arguments for the pdf being the real deal.
Before I post you the email I want to mention one thing that came up from various people. I have not been contacted by Games Workshops legal team. They really have better things to do (like dealing with Chapterhouse) than hitting me over the head with an automated legal notice. As well as Jan 15th the second link for the PDF is still up and has been up since Jan 11th so much for GW caring…so far.
#1 Gw uses a very custom font, companies pay huge money, and it’s not
something that anyone but the company who paid for it can use. All of
GW products are written in this font, as well as this leak, there is
no way anyone outside of Gw would have access to that font.#2 for a file that is published back in may, they have a ton of stuff
in it that is only a brand new release, like the necron stuff, the
tesla weapons, the catacomb barges. All of this is in this leak, only
GW would of known about the names of weapons like this so far ahead,
not even the rumors hinted at the names of the weapons.#3 The baron from DE has a very weird rule, the bones of the seer, it
says “Add +1 to your rolls for choosing your deployment area” Now in
5th there is no deployment roll, only first turn roll. But in 6th, you
roll for deployment first, and who ever wins that has to start the
bidding for who goes first.#4 It’s missing the first 22 pages, which if you read the opening
paragraph, it states that you should play a few games with the basic
rules, before moving on to these rules. Why would anyone but GW leave
out the first 22 pages? If someone faked it, why not do 1-100 or how
ever. Instead it’s perfectly laid out for the basic rules. Also the
perfect areas for the artwork…#5 Think of how many options are now viable from ALL codex’s, I mean,
god man spawn are now viable! pyrovores are viable! Everything in one
fell swoop has been brought into line, how many people, how many
hours, and resources would it take for people to play test all of
this? There is no way 1 person could write something this balanced.
Think of going thru each codex looking at everything, and balancing it
against everything else. This isnt a month or 2 process but more then
likely been in effect since 5th hit. Think of the squad leaders having
very weird upgrades that no one would ever take, like invul saves etc
now we know why! 6th is built around squad leaders.#6 Sisters codex, we can all agree sisters got it rough, none of there
stuff made a shred of sense, that is until this book opens it up,
Sisters are better in CC with pistols, have a number of different
pistols, and have twin pistols.
Sisters have assault weapons and flamers.
Sisters make constant use of transport vehicles.
Sisters now have 6++ saves for avoiding critical hits.
Sisters have “normal” power weapons.
Sisters have jump troops, scout troops, walkers and tanks.
Sisters have bolters for rapidfire.
Sisters can give themselves special rules briefly, to better gauge
their usefulness.
Sisters don’t typically assault, but aren’t miserable at it.#7If the black templars are the next codex, then this is a true leak,
the wargear section mentions a “zeal pistol” But nothing like this
exists right now in the game, if the BT codex has it, then this is a
real leak and more then likely more finished then we realize.#8 For a long time, Gw has been switching out box sets for infantry
for a long time now, instead of 20 guardsmen in a box, it’s 10, Slowly
they have changed all of the box sets, with this edition of rules,
they can now sell more infantry easily because this edition favors
both, what costs more? the answer is easy, and thats infantry by a
long shot, even more now that GW has changed everything to smaller
boxes, remember Gw is in this to make money, I highly doubt a
multimillion dollar company is as dumb as we all think they are,
maybe, just maybe, they are smarter then all of us. Maybe this has
been so well planned in advance, that it’s finally coming together?
After all, we would be fools to think that a publicly traded company
would not have a 5 year business plan, maybe this was all apart of it.
Does that pretty much cover it? What other things do you think gives us clues for the PDF being real? Should someone be swayed by these sets of arguments?
pathtyphon
TastyTaste
Frank Austin
fluger
Brent
Dethtron
newsun
AbusePuppy
nyhil
That Teri Girl
reecerobbins
badtaste
Finally and for the record everybody,
GW’s “custom font” isn’t even theirs!
Its Caslan Antique and was originally created for the titles of the play Les Miserable. Look at the picture to the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables_%28musical%29
Look familiar?
GW just snagged it because it looks grim and dark.
That said, I agree with the poster’s conclusion, but for different reasons…
Let’s hear (see) your evidence and conclusion then BigRed……you don’t have troll….
Have you read them all? Have you played them.
Personally, I think they fix a lot of issues in the game, and are actually pretty good. but to each their own…
Let’s hope the rules are a fake because they SUCK!!
These rules are terrible, and completely turn the game on its head, which it doesn’t need. It just doesn’t read like a GW rule set to me. On top of that it just feels like it was written by disgruntled Nid and Eldar players, cause it makes them the best thing EVAR!!! Also how does any of this help Necrons, seeing how they too were supposedly written with 6th in mind, but i don’t see that anywhere.
Real Flyers, Flamers in CC, enemy turn deep striking then defensive firing, open topped vehicles being less vulnerable, better chances at glacing a vehicle to death.. And a lot more. One detail for example: With the “new” terrain and movement wording it makes sense that the C’tan Shards, which already ignore terrain, are able to take assault grenades..
I’m not saying they’ll get better (time will tell), but a lot of the rules make more sense with this possible edition.
I politely disagree that 40k doesn’t need to be turned on its head.
The Rules are, IMO, pretty damn good and whats more pretty damned balanced at first blush. But more than that it actually introduces a large number of variable and interesting mechanics. Personally I have felt that the game was stagnating over the last few editions, streamlining is one thing but needing fewer brain cells to play the game with each new edition is entirely another.
This “rule set” may represent a move back towards an adult wargame rather than an excuse to sell toys to kiddies. (I’m sorry if I sound bitter but I’m just tired of the trend of over simplification) I liked 2nd edition, I will admit that it wasn’t the best rule set and needed a measure of streamlining and clarity, this “6th ed.” may actually be something approaching a happy medium between Over complicated but interesting 2nd and Oversimplified but smooth 5th.
Also a major change to the game wouldn’t in it self be a bad thing all by itself. It’ll shake things up, promote new ideas and shatter current ‘metas’. I find that a good thing, but I am an Army collector type and I can fully understand that List Builder types could cry foul that their carefully crafted armies are not as finely tuned anymore. So there is a reasonable split there, but as my moniker may suggest I am generally a fan of new things.
In what way would these rules make ‘Nids “the best thing EVAR!!!” and you better be really convincing if you’re going to combine poor internet grammar, caps, and 3 exclamation marks. Sure ‘Nids might actually field Pyrovores, but our monstrous creatures just got easier to hit, still don’t have invul. saves and can still get wounded by Str 3 wpns. It aids balance it doesn’t make anyone stupidly good.
The only point here that is legit is the one about BT and we wont know that till the codex comes out. All the other stuff could have easily been written around the current books. Just because the file was created at a certain date doesn’t mean that is can’t be/wasn’t modified later. If you wanted to fake this/create new rules on your own it wouldn’t be as hard as people are saying. You get your local gaming group to give ideas/ suggestions on what’s wrong with the current armies for the FAQs, and you source the best rules from all the different gaming systems out there. None of these reasons are “proof” of anything, they’re all just speculation, with most of them not even beig logical.
Your right about the BT stuff. Also your right, this could easily have been written around the current books, and what if anything is new about the Tau in all this, cause they’re supposed to be getting a new codex in the next few months, wheres the new info about them eh? People act like they couldn’t have known about Tesla weapons and other stuff from the Cron codex. I mean seriously how long has that codex been out. Certainly long enough for someone to have edited the new stuff in.
Agree entirely and to be perfectly honest, ‘zeal pistol’? For BT? Even if it in the BT next codex it’s hardly watertight evidence, it’s not as it there aren’t already a hundred mentions of the word ‘zeal’ in the BT codex..
Err what ?
I only play DE and Eldar and Ihope to hell this does not come to pass, this ruleset gimps eldar especially fast skimmers and bikes, the EV rules are a bad joke, DE are especially screwed.
Tanks get harder yet dark glances stay the same? Based on the apparent pricing in the DE book I had expected an improvement for 6th based on these rules the already pathetic and overpriced DE AT got worse?
I pray for something else, currently I just wont want to play with my armies
The only points of the entire thing that could potentially hold any water are the first two and they’ve both been disproved.
Who really gives a S*it? It will either come down as real or a fake in a few months. What we all should be doing is spending our valuable time painting or waiting in line for the AVENGERS movie in May…LOL.
It doesn’t strike me as compellingly authentic, but then again, I’ve seen much shoddier drafts from much larger and well-established companies. Real or not, at least it’s gotten everyone talking about something other than lists for a minute.
#1 It’s a well known font that anyone could download and use.
#2 Come on, even I can change the date to whatever I want.
#4 Why a hoaxer would have left the first 22 pages out? Easy explanation: Too much typing. To some peaople (like you) it may also add credibility, being a real leak. If it is a leak then to me it appears to be in a very early stage. So why are there even page numbers? There were no page numbers in the 5th edition leak which turned out to be pretty much the final version.
#5 Is it really that balanced? How can we know that after half a week?
I’m not at all convinced that a single person could not create such a ruleset. Lots of sections are copy/pasted anyway. And maybe the hoaxer was not alone.
#6 That the rules are better (for some armies) is no proof to me. Could still be wishlisting. 40k rules are not as complex as some people believe.
#7 We will see. It would still not convince me though. Maybe the hoaxer had a source that told him one or two things about future releases. In my opinion the hoaxer left the Black Templars FAQ out and put stuff like zeal pistols into the pdf to make it more credible.
If a hoaxer puts so much effort into writing the rules, he will also put effort into ways to make the hoax look authentic.
The hints like the PDF-releasedate and the left out Black Templars are are just too obvious to me…
New FAQ’s for all armies are out but there’s none for BT.
But as I said, I’m still not convinced. If the PDF creator had no insider information it’s been a 50:50 chance to guess right (Tau or BT).
So we know almost nothing about the next army release and then suddenly the complete ruleset of the 6th edition appears, full of hints for upcomming codex and model releases? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Maybe the guy who wrote the e-mail to BoK is the author? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Look in the flyer rules and notice the “Fighter” option. It’s not applied to any existing unit, which tells me, much like the Zeal pistol, that these rules were built with rules for the future in mind.
#1: Well, as shown above, this is totally false. Faking a font can be varying degrees of difficult, but if someone really wanted to do it there are plenty of ways they could.
#2: I doubt this is the real publication date, so this is irrelevant.
#3: This one just implies that GW isn’t bad at writing its own rules. Which it is, we all know that. Plenty of their rules, as written, simply don’t work. DE are so fantastically far ahead of 6E I can’t imagine them even knowing that far in advance, much less planning for it.
#4: This would similarly be a pretty simple thing to think of. If they put the mention about “simplified rules” in, they would naturally support that by numbering the pages appropriately. It isn’t any more convincing than saying “But the stats on all the weapons are right, they couldn’t have known ALL of them!”
#5: People said this about 5E when it came out, too. I think that if we spent a month or two actually using these rules you’d find they’re far, far worse in terms of balance than the 5E rules are.
#6: These rules don’t make SoB viable, or even passable, in assault. They’re still T3 and I3. They still don’t have Stubborn, Fearless, or an immunity to being Swept. As for the other stuff… SoB don’t benefit any more than other armies do. They’re crippled by few/poor options more than anything else.
#7: Again, this is basically seeing something in there that has no meaning and pointing to it as some kind of “proof.” Everyone knows that BT are on the watch list for an update. If this is a hoax (and it probably is), they can easily lend “credibility” by playing to people’s unfounded beliefs.
#8: Tanks get drastically stronger by these rules; infantry mostly get weaker in comparison. Tanks can only get killed on a 6 on the damage table (or, at worst, a 5+); the fact that they are getting hit on 2s instead of 3s doesn’t even begin to compensate for that.
Selling a transport with every squad is good money for GW- 35pts for US$35 is a beautiful thing for them. They definitely don’t want to go back to 4E “metal deathtrap” world and will likely keep the rules in line with this.
This looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time
Also tells us more about these special company owned fonts that GW makes extra special and can’t be duplicated in anyway.
What about these old rumours?
http://bloodofkittens.com/network/members/rideroftheerk/
Someone knew about the PDF contents 7 months ago, and was sharing information about it already on this site.
or they liked th rumours and based their hoax on them. since we cannot establish the credibility of the document itself, the similarity to rumors cannot be valid evidence. it’s an annoying little detail called causality.
@dork_mechanicus,I agree.Just fascinated by the short memories of most Internet users, and trying to establish that true or false this PDF is not a sudden out of the blue appearance but is either the basis or end product of an extensive series of rumours from last Summer.
Something to keep in mind is that these rumours include stuff, from ALL the different GWS rulesets, INCLUDING Space Hulk and DreadFleet. (ie copy pasted much)
The rules are horribly complex and interact with each other in an extremely confusing fashion. There are rules which effect rules which stack or negate or modify other rules. Not ideal from a game design perspective when you can’t even get basic codexes working.
Alot of the rules are also wishlisting that has been seen on MANY forums for years, it would take alot of effort (a good day or two) to put this together, BUT its certainly possible, and honestly about 85% of this stuff I’ve seen suggested by players in the last 2-3 years on various forums, for various armies and codexes.
Finally no matter what people think or say GWS market this game for an age group that is basically the 12-16s whose parents buy them everything and who keep the empire alive through parents using GWS as a babysitting service. 40k is a cash cow due to this fact, and while ‘simple’ rules may sound like a great excuse to keep the kiddies involved the kind of backlash it could cause could be huge.
5E is pretty reasonable, and with a few SMALL tweaks could be easily fixed and balanced.
The only thing I’ve heard from a GWS employee is that its 40k’s 25th anniversary some time this year, I don’t actually know if this is correct, and they generally seem to get their info from the same websites I see full of rumours, but we all know GWS is retarded at creating rules so while its UNLIKELY this is real, their standards are so low it could be.
EVEN if it is a fake, GWS might just take it and turn it into 6E simply to save themselves all the work needed.
It would at least explain the SW/GK codexes – their level of imbalance makes perfect sense if they were made by some rabid fan and then used by GWS because they CBF making their own rules.
I play tested these rules a few times now, and although they seem complex I assure you they are not.
They way they are written, it definitely appears complex, with the nature of actions and action types. There are maybe 4 or 5 actions that are totally new or not only slightly different then 5th ed were. The games would be considerably faster then 5th ed if it wasn’t for the stratagems and the time it takes to account for victory points (both of which I will get faster with more play).
Movement is no longer random (except for just a few units and instances) and conducted in mainly one phase. That alone constitutes a 30% (approx.) time reduction.
Games are bloodier also: first turn charges, stationary units getting hit on 2+, reduced and harder to get cover saves, sweeping advance only fails on 5+, and surrounded rule to name a few. Unit counts start shrink very rapidly, making it later game turns very fast.
Streamlining of core mechanics like wound allocation, cover saves, moving up in ruins, vehicle damage and modifiers, all make for a simpler faster game.
There are a few holes in the game that in these rules are either not fleshed out or I just don’t get, but just a few. The game itself however is very very fun.
I am saddened that Monstrous creatures are even softer, and I haven;t tested my Tyranids list in any of these games yet, but I fear that Terv/Trygon based list will suffer even more. However the Look out Sergeant action, and the fact that monsters can now go to ground will hopefully offset the -1 to EV.
Either way, the fact that it is good game doesn’t lend credibility to it being a fake or vice-versa. I think it seems more probable that this is real set of play test rules, but I would’t bet a whole dollar on it.
Either way its worth a try!
I wonder how can it be faster when you have to consult 100+ pages of new rules and your own army Faq in order to play one game. Not to mention to apply more rules to stuff that needed none (eg. EV table, new destriking rules,vehicles rulings, etc.)
You mean just like a new player picking up 5th edition?
Read the rules, play some games. Its amazing.
It doesn’t matter if it is a fake, this is 6th edition.
Why?
A new rule book will be out in June/July and if it turns out that this is a fake, then the community will start playing with the better of the two.
Madness. These rules may seem obtuse and ill fitting, but they are actually quite elegant and surprisingly universal. Games do in fact move much faster, even with pauses to check rules. I think hoax is definitely the wrong word, if the document is not actually a GW work draft, then it is an inspired and incredibly well designed set of alternate rules that should see a lot of life if 6e turns out to be disappointing.
If I wasn’t being effusive enough to make this clear: I love these rules and plan on using them whenever possible until a better set of rules becomes available, and I find it to be superior to 5e in more ways than it isn’t.
The May 2011 date is hardly relevant because even if it wasn’t entirely possible that the meta-data of the file is tampered with the DakkaDakka rumours, which had all that information on Barges and Teslas were confirmed in this very site, came out on 1st of May 2011…
+1