WarSeer Official Discussion of the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rule Set

[Wintermute]

Games Workshop are making it known that the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rules pdf is a hoax.

We at Warseer were reluctant to discuss the leaked pdf because we very quickly recognised it for what it truly was.

Now GW has distanced itself from 'leaked document, we now are happy for it to be discussed on WarSeer, but only in this thread.

As usual any and all off-topic comments will be removed without warning.

Wintermute

[ForgottenLore]

What is the evidence that it is a hoax? I have seen some compelling arguments in both directions.

My thing is, the leaked document has a large number of striking similarities to the Blood of Kittens info dump from last June (tiered special rules, change of turn structure), and a couple of the more reliable rumor mongers here said at the time that those rumors 'hit more than they missed'.

[Sunshine and Night]

What is the evidence that it is a hoax? I have seen some compelling arguments in both directions.

My thing is, the leaked document has a large number of striking similarities to the Blood of Kittens info dump from last June (tiered special rules, change of turn structure), and a couple of the more reliable rumor mongers here said at the time that those rumors 'hit more than they missed'.

You could argue that a hoax(/leaked) ruleset delibrately!(Playing devils advocate) uses those rumors as a base!

But, Yes, can someone show me(we?,us?) how its a definate fake?

[Eddie Chaos]

What is the evidence that it is a hoax? I have seen some compelling arguments in both directions.

My thing is, the leaked document has a large number of striking similarities to the Blood of Kittens info dump from last June (tiered special rules, change of turn structure), and a couple of the more reliable rumor mongers here said at the time that those rumors 'hit more than they missed'.

yes but any Hoaxers would also have read that info dump

[Wintermute]

What is the evidence that it is a hoax?

I take it you haven't seen this:

According to reds8n over at dakka there will be an email distributed to UK stores saying that the rules are not genuine and have nothing to do with GW. News of that should hit tomorrow or so and it would probably be wise to await further indication that something is/isn't happening.

which was posted two days ago?

[Sunshine and Night]

Ninja'd!

But yes this is the interwebz anyone could read it even Her Majesty, The Queen!

I take it Satan, is a reliable source?

[Wintermute]

reds8n is reliable and is also a member here.

[Marked_by_chaos]

Whilst it could be a hoax it seems hard to believe that it is entirely incredible

1. The sheer amount of time that would have to be taken
2. It is cross referenced and nuanced to a degree that would have taken significant time to playtest
3. The sheer size
4. I think people are too hung up on typo's or presentation. If it genuinely is May 2010 then it would be consistent with a mid-late playtest draft. I'd be suprised if a few things weren't tweaked or tightened up but surely the final rules would only go off for proper proof reading and smartening up a few months before the book was sent to print. That would still be constitent with the timeline.

[Charax]

Right, 'cos GW have never spread misinformation about any of their upcoming products ever, right.

Hey, remember when Space Hulk didn't come out? That was a massive disappointment.

[Sunshine and Night]

If it is truly a fake, then I will make a new tabletop game with those rules!

[Bunnahabhain]

Good thing it is a hoax.

There are some diamonds in it, but each and every one is buried under a huge heap of rubbish...

[Kaltenberg]

Reasons to belive it was not a fake:

-Sheer amount of work put into it.
-Same font as GW
-GW worked hard to pull the plug on all the sites "leaking" it.
-Fits with the current set of rumors (atleast sort of)

Reasons to belive it was a fake:

-Sheer amount of changes is unhead of.
-Many wordings/rules does not use usual GW lingu. (Jink?)
-Too many chances seems like wishlisting.

Evidence in either way: None.
Speculation is all we have.

[sturguard]

I dont think it is a hoax, I definitely believe it was at least created from something GW had in the pipeline- maybe a rough draft they started with. What if it was the official copy of the rules, do you think GW would come out and say "yes those are the rules we are sending to the printer"? If it is in no way GW official, I think they have a problem, I read through the rules and in my opinion (and some friends), putting all army bias aside, I think these rules are far superior to what GW has in place now, and most likely will be better than what they print for 6th edition. GW might be in a bind.

[jspyd3rx]

So if we see the tyranid Cerebor as mentioned in the "leak", would this thread be shut down because it turned out it wasn't a hoax? Don't forget the secret box isn't Space Hulk.

[Theocracity]

I have a really hard time believing that these rules are a hoax, just based on the amount of work that's gone into it. If the person(s) responsible for this aren't professional game designers, they should be (and need a real job), and if they are professional game designers they'd be working on their own game - not 40K's.

Even previous convincing hoaxes have, in retrospect, betrayed the essential fan-nature of their content. The Blood Angels dex, for example, had a cavalry unit of Blood Angels riding giant vampire bats - which, coming on the heels of the Space Wolves codex, was a huge red flag.

I think what's shocking about this set is that it manages to change everything without really changing anything. There are new tactical considerations, and certain units have more utility options than before, but most units will move, shoot or assault basically the same way they do now.

In addition, the picayune nature of some of the content speaks to me as something that is either the sign of a real developer (if it's professional) or someone on the autism spectrum (if it's a hoax). The FAQs in particular are full of notes that change absolutely nothing except update the terminology to match the new rules set.

And I also don't believe that this was a fan-dex that was compiled without intention of being a hoax. Besides all the extraneous text designed to write like a GW codex, there's several references that hawk GW products - some of which don't even exist yet, like the 'Vehicle Damage Dice.' If this isn't official, it's hard to believe it wasn't intended to be a hoax.

I'm fully willing to believe, however, that the content of the docs was professionally developed by GW but don't have anything to do with 6th edition rules as they will appear. That way, it's fine to claim they're fake - because they won't appear as they are, regardless of the fact that they could have been.

[Scammel]

As much as they're renowned for bad rules, I doubt even GW is stupid enough to make all monstrous creatures S10 or would allow frag missiles to hit half your army because they were initially directed at a swarm. It's also worth noting that the 'wound everything on a 6' that's present in Fantasy is lacking. Others have also pointed out the Germanisms present.

[ogretyrant]

As the BoW guys said 'maybe the lady protests to much' maybe it is a fake maybe its not, but ill say one thing, I bloddy well hope its not as the last 3 edds have been so boring, just so much potential wasted (this is of course only my oppion!!).

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Ozorik]

I take it you haven't seen this:
which was posted two days ago?

I have seen it and I will believe it to be true when ever the first hard copies of 6th ed are actually released. I don't trust GW in this area, they have a vested interest in denying leaks at the moment and its not as if it hasn't happened before.

I find it quite amusing that this leak has had such an overwhelmingly positive response.

[Bubble Ghost]

It's very hard in some ways to believe that it's real - but it's impossible to believe that it's a "hoax". Quite apart from the amount of effort and, more to the point, consistency involved - which is enough by itelf to make a hoax the less plausible option - there's just nothing for a hoaxer to get out of it. Writing a full game, with cross referenced page numbers, that's genuinely more appealing than the real thing? Where's the troll there? This is something that I would have thought someone would want to take credit for, not sit back chuckling as all those suckers on the internet... enjoy their new game. Yeah, the laugh's really on us there.

It may well not be anything like what the real 6th edition ends up as, but whatever its true nature, I seriously doubt that it's some sort of joke or fake.

Sent from my desk using my fingers

[Rick Blaine]

There has been no real evidence yet that this is a hoax. We all know GW are perfectly happy to lie even to their store employees, so that memo they might have sent has exactly zero bearing.

I fell for the BA fake, I admit, and that should make me doubly cautious, but it's undeniable that this document is on a completely different level. I find it very hard to believe that someone would invest hundreds of hours of work into a troll file that, honestly, will affect an insignificant portion of the internet and probably a barely noticeable portion of 40k players.