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

[infinite_array]

I think stating that the leaked rule set has to be real because it is so long and so much time had to have been put into it for very little, if any gain isn't that strong of an argument. Isn't that the whole point of a hoax, to make something that looks believable?

I'm a little worried about the state of the hobby - or at least of GW players - when it's believed that a small group of people can't put out a decent set of rules from their basements with the right amount of deliberation and determination.

One of things that I had heard was that a forum poster on 4chan (I know, I know) was apologizing, because the ruleset was the one his group had developed and used. I sort of believe this, due to the preface of the document, as well as the mish-mash combination of rules seemingly taken from other games. I don't know if I can post it here, but I'll err on the side of caution and not, at least at the moment. But from the preface, it seems that the document takes 5th edition as the base rules, and then adds on it's own 'advanced rules'.

Another rumor that apparently went through GW HQ is that false documents were going to be released to see if anyone was leaking information.

[verydarkshadow]

This might be a hoax but I reckon Jervis Johnson wrote the first page for "Basics" but not the introduction itself.

His paragraphs cut through his discourses rather than framing them. So the start of one paragraph is usually a short clause within a sentence that finishes off the previous paragraph.

Go and read any standard bearer and take a look again.

I noticed the exact same thing!


I'm of the opinion that these rules definitely came from GW, although I suspect that they do not represent the finalized 6th Edition rules.

The document is simply too massive and intricate for me to believe that someone went out of their way to produce all of it just to troll the gaming community.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

The likelihood is that we won't know for sure if it's real (and by real I simply mean that it is GW sanctioned and represents some stage of the rules development) or a hoax for many months until we start hearing some more solid rumours (curious that none of the usual rumour barons have said anything about this...).

The PDF does have a lot in common with the rumours we heard about 6 months ago but then again those have been around for a while so someone could have used them as a base for their fake rules.

My hunch is still that it's genuine but that the final rulebook will look quite different. I will however be gutted if 6th ed is less like this and is more 3.3 edition.

[the gribbly]

Lots of work went into the doc and I want to believe some of it but I just cant. 9different special rules for landspeeders, some with tiers is too much even for ward. On top of the amount of additional rules having whole armies capable of guaranteed first turn charges and other such nonsense tells me this is not even a beta version. Shame because its does have some very nice ideas.

[Splog]

Whether it is a hoax, leak, early version, etc is an interesting question. For me the more interesting question is whether the ruleset is better than 5th edition. If it is I'll be swapping over to it.

Then the question becomes.. is it better than 6th edition?

[Voss]

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)
.

All of these support hoax, not real.

Internet trolls will put all sorts of effort into projects. So will people writing houserules. Amount of work doesn't support 'not a fake'

Font? Font? Thats reaching far too far to justify anything.

Pulling it? Yep, either way, GW would want it pulled. False expectations can hurt them, as does the idea that people can fix the game on their own and not need to buy 6th edition.

And finally, a good hoax would fit into the current rumours. Thats the only way to make it even vaguely convincing, and they've got a years worth of material to work with. Why wouldn't they include them?

Some changes in 6th edition are easy to guess if you pay attention to changes in army books. Naturally enough, those will show up in fake and real editions (independently, without any need to claim that one influenced the other)

[iosu1978]

Gw reaction is exactly what tells us this isnt a hoax. Thing is now they really need to make good rules, most of this "fake" are good ones

[SunTzu]

Must admit, genuine or otherwise, I don't like the tiered special rules. Effectively it becomes Slightly Eternal Warrior, Quite Eternal Warrior, and Totally Eternal Warrior, WTF? You're either Eternal or you're not. Don't let's start bringing (1), (2) or (3) tiers into it. And what's that rule that Bikes have got (don't have the doc in front of me at the moment), Multiple Firing (1) or something? What does that even mean? How can it be a multiple if there is one of it?

[Wrath]

Multiple Firing (1) or something? What does that even mean?

that you can fire 2 different weapons if you sit still.

[infinite_array]

Gw reaction is exactly what tells us this isnt a hoax. Thing is now they really need to make good rules, most of this "fake" are good ones

Sorry, but their reaction doesn't prove that it's real.

If the real 6th edition is nothing like the leaked rules, then they're going to deny the validity of the leaked rules as damage control.

Their actions tell us nothing.

[SunTzu]

Pulling it? Yep, either way, GW would want it pulled. False expectations can hurt them, as does the idea that people can fix the game on their own and not need to buy 6th edition.

Yes - the same way they threaten Warseer with legal action every time someone posts a house rule in the rules discussion forum.

Oh, wait...

that you can fire 2 different weapons if you sit still.

So why isn't that Multiple Fire (2)? Am I just being dense?

[Wrath]

So why isn't that Multiple Fire (2)? Am I just being dense?

MT 2 can fire 2 on the move or 4 sitting still. Dense? nah it is a LOT to take in and really hasn't been out that long.

[Ozorik]

All of these support hoax, not real.

All of these can be used to support both sides you mean.

Multitracking also doesn't allow you to fire the same weapon twice (before that rears its ugly head). Bikes basically have it to allow them to fire if they move at cruising speed.

[Elric]

Presumably if these rules are a hoax then linking to them isn't in breach of their I.P. not that I'm willing to try it mind, I've gone nearly seven years without a warning.

Personally I believe they are most likely an early play test set. They certainly have the feel of GWs rules and seem to fit the ethos of the recent publications.
I suppose we're only going to know in the summer, once 6th is released.

[Wrath]

Multitracking also doesn't allow you to fire the same weapon twice (before that rears its ugly head).

Actually, yea this is a good time for the Common mistakes list

Common Mistakes:
1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.

2- The points costs listed next to each weapon in the book refers purely to the strategem that summons buildings; nothing more.

3- The stats listed for krak grenades and frag grenades being used in close combat refer only to them being used in close combat against units such as vehicles and MCs. It has nothing to do with missile launchers.

4- If your army doesn't have a Codex Update, don't have wild conjectures yet. Sisters of Battle on forward are too recent of Codecies to have been considered for the Summer 2011 release of this .pdf.

5- The rephrasing of the meaning of "Heavy" is just a casual mention. Considering the datemark of this .pdf is well before the Necron Codex release, the meaning of 'heavy' is well subject to change. Note that Necrons don't even have a Codex Update section yet.

6- "Flyer" is not a unit type. It's not listed as a unit type. The heading you see listed as "Flyer" is a set of rules for movement.

7- Only units that underwent a "Flyer" move are immune to assault from non-jump non-airborne units. Not all Skimmers have this immunity.

8- "Critical Hit" is just a keyword for an automatic-wound that ignores armor. It has nothing to do with conventional dice rolls.

9- The 10" Apocalypse Template being used against swarms is just a hasty copy+paste from the evasion chart likely done purely for templating.

10- This is quite likely an incomplete draft or a playtest ruleset. It's not finalized. The formatting and such are very well subject to change.

11- Power armor Space Marines do not have a 2+ armor save. It's a type corrected/contradicted shortly thereafter and the Codex Updates mention nothing of the kind.

[Bubble Ghost]

What I find almost impossible to believe is that a group of people

1) could
2) would

make their homebrew rules/practical joke (delete according to preference) chime so closely with what GW are doing at the moment in both a game rules and linguistic sense. The amount of work involved - massively more than required to create a functioning fan game/yank people's chains (delete respectively) - is the cherry on top.

You can't rule anything out because there is only soft evidence, but the most rational explanation is that it's a draft that came from GW at some unspecified time. Everything else is people's preconceptions about GW or human nature getting the better of them.

But regardless of what this thing really is, I think we can all agree that something pretty remarkable has happened here. If it's a GW thing, bravo GW. If it's a troll, bravo, troll.

[Sgt John Keel]

Can we just accept that they are a hoax so that we may discuss them?

Also, what's up with hand flamers? They just seem worse than normal flamers.

[tuebor]

If it's a troll, bravo, troll.

If it's a troll I'm seriously impressed that they went to the trouble of making sure the meta-data for the file says May of 2011 while having stats for new Necron units in it. If all trolls paid such attention to detail the world would be a much more amusing place.

Troll or not I'd much rather play this instead of 5th edition and most of my club feels the same.

edit: It'll also be interesting to see if some of the things it mentions that don't currently exist like the Zeal bolt pistol or some Tyranid thing people keep bringing up show up.

[Fable]

When GW disavows them I'd love to see someone else copyright them.

I'm willing to accept this as a "hoax" when the hoaxers come forward and reveal to the world that not only do they have a working time machine, but to date have only notably used it in order to travel back to May and include references to a codex that was 6 months from release including mentions of the non-leaked Deathmarks, the "Heavy" rule which appears in no other codex and formatted it in nearly the same fashion as the leaked 5th test book which was also claimed by GW to be a hoax, simply in order to rile up the online community of a tabletop war game.

I mean go back and kill Hitler or something... you have a Time Machine!

**Forgot to mention, they also created rules like "fighter" for flyers that aren't applied to any units yet. Seems like a lot of forward thinking for those time traveling hoaxers.

[tuebor]

You can just change the date on your computer and that'll change the meta-data in any files you create. If it's a hoax that's a laudable degree of attention to detail.